1979 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 31st 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 2, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page 273 ]

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Resources/Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979. Hon. Mr. Bennett

Introduction and first reading — 273

Income Tax Amendment Acts, 1979. Hon. Mr. Wolfe

Introduction and first reading — 273

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Introduction and first reading — 273

Supply Act No. 1, 1979. Second reading.

Mr. Stupich — 273

Mr. Cocke — 276

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 278

Mr. Ring — 282

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 285

Mr. Levi — 286

Mr. Smith — 287

Mr. Kerster — 289

Hon. Mr. Shelford — 291

Hon. Mr. Bawlf — 292

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES INVESTMENT

CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Resources

Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 12 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Wolfe presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 4 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act,

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the day.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 1, 1979

(continued)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I yield to the hon. member for Nanaimo, who was speaking at the hour of interruption.

MR. STUPICH: I express my appreciation to the

Attorney-General for yielding as he did. Had it been left in his hands

I guess we wouldn’t be here this evening debating this supply bill.

The Premier, in discussing the hour of adjournment, and in

discussion of the supply bill that led to this, expressed some concern

about a number of things. One was the fact that the official opposition

wanted to discuss the supply bill. The point was not so much that we

wanted time to discuss it on the floor of the House, but simply that we

wanted time to review the implications of the supply bill overnight. We

did give the assurance that we would pass it quickly tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, at the time of

adjournment, at 6:30 or so — may I have the attention of the

Attorney-General as well? – there was a lot of exuberance in the House.

I think we had likely a little too much noise from both sides. Perhaps,

rather than become used to that level of noise, we could grab the bull

by the horns and bring the House back to order. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: I know you’re listening, at least. As I was

saying, the Premier expressed some concern about the fact that we were

holding up the pay for workers all over the province. He mentioned

different localities – I believe Terrace and Smithers were mentioned –

where we were holding up pay, and it would fall on the heads of the

opposition in the event that these people were not able to receive

their pay on time.

Certainly we’d be the last to do anything like that. If we felt that

the Premier was genuine in his arguments and that by wanting to discuss

the supply bill, or at least being able to consider it overnight, we

would be holding up anyone’s pay, then we’d have to consider our

position very seriously.

I’m not saying that it should be considered quite that lightly. This

phrase was used by one of my colleagues: “Not a billion without

debate.” We are being asked, with no warning, no advance notice, no

opportunity to see the budget ahead of time…. When we talk about the

way things were usually done — and that was raised before the hour of

supper adjournment — one of the things that used to be the fashion was

for the Leader of the Opposition or the finance critic, as the case may

be, to have the budget in the morning at the same time as the press got

it so that they would have some time to review it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) says we still do. Perhaps if he knew what I know, then we would

not be sitting here again this evening. He might have agreed, in spite

of the protestations from some of his colleagues. It was presented to

us ahead of time — yes, one hour

[ Page 274 ]

ahead of the time when we appeared in the House to listen to the Finance minister read it.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hour and a half.

MR. STUPICH: One hour and a half, I’m sorry.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, half an hour.

MR. STUPICH: It was delivered in the office of the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) at 12:30 p.m. That’s 1 1/2 hours prior to

the time the Minister of Finance stood up to read it. Unfortunately,

not knowing that the mail was being delivered at that time, part of

that time was lost by my having had lunch. There was no warning that we

were going to get the budget at 12:30; there was no word that we were

going to get the budget at all prior to hearing it at 2 o’clock. There

was no warning, no word, nothing, until the budget appeared in the

office of the Leader of the Opposition at 12:30.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I’m being interrupted and I have to respond to some of these.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let’s hear the debate. If there are any corrections, they’ll be made at the end of the speech.

MR. STUPICH: There was a discussion, if I may phrase it that

way, in the office of the Leader of the Opposition, and during the

course of that discussion the Leader of the Opposition raised the

question of receiving the budget ahead of time. By the time that

discussion took place, the press had already had it for some two hours.

The Leader of the Opposition raised this and said if that was going to

be the lack of cooperation exhibited by the government, then we were

withdrawing from certain agreements that the Whip had made, and that’s

been referred to earlier.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The standard practice, Mr. Speaker, has been to give the budget to the….

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. WOLFE: With all due respect, the standard fact for

many years was followed in this instance, and I take exception to the

member saying it was any different. In the period of their regime the

same thing applied. It was an early press release. The Leader of the

Opposition received copies of the speech an hour before budget time a

year ago; he received them an hour and a half before budget time in

this instance. I don’t think we should try to delude the people of this

province by saying the procedure was any different than this year.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to remind the minister that his

argument should better come at the end when he wishes to correct a

statement made by the member and attributed to him.

MR. STUPICH:

As the one responsible for responding to the budget speech, I saw the

copy at one o’clock, one hour before the minister started reading it in

the House. I had no indication much prior to that that I would ever see

a copy of it before the minister finished speaking, let alone before he

started. To ask us to pass the supply bill for one-quarter of that

budget without any opportunity to consider it seems to me to be showing

some level of disrespect for the members of the House and for the

Legislature itself.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Can’t you divide by 4?

MR. STUPICH: I can divide by 4 without the use of a

calculator, or without my fingers or toes. I’m not certain the Minister

of Finance can do that.

The Premier suggested we might be holding up the pay for people by

asking that consideration of the supply bill be held over until

tomorrow. Today is only April 2. In the event that nothing untoward

happens — any more messages from the Lieutenant-Governor — tomorrow

will be only April 3. To the best of my knowledge no one expects to be

receiving any paycheques prior to April 15, which gives us almost two

weeks if we needed that much time.

You will recall that last year the government of the day — the same

government — apparently felt there was no urgency to do anything like

this. The session that year was delayed to the extent that the supply

bill was not introduced until the comparable date, a week tomorrow —

April 10. Today is only April 2. For the Premier to suggest that we are

holding up salaries for government employees when we’re dealing with

the supply bill eight days prior to the date on which it was introduced

last year seems to me to be something less than candid with the people

of British Columbia and with the members of this House.

One wonders whether the Premier has some

[ Page 275 ]

other problem in mind, some other reason why he

wants the supply bill dealt with so quickly on April 2, rather than

letting us have overnight to consider it, as we offered in a spirit of

cooperation. One wonders whether it’s tied in with the timetable of a

meeting on Thursday, Friday and Saturday of this weekend, when they

want an early adjournment of the House so that the people’s business

will be held off while they consider one of their many conventions. One

wonders whether their timing has to fit into that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It’s not a filibuster we’re asking for, and it’s

certainly not one planned by the government. When we were considering

the hour of adjournment, I did send a note in to the library because

there was some material I wanted them to look up, some material I

thought I might need. The response was: “The library staff have all

gone home.” When we wanted to have dinner this evening, the response

was: “The grills have been turned off, and the kitchen staff have

disappeared.” It was not a planned thing on the part of the government.

I think the government was petty from the beginning, in not giving us

the budget at the same time as they gave it to the press. Surely they

wouldn’t suspect us not to be as honourable as the members of the

press. We would like to have had the time to consider it.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) says

it’s been that way for ten years. If he were right, that doesn’t make

it proper. If something has been done wrong for ten years, there’s no

excuse for continuing to do it that way simply because it was done that

way yesterday and the day before and the day before that.

It has not been the practice over the last ten years to call the

House together on March 22 to introduce a budget on April 2, and then

to ask for a supply bill the same day. That’s the first time that’s

ever happened. It has happened that supply bills have been asked for

before. That’s not new in the history of the province. But it certainly

is new that the government would have adjourned its 1978 session in

June, called the House together only briefly for one day, then sent it

home again and told it to wait until March 22, introduced a budget on

April 2, and then asked the House to deal with a supply bill without

any opportunity at all, despite the words from the Minister of Finance

about the changes that have taken place, and in spite of, as I

mentioned earlier, some new ministries that have been set up, such as

the Ministry of Deregulation or whatever that is…. We would like to

have had an opportunity to have the Minister of Deregulation tell us

something about what he is doing before we start dividing his budget by

The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing: there are certainly some

questions that we think the minister in charge of that ministry should

try to answer before we start dividing his expenditures by 4. The

Ministry of Tourism and Small Business Development: again, it’s a new

ministry. There are new ministries, and had we been called together

there would have been some opportunity to get some idea what the

government was doing, what it had in mind, what was going on.

Even with all that, had we received a positive answer to our simple

request for an opportunity to consider this legislation overnight —

eight days ahead of the date on which it was introduced a year ago —

had we received that kind of cooperation from across the House there

would have been no problem with it. But the government seems determined

not to be cooperative in this instance. I would hope that’s not an

indication to us that they are going to adopt that attitude from here

on in. I don’t think this is really doing the business of the people of

the province. I don’t think it is doing any of us any good to get into

these confrontations. Certainly I think the Attorney-General doesn’t

want it any more than I do. I think we can work here in a spirit of

cooperation and achieve much more than we can by arguing with each

other over things like this. I think it’s unfortunate for everyone

concerned that we got into this kind of debate, this acrimonious

situation, on budget day.

Nevertheless, it was not of our seeking, this situation that was

forced on us by the government adopting this very uncooperative

attitude. I’m hoping that, having gone through this experience, from

here on in they’ll be a little more cooperative and will work with us

better than they have done in this particular instance. Together we can

work our way through the budget, through the estimates and through the

legislation that the government is presenting and get something useful

done here for the people of the province.

