Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 13, Number 21

Part 1

[ Page 11461 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: There's someone in the gallery today that we're all very fond of -- Alistair Grant, fondly known as Red. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

[1410]

W. Hartley: On behalf of the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill, I would like to introduce a number of visitors in the gallery today: Carene Adams, who is a social work student from the University of Victoria completing her practicum at the Victoria-Beacon Hill community office; Jody Yurkowsky, the constituency assistant in the Victoria-Beacon Hill community office; David Owen, visiting from Calgary -- David has known the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill from their Scarborough days in the seventies on the board of education; and John Eastland, who was born and raised in Victoria and has come to see question period for the first time. Would members please make them welcome.

D. Symons: In the gallery today we have a councillor visiting from the city of Port Moody, Joe Trasolini, and his wife Jeannie. They're here today to find out about some concerns they have with the routing of the SkyTrain through that community. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: Today we have the pleasure of having four of the newly appointed members of the B.C. Ferries board here after concluding their first meeting. With us is Michael Francis, the new chair; Patricia McKim; Russell Moore; and Ron Moss. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Dalton: Visiting today are approximately 25 students from Collingwood School in West Vancouver, accompanied by three of the Collingwood School staff. They asked me some very perceptive questions at noonhour today, and I thought it would have been helpful if the Finance minister had been there to help me answer them. Please welcome all of the students.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today, to begin what is a recognition of people and their families in this province who struggle with cancer, is Mr. Richard Burke, president of the Vancouver Island

chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today is a very special guest. My mom, Lisl Petter, is here today to watch the proceedings. She's joined by two of her friends, Professor Schaub and his wife, Diane Perry, who also happen to be constituents of mine. I'd like the House to join me in making them all feel very welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today I have a visitor from Good Hope Lake, Mary Reid, who is the principal of the school there. She has travelled 2,000 kilometres to get here. Please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like the House to welcome to the gallery and congratulate a very good friend of mine, the new president of the press gallery, Mike Smyth.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm puzzled by the response to Mike Smyth's name.

The Speaker: Members, what an effect you have!

[1415]

B. Penner: I have the pleasure to introduce a very special woman, Donna Broomfield, who's visiting us today. She lives in Victoria, and when I was a student at the University of Victoria, she provided me with room and board and made sure that I was very well looked after. Would the House please make her welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT DEFICIT SPENDING

AND DEBT MANAGEMENT

G. Farrell-Collins: Yesterday in this House the Minister of Finance stood and introduced her blueprint for bankruptcy: an eighth straight deficit, doubling of the debt and spend, spend, spend to no end. This is a government that campaigned in the last election and got a mandate from the public, based on two balanced budgets, that there would never be a deficit again in the province of British Columbia and that they'd continue to pay down the debt each and every year. So can the Minister of Finance tell us where she received her mandate to go in exactly the opposite direction yesterday and drive British Columbia further into debt?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have toured dozens of cities and towns over the last months, as have my colleagues, and I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that there is universal agreement not only in the areas of the province that are represented on this side of the House but also in the areas of the province represented by that side of the House. People want us to improve the health care system, first and foremost. There is universal agreement not only on this side of the House but by the constituents represented on that side of the House too that they want their children to be able to get an education regardless of their family income. There's universal agreement on that.

[ Page 11462 ]

And there is universal agreement that we are to meet the priorities of British Columbians, and we are to do it in a way that's responsible. I ask the members opposite: which hospital would they close? Which school classroom would they close?

The Speaker: First supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: The key word in all of that was "responsibly." Every other jurisdiction in Canada, whether it's the NDP in Saskatchewan, or whomever they choose, has managed to balance their budget, pay down their debt, reduce taxes and continue to fund health care and fund education and put new money into them. If every other province in Canada can do it, why can't the NDP in British Columbia do all of those things?

The Speaker: The question was addressed to . . . ?

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Finance.

The Speaker: Thank you. I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's very interesting that the member opposite would like to perhaps draw us into a comparison with one of our provincial colleagues and try to actually get us maybe to tell the truth about one of our colleagues. I know that each and every one of us on this side has the greatest of respect for the province that brought in medicare in this country. And we do have the greatest respect for our provincial colleague that shares the same party as us.

The member opposite, though, is wrong when he suggests that there is another province that hasn't cut health care and spending. He is simply wrong.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is that Saskatchewan has added hundreds of millions of dollars to its health care budget, both last year and this year. They're balancing the budget, and they're paying down their debt, and they're giving people tax breaks. That's what British Columbia should be doing.

[1420]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order.

G. Farrell-Collins: In 1993 the gentleman who now occupies the Premier's chair said: "The deficit is like your groceries, and you want to eliminate that because you're borrowing money to pay for consumption today." Well, today we're mortgaging the future to fill the Premier's beer fridge. Will the Minister of Finance tell us how this budget is going to pay for just the necessities, how it's going to put us back on track and how it's going to improve the economy of British Columbia, instead of driving it into the ground?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This budget has been both open and very transparent about the economic circumstances that we face. People in this province, especially if they're from towns that have to rely on the resource sector, know the tough economic times that we're facing. We on this side of the House are working with those communities to face the . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, I don't like to interrupt, but I would like a little more silence. It's a little hard to hear the answer. The question was heard in some silence. We'd like to hear the answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those communities know, as do we, the tough economic times that we're facing. Hon. Speaker, British Columbians, though, don't want us to slash and burn our way out of these tough economic times. British Columbians want us to do everything we can to help grow the economy. That's why on this side of the House we'll be voting in favour of a 5.5 percent income tax rate for small business. I bet you that on that side of the House they'll be voting against that. And I also predict that they'll be voting against the 858,000 families who rely on those jobs for small business.

I also expect that they would get their way out of the recession by slashing and burning and closing hospitals and schools, laying off teachers, laying off nurses, and making our wait-lists longer and longer for much-needed surgeries.

M. de Jong: Well, yesterday the NDP tabled its fifth debt reduction plan since 1992. Remember some of these old socialist favourites? The 1992 deficit reduction strategy, the 1995 debt management plan, the 1997 financial management plan, the 1998 revised financial management plan, and in 1999, the all-new five-year fiscal planning framework. Four previous debt management schemes, Madam Speaker, and the only thing they have in common is that the NDP ignored every single one of them.

The question is: on what possible basis does the Minister of Finance expect anyone to believe that her merry little band of fiscal incompetents has any intention of sticking to their fifth phony debt reduction plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This year we're building 13 new schools and renovating 103 others. We're investing $359 million to build and expand and improve . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Minister of Finance, please take your seat. Members, it's important to hear the answer. We heard the question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're investing $359 million to build and expand and improve hospitals so that when the surgeries are performed, there will be a bed there waiting for people. We have to build more classrooms, because we're providing for more teachers, for smaller class sizes. Our kindergarten class size now will be 20 students, and that's wonderful news for primary grades. And we're still investing in schools and hospitals in a way that has one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios in Canada. It's lower, actually, than in Saskatchewan.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

[ Page 11463 ]

[1425]

M. de Jong: Well, let's do some real math. Let's add up five failed NDP debt reduction plans. And what do you get? You get 20,000 people fleeing the province for Alberta in one year alone, you get eight deficit budgets, you get downgraded credit ratings, and you get a doubling of B.C.'s debt. Since the Finance minister had the gall yesterday to rip up yet another failed NDP debt management plan, maybe she will at least have the decency today to spare us the suspense and tell us what next year's debt reduction plan is going to be called.

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that this budget was about choices. We on this side know where we stand. We stand for health care. We stand for increased education and protection of our class sizes, etc. We know that we have to build more hospitals and schools. The population has increased by over half a million since this government took office. The choices are clear. The opposition is exactly right: choices have to be made. We made our choices clear in this budget.

I don't know, because they haven't come clean, but I suspect that the Liberal opposition is in favour of slashing and burning, and closing and shutting hospitals and schools. I suspect they're in favour of giving tax breaks across the board to the wealthiest. You know what I say: come clean; tell us what you stand for.

SALE OF CROWN ASSETS

R. Neufeld: If the Minister of Finance had taken the time to come to Fort St. John in her pre-budget visits that she cancelled, the people there would have told her to come clean and actually fix the hospital in Fort St. John that she has neglected for these many years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government members, please come to order.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

At the same time this government is increasing the debt by a record $3.5 billion, it has also ordered the sell-off of Crown assets worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. This is like heating your house by burning the furniture; it's not sustainable.

My question to the Minister of Finance is straightforward: what happens when the assets are sold and the bills are still left to be paid?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm reminded of the last election, when the Leader of the Opposition really probably caused his defeat by suggesting that they would sell B.C. Rail.

An Hon. Member: He was in a different party then.

Hon. J. MacPhail: He was in a different party? Oh, I'm sorry. There are just so many . . . . It's as often as I change my haircut. [Laughter.]

The Business Summit gave us some advice about the business that the government should be in. They have suggested that there are opportunities for government to sell some of its assets that are no longer part of doing regular government business. We certainly have a portfolio under B.C. Buildings Corporation that's in the billions of dollars in terms of land and building ownership. We're examining that right now to see whether it make sense that we be the big real estate owners that we are now. But I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that we will do it in a way that is responsible to the voters and the public. We'll do it in a way that makes best sense for the bottom line.

[1430]

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: A sell-off of Crown assets to pay this bankrupt socialist government's operating costs is unprecedented. It shows utter incompetence and irresponsible fiscal management -- absolutely disgusting. Not only is this government increasing the debt by record amounts, it is also covering up, as usual, the true extent of the disaster of selling off assets.

My question is to the Minister of Finance again: won't the minister come clean finally and admit that this bankrupt regime is selling off Crown assets to pay for the operating costs of government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have sold WesTel -- yes. We are in the process of selling B.C. OnLine -- yes. We've sold B.C. Systems Corporation -- yes. We've sold our vehicle fleet -- yes, we have. And do you know what that goes to pay for? It goes to pay for the $113 million over ten years for Fair Share -- right into that member's community. It also goes to pay for the tens of millions of dollars of highway construction -- right into that member's riding. And it also goes to pay for hospital services, for the beds and nurses -- right into that member's riding. Hon. Speaker, I come clean.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order members. The bell ends question period.

Ministerial Statement

CANCER MONTH

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to acknowledge with members of the House today that April is Cancer Month in Canada. In honour of Cancer Month, I'm wearing a daffodil today, the Canadian Cancer Society's symbol of renewed life and renewed hope. As someone who has had firsthand experience with cancer, I know how important that sense of hope is to individuals, to their families and to their friends who surround them at that time.

