[ Page 4759 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

PCBs in B.C. hospitals. Ms. Sanford –– 4759

Agricultural land reserve. Mrs. Wallace –– 4761

B.C. Science Council grant. Mr. Nicolson –– 4761

Matter of Privilege

Hon. Mr. Speaker rules –– 4762

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

On the amendment to vote 103 –– 4763

Mr. King

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Lea

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Cocke

Division on the amendment

On vote 104: building occupancy charges –– 4774

Mr. King

On the amendment to vote 104 –– 4774

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Tabling Documents

Workers' Compensation Board annual report for the year ending December 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 4775

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This occasion is usually used to welcome people to the Legislature. But today I'd like to take the opportunity to say goodbye to a couple of friends of the members of this assembly who work in the press gallery and who are being honoured by their colleagues and members later today; that's to say goodbye to Harvey Oberfeld and Gary Kingston, who will be leaving the press gallery in Victoria to pursue their careers elsewhere. The public rarely has an opportunity to recognize that there is a lot of good friendship and a good relationship between members of this assembly and the press. I know it seems like only yesterday that in order to help Harvey lose weight I gave him a secret potion, and Gary used it on his hair.

MR. BARRETT: I too wish to express my very best wishes to the continued careers of Mr. Oberfeld and Mr. Kingston shared in varying degrees according to the different experiences of the members. The good wishes, however, are unlimited. Let me say that Mr. Oberfeld and Mr. Kingston have been impartial and fair to all members, and we in turn have been impartial and fair to them in response. I know that I speak for every member when I say that. Bonne chance to both of them.

MR. REE: Today the government caucus received a petition from members of the notaries society, and we had a very fruitful visit with them at the time, They are Mr. Roy Bishop, the president of the Society of Notaries Public in Vancouver; Mr. Bill Baker, the vice-president in Kelowna; Mr. W.E. Brendon from Vancouver, who is a past-president; Mr. Stan Nicol of the admissions committee for the society in North Vancouver; Mr. Charles Ellington, the representative from Victoria; and Dr. Bernard Hoeter, the Secretary from Vancouver. I ask the House to welcome these gentlemen to Victoria.

MR. NICOLSON: Today it's my pleasure to introduce the students of the grade 7 class of Tarrys Elementary School who are here with their teacher, Mr. John Eggleton, and five parents. I hope the members will bid them welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On behalf of the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) and myself I would like to welcome two groups here today. The first is the Cloverdale Pentecostal Academy. The students are Tina Gray, Jennifer Tench, Shelley Brower, Rhonda Pennoyer. Sandy Sloan, Lenette Egely, Rory Bier, Larry Swift and Andrew Waefler, who are here with their teacher, Mrs. Carlson, and two parents, Debbie Pennoyer and Mrs. Sloan.

I would also ask the House to welcome a Group from the old-age pensioners organization in White Rock led by senior citizens' counsellor Beth Williams. The group is represented in the members' gallery by Mrs. Keneer and Mrs. Blundon. The rest of them are on their way back to the lower mainland on the ferry, but I'm pleased they had such a wonderful day in this beautiful capital city. I would ask the members here to welcome both groups.

HON. MR. SMITH: In the gallery today visiting British Columbia is a young man from Britain by the name of Marcus Scriven, whose mother grew up in my constituency of Oak Bay. Her maiden name was Anthea Stanley-Clarke. I'd ask the House to make Mr. Scriven welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not in the gallery, but at her desk and therefore within the sound of the coverage of proceedings of this assembly, is a young lady by the name of Miss Paula Wesley, who leaves the employ of the public service of British Columbia, having served in my office since the summer of 1976. Miss Wesley leaves the office today and leaves Victoria later in the week to take up a new career with External Affairs in the federal government. All of us who attempt to serve the public — and when we serve well we take the credit — sometimes ignore the fact that there are those behind the scenes in our own offices who are not often recognized. In view of Miss Wesley's service to the people of British Columbia and her immediate departure I would like the House to wish her bon voyage.

MR. STRACHAN: Would the House please welcome Ron Burnett, Bob Cooper and John Pousette, who are visiting us here today from the regional district of Kitimat-Stikine.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery this afternoon are His Worship Mayor Henry Volkmann from the municipality of Sparwood; Mrs. Marie Doratty, deputy mayor of Sparwood; Toto Miller, alderman; Loretta Montemurro, Sparwood municipal clerk; Tony Shearer, representative of the British Columbia Coal Company; and Mr. Gary Duke, vice president of government relations for the British Columbia Coal Company. I'd like the House give them a warm welcome this afternoon.

MRS. WALLACE: I ask leave to make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't know of any provision under which the member seeks the floor.

MRS. WALLACE: I ask leave.

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

PCBs IN B.C. HOSPITALS

MS. SANFORD: My question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday at 2 o'clock the minister informed us that there were no hospitals in the province with transformers or other equipment containing PCBs. Then at 6 o'clock he corrected his earlier statement and reported that Vancouver General Hospital had transformers containing PCBs. Can the minister assure the House that these transformers will all be replaced?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Of the nine transformers which were identified as having been installed at Vancouver General Hospital in the 1950-52 period, three have been replaced and are awaiting disposal; the other six — two sets of three — are in the process of being replaced. I don't know precisely on what date that may occur. They're in the process now of being replaced by other equipment — all six.

[ Page 4760 ]

MS. SANFORD: I wonder if the minister can assure the House that there are no other hospitals in British Columbia with transformers or other equipment that contain PCBs.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, to the best of the ability of the people who have been responsible for conducting an investigation into this, we are unaware of any other transformers containing PCBs which may be located in the hospitals. The survey, in part, was made with the consulting and engineering firms who were responsible for the construction of these buildings, and it was only through the offices of one of the consulting engineers that we were alerted yesterday that these transformers had been installed at Vancouver General Hospital in the early 1950s. The result of our survey and investigation indicates that these are the only known transformers within a hospital location. Should further information be made available to us, I would share that with the House. But to the best of our knowledge at this time, the only transformers which fall into that category are those six identified at VGH.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat surprised by the minister's answer. I'm wondering whether or not the minister can confirm that the federal environmental protection service informed his ministry yesterday that there are no fewer than ten major hospitals containing PCB electrical equipment.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that information. If the member has communications from the federal government in this regard, I'd be pleased to have her share it with me. They certainly did not advise me.

MS. SANFORD: I'm sure that if the minister were to check with his own ministry, those officials received that information yesterday afternoon from the federal environmental protection service.

The minister reported one thing to us at 2 o'clock and another thing at 6 o'clock. Is he not in contact with the people within his ministry? Why is it that we're not given a full story on this issue?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, one must presume that when a member brings a question to this House they believe it to be of some urgency, and it was in that spirit that I responded as soon as I had been given advice from officials within the ministry. The advice at that time was that to their knowledge they had identified no hospitals which had transformers containing PCBs. That was the information supplied to me by officials within the ministry. It's regrettable that perhaps people who are responsible for this information were unable to ascertain the situation at VGH. However, as soon as that information found its way to my office — again by way of officials — I brought that information to the House.

Now if the environmental protection agency of the federal government has transmitted information to any official within the Ministry of Health, then I would presume that that information has been funnelled to my office. To this moment it has not been received. If the environmental protection agency is in contact with your office, as I said before, I'd appreciate receiving that information as well. They certainly have not contacted my office. It's possible that contact has been made with officials at some level.

There is no difficulty in ascertaining whether anyone within the Ministry of Health has received that information, but I find it rather odd that the environmental protection agency of the federal government would make this information known at an unidentified level within a ministry of the provincial government. Presumably, if they were concerned, they would advise a senior official; but if they haven't done so, we are going to have to track it down to see who they talked to. Perhaps they spoke to a mail clerk somewhere; I have no idea, but we will try to find out. If you have any copies of communications from the environmental protection agency, I suggest it would be worthwhile sharing that information so we can backtrack to see who transmitted it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the minister, that information is readily available at any time by phoning the environmental protection service. We did, in our office. That information is available to any citizen, We were also informed that Ministry of Health officials had requested that same information yesterday. That's why I'm surprised that we did not get a full report to the Legislature last night at 6 o'clock.

Next question. Has the minister decided to replace all electrical equipment containing PCBs in British Columbia hospitals?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of playing games with that member for Comox, I responded to her yesterday and last night by saying that those which we had identified would be in the process of being replaced. I congratulate you on phoning the environmental protection agency — whichever number you may have called or whichever agency you may have contacted. If our people did not do that — although you suggest they have — we will ascertain what that information is. Those devices which may contain PCBs and are deemed to be hazardous would certainly be on a priority basis for replacement. We have no inventory at the moment — and I suggest you probably do not have either. We will respond to that and we will do an inventory.

Madam Member, I will contact my officials today. We will be in touch with the environmental protection agency. We will obtain from them any list they may have and we will check out that list. In the event that they are correct, we will verify that; in the event that they are incorrect, we will verify that.

If you feel it is urgent for your own personal needs to maintain and retain that list and keep it to yourself, then please do so. If you have a copy of that list, once again I request a copy for our use so that less time is spent on politics and more on action.

