2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 4, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 21

[ Page 17007 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are several members of B.C.'s Teen Tobacco Team, which is a group of young people from across the province who are very actively involved in the province's anti-tobacco campaign. They've done a terrific amount of work. They're here in the gallery today, and it's my opportunity at this time to introduce them. They are Carlene Bradshaw from Kelowna, Helena Chan from Vancouver, Harbir Deol from Surrey, Jassy Dhillon from Castlegar, Mikael Jensen from Terrace, Kirpal Hoon from Williams Lake and Jessie Hemphill from Port Hardy. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce today a number of members of the Bingo Council of British Columbia. Wendy Thompson, who sits on the minister's advisory committee on gaming, is with us, as are Wendy Smitka of Literacy Nanaimo, Margaret Birrell of the B.C. Coalition of People with Disabilities and Mark Crofton, who is with the Coalition of People with Disabilities and a recipient of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I have two guests in the gallery today representing the Richmond Committee on Disability: Frances Clark and James Sullivan. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Doyle: Today I've two sets of introductions to make. All the way from Swansea in Wales are friends of my wife. Liz Gwynne and her husband Dave are here all the way from Swansea. My wife Judy went to physio school with Liz many, many years ago. I'd just like to say to the House that if you think I've got a brogue, you should hear Dave and Liz. Welcome them to Victoria.

Also in the gallery today we have Manfred Kasprzik. Manfred lives in Victoria -- originally from Germany. Manfred actually works with investors from Germany to bring many millions of dollars for investment in the recreation sector, especially in British Columbia. Welcome to Manfred too.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure -- and I'm sure every member of the House joins me -- to welcome back the member for Alberni, the government Whip. We're all pleased to see him making a great recovery.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too am glad to see the government Whip back, but probably not as happy as the Premier is. I wish him the best. It's a tough job, and I suspect he's happy that there isn't much time left in this session.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome Margaret Birrell. She ran against me in Vancouver-Little Mountain for the New Democratic Party in the last election. She was a formidable candidate and I am eagerly awaiting a rematch.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure of introducing my sister Hartirath Sahi, who's in the gallery -- this is her first time visiting me -- and her husband Harparthap, who is my brother-in-law, and his brother-in-law Upkar Sandhu from India and the rest of the extended family. There are too many to name. They're all here, and I want the House to please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GAMING CONTROL ACT

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Gaming Control Act.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm pleased today to introduce the Gaming Control Act. This bill will provide the much-needed legislative framework to bring stability to the gaming industry and ensure that it's carefully regulated. This bill incorporates recommendations from the Meekison report, the 1999 White Paper on gaming in B.C., a range of reviews and studies during recent years, and input from stakeholders and the public. All sectors of gaming will be brought together under one act.

The structure of gaming will also be consolidated by the creation of the B.C. Gaming Control Authority, which will be an independent office to oversee all major operational and day-to-day decisions in gaming and to protect the public interest. The gaming audit and investigation office will have a strengthened enforcement and registration role in all gaming sectors.

[1415]

This bill recognizes our commitment to municipalities and charities around decision-making and revenue sharing. As well, this act incorporates into legislation the government's commitment to gambling addiction treatment. This bill will not be debated in the Legislature this spring, allowing time for the public and stakeholders to consider the complex issues before the bill is passed.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ICBC LETTER TO

AUTOBODY SHOP OWNER

G. Plant: On June 13 we raised the case of Mr. Penney King, a small autobody shop owner who had been harassed by ICBC's neat police because, among other things, the exterior of his buildings had been tagged with graffiti. Well, the very next day ICBC's neat police paid Mr. King a visit. They took a letter for Mr. King to sign, a letter conveniently typed

[ Page 17008 ]

up by ICBC, a letter saying that ICBC's c.a.r. shop program was wonderful. ICBC encouraged Mr. King to sign the letter, but he refused.

So my question is for the minister responsible for ICBC. Can she explain why, instead of answering the legitimate concerns raised by autobody shop owners, ICBC decided to intimidate a small business owner who had dared to speak out against it?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, the question that the member raises is legitimate, and I want to say that under no circumstances should anybody have to sign a letter if they don't wish. There is an indication, though, that the autobody shop owner had said to ICBC that he would be interested in making a public statement. ICBC engaged in presenting him with the letter, and he chose not to sign it, which I think is absolutely appropriate on the part of the autobody shop owner.

I will say, hon. Speaker, that the c.a.r. program will be reviewed. And the program will be reviewed in this context -- that the emphasis should be on quality workmanship and safety.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond-Steveston has a supplemental question.

G. Plant: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a time in British Columbia when ICBC sold car insurance. That was long before ICBC decided that its role in life was not only to intimidate small businesses, not only to make design suggestions to the operators of autobody shops, but apparently to draft their letters for them when they have the courage to speak out against its policies. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that ICBC wanted Mr. King's signature so they could silence those who dared to criticize a corporation that is totally out of control.

My question for the minister is this: could she tell us why it is that ICBC makes it a practice to intimidate small business owners who stand up against its oppressive bureaucratic regulations?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, it's unfortunate that the member is on script and that he just went to his second question, because I answered that question in the first . . . . But again the Liberal opposition has to stay on script, even if it's irrelevant, boring and repetitious. That's what they've done.

Every single insurance company in North America has a relationship with autobody shops. As we discussed in estimates, lots of insurance companies actually designate autobody shops and designate the work that can be done at various shops. The private insurance corporations that operate in this province do exactly that. ICBC has chosen to have an accreditation process that doesn't disallow anyone from getting work; every single autobody shop in this province can get work from ICBC. What the accreditation program does is ensure quality work and ensure that the health and safety of the workers is being taken care of. That's what the accreditation program is all about.

As to Mr. Penney . . . . Mr. Penney King indicated his support, but if he doesn't wish to articulate that support, that's fine.

[1420]

M. de Jong: Only an NDPer could call attempts by a Crown corporation to intimidate a small business person irrelevant. What an astounding statement.

Let's make sure we understand the chronology. About two and a half weeks ago we asked this minister questions about ICBC's harassment of small autobody shop owners involved in the accreditation program. She took that question on notice so that she could "get the facts." Within 24 hours the spinners down at ICBC had not only drafted a letter but taken that letter to the individual who had the courage to speak out and suggested -- suggested -- that it might be wise if he considered signing it.

Will the minister answer this question? Will she tell us who it was that directed the letter be drafted in the first place and who's going to be held accountable for this blatant attempt to intimidate a British Columbia small business man?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll certainly get the answer to the first question. The letter-drafting came from within the corporation. I do understand, though, that it was on the basis of a conversation that occurred between the autobody shop owner and ICBC, with him indicating that the problems had been worked out and that he was willing to show his support.

I absolutely accept that the autobody shop owner ended up not wanting to sign the letter. As I understand it, he asked the corporation if they could draft something for him. But it's perfectly within his right to say no; it is perfectly within his right. And the corporation needs to concentrate, as I said, on making sure that the program offers quality work and that the health and safety of the workers is ensured as well. I'm absolutely firm on that with the corporation.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.

M. de Jong: Well, here's the letter. He didn't just not want to sign it; he was so concerned about how all this transpired that he went to his lawyer. He had to incur the expense associated with finding out from his lawyer what he should do.

The minister seems blind to the fact that loss of accreditation by this small businessman can mean the difference between his business succeeding and his business failing. He has the courage to speak out and articulate concerns about something that ICBC is doing, and the very next day he gets a call from one of the coordinators of the accreditation program, who is presenting him with a letter that he's suggesting it might be in his best interests to sign.

There's one letter that should be signed here, which this minister should direct to be drafted and sent to the individual, and that's a letter of apology. Let's see if this minister today, in light of all we've learned about this shameful transaction, has the courage to direct that ICBC apologize to this individual and any other small businesses in B.C. that have been subjected to the same intimidation tactics.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, if indeed the autobody shop owner felt coerced or intimidated in any way, I think the suggestion is absolutely appropriate.

[ Page 17009 ]

C. Clark: Sadly, this is becoming all too typical of this government. When a citizen complains, whether they're in the health care system or whether they're in the education system . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

C. Clark: . . . this government's response is to try and shut them down. This individual complained. The very next day ICBC went out, arrived at his door, bullying him into signing a letter, forcing him to eat crow and say that everything that he'd said before was incorrect -- that he totally agreed with the government that the c.a.r. shop program was all right.

Does the minister think it is appropriate for a Crown corporation -- a monopoly Crown corporation -- to arrive at a citizen's doorstep, just because they have the gall, the moxie, to complain, and demand that they withdraw their complaint in order to keep the accreditation program they have?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I'm not quite sure what the opposition's doing here -- filling the space available perhaps. But let me just reiterate, if I may, that the contacts between ICBC and the autobody shop owner were mutual and that they were trying to resolve a problem.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, you know . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Their questions are extremely repetitious, so I'm trying to give them some new information, hon. Speaker.

[1425]

The autobody shop owner and ICBC, both of whom declared their support for the accreditation program -- including the autobody shop owner, who was not under any threat of losing his accreditation -- were looking to find a response to this. If the nature of the way that response was asked for by either the autobody shop owner or ICBC was inappropriate, hon.

Speaker, if the autobody shop owner decided not to want to sign the letter and if indeed, in the course of that, there was inappropriate action -- and I don't whether there was -- that made him feel intimidated or threatened or that in any way he was not going to continue to be accredited, then I will ask ICBC to respond to that with an apology.

The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has a supplemental question.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, some of the information the minister has presented to us today is wrong. It wasn't mutual; they called him. Within 24 hours of the question being raised in question period, they decided they'd show up on his doorstep with a letter that they've concocted refuting everything that he'd said and just politely encouraged him to sign it. And who showed up with the letter? The coordinator of the accreditation program that he'd complained about.

Now, surely the minister thinks that's inappropriate. Can the minister tell us if she thinks it's appropriate that ICBC -- a Crown corporation monopoly -- operates this way? And will she issue a written apology to this individual for the intimidation, the bullying tactics that ICBC has gotten up to?

Hon. J. MacPhail: To quote Vaughn Palmer, June 14, " . . . the Liberals, with their chronic inability to think on their feet during question period" -- not a man I'm taken to quoting too often . . . .

Hon. Speaker, I actually don't know whether what the Liberals are saying about how this autobody shop owner felt, who initiated the call . . . . I don't know whether they're telling the truth or not. But I will ensure what I have already said -- that if there was inappropriate behaviour, it will be corrected and an apology will be issued. But I would also say: do the Liberals only want to take cheap political shots by raising a complaint and then not have us follow up or have the corporation follow up? Is that the real intent? Should ICBC have not looked into the complaint and had their cheap political shots just stand? I think not.

COASTAL FOREST INDUSTRY STRIKE

G. Abbott: I think what the people of British Columbia are most concerned about is this government's chronic inability to govern. It's now the second week of the IWA strike on the coast. We know that strike has been devastating to families and to communities, but we also know that it's had an effect on the revenues that come into the government's coffers from this region.

The coast forest sector contributes literally millions of dollars in fees, stumpage and income taxes to the government. It's estimated that last summer, for example, the coast forest sector produced nearly $8 million in stumpage revenue each week for the government. Will the Forests minister tell us today what the impact of the IWA strike has been on stumpage revenue to the province?

[1430]

Hon. J. Doyle: Isn't it interesting that it took one whole week for the opposition to discover this dispute? I would bet you that if the people in the forest sector wore white coats, they'd have been on their feet after one day.

Unlike the official opposition, this government believes in free collective bargaining. The parties at the table . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. J. Doyle: . . . are experienced negotiators. Let's just look back at 1996. Let's just look at 1996, hon. Speaker.

An Hon. Member: Answer the question.

Hon. J. Doyle: You've raised . . . . You answer . . . . You do all kinds of things before you answer a question, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 17010 ]

Let's look back to 1996, when the hon. Forests critic was running for election. He said at that time that the minimum wage was too high in British Columbia, and that was why he was running for the opposition Liberals.

The would-be Labour minister over there -- we know what he thinks about labour negotiations. What did he say in this House? What did the hon. member for Kamloops-North Thompson say about working people in 1996? He said that if they don't work right, you whack them; and if they still don't, you whack them once again. And if they still don't come to their senses, you throw them right out. This official opposition does care one whit about average working men and women in this province, may they be minimum wage workers or union workers.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite are asking me what my colleague said. I would only note that every time they ask a question, they then keep talking and never want to listen to the answer. But that's their problem.

I have the honour to table the B.C. Hydro annual report for the year 2000.

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I'm pleased to table the annual report -- it's called "Sharing the Challenge" -- of the Ministry for Children and Families, 1998-99.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have the honour of presenting the annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation for the period April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act. In Committee A, the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and the Public Service.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to advise you and members of this House that by agreement, on completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and Public Service, we propose to go to committee stage of the following bills: Bill 24, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2000; Bill 26, Agri-Food Choice and Quality Act; and Bill 18, Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.

BALANCED BUDGET ACT

(second reading)

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to rise today on second reading of Bill 28, the Balanced Budget Act. This really is a concluding

chapter of a process that began last fall. At that time, in the fall of 1999, I initiated a series of prebudget consultations with the people of British Columbia. For the first time, I think, in the province's history, the Ministry of Finance produced a formal consultation paper to accompany that work.

[1435]

That paper outlined the economy of the province and gave a forecast for where the ministry and private sector forecasters felt we were moving. It talked about the fiscal circumstances of the province, in terms of both debt and deficit, and did so quite explicitly.

And it allowed for British Columbians from across the province to look at this paper, to assess where the government was getting money from and where it was spending it, and to talk about their own priorities for the direction of the province -- where they wanted to see more government attention, where they wanted to see less, what they thought of the current level of taxation or where they thought it should be changed, and any other issue.

They were able to respond to this consultation document in many ways, not just through the formal sessions that I convened in communities across British Columbia, but in faxes or e-mails or letters either to me or to MLAs. We really tried to do a very thorough sort of consultation -- what people out there were saying.

The responses, I would say, fit into three general categories -- three general priorities -- which I heard very clearly from the people of the province. The first was that they wanted their government to protect what they felt were core social programs essential to the well-being of the province. They wanted their health care and education systems not only protected but improved upon. Unlike other consultations, I think that what the people were asking for was not necessarily only increased funding, though that was clearly part of what was sought.

But in the area of health particularly, they wanted to see new ways of doing things. They wanted to see recognition that one size did not fit all across British Columbia. They wanted to see that we were attending both to what is happening in our hospitals and in doctors' offices and also to what is happening in communities and clinics right across British Columbia.

In education, I think what I heard from the people very clearly was not only that they felt that education was something that as individuals they needed access to in order to improve their circumstances individually, but that they saw that the role of education, particularly post-secondary education, was key to building a strong and vibrant economy that would provide opportunity to them and to their children.

In Budget 2000, tabled in March, we responded to that. We saw a real initiative in health care. We saw the necessity of doing things differently with physicians and nurses around the province. We saw a recognition that not everybody lives in downtown Vancouver. In education, we continued the commitment. Class sizes are going to be lower this fall than last fall. Fewer students will be going to school in portables. Every school in the province will be hooked up to Internet access by the fall of this year. The post-secondary education system expanded by some 5,000 spaces.

And even though tuition is frozen now for the fifth year, we were able to increase student financial assistance opportunities to make sure that everybody had opportunity. As we know, that budget also saw the first steps towards a universal child care system.

[1440]

That was one clear theme that we saw -- that I heard -- across the province. The second theme was the call for per-

[ Page 17011 ]

sonal and small business tax relief. If there was one consistent theme out there, it was that while they recognized the that government had been taking steps to work with sectors of the economy, they wanted to see more. They recognized that the forest sector -- particularly in the forest communities they recognized this -- was in rebound. They recognized that this has been done by the industry working in consultation with government and that stumpage reduction of some $600 million over three years was part of that rebound, as was the streamlining of forest regulation.

They liked what they saw in this government's approach to targeted tax credits in the high-tech sector, in the film business, in the oil and gas patch, so that British Columbia got its fair share of oil and gas revenues in a time of expanding exploration and increased production.

Most of all -- and this came through very clearly -- the people of the province obviously recognized that the greatest creators of jobs in the province were small businesses. While they liked the movement that we'd made towards reducing small business taxes, they wanted to see it go faster and further. And in Budget 2000 we acted on that. We acted on that by lowering the small business tax rate again -- now to the second lowest in the country, the lowest west of Fredericton.

On the personal income tax side, they did want more relief. They wanted it targeted where they felt it would do good for their neighbours and their friends, but also for communities right across British Columbia, so we responded to that. Income taxes have been lowered again, by some $225 million this year and another $350 million next year. In fact, if you add it all up -- all the tax changes that have taken place since 1995 -- revenues to the province this year will be some $1.3 billion lower than if the tax rates and objects of taxation had been kept exactly as they were in 1995.

People wanted to see that happen, because they felt they deserved that tax relief and also because they saw that as a good way of stimulating economic recovery. We agree; we've acted. Budget 2000 contains that sort of relief.

But the third theme that British Columbians articulated in that consultation -- and this is where the current debate on the balanced-budget act comes in -- was that they wanted to ensure that the provincial government's fiscal house was in order, to ensure that their social programs and that tax relief were protected not just for one year but over the long run.

I must say that as you looked at the specifics of where you should spend and when you should tax, we heard few, if any, advocating the sort of slash-and-burn policies we've seen in other provinces and that I've surely heard advocated at times in this House, in the media in this province. In fact, I heard it in the prebudget consultation from the Fraser Institute, I believe, which had the fortitude to stand up and say: "You need to balance the budget immediately. The way to do that, obviously, is simply to reduce health spending to Alberta levels and reduce education spending to Ontario levels, and you can get there."

But I didn't hear that in the consultation. I did not hear that. Few, if any, advocated the sort of money-for-nothing approach that I sometimes do hear in this chamber on the tax side. In fact, the Business Council of British Columbia told me very explicitly in their consultation that while there are many good reasons for lowering taxes and while there was clearly a case for assisting targeted tax relief, they could not, having done the analysis, stand up and say that lowering taxes in an area would increase government revenues in that area. In fact, they said that most analyses suggest that over time, you might get back 40 percent of that revenue drop.

People of British Columbia understand that. Frankly, the idea of money for nothing, the sort of Reagan-style, Thatcher-style, Laffer-curve economy is one that the people of British Columbia simply know in their bones and their elbows, in their communities and their homes, does not work.

[1445]

What they wanted was a balanced approach -- a balance in which social programs are protected and expanded, which is what this government is delivering -- and they want it to address the concerns about ensuring a stable fiscal situation in the province. That's what this government, under the new leadership of our Premier, is delivering: a fiscal agenda that is quite new and different.

Since this session began just three months ago, this government has introduced three pieces of fiscal legislation that I think will be seen in retrospect -- once the political dust and heat settle -- as landmark legislation. The first of those is the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, building on a year of work by both the former auditor general, Mr. Morfitt, and then the panel chaired very ably by Mr. Doug Enns and the recommendations that they presented to government about how to move budget building, reporting and accounting to the forefront of provinces in the country.

The bill we debated and passed in this Legislature meets that test. Budgets are now the most open and transparent in Canada. We have moved to a system of accounting that's based on

summary accounts, where the bottom line presents the results for all ministries as well as all Crown corporations of government -- one bottom line for all of government. You don't have to look in the back of the book. Everything's there in black and white; all the facts are there.

The second part of that was of course to reveal, as transparently as possible, what we know -- what the Ministry of Finance knows, what the private sector knows -- about the underlying assumptions about economic performance in the province -- assumptions about population growth, about the different sectors of the economy and also the risks to those assumptions.

Similarly, the spending side was to reveal fully what the basis was for the estimates we were presenting. How many school children are there? What's the expectation for the number of new nurses that are going to be hired? What do we think is going to happen to the number of kids -- to choose an example of some distress -- who may have to be taken into care? What are those numbers based on? And again, to have all of that attested to not just in a political way but by a senior public servant, the secretary to Treasury Board . . . .

We also enshrined in law what I informally undertook last fall: the prebudget consultation that involved a document that talked about the economic circumstances and fiscal forecasts of the province on which the people of the province were consulted broadly. And I'm very pleased that a standing committee of this Legislature will be undertaking that work in the fall of 2000 in preparation for Budget 2001.

Fourth, the act required that all ministries and all Crown corporations table annual performance plans outlining their goals and objectives. They have to report back on those goals

[ Page 17012 ]

and objectives at the end of the next year using the same measures, so that we and the people that have elected us can see clearly what has or has not been achieved in various areas. In this session, even absent that act, all ministries and Crown corporations did table such plans.

Finally, we sought to revamp the management of major capital projects to assure accountability and efficiency -- to ensure that best practices apply to government agencies that are building new schools, new hospitals, new transportation infrastructure for the people of the province and to ensure that British Columbians get the best value for their hard-earned tax dollars. I know that we will be debating some of the details of that later in this session when we consider Bill 18.

The second piece of legislation I've already talked about a little bit was the changes to the Income Tax Act. We do have the second-lowest tax burden of any province in the country; we do have that. But people want to see that we're moving forward, and more importantly, they want to see how many tax dollars they actually send to this government -- or any government.

[1450]

And now, with this act, with the tax-on-income approach, it is a historic move. For the first time we've been able to delink our personal income tax system from the federal government to set our own brackets, to set our own rates, to set our own deductions. And all those rates, all those brackets are fully indexed for inflation. We are moving forward and making sure that people can see in that act exactly how much they pay to the province. The answer is that they're paying less than many other provinces, and they're paying less this year than last and less next year than this.

Now the third piece: the Balanced Budget Act, 2000. I thought I'd just start by just reading the

preamble to the act, which talks about why such

an act is important to the people who have elected us to this chamber. It says:

"WHEREAS a fundamental role of government is to ensure adequate investments in health, education, social justice and the environment for the greater public good;

"AND

WHEREAS the financial flexibility to make those investments is dependent on British Columbia continuing to maintain its position as one of the least indebted provinces in Canada;

"AND

WHEREAS equity demands that future generations of British Columbians not be burdened with an unsustainable level of debt;

"AND

WHEREAS the reduction and elimination of budgetary deficits must be carried out in such a manner as to protect the health and well-being of British Columbians and the environment;

"THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows . . . . "

And the rest of the bill follows.

That's the reason; that's the purpose. It's not because we simply want to see numbers add up at the bottom of a ledger sheet, but because we believe that ensuring our ability to sustain what I've talked about already -- health and education and social services that people value . . . . What I've mentioned already are continual efforts to lower the tax burden on British Columbians while providing those services, and tied to both of those is the third priority here: getting our fiscal house in order.

This bill will make law the requirement to meet or exceed progressively lowered deficit targets and to balance the budget in the year 2004 and every year thereafter. If we can reach those targets quicker than the time outlined in the legislation, we will. But we will not do so at the expense of social programs that British Columbians have told us they want protected. Nor will we do so in a way that would compromise our position as having the second overall lowest personal tax burden in Canada.

As I said at first reading, this bill has teeth. There are consequences for failure to meet the targets set out in this bill. If the government's targets are not met, unless there's an emergency of unexpected circumstance that imperils the health or safety of British Columbians, or if revenue is declined by more than $500 million year over year . . . . We can probably discuss those clauses at further length in committee stage. If we don't meet the targets and if there is not that sort of emergency, a 20 percent cut in ministerial pay for 12 months for all cabinet ministers will be implemented.

When does this occur? Pay cuts will take effect the first time there is a quarterly report or a public statement that indicates that the legal deficit requirement may not be met in a fiscal year. So in theory, a government could choose to table a budget that did not meet the target for that year, and the clock of the 12-month penalty would start immediately upon tabling that budget.

Obviously quarterly reports are another trigger. For example, the first quarterly report for the year 2000-01 is due mid-September this year. If the forecast in that report -- and now quarterly reports do contain a full-year forecast; they didn't in the past -- is that the target has not been met, pay cuts begin immediately.

[1455]

Or you could conceive of a situation where the fiscal year unfolds, the books close, and then at the end of the year in public accounts it's revealed that the deficit target was not met, in which case the penalty would begin then and go on for a full year. So there are teeth here.

There's also an incentive to get things back on track. If government, in the middle of the year, rectifies this projection of deficit, gets it back under control and meets the targets set in the bill, then the pay cuts are refundable.

So with these provisions, we have put in place a system where B.C. cabinet ministers are going to be the most accountable in Canada, where there is a personal incentive to make sure that these targets set in the act are met.

Like every other provincial balanced-budget law and the one that has been proposed in this chamber by the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Balanced Budget Act sets out conditions where the legal deficit requirements may be waived for a fiscal year if you have a drop in revenue year over year of $500 million. I've talked about those briefly.

Now, I did hear some comment in the press about that escape provision, which said it was too wide open. I can only say this: I have asked Finance officials how often that has actually occurred in the last quarter of a century. From a preliminary scan of budgets and public accounts, it appears that it occurred once -- it can't be identified -- in the last two decades, in the early eighties, when this province was going through a very severe economic downturn. Call it a major recession; call it a near depression for many of the forest communities -- once.

This is hardly carte blanche; this is a very narrow provision. It has to be an exceedingly serious circumstance that

[ Page 17013 ]

would result in a revenue drop of that magnitude. I point out, hon. Speaker, that that drop cannot be taken advantage of, cannot be used for tax relief. In other words, if the government of the day chooses to reduce incomes taxes or to reduce other taxes -- as we have chosen to do -- it can't say: "Oh my, next year my revenues are going to be down $350 million, because that's a tax break I'm giving to British Columbians. If there's another $150 million of reduction somewhere else, I can trigger this caveat." It doesn't work that way. The decisions that government takes on reducing taxes are not included in that total drop of half a billion dollars in revenue.

On the expense, this bill uses words that I think are clear on their face about what sort of a circumstance might apply in which the act might be waived. It says this: "If . . . (

a) there is an expense that is not provided for or is inadequately provided in estimates, and (

b) the minister issues a statement that (

i) states the expense is required because of emergency or unexpected circumstances that are detrimental to the health or safety of persons in British Columbia, and (ii) describes those circumstances," then the budget target, the deficit target, the balanced-budget provision may be waived.

Hon. Speaker, all bills across the country have similar provisions. The specific words that I just read to you are very similar to the provision contained in the private member's bill presented by the leader of the opposition for balanced-budget legislation. What we have said, though, is that this has to be an extraordinary emergency circumstance.

We have added one thing here in British Columbia that is quite different from any other bill across the country -- quite different. Unlike any other law, British Columbia's Balanced Budget Act requires that the government that's facing that sort of emergency recall the Legislature and allow for debate on the emergency or on the decline in revenue, before the government is released from its statutory duty to balance the budget. This is a unique provision in provincial laws, and it underlines our commitment to greater transparency and accountability to the people of British Columbia. It is entirely consistent with legislation that we have debated and approved earlier in this session.

[1500]

Finally, a couple of technical points that may arise in debate, though one expects we may have more politics than technical points in second reading debate: the fiscal bottom line is going to be calculated, as we set in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, on the full

summary account basis. That includes all the Crown corporations, and they are the most complete set of accounts in Canada. Any change in accounting's policies and their impact must be fully disclosed and cannot be used -- cannot be used -- to somehow escape meeting the legislated targets.

In closing, I want to reflect on the work of our new Premier. The new direction he has taken is reflected in the bills we have put before us: the new system of tax on income, delinking our system from Canada; the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, which sets out a very open and transparent way of informing the people of British Columbia where we're getting money from, what we're spending it on and what choices we're making so they can see fully and discuss fully what their government has done.

And finally this bill, the Balanced Budget Act: in conjunction with the rest of the fiscal initiatives undertaken in this session, it represents that new balance in British Columbia to protect and expand our social program, tax cuts for all -- not just for the few well-off -- and make sure the province's fiscal house is in order so that we will have a healthy and vibrant future for all British Columbians. I move second reading of Bill 28.

G. Farrell-Collins: It was interesting to listen to the Minister of Finance give the speech that he did in opening up this debate on the balanced-budget legislation. In fact, had this been the first year of an NDP government, I would probably be sitting on this side of the House cheering him, eagerly awaiting the opportunity to support the new change in tactics and the new change in strategy and the new change in direction of the government.

But this isn't the first year of their mandate. This is the ninth year of their mandate. This is a government that was elected on October 17, 1991. This is a government that has doubled the debt that British Columbians are saddled with in nine short years. This is a government that has raised taxes extensively and repeatedly during its mandate. This is a government that has raised and increased and expanded the purview of fees and licensing costs that individuals and businesses and others in British Columbia are required to comply with.

This is a government that, despite its promise prior to the 1991 election that it was going to balance its budget over the business cycle, has now failed in nine consecutive years to balance its budget.

This is a government that came into this Legislature, into this House in 1996 -- not once, but twice -- to tell British Columbians that their 1995-96 budget was in fact balanced and had run a surplus and that the budget they were forecasting for the coming fiscal year, which was actually about three months old, would be balanced. They told British Columbians, as I said, not once in this House but on two separate occasions.

Individuals opposite stood up in the Legislature at that time and repeatedly told British Columbians that that was the case and did so in all sincerity, much like we just saw from the Minister of Finance. In fact, the government knew -- cabinet members, as well as caucus members who had been briefed the previous fall, certainly knew -- that there wasn't a hope at all that the budget in the next fiscal year was going to be balanced unless there were some significant changes made by the government in the intervening period. They failed to do that.

If this had been the first year of an NDP government, the public would probably be enthusiastic about seeing this legislation come forward. They may have concerns about particular bits of it. They may have concerns about the way it came about, which I will speak about momentarily. But they probably would have been heartened to hear the words of a Minister of Finance such as what has just come out of the mouth of this Minister of Finance.

[1505]

Unfortunately, this isn't the first year of the NDP mandate. This is the ninth year of the NDP mandate. It may well end up being the last year, but that's up to the public to decide. If this had been in the first year of the mandate, I expect the public would have cheered this legislation instead of laughed with derision the day it was introduced in this chamber.

I'm sure the Minister of Finance has seen the polling numbers on this legislation -- not that that's the be-all and

[ Page 17014 ]

end-all. But it certainly gives a pretty strong indication of just how lacking in seriousness, I suppose, the public takes this issue coming from this government. The minister puts that out as though it's a new government, a new direction from a new government. Well, nobody's buying that. The public certainly isn't buying it. I know that none of the members on this side of the Legislature are buying it, and I would hazard a guess that there's a significant number on the opposite side, the government's side of the Legislature, who aren't buying it either.

You have to look a little bit at what the minister's opening comments were to understand, really, where this legislation came from. The minister stood up in the House earlier this spring and talked about the transparency of their budget -- that there was going to be a change in government, that they were going to be more transparent, that this was the most transparent government ever and that there was going to be another pillar of their financial management plan which was to deal with capital expenditures. That was the second pillar that came out earlier in this session.

All of a sudden there was a provincial council; the New Democratic Party had a provincial council. That's a meeting where all the riding presidents from around the province, the key officials within the party, members of caucus and the Premier show up and keep in touch. The legislative caucus can keep in touch with its party, and the party can do its day-to-day type of management in between conventions.

The Premier showed up at that convention, and out of nowhere -- dropped like a bomb from the sky into the provincial council -- the Premier stood up and promised balanced-budget legislation. None of the caucus had been told about it. The cabinet hadn't been told about it, as far as we can tell -- certainly given the reactions of some of the cabinet ministers at the time. I'd hazard a guess that the Minister of Finance hadn't even been told about it at that point in time. I may have been wrong; I may not be. The Minister of Finance can perhaps clarify that in his closing comments on second reading. But I don't think the Minister of Finance had even been told that that was coming down.

Certainly the New Democratic Party had not been told that the Premier was about to announce his wholehearted support for balanced-budget legislation. It was a surprise to everyone. It was certainly a surprise to members of the New Democratic Party, and it was certainly a surprise to members of the opposition, and it was definitely a surprise to the public. If it had been on April 1, I suspect people would have thought it was an April Fool's joke. But it occurred somewhat later than that.

The minister is correct when he itemizes for the public and for the members of this Legislature the process of consultation that he was engaged in, leading up to the transparency that results from the Enns report, which in turn resulted from the fudge-it budget scandal of 1995-96 that I talked about earlier. The government had consulted widely with this transparency process. There was a committee. Mr. Enns had his committee, and he went around the province and talked to people.

He got feedback, as the Minister of Finance does on an ongoing basis, and made recommendations in the Enns report, which I think all sides of the House viewed as a valuable document and a good contribution to the debate.

Initially the Minister of Finance -- a different Minister of Finance, I might add; I believe it might have been a different Minister of Finance -- said that they weren't necessarily going to implement all of the recommendations. And then the government decided to implement all of the recommendations in one form or another. I think, yes, it was the current Minister of Finance's colleague who said that he was not going to introduce all of the recommendations. But that changed, and they did.

There was a wide consultative process. I know there was discussion within the caucus and government as to how that would work, what the legislation would look like. Would it require legislation? How would the budget look different this year than last year? I know the Minister of Finance struggled long and hard to put together a budget this year that would comply with the provisions that the government had decided they would adopt.

It was a year-long process -- maybe more -- from start to finish from the time Mr. Enns's report was commissioned. I think it was over a year, actually. Certainly the public consultation that went around the budget measures implementation out of the transparency act that came forward to this Legislature was long and exhaustive.

[1510]

It wasn't in any of the discussion; it wasn't in anything that happened during the leadership campaign that we watched for the New Democratic leadership: out of nowhere comes this commitment by the Premier for balanced-budget legislation.

It was like he'd thrown down the gauntlet, because New Democratic Party caucus members went scrambling in all directions -- some running off in little groups to meet here and some running off in little groups to meet over there, some rallying behind the current Premier, some rallying behind the former Premier, the Whips doing different things, their House Leaders doing different things. Everybody was curious as to where the government was actually going to end up on this. So they struck a committee.

In their wonderful way that the NDP do things, they struck a caucus committee which was sent away to draft the balanced-budget legislation that's before us today.

Mr. Speaker, you don't have to look very far to find examples of this bill being drafted by committee. It looks like a bill that was drafted by committee. I almost expected it to be tabled like one of those ransom notes that you see on television, where they've cut the letters and words out of different newspapers and sort of stuck them together on a bulletin board and then taped them down with glue to make it look like a piece of legislation. In fact, if you go to the

preamble, just as a point of highlighting, one of the whereases that appears in this bill . . . . Although I've been told that we generally don't have

preambles to legislation in this House, apparently when you've got to squeak something through caucus, you do have a

preamble that makes everybody comfortable. It doesn't mean anything; it has no legislative value.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, then the minister can stand up and correct me, if he wants.

It says: "AND

WHEREAS the reduction and elimination of budgetary deficits must be carried out in such a manner as to protect the health and well-being of British Columbians and the environment . . . . " It's sort of tacked at the end. I can imagine them sitting around there like some Monty Python

[ Page 17015 ]

skit, somebody putting up their hand: "Oh, don't forget about the environment. We've got to put the environment on there." And that brought in another little group of the caucus to say: "Okay, I can support the bill as long as it says 'environment' somewhere." Then they go through, and somebody says: "Well, what about education? Oh yeah, we'd better put something in there about education to make sure that those people in our caucus who support education are on board. And we have to make sure that there are no limits on spending in this bill, because that would get the public sector unions upset.

That would get the public sector employees upset, the unions upset, that there was actually going to be a limit on spending."

So there's no limit on spending in this bill. There's a definition of a maximum deficit, and they talk about revenue. But in no place is there any limit on the amount of spending.

So I expect that what will happen if this legislation goes forward -- if this coalition of New Democrat caucus members actually holds together and votes for it on second reading, in committee stage and in third reading -- is much like what happened in the last fiscal year. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that when the government introduced the budget this year, lo and behold, the economy had started to turn around and in fact the government had a windfall of over $1 billion in new revenue -- unexpected, unanticipated revenue. A billion dollars -- that's a lot in a $20 billion budget, about 5 percent.

I think about 4 percent is what that the actual figure worked out to be. But it was a fairly significant, unexpected rise in revenues to government. You'd think: "Wow, that's great. Now we can balance the budget, or we can come close to balancing the budget." No, Mr. Speaker, because you know what happened? They spent it. Revenues went up; so did spending.

That's why, if you look back year over year, this government has never been able to meet one of its deficit targets. In the good times when revenues go up, the government just increases spending to go along with it, so they never actually reduce the deficit. And in bad years when revenue doesn't grow as fast as expected, the spending goes up anyway. So this government doesn't have a problem with its revenues; it has a problem with its spending.

As long as there is no restriction on this government -- on the NDP -- to control spending in some way whatsoever, they will continue to grow into whatever windfall this great province happens to produce for them. If we have a booming year in the forest sector, if the high-tech sector performs well beyond our wildest dreams, if every star in Hollywood is shooting movies in the lower mainland and the rest of Vancouver, if every new business that starts up succeeds instead of falling into bankruptcy, if everybody in this province is employed and is pouring dollars into the Minister of Finance's coffers, all they would do is increase the spending. They'd just spend it as fast as it came in.

[1515]

There was that great line from the 1991 election campaign, which most British Columbians will recall, of Mr. Harcourt -- who was running to be Premier of the province at that time -- with the little piggy bank and the penny. It was a nice close-up shot; it made everybody feel good. And he said: "If we don't have it, we won't spend it." What he didn't say was: "As soon as we get it, we'll spend it." He didn't say that in the campaign ad. It doesn't say that in the bill, but that's really what happens. As soon as they get they money, they'll spend it.

So, for example, last year, if the government had merely spent as much as it anticipated spending -- as much as it forecast in its budget to spend -- they would have been almost a billion dollars to the better. They would have come very close to balancing the budget last year, if all they had done was control their spending to what they had forecast.

The discipline problem the government has isn't one of trying to find enough revenues or forecasting the revenues perfectly; it's a question of whether or not this government can manage its budget and manage its spending priorities. That's what it is. I know that at the end of the fiscal year they'll always come in and say: "Well, yeah, but there was this thing we had to spend money on. And there was that too. And then there was something else we had to spend money on. And oh, don't forget that one, which the member for wherever wanted." You know, it's interesting to see the way the government's spending priorities have occurred.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I seem to have gotten a bit of a rise out of the member for . . . . I'm trying to think where she's from; I don't recall the riding. Cowichan-Ladysmith, I think, is the name of her riding. She's in cabinet, so I don't recall the name of her riding readily. But certainly we got a bit of a rise out of that member.

I don't remember getting a rise out of that member when the fast ferries went over budget by $250 million. In fact, I haven't heard a peep from her on the fast ferries budget. I haven't heard a peep out of her on that. I would have thought that my colleagues who have ferry-dependent communities would have heard from that member about her dismay over the wasting of $250 million on the vastly overrun fast ferry project, because it probably would affect ferry service, one would think, in the long term. But I don't recall hearing a peep out of that member, so the indignation is interesting. I don't think it contributes to the debate.

If you look at the way this government has managed its finances over the last number of years, one has to question whether the political will is there to actually follow this legislation. At the end of the day, that's what it takes. It's going to take political will by members of the government -- this government or another government -- to balance the budget. This legislation isn't worth the paper it's written on if the government doesn't have the political will to follow it, because all the government needs to do is repeal it or change it. It can go out of this House as fast as it came into this House.

If anybody doubts for a minute that that couldn't possibly happen -- that a government wouldn't come in and vote in favour of balanced-budget legislation and then cynically come back a while later and throw it out -- if you can't imagine that ever happening, all you have to do is go back to 1991-92. In 1991 the Social Credit government of the time, in a very similar state to this government right now -- at the end of a mandate, having difficulty with the public, having lost credibility on fiscal issues after the Premier, Mr.

Vander Zalm had raised spending dramatically in the last number of years of his mandate and was roundly criticized by members of the New Democratic caucus for doing so -- had a deathbed repentance.

They came in and they brought in the Taxpayer Protection Act. It was actually one of the first attempts at balanced-budget legislation of any province in the country. It did a

[ Page 17016 ]

couple of things that this budget doesn't actually do. It froze taxes. In fact, it listed 12 specific taxes that would be frozen. That's something this bill doesn't include. It talked about a balanced budget over a fixed cycle. It also had a rate of increase in forecast expenditures, so you couldn't spend more than a certain amount. This government merely deals with the deficit figures; they don't deal with spending whatsoever. And it had a debt reduction plan as part of it. It required the Minister of Finance to bring in a debt reduction plan.

[1520]

Now, Mr. Speaker, it may shock you to know -- because it shocked me when I went back and looked at this -- that the NDP, in opposition in 1991, unanimously supported that legislation. They all voted for it, including the current Government House Leader. The member who was just speaking so vocally earlier on voted in favour of it. I think there were something like . . . . Let me see how many there are left here. A number of them, anyway, actually supported it -- a bunch of them.

They all voted in favour of it. That was in the spring of 1991. Well, those of you that are history buffs will recall that in the fall of 1991, there was a provincial election. That was the election where Mike Harcourt had the little penny ad and the piggy bank thing that we were talking about earlier, just to reassure British Columbians that his government was going to balance the budget over the business cycle.

"Don't worry about finances. We'll be under control. We'll be responsible. We'll be accountable. We'll be as honest and hard-working as the people who pay for government." Anyone can remember that phrase from the 1991 election campaign: " . . . as honest and hard-working as the public who pays for it."

Who can forget the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who was Premier until very recently, and his immortal quote about balancing the budget? He said, "It's absolutely the easiest thing I could ever imagine doing -- absolutely the easiest thing I could imagine doing," all of this prior to the 1991 election campaign.

British Columbians sitting there thinking, what kind of government are we likely to get from the NDP? had an opportunity to see it. They're in favour of freezing taxes. They're in favour of spending controls. They're in favour of deficit reduction. They're in favour of getting the fiscal house in order. They're in favour of all those things. And not only are they sort of in favour of it; they're unanimously in favour of it. There isn't any division within their caucus whatsoever. You know: "Mr.

Harcourt has gone on television, and he's promised me that they're not going to spend money they don't have and that we're going to get a government as honest and hard-working as the public who are paying for it."

But, Mr. Speaker, you will be shocked, as I was, to find out one of the very first things this government did when it was elected and came into the Legislature in the spring of 1992. As you know, the first piece of legislation every parliament in the British Commonwealth introduces is Bill 1. It's a bill that never gets passed. It's

an act to guarantee the supremacy of Parliament. What it does is say that Parliament has the right to do what it wants, etc. It's never passed, because -- the Crown has sort of allowed us to get away with it -- it's a piece of legislation that's really historical and pro forma. It sort of asserts the power of the people over the power of the sovereign. It never gets passed; it's never debated.

Generally, after that, the government's big priorities start to hit the order paper, one after the other, especially after an election. The real key things that the government wants to drive home spring out there to the public, and the government announces them.

Well, do you know what Bill 3 was, the third piece of legislation that the government introduced after being elected after 20-some years in opposition? After salivating for years and years, after electoral defeat after electoral defeat, the government finally wins the election. And what's the first thing they introduce? It's the Taxpayer Protection Repeal Act, which refers to the bill that they voted unanimously in favour of such a very short time before.

It's probably the shortest piece of legislation that this House has ever seen. It had two sentences -- two clauses and two sentences: "1. The Taxpayer Protection Act . . . is repealed." And then there was the commencement section: "2.

Section 1 comes into force December 31, 1991 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." In May the government voted in favour of it, and by December 31 it was gone -- it was gone.

[1525]

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

They didn't tell the public, didn't inform them. That never came up in the election. I don't remember the TV ads. Maybe my colleagues can remind me. The member for Peace River South might recall as well if, during that election campaign, there was any ad with Mike Harcourt saying: "One of our first orders of business is to get rid of the Taxpayer Protection Act. That will allow us to increase taxes, to not balance the budget, to have runaway spending and to ensure that we never, ever have a debt management plan that means anything."

I don't recall that ad. I think I had something to do in that election in 1991. I was running as a candidate, and I paid attention to the advertisements that the NDP were running. But I don't recall that advertisement. Maybe I missed it. Maybe it was on late at night during the infomercial channels around 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. But I don't remember them running that advertisement that told people that that was going to be one of the very first things they did.

So one has to question the government's sincerity in bringing forward this legislation now. I don't have to question their sincerity. I can use their own words to question their sincerity, because we have these wonderful, wonderful quotations from members of the New Democratic caucus while they were in opposition and then when they were in government. The member for Saanich South, who is now the attorney general, said in 1992 . . . . This is on the debate when they were repealing the Taxpayer Protection Act that I was just talking about.

This is what he stood up and said: " . . . the guarantee we have in this House is one of political will. The previous government had no political will, so instead they passed a phony piece of legislation that they knew they had no intention of sticking to . . . . "

If he were to stand up today and say that, it would ring pretty familiar, wouldn't it? It would sound just like the current state of this current government. He goes on, and it was a wonderful speech, Mr. Speaker. I want to quote it at length, if I can. It was so prescient in putting forward what the future

[ Page 17017 ]

held for British Columbians. He went on and said: "It was a sham." This is referring to the Taxpayer Protection Act. "It was there to pretend to . . . the public that there was protection for taxpayers when there was none. You don't have the political will, so you pass a piece of legislation."

This government has had nine years to show us its political will. It's had debt management plan after debt management plan. They brought in the debt management plan one year. When they didn't hit the targets, they had the modified debt management plan. When they didn't hit those targets, they had the revised debt management plan. Then they had the financial management plan, when they didn't hit those targets. Then they had the modified financial management plan. And the last time around, they got rid of that altogether and created the five-year fiscal planning framework.

They had an opportunity to show us their political will. They had every opportunity available to them in the last nine years to show British Columbians that they really meant it -- that they really, really, really, really meant it this time; that they really, really intended to balance the budget; that they really, really, really had a plan they were going to stick to.

Mr. Speaker, they never did. Every one of those debt management plans was a sham. It was a fake. It was a phony. They had no intention of ever living up to them -- not once. Not once in all those years. Budget after budget; debt management after modified debt management plan after fiscal framework after modified fiscal financial flimflam plan, whatever they were. Year after year they introduced them as part of the budget, and year after year they ignored them.

Why should any British Columbian -- any person in British Columbia who works hard, pays their taxes, does their job, tries to make a better life for themselves and their family -- believe that the government today has suddenly changed? All those people sitting opposite, the 40 members opposite, stood up year after year, for almost an entire decade, supporting the government's budgets. Why should we believe what they have to say today?

What's changed? What's so changed in the government that we should believe them this time? I think the only thing that's changed is that they're closer to an election period. They're closer to the point where they're finally going to have to call an election. They're trying to come up with something they can sell to the public so that they can get themselves re-elected, or at least not be devastated by the people who they've misled year after year for an entire decade around their fiscal policies.

I just have to go back one more time to quote the member for Saanich South, who did his own stint as Minister of Finance at a particularly sensitive period of time. I think he was once quoted as saying, "I don't expect you to believe me," when he tabled the budget, which I think has to go down in history as one of the most stunning comments by a Minister of Finance introducing a budget. "I don't expect you to believe me." Then go back to the drawing board, and do something the public will believe. It's absolutely astounding.

[1530]

I want to come back to this quote, because it talks about the government's political will to actually follow through on this legislation. It talks about the fact that they're getting very close to a period where there's going to be an election. I'll just throw it out here for you. This is, again, the illustrious member for Saanich South. This is prior to his glorious reign as Minister of Finance in the 1996-97 time frame, but it was still, I think, a wonderful speech that he gave in this House.

" . . . we chose not to be cynical. We chose to be honest -- honest government -- and say to the people of British Columbia: 'This kind of phony legislation will not protect you. We will stand by our record. We will not hide behind a phony Taxpayer Protection Act.' That's the message we bring, a message of honesty and fiscal responsibility. I'm very, very happy to support the repeal of this particular piece of odious legislation."

He wasn't just happy, he wasn't just very happy; he was very, very happy to support the repeal of that particular piece of legislation.

So, come on, come on. I mean, what kind of morons does the Premier think the people of British Columbia are? Give me a break. We will never believe the Premier; the public won't believe the Premier.

How can those members go back to their constituency and talk to their constituents -- given what they've done for the last nine years -- and tell them that now, today, this time, after years and years and years, this time they really mean it? Not like the other time they came to the community event and said they really meant it, not after the 1995-96 budget

fiasco when they said they really meant it, not after the '97 budget when they said they really meant it, not after the 1993 budget or the '96 or '92 or '94 . . . .

You name it, Mr. Speaker, they've been going back to their constituents year after year, month after month, having community town hall meetings and coffee parties, and telling everybody: "Well, we really, really mean it this time. We're very, very proud of our budget this year. Last year -- well, let's forget last year, but this year's budget's a great budget. Look at all the great things in it."

How gullible does the Premier think the people of British Columbia are? How much do they have to put up with? How often . . . ?

Deputy Speaker: Just to interrupt you, are you the designated speaker, member?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am, thank you. I probably should have advised you earlier.

But I will continue. The question, though, is . . . . And I know we're going to hear from the Premier. The Premier's going to stand up next, and he's going to talk about the new government and the new direction and how everything's changed and how it's never too late to do the right thing and how, "We've really learned this time, and we have to restore the public's confidence in the fiscal house, and we have to get our fiscal house in order," and blah, blah, blah -- stuff we've been hearing Premiers before him say, stuff we've been hearing innumerable Finance ministers say.

I think they've had six Finance ministers since 1992 who have stood up in this House and repeated time and time again to us about how: "No, no, we really mean it this time."

I loved their budget speech -- I think it was this year. Maybe it was this year. "No megaprojects" was the chant for the budget this year. No reckless spending -- this after a government that . . . .

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's true: the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts, and the buck stops here. They've run out

[ Page 17018 ]

of ideas; they're going back half a century to come up with political campaign slogans. Actually, I think "the buck stops here" goes back to Teddy Roosevelt from the turn of the century -- the last century, that is.

Boy, I tell you, it's going to be really interesting to hear how many of those phrases are in the Premier's speech -- how many times he's going to tell us that they have to reconnect with the public, have to restore the public's confidence in the fiscal house that they're building, how they've really learned their lesson, how the public has a right to know that the budget's going to be balanced, how in fact now they believe that the way to protect health care and education is to balance the budget,

whereas before they were saying that if you balanced the budget, you'd destroy health care and education. I'll be interested to see how he squares that circle, Mr. Speaker, because I'm not sure that the logic of that is going to sink into the rest of us people in British Columbia, who find it difficult sometimes to follow the government's political meanderings in the wilderness.

[1535]

I want to come back, if I can for a moment, to some of the other quotes that are there, because this government has never believed in balanced-budget legislation -- never. In fact, it's been anathema. In fact, I heard all sorts of terrible things about balanced-budget legislation, leading right up to including -- actually following -- the day the Premier announced he was all for balanced-budget legislation. Actually, some of the best comments against balanced-budget legislation have come from his caucus since he announced he was in favour of balanced-budget legislation.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier says: "Change is hard." I suspect he's yet to learn just how hard that change can be. I want to put forward some of the quotes from some of the speeches that have been put forward by members of the New Democratic Party over the last number of years. If nothing else, they're wildly entertaining.

There's this one from the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He was the second Premier, the one after Harcourt, the one who left office last summer -- I'm trying to keep track of them. He's talking about the Taxpayer Protection Act, and he says: "It represents a deathbed repentance that will fool nobody. British Columbians no longer trust this Social Credit government. They know that it will say and do almost anything to get re-elected. British Columbians know that they've been in power long enough." Well, I mean, that fits today as well as it fit nine years ago. It was good then; it's really good now.

That kind of quote is true. It is a deathbed repentance; it's not going to fool anybody. Nobody believes . . . . All you have to do now when you speak . . . . Just so the Premier knows, when I'm speaking to a group of people, all I have to do to get the biggest laugh of the speech is say balanced-budget legislation, and the room erupts in laughter.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: To any audience. The member says: "To a Liberal audience." Well, I would love to come and speak to the New Democratic provincial council; I suspect they'd erupt in laughter too. I suspect that they erupted in laughter when the Premier said that balanced-budget legislation is one of his key points. So it's amazing just how far we've come with that.

Here's another great one by the same former Premier, the illustrious member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He says -- this is 1991 -- "It is clear that now, on the eve of a general election, they're saying: 'We won't do it anymore.' Given the longstanding failure of this government to tell the truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, does anybody really believe that this promise will last more than the two or three weeks of the election campaign?" Mr. Speaker, it was good then; it's really good now, because it fits. It fits just like a tee.

All you have to do is look at what this government did before the 1991 election and what they did right after the election: they repealed it. I expect that if this legislation is passed, as we suspect it may be, and this government -- heaven forbid -- were to be re-elected, after the next election the next Bill 2 or Bill 3 or something like that will be the Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Amendment Act or the Balanced Budget and Debt Reduction Elimination Act -- oh, it's called Balanced Budget Act, they don't have debt reduction -- or the Balanced Budget Amendment Act or the Balanced Budget Repeal Act.

And the best thing, Mr. Speaker . . . . You know what? Just like they did in 1992, it'll probably be retroactive to the day it actually passed.

So if we passed this legislation tomorrow or Thursday or next week or next whenever it is, if this legislation actually goes through . . . .

An Hon. Member: August.

G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague says August.

Then who knows? The legislation will probably have . . . . You know, I bet Bill 2 or Bill 3 of the next government under the NDP will be the Balanced Budget Repeal Act, and it'll have two sections. It'll look somewhat like this one did in 1991. It'll be a really short piece of legislation, just like this one. It'll say the Balanced Budget Protection Act or the Balanced Budget Act is repealed. And then

section 2 will say the

section 1 comes into force whatever day the bill actually passed.

[1540]

Mr. Speaker, come on. I mean, nobody believes this. Come on.

I mean, you can't expect that the public is actually going to buy this at this stage in the government's mandate, that suddenly -- despite all the wonderful planning that this government has done, despite all the wonderful speeches that they've made, despite nine years of deficit budgets, despite a doubling in the taxpayer-supported debt, despite a doubling in the overall debt, despite repeatedly missed targets, despite five various debt management, debt reduction, modified plans over the last number of years -- somehow this time this Premier really means it. What about the three Premiers before him?

What about the six Finance ministers who stood up in this House and said: "I'm proud of this budget. We're not going to cut our way to the bottom; we're not going to cut our way out. We're going to spend our way out"? I think was a quote by the member for Vancouver-Hastings when she was Finance minister.

[ Page 17019 ]

Mr. Speaker, are we supposed to just throw all that away and forget, like it never happened? Does the Premier have a fairy godmother who just comes in with a little wand and taps him on the forehead, and suddenly this is all gone, it's midnight, and the whole ball never happened?

Mr. Speaker, nobody's going to believe it. Nobody believes it. And the thing is, even his own caucus doesn't believe it. Even his members don't believe it. Members of his party don't believe it; they don't support it. The public doesn't believe it. So I just have no idea how it is that the government at this stage in its mandate has the nerve, has the gall, to come forward at this point and introduce balanced-budget legislation.

I want to use a couple of other quotes here before I finish up. These are a series of quotations that I find particularly interesting. These are from the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who started after the 1992 election as Leader of the Opposition and then became leader of the PDA, an independent party, and now is a government cabinet minister. He was briefly Minister of Finance. It's interesting, because while the government has just flopped, he has actually flipped and flopped. I just want to highlight for members exactly what happened. I know he's one of the most popular members on that side of the House.

I just want to use one of the quotes here. On April 8, 1992 -- I expect, looking at the timing of this, that it was right around the time this Taxpayer Protection Act was being repealed -- he said: " . . . if the government is indeed prepared to take this act and repeal it, then the government owes it not only to the members opposite but more importantly to British Columbians to tell them what they intend to put in place by way of replacement that will once again enshrine and install some measure of protection for the taxpayers." So in 1992 he's a big supporter of the Taxpayer Protection Act; he's a big supporter of balanced-budget legislation.

Then he left; he became the leader of the PDA. In the last election campaign he said this: "Where we should be putting our energy is not into balanced-budget legislation -- which, frankly, is a crock . . . . " So in 1996, when he was trying to court the public sector unions, he was opposed to balanced-budget legislation. It wasn't just bad; it was a crock, it was so bad. He said: " . . . balanced-budget legislation is just a crock. It's nonsense, because you cannot accurately and adequately project to the dollar in any given year what government revenues are going to be." "Balanced-budget legislation is just a crock" -- that was 1996.

It's interesting what happened there. I want to get this straight for a second. He was for it, and then he was opposed it. Now we know, because last week he stood up and voted in favour of it, that he now supports it again.

So what are the voters in Powell River-Sunshine Coast supposed to think? Are they supposed to think, if the election is on an odd-numbered day, he'll support it; if they're on an even-numbered day, he won't? If it's sunny out, he'll support it; if it's rainy, he won't. If it's a Tuesday, he'll support it; if it's a Thursday, he won't. If it's the first week of the month as opposed to the last week of the month, he'll support it. If it's a month that starts with S, he'll support it; if it's a month that doesn't, he won't. I mean, how are they supposed to know where that member stands?

How are the voters in Powell River-Sunshine Coast supposed to know on election day, when they walk from their house down the front sidewalk, turn left or right and head off to the local school to mark their ballot? They'll walk past signs that will say the guy's name: "Powell River-Sunshine Coast. NDP. Re-elect." The little lawn sign will say that, or maybe it will be a big one. These people will be walking. They've had supper; it's almost 8 o'clock. They're deciding how they're going to vote as they are walking, walking, walking on the way there. They're thinking: gee, let me see.

Was he for balanced-budget legislation, or was he opposed to it? What day is it today? Is it raining, or is it sunny? What month is it? How many s's are in this month? How are they supposed to know what that member thinks?

[1545]

If, heaven forbid, they actually decide that he thinks something, that he stands for something, and go into that booth and make an X for or against him, quite frankly, based on that information, if that's what they're banking on, heaven forbid! That member is not old enough for retirement yet. Heaven forbid if he got re-elected. We could have several other changes occur between now and then. Who knows what party he'll represent then? Who knows what position he'll take at that point in time?

Voters in Powell River-Sunshine Coast should ask their member what exactly it is that he does support, what exactly it is that he does think about balanced-budget legislation. We know he has stood up in the House and supported it. We also know that, in the background, he was one of those guys who wasn't too happy with it; he wasn't too happy with it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: What's your position on the legislation?

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, the Premier asked me what my position is on the legislation. This side of the House has always supported balanced-budget legislation; we continue to support balanced-budget legislation. But if this Premier asks members of the opposition or anyone in this province to vote on the confidence of this government, the answer will be a resounding no. If the Premier ever gets up the nerve to ask the voters of British Columbia the same question, it'll be a resounding no as well. I can't wait.

It was sort of interesting today, because earlier, before question period, Margaret Birrell a woman I have a great deal of respect for, ran against me in the last election. She's a member of the NDP caucus. She's one of the few New Democrats who actually stood up to this government over no-fault insurance. She stood up to this government over its gambling fiasco and the corruption that's taken place there. She's one of the few, I think, who participated -- I think she actually did participate -- in some court cases. I think she actually was part of the legal process around challenging the government on a number of those things. So I have some respect for that woman.

But I've got to tell you that I salivate at the thought of getting on a stage at an all-candidates meeting in my constituency to talk about balanced-budget legislation. I can tell you it'll be really interesting to hear what she has to say. If she's supporting the government on the balanced-budget legislation, I would find that very surprising, given her positions on fiscal matters prior to the last election. I can't wait for that debate. I can't wait to highlight that for the people in my constituency, which will then be Vancouver-Fairview, to discuss with them the government's position on balanced bud-

[ Page 17020 ]

get. I don't have to do that. I can just print up a brochure with the NDP quotes. I can just quote the members back to them. I can distribute it all around the riding and then let the voters decide what they support.

Here's another one; here's the member for Kootenay -- I can't remember; I think it's Kootenay: "Even to suggest . . . . " This is very recent; it was just May 1999.

An Hon. Member: Cranbrook.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, she's from Cranbrook. This is May 3, 1999, so that's three months ago -- not quite. Yeah. Actually, it was just two months and a day ago, a long, long time ago, because that was before . . . .

It says -- here it is; I love this -- "Even to suggest putting balanced-budget legislation before people is a shame; that is a true shame. Especially at a time of economic downturn, putting forward balanced-budget legislation, budget suggestions is not only shameful, it is disgraceful." She says that balanced-budget legislation is not only shameful; it is disgraceful. That was two months and one day ago. That wasn't nine years ago; that wasn't 1991. I can almost think what I was doing on May 3. So it was comments like that, you know, that sounds to me like somebody who's pretty fired up about it; that sounds to me like somebody who feels pretty strongly against balanced-budget legislation.

Maybe my colleagues can remind me, and Mr. Speaker, you can help me. It seems to me that on Thursday, when we voted on the introduction of this bill, she showed up and supported balanced-budget legislation. Does she think that's shameful or disgraceful? Does she think that's shameful or disgraceful or dishonest or deceptive or misleading? What does she think that is? I ask her. Maybe she'll come in and speak to this legislation and explain herself, explain the sudden change in viewpoint on balanced-budget legislation, given the kinds of things that she said two months ago.

[1550]

Here's a good one; here is the member for Surrey-Whalley, who, we know, is an ardent fighter for British Columbians, according to her. This one's a little earlier, about three weeks earlier; this is April 11, 2000.

Mind you, both of these happened after the budget was introduced -- just so the Speaker understands. The budget had already been introduced before these comments came up. To hear what the Minister of Finance said, it looked like there was this whole consultation and debate process that had been going on for months about these three pillars of fiscal accountability and how the balanced-budget legislation was one you just had to have.

Obviously these two members weren't consulted. The member for Kootenay wasn't consulted, because she obviously had a much different viewpoint on that pillar. If that was the pillar on her three-legged stool, she would have kicked it over. But the member for Surrey-Whalley -- and we all know how strongly she feels about a whole range of issues -- said: "They talk about balanced-budget legislation, which is a euphemism for gutting the public service."

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if that member is scheduled to speak on the bill. Perhaps she'll come in later and speak to us. I don't see her at this point, but perhaps she'll come in and speak to us and explain those comments. That's two and a half months ago, and that's not that long. We'll look forward to seeing that -- how you reconcile the shameful and deceitful nature of balanced-budget legislation on May 3, and how now it's something that the government is proud to support, how on May 3 it was anathema to the public, and on April 11 it was anathema to the public service.

The public service still feels that way. The public service has looked at the government's legislation; they still feel that way. The member over there is talking about how it works. But the fact of the matter is that she hasn't convinced the public service that their balanced-budget legislation isn't a euphemism for gutting the public service, because they're still out there saying that they don't support it. They're still out there saying that they don't like it.

She tells me that her legislation won't do some of those terrible things that the member for Surrey-Whalley said. She hasn't convinced her supporters in the public sector yet. So she can tell us that this bill is benign and that there's no problem, and everything will be fine, but she hasn't convinced the public sector yet. I hope that both those members come in and rationalize for us, if they will, exactly how their positions have changed.

I would love to see the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, come into this House and speak in favour of this balanced-budget legislation. I challenge him to come in, not just sneak in, stand up and vote and leave, but actually come in, stand up and speak in favour, wholeheartedly, of this legislation. I don't think he will. I'd be shocked if he did.

And I could name a few other -- half a dozen -- caucus members over there who've told many members of this House, on all sides, just how upset they are with the balanced-budget legislation. Maybe the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast will stand up and tell us about his latest change of heart on balanced-budget legislation, because I know that he was . . . . Well, let me think. He was in favour; he was opposed; now he's in favour again. But I know that when he was opposed, he was opposed because the public sector unions were opposed.

Now that the public sector unions are still opposed, how does he feel about the legislation? I would love to hear what he has to say. I hope he gets up and debates.

I can't wait to hear the debate as it goes on. I can't wait to hear what the Premier has to say and how they're going to try and convince British Columbians that they've changed. I think we've heard it all before. You sort of run out of excuses eventually, and just nothing's there any more. There's no talk about reconnecting with the public and getting your fiscal house in order and the need to balance budgets and how you have to balance budgets, because that protects health care and education, as opposed to the other way around -- all of the things that the government's been saying for the last number of years.

[1555]

It's going to be interesting to hear how they try and convince British Columbians that they really mean it this time. I can't wait to hear what the Premier has to say. I don't think this balanced-budget legislation has the support of the government caucus. I think what has the support of the government caucus is that they want to continue to collect their

[ Page 17021 ]

paycheques for another year. If this was not a confidence motion, if this were just a motion that was out there, if the Premier were to free his caucus members up to vote the way they think on balanced-budget legislation . . . .

We know the Premier agrees. We know it, because he said it in the corridors; he said it elsewhere. He said it publicly that he agrees with members standing up and voting according to the wishes of their constituents.

If the Premier really believes that the constituents of the NDP support this government, here's what I would suggest the Premier do. I drop the challenge for the Premier to free up his caucus to vote their conscience. Give the members a few days to go back and consult with their constituents and their party supporters, then stand up and vote their conscience, vote with their constituents, vote with their party supporters, vote what they really believe. Give them the freedom to do that. If he thinks he's got the confidence of his members and got the confidence of the House, free them up. Let them have a free vote. Let's see what they really think.

The question before this House isn't balanced-budget legislation, because if it were, two-thirds, if not all, of the members of that caucus, with the exception of the Premier, would be voting against it. Every single one of them would be voting against it.

The question before this House is whether or not the New Democrats are ready to go to the polls. The Premier had to force his members to toe the line on this legislation, even though they don't believe in it -- even though they don't believe in it.

If he believed that his caucus really supported him on this legislation, he wouldn't have had to make it a confidence vote. In the nine years I've been here in opposition and the nine years the Premier's been in this chamber -- we got here the same day -- there has never been a motion before this House that the Premier has said was a confidence motion, not one. This is it; this is the one time. And it's because the Premier knows his caucus doesn't support it.

He knows that after the election he has every intention, and his caucus has every intention, to stand up and get rid of this legislation if they are re-elected. If the Premier believes in his legislation, I challenge the Premier to stand up, free his caucus and actually vote. But I know he's up next.

An Hon. Member: It's going to keep us here for too long.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, I see. Okay.

I want to leave the Premier with this thought, and if not him, I really want to leave the Government House Leader, the member for Nanaimo, with this. It's a wonderful quote from him on March 22, 1991.

An Hon. Member: They always are.

G. Farrell-Collins: He's right; they always are. They may not be accurate, but they're always wonderful quotes. This one, I think, sort of sums it all up. I have this question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who spoke in this House on March 22, 1991. I hope he's on the speakers list, because I hope he gets up and speaks to this bill. He says: "All I want you to explain to me is how we can construe this change in policy, which directly contradicts past practices of your government . . . . " That pretty much sums it up. I can't wait to hear how he rationalizes that. I expect it will be full of quotes.

You know what's great? You know what's great about this debate that we're about to embark upon? It's going to refill the pages of Hansard over and over again with a whole other crew of New Democrats. We'll be able to look at what they say: how passionately they believe in balanced-budget legislation, and how important it is to balance the budget, how important it is to get the deficit under control, how it's the government's priority of connecting with the public. I can't wait for the pages of Hansard to be filled yet again with even more wonderful, more creative, more lucid quotes from members of the NDP, telling us all how supportive they are of balanced-budget legislation.

I'm going to save every single one of them for after the next election. Whether they're in office trying to repeal the act or we're in office trying to obey the act, I can't wait to quote back to the public of British Columbia and members of this House the contents, the comments, that these members opposite will be making in the hours and days to come on balanced-budget legislation.

So thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been most enjoyable; I've enjoyed my time very much. I can't wait to hear how the Premier rationalizes the sudden change in tactics of this "new government."

[1600]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the opposition hasn't moved at all in the last four months. They obviously forget. They didn't pay much attention to the leadership campaign I was engaged in. They forget that I said one of the top four priorities for my government, if I become the leader of the NDP, would be to make sure that we put our fiscal house in order; they forgot that. It hasn't registered with them today that there is a new Premier in this province. And when you have a new Premier, it is important to survey the scene and look at all of the issues and determine the priorities of British Columbians.

I have been travelling the province for the last four months, ever since I became the Premier. Let me just name just a few of the places that I've been in. I've been to Kelowna; I've been to Campbell River; I've been to Courtenay; I've been to Quesnel, Williams Lake, Kamloops, Terrace, Trail, Castlegar, Nelson, Golden, Duncan, Ladysmith and Nanaimo. Those are just some of the places that I've been to.

I have talked to dozens of people, and I have spoken to dozens of people about many issues, including the balanced-budget legislation and the issue around balancing the budgets. I asked them one simple question many times, and that is: what would be the most important job for this government to do? They all told me they wanted the government to put its fiscal house in order.

An Hon. Member: You just heard that?

An Hon. Member: If you'd been around the province nine years ago, they would have told you the same thing.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to wait until the hon. members opposite finish speaking from their seats, and then I will proceed.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'd be happy to wait; I don't have a problem. Thank you.

[ Page 17022 ]

I am always happy listening to the people of British Columbia and listening to the opposition when they take their turn. In listening to the people of British Columbia, it became very, very clear that putting the fiscal house in order was one of their top priorities, as it was for me during the leadership campaign. And it's very, very clear to me that when people think of our government, the first thing they often think of is spending, particularly spending on health and education programs. This is okay because these are our priorities and indeed the priorities of British Columbians.

However, British Columbians also want to think of their government as one that is committed to financial management. Many simply do not feel that the government has managed their tax dollars well. While we have created nation-leading social programs, we've not shown the financial leadership British Columbians expect and indeed deserve.

When I became Premier, I promised a change, and the change is happening. The difficulty with the opposition benches is that they refuse to acknowledge change, or they're so scared of the change, they don't know what to say.

An Hon. Member: They don't believe you.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think the real test would be whether the people of British Columbia would believe me, and that would obviously be on E-day, and I think that that's coming. Don't worry. Wait -- it will come.

[1605]

I promised to put B.C.'s financial house in order. Since I've been Premier, this has been my number one priority. I have been very, very explicit about what my job is and what the government's job is. In fact, four months ago I told the Finance minister, Paul Ramsey, that at the end of the day, the buck stops here. I told the Finance minister that our job is to forge a new direction in the way our finances are managed. I understand this, and so does he.

It has been a busy four months. In March our government introduced the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. That puts in place virtually all of the recommendations of the auditor general and the Enns panel and makes our budget process the most open and transparent in Canada, setting the highest standard of any province in the country. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act means the public and the Legislative Assembly can now participate in building the annual budget for the province through an all-party committee.

It is just one of the examples of the continued commitment towards a credible, transparent and accountable budget process that listens and then responds to the input of British Columbians.

At the end of May we took the next step in our new direction by introducing the tax-on-income act, which makes government more responsible and accountable for the provincial income taxes that British Columbians pay.

We cut taxes for all British Columbians and freed 100,000 low-income British Columbians from paying any personal provincial income tax at all. By the end of next year, British Columbians will pay -- as I said earlier in the House -- nearly $750 million less in personal income tax each year than they did in 1995. Over the next two years, a single-income family earning $45,000 will see its provincial income tax bill cut nearly 12.4 percent.

Next we introduced amendments to the Financial Administration Act and Financial Information Act. That followed the recommendations of an independent study into how we spend money on capital projects. These amendments ensure that bungled megaprojects are a relic of the past.

To help the business community, we lowered machinery and equipment taxes to 3 percent. Beginning July 1, small business in British Columbia will pay the second-lowest tax rate in the country. These were the first steps in our new government's new direction under my premiership.

But if we are to win back British Columbians' faith in our ability to manage the public purse, we must go even further. People have been asking me: "When will your government balance the budget?" To most people a balanced budget is synonymous with good fiscal management. Balanced-budget legislation means this government will not spend money it doesn't have. It means that we will put the days of deficit financing behind us, and they too will become a relic of the past.

The new law will see us balance the budget progressively over a fixed period of time and continue to balance it in future years. This new law is very clear about penalties for not balancing the budget. Now, if going over budget hits taxpayers in their pocketbooks, it will also hit cabinet ministers in their pocketbooks as well. Balanced-budget legislation like ours is not new. The majority of Canadian provinces have similar laws that require them to balance their budgets. We have had the benefit of their experience in writing our legislation.

I can assure you that our law is every bit as tough as that of other jurisdictions. While we have modelled our law on similar laws, we will not model our approach to balancing the budget on what other provinces have done. Our commitment to a balanced budget will not come at the expense of British Columbia's health and education programs, nor will it come on the backs of British Columbians. We will not increase taxes to balance the budget. Rather than cutting vital services or increasing taxes to have a balanced budget next year, we will reduce the deficit progressively over five years, balancing it in fiscal year 2004-05 and each year after that.

[1610]

I was present for part of the Opposition House Leader's speech, and I have some questions to ask -- I will ask only one or two -- of the Opposition House Leader. One of the biggest criticisms that he makes of our positions in the past is that we have now changed and that people will not believe us. Well, that is for people to decide.

One of the difficulties the opposition is having is that they do believe, in fact, that we have changed. That is why they are having a great deal of difficulty on the other side in accepting that change. That is why you had the most mind-boggling experience in this Legislature the other day when this bill was introduced.

You have an opposition who says they will do things after thinking about them. They will do things out of deliberate thinking and thought processes, consulting, looking at the issues. They say that they would be very consultative, they would be very accountable, they would be very open. You have one of the most closed-minded oppositions on the other side in the history of this province. What do they do when that law is introduced? They don't even look at the law. They vote against even the first reading of that law without ever looking at that piece of legislation.

I say that because it really disappoints me. I say that more in sadness than in anger, because I believe that legislatures of

[ Page 17023 ]

our kind, governments of our kind, work better in our system of government if we have an opposition that is open to new ideas, that is not stuck in the past. You have a Premier in this province that people of British Columbia recognize is of an open mind, but you have an opposition that has a closed mind. I say to the opposition: if they thought that any balanced-budget legislation would be not a matter of confidence, they obviously are not well educated in the art of legislatures in British Columbia or anywhere else in this country.

This is balanced-budget legislation that fundamentally alters the direction of government under the new Premier. You have the opposition on the other side, hon. Speaker, who refuse to acknowledge that change and refuse to look at the piece of legislation and, in absolute and total ignorance of what's contained in the legislation, vote against it as a matter of principle. Then they go around British Columbia saying: "We want this House to work better. We want to reform the Legislature." Even on that score they have failed.

We have attempted to reform this Legislature so that it works better. We arrived at a substantial consensus on most issues; but on one issue -- the calendar of the sittings in the House -- the opposition got stuck on politics rather than on public interest. They decided that they will fetter the discretion of any government so that any legislation that you have to pass in the fall, you have to make public. Even though you may not have it, you have to make it public in the spring.

I say to you, hon. Speaker, here is an opposition that is stuck in the past, that is not open to new ideas, that refuses to acknowledge the reality that there is a new Premier in this province, that there is a new direction to this government. That is actually scaring the opposition. No matter what they say, that is actually scaring them. That's actually scaring them, because if it didn't scare them, they wouldn't be talking about the past. They'd be talking about the direction we're taking today. We're putting our pledge to balance the budget in law. I challenge the opposition.

I challenge them in a good-humoured kind of a way to stand up and be counted on behalf of all British Columbians and not play politics.

I ask them . . . . I have said this is a matter of confidence. Even if I had not said it's a matter of confidence, it would have been. But I ask the opposition to free its members up to vote the way they choose, as, of course, they're divided on most issues. They were divided on the issue around same-sex legislation: 11 of them on one side and the others on the other. Whenever there's an issue that goes to the core of who we are in British Columbia, that defines a new direction for British Columbia as it did with the same-sex legislation, they are divided on the opposite side, because they can't make up their minds.

[1615]

Interjection.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am trying to talk, hon. Speaker. I am trying to speak my mind absolutely freely. You have the Opposition House Leader, who stood here for almost an hour and only talked about the balanced-budget law that's before the Legislature today for less than five minutes. Why is it that what's before the Legislature gets only five minutes out of one hour from the Opposition House Leader? Why is it? I'll tell you why it is: because they have not -- I said earlier -- confronted the reality that on this side there is a new Premier who's going to challenge them in the next election.

And we're going to go into the next campaign and win the next election. And we will; we will go. There's no question about that. I am raring to go. I am ready to go.

An Hon. Member: Get your bus ready. Let's go now.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is a time for that too, and it shall come. Let me just say and conclude by saying . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I thought that's what I was talking about. I was talking about the balanced-budget law. I talked about it; I talked about a whole series of steps that we have taken.

I now want to just conclude by saying that British Columbians rightly expect government and opposition to cooperate on issues of such fundamental importance, which are now before the House. They also expect government to manage their money well. We have introduced legislation, as I've indicated. We have taken many steps, and we will go on into the fall and let the agenda unfold under the new premiership, with a new direction.

Look, there's no question about that for the nine years. We have many . . . . Many colleagues have responded to the Liberal notion of a balanced-budget law, and they have responded in a way that is understandable and natural, because the difference would be that the opposition would balance the budget by providing billion-dollar tax cuts to the wealthy and the rich and cutting services for ordinary British Columbians. That's not the New Democratic way. We will balance the budget; we will balance it as it will be enshrined in legislation. We'll balance it while protecting those priorities.

Balance we shall certainly do. And I wonder, if we do balance it, what they would say, standing up on the opposite side. They might have to eat their words.

R. Thorpe: I remember the words of the Premier: " . . . the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts." And you know, we have a new fact delivered to this House by the Premier, a revelation: he has been in office for over nine years, and he has just travelled around the province in the last few weeks, and he's heard that British Columbians want fiscal management from their government. Where has he been the last nine years, now that he's just heard that?

In fact, he is so much for getting his government's fiscal house in order that he said one thing in his leadership campaign for the NDP about fast ferries, because he wanted fiscal responsibility, and after he becomes the leader, he shuts it down. That's how much he wants the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts.

[1620]

And that same gang did the same thing with the fudge-it budget. They are so interested in the facts. In fact, they talk about wanting to acknowledge change. In fact, nothing has changed over there; it's stonewall, stonewall, huddle in behind each other. The broken trust of all British Columbians . . . .

And let me just say, at 4:09 the Premier said what this bill was all about. He said it was about protecting health care and education. Well, let's read the purpose of this act. And I quote from page 2 of this bill: "The purpose of this Act is to require

[ Page 17024 ]

the government to bring revenues and expenses into balance and to do so in a manner that protects the health and safety of British Columbians from emergency or unexpected circumstances." Now we'll have the rest of the story; now we'll have the facts. It doesn't even mention the word "education," and the Premier just stood in this House and told us that's what this bill does -- more broken promises from this government that has built the record on breaking promises, nothing but broken promises.

Well, you know, unlike the Premier and the former Minister of Finance, who really had it summed up perfectly when she said, "Hon. Speaker, the reason we're not going to introduce a balanced budget is because no one would believe us . . . . " Well, guess what, hon. Speaker: to this day no one believes them. That was from the Minister of Finance, who obviously had been listening to her constituents, unlike the Premier.

When the Premier said . . . . When this bill was introduced, and when he knew he had a fractured caucus, he said that this was a confidence bill -- a vote of confidence in his government. Well, I was at home in the riding, and everywhere I went, whether it was Summerland or Peachland or Penticton or Naramata, people said: "If this is a vote on the confidence of this NDP government, then obviously, Rick, the answer has to be no, because this government has destroyed the province of British Columbia." In fact, we have had a decade of decline under this government.

You don't believe it, eh? You don't believe a decade of decline. Well, let's just see the very, very people that this government's so proud to represent -- working people. In the last ten years their take-home pay has gone down by over $1,500. In the years 1992 to 1999, we have the worst investment record of any province in Canada. In 1996 to 1999, we had the worst record of job creation; in fact, the province of British Columbia, one of the very richest provinces in Canada, is now dead last. They have lost the confidence of every British Columbian by breaking their promises. Quite frankly, there is no trust left in this government -- absolutely none.

They talk about being open; they talk about being new. Where were they when it came to the fast ferries? How many members of that government sat on Treasury Board and approved over $500 million on fast ferries? In fact, the Premier approved part of those moneys that were spent on that fiasco. He tells us that he's about newness, he's about change, he's about a new style of government, but it's not being bought. It's not being bought.

In fact, fast ferries . . . . With the money that was wasted on that, we could have employed 200 more teachers, 400 more nurses, 200 more RCMP officers. We could have eliminated -- eliminated -- wait-lists for cardiac and hip surgeries in the province of British Columbia. We could have built seven new rural hospitals instead of closing down beds in rural hospitals in British Columbia. We could have paid for 600 kidney and 40 liver transplants. We could have provided 250 air ambulance trips from Prince George to Vancouver. We could have constructed 900 long term care beds here in British Columbia.

We could have paid for six MRIs, 12 CAT scanners, 200 additional children in foster homes and bought 10,000 textbooks for students in schools. And we would still have had money left over.

But, you know, some of the words we have now are, with sad faces and long faces and all the theatrics that go with it, "a sober second look" -- a sober second look, and that is after nine years. Well, the Finance minister two Finance ministers ago told us that he wasn't doing anything with his budget because "we don't expect people to believe us."

We've had promise after promise about debt management plans. How many debt management plans have we had in the province of British Columbia? The 1995 debt management plan -- listen to this, hon. Speaker -- promised to deliver budget surpluses in 1995-96 and 1996-97 and to pay down $10.2 billion over 20 years. That got thrown out with the bathwater.

[1625]

We were going to have the highest credit rating in Canada; that's gone by the way. In 1997 they brought in the financial management plan and promised to balance the budget in 1997-98; that didn't make it. In 1998 they came out with the modified financial plan which was going to balance the budget in the year 1999-2000. And in 1999 they came out with a five-year fiscal planning framework which promised to balance the budget in the year 2002-03.

So we've had one, two, three, four, five promises of balanced budgets from this government. We have yet to receive one. And this is a government that, up until this bill was tabled, was against balanced budgets. That's what they said after 1992.

Of course -- let me see here -- on September 20, 1991, the entire New Democratic caucus voted in favour of legislation called the Taxpayer Protection Act. What was that act going to do? That act set out three primary objectives -- firstly, to freeze taxes. Twelve specific taxes were frozen, and the government was barred from introducing new taxes for five years. The second thing they were going to do was balance budgets. The government was required to balance the budget over a five-year cycle.

The rate of increase and forecast expenditures could not exceed the rate determined by a formula tied to the increase in B.C.'s GDP. Thirdly, there was debt reduction. The Minister of Finance was required to present a debt reduction plan.

The NDP caucus voted unanimously in favour of that taxpayer protection plan. But following the 1991 election, they brought in Bill 3, and they abolished the Taxpayer Protection Act with a bill called the Taxpayer Protection Repeal Act, almost one year to the date after they voted unanimously for the Taxpayer Protection Act. I'm led to believe that 25 current NDP MLAs voted to repeal that act, and now they expect British Columbians to endorse and believe that something new has happened. It's the same old movie.

There is absolutely no way that this government has any intention of following through with Bill 28. In fact, if you look at it, it says that the earliest we'll have a balanced budget is 2004-05. If you go through the detailed technical backgrounder, which I'm not sure that most members of this House have received, and you look at the ranges, and you read this bill carefully, as I said earlier, there is enough room to drive a Western Star truck through it.

[1630]

This government has no intention of balancing this budget or balancing a budget or seeing this legislation live through. They have absolutely no intention. This is nothing but a political ploy. As the member for Vancouver-Kingsway said in 1991, in a quote that is very applicable today . . . . Let me just read that quote. What did the former Premier from

[ Page 17025 ]

Vancouver-Kingsway say about the Taxpayer Protection Act that was introduced in 1991? "This bill represents nothing more than an empty election ploy designed to convince British Columbians that the government has changed its ways. It represents a deathbed repentance, which will fool absolutely nobody in British Columbia." That's exactly who the NDP have fooled this time with the introduction of this bill: absolutely no one in the province of British Columbia.

If the Premier truly believed the words that he uttered in this House, he would call an election. He would have given his members a free vote on this bill. But no, what did he have to do? He had to say it was a confidence bill, so that they knew that if they didn't vote for it, they'd better be out on the hustings and ready for an election. For those who aren't going to run, their payday comes to an end. So that's what they had to do: they had to threaten to take their payday away from them to get them to vote.

This is nothing more than an instant replay of 1991, 1992. And if by chance British Columbians are fooled again and this government is ever re-elected, rest assured that they will repeal this bill. They will repeal the budget transparency act. They have no intention -- absolutely no intention -- of sharing with British Columbians the facts, sharing with British Columbians the truth and involving British Columbians in the budget-building process. They have no intention of meeting any of these objectives of this legislation.

This government has fis