We said earlier and we say again this evening that we have no

intention of long delaying the supply bill, but we did think that the

government should have acted a little differently in this respect.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. COCKE: I enjoyed the members — probably not too long to

be members of this House — with their little chirping. They’re quite

worried about our leader right now because he’s the only person in this

province doing anything positive about employment. Thank heaven for

that leader.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we should take just a few

moments to reflect on our reason for being here and the standing orders

which govern the time during which we are here. I should remind you

that the standing orders provide that we recognize one person at a time

who is not to be interrupted unless there is a point of order. Unless

we can adopt these standing orders in a serious vein, we’ll have to

take the measures that are provided by the standing orders as a remedy.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: Just to reminisce a little while, I was wondering

tonight over the dinner hour about a somewhat volatile leader who was

the Premier of this province for some 20 years. I had the pleasure of

serving in this House — sometimes not so pleasurable — and at the same

time watching a very volatile, first-class gentleman at the helm. But I

would never have expected to see, and certainly never have seen,

anything the like of which we saw this afternoon.

Now Junior over there — the junior member — has never really

understood the process that goes on here, so I’ll excuse that remark.

But traditionally — particularly when we were government — the other

side was told when there was unexpected legislation coming forward.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) please come to order?

MR. COCKE: I’ll react to the minister’s suggestion. Really,

what I think we saw tonight was a spoiled little millionaire not

getting his own way on everything and not acting like his daddy, who

earned his way. That’s the only thing I can suggest.

I felt rather sorry for the poor old Whip (Mr. Mussallem). He had to

carry some rather strange messages today. Unfortunately, if there had

been any cooperation, if there was any thought or hope of cooperation,

there would be no need for the kind of messages that he had to carry.

The poor old Whip — just in argument to what he had to say in terms of

a former agreement — was suggesting here that he was kicked out. As a

matter of fact, I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) say: “Stay here, I want to talk to you.”

And he said: “Oh, no. Talk to your Whip.”

Mr. Speaker, we’ve had a rather strange situation here. We’ve had

the opposition waiting for some inkling of what is happening in the

budget, so that we can think about a reply to what is in the budget —

and that includes this quarter of the budget. The press had it at nine

o’clock this morning, but we are not permitted the budget. They were

guarded up there, somehow or other, but in any event we were not

permitted access to this piece.

Mr. Speaker, just so the record is clear, the minister indicated

that we can’t be trusted, and I take that as a slur from someone not

worthy of making that kind of comment at all. Someday I’m going to ask

that minister about some of his land dealings. Mr. Speaker, I believe

that an interim supply bill should have been part of the discussion

that we had originally on this whole question. There’s no reason why

the opposition should not be told that an interim supply bill is coming

forward.

There’s no member in this House that can ever remember a time that

the opposition were not warned about that particular bill coming

forward. Just try to remind me about it. If you can remember a time, I

would like you to just stand in your place and remind us about it. It

hasn’t happened. It wouldn’t happen.

Mr. Speaker, it’s just

an act of vindictiveness. There’s no good

reason not to permit the opposition at least an hour or two to kind of

have a look at the budget first, so that they can decide whether or not

the interim supply bill really reflects the needs of this province. No

opposition is going to, in the long run, filibuster the interim supply

bill. We know as well as anybody else that it is necessary, when a

government waits until the dying hours of the fiscal year to start the

Legislature in process.

But that’s just bad planning. That shows a group that can’t even run

the Legislature, let alone run the province. They’ve proven they’re

grossly incompetent in both areas. This gang was supposed to get the

province moving again. This group slowed it to a grinding halt, and now

they’re trying to do the same thing with the Legislature. Mr. Speaker,

it’s a shame.

[ Page 277 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering….

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) will please come to order. This is the last asking.

Standing Order 20 provides that any member whose conduct is grossly

disorderly shall be called upon to withdraw immediately from the House

for the remainder of that day’s sitting, and the Sergeant-at-Arms shall

act on such orders as he may receive from the Chair in pursuance of

this resolution.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: I’d like to allude to another old tradition in our House.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I like my hands in my pockets, Mr.

Attorney-General. As long as my mother doesn’t ask me that, then I will

leave them where they are if it’s comfortable.

Mr. Bennett Senior, and his predecessors and his successor, had the

budget speech and introduced the budget on a Friday. Now why did he do

that? He did that for the convenience of the opposition, so that the

opposition would have two days to study the budget, two days to

consider the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dave Barrett?

MR. COCKE: Yes, and Dave Barrett too.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he didn’t.

MR. COCKE: Yes, he did.

HON. MR. WOLFS: No, he didn’t. Check your records.

MR. COCKE: Check your own records.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bennett Senior had that on the

weekend for a very good reason — to give the opposition an opportunity

to study it — and on Monday the opposition had an opportunity to reply

to the budget. Now we’ve got a budget significantly larger….

AN HON. MEMBER: It’s a good one, isn’t it?

MR. COCKE: I’m not indicating whether it’s good, bad or

indifferent. The way you people manage things, it wouldn’t matter if

you’d doubled it. You’d still blunder through and leave the people

where they are today — in a state of chaos.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, you know, that’s the kind of politics…. While

they’re a bit bush league in B.C., certainly we’ve never been as bush

league as we’ve become with this new government. I think that the way

they’ve manoeuvred around, what we’re seeing is what the people

recognize — a government that cannot be trusted because they’re

devious, sneaky and always trying to pull a little bit of a rug out

from under someone. I subscribe…. Oh, the Attorney-General….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Environment rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I

accept your admonition to this side to remain in order, but surely this

speaker is far from the subject, and is as out of order as we have ever

been in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is well received. Is the Attorney-General on the same point?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask the Hon. member to withdraw the word “devious.”

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member for New Westminster please withdraw the word “devious” ?

MR. COCKE: I obviously offended the Attorney-General. I therefore withdraw.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there’s one other thing that’s obviously

in the wings. We’re trying to figure out why it is that the government

is trying to push through

an Act that last year they did not bring

forward in this House until April 10 — in other words, ten days after

the end of the fiscal year.

Today, as I read my calendar, it’s April 2. Nicely done. That’s

eight days prior — for the help of the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — to when it was

[ Page 278 ]

brought forth last year. Last year they deemed the 10th in time; this year they deem the 2nd imperative. What’s going on?

Well, the only kind of scenario that I can think of, the only

conclusion that I can come to, is that somehow or other the Premier has

a timetable, and we’re somehow interrupting that timetable by our

callousness. I think the hidden agenda is as follows: he wants to go up

to Kamloops in a day or two and he’s got to get over to Vancouver

tomorrow to a Socred mini- (not maxi but mini-) convention —

mini-W.A.C. at a mini-convention.

Obviously the Premier cannot trust his lieutenants to get the work

done tomorrow — that’s in his eyes, not ours — and so he is shoving

down the throats of the opposition a bill which will expend $1.227

billion.

MRS KERSTER: You used to spend that much in a week.

MR. COCKE: The member from Hawaii said I used to spend that

much in a week. Mr. Speaker, it’s not true. It took me a few days

longer. Thank heaven they’ve kept him back where he hasn’t got his

hands on any till.

I just feel that a bill as important and significant as this,

expending a very large sum of money, a bill that is tied totally and

completely to the budget, which expends four times that amount of

money….

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The minister is somewhat apprehensive about

everything that is going on now, Mr. Speaker. Can I explain it to you,

so that you can be a little softer with him in terms of his behaviour?

I’ll explain it this way: I’d be nervous too if I were the Socred

member for Columbia River with the new boundaries and with a

first-class woman candidate up there to go against him.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the motion, please.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I try very hard to keep myself under the firm hand of discipline.

As I indicated, the Premier has this great scenario. The scenario is

that in order to keep everything sort of on time, so that he can make

his way up to Kamloops to his mini-convention, he has to get this bill

through today. To heck with the opposition. To heck with giving them

any kind of opportunity to go over the numbers. They don’t deserve

that. On behalf of over half the people in the province, I might

suggest…. There are still a few out there who trust him, but not too

many.

But he wants to get up there. He wants to psyche up the last

remaining little gang that he hasn’t spoken to yet — the faithful. I

wonder, however, how many will get there. I think quite a few of the

people who had hoped to be there won’t be there because they’re going

to be busy fighting a Conservative or a Liberal campaign somewhere. So

maybe he won’t be so thrilled with having pushed this through the House

and having pushed us around with his huge majority — that grinding,

thumping majority that are pushing $1.227 billion through this House

like a bulldozer. I can’t believe it. The civil service got paid last

year.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: That minister is just doing me a great service. He keeps making my speech for me.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: At least I admit it, Mr. Premier. When will you? Of course, we know John Arnett too.

Anyway, the public servants and everybody else got paid last year.

What’s the point? And when did the warrants go out? Warrants are not to

be issued when the Legislature is in session. He’s been a minister

before. I can’t believe it. I can’t believe the gross incompetence.

The public servants got paid. Everybody else got paid in due course

last year. No one was inconvenienced, and they didn’t even put through

this bill — different numbers but the same bill — until the 10th.