MS. SANFORD: Is the Minister of Health aware that the following hospitals in British Columbia have PCB electrical equipment: Langley Memorial, Lions Gate Hospital, Prince George Regional Hospital, Queen Victoria Hospital, Royal Inland Hospital, Royal Jubilee, St. Vincent's, Vancouver General, Victoria General and Vernon Jubilee? That information is readily available, and I'm wondering if the minister would report at 6 o'clock once he has the information and give yet another version to the Legislature.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I will respond to the list which the member has provided, and my officials will contact the environmental protection agency or the individual hospitals

[ Page 4761 ]

to ascertain whether any such electrical equipment containing PCBs is still on those premises. We will respond to that by conducting an inquiry and doing an inventory of that equipment. I have no way of knowing if that information is up to date or correct, but we will certainly pursue that. When the information is provided to us, I will certainly bring the information to the House and particularly to that member — not causing us any difficulty in following through with information from whatever source. It's information which would be of' value to the Ministry of Health in response to your earlier inquiry. If it has served any useful purpose by keeping that information from the ministry, then we'll have to analyze that separately.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MRS. WALLACE: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker, Today the GVRD voted to leave the Spetifore property zoned for agriculture. Has the minister decided to return the Spetifore lands to the ALR?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would correct the member. It is not the Spetifore property. It is the municipality of Delta property. The application was in their name.

Secondly, to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, the matter dealt with today was with regard to their zoning plan — I think they call it their livable region plan. They were debating whether or not they would change the local zoning under the GVRD. The matter was not a question of agricultural land or non-agricultural land. The matter was one of zoning.

MRS. WALLACE: I agree that it was zoning; that's what I said. But the question was: has the minister decided to return the Spetifore lands to the ALR as a result of that zoning decision?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The matter of the agricultural land and its capability was determined after detailed study and review. The determination was to have it excluded from the agricultural land reserve. That decision was made. The preservation of that land, with regard to the zoning in the livable region, is the determination of the local government, and they have made that decision.

B.C. SCIENCE COUNCIL GRANT

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Dr. J.P. Kutney is a member of the B.C. Science Council. He's received a research grant of $150,000, which is the largest of all the grants awarded by the council. Would the minister tell the House whether he's investigated this matter?

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, it is timely every once and a while to review what Beauchesne in his last edition has to say about question period. I think today's was an example of'one which perhaps deserves some comment. There are some general principles "in order to clarify the regulations and restrict the negative qualifications which traditionally have guided the question period."

"A brief question, seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falIs within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed is in order.

"It must be a question" — I hope the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is listening — "not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate.

"The question must be brief. A preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question should need no preamble.

"The question ought to seek information and, therefore, cannot be based upon a hypothesis, cannot seek an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations."

I recommend this information to all members.

MR. COCKE: On a point of' order following the Speaker's statement today, I have been very carefully watching government answers, particularly when the Premier answers. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, when we could expect a detailed decision from the Speaker with respect to filibuster-like answers that bear absolutely no relationship to the question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member will recall cautions given to both sides of' the House on frequent occasions. Nonetheless, the scope of the answer must cover the scope of the question. If the scope of the question is exceedingly broad, then, of course, the House cannot complain if the answer is of the same nature.

MR. LAUK: On the same advice that Mr. Speaker has given to the House with respect to question period, although the nature of' the questions this afternoon technically breached those rules, I could see that it was a result of the apparent dialogue between the minister and the questioner, which I thought was rather useful and did achieve the ultimate goals of question period. However, I'd like to point out that there are times when the breaches which do occur in question period somewhat damage those ultimate goals. Lengthy and irrelevant answers are the major problem that the opposition sees. We ask the Speaker to take that under advisement and perhaps provide some guidance to the House with respect to it.

MR. SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. The House will please observe that the Speaker did not take the time of question period to remind the House of the purpose of' question period.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On vote 103: fire suppression program, $8,418,971.

[ Page 4762 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, yesterday at the conclusion of the sitting of this committee a question of privilege was raised which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be referred to the House. Accordingly, I will at this time entertain a motion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day; and to further report the fact of a matter of privilege being raised in the committee on March 24 last.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit later this day. When reporting to the Speaker, would you, Mr. Chairman, advise him of the matter of privilege which was raised in the committee on March 24, 1981, to which you have made reference.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee rises, reports progress and asks leave to sit again this day, and further reports the fact of a matter of privilege being raised in the committee on March 24 last.

MR. SPEAKER: First of all, with regard to the committee sitting again. When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Later this day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: When a matter of privilege is raised in the Committee of the Whole House, the procedure is that Mr. Chairman reports the matter. It then becomes the responsibility of the Speaker to review the matter of privilege from the official record to determine whether or not a prima facie case exists. In order that the House would not be impeded in its progress and so that a decision could be given as quickly as possible, it might be better in a case of privilege, rather than to reserve decision, to declare a short recess and bring a decision to the House on the same day. I will undertake to do that. In keeping with that thought, I declare a short recess.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, have the appropriate references of May and Beauchesne, made during committee, been reported to you as well as the substance of the motion?

MR. SPEAKER: It will all be in the complete record.

The House took recess at 2:40 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:43 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, an examination of the Hansard debates for Tuesday, March 24, 1981, including the authorities as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, reveals detail of the matter the committee has asked the Chair to consider and rule upon.

The motion reads as follows: "That this House express the view that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) must resign his portfolio as a result of his admission that he has been responsible for knowingly presenting to this House estimates of expenditure which are, by the minister's own admission. not true estimates."

The hon. members will be aware that it is the Speaker's duty, upon a matter of privilege being raised, to decide whether the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and secondly, whether the matter appears to be a prima facie case of privilege. On the question as to whether or not the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity one must consider the gist of the complaint in the context of the proceedings in the House and in the committee. As I understand the complaint, it relates to an hon. member knowingly presenting to this House estimates of expenditure which are not true estimates.

I have examined the estimates presently before the Committee of Supply, being the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, and in particular have directed my attention to the estimates of the Ministry of Forests. It is noted that the summary of estimates contains a total for expenditure followed by an entry described in the following words: "Less efficiencies achieved to control government growth." I should also note at this time that the estimates for the Ministry of Forests for the year ending March 31, 1980, refer to "recruitment savings." The same words appear in the estimates for 1981 — without objection.

A perusal of the Hansard report for Monday, March 9, 1981, reveals that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), in delivering the budget speech, at page 4415 refers to the request to each ministry "to reduce the growth of government spending to achieve total savings of $61 million." The minister further states within the same speech: "With these expenditure restraint measures in place, it has been possible to keep operating expenditure in 1981-82 down to $6.61 billion." While it would appear that such a detailed examination goes into the merit of the question of privilege rather than the prima facie aspect of privilege, it must be pointed out here that the very heart of the complaint is founded upon the presentation of false documents with intent to deceive the House or committees thereof.

It would appear to the Chair that the remarks attributed to the Minister of Finance during the budget speech, together with the format of the estimates themselves, would negate intention to deceive the House or a committee thereof.

Dealing with the question as to whether or not the matter was raised at the earliest opportunity, I would observe that the estimates disclosing the reduction in the votes were tabled on March 9, 1981. It appears to the Chair that the remarks of the Minister of Forests in the Committee of Supply yesterday did no more than confirm the earlier statements made by the Minister of Finance during his budget address on March 9 last, with respect to the budgetary process, which statements are also reflected in the content of the estimates themselves as referred to the Committee of Supply also on March 9 last.

Any further examination of the detail of this matter must, of necessity, get into the merit of the case, but bearing in mind the Chair's limited terms of reference at this stage, I am unable to find in this instance a prima facie breach of privilege. The member may consider that he has a grievance, but all members will be aware that the precedents on the law of privilege are numerous and restrictive, and the material being disclosed here does not pass the rigid tests as I conceive them to be. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to challenge that ruling,

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

[ Page 4763 ]

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 26

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The House in Committee Of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS

(continued)

On the amendment to vote 103: fire suppression program, $8,418,971.

MR. KING: The essence of the amendment to this particular vote was to reduce the estimate by $58,303. This represented cuts in the area of the vote which we feel have been inflated unnecessarily — primarily office expenses, office furniture and equipment, advertising and publications. These are areas that have, as I pointed out yesterday, absolutely nothing to do with effective administration and initiation of sound forest-management policies out in the field, but rather have to do with the propensity of this government to increase the frills of government in an inordinate way — in a way that we believe has imposed an extremely heavy and onerous burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia this year.

All the way through the votes in this ministry there are increases for office expenses and publications — undoubtedly to do political propaganda oil behalf'of the minister and his government. These increases are unjustifiable. That's why we move the amendment — to reduce and slice some of the fat out of these government expenditures, these government estimates which have resulted in increased taxation for virtually every B.C. taxpayer in the current year — increases in tax that are applied through the sales tax moving up from 4 percent to 6 percent, increases that have resulted in tremendous cost increases on cigarettes and liquor, increases relating to virtually every area of services which the government provides. Certainly we're looking at more in the health field. Certainly we're looking at more in hydro costs. We've already seen increases in bus fares, transit costs and so on. When these heavy tax increases are being imposed on the people of the province, we do not think it is necessary to see increases in office furniture and equipment of between 1,200 percent and 1,400 percent.

