1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6879 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and

Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia (Bill

M202). Mr. Leggatt.

Introduction and first reading –– 6881

Budget debate

Mr. Stupich –– 6881

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6893

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, since there are no introductions, I would like to raise a

question of privilege this morning. This is the earliest opportunity

that I have had to do it, because the information was not available

until after the House rose last night and we had an opportunity to

examine some of the details in the Estimates book introduced yesterday

by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

My question of

privilege is that the Minister of Finance. by the introduction of that

document, has misled the House. and that the document itself is

misleading. Let me proceed to point out why I think that is the case.

Before I do, I think it should be noted by the Chair — and I only do

this because it is a preliminary to the motion that I intend to found

on this question of privilege — that this is not the first time that

the Minister of Finance has sought to mislead the House. He did that on

at least two other occasions, and last night....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. I think the hon. member is aware that the language in

which he's couching his introductory remarks to his motion is

unparliamentary and is certainly not permitted in this House: unless,

of course, it can be clearly shown by substantive motion a little later

or by motion attending that this is the case. Therefore the Speaker's

hands are tied.

It may well be that the member has an

allegation which can be supported by motion; however, until it can be

shown, that kind of language is unparliamentary.

MR. HOWARD:

I thought it had to go the other way around, Mr. Speaker: that I had to

establish what the question of privilege was in the first instance. I

could do it in no other way than to say that the document called the

Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, is misleading and

misleads the House. The Minister of Finance is responsible for that

question of misleading us. I intend to show that in a moment. I also

want to show that this is not the first time that he has done that. And

last night when reference was made to the estimates book, he sought to

draw the chairman of the public accounts committee in as a

co-conspirator with him in this activity.

Interjections.

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

MR. HOWARD:

I am keeping my eye on the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He looks like he's

about to explode. I want to make sure that he's got control of himself

before I proceed. There he is. He's broken into a smile now.

Page 257 of the document introduced yesterday, Estimates 1982-83, has a heading:

"Explanatory Notes on the Group Account Classification." It proceeds

to say how vote expenditures are shown and so on and lists on that page and

continues over onto page 258 the various numerical codes: 01 for salaries, 04

for temporary salaries, 35 for office furniture and equipment and so on. I want

to point out to you that that self-same information is contained in the estimates

of revenue expenditure for the preceding fiscal year at the end of the book

as well, with the same basic code identification for areas of expenditure, office

expense, office furniture and so on.

For

argument's sake, looking under the office of the Minister of Finance —

this is the fiscal year which has just concluded — there are four

classifications identified with code numbers under the amount of money

sought to be obtained by the Minister of Finance in the previous fiscal

year: 01 for salaries, 10 for travel expense, 30 for office expense and

35 for office furniture and equipment. That was in the minister's

office salary vote for last year. When we took further into the book

that was tabled yesterday we find with respect to that self-same

minister, the Minister of Finance, that there is one vote for his

office and no identification by code number as is indicated there

should be from the back of the book, pages 257 and 258, that I just

referred you to. All that is shown as group account classification on

page 113 for the Minister of Finance is an amount for salaries and an

amount for supply and services with no code breakdown as to how much of

that supply and services is for travel expense, office furniture or

anything else. Maybe the minister doesn't need any office furniture

this year, having acquired a couple of hundred thousand dollars of it

earlier in the year, and he figures that's enough. But I point out to

you that it does not....

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

MR. HOWARD:

It simply shows that there is no code breakdown. It also shows that the

amount of money required for "Supply and Services" is a whopping 25

percent increase over last year, and last year was 39 percent over the

year before.

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

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

When

we took at the office of the Premier we find precisely the same

situation. In earlier estimates under the Premier's office there were

code identifications. I don't need to refer to them, but they are

there. In this particular book there are no such code identifications.

Just something called " Supply and Services" and some loose thing

called "Other Expenditures" — all encompassing....

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

MR. HOWARD:

The matter of privilege is that this particular document, the estimates

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, is misleading in that the

information contained in the back of the book is not carried forward

and identified in the front of the book.

If you find that I

do have a question of privilege — and I submit to you that this is not

an isolated instance of attempts to mislead the House — Your Honour

could proceed in a number of different ways. I'm suggesting that the

course to be followed is to reprimand the minister for misleading the

House, and if you find I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would

move this motion: that the Minister of Finance be required....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order. please. The motion will be read according to the procedure of

this House. If we find that a prima facie case of privilege has....

[ Page 6880 ]

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

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

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, I refer to the procedure that is carried

out in this House. Members have not always abided by that procedure.

The Chair has, by custom, seldom interrupted in the middle of a motion,

but following the motion has almost invariably reminded members that

the motion is not read until we have a prima facie case. The motion is

superfluous to the proceedings until we have a prima facie case. The

Chair is trying to reinforce the procedure which we have had in this

house for as long as I've been here.

MR. HOWARD: With

respect, Your Honour, I'll certainly accede this time to your

suggestion, and I take it as that, but Your Honour as erred many, many

times in the past by permitting them to be read.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

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

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Order please. Hon. members, may I remind the House that a form of the

House, which a matter of privilege is, cannot be used to make an

accusation against another member which would be entirely out of order

if addressed to the House in a form of debate. Therefore I would decry

any subscription to this kind of procedure in the House — in other

words, using a device of the House to say something which would not be

permitted in the House in ordinary debate. The matter of privilege I

will take under advisement and, without prejudice to the member, will

return a decision.

Hon. members, on the last day of the

sittings of the previous session, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) rose on a point of privilege relating to an answer given by the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

to a series of questions by the hon. member for Victoria during oral

question period. The honourable member then indicated to the House a

motion intended to be moved if appropriate. In its terms the motion

alleges that the hon. minister provided the house with a misleading

answer during question period. The hon. member for Skeena cited, in

support of the matter raised, references in the 19th edition of Sir

Erskine May appearing on pages 130, 131, 170 and 173, which references

I have carefully examined. I have also examined the questions and

answers which appear at page 6585 of Hansard for July 7, 1981.

It is stated in the same edition of Sir Erskine May on page 142, "The

House may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a

contempt, " and cites Profumo's case wherein the offending member made

a personal statement that contained words which he later admitted not

to be true. On the other hand, as stated in Beauchesne's fifth edition

on page 12, the precedents are clear that "a dispute arising between

two members as to allegations of facts do not fulfill the conditions of

parliamentary privilege."

It is clear from the terms of the

motion tendered by the hon. member for Skeena that his complaint is

founded on a complaint of a misleading answer and a dispute as to

allegations of facts between hon. members. In light of the authorities

which I have cited, I am unable to conclude that there is a basis for a

prima facie question of privilege.

Further, hon. members, at

the conclusion of the sitting of the House on December 1, the hon.

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), rose on a point of order, namely

that the rules of the House had not been observed when the House met at

8 p.m. In that the mace was on the table preceding the presence of Mr.

Speaker in the Chair. Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 295

states that during the suspension of a sitting the mace is left on the

table, and under the circumstances the mace should have remained on the

table during the dinner hour. In this respect the point of order raised

by the hon. second member for Surrey was well taken, in that mace was

removed upon the chair being vacated. However, upon it being

ascertained that the mace had inadvertently been lifted from the table,

it was immediately restored and was properly in place when the House

resumed its deliberations. Thank you, hon. members.

Introduction of Bills

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled

An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates...

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. hon. members. I notice on the order paper, hon. member,

that we do not have notice of this bill. Is it the member's intention

now to tender notice of introduction?

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I would move that the rules be suspended to permit the

introduction of the bill without notice, intituled

An Act Respecting

the Televising and Other Broadcasting of Debates and Proceedings of the

Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

[ Page

6881 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

Leave granted.

AN ACT RESPECTING THE TELEVISING

AND OTHER BROADCASTING OF DEBATES

AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE

ASSEMBLY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

On a motion by Mr. Leggatt,

Bill M202,

An Act Respecting the Televising and Other Broadcasting of

Debates and Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to

the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Public Bills.

Interjections.

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

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, hon. members. In the noise of the chamber the member on his feet

can scarcely phrase his motion, let alone have the motion understood.

Would the House please come to order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Wrong motion.

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

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify that, my understanding is that the motion

was approved that the bill now be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion as made was placed before the House. The question was put by

Mr. Speaker. In view of a rather raucous House I must confess I did not

hear the words of the hon. member. But the question was put before the

House. Therefore if the error was made, the error rests with the Chair,

and I must apologize.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, in

view of that I would move that the bill be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MR. COCKE: On a matter of order, the Chair indicated that the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills had not been constituted.

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. That committee was constituted during the early

part of December.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

It wasn't manned, Mr. Minister, but it was constituted. Matters can be

referred to that committee, because it is constituted. All the House

Leader has to do is call together the selection committee and we can

man that committee ten seconds from now. But that committee is

constituted by a resolution in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the information.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the 1982-83 provincial budget

presented yesterday is a masterpiece of deception. It's a budget of

dishonesty and despair.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The budget.