They’re playing games. As usual, they’re trifling with the people’s

business in this province.

I can say nothing more. I’m a bit ashamed when I see this kind of behaviour in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for New Westminster says he

feels ashamed, and well he should. We in this Legislature have had

healthy debate over the years. We’ve had opposing points of view, but

one of the things that has been fundamental to this Legislature, as it

is to the British parliamentary system, is a respect for the

traditions, the niceties, and the rules and the way in which this House

can operate. One of the traditions of this House, as it relates to the

British parliamen-

[ Page 279 ]

tary system in other areas, is the matter of

dealing with interim supply. Now let us not confuse this with the

budget as it is presented, the budget debate, or the estimates and the

detailed spending. There is ample opportunity for the members of this

House to discuss the programs and the spending plans of this

government. Let’s not confuse that. That opportunity will be there and

it will be there as it wasn’t there when I was in this House in

opposition, when that party, as government, had restrictions on the

opportunity for the opposition to question the ministers in a detailed

way over the spending plans of the government during estimates.

I can remember when they brought in their form of closure in this

House. I can remember when they brought in the rules, when they

couldn’t stand the light of day and were afraid to face the heat, and

tried to close off the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I was there and I was

part of a tragic event in this House that saw them bring in closure.

Only by taking that message to the people of this province did we force

that steamroller, big-government, arbitrary, autocratic group to bend

to the wishes of the people and allow the people’s forum a chance to

have the light of day shine in on estimates.

It’s that sad experience — the question of the coverup of the

financial deficits and the desperation with which they called an

election in mid-winter in 1975 — that made this government more

determined than ever to bring in a measure of accountability, rules and

regulations, quarterly financial reports and an auditor-general to

question the accounts, not only of government but of the Crown

corporations. We did these things so that never again could we be

subjected to, as a legislature or as a people in a free democracy, the

type of coverup and desperate election call which their own writers

from the NDP have so well chronicled in a book called “The 1,200 Days,”

which admits to the people of this province that they knew and were

afraid of the tremendous losses and deficits of the Crown corporations.

They were afraid to tell the people.

And let me say that their budgets contrast with the budgets of this

government. The accountability given to the people all year long means

they know what is happening in this province. We don’t want to go back

to the old ways, to the old days. That’s what they did; and never let

them forget it, for the parliamentary system is better served. The one

good thing that came out of the NDP term in office was that never again

will we go to that type of government, with that type of coverup,

because now we have mechanisms in place to protect the right to know of

the ordinary citizen in this province. That is what came out of what

was a tragic period in this province.

Now what do we have today? What do we have in the tradition of

parliamentary procedure and parliamentary cooperation? We have before

us today a budget. As we did last year and as we have other years, this

government has brought in the spring session…. For those few members on

the other side who come from interior ridings, but have felt it

comfortable to move out, to leave your people and move down to sunny

Victoria, remember that it might be spring in January in Victoria, but

for those of us who represent the broad crosssection of the province —

the Interior and the north — it’s not spring there. Ask the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who during most of this session and

sitting has left Nelson-Creston and only now has moved back, as he

starts to calculate in his educated fashion because he was a teacher —

that perhaps, yes, because there is an election every four years, it’s

time to go back and let the people see him, to leave sunny Victoria and

grace the people of Nelson-Creston with his presence once more.

I want to say that what we have here today is simply what has been

procedure in every House in the British parliamentary system. The date

of the calling of the spring session may vary as budget and legislative

preparation will allow. There is no sense in calling a House until all

of the legislation is ready.

I can remember this House when I was opposition, when they called

the House and they brought in ill-prepared legislation. I can remember

watching them bringing in amendment after amendment of sloppily drafted

legislation. I can remember it well — budgets in which the then Finance

minister didn’t understand his own budget. I can remember him

presenting bills to this Legislature which he couldn’t explain. I

remember his bill on assessments. He brought in the bill either two or

three times, couldn’t explain it, kept withdrawing it and finally said:

“I can’t deal with assessments.” And then he had the election and,

fortunately, he was thrown out.

I want to say that this Legislature has been called in the month of

March three out of the four sessions in which we have been here. That

has been the tradition. It allows us more time for preparation of the

legislation and budget because the end of the government’s fiscal year

is the end of March. That allows us an accuracy which, by history, was

never there with the NDP.

Today the Minister of Finance gave the in-

[ Page 280 ]

accuracies, overruns and amounts the budget was

out, both in dollars and percentages, over the three years. I think it

was over a billion dollars — an astronomical 14 percent error, compared

to something around 1 percent for this government. It gives you an idea

of what rush and hurry and whatever went into the preparation of their

budgets.

Let’s get it straight that this is the regular meeting period for

this assembly. This assembly is allowed unlimited time in which to

carry out the business of the people. There are no restrictions as

there were when you were here trying to force closure on the

Legislature. We remember those days all too well, Mr. Member for New

Westminster, when you sat over here grinning with your huge majority,

scowling down at the little opposition. But we fought you and your

arrogance, and the way you tried to bring closure to the people’s

business was noticed by the people. You are no longer here. Perhaps

very soon you will no longer be there, here or anywhere.

Last year we brought in the budget and interim supply, which is

merely to pay those who work in the public service — those dedicated

public servants who, day in and day out, carry on the people’s

business; those people who supply services and supply the government —

small businesses and single proprietorships; the people in the province

who that party says are not getting paid fast enough.

Today, as part of the delaying tactics and the political games they

have been playing, they were prepared to deny those people payment of

their salaries and bills for goods and services by holding up what is

normal procedure in this House and in the parliamentary system. I can

hardly believe it, but I do believe the member from New Westminster

when he says he’s ashamed. They should be ashamed.

Lately, in fact during all the years since we’ve been government,

there has been a growing tendency on the part of that opposition not to

be constructive, helpful, or to care for the people of this province,

but to try to be divisive and destroy the very fabric of this province

by creating misinformation, sowing the seeds of doubt and, above all,

playing games in one of our most historic institutions, the Legislature

of this province.

For years it has been traditional for the government and opposition

Whips, by mutual consent, to arrive at ways in which the procedures in

this House can proceed with a little bit of dignity and concern for the

people. I’m sorry to say that our Whip, the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem), advises me that an agreement reached last week with the

opposition Whip (Mr. Cocke), to observe the traditional procedure on

budget day, and to waive the question period and introductions, was

broken this morning. No reason was given. Not only that, the Whip said

that in an appeal for some decency he was subjected to verbal abuse and

the threat of bodily harm by the Leader of the Opposition, in language

he usually reserved for women reporters in the corridors of this House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, with great respect, may I ask you to get back to the motion? The Whips’ business is not the House’s business.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the events

surrounding the delay are certainly relevant to the concern I have for

the people who may be hurt by the actions of that opposition.

There’s plenty of opportunity for debate. There’s plenty of

opportunity in the things that divide us, the philosophical differences

between individual opportunity and big socialist government by the NDP.

But why play games with the rules of the House? Why play games with the

regular organization of House’s business? Why make these people the

innocent pawns in the political game that they’ve been playing? It’s

hard to believe that this could happen in British Columbia in this year

of 1979. It’s hard to believe, but it’s happening, and no wonder the

member for New Westminster is ashamed. They’ve been left on their own

and, unfortunately, there is, in fact, no leadership. It’s uncertain

who the leader of the New Democratic Party is.

We’ve seen a political charade going on, in which, buoyed by the

polls of the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Stephens) — I don’t

want to dwell on their authenticity or accuracy — which suggest they

might be the government, they’ve been on a campaign to try and force an

election in this province. They’ve had the head of the B.C. Federation

of Labour, who, though not publicly declared, is considered the real

leader of the NDP in this province. They have the present leader — in

name only — of the NDP uncertain about his future and reacting wildly

in dealings with the government Whip and other members of this

Legislature. And sitting in the background, smiling, waiting to return

as the architect of socialism, is Bob Williams, watching them destroy

themselves as the three of them fight for control. Of course, feeling

confident, the triumvirate of the NDP is trying to unsettle the people,

unsettle this House and stall the

[ Page 281 ]

people’s business, using the workers in the

government service and the little businessmen who just want to be paid

for their services as innocent pawns in their political game.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is nothing more than to see that these people

are paid. It’s not on the principle of the budget; it’s not on the

estimates. It’s common courtesy in most parliaments to pass it without

debate, with no debate at all, with none of the shenanigans we’ve seen

in this Legislature where the opposition attempted to put closure on

the Premier of this province when he was speaking in the throne debate

the other day. There are none of those shenanigans that we have seen

and the political games that surround this House.

I’m afraid that the opposition, in trying to force an election or

force this uncertain condition upon this province, is inhibiting and

may inhibit this House from conducting the business of the people. I’m

afraid that it will deteriorate, as they wish it to deteriorate, so

nothing positive can happen. I can remember reading reports in the

newspaper where the Leader of the Opposition went down to the

Maritimes, where he thought he was safe, and was quoted as saying that

things were bad in British Columbia and he was enjoying it. He was

laughing.

MR. SPEAKER: And now to the motion, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this motion should have gone

through without debate, but now we’re involved in a debate which

surrounds the very principles of the parliamentary system and whether

the people can be made to suffer because of the political machinations

of the official opposition and the New Democratic Party. The political

gamesmanship that’s been going on outside of this House and has now

come into this chamber is something that should never happen.