Although I introduced Mr. Burke earlier, it is important that I again recognize Richard Burke, the president of the Vancouver Island

chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society, who's in the gallery today. I really want to express my appreciation not only to Richard but to all the members of the Canadian Cancer Society, particularly the many dedicated

[ Page 11464 ]

volunteers who do the important work in that organization -- raise funds for cancer research, provide support services for cancer patients and increase public awareness about the prevention, early detection and treatment of cancer. I know that for my mother-in-law, who lives in Ontario and is undergoing a recurrence of breast cancer and must now do radiation, if it were not for Cancer Society volunteers, she would not be able to get to her radiation treatment.

This year over 17,000 British Columbians will learn that they are facing a challenge that will change their lives. They will be told that they've been diagnosed with cancer. If you can imagine 17,000 as a number, it's like filling all of General Motors Place. That's the number of people in this province who just this year who will be diagnosed with cancer.

This morning Premier Clark and I were pleased to announce that our government will be investing almost $15 million in new funding to help ensure that each of these patients has access to the treatment that they need not only to fight this disease but to win. This new funding will provide 10,000 more cancer treatments -- 5,000 more chemotherapy and 5,000 more radiotherapy treatments -- for cancer patients in the high-growth areas of this province.

[1435]

Nearly $4 million will be used to expand the Fraser Valley Cancer Centre, to provide radiotherapy to almost 600 more patients who live in the Fraser Valley area. Another $2.5 million will be invested to reduce radiotherapy wait-times for almost 700 people in the Thompson, Okanagan and Kootenay regions.

In addition to that, almost $8 million -- a 40 percent increase -- will be invested in new cancer drugs to treat a variety of conditions, including ovarian and colon cancer, breast tumours, melanoma and lymphomas. These funds will be distributed amongst the province's four cancer centres in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Victoria -- busily building -- and 26 community oncology programs and 70 community pharmacies that provide chemotherapy drugs to cancer patients across this province. This funding will help to ensure that cancer patients in B.C. have access to the latest proven drugs and treatment and that care is available where and when it's needed the most.

We have, as I think people know, the very best cancer survival rates of anywhere in this country. We are 13 percent above the national average for surviving breast cancer, 32 percent above the national average for surviving colorectal cancer and 31 percent above for surviving prostrate cancer. That is not happenstance. It is because the B.C. Cancer Agency and the work done in this province and the commitment by this government -- a 25 percent increase in the Cancer Agency budget over two years -- is making a difference in the lives of British Columbians.

Cancer is a disease that touches most of us at some point in our lives. One out of every three of us here in this assembly will at some stage in our lives be diagnosed with cancer. In cooperation with the B.C. Cancer Agency and organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and other partners, our government is taking action to treat and to beat cancer. We're not there yet. But here in B.C. we are making real progress, and we're determined to continue to work towards that goal. In point of fact, we have no choice, on behalf of people in the province, but to do that.

C. Hansen: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her notes ahead of time.

I would like to join the minister in saluting the many volunteers around this province who work for and with the Canadian Cancer Society.

But just before I touch on that, I want to address some of the comments the minister made with regard to her announcements today. One of the real concerns that we have is when we see announcements coming out -- photo opportunities -- that are not part of a bigger strategic plan. We've been promised that strategic plan. We've been promised a vision for what health care is all about in this province, and we don't see it. We don't see where this fits in. I'll tell you why that's an issue of concern. It's when you hear quotes that come from the Minister of Finance . . . .

For example, on February 9 of this year she said: "Why is it when we add hundreds of millions of dollars each year, that waiting times [for surgery] increase?" The Premier himself, about two weeks after that, said on a radio show: "I'm getting tired of making announcements, and six months later or three months later the wait-lists are still there. And we keep putting money in."

That is the concern that those who are delivering services to cancer patients around this province have. First of all, we see announcements that aren't part of a bigger strategic plan. Secondly, they say, "Show us the money," because they've seen so many announcements that are supposed to help them deliver services to cancer patients and all other patients in this province, and they don't see how that's manifesting itself at the front line of health care delivery. We see wait-lists for cancer patients growing instead of diminishing.

Reports that came out just last fall show that wait-times for urgent breast biopsy and for urgent vasectomies are in fact twice what they should be in this province. They're going in the wrong direction. That's our concern.

I think, as the minister said, that all of us have family -- those that are close to us -- who have been touched by cancer at some point in their life. Certainly I vividly remember the day in 1976 when I got a phone call from my father that my mother was going in for cancer treatments. She went through a couple of years of very, very difficult treatment in those days. At the end of it, she was very pleased with the medical care that she got but very frustrated with the lack of emotional support that she had during that ordeal.

She was one of the first people in this province -- in Canada, as a matter of fact -- who was instrumental in starting the organization which is now known as Can-Surmount, which now falls under the auspices of the Canadian Cancer Society. She is still alive, doing well, living as a cancer survivor, and she's still very active as a volunteer with the Canadian Cancer Society after all these years, still trying to work to make sure that those who are going through cancer treatments have the opportunity for support that is provided by the volunteers of the Canadian Cancer Society.

[1440]

This being Cancer Month, I hope that all of us in this chamber will support the work and efforts of those volunteers and the work and efforts of the Canadian Cancer Society. Let's make sure that Cancer Month is a big month when it comes to putting needed money into the coffers of the Canadian Cancer Society. Let's do everything in our power to support them, and let's make sure that cancer patients in the future have better chances of survival, better treatment and better care than they have today, just as we have better care than we did 20 years ago.

[ Page 11465 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

G. Farrell-Collins: It's been about 24 hours now, I guess, since the Minister of Finance tabled her budget in this House. I think it's had a chance to settle in across the province and certainly in my mind and in the minds of other British Columbians just how outrageous and irresponsible a budget it is.

Hon. Speaker, this is a government that has fundamentally abrogated its responsibility to future generations in British Columbia. This is a government that has decided on a scorched-earth political policy with the finances of the province in order to shore up their base of support . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . . across British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance tells us to smile. The Minister of Finance obviously doesn't understand at all the damage that she is doing to future generations of British Columbians by bringing in a budget that's going to increase debt by $2.7 billion. She has the nerve to stand up and smile and laugh and joke and clap when she brings in that kind of a budget for the people of British Columbia.

You know what's more outrageous? It's when the member for Peace River North stands up in the House to ask the minister and the members opposite about repairing the hospital in his riding at a time when the new Minister for Ferries and this government and this Premier just spent over $250 million over and above the budget. They wasted $250 million on some boys' toys for the Premier, some boats for the Premier, the fast ferry Ferraris. Do you want to talk about values? Do you want to talk about priorities?

On that side of the House, the priority is more toys for the Premier -- half a billion dollars for fast ferries that aren't even fast and don't even work. On this side of the House, that money would be going into fixing hospitals and making sure that the beds in hospitals are open.

Do you want to talk about values? Let's talk about those values. Let's talk about the Deputy Premier, who, with his usual bravado when the Royal Bank snookered him around Skeena Cellulose, said: "Those guys don't understand business. They're lousy businessmen. They don't get business at all. I understand business." He ends up buying the most outdated pulp mill in British Columbia for $329 million and has the nerve to sit and laugh about it, when people are waiting on wait-lists and there are beds in hospitals that can be opened and there are surgeries that can be done.

But because there's no money -- because this government has wasted it -- those people are suffering today. He has the nerve to sit in this House and to laugh as if it's funny.

[1445]

Do you want to talk about values? Let's not talk about the rhetoric. Let's not have the Minister of Finance stand up in this House and say: "I know what we on this side of the House stand for. What does that side of the House stand for, hon. Speaker?" Let's look at the record of the government. Let's not talk about what's in the speeches. Let's not talk about what's in the press releases. Let's not talk about what's at the press conferences and in the little brochures that get mailed out to everybody in the province. Let's not talk about what's going to be in the TV campaign, which will be starting within days.

Let's talk about what the government has actually done -- not about what they say but about what they've actually done.

Does the Minister of Finance actually think that if she got Angus Reid to go out and do a poll like she did for the budget and asked them whether they'd rather see $250 million wasted on the fast ferry project or whether they'd like to see that $250 million put into health care and into classrooms for students . . . ? Which would they choose? Does she really think that they would choose to spend money on the fast ferry project? Does she think that's a good thing? Does she think that was a smart investment? Does that reflect the values of the NDP opposite?

Certainly the Deputy Premier here, who sat there in charge of the fast ferry project for years with his "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" attitude . . . . Right next to him is the Minister of Health, who's trying to fund hospitals, trying to fund health care, trying to get rid of the waiting lists. He sits there in the chamber, and he sits there in his office and doesn't ask one question about how it's doing.

As a result of his sheer incompetence, sheer and total irresponsibleness and incompetence, $250 million goes out the door -- a quarter of a billion dollars for nothing. We didn't get anything out of it. The Deputy Premier says nothing. Maybe he can tell us what it is.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He says it's a magnificent project. The budget was -- what? -- $211 million? It ends up being almost . . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's $210 million and not a penny more -- right down to the toilet paper, according to the minister. He tells us it's a wonderful project, and it comes in over budget at $460 million, or whatever it's going to be -- almost half a billion dollars. He says it's a great project, that he's proud of it and it's absolutely wonderful.

He should come to my constituency and try and explain that to the voters in my riding. Let's have a debate in my riding about the fast ferry project. I would love to have a debate with the minister about the fast ferry project in any community in British Columbia. I'll make the minister a deal. Just to be creative and to make it really interesting, I'll go to the minister's riding and debate the fast ferries if he comes to my riding and debates Skeena Cellulose. Let's do it that way and see what we get.

The reality is that you could take any riding in the province of British Columbia, any community in the province of British Columbia, and debate the fast ferry project. I can bet you $200 million; I can bet you $250 million.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I don't mind heckling with the Deputy Premier. It helps.

[ Page 11466 ]

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but I would like to draw to the attention of members, particularly a particular minister, that one is expected to be in one's seat when one is speaking.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd be thrilled if the Deputy Premier would move to his seat so he could heckle me properly and I could respond to his heckles properly, if that's what he wants to do.

I can tell you that I could go to any community in this province -- it doesn't matter which one -- and we could have a debate about that fast ferry project that the Premier smiles about and the Deputy Premier laughs about and says is a wonderful project and worth every penny, and I can guarantee you that there aren't five British Columbians who would agree with him -- not five. Even the people who work on it, who have worked like demons to try and make this thing work, know that it was messed up from the start by people like the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the people who are designing this project.

It's not the workers' problem; it's not their fault. It's the fault of the minister, the Premier and the New Democrats, who failed from day one to set that project out on the right path. That's one example of what the government has done wrong.

But you know what was so discouraging and so disgraceful about the display yesterday by the minister and the government members? It was the fact that they have decided . . . . Because they are at record lows for any government in any province in Canada in the polls, because their support has virtually vanished, they know that if an election were called today . . . . The independent people out there, the academics, have said that they'd be lucky to win two seats.