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH:

It represents the work of a Premier and a government who are afraid of

the truth; they are afraid of the consequences of the realization —

some six years later — of the mess that Social Credit has created in

this province.

Only cursory examination is necessary, Mr.

Speaker, to realize the gravity of the deception perpetrated yesterday

in the budget speech. This morning I intend to expose the dishonesty to

the members of this House. Later, my colleagues and I plan to continue

the process of advising British Columbians about the depths to which

this government has sunk in the vain hope of convincing the public that

things are not so.

Mr. Speaker, I said it is a budget of

dishonesty and despair. I'm sure that people who are in despair in this

province will be reassured to know that the mace was properly handled

last December; I'm sure they will be reassured that the government was

so amused that the opposition would want to let the light shine in and

and let the people of the province see what's happening in this

chamber. I'm sure that big business, which is waiting for some kind of

leadership from this government, will have despair after seeing the

budget speech of yesterday.

[ Page 6882 ]

Government

itself is big business, Mr. Speaker; government itself with its Crown

corporations ranks with the 50 largest corporations in this province

all put together. The total assets of government and Crown corporations

are almost $16 billion; the total assets of the 50 largest

corporations, $22 billion. The total revenue of government and Crown

corporations, $10 billion; the total revenue of the 50 largest

corporations, less than double that amount, $19 billion. Government is

big business. For government to sit back and say there is nothing we

can do at this time other than mark time and hope for a change is an

abolition of their responsibility. Big business was waiting; big

business must be in despair today.

Small business was

waiting. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and I

had an opportunity to travel around the province and listen to some of

the people who are suffering, some of the people who are engaged in

small business — or have been engaged, some of them losing out. The

budget tells them bankruptcies are increasing and the value of some

investments representing lifetime savings and hard work are literally

being wiped out. What is in the budget to provide hope for them'?

Despair, not hope.

Another aspect of small business: the farmers. Agriculture is hurting in this

province, Mr. Speaker. It has been hurting since January 1976. What do we see

in the budget for agriculture? Farmers are being cut back. The budget for agriculture

is nominally above last year's budget, but in terms of real dollars there

is a real decrease. That is what the budget is offering for farmers.

What

about municipalities suffering under a program that has been announced

by the Premier, the details of which they are still waiting for?

They're faced with taxpayers' revolts, if not serious questions, about

what's happening — the increased appraisals — and what are we offering

to the municipalities? I'm confused, Mr. Speaker, and I think most of

the municipalities will be, from reading the budget. When we read the

budget we find out that there is more money going into the

revenue-sharing program, but when we look at the estimates, we have to

wonder how that adds up. The estimates, on page 192: the Revenue

Sharing Fund, estimates for 1981-82, $252 million; estimates for

1982-83, $235 million. That's a reduction of $17 million. But as well

as the reduction in dollars, other programs are going to be made the

responsibility of the municipalities. They are going to be responsible

for the sewage assistance program, the underground utility program and

the restructure-assistance programs. They are all now going to be

financed out of that decreased Revenue Sharing Fund. There is something

for them. They are going to be relieved of the burden of paying social

welfare costs, and that's a plus, but that's $35 million over a period

of two years. The costs of these other programs that are being loaded

on them in the face of a decreased estimate for revenue-sharing makes

me feel that the municipalities are going to be sharing in the despair

there will be throughout this province once the budget is examined in

detail.

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

The

crushing burden of interest rates, the mortgage renewals — there is

reference to these on page 3 as well. "High interest rates hurt most

those people and industrial sectors that rely heavily upon borrowed

money...." Most people rely heavily on borrowed money. High interest

rates hurt them and the budget recognizes that hurt. But what does the

budget hold out for them? No hope, Mr. Speaker, only despair.

Unemployment.

Again the budget recognizes that there is unemployment in the province.

It blames it on somebody else, but it does say the levels of

unemployment are too high. Reference to this is on page 2. What do we

hold out for those who are unemployed'? We are shifting money from one

pocket to another and saying that we are creating new jobs. No new

programs to create new job opportunities are offered in the budget.

There

are references to the cost-of-living increases on page 5 of the budget.

"Inflation is beginning to moderate...." I'm not sure where the people

who wrote this speech have been living. I've certainly seen no evidence

that inflation is beginning to moderate in the province of British

Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that

inflation in the province of British Columbia is very high among

Canadian provinces — higher than it has been before — and that it has

been exacerbated by government policies to increase user rates and

direct charges for almost every conceivable fee. They have all been

increased to the extent of some $300 to $500 million in one year.

Inflation is out of control in the province of British Columbia, or at

least it would have been out of control had it not been for the actions

of this government in increasing inflation in almost every area. There

is despair for the people hoping for some relief from the crushing load

of government-imposed user rates and charge rates.

What

about the many volunteer agencies in the province trying to help needy

people? The word they've had is that their grants are going to be

maintained or even cut back in most cases.

What about the

unemployed'? There are references in the budget to retraining. Later on

I'll quote from previous budgets to show that the same references have

been there year after year and no action — simply references.

The

need for senior citizens' housing — nothing there. The need for more

long-term care — nothing there. The people who despair because they

have not been able to get into hospital beds for operations — nothing

there.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the same story could be told

all over the province. There is a headline that came out in the

newspaper in my own community just Saturday of this week.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No, I haven't lost it. One of the ministers thought I lost it. I'll share it with them. Right across the top of the Nanaimo Free Press for

Saturday, April 3, it says: "Welfare Lists, Bankruptcies, Mid-island's

Latest Boom." It goes on to talk about the record welfare roles and the

record unemployment. There is nothing in this budget that's going to

make any of those people feel any better. It's a budget of deception

and despair.

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

MR. STUPICH: That is what I call it.

has been said in this chamber and elsewhere that a budget is a planning

document, that government is supposed to be declaring its plans for the

coming year. It is quite obvious to my colleagues and I that the

government cannot intend to carry out the expenditure program tabled

yesterday for a 12-month period. It just isn't there. To suggest

otherwise is to suggest that the government believes a combination of

tax increases and spending cuts is the correct medicine for

[ Page 6883 ]

healing

an economy in recession. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is not a

proposition that I can believe. Not even this government will lack the

compassion necessary to see that such a course will heap further harm

on the injury it has inflicted to date.

Not believing that

Social Credit would do something so harmful and so unfair, one is left

to ask how this budget should be interpreted. If it is not a realistic

planning guide for 12 months, then what is it? Not to leave the members

in suspense unnecessarily, I believe the government has a more narrow,

small-minded, devious purpose in mind. I suspect this budget, replete

with a higher order of mathematics, will have outlived its usefulness

in a few short months.

Of course it is the members opposite

who determine the fate of these budget proposals and of the remaining

life of this Legislature by decisions which they alone make in

consultation only with themselves and their Ontario gurus. I'm not

offering advice one way or the other, but I am saying that if you think

that these budget proposals will wash on the hustings, give it a try.

Mr. Speaker, if the authors of this budget really think that people

will believe a little moving of this amount over there, shuffling of

funds over here and pulling numbers out of the air makes for the kind

of government the people want in 1982 or '83, the option is the

government's.

My colleagues and I know that you cannot

create something out of nothing, you cannot create jobs without

deploying resources, you cannot hide tax increases for long and you

cannot hide deficits. Yet that is precisely what the minister tried to

sell in this House yesterday. This is precisely the sort of baloney

that the minister has been peddling and, incredibly, with all the

high-priced talent in the Premier's office and the Finance ministry,

that is the sort of twaddle the Minister of Finance hopes to peddle to

British Columbians.

I'm not going to spend my time today

pointing out contradictions in the Minister's presentation yesterday,

although God knows a full ten days' budget debate could be devoted to

that task alone. My remarks will proceed as follows.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

I wouldn't have done this, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) invites me to do better. I told him yesterday when he

interjected that at least I would keep him awake. I ask him what

happened yesterday.

First, I will make some comments on the

general economic context and the response of the government to date,

excluding the rather political speech made yesterday by the Minister of

Finance. Second, I will deal with the restraint-on-government program —

the famous, or infamous, television announcement on February 18. Third,

I will deal with the need now — more than ever after this budget

presentation — for leadership in this province. The policy of coasting

until world markets rescue us is short-sighted and dangerous for our

people. Fourth, I will examine the 1982-83 budget proposals. This

examination will focus in the main on the need for job creation — a

need tragically and callously ignored in this budget. Finally, I will

again place the 1982 budget proposals in a wider context and deal with

the budget as a statement of our plans, priorities and hopes for the

future.

First, dealing with the economic context, the minister began his comments on

this subject in the budget speech with, the following dry message: "Current

economic circumstances need little elaboration." I have no doubt whatsoever

that the minister would like there to be little elaboration of our current economic

circumstances. It is a small wonder that the Premier announced he would fund

another megaproject — the Expo '86 fair — with a lottery. It is small wonder

that one of the real solid growth areas in provincial government revenue listed

yesterday is a $50.7 million increase in contributions from government enterprises.