We have the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) trying to

construct the scenario that somehow this is geared to us holding what

he terms a “mini-convention,” but which, to this party, is a major

provincial convention. Now it is true that the New Democratic Party’s

token to democracy is a convention once a year; our party holds

conventions on a regional basis all year, and now has two major

provincial conventions a year, one in the Interior and one on the

coast, because we’re not afraid to meet our people. We’re not afraid to

take some suggestions from them or be accountable to them. We have

built a party of over 80,000 people, and rather than developing a

party, Mr. Speaker, which is a collection of power groups, we have

built bridges to every group in society – the teachers, the labour

union members, the non-unionized people, the professionals, the

doctors, the businessmen and the ordinary people of this province, to

draw them in.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Premier, order, please. May I interrupt

what you are saying? The tack which you are taking in your address may

be well and good, but it is not on the point. May I ask you again to

move to the motion?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I know that this goes beyond

the bill itself, but I was only responding in kind to the remarks you

allowed from the member for New Westminster and other members of the

opposition. I feel they made statements that must be answered, and I

know, Mr. Speaker, that in your fairness and your impartiality you will

allow the Premier of this province the same opportunity and latitude

that you allowed the opposition. So, Mr. Speaker, as I am not opening

new subjects, but dealing with subjects that they have opened, I know

that you will allow me to continue. Once you have allowed that latitude

to the member for New Westminster and others, you certainly would allow

the Premier of the province to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: On that same point of order, Mr. Premier, not to

take up the argument at all, but just to make it very clear to the

House, every member always seeks the latitude that was extended to the

other member and then seems to surpass it to some degree. As a result,

I would ask all members to assist the Chair by trying to remain in

order. Please proceed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to receive

your guidance, and I know that the firm hand you hold on the first

speaker sets the standard for the rest.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, it’s not a matter for levity; it’s a matter for

seriousness and one on which I feel very strongly. We’ve now, in this

chamber, been brought to a point where what was allowed last year in

what the New Democratic Party felt was a non-election year…. They

allowed the traditional interim supply motion to go through. Today,

because it’s part of their game plan over the latest months — the Jim

Kinnaird NDP leadership rallies – events outside and events inside this

House have brought us to this point. Yet I am concerned for the

ordinary people of this province, the public servants and those who

would supply

[ Page 282 ]

government; I am concerned that this tactic will

prevent them from being paid. It is of concern to me that they should

become the unwilling victims of a New Democratic Party strategy, or

non-strategy, or whatever they have in mind.

I would urge this House, Mr. Speaker, to pass this interim supply

bill without delay. It is not too late for you over there to find a

measure of responsibility. It is not too late to embark on a course

that respects the people who work in the public service and the little

business people of this province who supply government, so that they

can be paid. It is not too late for you to find a measure of

accountability to the people of this province that would go beyond the

type of tactics you have been employing. This particular unpleasant

period that you have forced may be a benchmark, Mr. Speaker, from which

we can rise above these petty tactics, and which we can use as a

measurement, as we did when they were government when they tried to

force closure. Perhaps by their distorted actions, from their tactics

to suppress, from their political gamesmanship, we can arrive at and

rise to better things.

In the days when they were government, when they used that crushing

majority to bring closure on the opposition, we, a little opposition of

11 people, forced them to extend discussion of the people’s business.

Perhaps we can rise from the tactics they’ve employed today as

opposition and force the same thing — the decision not to return to

these tactics and to rise above them, and to bring a measure of

accountability, a measure of responsibility and, above all, a measure

of concern for the people we were elected to serve.

I’m distressed that I would have to get up and make this speech

tonight, because I was hoping that the public business could have been

conducted in what, in any other parliament, would be a normal fashion.

That opposition cares not for the people. They care only for their

political gamesmanship. I’m fed up, and the people of the province are

fed up. Mr. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), they’re fed up

with you. No matter how often you play your piano in the rotundas and

lobbies you cannot overcome your actions and your support of what that

opposition has done. Let us pass this interim supply, pay the people

and then get on with their business.

MR. KING: My initial observation is that the Premier

certainly takes liberty with the facts. Indeed, his imagination knows

no bounds when he makes a speech such as he has just delivered.

The Premier kept referring to respect for the parliamentary process

in this Legislature and at the same time suggested that the Premier, by

name, should have some special status in terms of rights in this

Legislative Assembly. If he knew anything about the British

parliamentary tradition, he would know that the Premier should not, and

indeed does not, enjoy any superior right to any other member of this

Legislature. To suggest and to try to demand some superior right shows

not only an ignorance for the process but an arrogance unbounded in the

annals of this Legislature.

The Premier seems to delight in bringing up the name of Bob Williams

in the apparent belief that this somehow tortures the opposition. I

want to say for my

part I am proud of the record of Bob Williams as

Minister of Forests in this province. I’m very proud of the record of a

man who held the portfolio of Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. I would like to ask the government: are they equally proud

of their prior Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources – Robert

Sommers?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Hon. member, please — to the motion before us.

MR. KING: I’m responding to the points made by the minister

when he appealed in his eloquent way for the latitude which the Chair

extended to him. I simply wanted to clear the name and defend the

reputation of a member who sat in this Legislature previously and who

is not here now to defend himself against scurrilous innuendo from any

member of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. KING: He’s not in jail, my friend, nor does he stand convicted for any criminal offence.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KING: With the record of that government, to stand up….

What a sorry, unseemly record to even deign to besmirch the record of

an NDP cabinet minister who sat in this House! Shame on you!

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the bill before us is Bill 2. It

has nothing to do with the record of former members of this House.

Please proceed.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

[ Page 283 ]

MR. KING: I was just moving to the bill, but I am pleased to

have had the opportunity to put on the record my respect and admiration

for a former colleague.

I want to make a few brief points on the thing. I’m not sure whether

the people in the galleries understand what the debate is about. It’s

about a budget that has been introduced today in excess of $4 billion,

which is a very large amount. This revenue and these expenditures are

based upon taxation of each and every sector of our economy and our

society. It was introduced in the Legislature today. The press and the

electronic media were granted the opportunity to have a copy of that

budget speech at 9 a.m. this morning. They were closeted in their room

under guard, I understand. I don’t believe it was armed guard — I hope

not. They were allowed to study that budget.

We in the opposition felt it was reasonable and courteous that some

of the same consideration should have been extended not only to the

official opposition but to the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr.

Stephens) as well. That is tradition in this House. My colleague, the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is our finance critic, received a

copy of the budget speech at 12:30 p.m. I suggest that any business of

this House should be shared with the members of this House, as a prior

right and as a matter of privilege, before it is released to anyone

else. I have no objections to its release to the media. But certainly

the simultaneous release at least to the leader of the party is a

matter of courtesy and respect for the parliamentary process and a

matter of respect for the rights of the members of the Legislative

Assembly. To do less, in my view, is to show contempt.

That’s bad enough. And one can argue and go back and forth on who

allowed most time – the NDP when they were in government, or Social

Credit while they were in government. Even that is not the main issue.

Out of this budget in excess of $4 billion the government is now

seeking approximately $1.25 billion for interim supply to pay the bills

due on April 15, the fiscal year ending at the end of March. The

opposition called on the government to convene the Legislative Assembly

prior to the end of the last fiscal year, not only to provide new

authority for spending, but to deal with the chronic problems of the

economy which are afflicting all the people of this province – such as

unemployment, inflation, spiralling food costs and other commodities,

which fixed income people, particularly, are facing in this very

turbulent time.

It was the government’s choice that they failed to call the

Legislature until March 22. They have the majority; it was their

choice. Having done so, and having extended the courtesy of allowing

the media to study the budget from 9 o’clock in the morning on budget

day, but not deigning to afford the same opportunity to the opposition

until 12:30 p.m., they finally asked us for interim supply at 5:30 p.m.

— one half hour before the normal closing time of this assembly. I ask

you in the galleries, and I ask the public of this province, regardless

of your political convictions, if it would be responsible for the

opposition to let $1.25 billion spending authority be passed through

this House in 30 minutes. That’s precisely what the issue is.

Mr. Speaker, they put forward interim supply at 5:30 p.m. The House

normally rises at 6 p.m. My friend and colleague, the member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), made a statement to the government that if they

would give us overnight to consider the implications of this $1.25

billion we would guarantee quick and expeditious passage of this bill

tomorrow, without delay — a commitment on the floor of this

Legislature. And if you don’t know what that means, my friends, you

have no respect for the traditions of parliament. If they don’t

understand a commitment on the floor of this Legislature, then there is

little hope of appeal. The commitment was that we should have overnight

to consider expenditures of this kind. There are no wage bills due

until April 15. The Premier knows that. The Premier came before this

House tonight and made an emotional speech and said that we are denying

workers and others the opportunity to be paid. He knows that is not

true. The bills of this government are not due until at least the

middle of April.

We have guaranteed passage of this bill tomorrow. But the government

has the majority. The Premier talked about the grinding majority that

the NDP had. Well, he has the equivalent majority today. He has the

right and the opportunity to bludgeon this bill through if he so

wishes. But I suggest to you that it is the height of folly, the height

of irresponsibility, to demand that this Legislature pass through $1.25

billion in half an hour.

Remember the Premier of this province when he was Leader of the

Opposition and we set a time limit on debate of 135 hours? He ran out

of this Legislature and he travelled around the province saying: “Not a

dime without debate.” Where’s the consistency? Tonight he demands over

a billion dollars in half an hour. Now, Mr. Speaker, if it was

parliamentary to do so, I would say that kind of conduct and that kind

of policy smacks of hypocrisy. I

[ Page 284 ]

wouldn’t attribute that to any individual in this

Legislature. But I would say that that policy is certainly not

consistent, and it certainly smacks of hypocrisy to me.

Now the Premier has talked about all the wonderful things he has

done. Yes, the Social Credit government has done some good things;

every government does. I want to congratulate the….

Interjection.

MR. KING: My friend says: “Name the one you did.” I suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that what we do is ask the government to muster their

courage and call the election and let the people tell him about the

good things that we did. I have better things to do than stand in this

institution and pat myself on the back for all the wonderful things the

NDP did. After hearing the budget speech today, Lord knows everyone has

had enough of that self-adulation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the government for two things

which the Premier remarked on. He mentioned his quarterly reports, and

I say great. It’s nice to give an accounting to the people of British

Columbia once every quarter — nothing wrong with it. I say that the

auditor-general is a good move too. We congratulate the government for

introducing an auditor-general.

That’s another reason why we are hesitant and reluctant to see over

$1 billion speeded through this Legislature in half an hour. We have

respect for the auditor-general appointed by that government, an

auditor-general who has just tabled her first report with the

Legislature. Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, a copy did not come to each

member of the Legislature. There is a copy in the Legislative Library.

I want to read to you one of the statements made by that auditor-general of whom that government is so proud.

Article 6.14 says:

“I consider that deficiencies and ambiguities in the

content and application of stated accounting policies are sufficiently

serious to warrant a thorough study of the government’s accounting

policies and financial statement presentation.”

That’s what their own auditor-general says, and

they come in here and brag about it. But the Premier gets up and, in

light of a statement like this, calls the opposition irresponsible for

not allowing in excess of $1 billion to be speeded through here in half

an hour. Shame on them.

Interjection.

MR. KING: I’ll go anywhere in the province and debate this

with anyone. I see a couple of Socred candidates in the gallery

tonight. I wonder if this is the kind of financial accountability,

trust and responsibility that both candidates would want to tell their

constituents about.

Mrs. Erma Morrison, the first auditor general appointed by the

Social Credit government, for which I congratulate them, had this to

say in her first report. I’m going to read it again, by common request.

“Item 6.14. I consider that deficiencies and

ambiguities in the content and application of stated accounting

policies are sufficiently serious to warrant a thorough study of the

government’s accounting policies and financial statement presentation.”

The auditor-general, bless her soul, was apparently

less than convinced that the accounting policies of this government

were adequate. She considered them adequately serious to comment upon

in her year-end report.

I do not want to incur the wrath of the auditor-general, Mrs. Erma

Morrison. I respect her competence, integrity and impartiality. I

wonder what she would say in next year’s report if the opposition caved

in to a heavy-handed majority of Social Credit members and allowed over

$1 billion of the people’s money to be passed through this House in

less than half an hour. I expect that next year she’d comment on the

opposition’s dedication to duty. What a sham this outfit is. That’s

what the issue is about — an opportunity for the opposition members to

go over the entire budget. There are new ministries and programs

included, and if within the period of half an hour we approved

one-quarter of that budget, in essence we have given approval, sanction

and recognition to each and every item of expenditure and revenue which

is outlined in the budget. It’s completely buying a pig in a poke.

I suggest that it’s scandalous and irresponsible for the government

of the day to ask the opposition and the people of British Columbia to

accept that kind of approach. There is no reason on earth why this

could not be held over till tomorrow and passed through the Legislature

once we have had an opportunity to view the estimates and study the new

programs and text of the budget. To come here prepared to comment

intelligently and ask the crucial questions that should be asked in

committee stage before this bill is passed through the House is what

the debate is about. We have no intention of filibustering; we couldn’t

do so

[ Page 285 ]

if we wished, and that is not our intention. The

government has the necessary majority. They have the rules of this

House, which are fair and equitable. Our objective is a responsible

appraisal and scrutiny of this vast sum of money that has been put

before the Legislature today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I just want to take a few minutes to make

comments in regard to the opposition’s filibuster. I guess they are

trying to make a point. I’m not sure what it is. It’s a very

interesting thing. I used to consider myself a new member. But now that

I’ve been in this House three years, I’ve got to tell you that I think

this is the worst exercise yet. For an opposition with learned members,

a former Minister of Labour, a former Minister of Human Resources, a

former Minister of Education, a former Minister of Health, a former

Minister of Housing, and a scattering of others over there — all people

who are well versed in the routine of this House — to stand up and make

the comments they have….

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

One comment I’d like to make to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan

(Mr. King), who is just leaving, is that this government had the guts

to appoint an auditor-general; your government did not. When the

auditor-general files her report, Mr. Member, recognize that it was

this government that appointed her, not your government. Her purpose is

really to act as a watchdog on the government and its actions. She

talks about “financial statement presentation.” He’ll build that into a

great speech and confuse the issue.

All they want to do here is go through an exercise of filibustering

the day away for no purpose at all. In regard to the bill of interim

supply, they are passing one-quarter of the total budget for the year;

they would be voting on that. It says that the interim supply bill can

only deal with those items that are in the main estimates for the

fiscal year. They know that we will be debating the estimates as

routine business of this House. The reason for this exercise is that

they can’t stand the impact that this budget will have on the public.

This budget is the best budget you’ve ever seen, Mr. Member over there,

and you know it. So you put up a great smokescreen over the fact that

we’re trying to put through an interim supply bill.

You know full well that an interim supply bill goes through without

debate. It’s a courtesy and a tradition of the House to put it through

so that the public employees of this province can be assured that they

will get their paycheques, and that the small businessmen who contract

with the government to provide services or materials or goods can get

paid for those services or those materials. But you’d forgo all that

for this exercise, in the hope that you can take some of the limelight

off the budget that the Minister of Finance presented today. Well,

forget it. You just won’t do it. That budget is reaching the people of

the province, and they know exactly what you are doing here tonight.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I’m glad I have, Mr. Member, because it takes you a long time to get the point.

MR. BARNES: Who’s filibustering now?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Member, I just thought I would get

up and say a few words. I’ve listened to you long enough over there. I

thought I’d just add my two cents to it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, at least they’ve got a value of two

cents. The way you people act, they’d only be worth about a cent and a

quarter; we’d have to discount your two cents.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, would you address the Chair and stop this cross-floor banter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The Whips’ agreement has been talked about here tonight. He whom we

might call the elderly statesman of this House had to take verbal abuse

and threats this morning when he attempted to discuss the arrangements

that were made between the opposition Whip and himself with the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) – before he ran away to Alaska or

wherever he went. The Leader of the Opposition verbally threatened him

during that meeting.

It’s unfortunate that the tradition of the House was broken by that

party. I’m not sure of their motive. I’m not sure whether it’s lack of

leadership or not, and the fact that the leader of the opposition party

is concerned about his back and concerned about the pressures that are

being put on him by the president of the Federation of Labour, Mr.

Kinnaird. He’s possibly concerned about the fact that Mr. Leggatt is

coming back from Ottawa and is going to have a go at the leadership of

the NDP.

[ Page 286 ]

The only concern I have, I guess, is the fact that a routine item

going through this House today is blown out of all proportion by an

opposition party which really isn’t concerned about the people out

there who work for the government or those people out there who supply

goods and services to the government. Then they talk about the fact

that the House hasn’t been called until March — why we didn’t call it

sooner. Yet, as the Premier stated, the last three out of four sessions

that have been held in this House have all been called in March.

MR. NICOLSON: That’s not true.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I beg your pardon. If it’s not true you can correct me at the end of my statement.

The supply bill is an interim supply bill, a measure that is taken along with the budget to ensure that accounts can be paid.

Mr. Speaker, I think that their actions are petty. I think the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) commented that pushing this through in

30 minutes, as he put it, was a petty action on the part of the

government. I’d suggest that the activity on the other side of the

House is probably petty in the worst sense, because of the fact that

they aren’t considering the public employees and the people who supply,

as I mentioned, goods and services to this province. Mr. Speaker, the

budget that was brought down today was a budget that really has taken

away all their thunder, and they’re clutching at straws. When for the

first time we can indicate to the people of the province that we’ve

reduced sales tax to 4 percent, it must have really stunned the

opposition. They went away and said: “We’ve got to do something to try

and save the day.”

When we look at the fact that we assisted the farming community….

One of their big ploys is to keep saying that this government doesn’t

recognize the farming community, and yet in the last few years the

farming community has had the best years they’ve had in many a year.

They don’t want assistance from government, they want it from the

marketplace, and they’re getting it from the marketplace. But behind

all that, they’ve got the assurance that this government’s got an

ongoing policy of stabilization for them. It’s not a five-year contract

that comes due — I know because I had to go through that exercise — but

an ongoing policy of this government to support the agricultural

community, and you know it as well as I do.

AN HON. MEMBER: That’s why they sacked you.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, at least I’ve been there, Mr. Member. You haven’t.

Mr. Speaker, I’m just pointing out that some of the impact of that

budget today, a budget for the 1980s and a budget that will assist many

people, will give them greater purchasing power, and by doing so will

further improve the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker, it’s taken us three years to clean up the mess we

inherited. We’ve built a strong foundation, and I think the budget

today indicates…. When we were elected in 1975, we were elected on our

promises. We promised the people that we would bring back fiscal

responsibility, that we would bring in accountability, and we’ve done

that. Next time, whenever that election is called, we’ll go to the

people on our record, and the people of this province are going to

re-elect this government, not by a majority of 35, but I’d even hazard

a guess of a majority of 45. I’ll give a few in the opposition.

Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this delay, as I mentioned before, are

petty. They are in a vain hope of getting some headlines away from the

budget that was presented by the Finance minister. I can only conclude

by saying that that entire opposition, and especially the former

ministers of the previous administration, should be thoroughly ashamed.

MR. LEVI: I just want to remind the newer members of the

House that in contrast to what the Premier said about the tradition of

passing interim supply in this House, I would advise some of the

backbenchers of the government to go to the library and pull out Hansard

for the years when the NDP were government, and look at some of the

interim supply debates that took place at that time. In 1975, on June

9, the Minister of Finance introduced interim supply. A debate

followed, and I want to quote from the statement of the then Leader of

the Opposition, when he said:

"Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this interim supply

bill would have been introduced a little earlier, because there is some

comment that should be made on supply. Although we’re going to support

it…. As it relates to the budget, naturally we’ll support it because we

don’t want to hold up services in this province.”

That was said by this side of the House this

evening in respect to the supply bill that is before us now. It was

said by the Premier when he was making his remarks as though it’s the

first time such debate has taken place in re-

[ Page 287 ]

spect to interim supply.

What was interesting about that particular time was that the debate

went on right up till 6 o’clock. There was an adjournment, and it went

on into the evening. But it was done in a rational, reasonable way.

Nobody tried to push it through. There was consultation.

It’s all very well for these new members to stand up as though

something had taken place — nothing new at all. What’s new is the

inability of that government to consult in order to make the whole

process rational.

So before you go off disclaiming the terrible things the opposition

is trying to do in respect to the interim supply, you should know the

facts and the recent history of this House. We didn’t criticize the

behaviour of the opposition when we were government because they wanted

to debate supply. The present Minister of Labour took

part in that

debate. That’s acceptable. No great rush to judgment. Concern about the

debate. It was allowed. But for the Premier to get up and to make the

kind of statement he made is absolutely ridiculous. It’s never happened

without debate. It could be irresponsible for an opposition, and for a

government, to expect that’s the way it should be.

As my colleague from Revelstoke has said, particularly in relation

to the recent report by the auditor-general, you have to have even more

concern. We have had concern about quarterly reports that show as being

unaudited. Now we have it from the auditor-general herself. The concern

is so great that there should be an investigation and an inquiry into

the procedures. Nothing wrong with pointing that out. Nothing wrong at

all. What is remarkable to me is that if the government were to stop to

think for one minute, if they had approached us and asked us, and

brought this up tomorrow, we’d have gone through with it and got on

with other business. But no, because of the petulance of the Premier

we’re here at 10:10 arguing about past history that those people on

that side want to forget about because it’s too embarrassing.

Those new people over there and the loudmouths who sit at the back

there who never have the guts to get up and say anything should go to

the library, look up Hansard , and find out what the facts are. Then they can get up and debate like intelligent people.

MR. SMITH: It is a pleasure to take my place in this debate

because of some of the statements that have been made by the members in

the opposition. The thing that’s most apparent is the very selective

memory that the opposition employ from time to time in this House. They

have a very selective way of remembering certain things that happened

in the House, but are very prone to forget others things that have

happened with respect to the operation of this Legislature. The member

opposite who just took his seat said: “Go to the library. Look what

happened in the interim supply before.” Well, I didn’t have to go to

the library, Mr. Member. All I had to do was go over to the bookshelf

and pick up the Journals of the House to tell you what happened on other occasions when we dealt with interim supply.

You mentioned the year 1975 when you spoke just a few minutes ago,

Mr. Member. You were wrong in the date. Interim supply was introduced

into the House on March 26. Supply Bill No. 1 was introduced on March

26, 1975.

MR. LEVI: No, no. Supply Bill No. 2.

MR. SMITH: The bill was introduced, read a first time, then

by leave read a second time. The bill by leave of the House went into

committee and was approved. The bill by leave of the House was read a

third time on March 26, 1975. So let’s get a few facts straight about

the position that has been taken by the then opposition in interim

supply in past years.They’ve a very selective memory.

In 1976 interim supply was introduced on March 30. It was given

first reading. It was given second reading, by leave. It was debated in

committee and adjourned for a few days because the House adjourned

while we were still in committee. It was given final approval on April

7. So what’s so mysterious about interim supply bills coming in around

the end of March?

In the following year, 1977, interim supply was introduced on March

30. It was given first reading, advanced into second reading by leave,

went through committee and was given third reading and approved on

March 30. How much debate took place? Very little. The traditions of

the House are those that the people opposite decide they wish to

reflect upon as traditions when it’s convenient for them to do so.

There’s nothing mysterious about interim supply. It is a tradition of

the House to put in an interim supply bill so that the accounts of

government can be assured and paid on a regular basis after March 31 in

any given year, if, in fact, we have not approved the budget by that

time. It’s an ordinary, simple, very uncomplicated procedure with

respect to the House.

The members of the opposition would try to make us believe that by

giving quick and speedy passage to interim supply, they’re being

derelict in their duty. The only thing

[ Page 288 ]

derelict in the duty of the members of the

opposition has been their inconsistency with respect to the way they

want to apply the rules of this House, both in debate and when the

rules of the House come down not always in their favour.

The suggestion made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is, in my opinion and, I am sure, in the

opinion of all of the members of government, a valid one. The reason we

are debating interim supply, the reason that the opposition wish to

have interim supply laid over and stalled, is that they do not want to

get involved in the debate on a budget that is the best this province

has ever seen.

They talk about changing the rules. I’ve been in this House as a

member of the opposition and the rules were changed conveniently by the

then government of the day. It was the leader of the then government,

now Leader of the Opposition, who changed the rules with respect to

bringing the budget in on a day other than Friday and forcing the then

opposition into the position of having to debate it the following day.

As the opposition, time and again we had bills called for second

reading debate that had been in the House for less than two days.

Introduce a bill one day, call it for debate the second day, and deny

the opposition the right to adjourn the debate – oh, yes, we know all

about the selective memories and the selective procedures used in this

House.

It was the members of the now opposition who have played and

perpetrated more disgraceful acts on this Legislature than any

collective opposition in the history of this House. It’s on the record,

and everybody knows about it. We know what happened, and as I was part

and parcel of a lot of those scenes, so I know personally what

happened. Mr. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), who gets up and

talks about equality and fairness in debate in the House, have you got

a rule book to throw at somebody else’s head this time? Have you got a

rule book to throw at the Speaker’s head again, Mr. Member? We can

remember those days.

Interim supply is a matter of granting the Crown the money that is

necessary on an interim basis. There’ll be lots of opportunity for full

debate of the budget. But I suspect, as I stand in my place this

evening, that the opposition do not want to debate that budget, because

they’re embarrassed. What can they say against it? What is there in

there that they do not like? They say it is irresponsible to grant the

Crown interim supply. What nonsense.

They said they’ve had no opportunity to question the new ministers

that have been appointed on the cabinet benches. I ask you, what’s

question period for? Don’t answer. The performance of the opposition

with respect to question period since the day this House was reconvened

has been scandalous. It’s been a disaster. There has not been one

concentrated attack on any one particular subject by the members of the

opposition. It has been a scattergun attack as you’ve never seen.

How many times have they asked these new cabinet ministers questions

about their portfolios? Look in the record and find out how many

questions came directly to the new ministers in question period. If

they are so concerned about the new ministers, how come they haven’t

been asking them questions? Where’s their research? Where’s anything to

do with the real work of this House that has been reflected by the

questions asked by the opposition?

They’ve been bare bone questions, almost an embarrassment to

themselves at times, trying to conceive enough questions to last 15

minutes. It’s fairly obvious again today.

This session has lasted a little more than a week. Yet we’ve had

more bills introduced today than we’ve ever had, I think, at any other

session by a similar time. If the opposition are concerned about not

getting their legislation in they have no right to make that

accusation. The budget came in today and, along with it, ten pieces of

legislation — bills that are now on the order paper. When did the

opposition, when they were government, ever give us that type of a

break in the introduction of bills? Never. As a matter of fact, as

pointed out by the Premier of the province, the only thing you could

depend on was that whenever a bill came into the House it would be

amended about seven times before it came back in a form it could be

used. Amendment after amendment. We had bills come in with more pages

of amendments than the original pages involved in the bill. Those of us

who have been here long enough to know and remember the days when they

were government remember these things. If we want to start comparing

what went on before to what’s happening now it would seem to me there

are some of us who have sat in the House long enough to know the story

from both sides.