Indeed, there's a strong case to be made after consideration of this minister's estimates that those expenditures necessary for wise and prudent forest management in the silvicultural field and range and resource management area have actually suffered a cutback this year, while the frills and extravagances of the minister have accelerated beyond all proportion. That's why we have moved the amendment.

It's very interesting that when this amendment was moved last night, the minister rose in his place and he had this to say:

I'm quite convinced that within the ministry we can make savings without jeopardizing the accomplishment of the programs which we have. In fact, the Minister of Finance has asked that I make savings to the tune of 2 1/3 percent of the total funds allocated to the ministry, and that will be done. However, I think that I and my ministry are much more competent to judge where this can be done without affecting programs than can be done by these frivolous motions by the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the motion is not frivolous; it is deadly serious. We believe that we arc representing the best interests of the people of the province of British Columbia, who have been punished to the point of collapse by the heavy taxation measures of this government. When we see these frivolous, extravagant increases in office furniture expenses, we think the responsible thing to do is to move for a reduction in those costs.

What did the minister mean when he said that he had been instructed by his colleague the Minister of Finance to reduce the expenditures by 2 1/3 percent? According to my calculations, the amount that appears at the beginning of the Forests estimates, marked "Less efficiencies achieved to control government growth: $7 million, " is not 2 1/3 percent of the budget. We are dealing here with the net amount shown in the estimates, and that net amount is $162,636,162. What did the minister mean when he rose in his place yesterday evening and said: "Yes, I've been instructed to make a cut of 2 1/3 percent by my colleague the Minister of Finance, but I'm not going to share what those cuts are with the Legislature, because I and my staff are more competent to make those cuts"? Well, unless he is guilty of misleading the House, he was referring to the cost estimates that we have debated for the last three days, and that amount is the net amount of this estimate, $162 million. He certainly implied to the House that he intended to make a 2 1/3 percent cut in that amount. If that is not the case then it was misleading, also, because he implied that if we withdrew the motion he would be cutting 2 1/3 percent anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must at this time caution the member about the use of the word "mislead," in that it must not impute any improper motive to the minister. I would ask the member to consider that in his remarks.

MR. KING: It's very difficult for me to reconcile in any logical way the figures contained in this budget which we have before us with the minister's statement, and I find it misleading. Mr. Chairman, I have not alleged that the minister deliberately misled the House. When I do, I will expect an intervention from the Chairman — properly.

[ Page 4764 ]

Mr. Chairman, there is no rational explanation for the dilemma we have here today. We have figures before this Legislature which by the minister's own admission do not reflect the honest intentions of spending by the Ministry of Forests. It's a sorry and contemptuous day for the rights of parliament when any minister would bring forth these kinds of estimates, have them debated for three days and then say: "Yes, but they are not accurate, because I have already been advised — secretly and within the confines of my office — to pare off 2 1/3 percent." Where is that 2 1/3 percent going to be cut? Is that going to come off the fire suppression program? Is it going to come off of growing seedlings for the restocking of the forest? Surely the legislators have a right to know this kind of thing. Otherwise how can we effectively and with any degree of proper knowledge debate the estimates? This government has asked us to debate blindly a document which does not truly reflect the spending plans of the Ministry of Forests in the coming year. That, in my view, Mr. Chairman, is a scandalous situation. They have made a mockery out of the legislative process, and they apparently have every intention of at least fooling the opposition with the kinds of figures that they have presented here today. It's absolutely scandalous.

The ministry intends to cut 2 1/3 percent. The minister didn't say that was from the gross amount of the budget; I took it to mean by his statement that that was from the net amount shown in his spending estimates. If the minister did not mean that, I wish he would get up and explain to the House today precisely what he meant by that 2 1/3 percent spending cut. A $7 million cut for efficiency savings is contained in the estimates and is evident for everyone to read. But that certainly does not represent 2 1/3 percent, Mr. Chairman, so he must have been referring to something else. If that is not misleading to your office, it certainly is to the opposition, because it doesn't add up in any logical sequence.

I won't comment on the Speaker's ruling, but I want to say that the excuse that the government has brought in for the minister's statement in no way adds up in logical sequence. It's a shocking day. I can understand the Minister of Finance being somewhat restive, being caught in this dilemma and being exposed for admonishing his colleague to cut back on spending estimates contained in the book presented to the Legislature in an amount and to a degree never revealed to the Legislature. The result is that we have been obliged for the last three days to debate estimates that are in no way accurate and to rely on a minister in whom I have absolutely no confidence to do the right thing in terms of where those cuts are made. It's an absolutely scandalous situation, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to hear the minister's response and his full explanation of precisely what he meant when he indicated that he intended to cut some of the fat out of this budget, which he acknowledged was in it. I would like to hear his response. I would like to hear an explanation from him of how he reconciles this 2 1/3 percent cut with the excuse that that is representative of the $7 million efficiency saving contained on the first page of his estimates. I would be very interested in hearing that.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there is any point in saying it again to the rather hysterical member for Shuswap Revelstoke. All it will do is elicit another hysterical response from him. But I will say it for the record. The member read from the Blues in which I said: "The Minister of Finance has asked that I make savings to the tune of 2 1/3 percent of the total funds allocated to the ministry."

MR. LEA: How much is that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Would you ask the member for Prince Rupert to kindly contain himself, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) will have an opportunity. The Minister of Forests has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have been discussing my ministry expenditures for several days now. Each time I have taken my place to respond to queries from the opposition, I have pointed out that my ministry expenditures — as laid out in the forest and range resource program tabled in the House within a few days of the start of this session — consist of moneys allocated through the blue book to the tune of $162,636,162. The moneys allocated this year from the forest and range fund, which was approved by this House last year, are $35.9 million; through section 88 revenue offsets come some $94 million, for a total as given in the range and resource program of $293 million after allowance for the efficiency savings as laid out in the budget documents. Now $7 million is 2 1/3 percent of $293 million. I hope that the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke can understand simple arithmetic, but I know that he will get up and begin his hysterical ravings again. That's all I have to say on the matter, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: I'll ignore the minister's sarcasm and insolence. He knows little more than that, so I'll ignore it. The fact of the matter is, whether the minister understands it or not — he hasn't been in this Legislature too long; perhaps that's why he shows such contempt for the institution and for its members — the estimates of spending contained.....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I must caution that personal reflections are not....

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to be evenhanded in your concern for insults to members. The minister's references were not exactly complimentary. I don't expect interference in a biased way.

My point is this: the minister has gotten up and attempted to justify his spending by what is contained in the Forest and Range Resource Fund. That is a separate fund that is not contained in the estimates. And yes, I think I do understand simple arithmetic. I would like the minister to understand simple, practical and historic proceedings before the Legislature. We are restricted to debating the moneys that are contained in the estimates presented to this Legislature. The forest and range resource was debated last year. It is a separate fund and is not shown in the estimate before us. So the minister is talking about something that is extracted from general revenue, as far as we know — a separate fund.

What we're talking about here — and the minister has just acknowledged it — is a spending estimate of  $162.5 million, in round figures. The minister did get up last night and indicate that that amount would be cut by 2 1/3 percent. His

[ Page 4765 ]

statements here this afternoon confirm that. I would think that would pose an interesting dilemma for the Speaker of this House when he reads the minister's comment, because it proves that the Speaker's ruling on the motion of privilege that was put before the House this afternoon is faulty.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The member knows that it is not appropriate to comment on a ruling by the Chair.

MR. KING: Yes, but we have this problem, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have many problems, most of which members must overcome on their own initiative. I would ask that the member bear in mind the parliamentary traditions which guide us all in this House.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, how do we deal with a situation where the Speaker's ruling has indicated that the estimate we're dealing with is $169 million, and the 2 1/3 percent reduction which the minister referred to was the saving he referred to in his comments last night, but the minister has now revealed that that is not the case? The minister has revealed and acknowledged today that what he referred to yesterday as a 2 1/3 percent cut in his spending estimates was from the net amount after the efficiency savings. I would think the Speaker would want to know that, because this is new information upon which he may wish to review his decision. I had no way of knowing this until I asked the minister and he acknowledged it here today. But he was asked the question here this afternoon and he has acknowledged that in fact he was referring to a 2 1/3 percent cut on top of the $7 million efficiency saving contained in the estimate. That's what he said, and reference to the Blues will show that.

If we're to debate the estimates with any degree of logic or meaning whatsoever, this kind of ambiguity must be cleaned up. Otherwise you are asking the opposition to debate a document completely in the dark, a document that does not contain the figures relating to the minister's true intentions of spending this year. We're going through a charade, an empty exercise. All of the minister's petulant responses and insults do not change that dilemma.