The B.C. liquor control board is doing very well. Mr. Speaker. These are the

real growth industries in the recession: alcohol and gambling. These are the

industries the government is counting on. Too many people have shattered dreams

which, unfortunately, in our society are often drowned in alcohol. Too many

people have no money to pay their bills, let alone acquire needed assets. Thus

they buy lottery tickets. These are symptoms of economic misery.

The

minister yesterday used the analogy of a family budget to explain his

opposition to deficit financing. He said families borrow for cars and

houses, but not for groceries. It is obvious the minister is unaware of

how insensitive that comment was, because many families today indeed

are borrowing to pay for their living expenses, including groceries.

Many families today in British Columbia have no choice.

put the matter succinctly and precisely, the February unemployment

rolls showed 130,000 British Columbians out of work. This number

includes 52,000 unlucky souls who have lost their jobs since July of

last year — 52,000 since the last working day of the 1981 legislative

session.

But we know that the official list of unemployed

excludes many British Columbians who are out of work and suffering as a

consequence. This discrepancy is due to the restrictive nature of

Statistics Canada surveys. That is why, for example, those collecting

unemployment insurance in British Columbia exceed 181,000 — almost

50,000 more than the official lists. Both the unemployment rolls and

the unemployment insurance claimants are at the highest level in the

province's history. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we are now at the highest

level of unemployment in the province's history — after six years of

Social Credit administration.

Statistics Canada admits that

there are 67,000 so-called "hidden unemployed" in British Columbia.

These people are not hiding, Mr. Speaker: they have been reclassified

by Statistics Canada and are, for this reason, no longer considered to

be unemployed.

They include those who are underemployed —

that is, working one day a week at odd jobs. They include those on

temporary layoff such as mining and forestry workers in B.C. They

include so-called "discouraged" workers. Mr. Speaker, almost no one in

B.C. society is fooled about the causes of this serious unemployment.

It is caused by the same factor which is causing incredibly high

inflation to coexist with it at the same time. It is caused by the

policy of high interest rates coupled with high energy prices. This

policy has been part and policy of economic policy in this country. It

did not happen by accident. It happened by the combined agitation of

social and economic forces over a number of years. It is not

fashionable for politicians — save those who are in power — to endorse

high interest rates and tight monetary policy as a solution for

economic ills. It is for this reason that the members opposite have

bailed out of this particular ship — although anyone with a memory or

the ability to read will know that they were part of the "push pull"

monetarism theory just a few short years ago.

[ Page 6884 ]

I'm

sure we all remember the bursting pride with which Premier Bennett

tabled his proposals in "Towards an Economic Strategy for Canada: the

British Columbia Position" in February 78. In those days, Premier

Bennett was the fashionable reformer on the right, tilting at federal

windmills in pursuit of "deep-rooted structural change."

the specific subject of monetary policy, it is well that we remember,

or at least recall, what the Premier said. He said — and I quote from

page 33 of the B.C. position paper — "The Bank of Canada's current

monetary policy, which is in the form of a monetary rule, should be

supported in principle. However, the bank's actual method of

controlling the money supply and its definition of the most appropriate

monetary aggregate for control should be reviewed."

The

Premier was kind enough not simply to outline his concern about

monetary policy and the need for reform. He also explained how it

should be reformed: "The money supply should not be allowed to increase

as rapidly as it did in the early 1970s. The success of money supply

growth contributed to the severe inflation the economy endured in the

seventies, and to the present structural economic problems."

Can

there be any clearer explanation of where the Premier stands, or at

least stood in 1978, on this question of monetarism'? Yet these are the

policies of the Reagan government in the United States and the Thatcher

government in the United Kingdom. It is these policies which, aped by

the federal government in Ottawa and supported by the Premier of

British Columbia, have wrought chaos and havoc upon all the western

world. The economy of British Columbia has been no exception.

is perhaps understandable that support for these policies has declined

in proportion as the economy's suffering compounds. It is perhaps

understandable, therefore, that the Premier has tried to bail out of

his support for monetarist policies, but only to the extent of weak,

ineffective denunciations at suitable public occasions. But then I

suppose it is no small wonder that the Premier would bail out

eventually. It is only those who enjoy the detachment of glass and

ivory towers who will cling tenaciously to views that have been proven

disastrous. One can only wish that the Premier had not been among the

cheering

section when we got into this mess. One could hope that the

Premier would lead his government to policies which will help to

provide hope for British Columbians in the face of the gloom and

suffering which is taking place now. Even if we concede the Premier's

relative innocence in the establishment of disastrous monetary

policies, which have created high unemployment for British Columbians

and others throughout the world, what can we say of the reaction of

government to these developments?

The government has

responded in one way and one way only to this point in time. They have

raised taxes in order to balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, these

Socreds, allegedly of the 1980s, have done the spirit of Herbert Hoover

proud. In the early 1930s Herbert Hoover preached retrenchment as the

cure for the economic ills of the time, and he practised retrenchment.

The result was depression.

Also in the 1930s, north of that

border a Conservative Prime Minister, R.B. Bennett, was doing much the

same thing. The Premier's namesake brought in tax increases. These

widened the recession and further increased the deficit. In the next

year there were further tax increases and a ringing declaration of the

absolute necessity of placing our own house in order. We must all be

thankful that our economy is more resilient now than it was in the

1930s. Only those who refuse to see, however, can fail to notice the

parallel between the misguided policies of Hoover in the United States,

R.B. Bennett in Canada and this particular Bennett government in B.C.

What

has been the response of the Social Credit government to recession in

the economy? First, a budget 12 months ago which by its own reckoning

imposed tax increases of $625 million and indexing of several user fees

to heap fuel on the fires of inflation. Second, the green light for all

Crown corporations to not only preserve cash flow but also, in the case

of B.C. Hydro, to increase the equity-ratio and interest ratio

coverage. Third, across-the-board increases in user fees and charges.

These differ from tax increases in that they do not require legislative

approval; they can be done quietly so that no one will notice.

asked our caucus research staff to gather information about the

user-fee increases in advance of the budget speech. A request was

transmitted through the Finance ministry information officer to

interview the persons who had been assigned to review all user fees in

advance of the latest round of increases. The reply came that the

deputy minister would not allow an interview but would respond to a

written request for information. So on March 25 a memo was sent to the

information officer requesting a complete list of user fees charged by

the provincial government and an indication of those fees which had

been increased during the past two years. No response was received to

this written request, but late last week in a telephone conversation we

were told that the Deputy Minister of Finance had received the request

and had responded that information would not be provided at this time.

The government that was going to let the light shine in remember, Mr.

Speaker?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) keeps

wanting to get into this debate. Surely there will be an opportunity

for him later on. In the meantime may I remind him that he once tried

to be the leader of a party and was turned down. That was the Liberal

Party.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

retrospect, Mr. Speaker, it is now obvious that a government which

fears economic facts enough to present a budget like the one before us

would have no intention of providing basic information on the nature

and extent of the tax increases it has recently imposed on British

Columbians. This is a small matter, perhaps, in terms of the total

budget, but fully indicative of the reputation the Minister of Finance

is rapidly gaining in all segments of British Columbia society.

any event, we assembled a partial list of user fees on our own, which I

have appended to my remarks for reference. One of the reasons I was so

intrigued to have this information is a reference on page 7 of the

March 23 submission to the government of B.C. by the Canadian

Federation of Independent Business. In the course of a litany of

complaints about

[ Page 6885 ]

tax

increases the Canadian Federation of Independent Business named 30

percent, 50 percent and sometimes 100 percent increases in

approximately 1,500 fees and licences at the provincial level. I have

no idea whether this figure is accurate. It is possible that the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business has better connections in

the Finance ministry than the opposition does. If so, I say more power

to them, and more shame to those who feel it is their duty to suppress

this information. In any event the list prepared by our research staff

shows approximately 130 such fee increases and new fees levied in the

past year alone. This is considerably fewer than the 1,500 cited by the

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, but nonetheless a matter

of deep concern to the opposition. Some of these increases deal serious

blows to already weakened business enterprises in the province.

I suggested earlier, I thought the proposition was all but dead that

there was any economic benefit to be had in taxing in the economy when

it is at its weakest, for the sake of papering over the financial

legacy of weak fiscal policy. For example, why hit farmers and

fishermen with a 26 percent increase in coloured-gasoline tax between

October of last year and March of this year? For example, why boost the

cost of a free-miner's certificate 400 percent at the beginning of this

fiscal year? Why increase all placer mining fees by 100 percent at the

start of this fiscal year? Why add further injury to our tourist

industry by doubling guide-outfitter and angling guide licences

effective the first of this year'? At the time when British Columbia is

importing $100 million worth of fish products annually, why increase

fish-storage and processing plant licences by 100 to 300 percent,

effective April 1, 1982? Why, when our resource industries are laying

off workers for protracted periods of time, do we increase water

licence fees 300 percent? Why, when the timing couldn't be worse, boost

general industrial power rates by 31 1/2 percent? The only answer I

have heard from this government lately to these questions is that they

have alternatives in mind which are worse. They give us great choices,

these Socreds: do you want to be shot or hung? Maybe, just maybe, Mr.

