[ Page 6879 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (Bill M202). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 6881

Budget debate

Mr. Stupich –– 6881

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6893

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, since there are no introductions, I would like to raise a question of privilege this morning. This is the earliest opportunity that I have had to do it, because the information was not available until after the House rose last night and we had an opportunity to examine some of the details in the Estimates book introduced yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

My question of privilege is that the Minister of Finance. by the introduction of that document, has misled the House. and that the document itself is misleading. Let me proceed to point out why I think that is the case. Before I do, I think it should be noted by the Chair — and I only do this because it is a preliminary to the motion that I intend to found on this question of privilege — that this is not the first time that the Minister of Finance has sought to mislead the House. He did that on at least two other occasions, and last night....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the hon. member is aware that the language in which he's couching his introductory remarks to his motion is unparliamentary and is certainly not permitted in this House: unless, of course, it can be clearly shown by substantive motion a little later or by motion attending that this is the case. Therefore the Speaker's hands are tied.

It may well be that the member has an allegation which can be supported by motion; however, until it can be shown, that kind of language is unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD: I thought it had to go the other way around, Mr. Speaker: that I had to establish what the question of privilege was in the first instance. I could do it in no other way than to say that the document called the Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, is misleading and misleads the House. The Minister of Finance is responsible for that question of misleading us. I intend to show that in a moment. I also want to show that this is not the first time that he has done that. And last night when reference was made to the estimates book, he sought to draw the chairman of the public accounts committee in as a co-conspirator with him in this activity.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. hon. members. Let's hear the statement supporting the motion.

MR. HOWARD: I am keeping my eye on the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He looks like he's about to explode. I want to make sure that he's got control of himself before I proceed. There he is. He's broken into a smile now.

Page 257 of the document introduced yesterday, Estimates 1982-83, has a heading: "Explanatory Notes on the Group Account Classification." It proceeds to say how vote expenditures are shown and so on and lists on that page and continues over onto page 258 the various numerical codes: 01 for salaries, 04 for temporary salaries, 35 for office furniture and equipment and so on. I want to point out to you that that self-same information is contained in the estimates of revenue expenditure for the preceding fiscal year at the end of the book as well, with the same basic code identification for areas of expenditure, office expense, office furniture and so on.

For argument's sake, looking under the office of the Minister of Finance — this is the fiscal year which has just concluded — there are four classifications identified with code numbers under the amount of money sought to be obtained by the Minister of Finance in the previous fiscal year: 01 for salaries, 10 for travel expense, 30 for office expense and 35 for office furniture and equipment. That was in the minister's office salary vote for last year. When we took further into the book that was tabled yesterday we find with respect to that self-same minister, the Minister of Finance, that there is one vote for his office and no identification by code number as is indicated there should be from the back of the book, pages 257 and 258, that I just referred you to. All that is shown as group account classification on page 113 for the Minister of Finance is an amount for salaries and an amount for supply and services with no code breakdown as to how much of that supply and services is for travel expense, office furniture or anything else. Maybe the minister doesn't need any office furniture this year, having acquired a couple of hundred thousand dollars of it earlier in the year, and he figures that's enough. But I point out to you that it does not....

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. hon. member. A brief statement is what is required attending a motion of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: It simply shows that there is no code breakdown. It also shows that the amount of money required for "Supply and Services" is a whopping 25 percent increase over last year, and last year was 39 percent over the year before.

MR. BARRETT: The codes are supposed to be there.

MR. HOWARD: And the codes are supposed to be there.

When we took at the office of the Premier we find precisely the same situation. In earlier estimates under the Premier's office there were code identifications. I don't need to refer to them, but they are there. In this particular book there are no such code identifications. Just something called " Supply and Services" and some loose thing called "Other Expenditures" — all encompassing....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member now state the matter of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: The matter of privilege is that this particular document, the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, is misleading in that the information contained in the back of the book is not carried forward and identified in the front of the book.

If you find that I do have a question of privilege — and I submit to you that this is not an isolated instance of attempts to mislead the House — Your Honour could proceed in a number of different ways. I'm suggesting that the course to be followed is to reprimand the minister for misleading the House, and if you find I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would move this motion: that the Minister of Finance be required....

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. The motion will be read according to the procedure of this House. If we find that a prima facie case of privilege has....

[ Page 6880 ]

MR. HOWARD: This is the motion I would make, Mr. Speaker, if you do find that I have a prima facie case of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion will be read at that time.

MR. HOWARD: Traditionally and historically, the Chair has permitted the person who raised the question of privilege to identify the motion.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I refer to the procedure that is carried out in this House. Members have not always abided by that procedure. The Chair has, by custom, seldom interrupted in the middle of a motion, but following the motion has almost invariably reminded members that the motion is not read until we have a prima facie case. The motion is superfluous to the proceedings until we have a prima facie case. The Chair is trying to reinforce the procedure which we have had in this house for as long as I've been here.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Your Honour, I'll certainly accede this time to your suggestion, and I take it as that, but Your Honour as erred many, many times in the past by permitting them to be read.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I would ask the hon. member for Skeena to withdraw that remark.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: I can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that Your Honour does not err and that was a word that should not have escaped my lips.

MR. SPEAKER: The member withdraws. We now have the statement of the matter of privilege.

MR. HOWARD: Could I have a moment to get the motion to your attention, sir? The motion is to reprimand the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. members, may I remind the House that a form of the House, which a matter of privilege is, cannot be used to make an accusation against another member which would be entirely out of order if addressed to the House in a form of debate. Therefore I would decry any subscription to this kind of procedure in the House — in other words, using a device of the House to say something which would not be permitted in the House in ordinary debate. The matter of privilege I will take under advisement and, without prejudice to the member, will return a decision.

Hon. members, on the last day of the sittings of the previous session, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a point of privilege relating to an answer given by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to a series of questions by the hon. member for Victoria during oral question period. The honourable member then indicated to the House a motion intended to be moved if appropriate. In its terms the motion alleges that the hon. minister provided the house with a misleading answer during question period. The hon. member for Skeena cited, in support of the matter raised, references in the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May appearing on pages 130, 131, 170 and 173, which references I have carefully examined. I have also examined the questions and answers which appear at page 6585 of Hansard for July 7, 1981. It is stated in the same edition of Sir Erskine May on page 142, "The House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt, " and cites Profumo's case wherein the offending member made a personal statement that contained words which he later admitted not to be true. On the other hand, as stated in Beauchesne's fifth edition on page 12, the precedents are clear that "a dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts do not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

It is clear from the terms of the motion tendered by the hon. member for Skeena that his complaint is founded on a complaint of a misleading answer and a dispute as to allegations of facts between hon. members. In light of the authorities which I have cited, I am unable to conclude that there is a basis for a prima facie question of privilege.

Further, hon. members, at the conclusion of the sitting of the House on December 1, the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), rose on a point of order, namely that the rules of the House had not been observed when the House met at 8 p.m. In that the mace was on the table preceding the presence of Mr. Speaker in the Chair. Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 295 states that during the suspension of a sitting the mace is left on the table, and under the circumstances the mace should have remained on the table during the dinner hour. In this respect the point of order raised by the hon. second member for Surrey was well taken, in that mace was removed upon the chair being vacated. However, upon it being ascertained that the mace had inadvertently been lifted from the table, it was immediately restored and was properly in place when the House resumed its deliberations. Thank you, hon. members.

Introduction of Bills

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates...

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: ...and proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's the leader over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. members. I notice on the order paper, hon. member, that we do not have notice of this bill. Is it the member's intention now to tender notice of introduction?

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the rules be suspended to permit the introduction of the bill without notice, intituled An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

[ Page 6881 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

You're heard the motion, hon. members. The question is that the rules be suspended to permit the proceedings presently underway.

Leave granted.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE TELEVISING
AND OTHER BROADCASTING OF DEBATES
AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt, Bill M202, An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Public Bills.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, no. That's not the right motion. Wrong motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. In the noise of the chamber the member on his feet can scarcely phrase his motion, let alone have the motion understood. Would the House please come to order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Wrong motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The member may wish to reconsider his motion, because the committee to which he has referred has not yet been constituted.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that, my understanding is that the motion was approved that the bill now be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion as made was placed before the House. The question was put by Mr. Speaker. In view of a rather raucous House I must confess I did not hear the words of the hon. member. But the question was put before the House. Therefore if the error was made, the error rests with the Chair, and I must apologize.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, in view of that I would move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: On a matter of order, the Chair indicated that the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills had not been constituted. Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. That committee was constituted during the early part of December.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: It wasn't manned, Mr. Minister, but it was constituted. Matters can be referred to that committee, because it is constituted. All the House Leader has to do is call together the selection committee and we can man that committee ten seconds from now. But that committee is constituted by a resolution in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the information.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the 1982-83 provincial budget presented yesterday is a masterpiece of deception. It's a budget of dishonesty and despair.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly the hon. member is not attributing these characteristics to any hon. member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: The budget.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, you didn't hear me say anything like that, did you? I'm talking about the budget document.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the hon. member if he attributes these characteristics to any hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. You know me better than that.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: It represents the work of a Premier and a government who are afraid of the truth; they are afraid of the consequences of the realization — some six years later — of the mess that Social Credit has created in this province.

Only cursory examination is necessary, Mr. Speaker, to realize the gravity of the deception perpetrated yesterday in the budget speech. This morning I intend to expose the dishonesty to the members of this House. Later, my colleagues and I plan to continue the process of advising British Columbians about the depths to which this government has sunk in the vain hope of convincing the public that things are not so.

Mr. Speaker, I said it is a budget of dishonesty and despair. I'm sure that people who are in despair in this province will be reassured to know that the mace was properly handled last December; I'm sure they will be reassured that the government was so amused that the opposition would want to let the light shine in and and let the people of the province see what's happening in this chamber. I'm sure that big business, which is waiting for some kind of leadership from this government, will have despair after seeing the budget speech of yesterday.

[ Page 6882 ]

Government itself is big business, Mr. Speaker; government itself with its Crown corporations ranks with the 50 largest corporations in this province all put together. The total assets of government and Crown corporations are almost $16 billion; the total assets of the 50 largest corporations, $22 billion. The total revenue of government and Crown corporations, $10 billion; the total revenue of the 50 largest corporations, less than double that amount, $19 billion. Government is big business. For government to sit back and say there is nothing we can do at this time other than mark time and hope for a change is an abolition of their responsibility. Big business was waiting; big business must be in despair today.

Small business was waiting. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and I had an opportunity to travel around the province and listen to some of the people who are suffering, some of the people who are engaged in small business — or have been engaged, some of them losing out. The budget tells them bankruptcies are increasing and the value of some investments representing lifetime savings and hard work are literally being wiped out. What is in the budget to provide hope for them'? Despair, not hope.

Another aspect of small business: the farmers. Agriculture is hurting in this province, Mr. Speaker. It has been hurting since January 1976. What do we see in the budget for agriculture? Farmers are being cut back. The budget for agriculture is nominally above last year's budget, but in terms of real dollars there is a real decrease. That is what the budget is offering for farmers.

What about municipalities suffering under a program that has been announced by the Premier, the details of which they are still waiting for? They're faced with taxpayers' revolts, if not serious questions, about what's happening — the increased appraisals — and what are we offering to the municipalities? I'm confused, Mr. Speaker, and I think most of the municipalities will be, from reading the budget. When we read the budget we find out that there is more money going into the revenue-sharing program, but when we look at the estimates, we have to wonder how that adds up. The estimates, on page 192: the Revenue Sharing Fund, estimates for 1981-82, $252 million; estimates for 1982-83, $235 million. That's a reduction of $17 million. But as well as the reduction in dollars, other programs are going to be made the responsibility of the municipalities. They are going to be responsible for the sewage assistance program, the underground utility program and the restructure-assistance programs. They are all now going to be financed out of that decreased Revenue Sharing Fund. There is something for them. They are going to be relieved of the burden of paying social welfare costs, and that's a plus, but that's $35 million over a period of two years. The costs of these other programs that are being loaded on them in the face of a decreased estimate for revenue-sharing makes me feel that the municipalities are going to be sharing in the despair there will be throughout this province once the budget is examined in detail.

What about the low-income workers in our province, who have been hoping for some relief in this budget'?

The crushing burden of interest rates, the mortgage renewals — there is reference to these on page 3 as well. "High interest rates hurt most those people and industrial sectors that rely heavily upon borrowed money...." Most people rely heavily on borrowed money. High interest rates hurt them and the budget recognizes that hurt. But what does the budget hold out for them? No hope, Mr. Speaker, only despair.

Unemployment. Again the budget recognizes that there is unemployment in the province. It blames it on somebody else, but it does say the levels of unemployment are too high. Reference to this is on page 2. What do we hold out for those who are unemployed'? We are shifting money from one pocket to another and saying that we are creating new jobs. No new programs to create new job opportunities are offered in the budget.

There are references to the cost-of-living increases on page 5 of the budget. "Inflation is beginning to moderate...." I'm not sure where the people who wrote this speech have been living. I've certainly seen no evidence that inflation is beginning to moderate in the province of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that inflation in the province of British Columbia is very high among Canadian provinces — higher than it has been before — and that it has been exacerbated by government policies to increase user rates and direct charges for almost every conceivable fee. They have all been increased to the extent of some $300 to $500 million in one year. Inflation is out of control in the province of British Columbia, or at least it would have been out of control had it not been for the actions of this government in increasing inflation in almost every area. There is despair for the people hoping for some relief from the crushing load of government-imposed user rates and charge rates.

What about the many volunteer agencies in the province trying to help needy people? The word they've had is that their grants are going to be maintained or even cut back in most cases.

What about the unemployed'? There are references in the budget to retraining. Later on I'll quote from previous budgets to show that the same references have been there year after year and no action — simply references.

The need for senior citizens' housing — nothing there. The need for more long-term care — nothing there. The people who despair because they have not been able to get into hospital beds for operations — nothing there.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the same story could be told all over the province. There is a headline that came out in the newspaper in my own community just Saturday of this week.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, I haven't lost it. One of the ministers thought I lost it. I'll share it with them. Right across the top of the Nanaimo Free Press for Saturday, April 3, it says: "Welfare Lists, Bankruptcies, Mid-island's Latest Boom." It goes on to talk about the record welfare roles and the record unemployment. There is nothing in this budget that's going to make any of those people feel any better. It's a budget of deception and despair.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you call it.

MR. STUPICH: That is what I call it.

It has been said in this chamber and elsewhere that a budget is a planning document, that government is supposed to be declaring its plans for the coming year. It is quite obvious to my colleagues and I that the government cannot intend to carry out the expenditure program tabled yesterday for a 12-month period. It just isn't there. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the government believes a combination of tax increases and spending cuts is the correct medicine for

[ Page 6883 ]

healing an economy in recession. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not a proposition that I can believe. Not even this government will lack the compassion necessary to see that such a course will heap further harm on the injury it has inflicted to date.

Not believing that Social Credit would do something so harmful and so unfair, one is left to ask how this budget should be interpreted. If it is not a realistic planning guide for 12 months, then what is it? Not to leave the members in suspense unnecessarily, I believe the government has a more narrow, small-minded, devious purpose in mind. I suspect this budget, replete with a higher order of mathematics, will have outlived its usefulness in a few short months.

Of course it is the members opposite who determine the fate of these budget proposals and of the remaining life of this Legislature by decisions which they alone make in consultation only with themselves and their Ontario gurus. I'm not offering advice one way or the other, but I am saying that if you think that these budget proposals will wash on the hustings, give it a try. Mr. Speaker, if the authors of this budget really think that people will believe a little moving of this amount over there, shuffling of funds over here and pulling numbers out of the air makes for the kind of government the people want in 1982 or '83, the option is the government's.

My colleagues and I know that you cannot create something out of nothing, you cannot create jobs without deploying resources, you cannot hide tax increases for long and you cannot hide deficits. Yet that is precisely what the minister tried to sell in this House yesterday. This is precisely the sort of baloney that the minister has been peddling and, incredibly, with all the high-priced talent in the Premier's office and the Finance ministry, that is the sort of twaddle the Minister of Finance hopes to peddle to British Columbians.

I'm not going to spend my time today pointing out contradictions in the Minister's presentation yesterday, although God knows a full ten days' budget debate could be devoted to that task alone. My remarks will proceed as follows.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I wouldn't have done this, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) invites me to do better. I told him yesterday when he interjected that at least I would keep him awake. I ask him what happened yesterday.

First, I will make some comments on the general economic context and the response of the government to date, excluding the rather political speech made yesterday by the Minister of Finance. Second, I will deal with the restraint-on-government program — the famous, or infamous, television announcement on February 18. Third, I will deal with the need now — more than ever after this budget presentation — for leadership in this province. The policy of coasting until world markets rescue us is short-sighted and dangerous for our people. Fourth, I will examine the 1982-83 budget proposals. This examination will focus in the main on the need for job creation — a need tragically and callously ignored in this budget. Finally, I will again place the 1982 budget proposals in a wider context and deal with the budget as a statement of our plans, priorities and hopes for the future.

First, dealing with the economic context, the minister began his comments on this subject in the budget speech with, the following dry message: "Current economic circumstances need little elaboration." I have no doubt whatsoever that the minister would like there to be little elaboration of our current economic circumstances. It is a small wonder that the Premier announced he would fund another megaproject — the Expo '86 fair — with a lottery. It is small wonder that one of the real solid growth areas in provincial government revenue listed yesterday is a $50.7 million increase in contributions from government enterprises. The B.C. liquor control board is doing very well. Mr. Speaker. These are the real growth industries in the recession: alcohol and gambling. These are the industries the government is counting on. Too many people have shattered dreams which, unfortunately, in our society are often drowned in alcohol. Too many people have no money to pay their bills, let alone acquire needed assets. Thus they buy lottery tickets. These are symptoms of economic misery.

The minister yesterday used the analogy of a family budget to explain his opposition to deficit financing. He said families borrow for cars and houses, but not for groceries. It is obvious the minister is unaware of how insensitive that comment was, because many families today indeed are borrowing to pay for their living expenses, including groceries. Many families today in British Columbia have no choice.

To put the matter succinctly and precisely, the February unemployment rolls showed 130,000 British Columbians out of work. This number includes 52,000 unlucky souls who have lost their jobs since July of last year — 52,000 since the last working day of the 1981 legislative session.

But we know that the official list of unemployed excludes many British Columbians who are out of work and suffering as a consequence. This discrepancy is due to the restrictive nature of Statistics Canada surveys. That is why, for example, those collecting unemployment insurance in British Columbia exceed 181,000 — almost 50,000 more than the official lists. Both the unemployment rolls and the unemployment insurance claimants are at the highest level in the province's history. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we are now at the highest level of unemployment in the province's history — after six years of Social Credit administration.

Statistics Canada admits that there are 67,000 so-called "hidden unemployed" in British Columbia. These people are not hiding, Mr. Speaker: they have been reclassified by Statistics Canada and are, for this reason, no longer considered to be unemployed.

They include those who are underemployed — that is, working one day a week at odd jobs. They include those on temporary layoff such as mining and forestry workers in B.C. They include so-called "discouraged" workers. Mr. Speaker, almost no one in B.C. society is fooled about the causes of this serious unemployment. It is caused by the same factor which is causing incredibly high inflation to coexist with it at the same time. It is caused by the policy of high interest rates coupled with high energy prices. This policy has been part and policy of economic policy in this country. It did not happen by accident. It happened by the combined agitation of social and economic forces over a number of years. It is not fashionable for politicians — save those who are in power — to endorse high interest rates and tight monetary policy as a solution for economic ills. It is for this reason that the members opposite have bailed out of this particular ship — although anyone with a memory or the ability to read will know that they were part of the "push pull" monetarism theory just a few short years ago.

[ Page 6884 ]

I'm sure we all remember the bursting pride with which Premier Bennett tabled his proposals in "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada: the British Columbia Position" in February 78. In those days, Premier Bennett was the fashionable reformer on the right, tilting at federal windmills in pursuit of "deep-rooted structural change."

On the specific subject of monetary policy, it is well that we remember, or at least recall, what the Premier said. He said — and I quote from page 33 of the B.C. position paper — "The Bank of Canada's current monetary policy, which is in the form of a monetary rule, should be supported in principle. However, the bank's actual method of controlling the money supply and its definition of the most appropriate monetary aggregate for control should be reviewed."

The Premier was kind enough not simply to outline his concern about monetary policy and the need for reform. He also explained how it should be reformed: "The money supply should not be allowed to increase as rapidly as it did in the early 1970s. The success of money supply growth contributed to the severe inflation the economy endured in the seventies, and to the present structural economic problems."

Can there be any clearer explanation of where the Premier stands, or at least stood in 1978, on this question of monetarism'? Yet these are the policies of the Reagan government in the United States and the Thatcher government in the United Kingdom. It is these policies which, aped by the federal government in Ottawa and supported by the Premier of British Columbia, have wrought chaos and havoc upon all the western world. The economy of British Columbia has been no exception.

It is perhaps understandable that support for these policies has declined in proportion as the economy's suffering compounds. It is perhaps understandable, therefore, that the Premier has tried to bail out of his support for monetarist policies, but only to the extent of weak, ineffective denunciations at suitable public occasions. But then I suppose it is no small wonder that the Premier would bail out eventually. It is only those who enjoy the detachment of glass and ivory towers who will cling tenaciously to views that have been proven disastrous. One can only wish that the Premier had not been among the cheering section when we got into this mess. One could hope that the Premier would lead his government to policies which will help to provide hope for British Columbians in the face of the gloom and suffering which is taking place now. Even if we concede the Premier's relative innocence in the establishment of disastrous monetary policies, which have created high unemployment for British Columbians and others throughout the world, what can we say of the reaction of government to these developments?

The government has responded in one way and one way only to this point in time. They have raised taxes in order to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, these Socreds, allegedly of the 1980s, have done the spirit of Herbert Hoover proud. In the early 1930s Herbert Hoover preached retrenchment as the cure for the economic ills of the time, and he practised retrenchment. The result was depression.

Also in the 1930s, north of that border a Conservative Prime Minister, R.B. Bennett, was doing much the same thing. The Premier's namesake brought in tax increases. These widened the recession and further increased the deficit. In the next year there were further tax increases and a ringing declaration of the absolute necessity of placing our own house in order. We must all be thankful that our economy is more resilient now than it was in the 1930s. Only those who refuse to see, however, can fail to notice the parallel between the misguided policies of Hoover in the United States, R.B. Bennett in Canada and this particular Bennett government in B.C.

What has been the response of the Social Credit government to recession in the economy? First, a budget 12 months ago which by its own reckoning imposed tax increases of $625 million and indexing of several user fees to heap fuel on the fires of inflation. Second, the green light for all Crown corporations to not only preserve cash flow but also, in the case of B.C. Hydro, to increase the equity-ratio and interest ratio coverage. Third, across-the-board increases in user fees and charges. These differ from tax increases in that they do not require legislative approval; they can be done quietly so that no one will notice.

I asked our caucus research staff to gather information about the user-fee increases in advance of the budget speech. A request was transmitted through the Finance ministry information officer to interview the persons who had been assigned to review all user fees in advance of the latest round of increases. The reply came that the deputy minister would not allow an interview but would respond to a written request for information. So on March 25 a memo was sent to the information officer requesting a complete list of user fees charged by the provincial government and an indication of those fees which had been increased during the past two years. No response was received to this written request, but late last week in a telephone conversation we were told that the Deputy Minister of Finance had received the request and had responded that information would not be provided at this time. The government that was going to let the light shine in remember, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) keeps wanting to get into this debate. Surely there will be an opportunity for him later on. In the meantime may I remind him that he once tried to be the leader of a party and was turned down. That was the Liberal Party.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Well, he welcomes these responses with his interjections.

In retrospect, Mr. Speaker, it is now obvious that a government which fears economic facts enough to present a budget like the one before us would have no intention of providing basic information on the nature and extent of the tax increases it has recently imposed on British Columbians. This is a small matter, perhaps, in terms of the total budget, but fully indicative of the reputation the Minister of Finance is rapidly gaining in all segments of British Columbia society.

In any event, we assembled a partial list of user fees on our own, which I have appended to my remarks for reference. One of the reasons I was so intrigued to have this information is a reference on page 7 of the March 23 submission to the government of B.C. by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. In the course of a litany of complaints about

[ Page 6885 ]

tax increases the Canadian Federation of Independent Business named 30 percent, 50 percent and sometimes 100 percent increases in approximately 1,500 fees and licences at the provincial level. I have no idea whether this figure is accurate. It is possible that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has better connections in the Finance ministry than the opposition does. If so, I say more power to them, and more shame to those who feel it is their duty to suppress this information. In any event the list prepared by our research staff shows approximately 130 such fee increases and new fees levied in the past year alone. This is considerably fewer than the 1,500 cited by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, but nonetheless a matter of deep concern to the opposition. Some of these increases deal serious blows to already weakened business enterprises in the province.

As I suggested earlier, I thought the proposition was all but dead that there was any economic benefit to be had in taxing in the economy when it is at its weakest, for the sake of papering over the financial legacy of weak fiscal policy. For example, why hit farmers and fishermen with a 26 percent increase in coloured-gasoline tax between October of last year and March of this year? For example, why boost the cost of a free-miner's certificate 400 percent at the beginning of this fiscal year? Why increase all placer mining fees by 100 percent at the start of this fiscal year? Why add further injury to our tourist industry by doubling guide-outfitter and angling guide licences effective the first of this year'? At the time when British Columbia is importing $100 million worth of fish products annually, why increase fish-storage and processing plant licences by 100 to 300 percent, effective April 1, 1982? Why, when our resource industries are laying off workers for protracted periods of time, do we increase water licence fees 300 percent? Why, when the timing couldn't be worse, boost general industrial power rates by 31 1/2 percent? The only answer I have heard from this government lately to these questions is that they have alternatives in mind which are worse. They give us great choices, these Socreds: do you want to be shot or hung? Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Speaker, the people would like a new judge.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let us not interrupt the man who has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance thinks I judge his fiscal policies too harshly. Most politicians like to claim that even if the opposition does not support their policies the rest of society does. On this one, Mr. Minister, you would make such a conclusion at your peril.

On the water tax increases and related charges the Vancouver Province makes the following observation:

"Higher industrial power costs will inhibit the ability of the forest and mining industries to get back on their feet and restore their former contributions to government in the way of stumpage and mineral royalties, not to mention personal and corporate income taxes.

"The higher residential rates will also reduce consumer spending, which contributes directly to government revenues and sales taxes and indirectly by pumping life into the economy from which the government extracts funds in a multitude of other ways."

Mr. Speaker, this is hardly a ringing endorsement of the minister's policies.

The hydro rate increases, as we all know, result primarily from a pass through of government tax increases and government orders to the B.C. Utilities Commission. All the handwringing, all the confusion and account-juggling in the world, will not change this fact. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business is concerned about massive increases in the cost of doing business. What do they identify as the biggest increased contributor to these cost increases? Government taxation, especially fees and licences at the provincial level in B.C. They conclude: "Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to this cost imposition, because they do not have the competitive freedom to pass all the costs right through to the end customer." The minister can say anything he likes about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, but opposition politicians they certainly are not.

The same can be said of Mr. William Hamilton, president of the Employer's Council.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What did he say this morning'?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I am asked what he said this morning. I was in my office this morning until 3 a.m. and I was back in at 7:15 a.m., and the last thing I had time for was listening to whoever happened to be on the radio.

I think, Mr. Minister, you should realize that these people are trying to tell you something, including Bill Hamilton, who represents the major corporations. I think you should listen.

This then, is the context in which yesterday's budget was presented.

Social Credit restraint. Dramatic announcements of spending restraint are a favourite item in the Social Credit political arsenal. I can recall at least three occasions in the past two fiscal years when restraint programs have been announced: twice by the Finance minister and once by the Premier. It occurred to me at one point to ask: why do they do this repeatedly? There is only one plausible answer: why should they spoil a good announcement by actually carrying it out?

Since that unfortunate day in 1975 when this government was elected, the pattern of spending has been nothing short of lavish. The commitment to spending restraint, particularly in unproductive areas, has been underwhelming, to say the very least. Very few will forget how this government was elected by making preposterous and outrageous claims about the spending of the NDP administration. The members opposite could not be bothered with the fact that B.C. was seriously behind other Canadian provinces in the early 1970s and new programs were clearly required. Thus a guaranteed income for senior citizens, Pharmacare, ambulance service and provincial day care among other programs were all introduced as brand-new programs in British Columbia.

But what can be said of spending increases under the Social Credit? Are they linked to new social objectives, or are they achieving important new economic goals? I thought it would be instructive, Mr. Speaker, to compare the last budget brought in by an NDP Finance minister with the one introduced yesterday. The first thing one notices is that total spending has increased from slightly over $3 billion to almost $7.6 billion projected for the coming year. This is an increase of 144.8 percent in seven short years: two and a half times what it was. The first point is obvious: a phenomenal growth

[ Page 6886 ]

has been experienced in government spending. In fact, the compound annual growth over the past seven years has been 13.65 percent, considerably more than the rate of inflation, which has been 9.6 percent compounded. The accumulated 144.8 percent increase compares with an approximate increase of 90 percent in the consumer price index during the same period.

The second thing one notices in comparing the details of the two budgets is the phenomenal growth in departments of government which in fact do very little for society at large. The big growth has been in those ministries which provide service to government itself.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is still with me. I'm glad he's listening. He's asking me to give some examples, and I will. The big spending leaders are, in rank order: the Premier's office, which has increased 445 percent over the seven-year period....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe he knows what's coming next. The second is the Ministry of Finance, which also services government; the increase there has been 280 percent over the seven years. The third-ranked winner in the spending sweepstakes has been the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STUPICH: For the information of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, this last ministry named, Provincial Secretary and Government Services, is the one that contains Doug Heal, government production centre, and the apparatus of administering the public service.

While I recognize limitations in this type of analysis, it is obvious that Social Credit has not been shy about spending money, particularly where its own needs and interests as a political party are concerned.

Some members opposite may argue that this government does not have social priorities; it is determined to achieve economic objectives. Every year I scan the latest economic accounts to see what progress has been made in diversifying the British Columbia economy. Year on year I hope that we will succeed in moving away from over dependence on resource industries which fluctuate according to world markets and economic conditions. Year by year I look for some evidence that the government has a plan or even some objectives in mind in framing economic and fiscal policy. Alas, this year I am disappointed again.

To take one indicator of economic diversity for this province, manufacturing employment, we see that in 1981 employment is down relative to the total. In 1975, when the previous government left office, 14 percent of our labour force was employed in manufacturing. In 1981, according to the B.C. Economic Review and Outlook, only 13 percent were employed in our manufacturing industry. So this extravagance in spending has not achieved greater diversity and strength for our economy. It's small wonder that the government has decided on the course of restraint it's small wonder they're concerned about money spent for very I little value, for that has been the experience under Social Credit in the past seven years. I assume that is why the Minister of Finance announced his three-part government restraint program on August 6, 1981. It featured strict controls on government spending and the hoarding of all available sources of cash. The minister's program was undoubtedly followed diligently by everyone in government. This is also doubtless why the following have occurred. Item: special warrant passed February 11, 1982, authorizing the additional spending in the Premier's office of $150,000. Item: a closely related development is the hiring of seven new staff in the Premier's office and the promotion — with salary increases — of seven others. This occurred despite the primary plank of a government hiring freeze in the Minister of Finance's three-part restraint program. Special warrants were passed to allow for over-expending of $40,000 in the same Minister of Finance's office, $30,000 in the Minister of Agriculture's office, $22,000 in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affair's office, $8,000 in the Attorney-General's office, $10,000 in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources office, $11,000 in the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's office — is the Minister of Municipal Affairs still listening, Mr. Speaker? — $25,000 in that minister's office.

Item: in total more than $134 million in special warrants were passed in the period following the Minister of Finance's restraint announcement last August up to the end of the last fiscal year. This does not count the $103 million passed on April 1 for "continuing of activities and ongoing programs."

Restraint has been practised in some areas. I draw your attention to page 153 of the budget. In the office of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who is usually with us and is usually heard from when he is here, we see that the spending is going down. We see that the amount spent on ministry operations is dropping by 41.3 percent. They're going to do a lot less in that ministry. But the expenses of the minister's office are going up by 22 percent. We're paying him and the same number of staff people 22 percent more than the year before to do 45 percent less work. Restraint, Mr. Speaker?

There's another reference to restraint in the estimates, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of them, and I'm just going to mention one now. In the Ministry of Education the increase proposed is 6.4 percent over last year's figure. Mr. Speaker, is that an honest figure? Can we really live with a 6 percent increase in education expenditures? There'll be a lot more said about that later.

Item: $100,000 was spent on a luxury tour of the Kootenays by the cabinet, replete with full-course banquets for hundreds of people. Restraint.

Item: a new B.C. Spirit logo was developed at an estimated cost of $25,000. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent to splash this logo on ferries and billboards and full glossy circulars were inserted in every newspaper in the province. Restraint?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Item: the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development supplemented his legendary world travels with yet another Mash-style helicopter tour of the northwest coalfields. This is just a small partial list of the many....

[ Page 6887 ]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker. I take it from the Premier's concern — and it's the first time he's ever really listened to one of my speeches — he must be a bit worried about how this budget is being received. Mr. Speaker, you and I know he's got good reason to be worried about how this budget is being received.

It should therefore come as no surprise to the government that members on this side at least are somewhat skeptical about the latest restraint announcement of February 18, 1982. This one differs in that it was announced with suitable fanfare on provincewide television. The Premier sat before an array of flags, which we understand were flown to Vancouver for the occasion in the personal company of an employee of Mr. Doug Heal's office. The Premier also announced spending restraints together with wage controls. It is evident to me, from viewing the announcement, that the Premier has still not realized that the problem to be dealt with in controlling government spending is government itself. Yesterday in his budget speech the Minister of Finance said, speaking of his group, that it's us that the province has to worry about. I agree with him completely. This is especially true, given that so much of the increase in government spending has been money that government spends by itself on itself.

All members will remember the $82 million in spending cuts moved by the NDP opposition in the last legislative session. The Minister of Finance clearly recalls, because he responded yesterday. He responded by hiding information from members of this House concerning what would be spent on travel, office rent, office furniture, consulting fees, advertising and publications, motor vehicles and the like.

It's almost amusing, Mr. Speaker. Page 16 of the budget speech reads: "The estimates of revenue and expenditure I am tabling today have also been restructured to provide an improved vote structure to be more informative...." Two votes — the minister's office and the ministry's activities — and that's more informative. That's the response from the Minister of Finance. He didn't like the criticisms about the overspending, about increases in spending on wasteful government expenditures, so now we don't know what they are. He had a choice. He could have cleaned up the government's act. He could stop pretending that this kind of expenditure has anything to do with the provision of government service or economic growth. But he chose not to. He chose to hide the truth instead. He chose to abuse his powers under the Financial Administration Act, and to hide the information from the members of this House and from the people of British Columbia. Restraint begins with the elimination of waste and extravagance. Restraint does not begin with press releases and television addresses.

The Leader of the Opposition has stated repeatedly that he will not comment in detail on the restraint program until the legislation is in and the cards are all out on the table. He has said so, knowing that the Premier might, through his announcement, hope to abandon past election promises not to cut health and social services and to establish a denticare program with no premiums or deducibility. He said so, knowing that the government has no confidence in its ability to bargain collectively with its employees in a free and non-political atmosphere. He said so, knowing the underhanded political objectives behind an essentially political speech on television.

We have been restrained on this side from making incendiary comments about the Premier's speech, because we have seen it all before from that group. We have seen the same proposals come and go. We have seen waste and extravagance in the good years as well as in the bad. The wisdom of seeing the fine print of Social Credit proposals has been born of frustration over the years. We have seen the frustration of our citizens who borrowed money to buy BCRIC shares on the strength of the Premier's assertion that they were worth $11 per share. We have seen what happened to the Premier's permanent reduction of the sales tax to 4 percent in 1979. We have seen the government's heroin treatment program develop into a $15 million waste of taxpayers' money. Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have memories. These memories remain with us, although we cannot say: "Thanks for the memories."

There are many people in British Columbia society with questions about the effects of the restraint program in the coming year, not least the hospitals, which are carrying millions of dollars in deficits because of inadequate funding in prior years. A survey by our research staff in March of this year showed that out of 52 hospitals 46 were reporting deficits. This is clearly the result of shortsighted cutbacks in funding in previous years. In total they acknowledge more than $12 million in deficits in the last year alone. How are these deficits to be met in the face of the admittedly confusing spending estimates presented yesterday? How many will lose their jobs in the health-care system this year?

How are the spending limits of other jurisdictions to be defined? The Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act, Bill 32, introduced yesterday, answers some of the questions for municipalities. Section 2 of this incredible piece of legislation says: "Notwithstanding any other act, the minister may limit the operating expenditures of a municipality for the calendar years 1982 and 1983." In other words, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has complete arbitrary and unbridled authority to dictate not only expenditure guidelines but the definition of how those apply to another level of government.

This is the concept of a grandfather clause gone wild. No Minister of Municipal Affairs enjoys this type of power over municipalities anywhere in Canada. Does the restraint program in the end...?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is inviting me again, and I say that I would rather have quality than quantity. This is the concept....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Well, the Minister of Municipal Affairs again says we have neither. Maybe we'll find out soon. When are you going?

This is the concept of a grandfather clause gone wild. There are legitimate questions unanswered today. The opposition has restraint proposals to put before this government. The opposition will give serious consideration to every restraint proposal put forward by this government, but the world did not begin and end with the Premier's television address on February 18. The various groups, businesses and agencies who make up British Columbian society have their daily lives to continue and they are tired of waiting while the Premier takes more Goldfarb polls to determine what will be the next step. Leadership is needed.

[ Page 6888 ]

I said earlier that history shows the folly of retrenchment at a time of economic downturn. The point requires elaboration because it is so crucial to understanding the essential failures and missed opportunities of this budget. Members on this side want to substitute hope of recovery for retrenchment. Hope for our people is better medicine than asking them to tough it out. It is regrettable that the minister who resolved on page 1 to resist the temptation to say "nothing can be done, " so quickly abandoned that resolve, as throughout the past year he abandoned the resolve to ensure more equitable sharing of the burden of restraint before expressing it.

I have argued elsewhere that the government's projections are unduly optimistic in certain key areas. The call for a 23 percent increase in forest industry revenues on page 44 of the budget........ The revised estimate for 1982 was $104.7 million, and the estimate for 1983 is $129.1 million — an increase of 23 percent in forest industry revenues. I've not heard of any upturn in forestry. I've not heard of anybody else forecasting it. Yet the government is counting on a 23 percent increase in forest revenues. And we all know that even if there were an upturn, there's a considerable lag between increased industry activity and increased revenue to the Crown.

In a Capital Market's letter of January 2, Merrill Lynch says: "in the absence of a meaningful upturn in the world economy, raw material prices are not likely to rise before the end of 1982." In Royal Trust's medium-term projections entitled "Through a Glass Darkly, ". the list of industries identified as most likely to be hardest hit in the period 1981 to 1986 is headed by the housing industries and those industries dependent upon new housing starts. The Business International Corporation's medium-term forecast for the U.S. leads with the proposition that the 1982-86 economic perspective is becoming less and less favourable. While some growth can be expected in 1982-84, it is quite possible that the whole five years will see no expansion at all.

In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is manifest that we need something more constructive than a decision to use special purpose funds to make up for cuts in regular government spending, a tax increase to chartered banks netting $15 million and a doubling of rural land taxes. We need a rather more thought-out approach to the problem of mortgage rates and the consequent devastation of our lumber industry than is represented by a $15 million tax on banks.

There are about $15 billion worth of residential mortgages in British Columbia. They are currently being turned over at about 18 1/4 percent. Recently they had been as high as 22 percent. That is ranging from 6 to 10 percent above the Canadian inflation rate. If one-tenth of them had been turned over at these ruinous rates, the holders of these mortgages, whether institutions or individual lenders, would be realizing about 5 percent more than the inflation rate — 5 percent more than ever before on $1.5 billion, or $50 million more per year on residential mortgages alone. And that is only if one-tenth of them were turned over at those rates.

The provincial government will now be realizing 20 percent or so of this windfall, taking mortgage, farm and small business loans alone, and will provide no comfort for those unable to meet their mortgage payments or able to make them only by painful sacrifices in other essential budget areas. Much more to the point would have been the kind of moratorium like that instituted by the Saskatchewan government on foreclosures. Somehow the governments of both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have found money for mortgage interest relief. In addition, it is beyond all dispute a matter of the utmost urgency for all British Columbians that a means be found to provide some stability, at affordable rates, in residential mortgages. The Royal Trust documents cited above predicted increasing political pressure for that stability. Precious little comes from this government, though B.C.'s gain from any such measure would be immense.

We do notice that the budget contains provision for the issuance of bonds which are to be exempt from income tax if the federal government agrees. We also note that the past two budgets of this government contained programs for the assistance of small business with the same proviso: "If the federal government agrees." Nothing came of either of the two previous announcements.

Let me refresh your memory, Mr. Speaker, by quoting from the throne speech of 1979. "My government will propose measures to encourage those individual citizens of British Columbia to invest in British Columbia companies." The budget speech of 1980 had a similar reference. The budget speech of 1981 had a similar reference.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The member would like to hear more about this, so going back to the one for 1980: "To encourage the continued growth of small business in British Columbia and to create employment opportunities, the Ministry of Finance...Small Business Venture Capital Corporation Act, will create a new type of investment company." And in the throne speech for 1981: "The raising of venture capital for resource and development projects, the new Securities Act will incorporate innovative measures to protect the investor, particularly the small average investor." Three in a row promising the same kind of relief promised yesterday in the budget.

There are substantial measures that could be taken. We have proposed the issuance, through B.C. Savings and Trust, of $1 billion in five-year term mortgages in roughly the 12 to 13 percent range. This infusion of new mortgage funds should provide for the construction of some 2,700 dwelling units. If half were committed to single-family dwellings and half to the multiple-unit variety, this would provide badly needed housing jobs. Moreover, appropriate safeguards developed at the start of the program would help start up plywood and planing mills through the purchase of B.C. building materials. The prime justification remains, however, the prospect of new, affordable housing for British Columbia families for the first time in many, many years.

Again, B.C. Savings and Trust is not designed as a privilege for the lucky few to be at the right place and to make connections at the right time. It is an ongoing venture: cooperative partnership between government, the credit unions and the people to provide realistic financing for housing needs. The cost is the difference between the best international bond rate available to the B.C. government and the wholesale rate at which these funds must be loaned to the credit unions to yield 12 to 13 percent retail mortgage rates. The amount of this spread is, in the range of 6 percent. This would yield an effective cost to the Savings and Trust Corporation of $12 million to support $200 million worth of mortgage lending in the first years.

Breast-beating about B.C. bond rating, which is standard fare in Socred budgets, is not enough. The reason that we

[ Page 6889 ]

have historically enjoyed very high rating throughout all administrations is that we are blessed with magnificent natural resources, chiefly forests, which are the real capital structure for our society. This government's understanding of that fundamental fact is measured by their intention to cut the government's estimates by 24.2 percent and totally wipe out the forest and range resource fund. That five-year fund that was going to be set up to do so much in the forests, on top of the regular expenditures in the ministry, is now being totally wiped out.

The government will no doubt respond with extravagant promises about job creation in the forests assisted by federal funds, but the harsh reality is that good forestry programs take years of planning. Seed is carefully chosen two years in advance of planting, and sites carefully inventoried to ensure that the most productive areas get priority and the appropriate seeds. It is not an enterprise that lends itself readily to countercyclical ad hockery. It is a question of leadership, and the need is upon us. Giving hope to our citizens now is really the same thing as offering a future. We must prevent economic ruin for our unemployed and our small businesses, because only then will we be able to take full advantage of improved world markets when they arise.

Not long ago the president of the Vancouver Board of Trade made the following statement in a Vancouver newspaper: "One of the mistakes we make as a government is a tendency to act like the good times will be here forever." I cannot be certain exactly what Mr. Pepper had in mind when he uttered those words, but I would almost bet that he was thinking of the current Social Credit government. I could scarcely think of a phrase which better sums up the financial failing of this government than to say: "They acted like the good times would be here forever."

These words might serve as a political obituary at some point for the government members opposite. If the members opposite disagree, then perhaps one or more will venture into the debate and answer this question: why did the Finance minister of this government reduce the total cash reserves of this province by $313 million in the fiscal year 1980-81? For those with short memories, Mr. Speaker, 1980-81 was a very good year in British Columbia. It was one of the sunshine years. It was not a rainy-day period like today. Yet examination of page 22 of Public Accounts shows that cash reserves dropped by $313 million in that year. Cash reserves were reduced by a further $356 million in the fiscal year just ended. For that I refer you to page 22 of the budget. It is proposed that they be reduced by a further S279 million in the year just starting. That's total reduction of $948 million in cash reserves in three years — almost one billion dollars reduction in cash reserves in a period of three years. And they, Mr. Speaker, had the nerve to accuse us of being big spenders. This means in effect that there will be no cash reserves available in future years.

I note in the background papers tabled yesterday that the Minister of Finance makes bold to predict a recovery in the next fiscal year. This I find nothing less then astonishing in light of all the other information available. It seems designed only to minimize the risk associated with the fiscal arrangement proposed by this Finance minister. These risks are grave, indeed, to British Columbia — unacceptably so in my judgment.

I wish to deal with a couple of the major myths perpetrated by the Finance minister's presentation yesterday. There are many elements to take issue with in the details of this budget, and my colleagues will do so in the months ahead in this chamber — or in the weeks ahead on the campaign trail, as the Premier chooses.

The first major myth I wish to deal with is the myth that the budget is balanced. This dishonest assertion is made in several of the documents distributed to the public and the news media yesterday. I need hardly deal with the related assertion that there are no tax increases in the budget. I've gone through that already. Concerning the myth that the budget is balanced, a curious fact arises. While the budget highlights released to the media make the statement that the operating budget is balanced by revenues, similar words do not appear in the budget address itself. It is almost as if someone decided a different message should be conveyed outside the chamber than the one delivered inside. In the process a curious new language. B.C.'s own newspeak, has begun to emerge. Where the Minister of Finance might have been expected to repeatedly underline his balanced budget, new expressions have been found to express the new under standing the government would like those of us inside the chamber to have. Thus was born the phrase, "expenditure injection." MLAs should forget all they've ever heard from the government about the virtues of matching revenue with expenditure, or of not spending more than one earns. This is a whole new rhetoric. It was launched in the following statement: "The budget I am tabling here today injects $358 million more into the economy than we are withdrawing in revenues.

Previously, in balanced-budget language, this statement would have sounded quite different. It would have read as follows: "The budget I am tabling here today will result in a deficit of $358 million because expenditures exceed revenues by $358 million." It doesn't sound quite as politically palatable, though, does it? The Socreds can't be seen to be eating their own words. So now, instead of a balanced budget, we will have a restraint budget with expenditure injections. The centerpiece of this restrained budget, according to Mr. Curtis, is the economic stabilization program allegedly announced by the Premier in February.

The object of the game is no longer to balance revenue against expenditure. It is to restrain government spending within a politically chosen ceiling. The ceiling this time is 12 percent. It may be higher or it may be lower, depending upon what suits the government's political needs of the time. Or then again it may be replaced by something else entirely different.

Another interesting phenomenon of the newspeak centres on the amazing juggling of accounts they have devised in order to ensure the restrained budget will be achieved while hiding the actual restraint. Thus a portion of regular ministry spending can be simply funded from a new source, the special funds. By this particular bit of magic — that is, expenditure injection — major reductions have been accomplished in the spending estimates.

But I must stop myself from lecturing Social Credit in juggling the books. They are masters. They read the Clarkson, Gordon report, commissioned, it would seem now, for precisely this purpose. I remember the famous words of the Clarkson, Gordon report of 1976. One quotation on page 6: "There is no single number hidden away in the mountain of figures which will measure how well or how ill the province has performed financially in a given year." What more licence do they need? Want to make up a deficit for a prior year from a previous administration? No problem. Since there is

[ Page 6890 ]

no single number, go out and create one or more. Got a revenue shortfall? Call for some of that good old expenditure injection.

I haven't even mentioned debt of prior years. The credibility of this government and the Finance minister has been destroyed, not by the sordid accounting practices of this budget but by the simple economic facts which emerge after six years under the administration opposite. In complete contrast to their preferred, finely crafted image as a government somehow committed to the principle of balanced budgeting, it is evident that this government by itself has engineered a staggering and unprecedented growth in the provincial debt since it came into office. It is understandable that this so-called free-enterprise government would want to project the image of fiscal responsibility, but in the face of facts, this image of responsible economic management is as phony as their belief in an economy free from the involvement of provincial government.

This is not a pay-as-you-go government. It is a government of wheelers and dealers, but mostly of debt. An examination of public accounts shows that under the responsible economic guidance of the Premier and the Minister of Finance, the public debt has more than doubled since the election of this government in 1975. If we look closely at the figures we note that on March 31, 1976, the total of direct and guaranteed funded debt was just over $4.6 billion. In the fiscal year 1978 this jumped to $6.8 billion. Under the further enlightened, responsible economic leadership of this government, the province continued to slide deeper and deeper into debt, amounting to $7.5 billion by the end of 1979. In 1980 the province staggered under a debt load of $8.3 billion, and by the fiscal year ended March 31, 1981, the total debt amounted to $8.8 billion. Given the strategy and practices of this government, we can now look forward to a provincial debt of $10.4 billion by the end of this fiscal year, jumping to $12.2 billion in the following year.

However, to reassure one of the members opposite who interjected, Mr. Speaker, all is not doom and gloom. This government's term in office is coming to an end.

According to this government's own submission to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, after four more years of Social Credit free spending the level of public debt in 1986 will be $17.5 billion. That is the equivalent of $6,500 for every man, woman and child in British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, we must give credit where credit is due. It is true that credit and debt have a useful role in contemporary economic management. Where this government has truly excelled, however, where it truly deserves recognition, is in its creative approach to economic management. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this government has created true creativity in developing new and better ways of getting deeper and deeper into debt and then devising accounting techniques to disguise the fact, to pretend that despite its free spending ways it is living within its means. It is in this sense that the current Premier and Minister of Finance are the true inheritors of this fine Social Credit tradition. We all know how the late W.A.C. Bennett eliminated his government debt burden. He burned the last bonds on a raft on Okanagan Lake.

HON. MR. FRASER: Then you guys came along and created more.

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to that.

It was phony then and it's phony now. B.C. continues to stagger under a Socred burden of debt: "The Bonds Which Wouldn't Burn." Instead of floating our debt out to burn in the middle of the lake, this government has moved it out of sight.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation. Does the minister want to say something about the B.C. Ferry Corporation debt? The B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corporation are new examples of this device of shifting it around. All these new Crown corporations created by this government are being used to bury real provincial debt. We need examine only a few of these to appreciate the mastery of this government's creative accounting and the lengths to which it will go to hide the existence of public debt.

Before the B.C. Buildings Corporation took over from the Ministry of Public Works, this ministry operated on the principle of pay-as-you-go: constructing buildings out of public general revenue. The accounts of BCBC show clearly that its level of debt in the form of accounts and notes payable, as well as long-term debt.... It had accumulated over $376 million in new debt by March 31, 1980 — two years ago — and the figure is rising.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation represents one of the more interesting techniques of disguising public debt. Since 1976 it has sold its new ferries to eastern financiers and then leased them back. This lease-back arrangement does not look like debt on the books, but debt it is. The cumulative amount to 1979-80 was over $56 million; this is also rising.

I could go on at some length with such examples, Mr. Speaker. We might want to consider the B.C. Systems Corporation, another new Socred Crown corporation. Since 1977-78 it has accumulated a long-term debt of almost $7 million; or, for example, the Health Facilities Association of B.C., which between 1976 and 1980 accumulated $26.5 million in long-term debt.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) invited me to talk about the debt that we created. It's in the budget; it's still here. I'll quote: "In addition, Mr. Speaker, I am proposing that the $26.1 million annual instalment required to retire the debt incurred by the previous government in 1975-76 be refinanced." Well, it was the previous government, in the sense that it was the government elected in December 1975, that did it, but certainly not the immediately preceding government.

Let's just refresh our minds by quoting briefly from the Clarkson, Gordon report....

HON. MR. FRASER: You don't believe it.

MR. STUPICH: He says I don't believe in it. I believe in the Clarkson, Gordon report. I'm the one that does believe in it; it's the government that chose not to believe in it after they got it. "Grant to ICBC — $175 million." Bear in mind that the election was December 11; the NDP went out on December 22, 1975. The Clarkson, Gordon report reads: "A grant estimated at $175 million will be made to ICBC to cover its anticipated deficit as at February 28, 1976. We have been advised that this grant will be made prior to March 31, 1976, and it is included, therefore, in the current year's expenditures." That expenditure was made not on December 11, not between December 11 and December 22, but on March 31, 1976 — three and a half months after we left office. At the time I remember the minister of science and technology saying that ICBC needed the money to pay wages. At that

[ Page 6891 ]

time ICBC received this $175 million it had $400 million sitting in the bank. The government immediately borrowed money back from ICBC because it didn't need the cash.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't really believe that.

MR. STUPICH: I believe the Clarkson, Gordon report, and that's what I'm quoting from.

Going on — the grant to transit bureau. This grant is to finance capital commitments which are payable by March 31, 1976 — not in 1975, 1974, or 1973, or 1972, but by March 31, 1976. Grant to B.C. Hydro — $32.6 million. "We have been advised that these amounts will by paid by March 31, 1976; therefore we have included them in expenditures." Mr. Speaker, they create the debt on March 31, 1976, they know it —- the budget to that degree is a deception. I have said before it is a dishonest budget, and they are continuing to repeat that particular bit of dishonesty. But the figures are there. The Clarkson, Gordon report is there and will be used by us when an opportunity presents itself to report it to more and more people, who I think are starting to ask their own questions about the financial credibility of this particular administration.

The second myth with which I would like to deal is that this budget provides for the creation of jobs. In the budget highlights it is stated that an additional injection of $358 million in special purpose funds will create 9,000 new jobs. This claim is so transparently false that one can only assume the minister thought that no one would glance beyond the press packaging of this disastrous budget. Some $83.7 million of this so-called injection will come from the Forest and Range Resource Fund. When this was established in 1980 it was part of an express government commitment to secure the long-term future of this most important industry. The fund was unambiguously intended to provide money above and beyond those contained in the regular estimates of the Ministry of Forests. It was intended to represent a major new commitment to silviculture and intensive forest management, a commitment supported in good faith by members on this side of the House. I thought we had all learned some time ago that we cannot continue mining our forests in the hope that they will always return wealth to us in the form of jobs, profits and taxes. I thought we had learned that we must reinvest in our most important resource, if jobs are to be maintained, let alone increased.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the members don't seem to want to hear about the lack of job-creating opportunities in this budget. They are a bit embarrassed about that, and they don't want to hear about it.

I recall the forest and range resource analysis of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) two years ago, in which he told us that every timber supply area but one in B.C. faces timber shortages within the next decade. Yet what do we find when we examine the estimates of the Ministry of Forests? The Forest and Range Resource Fund has been gutted to make up for what amounts to clearcutting in the regular ministry budget. Indeed, even after we take account of the $83.7 million so called injection into the regular ministry budget, we find that there has been an increase of only $13.3 million in expenditure on forest management: an increase of only 6.7 percent in terms of dollars, and a decrease of 6 percent in terms of real dollars. Even after putting in that $83.7 million dollars. It is a decrease in terms of real dollars for the forest resource. The $83.7 million does not create a single solitary new job. It's even worse than that, because the Forest and Range Resource Fund will not be spent on the programs for which it was intended. The budget has actually wiped out some 3,000 jobs that would have been created by the proper use of that fund.

This appalling neglect of our renewable resource heritage will cost British Columbians dearly in the future. It will mean that we continue to reforest less than half of the forest lands we logged. Mill workers who are now laid off may never return to work, because the resource on which they depend has been sacrificed to political expediency. And they have the gall to call this clear cut in forestry spending a job-creation program. In reality, it is job destruction, pure and simple.

Had the minister been serious about job creation, and had the Premier and the cabinet members listened to the submissions of the forest industry, the professional foresters and forest unions, whom I'm in sure speak to him as well as to us, he could have created thousands of new jobs in silviculture and made a major contribution to the long-term economic future at this same time. I deeply regret the government has missed a historic opportunity to begin the task of intensively managing our forests when that task is made easier by the availability of skilled forest industry workers, so many of whom are currently unemployed. A further $152.8 million of the so-called job-creation injection from special funds is used for the same purpose: to disguise and confuse cuts in regular government spending. These funds are ostensibly to provide school tax relief and to keep down health-care fee increases. Is it not cynicism in the extreme to earmark special funds to — so we are told — keep down health premiums which have been doubled and trebled by this administration, and then maintain that this is a job-creation program? Certainly these funds will not outweigh the cuts which will cause chaos in our health and education systems. They will not give us quality health care: they most certainly will not create new jobs for the unemployed.

I turn to the balance of the minister's initiative: $132.9 million slated for job-creation measures throughout the province. Here we find yet again the same shell game of thinly disguised transfers from special funds to regular Ministry spending. The $34.5 million allocated for apprenticeship training in the misnamed employment development account does not even balance the $36 million cut in the budget of the Ministry of Labour. Let me underline this, Mr. Speaker. The vote for manpower in the budget of the Ministry of Labour, cut by $36 million. provides for the planning and manage merit of apprenticeship and industrial training programs: the $34 million planned expenditure from the employment development account is for exactly the same thing, but with fewer funds. Is this a job-creation program? Come now, Mr. Minister.

I have spoken enough about forestry to make it clear that the $10 million expenditure on silviculture pales in comparison to the cuts in overall government investment in our forests. Close analysis shows that almost all the so-called initiatives in the employment development account are simply old problems masquerading under new names.

To be completely fair, the allocation to occupational training through post-secondary colleges and provincial in-

[ Page 6892 ]

stitutes is some $20 million larger than the cuts in regular spending on our colleges and institutes. It would be nice to believe that there is a new commitment to this area, because occupational training should be a first priority for any government which was concerned to secure long-term secure employment for our citizens.

This leaves us with only one single unambiguous new allocation for jobs: the $25 million which is to be married to UIC funds. On this I have one important thing to say. The NDP does not oppose this kind of program as a very temporary kind of expedient in exceptional circumstances. But let's not kid ourselves, Mr. Speaker: these expenditures do not create new jobs, they simply give the unemployed temporary work, and then only for subsistence wages. Neither the "work for UIC" program nor any of the so-called job creation measures offers any real hope for the 52,000 who became newly unemployed since the last working day of the 1981 session in July 1981. The NDP offered that hope in our "Let's Get to Work" program. We outlined a major job creation program which did far more than provide temporary relief. It is a program to put people to work in ways which will significantly increase the long-term economic potential of the province. Since the budget proposals yesterday are so devoid of any good ideas, I am including a short summary of 25 specific proposals contained in the "Let's Get to Work" program presented by our leader, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), on Thursday, March 25.

Forestry:

1. Government and private silviculture programs planned for 1982 to be carried out in full. New incentives as needed to prevent possible cancellations due to economic turndown.
2. An additional major new silvicultural program to begin this year, providing 5,000 jobs over the year at an investment cost of $62,000 and employing skilled forest workers on high-quality forest lands selected by the Forest Service and the industry.
3. Following this year's start, a new five-year reforestation program which would double present plans for restocking of backlogged, unforested lands, directly creating 2,000 new jobs and securing the future of at least 3,500 threatened forestry jobs and eventually increasing government revenues — net cost funded through stumpage fees allocated to the Forest and Range Resource Fund.
4. Significant increase in government funding of the cooperative marketing development agreement, matched by an equal commitment by industry.
5. Substantial new incentives and assistance to innovative companies which develop forest products with a high value-added factor.

Housing:

1. Injection of $200 million per year in five-year renewable mortgages at 12 to 13 percent — net cost to the treasury this year of $12 million, enabling construction of 2,700 new housing units.
2. Additional infusion of $10 million in capital funds for senior citizens housing projects to reduce the two-year waiting list.
3. Low-interest loans of up to $10,000 per unit for construction and conversion of 5,000 additional cooperative housing units.
4. A home-insulation program for senior citizens and low-income families to retrofit 15,000 older homes before next winter. This would supplement the federal CHIP program and provide work for 1,000 more British Columbians.

Small business:

1. Revive and expand this sector, where a majority of new jobs can be developed, by enactment of a small business protection act; oblige banks to obtain court permission before any small business is put into receivership; implement rescue plans with a court-appointed consultant where feasible; and establish regional storefront offices to assist small business.
2. Start a three-year phaseout of corporation capital tax and provide new tax incentives for manufacturing, processing and energy-conservation initiatives.
3. Establish a British Columbia trading corporation to aggressively market B.C.'s small business products across Canada and abroad.

Vocational training and student employment:

1. Establish an independent British Columbia training commission to monitor and develop apprenticeship programs, forecast needs and administer funding from provincial industries and federal government.
2. Inaugurate this year — Mr. Speaker, we had promises in last year's budget, we had promises in the year before's budget — not more promises but action, a training program for 3,300 new apprentices in critical areas.
3. Revive course-related summer work programs for 10,000 students.

Tourism and community development:

1. Establish a tourism development fund to provide low interest, forgivable and joint-venture financing of employment opportunities.

Priorities set by federal-provincial TIDSA studies:

1. Projects selected through regional boards of industry and community representatives to ensure non-partisan decision-making procedures.
2. Immediate construction and improvement program for publicly owned facilities such as campsites, small boat moorages, breakwaters, etc., to provide 1,000 jobs this year.
3. Commit funds and convene cooperative negotiations among government, community and tourist industry representatives to begin building an affordable trade and convention centre in Victoria, providing construction jobs and fair treatment for the capital region.

Food industry:

1. Launch efforts to increase provincial food production and therefore jobs by opening up new farmlands, Pacific programs to include replanting of vineyards to accommodate the switch from the red to the white wine taste, replacement assistance for orchard stocks, dyking in the Fraser valley and weed-control assistance.
2. Assistance to encourage establishment of cooperatives in small secondary processing plants for B.C. agricultural products.
3. Inaugurate strategies and incentives to increase the province's share of jobs and investment in marine food production by reducing the $100 million worth of fish and fish products imported into and through British Columbia. Substituting B.C.-caught and — processed products for these products would inject a new economic stimulus and capitalize on the 200-mile limit economic zone added to our shoreline.

Mining. Mr. Speaker, there was some reaction to my comment on mining. For the first time in the history of the province Cominco has announced a shutdown. That didn't happen under the NDP administration. It didn't happen in the depths of the depression of the thirties. It happened after this Social Credit administration had been in office six years.

[ Page 6893 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know about mining?

MR. STUPICH: What do we know about the mining industry? We know enough not to shut down Cominco.

Under mining:

1. Upgrade the benefits and terms of conditions obtained from the more than $1 billion of public investment in the northeast coal by seeking improved selling prices for coal exports. Contractual preference should be given to British Columbia and Canadian companies in order to prevent contract awards such as the $273 million which have already been awarded to foreign firms. Negotiate a requirement that 25 percent of the coal shipments be carried in B.C.-built, Canadian-staffed ships.
2. Develop a policy of linkage of resource development to a secondary manufacturing strategy by insisting on a full range of industrial spinoff benefits as a basic condition for new export deals.
3. Revive a joint study with NKK of Japan to develop a steel mill in British Columbia, using B.C. resources.
4. Institute negotiations with industry to achieve working arrangements for development of a new world-scale copper smelter in the Highland Valley near Kamloops.

This catalogue is certainly not complete. It offers much more in the way of hope for the people of British Columbia than the document presented in the House yesterday by the government. Our proposals do indicate the great range of action, some requiring funds and others only leadership, which can help our distressed province over the next few months — actions that can be taken within B.C. by British Columbians for British Columbians. There is enough in this package to ensure both an economic and a psychological turnaround.

Mr. Speaker, in our offices yesterday there were two different reactions to the budget documents. The first came from reviewing the budget highlights. In capsule summary the budget looks like magic. If only one believes in magic, one can believe the impression left by the budget highlights. The second reaction comes from a more detailed examination of the budget papers. This one can be summed up in a few words: they've got to be kidding.

Mr. Speaker, very few will believe that this combination of account juggling, newspeak and misrepresentation will contribute to the financial and economic well-being of the province in the coming 12 months. It is almost as if the public relations and marketing consultants who now have the ear of the government refuse to believe that there are people behind grim economic statistics. Perhaps — not having experienced painful income cuts, unemployment, bankruptcy and the loss of the family home — they do not know what it is like. Perhaps they never talked or listened to people who are in such a situation. After all, to a political marketing consultant the world must seem like an endless stream of high-budget ad campaigns, televised rallies and expense account business trips. Perhaps the politicians opposite know something of the human trauma: the suicides, the breakdowns, the divorces, the alcoholism and the illness which economic downturns cause. Still, at bottom, one gets the impression that the government really believes its political problems are simply public relations problems.

I have no idea when the Premier will summon the courage to call the next provincial election. May 10 of this year is the third anniversary of the last provincial election — three years is the normal interval between elections in B.C., or at least has been since 1952. If the members opposite believe nothing else. they can believe this: a new advertising....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I know you are listening and I know you will believe that a new advertising logo sprinkled around the province and displayed on television is no substitute for positive policies. Stage-managed events are satisfying for the participants but will pay no one's rent. During an all-night session in December, when this side felt that the Legislature should remain in session and get to work, the Leader of the Opposition made the following comment: "More than anything else, beyond specific programs, beyond promises, the people need hope. When they lose hope they lose the potential of gathering the forces in their own lives to take them through the crises they meet."

It is not a Toronto advertising agency's version of something called the "B.C. spirit" that the people want or need. Mr. Speaker. the people need hope, and that hope is not present in this budget.

This government came into power in a shower of political lies through attacks on the opposition that had no substance in fact in the election campaign of 1975. This government was re-elected in a similar political campaign in 1979 that is remembered more for dirty tricks than for anything else — dirty tricks which are still coming to light even to this day, some three years later. Mr. Speaker, this same government will be defeated in a similar shower of political lies when next they go to the people. They will try, but they will be defeated this time.

They have debased our system of accountability. It used to be that governments came to the Legislature and asked for tax increases. They now impose them regularly throughout the year. Medicare rates have been increased twice in a period of seven months without coming through the Legislature; gasoline rates raised quarterly; user rates increased regularly; hydro — $150 million a year.

I conclude by saying that there is no hope in this budget. It's a budget of deceit and despair at a time when what the people of British Columbia needed was a budget that would present hope. They've exhausted all the money in the funds — almost $1 billion in three years. There is nothing left. The one thing we know is that this will be the last budget presented by this particular administration, and in that there is hope for the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we recognize the next hon. member, although it wasn't formally communicated to the Chair, I presume that this was the designated speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I recognize the hour is getting late. but I just want to take a few minutes before I adjourn. You know, I rather smiled when I heard the comments a minute or so ago and the actions of the opposition, who are like monkeys on a string. You haven't been here all morning. The poor member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has had one

[ Page 6894 ]

or two people as backup, a weak leader thumping the desk occasionally, and at five minutes before adjournment you come in, somebody gives the signal and you all thump the desks. It is a marvelously well-organized crew.

I just want to take a minute before we adjourn because I want to leave with this assembly what happened yesterday. I happened to be home last night trying to digest what went on yesterday with that member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the actions he took. I happened to pick up — I am sure the members opposite will recognize this book — Power Without Glory, and I started to read it to familiarize myself once again with the disaster from 1972 to 1975. Do you know what the NDP platform was in 1972? It was called "A New Deal for the People." I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, their platform for 1982 is this: denying the rights of the people of this province to see and hear a budget speech made in this House — the denial of the people to see that. And it was all perpetrated by that member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who should apologize to the people of this province, and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I heard yesterday an attack on the Clerks of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard yesterday an attack on the clerks of this House and on the Speaker of this House by that member for Skeena, and he should be ashamed. Mr. Speaker, I heard an attack yesterday on the members of a union, the technicians in NABET. That member even attacks the labour union that has worked to put the equipment in this building. You're supposed to be the great union man and yet you have the audacity in this House, because you are free from any criticism once you're inside this House.... And all you do is play politics with anybody and everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to leave that thought with the assembly as we adjourn for lunch so that members opposite can think about what happened yesterday. My colleagues on this side of the House will also think, because we will bring back to this House and to the people of this province how that member for Skeena, in my opinion, abused his privileges.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.