This has been acknowledged. Quite frankly, I would think that the Chairman would want to offer some direction on this matter. How do we deal with the document before us, which is fraudulent in nature in terms of representing the true spending estimates of the ministry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I will caution the member for the last time that we must not reflect on a ruling by the Chair. That ruling has been brought in. We may not reflect on a ruling by the Chair, nor may we refer to a document that we are presently discussing in the terms that the member has just used. It is totally unparliamentary. We have parliamentary forms and dictates that each and every member in this assembly is deemed to be able to follow. It is our responsibility as individual members to do that to the very best of our ability within the confines of the parliamentary rules which bind each and every member of this House.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't understand your ruling. Are you suggesting that my word of a "fraudulent" document is unparliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. KING: Thank you. I understand that. Are you suggesting that I was, in that comment, reflecting on the ruling of the Speaker? Because that I do not understand. That is not the case. As far as the document being fraudulent, it would be my understanding — and I look for direction from the Chair — that if I suggested that a government member was responsible for fraudulent representation, that would be clearly out of order. But I don't know how else to describe a document which I have clearly demonstrated — and which the minister has acknowledged — contains improper information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has answered his own question.

MR. KING: It's fraudulent, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the member for the last time....

MR. KING: Are you telling me this document is accurate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am advising the member against using the term that he is using, and I am so advising for the last time. I have ruled the use of the term unparliamentary. In this context, hon. member, we are clearly impugning an hon. minister's reputation or motives in this House.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, that is your statement, not mine. I clearly indicated to you a moment ago that I was categorizing the document, not a member of the government. For you to attribute motives to me is improper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am advising the member against the term "fraudulent document."

MR. KING: Well, I am sorry about that, but I must stick to my categorization of this document as a fraudulent one. Indeed it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. If we are to continue to debate in this House, we must observe the rules which bind, as I said, all members of this House. One of those rules is that there are certain terms that are unacceptable, and that is a word that must be ruled unparliamentary in this instance. There are many ways in which a member can get his point across without using that particular term. I ask the member to, please, in the interest of parliamentary tradition, continue his debate without abusing the parliamentary rules.

MR. LEA: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Every once and a while some member in the House uses a word that the Chair points out is unparliamentary. How do you get the list? Where does the list come from? I don't understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The word "fraud" in itself is not an improper word, unless it is used in reference to an hon.

[ Page 4766 ]

member of this House. Then it becomes unparliamentary. If it imports, then clearly it is unparliamentary.

MR. KING: The Chairman asked me a few moments ago if I was imputing improper motives to any member of the government or accusing them of fraudulent conduct. I said no, that I was describing the document before me as fraudulent. In your ruling you've clearly pointed out that it's unparliamentary to call any member guilty of fraudulent conduct or action, and I acknowledge that. I did not imply that. Quite frankly, I don't know how I can say it any more clearly. I feel that I am having intentions and motives attributed to me which are not correct.

I must stick to the language that I believe describes the document. Once again I repeat that that in no way imputes an improper motive to any government member. I would point out also, on the point of order, that this term was used many times in yesterday's debate without the calling into question of the term in the context I am using it. I would suggest, too, that if the rules are to be followed in this House it would be nice to see them followed consistently.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It might assist the Chair.... The word under discussion right now on this point of order was mentioned a number of times yesterday. I think that Hansard — if not the Blues, then the tapes — probably would show that other members called "order, order" from time to time. The document to which the adjective has been attached is the estimates of revenue and expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982. It seems to me that if a member opposite suggests in debate that the document — namely, the estimates, an official document of this Legislative Assembly — is fraudulent, then there would be an inference that a member has been fraudulent in bringing that document to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I believe that we've had sufficient discourse on the subject now, and that members can possibly turn to debate, bearing in mind the points that have been made. I would ask the member, if he so wishes, to continue in debate on the amendment to vote 103.

MR. KING: I simply want to say that the amendment before the House is one that should be supported. It has for its objective the cutting out of the unnecessary spending fat with which the government has obviously padded the estimates for this year. Before the Minister of Finance leaves the House, he should know that if I intend to say unparliamentary things about him individually, there would be no room for misrepresentation. I clearly indicated that it was not my intention to insult the honourable gentleman or anyone else, but rather to categorize a document which we sincerely and honestly believe — and which I submit the evidence offered by the minister himself shows — contains estimates of spending which are totally incorrect and which totally misrepresent the spending intentions of that ministry for the coming year.

When we talk about the traditions, the rules and the niceties of parliament, it has always been inherent that there be a respect for the institution — a respect which requires that any government come before the Legislature with full and open disclosure of their spending estimates for the coming year so that parliamentary democracy can flourish properly and so there can be full scrutiny, full criticism and the offering of alternative spending objectives by an opposition duly elected to be part of that government. While we differ in very hostile terms in our philosophical views from time to time, the institution and what it stands for, which is honesty in terms of presenting the data, is something that should never receive the kind of flagrant short shrift that I allege it is receiving from this budget.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this is my second year in this House, and I can very vividly remember my first as we debated the estimates. In my humble opinion, the only difference this year from last is the wording. Last year the estimates were totalled less recruitment savings. I think that you people are an absolute disgrace.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, if we address the Chair, confine our remarks to the particular amendment before us, and follow parliamentary language, we'll....

MR. RITCHIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stay on the amendment. I cannot understand why we should be having all this debate this year when the same procedure was in place last year with just different wording. The only thing I can figure from this whole thing is that last year there was desperation for a cause. The figures last year were totalled, and then we had the wording: "less recruitment savings." In the Ministry of Forests last year the recruitment savings were $5,989,367. I recall that some of those members did mention some of these recruitment savings, and they were criticizing us then for taking it off the backs of people and for not providing more employment. This year the government has decided to continue on this efficiency drive to reduce the size of government and government spending, but rather than take away jobs or not provide more employment we have decided that we should look for other areas where we can save without hurting people. I think this shows real efficiency and responsibility. I think it's terrible that this debate should go on. Then I hear that member say that our Minister of Forests said this figure would come off the bottom figure, which is totally wrong. If he would check Hansard he would find out, and I will quote from Hansard of March 20:

The Minister of Finance has requested all ministries to provide efficiency savings. He has asked my ministry to provide savings in administrative efficiencies to the tune of $7 million. Seven million dollars is a large number when taken in isolation, but I would point out that that is 2 1/3 percent of my total approved expenditure for the year.

I can only submit that this whole debate is nothing but flim-flam and a coverup of some description for their own deficiencies. I'd suggest that we get on with the job and get the work of the people of this province done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), again I would caution members, particularly on the use of the words "flimflam" and "coverup," which have on numerous occasions been ruled unparliamentary.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, before I go on with my speech I better check a word with you. Is "sycophant" on your list as unparliamentary?

Interjection.

[ Page 4767 ]

MR. LEA: No? I'm not referring to you at all. I want to check the word out before I address the remarks made by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Often words which are quite proper in one form appear improper in another when attributed to an hon. member of this chamber.

MR. LEA: Yes, I think the other word would probably be less appropriate to describe the situation that I've just seen.

One of the dilemmas that we have in these estimates, of course, as members of the House — and I would think that the backbenchers of government would share this dilemma — is that when we look at the Ministry of Forests and the summary of the vote, it adds up minister's office — $160,231, vote 98. We turn to vote 98 and we find that, sure enough, $160,231 is the vote described under the summary. The problem is that when we look at this summary of votes throughout the Ministry of Forests it adds up to $169,636,162; then they have "less efficiencies achieved to control government growth — $7,000,000": then they subtract the $7,000,000 from the summary amount and they come up with the total ministry number of $162,636,162. How does that relate? When you turn the page, lo and behold, we're back to the old figures. The vote itself for the minister's office is not less the efficiencies; it's with the inefficiencies. If you go through the votes — and it's exactly the same through the book — the actual vote we're talking about isn't with the "less efficiencies"; it's with the inefficiencies still in there.

When we get to the vote that we're talking about now, vote 103, it cannot be accurate. There is no way in the world that the figure for vote 103 can be an accurate figure. It has to relate to the summary in some manner. When we check back the total amount of vote 103 with the summary, we find that vote 103 is exactly as it is before the efficiencies. So what are we discussing? Each vote reflects the amount before the efficiencies, not after. So each vote that we talk about is a vote that could or could not be changed by the minister at his whim.

When the Minister of Finance says to that minister, "I ask you to cut 2 1/3 percent off, " we don't know what vote it's coming out of. We have no idea. So we have no idea in any vote that we're talking about whether that is an accurate figure or whether the minister plans to change it or plans to leave it alone. By that very definition, we have to be talking about an inaccurate estimate of the amount of money in that particular vote. There is no way, by reason and logic, that it can be anything but inaccurate. There is no way.

For people listening who haven't got it in front of them, I don't know whether I've described it in a way that's easily understandable. But for everyone who has this book in front of them it is easily understandable. The specific vote 103, when we look back on page 123, is the amount before the efficiency. In every case the vote is that way.

We know what happened, or we can suppose what happened. Jiggery-pokery-poo is what happened. They brought in their estimate of how much they're going to spend in the current year — or in the upcoming year; we're still in the current fiscal year. Before the end of the last fiscal year — where we are now — the Minister of Finance sends out a message to his ministers on vote 103 and all the other votes. He said: "We haven't even begun the year yet, but I want you to cut back." What does that mean? Before we even know the first cent of revenue and before we know the first economic clue as to which way we're going to go in the upcoming year the minister has already sent word out to the Minister of Forests to cut off 2 1/3 percent. It doesn't make sense in any way, because the 2 1/3 percent doesn't equal $7 million, as the line "less efficiencies achieved to control government growth, $7 million".... The 2 1/3 percent doesn't represent that $7 million in the minister's total vote. Nothing makes sense except this: they've padded the expenditures. Before one cent of revenue has come in, before one cent is paid out, the directive has gone out from the Minister of Finance to the ministers: "Cut back on expenditures." What does that indicate? That indicates that they have no intention of spending the amount of money that we have before us — either before or after efficiencies. Either way it's not accurate, no matter how you slice it. If the minister has actually directed the Minister of Forests to cut back 2 1/3 percent, that figure doesn't represent the $7 million. No matter how you slice it, it's an inaccurate document.

I suspect that the revenues are in the same bag. The revenue estimates that this minister brought in in no way reflect what he expects is going to happen in the economy.

MR. KING: Deliberately inaccurate estimates.

MR. LEA: "Deliberately inaccurate estimates" — now that is not unparliamentary. Someone may be able to question my view....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as long as it is not imputing any improper motive to either the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) or the minister under whose estimate the amendment to 103 which we're presently under....

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman. I have no idea of the motives. So it would be very difficult for me to say why the minister has done it. All I'm saying is that we have in front of us an inaccurate account of the expenditures for the coming year, admitted to by the Minister of Forests and admitted to by the Minister of Finance. Now either it is a deliberate inaccuracy or they don't know what the heck they're talking about. It's their choice: they can either appear to deliberately do it or be dumbbells — one or the other. That's what we have here: either a deliberate, inaccurate account of the expenditures for the forthcoming year or a dumbbell. I don't think that I'm qualified to judge whether it's deliberately inaccurate or the minister is a dumbbell.

MR. LAUK: Are you referring to the Deputy Minister of Finance?

MR. LEA: No, I'm not referring to the Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member. again, to refer to a minister of the Crown as being "either...or" and to have one of those words used be "dumbbell" is straining the Chair's ability to accept that as a parliamentary term, and I would ask the member....

MR. LEA: Is it on the list?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it is, actually.

[ Page 4768 ]

MR. LEA: I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. LEA: He has illusions of adequacy that aren't met by the budget sheet. It's worse than that, but it's understandable. As the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) stands up and talks about the tradition of the purse being approved by the Legislature, the Minister of Forests sniggers. I understand that, because he obviously doesn't understand the procedure; he doesn't seem to have any grounding in democracy, the history of democracy or parliamentary procedure. They say: "We take votes in here every once in a while. We're going to take a vote on this soon." The Minister of Forests believes that because they have more members than we have and win the vote, that makes them right. All it means is that they've won the vote.

Political philosophers tell us that over the years we've had three forms of government that have been somewhat acceptable to us: monarchy, with the dangers inherent to a monarchy — tyranny; aristocracy — the second form of government that we've had over the years historically that has been somewhat acceptable to us as a civilization.... And the inherent danger to that is oligarchy, where the aristocracy is no longer making the decisions, but a few of the monied....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member!

MR. LEA: The last one is democracy — I'm talking about vote 103. The last form of government that we have found somewhat acceptable to us as a civilization is democracy; the inherent danger to that is the licentiousness of' the majority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it would greatly help the Chair.... I know we have allowed a fair amount of latitude, but we are on the fire suppression program under the Ministry of Forests. We have an amendment before us on vote 103, hon. members, that that vote be reduced. The amendment is on the fire suppression program, and I would appreciate it if we could relate our remarks a little more specifically.

MR. LEA: I'll do that now. We are not talking on vote 103, the fire suppression program, but on the amendment put forward — on why it should be reduced. What I am relating to my colleagues in the House is the reason we feel it should be reduced. It doesn't make it right because you win the vote in the House; all that means is you've won the vote and you're going to have your way. This amendment we have put forward is saying: "Look, we want to reduce that." We can't deal with it without going back to what the minister said his directions were from the Minister of Finance. When talking about that, I think we have to have latitude to talk about the reason we're here in the first place — the philosophy of democracy. You cannot take democracy away from any vote in this book.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, again we must get back to the fact that under vote 103 we are talking about the fire suppression program as it relates to the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Forests. A wideranging philosophical debate on various forms of government can hardly be construed, by any stretch of the imagination, as relating to the amendment before us on vote 103.

MR. LEA: I am surprised that with the amendment on this particular vote and the knowledge that the House now has of the carrying-on around this vote and others between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Finance hasn't seen fit to take his place in this debate on this amendment and start explaining why we have in front of us an inaccurate document — no matter which way you look at it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But it isn't.

MR. LEA: Then you get up and explain why it isn't, because I can tell you it's inaccurate. How in the world, Mr. Chairman, could you take a look at vote 103, and you look at $8,418,971...? Turn back to the page where we start dealing with the minister's estimates — to the summary — and we see $8,418,971, and it is exactly the same as the vote. Yet what did the House Leader say when he put forward the motion for this vote? Could you tell me, Mr. Chairman, how much the House Leader said we are discussing on the total vote for Forests?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're dealing with vote 103: "Resolved that a sum not exceeding $8,418,971 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Forests, fire suppression program."

MR. LEA: I'm going to use a figure, and the Minister of Finance can correct me if I'm wrong. The amount of the vote for the total is $162,636,162. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's up to you as a member to determine that.

MR. LEA: Oh boy, aren't you just such a tricky little fella. It's up to me as a member to decide that! Okay, I'll decide it. It says the total for the ministry — it' we can read and understand English — is $162,636,162. Yet when you add up each individual vote in the estimates, they add up to $169,636,162. That's what they add up to — $7 million more. We then take a look at the directive on vote 103. The Minister of Forests says that it will be up to him; he'll decide where the efficiency cuts will be, whether it's $7 million or 2.3 percent of the total, because they're not accurate, or at least they don't meet. The 2.3 percent is different than $7 million. The votes are different than the total number.

Mr. Chairman, we are in the most ludicrous of situations, where nothing they have said adds up. The figures differ every time you add them up, no matter what they say. Yet they would have us believe that we're discussing something of substance and accuracy. We are not, and it's a little much for the Minister of Finance to say: "You're a member, you find out."

The Minister of Forests is under attack on vote 103 because of something the Minister of Finance told him, and yet through all of this the Minister of Finance sits there on his seat, not once getting up to defend or to explain why there are inaccuracies throughout this whole document.

I'd like someone to explain to me how 2.3 percent adds up to $7 million; 2.3 percent of $169,636,162 does not add up to $7 million. Each vote that we look at is an inaccurate estimate of the amount of money that's going to be spent, by the minister's own admission and by the Minister of Finance's own admission. Take the minister's figure — it's inaccurate.

[ Page 4769 ]

Take the Minister of Finance's figure — it's inaccurate. Both are inaccurate on vote 103, because they don't relate in any way to the figures we have in front of us. Yet we are supposed to be here to approve it.

What did the minister say yesterday on vote 103 and others? He said — and I quote from the Blues: "In fact, the Minister of Finance has asked that I make savings to the tune of 2 1/3 percent of the total funds allocated to the ministry, and that will be done. However, I think that I and my ministry are much more competent to judge where this can be done without affecting our programs than can be done by these frivolous motions by the opposition."

You know what that says'? That says that the House is totally irrelevant. "After you fools have come down to this Legislature to discuss the amount that is going to be talked about in spending the public purse, it doesn't mean anything, because I and my ministry are better able to decide how the taxpayers' money is going to be spent than is this Legislature." That's what he said by his own admission — out of the Blues. Rather than the people who have been elected to come to this Legislature deciding the public purse, that minister and his staff have told us to go to hell. They'll decide it.

MR. NICOLSON: What we are looking at in vote 103 is one part of the whole, which indicates a very fat budget. What we're doing with this amendment is attempting to trim fat from this budget. I look at an item: intraministry rentals: they're up from $21,000 to $171,000 — up $150,000, about 750 percent. I haven't taken Latin since grade 11, but I think "intraministry" means inside of the ministry. The fire suppression program is going to rent from some other part of the ministry a certain amount of rentals. Suppose those rentals don't take place and suppose there was no intention that they do. What's going to happen? What if the real level does not increase at the incredible amount of 750 percent in one year? What if it doesn't increase at all? It means that maybe it's going to go into that public trough that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) keeps dipping into every time she gets a brainwave about something to be built in Vancouver to take people's minds off some of her other troubles.

Mr. Chairman, that's what we're talking about. Will that minister resign his seat if these amounts are not realized or only reduced by 2.3 percent? Surely travel expenses should not increase from $19,950 to $51,911 in one year. It's kind of unusual. Office expenses are up from $11,000 to $20,000, a modest 80 percent. Office furniture and equipment is up from $1,500 to $14,053, a modest 900 percent. Of course, that other great investment of public funds, advertising and publications, is up from $7,450 to $12,065, another increase in the realm of 70 or 80 percent. So what we are doing with this amendment, and what we will continue to do throughout these estimates, is point out to the people of British Columbia and to those wastrels over there that there is fat in this budget. And we intend to do everything to trim that fat from the budget.

This is the old shell game: overestimate expenditures; underestimate revenues. We see it in the fire suppression program, vote 103. We see it in other areas, and we will bring those areas to your attention, This amendment proposes a modest saving in this one area of $58,303. This amendment says that for this year, rather than going into the pockets of the people in British Columbia, rather than jacking up taxes, we should be getting along at the same level for travel expenses, office expenses, office furniture, and advertising and publications. Indeed, if I have any quarrel with this amendment it is that it might not go far enough. I am very suspicious about this item intraministry rentals, up from $21,000 to $171,262, which I very much suspect has been put in there to pad this budget. These things are sort of like stuffing feathers into a Santa Claus suit to make it look fatter than it really is. I think that this whole budget is phony, and I think this is one of the areas where we can expose that phoniness and save the people of this province unnecessary tax increases. If there is a need to increase taxes in one or two areas, there sure shouldn't be a need to increase them in every area.

If the members of this House would look at this budget carefully.... I can't believe these people who pretend to be of such a conservative philosophy; I can't believe backbenchers not supporting this amendment. I'm sure that this is what they thought they were coming down here to Victoria to do when they were first elected. They were talking about saving and about the growth of big governments, and these were the icons that they worshipped. But now they have an opportunity to do more than just pay lip-service to that philosophy. They have the opportunity, with this amendment, to do something concrete and positive for which their constituents will be most grateful.

Nobody is going to be hurt by postponing bringing in nice, new, cushy chairs. These chairs here have done us well enough — since I was first elected, and a long time before that. Bringing in fancy new furniture. Traveling back and forth and making Peter Lougheed richer than he already is by traveling on PWA and other airlines, back and forth. Advertising and publications — maybe so the minister can go on radio and talk about the fire suppression program and have his own personal ads and plugs. If we got the Zenith number across last year — the main thing in the fire suppression program in terms of advertising — for $7,450, I really don't see how it should have to go up to $12,065 this year to do the same thing. There has been some inflation, but I certainly don't see why all of these items have to increase 80 percent,100 percent, 700 percent and 800 percent. Those members in the back bench had better start thinking about how they're going to defend things that have been increased 800 percent in a year in which taxes have been increased at record amounts.

We had a breakthrough yesterday — let's give credit where credit is due — when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) got up from his seat and went over and gave advice to the Minister of Forests. He said: "Look, tell them that there are going to be economies of 2.3 percent." The minister, instantly after the Attorney-General had been over there to speak to him, got up and uttered those famous lines which indicated that there were to be reductions of 2.3 percent. I thank the Minister of Forests and I also thank the Attorney-General for the advice that he gave to the Minister of Forests.

We feel, however, that the the Legislature must fight every inch of the way to maintain the system of parliamentary democracy that was very hard won by people — first of all by the barons who had some differences of opinion with people like King John, and more latterly with universal suffrage, where the vote was extended not just to the pocket borough, but first of all to every male and then eventually to women. If we allow a government to say that they can overestimate and put phony amounts into votes like vote 103 and then have it up to them to best decide where the saving, cutting and so on is going to take place, then we diminish the role of this

[ Page 4770 ]

House. Those of you who would drink the water should remember the people who dug the well.

Vote 103 is a very symbolic vote. My colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) has indicated where various amounts — in one instance $9,174 — could be saved in office expense. There was $12,553 that could be saved on office furniture and equipment, $4,615 could be saved on advertising and publications and $31,961 could be saved on travel expense in a year in which we're being socked with record tax increases. This is just one vote. Just imagine if everyone in this House were to look as carefully at these votes as my colleague from Shuswap-Revelstoke. Think of the millions of dollars that could be saved. Think of the taxes that we would not have to increase. Think about that. Think of the waste. Think of the jobs we could produce with productive investments, rather than these absolutely consumptive and non-productive wastes of money that I say should be stricken from this vote. I am in favour of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the Leader of the Opposition, I again will read the citation: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate." Hon. members, the Chair is having extreme difficulty in relating much of the debate that has taken place in the last hour to the amendment before us, which is on vote 103. I would ask that those speaking to the amendment confine their remarks to the fire suppression program under vote 103.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your advice. I can't think of anything more appropriate than the fire suppression program. The fires of inflation need suppression, and that's what this group is talking about.

I have a specific question related to this vote. Down here under classification 90 it lists $5,250 worth of "other." Last year they spent $5,250 for other. This year it's up to $106,54 for other — $100,000 more other. I'd like to know, under this item, what is there other in British Columbia that costs more — to have this high a jump in one year — than liquor, which the government has a monopoly on. I'm not saying that you're buying booze under other. But what did you buy for $5,250 last year that now comes to $106,754? It's right there in the book.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I want to be specific. You forced me into the nature of this debate. My colleagues are talking about cutting the fat and I'm talking about cutting the other. It's either-or or other. Five thousand, two hundred and fifty dollars of other was okay for the department last year, but this year they want to buy $106,754 worth of other. Where's this other coming from? Is it B.C. other? Is it overseas other? Is it from Ottawa? I don't want to buy $106,000 worth of Ottawa other. No, siree, Bob. This is the kind of nonsense that we're getting in this budget.

I tell you it's taxpayers' money that they're squandering on this kind of nonsense. No accountability, no explanation and no statement from the minister, but they go from $5,250 worth of other to $106,754 worth of other in one year. I've never known any other jurisdiction that has had their other budget go up so dramatically in one year. The percentage of other costs have never been explained in the budget. The rationale for the purchase of other in the first place has been a matter of great debate in this chamber for years. Here we are back again seeing a dramatic increase in this much needed item of other. I don't know of any household budget in British Columbia that can do without other. After it has paid the mortgage, the grocer and taxes under this government, how much has the average family got left over for other? I want to know.

We know that these are great businessmen. This government is the government of free enterprise and accountability, and they know all the business practices. After the old-age pensioners pay their ICBC and rental and food costs, how are they going to get by with only $5,000 of other this year — unlike the government which is going to have a $100,000 increase in other in one year? It's absolutely scandalous, and I want an explanation, because I want to be specific in this budget. There are thousands of voters out there who will not sleep tonight worrying about not having their share of other — people the length and breadth of this province who know that under the stewardship of this province other is being protected by this government, only to find that other has inflated right out of this world. No one disputes that other is necessary. It's not a matter of contest, because only a businessman's government with all the accounting procedures it's got would even bring in the item other and define it this way. But now that we have this astute businessman's government protecting the public purse I demand an explanation why other has gone from $5,250 to $106,754.

Who is the author of this dramatic increase in the purchase of other? Is it the minister of technology, science and outer space who needs more other for his programs and is hiding them in this part of the budget'? What are they doing with all this stored-up other, which they must have piles and piles of with the kind of money they're spending on it? Where are they hiding this other? At this cost there must be warehouses full of other all over British Columbia. I want to know where this other is and why it's being wasted and stored.

This is no laughing matter, my colleagues. This is not a fraudulent budget. This is a budget that the minister swears has been pared down to the bone, that has accountability in it, and has the responsibility of businesslike approach. If they want to buy "other" on those conditions, they're entitled to buy "other". But why in the world does the "other" budget go from $5,250 to $106,000 in one year — $100,000 worth of "other" in one department alone is simply too much "other"! And I want to know why this isn't trimmed.

Mr. Chairman, there are people outside this chamber, in the real world, who might ask what a definition of "other" is. They'll be told by the Premier and his new image-maker: "It's none of your business what we're doing with 'other.'"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's make-up.

MR. BARRETT: It's going to cost $62,000 to try to get rid of a five o'clock shadow, Mr. Chairman. We know what that money is for.

I want an explanation here of vote 103, number 90, $5,250 worth of "other" going up to $106,000 worth of "other". There are people out there who are on welfare and fixed incomes. There are people out there who need services. I want to be able to go around this province and explain to them that they can't have any more money because we need $100,000 more "other" — if we only knew what the "other" is. What are we buying for "other"? Why are we buying this "other"? Who has the contract? Is it an open bid on the other"? Is there a competitive market on the "other"'? Or is

[ Page 4771 ]

it a Socred supporter who has the monopoly on "other" and is getting this kind of deal?

I'm not making a facetious speech, Mr. Chairman. I'm dealing with hard-nosed business facts. This free enterprise government likes to say that they're accountable. Does LaSalle Motors sell "other"? How much "other" have you got in stock? Is it something to do with car dealerships? Are they all getting a spread? Mr. Chairman, you ask this House to vote on an increase from $5,250 of "other" to $106,000 worth of "other", and you say that we're wasting time. I'll tell you this: we want to know where all this money is going — being wasted on unexplained, unedited, unconditional limitations by this great big word "other". That's the reason we're asking questions. Are you going to vote for $100,000 increase in other expenditures with no explanation, no statement and no identification of what this is? How come if you got by on $5,250 worth of "other" last year you need a $100,000 increase?

If there was ever an example of a phony, padded budget, it's right here in this one little item. A $100,000 increase in "other": it was done with the stroke of a pen, and in my opinion a deliberate attempt to deceive the people...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT:...of British Columbia about the truth of this budget. It is indeed a fact that the budget has been deliberately conditioned on this basis.

[Mr. Chairman rose. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask the member to withdraw his remarks about deliberate deception. The member knows and has been here long enough to be fully aware that that is absolutely unacceptable in any parliamentary forum in this country. I would ask the member to withdraw the remarks which the Chair has found offensive.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the words "deliberate deception." In the heat of debate I was moved to that unparliamentary statement. In an attempt to convince you, Mr. Chairman, of what exactly this opposition is concerned about by proposing this amendment, I have selected a specific item in this vote to point out to you that this is a pig-in-a-poke budget. We have had extravagant increases under separate items in the budget that have been, in my opinion, inexplicably inflated for the purpose of giving a false picture of expectations of expenditures, and then they come in and say: "We didn't spend all the money that we asked for."

Mr. Chairman, can't you see it next year, when the "other" budget has gone up from $5,000 to $106,000, and they come in and say: "All we spent on 'other' was $50,000. We saved you $56,000 in not buying $56,000 more of 'other' last year." You may kid the troops out there that it's the a + b theorem of Social Credit, but this to me is deliberate padding of a budget without any specific explanation of where this money is going.

MR. LORIMER: Not a dime without debate.

MR. BARRETT: It's a question of not a dime without debate. But here you ask legislators to look at the specific items.... I don't want to generalize, because we are under vote 103, but I refer you to classification 90 under vote 103. We've got a simple statement here. They spent $5,250 last year on "other," and they want $106,000 this year on "other." And you're asking us to support that? How would you explain that back up in North Peach River? How would you explain that to Fraser Valley? How would you explain that in the tunnel?

MR. BRUMMET: I'd just tell them you're a terrific comic but you couldn't govern.

MR. BARRETT: There it is. Just make personal attacks, so you can get away with voting for this kind of thing without a scientific explanation of where the money's gone. Where's your accountability?

I ask the minister: will you please tell me what you spent on $5,250 worth of "other" last year that is going to cost $106,000 worth of "other" this year'? Will you tell me, please?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Are we still on the amendment?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I heard the minister mumble. I guess, after yesterday's admission that you'd been told by the Minister of Finance to cut another 2.3 percent off the figures that are already in this book, you've been reduced to mumbling. Did you buy that book, When in Doubt, Mumble? Let's have $100,000 worth of mumble on "other." You can go through this whole budget, page after page after page. and you'll find item after item after item that is inexplicably inflated to dramatic increases over a year ago to give the impression that somehow all this money is going to be spent, when there is absolutely no explanation, no detail of where this money is going to be spent, how it's going to be spent, but it just puts it down as "other." I'm not going to vote for this. It's all fat and it should be cut. The first place to start is in the junkets, in the office furniture and in the "other." Let's have some honest accountability in this budget.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, discredited governments produce discredited budgets. Day after day, amendment by amendment, this budget becomes more and more clearly discredited in the eyes of the people of British Columbia. We're discovering, vote by vote, as the opposition makes positive proposals to cut waste, frills and unnecessary expenditures, that Social Credit refuses to accept any of these perfectly reasonable and worthwhile amendments. This amendment is one of several. It's one which will by the end of the Forests estimates have produced, if it is accepted by the government, something like $12 million in savings, as has been predicted by the critic for Forests, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. If the government were sincere, if they actually cared to cut the budget, they would look at expenditures of this order and they would accept amendments of this type.

But we know what the plan is and we know why the government will defeat this amendment. The plan is, as usual, to overstate expenditures and to underestimate revenue. Thereby, at the end of the fiscal year they'll pull off another con — the traditional, the conventional, the time-dishonoured con of Social Credit which has always been to inflate estimates of expenditures.

[ Page 4772 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must again caution you. I don't know what it is about today, but we seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in having members addressing both the amendment that is before us and in keeping some kind of reference to parliamentary language and dictates of tradition of this House. Personal attacks, one way or the other, cannot be tolerated; nor can references such as have been made by the hon. member.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, while I am addressing the House, hon. member. I have not completed my ruling. When I have completed my ruling I will recognize the member, and not before.

Again, before I go to the next point of order, I would ask that we continue in the vein which has marked the tradition of this House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, it appears to me that the ruling that Mr. Chairman has made with respect to the precise words that the first member for Victoria has made is, I say with respect, incorrect. It's been tradition in this House never to ascribe that kind of dishonesty, con or something like that to individual members or one or more of these members that can be readily identified as members of the Legislature, but accusations of that kind toward the government in general, and certainly towards a political party in general, have always been acceptable in this House. I would ask the Chairman to take what I'm saying....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That may well be, but it has not hitherto been found to be unparliamentary in this chamber. I would ask the Chairman to take that under advisement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The first member for Victoria continues on the amendment to vote 103, the fire suppression program, dealing as well with the administrative actions of the Ministry of Forests.

MR. BARBER: And a few others, Mr. Chairman, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) made very clear.

The merit of the amendment lies in the fact that the official opposition has discovered, rooted out, named and displayed the waste and the flagrant mismanagement of public funds by Social Credit. The reason the amendment should pass is that we specifically identify unnecessary and wasteful public expenditures that do not deserve to be approved by this House.

Many reputable political scientists have observed a certain pattern in Social Credit budgets since 1952, Mr. Chairman. What is that pattern? The Minister of Finance of the day — be he a former Liberal turned Tory turned Action Canada turned Socred, or whoever — seems to follow a pattern as follows: deliberate, wilful, intended, planned, preconceived, arranged, organized, intended overstatement of expenditures and — all of those words again — understatement of revenue. What does this hocus-pocus produce, Mr. Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hocus-pocus? Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: Is that not on the list?

What does it produce? Two things: it finally discredits the government that tries such ridiculous schemes; it finally discredits the Minister of Finance who offers them, and in this particular case it discredits the minister who has the misfortune to have to front for the typical practices of Social Credit in this province. It is simply not good enough for the government to vote down amendment after cost-saving amendment that the opposition has put forward so far in the Forests estimates. The government wonders, I suppose, whether or not we will find, point out, display and name similar fat in other estimates. Well, folks, it's just possible we might. The government may or may not take seriously the amendments we put forward to trim waste and cut fat from the budget. But I assure you of this, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia take it darned seriously.

The reason this amendment should pass is because the official opposition lacks confidence in the ability of the Social Credit coalition to manage the financial affairs of this province correctly. We know the history of extraordinary waste and mismanagement for which Social Credit is culpable. After all, this is the government that wasted $100,000 in order to call a special session of the Legislature to correct the mistake they made regarding Seaboard Life Insurance Co. — $100,000 down the drain. This is the government that wasted $100,000 on that ridiculous and unnecessary tunnel study, and would have wasted a million if they could have gotten away with it. This is the government which — it will shortly be demonstrated — wasted a million dollars plus on a totally ridiculous and unsuccessful jetfoil service from Victoria to Seattle last year. This is a government that wasted $4.6 million on the replacement of the Princess Marguerite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, by no stretch of the imagination can the Chair permit a discussion that broad under the fire suppression program of vote 103. I realize that there is an amendment, but hon. members are making it very difficult for the Chair, and I would ask for their cooperation to some degree to maintain relevance to the matter currently before us for discussion. Your assistance would be appreciated, hon. member. I'm sure the member is more than fully capable of relating his remarks specifically to the amendment dealing with the fire suppression program in the Minister of Forests' estimates dealing with his administrative actions, which are open to discussion.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's not our intention to make your life miserable. It is our intention to make miserable the lives of government officials who waste the public's money. I was offering — only by way of illustration — examples of why we lack confidence in the ability of this group of former businessmen and tire-kickers to run the public's affairs properly. After all, a group who could ruin a perfectly good Chrysler dealership is also capable of ruining the economy of the people of British Columbia — or even a Ford dealership, in certain places in the province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the first member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. I also have an audience, and I'm grateful for that too.

[ Page 4773 ]

The government that wasted $5 million on the Marguerite and $1 million on the jetfoil is perfectly capable of wasting millions more in the Ministry of Forests. Thus our series of amendments. Day after day and hour after hour we will be proposing amendments to cut waste, trim fat and reduce mismanagement. If the government actually intended to save the people of British Columbia money they would do two things: they would sack the current Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and introduce honest fiscal practices with correctly estimated revenues and correctly predicted expenditures.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask the member to advise whether any imputation of improper motive was attributed by that member. Again I caution members that to use the word "honest" in any term of reference or in any indirect manner is equally as improper as to use that method directly.

MR. BARBER: If I could use the word "honest" to describe this budget, I would.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by the other.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the notion of proper budgeting practices appears to vary from time to time. In our opinion, Social Credit has always overestimated expenditures and underestimated revenues. Whether or not that's honest is, I suppose, a matter for debate. Whether or not it's proper is a matter for other debate. What's currently being debated is something that's proper and honest. It's an amendment to reduce an unnecessary expenditure of public funds. That's proper and honest. It should pass. I hope it does.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I rise in my place rather unexpectedly. I had not intended to get into this debate. I must rise because the debate this afternoon has been childish and unconcerned. To use the Leader of the Opposition's own words, he's not trying to be facetious, but by implication he was facetious. I've never heard more facetious remarks in this House than those made in this House this afternoon. This afternoon was a fun process for the opposition — making fun of the serious business of the transaction of business of this government. To mention but one, the Leader of the Opposition — and I could mention various speakers this afternoon — clearly made a big thing about "others." " How much have you got of others? Where do you keep those others?" If that is not stupid.... Well no, I will not say stupid. The man has intelligence when he is not being facetious. Wasting the time of this House is just beyond my conception of the responsibility we have in being here.

Let me give one idea of "others." If you had taken the trouble to look at the Ministry of Forests' own five-year forest and range resource program, and if you had listened to your own speeches of last year by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.... He spoke last year of how great a department this was, of what great foresight they were using and how he looked forward to the Ministry of Forests in its great step forward as the greatest resource in B.C. Today he takes a different tack. Today is a play day and a fun day. This estimate should have been finished yesterday afternoon. It was'going to be, but something got the opposition going "let's have fun with this House."

Let me tell you something about "others." They clearly ask: "what are others?" "Where do you keep the others?" One place you can look is on page 8 of this document. Have any of you got it? Have you looked at it'? I doubt if any of you have even seen it.

MR. BARBER: What is it?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The five-year forest and range resource program. Who has read it? Put up your hands. You've read it? Well, one out of 26 is pretty good. I read from page 8. "Others. For example, the present five-year program is based on average levels of insect attacks."

Insects all over the place? Mr. Chairman, put that man down!

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, would you control these members? They're alluding to the insects to this House — insect attacks. I was trying to be serious. I'm reading from the report.

"For example, the present five-year program is based on average levels of insect attacks." It has nothing to do with this House at all. What happens if a catastrophic insect infestation suddenly occurs? Should there be additional funding or should another program go so that expenditure can be reduced? That's what the other is for.

It's a fun afternoon. Absolutely no business at all has been done here. Why not have fun all day? It's very costly. I've never sat in this House before — and I have done so for many years — and seen the opposition so totally unprepared and uninterested in the business of this government and so totally uninterested in the amendment before you. Member after member had to be brought up. "Would you please discuss the amendment?" you say to them. "Would you please use nicer language? Would you please withdraw?" Our side has barely said a word.

There's nothing to fight. It has been a fun afternoon. We're trying to be serious. Mr. Chairman. Aren't you a little disgusted or chagrined that when a person is trying to talk to them a little bit.... The amendment itself is a total joke and a waste of the time of this House. The amendment was never intended. Furthermore, they said there would be a lot more amendments reducing costs. An amendment by itself is no good. They tell us what they want us to do and it's nothing. Don't buy some furniture, they say. How silly. How terribly stupid. I charge you with wasting the time of this House. If they have something to say, Mr. Chairman, let them bring it out here. But this nonsense and playing games such as has been the case this afternoon has gone too far.

The Leader of the Opposition is pointing at you, sir, at this time. What is he trying to say? He's trying to say: "Let's have more fun." But I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that it's time it was called to a halt.

MR. COCKE: This is on the amendment to the vote on fire prevention. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped when I saw the member for Dewdney get up that he would be debating that particular subject that is before the House. I saw in my mind's eye a responsible, conservative type of person who is offended as a businessman, I'm sure, by the fat in this budget. I had hoped that we'd be hearing something from the Social Credit Party. He said it best: "Our members have not spo-

[ Page 4774 ]

ken" — including the Minister of Forests — "defending the situation here." They can't debate this amendment, because there are no grounds for debate as far as that side is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, when a budget comes in that's astronomical and when a particular vote like this one comes in with areas of major change.... You know, one part of this vote is up $2 million and other aspects of it are up by very large amounts. The aspect that's down is professional services. I thought, hey, what have we got going here? But then I see rentals up $2 million — and not a word from the minister indicating whether this is going to be part of his savings or what it might be. The only argument that that minister has made to date has been: "We in this ministry will make the decisions if and when we're going to cut fat." Any of us who have had anything to do with government in the past know perfectly well that you cut out the fat before you come to the Legislature. Any Minister of Finance who says after the estimates are set, "Now is the time to cut fat, " is totally irresponsible. You cut the fat before you bring it before the House. Vote 103 should be shot down. The amendment should pass. The minister should resign. Where is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) now?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS-27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 103 approved.

On vote 104: building occupancy charges, $10,392,117.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if ever there was a classic waste of government spending — completely and irresponsibly out of control — it is under this vote. What we have here is a tenfold increase over last year's estimate for this particular vote of building occupancy. The amount last year was $3,156,000; this year there is an estimate of $10,392,117. For what — simply because the minister chose to have a reorganization of his ministry? We were seeing buildings in the Forests ministry being closed and abandoned all around the hinterland of this province. Small municipalities which had enjoyed a Forest Service for years and generations were seeing that service closed down — in New Denver; in Chase; pared down in Enderby; closed down in Fauquier — so that there was a lower capability of responding to forest fires and problems of that kind. Those facilities were being left vacant and empty.

At the same time, because of the enormous increase in building occupancy charges, we can only assume that the minister and his colleagues in cabinet were building edifices to their own glory and affluence down here in Victoria. Talk about fat, extravagance and waste in government — this is it in spades. This is a shocking and irresponsible display of abuse of the taxpayers' money in this province if there ever was one — $10 million for building occupancy. How many of those buildings languish empty with no utilization whatsoever? Where are these buildings? What kind of cushy surroundings has the minister developed for himself and his senior staff? It's absolutely shocking. As I pointed out previously, there is no relationship between this kind of absolutely fantastic increase in cost and the essential functions of the Ministry of Forests — none whatsoever. While we see the building occupancy charges jump to $10 million from $3 million, we find even ministry staff saying that, yes, they are still short of seedlings for restocking the forests and that there is still a shortage of money for silviculture.

But when it comes to waste and extravagance, the big bucks are there, at the same time as one of the most cruel and punitive tax increases have been heaped on the backs of British Columbians — senior citizens, working people, the working poor. All those people who are having a very difficult time making it in this hotly inflated economy are being punished further by these kinds of unnecessary frills. It's shocking, but it's instructive of the way that a government has languished into decay and extravagance in a few short years in office. Accordingly, in compliance and in conformity with the responsibility of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to effectively scrutinize public spending, and to represent those British Columbians who have no voice in the waste of their resources and their dollars, I move that vote 104 be reduced by $7,236,117.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister, who has had one challenge this afternoon to make explanations, should at least rise on this occasion and explain this tremendous increase. What is the space required, where is it situated, what are the addresses involved so we can send our people out to have a look? We'd like to see who is occupying all of this extra space, or we'd like to find out who is making all the extra money. Who are the landlords who are making all of these extra hundreds of thousands of dollars in raising rents to the Forests ministry if it's not government-owned space'? I'd like to know, and so would the people of the province of British Columbia, because they will no longer sit back and be treated like they don't have the intelligence to understand when they're being taken to the cleaners by a callous government. The people of this province have heard enough of the self-righteous statements on the part of a government that behind their backs is spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on the most lavish accommodation that any government in the history of this province has ever had. Why should ordinary working people pay double and triple taxes on their homes for education costs? Why should ordinary working

[ Page 4775 ]

families and the working poor pay increases on sales tax to provide stuffed-leather armchairs for the likes of that minister'!

I'm warning this committee right now: all of the people of this province, all taxpayers, rich and poor.... There are not too many rich left after this government gets hold of them, and certainly the poor have never been poorer, and the ordinary working families are fighting impossible odds in trying to save money and get ahead in this world. Then this government callously comes along and drops these horrendous tax increases to raise $625 million of which, we're finding out by this amendment, at least $7 million isn't even needed.

The arrogance of the minister! He is challenged legitimately by an opposition to answer for those budgets and this vote; he sits back chewing snuff and ignores the opposition in its legitimate attempts to find out where they're spending the taxpayers' money. He's laughing; he thinks it's funny. It's $7 million of hard-earned money — who do you think pays that money, Mr. Chairman? It's the people that sweep the floors, wash the floors, work in the mills, cut the logs, work eight and ten hours a day and try to support families — that's where that $7 million comes from.

I was not going to get up in this debate on any one of these votes until it came to an area that I was debate leader of, but I'll tell you, I've not seen arrogance like that anywhere before. The minister has been challenged by this very vote brought on by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He's been challenged to explain. Tell us where each square foot is, because there's not going to be a square foot of unoccupied space without debate. Because of the events of the past two days, this minister's conduct, the Minister of Finance's conduct and the conduct of this whole government, the people could just as well believe that we're paying $7 million for thin air. We don't know where these spaces are. We don't know what he's paying for. That is an outrageous increase. I urge every hon. member in this House and the back bench.... You know that this increase is unjustified, extravagant and the worst example of waste in government in the history of this province.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm surprised that the minister can't get up and explain to this House how an item for accommodation for his ministry has risen by over $7 million in one year. I would think he would jump to his feet to explain this. In order that he can reflect upon this and be briefed upon it, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR. LEA: I think that we should make it clear again today that we disapprove of the morning sittings. We want to work, and we want to do all the work we can possibly do. We want to work in the evenings, mornings and afternoons. That's what we want to do. There are some on the other side who do know the meaning of work; there are others who inherit it. We on this side all know the meaning of work. We are willing to work in the morning, the afternoon and the evening. Just let me end on a quiet note: I think the government are a bunch of lazy nincompoops.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1980.

HON. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.