Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 6, Number 6

Part 2

[ Page 4833 ]

The House resumed at 6:35 p.m.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the benefit of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 49.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1997

( second reading continued )

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak on the interim supply bill. We are here debating this bill tonight because we have a government in power that has little regard for parliamentary procedure. Last March, when we debated into the wee hours of the morning -- on the eve of a very important religious holiday -- we saw what this government thinks of parliamentary procedure. Had this present government any foresight, they would have called the House back earlier so that estimates could have been completed, and we would not have to have this interim supply bill debate tonight.

This government does not give the opposition any notice as to what is happening in the House. We have no idea when the session will end. If we in government would try to work together instead of having the confrontational attitude that this government is forcing on this side of the House, things would flow in a much smoother fashion. A parliamentary calendar would be beneficial to both sides of the House. I do not know what this government is trying to prove. Maybe they have no agenda themselves and don't know from one moment to the next what they are doing.

The members opposite must enjoy being here and having no family life. Maybe they feel they are punishing us. Cooperation works both ways. It is time the government stopped playing their games and got on to a willingness to work towards a positive working environment for the benefit of the people of this province.

We need to take a look at the way this Legislature is run. We need a government that has a vision of where they are going and how the business of government is carried out. We will always have a difference of opinion, and we will always be debating issues. Those are not reasons to continue the way we are doing business in the House today. The people of this province expect us to do the job that we were elected to do. We need to have set election dates. Elections should be held every four years, so that no government can manipulate the dates to suit their purposes.

Budgets should have to be balanced, just as municipalities have to balance their books each year. The way it is running today, this House is in chaos, and it is up to this government to start to bring some order to the way things are done around here.

This government has just brought forth a bunch of controversial bills, just as people and children are going on holidays. They think that no one will be paying any attention to what is happening, and that the bills will go through with little fanfare. The people of this province are a lot smarter than this government gives them credit for. British Columbians demand more from government. If British Columbians could turn back the clock, this government would not be where they are today, because this government doesn't have any respect for the people of this province.

Every time this government brings forth a bill for us to debate, I really have to question what the bill says. What will the government actually do after the bill is passed? They say they will do one thing; then they do another. We have continually heard this government say one thing and do another. So it begs the question: why should we trust anything this government tells us?

One thing that really disturbs me, that is really a good example of this government saying one thing and doing another, is what the Ministry for Children and Families is doing to alternative schools. The Minister for Children and Families has stated emphatically that children are being put first. Her aim is clear: there will be no more children at risk. While she says that in one breath, she is taking away funding from alternative schools that would pay for badly needed counsellors.

These schools are for teenagers who have dropped out, or were kicked out, of school. These kids have been addicted to drugs, have been raped, beaten. They are confused and suicidal. These kids need someone to listen to them, someone to care for them. They need to wake up in the morning knowing that someone is there for them. The teens that go to these schools say that this is their last chance: "there is nowhere else to go from here."

The minister says she wants to put more money into intervention and prevention in elementary schools -- something I applaud. But not at the expense of teenagers in these alternative schools. These schools are doing a tremendous job with these teenagers. What is so appalling about this decision of the ministry is the amount of money it is taking: from Victoria, for example, it's $150,000. Hon. Speaker, $150,000 pays for 4.5 counsellors, with wages of $27,000 for ten months. Teachers' union counsellors get upwards of $55,000 per year. I challenge this minister.

She is putting these children at risk by taking this pittance of money from them so that the Premier of this province can waste $1 million of our taxpayers' money for a photo shoot in Prince George.

I do not have any confidence in this government. I don't believe that this government has any intention of protecting children in this province. It is so hard to approve this bill when the government doesn't respect the money it collects from the people. It is appalling that the Premier has so little regard for parliament that he shuts it down for two days. Then he spends $1 million of our taxpayers' money to fly to Prince George to make an announcement that could have been made here in Victoria -- doing the business of the House.

This government is obviously out of touch with what is really happening to this province. They should stop and assess their priorities and calculate the true savings to the people of this province. When it comes to protecting children, education, health care, gambling addicts -- and we could go on -- this government is a dismal failure, because their first concern is their political skins.

This interim supply bill that we are debating tonight begs another question. We have waiting lists of people that are in desperate need to have operations, and yet the government doesn't have the money to clear up those lists. But turn on the TV or the radio, and the government has unlimited funds to tell the people of this province what a good job they are doing.

We are continually seeing businesses leaving this province and going to Alberta or across the border. The members on the other side are ignoring this, and they wonder why people don't have jobs. We don't see investors lining up to come to British Columbia and create jobs here. Our credit rating has gone downhill because this government cannot balance its budgets.

[ Page 4834 ]

I could go on and on about why we can't trust what this government says or does, or why we shouldn't support this supply bill. I will now turn it over to one of my colleagues, who also wishes to speak on this bill.

B. Barisoff: I too rise to speak on Bill 49, the interim supply bill. We came here in March of this year. The House could have sat much earlier; we could have had a lot of the estimates done. But instead, we came in late March, and we've had to go into an interim supply bill once already. We're now into the end of June. We're going into an interim supply bill again. This isn't right for the citizens of British Columbia.

We have to have honest debate of what takes place in this House, and the government side must allow the opposition time to debate all the estimates to make sure that we canvass every area for things that we might find that affect different parts of the province in different ways.

What took place at the beginning of the year was shameful. We should have started sometime in January, so that at this time we wouldn't have had to look at a second interim supply bill. I don't know for sure, but this might be a record: a second interim supply bill in one year. I haven't checked Hansard or the records to find out, but I'm sure that there are problems . . . .

Why do governments insist on doing this? The NDP criticized the Socred government in years past for engaging in special warrants and working on interim supply. This is wrong. This is not the way government should operate. Government should operate in a manner that best serves the people of British Columbia. We shouldn't be looking at waiting till the last minute. Here we are again, a few days before the long weekend -- Canada Day, which is an important day for most people in B.C. and in Canada. What are we doing?

We're here again, debating an interim supply bill, because the government wasn't prepared or didn't have the House sitting. We found days when we've taken time off. We weren't working; we were just taking time off. We should have been doing the debates on the estimates so that we wouldn't run into this interim supply bill. For what purpose? When we look back to the end of May, the beginning of June, we took a few days off. What for? We took a few days off so some of the members from the opposite side of the House could go campaigning -- campaigning federally.

Is this the way the residents of B.C. should be treated?

[6:45]

What we were looking at here was the opposite side actually closing offices and allowing members of the federal party to use them. This isn't the way things should take place in British Columbia; this isn't what it's all about. We should have been debating estimates on those days. We've taken time off on a lot of days, we've got frivolous bills coming forward, and all of a sudden, at this time of the year, right before the summer break, when a lot of us who do have families would like to be at home, a number of bills are coming forward. Is this the way that government should run?

When the government was embarking on the forest jobs announcement, it was another few days off, hon. Speaker. They went off, and we shut the House down. We went off on this big escapade, flying around the province. I think we were in Prince George, Williams Lake, Kelowna and on Vancouver Island. In fact, a constituent -- not one of my constituents -- from Kelowna phoned me today, wondering why a committee that I was on, on the Motor Carrier Commission, that had made recommendations a month and a half ago to the minister to enact . . . . He's been waiting all this time.

He actually left the lower mainland to set up business in Kelowna. He's going broke because the government hasn't performed its duties in exercising some of the things that we put forward. In our response to the minister -- which was two members from the opposite side -- it was indicated that it would be immediate. We wanted it to happen immediately, but it didn't. Here we are at the end of June. This gentleman is probably going broke today.

This is not the way to run government. This is not the way to help the people of British Columbia, the taxpayers, to survive. We're not. We're driving more and more people to Alberta because of the way this House governs its business. We don't govern the business, because we don't get anything done. This government has had a real tendency to say one thing and do another. The opposition said: "Not a dime without debate." That came from the members opposite when they were in opposition.

All we're asking from this side of the House is honest debate. But what's taking place? We get these bills put out at the last minute, with no time for the general public of British Columbia to have a really good look at them. The sectoral bargaining bill that came forward today is wrong. What should take place in this House is that those bills should come forward, and then we should have time to go throughout the province and canvass the people of British Columbia -- the taxpayers -- to find out exactly what they want to see in some of these things, so we can come back and have honest debate.

But what are we doing? We're here at the end of June, and this government is looking for another supply bill to be passed. We haven't even finished the estimates, and we've got lots to do yet. We're looking at estimates that probably could run in excess of another month or so, and here we are, trying to put through another supply bill. Are we going to go for a third supply bill, hon. Speaker? It's wrong; it's really wrong. It's just irresponsibility. There are no other words for it. It's irresponsibility on the part of the government to do something like this.

I just want to quote from when the Premier was in opposition: "We have seen repeated attempts by this government to stifle debate on taxing and spending of this administration. The main purpose of members of the Legislature . . . is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." This is, today, the Premier. But instead, what does he do? He allows us to go on and on, and we don't get anything done. He's not allowing the opposition to really debate. He sat on this side of the House and said, right in Hansard , hon. Speaker, that this is what should happen. But it's not happening.

It's a "ram forward" type of government that just keeps pushing, pushing, pushing and not really caring what British Columbians have to say. That's wrong.

As is the Attorney General, so should the Premier of the government be accountable for such things. This government seems to have forgotten what it used to say to the naysayers on the other side. A lot of things happen: they take days off; they spend . . . . I can't even begin to imagine the kind of money that was spent on advertising. I'm sure it's in the millions and millions of dollars. Those on that side of the House say that all we want to do is spend, spend, spend. This side of the House doesn't want to spend, spend, spend. We want some accountability, and that's really lacking over there.

The minister can make his jaunts up to Prince George, or the Health minister makes all these great, grandiose ads on TV. I can't even begin to imagine what these are costing. There are waiting lists at hospitals. There are schools with portables.

[ Page 4835 ]

We're not building any new schools. What's taken place in the last little while . . . . What we've found is that there are no schools being built.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: There aren't. You tell me where there are some schools being built. The few that are being built are being built in NDP ridings. They're built for right now; they're not built for the future. What we're doing is building crackerbox things; by the time they get them put up, they're already looking at portables. I think what we should be doing . . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: I think the member from the opposite side should be thinking about what I just said. I was indicating to you what kind of money we are wasting in this province. We're not telling you to borrow more money; we're telling you to be more efficient.

We're not being more efficient. The government isn't being more efficient. When we have to sit here and not debate the bills . . . . That's why we're asking for debate. We need debate in every area of government, because the inefficiencies of this government are so predominant that it's scary. That's why we can't build schools; that's why there are waiting lists at hospitals. It's simply because of the fiscal irresponsibility of the government of the day.

They sat on the other side of the House and said all kinds of things. I think the government lives on the three Ps program: pay, perks and promises -- all of which have been abused by friends and insiders. We brought up the other day in question period the issue of a former cabinet minister getting paid a thousand dollars a day. That's wrong. I don't care how you look at it, that's wrong. I think that when we figured it out, we figured it was $32 a word. Is that efficient spending?

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: The member from over there all of a sudden decides he's going to read now.

When we figure out that there are areas where we can save a thousand dollars a day . . . . We could put a lot of money into schools if we started using some efficiencies with government.

An Hon. Member: What does that thousand dollars cover for a consultant?

B. Barisoff: At $32 a word, I don't know what it covered. That's a pretty poor investment. For that kind of money they've got to be very good words, because it's hardly worth $32 a word. I wonder sometimes why we have all the people that work in all the buildings in Victoria, if we have to go out and spend a thousand dollars a day to hire extra people to give an indication of what's taking place. That was from regionalization -- another boondoggle in the former government that has probably ruined health care in British Columbia, never mind helped it along.

I just want to keep going on a few other things. It really bothers me when I see what takes place with this government. It's almost unbelievable. I have a quote here from the member for Alberni: "If they operated in any business sense at all, they wouldn't be putting this forward. We would have been debating this two months ago, but they were lost in the political wilderness, trying to get their members to come back on side . . . . "

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I'd like you to take your seat, please. We have an intervention from Delta South.

F. Gingell: I was just checking. I don't think we have a quorum in the House. I was wondering if the Speaker would call for a quorum, please.

The bells were ordered to be rung.

B. Barisoff: I guess that's a real indication -- to think that the government on that side of the House has a $20 billion budget, and they don't have the decency to have a quorum in place when we're discussing a supply bill. That's really wrong. Hon. Speaker, when you think that we're discussing a $1.5 billion supply bill, and the government can't have a quorum on the other side. This is wrong.

An Hon. Member: It says a lot about your speech, eh.

B. Barisoff: I think the members from the other side should be listening to some of the speech. They should figure out . . . . I see them rolling in now. They're rolling in, just steady, one after another. They thought it was a vote, but it really isn't a vote. They are coming to listen to me speak. Thank you, hon. Speaker, for ringing the bells to bring more in. That's what we like to see.

I think I was partway through a quote here that I'd like to quote, from the member for Alberni. "If they operated in any business sense at all, they wouldn't be putting this forward. We would have been debating this two months ago, but they were lost in the political wilderness, trying to get their members to come back on side, trying to prop up their Premier and their Finance minister." That's out of the April 23, 1990, Hansard . I think they should think about that. Yes, there he is, right there. I think they are words to live by.

It's now seven years later, and what are they saying? They're doing exactly the same thing. They're trying to prop up their Premier. That's exactly what they're trying to do. They're trying to prop him up, keep him going.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Well, I've seen the polls lately. The member asks if have I seen the polls. I have seen these polls, and if you look at the three leaders that are in the House today, I think the Premier is ranked at the bottom of the polls. That's not a lot of class for the Premier of the day when he's ranked at the bottom. The member for Alberni wanted to hear it; he's got it.

Earlier, the Minister of Labour stated: "The opposition said in 1992 . . . . " It was wrong; he didn't do his homework. Well, I've done my homework, and this is what this Minister of Labour had to say seven years ago: "I think that the Socreds would just as soon shut down the House and say that for them it would be 'business as usual.' " Seven years later, shutting down the House is business as usual for the NDP. We went through all the little episodes that we went through. I've mentioned them all -- the little jet-sets, quitting early on Fridays. You know, we're travelling all over, but years ago, when they were sitting on the other side of the House, that

[ Page 4836 ]

was wrong. This is really hypocritical -- to think that when they sat on this side of the House it was wrong, but now that they sit on that side of the House it's all right.

[7:00]

I believe the comment made by one of the members on the other side of the House that government can do anything has gone to their heads. I truly believe it's gone to their heads, because now they truly believe that they can do anything. That's what they're doing: they're doing anything they absolutely want. They're not listening. They couldn't even have the decency to have a quorum in here. A $1.5 billion supply budget, and they don't have a quorum here at a little after seven.

The supper hour must be over; we all had 35 minutes. We're all equal in having the same amount of time for supper. But what were they doing? I don't know what they were doing. They weren't paying attention. The question I ask when I read over past Hansard s is: what were the NDP doing all those years when they sat on the opposition benches? Have they forgotten the many speeches and debates? They've got to remember that those are put into Hansard . Those speeches and debates are all there, all there for us to look at. Now we find that once they've got the power . . . .

As the member next to me says, power corrupts, and I think that he's absolutely right. The member for Kamloops-North Thompson says that power corrupts. Power has corrupted those people over there, because they're not doing . . . . Morally, it's corruption.

An Hon. Member: I'm still a virgin.

B. Barisoff: I think the member over there said . . . . I won't repeat what he said, but I think if he looks down a ways, the other day . . . . Earlier in the House, the member for Matsqui indicated to him, with some of his sarcasm and wit, that he'd probably be a real candidate for cabinet. I think he should be in there soon, because he seems to be able to manipulate things pretty good there. So I think that with his comments, he's probably gearing up for that quick trip into cabinet. We all understand that there will be a cabinet shuffle coming up pretty soon, and rightfully so.

I wonder -- when you read over some of the old Hansard s and you look at when the NDP was in opposition -- why some of these principles weren't carried forward. They sat on this side of the House and they said one thing; now they sit on that side of the House and they say something else. That's wrong. The effect that it's having on the people of British Columbia is truly wrong. It's affecting everybody. It's affecting the people from the Peace River in the north, over to Cranbrook in the east, over to Vancouver Island here in the west and into the interior. It's affecting everybody.

This is the kind of stuff that I think the people of the province are really fed up with. They really can't stand to think that what's taking place is that the government keeps saying one thing and doing another. Who cares about the people in the Peace River? That's there attitude.

I happened to take a trip up there with the Motor Carrier Commission, and the roads were deplorable, just simply deplorable. It was unbelievable. I was thankful to the member for Peace River North for taking me for a ride, but the roads were just utterly deplorable. Then the other day in the House I brought up a petition from the people on the Queen Charlottes. The roads are the same there. They sent me about 25 pictures, and if you looked at those pictures and saw the condition of those roads . . . . They are simply deplorable.

This government has got to start doing something about governing, rather than forever saying one thing and doing another over there. The people of British Columbia don't believe anything they say now. They claim that they've had a couple of balanced budgets. But what have we got? We've got more debt. We've got people leaving the province, going to Alberta. Businesses are leaving everyday, and they are on their way to Alberta. Why? Now, as soon as they start reading this new sectoral bargaining that's going to come up in the next month or so, we're going to lose more business. More businesses are going to leave. They're going to go to Alberta. Is that really what we want?

It's hard enough for the people in British Columbia, the taxpayers, to make a living. But we keep going further and further into debt. There was a cartoon in the paper the other day of the vision of the present-day government, looking at the hill. But they didn't turn around and look behind them, and there was a hole so big there that they could have buried half of Canada in it. That's how big a hole they're digging. They're putting us right down into the bottom of the hole. They look at the vision, looking up at this mountain, while we're going deeper, deeper and deeper into debt. That's wrong. That's absolutely wrong.

I could go on -- I just don't know how long I could go on . . .

K. Krueger: Days.

B. Barisoff: . . . for days, speaking of what's taking place in this province. I keep wondering, when you look across Canada, and you see the legislative sittings that they have throughout Canada . . . . They've got some legislative sittings that serve the people. Are we really, truly serving the people when we sit here at 10 p.m. or 2 o'clock in the morning? Is that really when the business is being done? Some of us don't live here on Vancouver Island, where we can get up at 8 o'clock, shower, go whenever we want and be down here at the Legislature, and have the weekends off or whatever.

Some of us live in the rest of the province. We live all over the province, and we get on planes on Monday mornings to get here. We don't get here until noon or whatever. But the government of the days says: "Well, we're going to sit until 10 o'clock at night or until 2 o'clock in the morning." They don't have any consideration for people who are coming from other places. What they're saying is: "Well, too bad. That's fine. We're not really concerned about the rest of the province."

It's really scary to think that this is taking place. We've heard all the members from outside this area complaining about what's taking place. When you look at what is taking place in Manitoba, the

schedule of hours . . . . Monday, 1:30 to 6:00, 6:00 to 10:00; 1:30 to 6:00; 1:30 to 6:00; 1:30 to 6:00; 10:00 to 12:30. You know, there are all kinds of standing orders in Ontario. When you look at all the legislatures throughout the country, they're not like us. They know what's happening the next day. We have no idea. We simply have no idea. The worst part about it is that it's because the government has no idea what's happening. They really don't know what's happening on the next day. We come to work here every morning. What takes place? We find out that we might be debating a bill or might be doing some estimates. We have no idea.

B. McKinnon: We might get a holiday.

B. Barisoff: That's right. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale just mentioned that we might have a holiday, but we don't know. Some of us have rented places to stay. We

[ Page 4837 ]

don't know whether we're going to be there tomorrow or the next day -- or next month, next week, next year. At the rate we're going, I think we're probably going to be here until Christmas. I sure hope that we get some time off at that time of the year, because there is so much to do. Some of us have families, and I think that the members from that side of the House should consider that there should be some time off in the summertime.

We should have started early. We don't start a week before the interim supply budget in March is to be prepared. That's wrong. That's simply wrong. The government of the day can't do whatever it wants. I think the people of the province are going to rise up and say: "Listen, NDP government, it can't happen that way. We're not going to allow this to happen." You know, when you start seeing the polls . . . . The member mentioned earlier that we should have a look at the polls. Well, yes, the Premier of the day is the lowest on the polls, and rightfully so. The government of the day is the lowest on the polls, and rightfully so.

You really wonder when you look at some of the bills. I mentioned earlier about being morally corrupt. There are times when . . . . I know the member for Kamloops-North Thompson spoke for hours and hours on gambling, and I know that there are members on that side of the House, members who are sitting in this House right now, who are against gambling -- really against gambling. But when it came time to vote, what did they do? They voted with the government. That's wrong. They should be entitled to vote with their conscience. They shouldn't be put into a situation where they have to morally sell themselves. That is wrong.

These are the kinds of things I begin to wonder about. I say to myself: "What am I doing here?" I came here because I thought I could contribute something to the province of British Columbia and to my constituents of Okanagan-Boundary. I was the last person here, with the closest vote in the province. I know how important those votes are and how hard they are to work for.

K. Krueger: All 27 of them.

B. Barisoff: All 27, as the member for Kamloops-North Thompson says. That's what it is. When you think about some of this stuff, you really wonder. I was thinking to myself: "Twenty-seven votes. I came here to do something." I know I've got to work for my constituents, but what I find is that, first, we get here . . . .

On May 28, we get elected. For me, of course, it's a little later because we count and recount and recount again. It's a little later before I get here. We go through the summer not accomplishing a lot, and then we wait. We wait month after month. We're waiting and waiting for the government to call the House together. I'm anxious, new, excited and I want to be here. What happens? We don't get here. We don't get here until all of a sudden everybody tells me we have to have a budget by April 1 -- March 31 is budget day.

So I'm anticipating that we're going to be here, and I don't plan a holiday for January, because I assume that any government that knew what they were doing would be calling the House back together, probably in late January or early February, because we have to have the interim supply budget and have to approve the budget.

But what happens? The days tick by, the days tick by -- and somebody says: "Well, we can't come now. It's spring break." It's this, it's that or it's whatever. We are always finding an excuse, and we're not here. So we come in the last week, and then we debate for a week. We debate into the most religious holiday of the year -- into Good Friday.

To me, that was wrong, really wrong. I believe strongly in Good Friday, and it was really wrong for me to be sitting here debating on Good Friday when I should have been home with my family. Now we go another three months, and we don't have the budget ready again. We're into another interim supply for a billion and half dollars. A billion and a half dollars, and I understand, hon. Speaker, that this is only good for a month.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Well, I think that if the members from government think that the estimates will be done in a month, they'd better think again. They won't be. The estimates won't be done in a month. There are all kinds of things that we have to canvass. And why do we have to canvass them? Because we can't trust the people on the other side. We can't trust them. We have to find out what's happening, because we've got to know. We've got to canvass each and every little part of this, because we don't know what the government's going to bring in next.

We look at all these bills rolling in now, one after another, and here we are, getting close to summer. The government thinks: "We'll do these guys in, and they'll just pass all these bills through." You start looking through them, and you find all kinds of little things in there. They're pushing things this way, and they're pushing things that way. What they're really doing is pushing this province into the state of bankruptcy.

An Hon. Member: Just remember the Lord is listening.

B. Barisoff: I am listening and I know the Lord is listening. I know he's listening, and I know that when the Lord is listening he'll look after us.

But I'll tell you, the members from the other side of the House better think, very much, about what's taking place. What's taking place here is that we're driving . . . . We're looking at our children's future. It's gone. It's completely gone. We went from the two so-called balanced budgets to a $385 million deficit.

We get worse. We get worse and worse. As the member said, the Lord is watching. I'm sure he's watching. The thing we've got to be careful of is that we all want to be truthful in this House. We all want to be truthful and do what's best. As I said before, we all came here with the right intentions -- at least, I thought we did. I find now that some of us didn't come here with the right intentions, and some of us don't vote with our conscience.

Most of us want to be here for the right reasons, but now I see the direction we're taking with some of this stuff, I begin to wonder. I really, really wonder. Here we are on June 25, and we're waiting again for another interim supply budget. We're going to have members speak. All kinds of members from this side of the House are going to speak, because we're concerned. We're genuinely concerned with what's taking place. We can't put up with this kind of stuff anymore. What's wrong is wrong. It's really wrong.

I see that the red light has come on. I had intentions of speaking a little longer, but I guess if that's the end of my time,

[ Page 4838 ]

I'll thank you, hon. Speaker, and I'll turn it over to my colleague. I don't know who's speaking next, but one of my colleagues will be speaking.

[7:15]

Deputy Speaker: Just before you begin, hon. member, a good deal of latitude has been allowed in the speeches so far. The topic at hand is Bill 49, and it has to do with the supply act and extending the time . . . . I would caution all members to confine themselves to the topic at hand. Many other issues have been raised that are not appropriate, so that is general advice.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know I like to think that I always confine myself to the matters at hand, but I certainly will take that advice under advisement for the comments that I offer today, and I'm pleased to be able to offer these comments.

It is with a great deal of concern that I and my colleagues on this side of the House consider this bill by the government to get more money -- to ask for interim supply so that they can keep paying their bills. The reason that is a source of great concern to me and to my colleagues is because this government would not be in that position had they respected the traditions and principles on which our system and our House is premised and called this House back at a decent time.

If this House sat the months of the year that it should -- if this House met as regularly as it should in order to consider the public's business on a regular basis -- we wouldn't be here today debating whether the government should have more money at the last minute because they've run out and they didn't plan their session and year very well.

Perhaps I shouldn't put it in exactly those terms, because I think that serves the government's purpose very well. They might like the public to believe that they just stink when it comes to planning -- that they just don't know what they're doing. That might be preferable for them to having the public recognize that what this government is trying to do is keep this House from sitting as long as they can -- until they are absolutely forced to present a budget -- so that they can ensure that the House goes into the summer when they think the public won't be listening.

And then, if they can sit into the summer, maybe -- maybe -- they can get the opposition to get fed up and leave. And if the opposition gets fed up and leaves, then there won't be a session in the fall.

We all know that British Columbians are frequently busy doing other things in the summer. They're not putting their full attention to politics -- and why should they? Why would they? The government knows that if they do things in the summer, or if they do things when the House isn't sitting, their ideas, legislation and operation of government will not be subject to the same level of public scrutiny that they otherwise would be. And that, I believe, is what the government is trying to do, although they are very cleverly disguising it as though they don't know what they're doing at all.

I suspect that it's maybe a little of each. Maybe they really don't know what they're doing; maybe they don't have a legislative agenda. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe they don't have a legislative agenda; maybe they're completely disorganized; maybe they are world-class bunglers. Maybe that's what's going on here. I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

But you know, I suspect there may be another agenda at work, and that's an agenda that I think we should be very, very concerned about in this House. I want to read you a quote from a great American historian: "If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism, and if our government is to function, it must have dissent." Well, the chief forum for that dissent and the chief forum for that criticism is surely this Legislature. That's what this Legislature was begun to do; that's why we're here. That's why the people elect government members, opposition members and third-party members. That's why we have a mixture of ideas in here -- so that we can subject the government to criticism.

I know that the Premier doesn't like being criticized. I know he's very sensitive every time he hears any criticism. But nonetheless, this government doesn't operate, this House doesn't operate, to serve the Premier's interests; this House operates to serve the people's interests. That's why we're here. That's why we're elected. We're not here so that the Premier can shove any legislation he wants through, which he has to do when the House is sitting, and the rest of the time try to pull one over on everybody, because the House isn't sitting, there isn't as regular media scrutiny and there isn't an opportunity for question period. That's not what this House is here to do.

There have been so many legislators in the past who have respected the tradition of parliament. There are Prime Ministers and Premiers I can think of who would rather present their ideas and bills in the House than anywhere else. But what have we seen with this Premier? We've seen a Premier who would rather make all his announcements in Vancouver because then, he thinks, perhaps he'll get a little less scrutiny.

But I guess Vancouver got a little hot. Maybe there were a few people who started paying a little too much attention. Maybe he ran out of fans; he ran out of the cheering crowds in Vancouver. So he decided to pack up the bus and move the family up to Prince George to make his announcement. He packs every fan that he can move in his plane up to Prince George in the interior of British Columbia so he can make his announcement, rather than doing it in this Legislature, which is the traditional, honourable and respectful thing to do.

But the Premier would rather avoid that. He'd rather avoid the messiness of having people question his ideas -- of having reporters come and talk to him in a free and open way and ask him questions that he might not like to answer. He would rather avoid going into question period and having questions that he doesn't necessarily expect to come. That's messy. It messes up his day. It makes his agenda really tough to manage. Besides, he can shut down the Legislature; he can give all his friends a plane trip; he can get all his fans . . . .

F. Gingell: Both of them.

C. Clark: My friend from Delta South suggests "both of them." But I would suggest, based on the well-behaved, constant support that this Premier gets -- the unending support, the unending votes in favour of everything he does, the adulation -- from his backbenchers over there . . . . His backbenchers claim to come into this office with some principles, which they're quick to throw out the window whenever the Premier says they should -- all of them.

He can pack all of them into a plane and fly them around, and when they arrive at their chosen destination, he can make an announcement and know that there are some smiling faces in the crowd. I would suggest that if he doesn't travel with a full plane of people, he's not going to have any smiling faces in the crowd.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 49, please.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I was getting to that.

[ Page 4839 ]

Deputy Speaker: Interim supply doesn't have much to do with airplanes.

C. Clark: Well, actually it does. Because my point today is that the reason the government has to ask for this money -- the reason the government is in this position of having to come to the Legislature and get this supply bill through -- is because the Legislature doesn't meet frequently enough. The Legislature never meets early enough in the year, and I would suggest that that's something that they chose to do intentionally so that they can go late into the summer.

When I talk about the way the Premier flies around the province and packs his instant fan club with him, what I'm suggesting by drawing your attention to that, hon. Speaker, is the fact that the Premier doesn't have any respect for this Legislature. He lacks basic respect for the traditions of this House. And if he isn't here meeting with the Legislature, if he isn't here answering the tough questions every day, our democracy will not flourish and our government will not function. It's important that we uphold these principles.

That's why I make the point about the Premier flying around. The reference I'm making, of course, is to the fact that the House had to rise for a couple of days in order for the Premier to do this. I think that speaks to his lack of respect for the House, and I think the two issues are very clearly related. You know, we're going to sit into this summer, when the Premier hopes that people aren't paying a great deal of attention. And what are we going to be discussing?

If the Premier has his way, we are going to be discussing the most controversial piece of legislation that this government has yet to table in this session -- maybe in the life of this government -- and that's sectoral bargaining.

Sectoral bargaining is a piece of legislation which is going to cause untold controversy in British Columbia. But the Premier hopes everybody is on vacation. The Premier hopes that we sit into the summer and nobody pays any particular attention, because he isn't prepared to pay the political price. Now, I would suggest that if he didn't want to pay that political price, he would have undertaken that consultation that he promised. He would have gone out and he would have talked to people outside of the B.C. Federation of Labour. He would have gone out and talked to other union members.

He would have gone out and talked to non-union members. He would have gone out and talked to employers. You know what? He could even talk to the committees of this Legislature; he could even have talked to this Legislature.

There could have been a whole process of consultation that would have gone on. But the problem with that, I suppose, from the Premier's point of view, is that the end result of consultation is usually change and consensus and giving a little here and taking away a little there. And I would suggest that the Premier isn't interested in trying to find consensus on any of these issues. The Premier just wants to do what the only people he's consulted with have told him to do, and that's: "Get on with it. Give us the goods, give us the best deal you can. And we don't want it watered down by anybody else's interests.

We don't want it watered down by the broader interests in our society. We don't want it watered down by trying to find a consensus in our society. Oh no, we just want our interests represented in that legislation." That's why there was no consensus. And that's why this Premier wants to go into the summer: because he knows that without having consulted on that bill, without having reached any kind of consensus, he is going to end up with an explosive situation. And that's what he's going to try and avoid by making us go into the summer.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, it's Bill 49, not the other bill.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate you drawing my attention back to Bill 49, because that's the point that I'm trying to illustrate here. Perhaps I should draw a clearer link for you. I'd be happy to do that. When I talk about the Premier wanting to sit into the summer, what I'm really speaking to is the fact that the Legislature didn't start sitting until far, far too late in the year. And that's why he's asking for interim supply today. That's why they need more money.

As I said earlier, I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt: that they're just a bunch of bunglers, that they just don't know what they're doing, that they just can't plan even a couple of months in advance. But I don't think that's the real reason. I'm speaking to the government's motives in bringing forward this bill. I think that's . . . . I hope that's a legitimate form of debate in this House. It certainly has been in the past. Because it is that basic democratic principle of allowing democracy to thrive.

I'm going to make another quote here, if I can, from William O. Douglas, who was, I think, really one of the most pre-eminent participants in public life in the United States. He said: "The great postulate of our democracy is confidence in the common sense of the people and in their maturity of judgment, even on great issues, once they know the facts" -- once they know the facts. If this House isn't meeting regularly, or if the Premier is drawing this House together at times when he knows the public isn't paying attention, how is the public going to get the facts?

You know, we all saw what happened in the last election, when the government -- I think -- hid the facts from the people. They took the facts, and they distorted them, and then they hid them, and then they really misconstrued them. We ended up in a situation after the election where 75 percent of the people of British Columbia said they didn't believe anything the Premier said. Or you find over 30 percent of the people saying: "I voted NDP, but I would never do it again. If I'd known then what I know now, if in fact I'd been given the facts . . . .

" It's people's access to the legislation of this government, it's people's access to the ideas of government, to the debates of this government, that makes democracy possible. That's what the whole thing is premised on. So when the government attempts to manipulate the process to ensure that as few people as possible are paying attention, or to have the House sit as little as possible, so that they don't have to enter into difficult debates, it's denying people that very basic right.

[7:30]

I want to add, too, a comment about the committee system in this House. It's been commented on extensively, so I won't say very much about it. But I want to note, too, with sadness, that the contempt for this House that we've seen from the government has included a failure to have committees meet regularly. I sit on the Environment and Tourism Committee, and it's never met.

F. Gingell: Never?

C. Clark: Never.

An Hon. Member: How about Education?

C. Clark: No. You know, the Education Committee hasn't met.

[ Page 4840 ]

An Hon. Member: How about Health?

C. Clark: Health hasn't even met -- never. It has never met. When I go out and talk to my constituents, they cannot believe that we do not sit regularly. They don't believe that this House doesn't come together so that we can discuss issues. People bring me petitions, and they say: "Would you present this in the House?" And I'll say: "Well, maybe eight months from now, if the Premier feels like calling the House back. If he's forced to deliver a budget or something, then I'll certainly be able to present it in the House." But until then, this Premier's decided that he doesn't like having the House sitting.

It's too messy. This democracy thing, this dissent thing, this criticism thing, is too hard to take.

The Premier must have pretty thin skin, because there are a lot of Premiers and a lot of Prime Ministers who have had the backbone to have this House sit, who have had the backbone to go through question period on a regular basis, who have had the backbone to be able to accept criticism. Because that's the way the system worked. If we had a fixed sitting schedule, we wouldn't be in this position today. The government would certainly be able to plan better -- or at least they wouldn't be able to pretend that they are such poor planners.

If we had a fixed sitting schedule, the people that participate in this process -- or the people that all of us on all sides of this House are trying to encourage to participate in this process, because of the valuable contribution they can make to public life in British Columbia . . . . It would be easier.

I'm thinking particularly about encouraging women to run for office and to be a part of this chamber. I spent a great deal of time before the last election -- as I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the House did -- trying to encourage more women to run for office. And it is a very hard thing to do. It's hard, because women, whether they're New Democrats or Liberals or Reformers, are concerned about their children. They're concerned about their responsibilities as caregivers in their families -- and women are still the primary caregivers in their families most of the time.

They're concerned about trying to juggle their time in that respect. I met a lot of women in the last election who said they weren't prepared to run because they were worried and they were concerned about the impact that that would have on their families' lives. I would suggest that if this House operated in a more civilized and more predictable manner, we would be able to encourage more women to be a part of this chamber, because then they would be able to balance their family lives.

But the unpredictability of this job -- which I don't complain about, because I don't have children -- is, perhaps, too much for those many women and those men who are the primary caregivers in their families. That's a challenge for all of us to overcome.

I would suggest that if there is a government that should jump on that idea, grab it by the lapels and say, "Yeah, we want to encourage more women to be in politics," it is that group over there, because they're the ones that say they're interested in it. Now, I know they say they're interested in it. The fact that they just don't do it appears to be a different matter. Paying lip service to an idea doesn't make it true. Saying you're going to do it doesn't make it happen. Saying the budget's balanced doesn't mean the numbers add up.

Saying you're creating jobs doesn't mean there aren't more people on the unemployment lines. That's the way this government operates; those are the principles that they appear to operate under.

But I would ask them today on this issue -- on which we can all surely agree -- to encourage more women to get into this political process to run for office and to get elected, because of the enormous contribution that women have to make, so that we can ensure that women's voices are heard and women's perspectives from across the spectrum are heard. Surely one of the best ways to do that is to offer a fixed sitting

schedule for this House, to say to a woman who's running for office: "You know, if you get elected, you're going to be expected to be in Victoria from February to June. Then you're going to have the summer off that you can spend with your children. Then you are going to be sitting again from, say, September or October, until December" -- or whatever the numbers are we choose.

Then when they're in, once they're elected, they'll know when their estimates are coming up. The critic for Health will know when the Health estimates are going to be discussed. That surely would be easier for her and all the government backbenchers and all the opposition members that want to participate in those debates. They can ensure they are there . . . to give some planning to their lives. If we had a new regime, maybe the government backbenchers might want to participate. I can live and hope.

I know there's lots of opportunity for change in this House, and maybe that's one of them -- allowing the government members, the backbenchers, who aren't honoured to sit in the cabinet . . . . I think my colleague from Matsqui made an excellent comment today, which reflected the fact that some of the ones who aren't in cabinet might take that as a compliment. Given the qualifications one appears to need to get into cabinet -- the ability to be duplicitous -- maybe the backbenchers should take that as a compliment. And they may.

But you know, if they're the best of the bunch, we should be encouraging them to participate, too. We should be encouraging them to come to the estimates debates, participate, ask questions, work on behalf of their constituents and represent the people that elected them in the first place -- not just the Premier, from whom they may hope to gain some favour. They are the people they should be listening to -- the people we should all be listening to. We should be allowing people that route to be able to be heard. Surely that is principally through this Legislature.

You know, someone shouldn't have to be in an organized group to be heard. You shouldn't have to be in a big union. You shouldn't have to be in a coalition of people who are opposed around a single issue. Everybody should be able to be heard in our democracy. That's why the House should be sitting more regularly, because we are their conduit in many ways. Certainly people can make themselves heard outside this House, but this is a way for us to focus the debate.

It's wrong for the government to come here and ask the Legislature for more money just because they didn't do their planning -- just because they want to avoid the tough questions and the public scrutiny of this Legislature. That's just not right.

I have people ask me all the time: "Well, I thought you were sitting right now. Why aren't you sitting right now?" Well, we're not sitting because the Premier doesn't feel like having us sit. We need to have a fixed sitting

schedule for this chamber. I offer that to the government members in the hope that they'll take it -- that they'll recognize that that's the right thing to do. I offer the government the opportunity to have a fixed

schedule of business in this House so that we can put some predictability into the system, not just for us but for all the people who are being paid to run the government. Having 30 or 40 civil servants on call -- the most senior civil servants -- every day for every debate because they don't know when their business is going to be done in the House is clearly unacceptable. It's clearly not the way we should be running government in British Columbia.

[ Page 4841 ]

When we look at the record this government has had over the last year for when they have decided to make their announcements, that's when my suspicion begins to grow. When are we going to be discussing sectoral bargaining? It's going to be in the summer. When did the government announce that it was going to hack and chop away at municipal budgets? It was in the fall when the House wasn't sitting. If the House had been sitting in the fall, would the government have to ask for interim supply today? Would Bill 49 be before us today?

I don't think it would, because if the government had been doing its planning properly, they wouldn't be asking for that money today. You know, going out and deciding that you're going to announce the raid on the forest renewal fund, or you're going to make the municipal cuts, or you're going to tell everyone that your budgets weren't really balanced is much harder to do when the Legislature is sitting.

I don't believe that the public is well served by this. It is certainly true . . . . Well, no, perhaps I won't raise that quote. But I will end by repeating for the members opposite the quote with which I began and which I hope they will take to heart as they start their discussions with their House Leader about why we're doing this -- about why we're sitting late every night, why we're sitting into the summer, why the government is here asking for more money because they didn't plan well enough, or because they pretend to be such bunglers. Well, of course, we know that they're not such bunglers -- oh no.

I want to end by repeating that quote for the members. It is: "If our democracy is to flourish, it must have criticism, and if our government is to function, it must have dissent." That is the essence of democracy, and that's why this House exists. That's why each of us is elected here. We are not here to serve the whims of the Premier. We're not here to just follow lock, stock and barrel the wishes of the cabinet and the whims of the House Leader whenever she might decide to bring something forward. We are here to give voice to the people that elected us. That's why this chamber needs to sit, because if we do not sit, our ability to do that is severely hampered.

I would ask the members on the other side of the House to consider, as a result of this debate -- as a result of the fact that the government has brought forward Bill 49 for us to think about and debate -- the fact that we should have a good, fixed sitting schedule. We should have a

schedule of bills that will go through the House and a

schedule of estimates that will go through the House so that we know that there is some predictability to what we're doing. That seems to me to be the civilized, honourable, democratic way to have this House operate. I certainly hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the House will agree with us as we work towards that goal. So thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to offer my comments.

I. Chong: I too am pleased to rise this evening to participate in second reading debate of Bill 49, Supply Act (No. 2), 1997. For the benefit of our viewing audience, as a reminder to the members opposite and even for members on this side of the House, I would like to just clarify why we are here now in this House engaged in this debate. The necessity for an interim supply bill is to allow and enable the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for this particular year, 1997-98, have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

The government needs interim supply, and we all know that. It needs to continue to pay its bills beyond this weekend, and we can appreciate that.

But the idea of an interim supply bill is not new. Many of the members opposite are not new to this Legislature, either. In fact, many of the members opposite were in opposition for five years before they became government for five years. So many of them have had ten years to understand the rules of this House and how a legislative calendar and agenda would benefit participation in debate on very significant pieces of legislation, on the very important process of spending estimates and on the very important process of debating motions. In fact, if we had a legislative calendar, we should also be able to ensure that private members' bills would be afforded the respect that they deserve.

To pull this stunt today, June 25, 1997, when we have been here since March 24, 1997 -- a mere three months -- I find appalling. Not only do I find it appalling, but it's totally hypocritical. On April 23, 1990, about seven years ago, the Premier, who was then in opposition stated: "The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everyone should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." I believe the words that the Premier spoke at that time were right, and I believe they are still right now.

[7:45]

So what has changed in seven years? It is because this Premier, along with his NDP caucus, believes that government can do whatever it wants. We have heard it time and time again, and the actions have spoken even louder than those words. There is so much public cynicism about the political process currently in this House. People simply cannot trust politicians to tell the truth. When the Finance minister, the member for Saanich South, stated, "I don't expect you to believe me," after he introduced his budget, that rang a loud, clear message to the people of this province.

And that is what they are saying: they don't expect to believe this government; and worse, they don't expect to believe any politician. That is not why many of us ran for public office.

It is extremely distressing for those of us on this side of the House, those of us who believe that we can put principle above politics, to be here this evening -- at about 7:45, for those who have just tuned into watch -- having to discuss interim supply. We were all elected and have been charged with the public trust for the functioning of the democratic parliamentary tradition of government. That means sufficient time must be afforded the debates on the very important issues that come before this House. What that means and what that takes is very simple: it just takes a little planning.

So often we've heard in the last few weeks that ministries, agencies, boards and commissions and Crown corporations must all prepare business plans. Some we have not seen yet; nonetheless, business plans must be prepared. I wonder why this government can't prepare its business plan, which would have a schedule: a

schedule of times of sitting, a

schedule of times when clearly and definitely we will be debating spending estimates for various ministries, a logical calendar that would show when we will be debating legislation, and a logical and appropriate method to determine when and how we would be debating pieces of legislation and, again, private members' bills. So that would be the first step we would have to reduce the cynicism and the apathy that exists in the public's mind.

Several of my constituents have noticed this and have mentioned to me that this House appears to be operating rather dysfunctionally.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, another member is standing. I recognize Okanagan-Penticton.

[ Page 4842 ]

R. Thorpe: Point of order, hon. Speaker. There's no quorum in the House.

Deputy Speaker: I thank you for drawing that to my attention. Hon. member, under standing order 7, it is at the discretion of the Chair whether to ring the bells on a quorum issue. At this point, seeing that a quorum call was made just within the last hour, I think it borders on being frivolous. So I'm going to carry on the business of the Legislature and ask Oak Bay-Gordon Head to proceed.

I. Chong: It is a disappointment that in such an important debate as interim supply members don't choose to listen to this important issue. My colleagues will be speaking on this at length, as they're able to. It's very distressing that the members opposite don't find that this is as important an issue. I hope that when they return to their constituencies, they can explain that to their members.

As I stated earlier, many of my constituents have approached me and asked why this House has become so dysfunctional. I've told them that it's very clear: it's because this House has no legislative agenda. It does not know from one day to the next what will be coming up in the orders of the day. They do not know what bills will be debated or what ministries will be debated. That just creates an illusion of inappropriate behaviour.

When is this government going to lead by example? We do need a government that is prepared to set that example and offer to the people of this province some confidence in the work that we are carrying out for them. We would not be here tonight -- on this evening of June 25 -- if a legislative calendar was in fact prepared and if it indicated the time required for debate of bills, the time required for the debate of estimates and the time required for the debate of motions and private members' bills.

Last year we were rushed through. It was the first session for many of us on this side of the House. We accepted that necessity to conclude business to allow the government to proceed. When we adjourned in mid-August last year, neither I, for one, nor many of my colleagues expected that we would not return until March 24 -- some seven and a half months later. In fact, people were quite amazed that we were not here debating important pieces of legislation -- pieces of legislation that I know are not introduced yet but that are rumoured to be coming in for introduction.

That caused a lot of concern for our constituents, as I'm sure each member received. Legislation such as gambling expansion, no-fault insurance . . . . We certainly have seen the Labour Code bill that came in today. These are all issues that can be developed while we're out of session and then brought in for a first session during the year to allow the public to provide input and to have some consultation with stakeholders, so that in the end when we come back again in the fall, we can then properly debate them and properly ensure that those most affected will have had their voices heard.

The way that we are currently operating does not afford people that luxury. In fact, all it allows is for a bill to be introduced, and everyone is rushing around at the last moment to find out whether or not their views have in fact been heard or have been removed because another special interest group -- perhaps friends and insiders, as we know from the members opposite -- have been able to persuade the government to change pieces of legislation prior to introduction. Hon. Speaker, that is not democracy; that is not how the people of this province expect us to govern.

Legislation is made for people. If that is the case, people should have that opportunity to provide their input and opinions and recommendations and even amendments. We as legislators should give them that opportunity and the time to listen to their proposed amendments and to listen to how we can better change legislation that affects their future lives.

We always keep talking about the future generations. We all talk about youth, but when have we really given them the time? When have we given time to the small businesses we need so much in this province to hear their voices when legislation is about to be introduced? It is always after it's introduced -- and as we know, because of the majority that is here and because of caucus solidarity, there is never any opportunity to amend or to oppose and therefore defeat a government bill, even when we know clearly that that government bill is dangerous and offensive to many people in this province.

We have to wonder if this process of an interim supply bill is actually beneficial for the people of this province. We know that there are scarce dollars available for our precious health care system. We know that we are in financial difficulty, and we know that there are financial challenges ahead. We have all recognized that, and we can appreciate that government in its own way is trying to reduce expenditures without harming the people of this province. However, are we being fiscally responsible?

How are we showing that we are taking up the financial challenge, when in fact we have our estimates taking up the time they do? They are not properly scheduled, so that we do not know if there are going to be additional staff overtime costs or last-minute travel costs to have ministry officials in place.

How would we be able to better manage that? We would be better able to manage that if we had a legislative agenda, if we knew the times and hours that we sat, so that staff would not be brought over at the last minute, and we would not be incurring additional travel costs that we do not need to have. If we sat earlier, if we came back in mid-February or even in late February -- even one month earlier -- then perhaps those of us who are critics and those of us who would like to participate in the very important process of spending estimates would be able to have a better in-depth briefing from ministry staff.

At the present moment not all of us have had the benefit of briefings from ministry staff because of timing, and also because the staff themselves aren't aware of what it is the government wishes to introduce. So if we allowed more time, so that we could do our work, then perhaps we could be more effective and spend less time in handling the spending estimates for the various ministries.

I wonder what it is that we are expecting to tell people in this province when we adjourn for three days so that members opposite can help their federal counterparts in an election. I received a number of calls in my office, and I could not explain why we needed to take three days off. Surely those members who wish to take . . . .

An Hon. Member: Were all their offices open?

I. Chong: Well, that's another question. I don't know if all those offices were open. I would have hoped so, because the idea is that when you're not here in the House, you should be in your constituency. I certainly know that I was, along with my colleagues; we were working on behalf of our constituents. For those members opposite who say that they were doing that, I applaud them, because they clearly know what their responsibility is to their constituents.

But I wonder how many people did take the time to spend helping their federal counterparts, when we are paid . . . .

[ Page 4843 ]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 49, please -- interim supply, not federal elections.

I. Chong: The reason why we are here at interim supply is because we've lost three days. We lost three days when we took them off -- or the Premier asked to have them taken off -- so that we could help our so-called federal counterparts in the election. Also, we're here tonight because we just lost two other days in the last week so the Premier could attend around the province and make announcements.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I realize the importance of making announcements. I realize the importance of the Premier attending to those things. But the entire House need not have adjourned. If the Premier so chose, he should have left and conducted his business, and we should have been here conducting our business, as we were elected to do. You have to wonder what respect is shown to this House when the Premier pulls those kinds of pranks. Five days off in less than a month -- five precious days that we could have spent on debate. We could have perhaps resolved a number of other ministries so that we wouldn't be here tonight debating interim supply.

I realize that the bills that were introduced early in April also require debate, but surely a legislative calendar could

schedule which of those bills needed to be debated first, to allow for them to be made retroactive to the dates that they were intended to come in.

The one that I'll refer to is the Tourism British Columbia Act, which is Bill 9. That's retroactive to April 1, and the tourism industry is certainly waiting for that. It was introduced in April, but it wasn't until May that we started to debate that. If it was as important as it was, why did we not start debating that immediately?

[8:00]

When we did start to debate it, the concern we had was that it started and stopped and started and stopped. We've also seen that happen in spending estimates. When spending estimates start and stop, people have to ask and wonder why. There is no reason. There is no excuse, except that the House Leader is not able to decide which estimates she wants to have brought forward. That does not show a plan. It does not show good government. Fixed schedules, fixed dates, will form the basics of good, well-running government. I know that is something the public is crying out for.

Earlier this session, as was mentioned by my other colleagues, we debated the first interim supply bill. That was brought forward just before a long weekend -- as we are approaching this weekend. That was brought forward on the Thursday before Good Friday, which many view as an important holiday. It was brought forward for debate on that very last day. The importance of it required that we had to debate that interim supply bill, and it took us beyond midnight.

Many people did not know that. When I went home to my constituency and was looking rather tired the next morning, people asked what had happened, and I explained to them that we had to debate an interim supply bill. The response I got was a bit of laughter, because they could not believe and could not understand why we could not have planned to come back the week earlier to bring forward the budget, the throne speech and the interim supply bill, and also to allow the time to debate it.

As I've mentioned earlier, surely many members opposite have been here for ten years, and they know how things run. They know what is required. They know when the money runs out, and they know when we have to request interim supply. When this government was in opposition, it said that that was an inappropriate way of governing.

Hon. Speaker, we have been here for just over three months. As I understand it, we've never actually had a full week. Even on our Fridays, on private members' day, we have oftentimes sat until only 11 o'clock. I understand that in the past, the normal time has been until 1 o'clock. When did this change? I suppose it changed when the House Leader decided that it should change. There, again, comes back the action that government seems to live by: the government can do whatever it wants.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

I. Chong: Well, someone over on the other side said that. I think it was the Minister of Forests. But it's been used so often by so many people, and their actions have spoken louder than words, that at this time we believe they've all said it.

I would like to read a quote from a previous debate, when members who sat in opposition were debating interim supply. In fact, it's fitting that the quote I have here is from the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head -- the riding that I now represent -- who, when in opposition and referring to the then government, said:

"They've been in power over there for so long that they don't think they have to come before the Legislature to discuss how they raise money and how they spend money. They have so little respect for our parliamentary traditions. That is one of the most fundamental principles: that the government come into the House and justify its taxing decisions and its spending decisions."

I have to say that I respect those words from my predecessor. She was right then, and I believe those words are right now. I do not understand why it is that those rules and those words don't mean anything to the members opposite now. Maybe they mean something to some of the members. I think that in fact they do, because every now and then I catch a glimpse of their concern. I wish that if that were the case, they would speak to their House Leader and to their Premier and say that principles above politics is important and that caucus solidarity on some issues does not have to stand.

We know how important it is to discuss and debate legislation. It is important that we examine important legislation and allow sufficient time to do the job properly. Today we heard a very significant piece of legislation being introduced: the Labour Code changes. We have already received a number of calls from concerned groups, individuals and small businesses -- small businesses that this government has so clearly set its focus on.

Everyone has agreed that small business is the engine of our provincial economy, yet they seem to have been forgotten when this piece of legislation was introduced. If they are not going to be given the opportunity to come forward and present their views, then I'll ask this government to allow for amendments. Because this government wants us to rush that piece of legislation through, it will surely show that we have so much disrespect not only for this House but also for the people of this province.

Earlier the member for Saanich North and the Islands spoke, and I listened to him. He was talking about confidence and trust, public trust, and saying that the need to restore that is very important at this stage of our political life. There has been so much, I suppose, deception and misleading

informa-

[ Page 4844 ]

tion that the public has lost the trust that they've empowered us with. If we do not stop and hear them and change the way we are proceeding now, I fear that we will be at a point much too late to allow us to make the necessary changes in the future. People will just not believe that politicians can tell the truth, and I know politicians can tell the truth. I know there are members on both sides of the House who have that ability, and I would encourage them to do that.

But if the public continues to be misled, and when 75 percent of British Columbians do not believe that they were told the truth about the budget during the election, then how are we going to give them some comfort in knowing that in fact they will be told the truth and that they will be told the truth in the future?

I also want to quote from the throne speech of June 25, 1996, when the Premier was elected. There's one very important sentence that he had in this throne speech that just resonated with me and, I'm sure, with all members on this side of the House: "British Columbians have sent a clear message that they expect the people they elect to work together to find solutions." When the Premier said that, I believed him. But I have to say that I do not believe him now, as many other British Columbians do not believe the Premier now.

It is because he has never shown that he wishes to work cooperatively with this side of the House. He has never shown that he is willing to share information. He has never shown that he is prepared to allow this side of the House to help him set a legislative agenda, a legislative calendar, which I do feel that we so much need. We are lacking the control that is needed for this House to operate.

It's fitting that Nova Scotia has a much more regimented way of running its legislature. The House in Nova Scotia has a

schedule as to duration, as to sessions, as to time of sittings, as to quorum, as to attendance, as to adjournment, as to prorogation, as to dissolution and as to the course of the session. I think we would all be well served, as would the people of this province, if we could adopt similar guidelines. I don't suggest that we adopt identical guidelines, but certainly it would help to ensure that we would know when interim supply debate would have to occur. Clearly, if an agenda like this were prepared . . . . I'm not suggesting that it would be so tight that we could not alter it.

Surely adjustments can always be made, but they would be made given that we had tried our hardest to ensure that we would in fact stay with the agenda that was provided. We need that agenda; we need that kind of a calendar to help us. We are going to be here for another probably four sessions, four years, and I hope between now and then . . . .

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear some hon. members saying: "Please, no." But if we are realistic and pragmatic about it, if that is to happen, then we have three opportunities, three other years -- perhaps four -- to introduce a legislative calendar which would ensure that this House functions properly and that those who watch us in this House can do so knowing that we are here and that we have guidelines and that we carry on the business which they have allowed us to carry on.

Before I close I do want to speak a little bit more about the reason we're here tonight. Again, it's because of the lack of an agenda in this House. When I was told about two weeks ago that we had to conclude the spending estimates for a particular ministry that I was critic of, I was told it had to be done that evening because there was more urgent government business to follow. Imagine my shock when the following week I was told that we would take two days off.

I had numerous questions that I wanted to propose to the ministry and to the minister, but the reason I didn't propose those at the time was also respect for the staff. The staff had been there since early that morning, and by 11 o'clock, when I looked across the House, they were tired. I felt that there was no need for that lack of respect for their personal lives and for the fact that they are dedicated civil servants: they were here to do a job and they would stay until it was done. But it wasn't necessary. We could have continued the following week -- we had two days extra, supposedly, because the Premier adjourned that week.

I want to say once again that perhaps we would not be here tonight -- perhaps we would have started this two days earlier -- if we had not lost those two days a week ago. Perhaps we would have been here a week earlier if we had not lost those other three days. With that, hon. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak on this very important issue, and I know that there are other members on this side who would like to continue with this important debate.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, I remember well the first time that I came to Victoria -- well, maybe it wasn't the first time, but it was the first time that all members of this House were coming to Victoria after we had been elected in '91. It was early in 1992. I was on the ferry, and there was someone I'd known for many years whose name I can now say -- Norm Lortie, at that time the member for Delta North. With him were quite a few others -- I was the only Liberal on the ferry.

I believe the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was on that ferry trip; I believe the member for Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows was on the trip; I know for sure that the member for Yale-Lillooet was there; and I believe Barry Jones, then the member for Burnaby North, was on it.

It was an interesting time. Here we were, not all of us newly elected -- I think Barry Jones would have been the only one who was a returning member -- but we all had stars in our eyes, and we were going off to a new experience. Norm came and talked to me, and I think the others looked at me with a bit of suspicion: "Why is Norm talking to him? He's the enemy." Anyway, by the end of the trip -- it was before the Spirit -class vessels had been built -- we were on the car deck and all chatting by our cars.

[8:15]

We look back five years later. I don't think any one of us after the first session would not have strongly supported major reformation, major change, in the practices of this Legislature. This, to an extent, is what Bill 49 is about. We have a process which we are tied into, and I think the majority of members believe that the time for us to renew our procedures, renew our practices, rethink the issues, has long, long come.

When you're in opposition, you see things differently, I'm sure. I'm sure that all these members in opposition -- we have the member for Surrey-Newton and we have the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, who served in the Legislature, as you did, Mr. Speaker, and so have had the experience of being in opposition -- all believe that the time is long past due. Other legislatures have taken the opportunity to review and look at their practices.

We in the Public Accounts Committee have had an opportunity to look at some issues to do with accountability and the best way of having those issues dealt with in the Legislature. It's not for partisan political reasons but so one can have honest debate, try and come to useful conclusions and give good guidance from both sides of the House to government.

[ Page 4845 ]

This process of estimates and the way the House has behaved in this past three months is the worst example that we've had in the years since we, the class of '91, were elected. Things have happened that are just not normal. Things happen that make you realize that the government is not organized; that is, the people who are responsible for organizing government business are not organized. And so we are at the end of June having Supply Act (No. 2).

The government has to have money. We have to pay our bills, doctors have to see patients, nurses have to be in the hospitals, and the teachers have to be paid. It's important that there are income support systems on July 2, just as it's important that they're here on June 30.

The passage of this process is an opportunity for us to sit down and seriously look at the opportunities to change the way we do things. As we have a government that was in opposition for many, many years -- from 1975 to 1991, a period of 16 years -- they must surely have some very good, thoughtful ideas as to how the processes in this House can be changed, which would include such items as interim supply. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that they're going back into opposition for a long, long time after the next election.

So let's think about the way this House has worked this year. First of all, when the new government was elected in 1996, the Premier said: "We are going to make the committee system work better." The committee system hasn't worked at all. There has been nothing sent to the committees. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain was talking about the committee that that member sits on, and nothing has been sent to them.

The Health Committee, the Education Committee: on the important issues that we are responsible for in this House, the only form of debate around those subjects is opposition versus government, instead of all of us sitting around the same table, in committee, leaving our partisan issues at the door, looking for the right solutions.

I'm fortunate since I got elected to have chaired the Public Accounts Committee, which in fact does meet -- one of the committees that does meet. But do you know what happened this year? There happened by accident to be a report from the auditor general's office that fell through the cracks, and this government has refused -- refused, Mr. Speaker -- to refer that report to this committee. And if the Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee thinks that my statement is incorrect, I will listen to that. I believe that it is true.

Why has it not been referred? Well, it hasn't been referred because it happens to deal with revenues that accrue to the government through alcohol, gambling and tobacco.

I would have thought, after the statements of the Minister of Health and the Government House Leader in these past ten days or a week about the tobacco industry and the consequences of smoking and the effect of smoking on our young people and the actions that this government wants to take to try to slow that addiction down, that they would have sent the report to the committee with a bow around it, and said: "Please, Public Accounts Committee, hold some public hearings, find out what members of the health industry think, find out what doctors and psychologists and psychiatrists who are experts in addiction think about the issues that relate to gambling, alcohol and particularly tobacco." But oh no.

And it was purely and simply for one reason: the word "gambling" was in there -- this is what I believe -- and this government was afraid to have a public discussion on the issue of gambling.

So the committee system doesn't really work. At the moment, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is in estimates in Committee A, in the other room.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, would you ask the barrackers to speak up a bit? I'll put my hearing aid back in.

An Hon. Member: All of your members are leaving.

F. Gingell: Well, I don't blame them. It's understandable. They know that as I am the designated speaker on Bill 49, they're safe for two hours, and I can . . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me. I see the member for North Vancouver-Seymour rise -- on what point?

D. Jarvis: A point of order. I see we haven't got ten members in the House here, Mr. Speaker. I think we should call for a quorum.

The Speaker: Thank you, member, for your intervention. I would point out that standing order 7 is indeed permissive. I would perhaps be more inclined to consider calling for a quorum if in fact that member's side of the House had its 50 percent currently in the House. In the absence thereof, it does not seem to me appropriate to call for a quorum at this point. However, I thank the member for his intervention, and perhaps those listening and watching will hear the call, and members on his side will rush to be here.

Having said that, Delta South continues.

F. Gingell: Well, I don't understand why the benches across the House aren't crowded.

Bill 49, the interim supply act, is an opportunity for us to think about the way this Legislature works. There was a very interesting report done by the auditor general on special warrants. Now, it is fascinating that when anyone is in opposition, they strongly oppose the use of special warrants, make all kinds of statements: "I swear that I will, when I am government, get rid of special warrants." But when they become government, it never happens. Of course, that particular issue -- the expenditure of funds without authority, without vote or with authority that comes through the back door -- is relevant to this particular subject.

We've been talking about changing the way we do things, and nothing happens. One of the members on this side of the House spoke earlier this evening -- I think it was Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain -- and said that just saying it is so does not make it so. That is, in my opinion, so true of this government. They say something is going to happen. They have a press announcement. They even send us home and stop us doing our work in this Legislature. They make a statement, and they believe that it is so. It does not happen, as day follows night.

Government takes work. Government takes discipline. The debate this evening has really focused around the issue of discipline. The citizens of this province expect us and pay us to do our work. Our work requires us to be here, to go through the estimates process and to ensure that the votes are passed and that government can get on with its work -- not go home to be involved in a federal election.

We're provincial politicians, yet this House was adjourned for three days while members on the other side were encouraged, as I understand it, to go to their constituencies and work in the federal election. Now, I would have thought that those who did that would all have voluntarily

[ Page 4846 ]

given up three days of their pay. If that were the case, it would be appropriate, I would think. They didn't work on provincial matters for three days. They went and worked on the federal campaign. We could have reduced the amount of money that was called for in Bill 49 for interim supply for this ongoing period because of the refunds of salaries from the 39 members -- sorry, 38 members, because I'm sure the Speaker didn't get involved in the election. The 38 members of the government were not looking after the interests of their provincial citizens; they were looking after the interests of their federal NDP compatriots.

This is really an opportunity, and I will be disappointed if this debate this evening doesn't result in some change. I have in fact spoken to the Government House Leader and suggested that it is time for us sit down quietly and think about the practices and procedures that happen in this House. If the government will agree to do, then we will quickly assign some members from our caucus to join them.

The complaints that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head mentioned when she was speaking are so true. I was advised early on in this session that Finance estimates would be held in this room, not in Committee A. I was also advised at the time that Finance estimates would be virtually last -- that they would be coming up at the end. On a Thursday afternoon, very late, two weeks ago, I guess, I was suddenly advised . . . . It was when the Minister of Finance came back from his trip to Toronto and New York. He arrived back and was immediately advised that Finance estimates would be on Monday.

Even the Finance minister had not had a briefing. A briefing was offered to us on Friday afternoon, hurriedly pulled together -- not planned, not done, because the

schedule had been dramatically changed. That's because this government has no plan at all. They go from crisis to crisis, yet they get bigger all the time, just like the fish the member for Alberni supposedly catches.

[8:30]

An Hon. Member: The fishing capital of B.C.

F. Gingell: There you go.

There are ways of doing these things properly. If there are proper briefings, we would be able to focus in with greater certainty during estimates on the issues and not spend a lot of time going over issues that can quite properly be dealt with in briefings.

So where are we, Mr. Speaker? We're almost at the end of June. I wonder how the government's doing. They're asking for $1.6 billion on this interim supply, and yet when one reads the papers, one quickly becomes concerned about the state of issues in provincial financing. We've heard recently that the government is going to reduce the stumpage rates on pulp logs virtually immediately, and I wonder what consequences that has had on the revenue of the province. We also see in the newspapers that B.C. Hydro has been threatened with the imminent loss of their market in the United States, which even a B.C.

Hydro executive says could cause significant financial harm to B.C. Hydro and its ratepayers -- the poor old ratepayers of B.C. Hydro.

It is of interest to go back and look at the amount of money that governments have taken out of B.C. Hydro. In the year 1990, the dividend from B.C. Hydro was $101 million. In 1991 it was $114 million. Surprisingly, there was no dividend from B.C. Hydro in 1992. That was the year, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that this government or its predecessor NDP government tried to make the books look as bad as they possibly could, so there was no dividend in 1992 -- zip, nothing, and in 1993 they doubled it. It had been $114 million in 1991.

It had originally been budgeted by the Socreds to be somewhat similar in 1992, I believe, but I don't have that number. When the Harcourt government came to 1993, they more than doubled it -- $114 million to $237 million -- and that caught on. That became of interest to them, so from that point on, the dividends went up and up. The spending plan that this government has is based on B.C. Hydro paying a dividend this year of $373 million, which is more than three times the amount paid in 1996. How did they do this?

Of course, they had to go back to cabinet and get special direction No. 2, which sets limits on the amount of B.C. Hydro dividends that can be paid.

This government takes no notice of what has happened to the threats to their U.S. markets for power, and we see no indication of any intention of them reducing their spending estimates to provide for that. So if B.C. Hydro's income is down, I guess they'll put it onto the backs of the poor taxpayers and increase our rates. No, they can't: they've put it in a freeze, haven't they? I guess they will be short in their revenues, but I haven't seen any adjustment. I presume that just means it adds to the debt.

Another item in this year's revenue plan, which, of course, is relevant to the spending plan, are additional revenues anticipated to come from gambling. But what does Professor Lipsey say in his study? The estimated increase in gambling revenue announced by the government of $464 million drops to $163 million as money spent in the new casinos cannibalizes existing lottery sales. This doesn't just decrease income from lottery sales; it ripples through the economy. It means that people spend less in the grocery store or in their local hardware store.

They spend less money on services being provided by businesses that presently exist in the province. We all know what kind of consequences flow from those actions.

We were all very pleased, because we had felt great concern for people in our community who are handicapped and were having their income support payments reduced by $96 a month. Talk about a social democrat or socialist government -- their first act in trying to reform income support systems was to cut the income of those people who are on welfare, who are handicapped, by $96. Of course, the people spoke. There was an outcry, and the $96 has been returned for nine months. It's just $1,000 a year times 15,000 people.

There's $15 million in additional expenditure -- quite properly made, in the opinion of this member, but not provided for in the government spending plan. One wonders what is happening to us.

Then we look around. The latest news from the north is the closing down of Skeena Cellulose. The friend I play golf with occasionally at the weekends is a man who handles these huge fans in pulp mills. He's been advised to be up there Friday; the fan is going to be turned off. You just don't flick a switch and allow it to slow down. It's a much, much bigger job.

How many jobs are going to be lost in the forests of this province by the closure of the Skeena Cellulose mill? What kind of effect will that have on the economy of the Bulkley Valley area and Prince Rupert? What does that do to the government's revenue plans? What does that do to their intention for the spending plans that we're now being asked to vote for? That's a huge, huge difference.

[ Page 4847 ]

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have no problem following my logic -- how all these things come back to Bill 49, the request of this government for $1.6-something billion to continue their business. I hope that the opportunity to speak this evening about the organization of government, for us to express our concerns that the government simply isn't operating in a fair manner to its citizens by continually closing the House for reasons that, to me, simply do not stand up . . . . It slows down the whole process and causes the government to bring in a second interim supply bill.

Whereas if they had called the House to work, if we had dealt with continued estimates on Fridays, if we hadn't been sent home for federal elections, if we hadn't been sent home for photo ops in Prince George to announce programs that should have been announced in this Legislature, if we had been called back early in February instead of late in March, there wouldn't be any need for interim Supply Act (No. 2), Bill 49. We wouldn't be here at 8:40 on a Wednesday evening. We'd be able to be moving forward, perhaps finalizing the estimates in the closing days of June, perhaps getting on with important legislation.

But what is this government's position? This government leaves it until late June. We've been in for three months, and only now do they start to table the bills that are of concern to British Columbians.

That's no way to run a ship, no way at all. This government needs to give us a proper calendar. We need to know beforehand when the House will sit, when the House will be called in, when there will be breaks. There are all kinds of calendars.

There are calendars which could allow members from more remote areas of the province -- the members from Prince George, Prince Rupert, Skeena, the Kootenays, the far eastern portions of the province -- to get home to their communities, to deal with their constituent's concerns, to be able to have office hours, by us sitting Tuesday to Thursday, perhaps, having an extended calendar, having known breaks so that we don't try to deal with our constituent's concerns only over the telephone. That's not fair to them, and it's not fair to us.

In the end Bill 49 will pass. We are just as concerned as the government that welfare recipients get their income support, that the schools are open and our children are taught, that our hospitals are open and patients are treated. It's the citizens who should come first in this province, instead of the disorganized manner in which this government operates.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill. It's surprising how the time slips by, but it has slipped, and so shall I.

D. Jarvis: Well, I, fortunately -- no, maybe unfortunately -- have to get up and speak to Bill 49, the second interim supply bill that we've had since late March. That's less than three months and we're up debating again on a supply bill, which only goes to show us that this government really does not know what it is doing. This supply bill is ostensibly what the government requires to pay its bills for the next period of time, until such time as we finish our estimates.

The estimates have been going on and on and on and on since early April, and we're still not there. Now the government would turn around and say that we are stalling the process, by saying that it's our fault that things are running so slow. That really isn't so. We all know that the debate here in this province is limited; we're only allowed to speak for 30 minutes per person, and then we go on to the next person. For example, we have now been here since about 2:30 debating this bill -- this bill that the government feels is necessary because it has run out of money.

[8:45]

They have handled this session of the government very poorly. Instead of calling us back when we should have been called back -- perhaps in early March or even earlier than that -- to debate the people's problems and look after the interests of the people of British Columbia, this government waits for the last moment because the Premier -- and we can all agree upon this -- was reticent to have us in the House to question how his performance has been going.

What has been going on is a shame. We know that this government and their House Leader obviously do not have control over what's going on. Everything's in chaos; we're running back and forth. The basic rules that we've always worked under in this House -- and which the present government worked under when they were in opposition -- were that you called the House to order, the session would start, and you would have a six-day debate on the throne speech. Then you'd have a six-day debate on the budget and pass the budget and things would proceed into the estimates system.

What happened this year? The Government House Leader was obviously so confused that she and the Premier called the House together on about March 24, leaving about five days in which to have six days of throne debate and six days of budget debate. We were debating the throne debate way after we finished passing the budget. Now we're into estimates. They asked, I think, for about $5 billion the last time we were up, just about three months ago, to talk about supply. Supply is necessary to run this government and pay the bills. We wonder why we should even pass it. Well, we know that we have to pass it. People have to be paid; our bills have to be paid.

But that's no reason why we should be forced to have the situation we have now where it's necessary three months later to pass another supply bill. They're asking for $1.6 billion at this time to run this government. This is a government that for years and years and years complained about the Social Credit government operating on warrants. You can go back through all the Hansard s, and you will find out exactly how they whined and complained and stalled and all the rest of it. Yet as soon as they get into office, it's exactly what they're doing.

We need a change, Mr. Speaker. There's no question that we need a change in the system. We need perhaps a specific calendar as to what we intend to do. I see now that we're not the only ones asking for it. Many provinces in this country have either a legislative calendar or some type of a structured system in which they can run their parliaments. They have one in Ottawa; California has one. Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta all have some type of a structure in which they know exactly what they're doing.

For example, I think it's in Alberta, the Lieutenant-Governor reads the Speech from the Throne on the opening day of each new session -- essentially the same as we do here -- outlining the government's plans for the session. That's exactly what happens here. However, that's where it changes, because the members then discuss the throne speech over the next several days in a wide-ranging debate about its perceived merits and flaws. Well, we do that to a certain degree. But then their budget comes in within two weeks after that. We do not have any type of a calendar. It's in chaos. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to say that the applause is for me, but it's because our leader just came in -- and somehow the biggest applause is by him.

[ Page 4848 ]

Nevertheless, we have a system here in this parliament that's really in chaos. The Government House Leader has got this place in chaos. No one knows what we're doing. I mean, it's bizarre. Here we are going on for nine at night, with hardly anyone here -- on the government side, next to no one here. In fact, a few minutes ago I called for a quorum, although you refused to follow standing order 7 because of . . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. I know that the member has no wish to violate the rules of the House, but I want to remind him of two things. Firstly, rulings of the Chair are not subject to appeal, nor are they to be made the subject of debate. Secondly, the member is quite incorrect in his reading of what standing order 7 actually says. So I ask him to take that cautionary note in the spirit in which it is intended and to carry on, please.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I always take your rulings in the spirit that they are intended.

This is a very undisciplined House, the way it's operating, and it's necessary that we have some type of a change. This government has long had an opportunity to make these changes. As I said before, they complained when they were in opposition, and they whined and cried. But still they haven't done it. So we know that this government is really run by a gang of four -- two of them are elected, and two of them aren't -- and I guess they're making the decisions. They are running this province the way it shouldn't be run. The people's business is not being done the way it should be.

Under these circumstances, we feel and have said before that we should have a structured calendar, we should have a set date of opening and a set date of closing. We should have a set day for the budget so that people are aware of when the budget day is. This is not being done.

I had intended to speak for quite a bit longer on this, but as we've been here since 2:30 this afternoon -- which is some time ago -- speaking on this subject, and there are other members of our caucus that wish to get up and have an opportunity to tell the government how badly they're running it . . . . I would be remiss if I didn't allow them to have that opportunity. So on that basis, I wish to tell you that I am doubtful whether I am in support of this bill -- this Bill 49, this second supply bill that you've brought before us in the last three months. And I'm against what you're doing.

S. Hawkins: Well, here we are, over three months into the session, and the government came into the House today, crawling on their knees, begging for money. We're three and a half months, perhaps, into the session, and here we are, into the second interim supply bill, Bill 49, to allow the government to operate. They come in here begging us for money, but the question is: should we give it to them? Do they deserve it? Do they deserve a penny? What have they done? What have they done in the last year that would make us support this bill and vote to give them a penny out of the public purse?

I wouldn't trust them with my wallet; I wouldn't trust them with my niece's piggy bank. Here they are, coming in here and asking for more money to mismanage some more, to show us how much more incompetent they can be. Well, I'll say it right off the bat: I'm not going to support it.

Are you surprised? I don't think any of my constituents are surprised. I don't think any member sitting on this side of the House is surprised. I don't think so.

They're begging for us to support this bill. There is no way! I will be the first one to stand up and vote against this bill. People expect the government to be responsible, to function on some kind of a reasoned agenda and to do the people's business in a way that they can be accountable. I don't think any one of those members knows the meaning of accountability. They've certainly shown us that.

We came here last year. I was a new member and -- as one of the members previously spoke of in coming to the House -- was quite bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, thinking: "Government's great, and we're going to do the people's business. We're going to do it in a spirit of cooperation and responsibility and mature consideration." Well, do you know what? I was very disappointed when I came here last year. When I came here last year -- and I think I mentioned this before -- I heard the Finance minister table a budget, and within a week we found out that the finances of the province weren't as they said they were in the budget that was tabled.

They promised a balanced budget. In fact, they promised two balanced budgets and a surplus. They campaigned on that last year and tabled that budget in the House last year, and we find ourselves in a predicament this year with an $800 million . . . . It's almost a billion dollars, which I think is a lot of money. There's a billion-dollar deficit and a huge debt, and they're coming here tonight asking us to approve more money -- more money that they can mismanage and squander. I don't think the public wants us to do that. The public wants them to keep their promises.

Let's just talk about some of their promises. What did they promise us last year? Before I ever came to this House, we heard we were going to spend -- spend on schools and spend on hospitals. We had a surplus; we'd balanced the budget; we were going to build in every community. What happened? We came here, and within a week, the Finance minister admitted that his budget wasn't balanced and that the province was in dire straits. What have we seen in the last year? We've seen credit downgrades and jobs lost in this province. The Premier flies around the province, and we've been taking days off here and there.

The Premier flies around the province trying to prop up his image and saying: "There are going to be jobs here. There are going to be jobs in the forest industry. I'm promising 40-thousand-odd more jobs."

Do you know what we've seen? We've seen 5,500 jobs lost because of the policies of this government, because of their mismanagement and because of the onerous Forest Practices Code they implemented. They did it, and now, all of sudden, he's going to be a hero. He's going to be this big hero -- you know, Mighty Mouse flying around the province -- promising all these jobs: "I'm going to change that code. I'm going to promise jobs."

Well, you know what? We don't believe you, and neither do 75 percent of the people in this province. Seventy-five percent of people in this province think the Premier is a liability. They think he is a big liability to this province, because we can't trust anything he says. They've shown us over and over again that the Premier says one thing and does another, over and over again.

What have we seen in this session? We got called back at the end of March. Had they had an agenda, a timetable or a plan, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here tonight debating whether we should give them more money for the next few months. We wouldn't be here doing that. I heard speakers before me talking about the need for a parliamentary calendar. They were talking about doing the people's business, the House's business, in some kind of reasoned way that would improve the operation of the House.

[9:00]

[ Page 4849 ]

A lot of those members have been here longer than I have. How come they haven't thought of it? Why are we sitting here for three and a half months? We have not even finished the estimates, and we've got dozens of pieces of legislation on the table that haven't even gotten to second reading. Here we are at the end of the school year, going into summer, with the government begging for more money to go for the next few months. It's unbelievable.

I heard members before me talking about . . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: I can't hear the member. If he wants to get into the debate after me, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview should stand up and speak.

An Hon. Member: Big mouth.

S. Hawkins: Absolutely. Someone said "big mouth" over there. I didn't, Mr. Speaker. He said it himself. Well, he can judge himself.

We heard members talking about doing the House's business in some kind of an organized, reasoned way, using members effectively and using the House time effectively, talking about enhancing cooperation and putting forward ideas in non-partisan ways. I heard members talking about committees in this Legislature. I sit on the Health Committee, and I've been there for a year -- on a list.

R. Thorpe: How many meetings?

S. Hawkins: The member for Okanagan-Penticton asks me how many meetings I've been to. I'll tell him: I've been to zero. And you know what? Health is a huge issue in this province. We've been through some drastic change. We see a lot of important issues out there. We see patients on waiting lists, we see patients in hallways and we see hospitals screaming for funding. But has the Health Committee convened to discuss any of these issues? No, they haven't.

We see another huge issue with education. We see schools screaming for funding. A school in my own riding, Kelowna Secondary School, is barely being held together by paint. For ten years that school has been on the planning blocks, and for the last six years that this government has been in power, they've promised a brand-new school. That school does not meet the Fire Code anymore and has been condemned by the fire commissioner. It's not a new problem; it's an old problem that has never been managed.

Now, when school is out and we've got eight weeks to get this school into shape for 1,700 kids to go back this fall, all of a sudden we're in a crisis situation. What are we going to do? We've spent over $2 million in the last few years -- $2.1 million or $2.2 million -- planning for this school. Now we're going to spend half a million dollars to kind of band-aid up the school so we can get it up to some kind of standard the fire commissioner will accept and so we can put the kids back into this school until this government decides what they're going to do with it.

We've got kids who are at risk if there is a fire in school. There was a fire, and the kids had to be evacuated. It was not a safe situation.

They're not prepared to deal with it. What have they done with our money? We've seen them squander money on all kinds of things. We've seen deals being made all over the place. We have not seen that money spent in a responsible, accountable manner. We have not seen that. The people don't see it, and they're angry. I get letters from all over the province, written to ministers or other members and copied to me so I can see what's going on. I wonder how many of those members actually read those letters, because if they did, maybe they would act on them -- but they don't. We have problems everywhere.

Hospitals. Let's just talk about a few hospitals. We have a hospital in Port Alberni, the West Coast General Hospital -- again, barely being held together by paint. Only 20 percent of the hospital meets the Fire Code. Patients are at risk there. Wires are hanging off the ceiling, and patients are in hallways. That is not good patient care. That is not reflecting concern for patient safety. But what are they doing about it?

Where are they putting their resources and energy in planning? It certainly doesn't seem to be in the two big issues they keep saying over and over again they're concerned about: "Health and education are a priority." Health and education are screaming all over the province. But you know what? I don't think the Education Committee has sat this year, either. I don't think so. If I recall, I don't think I've seen our Education critic or any members of that committee actually being called to a meeting.

I have to question how this government is actually running the business of the House. Why are we here for the second interim supply bill in this session when we had plenty of time to call the House earlier, to have good debate, to have agreement between the House Leaders on how the House business would be done and how it would be run? We don't even know day to day what's going to be called or who's going to discuss what. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I remember our Small Business, Tourism and Culture critic talking about how she was forced to take her estimates late one night because there was urgent business coming up the next week. That's what she was told. And do you know what happened the next week? The next week the government decided to take two days off. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to how this House operates. We go to 6 o'clock one night; we go to 10 o'clock another night; we take five days off for the NDP to work a federal campaign; we take another two days off so the Premier can fly around the province and prop up his image.

To me it just does not seem to be any kind of reasoned way to run the people's business. It doesn't.

I've heard other members talk about how there are fixed parliamentary calendars, or some kind of plan, in other Houses across the world, and certainly across Canada. That allows for a good debate; that allows for a good judgment on debate. I think we debated the last interim supply bill that was passed here -- I believe it was at the beginning of April -- until almost 2 o'clock in the morning. To me, that just seems a little ridiculous. Some of these debates do go on and on, late into the night. Who knows how long we're sitting tonight? It's 9:10 already. I've heard people call it legislation by exhaustion. How is that doing the people's business responsibly? It's not.

I also heard the member