There is nothing mysterious about a supply Act. It’s a simple,

straightforward bill, granting to the Crown the right to pay off the

accounts that are and will be due — well, they’re due now, on April 1.

For us to say that the public servants are the only ones involved is

not true. Many, many accounts of the government would be held up if it

were not for interim supply.

[ Page 289 ]

The system is used in every democratic jurisdiction in the world,

the same as we use an adjournment rather than a prorogation now and go

from the start of one fiscal year of the Legislature right through to

the end of that year – prorogue one day and start a new session the

next. There is nothing mysterious or new about that. It was an

innovation late in coming to this chamber, but used by many other

jurisdictions for many years.

The tack taken by the opposition on interim supply is nothing but a

smokescreen to cover up the fact that they do not want to debate the

budget and the provisions it makes of innovative and new programs, of

tax relief and tax deductions for people in this province who deserve

those breaks.

We have a vibrant province. That’s being reflected by the budget.

It’s being reflected by tax breaks and tax deductions. Interim supply

is a very simple fact. It’s a mystery to me that the opposition have

chosen the one bill they should have let go in a matter of minutes, in

order to circumvent debating the budget itself, which is the real need

of the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before

proceeding with the next speaker the Chair was pleased to receive

recently the latest edition of Beauchesne’s “Parliamentary Rules and

Forms,” fifth edition. Page 104, referring to members in debate –

remarks made by the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) – prompted me

to peruse the journal to ascertain if some of the words he used were,

in fact, on our list of new prohibited words. I would suggest that all

hon. members will have time over the ensuing weeks to peruse this list.

Perhaps it will make debate in the House much more pleasant if we take

this very fine journal as our guide in using it in reference to other

members of the House.

MR. KERSTER: This is a first since my election to this

chamber. It’s the first time that I have had – or at least I have felt

the necessity – to stand and speak in an interim supply debate.

Interjection.

MR. KERSTER: The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) says it

will be the last. I want to remind him there is one thing about this

government that his government never had anything to do with. That was

a positive situation and good management. That’s not going to be the

last. That’s a first since 1975.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to suggest to you that the debate in this

House this session has generally been positive. This government brought

down a very positive throne speech. The debate, at least on this side

of the House, was very positive. Today came the fourth budget — and I

emphasize the fourth, because I’ll get back to that, Mr. Speaker —

brought down by this government, and again it was a very positive

budget, the greatest budget ever brought down in this province.

What has the reaction been, Mr. Speaker? I’ll tell you what the

reaction has been. The reaction has been nothing but negative carping,

whining, muling and puling — whatever you want to call it — from a very

negative loyal opposition. They don’t want to debate. It comes right

down to the brass tacks. They don’t want to debate the budget, and

that’s why we’re here tonight, plain and simple — they don’t want to

debate the budget. In fact, frankly, I wish that the hon. Premier would

call the election tonight, because I’ll tell you what: we wouldn’t hear

any of that negative nonsense anymore because nine-tenths of them

wouldn’t be here.

Mr. Speaker, the theme of this debate tonight is typical of the NDP opposition. It’s nothing but out-and-out obstructionism.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who’s the leader over there, Bill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps if….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is it Bob Williams?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: What leader? Which leader?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) kindly restrain himself? The member speaking is

being interrupted by members of his own party. Perhaps if members of

his own crowd would….

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, just let me get on with this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps if your own government

benches would assist government members, then the Chair’s job would be

a little easier.

MR. KERSTER: May I proceed, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have the floor.

MR. KERSTER: As I was saying, the theme of

[ Page 290 ]

this debate seems to be typical of the NDP

opposition. It seems to be obstructionism again. Otherwise, why

wouldn’t this interim supply bill, which…? Granted, I haven’t been here

very long, but I realize from what everyone has said and what I’ve read

that this is somewhat of a traditional bill. Who stands to suffer, Mr.

Speaker — the opposition? No way! They’ve got their cheque already.

What do they care? They’re rich. I’ll tell you who stands to suffer —

the civil servants, the guys who did all the work for those characters

when they were in government and took all the lumps, except for a few

in 1975; and the small businessmen who supply services to this

government on a day-in and day-out basis and supply services to the

people of the province. All they want to do is be paid on time.

Mr. Speaker, today we brought down a very positive budget, after

three very difficult years. It’s very interesting to note, and I think

it’s been touched on by several speakers who preceded me, that the

former government…. I hate to jog their memory, particularly in a

situation that is very definitely so uncomfortable for them, but they

went to an election in November 1975.

Why did they do that, Mr. Speaker? I’ll tell you why they couldn’t

do it. Mother Hubbard’s cupboard looked like a cornucopia. The former

NDP government of this province was dead bare when it came down to

their bankroll. They couldn’t bring in a budget. It’s that plain and

simple. A positive budget, a negative budget, any old budget would have

done in 1976. They just couldn’t bring one in. So what did we do? We

went to an election in 1975.

There was nothing there. The province was hopelessly in debt. That’s

why there was no budget. Their Finance minister — his name was Dave, or

was that the former Finance minister…? They say he didn’t want to

expose himself. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you right now that no

one in this province would have called him Dave the Flasher — no one.

Never would you see him perched at the top of an escalator with his

raincoat open. It would never happen. He was not going to expose

himself, because B.C. was broke.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KERSTER: That’s not on your list, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I have just made

reference to Beauchesne’s list of unparliamentary words. You might find

that the word “flasher” is not included in Beauchesne’s latest list.

However, Beauchesne is subject to amendment from time to time, and I

think that a good-order requirement of this House would require that

one not use it. Please proceed in a more moderate tone.

MR. KERSTER: I would never bring up an immoderate flasher,

let me assure you of that. I want to stress the point that we didn’t

have a budget in 1976 from the former government that went to an

election in '75 because British Columbia was broke. They didn’t have

the intestinal fortitude to bring in a budget in '76, and I want to

talk about that intestinal fortitude just very briefly before you flash

through those pages.

The Leader of the Opposition came up with a not unusual situation

for him today; he broke an agreement. The former Premier of this

province, the guy who stands up and does all the whining and the

screaming about how brave he was, and how his word was this and that

and everything else, the guy who says that everything this government’s

doing is wrong, while this province is making great progress and great

strides and is a leader in Canada, a guy whose word is obviously gold –

even though it be fools’ gold – broke an agreement. We call it the

Whips’ agreement very briefly. And then we get off that.

I think it was somewhat reprehensible. That man whose temper is

known only to those reporters, female or otherwise, that temper that’s

known across this province, because Manny Dunsky isn’t here anymore,

isn’t here because he told Dave there was great leadership in this

province — now neither one of them is here — threatened a man who is

much his senior, a very honourable man, the hon. member for Dewdney

(Mr. Mussallem). Just shut your eyes and try to imagine this. Here’s a

very “gutsy” political leader. Here’s a real “gutsy” guy, the Leader of

the Opposition; a former Premier and a former Leader of the Opposition.

Frankly, hon. members, it’s a wonder he isn’t a former yoyo – he’s been

there and back twice. The fact of the matter is that this guy stood up

today and physically threatened a 67-year-old man. That’s gross.

I guess we really have to delve into the psyche of this guy. We have

to say: why? Was it because of his obvious frustration with losing in

’75? Not only with losing his seat — which I had a hand in; Mr.

Speaker, I withdraw that — but with the positive moves of this

government. Or was it the frustration of the positive and bright things

that are on the horizon for the province of British Columbia? You can

rip this out of your book; but that’s a hell-damner. B.C. is moving

ahead; B.C. is doing great things; B.C. is leading

[ Page 291 ]

Canada. And there is a man who goes to Halifax and

says: “B.C. is in trouble and I’m enjoying every minute of it.” Does

that man have any concern, really, about the province of British

Columbia, or the people of this province? There’s no way on earth that

he has any feeling for this, and that’s why we’re seeing an unfeeling

opposition withholding funds that should properly go immediately to

members of the public service, and to those small businessmen whom they

claim such a tremendous amount of heart and feeling for, but whom they

really couldn’t give a hoot about — small businessmen who wait 60, 90

or 120 days because somebody in this joint can’t get going and pay the

bills.

Mr. Speaker, I find that hard to swallow. None of this nonsense is

necessary. Interim supply has always been a tradition, except for that

obstructionist NDP opposition. I suggest that they get off their

collective butts and get down to conducting the people’s business.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Chairman, it’s interesting to listen

to discussion tonight and then think back to a night in 1953 when the

government of that day was defeated on the floor of the House. I can

quite see the frustrations of the opposition with such an excellent

budget, and I would say that it is no doubt the best that I have seen

by far in the 23 years that I’ve been here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I don’t think there’s any question that governments, no matter who

they happen to be, have to pay the government workers. And whether it

be a small portion of the budget or not, it really doesn’t make that

much difference, because a real debate can take place when the budget

itself comes up and the minister’s estimates are on the floor of the

House. After listening to the debate from the opposition it’s no wonder

that industry is holding back hundreds of millions of dollars waiting

for the election, because I wouldn’t want to spend a dime either if I

was in the hands of the opposition party.

It is interesting to look back in the Votes and Proceedings .

On March 24, 1953, on page 142, the government was defeated. In those

days, you know, we had a very responsible opposition, and we see on

March 26, two days after the defeat, the opposition agreed to pass,

without debate, not only $94 million ….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Without debate?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Without debate.

It’s interesting to note they passed second reading of the following

bills without debate:

An Act to Amend the Administration Act;

An Act to

Amend the Evidence Act;

An Act to Amend the Revenue Surplus

Appropriation Act, 1952;

An Act to Amend the Electric Power Act;

An Act

to Amend the Greater Victoria Water District Act;

An Act to Amend the

Small Debts Courts Act;

An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act; An

Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Determination Act;

An Act to

Amend the Vancouver Foundation Act;

An Act to Amend the Securities Act;

An Act to Amend the

Interpretation Act;

An Act to Amend the Coroners

Act.

Then we go over two days later and they passed through third reading

without debate:

An Act to Amend the Creameries and Dairies Regulation

Act;

An Act to Amend the Soldiers’ Land Act;

An Act to Amend the

Irrigation Assistance Loan Act;

An Act to Amend the Mount Robson Park

Act;

An Act to Amend the Garibaldi Park Act;

An Act to Amend the New

Westminster Parks Act, 1908;

An Act to Amend the Wills Act;

An Act to

Amend the Adoption Act;

An Act to Amend the Jury Act;

An Act to Amend

the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act;

An Act to

Amend the Pound District Act;

An Act to Amend the Trespass Act;

An Act

to Amend the Farmers’ and Women’s Institute Act;

An Act Authorizing the

Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into Development of the Columbia

River Basin;

An Act to Amend the Female Minimum Wage Act;

An Act to

Amend the Male Minimum Wage Act;

An Act to Amend the Municipal

Improvements Assistance Enabling Act;

An Act to Grant Certain Powers to

the Greater Vancouver Water District…. Would you like to hear them all?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

HON. MR. SHELFORD:

An Act to Repeal the Corporation of the

District of Saanich Act;

An Act to Amend the Audit Act;

An Act to Amend

the Hospital Construction Act, 1950;

An Act to Amend the Stock-brands

Act;

An Act to Amend the Horned Cattle Purchases Act;

An Act to Amend

the Beef Cattle Producers’ Assistance Act….

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Without debate?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Without debate.

…An Act to Amend the Lands Act;

An Act respecting the Rehabilitation

of Irrigation Systems in British Columbia;

An Act Providing for the

Incorporation of the Corporation of the District of Kitimat;

An Act to

Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act;

An Act to Amend the Teachers’

Pensions Act;

An Act to Amend

[ Page 292 ]

the Civil Service Superannuation Act;

An Act

Relating to Mental Defectives – sometime maybe we should all take a

look at that one;

An Act to Amend the Lunacy Act;

An Act to Amend the

Sexual Sterilization Act;

An Act to Amend the Mental Hospital Act; An

Act to Amend the Clinics of Psychological Medicine Act;

An Act

Respecting the City of Victoria; and

An Act to Amend the British

Columbia Corporation Income Tax Act, 1949.

Then you go on to March 26 when they passed another bunch through

third reading without debate:

An Act to Amend the Garibaldi Park Act;

An Act to Amend the Administration Act;

An Act to Amend the Evidence

Act;

An Act to Amend the Revenue Surplus Appropriation Act, 1952; and

An Act to Amend the Coal and Petroleum Products Control Board Act.

There was no debate.

Maybe you heard me say before that there was a responsible opposition in those days.

An Act to Amend the Greater Victoria Water District Act,

An Act to

Amend the Small Debts Courts Act,

An Act to Amend the Attachment of

Debts Act,

An Act to Amend the Constitutional Questions Determination

Act, and

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Foundation Act — all of these

passed second committee and third reading. It’s interesting to note

that the Vancouver Province of that date reported by my old friend Fred MacNeil:

"Twenty-third Legislative Assembly wound up its

business last night by voting $94 million” — a lot less than it is

today, but it’s the same percentage — “and passed, without a word of

debate, 55 non-controversial bills.”

So it’s nothing very startling in passing interim

supply. I’ve seen it done practically every year that I’ve been in the

Legislature.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many years have you been here?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Twenty-three years. I might say I’ve been around the place for 26 years.

It was interesting to note the lack of cooperation by the opposition

today for a simple interim supply bill. You can see when you look back

in history that the opposition generally does cooperate with government

so that the civil servants can be paid.

MR. STUPICH: What happened to your budget, Cyril?

HON. MR. SHELFORD: Prices are so good, my friend, we don’t need as much to pay the farmers as you did.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: You can take a look at that. That’s all

income assurance payments. The beef prices are so good that they won’t

be necessary for the coming year.

MR. STUPICH: Tell us about Cargill.

HON. MR. SHELFORD: I’ll tell you about Cargill whenever you want. You may get a chance quicker than you think. [Laughter.]

After looking at the record over the years, I think it’s quite clear

that what we’ve seen in the Legislature today is nothing more than

obstruction in trying to get this province moving. There is a great

deal of interest in development in this province and the quicker we get

away from this type of a situation where people are left in limbo, the

better.

The opposition seem to be quite willing to say: “Go, go, go!” My

answer to that would be: “Yes, let’s go and let’s get on with the

governing of the province.” You can see by the budget that it’s the

most exciting budget this province has ever seen. I think it’s time we

went back to the people and got a solid mandate. You won’t be there.

I don’t think any government can stand idly by and see the business

of the people held up and the province’s economy held in limbo while a

group across the way is trying to hold us up.

There are lots of other things I could point out in the debate of

1953, where the opposition of that day took a very responsible stand

and allowed the government to go ahead and pass certain legislation so

they could go to the people. The people had their say. They said it

very clearly and they will the next time too.

HON. MR. BAWLF: I rise in my place to speak in support of

this motion which is directed to the benefit of the average person in

this province. It’s the average person who would benefit from the

implementation of this budget, not excluding the people in the public

service in this province who have a right to be paid, including the

people of this province who have worked for and supply this government

in the implementation of this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me, from the previous session of the

Legislature, the debate which was put forth by that opposition on the

matter of interim supply. It is one half of one page in Hansard .

And all of a sudden the opposition would have us believe that this is a

matter of extraordinary importance. It is indeed a matter of

extraordinary importance,

[ Page 293 ]

but not one that warrants all of the hot air from those benches opposite this day.

The truth is transparently obvious today, Mr. Speaker. That

opposition doesn’t have the guts to deal with the greatest budget in

the history of this province. That opposition is running scared from a

great budget. That opposition will not deal with a budget with which

their own budgets pale by comparison.

In three years they increased the annual spending of the dollars of

the taxpayers of this province at an average rate of 27 percent. They

fuelled inflation with their spending, and they failed miserably to

approach the quality of this budget, a budget which has been brought in

within budget constraints of 5 percent, a budget which has been brought

in, over the total term of this government, within inflationary

guidelines. In government, that party opposite increased the spending

of this province by more than double. And yet, Mr. Speaker, that party

could not compare, in their wild spending, with the quality of services

to the people of this province; they could not compare with the

restraint which has been demonstrated today in this Legislature.

That party opposite will not address this budget because they dare

not speak against the budget, a budget which would reduce the tax

burden on the people of this province to the second lowest in the

country today, a budget which would reduce the sales tax to 4 percent,

which would reduce personal income tax in this province, which would

reduce corporation capital tax in this province, which would benefit

some 65,000 taxpayers in this province — persons with tax reductions

ranging up to $89, persons in this province who, on retirement, will

enjoy unprecedented benefits of tax reductions — a budget which would

increase the renter’s tax credit by $50 annually, which would

permanently increase the homeowner’s grant by more than $100 — which,

added to the increases of previous budgets under this government,

amounts to a total increase of $250. This is a budget which will

improve the lot of every person in this province, and especially those

in need.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) stood up and said he was

embarrassed, and they are embarrassed at this hour because that party

in government could never bring in a budget which could compare with

this one. If they were in the official opposition for 50 years, they

could never mount a legitimate criticism of this budget. They can only

hide behind what they dare not pose in a direct challenge to this

government — a vote of nonconfidence — because the people of this

province would never leave them in the position of official opposition

again, with a vote of non-confidence.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BAWLF: The members opposite say: “Goodbye.” I’m pleased to hear that they’re leaving so soon.

This government has brought before this House in the past week an

outstanding combination of opening speech and budget. It is indeed a

one-two punch you’re still reeling from, and you’re groping for an

answer.

A dental care assistance program, which adds to a commitment in the

coming years of more than $100 million a year in new hospital

construction, which adds to….

MR. SKELLY: You’re holding up the payments.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Where was it when you were in government? You

had three years to bring it in. You talked about long-term care and you

did nothing about it. This government brought in long-term care,

universal pharmacare, and this government will bring in denticare.

They would like to have the motion, now that they are shrinking in

embarrassment behind their desks opposite. The members opposite had the

opportunity, as is tradition, to bring in the wages and salaries

legitimately earned by the public servants of this province. They had

the opportunity to bring in sufficient funds for the payment of the

suppliers of this government. But in their groping and inability to

face an outstanding budget, they could not. They would hide behind the

meanest of obstructions. They’re laughing, Mr. Premier, because they

have no responsibility. They would use the public servants of this

province.

The hour is late. The opposition doesn’t want interim supply. They

don’t want to pay the public servants of this province. I move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada