[ Page 6895 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

B.C. Ferry Corporation. Mr. Lockstead –– 6895

Mr. Hanson

Licence fees for guides. Mr. Hall –– 6896

Licensing of fish plants. Mr. Lorimer –– 6896

Mr. Lea

Cost of free miner's certificate. Mr. D'Arcy –– 6896

Increased tax on coloured gasoline. Mr. D'Arcy –– 6897

Budget debate

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6897

Mr. Hall –– 6901

Mr. Segarty –– 6904

Mr. Lea –– 6908

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 6912

Ms. Sanford –– 6915

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6918

Tabling Documents

Knowledge Network of B.C. annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6918

Science Council of B.C. annual report.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 6918

Technical Committee annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6918

Ministry of Environment annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 6918

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to make an introduction and to officially welcome Major Amos, who led us in prayers today. I had the opportunity to attend with him the dedication and opening of the new Harbour Lights facilities in Victoria, in which the government has been a financial participant. But we're also going into the second century of service of the Salvation Army, and I think this House would like the major to know — and to carry back to his comrades — our very best wishes and our thanks for the tremendous work they do for the people of this country and our province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have the pleasure of introducing a number of constituents from my riding today from Powell River: Mr. Dave McKendrick, Mrs. Diane McKendrick and their two sons. From the beautiful community of Lund are Miss Etta Mack, Zoael Mack and Lesya Williams. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to give a warm welcome to two constituents of my colleague the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and myself. From Vancouver–Little Mountain we have visiting the House today Mrs. Elizabeth Schwartz and her son Paul.

MR. LEGGATT: I would like to welcome to the Legislature two friends from Port Coquitlam. Jim Black and his family — Sharon, Patrick and Karen — are here visiting. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, would you welcome my constituency secretary Gwen Ranger and her children, Nadine and Stewart.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a well-known businessman from the constituency of Kamloops, the president of Gavex corporation. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Gary Sorensen.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have four visitors from Fort St. John: Mayor Brian Palmer, Alderman Wayne Gretzinger, Alderman John Herron and city manager Roy Blackwood. I would ask the members to make them welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to recognize and welcome Marie Woodruff, who is a grade 11 student at Mount Douglas high school in my riding.

Oral Questions

B.C. FERRY CORPORATION

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In yesterday's budget the B.C. Ferry Corporation's highway equivalent subsidy was substantially cut. The estimates indicate that the corporation will be axed by more than $15.9 million. Can the minister confirm that there will be a reduction of sailings and curtailment of services by the B.C. Ferry Corporation this year, as well as substantial fare increases.

HON. MR. FRASER: In answer to the member's question. I just wasn’t sure what he said, but I think he is implying that we're going to reduce service and increase fares. I want to tell you that B.C. Ferries is the largest and finest ferry fleet in the world and that we are going to continue to keep it that way.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, as usual the minister did not answer the question. He is noted for not answering questions, but we will try again.

MR. SPEAKER: To the question, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Since 1976 the ferry rates between Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay have more than doubled from $5 per car and $2 per person, to $12.50 per vehicle and $3.50 per passenger. Can the minister tell this House to what extent the ferry rates will be increased as a result of the highway equivalent subsidy and the slashing of the $15.9 million from the corporations's budget? The minister should be able to answer that one, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question of future policy, or is this policy already in place?

HON. MR. FRASER: To answer the member, first of all, and his first preamble that the ferry rates have gone from $5 to $12.50. I think if you compare anything else you have to buy you'll find that's pretty modest over this period of time, in view of inflation, fuel costs and so on. The fares on B.C. Ferries are still one of the best bargains in British Columbia. Regarding future fare increases, they'll be decided when required.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House what the Ferry Corporation intends to do with 500 auxiliary employees who will not be hired over the busy summer period as a result of this budget? What are you going to do with those 500 people who won't be employed this year, Mr. Minister? Tell us.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of what the member is talking about.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I want to ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation, as he is not aware of what we're discussing on this side of the House, if he is still a member of the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Does he attend those meetings?

HON. MR. FRASER: I am a member of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, and I attend all their regular board meetings.

MR. HANSON: To the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Vancouver Island, like the rest of the province, is in a severe recession. At the same time your ministry has cut the amount of money going to the B.C. Ferry Corporation by 25 percent. This will do one of two things or both: reduce service — reduce sailings — or increase fares. This will be devastating to small business and tourism on Vancouver Island.

Will the minister advise this House if there is going to be any reduction in service or increase of fares in this coming season? It is outlined in the budget that there would be no

[ Page 6896 ]

reduction in service. Will he confirm to this House that there will be no reduction in sailings?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the question anticipate? If the question is whether a decision has been made, it can be allowed.

MR. HANSON: Has he decided to ensure that there will be no reduction?

HON. MR. FRASER: We're not going to run a lot of boats if they're empty, I'll tell you that. We have a quite substantial reduction going on in ferry traffic to Vancouver Island. Are you suggesting we should run them empty?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. We have a question here.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. If British Columbians can afford a vacation this summer, they will be vacationing within British Columbia. Will the minister confirm that the run between Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen is already reduced from five vessels to four vessels for this coming season?

HON. MR. FRASER: No, I can't confirm it. I have nothing to do with the daily operation of ferries. They put on ferries as traffic demands it and they give an excellent service.

MR. HANSON: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is a well-known fact that during the peak periods of the summer months the B.C. Ferry Corporation operates five vessels. One is a supplementary vessel and that vessel is being taken off. Will the minister confirm that fact?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'll have to get the information. I don't agree with your observation. I'll have to check with B.C. Ferries about that.

LICENCE FEES FOR GUIDES

MR. HALL: I have a question on behalf of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) to the Minister of Tourism. The licence fee for guide outfitters, assistant guides and angling guides was hiked 100 percent on April 1. In light of present economic conditions, how does the minister justify this imposition, which is well in excess of the inflation rate, on the B.C. tourist industry?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the member's question. Since being Minister of Tourism I have tried to help the House understand that tourism has been declared a basic resource in the province of British Columbia for many reasons, including the fact that if we are to have a tourism industry of the future or if we are to have resource enjoyment at the same time by our own citizens, then tourism must work within the confines of sound resource management. That is the policy of this ministry, and we stand in full cooperation and work very closely with proper resource management.

LICENSING OF FISH PLANTS

MR. LORIMER: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. The costs of licensing fish-storage plants and processing plants was increased from 100 percent to 300 percent on April 1 of this year. A new fee has been imposed on the fish-buying operations. In light of the fact that British Columbia imports some $100 million worth of fish products annually, how does the minister justify this hidden tax on the fish-processing industries of British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: A paper was presented a year and a half ago to the fish-processing industry in this province, at which time we announced that we would be consulting with the industry before there was any increase in fees and that there would be an increase in services provided by the Ministry of Environment to the fish-processing sector. The increase in fees was done in consultation and agreement with the fish-processing sector.

MR. LORIMER: I have a supplementary question. I note that in the increases to the fish cold-storage plants the large plants have had no increase, whereas the small plants have had an increase. Can you explain why there's a difference?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I will take that particular part of his question as notice and give him a specific answer because it's quite detailed, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Environment. Could he tell me whether this new licensing scheme — the difference in fees between the small and large processing plants — is the reason that B.C. Packers have announced in the last couple of days that they will be closing their small B.C. plant in Prince Rupert and moving everything, in a consolidated economy-of-scale move, into Vancouver, and that there's going to be a number of shore workers out of a job in Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The company had the courtesy of informing me of their plans and did not indicate that they were the result of the increase in fees. I would suspect that if you examine the total magnitude of their operation the fees would be of such minor consequence that they would not be such as to determine whether or not they would make that move.

MR. LEA: Then what did?

COST OF FREE MINER'S CERTIFICATE

MR. D'ARCY: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, who is wearing his Mines hat today. For ten years in this House we have all been hearing the Social Credit Party tell us all about the value of individual initiative to this province. Well, on April 1 of this year the cost of an individual free miner's certificate was increased by 400 percent. Can the minister explain to this Legislature and the people of B.C. why there was this massive tax increase imposed on individual initiative, particularly in the face of the plight facing the mining industry in British Columbia today?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That fee increase was one of a number of fee increases which were put in place so that this government could develop programs during a time of severe economic downturn to ensure that jobs are created around British Columbia and that the economy is improved to the extent that the mining industry and every other industry in this province can continue to flourish.

[ Page 6897 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Perhaps the minister can explain to us then how a fivefold disincentive to free mining in B.C. is going to create jobs in British Columbia.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it is on public record. I know the Mining Association of British Columbia made public their brief to the British Columbia cabinet not too long ago, in which they pointed out that there had been discussions with the government of British Columbia, particularly the economic development committee of cabinet, regarding some increases in fees which the mining industry would be pleased to see put in place, providing that we could guarantee that there would be some increase in the service that was offered to the mining industry. We have given that commitment, and it's been done in full consultation with the mining industry in British Columbia.

INCREASED TAX ON COLOURED GASOLINE

MR. D'ARCY: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Just before we leave this subject, though, perhaps the minister could table the names of those prospective free miners in B.C. he consulted before he made this decision.

In the past five months the tax on coloured gasoline used by farmers and fishermen in this province has increased by 26 percent, while we know that the rate of inflation in this province is substantially less than that. The question, Mr. Speaker, is: why was it deemed necessary to impose a hidden tax far beyond the rate of inflation, one which imposes directly on small business industries and private operators in this province, who are really suffering the effects of economic recession and high interest rates?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who's the question to?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is addressed to the Minister of Energy?

MR. D'ARCY: Yes.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I think it's been generally accepted in this House that the questions should be directed to the ministers who hold responsibility. I'd suggest that's a matter for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to the next order of business — may I have the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources as well — the members should be aware that the light-timing control system is not operative today. If hon. members who have the floor would like to watch the Speaker, we will do some hand signals to let you know how much time you actually have left. I hope that's satisfactory. Agreed?

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to start off the debate this afternoon. As MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, on behalf of my constituents and as a taxpayer, I'd like to compliment the Minister of Finance for bringing in a budget that recognizes the needs of this time in our history. He dealt with fiscal responsibility by bringing in a balanced budget. We've seen now the second step, you might say, after the Premier's announcement with regard to a restraint program. This budget shows leadership. And for the record, although we all do have the book, I would like to read from the conclusion of the Minister of Finance's remarks yesterday. He stated:

"This is a leadership budget — to lead us through the storm. This budget will attain the objectives I have set out to meet. First, it will provide economic stimulation in the short term while building the economy for the long term. Second, it will help to ensure that restraint is shared equitably among all British Columbians. Finally, it will protect and enhance the quality of public services in our province."

Mr. Speaker, I think that sums up the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance brought in yesterday very well.

The member for Nanaimo, the Finance critic (Mr. Stupich), appeared this morning to lose his enthusiasm. I noticed that for the first time in the several years that I've been in this House — the member for Nanaimo usually is quite succinct in his statements — he just didn't seem to have it this morning. He certainly didn't have the support of his caucus, because we only had two or three people backing him up all morning long until they called them in at noon. The member for Nanaimo attacked Herbert Hoover — I don't know what that has to do with British Columbia — and he attacked R.B. Bennett, the previous administration of this country. He quoted from the Nanaimo newspaper, and I think at one point in time he even admitted that it was his own article. I believe that was correct, yes. He was quoting his own column. But it was basically doom and gloom by the Finance critic for the NDP.

He tells that story of doom and gloom, but you notice he never mentioned the triple-A credit rating that this province has. He states that the businesses in this province are looking for leadership, but he didn't state that Mr. Hamilton of the Employers Council came out with positive statements about this budget this morning. They've tried, if you can recall, Mr. Speaker, to have an NDP committee on small business going around this province under the guise — to a certain extent — that it was a House committee. They attempted to mislead the public, but really what it was was a forum for their potential NDP candidates for the next election to appear before the committee made up of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the member for Nanaimo. I think they had two or three people show up at just about every meeting they held, but they were usually their NDP candidate prospects.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo also mentions the agricultural budget. He had some time in the Agriculture ministry, and he mentioned this. I want to tell him that what is in a government budget does not reflect the success or failure of the farm community in the province. There are benefits given to the farm community as they are to all other sectors of our economy in the budget that we have today. There is no sales tax increase, and that benefits our farm community. There are no corporate or personal income tax increases, and that benefits our farm community as well, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that in the main our farm community out there don't want any more government involvement. All they want is the opportunity to grow and to develop with their markets, and as Minister of Agriculture and Food I can tell you that that is the main thrust behind my ministry. Our objective is to assist in allowing them to grow and prosper with their markets. We have had some pretty good success. We have had increases in farm gate receipts; we have had increased production in milk, in poultry, in floraculture, in cattle numbers and in hog. It is a fairly good success story in the agriculture community of this province.

The Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo, hangs his hat on user fees. As a matter of fact, most of the opposition in

[ Page 6898 ]

question period have been talking about increases in fees. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a user fee is a fair way to obtain some payment for services rendered. Although they will attack that — I guess that probably is their strategy for the rest of this budget debate — what would they rather do? Would they rather generate revenues to operate our people services in this province by increasing sales tax? Is that their alternative, or do you look to user fees where the user who benefits from that service picks up part of the cost? I suggest that the user fee concept is a fair way and the person who is paying that "tax" is getting a service for the money he is expending.

Or would they see the alternative as deficit financing, as opposed to increasing taxes or as opposed to user fees? I'd suggest they would probably con the public of this province into thinking that all is well, in the meantime mortgaging the future of our children in paying for debt incurred by the government. They did it in the past, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that this government has a commitment that we will not deficit-finance, and we will pay as we go.

I think the member for Nanaimo talked about increasing the mining licence. Can you believe this? He has an awfully short memory, because it seemed to me that their Minister of Mines brought in something that was called a "super royalty," otherwise termed "Yukon Development Tax." In other words, all of the mining industry moved out of British Columbia and went to the Yukon because of the tax that was put on the mining companies in the province — a 105 percent tax, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Nanaimo brought out his 25 items. He said he was only going to talk on a few and he went and listed them all — I believe the New Development Program (NDP). I suggest it didn't say anything, but I would suggest also that the people of this province should judge them by their actions in the past. Remember the 1972 promises: a new deal for the people. Remember what they left in December of 1975: new debt for the people (NDP). They left a bankrupt insurance corporation and a near bankrupt province. Remember the election call in 1975? At what time of the year was it? The middle of the winter — December 11, 1975. I'll tell you why. They were afraid to bring in a budget and then go to the people, so they had to get the vote first so they could bring in that bad budget of '76. Mr. Speaker, this party as government doesn't just make promises or 25-point program proposals; this government acts. This government creates jobs and economic development. I don't have to tell you about northeast coal and what it's doing for this province in job creation. The whole northeast sector of this province has the opportunity to expand and to create jobs for our young people and to create economic benefits second to none.

Let me just read you a few comments about Expo '86 and its ability to create jobs. With capital construction projected in current dollars to 1986 at $140 million, it would create $970 million in incremental activity. The project will also create over 15,000 person-years of new employment and provide $187 million in direct tax revenue to senior levels of government. And the trade and convention centre and cruise ship facility, costing the government of Canada approximately $134 million, including its participation in Expo '86, will generate 1,000 on-site construction jobs and create 1,000 full-time and 1,000 part-time jobs when operating. That is forward thinking, Mr. Speaker, in job creation for our people.

For ALRT, the automated light rapid transit system, spending of $718 million between 1981 and 1986 will include 1,700 on-site construction jobs and will provide another 1,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector.

B.C. Place, with its $126 million stadium well under way, already has 450 people working on the site. As it moves into construction of the 12,000 affordable housing units, office space, commercial facilities and other amenities, B.C. Place expects to provide an average of 2,000 construction jobs a year for 20 years as the project is fully developed.

Those are not 25-point proposals, not comments without any background, not any analysis of how their points are going to be financed. This party as government is taking action and is providing the impetus to ensure that the economy of this province is second to none in Canada.

The member for Nanaimo, who is a chartered accountant, neglected to say that Mr. Cook from the Institute of Chartered Accountants this morning on CBC said this was a courageous budget. Another economist, Mr. McAlary from B.C. Central Credit Union, who has had some pretty good runs, I guess, at this government in the past, in his comments said it brought a sense of relief to taxpayers of this province. This government is not hitting British Columbians with more taxes. In his opinion, at this time more taxes would be counter-productive.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member for Nanaimo says no bad news is good news. Well, here is some good news: "A Good News Budget." That's a headline in the Province. We haven't had very good press from time to time but the people of this province, to whom you denied yesterday the right to hear and see the budget speech, are at least getting some of the message.

Not directly related to the budget, but I think something that should be commented on, is the Premier's restraint program that he announced in February, restraint in public spending. The opposition has been very quiet regarding the restraint program. They're just not sure which way to go. They don't know whether to come out for or against. But I can tell you that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia did come out and make a statement. They stated that they endorsed Premier Bennett's announcement of spending restraint guidelines for the public sector. "The provincial government has recognized the basic principle that spending cannot exceed income. Its resolve to live within the bounds of its sagging revenues is commendable. Its action, if successful, will mean better economic times when activity picks up again." That's from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, which that member over there — the member for Nanaimo, the opposition's Finance critic — is a member of. You would think he would stand up in this House and make some positive comment on what this government is doing to ensure the economy of British Columbia is sound and has the ability to expand. But we haven't heard from them. All we hear is doom and gloom.

This is the most important budget at this time of economic difficulty in Canada. This government and the Minister of Finance have shown the way for the rest of Canada.

I want to touch again on what I mentioned before lunch today. I want to apologize to the people of this province on behalf of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). Those two members contrived yesterday to deny the public of this province the opportunity to see and hear the budget speech. The

[ Page 6899 ]

member of Skeena and the first member for Vancouver East attacked the office of the Speaker, and even after hearing your explanation, Mr. Speaker, regarding why the TV system was set up the way it was, they denied the right of the people of this province to see coverage of the budget speech. They put forward petty, chippy arguments to deny the people that right.

It's almost as bad as the Leader of the Opposition's comment when the Premier made his speech on television regarding the restraint program. You may recall what the Leader of the Opposition did. He started talking about $15,000 worth of office furniture after the Premier made a speech which indicated where this province was going with regard to control of public spending. The only thing the Leader of the Opposition could come up with was some offhand comment about furniture purchases. It's pretty sad, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And he demanded equal time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He demanded equal time too. I recall that, Mr. Premier.

The Skeena and Vancouver East MLAs speak for all the people in their constituencies. They may not know this, because they probably don't visit their ridings too often, but in Skeena we have 43,799 people — that's as of the 1981 census; I hope the member for Skeena made a note of that, because he's probably still going on the 1971 census — and the member for Vancouver East has 87,776 people in his riding who were waiting patiently yesterday to see that budget speech so they could understand what was going on. You denied them that right. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those constituents are angry.

I want to give you a little insight as to just what might have happened. You will recall when the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I believe, happened to make an announcement of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. Smith's) program regarding school property taxes. He made the announcement the day before our Minister of Education made his statement.

In watching yesterday's exercise, I have to tell you that those two members, the one from Skeena and the one from Vancouver East, could possibly have acquired a copy of your notes, Mr. Minister of Finance. They had to work really hard, because they couldn't find anything wrong with your budget speech. They had to dream up some scheme to deny the people of the province the ability to hear that speech yesterday. I want to make sure that we consider that possibility, because it was a very good speech you made yesterday. We're going to have to make sure that the message you gave yesterday goes out to those 43,000 people in Skeena and the 87,000 people in Vancouver East so they have an opportunity to hear what you said yesterday. Yesterday's action in this House by those two members was petty and unbecoming of members of this House. If nothing else, they should apologize to the people of the province.

The humorous part of all this is that we went through the exercise yesterday of not being able to have television coverage in this House, and this morning the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) stood up and said: "Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce a bill intituled Televising of Debates in this House." Why don't they get their act together? One day they say they don't want it, and the next day the member over there introduces a bill to bring television coverage to the House. I'm just wondering whether or not we've got leadership problems over there, or if they don't caucus anything over there.

Can you imagine what the voters think out there? They see one headline saying: "NDP" — that's the no-disclosure party — "Stops TV Coverage of the Budget in the House." Then today, because the press always reports new bills that come before the House, they will see: "NDP" — that's the no-decision party — "Introduces a Bill for TV Coverage in the House." You can imagine the confusion to the voter out there in trying to figure out what the opposition is trying to do. But it also shows confusion in the House, on that side of the House. It shows very little if no leadership on that side. I'm sure the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) probably wishes that Bob Williams won the nomination just about now.

In a somewhat more serious vein, the balanced budget. The Minister of Finance brought in a balanced budget. Ministers of Finance on this side of the House have brought in balanced budgets since our election in December 1975. We made that commitment when we ran in '75; we made that commitment when we ran in '79. It is that this government will pay as it goes. This government will not mortgage our children's future. We have maintained that commitment and the Minister of Finance has indicated to us all.... We're certainly aware that we have difficult times at present, not just in British Columbia but also in the rest of Canada and the United States, and we have to work our way out of those difficult times. The attempt by the Minister of Finance yesterday in bringing in no tax increases — no increase in sales tax, no increase in provincial income taxes — does give our people a breather. In doing so, he has also made the commitment to control government spending.

We have looked at how we work our way out of the economic downturn. We've established a Cabinet Committee on Employment Development. On Housing there has been an allocation of $132 million plus a new bond issue, called B.C. housing and development bonds, which should raise up to $250 million. This fund of some $380 million will give us the opportunity to give assistance to our people who want to obtain a home. It will create jobs. It will stimulate our construction industry. But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this type of fund and this type of administration of that fund can give us the ability to identify those areas of opportunity and give us the ability to act, as opposed to not being able to respond quickly to an opportunity that presents itself. And I commend the Minister of Finance for providing those funds and giving us the ability to work our way out of the situation we have today.

We also give British Columbians — and this is a key point, I think — the opportunity to invest in their province. We give them an investment mechanism whereby they can put their money to work within British Columbia, and I think that's important. I'm pleased to be a member of that committee, and I look forward to having discussions and working toward identifying those areas of assistance in the coming months.

We also look to the future in this budget, because we're dealing with energy independence and energy self-sufficiency. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has brought forward his methane cars, his compressed natural gas and his propane and has promoted these in the last few years. Removing the provincial fuel tax on propane and compressed natural gas for motor

[ Page 6900 ]

vehicles is an incentive to switch from gasoline to this new energy. The $200 grant for conversion to compressed natural gas will be a further incentive to the motoring public. In the end we will see that energy independence in reduced cost to motorists, because we have a government that looks to opportunities that face us in the future as opposed to dwelling on the downside every time. Instead of being negative, this government has been positive. We are looking to new methods and new ways to ensure opportunities for this province.

In Agriculture and Food.... Let's think a minute of the opportunities for conversion to compressed natural gas and propane on the farm. I know my critic in Agriculture over there is nodding her head, and she probably agrees there are opportunities here for the farm community to cut their costs by converting to propane or compressed natural gas. Cost saving on the farm — I'm all for that and I think that's an excellent move.

In the budget — and I know the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) will be most enthused about this — is that expanded list of sales tax–exempt items, particularly, Mr. Member, the front-end loader affectionately known as the Bobcat. I think that's great. I'd just like to compliment the tenacious member for Central Fraser Valley — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) nods his head — who saw a problem, met with the farm community and met with me, and put forward the concept: look, here is something that government, because of its size, has overlooked, and there is a need out there to provide this relief. I'm pleased to say, Mr. Minister of Finance, you came through with flying colours.

I would just like to say one thing, if I may, as Minister of Agriculture and Food, looking to the future. I would like to see the opportunity for the farm community to have a sales tax–exempt card, identifying a bona fide farmer so that he could go and purchase farm equipment supplies without the sales tax. Mr. Minister of Finance, I hope I'm as tenacious and successful as the member for Central Fraser Valley. Maybe we can work towards that goal.

One further item should be mentioned: that is the rollback of MLAs' salaries to 8 percent. I want you to know — and I think the public should know — that this rollback originated with this government recognizing the need for restraint in all sectors. We get criticized sometimes as politicians for getting too well paid. We had legislation before us, as you know, that provided us with an automatic increase each year. We got our automatic increase, but we also sat down and said: "If we're going to provide leadership and if we're going to put a control on government or public-sector spending of 12 percent, let's show leadership." So the Minister of Finance has brought forward a bill which will reduce our increase of 11.9 percent to 8 percent. I compliment him for doing just that. I don't want the people of this province to feel that the NDP — that's the "no decrease please" party — had anything to do with this rollback. This is a bill that will come forward by government. That party over there will have to consider whether they will support it. I'd suggest they will.

Just remember — because you're known by history in many cases — that when that party came into power in 1972 there happened to be an increase in the amount of 100 percent in one fell swoop. A 100 percent increase in salaries was brought forward by that government at that time. I'm hoping that by showing that leadership other government bodies and the private sector will follow our lead in controlling their spending and their increases in this fight against inflation.

The opposition, in my opinion, is stymied, confused and not sure what their position with the public is at the present time. This government has shown leadership and action on a number of fronts. The megaproject, of northeast coal, which we're not sure if they're for or against or in between — and they aren't sure either.... I want to show what sort of economic activity spins off from the megaproject. You think of a huge project in the northeast, but it filters all through our province to small business and large business, depending on what the supplier and manufacturer have to offer.

In my city, Penticton, two companies have received contracts from northeast coal. Atco, which employs a number of people from Penticton in manufacturing industrial trailers, received a contract of some $9 million to provide trailers for the northeast coal construction area. That's jobs in Penticton. I'm very pleased to see that. We also have another company, which the Leader of the Opposition will get a kick out of, I guess. Kenyon Construction got a contract to build a bridge for $2.8 million.

Now the background of Kenyon Construction is that Mr. Sid Kenyon, the founder, is one if the staunchest supporters of the NDP or the former CCF. He's a really nice gentleman and a good businessman in my community. His company, run by his son Al Kenyon at the present time, is getting the contract to go up there and build a bridge, because they have the expertise for a highway bridge. They have expertise in this area, and they're going into the northeast to build the bridge and to assist in the economic development up there. Jobs, Mr. Speaker — jobs for the people of Penticton, companies in Penticton.

There's a list of a number of other small companies that get work: View Construction in Kamloops, Goodbrand Construction in Aldergrove, Jaemar Construction Co. in Surrey, Scarmar Construction Ltd. in Coquitlam. Prince George, Kitimat, Kelowna — all over the province there is economic activity because that megaproject is going ahead in the north. It's not just the coal companies or the Japanese buying the product. It's the economic activity that's created by that project: B.C. Place with recreation, housing and, most importantly, downtown redevelopment of Vancouver; Pier B-C with a tour ship facility and a convention centre. This is most important, as the showplace of the Pacific is Vancouver. The opportunity is there for tremendous economic activity in the coming years. Expo '86 is the showplace of the Pacific Rim for the world to see.

Although the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is leaving at this present time, my next comment was on ALRT, automated light rapid transit, a modern transportation system for a modern city. Mr. Minister, you are to be commended for your efforts in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, those are economic activity items that will show that this government is forward thinking and doesn't just look at taxation or moving dollars around but has a strategy and a plan which will result in a better lifestyle for the people of the province of British Columbia. The restraint program I mentioned regarding controlled government spending is not hardship but is just saying "let's live within our means," and that's important.

I could go on. I notice that you've given me the signal saying I only have a few minutes left, but I just want to say in all sincerity that I'm proud to be part of the team that is not afraid to address the issues and to act. It's very easy to be politically expedient and go into deficit financing in order to be the good guys and then blame the Canadian or interna-

[ Page 6901 ]

tional market because our economy is in a mess. It can be very easy to do that, Mr. Speaker, but I just say to you that this Minister of Finance and this budget has addressed the issues and said that we will live within our means. There are too many governments who have deficit financing and now find themselves having to put a heavier and heavier tax burden on their people or go further in the hole each year. I just want to again compliment the Minister of Finance for addressing the key issues in this budget: restraint, economic stimulation and maintaining services to our people. It's the best darned budget this House has seen in many a year, and it has my wholehearted support.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the member for Surrey, the member for Prince George South seeks the floor.

MR. STRACHAN: I wonder if I might have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of you and all members of the House, I'd like to introduce some guests from Prince George. Would you please welcome Dr. and Mrs. Vern Fraser.

MR. HALL: By coincidence, I've followed the Minister of Agriculture a couple of times since my re-election, and on both of those occasions I've listened to his speech with a great deal of interest. I find it interesting because he spends all his time talking about us. You know, we pay that gentleman in excess of $70,000. I would have thought we might have heard something today about agriculture. I thought we might have heard a word about one of the most important Crown corporations in the province — the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is in a hell of a mess. Instead, for two minutes, between 2:54 and 2:56, we heard two phrases about agriculture. One was about the energy propellant to be used for agricultural vehicles and the other one was a plea to remove sales tax from the agricultural sector. That's all we heard from a minister who is paid in excess of $70,000 to look after a portfolio.

Out of the 35 minutes that he used up in his budget contribution, he spent at least 20 of them talking about us. Mr. Speaker, if you want to know anything about us, ask us. I think we'll be able to tell you a better, more detailed and accurate account of what we stand for than that member over there.

I also want at this time, before I begin my basic remarks, to pay tribute to another member of the House, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who I think this morning, under a great deal of difficulty, on behalf of the opposition, put forward a detailed criticism of the budget on short notice. Working since he got the budget papers yesterday, he produced a first-class piece of work to help the public of B.C. understand the budget as it really is.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Whilst I am discussing that, how sad it is that the days when we used to have a budget and a weekend used to pass, in which the whole of the community — not only the business community, not only the labour community, not only the scholastic and academic community but the political community as well — could look at the budget papers and have some time to respond, to do some research and to come forward with a sensible and well-planned debate on that budget, are now gone with this government that plays fast and loose with the timing of the House. There seems to be no reason. The Minister of Finance, when he was downtown in December of last year, told the financial community roughly when the budget was going to be. There is no real reason why it couldn't have been Friday afternoon. The budget was printed Friday afternoon. You know that. But instead you people over there play this silly game of "first you see it, then you don't." If you want to play that game, that's fair enough, but it really doesn't get you any marks at all.

Yesterday we saw for the first time the new book of estimates in the new format. There were a number of points of order raised immediately about this new format, one which I consider to be most unsatisfactory and which I think most members of the House, as well as other members of the community who deal with this particular document, will find unsatisfactory.

I want to deal with the matter of the changed form of the estimates. The minister has attempted to leave the impression in the House that the opposition should and could have known all about the changes and that we were protesting insincerely yesterday afternoon. Mr. Speaker, what are the facts?

On August 11, in a letter addressed to me as strictly confidential, signed " H. A. Curtis...." He signed it "Chairman." I don't know what he's chairman of but it's signed "H. A. Curtis, Chairman, Ministry of Finance." In a letter addressed to me as strictly confidential, he deals in three pages with some suggestions about what various members of his staff are doing regarding the format of the estimates, the number of meetings he's had with people all over the country and with comptrollers, a new accounting policy, program management, reallocation of funds, accountability, and a whole variety of subjects. I did get in touch with the minister, contrary to what he said yesterday afternoon. I got in touch with the minister, told him I was interested in pursuing the matter, and asked if he would be good enough to send me the estimates that he referred to in his letter — namely, the ones from Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. He will remember that conversation, I am sure, if you care to ask him.

However, the conversation did produce another letter on August 28, this time addressed "personal and confidential" and again signed "Hugh A. Curtis. Chairman."

"Mr. Hall:

Enclosed please find excerpts from the estimates of expenditure for the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. As you are aware, the changes we are proposing in the format of our own estimates are based in part on current practices in these two jurisdictions. For several years Saskatchewan has employed a reduced number of votes concept, and according to our information this has not weakened the Legislature's control over ministry expenditures. The main difference between the structure of Saskatchewan's estimates and the structure we are proposing for British Columbia is that while Saskatchewan has separate votes for ordinary, capital, investment, loans and advances, we feel that these categories should be included in single votes and be distinguished by object code of expenditure."

[ Page 6902 ]

That's entirely different from that which has appeared on our desks in front of us.

Mr. Speaker, I'm telling you that anybody in this House receiving any letter from the Minister of Finance that says they're discussing a new format of expenditures, but they feel that categories should be included in single votes but be distinguished by object code of expenditure, would not be aware in the slightest what they were doing in terms of rearranging the format of the estimates. I consider what has happened to be a complete abandonment of that second paragraph in that letter on August 28.

"Should you wish further information or a briefing from ministry staff, please do not hesitate to contact me," it says. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you at the same time that these letters are dated August 11 and 28. This was after the session was prorogued. This was after we'd all been sent home, this is after we've all been told to go home and wait until the public interest required us to come back here and deal with the question of a committee. Either these were sent to me as the Chairman of the committee or I do not know why they were sent to me at all. My committee can't meet unless the House is sitting.

Mr. Speaker, it's another example of despair and deceit, and I'm not putting up with that kind of nonsense. We met once again in November to prorogue. There has been no opportunity to call the committee together again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why not?

MR. HALL: Because we met for an hour. It was your timetable, Mr. Premier. Since then there hasn't been a committee, and until you tell your leader to get cracking there won't be another committee because you won't have your select committee meeting to choose and staff the committees. Mr. Speaker, to receive a letter dated August 11 and 28, long after we prorogued — or, I should say, adjourned indefinitely, which is almost the same thing as far as this government is concerned — is, to say the least, to beg the question. Mr. Speaker, those are the facts. After the session adjourned indefinitely, letter number one came. I responded and asked for more information, and on August 28 letter number two came. Mr. Speaker, the promises, the intentions and the hints contained in those letters have not come to pass. Nowhere is the identification continued in these estimates; nowhere is it possible to compare last year with this year.

What is the history of estimates in this chamber? What is the history of estimates that this government has done? I was amazed when I came back here in 1979 and found out, for instance, that no longer in the minister's office are the number of personnel hired and working in the minister's office listed. In the session of 1979 I asked the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for a breakdown of everyone in the minister's votes. It had to be given to me as a written question on the order paper. That never used to happen; for 20 or 30 years the estimates contained a breakdown of the minister's office and staff. Now we don't even find standard codes of expenditure. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said this afternoon, for them to have abandoned the standard objects of expenditures throughout all the pages of estimates and then gratuitously put them in the last two pages of the book is like finding two pages of Sanskrit at the back of the book; they have no reference at all to that which went on before. They are really, I think, abandoning any pretence at all of providing information for the members in the House.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: How can there be accountability? Following the amalgamation of all the money in the minister's offices into one figure, with no breakdown as to which were clerical staff and which were appointments of other descriptions, we had these marvellous lines, "recruitment savings" and "efficiencies achieved," making nonsense of any real investigation of this so-called blue book. That's been the history of the estimates.

I understand what estimates are; estimates are guesstimates of what is going to happen. Nobody is going to be particularly held to task over the fact that the estimates are altered in terms of shortfall or overrun, as long as it is recorded and is understood, as long as the program is identified. When I say "held to task," I'm talking about legal task or accountancy task — they will be held to political task too, as I am going to tell you in a second.

Mr. Speaker, those are the kinds of things you have to start off with, and it seems a very poor start for a new financial accountability statute passed just a short while ago — a new day was supposed to have dawned. What have we seen during this time? We've seen these kinds of exercises in our budget books. We've seen, for instance, overruns. I just mentioned that. There is nothing particularly wrong with an overrun. What we want to know is why and what it was spent on — all those kinds of things. But this government on the other side seems to have a passionate desire to hide overruns and pretend they don't exist, when in actual fact this government on the other side has averaged in excess of $200 million a year in overruns. That has been the record of your government: 1976-77, $84 million; 1977-78, $215 million; 1978-79, $221 million; 1979-80, $283 million; 1980-81, $228 million, for a total of $1,031,000 in excess of $200 million per year of Socred overruns.

And now in 1981-82 we have a $134 million overrun. That includes $300,000 for ministers' offices alone. Because we don't have the kinds of comparative figures we should have, I can't split that figure out yet, as to whether it's wasteful travel, wasteful furniture, wasteful overtime or just waste. But I know it's $300,000 for ministers' offices in the 1981-82 overruns.

Already, in five days of this new fiscal year, April 1 to 5, before we got here — because you can't pass special warrants once we're here — you've pushed through $103 million. You knew we were coming. You sent me a telegram inviting me here. You knew I was coming, but before I got here you shoved $103 million through the cabinet. You could have put it on the table here. It makes you feel not wanted. It makes you feel as though you're in the way. I'll tell you, there is somebody in the way, but I've got a sneaking suspicion the public is going to get rid of them soon.

At the same time as the Minister of Finance and the Premier have been stating that there is no debt — it's pay-as you-go; we just heard the Minister of Agriculture talk about pay-as-you-go — they've lumbered the whole population of British Columbia with nearly $12 billion worth of guaranteed debt. By the time we sing "Auld Lang Syne" around the Christmas tree at this year's end, it will be about $12 billion worth of guaranteed debt. That's not a happy Christmas present, I would think, for the people who live in British Columbia in 1983. Since that Premier has been in charge he has seen the guaranteed debt of this province go up 77 percent. This year it's going to go up more.

[ Page 6903 ]

That Premier's been in charge these last 12 months, and we've seen the permanent public service go up this last year alone from 34,847 — first, by 143 people appointed by order- in-council and then by 536 additional positions you've filled in these last 12 months — to a total of 35,526. Never in the history of British Columbia have we spent so much money or had so much debt or had such a big public service to look after it all. And you say you are against big government. I don't know how you've got the cheek, the brass gall, to stand there on your election platform and say that you are going to get the government off the backs of people. The mind boggles. I still don't know what happened in '75. I'll give you credit for that. But I'll tell you that it isn't going to happen again. No, sir. There's a lot of us who've learned an awful lot since then, I'll tell you.

The overruns last year by special warrant — not just the famous special warrants that I can remember the Premier talking about when he was in opposition but the special warrants that went to the public service and to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).... There was a $30,000 overrun in the Minister of Agriculture's office. Those are the kinds of warrants we're talking about: coroner's office, B.C. Parole Board, minister's office in the Attorney-General ministry, minister's office in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, minister's office in Lands, Parks and Housing and minister's office in Municipal Affairs. If you had all the furniture they've bought since January 1976 and added all the furniture bills together, it's in excess of $500,000.

While all that's going on, Mr. Speaker, that direct debt is going up. The government came to power on a basis of getting the government off the backs of people, and they have increased it by 77 percent. In the year ahead it's going to go up again. Never in the history of Canada have we seen a country and a province so poorly served by our provincial and federal government,

The actions of our Premier and Prime Minister Trudeau have shown them to be, in my view, the twin villains of despair, as double digit inflation continues unchecked. Yet the governments act only in ways that attack workers and retired people who need and deserve some measure of security. Take-home pay that lasts to the end of the month and pensions that fully meet living expenses....

Mr. Speaker, the placement and the juggling of figures in the budget is of little interest to the constituents of Surrey and White Rock. I'm being asked what the government is doing. Why did the government let the months of last July, last September, last October and November, this January, this February and this March go by without doing something? Eight and a half months! They could have been addressing the growing problems of the eighties instead of this creative bookkeeping and flimflam political sideshows that we've been seeing down in the B.C. media centre and other productions masterminded by the TV experts that you've brought in from elsewhere.

Surrey-White Rock residents, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, live dead centre in the fastest-growing area of the province. Yet they're paradoxically disadvantaged by the many stupidities of the old political games that have been played not just by politicians but by the small "p" politicians in the health industry, in the transportation industry, in the education industry and in the development field. There's not enough attention from any of our big human services ministries. They're always behind, and always attempting to catch up. I want to just catch the attention of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) here. It's almost too late, but they're about to embark on a multi-million dollar community college program. It's almost too late. It should have been started five years ago.

Mr. Speaker, unemployment is still the number one issue in my riding. It's still the number one issue in the province. Unemployment is 25 percent in the forest industry. The jobless rate for young people is 20.7 percent — one in five. Our colleges, schools and universities should be turning out bright, confident young people who will take their place with their skills utilized, sharpened, honed by experience in a British Columbia and a Canada that's fulfilling the promise that we — and I include the Premier in this — as politicians have so easily and so lazily promised for twenty years.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure that we should have for those youngsters — and the Minister of Labour knows what I'm talking about — the secondary industry that should be the companion to our natural resource extraction, our logging and other prime industry, is being built using the value-added money that could and should be ours. It's being built in Malaysia. It's being built in Taiwan, in Korea and in Thailand. Mr. Speaker, we are fast becoming a resource-rich colony, storehouse for the aggressive and highly skilled nations that share the Pacific Rim with us.

I’m no gambler, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to wager that the arguments and tensions about skills and skill shortages that go on between the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) are a source of embarrassment to their colleagues and to the Premier. They've got to be.

I've talked to college instructors, college directors, board members and so on. We are just not doing what we should be doing. Recently I attended a briefing and budget session at Kwantlen College. We learned that the number one question that industry asks when contemplating locating in B.C., or in the lower mainland in particular, deals with the supply of skilled labour, not these other questions you often hear. That's the number one question that's asked, and we have been kidding ourselves that we think we can answer a simple yes to it. Mr. Speaker, when we have dealt off that question with the easy answers, we will continue to kid ourselves and we will continue to cheat our youngsters of their real future.

We are giving our products away. We don't negotiate, we don't market aggressively and we don't educate or fit our young people with the appropriate skills. That's why we are destined. as I see it — and this view is shared by people who do not share my political faith at all, people on the other side of the political spectrum — to be taken advantage of. That's why. Mr. Speaker, we will be to Japan and to the other industrial nations of the Pacific what Africa and India were to Great Britain and Europe 100 years ago. And that's a dreadfully sobering thought. If we don't do something about it very, very shortly, it will be too late to start to do something about it.

We can't say that we don't know. You've got the information; the Minister of Labour has the information; the Minister of Education has got the information. We can't say we don't know. We can't say you haven't been there to find out. The cabinet has travelled at taxpayers' expense further, faster, higher and more often that any other cabinet in history. So you travel further than Magellan, Marco Polo, Scott of the Antarctic and the Russian orbiting dog all put together. Let

[ Page 6904 ]

nobody ever call this lot cheap politicians — they're expensive politicians. They cost a fortune; $410,000 they cost us last year. I'm not talking about what they do when they go away; I've not got the figure to complain about that. Just getting there they spend $410,000 in travelling expenses in the last year, compared to $220,000 the year before. That's almost double. For the last year that's just ended six days ago I anticipate their travelling expenses will probably be in the $600,000 to $700,000 range. That's $30,000 to $35,000 a year for each one of the 20 of them to keep them moving around. Now $30,000 to $35,000 a year for a peripatetic cabinet minister is too much.

Mr. Speaker, recently the leader of our party offered, through a variety of proposals, an economic recovery program that would get British Columbia back to work, and would rearrange the spending priorities that are giving so much distress in the area of health care in my riding and in the area of other human services. He offered 26 points, among which was a plan for the tourist industry. That plan recognized tourism for what it is: a major generator of external revenue for the province.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, it was the New Democratic Party government between 1972 and 1975 which was the first government to put forward a statement of policy about tourism. The statement of policy was given to all members and was widely distributed. It can be found in the records in the annual report of 1974. Any member can see it here. It is a one-and-a-half-page document. The trouble with the opposite side is that they don't really want to know what our government did about tourism. They prefer to believe their own propaganda. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, ours was the first government that issued a definitive statement on tourist policy, which we were very proud to do at the time. The figures in this document, of course, need updating, but the policy is still good. Curiously enough, it is not too dissimilar to that which the current minister is actually adhering to.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Based on that policy, our convention decisions and our wisdom since those days, some ten or so days ago the Leader of the Opposition, in his economic recovery program, dealt with a tourist policy — the first ever, as I say:

"Tourism is a major generator of external revenue for British Columbia. It's an industry that requires planning, financial support and cooperation between the private and public sectors. To provide higher levels of employment and the creation of new travel enterprises, we propose the establishment of a tourist development fund which would achieve direct employment opportunities through planning, upgrading and construction of public and private tourist facilities. That fund would incorporate current provincial aid through TIDSA and several other programs. It would participate in low-interest loans, guarantees and venture capital to assist B.C. tourist operations. The fund would vigorously pursue additional federal assistance and provide new provincial money as detailed below."

It goes on for three pages, which I have here.

The highlights were to establish that fund, and to deal with the projects selected through regional boards of industry and community representatives to ensure non-partisan-decision-making procedures. Another highlight of the paper was to arrange for an immediate construction-improvement program for publicly owned facilities such as campsites, small boat moorages, breakwaters, etc. We estimated that would provide 1,000 jobs this year. We would commit funds and we would think that that would be a very sensible thing for this government to do. Convene cooperative negotiations to make sure that the various regions of the province make those cooperative and that each one of the areas has on record in its plans and in its projects a whole catalogue of development plans — from the East Kootenays, through Lillooet, the Kettle Valley Railway, Vancouver Island, Lakelse Hot Springs, Salmon Arm and so on. The list goes on, and each little local area has its share and its catalogue.

Those are some of the things that could have been going on. Some of these things we've been discussing this afternoon should have been going on since last fall. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that last November and December we had that short debate, ended on a rancorous note, when we were sent home after dancing at the ball and picking up a paycheque. I don't think that was working for the interest of the people. If there is any merit at all in that which was presented by the Minister of Finance yesterday, if there is any merit at all in any of the programs the Premier has announced in the last two weeks, why weren't they doing them in November? What was wrong? Why weren't we working then? We knew what the figures were. This isn't a new crisis we're in. This isn't a new discovery. We've known what was going on. The Minister of Finance has been telling us what's been going on. What I think makes this whole exercise so annoying to those people in the public and private sectors, in the business community, is to see laziness instead of dealing with the problem.

As the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said, government itself is big business. Government can't take a laissez-faire attitude; they can't sit back and wait and see. They've got to take a leadership role in any solutions that are going to help the growing lists of unemployed, the growing numbers of people who are distressed. Instead of all those wasted months that I've read out, if there is any merit in the government's position, we should have begun. Instead, we got this idle response yesterday.

In 1981, Mr. Speaker, when you sent me that telegram after four months of adjournment only to be followed seven days later by another adjournment, that was the time to have been working. Mr. Speaker, this attempt to mislead is reflected in the deliberate padding of resource revenue, this deceptive budget. Mr. Lanskail himself has said today that a 25 percent increase in revenues is too optimistic. Already the people are looking at that budget and realizing that it's an exercise in creative mathematics.

The budget of juggled figures will not do. Nor will committees of cabinet ministers or renamed stabilization funds. That's Ontario style, not B.C. style. That won't wash here. What's needed is for you, Mr. Premier, to take the people of B.C. into your confidence, to produce the kind of programs that my leader announced ten days ago. I think we can get B.C. going again, and I think we can put in some muscle and some effort and some leadership to lead this province back into the proper days that it should be enjoying.

MR. SEGARTY: I take my place today, Mr. Speaker, in support of the budget brought down yesterday by the hon. Minister of Finance. I do so with mixed feelings; not mixed feelings about the outstanding budget itself, delivered by the

[ Page 6905 ]

Minister, but feelings mixed with sorrow for the outrageous display of partisanship displayed here yesterday by the opposition. It robbed the people of this province of the opportunity to see and hear one of the most important pieces of public business that we will see this year. It is a right, Mr. Speaker, that has developed over the past decade in response to the people of British Columbia and their desire to become more involved in the democratic system.

This incredible ill-manned assault on our Speaker, our Clerks, who are servants of our House, and our professional public servants, is a bitter and an ill-conceived ploy of the pettiest political partisanship. It was in that respect a sad day for democracy in British Columbia, as those who have been seconded by your office, Mr. Speaker, were also the subject of abuse and innuendo. I know that the people of British Columbia will not forget who pulled the plug on democracy in British Columbia yesterday.

Earlier this year, the Premier of British Columbia made a special appearance on television to announce a comprehensive and far-seeing program of government restraint. It was a bold and imaginative step towards dealing with the economic problems that are causing so much hardship and distress here in British Columbia and across the Canadian nation.

In announcing his program, the Premier showed very clearly that the government of British Columbia is ready to shoulder its share of the heavy burden of these difficult times placed on each and every one of us.

As you know, senior salaries in the public sector have been frozen and guidelines of 10 percent have been placed on all other positions. A built-in flexibility recognizes special need factors such as guild trade shortages, productivity and historical relationships. Working people in British Columbia in the private industry and small business are already bearing the heavy burden of restraint that these difficult times have brought on us, brought on by massive federal government debts. Too many are without jobs and the livelihoods of many more hang in the balance. Government had to take strong action, Mr. Speaker, to protect the private sector from the rapid escalating costs of many important government services and programs.

Today one dollar in five produced in our province is spent in the provincial public sector. The province's Crown corporations, school boards, hospitals and others employ one in six of our people. The challenge therefore was to bring the ever-rising cost of government under control without imposing mass layoffs on public-sector employees. To keep as many people working as possible a ceiling on government spending and government pay increases had to be set. Those ceilings are as realistic as they are flexible. A 12 percent ceiling will be applied in a flexible manner, taking into account special needs.

This is not a band-aid nor is it a quick fix. It is a difficult compromise, but one that can provide the people of British Columbia with the quality of life that they expect and one that will safeguard our capacity to sustain that quality of life in the future.

The challenges are enormous and demanding, Mr. Speaker, and courageous action is needed to bring British Columbia back to a level of prosperity that we enjoyed less than a year ago. It will be a long uphill struggle, let us not make any mistake about that; it will be a struggle that will take the combined efforts of each and every one of us if we're to win through to the end. It is a conflict that we didn't start, waged against an enemy we didn't seek, thrust upon us by a variety of circumstances, but one that we cannot and must not lose. It is a battle from which there can be no retreat. The battles of life are never fought by choice, and we have no choice but to fight this battle to a successful conclusion.

Although we have never before been called upon, Mr. Speaker, to face such a merciless adversary, no province in Canada is more ready to enter the fray, no people more determined to win the fight. Their future and the safe, secure future of our children and those who come after us is at stake. When the fight is over and we have conquered inflation and high interest rates, the people of Canada will say to us that we were the first and that British Columbia showed the way. Peace, economic security and stability have always commanded a high price, and in the past Canadians have always been prepared to pay that price. We are ready to pay it now, for pay it we must, so that we don't have to have much higher prices in years to come. This battle is for our future; it is for the future of our province. It has to be fought and won, for the alternatives are unthinkable.

In every corner of British Columbia the government of British Columbia has joined hands with industry and working people to build a strong and prosperous economic base. It is a base on which we continue to build communities in which each and every one of us can fulfill our aspirations through our combined efforts.

In the northeast and southeast of British Columbia massive coal development projects are turning untapped resource potential into a new era of growth and tremendous opportunity for our province and our people. The northeast and southeast coalfields will provide permanent job opportunities for thousands of British Columbians to apply their energy and to grow with our province. The new townsites of Tumbler Ridge, Sparwood and Elkford, and the expanded townsite of Fernie, will actually be the home for thousands of British Columbians, providing schools for their children, services for their needs, facilities for their enjoyment and opportunities for their families to grow and work together.

By 1990, Mr. Speaker, we expect to be exporting from southeastern British Columbia alone 28 million tonnes of coal per year, creating thousands of job opportunities and providing an ever-rising standard of living for our strong and vibrant communities. In 1981 coal export contributed $1 billion to the British Columbian and Canadian economy. To provide facilities to handle the increased productivities from our industries, major expansions are underway. The government of British Columbia and the government of Canada have joined hands in developing port facilities on an enormous scale. In the northwest corner of British Columbia the $290 million Ridley Island development will handle millions of dollars of exports each year, linking the rich farmland of Canada's western provinces with the mineral, forest, petrochemical and resource wealth of our northern provinces and with the vital Pacific Rim markets. To handle the growing production pouring through from southeastern British Columbia, a $47 million Roberts Bank port facility is currently underway that will double our capacity to export coal in the next few years, and that's nearing completion. But unless our rail network can continue to deliver the products of our industries to our coastal ports, our efforts will be useless.

It is absolutely critical that our industries are not restricted by a perverse system of railway freight rates. Potash, coal and lumber can no longer continue to subsidize grain exports from our prairie provinces to the Soviet Union. While grain growers in our prairie provinces are paying 20 percent

[ Page 6906 ]

of the transportation of grain under the archaic Crowsnest Pass agreement, other users are paying $15.25 a tonne and are frustrated by the inadequate facilities.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that all of those members of the New Democratic Party who are elected from the province of British Columbia and serve in the House of Commons would stand up and support the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia in their initiative to rationalize the railroad system. Instead they have formed an alliance with the NDP governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and supported their ridiculous position. Working British Columbians should remember that in the next federal election. When that comes around they should fire those members of the New Democratic Party for not standing up in support of the job security of thousands of British Columbia workers in the resource and transportation industries. The losses to our railroad system resulting from the transportation of grain under the archaic Crowsnest agreement will be $2.4 billion over the next four years — $2.4 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to subsidize grain exports to the Soviet Union. And those ships, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, are not built in Canada, nor are they manned by Canadian crews. That money, Mr. Speaker, should be spent in providing jobs for Canadian workers by developing automated traffic-control systems, special rolling stocks and extensive double tracking of our railroad system. All users of our rail system must share equitably in the immediate task of expanding our western railroad capacity to meet the heavy demands of our growing western economic base. And I fully support, along with the government of British Columbia, the government of Canada's initiative to rationalize our western railroad system.

This is the only way that we can be certain of our ability to get our products to market and secure the thousands of jobs for British Columbians, particularly in the resource industry in southeastern British Columbia. We must provide the leadership and vision today. We cannot place tomorrow in the hands of those who would be content to stand still. We cannot turn our destiny over to those who would wait and see and advocate hesitancy as though it were the answer to everything. We cannot entrust our fate to the fearful and the weak, to the self-serving or to those members of the New Democratic Party whose only philosophy appears to be "to hell with them," or "we will bring this province to its knees," or those NDP members who would tell the employer community in British Columbia to go to hell or who would go around this province talking to small business people. They accused them in this Legislature last year of fiddling the books. The future belongs to those who are bold and imaginative and have the courage to take opportunity in both hands and shape this country as far as they can for the common good of all Canadians. The future belongs to those with the foresight to recognize the problems, the wisdom to see the solutions and the dedication and leadership drive necessary to implement them. We must plan ahead to maintain the growth of our province, particularly our great forest industry. While the slump in our foreign markets has brought our forest production to 45 percent capacity, we are now looking beyond the present and building up a resource for future British Columbians. A total of $1.4 billion will be spent over the next couple of years to ensure that British Columbia's future is secure for those who follow us.

We have an obligation to make certain that future British Columbians will benefit from what we do today. The security of our province can only be assured if we don't depend so heavily on those resource industries that are subject to forces outside our control. Our government has been working hard trying to diversify our economic base and they will continue to do so in the next few years. The government of British Columbia and the government of Canada have encouraged secondary industry under the travel industry subsidiary agreement. This has created thousands of jobs since 1978 and we have spent $38 million. In many cases these are jobs for our young, our inexperienced and those who have relatively few skills to rely upon.

The British Columbia Development Corporation is developing grassroots participation by individuals through regional economic development. In Delta a new jet engine overhaul plant will employ 400 people and on completion will employ 1,000 people. This plant has been established by Canadian Pacific Airlines in cooperation with the British Columbia Development Corporation. In Kitimat a new methanol plant has been established, and other petrochemical products are being actively considered. Our young people will share in the future economic growth of our province, Mr. Speaker.

The Ministry of Labour and Manpower are taking steps to develop and enrich apprenticeship training programs in British Columbia. In January 1980 there were 13,800 indentured apprentices in the province of British Columbia. This year that number has already risen to 19,000 participants. These are particularly in the trade skills of heavy-duty mechanics, millwrights, carpenters, electricians, plumbers and automobile mechanics. This growing opportunity continues to improve the lifestyle and raise the standard of living for thousands of young British Columbians.

Many indicators of our economic performance point with optimism to our province. British Columbians continue to be the best-housed people in all of Canada. In 1981, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia had only 11.3 percent of Canada'a total population, but 23.4 percent of all housing starts in the Canadian nation took place right here in British Columbia. Current plans for a profit-making B.C. Place will add an additional stock of 12,000 housing units in the lower mainland.

The time for growth and expansion is not far off and we are on the threshold of a great new future for our people. It is time now for direct action. This is not a time for hesitancy. There is no security in evasion, members of the opposition. This is not a time for irresponsibility, or for saying "To hell with them," or threatening to bring this province to its knees. That might get you guys a headline today, but it doesn't do a darn thing toward paying next week's family food bill. This is not a time, members of the opposition, for looking the other way. Problems don't simply disappear just because they're ignored. This is not a time for digging in your feet.

If the necessary steps are taken now, promptly and decisively, we can avoid sliding backwards into a bottomless pit of inflation and deficit financing. You don't get a triple-A credit rating — the highest credit rating available in North America — by turning off investments, encouraging huge debts and generally discouraging the provincial economy. It takes sound financial planning and the courage and leadership necessary to carry it out. This is a time for boldness and determination, boldness in the action we take in the next few months and the determination to do what we must together to achieve our goals. This is a time to squarely face that which lies ahead and to deal with the difficulties that confront all of us.

[ Page 6907 ]

Oh, yes, we have heard those members of the opposition call the restraint program a heartless program. We see those few political leaders in the teaching profession, who are out of the mainstream of teachers, use their membership in the New Democratic Party to stage protest rallies because they claim we're cutting back on education. In some instances school boards throughout the province have asked for 47 percent increases. They get a 12 percent increase and they call that a cutback. Do they not realize that all those programs — programs such as health care, such as education, human resources, those beautiful colleges we see in every region, those attractive schools we see in every community of this province, revenue-sharing to assist municipalities, infant development programs, the ferries that connect the Island to the mainland, our highway system — were not provided from the profits of government, but were provided by the hard work of British Columbians who are willing to take up the pick and shovel and do a hard day's work? Do they not realize that those working British Columbians in the private sector and in the small business community of our province are under the most brutal of mortgage restraints? In many cases they are without jobs at all, and others are considering rolling back their incomes in order to keep their employers solvent. In direct contrast, those teachers and public servants enjoy a high degree of job security unknown to anyone in the private sector. Do they not realize that governments have no money of their own, that they can only pay out what they take in in taxes and other revenue?

This is a time, Mr. Speaker, for putting aside our self-serving goals. It's a time for the realization that, whatever our personal and political beliefs, we must all work together to ensure the future prosperity of our province. People working together with courage and determination can accomplish their goals. Don't they realize that the enemy is inflation and high interest rates, and that strong leadership and sound fiscal management are the only answer to this very serious problem?

I predict, Mr. Speaker, that the rate of inflation will decline in British Columbia by 3 percent this year and by 2 percent the following year. This will strengthen the purchasing power of our wages and salaries, protect people on fixed incomes, increase the standard of living for British Columbians and protect British Columbia's stability and security. In these times of economic troubles throughout the world we must be very cautious and prudent, and not incur debts that will burden us for years to come. Such ill advice that would come from the leader of the opposition would hold us back when we should be striding forward.

We need only look at the sorry state of the federal government to see where mismanagement and carelessness can lead us down through the years. As a nation, Canada is almost $135 billion in debt, which is $4,900 for every man, woman and child in this country. Last year 22 percent of federal government spending went to service the national debt. That's $614 for every man, woman and child in our country, $15 billion each year just to serve the interest on that debt. This money should be spent providing jobs for Canadian workers, education for our children and security for our senior citizens. The annual deficit this year alone at the rate of $16.7 billion is the equivalent of over 500,000 jobs for Canadian workers. While other provincial governments have followed the philosophy of deficit financing set forth by the government of Canada, and that New Democratic party opposite when they were in government, our government continues to pay its way as it goes without asking future generations of British Columbians to foot the bills.

Rather than costing us everything, this position encourages investors to turn to British Columbia to help us build a strong and prosperous economic base. Since 1979 new investment and economic expansion has resulted in an increase of our employed labour force in the amount of 118,000 workers. British Columbia, with only 11.3 percent of Canada's population, created over 20 percent of the jobs in Canada last year.

British Columbia continues to be a province of opportunity for Canadians. But to maintain our fortunate position we must work together. There are some in this province who will be willing to jeopardize our future for their own personal gain and to protect an antiquated and failed philosophical position. We must reject that attitude clearly and firmly.

Those who would obstruct our efforts to equitably evolve a system of fairness to all British Columbians are leading us down the garden path to social disintegration. We need only look at other countries throughout the world and see what happens when countries turn upon themselves and tear themselves apart. Our greatest strength as Canadians is in our ability to work together, to reason, to compromise and work with a sense of solidarity and a commitment to our common goals. We must continue together with one another and with other Canadians to maintain that commitment so that we may work out our differences with integrity, with tolerance and with mutual respect.

British Columbia faces great challenges, greater than any it has faced before in the history of our nation. We must continue to grow while protecting our unique western lifestyle, preserving the beauty of our natural environment, developing new energy resources without paying a massive price in terms of our wilderness. We must continue to be leaders in human rights, both in the attainment of our social goals and as an example for the rest of our country. We must continue to integrate those groups in our society who have been excluded from the central role of our prosperity and decision-making, our educational institutions and our social institutions.

The majority of our population are women, and their potential must be fully recognized and included at every level of top priority in tapping the energy and creativity of our people. We must work together, focusing our energy and creativity so that all Canadians will grow and share with one another the hard-earned rewards of future prosperity. The pride, satisfaction and achievement and contentment that goes with the accomplishments should be our common aim. I know that we can reach beyond the jealousies and doubts that sometimes divide us. The pursuit of strength, progress and peaceful change that comes from independent judgment, shared ideas and the courage to turn them into reality is not beyond us.

To be courageous requires no magic formula, no special combination of time, place or circumstances. Opportunities to be courageous, when courage is needed, come to all of us more than once in our lifetime. How we use those opportunities, the courage we display on those occasions, becomes the true measure of all of us. The courage and initiative shown by our Premier in the program of restraint is a true measure of a leader.

We should now, from one end of this country to the other, fall in solidly behind our Premier and do what we have to do to preserve our future. We know it can be done and we know

[ Page 6908 ]

how to do it. Now is the time for British Columbians to show the rest of Canada that it can be done and that we are doing it.

You've all heard the old proverb that says a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Let history record today that we in British Columbia, under the leadership of our Premier, began that journey and that we're taking that step together.

Mr. Speaker, I support the budget.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I don't think we have to elaborate too much on the cooking of the books. It's pretty obvious to us now that that's what's been done. Once again it's the old Social Credit flimflam: overestimate the revenues and underestimate the expenditures. When you look at the way the books have been cooked, you can't help but think of the word "deceit." And when you look at deceit, you can't help but feel despair. The people in this province must be sick to their stomachs, and real Social Crediters must be turning over in their graves.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I thought I saw you the other day in "Quest for Fire."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: Oh, I've aroused the beast in Jack. Mr. Speaker, that's about all there is to him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Again I would caution members on both sides of the House that parliamentary language is to be observed at all times during our debate; it makes for an orderly House and the effective use of getting across our respective points. Also, if we address the Chair it does help in the debate.

MR. LEA: Today we're addressing the sixth budget in a row that has not been balanced. For the first three years after the re-election of Social Credit, we had surplus budgets. That doesn't mean that they were balanced; that means that they were surplus budgets. In other words, the Social Credit government took more out of the economy than they spent in the economy; they took more money from the people of this province than they intended to spend in the current fiscal year in which they were applying their budget. For the past three years we've had deficit budgets. There hasn't been one year of a balanced budget in the six years that this government has been in office — not one.

What are they doing this year? They're throwing their hands up in despair and they're saying: "You know, there's really nothing we can do about it. It's outside forces. It's the international marketplace. It's the international demand. It's international money. And here we are, poor little British Columbians who can't do a thing about it." Nothing, except reach into their pockets to get some rainy-day money. But we have to ask whose money it was — that rainy-day money that they're pulling out. It's the money that they took out of our pockets through excess taxation for three years in a row —1976, 1977 and 1978.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: My leader wouldn't either, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, he wouldn't.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: There's a minister who has committed taxpayers' money in the hundreds of millions to northeast coal, and he says: "By gosh, I think this year we're going to get the last rite of the cost-benefit analysis." After we've spent money, after we've committed money, the minister says: "Now we're going to give you the cost-benefit analysis." It's not finished yet.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You announced it in 1975 and didn't have any studies done.

MR. LEA: In other words, the minister is admitting he is wrong, but he says: "You did it too. I'm wrong but if you did it too, it's all right for me." Is that right, Mr. Minister? That minister doesn't know the first thing about economics. He may know how to kick a tire on a used car, but that's about the extent of it; then he'd buy it if the tires were flat, because it's a Datsun. That minister has been hoodwinked more by the Japanese than Pearl Harbor in the Second World War. He's been hoodwinked from one end to the other of the international marketplace, and then he comes back in here and says: "Look, now we've committed ourselves, now we're spending all the money, we're going to have a cost-benefit analysis, maybe next year."

Let's take a serious look at our economy and see what's been happening, not only for the last six years but for all of the years that Social Credit has been the government in this province; 20 years from 1952 to 1972, and now for another six years. We have been a province that has not managed resources wisely.

I'd like to share with the House some meetings to do with the timber supply analysis studies done by the Ministry of Forests, meetings I attended on the Queen Charlotte Islands not long ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have them with you?

MR. LEA: Yes, I do have them with me.

There are 33 timber supply areas in this province. Thirty one of them have been approved for new allowable cuts. The thirty-second, which is on the Queen Charlotte Islands, is being put to the people now in public hearings. The chief forester will soon be making his annual allowable cut in regard to the Prince Rupert timber supply area. He'll be making one more after that in the riding of the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) up near Cassiar. The Forest Service said: "Here's what's happening. Within 30 years, there's going to be a complete falldown in the timber supply area on the Queen Charlotte Islands. We're going to go from 580,000 cunits a year down to 233,000 which will be sustained by natural regeneration. But don't worry, because there will be two things that will make it all right. One is that we are supposing that over the next few years there are going to be great advances in technology, which means that we can go after some of those areas that are environmentally sensitive now with our current technology." That's fine, and they're probably correct, but they said: "The real thrust that makes it all right to keep cutting the same annual allowable cut that we're doing now is the fact that the government of British

[ Page 6909 ]

Columbia is going to be putting money into a reforestation program. If they weren't going to do that, we could not continue with the annual allowable cut that we're cutting now."

What do we see when we come into this Legislature? The whole guts cut out of the reforestation program. In other words, those annual allowable cuts are a sham, because there is no reforestation program that this government's going to carry out. As a matter of fact, they're cancelling the money and the program and are cutting the guts out of it altogether. Yet 31 of those timber supply areas have already been approved with annual allowable cuts based on the fact that we were going to have a reforestation program, and now we haven't.

Shouldn't every one of those tree-farm licences be opened up? Shouldn't every timber supply area be opened up for public scrutiny again, in light of the fact that we have no reforestation program? The answer is yes. The people of this province were hoodwinked by a government that went out and sold annual allowable cuts to our forest industry based on the fact that there was going to be a reforestation program that is no longer there. Do we not deserve better than that from a government that says they're going to work for the people and for the economics of this province? There isn't anyone in here that would say that that makes any sense, regardless of what side of the House, except maybe the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier. They must have been the ones who decided to cut out the reforestation program.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were told to cut it out.

MR. LEA: Told to cut it out by whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fraser.

MR. LEA: Probably, because he doesn't understand anything about the economics of this province.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the standing committee on small business were really trying to fool the people because they used the Legislative logo on the letters they wrote to them. Is there any member of this House who doesn't use the Legislative emblem on the paper he sends out when writing to the people of this province? We all do.

As a matter of fact, I got the word to the member that he could sit and listen to the problems of the small business community in his area, but he didn't show up.

I'd like to share with you a few of the things that the small business community did say to us in those public hearings.

AN HON. MEMBER: There weren't enough people there to have a crowd.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. LEA: Because he sent one of his fascists out to keep an eye on us. It was probably a good personal friend. Why not? Birds of a feather.

Where have we been going wrong in previous budgets, and where are we going wrong today? We're going wrong in the fact that every budget that this minister has brought in has been a budget to deal only with the problems of today and never for the future of this province.

Do you know how much money we spent last year out of government revenues in research and development to look for new jobs, to look for new products that we can put into the marketplace of the world and therefore increase our economy? Yes, we believe in balanced budgeting also, but with one small difference. We believe that the economy should grow so that new revenues can come in and we can balance the budget that way. We don't believe that you just let the economy go to blazes, don't look at research and development, don't worry about bringing new products on, don't look at new marketing schemes for selling those products in the world, but just literally tax the present economy into the ground. That's what they've done. They have persistently and consistently over six years taxed the British Columbia economy right into the ground — user fees, tax fees, everything increased. You know, they've now got the gall to come in here and say that they've actually managed the economy!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They've managed to put the economy down into the doldrums and ruin the hopes and the aspirations of every business person and every working person in this province. That's why they're in despair, Mr. Speaker. They realize in their hearts and in their guts that this government doesn't care about the future. They only care about the future as long as it pertains to the next provincial election. That's all. That's all they care about. They don't care whether the future has more jobs for our children and our children's children; all they care about is whether they have jobs for themselves and jobs for their friends. That's all they've ever cared about.

AN HON. MEMBER: From Toronto.

MR. LEA: Well, those are their friends from Ontario, from the Big Blue Machine. I heard there was a deal, Mr. Speaker. I heard that Mr. Davis in Ontario would supply people from the blue machine to Mr. Bennett if Mr. Bennett delivered the Conservative vote to Mr. Davis when he runs federally. I don't know if there's any truth in that. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine the hardship visited on Mr. Kinsella, the personal secretary to the Premier? Mr. Kinsella, I'm afraid, is going to have to live on his $65,000. There's no raise! Sixty-five thousand a year is all he's going to get. That's restraint, boy! That's the kind of restraint that most people in this province would like to live with. They'd like to have $65,000 a year frozen.

What else did they do, Mr. Speaker, with their little restraint program that the Premier announced with no program? After the teachers had received their raise, they are now going to freeze school budgets. You can't pull back the raise, because that's not in the terms of the agreement. So where is the school budget going to have to cut back? Not in wages to teachers, as they would have you believe, but in programs to students. Programs to students is the only area that the school boards have to cut back in.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that are needed if the future is going to belong to us. Number one, we have to look at some way of adding more wealth to the raw resources that we take from British Columbia before we ship them to the international marketplace. If we don't do that, there is no future. If Ronald Reagan could wave that magic wand around and all of a sudden housing starts were magically up in the United States and the whole British Columbia economy

[ Page 6910 ]

kicked into high gear, there wouldn't be enough jobs to go around.

The economy that we could get from our industrial complex running at full tilt would not supply enough jobs for the people of this province. In other words, we'd still have a great many unemployed and we'd still have a great many small businesses in jeopardy. So what can we do?

Last year, out of a budget of close to $7 billion, this government spent a paltry $8.1 million on research and development — money spent to look for new, innovative methods to bring new products onstream for new markets. They spent $8.1 million out of almost $7 billion. Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough.

If we are going to go into the international marketplace and compete, we then have to take a look at bringing new products on and new marketing procedures so that we can sell those new products plus the old products in a wider range than we have in the past. What has this government done about that, Mr. Speaker? They haven't done a thing.

They've taxed us. What have they done in terms of the intermediate and small business community? They have done nothing. They have taxed them. You know, it isn't from the giant companies that innovation comes. It isn't from giant companies that we can see new, innovative products coming onstream; it's from those small struggling intermediate companies that are clawing at the edges to try and exist around the edge of those large companies.

It wasn't Chrysler, it wasn't General Motors and it wasn't Ford that came out with a better engine in terms of non-pollution. It was a small motorcycle manufacturer by the name of Honda. Don't look for innovation from Macmillan Bloedel. You could look for some from Doman. You can look for innovation from the small and intermediate businesses in this province that will bring on new products if given the chance. But how can they do it when they've been taxed to death by a government that's only concerned about its own welfare and its own destiny, not the destiny of this province?

Mr. Speaker, you know and the members opposite know that I'm speaking the truth, that the only healthy balanced budget is one that is balanced by a growing economy putting new products into the market and selling those products in an aggressive and meaningful way. That's the only way that we're ever going to balance the budget and do it in a healthy, economic way. You cannot balance the budget by taxing the current economy to death and hoping that you can balance your government books when the economic books of the province are thrown completely out of kilter. That is what this government's done. They haven't paid one minute of attention to what's happening in the small business community in this province or in the medium-sized businesses of this province. They have concerned themselves with what they call megaprojects.

I think it would pay the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to take a look at the history of megaprojects and exactly what those megaprojects have done for regional economies. At one time in Prince George, when there were more than 300 of what they called gyppo logging projects around Prince George, each and every one of those gyppo logging outfits bought their supplies and their needs from the residents and the community and the small businesses of Prince George. Megaprojects? The people who deal in megaprojects, those giant corporations, don't buy locally. They buy from their subsidiaries somewhere else, indeed, if they aren't subsidiaries themselves. They are not the greatest thing in the world for a regional economy. Through experience we are learning that that's not the way to go.

As a matter of fact, when the entire western world is starting to take a look at the centralized economy that we have with some worry — I think with well-grounded worry — when the whole world is taking a look at a decentralized economic system and a decentralized system of government, this government is going to a centralized system more and more and more. More of the decisions that were made at one time at the local level are now coming into this province's capital to be made by a small group of people we call cabinet. More and more and more we see the industrial and economic decisions that were once made at the local level being made further and further away from the local area — in New York, in Japan, all over the world, eastern Canada. As we see those local decisions in our own economy slipping away from us, we also see local government decisions slipping away from us into either Victoria or into Ottawa. A government that says they are for the people, that they want the people in this province to make the decisions that affect them.... This government has gone exactly the other way around, in terms of schools, in terms of municipalities, in terms of regional districts. Every one of those areas has had powers taken from them and transferred into the cabinet rooms in Victoria. Economically they have gone the same way. They have systematically gone out to destroy the small business community and the medium-sized business community.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to take my word for it. If the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) had come on those public hearings with us, he would have heard the small business community in this province saying exactly what I'm saying. You know, they didn't come in there and say: "We're in love with the NDP." They have some misgivings about our party. But, you know, they have some misgivings about you. At one time they assumed that you were on their side. Now they know very well you're not. They say to us: "Our big worry with you as the NDP is that we see you involved with big unions, and we don't really like that." I am being honest with what those people said to us. They said: "Now we see Social Credit on the side of big business and we don't like that." They feel like they're between the devil and the deep blue sea. They don't feel they have a friend in government. Let me tell you they don't. They have a friend in the opposition, but they don't have a friend in government.

The small business community and the medium-sized business community said that no more are they going to assume that Social Credit is on their side. What they are going to do is to take a look at the policies of both major parties in this province and for the first time they're not going to be voting with an assumption, they're going to be voting with the party with the best policy for them. We've got it, and the small business community is starting to understand that we've got it. What I can't understand is someone like the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), himself a small businessman, who has forsaken the very place that he comes from in favour of playing toady to the large corporate world. The Premier — his background is small business — is himself playing toady to the big corporate giants in North America and around the world. This has to be the most toady government I've ever seen. One person described them as the willing messengers of the large corporate world, and they're stumbling all over themselves to deliver the message. It's true. There's not one thing in this

[ Page 6911 ]

budget that would help the small business community in the dire straits they're in, not one. But take a look at the NDP policy, Mr. Speaker.

They come in, this government, and they say: "Do you know what we're going to do? We're going to tax the chartered banks another $50 million in British Columbia." Big deal! When small business people and citizens are losing their houses and losing their businesses, this is not the time to worry about whether we're charging the banks enough; this is the time to worry about whether the banks are charging us too much. There's not one word in the budget about that. No, they won't bring in a program to stop the banks from coming in and taking our homes and businesses. Do you know why? They did it in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and they'd rather die than do anything that the NDP has done anywhere. They'd rather have us lose our houses and businesses than follow a program brought in by the New Democratic Party, no matter where.

Look what they did with the Marguerite. They didn't examine it to see whether it was a good, strong thing for Victoria, for Vancouver Island and for the tourist business. They cancelled it because the New Democratic Party had started it, and they had to swallow it, because they made a stupid, arrogant, political mistake. They've had to eat it like they've eaten crow on so many things. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, they're going to eat crow on this budget, because it is not a budget for the future; it's a retrenchment budget. It's a budget that says: "Let's hope the world solves our problems, because there is nothing we can do. Let's take our money out of the bank; let's put it into current expenditures and hope that Mr. Reagan's high interest policy solves all our problems." Is it going to?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. LEA: You're right, and that's what your waiting for? You're waiting for Reagan's program to solve our problems? That's what the Minister of Finance said, right on page 2.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

MR. LEA: I don't have to say it again; the people in this province are going to be saying it again. The people of this province know what this budget is about. I only have one regret: if I had known it was as lousy as it was, I would have let them televise the damn thing — editing and all. Even with the editing they couldn't clean up this piece of flimflam. This is the flimflam budget of all time.

Mr. Speaker, since the last time we were in this House discussing a budget, they have raised user fees and other taxation measures by $450 million, and it doesn't show up in this document. But we're paying it on one of the beauties of all time, Mr. Speaker. They said: "You know, we've got water flowing down to the sea. It's just being wasted. Now, what if we were to charge them a bit more for the water? You know, we can't just have water running freely down to the sea, there is a charge for it, you know. It costs money to have water running down riverways. As a matter of fact, we should raise it up to the world price for oil." That's what the minister said. Now, when a minister is confused about the look of water and the look of oil, you've got to be worried about what else he's confused about. He can't tell the difference between oil and water. What is that he puts on his hair — on both sides? Oil or water?

Mr. Speaker, what a sham. We're actually going to charge B.C. Hydro another $100 million rather than let it slip into the ocean unpaid for. And what are we going to do? We're going to tack the $100 million onto people's hydro bills. Every time you turn a light switch on, every time you turn on a machine of industry, we're going to pay for it through the consumer end — a hundred million bucks, because they can't tell the difference between oil and water.

MR. COCKE: Bob Bonner noticed that too yesterday.

MR. LEA: I'm sure Mr. Bonner noticed that yesterday; he's taking the flak for for a stupid decision by this government.

Mr. Speaker, you watch television and you see them out at the physiotherapy unit for children who have real physical problems. They showed the problems that they were having, because of the funding from government, keeping this place running to help those children. Quick edit and flash, over to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), and he said: "Well, you know, that's what restraint's all about. Sure, people want to maintain programs and start new programs, but that's not restraint. Flash — back to the hospital, and there are those poor children struggling to learn how to cope. Some of them are even just struggling to learn how to physically move from one place to another, and it's hard for those children to understand that that's just the nature of restraint.

Hydro bills are up and spending to help the physically disabled — even children — is down, and they tell us: "Well, you stupid fools, don't you understand? That's what restraint is all about. There's no reason why the child has to crawl from this place over to there; he can just stay where he is." So he may never learn to walk, but, as the Minister of Health says: "You dummies, don't you know that's restraint?" Then they have the gall to come into this House and actually be proud of what they've done. After raising the taxes, licence fees and user fees for the elderly and for children who have to learn how just to even move, they've started charging us for water going down to the sea, and they come in here and say: "Gee, aren't we so economically wise. We're going to balance the budget." After they soaked us for a year on every imaginable thing that they could think of, they come in here and say, "Well, there's no taxes this year. Oh, by the way, there's nothing we can do about the economy, but we're going to wait until about the middle of the year, and if Ronald Reagan's high interest rates really work, then we're going to have some more houses to build in the States and our markets will pick up and our economy will be buoyant."

At the same time, out of the other side of their mouth, they say that Trudeau is nuts for allowing high interest rates. Well, we've always suspected the mental prowess of the Prime Minister when it comes to economics, but why is Trudeau wrong and Reagan right? How can that be? How can they praise Thatcher and Reagan for their economic programs and condemn Pierre Elliott Trudeau for exactly the same kind of program?

MR. HOWARD: It's called schizophrenia.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't know whether they'll have any place to go. They may have cut the funding to those places where they can deal with schizophrenia. I know that there are 19 new people who should maybe take a look at those kinds of places, and I think they're all called "honourable" — even outside the House.

[ Page 6912 ]

Mr. Speaker, they aren't proud of this government. They aren't proud of this budget. Down where they live, they're sick in their stomachs from a budget that hurts people, but they'll put that aside because their own political hides mean more to them than the people or the business people in this province. All they care about is themselves. I don't think it could have been said better than by the ex-honourable Phil Gaglardi when he said: "My friends, it's greed that makes the world turn around." It's their credo. They are a self-interested group who believe that greed is the order of the day. They've brought in a budget to prove it, and what they left out of the budget were the most unfair taxes of all. They didn't have the nerve to put those in. They thought that we and the people of British Columbia would forget that they're cutting off funds so that small children can learn how to walk. They thought that we'd forget that the Minister of Finance can't tell the difference between oil and water.

Can you give me one good reason why we should charge ourselves the same price for water that the Arabs charge us for oil? Is there one smidgen of common sense that could tell us why we charge ourselves the same for British Columbia water that OPEC countries charge us for oil? It's called deceit, and it leads to despair. If ever the people in this province needed a government that would lead them with hope and talk about the future and the need for new trees to be grown so that our timber industry can thrive and prosper — not only for us, but for the future.... That would be some hope for people.

I guess it would come as a surprise to the government that most people out there don't think that greed makes the world turn around. Most people out there believe that cooperation is the key. Most people realize that without cooperation there is no civilized behavior. Most people realize that we have a greater responsibility than just ourselves. Today we have a responsibility to the future. This government isn't meeting that responsibility in any way. As a matter of fact, they don't even like to talk about it, because they don't know the words. They don't have the words in either their mind or their heart. They believe the world is made up of juggled numbers and deceit and fooling people as many times as they can. They know it and we know it. We can only hope that the people of this province know it, Mr. Speaker. I think they do. I think they've had their nostrils stenched with the switching of numbers by this government. I think that they are in despair because of the deceit. I think they've finally been caught out as the book-cookers that they are, and I don't believe that the people in this province are going to put up with it.

When we were out on those business hearings, we discovered that the small business people in this province aren't that heartless. They are concerned British Columbia citizens who want the best for our children and our children's children, and they realize that the answer is research and development. They understand that we have to add more wealth to our raw resources before we ship them to market, and they understand it won't happen overnight, but they at least want to hear their government talk about it. They want some sign that the people who are the politicians in this province are not only concerned about greed but are concerned about the future and cooperation and civilized behavior as opposed to the behaviour of the beast. That will be the difference between whether we act as civilized or uncivilized people.

They know that they've sold out the people of this province for their own personal gain. They know it and the pity is they don't know what to do about it. They don't have the weapons in their arsenal to do anything about it because they haven't really thought about it in terms of people; they've only thought about it in terms of juggled numbers and political deceit. They're not capable of thinking about it in any other terms. I am sure some of them must have been capable of it when they came into this House, but how soon they forget their roots and the people who sent them here. Are the dizzying heights of power so great that they can't understand that they're here not to serve themselves but to serve the people of this province? Can't they understand that without honest and caring government there is no civilization but only deceit and grasping greed? Governments must lead, and they must lead us into the future, not just into "Let's get through to September and hope for the best."

There is not one thing in this budget about the future, only a few lines about how to get us through until September, not even until the end of the year. It is amazing. I think real Social Crediters would be very ashamed if they'd been here yesterday to hear a budget that didn't talk about the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Before you begin, Mr. Minister, I would encourage, as always, temperate language in this House. We cannot attribute to any individual member any unbecoming characteristics. Even though sometimes when they are referred to as a government or as a group they are tolerable, nonetheless, I would suggest that the English language is broad enough that we can express ourselves clearly enough without resorting to that kind of language. Please proceed.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy to rise in support of the budget and the motion of the Minister of Finance that attends it. I was interested to hear the member for Prince Rupert, as he was sitting down, complain about the lack of a future look, because in the course of my remarks I propose to deal with the very exciting future look this government is taking with respect to Expo 86 — 15,000 new man-years of work and a billion new dollars of economic activity in the province.

In the course of talking about some of these future things, I do have to make a couple of comments about the budget debate so far. I think many of us came here yesterday, Mr. Speaker, expecting and assuming that we would have budget afternoon, but we didn't anticipate that there would be a very short television soap opera preceding the budget, subtitled "Touchy About TV," and starring the opposition House Leader. The Vancouver Sun today puts it pretty well on the business page in an article entitled "TV out of the Picture." It reads as follows:

"Local television officials were taken aback Monday when the opposition NDP refused to allow television into the House to broadcast the presentation of the provincial budget. Channel 10 program director Martin Truax said: 'We kept on being told to hang on, hang on, hang on, but then we were told the speech couldn't be televised. I guess the government decided debate on the matter could go on for hours. We're not politicians. We didn't know this was going to come up. We just booked the microwave line and decided to go ahead and do a public service. I don't know what this says about democracy or about people's right to access, but I think it might be contrary to some of our basic principles.'"

[ Page 6913 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, it's puzzling why the opposition leader yesterday should have been so touchy about the issue of television, because two sessions ago the opposition House Leader was in love with television — indeed, so much so that he was prepared to use an evening television newscast as the basis for attempting to draw the chief justice into these precincts. How strange that two years later, with the cameras right on the floor, this same opposition House Leader should be so touchy about television. Perhaps something has happened in that intervening time concerning television and the public process — I don't know. But "Touchy About TV" certainly was the subtitle of the mini-TV soap opera we saw yesterday. Or perhaps I should say a "nope opera," because the answer of the opposition was no.

That was not all we were treated to by the opposition. Yesterday the National and American Baseball Leagues opened their baseball season. This morning the opposition, the NDP, opened their baseball season. A few minutes after ten, Mr. Speaker, you will recall five members were on on their feet at once. The analyst said: "Who's on first? Are there too many left fielders? Who's the relief in the bullpen? Why all those high pop fouls towards the Speaker? Is Bob Williams the designated hitter? Who's tossing the screwballs?" Well, we've all heard in baseball history of Tinker to Ev to Chance, but did you ever think you'd hear in this chamber Stupich to Leggatt to Cocke? There was a collision this morning among all those members chasing an infield fly ball marked "election." Unfortunately, they all struck out. Later in the day we've had a chance to hear a little bit about the opposition's approach to the budget. Before I talk about Expo, can I just outline how I think three very simple words begin to define what the opposition presents to the people of the province in the course of this budget debate in this session? The words are "tired," "split" and "bankrupt" — an opposition that is tired, an opposition that is split, an opposition that is bankrupt of policy and of ideas.

It's not the government's place to suggest that the opposition is tired. Those independent scribes of the fourth estate perhaps say it better. Here's one for the tired opposition: — NDP Stages Pre-election Bore" — that's from the Province, October 19. Here's one more: "Dull Campaign Kickoff" — Province, October 19, on the NDP.

Talk about getting tired! Allen Garr, March 28, "Dave Barrett greying and jowly." Now that's not very nice, Mr. Speaker, calling the Leader of the Opposition greying and jowly. Jamie Lamb writing in the Vancouver Sun on February 8 said it best of all. He was talking about the aftermath of the Ontario provincial NDP convention, and he said this:

"The election, or rather the ascension of Bob Rae to the leadership of the Ontario New Democratic Party here Sunday heralds major changes for the NDP, not only in Ontario but in Ottawa too, and perhaps even in British Columbia."

"Mr. Rae's election on Sunday is a popular win in most NDP quarters, but I would suggest it does not augur well for the B.C. provincial party. The youth of the Ontario NDP coupled with the youth of the federal NDP — average age of the party's MPs is around 32 — makes the Victoria gang of Dave Barrett seem like a bunch of old fogies. Indeed, Mr. Barrett's party seems unable to excite the demographic bulge known as the baby boom. And if the NDP can't attract the young, it has no prayer of winning federally or provincially."

Well, that's downright uncharitable, Mr. Speaker, to call our good colleagues across the floor a bunch of old fogies. Mr. Speaker, that is downright mendacious and uncivilized, and that's just not fair.

So much for age and being tired. The people will decide. That group across the floor is tired, but it is also very badly split. Some of us did not have the chance to get to the Vancouver East nomination meeting, but we did get a chance to get one of the brochures, which I'm told was on the chairs at the meeting. It's headed: "The Best Team for Van. East." There is a nice picture of the opposition leader and Mr. Bob Williams sitting together. I understood from following it in the media, Mr. Speaker, that there was some quite difficult internal feeling over this family political battle and it was quite a heated family political battle, as these things can be, but that it was going to be the definitive statement as to where things were at. I gather that the first and second members for Vancouver East were renominated.

But there are some interesting statements in here, Mr. Speaker. If you read them you wonder just how wide the split is. For example, let me just read the caption under this nice picture of the opposition leader and Mr. Williams. They are having a nice cup of coffee, and the caption is: "Dave Barrett and Bob Williams working together in the government, as they will again." If we had TV in the House, Mr. Speaker, the viewers could see this nice picture of the opposition leader and Mr. Williams.

But here is something else from the pamphlet, and this is a quote from Mr. Bob Williams. Now everybody has got to listen to this. This is Bob Williams at the nomination meeting in this pamphlet: "I plan on being around, I plan on speaking out and I plan on coming back."

There is another quote here from the opposition leader, with a nice picture of him. It says: "Bob won't be in the Legislature" — this is after his defeat" — but he'll be with us and then after the next general election he'll be back in the Legislature." Well, a funny thing seemed to happen on the way to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's fair to suggest that Bob Williams is the only contender or pretender to the throne over there. Again, I want to refer to the article by Jamie Lamb in the Vancouver Sun following the NDP provincial convention in Ontario, where I gather the whole NDP family from across the country went. He had something to say about potential splits in the party, too.

"For the federal NDP, dominated in Ottawa by western MPs — this again is the election of Bob Rae, leaving Ottawa — it means that the way is now clear for the grooming of a western leader. That means — and the member for Kamloops (Mr. Richmond) is going to enjoy this if he'll just give me his undivided attention — B.C. MP Nelson Riis is going to have to decide if he wants to run for the B.C. provincial leadership, a real possibility, or become federal finance critic and pursue federal leadership possibilities."

This article says it's going to be Mr. Nelson Riis. Well, I don't know about these things.

But, you know, we shouldn't talk about splits just in terms of leadership; the policy issues are where we should look. Just in passing, nuclear power with the NDP gets more fascinating by the day. I think that in this province the record on the opposition benches is that there's a split reaction about splitting the atom and nuclear power. In Saskatchewan

[ Page 6914 ]

they're for it and for uranium. Now in Ontario, here's what the NDP are doing under Mr. Rae. I quote again from Jamie Lamb's article: "Mr. Rae, backed by almost all Ontario labour delegates, opted for a platform that allows existing nuclear power stations to remain." I think there's a split in the ranks about nuclear power, Mr. Speaker.

But there are some other issues on a split. Now the constitutional debate has finally concluded. We had the federal MPs of the NDP split. We had the B.C. NDP members split. We had the Saskatchewan and the British Columbia NDP battling over the constitution, and that doesn't appear to be over yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a great budget speech.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Speaking of budgets, I'm awfully glad that my good friend the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) raised that. You know, your colleague, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — if I heard him correctly this morning; he was attacking our balanced budget concept — spoke about "the folly of retrenchment at a time of economic downturn." He perhaps forgot that his colleagues in Saskatchewan have just balanced their budget.

Now maybe you fellows can get your act together and patch up some of these splits. Nuclear power. The constitution. Budget practices. Northeast coal. At last count the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).... Perhaps the Minister of Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips) or somebody can tell me: is the member for Prince Rupert for or against northeast coal today? What about the port at Prince Rupert? Is that okay?

Talking about splits, I notice both members from Vancouver Centre aren't here to indicate today — it's 5:05 — how they would stand at 5:05 today on the trade and convention centre. But I think there's been some splitting and splicing and slicing there, Mr. Speaker.

And, of course, on Expo '86 we look forward.... I think I heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) moments ago infer it was all a waste of time and money. Did I? I'm sure we'll hear from him.

There are some splits, Mr. Speaker. That's easy to see. That tired group with splits — and, you know, they're bankrupt. We heard the member for Nanaimo this morning, after telling us that we shouldn't have balanced the budget, call upon us to substitute "hope for retrenchment" — if that was his phrase — or it's what he would do. He would substitute hope for retrenchment. Now I want you to remember that, because if I understood the NDP Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo, he then outlined what the NDP would do: a 26-point program to substitute hope for retrenchment.

Well, let me tell you the hope for retrenchment that the people from Manitoba just got: "I'll Deliver Later, Gloomy Pawley Says." This is from the Vancouver Sun of March 18, and the article by Patrick Nagle says: "Manitoba faces a protracted period of reduced economic and social expectations and the provincial government can do little to improve, Premier Howard Pawley believes." In other words, he says, for the good of his province, he is not going to try to live up to all his election promises right away. "I'll Deliver Later, Gloomy Pawley Says." Well, this morning the member for Nanaimo said, I think, that his party would do all kinds of wonderful things if they were returned to power. It seems to me that if the recent Manitoba election is an example, "I'll deliver later" is what really happens if the NDP program gets close to the chance to be put into action.

Who can we believe? We have an opposition who on the record, I think, are becoming tired. They are split on leadership and policy and are bankrupt of ideas. By contrast, looking to the future, let me spend a few minutes on Expo '86 and outline some of the concrete, forward-looking, dynamic and fundamental benefits to British Columbia that it will provide.

First of all, there is the creation of 15,000 man-years of new employment. Most of those man-years of new employment are in the 18- to 24-year age range, where there is a particular need for job creation. There is about a billion new dollars of economic activity over five years in British Columbia. There is about $65 million in new provincial tax revenues for people services. There are major opportunities for B.C. suppliers and concessionaires. I'm sure my colleague the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) will speak about the increased tourism opportunities flowing from Expo '86.

Expo '86 will be a showcase for Canadian technologies and businesses. There will be a major involvement of British Columbia's large ethnic communities in multicultural activities. There will be very positive world media exposure for British Columbia prior to and during Expo'86. Expo'86 will be a new major opportunity to give British Columbia prominence and influence in Pacific Rim nations. Expo '86 will be the only international exposition of its kind in this country this decade. It will be six months long. There will be 13 million visitors. Compare that, for example, with the Olympics coming up in Calgary. It will be for 14 days and there will be far fewer people.

Expo '86 is going to be very good business for British Columbia and will be a tremendous employment boost — 15,249 new man-years of employment will be created by Expo '86, broken down as follows as a current projection. First of all, on the site: construction, 6,344 man-years of new employment; Expo '86, when operating, 4,215 new man years of employment; concessionaires, 1,735 new man-years of employment; exhibitors, 2,455 new man-years of employment. Employment to be created off the site will be: retail trade, 275 new man-years of employment; restaurant trade, 225 new man-years of employment. That's 15,249 man-years of new employment, thanks to Expo '86.

I want to stress that many of those new employment opportunities are going to be for workers in the 18- to 24-year-old age range, that younger category of the job market. That's going to be tremendously important.

To assist my good friend, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), let me read a short list of some of the groups that have endorsed Expo '86. This list of endorsations may assist him in waxing more enthusiastic about supporting Expo '86. It is as follows: Vancouver Board of Trade, Downtown Business Association of Vancouver, Tourism Industry Association of B.C., Greater Vancouver Convention and Visitors Bureau, B.C. Hotels Association, Southwestern Tourist Association of B.C., B.C.-Yellowhead Travel Association, B.C. Automobile Association, Vancouver A.M. tourist services association, Surrey Chamber of Commerce, Kitsilano Chamber of Commerce, Vancouver Junior Chamber of Commerce, Retail Merchants Association of Canada, Vancouver City Planning Commission, Retail Merchants Association of B.C., B.C. Aviation Council, B.C. Place Citizens Advisory Committee and the Amalgamated Construction Association of B.C. That is just a partial list of the kinds of groups that are coming forward to endorse Expo '86.

[ Page 6915 ]

Before concluding my remarks, may I just comment on one other aspect of the budget debate? It's a topic that the member for Nanaimo raised. It's a topic for which my ministry has responsibility. It's the question of credit unions. We've heard again in the budget debate from the opposition the suggestion that the NDP variety and brand of B.C. Savings and Trust would be created, put in place and put in the field as part of their program. I want to assure the million or so British Columbians who belong to credit unions that this government recognizes the takeover threat that that idea poses to credit unions, and we'll stand guard to see that credit unions and the million British Columbians who belong to them will have their independence protected.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. Regardless of the simple wording of the B.C. Savings and Trust Act, the details of the B.C. Savings and Trust plan as developed by the NDP spell "takeover" for the credit union movement, and we're opposed to that. We think the million British Columbians who belong to credit unions believe in the credit union movement and want it to stay independent, healthy and strong. We aren't persuaded of the need for a mammoth new socialist bureaucracy to be in the field, taking over from the credit unions of British Columbia. A million British Columbians know that and a million British Columbians are going to reject the opposition on that ground, among many others.

In concluding, I just want to go back to the words of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who, before he sat down, decried the lack of a future vision and a forward look in the budget. I've just told him about Expo '86. I know that that means he's going to change his mind and support this budget on that ground alone. I know that young people in Prince Rupert right now will look forward to the chance to help build Expo '86 and work there. There's no question about it. But the point is that the Minister of Finance, in presenting the budget, spoke about Expo '86, and members opposite have their chance to vote for or against a project that will create 15,000 man-years of employment. If you're for it, vote with us; if you're not, stand and be counted.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance for a very sound, exciting, forward looking budget. I know that the Minister of Finance is as concerned as any member of the credit union movement to protect and preserve the independence of credit unions and their members. I know, too, that the Minister of Finance understands what a massive takeover in the field of credit unions would be the B.C. Savings and Trust, as proposed by the New Democratic Party. Expo '86 is a wonderful project for British Columbia. It is part of this government's budget, and for that good reason, as only one of many, I urge all members to support the Minister of Finance on this budget.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, that was quite a soap opera performance we had from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Pure fiction! In addition to being sexist.... Oh, he's not even going to stay to listen to my comments on his remarks, which, I have to say, was a very pitiful performance for a minister of the Crown this afternoon. The information wasn't even factual.

He talked about the credit union movement and he talked about the intentions the government of the day had when they introduced the B.C. Savings and Trust legislation. He actually told us this afternoon that it was an attempt to take over the credit unions of the province. What fiction! And the whole works of them who were sitting on this side of the House at that time voted for it. Did they want to take over the credit union movement? Is that why they voted for it? If that's what they thought, why on earth would they vote for it? What a performance that was.

I am concerned about the constituents I represent in Comox.

MR. KEMPF: I would be, too.

MS. SANFORD: You'd better believe it. Under this government they are in trouble, I can assure you. They are suffering; they are hurting. Mr. Speaker, like constituents all over this province, they can't find work, they can't afford the interest rates, and they can't afford the mortgage payments or the rents they have to pay. They can't provide for their families. They certainly can't afford this government, Mr. Speaker. Many of them are losing their homes.

You know, it's not very often that real estate agents give me a call. but I had a phone call from a real estate agent who said to me: "Last week I had three mortgage foreclosures on my desk; this week I have five. Is that government not going to do anything at all about what's happening to the people in this province?" Unfortunately there is not one iota of help for those people in this budget. There are two other provinces that have led the way; they have shown this government how they can assist people to meet those mortgage payments so that they don't have to lose their homes. But there is nothing in this budget for them.

People who had optimism looked to this budget for some relief, for assistance, for some new initiatives and for some hope, but all of that was dashed yesterday. Yesterday they were just handed deceit and despair, shuffling around of the figures, some vague hope that the people of the province would not see through their schemes of moving money around to try to create the impression that they are doing something about the economy. The only thing this government has done is add to the problems that the people out there have. They promised some sort of restraint program, wage control program — call it what you like. What is it going to do? It's going to swell the ranks of the unemployed, Mr. Speaker.

The actions of this government have not created jobs at all; they've just added to the rolls of the unemployed. When you have cutbacks, curtailments, elimination of funding for a variety of projects, including valuable work carried out by non-profit societies, then you are going to swell the ranks of the unemployed. We are at the stage now where we have soup kitchens feeding those people who have lost their work and are unable to find work under the policies of this government.

The increase in the cost of living has been fuelled by the government. They have an endless list of increases in user fees, licence fees, premiums, index taxation, medicare premiums, hospital payments, ambulance payments, ICBC, Hydro increases. All of them add to the problems that the people of the province face. The government creates inflation and it creates unemployment. The increases that the people are facing are two, three, four times and more than the increases allowed under this proposed restraint program. Yet people are expected to pay all those increases that the government demands. Every time they turn around there's another one.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems, of course, is that the government has too many people in it who are too wealthy to understand what's happening to the ordinary people out there.

[ Page 6916 ]

You know, even when they cut services they add to the ranks of the unemployed. For instance, within my constituency we have a program that's going to be cut. It adds not only to the ranks of the unemployed, but also to the costs that the taxpayers of this province are going to have to face in the future — much higher costs because of the actions of a shortsighted government determined to try to convince the people of the province that they're balancing the budget when in fact they're not.

Let me tell you about one program that's been cut. In Courtenay there are two alcohol treatment centres, residential centres, which offer a 28-day program for alcohol treatment. One of them is for women, the other for men. These are operated by non-profit societies, people who are dedicated to the community and who are trying to assist those who have alcohol- or drug-related problems. The program has an excellent success rate. It had been funded under the auspices of the Ministry of Human Resources. Human Resources says: "We no longer want to continue funding this program. We're going to ask Health to take it over." But Health says: "Sorry, we've got no money to take it over."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, that program which treats people who have severe alcohol problems is going to be eliminated. What does that mean? It means that we are going to pay additional costs because of the fact that so many of those people now receiving treatment at a minimal cost to government are going to have to go into the psychiatric care unit at St. Joseph's General Hospital in Comox, where the costs are ten times the cost of providing that treatment in the two centres now functioning and operated by non-profit societies. We are going to have increased health costs because of the juvenile delinquency problem that's going to increase as a result of the fact that there is an alcoholic member of that family who has not been able to get treatment. ICBC costs will go up. Court costs will go up.

Is this government concerned, Mr. Speaker? All they want to do is juggle the figures around and pretend that they're doing something in this province, when the only thing that they're doing is ignoring people, adding to their problems, and adding to the cost to the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a copy of a letter from the West Kootenay Union Board of Health which relates somewhat the same concerns as I have just related about Pacific and Pidcock Houses in Courtenay, the alcohol treatment centres. The West Kootenay Union Board of Health, supported by the Central Vancouver Island Union Board of Health, has written to this government pointing out that the fiscal restraints that they are imposing are in fact going to add to the costs of health care in this province. The actions they take don't even make any economic sense, apart from what they do to people who can't get treatment.

What's going to happen to so many of those university students who are going to be facing those huge increases next year? I assume that a lot of them are not going to be able to attend university. There's a very minimal increase in the amount of money that's allotted to education. I wonder what the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) thinks about the fact that the universities are now starved for funds. We have students demonstrating in Vancouver. We meet with university professors who are concerned about what's happening to the universities and yet we have not heard one word since the restraint program has been announced and since we've learned what education is going to get in terms of an increase next year from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications himself. After all, he is a former university professor who took a great interest in education, ensuring that there were suitable amounts made available for higher education in this province. A few years ago he was very concerned. What has happened to him? He has now become a part of that do-nothing group over there, that's what has happened.

In 1962 there was a young professor at the university. His name was Pat McGeer, and he was angry. A young professor at UBC called for another student march. Why would Pat McGeer, a young university professor, call for another student march in 1962? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. He said: "A march may be the only way to get desperately needed funds for the university." He went on to say, Mr. Speaker: "The Social Credit government won't move unless the people demand it." Imagine that. "We need a march because of the lack of funds from Social Credit for education." It's happened again, Mr. Speaker; in fact it's rather typical of the attitude of Social Credit toward education: down at the bottom of the heap. Young Pat McGeer, the young university professor, went on to say: "If something won't get votes it won't get done, if it's a Social Credit government." Imagine that. My, how he has changed since 1962. As a matter of fact, in March 1963 Pat McGeer's criticism of education underfunding was so severe that Premier W.A.C. Bennett asked him to resign his seat due to conflict of interest. How times change, Mr. Speaker!

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make reference to one other program that has started my constituency through the Attorney-General's ministry, and that is a program to ensure that the people of the Courtenay area wear their seatbelts. The accident rate in that region has been so high that the Attorney-General's ministry has decided to zoom in on Courtenay in order to ensure that the people in the valley wear their seatbelts. They're being fined. What the Attorney-General's ministry has missed in all of this is the fact that we have one of the most crowded, congested, inadequate highways in the entire province, and there is no money in this budget to take care of that problem at all. We even have a report that was done for the Ministry of Highways — and I'm glad to see the minister arriving now, because I know he concurs with us on this. It's a report done for the Ministry of Highways which says that the situation is so bad that the tourist industry within five years is going to decline drastically because of the fact that people will not drive on that road that is so congested and so dangerous. Ah, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) is shaking her head. She is shaking her head over there. She obviously has not read that report. It was a consultant's report done for the Ministry of Highways.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Exactly. I wish you would do some work as a result of those reports. They're recommending that you take some action, Mr. Minister. There is nothing in this budget that takes care of those problems. The only thing they're trying to do to save lives in this province is to try to get people to buckle up, not to do anything about the highway situation.

We don't want a government that adds to the rolls of the unemployed. As a matter of fact, we don't want this government at all. We can't wait for that election to be held so we can turf them out.

[ Page 6917 ]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: You're right. Let's go!

Trying to deceive the taxpayers by moving funds around is not going to work; the people are not going to be fooled this time. They are beginning to understand that this government, through various devious means, has in fact increased the debt of the province over the years. They have tried to keep their budgets balanced. They've taken various parts of the budget out and put it into a Crown corporation and let that Crown corporation carry the deficit and the debt. So we now have a situation in the province where the debt has doubled in the last six years that these people have been in charge.

They talk about a balanced budget this time. What a joke! Going into all those special funds and increasing the debt every time they turn around.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MS. SANFORD: The only recycling they do is to recycle their promises.

MR. LEA: They're environmentalists.

MS. SANFORD: That's right. It's the only recycling, though.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately what we have in the province today is a level of unemployment which is now reaching a critical proportion. It is absolutely critical out there in terms of the numbers and the devastation on the people of the province. There were 132,000 officially unemployed at the last count. We're getting figures again in another couple of days; I anticipate it will be worse. When you take into account the hidden unemployed and the underemployed — those people who are working part-time when they want to work full-time — we are probably looking at close to 200,000 people in this province. What a record for the Social Credit government!

I have a list of some of the layoffs that have taken place in the last little while. This is all since January of this year. We have up in Trail, for instance, Kay Motors Ltd., which has had to lay off. You know what? Those are permanent layoffs, because that particular firm is not going back into business. We have had the Canadian Pacific Railway laying off people. Placer Development Ltd. laid off 48 workers at the Endako Mines division. We have Woodward's in Kamloops, and major department stores, laying people off and reducing the hours for other employees. The Bay in Kamloops has also had to lay people off and reduce the hours of work for others. Western Star Trucks in Kelowna has made indeterminate layoffs. And, of course, at Cominco we are looking at the certainty of a major layoff and the uncertainty of when those people will get back to work — 6,000 workers. A glass bottling manufacturing company in Burnaby,100 people, indefinite layoff; Frontier Manufacturing, Westbank — recreation-vehicle manufacturing, permanently laid off 95 workers; a Winfield recreation-vehicle manufacturing company has laid off 215 workers indefinitely.

Since January of this year we've had an additional 3,000 laid off in the forest industry alone. In manufacturing another 6,000 were laid off. In other areas another 313 workers were laid off. Since the last time that we were in session in July, 52,000 people have lost their jobs in this province thanks to the inactivity and lack of direction and leadership from that provincial government.

We're talking about numbers, Mr. Speaker; we're not talking about the tragedy and the social impact it has and what all this represents in human terms. Aside from the lost production and lost taxes, there is a major social impact on the families of this province as a result of these critical levels of unemployment.

There was a study prepared for the joint economic account committee of the United States Congress which indicated — and I think this is really important — that there is an increase of approximately 2 percent in the overall mortality rates when there is an increase of 1 percent in unemployment. They found that there is an increase in cardiovascular problems caused by stress. It's caused by worry and anxiety about not being able to find a job and provide for the family. There is a notable change in the diet and therefore a noticeable change in the number of health problems that occur when unemployment goes up. There is a noticeable increase in homicides and in suicides. This is what is happening to this province while this government has not even met since last July. That's what's happening to our people.

What we have happening, Mr. Speaker, when you have this kind of high level of unemployment, is depression, marital breakup, an increase in child abuse, an increase in wife battering. This was brought to our attention during the hearings that we held in our standing committee on the economic survival of the family, when social workers came to us and pointed out that when people don't have jobs and don't have the opportunity to provide for their families, they end up abusing the children and abusing their wives. Suicide rates have gone up, health costs go up, juvenile delinquency goes up, there is an increase in alcoholism and drug abuse — all of these things happen when people can't get work, Mr. Speaker. You can't measure all of these as easily as you can measure the loss of income and the loss of taxes and the loss of production, but they're all there. Young people, who are hardest hit by the problems of unemployment, are the ones who get resentful. They feel the economy has no place for them and their initiative is killed. They give up at a time when they want to get in there. They want to contribute, they want to do something for our society; there is nothing for them. What else are they going to do but become depressed and give up?

Mr. Speaker, the one project that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has taken an interest in over the years has been in manpower training. You know, he has bragged about this. He has made speeches all over the place. He has pushed, he has promoted and he has said: "If there is one thing I'm going to accomplish, it is manpower training." What do we find last week, or two weeks ago? Lloyd Axworthy, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, announces that they're going to have to import 20,000 skilled workers into Canada. At the same time as this minister is determined that manpower training is going to be the number one priority as far as his ministry is concerned, what do we get in this budget? We get a cut in manpower training. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? At a time when we have to import 20,000 skilled workers.... Oh, I'm glad the Minister of Labour has arrived. What happened to that marvellous program that he introduced? It gets cut by $1,332,867. If you look at his budget, it's been cut in half. A lot of the money that was moved around by the Minister of

[ Page 6918 ]

Finance came out of that minister's budget. Maybe the Minister of Finance doesn't have confidence in his ability to manage it.

The other thing is that when we have these high levels of unemployment — about one in five of our young people are without work in this province — what happens? The Minister of Finance and the government decide to eliminate the youth employment program. It's not there — slashed, cut and gone. Those students who are hoping to be able to get employment this summer so they can go back to school and pay those huge increases in tuition rates next year are going to be out of luck. Why would any sane government want to eliminate the youth employment program in 1982 when we have official unemployment levels of 132,000, which are probably closer to 200,000?

I do want to briefly mention the shabby treatment that the farmworkers of this province have had from this government as well. The farmworkers work very hard. They have a very dangerous occupation. We were promised that the farmworkers of the province would be covered by the employment standards legislation and would be entitled to the minimum wage in this province, which incidentally is completely inadequate with today's cost of living. That promise was broken.

It was over a year ago that I asked for Workers Compensation Board coverage to be extended to those employees. At that time the minister assured me that the issue had already been under active review for a good two months. Now we're told that it will be yet another year before those farmworkers can hope to get the coverage under Workers Compensation. A job as demanding and dangerous as they have should have been covered years ago.

We still don't have from this government any adequate guidelines for the kind of shelter that should be provided for the farmworkers who are working in the Fraser Valley and up in the Okanagan Valley in particular. What on earth is so difficult about coming up with a few regulations that would ensure that farmworkers have adequate housing when they are working on the farms of this province?

We don't want more people on UIC in this province. We don't want more people on welfare. We want jobs in this province. We want employment. And that's what the people of B.C. want too. They don't want numbers shuffled around in a budget, cutting the budget in half for the Ministry of Labour, moving figures around here, moving other figures there and dipping into the special funds that have been established over the years. They don't want the government to deceive them, Mr. Speaker. They don't want that kind of action from government at all. They want training programs. They want work. They want the opportunity to provide for their families. It's not too much to ask, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, we've heard all about the dark side of the world from those negative doubting people over there, but tomorrow will bring another day. We'll hear tomorrow about the positive, constructive, forward-looking policies that we can introduce as government. The dark days of the NDP are fading into the distance, Mr. Speaker. With the hope of a better tomorrow, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McGeer tabled the first annual report of the Knowledge Network of British Columbia and the third annual report of the Science Council of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the annual report of the technical committee for the long-range transportation of atmospheric pollutants in western Canada and the annual report of the Ministry of Environment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose on a matter of privilege relating to the estimates presented yesterday to the House by message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. The hon. member stated: "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." The hon. member provided the Chair with a motion intended to be moved by him if appropriate.

Hon. members will recall that earlier today a ruling was made by the Chair with respect to another matter of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena, based on an allegation that a "misleading answer" had been given in the House to a question during oral question period. As stated in that ruling, the authorities show that a dispute arising between members as to allegations of facts does not fulfill the conditions of a parliamentary privilege, although a deliberately misleading statement may be treated as a contempt. The rule applicable to statements made in the House is equally applicable to documents tabled in the House. In any event, it would be virtually impossible for the Chair to find that the form of the estimates as presented to the House could breach the privileges of the House, when the House itself has previously enacted legislation specifically providing that the form of those estimates of revenue and expenditure shall be prepared as directed by Treasury Board for presentation to the assembly by the Minister of Finance. Under the circumstances I am unable to conclude that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established.

ESTIMATES FORMAT

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wish to make a ministerial statement. With reference to the criticism which has been expressed in this House yesterday and today, and with respect also to the matter on which you have just ruled, I do not intend to recite at length the very careful process that has led to the new estimates format which is now before this House. It is, however, a process which involved examination of procedures used by the federal government, nine other provincial governments and the territorial government. I can say that the formats used in New Brunswick and Saskatchewan were particularly useful to us in examining this new procedure. I could table examples from those two province's estimates which, in fact, give less detail than our new document, the one presented yesterday. But I indicated 13 months ago, in fact, that a new process was underway and that a change in the estimates format would occur. Further, I made the point that our objective then and now was to provide hon. members with significantly more detail, in a manner that would assist them. The document is now available, and I table a copy herewith.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Sergeant-at-Arms' office has copies for all members of this House and a limited number of copies this evening for members of the press, with additional copies still being printed by the Queen's Printer. I should point out that the process was

[ Page 6919 ]

delayed by the printing of other material in the secure area of the Queen's Printer, material leading up to the budget and related documents filed yesterday. May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the document just tabled contains approximately twice the information volume contained in last year's estimates.

Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate statements made by members opposite yesterday afternoon and again today have, for one reason or another, ignored the previously stated intention of producing this useful material for their consideration.

MR. BARRETT: I wish to make two points. A cursory examination of this document still does not reveal, for example, under the Premier's office, a specific breakdown of the coded votes that have been alluded to in the back of the estimates book handed to us. The complaint by my colleague is directly referring to the coding that we receive in the back of the blue book, which we were handed as estimates yesterday. There is no coding breakdown in the estimates book. Although it claims in the estimates book that that coding is referred to earlier in the same document, such is not the case. That was the substance of the complaint and the question of privilege, which has now been ruled on by the Speaker. At this moment we have not been assured that that coding breakdown that has been traditional in this House will be present during the estimates debate.

The minister has referred to other jurisdictions. That is correct. Other jurisdictions may or may not have these procedures. Other jurisdictions have full radio and television broadcasts of every single thing that's said. If that's the case, why don't we have that here? Other jurisdictions refer these types of questions to standing committees of the House, such as public accounts. Why couldn't this have been referred to the public accounts committee so the whole House is represented through a system? At this point we have just a little tip of the iceberg back to us. The minister has been embarrassed overnight by the fact that arbitrary decisions have been made in relation to this matter. There are no codes in here to my knowledge. Will we have the exact code showing, for instance, in the Premier's office? I've got one page here on the Premier's office, that's all. Does it say how much the salaries are up for each one of them? Are we going to have the complete code that you mentioned yesterday provided on the printout? Is that agreement there by the minister?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: All right, Mr. Minister, thank you very much for this document. However, if the complete coding is not made available before the estimates, then even though the Speaker's ruling says otherwise, the member's complaint is valid. Unless we have those full coding references before the debates, then the argument "not a dime without debate" will be more valid than any other time in history.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, we are now six days into this new fiscal year and we have had no indication of an interim supply bill. I wonder if we could have some indication about that, or do you want to just spend it all by the blank-cheque process?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I don't think it will come as any surprise to the opposition that we're going to have interim supply. Interim supply is needed, and I'm fully aware of the fact that the official opposition, in their great conscience, will be supporting the government's motion for interim supply, which will be brought in on Thursday.

MR. HOWARD: I'm glad to wheedle it out of you. Thank you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Charming.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.