[1450]

The members opposite know that they've got to play to their base. They've got to play somehow to bring back the traditional NDP supporters who've long since left them. What do they do? Rather than go out and explain to those people that they've messed up and they've been a lousy government and they don't know what they're doing and they have no plan . . . . "But would you still vote for us anyway, just for the good of the party?" They decide not to go out and spend party money on an advertising campaign to try and convince British Columbians that what they've done is right.

They don't even go out and spend taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign to convince everybody that what they're doing is right -- although I expect that's going to start in the next couple of days. They do even worse. They take the entire budget of the province of British Columbia and turn it into a political ploy to try and regain their base of support.

The member for New Westminster, who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in somewhere very hot of getting re-elected in the current state of affairs in New Westminster -- what does he do? He sits there in the House and applauds a budget that puts his children $2.7 billion more in debt than they were the day before. What does he say to the residents in his community about the disastrous way this government has managed their finances? What does he say to them when he has to go and explain to them that this whole budget is designed around not even trying to get re-elected but trying to shore up their base of support?

After eight years of scandal-ridden, conflict-ridden, plague-ridden, theft-ridden government, somehow they have to restore their base.

An Hon. Member: Just a minute. What do you mean by theft?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked what I meant by theft. Theft is expropriating properties illegally from charities and then changing the law so that they can't take you to court. It's expropriating revenues from charities that belong to them legally and then changing the law so that they can't even go to the court to get it back. That's not my judgment; that's the judgment of the courts.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, are we going to allow this absolute nonsensical drivel to continue? It's outrageous.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, if it's outrageous, maybe the minister can stand on a point of privilege and reserve his right, come after me and do it the right way, rather than sitting there and heckling like he usually does, with drivel.

The fact of the matter is that the government has . . . .

Hon. D. Miller: You know, you guys don't understand parliament. That's why you're a failure in here. You're a failure in this House. Everybody knows it. You know it. It's outrageous.

The Speaker: Members, it's very difficult to hear the member who has been recognized with the floor to make his comments.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. It's a little hard to take, though, to hear the minister of the fast ferry fiasco, who was asleep at the switch with a $250 million cost overrun, the minister who got snookered by the Royal Bank and everyone else for $329 million for a pulp mill that doesn't work, tell us on this side that we've failed. If ever there was a measure of failure in the history of British Columbia politics, that member is the poster boy for it.

The fact of the matter is that this government has given up trying to start this economy, trying to get this economy on the right track. They've decided to continue off in the wrong direction; they've decided to continue off at ever-increasing speed. It's like being on the Trans-Canada Highway. Every other province in Canada is headed one way, and British Columbia is headed in exactly the opposite direction. Do they stop? Do they slow down? Do they turn around? Do they make a U-turn? Do they even turn left or right? No, they stomp on the gas pedal, to try to get there even faster.

The analysis and the comments we're hearing from inside the government -- from Mr. Gunton's office and, I think the phrase is, "people close to Mr. Gunton" -- is that the government is taking a political scorched-earth strategy, so that after the next election, whatever government it is that forms the government won't be able to balance the budget for a long time. Have they become so obsessed with their hatred for the opposition that they forget what their job is?

Have they become so obsessed with their desire to mess up the Leader of the Opposition after the next election that they would destroy the finances of the province in order to achieve it? Is that the adviser the Minister of Finance relied upon for a $900 million deficit this year? If that's the logic that we've got on that side, what have we come to?

[1455]

[ Page 11467 ]

The guy the New Democrats like to quote so often -- and quite frankly, members on this side of the House like to quote him too -- is Tommy Douglas. I know the Speaker knew him, and I know other members who were in this House knew him personally. Hon. Speaker, he led a socialist government. He did some great things in Saskatchewan. I was born and raised there. He did some wonderful things in that province, and he was well regarded. But Tommy Douglas balanced his budget. Tommy Douglas knew that if you didn't keep the books properly and if you couldn't pay your bills, nothing else mattered, because you couldn't achieve it. That's something this government has never, ever learned.

If Tommy Douglas were in this House today, sitting on that side, do you think he would be applauding when that budget speech was tabled? Do you think he would be clapping and laughing and joking during question period? Or do you think he'd be having some serious second thoughts about where the New Democratic Party had gone in the years since he left it? I don't think he would recognize this government at all -- not at all.

I know the Minister of Finance doesn't like me talking about Saskatchewan, and it's not a perfect comparison. But it's the only NDP government in Canada aside from this group -- and, hopefully, it stays that way. The reality is that there are differences. If any one of those members from Saskatchewan came and sat in this House and saw what this government did with this budget, they would be appalled. They would be scandalized that that's the kind of budget that a New Democrat government would bring forward.

Tommy Douglas always believed that you can take care of people without breaking the bank. You can have volunteers play their parts without pushing them out in favour of unionized workers only. He knew that health care was important, but he knew that you had to pinch pennies in order to deliver it. He knew that education was important, but he knew that you had be careful about where the money went in order to pay for it.

He knew that highways were important -- he built the grid system in Saskatchewan -- but he knew that if all you did was borrow money, at the end of the day you wouldn't have enough to do it or to maintain the ones you'd built. He knew that hydroelectricity was important; he knew that electricity was significant to economic growth. He also knew that you couldn't shut down the company that was doing it. You couldn't strip it down; you couldn't sell it off. You couldn't force it to go borrow money to pay for the day-to-day expenditures of the government without destroying it.

Where has the New Democratic Party gone? What has happened to it? Has it lost its way so much that we get this kind of budget at this period of time in B.C.'s history? If this is the shift to the centre that we were told about two months ago, I shudder to think what we would have seen if the Premier had decided in January to shift to the left. There wouldn't be anything left. Where is the centre in this budget that the Premier talked about?

The new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and of fast ferries said that the reason he joined the New Democratic Party wasn't so he could have a cushy cabinet seat. It wasn't so he could finally have a bunch of staff to run around and clean up after him. It wasn't so he could get his face in the paper. It wasn't for self-aggrandizement at all; it was because he had some difference he was going to make. He was going to put his imprint on the New Democratic Party. He was going to shift it to the centre.

He was going to make sure that the New Democratic Party was back where it belonged, that it was listening to real people. Well, if this is his impact in two months, heaven help us after he's been there a year -- if he's there a year. Is that the contribution that's been made? Is this as good as it gets? Is this the shift to the centre? Heaven help us if it is.

One of our staff members came across a document that had a quote from Hansard that I want to read to the House, because it just shows you how far the New Democratic Party has strayed from its roots, from the accountability that it used to preach before it became government. I want to read something out of Hansard . It says:

"The budget contains the largest deficit in British Columbia history -- over $1.2 billion. It marks the second large deficit in a row, and it projects continued high deficits into the future. The budget reveals that the province's direct debt has more than doubled since this government came to power . . . . It is now $9 billion." It's a lot more than that now.

"The budget does not have one new idea on how to protect jobs and paycheques of British Columbians, at the very time that the Conference Board is predicting that B.C. will have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada.

"The budget is a big-lie budget . . . . It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor general and every reputable financial analyst in Canada. A $746 million deficit last year is portrayed as a $15 million surplus." That sounds familiar.

"This government has had five years to improve the lives of British Columbians" -- this one has had eight -- "and it has been five years of neglect . . . . It has shown a lack of commitment to financial accountability. Above all, it has shown a lack of commitment to honesty."

[1500]

Hon. Speaker, guess who said that. Does that sound like that could have been said today? Change the numbers a little bit and make the numbers worse -- you know, add about $17 billion to the billion-dollar debt and add a couple of hundred million to the deficit -- and it could be today.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

G. Farrell-Collins: It was the current-day Premier of British Columbia who said that in 1991, before he came to government. Now he's the Premier of the province. If you're not careful, you become that which you despise; that's exactly what happened to the Premier of the province. He's morphed into Bill Vander Zalm.

How does somebody read their words eight years later and reconcile themselves with that? How do you do that -- I mean personally, on a personal level? How do you read that and look at that and say: "Who was I then? And who am I now as a person?" How do you reconcile yourself with that? When you think of how much the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the current Premier, despised the Social Credit government, how much he ridiculed them, how much he ran down that government and said they were so incompetent, how many times he did that and with such great vitriol . . . . He became known as a pit bull for that.

How does he read his words eight years later and reconcile himself with that on a personal basis? As he's about to leave political life -- not of his own doing but the doing of the members of his caucus and his cabinet -- and as he's about to depart from his public life, how does he go back and say: "Where was I when I started? And what have I done? What have I accomplished in my eight years in government? What have I done for the people of British Columbia?"

[ Page 11468 ]

When I leave this position, whenever that is, I want to be able to look and see what I've accomplished. I want to be able to show that I made a difference. I don't want to have wasted eight, ten, 12 years of my life. So how does the Premier look at that, read that statement, then look at what he's done and read the budget he's so proud of today? I don't know how he lives with himself, because to me it looks like he's wasted eight years -- eight hard years of slogging away -- when that's where he has arrived at, at the end of eight years.

One of the things that also upset me yesterday with the Minister of Finance's speech was just the -- I can't use the word "dishonest," so I won't use it; I'm trying to think of another word, so let me put it this way -- less than full explanation she made of a comment attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. She says he said about health care that $6 billion was enough. Let me flesh that one out a little bit; let me put the truth around that one; let me explain the context of it.

In 1991, when I and some of my colleagues first got elected, the Royal Commission on Health Care, the Seaton commission, had just reported out. It was a very, very significant document. The member for Richmond East was the Health critic at the time, so I'm sure she read it through many times. Justice Seaton said there was a lot of money in health care. In fact, he said, "There's enough money in health care. We've just got to spend it better. We've got to make sure it's getting down to the patients" -- that is, getting into the rooms with the patients, on the wards, in the operating rooms, not in the administrative part of the hospitals.

When the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the Leader of the Opposition, was in Nanaimo and was talking about health care, he was asked. He said: "Look, Justice Seaton said that there is enough money in health care. We just need to spend it more wisely." The government has taken that quote and turned it into meaning that the Liberal opposition and the Leader of the Opposition say that $6 billion is enough for health care, forever. That was 1991.

For the Minister of Finance and the Premier -- and I know the Deputy Premier has done it too -- to stand up and distort that, take that out of context and try to deceive British Columbians into thinking that this is the position of the opposition is disgraceful, quite frankly. Why don't they tell the truth? Why don't they give the entire context? Why can't they understand the comments of the justice, who did . . . ?

[1505]

Get this, though: if I were to be as manipulative as the members opposite, I could do the same thing. Because I know that the New Democrat opposition at the time accepted the Seaton commission and agreed with its recommendations, I could just as easily say that the Minister of Finance believes that $6 billion is enough for health care. Because the New Democrats supported the Seaton commission, that must be what they believe. I'm going to go out and run advertisements telling British Columbians that the Minister of Finance believes that $6 billion is enough.

That's the kind of honesty this government has come to represent. That's the kind of messaging that gets across to the public. That's the kind of information that the NDP is giving to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members -- minister. I would like to encourage members to come to order, please, while the member is speaking. He does have the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that everybody's frustrated with the way the health care system is or isn't working in this province. Everybody is very frustrated.

The minister shakes her head. She's not frustrated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: More than frustrated.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's more than frustrated. I would agree with her -- very frustrated. The reality is that the minister stood up in the House yesterday and said they're going to put hundreds of millions of dollars -- more money -- into health care and that that's going to solve the problems. The wait-lists will disappear, everybody will be fine, and the health care system will be perfect. But a little over a month ago, on February 9, the Minister of Finance -- who has spent time as Minister of Health, I might add -- said: "Why is it, when we add hundreds of millions of dollars each year, that waiting times [for surgery] increase?" That's the frustration on the opposition side too.

And then what does she do? She goes and throws a few more hundred million dollars into it, with no plan as to how to use that money, with no idea of how they're going to make sure that that money gets into the operating rooms. They don't have any idea of measuring if it's going to work. They have no way to even tell if the hundreds of millions of dollars they're putting in are actually going to be of benefit -- are actually going to increase the quality of health care in British Columbia.

She just stands up and she smiles, and the Minister of Health smiles, and she announces the money she's going to put into health care, and everybody on that side applauds and asks the opposition where they stand.

Let me look for a moment at what the Premier said on February 19 on radio station CKNW, ten days after the Minister of Finance. He said: "I'm getting tired of making announcements, and six months later or three months later the wait-lists are still there. And we keep putting money in."

I agree with him. Let's solve the problem. The problem here obviously isn't that the government isn't throwing a lot of money into it. The problem is that they're not tracking the money they're putting into it. They're not planning for it; they're not measuring. They're not determining and making sure that those dollars are going into the operating rooms, into patient care, onto the wards and to the nurses to make sure that people can get the surgeries they need when they need them.

Let me just compare for a minute. The government likes to run down the health care system in Alberta. They constantly talk about the cut-and-burn -- the cut-and-slash or slash-and-burn or whatever it is -- of the Alberta health care system. They continually do it. They hold it out as the bogeyman of how awful the province would be if we did what Alberta did. And then quietly, when nobody's watching, they fly patients, at cost of thousands of dollars, from British Columbia to Alberta to get health care -- to get heart surgeries, hip replacements, orthopedic surgery, cancer treatments.

They send them south of the border to that demon of all demons, according to them -- to the big, evil United States -- to get health care, to get an MRI.

[1510]

I'm not saying that those other systems are great, because they're not; they've got their problems too. But you have to

[ Page 11469 ]

ask yourself: if we're spending the most, per capita, on patient care and health care in British Columbia, why is it that we have to send our people to Alberta to make them better? I think the public can understand the logic of that question. If we're doing so well, if the answer to the problems in health care is to throw more money at it without measuring it, without being accountable, without asking where it's actually going to go, then why do we have wait-lists? Why are they so huge? And why do we send our people to Alberta and Washington State in order to get health care?

Something is wrong with the story the government is telling the people of British Columbia. Something doesn't make sense. Something isn't on the up and up. And like so many things this government does . . . . It's time they started to tell British Columbians the truth, tell them the true state of health care and tell them what they're going to do to fix it, not just how much more money they're going to throw at it.

Hon. Speaker, let's talk a little bit, if we can, about the impact of this budget on the economy, because quite frankly, that's a big part of what a budget is about. British Columbia used to be the number one province in Canada as far as economic growth goes. We were booming; we were doing well. We sat out the last recession. British Columbia was on the top of the world. People wanted to come here. It's a great place to live. They knew if they came here and they worked hard and they brought their families, they could make a good life for themselves.

British Columbia is now the last place, as far as economic growth goes, in the country. We're the only province in Canada that's in a recession. We were in a recession last year, we are in a recession this year, and we will probably be in a recession next year. So what is in this budget that's going to turn the province around? What is it that's going to make a difference in this province? What is in this budget that's going to get B.C. back on track? The government will tell you that they're not going to cut their way out of the recession; they're going to spend their way out of the recession.

Let's look at what has happened to British Columbia since 1996 as far as job growth goes. The government will stand up and tell you about the thousands of jobs they've created in the last few months, about how wonderful everything is. "All our problems are behind us. Everything's wonderful." Let's look at what has happened. Since 1996, British Columbia has increased the employment in the public sector by about 13,000 people. There are 13,000 more people working in the public sector -- that means they get their paycheque from government, from the taxpayers -- and there are approximately 13,000 fewer people working in the private sector than there were three years ago.

So what does that mean? It means that the burden on the taxpayer is going up at a time when the private sector economy, which pays the bills to the government to pay the cheques and the salaries of those public sector employees, is going down. You've got a pull; it's pulling apart. The private sector is shrinking. They're the ones that pay the taxes. The public sector is ballooning. They're the ones that take the taxes. Where does it end? Does going out and borrowing another $2.7 billion and running the eighth consecutive deficit budget turn it around?

Is that going to convince people from across Canada and across North America and across Asia to come to British Columbia and invest here? I don't think so.

This budget has probably been the largest, brightest SOS flare ever sent up in the history of the world. There's this big, glowing flare over top of British Columbia that every investor in the world can see today, which says: "Warning. Don't go to British Columbia. They'll tax the living daylights out of you. They'll put you out of business. They won't play fair with you. They'll change the law if they don't like it. They'll expropriate your property without compensation." And the Minister of Finance tells us that she's going to grow her way out of this recession.

G. Plant: Glow.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah -- glow, perhaps. Maybe I misunderstood her.

But it seems to me that if the government were trying to actually turn the economy around -- maybe they're not even trying anymore -- they'd be trying to do things that would attract investors to British Columbia and encourage the investors who live in British Columbia to stay in British Columbia.

[1515]

Last year we lost over 200 businesses to Alberta. Two hundred businesses that were up and operating in British Columbia, employing people in British Columbia, left this province and moved their headquarters to Alberta. It doesn't matter how much the Minister of Finance has cut the small business tax. She can cut it to 5 percent, to 4 percent, to 2 percent. She's not getting any of it, because they're not here anymore. They are gone. They're now paying income tax in Alberta. They're paying their social service tax in Alberta. Their staff members are paying their income tax in Alberta.

That's where the government loses. If you think you can tax and spend and borrow your way to prosperity, you're in the wrong . . . . You know, this must be the twilight zone or something, because it doesn't work. It doesn't work anywhere. Whenever the government pushes those businesses out, not only do they lose a little bit of revenue, they lose all of the revenue associated with those businesses and with their employees. That means that there are fewer businesses and fewer employees paying taxes in B.C., and there is lower tax revenue, which would normally allow you to pay for the programs that people want.

In this year alone, since January 1, 37 businesses -- and that was as of about a week ago -- have left British Columbia for Alberta. They took with them their employees, their knowledge and their capital. It's all gone to Alberta, and all the tax dollars that are coming out of that company and that enterprise are going to fund the Alberta tax base, not the British Columbia tax base.

I know that the Minister of Finance likes to denigrate business. She likes to run business down. She likes to talk about how bad business is, how all they want to do is cut and slash and how they don't care about anybody. But it's not just businesses that are leaving British Columbia; it's people. Actual individual British Columbians are packing up and leaving. Hon. Speaker, I know I'm not supposed to have a chart, so I won't actually lift it up and show it. But I've got a chart in front of me which looks at the out-migration of people from British Columbia to Alberta and to other jurisdictions.

From 1995 to 1998 -- so three years . . . . I'm sorry; I apologize. It's worse than I thought. In 1998 alone, 20,553 people from British Columbia moved to Alberta.

That's more than all the people who live in Bulkley Valley-Stikine or, I think, Peace River North. You could move

[ Page 11470 ]

all of it. The member will correct me if I'm wrong. Not quite all -- pretty close, though. And I don't want to say that too much, because I might give them ideas. They know that a lot of people in Peace River North want to move to Alberta, and I expect that a huge chunk of them have moved.

But that's 20,553 British Columbians who have left B.C. and gone to Alberta. That doesn't tell us how many people left B.C. for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec or any of the maritime provinces. It doesn't talk about all the high-tech people, the highly skilled people who've picked up and moved to Washington State, Beaverton in Oregon or the Ottawa Valley in Ontario. It doesn't tell us anything about those people. Those are StatsCan numbers. Those aren't my numbers; those are numbers put out by Statistics Canada.

So it's not just business people who are voting with their feet. Actual British Columbians are leaving. B.C. used to be the place everybody came to. It used to be the place everybody wanted to retire in. It used to be the place that everybody wanted to come to live in. I would argue that people are still coming and retiring in British Columbia; they're still doing that. It's the people who are here already, the young people looking for work or the professional people, who are leaving.

People are retiring to British Columbia, and that means that down the road we're going to have a large drawdown on our health care budget. We won't have the young people, the businesses, the entrepreneurs and the workers to pay the taxes to support it.

[1520]

Any way you measure it, this economy is headed in the wrong direction. It is headed in the wrong direction so fast that it'll make your head spin. I had hoped . . . . I think we all knew that the government wasn't going to hit its targets from last year; we all knew that. They never do. But we never for a minute thought that they would bring in a budget for next year that didn't even try to get the economy back on track. I don't know if they care or not. I won't say they don't care; I don't know if they care or not. Maybe they care, but they care more about getting re-elected than about doing the right thing.

I don't know which economists they're reading; I don't know which people are advising them. But I can't find anybody who will tell you in this modern day that the way to get your economy back on track is to spend your way out of it -- for massive government spending, for massive capital expenditures, for $2.7 billion in new debt at a time when the economy is struggling just to get by. Who is it who's telling them that it's the way to go? Where are the advisers and intellectuals and economists and the people that have experience in other provinces across Canada and the other political leaders that are telling them that is the way to go?

There isn't one other government in North America -- not one -- that is taking the tack that this government is taking. That's why it's so irresponsible. If half of the governments were doing it and this government decided to go with that half, at least they'd have a reasonable explanation. They'd say: "Look at it; there's a difference of opinion out there. Some people think we should do this; some people think we should do that. We're going to go one way. You guys go another way." Then we could have a debate about it. At least it would have been a responsible choice.

We could argue about the wisdom of it, but at least there would be some rationale for it. But there isn't one government -- left-wing, right-wing, centre, extreme left, extreme right -- that is doing what this government is choosing to do -- not one government in North America. There are two territories, ten provinces, 50 states, two federal governments, and not one of them is making the choice that British Columbia is making.

Where is the rationale for it? How do they explain the wisdom of their approach to the voters in British Columbia? What explanation does the Minister of Finance use when she is telling people why it is they're doing the exact opposite of every other state, every other government in North America? I don't hear it; I haven't heard it yet. It certainly wasn't in the budget speech. All we heard was that she was going to spend her way out of the deficit, spend her way out of the recession, grow her way out of the recession.

There's no justification; there's no rationale. There's no logic other than pure politics. It comes back to what I said earlier: it's pure politics. They're at 11 or 18 percent in the polls; when you get down that low, it doesn't really matter what the number is. They've been stuck there for over a year -- a year and a half. They went there almost right after the election, and they've stayed there.

Every kind of trick the Premier was using -- the announcement a day, the press releases, the press conferences, the big megaprojects . . . . He's still campaigning; it's the only thing he knows how to do. He can campaign. He can't govern worth anything, but he can campaign. Everything the Premier is doing is doing nothing; it's accomplishing nothing. He's like a magician who's run out of tricks. The crowd wants more, and he doesn't know what to give them. He's like the singer in the lousy bar who's run out of songs, and the crowd's getting raucous.

He keeps singing the same one over and over again, and they don't like to hear it. The Premier has run out of tricks. He has nothing left. He's run out of gas. He's got no new ideas. There's no idea of how to turn this around.

So what does he do? He goes back to his basics. He says: "Let's go out there and give our core supporters what they want. Let's go out there and convince them that it's okay to run the debt up. It's fine to spend like nothing, like there's no tomorrow. It's fine to rack up the debt further than we can afford to pay." He will do anything he can to convince his core supporters that it's okay to support the NDP and that they don't have to worry about it. "We're not as bad as everybody else." That's the strategy. That's what it's come to. After eight years in government, the Premier has become that which he used to despise. He is who he hated. He's become that person.

[1525]

If the government really thinks that they have it right, if the Minister of Finance and the Premier and the Deputy Premier really think that they've got it on track, if they think that they've sorted it out and that despite the 50 states, ten provinces, two territories and two federal governments, they know best, that's fine.

But you didn't run on that. You told British Columbians that you were going to balance the budgets, that the days of deficits were gone, that they were going to pay down the debt and that British Columbia was on the right track. They told us that everything was going to be fine. I think the budget speech in 1996 said that it was an end to deficit spending, an end to borrowing money to cover operating debt. That's what they ran on. That's the mandate the people of British Columbia gave them. So if they want to go in the opposite direction completely, if they're going to change that tactic and go in exactly the opposite direction, maybe they should get a mandate from the people to do that.

[ Page 11471 ]

If that's what they want to do, fine. I don't agree with it, and I know British Columbians don't agree with it, but if that's what they think . . . . If they think they've figured it out, if they think they've managed to find out how to do cold fusion, if they are the only ones who've figured it out, then let's call an election. Let's take it to the public. Let's hear what the public has to say. Get the mandate, come back and do it -- and if you don't get the mandate, get yourself resigned to the scrap heap of history, where you belong.

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1999.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that Bill 54 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1999-2000 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial three months of the 1999-2000 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 1999.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. In previous years, interim supply for these other financing transactions has received the full year's requirement in interim supply. This bill seeks supply for only 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 1999.

Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages today.

The Speaker: I'll recess for three to five minutes so the bill can be circulated, and then I'll come back and the Chair will make a ruling.

The House recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm going to call the House back to order. When the members come to order, I will . . . .

The Chair is about to make a ruling on the request for use of standing order 81. This interim supply bill falls into the category of a bill which has in the past indeed been permitted to advance through all stages in one day, and for this bill, I so rule.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1999

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. As required by the Financial Administration Act, special warrants are included in this bill. The

schedule lists those approved for the 1998-99 fiscal year and not previously included in a supply act presented to and approved by the House.

The first

section of the bill requests one-quarter of the voted expenses as presented in the estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government. In previous years 100 percent of financing transaction requirements has been provided for in the interim supply bill. However, because the nature of these requests has changed to include a considerable portion of capital spending for schools, post-secondary institutions, health facilities, transit and all of the government's direct capital spending, it seems appropriate to seek supply for only one-half now and the balance in the final supply bill.

This will allow time later for more complete debate on these items. These requirements are set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates.

The third

section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities, which appear in

schedule F of the estimates. As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

I move second reading of Bill 54.

R. Thorpe: Bill 54, interim supply act. The province is about to run out of money in eight and a half hours. This is the advance planning that this government is able to do. This is how they treat the moneys of hard-working British Columbians. This government is about to run out of money.

In hard-working British Columbians' language, this is required because this government has overspent, not managed its budget; or in this particular government's case, is another example of total, complete NDP incompetence. They have lost the credibility of British Columbians. They have lost the trust of British Columbians. It was only about a year ago that the Finance minister stood in this House and said: "The deficit will be $95 million, and I will do whatever is required to ensure that that's the deficit. We'll do whatever it takes." The only reason . . . . Hon.

Speaker, the minister said she didn't introduce a balanced budget a year ago "because," she said, "people wouldn't believe me." Well, guess what's happened. The truth is out once again. The government will tell everybody, in their own document on page 29, that the deficit is going to be $544 million for this year, but in fact it's going to be $1.158 billion -- once again, not being able to tell British Columbians the truth.

G. Plant: Well, it's close to $95 million.

R. Thorpe: It's close in NDP terms -- $95 million and $1.158 billion. They say there's no problem. Well, since we left this House, I've been travelling throughout my constituency talking to constituents in Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton. I have met with many groups, numerous individuals. I regret to inform this House that the hard-working

[ Page 11472 ]

people of Okanagan-Penticton are not happy with the performance of this NDP government and in fact are very, very angry. They are particularly angry about the continuing string of broken promises and fiscal mismanagement. Time and time again, the residents of my riding have told me: "Get this government to tell us the whole story and the truth and to stop making promises which they have no intention of keeping." People want a government that has a workable plan, a government that will walk the talk, a government that can truly make a plan turn into reality and work for all British Columbians.

[1540]

The citizens of my riding also want an honest government, a government that gives the straight goods and not doubletalk and broken promises every day. The residents of Okanagan-Penticton want honest bookkeeping from their government. People tell me that they work hard and that they deserve the truth about the province's finances -- just do as they have to do in their own small businesses and with their ever-shrinking family incomes.

Hon. Speaker, have you ever noticed -- I'm sure you have noticed -- how this government always blames someone else? It's always someone else's fault -- always passing the blame, never solving the problem. It's the doctors or the nurses or the health administrators or the Asian flu or whatever, but it's never their fault -- or it's a right-wing conspiracy. Since when did the truth become a conspiracy? It's really about what's right versus what is simply, simply wrong. And what is wrong is this government.

Very recently a new member -- although I personally called him No. 40 prior to his crossing the floor -- walked across the floor. You can now see him perched directly behind the Premier. It's almost like there's a string: the Premier pulls it, the head moves in orchestration. But what did this new NDP member say on April 10, 1997? What did he say?

He was talking about the budget -- and I quote: "This budget can arguably be suggested to be fiscally prudent if -- and only if -- the government can demonstrate, can prove without question, that it has a debt management plan that is secure, is sound, and has had some kind of history of success. Regrettably, that is not evidenced in any of the documentation that's tabled in this House now. It wasn't evidenced last year, the year before or the year before that."

I ask that member: where are his principles today? Tell British Columbians where his principles are today. Stand up and be accounted for, because this government has no plan, it has no accountability, and they are going to spend and spend. The deficit next year isn't going to be $890 million; it's going to be $1.529 billion -- the government's own document. So get that member in here, and have him stand up and talk on his principles.

What do British Columbians want besides a government that tells the truth and is truthful when it makes a mistake? There is no shame in making mistakes; the honour is in admitting your mistakes. I'm reminded from time to time that the person who makes no mistakes usually makes nothing.

What else to British Columbians strive for? They want jobs for everyone, not just their friends and insiders. They want an education system that truly puts the student as the number one priority. British Columbians want a health care system that looks after all of the patients -- that is focused on patients and is not focused on a bureaucracy. They want a business environment that allows small businesses to develop, rather than be preoccupied and strangled by the ever-increasing, unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles of this government.

[1545]

We must always be able to assist those truly in need of our help, and our assistance. British Columbians want honesty, and they want integrity restored to politics and in their elected officials. And they want the truth. I am committed to achieving these results, and I challenge this government to start being truthful to British Columbians. This government stood up yesterday . . . . The Finance minister stood up and said that it's about values.

You know, you have to earn respect when you talk in this House and when you talk to British Columbians about your values, because it's one thing to say them; it's another thing to live them. And this government is hiding behind health care. It does not care; it's hiding behind it.

People have made reference in here today to quotes of the Health minister. She cannot run away from those. But I want to talk about who's really affected by the deceitfulness and untruthfulness of this government. It is constituents like Lily Preston in my riding, who -- because of their incompetence, lack of vision and lack of planning in the health care system -- at 95 years of age cannot stay in Penticton to be close to her family but has to be moved to Oliver for long-term care. And I'm telling you, hon. Speaker, that that is wrong.

It's also about five-year-old Jeremy Rodrigues, his mother Barbara and his father Joe. Jeremy is an autistic child. The parents want nothing more than you or I want for our children. They want to be able to care . . . . It's too bad that some people let politics get in the way of young children. The Rodrigues family want to care for Jeremy, and this government is denying them the opportunity to look after their autistic child. That is wrong, yet they're going to say that they care about health care and that they care about people. No way, hon. Speaker. And they wonder why people are increasing in their cynicism towards this untrustworthy government.

Who said that the easiest thing he could imagine was to balance a budget? Yes, you guessed it; it was the Premier. And eight deficits later the debt has grown from $17 billion to $34.7 billion. In a mere eight years it has doubled. The NDP fiscal record of management skills was able to double the debt in British Columbia in eight years -- double all debts of all the governments before them. Isn't that an amazing achievement? At the same time, Lily Preston can't get care; nor can Jeremy Rodrigues.

Who said he'd pay back Nanaimo charities and has not? Who said the Island Highway would be done on time and on budget -- and then changed the specs of the projects? Who said the fast ferries would be on budget and on time? Who said they were casual acquaintances, and days later we learned that they were vacationing together for two weeks? Who said his government would take care of health care and has not? Wait-lists just grow. Who said they would cut the number of portables in half, and in fact, they've doubled them? You guessed it: the Premier and the NDP.

Remember the line: "You spoke; we listened"? This House deserves the truth. British Columbians demand and deserve that the truth be spoken to them all of the time. Instead of us debating this interim supply due to the fiscal irresponsibility and incompetence of this government, this

[ Page 11473 ]

government should have had the courage to call an election. This government must stop blaming others. Our problems are not because there is not enough money.

I just have to get this quote in. On February 9, 1999, the Finance minister said: "Why is it, when we add hundreds of millions of dollars each year, that waiting times [for surgery] increase?" Why would the Finance minister make that statement if she didn't believe it?

[1550]

Who said on February 19: "I'm getting tired of making announcements, and six months later or three months later the wait-lists are still there. And we keep putting money in"? The Premier said that a month ago. Yet now we have this bold new plan for spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fix health care, and they can't look after Jeremy Rodrigues and Lily Preston today.

This government has to stop blaming others. Our problems are not caused because there is not enough money. The NDP government has created this debt because of their incompetence. I'm reminded of a Public Accounts meeting when we were talking about the money that this government has spent on regionalization -- some $40 million. After several rounds of questioning, the Deputy Minister of Health finally admitted that the ministry did not have a business plan for the implementation of regionalization and the spending of $40 million. That is the type of incompetence that exists on that side of the House.

This government apparently does not understand that there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. The people of Okanagan-Penticton asked this government to stop their irresponsible approach with their money and their future and to start listening and acting on the wishes and wants of all British Columbians, not just their special friends and insiders. Listen to the Street family; listen to the Rodriguez family. Listen. Start taking real action. Stop the photo ops and the smokescreens and the increasing of debt in the billions of dollars.

I am proud to serve my constituents and the citizens of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton, and on their behalf I will vote against this interim supply, as this government does not have the confidence of British Columbia. This NDP government does not speak the truth and is not accountable and is simply incompetent. This government does not deserve one additional red cent. This government must start practising what British Columbians have to do each and every day in their houses. That's balance their books and make real choices.

Only three years ago we heard great claims of two balanced budgets -- the "big-lie budget." Now the truth has come out, the truth in the auditor general's report. But this government still doesn't get it. I cannot support this government getting more money. The tax-and-spend and debt policies of the NDP government are going to put our critical and vital services of health care, which is about patients, and education, which is about our students -- those truly in need of care -- into a desperate position. Our communities cannot be expected to pick up that shortfall.

British Columbians know that irresponsible spending leads to crisis. Under this NDP government it is crisis after crisis. Yet they still don't get it. Yet they smirk; yet they joke. Yet they laugh all the time, while British Columbians continue to suffer and to see their paycheques shrink. They say that they hide behind the fact that it's about tough choices. Skeena Cellulose, at $450 million, didn't seem to be a big choice. Fast ferries, at $450 million, didn't seem to be a tough choice. SkyTrain, at $2.5-3.5 billion, didn't seem to be a tough choice. The Forest Practices Code, at $1 billion, doesn't seem to be a big choice.

Hon. D. Miller: Read the budget.

R. Thorpe: I'd like to just answer the member for North Coast over there. There's no sense in reading the budget, because it's never the truth. One day you should read it.

Government advertising -- $50 million. That didn't seem to be a tough choice for this government. And $300 million for a convention centre. That didn't seem to be a tough choice.

[1555]

British Columbians want results. They want the truth. Above all, they want honest results and for the government to keep its word and to stop breaking promise after promise each and every day. One can only conclude that the NDP tax-tax, spend-spend, debt-debt, fee-fee approach is going to continue.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Fee-fee. Read page 65 in your own budget book. Fees are going up $47 million. And here's the big catch: "Other fees and licence changes will be introduced during the year as ministries continue to examine their fees and services to ensure that users pay a fair share of the direct costs of providing services."

We have the highest tax rates in Canada, and now we want to make sure that people are paying their fair share. If they were paying their fair share, this budget would have had a tax decrease in it for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

British Columbians want results. Above all, they want honesty in those results and for government to keep its books the way they have to keep their books.

The citizens of Okanagan-Penticton do not and will not buy into this sham of a government. Quite frankly, my constituents are offended by the government's ongoing propaganda machine, by the NDP party and all their misleading advertising. This money should be going to patient care and education. The citizens of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton want their money, their hard-earned tax dollar, truly spent on patient care and education. They don't want any more money wasted on government propaganda. This masquerade must stop.

Unfortunately, I'm concerned that it'll just be starting next week when they spend millions and millions of dollars telling everybody what a great, wonderful job they're doing and how they should be so appreciative.

British Columbians must always remember: it's not the government's money they're spending. This government cannot continue to attempt to fool British Columbians that it's government's money. There is only one taxpayer. This fiscal approach of introducing an interim supply eight and a half hours before the province is going to run out of money . . . . And next week or the week after, we'll be debating the budget and the irresponsible approach that it has. Those things are going to put our critical services of health care, education, children and families seriously at risk, and that is simply, simply wrong.

On April 20, 1990, as recorded on page 9068 of Hansard , the now Premier stated that the budget of the government of

[ Page 11474 ]

the day was "a dishonest budget." The auditor general has confirmed in his 1998-99 report that the Premier and his government distorted the truth in the 1996 election. Based on his 1990 comments and now this report of the auditor general, am I able to conclude that our Premier would in fact support the Leader of the Opposition's bill for truth in budgeting?

Today I challenge the Premier of British Columbia to support the Leader of the Opposition's Truth in Budgeting Act. Why doesn't the current Premier stand up and support the truth-in-budgeting legislation as proposed by the official opposition? Could it be that he just wants to continue, with the Finance minister, to mislead British Columbia? Is that a possibility?

[1600]

Finally, I must close by using a quote from Hansard from May 22, 1991, page 12125, a quote made by today's Premier, which I believe best describes his own government's budget: "The budget is a big-lie budget, Mr. Speaker. It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor general . . . . "

This incompetent NDP government is seeking interim supply because of their irresponsibility and their incompetent fiscal management. In their own documents, on page 29, the deficit was going to be $95 million this year, and the Finance minister promised that she would do whatever it took to make sure that number came in. She said that in the fall: " . . . do whatever it takes." They'll try to tell us that that deficit now is $544 million, but the truth is that it's $1.158 billion. Looking forward, the real deficit for next year is not going to be $890 million, as they would try to lead us and British Columbians to believe; it's going to be $1.5 billion. They're not telling the truth.

This government has lost its moral compass to govern, to look after those truly in need, like Jeremy Rodrigues and Lily Preston, and I cannot support giving this fiscally irresponsible NDP government one additional cent. My constituents say no to the NDP. You break the law, you don't tell the truth, you break the Criminal Code of Canada, you are subject to RCMP investigations, and you do not have the confidence or support of 77 percent of British Columbians. I cannot -- I will not -- support this request for additional funds, because this government does not have the confidence of British Columbians. Not one red cent to this government.

M. de Jong: It was Sunday night, and I was getting ready to come back to Victoria for the resumption of the session -- a session that we all thought was going to commence a couple of months ago. Of course, in order to believe that was going to happen, you would have to believe what the Premier said. But more about that later.

I'm at home in Abbotsford, I've got a couple of friends over, and we're chatting. Things aren't so good for them. A couple of them are out of work. A couple of them have some kids who are having to go to Alberta because they can't find work in British Columbia. But we're trying to have a night where we forget about that. We forget about what's happened to the economy in British Columbia, we forget about all of the bad news, so much of which is attributable to things that this NDP government has done, and we're going to leave all that behind for one night.

We're going to watch a little sports, and we've got TSN on. Who do you think would show up on the screen on TSN, Madam Speaker? It was the Premier. Can you imagine? The captain of the team that has finished below 500 for eight consecutive seasons, whose bench is so weak that the member for Yale-Lillooet gets to play on the first line -- the captain of that team is now giving advice to professional hockey teams. Can you imagine that?

[1605]

G. Plant: Maybe he's applying for a new job.

M. de Jong: Who knows? Maybe he is planning for his future.

So yesterday it really didn't come as much of a surprise to me that British Columbians found out that for the eighth consecutive year, their so-called balanced budget team was finishing out of the playoffs one more time. I've got a little bit of advice . . . . And this is what the boys at my place Sunday night asked me to say to the Premier, Madam Speaker, and I want to do that now, through you. The advice they had for the Premier was: "For God's sake, take off your jersey, hang up your skates, and get out before you bankrupt the franchise." That, I'm afraid, is what this Premier is intent on doing.

So here we are. It's interim supply time again. I have to say I'm surprised that we're having the debate here on March 31 at 4:05 in the afternoon, because as I said, we were supposed to be here a month and a half ago. Remember, it was the Premier who said at the end of January: "We're going to take a couple of weeks off, because we've got a new member on the bench; we've got a new member on the squad. We're going to give him a couple of weeks to get up to speed on his new portfolio, and then we're coming back to do the people's business." Well, if you can believe this, the Premier broke his word.

G. Plant: Maybe he had an injury problem.

M. de Jong: Maybe he did. Maybe he had an injury problem. I hope he didn't, because if he had to get any health care services in this province, he'd be waiting for a lot more than two months.

So the two weeks turned into two months. The Premier's attitude, when we confronted him with that a couple of days ago was: "So what?" It has become so commonplace for this Premier and this NDP government to break faith with the people of British Columbia that they just dismiss it out of hand as if it's nothing significant whatsoever.

But this is the people's money we're talking about. This is a budget of billions and billions of dollars that doesn't belong to the government; it belongs to the people of the province of British Columbia. These members -- this cabinet, these backbenchers -- are so contemptuous of those people that they want this House to vote approval of interim supply in a couple of hours. What folly! What contempt! How sad! What's even sadder is that members of this NDP caucus, the back bench included, stood and cheered when the Premier dismissed, out of hand, his latest broken promise. That's what's really sad.

That's what's really troubling to the people of British Columbia -- that these NDP members would have so little regard for them that they would cheer when their leader and their Premier breaks his word to British Columbians.

But you know, there is another reason that I'm surprised we're having this debate. As I mentioned earlier, there's a new member of the team over there -- a new member of the

[ Page 11475 ]

crumbling, cellar-bound NDP cabinet. That's the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, the Ferries minister and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I remember that member when he sat on this side of the House only a couple of months ago.

G. Plant: That was before the trading deadline.

M. de Jong: Before the trading deadline, before the government picked him up on waivers.

I remember that member arguing aggressively and passionately, as a fundamental tenet of his being in this House, for the need to rethink the budgetary process, to move away from these interim supply debates. He said that it was something that needed to happen so that the people's business could be undertaken in an atmosphere that wasn't designed to develop crisis, that wasn't conducted with the clock ticking away to when, in just eight hours, the government loses all spending authority.

Madam Speaker, can you imagine that in a province the size of British Columbia, the government would wait until eight hours before it has lost spending authority to bring forward legislation that we could have been dealing with two months ago -- and should have been dealing with two months ago? Yet that's how they operate. And is it any surprise that we find ourselves in the dire economic straits that we do if that is the method by which they presume to manage the public purse?

[1610]

But getting back to the new minister, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, you don't have to look too far . . . . I love the fact that we keep a written record of debates in this House. Some days I love it more than other days. But let's see what the newest member of the NDP team had to say one year ago to the very day, on March 31, 1998. What did the new minister have to say then? Well, on that day exactly one year ago, standing to speak to Bill 7, the Supply Act, he said:

" . . . it's not my intention to repeat a lot of the comments with respect to the inappropriateness of warrant spending. As the member for Delta South correctly pointed out, virtually all of the members who now sit on the government side and who were sitting on this side in opposition made a commitment that they would not use special warrants. Yet here we are once again, in the sixth or seventh subsequent year of their government, having to bring them in."

That's hardly an endorsement for what the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast believed was an inappropriate mechanism for governing. He continues:

"I suggest that what is necessary if we are to get serious about eliminating interim supply and putting in place a better system of budgeting and budgetary delivery is the opportunity for us to go into multi-year budgeting, to be able to do long-range planning, to be able to carry a surplus from one fiscal year . . . " and so forth.

"What I'm saddened by in this warrant is that nothing has changed in our approach to budgeting in the time that I've been elected. From 1991, being elected in the fall of that year, we went to special warrants in '92, '93, '94, '95 and '96. We had an election in '96. We had a new Premier, somebody who was on record as being entirely opposed to special warrants. Here we are through '97 and now into 1998, with a budget that essentially requires us once again to go to special warrants."

He was offended; the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was offended. I wonder what he'll say today. I wonder if that offensiveness that he saw exactly one year ago today remains, now that he sits in the minister's chair.

The finale to that passionate address was:

"That's the difference between members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party. As this session continues and we proceed through the next number of months, I think that those differences are going to become more and more obvious to those who follow and deal with our debates. They will become more and more obvious as we start to recognize the different approach that each of the parties represented in this Legislative Assembly will take toward solving the needs of the people of British Columbia."

What a difference a year makes. And yes, we have seen those differences.

G. Plant: What happened to the PDA?

M. de Jong: My colleague from Richmond-Steveston says: "What happened to the PDA?" I don't want to dwell on that, because what we heard was that . . . . The member told us that in making his move, he justified it on the basis that the New Democratic Party was (

a) moving to the centre, and (

b) agreeing to adopt all of the policies of his party.

Well, we have already seen the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast distance himself from comments he made about the Nisga'a treaty, but that's something for another debate. Here again we see that either apparently the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was being overly optimistic about the budgetary process and the influence he would be able to bring to bear, or he simply wasn't being forthright with British Columbians at the time he made that crass move, which can only be described as the worst form of political opportunism.

Let's dispel all these myths about the principles that went with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Let's dispel all these myths about the move to the centre that that was supposed to represent. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said just a few moments ago, if what we see in this budget represents a move to the centre, God forbid that this government would have decided to move to the left, because bankruptcy, in that case, wouldn't be far behind. It's not far behind now, as the situation stands.

[1615]

So yesterday was budget day. I've got to tell you, Madam Speaker, that the biggest impression I was left with related to what went on here in the precincts, in the gallery. I've been here for five or six budgets, and every time I've been here, the place has been packed. One of the reasons it's been full is that people are genuinely interested in knowing what the government's economic direction will be for the coming year. And you know what? This year, yesterday, the gallery was half empty. Now, explain that.

Well, I can explain it. It's because no one takes this government seriously. Why would they bother taking the day off from work? I know that this is going to shock members of the government benches, but there are still some people in British Columbia that have jobs. You haven't driven them all out of British Columbia. Why would they take a day off their jobs to come here to listen to something that has no basis in fact, that is a piece of fiction, that the government has no intention of following through on?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

They don't take the Premier seriously, they don't take the Finance minister seriously, and they don't take the govern-

[ Page 11476 ]

ment seriously. Now, why would that be? Well, we heard earlier today about the government's record with respect to fiscal management and particularly debt management. Debt is a word that this government, this NDP, is particularly familiar with; it's something that they're particularly familiar with.

I think this bears repeating as we consider their request today for interim supply, because after all, one of the things we have to decide is whether or not they are deserving, whether or not we can trust the government to effectively manage the people's money.

So let's take a little trip down memory lane; we went through this briefly earlier today. Let's go back to 1992, when we began our trip down this debt-ridden path.

An Hon. Member: Descent into madness.

M. de Jong: Descent into madness, my colleague described it as. But there isn't anything . . . .

The minister is about to attend to other business, I suspect. The truth hurts; the truth about his economic ineptness, I'm sure, is difficult for him to deal with.

So in 1992 there was a deficit reduction strategy. In 1995 there was a debt management plan. You'll notice that the word "reduction" is missing. In fact, we haven't seen the word "reduction" since 1992. Then in 1997 we got the financial management plan. In 1998 we got the revised financial management plan. And in 1999, just one day ago, we get the five-year fiscal planning framework.

Let's see if government members were paying attention. Let's see if the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and the member for Prince George-Mount Robson were paying attention. What is the one thing that all of those supposed debt management plans have in common? What's the one thing that links them all? They still don't know. I'll have to tell them.

Mr. Speaker, the government ignored every one of them. The NDP didn't come close to hitting the targets that in each of those years they set on budget day -- and made a solemn promise to British Columbians. "Trust us," they said. "This is the plan we have laid out for British Columbians. This is the plan for the future. Trust us to abide by it." Every single year, they came up short, and every single year, I daresay, they never had an intention to meet those targets. It was propaganda; it was public relations; it was smoke and mirrors. And 1999 is no different.

[1620]

You know, I talked about some of the comments that others have made in the House. But we shouldn't really restrict ourselves to cabinet ministers. They, after all, are so predictably inaccurate. Let's ask ourselves: "What did some of the other government members have to say about last year's budget?" After all, we can only judge a government by its past performance.

I'm thrilled to death that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca is in the House, because I think that he, and certainly his constituents, would want to hear what he had to say one year ago tomorrow about that budget. Only a year ago he stood in this chamber and said: "I'm proud that the government's 1997-98 fiscal and debt management targets were met and exceeded." Oops. You know what? I know he's going to stand up in the House today and ask for our forgiveness for making such a ridiculous statement. I know he's going to stand in the House today and say: "Mr. Speaker, I was wrong -- dead wrong."

Let me go on. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca . . . . I know there are constituents of his listening now, and they were listening then. "The three-year financial plan will see continued fiscal discipline in government. The deficit for '98-99 will be halved to $95 million. I know that the opposition has been critical of that, but it's a step in the right direction. If you look at the historical trends as to the deficit, it's been halved, halved, halved. A balanced budget is projected for 1999-2000 and a surplus in the year 2000-2001." Hallelujah to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

G. Plant: I feel like a have-not, not a have.

M. de Jong: As my friend from Richmond-Steveston says, yes indeed, this government is turning us into a have-not province.

It was, by the way . . . . Here's what I'm interested in. Malahat-Juan de Fuca last year described what he was selling as a reduction in the deficit as a step in the right direction. Either he's moonwalking backwards, or today he's going to stand up and tell us that the government is taking a step in the wrong direction. We've got a deficit that's ballooned over $1 billion. I'd be very interested to hear this.

He concluded one year ago tomorrow with this crescendo: "Yes, debt is a problem, but under this plan there will be a reduction of the debt and, more importantly, what all of us have advocated, the elimination of the deficit." After the next election, perhaps the member can apply to be on my speech-writing staff, because those are inspiring words. If only they were true.

The Minister of Employment and Investment one year ago . . . . Let us be mindful that we are trying to assess the validity of the bill and the request for spending authority that we're dealing with today. We're dealing with Bill 54, interim supply. Some members of the government side will be uncomfortable hearing their own words, but we're trying to assess to what extent we can have faith in this document that's been tabled today, where the government presumes to spend billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars.

The Minister of Employment and Investment said, one year ago tomorrow, commenting on the last budget: "The result of this is a $95 million deficit -- a half of one percent of total provincial spending, virtually a balanced budget."

An Hon. Member: He meant a virtual balanced budget.

[1625]

M. de Jong: Yes, a virtual balanced budget. Isn't that a word that characterizes just about everything this government has to do or say about managing the economy and managing the provincial books? Virtual and real incompetence. They can't be trusted. These guys couldn't organize a party at a brewery. These guys would find a way to lose money returning the empties. Watch an NDP member of this government take a business and drive it into the ground -- except this time the franchise is the province itself. And that's what they've done.

It wouldn't be interim supply day if I didn't at least make reference to my friend across the river in Mission. I know his fan is watching. I know his one remaining supporter is watch-

[ Page 11477 ]

ing and would be angry if I didn't at least refer back to what he said. This was a year ago, on April 7, 1998, in respect to the budget. This is what the member for Mission-Kent had to say: " . . . this budget bases itself on the sound financial management that this ministry and this government have brought forward over the last few years. The deficit in this budget will be $95 million. A balanced budget is projected for 1999-2000 and" -- he went one step further, and Malahat-Juan de Fuca should be listening to this -- "a surplus in 2001." I didn't know members of the NDP knew the "s" word. I didn't know they knew how to pronounce "surplus."

It would be funny if it weren't so sickening, Mr. Speaker. The people who are watching these debates, who remember a Finance minister . . . . I always keep these; sometimes I read them. This is a budget speech. Sometimes I read them to see if members of the government can determine what year they're from, and it's hard. Here's the one I love: the budget speech 1998, one year ago -- the same Minister of Finance. The headline was: "Moving to a Balanced Budget." That was the sales pitch: "We're moving to a balanced budget." The car is stuck in reverse.

"I have decided to set the deficit target for 1998-99 at $95 million, close to half the level of last year's deficit and less than half of 1 percent of the overall budget. I believe that this is a reasonable and prudent target. Of course, we will attempt to do better, as we did last year. If our economy performs at the levels presently forecast, it is our plan to have a balanced budget in 1999-2000 and to have a small surplus the year after."

Mr. Speaker, we're in 1999-2000, and we've got a deficit that has ballooned to over a billion dollars. We have a total provincial debt that has doubled since this NDP took office. The government wasn't telling the truth. They weren't telling the truth in '95, they weren't telling the truth in '96, they weren't telling the truth in '97-98, and they're not telling the truth to British Columbians in 1999. They're not telling the truth. They're misleading British Columbians about something as fundamental and basic as what this government is doing with their tax dollars.

What could be more offensive? What could show more contempt for the people of this province than a government that (

a) won't tell them the truth, and (

b) is now reduced to measuring its success by how high it can drive the deficit? It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy for these socialists. Everything else they do has turned to stone; everything else they've tried has failed, so now they're going to base their entire marketing strategy on this promise: "We can run bigger deficits than everyone else in the country combined." Well done. Bravo! Bravo!

[1630]

My friend from Richmond-Steveston, as I pass the baton to him in this debate, is going to talk about fees. He's going to talk about probate fees. He's going to talk about a government that collected money from the taxpayers of British Columbia that it had no authority to collect and that the Supreme Court of Canada said it had no authority to collect.

G. Plant: It's still collecting.

M. de Jong: It's still collecting those fees. To the people that had to pay them and who have now learned that there was no authority for the government to take that money from them, they snub their noses. The Attorney General snubs his nose. He ignores them.

What do they do in this budget that they now, today, ask us for interim supply for? They're going to continue raising those fees. They're going to tell us about the tax break -- the minuscule, insignificant tax break over here -- and while no one's looking, they're going to increase the amount of fees that they collect from British Columbians by millions and millions of dollars. At the end of the process, British Columbians are going to be worse off today and tomorrow than they were yesterday even. What will they have to show for it? They'll be another day older and deeper in debt, just like the song.

So when we're asked to accede to this government's last-minute wish -- a government that's been reduced to politics by desperation, a government that is going to reduce the economic landscape to nothing, because that's how it has decided it can possibly preserve a political presence in the province -- members of the government should know that we aren't going to give them a penny. We aren't going to accede to their wish for one plug nickel. That's something I daresay they'll hear from each opposition member today.

G. Plant: Well, it's March 31; March 31 is the end of the financial year for the government. At the close of this day, the government runs out of the money that they got -- they gave themselves, really -- permission to spend a year ago. So it's up to us here in this Legislature to figure out and to decide whether or not we should give this government any more money so that they can, starting tomorrow, run the government of British Columbia for a little while longer. To that end, the government has introduced Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999.

They're not asking for much.

An Hon. Member: How much?

G. Plant: They're not asking for much at all; right now they're just asking for $5.2 billion. They'd like us, in the next three of four hours or however long it takes, to give permission to them to spend that money. I've always thought that the NDP had a remarkable ability to decide to spend billions of dollars without much in the way of any consultation, consideration or thought. But this is pretty good, $5.2 billion.

M. de Jong: That's a billion an hour.

G. Plant: That's not bad at all. My friend from Matsqui points out that it's a billion an hour. Well, let's rush right through that, shall we? After all, what's $5.2 billion?

Actually, it's a little bit more than that. It's actually a little bit more than that because, in

section 2 of Bill 54, the government is actually asking us for another $780 million towards disbursements for prepaid capital advances. They actually want virtually all the money, or maybe it's just half the money, for all of the capital expenditures that they're planning for the next year.

[1635]

[ Page 11478 ]

Actually, if you turn the page over, they even want another $730 million for voted revenue transfers appropriation. Well that's starting to get awfully close to $7 billion, but what's $1 billion or so among close friends?

M. de Jong: Mere aluminum lifeboats.

G. Plant: That's true. You could buy a number of fast ferries -- even Ferrari fast ferries.

An Hon. Member: Well, two.

G. Plant: Maybe even three, for $8 billion.

You know what? I might even, just for a nanosecond, be prepared to think about whether or not I would give the government permission to spend that money, because I know that over the course of the next few weeks, we're going to have an opportunity to debate the estimates. We're going to have an opportunity to examine the spending plans of each ministry, and we're going to be able to determine whether or not those spending plans reflect prudent, sound public policy.

I think I have an idea of how I'm going to resolve that question at the end of it, but I like to keep an open mind for as long as I possibly can. You know, that's not all that this bill asks us to do. When you look at the schedule, you find that this bill also asks us to approve money for the fiscal year that's already just about over. What does that mean? What that means is that when this government came and asked for the billions upon billions of dollars that they asked for last year -- and they got last year . . . . When they set out to spend it, they actually got a little bit carried away.

The Ministry for Children and Families spent $45 million more than they told us they needed a year ago. To be honest, they didn't really seek my input about how much they needed. There wasn't really any intensive consultation with members of the opposition on how much money the government needed to operate the Ministry for Children and Families. That was their decision. They came to the House and said: "You give us these billions and billions of dollars to operate the Ministry for Children and Families for the next year. That's all we need. That's okay. We can do the job we have to do." Oops, it wasn't quite enough. They're just a little $45 million short.

Then there's more. In the Ministry of Health, vote 48 . . . . I can't do the arithmetic as quickly as I'd like. It looks to me like $124 million was the shortfall there. In fact if you add up the shortfall, it's almost $170 million.

I'm confused and disappointed all at the same time, because I sat here a year ago, and I heard the Minister of Finance -- that was then her first budget -- deliver her budget speech.

M. de Jong: Was that her first balanced budget?

G. Plant: No, I think that was her first qualified, conditional, modified, soon-to-be-revised, fiscal-framework-arrangement-but-not-quite-plan budget speech. It was a long speech, as these speeches are, and I listened closely, because sometimes you do have to listen closely to actually get the facts. One thing struck me about the Finance minister's speech. That's the part that begins on page 13 of the text that she kindly printed for public distribution. The heading is a good one. It says: "A Prudent Fiscal Plan." She begins it by saying: "Hon. Speaker, let me now turn to our financial bottom line." That's good.

Over the page she talks about maintaining principles of fiscal sustainability. Then she says this: " . . . budget forecasts must be built on prudent economic assumptions." I heard that and I thought: that's great; that's excellent.

[1640]

So when I open up the budget documents and I look at what the government says it's going to spend in the various ministries, I know that the minister and her government are making prudent economic assumptions. I know that when they come and ask to spend $20 billion or more on the programs of government, that's all they're going to need. In fact, the minister actually went a step further to try and give me the kind of comfort that I as a legislator think I need when I'm asked to approve, or at least to consider, the government's spending plans. She went on to say this: " . . . we must continue to reduce the deficit and move into surplus."

An. Hon. Member: Who said that?

G. Plant: That was the Minister of Finance a year ago.

I know what I was supposed to think. I was supposed to think: yes, this is a government that has a firm hand on the ship of state. This is a government that's going to make no unreasonable, unfounded predictions or assumptions. This is a government that is going to wisely, prudently, cautiously and carefully spend only the money that we are going to give them permission to spend. In fact, that was not what happened.

I'll talk, if I get a moment in due course, about the bigger-picture issues of the deficit and the surplus, but I want to begin by talking about special warrants. Everything about the Finance minister's projections and promises is proved false in the simple fact that they couldn't even live within their expenditure budget. They had to go down the hall to the Lieutenant-Governor and get permission in private to spend $169 million more than they asked the Legislature for last year, because they couldn't manage a peanut stand; they couldn't manage their way across a crosswalk.

That's $169 million worth of bad planning, bad management, incompetent administration of government, and it's all supposed to be fixed, along with the other $7 billion or $8 billion worth of spending that we're supposed to approve, sometime between now and the end of this day, when the government loses its ability to spend any more money.

Almost every member of the government at some point in their life has probably . . . . We certainly know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the Premier have stood up on occasion in this House and deplored the use of special warrants, deplored the practice of allowing a government to spend money in circumstances where there is, essentially, no public accountability. That's what special warrants are all about. Yet year after year after year, a government that sought public office on the basis of a promise to restore and fix those kinds of abuses commits them itself repeatedly -- year after year after year.

Well, I was originally going to say that if I were given the opportunity to decide whether or not to grant this government interim supply -- and I guess I do have my small voice, my small opportunity to participate in that discussion -- I

[ Page 11479 ]

wouldn't give this government five cents. But honestly, having heard the remarks of the two preceding speakers, I realize that I have been far too generous with the government. I realize that five cents would be far too much to give this government. If it were up to me, I wouldn't give this government a single cent. I would not give a single penny to a government that grants approval in principle for a casino licence to a group connected to strip shows, Internet porn sites and illegal gambling.

Now, hon. Speaker, we all know what we're talking about: the North Burnaby Inn proposal. I have to say that I used the words "approval in principle" in that context carefully, with some caution. I have been listening over the last couple of weeks to the minister responsible -- apparently responsible -- for granting that approval in principle talk about what it meant for the government to grant approval in principle for a casino licence, and I have watched him move from a situation where I think most people would think we are -- that is, approval in principle means you've got a deal . . . .

You just have to sort out a few of the fine points, dot the i's, cross the t's, pass the cheque, and there you've got it. That's what most people think approval in principle is; that is what approval in principle is.

[1645]

Oops, that might have been a little bit too far for the Minister of Employment and Investment to go on the issue of the particular casino licence for the North Burnaby Inn. So approval in principle has been kind of changing before our eyes. It's almost as though it were becoming a sort of conditional approval in principle. Then it's sort of becoming a partial conditional sort of approval in principle, almost to the point where in fact the Minister of Employment and Investment would just as soon say he was really completely neutral on the subject of whether or not the North Burnaby Inn had any approval whatsoever.

The movement back and forth across the spectrum of approval and disapproval and unapproval and no principles is not the point. This government actually thought that it was perfectly appropriate to grant approval in principle for a casino licence to a group connected to strip shows, Internet porn sites and illegal gambling.

A government that can do that is not a government that deserves one cent from this Legislative Assembly. I wouldn't give a single penny to a government headed by a Premier who uses the platform of a public press conference to threaten members of the media with the allegation of a non-existent criminal investigation under provisions of the Criminal Code that are completely unenforceable.

Picture this. It's a public press conference. Serious questions are at issue. The Premier has apparently been involved in an all-afternoon caucus meeting, in which there has been some discussion about the important issues concerning the casino licence and the execution of a search warrant on the Premier's house. Who knows what else was discussed at that caucus meeting? But British Columbians are clearly at this moment waiting for an explanation from the Premier about what's up. What is it that's really going on, that has caused this problem to arise? So the Premier comes out and agrees to speak to the press for a moment. In the course . . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: I'm sure, actually, if the Minister for Children and Families wants to give us a complete detailed description of the caucus meeting, she can do so during the course of that debate. I look forward to that.

M. de Jong: We're talking about gaming revenues.

G. Plant: We're talking about whether or not this Legislature should give this government permission to spend any money. Should this Legislature give permission to this government, headed by this Premier, to spend any money, let alone the $8 billion or $9 billion that's it's asking for here this afternoon?

I'm explaining what to me is the reason why I think the government doesn't deserve that permission. It's because when we have the Premier standing up in front of television cameras, in front of members of the media and in fr