Speaker, the people would like a new judge.

Interjections.

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

MR. STUPICH:

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance thinks I judge his fiscal

policies too harshly. Most politicians like to claim that even if the

opposition does not support their policies the rest of society does. On

this one, Mr. Minister, you would make such a conclusion at your peril.

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

"Higher

industrial power costs will inhibit the ability of the forest and

mining industries to get back on their feet and restore their former

contributions to government in the way of stumpage and mineral

royalties, not to mention personal and corporate income taxes.

"The

higher residential rates will also reduce consumer spending, which

contributes directly to government revenues and sales taxes and

indirectly by pumping life into the economy from which the government

extracts funds in a multitude of other ways."

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

The

hydro rate increases, as we all know, result primarily from a pass

through of government tax increases and government orders to the B.C.

Utilities Commission. All the handwringing, all the confusion and

account-juggling in the world, will not change this fact. The Canadian

Federation of Independent Business is concerned about massive increases

in the cost of doing business. What do they identify as the biggest

increased contributor to these cost increases? Government taxation,

especially fees and licences at the provincial level in B.C. They

conclude: "Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to this cost

imposition, because they do not have the competitive freedom to pass

all the costs right through to the end customer." The minister can say

anything he likes about the Canadian Federation of Independent

Business, but opposition politicians they certainly are not.

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

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

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I am asked what he said this morning. I was in my office

this morning until 3 a.m. and I was back in at 7:15 a.m., and the last

thing I had time for was listening to whoever happened to be on the

radio.

I think, Mr. Minister, you should realize that these

people are trying to tell you something, including Bill Hamilton, who

represents the major corporations. I think you should listen.

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

Social

Credit restraint. Dramatic announcements of spending restraint are a

favourite item in the Social Credit political arsenal. I can recall at

least three occasions in the past two fiscal years when restraint

programs have been announced: twice by the Finance minister and once by

the Premier. It occurred to me at one point to ask: why do they do this

repeatedly? There is only one plausible answer: why should they spoil a

good announcement by actually carrying it out?

Since that

unfortunate day in 1975 when this government was elected, the pattern

of spending has been nothing short of lavish. The commitment to

spending restraint, particularly in unproductive areas, has been

underwhelming, to say the very least. Very few will forget how this

government was elected by making preposterous and outrageous claims

about the spending of the NDP administration. The members opposite

could not be bothered with the fact that B.C. was seriously behind

other Canadian provinces in the early 1970s and new programs were

clearly required. Thus a guaranteed income for senior citizens,

Pharmacare, ambulance service and provincial day care among other

programs were all introduced as brand-new programs in British Columbia.

But what can be said of spending increases under the Social Credit? Are they

linked to new social objectives, or are they achieving important new economic

goals? I thought it would be instructive, Mr. Speaker, to compare

the last budget brought in by an NDP Finance minister with the one introduced

yesterday. The first thing one notices is that total spending has increased

from slightly over $3 billion to almost $7.6

billion projected for the coming year. This is an increase of 144.8

percent in seven short years: two and a half times what it was. The

first point is obvious: a phenomenal growth

[ Page 6886 ]

has

been experienced in government spending. In fact, the compound annual

growth over the past seven years has been 13.65 percent, considerably

more than the rate of inflation, which has been 9.6 percent compounded.

The accumulated 144.8 percent increase compares with an approximate

increase of 90 percent in the consumer price index during the same

period.

The second thing one notices in comparing the

details of the two budgets is the phenomenal growth in departments of

government which in fact do very little for society at large. The big

growth has been in those ministries which provide service to government

itself.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is

still with me. I'm glad he's listening. He's asking me to give some

examples, and I will. The big spending leaders are, in rank order: the

Premier's office, which has increased 445 percent over the seven-year

period....

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Maybe he knows what's coming next. The second is the Ministry of

Finance, which also services government; the increase there has been

280 percent over the seven years. The third-ranked winner in the

spending sweepstakes has been the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. STUPICH:

For the information of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, this last

ministry named, Provincial Secretary and Government Services, is the

one that contains Doug Heal, government production centre, and the

apparatus of administering the public service.

While I

recognize limitations in this type of analysis, it is obvious that

Social Credit has not been shy about spending money, particularly where

its own needs and interests as a political party are concerned.

Some

members opposite may argue that this government does not have social

priorities; it is determined to achieve economic objectives. Every year

I scan the latest economic accounts to see what progress has been made

in diversifying the British Columbia economy. Year on year I hope that

we will succeed in moving away from over dependence on resource

industries which fluctuate according to world markets and economic

conditions. Year by year I look for some evidence that the government

has a plan or even some objectives in mind in framing economic and

fiscal policy. Alas, this year I am disappointed again.

To take one indicator of economic diversity for this province, manufacturing

employment, we see that in 1981 employment is down relative to the total. In

1975, when the previous government left office, 14 percent of our labour force

was employed in manufacturing. In 1981, according to the B.C. Economic Review

and Outlook , only 13 percent were employed in our manufacturing industry. So

this extravagance in spending has not achieved greater diversity and strength

for our economy. It's small wonder that the government has decided on the

course of restraint it's small wonder they're concerned about money

spent for very I little value, for that has been the experience under Social

Credit in the past seven years. I assume that is why the Minister of Finance

announced his three-part government restraint program on August 6, 1981. It

featured strict controls on government spending and the hoarding of all available

sources of cash. The minister's program was undoubtedly followed diligently

by everyone in government. This is also doubtless why the following have occurred.

Item: special warrant passed February 11, 1982, authorizing the additional spending

in the Premier's office of $150,000. Item: a closely related development

is the hiring of seven new staff in the Premier's office and the promotion

— with salary increases — of seven others. This occurred despite the primary

plank of a government hiring freeze in the Minister of Finance's three-part

restraint program. Special warrants were passed to allow for over-expending of

$40,000 in the same Minister of Finance's office, $30,000 in the Minister

of Agriculture's office, $22,000 in the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affair's office, $8,000 in the Attorney-General's office, $10,000

in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources office, $11,000 in

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing's office — is the Minister of Municipal

Affairs still listening, Mr. Speaker? — $25,000 in that minister's office.

Item:

in total more than $134 million in special warrants were passed in the

period following the Minister of Finance's restraint announcement last

August up to the end of the last fiscal year. This does not count the

$103 million passed on April 1 for "continuing of activities and

ongoing programs."

Restraint has been practised in some

areas. I draw your attention to page 153 of the budget. In the office

of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who is

usually with us and is usually heard from when he is here, we see that

the spending is going down. We see that the amount spent on ministry

operations is dropping by 41.3 percent. They're going to do a lot less

in that ministry. But the expenses of the minister's office are going

up by 22 percent. We're paying him and the same number of staff people

22 percent more than the year before to do 45 percent less work.

Restraint, Mr. Speaker?

There's another reference to

restraint in the estimates, Mr. Speaker. There are a lot of them, and

I'm just going to mention one now. In the Ministry of Education the

increase proposed is 6.4 percent over last year's figure. Mr. Speaker,

is that an honest figure? Can we really live with a 6 percent increase

in education expenditures? There'll be a lot more said about that later.

Item:

$100,000 was spent on a luxury tour of the Kootenays by the cabinet,

replete with full-course banquets for hundreds of people. Restraint.

Item:

a new B.C. Spirit logo was developed at an estimated cost of $25,000.

Tens of thousands of dollars were spent to splash this logo on ferries

and billboards and full glossy circulars were inserted in every

newspaper in the province. Restraint?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Item: the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development supplemented his legendary

world travels with yet another Mash-style helicopter tour of the

northwest coalfields. This is just a small partial list of the many....

[ Page 6887 ]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker. I take it from the Premier's concern — and it's the first

time he's ever really listened to one of my speeches — he must be a bit

worried about how this budget is being received. Mr. Speaker, you and I

know he's got good reason to be worried about how this budget is being

received.

It should therefore come as no surprise to the

government that members on this side at least are somewhat skeptical

about the latest restraint announcement of February 18, 1982. This one

differs in that it was announced with suitable fanfare on provincewide

television. The Premier sat before an array of flags, which we

understand were flown to Vancouver for the occasion in the personal

company of an employee of Mr. Doug Heal's office. The Premier also

announced spending restraints together with wage controls. It is

evident to me, from viewing the announcement, that the Premier has

still not realized that the problem to be dealt with in controlling

government spending is government itself. Yesterday in his budget

speech the Minister of Finance said, speaking of his group, that it's

us that the province has to worry about. I agree with him completely.

This is especially true, given that so much of the increase in

government spending has been money that government spends by itself on

itself.

All members will remember the $82 million in

spending cuts moved by the NDP opposition in the last legislative

session. The Minister of Finance clearly recalls, because he responded

yesterday. He responded by hiding information from members of this

House concerning what would be spent on travel, office rent, office

furniture, consulting fees, advertising and publications, motor

vehicles and the like.

It's almost amusing, Mr. Speaker.

Page 16 of the budget speech reads: "The estimates of revenue and

expenditure I am tabling today have also been restructured to provide

an improved vote structure to be more informative...." Two votes — the

minister's office and the ministry's activities — and that's more

informative. That's the response from the Minister of Finance. He

didn't like the criticisms about the overspending, about increases in

spending on wasteful government expenditures, so now we don't know what

they are. He had a choice. He could have cleaned up the government's

act. He could stop pretending that this kind of expenditure has

anything to do with the provision of government service or economic

growth. But he chose not to. He chose to hide the truth instead. He

chose to abuse his powers under the Financial Administration Act, and

to hide the information from the members of this House and from the

people of British Columbia. Restraint begins with the elimination of

waste and extravagance. Restraint does not begin with press releases

and television addresses.

The Leader of the Opposition has

stated repeatedly that he will not comment in detail on the restraint

program until the legislation is in and the cards are all out on the

table. He has said so, knowing that the Premier might, through his

announcement, hope to abandon past election promises not to cut health

and social services and to establish a denticare program with no

premiums or deducibility. He said so, knowing that the government has

no confidence in its ability to bargain collectively with its employees

in a free and non-political atmosphere. He said so, knowing the

underhanded political objectives behind an essentially political speech

on television.

We have been restrained on this side from

making incendiary comments about the Premier's speech, because we have

seen it all before from that group. We have seen the same proposals

come and go. We have seen waste and extravagance in the good years as

well as in the bad. The wisdom of seeing the fine print of Social

Credit proposals has been born of frustration over the years. We have

seen the frustration of our citizens who borrowed money to buy BCRIC

shares on the strength of the Premier's assertion that they were worth

$11 per share. We have seen what happened to the Premier's permanent

reduction of the sales tax to 4 percent in 1979. We have seen the

government's heroin treatment program develop into a $15 million waste

of taxpayers' money. Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have memories. These

memories remain with us, although we cannot say: "Thanks for the

memories."

There are many people in British Columbia society

with questions about the effects of the restraint program in the coming

year, not least the hospitals, which are carrying millions of dollars

in deficits because of inadequate funding in prior years. A survey by

our research staff in March of this year showed that out of 52

hospitals 46 were reporting deficits. This is clearly the result of

shortsighted cutbacks in funding in previous years. In total they

acknowledge more than $12 million in deficits in the last year alone.

How are these deficits to be met in the face of the admittedly

confusing spending estimates presented yesterday? How many will lose

their jobs in the health-care system this year?

How are the

spending limits of other jurisdictions to be defined? The Municipal

Expenditure Restraint Act, Bill 32, introduced yesterday, answers some

of the questions for municipalities.

Section 2 of this incredible piece

of legislation says: "Notwithstanding any other act, the minister may

limit the operating expenditures of a municipality for the calendar

years 1982 and 1983." In other words, the Minister of Municipal Affairs

has complete arbitrary and unbridled authority to dictate not only

expenditure guidelines but the definition of how those apply to another

level of government.

This is the concept of a grandfather

clause gone wild. No Minister of Municipal Affairs enjoys this type of

power over municipalities anywhere in Canada. Does the restraint

program in the end...?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is inviting me again,

and I say that I would rather have quality than quantity. This is the

concept....

Interjections.

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

This

is the concept of a grandfather clause gone wild. There are legitimate

questions unanswered today. The opposition has restraint proposals to

put before this government. The opposition will give serious

consideration to every restraint proposal put forward by this

government, but the world did not begin and end with the Premier's

television address on February 18. The various groups, businesses and

agencies who make up British Columbian society have their daily lives

to continue and they are tired of waiting while the Premier takes more

Goldfarb polls to determine what will be the next step. Leadership is

needed.

[ Page 6888 ]

said earlier that history shows the folly of retrenchment at a time of

economic downturn. The point requires elaboration because it is so

crucial to understanding the essential failures and missed

opportunities of this budget. Members on this side want to substitute

hope of recovery for retrenchment. Hope for our people is better

medicine than asking them to tough it out. It is regrettable that the

minister who resolved on page 1 to resist the temptation to say

"nothing can be done, " so quickly abandoned that resolve, as

throughout the past year he abandoned the resolve to ensure more

equitable sharing of the burden of restraint before expressing it.

have argued elsewhere that the government's projections are unduly

optimistic in certain key areas. The call for a 23 percent increase in

forest industry revenues on page 44 of the budget........ The revised

estimate for 1982 was $104.7 million, and the estimate for 1983 is

$129.1 million — an increase of 23 percent in forest industry revenues.

I've not heard of any upturn in forestry. I've not heard of anybody

else forecasting it. Yet the government is counting on a 23 percent

increase in forest revenues. And we all know that even if there were an

upturn, there's a considerable lag between increased industry activity

and increased revenue to the Crown.

In a Capital Market's

letter of January 2, Merrill Lynch says: "in the absence of a

meaningful upturn in the world economy, raw material prices are not

likely to rise before the end of 1982." In Royal Trust's medium-term

projections entitled "Through a Glass Darkly, ". the list of industries

identified as most likely to be hardest hit in the period 1981 to 1986

is headed by the housing industries and those industries dependent upon

new housing starts. The Business International Corporation's

medium-term forecast for the U.S. leads with the proposition that the

1982-86 economic perspective is becoming less and less favourable.

While some growth can be expected in 1982-84, it is quite possible that

the whole five years will see no expansion at all.

In these

circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is manifest that we need something more

constructive than a decision to use special purpose funds to make up

for cuts in regular government spending, a tax increase to chartered

banks netting $15 million and a doubling of rural land taxes. We need a

rather more thought-out approach to the problem of mortgage rates and

the consequent devastation of our lumber industry than is represented

by a $15 million tax on banks.

There are about $15 billion

worth of residential mortgages in British Columbia. They are currently

being turned over at about 18 1/4 percent. Recently they had been as

high as 22 percent. That is ranging from 6 to 10 percent above the

Canadian inflation rate. If one-tenth of them had been turned over at

these ruinous rates, the holders of these mortgages, whether

institutions or individual lenders, would be realizing about 5 percent

more than the inflation rate — 5 percent more than ever before on $1.5

billion, or $50 million more per year on residential mortgages alone.

And that is only if one-tenth of them were turned over at those rates.

The provincial government will now be realizing 20 percent or so of this windfall,

taking mortgage, farm and small business loans alone, and will provide no comfort

for those unable to meet their mortgage payments or able to make them only by

painful sacrifices in other essential budget areas. Much more to the point would

have been the kind of moratorium like that instituted by the Saskatchewan government

on foreclosures. Somehow the governments of both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have

found money for mortgage interest relief. In addition, it is beyond all dispute

a matter of the utmost urgency for all British Columbians that a means be found

to provide some stability, at affordable rates, in residential mortgages. The

Royal Trust documents cited above predicted increasing political pressure for

that stability. Precious little comes from this government, though B.C.'s

gain from any such measure would be immense.

do notice that the budget contains provision for the issuance of bonds

which are to be exempt from income tax if the federal government

agrees. We also note that the past two budgets of this government

contained programs for the assistance of small business with the same

proviso: "If the federal government agrees." Nothing came of either of

the two previous announcements.

Let me refresh your memory,

Mr. Speaker, by quoting from the throne speech of 1979. "My government

will propose measures to encourage those individual citizens of British

Columbia to invest in British Columbia companies." The budget speech of

1980 had a similar reference. The budget speech of 1981 had a similar

reference.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The

member would like to hear more about this, so going back to the one for

1980: "To encourage the continued growth of small business in British

Columbia and to create employment opportunities, the Ministry of

Finance...Small Business Venture Capital Corporation Act, will create a

new type of investment company." And in the throne speech for 1981:

"The raising of venture capital for resource and development projects,

the new Securities Act will incorporate innovative measures to protect

the investor, particularly the small average investor." Three in a row

promising the same kind of relief promised yesterday in the budget.

There

are substantial measures that could be taken. We have proposed the

issuance, through B.C. Savings and Trust, of $1 billion in five-year

term mortgages in roughly the 12 to 13 percent range. This infusion of

new mortgage funds should provide for the construction of some 2,700

dwelling units. If half were committed to single-family dwellings and

half to the multiple-unit variety, this would provide badly needed

housing jobs. Moreover, appropriate safeguards developed at the start

of the program would help start up plywood and planing mills through

the purchase of B.C. building materials. The prime justification

remains, however, the prospect of new, affordable housing for British

Columbia families for the first time in many, many years.

Again,

B.C. Savings and Trust is not designed as a privilege for the lucky few

to be at the right place and to make connections at the right time. It

is an ongoing venture: cooperative partnership between government, the

credit unions and the people to provide realistic financing for housing

needs. The cost is the difference between the best international bond

rate available to the B.C. government and the wholesale rate at which

these funds must be loaned to the credit unions to yield 12 to 13

percent retail mortgage rates. The amount of this spread is, in the

range of 6 percent. This would yield an effective cost to the Savings

and Trust Corporation of $12 million to support $200 million worth of

mortgage lending in the first years.

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

[ Page 6889 ]

have

historically enjoyed very high rating throughout all administrations is

that we are blessed with magnificent natural resources, chiefly

forests, which are the real capital structure for our society. This

government's understanding of that fundamental fact is measured by

their intention to cut the government's estimates by 24.2 percent and

totally wipe out the forest and range resource fund. That five-year

fund that was going to be set up to do so much in the forests, on top

of the regular expenditures in the ministry, is now being totally wiped

out.

The government will no doubt respond with extravagant

promises about job creation in the forests assisted by federal funds,

but the harsh reality is that good forestry programs take years of

planning. Seed is carefully chosen two years in advance of planting,

and sites carefully inventoried to ensure that the most productive

areas get priority and the appropriate seeds. It is not an enterprise

that lends itself readily to countercyclical ad hockery. It is a

question of leadership, and the need is upon us. Giving hope to our

citizens now is really the same thing as offering a future. We must

prevent economic ruin for our unemployed and our small businesses,

because only then will we be able to take full advantage of improved

world markets when they arise.

Not long ago the president of

the Vancouver Board of Trade made the following statement in a

Vancouver newspaper: "One of the mistakes we make as a government is a

tendency to act like the good times will be here forever." I cannot be

certain exactly what Mr. Pepper had in mind when he uttered those

words, but I would almost bet that he was thinking of the current

Social Credit government. I could scarcely think of a phrase which

better sums up the financial failing of this government than to say:

"They acted like the good times would be here forever."

These

words might serve as a political obituary at some point for the

government members opposite. If the members opposite disagree, then

perhaps one or more will venture into the debate and answer this

question: why did the Finance minister of this government reduce the

total cash reserves of this province by $313 million in the fiscal year

1980-81? For those with short memories, Mr. Speaker, 1980-81 was a very

good year in British Columbia. It was one of the sunshine years. It was

not a rainy-day period like today. Yet examination of page 22 of Public Accounts

shows that cash reserves dropped by $313 million in that year. Cash

reserves were reduced by a further $356 million in the fiscal year just

ended. For that I refer you to page 22 of the budget. It is proposed

that they be reduced by a further S279 million in the year just

starting. That's total reduction of $948 million in cash reserves in

three years — almost one billion dollars reduction in cash reserves in

a period of three years. And they, Mr. Speaker, had the nerve to accuse

us of being big spenders. This means in effect that there will be no

cash reserves available in future years.

I note in the

background papers tabled yesterday that the Minister of Finance makes

bold to predict a recovery in the next fiscal year. This I find nothing

less then astonishing in light of all the other information available.

It seems designed only to minimize the risk associated with the fiscal

arrangement proposed by this Finance minister. These risks are grave,

indeed, to British Columbia — unacceptably so in my judgment.

wish to deal with a couple of the major myths perpetrated by the

Finance minister's presentation yesterday. There are many elements to

take issue with in the details of this budget, and my colleagues will

do so in the months ahead in this chamber — or in the weeks ahead on

the campaign trail, as the Premier chooses.

The first major myth I wish to deal with is the myth that the budget is balanced.

This dishonest assertion is made in several of the documents distributed to

the public and the news media yesterday. I need hardly deal with the related

assertion that there are no tax increases in the budget. I've gone through

that already. Concerning the myth that the budget is balanced, a curious fact

arises. While the budget highlights released to the media make the statement

that the operating budget is balanced by revenues, similar words do not appear

in the budget address itself. It is almost as if someone decided a different

message should be conveyed outside the chamber than the one delivered inside.

In the process a curious new language. B.C.'s own newspeak, has begun to

emerge. Where the Minister of Finance might have been expected to repeatedly

underline his balanced budget, new expressions have been found to express the

new under standing the government would like those of us inside the chamber

to have. Thus was born the phrase, "expenditure injection." MLAs should

forget all they've ever heard from the government about the virtues of matching

revenue with expenditure, or of not spending more than one earns. This is a

whole new rhetoric. It was launched in the following statement: "The budget

I am tabling here today injects $358 million more into the economy than we are

withdrawing in revenues.

Previously,

in balanced-budget language, this statement would have sounded quite

different. It would have read as follows: "The budget I am tabling here

today will result in a deficit of $358 million because expenditures

exceed revenues by $358 million." It doesn't sound quite as politically

palatable, though, does it? The Socreds can't be seen to be eating

their own words. So now, instead of a balanced budget, we will have a

restraint budget with expenditure injections. The centerpiece of this

restrained budget, according to Mr. Curtis, is the economic

stabilization program allegedly announced by the Premier in February.

The

object of the game is no longer to balance revenue against expenditure.

It is to restrain government spending within a politically chosen

ceiling. The ceiling this time is 12 percent. It may be higher or it

may be lower, depending upon what suits the government's political

needs of the time. Or then again it may be replaced by something else

entirely different.

Another interesting phenomenon of the

newspeak centres on the amazing juggling of accounts they have devised

in order to ensure the restrained budget will be achieved while hiding

the actual restraint. Thus a portion of regular ministry spending can

be simply funded from a new source, the special funds. By this

particular bit of magic — that is, expenditure injection — major

reductions have been accomplished in the spending estimates.

But

I must stop myself from lecturing Social Credit in juggling the books.

They are masters. They read the Clarkson, Gordon report, commissioned,

it would seem now, for precisely this purpose. I remember the famous

words of the Clarkson, Gordon report of 1976. One quotation on page 6:

"There is no single number hidden away in the mountain of figures which

will measure how well or how ill the province has performed financially

in a given year." What more licence do they need? Want to make up a

deficit for a prior year from a previous administration? No problem.

Since there is

[ Page 6890 ]

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

haven't even mentioned debt of prior years. The credibility of this

government and the Finance minister has been destroyed, not by the

sordid accounting practices of this budget but by the simple economic

facts which emerge after six years under the administration opposite.

In complete contrast to their preferred, finely crafted image as a

government somehow committed to the principle of balanced budgeting, it

is evident that this government by itself has engineered a staggering

and unprecedented growth in the provincial debt since it came into

office. It is understandable that this so-called free-enterprise

government would want to project the image of fiscal responsibility,

but in the face of facts, this image of responsible economic management

is as phony as their belief in an economy free from the involvement of

provincial government.

This is not a pay-as-you-go

government. It is a government of wheelers and dealers, but mostly of

debt. An examination of public accounts shows that under the

responsible economic guidance of the Premier and the Minister of

Finance, the public debt has more than doubled since the election of

this government in 1975. If we look closely at the figures we note that

on March 31, 1976, the total of direct and guaranteed funded debt was

just over $4.6 billion. In the fiscal year 1978 this jumped to $6.8

billion. Under the further enlightened, responsible economic leadership

of this government, the province continued to slide deeper and deeper

into debt, amounting to $7.5 billion by the end of 1979. In 1980 the

province staggered under a debt load of $8.3 billion, and by the fiscal

year ended March 31, 1981, the total debt amounted to $8.8 billion.

Given the strategy and practices of this government, we can now look

forward to a provincial debt of $10.4 billion by the end of this fiscal

year, jumping to $12.2 billion in the following year.

However,

to reassure one of the members opposite who interjected, Mr. Speaker,

all is not doom and gloom. This government's term in office is coming

to an end.

According to this government's own submission to

the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, after four more years of

Social Credit free spending the level of public debt in 1986 will be

$17.5 billion. That is the equivalent of $6,500 for every man, woman

and child in British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, we must

give credit where credit is due. It is true that credit and debt have a

useful role in contemporary economic management. Where this government

has truly excelled, however, where it truly deserves recognition, is in

its creative approach to economic management. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this

government has created true creativity in developing new and better

ways of getting deeper and deeper into debt and then devising

accounting techniques to disguise the fact, to pretend that despite its

free spending ways it is living within its means. It is in this sense

that the current Premier and Minister of Finance are the true

inheritors of this fine Social Credit tradition. We all know how the

late W.A.C. Bennett eliminated his government debt burden. He burned

the last bonds on a raft on Okanagan Lake.

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

MR. STUPICH: I'll come to that.

was phony then and it's phony now. B.C. continues to stagger under a

Socred burden of debt: "The Bonds Which Wouldn't Burn." Instead of

floating our debt out to burn in the middle of the lake, this

government has moved it out of sight.

The B.C. Ferry

Corporation. Does the minister want to say something about the B.C.

Ferry Corporation debt? The B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C.

Buildings Corporation are new examples of this device of shifting it

around. All these new Crown corporations created by this government are

being used to bury real provincial debt. We need examine only a few of

these to appreciate the mastery of this government's creative

accounting and the lengths to which it will go to hide the existence of

public debt.

Before the B.C. Buildings Corporation took over

from the Ministry of Public Works, this ministry operated on the

principle of pay-as-you-go: constructing buildings out of public

general revenue. The accounts of BCBC show clearly that its level of

debt in the form of accounts and notes payable, as well as long-term

debt.... It had accumulated over $376 million in new debt by March 31,

1980 — two years ago — and the figure is rising.

The B.C.

Ferry Corporation represents one of the more interesting techniques of

disguising public debt. Since 1976 it has sold its new ferries to

eastern financiers and then leased them back. This lease-back

arrangement does not look like debt on the books, but debt it is. The

cumulative amount to 1979-80 was over $56 million; this is also rising.

could go on at some length with such examples, Mr. Speaker. We might

want to consider the B.C. Systems Corporation, another new Socred Crown

corporation. Since 1977-78 it has accumulated a long-term debt of

almost $7 million; or, for example, the Health Facilities Association

of B.C., which between 1976 and 1980 accumulated $26.5 million in

long-term debt.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) invited me to talk about the debt that we created.

It's in the budget; it's still here. I'll quote: "In addition, Mr.

Speaker, I am proposing that the $26.1 million annual instalment

required to retire the debt incurred by the previous government in

1975-76 be refinanced." Well, it was the previous government, in the

sense that it was the government elected in December 1975, that did it,

but certainly not the immediately preceding government.

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

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

MR. STUPICH:

He says I don't believe in it. I believe in the Clarkson, Gordon

report. I'm the one that does believe in it; it's the government that

chose not to believe in it after they got it. "Grant to ICBC — $175

million." Bear in mind that the election was December 11; the NDP went

out on December 22, 1975. The Clarkson, Gordon report reads: "A grant

estimated at $175 million will be made to ICBC to cover its anticipated

deficit as at February 28, 1976. We have been advised that this grant

will be made prior to March 31, 1976, and it is included, therefore, in

the current year's expenditures." That expenditure was made not on

December 11, not between December 11 and December 22, but on March 31,

1976 — three and a half months after we left office. At the time I

remember the minister of science and technology saying that ICBC needed

the money to pay wages. At that

[ Page 6891 ]

time

ICBC received this $175 million it had $400 million sitting in the

bank. The government immediately borrowed money back from ICBC because

it didn't need the cash.

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

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

Going

on — the grant to transit bureau. This grant is to finance capital

commitments which are payable by March 31, 1976 — not in 1975, 1974, or

1973, or 1972, but by March 31, 1976. Grant to B.C. Hydro — $32.6

million. "We have been advised that these amounts will by paid by March

31, 1976; therefore we have included them in expenditures." Mr.

Speaker, they create the debt on March 31, 1976, they know it —- the

budget to that degree is a deception. I have said before it is a

dishonest budget, and they are continuing to repeat that particular bit

of dishonesty. But the figures are there. The Clarkson, Gordon report

is there and will be used by us when an opportunity presents itself to

report it to more and more people, who I think are starting to ask

their own questions about the financial credibility of this particular

administration.

The second myth with which I would like to

deal is that this budget provides for the creation of jobs. In the

budget highlights it is stated that an additional injection of $358

million in special purpose funds will create 9,000 new jobs. This claim

is so transparently false that one can only assume the minister thought

that no one would glance beyond the press packaging of this disastrous

budget. Some $83.7 million of this so-called injection will come from

the Forest and Range Resource Fund. When this was established in 1980

it was part of an express government commitment to secure the long-term

future of this most important industry. The fund was unambiguously

intended to provide money above and beyond those contained in the

regular estimates of the Ministry of Forests. It was intended to

represent a major new commitment to silviculture and intensive forest

management, a commitment supported in good faith by members on this

side of the House. I thought we had all learned some time ago that we

cannot continue mining our forests in the hope that they will always

return wealth to us in the form of jobs, profits and taxes. I thought

we had learned that we must reinvest in our most important resource, if

jobs are to be maintained, let alone increased.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the members don't seem to want to hear about the lack of

job-creating opportunities in this budget. They are a bit embarrassed

about that, and they don't want to hear about it.

I recall

the forest and range resource analysis of the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) two years ago, in which he told us that every timber

supply area but one in B.C. faces timber shortages within the next

decade. Yet what do we find when we examine the estimates of the

Ministry of Forests? The Forest and Range Resource Fund has been gutted

to make up for what amounts to clearcutting in the regular ministry

budget. Indeed, even after we take account of the $83.7 million so

called injection into the regular ministry budget, we find that there

has been an increase of only $13.3 million in expenditure on forest

management: an increase of only 6.7 percent in terms of dollars, and a

decrease of 6 percent in terms of real dollars. Even after putting in

that $83.7 million dollars. It is a decrease in terms of real dollars

for the forest resource. The $83.7 million does not create a single

solitary new job. It's even worse than that, because the Forest and

Range Resource Fund will not be spent on the programs for which it was

intended. The budget has actually wiped out some 3,000 jobs that would

have been created by the proper use of that fund.

This

appalling neglect of our renewable resource heritage will cost British

Columbians dearly in the future. It will mean that we continue to

reforest less than half of the forest lands we logged. Mill workers who

are now laid off may never return to work, because the resource on

which they depend has been sacrificed to political expediency. And they

have the gall to call this clear cut in forestry spending a

job-creation program. In reality, it is job destruction, pure and

simple.

Had the minister been serious about job creation,

and had the Premier and the cabinet members listened to the submissions

of the forest industry, the professional foresters and forest unions,

whom I'm in sure speak to him as well as to us, he could have created

thousands of new jobs in silviculture and made a major contribution to

the long-term economic future at this same time. I deeply regret the

government has missed a historic opportunity to begin the task of

intensively managing our forests when that task is made easier by the

availability of skilled forest industry workers, so many of whom are

currently unemployed. A further $152.8 million of the so-called

job-creation injection from special funds is used for the same purpose:

to disguise and confuse cuts in regular government spending. These

funds are ostensibly to provide school tax relief and to keep down

health-care fee increases. Is it not cynicism in the extreme to earmark

special funds to — so we are told — keep down health premiums which

have been doubled and trebled by this administration, and then maintain

that this is a job-creation program? Certainly these funds will not

outweigh the cuts which will cause chaos in our health and education

systems. They will not give us quality health care: they most certainly

will not create new jobs for the unemployed.

I turn to the

balance of the minister's initiative: $132.9 million slated for

job-creation measures throughout the province. Here we find yet again

the same shell game of thinly disguised transfers from special funds to

regular Ministry spending. The $34.5 million allocated for

apprenticeship training in the misnamed employment development account

does not even balance the $36 million cut in the budget of the Ministry

of Labour. Let me underline this, Mr. Speaker. The vote for manpower in

the budget of the Ministry of Labour, cut by $36 million. provides for

the planning and manage merit of apprenticeship and industrial training

programs: the $34 million planned expenditure from the employment

development account is for exactly the same thing, but with fewer

funds. Is this a job-creation program? Come now, Mr. Minister.

have spoken enough about forestry to make it clear that the $10 million

expenditure on silviculture pales in comparison to the cuts in overall

government investment in our forests. Close analysis shows that almost

all the so-called initiatives in the employment development account are

simply old problems masquerading under new names.

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

[ Page 6892 ]

stitutes

is some $20 million larger than the cuts in regular spending on our

colleges and institutes. It would be nice to believe that there is a

new commitment to this area, because occupational training should be a

first priority for any government which was concerned to secure

long-term secure employment for our citizens.

This leaves us

with only one single unambiguous new allocation for jobs: the $25

million which is to be married to UIC funds. On this I have one

important thing to say. The NDP does not oppose this kind of program as

a very temporary kind of expedient in exceptional circumstances. But

let's not kid ourselves, Mr. Speaker: these expenditures do not create

new jobs, they simply give the unemployed temporary work, and then only

for subsistence wages. Neither the "work for UIC" program nor any of

the so-called job creation measures offers any real hope for the 52,000

who became newly unemployed since the last working day of the 1981

session in July 1981. The NDP offered that hope in our "Let's Get to

Work" program. We outlined a major job creation program which did far

more than provide temporary relief. It is a program to put people to

work in ways which will significantly increase the long-term economic

potential of the province. Since the budget proposals yesterday are so

devoid of any good ideas, I am including a short

summary of 25 specific

proposals contained in the "Let's Get to Work" program presented by our

leader, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), on Thursday,

March 25.

Forestry:

Government and private silviculture programs planned for 1982 to be carried

out in full. New incentives as needed to prevent possible cancellations due

to economic turndown.

An additional major new silvicultural program to begin this year, providing

5,000 jobs over the year at an investment cost of $62,000 and employing

skilled forest workers on high-quality forest lands selected by the Forest

Service and the industry.

Following this year's start, a new five-year reforestation program

which would double present plans for restocking of backlogged, unforested

lands, directly creating 2,000 new jobs and securing the future of at least

3,500 threatened forestry jobs and eventually increasing government revenues

— net cost funded through stumpage fees allocated to the Forest and Range

Resource Fund.

Significant increase in government funding of the cooperative marketing

development agreement, matched by an equal commitment by industry.

Substantial new incentives and assistance to innovative companies which

develop forest products with a high value-added factor.

Housing:

Injection of $200 million per year in five-year renewable mortgages at

12 to 13 percent — net cost to the treasury this year of $12 million, enabling

construction of 2,700 new housing units.

Additional infusion of $10 million in capital funds for senior citizens

housing projects to reduce the two-year waiting list.

Low-interest loans of up to $10,000 per unit for construction and conversion

of 5,000 additional cooperative housing units.

A home-insulation program for senior citizens and low-income families to

retrofit 15,000 older homes before next winter. This would supplement the

federal CHIP program and provide work for 1,000 more British Columbians.

Small business:

Revive and expand this sector, where a majority of new jobs can be developed,

by enactment of a small business protection act; oblige banks to obtain court

permission before any small business is put into receivership; implement rescue

plans with a court-appointed consultant where feasible; and establish regional

storefront offices to assist small business.

Start a three-year phaseout of corporation capital tax and provide new

tax incentives for manufacturing, processing and energy-conservation initiatives.

Establish a British Columbia trading corporation to aggressively market

B.C.'s small business products across Canada and abroad.

Vocational training and student employment:

Establish an independent British Columbia training commission to monitor

and develop apprenticeship programs, forecast needs and administer funding

from provincial industries and federal government.

Inaugurate this year — Mr. Speaker, we had promises in last year's

budget, we had promises in the year before's budget — not more promises

but action, a training program for 3,300 new apprentices in critical areas.

Revive course-related summer work programs for 10,000 students.

Tourism and community development:

Establish a tourism development fund to provide low interest, forgivable

and joint-venture financing of employment opportunities.

Priorities set by federal-provincial TIDSA studies:

Projects selected through regional boards of industry and community representatives

to ensure non-partisan decision-making procedures.

Immediate construction and improvement program for publicly owned facilities

such as campsites, small boat moorages, breakwaters, etc., to provide 1,000

jobs this year.

Commit funds and convene cooperative negotiations among government, community

and tourist industry representatives to begin building an affordable trade

and convention centre in Victoria, providing construction jobs and fair treatment

for the capital region.

Food industry:

Launch efforts to increase provincial food production and therefore jobs

by opening up new farmlands, Pacific programs to include replanting of vineyards

to accommodate the switch from the red to the white wine taste, replacement

assistance for orchard stocks, dyking in the Fraser valley and weed-control

assistance.

Assistance to encourage establishment of cooperatives in small secondary

processing plants for B.C. agricultural products.

Inaugurate strategies and incentives to increase the province's share

of jobs and investment in marine food production by reducing the $100 million

worth of fish and fish products imported into and through British Columbia.

Substituting B.C.-caught and — processed products for these products would inject

a new economic stimulus and capitalize on the 200-mile limit economic zone

added to our shoreline.

Mining. Mr. Speaker, there was some reaction to my comment on

mining. For the first time in the history of the province Cominco has

announced a shutdown. That didn't happen under the NDP administration.

It didn't happen in the depths of the depression of the thirties. It

happened after this Social Credit administration had been in office six

years.

[ Page 6893 ]

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

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

Under mining:

Upgrade the benefits and terms of conditions obtained from the more than

$1 billion of public investment in the northeast coal by seeking improved

selling prices for coal exports. Contractual preference should be given to

British Columbia and Canadian companies in order to prevent contract awards

such as the $273 million which have already been awarded to foreign firms.

Negotiate a requirement that 25 percent of the coal shipments be carried in

B.C.-built, Canadian-staffed ships.

Develop a policy of linkage of resource development to a secondary manufacturing

strategy by insisting on a full range of industrial spinoff benefits as a

basic condition for new export deals.

Revive a joint study with NKK of Japan to develop a steel mill in British

Columbia, using B.C. resources.

Institute negotiations with industry to achieve working arrangements for

development of a new world-scale copper smelter in the Highland Valley near

Kamloops.

This catalogue is certainly not complete. It offers much more in the

way of hope for the people of British Columbia than the document

presented in the House yesterday by the government. Our proposals do

indicate the great range of action, some requiring funds and others

only leadership, which can help our distressed province over the next

few months — actions that can be taken within B.C. by British

Columbians for British Columbians. There is enough in this package to

ensure both an economic and a psychological turnaround.

Mr. Speaker, in our offices yesterday there were two different reactions to

the budget documents. The first came from reviewing the budget highlights. In

capsule

summary the budget looks like magic. If only one believes in magic,

one can believe the impression left by the budget highlights. The second reaction

comes from a more detailed examination of the budget papers. This one can be

summed up in a few words: they've got to be kidding.

Mr.

Speaker, very few will believe that this combination of account

juggling, newspeak and misrepresentation will contribute to the

financial and economic well-being of the province in the coming 12

months. It is almost as if the public relations and marketing

consultants who now have the ear of the government refuse to believe

that there are people behind grim economic statistics. Perhaps — not

having experienced painful income cuts, unemployment, bankruptcy and

the loss of the family home — they do not know what it is like. Perhaps

they never talked or listened to people who are in such a situation.

After all, to a political marketing consultant the world must seem like

an endless stream of high-budget ad campaigns, televised rallies and

expense account business trips. Perhaps the politicians opposite know

something of the human trauma: the suicides, the breakdowns, the

divorces, the alcoholism and the illness which economic downturns

cause. Still, at bottom, one gets the impression that the government

really believes its political problems are simply public relations

problems.

I have no idea when the Premier will summon the

courage to call the next provincial election. May 10 of this year is

the third anniversary of the last provincial election — three years is

the normal interval between elections in B.C., or at least has been

since 1952. If the members opposite believe nothing else. they can

believe this: a new advertising....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I know you are listening and I know you will believe that

a new advertising logo sprinkled around the province and displayed on

television is no substitute for positive policies. Stage-managed events

are satisfying for the participants but will pay no one's rent. During

an all-night session in December, when this side felt that the

Legislature should remain in session and get to work, the Leader of the

Opposition made the following comment: "More than anything else, beyond

specific programs, beyond promises, the people need hope. When they

lose hope they lose the potential of gathering the forces in their own

lives to take them through the crises they meet."

It is not

a Toronto advertising agency's version of something called the "B.C.

spirit" that the people want or need. Mr. Speaker. the people need

hope, and that hope is not present in this budget.

This

government came into power in a shower of political lies through

attacks on the opposition that had no substance in fact in the election

campaign of 1975. This government was re-elected in a similar political

campaign in 1979 that is remembered more for dirty tricks than for

anything else — dirty tricks which are still coming to light even to

this day, some three years later. Mr. Speaker, this same government

will be defeated in a similar shower of political lies when next they

go to the people. They will try, but they will be defeated this time.

They

have debased our system of accountability. It used to be that

governments came to the Legislature and asked for tax increases. They

now impose them regularly throughout the year. Medicare rates have been

increased twice in a period of seven months without coming through the

Legislature; gasoline rates raised quarterly; user rates increased

regularly; hydro — $150 million a year.

I conclude by saying

that there is no hope in this budget. It's a budget of deceit and

despair at a time when what the people of British Columbia needed was a

budget that would present hope. They've exhausted all the money in the

funds — almost $1 billion in three years. There is nothing left. The

one thing we know is that this will be the last budget presented by

this particular administration, and in that there is hope for the

people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we

recognize the next hon. member, although it wasn't formally

communicated to the Chair, I presume that this was the designated

speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed.

Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I recognize the hour is getting late. but I just want to take a few

minutes before I adjourn. You know, I rather smiled when I heard the

comments a minute or so ago and the actions of the opposition, who are

like monkeys on a string. You haven't been here all morning. The poor

member from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has had one

[ Page 6894 ]

two people as backup, a weak leader thumping the desk occasionally, and

at five minutes before adjournment you come in, somebody gives the

signal and you all thump the desks. It is a marvelously well-organized

crew.

I just want to take a minute before we adjourn because

I want to leave with this assembly what happened yesterday. I happened

to be home last night trying to digest what went on yesterday with that

member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the actions he took. I happened to

pick up — I am sure the members opposite will recognize this book — Power Without Glory ,

and I started to read it to familiarize myself once again with the

disaster from 1972 to 1975. Do you know what the NDP platform was in

1972? It was called "A New Deal for the People." I've got to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, their platform for 1982 is this: denying the rights of the

people of this province to see and hear a budget speech made in this

House — the denial of the people to see that. And it was all

perpetrated by that member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who should

apologize to the people of this province, and by the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I heard yesterday an attack on the Clerks of

this House.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I heard yesterday an attack on the clerks of

this House and on the Speaker of this House by that member for Skeena,

and he should be ashamed. Mr. Speaker, I heard an attack yesterday on

the members of a union, the technicians in NABET. That member even

attacks the labour union that has worked to put the equipment in this

building. You're supposed to be the great union man and yet you have

the audacity in this House, because you are free from any criticism

once you're inside this House.... And all you do is play politics with

anybody and everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to leave

that thought with the assembly as we adjourn for lunch so that members

opposite can think about what happened yesterday. My colleagues on this

side of the House will also think, because we will bring back to this

House and to the people of this province how that member for Skeena, in

my opinion, abused his privileges.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada