[ Page 187 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Premier's comment on public servants. Mr. Hanson –– 187

Transfer of rentalsman disputes to courts. Mr. Macdonald –– 188

Human rights branch. Mr. Gabelmann –– 188

Treatment of terminated employees. Mr. Gabelmann –– 188

Trading in shares of Sunmask Petroleum. Mr. Howard –– 189

Tabling Documents

Annual report of the Ombudsman, 1982.

Mr. Speaker –– 189

Supply Act (No. 1), 1983 (Bill 10). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 190

Second reading –– 190

Committee stage –– 199

Third reading –– 204

Budget debate

Mr. Lea –– 204

Mrs. McCarthy –– 208

Tabling Documents

Orders-in-council 1677, 1678, 1910 and 851.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 211

Pacific National Exhibition report and financial statement, March 31, 1983.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 211

British Columbia Steamship Company (1975) Ltd. annual report,

Hon. A. Fraser –– 211

British Columbia Place Ltd. annual report.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 211

MONDAY, JULY 11, 1983

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I have the honour of introducing to the House today a visitor from Australia. Would the members please welcome the Hon. Evan Walker, Minister for Conservation and Planning of the Australian state of Victoria.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the gallery today, visiting from Ashcroft, is Mayor Ward Bishop, Aldermen Bev Maldidier and Tony Van Leest, and administrator Bob Harper. I would ask the House to please bid them welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: Visiting with us in Victoria today is someone who has contributed significantly, on a volunteer basis, to cultural affairs in Prince George. Would the House please welcome Myrna Moffat.

Oral Questions

PREMIER'S COMMENT ON PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. HANSON: A question to the Premier. On Friday, July 8, the Premier made an extremely serious charge and insulted 250,000 public sector workers in this province, and their families. What research and evidence was given to you to substantiate that very serious charge?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thank the member for bringing this matter up in question period, because it gives me a chance to correct what was an erroneous report of an interview. I'm not blaming the senior reporters; I've told the press it was probably that we were discussing a wide range of subjects. When asked a question about the new legislation, which I don't intend to discuss because it's before the House, I said that the public would not expect to continue to pay those who had received their dismissal notices that day after their duties were removed. This was not a comment on the public servants who work for us now, or a blanket statement to do with public servants in general. I'm glad the member asked the question, because I was certainly distressed by what it was not my intention to say, or statements that I wanted attributed to me; I therefore thank the first member for Victoria for giving me this opportunity to make my position very clear.

MR. HANSON: Have you asked the reporter to apologize for the incorrect attribution to you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, because I am not blaming someone who is a very senior and competent reporter. I accept full responsibility that in the course of the discussion it may have been unclear what areas we were discussing. Therefore there would be no reason to apologize, except that I am glad for this opportunity to have the situation clarified.

MR. HANSON: Is the Premier advising this House that legislation that was introduced calling for the firing of government employees...? There are 250,000 people subject to legislation which would allow firing without cause. When you were asked why those people would be fired, you say they were not doing their jobs; then you wonder why....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this is question period.

MR. HANSON: I'm asking him if he said it, and if he's willing to apologize to those 250,000 people and withdraw that legislation.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, no apology. It's a good opportunity to see clarification. I believe that all those who work in the public and private sectors in British Columbia undertake their jobs very seriously. We also know that many in the private sector have lost jobs because of the international recession. Their duties have not been required. I think that unemployed store clerks and those in the forest industry, such as loggers and sawmillers, who were dismissed when their duties weren't required understand this very clearly. I had some opportunity over the weekend to talk to a wide range of people who understand it very clearly. I know that the first member for Victoria and others, now that I've had an opportunity to clarify it, would have an interest in accepting that and not wanting to create tensions that shouldn't exist or confusion that should not exist. It was an unfortunate story, and I'm glad for this opportunity to clear it up.

MR. HANSON: Why did the Premier not issue an immediate apology to those firefighters and hospital workers and police officers in this province? Why did he wait for this opportunity?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The earliest opportunity I had to meet the media was today, and I wasn't aware of the nature of the story nor the circulation until sometime late Sunday, That was the first opportunity I had to hear about it. I was in the Okanagan and did not see the newspaper accounts nor hear any on the media because I didn't have either the television or radio on, nor were they where I was.

MR. HANSON: Why did you not ask leave of this House to apologize to 250,000 people?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because the clarification had already been made and I'm pleased to have an opportunity to clarify it. There is no apology, because it is not what I meant, and I'm glad that I've had a chance to clarify it. Nor am I asking for apologies because the report does not correctly state what I either believe or intended to say or think I said.

MR. BARRETT: Don't you know what you're talking about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I know what I'm talking about. The Leader of the Opposition not only doesn't know what he's talking about; he doesn't even know what he's going to do.

MR. HANSON: To the Premier: is it not true, now that you have the opportunity, that no evidence exists that these people are not doing their jobs, and that what you're really doing is trying to scapegoat the public employees in this

[ Page 188 ]

province, blaming them for the mismanagement of the economy for which you are to blame?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the first member for Victoria has now gone beyond not accepting my clarification and is trying to insist that he doesn't accept my explanation. He is now starting to play politics with the situation.

These are very serious times. We have a very comprehensive management program that I think is supported by the large majority of the people of British Columbia. As it is implemented I'm sure it will gain the support of more. Those who would attempt to confuse the situation or create fears where no fear should be extended are not serving the interests of British Columbia. They are doing what they've always done, and that's why you'll always be over there: you play politics with every situation.

TRANSFER OF RENTALSMAN DISPUTES TO
COURTS

MR. MACDONALD: Bill 5, which, I won't discuss the merits of, says that the jurisdiction of the rentalsman in dispute resolution is being transferred entirely to the courts effective October 1. Has the Premier any cost analysis showing the impact upon the courts of those additional costs of writs and lawyers and judges and appeals and sheriffs?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are getting very close to legislation presently before us. However, I recognize the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the member is trying to pre-empt the opportunity of discussing this in debate on the bill. I know he's very interested in lawyers' costs and the way they undertake their duties. I've had firsthand opportunity to see him conduct a losing case.

MR. MACDONALD: Anybody whose reputation is worth only $10,000.... I don't know who won that case.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that I am perfectly in order in asking whether the government has papers, in the form of a cost analysis, as to the increased cost impact upon the courts of the province? Are there any such studies, or is it just an election payoff to the landlords?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Are there any such studies?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, while the review of the rules of question period could very well take us some time, I'm sure that members are familiar enough to know that questions which are argumentative are not in order. In fact, hon. members, very few questions are in order in question period. Therefore I would ask the members' support in at least adhering to the minimum requirements of question period.

HUMAN RIGHTS BRANCH

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-argumentative, non-political question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the mass firing of human rights branch officers and investigating staff on Friday, can the minister advise us of the status of cases under review by the branch in view of the fact that the Human Rights Code of B.C. remains in force in this province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we will be discussing that during the debate on the legislation. All of the cases which are presently before the branch are presently before the branch. There are a number, as well, that have been referred to me for action, and they are presently under consideration by myself. So they remain in the same situation that they were before this action took place.

MR. GABELMANN: In view of the fact that the fired employees must be paid until at least October 31, can the minister explain why the human rights officers will not be allowed to work in order to clear the existing caseload?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been practice in the past that when a program is either shut down or intended to be shut down, the people who have been involved in those programs are no longer necessary for the operation, since it's the clear intention of the government to change the way in which human rights problems will be solved in this province.

TREATMENT OF TERMINATED EMPLOYEES

MR. GABELMANN: I have another question for the Minister of Labour. In a television interview over the weekend, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said that employees affected by government restraint will be dealt with "with the fullest possible understanding and sensitivity." Can the minister explain where the sensitivity and understanding are when RCMP and sheriffs are sent to vacationing employees' homes to retrieve office keys?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, if the member has evidence of that happening I'd appreciate having it; it certainly wouldn't have been under my orders, or those of the deputy minister. If it has happened I'll take some action, and I'll make sure that it will never happen again. But it would be incumbent upon that member, if he has that kind of evidence, to make sure that I, as the minister, obtain it.

MR. GABELMANN: Who is the deputy minister?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the deputy minister in each ministry of government is a matter of public record.

[ Page 189 ]

TRADING IN SHARES OF SUNMASK PETROLEUM

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Shares of Sunmask Petroleum, which is involved in the ownership of the Spetifore property, through an option to obtain a 30 percent interest in Dawn Development (Canada) Corp., traded on the 6th and 7th of this month, before the budget was presented to this House, in the neighbourhood of 150,000 shares — somewhat in excess of the regular trading pattern. The shares increased on the 6th by 10 cents over the day before, on the 7th by 20 cents, and by 30 cents on the 8th.

Can the minister tell the House whether he is conducting, or will conduct, an investigation to determine whether there was a leak of the legislation that affected the Spetifore property before it was tabled in this House?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, because of the detail that the member has given on the floor of the House, I'll take that question as notice, and if he can provide me with some details in writing I'll certainly be prepared to follow it up.

MR. HOWARD: Doesn't the minister know how to read Hansard? I just put the facts on the record. Isn't the superintendent of brokers under the minister's jurisdiction? Does the minister know what he's doing? What I'm asking is a very serious question about the potential leaking of information relating to legislation that advanced the interests of insiders and speculators in Sunmask shares.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I know the superintendent of brokers is under my ministry, and I will be pleased to wait to read Hansard in order to get the information to follow up.

TREATMENT OF TERMINATED EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I didn't want to interject again during question period, because I wanted to give other members a chance to take part, but I would appreciate it very much if the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) would make available to me any evidence that he has of the allegations that he made in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has no way of enforcing such action, hon. member. That is at the member's discretion.

Prior to recognizing Mr. Clerk, hon. members, I have the honour of tabling the 1982 annual report of the ombudsman to the Legislative Assembly.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, may I welcome you to your chair for the first time.

I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine (a) the sum of $6,042,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and being substantially three-quarters of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and (b) the sum of $184,000,000, being substantially three-quarters of the total amount required for the purposes referred to in sections (a) and (b) of schedule (c) of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the committee rise, report the resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports a resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution be reported as considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of the resolution from the Committee of Supply on July 11, 1983, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

[2:30]

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting. Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine: (a) the sum of $6,042,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and being substantially three-quarters of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and (b) the sum of $184,000,000 being substantially three-quarters of the total amount required for the purposes referred to in sections (a) and (b) and schedule C of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

[ Page 190 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports a resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the report of the resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on July 11, 1983, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: I present Bill 10, intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1983.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I ask you to remain in your seats for just a moment while the bill is circulated.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 10 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the committee rise and report recommending introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks in second reading. This supply bill is in the general form of previous years' supply bills presented to the Legislative Assembly. It requests a portion of the estimates presented last Thursday to provide for the ongoing expenditures of government. It also requests approximately three-quarters of the funding planned for the government's continuing employment development programs which, if I may point out to hon. members, appear in sections A and B of schedule C in the estimates. Full supply for these programs will be requested through the Employment Development Act which is now before the Legislature. Interim supply for these programs is required to provide for essential ongoing employment creation initiatives, such as indicated the other day; funding to accelerate highway construction, diking and river works; and projects which are related to the agricultural sector of the province.

In addition, as required by section 21 of the Financial Administration Act, special warrants approved by the Lieutenant-Governor to cover certain essential government expenditures are included as part of Bill 10. The bill contains schedules, as members will have noticed, on pages 2 to 5, listing those special warrants approved for the 1982-83 fiscal year and the first part of the 1983-84 fiscal year. I also want to point out that the amount of $6,226 million requested in this bill to defray certain government expenditures includes the amount of $3,181,033,000 for the 1983-84 fiscal year approved by special warrants.

Finally, as has I think been the case each time interim supply is presented, I would point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill, at the pleasure of the House, in order to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1983-84 fiscal year. I therefore move second reading of Bill 10.

MR. STUPICH: Certainly the opposition will agree to reasonably early passage of the legislation before us now. It's three-quarters of the budget, and I suppose we can say that we can agree with even more than three-quarters of the budget. But when it comes to voting on the budget as a whole, I'm sure the government would not expect anyone to support them other than the members in the House who will be obliged to vote for them. The comment from the community would seem to be unanimous in opposition to the total budget as such, although I think everyone would support at least three-quarters of it. There might be some differences as to which three-quarters.

The minister said in his remarks that it's the general form of such legislation, and I suppose it is; it's called the same thing: "interim supply." Certainly it's the first time in my experience that we've ever had one for nine months. The longest that I've ever seen previously was, I believe, two months. It might have been three. I'll give the minister the benefit of the doubt on that, but it was certainly nothing like nine months. Nine months, Mr. Speaker, takes us until next December.

I don't know whether it's part of this legislation or not, but previously on such occasions the minister and I have had a quiet corridor chat about the length of time to be covered by the supply bill and have speculated as to what this meant in terms of what the government had in mind. This time there wasn't that opportunity for the corridor chat, so I had no opportunity to ask him: does he have in mind the House

[ Page 191 ]

adjourning soon and not reconvening until sometime in December? If it's in order, Mr. Speaker, I thought he might want to comment on that in closing second reading debate on this legislation. Why are we today giving the government approval to spend enough money to keep the government supplied with funds until the end of December, which is some almost six months away? It does give one cause to wonder.

"General form as in previous...." Well, perhaps general form, but again there is a difference. I've been here for over 20 years, and it's the first time in my experience that the Supply Act has been brought in to retroactively approve special warrants passed by a cabinet, with absolutely no public discussion of government spending. We're not talking about nickels and dimes. Today we're being asked to approve spending of some $6.2 billion. The cabinet has already approved half of that spending, presumably without any discussion at all — certainly none filtered out of the cabinet room. Enough spending for four and a half months has already been approved, and a substantial amount of that has already been spent. One wonders just how far the minister is prepared to go in saying that this legislation is the same sort of thing we do year after year. It would seem to me that the dissimilarities are greater than the similarities.

That, of course, would lead one into a discussion about why the government thought it was necessary to proceed by special warrant in the first place. There certainly was ample time between early October 1982 and the day the election was eventually called, April 7, 1983, for the government to have produced a budget. If one were going to accept the general form in the province of British Columbia, it would have been normal to have had a budget by the end of January. With this administration it has become later and later. Last year, 1982, it was produced on April 5; the new fiscal period had already started. In 1979, I recall, it was delivered on April 2, the day after April Fool's Day. So each year it seems to be getting later. But this is ridiculous. We're into July before the government is able to pull together a budget — the last budget, I believe, in the whole dominion of Canada. One has to wonder: is this government not able...? There used to be some question about its ability to run a peanut stand. It would seem to me that it's becoming increasingly difficult for this particular group to run a government. Each year the budget is later. We find that the cabinet has to approve in excess of $3 billion in spending before they have the temerity to bring their figures to the Legislature. Now, of course, the Legislature is obliged to approve the legislation before us — the Supply Act — because the Legislature can't possibly hold up the kind of spending that is going on on a day-to-day basis. With the special warrants already approved, the government could go on well into August before it required anything.

Nevertheless, as far as the opposition is concerned, we do not intend to hold up unduly the passage of the legislation now before us. We prefer to get into a detailed examination of estimates. We prefer to deal with the details of the budget, because there are many items in it that we do want to talk about; and we want to have an opportunity to vote against it at the earliest possible time, again and again. With respect to the Supply Act before us now, the opposition will support it.

[2:45]

MR. MACDONALD: I want to say a few words about the bill before the House, which shouldn't be before us at all. We've had a very strange spring and summer in the province of British Columbia. March 31 was the end of the fiscal year, and it went by without the Legislature being called and without a budget being presented.

Had the budget been presented, the government would not have won the last election.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they would not have won the.... The Premier deliberately, through his public relations and his polling techniques in his own office, held back the presentation of a budget to the people of British Columbia so that they would vote for him blindly. You stole the election.

The Minister of Finance is shaking his head. The political interference from the Premier's office in your department, Mr. Minister of Finance, is nothing short of a disgrace. I remember the statements of the Minister of Finance, who said: "Well, we will have a budget. We have some financial integrity." Then you'd hear a statement from the Premier: no, there would be a budget in June. Who was making the decisions? What is happening to the financial integrity of the province of British Columbia?

A long time ago we had a Finance minister whose name, I think, was Jones. He stood up — as an Attorney-General should within a cabinet; so should the Minister of Finance — and said: "I have certain important obligations to the people." Well, this Minister of Finance was ruthlessly manipulated by the Premier's office.

Had this budget been presented as it should have been presented, there would have been a different government today in the province of British Columbia. I spoke to Alderman Don Bellamy yesterday for a few minutes. He was furious about the 7 percent on meals over $7, which doesn't apply to McDonald's, but applies to an awful lot of people. He was saying: "I'll never be a Socred again." I tried to talk him out of it. I said: "You look like a Socred. You've always behaved like one. Why jump ship just because of a little election fraud, Don? You were had, but so were the whole people of British Columbia. Why get so excited suddenly?" So maybe I've held him in the ranks of the Social Credit, where he belongs. But the people of British Columbia would not have voted for this government had the Premier come clean with a budget and said sales tax is going up to 7 percent. No way.

I'm talking a little jocularly, maybe, but we do have a statute in this province called the Financial Administration Act, Mr. Speaker, and it says that if funds are urgently and immediately required they can be granted by the Crown without legislative debate or appropriation. They were not urgently and immediately required. All the Premier had to do was to summon the Legislature and present interim supply or present a budget at estimates. The government has tortured, beyond all reason, the language in the Financial Administration Act. That's the kind of thing that King Charles I lost his head over, just as during that spring when you were listening to the statements of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) it looked as if he was losing his head for a while there too, wondering what he was going to be allowed to do by the Premier's office.

I know I'm talking history, in a sense, but I hope people won't forget it. We shouldn't be here in the month of July debating an appropriation running into billions of dollars that should have been presented to the people before they voted;

[ Page 192 ]

that should have been presented to the people and the Legislature before the end of the fiscal year, on March 31. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of manipulation of the democratic process will never happen again in this province of British Columbia.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't feel the least bit jocular about this particular piece of legislation. It disturbs me very much to be asked to vote on a bill which covers three-quarters of a budget which we only saw two or three days ago. Certainly there hasn't been time to really digest what is in that budget, and yet we are being asked to give approval to three-quarters of that without any time to really know and understand and grasp what that budget covers. We're being asked tor give approval to a sum, half of which is already covered by special warrants with no reference to this Legislature — already spent.

We go through what may appear to some of the people in the gallery to be strange motions here, with our moving people in and out of the chair and moving to Committee of Supply; but all of those things have roots, based on our democratic belief that the people must have a say about how the money is spent. This government is denying the people the right to have that say. They denied it by calling the election before they presented the budget, and they have denied it by delaying, week after week, month after month, giving us an opportunity to discuss these moneys. That's an underlying rule — one of the basic foundations of our whole parliamentary system — that the people and the money must be discussed prior to anything else. Our little red book tells us that that has to be the first thing we do. This government has denied us that right, Mr. Speaker. I feel very angry about that — very angry. I do not like living in a semi-fascist state, and that's what I seem to be living in. I tell you, the people of B.C. don't like it either.

You people think you have a mandate. You had a mandate before you brought in the throne speech and before you brought in the budget, but you have fast lost that mandate, and I tell you that as the people recognize what you are doing to them and the way you are ruling — like a monarchy, dictatorship, a fascist approach — they are fast going to decide that they don't like what you're doing.

I'm frightened by this kind of an approach because I'm frightened about the very basis of our democratic system. I think it's time people recognized what's happening in this province and recognized it for what it is. I look at this bill — I've seen it for all of five minutes — and what do I see in it? Two overruns on ministers' offices covered by special warrants. You're the people who are supposed to be cutting and restraining yourselves, and there you are: two overruns on ministers' offices. What kind of restraint is that? Hit the little guy and let you guys go on; is that the kind of restraint we've got in this province? I'm mightily annoyed about even having to discuss such a bill, in such an area of lack of information, and so late, Mr. Speaker. Futility in democracy, and that government is a futile and desperate government determined to keep power by whatever means at its disposal. It frightens and bothers me, and I hope the people of B.C. recognize it for what it is.

MR. SKELLY: I too would like to speak on this interim supply bill. My concern is in part about the first part of the bill, which of course deals with the current budget; we'll have an opportunity to deal with that later on in the legislative debate. My other concern is about why we're meeting so late in the year, why the government is presenting its budget so late in the year and why they need this interim supply bill in the first place.

The reason has to do with what the government calls its mandate. They went to the people without having presented a budget, prior to the end of a fiscal year, and they deceived the people. They told the people lies about what they were planning to do. They said they weren't going to increase taxes or user fees, and now they come down with a budget in which they say it's absolutely necessary to increase taxes and user fees. What concerns me is that this government should tell this Legislature clearly and simply — this budget tells the Legislature clearly and simply that the government was not telling the public the truth when it went to the electorate during the last election; therefore they have no mandate from the public because they didn't tell the truth about what they were planning to do. This government has no mandate whatsoever to do the things it's planning in this budget. They won the election, and we have to admit that they won. The numbers don't lie. It's the way they won the election that decides whether or not they have a mandate. We all know that Hitler went through several elections before he established his dictatorship. He used those elections as justification to claim a mandate from the people for the actions he subsequently took, which plunged us into the darkest period of our history in this century — the direction this government is going at the present time.

My concern is about the second part of the budget, in which we are asked to authorize, retroactively, money that should have been voted by this Legislature during its last session prior to the end of the fiscal year — not approved by cabinet behind the closed doors of cabinet, without any budget being presented to the Legislature. This is a shameful practice, one that was reversed years ago, as previous speakers have said, in some cases at the cost of the head of a monarch. In Canada it was won around the turn of the nineteenth century when legislative councils in this country got the power of the purse away from the executive branch, so that the people who were taxed had the right to have their representatives vote on how that money would be spent. The power of the purse was a hard-won power for legislative councils in this country, and again it was gained at the cost of blood and suffering by our forefathers. For the first time in 150 years this government has reversed that process and taken us all the way back to the beginning of the nineteenth century, sacrificing a hard-won element of the democracy that our forefathers gained for us in obtaining the power of the purse from the executive branch.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that this government comes into office today and claims to have a mandate from the people to do what it's proposing, claims to have a mandate to present this kind of legislation, is sickening. This government has no mandate at all. In fact, in presenting this kind of legislation it has chosen to ignore the mandate that the people have given it, and to take action against the people who elected it in the first place. It's shameful legislation.

MR. BARRETT: There are three specific areas that I wish to deal with in this interim supply bill. I will be brief, but certainly to the point to the minister.

[3:00]

During the debate in April 1982, a number of specific questions were asked of the minister concerning $45 million

[ Page 193 ]

that was taken from general revenue in the last week of the fiscal year 1982 — before March 31, as a matter of fact — and transferred to B.C. Rail. This was $45 million of taxpayers' money that was raised from general revenue by the citizens of this province, and those citizens expect a full accounting of not a small amount of money.

After we were presented with the budget, a number of questions were asked in the House as to where this $45 million was to go, how it was to be repaid, and where exactly it had been transferred. The minister informed the House that B.C. Rail had indeed been given $45 million, but the purpose of the $45 million was unclear because the government's policy had not been determined on the use of that $45 million. I asked at the time: "Why would a government give a Crown corporation $45 million if it didn't know what the Crown corporation was going to do with the money?"

If the government were to give a civil servant $45 million to go down to the comer and buy some coffee, it would be a nasty thing to do. If the government were to give $45 million to a school district and the school district said, "we're determining policy on it," that school district would be attacked by the whole government. If the government gave $45 million to a municipality to build roads, it would expect a full accounting. Here in this chamber there are members from municipal councils who, faced with an expenditure of $45 million, would expect to tell the public exactly where that money is going, who is going to spend it and how it is going to be repaid.

Without boring you with the details, Mr. Speaker, I raised this frequently during question period. I raised it directly to the Minister of Finance, I raised it through written question on the order paper and I raised it through the great articulate, clear-cut responsible Minister of Trade and Industry (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has yet to answer a question openly since his election to that high office. For once he even shut up. Can you imagine, members of this House — not the new members — any situation in which the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development would actually shut up? Here is one. It's a matter of amusement to consider that such a circumstance should take place, but he sat silent. Why did he sit silent? Because the $45 million — I charged at the time — was going to be taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this province and handed over in cash to B.C. Rail to be used to pull down B.C. Rail's debt so that it could show a profit before an election.

Can I put this in context for the citizens who pay their tax bills? Let me explain to you how it works under Social Credit. You take $45 million of taxpayers' money that should have gone into schools, roads and hospitals — tell the teachers that they are greedy, tell the municipal councils that they are irresponsible in handling the money, tell the hospitals that they'll have to do with shorter operations and save on sutures because the government is tight for money — and hand this $45 million over to B.C. Rail. When you're asked questions about it, say: "Well, we really don't know what is going to happen, because we haven't made the policy." This is supposed to be a businesslike government. This is an allegedly wise, tough, restrained and disciplined administration. It took $45 million, threw it up in the air, and said: "Everything that stays up there is the taxpayers'. Everything that falls on the ground goes to B.C. Rail." Guess how much the taxpayers got? We know what B.C. Rail got.

If you owned a mortgage out there, citizens of British Columbia, and someone came along and said, "your mortgage is $45 million; here is $45 million to pay off your mortgage," would you turn it down? No. So as a test pilot for this program B.C. Rail was given the $45 million. They didn't turn it down. The shock is that not one statement was made in this House by the Minister of Finance or by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development admitting that that $45 million was going to be handed over to B.C. Rail, without any accountability to the taxpayers of this province, as a direct subsidy to bring down the cost of the northeast coal development.

I'll have to read back my own words, because I don't think the government is going to quote me. I want to quote a prediction I made on April 8, 1982, in discussing this very situation where $45 million disappeared — not to the handicapped, not to the schools and not for jobs; it just disappeared. I said on April 8, 1982: "When is this going to end?" I stated: "What this bill proves is that there will be an election before another Social Credit budget is presented to this House." I was jeered for saying that. They said: "Oh, no, no, no, we'll explain the $45 million; you, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, just have a suspicious mind." Yes, I did have a suspicious mind. I thought I was being lied to. Little did I know that my suspicions were fully correct and that the government did lie about this $45 million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't say any minister lied; I said the government lied. That is a fact and it is in order, and the lie is proven in today's interim supply bill.

How did the government lie? It lied unashamedly and said to schools, hospitals, or municipalities, "No money for you." It handed over $45 million to B.C. Rail. They said they did not formulate the policy....

I don't mind your leaving, Mr. Minister. I wouldn't want your own words to come back to you, that lovely image you have of responsible restraint. The only guy in the world who could blow $45 million in a couple of hours and not give a word to the taxpayers or an explanation to this House; who never said a single word in answer to a question in committee on the bill and on the floor of this House. The government lied about the $45 million, and we've had to wait 14 months to find out where the taxpayers' money went. Every time you hear one of those birds over there chirp, chirp, chirp about restraint, let me tell you how they did it with $45 million that disappeared on a caboose.

I'll read this quote from the minister's own signed report. This is a minister who doesn't know where the money's going, doesn't know where it's coming from, but he thought that with the passage of time people would forget about the $45 million. As we attend the vote on $6 million for a government that lies about money, I quote here how the big lie was perpetrated.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has taken great liberty in using a word which on many occasions has been ruled unparliamentary in this chamber. To attribute it indirectly does not allow the member to do what he cannot do directly. Hon. member, you have been here long enough to know that temperate language at all times is a guide to moderation in debate.

[ Page 194 ]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I accept the admonition of the Chair. I have been careful not to call anybody in this room a liar. No, I haven't called any one of you a liar. If you want to disprove what I'm saying, okay, that's fine. I called the government "lying," Mr. Speaker. You see that the use of the word "lie" is what's in question. I will not use the word lie. I withdraw the word lie.

The government has not told the truth. Mr. Speaker, I do not want the press to go outside of this chamber with a corollary of that statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are very well aware that it is impossible for a member to do one way something that cannot be done in another way. To infer that any hon. member would not be telling the truth in the chamber is not in keeping with parliamentary tradition. I'm sure the member has a great respect for the traditions of parliament, and I would ask him to bear that in mind as he continues in his address.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my respect for parliament includes the giving of answers in this chamber and accountability for public funds. I asked 14 months ago for an accounting of $45 million that mysteriously disappeared with the stroke of a pen in the last week of the fiscal year '81-82. Had the NDP been in government and $45 million disappeared, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the language used by the members opposite would not have been as temperate as that which I am using today. Had the NDP done away with $45 million with the stroke of a pen, the Chair would have been well tested to keep them buckled down, even though there were no compulsory seatbelts at the time. But because I am MLA Emeritus — and I'm looking forward to taking my leave of this chamber — let me say that in the 23 years I've been here I recognize an untruth when I hear one, even though I can't refer to it.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I quote from page B15, the third paragraph from the bottom. I don't want to read too much because some of the new members will be shocked over the group they've joined and will rush out to resign their seats.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll take mine with me.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you'll take yours with you. You'd better hang on to it.

Let me read this just so the citizens of this province know what you're paying them for. Let's just keep it in this room, because there's only a handful of us. We don't want to shock the rest of those taxpayers out there. Between thee and me, Mr. Speaker, let us understand how this government operates. "During the year ended March 31, 1980, in view of the cumulative deficit of the railway" — i.e. the B.C. Rail — "the province's investment, which has amounted to $185 million as of March 31, 1980, was written down to $1." Hey, they wrote off $185,572,900 down to $1 in this one line — wiped out debt. Now you can't do that. So what did they do? They sold themselves some more shares. They just printed a handful more shares down at the Queen's Printer and said: "We owe $185 million. Tell the Queen's Printer to pump in some ink and grind out some shares, and we'll sell ourselves $185 million more worth of shares." That's Social Credit. Known as funny money.

I don't dispute that; that's a matter of philosophy. This is the question that I raise, and this is the answer that we had to wait 14 months for. "An additional investment of $45 million made in March 1982 has been written off and is reflected as an expenditure for the year."

They wrote off the $45 million that they gave to the railroad as a bad debt. All those teachers, firemen, policemen and public-sector workers — everybody who was told to tighten his belt, all those taxpayers who are gouged more, everybody who had to pay more for renter's grant — every one of them contributed to a $45 million write-off to B.C. Rail that was never given a full explanation in this House. And that minister has the gall to come in here this year still not saying what his policy was on that $45 million, and he wants another $6 billion to play with. Would you trust that minister? I tell you how I'm going to vote. I'm going to tell you, when it comes to his estimates, I intend to directly deal with himself. But I want to tell you this: you may have fooled a lot of people in this province, and you may have a happy little group of ambitious back-benchers, but when it all boils down to it, you lied about $45 million that you took out of schools, hospitals and roads, and you never had the courage to say in this House what you did with the money.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw the expression: "You lied."

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the expression that they lied. I withdraw it, but I'll tell it in the corridor, and I'll tell it on television, and I'll ask the government to sue me. I'll ask anybody over there to sue me for saying it, because $45 million was taken out of schools and hospitals in this province, never given a full explanation in this chamber, and in 14 months it shows up written off as a bad debt, and the minister who was the minister of the Crown himself at the time, when asked about the question, said: "We have no policy on this yet." Do you mean to tell me after these 14 months that you just shovelled over $45 million and didn't know what was going to happen to it?

[3:15]

Is that restraint? Is that accountability? Is that responsibility? Some $45 million shovelled out of the back of a truck, dumped into B.C. Rail with no explanation and no accountability, and they said that they're going to show restraint, I can just see them. The minister was spending too much time counting pencils — those with erasers and those without — to see how much money he could save while the 45 million bucks was going, going, gone.

Enough of that. It'll be just a temporary embarrassment to the minister. In about 30 seconds it'll be all forgotten. And remember, it was a socialist who brought it up. If a public accountant or somebody out there in the corporate world or Joe Citizen brought it up.... But it's just a little socialist who brought it up, asking for some honesty, truth and accountability. It's just a socialist, communist plot, Mr. Speaker. It's just a plot to find out what happened to our tax dollars and what's happening in our schools. Who would make such an allegation of such plots, Mr. Speaker. I would have no idea. But it's out there. Well, we'll just keep it in here. We don't want it to spread.

I want to come to another expenditure here. For those of you who have your first bill, ask the minister to autograph it. This is a memento. Oh, yes, this is a memento, particularly for the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) and the first

[ Page 195 ]

member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the member from Point Grey — the old guard. The old hard-bitten core of fiscal responsibility, the tough fighters.

Mr. Speaker, do you remember when the NDP was in office and they had a $100 million overrun in welfare? Do you think that's bad enough that somebody should resign over it?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Does anybody else over there think that that kind of overrun is bad enough that people should resign over it? Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to that member's attention — and I'll do it quietly because I don't want the press or anyone else to hear about this bill — that there's a $117 million overrun in welfare this year, I've heard of political envy before, but this is going too far. No wonder "Zalm" packed it up. No wonder he went back to chewing bulbs. One hundred and seventeen million bucks flew out the coop on welfare, and they don't bat an eye about an overrun. Look at the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser). I'd like to quote some of his old speeches about the overruns.

Oh, it's great fun now, Mr. Speaker, for those members. After all, it wasn't a matter of principle; it's just politics. Here a fib, there a fib, everywhere a fib, fib. "If we get caught, so what, the election's over, now we can tell the truth." I'd like to hear what the Employers' Council has got to say about that $117 million overrun in welfare. I'd like to hear what Mr. Walker at the Fraser Institute has to say about that. Here's this right-wing, capitalist government gouging every penny they can from the taxpayers and saying "no more overruns," and then they blow a $117 million overrun in welfare.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, to help the people. It belongs in the Guinness Book of Records under the category of "how much can you stretch credibility."

Well, they can stretch it; it's unlimited. They have rubber credibility — any way you want to go. The thing about it is they never have a need for Sominex. These people put their heads on a pillow and tell themselves they're tired, and they can convince themselves of anything. Conscience they ain't got. Guilt — that's for another world. But telling the whole truth — oh, well, that's something else again.

I can hear that $117 million overrun in welfare on the hotlines now. You know what's going to happen? It was all Levi's fault. Those right-wing spokespersons out there will say: "Well, we have to have a $117 million overrun to show that we can do better than the socialists. We really didn't want to spend the money. But a $117 million overrun proves that we're 17 percent better than the socialists." I can hear the whole speech now.

I see that my very good friend, the member for the Peace River country, is back in the House. I know that he's just bursting in his britches to stand up and tell us his part of that $45 million. I know that he's just going to reach over gradually now and turn up his microphone and get ready to speak on this bill and explain how that $45 million was spent. Why, I have a quote from him, Mr. Speaker — somewhere. Do you think I should find it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go ahead.

MR. BARRETT: Is he secure in cabinet, Mr. Speaker, or would I do damage to his role in that good office? Somewhere in here he said: "Oh, we're not going to use that $45 million for the railroad." Tch! Tch! That member has been struck silent. That's like me running out of words. Look at him, Mr. Speaker. He doesn't want to speak. He doesn't want to talk. He doesn't want to participate. He knows what happened to that $45 million, and this is the first time I've ever seen him show any self-control. Look at that! It's an incredible performance of maintaining self-control from a voluble minister who is now receiving social-work advice from his colleague from Cariboo. Restrain yourself, Mr. Minister. Don't get into this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check your wallet, Don.

MR. BARRETT: That's right! Hang on tight! It'll be over in a minute. Good going. Every penny they've paid to those image-makers is worth it if they can get that guy to sit through this.

But we know, don't we, Mr. Speaker? And some of the others know that it was that minister who knew all along that that $45 million taken from schools, taken from municipalities, taken from hospitals, was going to pay off the debt in B.C. Rail for his favourite project of northeast coal; while he said — and told this House, Mr. Speaker — that no money would come from general revenue, not one penny of taxpayers' money would go into B.C. Rail for that project.

MS. SANFORD: Is that a fib?

MR. BARRETT: Considering those words came from that minister, it's not a fib. It's what he believed at the time, and that's all right, Mr. Speaker. Ministers are entitled to mistakes — the $45 million misunderstanding, the $185 million write-off. But, Mr. Speaker, put that in context with the attacks on teachers, on school districts, on hospitals and on hospital boards. Put that in context with this pious claptrap about restraint. Put that in context with telling honest, hardworking citizens of this province that they must tighten their belts, show caution, and not blow money, while they hid the fact that that money was being written off as a bad debt for the 14 months.

I want to talk about the last subject that I intend to raise today. I was going to be more forceful, but I don't have to be now because we've had an explanation from the Premier on this subject — that he's been misunderstood again. You see, two senior reporters, as the Premier described them, said that when we pay tax money out of consolidated revenue, some people are not doing their jobs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the Premier will come into this House and put a motion of privilege on the order paper asking those two reporters to come to the bar — not the kind that they're normally familiar with in the passage of their professional duties but the golden bar in this chamber — in the morning so we can be sure it's straight testimony, and to turn on their little tape recorder and find out whether the Premier said these words.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Who's not doing their job in the civil service? Do you know anybody? If so, Mr. Speaker, why did they withhold that information until just this week? Are they sitting on

[ Page 196 ]

reports saying that people aren't doing their jobs? How does it feel to be a psychiatric nurse in a mental hospital struggling with a dangerously ill patient, to pick up the newspaper and see that they are squandering money on civil servants? How does it feel to be a prison guard and to be assaulted by a criminal in the line of duty and to pick up the paper and read that you are really not doing your job. How does it feel to be a nurse in a hospital when there's a line-up of patients in the emergency ward and you've just discovered that $45 million in your budget was thrown on B.C. Rail, and you read in the newspaper that we're paying you money for not doing a job? How does it feel for a fireman to climb up a ladder and go in and rescue a child...? What does it do for their morale, these people who are on the line 24 hours a day in a community protecting life and limb so the likes of us can be in comfort here in this chamber?

During my early years, Mr. Speaker, I did work as a prison guard. We put in more than eight hours a day. We put in 12, 14 and 16 hours a day with young offenders. We didn't get paid for that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You got fired, too.

MR. BARRETT: Sure, I got fired, because I attacked this government. Had I been a Socred I wouldn't have been fired.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at the opportunity it gave you.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's wonderful.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the reference is that I am a lame duck. Is that right? Okay, I'd rather be a lame duck than a lame-brain any day, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too bad you're both.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now we've got the member involved in the debate. Now we're going to see some intelligent repartee. First it starts with an indecipherable yell, then an unrestrained....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: There it is; there's the number one stage, Mr. Speaker — the indecipherable yell. Shortly there will be a bellow, sometimes mistaken as a burp, and then some semi-intelligent utterance about "I told you so."

Mr. Speaker, what this government deliberately set out to do was to leave the impression that they are being generous in hiring people for government jobs — to leave the impression that everybody out there who works for the government has a soft touch. I'd ask the cabinet to go spend a night in jail as a prison guard. I'd ask them to spend a few days in another kind of mental hospital — not this one, but another one. I'd ask them to go and spend an evening with a policeman who's going about his duties trying to maintain the peace in our communities. I'd ask them to go and spend some dangerous time with firemen. I'd ask them to understand that for the most part, people who go to work, no matter who hires them, give a full day's measure, and they should be treated with respect and with dignity.

[3:30]

Would that we got a full day's work out of politicians. We haven't been here for seven and a half months. There was no budget before this interim supply. We were being ruled by decree. The government never called the House together. It's the first time since Charles I lost his head over the same action — Bill the First. Is there anyone at the municipal level who could get away with financing in this way? Is there anybody in the business world who could get away with financing in this way? Is there any major corporation that would lift the hat off its head, throw in the dice, call out the numbers and say, "see you tomorrow"?

This government, known as the Social Credit Party, deliberately did not call this chamber together because it had massive overruns, as witnessed by the $117 million in welfare. It deliberately did not call this chamber together because it was hiding the fact that it wrote off $45 million in a handout as debt to B.C. Rail. It did not call this chamber together because it did not want to face the people of British Columbia with what they knew was going on.

I said in April 1982 that they would not call the House again until an election was over; I was right. Anybody in this province who believes this government now.... Regardless of their political philosophy, regardless of their station in life, regardless of their role in our great community, anybody who would believe the word of this government when it comes to public accounts, has got to show the greatest amount of faith that has ever been recorded in the history of mankind. I am not a skeptic. I am not a cynic. I have an open mind and an open heart, but when I have been done over the way this government has done me over.... You do over the people of British Columbia again and again by gouging money out of schools, gouging money out of hospitals and gouging it out of roads and saying it's restraint, while all the time you are pouring it into subsidies for a Crown corporation, and you didn't have the decency or the guts to come back and tell the people of British Columbia what you were doing. That's what you stand for: a government that refuses to tell the truth.

On election night I turned into the cameras and said that I rejoiced for the victors; all I asked was that they tell the truth. They have yet to learn that lesson.

Mr. Speaker, in the short history of this province....

There sits over your chair the dates of the opening of this chamber. It was opened in 1897 — not even one hundred years ago. In the first 78 years after this chamber was opened, the cumulative debt of everything we did in this province — Crown corporations and every expenditure for capital assets — was $4.8 billion up to 1975. In those eight short years between 1975 and the present this government has increased the provincial debt threefold to well over $12.5 billion. In terms of debt, every single kind of government — Liberal, Conservative, coalition, NDP and 20 years of Social Credit — did not accumulate more than $4.8 billion; this government tripled that amount in eight years, and today they expect us to talk about their fiscal responsibility.

This uncomfortable moment will be over shortly and I will take my place, and 99.99 percent of the people of this province will never know that this moment passed. But, Mr. Speaker, let you and I know what is passing here. Let you and I clearly understand the line that divides the official opposition from that coalition over there; the line is called truth and honesty in government, more than anything else.

[ Page 197 ]

There are children who are going to have their education impaired because of this government; there are line-ups of people waiting at hospitals for needed surgery; there are projects that are being shelved on the basis of restraint. And all along it has been nothing but a political sham and fraud. There has been a massive diversion of funds into projections and projects, funds taken out of general revenue that people paid their taxes for.

In that short period of time, I have had the honour and pleasure of sitting in this chamber for almost one-fifth of the history of this province. In that too-long period of time I have never witnessed anything as callous, untruthful and cynical as this government and this bill today.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I stand in the House to support the legislation. Before I give you the reasons why, I would like to say yes, the member who sat down has indeed been in this House for a number of years. He has made a lot of speeches, but none as hypothetical and shallow as the one he just made, I thought maybe it was his swan song.

I can remember playing around puddles when I was a kid. The little polliwogs used to jump in the puddle, the puddle would drain away and the poor little polliwogs would be left high and dry. That's sort of what the member reminds me of. He is still thrashing around but the water is going, and pretty soon there aren't going to be many people around. There weren't many listening to him in the House, as a matter of fact.

Back to the budget. I want to talk for just a moment about the $45 million that was discussed earlier with regard to B.C. Railway. Before I do, I want to remind members of the House that that money was transferred to that great British Columbia railway before restraint. That member stands up and says schools and hospitals are being cut by 20 percent. I didn't believe him because it's not true. But I am surprised that this member could even mention B.C. Railway, because in 1977, the last year that he was president of the railway, a year when the economy was booming right along in British Columbia, it lost $22 million on operations. Now, under the management of this great government and a new board of directors, not only is the railway doing a fantastic job of serving the industry of this great province, but last year, in one of the most difficult years in the economy since 1930, the government and its good management made over $17.5 million. That change has taken place in a very short period. It is because of good management, the leadership of an independent board of directors and this government that the railway is once again a part of British Columbia that all British Columbians are proud of. It is serving, and will be returning a profit to, the people of British Columbia.

Now I want to talk about the $45 million. If you analyze what he says, the man who just took his seat wants you to spend more, gives you the devil for restraint, says that everything is being gouged, and services to people. We've listened to that rhetoric in this House for far too long. We're not going to miss it, because I understand you are going bye-byes. It won't be soon enough for me. You perpetuated the idea that everything the government does is against British Columbia and the taxpayers.

You would think he was the author of social services. I don't think he read the budget speech. Expenditures in this year's budget for services to people are up 8 percent. Over 70 percent of the budget this year is to services to people: Health, Human Resources, Education, Attorney-General, Colleges and Universities. He has the audacity to stand in this House.... You'd think we were cutting services to people. We're cutting out some of the fluff that's not needed and that the taxpayers don't want to pay for. When it comes to needed services for people, we are better at providing them than you are. We have promoted those industries and those areas in the province that service industries to ensure that the private sector will provide the taxes so that those services to people — those essential services to people that you pontificate about all the time, my friend — will be there in the years to come. I want to tell you that the British Columbia Railway has been an instrument of development. I can remember when I used to sit on that side of the House and spend about a third of the time in this Legislature arguing about the British Columbia Railway. I can remember the years 1976, '77, '78, '79, and then a little bit in '80, a little less in '81 and practically not at all last year — no one wants to mention the British Columbia Railway, because it is being very well run.

I can remember when that member built a railcar plant. There were huge overruns in that railcar plant, and the money that went into the railcar plant had to come out of hospitals, out of education, out of services to people. It was a waste of money, because not only was he going to build this railcar plant for $4 million, but it ended up being a 100 percent overrun. It cost twice as much as they planned when they were building. That wasted money came out of the hands of the taxpayers of British Columbia. You took that money and you wasted it on the car plant. Not only that, when they started manufacturing cars, the cost of the cars was 30 to 50 percent more than they could be produced anywhere else. And then he runs around the province saying: "Oh, the Socreds, they cut down the car plant." I'll tell you, if we'd have kept it going, we'd have had the tracks of the British Columbia Railway in British Columbia full of cars, and they'd all have been produced at about 50 percent more than they could be produced anywhere else.

MR. MACDONALD: What nonsense!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That's not nonsense. You, my friend, you were a disaster as Minister of Energy. If I were you, I'd just sit there and hang my head in shame. We know how Williams wanted your job. Williams is going to come back to haunt you. When the second member steps down, Williams is going to get his seat. Williams will get you yet. I'll tell you, Williams has got a long memory.

[3:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, one moment, please. A great deal of latitude has been allowed in this second reading of the Supply Act. The Chair has allowed it, I guess for some historical purpose, but now I think we have really exhausted the limits of latitude to both sides of the House. Perhaps we can return to the second reading of Bill 10.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm talking about the warrants in this bill because some of them went to the British Columbia Railway. Mr. Speaker, I realize you allowed a great deal of latitude to the member opposite when he was speaking, because I remember him saying something about line-ups of people at the hospitals, and children's education being impaired. Was there ever anything further from the truth, when this budget this year is up 8.5 percent over last year to

[ Page 198 ]

provide more and better services to people in education and in the hospitals, when we are taking the highest.... I've been in this House for a number of years as well, and the percentage of the budget going this year to provide services for people — the debt — is the highest it has ever been. And they sit over there and pontificate and say that we're removing essential services from people and that we're not providing any money for health or education. I'll tell you, the people of this province didn't buy that on May 5.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the $45 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're still flogging that....

I'll tell you, I really feel sorry for your guys over there, When you start talking about how we didn't tell the people there was going to be a deficit, that is simply not true. But I remember well that in November and 11 days in December of 1975, when there were no quarterly reports, when the Minister of Finance didn't stand up and say, "Yes, we're going to face a deficit," like our Minister of Finance did.... He went ahead like there was no tomorrow, called a snap election and expected the people to go into it with their eyes closed. We told the people of this province the truth. We told them there was going to be a deficit. We told them there'd probably be a deficit next year. We told the people the truth. Because we have been up front with our financing, with our budgets, with our forecasts and with our quarterly reports, the people of this province know that they can rest assured that what this government does they can rely on. That's why that member there is trying his last swan song to justify what he did when he was Minister of Finance. You well know, Mr. Speaker, that when the financial ship was sinking and the holes were showing up everywhere, he jumped overboard and called the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). He thought that because he was from a port city he'd be able to run that ship. I remember it well. He abandoned the ship, called a snap election and expected the people of this province to buy his garbage. I'll tell you they didn't buy it.

Our Minister of Finance and our Premier went around this province and said: "Yes, we're going to have a deficit. We underestimated the depth of the recession."

MR. BARRETT: What happened to the $45 million?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We told them the truth, my friend. You can wave all the books around you want. We told them the truth. We brought in quarterly reports, and we brought in Erma Morrison to check the accounts. That's more than you did. So you stand up here and you try and justify your silly actions when you were Minister of Finance and Premier of this province. It won't work, my friend.

MR. BARRETT: Tell us about the $45 million.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The $45 million is one of the best investments that the taxpayers of this province have ever made, because already by picking up some of the....

MR. BARRETT: You said you'd never do it. You said in this House you'd never spend that money.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Where do you expect the British Columbia Railway to get its money from? Off some tree or something? I remember when you put through $35 million to the British Columbia Railway. I stood up and I said: "What is it?" You didn't even know whether it was a grant or a loan. You called it a groan. I'll tell you, that $35 million had to come right out of the taxpayer's hands, to be wasted, because you were losing that much in almost two years. Today, that $45 investment will return millions and millions and millions of dollars to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

So I just wanted to set the record straight and say that I definitely support this interim supply bill and I support our Minister of Finance. I just didn't want you to be taken in by that last humble plea from the lame-duck Leader of the Opposition who was trying to justify what he did when he was Minister of Finance. I haven't heard him say that in this House for so long that it's good to see you back in form, and bye-bye.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have just a very short comment. I heard the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) make some comments about burnping into Mr. Bellamy, the man who is in charge of the B.C. Restaurant Association, yesterday and having Mr. Bellamy say that he would never vote Socred again. I think I'm quoting him correctly.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I talked him out of that. He's still with you.

MR. REYNOLDS: Well, the second member for Vancouver East is saying he talked him out of it. I'm suggesting to the hon. member that Mr. Bellamy never said anything of the sort, because I called him after I heard the second member's speech. He denies ever saying that. He said that he would never say such a thing. He is a Socred, a man very happy to be one. He is concerned about the 7 percent on some of the restaurants; he would prefer to see it 3 percent across the board, which would actually make the government more money than the 7 percent. I just wanted to put it on the record that Mr. Bellamy is going to be on CKVU tonight denying what the second member for Vancouver East said today in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If we're back to the bill, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened with interest to the comments made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not in his seat at the present time, but perhaps he is listening in his office. Yes, it is correct that in the past we have had a corridor discussion to discuss the nature of interim supply. I'm sorry that we didn't have that conversation this week or rather last week leading up to today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Nanaimo, who is the finance critic for the official opposition, spoke about the special warrants which are contained in Bill 10, and I think that it is appropriate to identify for the House — I did not do so in my opening remarks in this debate — that the most recent special warrant, the one under which we are presently operating, is valid until approximately July 31. Mr. Speaker, you would understand the use of the word approximately, because it depends on the draw on the provincial treasury. It might extend into the first two or three days of August or it might not, depending on a variety of circumstances which as of today, July 11, are

[ Page 199 ]

unforeseen. I felt, and indeed the government feels, that notwithstanding the special-warrant authority which was made available through the Financial Administration Act, and which was supported unanimously in the last parliament by members on both sides, it was appropriate that we return to the more traditional legislative route of interim supply at the earliest possible day. When one considers that we gathered here for the throne speech late last month and the budget speech occurred on Thursday last.... Notwithstanding almost three weeks, let us say for purposes of illustration, remaining under special warrant, it was thought that the government should move early rather than at the last minute to validate the special warrants and then, again, function under the more conventional, traditional and accountable interim supply mechanism which is before us at this time. I had the opportunity to reread the Leader of the Opposition's statements of April 8, 1982, regarding British Columbia Rail. He made reference to one page in particular, but on page 6949 and for the balance of that debate we see that somehow that member, who has also left his seat — I see he's in the chamber — has just not been able to understand or accept the success of the British Columbia Railway over the last several years. That's it; it's nothing more.

MR. BARRETT: Just tell the truth.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I trust the member is not inferring that I'm not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that the British Columbia Railway was one of his favourites during his brief time as Premier of this province, and he has not been able to accept the fact that under the businesslike administration since late 1975 that railway has turned around and turned the comer. It is a credit, in particular, to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and it is a credit to the board of directors of British Columbia Railway. But for those members who may have forgotten the debate last year, and for those new members who may care to read, we can see that July 11, 1983, is very much a revisiting, on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, of remarks made in April 1982, debating a similar bill, interim supply.

I thank the several members for their comments, and I move second reading of Bill 10.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1983

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On schedule 1.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask a question of the minister regarding the last warrant in schedule 1: Ministry of Tourism, for marketing and advertising, $1 million. Can he give us the details on that particular warrant?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the first member for Victoria, this special warrant relates essentially to advertising which is pre-booked. The Minister of Tourism and I have discussed this in a number of conversations. It is appreciated that some of the external advertising which the Ministry of Tourism undertakes must be booked well in advance. Prior to the Financial Administration Act being passed in this House, those commitments were made without the degree of accountability which now is required under the FAA. Therefore this is a confirmation of expenditures which will occur at a time other than the fiscal year in which they have....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm attempting to give a straightforward answer. There are some distractions. If the member for Prince Rupert finds FAA to be confusing then I will spell it out for him again: the Financial Administration Act, which I think he supported.

[4:00]

In any event, it is to clearly identify funds which are spent in a fiscal year other than which they are allocated. I trust that satisfies the member.

MR. HANSON: I would like a little more clarification, because it is $1 million for advertising. On March 31, right at the end of the fiscal year, seven days before the provincial election was called.... Do you have in your briefing notes any details on the type of advertising? Was that part of the advertising that was the run-up to the provincial election?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have no information in my briefing notes with respect to the bill, but quite clearly this was Ministry of Tourism advertising, and I may not have been as lucid in my explanation as the committee would like at this point in time. The fact is that this is a practice which went on for a number of years in the expenditure, or pre-commitment if you will, of advertising dollars for Tourism. The Financial Administration Act (FAA) now requires that a special warrant, rather than a carrying over of the commitment from one fiscal year to another, be clarified and clearly spelled out.

Did the member say that this was some several days before the election? It was some several weeks before the election — May 5; this is a March 31 warrant and it related purely to the fact that it was the end of the fiscal year. I'm sure that the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will be able to expand on that in greater detail when his estimates are debated; or, if the member wishes, I could undertake to provide more information for him in the course of the next several days.

MR. HANSON: I'd like to pursue it just a bit more, because we were given, prior to the election call of April 7, a ballpark figure of approximately $1 million for the B.C. Spirit advertising, which was the run-up to the campaign — the six-month advertising campaign before the election was called, where the taxpayers were paying the money and the

[ Page 200 ]

government was expending it on behalf of the Social Credit Party.

I think it is very important for this House to get clarification on what these expenditures in advertising are. I'm a relatively new member in this House, with only four years' service, but in the brief history of that four-year period, there is less and less information contained in the estimate book every session to enable us to establish how the government is expending the taxpayers' funds: I think this particular estimate book is as brief as, or probably briefer than, any we've ever seen. In fact we have heard corridor statements from your members indicating that it would involve perhaps six months' research to find out where the programs are being cut. That's the kind of information contained in the estimates.

So here we have a debate this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, where expenditures are being authorized for $6.042 billion, and all I can hear from the minister when he's coming for retroactive approval for the expenditure of a meagre $1 million for marketing services and advertising in the Ministry of Tourism, the day of the fiscal year-end, seven days before the call of an election.... I ask him what that advertising is and he tells me "pre-booking and FAA," and I get some bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. I think the people of the province deserve an answer for expenditure on a special warrant without any authority and recall to this Legislature — what the expenditure of that $1 million on a special warrant is. In schedule I it totals $186 million. I'm asking a very, very simple question: what was the $1 million on advertising for Tourism, seven days before the election, for?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, without being able to provide for the member and for other members of the committee the precise advertising bookings, I'm sure that the Minister of Tourism would be pleased to do that at the earliest possible time. Again, this is Tourism advertising, and let there be no mistake about that, Mr. Chairman. It is advertising for Tourism — much of it would be external but not all. Much of it would be external, to the province of British Columbia relative to Tourism only, and the member is misinformed if he is inquiring as to whether this could have been some other kind of advertising. That is not correct, and I'm sure that the member will accept my word in that regard.

Again, I believe that it is not bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. But that is another indication, Mr. Chairman, through you, of the stringency of the Financial Administration Act, which overhauled very outdated financial accountability legislation in this province. The FAA would not permit that which had occurred for a good number of years. Therefore the money had already been committed, and it was necessary for a special warrant to be passed for that advertising in the Ministry of Tourism. I'm quite satisfied with it, because the FAA has imposed disciplines on us which did not exist before, and I think that's very beneficial. It does not suggest a $1 million overrun in advertising by the Ministry of Tourism, but rather an upfront accounting of it before the end of the fiscal year. I again assure the member who has questioned this that the advertising is tourism-related and, indeed, marketing services within the Ministry of Tourism. It cannot be assigned to another ministry if it relates to this particular activity. It is Tourism, it says "Tourism," and that's the answer.

MR. HANSON: As the minister is aware, this is the first opportunity for this side of the House — and therefore the public — to query the government's expenditures for the preceding several months. Prior to the election, for six months on the televisions of this province we saw a series of extremely well made and extremely expensive films put together by Mr. Brown and his associates. When the government was asked about the financial accountability for those expenditures and what ministry's vote was used to draw those funds from, we were given the explanation that approximately three-quarters of a million dollars was expended for those films. I think it is a very fair question of the minister: in what vote of schedule 1 does the cost of those particular films reside? Is it schedule 1 or 2? Where is the warrant to cover the glossy Dave Brown movies that were sent all over the province, at taxpayers' expense, extolling the virtues of the Social Credit government, with the "B.C. Spirit" logo prominently displayed? This was before it became somehow institutionalized and legitimized as some kind of regular logo for the people of the province, whether or not they had a say in it — you know, the one on the liquor store clocks, on the sides of our ferries, on textbooks and now even on the MLAs' mail. You know, Mr. Chairman, this kind of notion frightens a lot of fair-minded people in this province. Somehow there's a symbolic linking between those logos of the Social Credit Party and taxpayers' money. That's something of great concern to us. In this particular debate on interim supply of $6.042 billion, half of which has been already expended by the government with no say or debate through this chamber for the people, I'm asking him under what particular vote, in schedule 1 or 2, do Mr. Brown's payments for those films reside? I think it's an absolutely fair question. I'm sure the people in your ministry who brief you on this very important legislation have provided you with backup data to give a fair answer to the people of the province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Again to the member, we are under schedule 1. The member rose on schedule 1. I suppose it is important therefore for Hansard, if not for the assistance of the members, to point out that schedule 1 relates to special warrants from 1980 to 1983 — funds up to and including March 31, 1983.

I say again to the member that the Ministry of Tourism advertising of $1 million was strictly related to tourism activity — nothing else, no more.

I'm going to go through the rest of the schedule, because the member is pursuing an incorrect assumption. Therefore I think it's appropriate to take some time to answer. Of the several warrants, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food's was $14 million — I'll round off the numbers. For Ministry of Agriculture and Food operations, $20.7 million. Ministry of the Attorney-General, police services, $2.5 million; court services, $1.2 million; corrections, $1 million; legal services, $1,080,000. It's a relatively small amount for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, considering the size of the warrants: minister's office, $30,000. For the Ministry of Finance: financing transactions, $2.4 million — I'm sure the member understands precisely what those are. For the Ministry of Forests: countervailing duties — the efforts undertaken by the Minister of Forests and senior officials in that ministry, $250,000. For the Ministry of Health, $24.5 million for supplementary health programs. For the Ministry of Human Resources — the largest one of all — a total of $186 million; supplementing ministry programs, $117.3 million. For the Ministry of Labour — again a relatively small amount — $27,000 supplementing vote 57; and the $1 million which the member has questioned at length. I can be of no further

[ Page 201 ]

assistance to the member with respect to schedule 1, in that the money to which he has referred with respect to government advertising is not in these schedules.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister where that particular expenditure resides in government?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are getting beyond the scope of the schedule, and we're allowed in committee to debate that which is specific.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Thank you for your direction, Mr. Chairman. It is not in these schedules. The government advertising to which the member has referred was carried out in fiscal year 1982-83 and will therefore be reported in public accounts for the fiscal year 1982-83 when they are made available to this Legislature. But they are not in the schedules, and therefore they are not in interim supply and therefore not in the 1983-84 expenditure. That advertising — thank you for your direction earlier, Mr. Chairman — did not occur in the fiscal year under debate in this supply act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point must be well taken by the Chair and by all members of the committee: we are on schedule 1. Debate in Committee of Supply is, of course, strictly relevant to the piece of business before us, which is schedule 1 at this point. We can inquire as to items listed in this schedule, but we really aren't allowed the scope to go much further.

MR. HANSON: I think the minister is missing the point. The point is that to make a proper accounting to the public, we must know under which votes and in what fashion the moneys are being expended. What we see here is a little paper, four or five pages long — if the people in the gallery can see it — which authorizes the spending of $6,042 billion. Now we're debating this document, and in it there is a schedule 1, and there are a number of columns. The columns indicate the date at which the expenditure was approved by an order-in-council; a number is assigned to the warrant; the service; and then it says, "Minister of Agriculture and Food," or, "Tourism," or whatever the case may be; and then it has two or three words, and then a number — $14 million, $20 million, $60 million or $90 million. There is no detail about how that money was spent.

I'm asking you a very simple question — because I think the people of the province would like to know; they're very concerned — about that particular series of political advertisements that took place prior to the election call: the logos, and Mr. Dave Brown, former advertising assistant to the Premier, who undertook the production of those films. I think, Mr. Chairman, it's entirely in order, because I'm trying to ascertain precisely where that vote is in the documentation before us. The Minister of Finance is telling us that it is not in schedule 1. My bet is that he would say that it is not in schedule 2. He says it's going to be in public accounts. Now he is the Minister of Finance of this province. He's coming to the people, and through Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to seek authority to spend an additional $3 billion. He's already spent something over $3 billion. I'm asking such a simple question: which ministry paid for those ads? He tells me that it's not in schedule 1. Is it in schedule 2?

[4:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, at this point we once again must remind the committee that we are specifically discussing schedule 1. It is clear that it's before us, and there's not much more we can say about that except to discuss schedule 1. Debate outside of schedule 1 would therefore be out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Finance has talked about the disciplines imposed upon him and all of us by the Financial Administration Act, which he refers to as good old FAA, our old friend that we all voted for. Of course, we didn't vote for it whatsoever for it to be tortured in the way it has been this year by the minister. However, schedule 1 says that these are warrants listed pursuant to section 21(5) of good old FAA. Now what I want to ask the minister, when he talks about the disciplines, is this: could we go in this province for two or three years without a budget, with a government...?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What's that got to do with the section we're on?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, we went for a year and a half, okay?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know the rules of the House, and you aren't abiding by them.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I do. I'm going to abide by them and insist on my rights for an answer.

Section 21(5) is specifically referred to there, and it says: "The amount appropriated by special warrant shall be submitted to the Legislature as part of the next ensuing supply bill." But supposing we had a government that wanted to go two or three years without a supply bill. What's to stop the minister's interpretation of the marvellous powers within section 21? What are the limits? I'll yield the floor for an answer, and then I may have something more to say.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We are on schedule 1 and it seems to me that the member who has just taken his seat — who has been a member of this House much longer than I — is seeking a legal opinion. I think he understands the rules of this House. The government is quite clearly presenting a supply bill. We are debating one portion of it. Quite clearly this government intends to pursue the traditional practices of this assembly and of this province. I have difficulty in answering a question which seeks a legal opinion, particularly in committee stage. The member did not speak in second reading stage.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I did.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He spoke in second-reading stage, but he did not raise that subject. I cannot give a legal opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the hon. second member for Vancouver East, the Chair must once again point out to the committee that our rules under committee guide us to be strictly relevant to a schedule or a section before us. Perhaps if all members could be reminded of that and speak specifically to schedule 1 and what schedule 1 indicates, we could be relevant and in order.

[ Page 202 ]

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know whether seeking a legal opinion of that minister would be of much use to me. He says we've been following the traditional practices of the province of British Columbia. That's nonsense! We've never had this situation where a budget was not brought in and vast sums warranted by special warrant when the Legislature should have been sitting, but I'll leave that alone.

This minister raised the point that there are disciplines in section 21 of the Financial Administration Act. I'm saying that the thing appears to be totally wide open. We now have a situation where a government would not have to bring in supply appropriation for one, two, three or four years, on the interpretation of the present government. That would be an extremely dangerous situation. When the minister says to this House there are disciplines that are imposed upon us, I'm asking how long we can go without supply appropriation. Is there any limit in time? That's a simple question. What are the limits on this power of King Charles I which this government has arrogated to itself? Are there any limits in time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Canvassing a piece of legislation is totally inappropriate at this point. We are in committee and we are discussing schedule 1.

MR. MACDONALD: We are discussing the schedules which are under subsection 5 of section 21. I want to know whether there are any limits whatsoever. The minister sits there silent, and I can just assume that we have reached the point in this province of British Columbia where there are no limits and where the Legislature does not have to any more have supply bills laid before it. As they see it under section 21 the government can pass special warrants on a massive scale, and then they have to be laid before the Legislature at the next ensuing appropriation. That might be two or three years down the road. So we have passed right over from democracy and fiscal responsibility to the people to government by decree. When I asked the minister: "Are there any limits in time?" he sat there silent. There are no limits. If a government is as arrogant as that one, there are no limits. It is time we pulled this province back to order and got rid of that gang.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I call all hon. members to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thought that we all had respect for the rules of this House. I cannot offer an answer to a hypothetical question in committee stage discussing a schedule. The member knows that full well. If he wants to raise the question in debate on the budget, then surely he can. But I cannot answer a question when we are dealing with a very narrow aspect of a supply bill. Again, I suggest that while the member may want to grandstand for a little while this afternoon — and that's fine — he could seek a legal opinion with respect to his question.

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Finance, I note that on schedule 1 there is an overrun of $117,300,000 for Human Resources. I find it rather ironic that we are retroactively passing it when we recall the many years that the Socred government — when they were in opposition, of course — spent hours expressing grave concern over an even lesser amount of money in an overrun. So my question to the Minister of Finance is: can you explain to us why this was needed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I alluded to this in the budget speech, and indeed, we spoke of it through the course of the winter. The $117,300,000 which was passed by special warrant on February 21 this year relates to the tremendous impact on the programs of that ministry in terms of the recession through 1982 and obviously towards the end of fiscal year '82-83. Quite simply and in a very straightforward manner, in the course of the late winter that ministry had expended, or was at the point of nearly expending, its earlier appropriation voted by this Legislature for a variety of programs. That is the answer, without getting into all the details — the traditional Ministry of Human Resources programs.

MRS. DAILLY: A final question to the minister on that same subject. In your answer I believe you said the "traditional" type of programs. Could the minister inform me if the majority of that money was spent on welfare payments because of increased unemployment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll defer to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), Mr. Chairman. If that is your wish and hers, it may provide the member with a more detailed answer.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'm really pleased to have an opportunity to respond to the question, because the question is couched in terms that would really add a commentary on our ministry's actions during the very strong international recession which we've all been through and which this province suffered from last year, comparing it with the $100 million overrun which was experienced by this province under that ministry of social services. I want to assure you that there is just no basis for comparison — absolutely none. Yes, the $117 million which is noted in this account was over that which was budgeted for and was expended to give help to people in need — that is, income assistance. We were responding to our statutory and, if I may add, our moral obligation to look after people in need.

I'm going to just give you a couple of figures which may help the member who has asked the question and those on the socialist side of the House. In March 1981 there were 56,859 cases on income assistance compared with 102,591 cases in March '83, this past year, this worst year of our recession — an increase over previous years of 56 percent. That year does not bear any relationship whatsoever to that of the former minister of social services in the NDP administration. In a very good year economically, his explanation was that there was a bookkeeping error of $100 million. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, there was no bookkeeping error in this regard. There was a need to provide for people in need. We did that and we're pleased that we were able to do that. I think that all of the people of British Columbia expected us to do that, and so we will in the future.

[4:30]

MRS. DAILLY: I'm glad that the minister has pointed out that her government has a moral obligation to provide when people are in need. I wish they felt the same moral obligation to do something to provide jobs for the people of this province, which we consider an equal moral obligation and which is not being met by that government.

[ Page 203 ]

For the record, Mr Chairman, I will continue on the schedule.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There's been a little latitude allowed on both sides. Back to the schedule, please.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, back to the schedule.

I think the comparisons were brought up by me and the minister between an overrun during the years of the NDP and that under the Socreds, and I would just like to make this one brief point: I'm very proud of the comparison. Under the NDP the overrun was for new, positive programs such as Pharmacare. On that side of the House the overrun is because of incompetent government having to put more people on welfare.

Schedule 1 approved.

On schedule 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just a comment on schedule 2. The first time....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I've been away doing very important business, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder). Farmers all over the province are having trouble.

In schedule 2 what we see, for the first time in the history of the province, is utter, complete and absolute dictatorship. Schedule 2, Mr. Chairman, outlines the money that the government has spent since the last budget went south, which was on March 31 of this year. Since that time the government has been spending our money, and now they say to us that we must face the music and pass this schedule, which accounts for money which they have spent without a shred of the parliamentary law behind them. They got away with this expenditure by manipulating the public and then ultimately calling an election. Then even after the election they did not bring forth a budget, because there had to be changes. Mr. Chairman, we see before us the first and hopefully the last time that the people in our province are going to be subjected to such tyranny and absolute dictatorship — because that's what we have here. This is what happens when you go as far right as these people; and I'm talking about political right with a large R. It's an absolute shame that the people....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Bring that member to order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member could speak to schedule 2, and the Chair must observe that we are entering into debate which would have been most appropriate in second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the only time that you can really debate schedule 2 is when you get to schedule 2. I'm debating it specifically, and if the member for Peace River has enough class to take the chair and tell people when they're right, wrong or indifferent, then that's one thing, but when he sits in his seat and suggests that I'm out of order, then I would suggest that he's quite unable to ascertain order and has always been. And we've both been here for a good long time.

Getting back to this schedule, it is all the appropriations that have been made since March 31. This is $3,181,033,000 that the government has spent without having come back to the Legislature to get permission; and the Legislature is the only body in our kind of democracy that can provide that permission. When you think of this schedule — and in my view it's criminal — and what it represents.... It represents what every decent, democratically inclined person must feel quite ill with. Going right back to the Magna Carta, people who are asked to shoulder the responsibilities of parliament have always resisted this kind of retroactive procedure of the House.

There is nothing we can do about it; the money has been spent. However, outrage should be, and was for a time, in the public's mind, in the minds of those journalists and editorial writers who have a comprehension of the meaning of democracy. But now, just as the government believed it would, time tends to make one a little forgetful. But I for one will never forget this travesty; never in my life will I forget it. It is a travesty before democracy and before the people in British Columbia; and I'm telling you that anybody who has thought it out is shocked beyond compare. If they had any shame the Minister of Finance would stand up in this House and say to the people of British Columbia, "I apologize most profoundly; I didn't do it on purpose," or something like that. Because, by God, we have faced dictatorship for the last number of months in this province, and let's hope it never happens again.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title and preamble approved.

HON. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with leave, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, reported complete without amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 10, Supply Act (No. 1), 1983, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 204 ]

YEAS — 47

NAYS — 1

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

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on Friday, I said that we were of one mind no matter which side of the House we were from. We wanted the budget....

Maybe we didn't want the budget, but we at least wanted the economy to improve. We wanted some sort of stimulus for the economy, because we all desire that the economy of British Columbia become better than it's been in the past and is now.

[4:45]

It makes one wonder, though, Mr. Speaker, why the government — being with us in wishing for a better economy — would bring in a budget that would dampen the economy. We have two problems: we have a short-term economic problem and we have a long-term economic problem. This budget, although it doesn't deal with the short-term problem the way that we would like to see it deal with the problem, is at least an attempt on the government's part to deal with short-term economics. I am surprised, though, that in the whole budget debate there wasn't one word spoken about the long-term problems that we face in this province, in terms of our economy. In the short term we want to stimulate the economy in such a way as to create some employment through economic activity. This budget has not addressed one stimulus that will create more economic activity. They have taken approximately $125 million in sales tax out of the pockets of consumers and turned it into the coffers of the treasury in Victoria.

I mentioned in the throne debate that no one questions the need for restraint. When the revenues aren't coming in, there has to be a curtailment of government spending or borrowing, or taxes have to be raised. We only have three choices. This government has chosen to borrow some money; they have chosen to raise money through taxation. What they've done is arrange to gather some taxes from those people in society who can least afford to pay. It's not just that it's a philosophic position taken by the government; it is an economic position that will throw a more dampening effect on the economy. Almost every economist in North America, or in the western democracies of the industrialized countries, is saying: "If there is one thing we need it's a consumer-led recovery."

In this province, and I think these figures can be verified by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), because I heard her mention this herself not long ago, there is approximately $25 billion in savings accounts. People who are making extremely high wages are taking a portion of their wages and putting it into savings accounts. They are putting it into savings accounts for a number of reasons: (1) they do not have consumer confidence; (2) they are not investing it in the marketplace because the return on interest rates in banks makes them feel a lot safer than investing it on a gamble in the business sector or in the private sector. So what we have are billions of dollars, sitting in the bank in savings accounts, that we desire to be spent in the economy.

When the Minister of Finance was asked on television yesterday whether he had considered a surtax on income for higher-income people, or whether he'd considered taxing people on the graduated income tax scale, he said that it has not been a consideration of government. Wouldn't it make you wonder, Mr. Speaker, why the Minister of Finance and the government wouldn't try to in some way get some of the money out of those savings accounts into the economy? The best way, of course, to do it is to have an economic climate such that those people voluntarily take their money out of savings accounts and invest it in the economy, either through consumer spending or through investing in a widening of the economy. But it's not happening. If the government had raised the same number of dollars out of a surtax on higher income groups that they've raised from raising the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent, wouldn't that have effectively meant that some of that money that was going to go into savings from the high-income groups would be diverted through a transfer payment into the economy? I don't think anyone can argue with that. That's what would happen. Yet this government didn't even consider it. Why not? Because they were not looking for an economic document. They were looking for a political document in the guise of a budget.

During the campaign the Premier and other cabinet ministers ran around the province pointing to public works with pride, saying: "These are what we've given to the people of British Columbia so that there will be some economic activity during this downturned economy." But what could be further from the truth? Those projects were started at the height of an inflationary spiral when times were good. This government has done everything backwards. When we had inflation, this government went out to the money markets and borrowed money, competing with the demand for money from the private sector and adding to inflation by borrowing money to build public works during an inflationary spiral. They also asked contractors to bid on these projects, when the contractors had all sorts of jobs they could bid on; that in turn added to the inflationary spiral in British Columbia. The timing was not to help us out of a recession, but were projects begun during the good times. They just happened to come to completion in a recession, but they were started during the good times. There was no economic reason for them to be done during that time. They may have had social benefits, but there was no economic reason to do it at that time.

[ Page 205 ]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When you are looking to investment to stimulate the economy, there are a number of criteria you have to keep in mind. First, you're hoping to stimulate the economy by creating some work on a short-term basis. When you're looking for that short-term project, you should also look for a project which, when completed,, will bring further wealth to the province in the future so you can pay for that deficit on future earnings. I think the northeast coal project would fall into that category. I think down the road the northeast coal project will have the opportunity of bringing wealth back into the province, so it's not a bad thing to deficit for, in general terms.

Let's get to the B.C. stadium. Does it fall into the same category as northeast coal? I don't think so. The Premier used to be very fond of talking about not borrowing money for groceries. You'll notice, Mr. Speaker, that he hasn't used that expression for some time, because he is now borrowing to pay for the groceries; but that used to be one of the Premier's favourite retorts. In fact, the Premier would gladly take any complex issue and break it down to the family, and show you how ludicrous economics was by pointing to the family. I've already said it's a beautiful stadium. It's something we as British Columbians can all be proud of, and should be proud of. But we did have some reservations about the timing of the stadium. Let's use the Premier's argument. Let's assume we're a family and that there's less money coming in, or the money coming in isn't going as far. We say, boy, here are hard times. We've got some choices to make in terms of priorities. Should we take a portion of our income and put it into a swimming pool in the backyard? Times are hard. Should we take money that maybe would put a nutritious diet on the table for our children? Should we take money that may have. Been destined for the dentist for better teeth care? Should we take money that could go to medicare payments so our family could have good medical coverage? Good medical and dental coverage and a nutritious diet for our family, or should we build the swimming pool in the backyard? What would you do, Mr. Speaker? Would you decide to cut down on medicare payments, to cut back on those areas in which your family spends money to make sure you've got good, sound teeth by having proper maintenance? Would you decide to take meat and fruit off your grocery list in order to build the swimming pool?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

When you're finished building the swimming pool in the backyard, you may have a big party and invite all the neighbours, who may all go for a swim. Everybody might say, "You know, this is the best damned swimming pool I've ever been in," and it may be true. But when do you build a swimming pool? Do you build it when you can't afford medical coverage? When you can't afford to pay your dentist? When you can't put proper nourishment on the table for your children, or clothe them properly? No damned fool would do that. Nobody. Yet the Premier would have us look at his government and say, "Aren't they wonderful?" "When things were really bad we built a swimming pool. We invited everybody. Everybody had a good time swimming. Now where are the doom and gloomers?" said Social Credit. Now who's against the stadium? Isn't it beautiful, with its big dome? But is it a project that will bring back manifold wealth? Is it a project that you should deficit finance for during bad times? Or is it a project that you should build during the good times?

The Premier is talking out of every which side of his mouth. First he said he wanted to do it because it was bad times. But then we remember that he did it when it was good times. Then when it's bad times he says: "Well, who knows? Are you against the swimming pool?" or, as he calls it, "the stadium." The Premier can't have it every way. One thing we do know is that you don't get a consumer-led recovery by taking money out of consumers' pockets. You don't get a consumer-led recovery when you make sure there's less money in the economy to be spent on consumer goods. It just doesn't work that way. Yet that's what this government has done in its 1983 budget. We have to suspect that those people at the lower end of the income scale are spending all they've got in the economy. We have to assume that they're not putting savings aside. We also have to assume that the high income earners are putting some savings aside, because we can look at the bank records and find $25 billion in savings in this province. There was no attempt whatsoever to get those savings out of bank accounts, either through incentives or taxation, in order to put that savings money into the economy so that we can have a consumer-led recovery.

Mr. Speaker, this government has decided that they're going to use restraint for economic recovery. Even Major Douglas, the great old man of Social Credit, would wonder what they're up to. How in the world do you have a consumer led economic recovery by practising restraint? As a matter of fact, when the Premier first brought his restraint package in he said it was to fight inflation, if you'll remember. Is that how it works? Does restraint fight inflation and bring about economic recovery? Is that how it works?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The first member for Surrey shakes her head and says: "Yes, that's how it works."

[5:00]

During an inflationary spiral you have the price of everything going up and your economy is going by leaps and bounds and bringing up the price of everything. Everybody who knows anything about economics knows that the way to get inflation down, if you're a classical economist, is to use interest rates and money supply. Tighten up on credit and money supply and up the interest rates and you force the economy into a depressed state, therefore bringing about a reduction in inflation. Everybody knows that, don't they? This government backed that very purpose in their 1978 paper, signed by the Premier, that they sent to the federal government. They said that the way to bring inflation down was to practise restraint — short money and high interest. Now, lo and behold, they say that's exactly their formula to get economic recovery. Is there any other kind of economic formula that they have? Do they use restraint to get recovery and to get depressions?

The short-term economics of our province are basically going to be solved in one way only. Restraint does do some things, however. Restraint by government probably means that when good times are here again the people who are working won't have as much money to pay back. They won't have to carry the kind of debt they may have had to carry if restraint was not practised — and that may be false. But

[ Page 206 ]

restraint may also mean another thing: it may mean that you don't go and take money out of the economy that could just as well be spent for consumer services and goods. This government has done it all wrong. First of all, they've taken money out of the economy to try to get recovery. They've taken money out of the pockets of consumers and therefore out of the tills of the small business community. Therefore they've taken orders away from the wholesalers, and the wholesalers are not going to order goods to sell. How does that bring about economic recovery? There isn't anybody who can tell you how it does, because it can't.

Watching the Minister of Finance on TV last night, it was quite obvious that he couldn't answer it. He can't answer that question. They say it's a "fragile recovery." Mr. Speaker, the only thing that's going to bring short-term economic recovery to this province is a market for those things we produce — like lumber, pulp and paper and mineral resources, especially copper. Those are the sorts of things that are going to give us economic recovery. Taking money out of the economy does not. It's impossible.

That's only short term, because in the long term we are in far more trouble than the short-term problems we have. Mr. Speaker, there was not one word in the budget debate about the sad state of our forest base in this province or about the same sad state of the fisheries. The Minister of Forests can show the people in this House and the people of this province where we are in real trouble in the long term in forestry. We are not going to have the timber to supply the demand. Up until now in this province we have tried to manage the forest base in such a way that it would meet any demand placed on it, and we've failed.

The only way to take the pressure off the forest base is to add wealth to the products that we ship out to the marketplace. It's the same in fishing and mining. Do we see this government actively pursuing a long-term plan? In fact, it's just the opposite. This budget is going to make sure that in the future there aren't any trees to harvest, because they've cut down on the reforestation program. That would have been a good investment during a depression, because that kind of investment brings wealth down the road. It could help pay off the deficit incurred to get the economic stimulus of reforestation. But no, not that. There's no money for reforestation, just sales tax to take money out of the consumers' pockets.

This budget has done nothing for economic recovery; in fact, every case can be made to say that this budget is going to further dampen the economy, and yet they're proud of it. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, every time the Minister of Finance opened his mouth and said, "We're going to make this harder on the people," all of the government benches applauded. Then the Minister of Finance went on to another paragraph, and he read how he's going to make it even harder for this group and the government members all applauded. Every time the Minister of Finance made a statement of how things were going to be really tough for some people in this province, every government member applauded. It's not that they think it's necessary and feel bad about it; they really feel glad about it. They really like to see it because they think it's going to make them look better politically. Throughout the budget debate, every time it was mentioned that it's going to be harder for this group or that, they applauded, laughed and banged their desks. When they should be hanging down their heads in shame, they're proud and full of glee.

Mr. Speaker, they've asked for the opposition to put forward some constructive criticism of what they could do. In the short term what could we do? Well, we could change this budget, and we could go after some of the income of people who make good money in this province.

HON. A. FRASER: You're a socialist.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, is there anything wrong with taking money away from those who have so much that they're banking it? You could take some of that money through the taxation system and put it back into the economy in programs like health care and reforestation. There is nothing wrong with it. What good is the money in the bank doing this recession? None whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has taken his place in this debate yet, but I will be interested in hearing his remarks, as a person who knows something about economics. I know he's going to vote for this budget, and before he does I'd like to hear him explain to me, in economic terms, how this budget is going to be good for economic recovery. I think he'll have his work cut out for him. In fact I suspect that he won't speak at all, or when he does speak, he will be speaking against the budget and voting for it, because there's no other way.

Tax the rich who are putting their money into savings accounts, and use that money for programs so that money can go back into the economy. There's a nice positive suggestion for you. The Minister of Finance says they didn't even consider a hike in income tax. Those people at the bottom of the scale who can least afford it are the ones they'll tax. Who do they hurt? They hurt people who up until now have just been managing to scrape by. They're going to hurt restaurants who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth hoping that the economy will pick up, and waiting for the tourist season. They're going to hurt every small business in this province — wholesalers and manufacturers. Nobody can deny it. Those are going to be the effects of this budget. But the government says those effects are going to help a fragile economic recovery get even better. Well, so far no one on that side of the House has told us how that kind of budget will bring about or help economic recovery. Every paper you pick up, quoting every economist you can think of, including Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute, says that this budget will hurt the economy. Are those people on the other side...? Is there some secret they've got?

MR. REID: Good leadership and good government.

MR. LEA: What we would like to have is an explanation from the government as to how this budget will help the economy. So far we haven't had one.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: "Sit down and he'll give it!" If he could give me one, they wouldn't let him. He always jumps up when he knows he's out of turn and says he'll explain everything, and when it comes his turn to explain he never explains anything.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: One good thing the government did during the election campaign was to put some money into UBC for pulp and paper research. Not enough and too late, but a move in the right direction. In the long term, if we're going to survive,

[ Page 207 ]

we have to find out what it is we can produce in this province that we can sell on the international marketplace and make a profit. Why isn't the government taking those first initial steps to find out what it is we can produce in this province? They talk about high tech, but they talk about it in exotic terms. They talk about chips and that kind of high technology, when in fact the high technology we should be putting our efforts, minds and money into is the kind of technology that can make those lumber products that we make into products the can sell, adding wealth.

We should be putting research and money and effort into the mining industry, so we can find out just what it is we can make in this province that we can sell competitively in the world marketplace. They should be putting money, effort and time into the fishing industry to see what it is we can do in the fishing industry that will make us competitive in the world marketplace.

How can we compete with countries that are turning out the same things that we are in raw form when they're paying the workers nothing in those other countries, when there are no environmental standards, when there's corrupt government? How can we compete with that? Do we want to? I suggest we don't want to. I suggest that we have everything here to pull ourselves up and to make ourselves a better economy, but it's not going to happen by government throwing up its its hands and saying: "There's nothing we can do. We're just going to have to sit back and wait for the private sector to get better."

What are they going to do — give them tax breaks — to do what? To build more pulp mills or paper mills, or for more lumber? We can't sell what we produce now, and there's every indication that the economy in the United States — our main customer for lumber — is not going to increase in the foreseeable future so that we can sell all our lumber. If you've been watching the financial news out of the United States, you will see that there's great concern about the money supply and what that may do to interest rates in the United States. If that money supply forces the interest rates up, what's going to happen to the housing market in the United States? If that happens, hat's going to happen to the sale of lumber from this province?

It doesn't seem to me that this government is dealing with the resource management and the economy of this province in any serious way — slap, dash, from one budget to the next without any idea of where they're going, never mind how they're going to get there. How do you know how you're going to get there when you don't know where you're going?

We have suggested a number of things to this government. We have suggested getting research money, not to government agencies, not to big corporations, but to small and medium-sized business where we feel the innovation and the initiative is. But you can't get that by giving tax write-offs on profit, because most of those companies are not making a profit. The only ones who can take advantage of tax write-offs in terms of research are the ones who are the giants, and they haven't shown us any innovative way to go. What are we going to do? Subsidize the Chryslers of British Columbia and let the smaller businesses, where innovation comes from, go by the wayside? That's all this government does. We've asked repeatedly that research money be made available to those areas of the economy where it will mean something — not to the gigantic bureaucracies of government or the corporate world, but to the small, innovative business people who might be able to do something, with some help with research money, to see which way we're going.

[5:15]

At the end of the Second World War, through the Marshall Plan, there was money made available to both West Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia to help them put together their economies after the destruction of the Second World War. According to the terms of the Marshall Plan, they were both precluded from spending money on national defence or building up an army. For that reason, plus good, clear thinking, both of those countries decided that they were going to put a lot of effort, time and money into research to see exactly what it was that they could produce once they got into production. Yes, they had to take hard economic times for a while, knowing that the future would be bright for them if they put their time and money into research. They had new plants to retool, they had research to do, and they did it.

We have allowed ourselves in this province, along with much of North America, to fall into industrial obsolescence, and we can't compete with other countries. We'd like to blame it all on OPEC from 1974. It's handy, because if we can blame it on an outsider then we can still feel pretty good ourselves — we're doing all right. But, Mr. Speaker, we still have an opportunity for a research program in this province that could help indicate to us the way we should go, what kind of production we should bring on, where we can sell the goods. And this party has also suggested that we do another thing in that regard in the long term. We think there should be an export corporation in this province — not publicly owned, although there may be some seed money coming out of government to help it get underway. But we are behind in aggressively searching out markets for those things that we do produce, and we are behind in searching out new areas for new production — items that we maybe could produce in this province.

Together with that export corporation, and meeting with the research that's being done in the province, we might find our way clear to take the pressure off our forest base, to take the pressure off our fish stocks, to take the pressure off our finite resources in minerals, and to give ourselves a breather until we see where we can go. But no! Instead there's more expansion, taking out more raw resources and shipping them out when we can't compete. How can we compete with copper when you have countries like Chile which are turning copper out at below production price just to make sure their balance of payments is all right?

The only way we can compete with copper now is that we have some of the best technology in mining in the world in this province. Maybe we have to start taking a look at exporting some technology. But to do that, we'd have to do proper research. We have to fund our educational facilities properly so that we can become a leader in the technology surrounding resources, But no, there's been no move in that direction by this government — not a mention of it in the throne speech.

You go around this province and you speak to the citizens of this province, Mr. Speaker, and they seem to have a better idea of the problems we face, and what has to be done to get out of them, than the members on that side of the House. They talk about us not talking to people. Who do they talk to? We have some real problems. One of the problems is that we've been over cutting our forests and haven't been replanting them. Even if we had've replanted them, and even had we been looking after that forest base the best we could, we still wouldn't have the kind of forest base that's going to supply an

[ Page 208 ]

expanding economy in forestry and survive. We have to add wealth to those resources before we ship them out. We're not even looking at ways to do it, when almost everybody you meet out there who is an ordinary voter in this province tells you that's what we need.

So what are we going to do? Are we going to run out to the world to get some more investment to build some more pulp mills, to build some more sawmills, to build conveyor belts to ship more raw material out? Or are we going to handle our resources in a mature and responsible way by spending the money and the time to find out through research what it is we can do? How do we survive? Because we're not going to survive this way. I don't know of any authority that would dispute that from 20 to 25 percent of the people who are laid off in the forest industry will never go back to work in the forest industry. Those jobs are finished. Where are they going to work, if this government doesn't lead the way in terms of creating new industries and adding wealth to those resources before we ship them off?

There's another thing I would like to mention before I close: decentralization. I feel that there's a crying need out there. People feel alienated from their government, at every level, because governments are making decisions without consulting and without being in partnership with the people. There's a demand that government be decentralized so that decisions are more relevant to local areas, and that's not happening either, This government is becoming almost reclusive — more centralization, and decisions made without participation of the people. There are going to be no answers for our future there either.

This government is letting down the people of British Columbia, because they are not dealing with problems staring us straight in the face about where our future lies. Those problems are real. This government has done nothing and has said nothing to deal with those problems. It is a government that has stuck its head in the sand and is hoping that those problems will go away and they'll never have to deal with them. They are not going to go away. They are going to become even more pronounced. The longer we put off dealing with them the more pronounced they will be, until someday they will be problems we can't deal with. Mr. Speaker, not one word in the budget debate about the future economy of this province, a budget that brings around an immediate downturn in the economy and in the long term doesn't mention a thing about it.... I will be voting against this budget on its short-term and long-term basis, because it didn't mention anything.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am pleased to be standing as one of the two representatives for Vancouver–Little Mountain in the debate on the budget address.

I would just like to say a word or two about the member for Prince Rupert's address. The member is just taking his seat. I'm sorry that he found so little in the budget document to be to be positive about. I find a lot in that document. It's a refreshing document. The member for Prince Rupert in his last few sentences said how we had a feeling of alienation, and he went on to say how far we have gone in our nation and our province, and all of that sort of thing. He seems very negative about our province, I stand to speak to this budget with a real feeling of positive thinking for the province and for this nation.

Let me say right now that if that member had been just one little bit positive about the megaprojects which he has criticized in his address, or if anybody on the socialist side of the House had had any kind of positive thinking about the projects which have been put together, I guess we could even forgive them for the cynicism that comes across the House in this budget debate. But they were the ones who, at every step of the way.... They talk about the stadium: every step of the way they tried to put sand in the gears of the progress of the stadium. Every step of the way even now they and their fellow-travellers in the city of Vancouver try to put sand in the gears of the progress of B.C. Place. They and their fellow travellers were the ones who even got in touch with Paris when the IBE was making decisions on one of the greatest economic factors this province will ever see, Expo 86, and sent telegrams to them saying: "Please stop it; we don’t want it." They seem to want it today, Mr. Speaker. It's interesting how today, in the presence of this budget and this climate, four years after we started to put Expo together, all of a sudden they're not cheering it but they're not criticizing it any more, because they know it's criticizing job creation.

Well, I won't reflect any longer on his address. I want to talk about the one thing that he talked about which is erroneous — he should not leave the wrong impression — and that is the fact that there is no room in this budget for reforestation. The basic forest and reforestation program is still there, and it is erroneous for members in this House to get up on the floor of the, House and make those comments. It's just not true.

I'd also like to pay tribute to the Minister of Finance, whose budget is, as I say, refreshing. To have the provincial government earmark $415 million for capital works in this day and age is not only refreshing, it's something that other governments across this nation cannot afford to do and are not doing. It is a great initiative. It will mean job stimulation — several thousand jobs in this province. Those kinds of real jobs — highway projects, diking and river works, agricultural-related programs — all of those special job initiatives that will tie in with the new employment development expansion program of the federal government, the joint federal-provincial initiatives, will have a great effect on the province in this next year. It is done with the idea of job creation which of course is what we want in the province. I see the 5.5 percent increase which would have meant an average 5.5 percent increase for hydro rates reflected in the decrease, not putting on the water rate fee, as a very good initiative for industry. I see that as a very positive thing for the private sector. In this country it's time we had a government, an administration, that recognizes that we can no longer call on the taxpayers of this nation or this province to spend and borrow into the future, and penalize coming generations for that which we wish to live on today.

In speaking to this budget, I would like to say that in the past few years something fundamental has very definitely happened to our nation. Frankly, most people don't even realize the philosophical change that has happened in our nation in this past decade. It's been a decade of enormous, incredible change. Most of those changes have gone unchallenged and, as I say, perhaps even unnoticed. The uneasiness in the country today is a result of government freewheeling and spending, which has spilled over into the private sector, and all Canadians are paying for it today.

[5:30]

Canada is a society that has been transformed by the government, more so than any other in modern times. I'm not sure that Canadians, particularly British Columbians, are too

[ Page 209 ]

happy about what's happened. I think that is reflected in our way of life and the fact that there is today more violence, unemployment and labour tension. Instead of having satisfaction from that incredible decade of prosperity that we have lived through, we've had very restless people.

I would like to say that although we are now on the edge of a very fragile recovery, we have a recovery that will be largely determined by our exports and the climate of the private sector and those people who make things happen in our export markets. I really have to dispute the statements that have been made since the budget has been brought down that the recovery will be largely determined by consumers. I agree that spending by consumers will make a great difference, but there is no question about it: the kinds of effects of the tax increases that have been put forward by this government in this budget are really just. The net effect of the tax increases, when you take in those decreases and initiatives in the water rates, etc., amount to one-third of 1 percent increase of the CPI. That's not a large amount. Some of criticisms that have come through the press in the past couple of days regarding people on low incomes.... As Minister of Human Resources, I can tell you that low incomes are protected. There aren't taxes on food, medicare services, medicine and all of those other things that are exempt. So we can cheer that this budget isn't as bad as it could have been. Surely there are some good things in the budget which we should cheer about.

I'm going to refer to page 4 of the budget speech, which tells us that "in British Columbia today the public sector — federal, provincial and local — accounts for one of every four jobs. Governments taken together now represent the largest single sector of employment in this country." Mr. Speaker, each one of those jobs in the public sector has to be paid for by those in the private sector. Those in the private sector have to create the wealth and the jobs. In addition to this incredible increase in the public sector — more growth in all parts of government — we now have the new computer age, the new age of information where people are going to have to change their whole way of life and their whole way of thinking, in business terms. I'd like to congratulate this Finance minister and this government in terms of all of the new forays that we've been taking into the new high technology — the new initiatives in training. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has probably been the leader in this country, and that all will result in people who will have new initiatives and new jobs, and who will be retrained from jobs they can no longer go back to into new jobs in the new high-tech age. There is no question that we are ahead of the country in that regard.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It's an absolute myth to claim that it's cheaper for the public sector to provide services. I'm pleased to see the privatization. I have to tell you that that is a responsible thing for a government to do, and I say it's refreshing, Mr. Speaker. I tell you it's a refreshing change, because all the time we hear about how the public sector can manage the services for people. I'm going to tell you that as a general point, none of the costs of doing business are ever attributed to a government office or a government service. Most of the cost comparisons leave out the fact that there has to be or should be a rental charge, that there are phone bills to be paid, that there is personnel to be trained. So, as much as possible, we should get back to putting services into the private sector, which can be a servant of government departments but not part of government departments. I cheer that move. It's refreshing in Canada, not just in British Columbia.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very pleased to I think this is the first time that you have taken the chair, certainly since I have been speaking.... I'd like to congratulate you for keeping the House in such good order, as you are right now.

One of the things I'd like to talk about, because the socialist members opposite often talk about health care.... Why, even in this budget debate we've heard about how people are not going to be getting health care, not going to get services. We heard the Leader of the Opposition refer today to somebody who would not have a hospital bed. Let me tell you that that is a myth. We have the best hospital and health care anywhere in the world right here and I'd like us to really tell it the way it is.

I'm glad to see that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is just taking his seat, because I want to relate to you an experience that I had recently with somebody who has been fairly close to our family, and who has been in the hospital. I said to one of the people visiting him: "Just imagine how much this hospital bill would cost if my friend Joe had had to pay it all himself." He'd been in the hospital by then ten weeks, and he was in that hospital for another four or five weeks and is now in a rehabilitation hospital in the city of Vancouver, the G.F. Strong. He's getting marvellous care, unquestionably the best care in the world. He will be back on his feet in maybe another three to six months, I don't know. When I asked my friend how much she thought it would cost out of his pocket, if we didn't have medical care in this province, she said to me: "Well, I guess it would be about $20 a day. I guess it would be about that much." And I said no, it wouldn't be. Taking the average from a small hospital in the interior or northern part of the province where the population isn't as large, to the Vancouver General Hospital — the largest hospital in the province — the average cost is $300 a day. So you multiply that by seven days and so on, and we know how much it costs.

But let me say this to the member for Prince Rupert. It is not known to the general public how great and effective our health care system is. I'd like to say to the Minister of Health that I think it's time that the people of the province learned, through some kind of system.... They should be given an accounting when they leave the hospital, as to how much that hospital bill would be. And every time they visit a medical office they should know what the cost would have been if it hadn't been for the health care service. I'll tell you why I think that should happen: then those socialists opposite would not have credibility given every time there is an election called or any time they want to discuss things in an emotional manner.... They wouldn't be able to hold up those examples that they bring to this House, which never have names or addresses attached. They give examples of people who aren't getting good care, but I'll tell you, they're getting the best care in the world.

I'd like to refer to the page in the budget address where it indicates that acute care is going up. Let me speak about the additions to the budget, as well as things that I say have been assets to the people and have assisted the people. Acute care is going up $1 a day — $7.50 a day to $8.50 a day; extended and long-term care are going from $11.50 a day to $12.75 a

[ Page 210 ]

day; emergency from $4 a visit to $10 a visit; day surgery from $7 to $8.

As I have addressed the fact that the socialist opposition continues to try to give an erroneous opinion throughout this province regarding health care in this province, let me tell you that we also have to admit that there are some people who overuse the health system. There are people who, if they knew what the full costs were, would have second thoughts, because they would know that they would be burdening their neighbour and their neighbour's neighbour and their own family with added costs and added taxation. May I suggest that we have a proper individual accounting so that it in itself would be a deterrent of misusing this marvellous service that each and every British Columbian takes for granted until they land in the hospital or land in ill health and need the care.

May I say to my colleague, who does such a great job of health care in this province: do not be deterred by the criticism that has come. It is easier, by far, to find an extra dollar there for those who must be in the hospital than it is to find.... I assure you those same people are finding dollars to spend on cigarettes and liquor. Surely health care must come before either of those two in even their minds. I think it's the best bargain in the world. We should be very pleased. We should not hide our light beneath a bushel. We have a security of health care in this province second to none. We should outline the actual costs and let the people know what a remarkable bargain they are getting. I think, if they had that kind of knowledge, they would be more careful with their health care demands.

I want to say too that we are going to be true to our November 1981 throne speech. In this budget speech authorization is given to close the Tranquille facility for mentally retarded. As that comes under my ministry, I wish to say a few words about it.

As you probably know, Tranquille is one of three institutions for the mentally retarded in the province; the others are Woodlands and Glendale. The Tranquille facility has 325 residents and staffing positions for 475,440 of which are filled at the present moment. They have 200 auxiliary positions as required above and beyond that. It will be closed within the next two years, true to a commitment we made in this House through the throne speech of 1981 to provide a coordinated system of community care for the mentally retarded of our province.

At the time there was a lot of discussion, and in November 1981 we received a telegram from the chairman of the Community Living Board. I'll quote from it:

"The recent cabinet decision to shift emphasis from institutional care to a coordinated system of community-based resources for mentally handicapped people is an important breakthrough and stride forward in the area of human services. The Community Living Board wholeheartedly supports this decision. We pledge our cooperation to government and other agencies working towards our common objective of providing handicapped citizens with access to more family-like living arrangements, thereby enabling them to become fully integrated into Canadian society."

[5:45]

I'm not going to read the whole thing. That's the operative part. And then in October 1982 we had a letter from P.J. Russell, the president of the B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded, who said:

"We recently received your ministry's directive regarding semi-independent living homes and have notified our local associations throughout the province. This kind of innovative procedure will enable a variety of residential options to be created, with the flexibility to meet individual needs. Your ministry is to be commended for effectively combining separate initiatives into a comprehensive proposal that should ensure more housing for handicapped citizens."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

So we've been true to our objectives. I just want to say that we will take into consideration the staff of Tranquille when this change is made. We will take into consideration the families of the clients in Tranquille, the community, and the union representing the staff. They will all be involved in the closing of this institution that has served British Columbia well, with great love and care, over very many years. But I can say this, Mr. Speaker: clients — those citizens who lived there — will be our first priority. I think the fact that the property will become available over the next two years to either another ministry or to the private sector will still ensure that something will be done in terms of providing some kind of industry there for the municipality. Whether it will be a government industry, as has been there, is of course not known at this time. I do want to assure those who are from the Kamloops area — and particularly my colleague who has been very concerned about this — that it will be done well and with care, with the clients and those who live there being our very first priority.

I did want to get into a couple of other things in my ministry, but I think I will probably have the opportunity during the debate on different bills. I want to refer once again, though, to the fact that this year we have spent more on income assistance than we have ever had to spend before. This was not in a time when we have an affluent economy. It was in a time when the economy was at its very worst, due to the recession that is world-wide. I make no apology for the fact that we have undertaken to provide income assistance to 102, 591 families, which represents a 56 percent increase over the year before, because let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that's our job. That's our responsibility, our moral obligation — not just our statutory obligation. I want you to know that we're very proud of being able to look after those. I want to say that had we not frozen welfare rates instead of increasing them, as we have done each and every year that I've been minister and each and every year prior to that, we would have had to have influenced our core programs.

This budget speaks to a fragile economy, but the fact is that recovery is not only possible, it's on its way. But it's on its way if we downsize government. It's on its way if we can restrain ourselves from the demands on the public purse. It's on its way if labour-management relations are sound. Then our recovery will not disappear, it will blossom and grow.

I believe this is a daring, courageous and long-overdue budget for any government in Canada, and it's due to the leadership of our Premier, who has brought this government to a place where we can be proud and we are leading — just as we led in the restraint program, we are leading the nation. Only in this government you will find.... I will predict that every other jurisdiction in Canada — including the national government — will be watching this budget, will be

[ Page 211 ]

watching this government and will be saying: "Thank goodness somebody had the courage." I'm proud to be a part of a government that has the courage to do what we have to do because we have seen what other governments have done over the years. We can't spend ourselves and borrow ourselves into the future. It has to stop today. We're addressing it. We're going to get a handle on our budget.

Mr. Speaker, for now I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In keeping with the requirements laid out in section 198 of the Election Act, I am pleased to table the following documents before the Legislature. The orders-in-council listed below are authorized under section 196 of the Election Act, and have, as required, been published in the Gazette of October 5, 1982, and June 14, 1983:

Order-in-council 1677, approved and ordered September 16, 1982, forms 11, 12 and 13.

Order-in-council 1678, approved and ordered September 16, 1982, form I as revised by B.C. Reg. 95-66, and altered by B.C. Reg. 97-72.

Order-in-council 1910, approved and ordered October 7, 1982, form 30.

Order-in-council 851, approved and ordered May 26, 1983, extending the return date from May 30, 1983, to May 31, 1983, for the electoral districts of Dewdney, Maillardville-Coquitlam, North Island, Okanagan South, Surrey, Vancouver East and Vancouver–Little Mountain.

Hon. Mr. Chabot tabled the report and financial statement for the Pacific National Exhibition for the year ending March 31, 1983.

Hon. A. Fraser tabled the annual statement of the British Columbia Steamship Company (1975) Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Rogers tabled the Annual Report of British Columbia Place Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.