1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only. The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 7

[ Page 13081 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Ted Nebbeling, the mayor of Whistler and our candidate in the next provincial election for the riding of West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure that we can have a non-partisan welcome for some very special guests we have here in the Legislature today. Mr. Jason Yuan is the representative for the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, Canada. He is visiting from Ottawa with the accompaniment of Mr. James Wang, who of course many of us know very well in this legislative chamber as the director general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, Vancouver. He was very helpful in arranging my recent very successful trade mission to Taipei and other areas of Taiwan. We also have Mr. Andrew Kao, who is from Ottawa. I would like to have a very warm, non-partisan welcome for our distinguished visitors.

D. Jarvis: In the precincts today is a friend of mine, Mr. Jay Straith, from the North Vancouver-Seymour constituency, and I'd like another nice, warm, non-partisan welcome for him.

G. Wilson: We have with us today two guests: from the riding of Saanich North and the Islands, Ms. Mona Brash, who is the chair of the Saanich Inlet Protection Society; and from the riding of Alberni, Elverna Baker, who is the manager of the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce. Would this House please make them welcome.

G. Janssen: I thank the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for that introduction. Also here is Elverna's boss, Anita Sirkia, the president of the Alberni Valley Chamber of Commerce and the operator of Paradise Cafe.

V. Anderson: I'd like to have the House welcome three of my constituents today: James and Thelma Simpson, and John Rennie. Please make them welcome.

D. Streifel: I'd like the House to welcome my constituency assistant, Sam Bridge, and David Dhaliwal, a co-op student from Mission Secondary who's spending some time in my office. Would the House give these folks a very warm welcome.

D. Mitchell: We have in the public gallery today someone from my constituency. He happens to be the mayor of Whistler, and he actually wants to be a member here one day. I wonder if members could welcome him. They wouldn't wish that upon him, I'm sure, but I'd like to make him welcome in the public gallery at least.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to welcome to the precincts today one of my constituents and a councillor in the city of Surrey, Judy Higginbotham. Would the chamber make her most welcome.

M. de Jong: We have a guest in the precincts today, Mr. Larry Schmidt. He won't be here watching his member participate in the budget debate, because he doesn't have a member. Please make him welcome.

L. Fox: It's my privilege today to introduce two young people to this Legislature. The first person is Pierre Marchildon, who -- the House and the member for Matsqui will be pleased to know -- is running for the candidacy for the Reform Party of B.C. in the constituency of Abbotsford. The second person is Keith Haughton, who is visiting from the constituency of North Kamloops. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Lovick: In keeping with the non-partisan tradition of introductions, I draw members' attention to the person sitting behind the candidate from Whistler, who is not going to be a candidate yet but whom we hope will be some day -- a constituent of mine for five months a year and of the Attorney General the other seven months a year -- and who's a heavy equipment operator by summer and a university student by winter: Ms. Colleen Burgess. Would the House please make her welcome.

T. Perry: The introductions are getting more and more eloquent, so I'll not disappoint a guest in the gallery who's one of the great fly fishermen of British Columbia, Mr. Patrick Lauzon, who is also a distinguished representative of the pharmaceutical company Merck Frosst.

J. Dalton: In the gallery today visiting.... He was here intending to hear the budget. Unfortunately, something happened, and he's a bit late. However, would you please welcome Mr. John Moonen from West Vancouver.

L. Stephens: In the gallery today we have the executive director of the Federation of Independent School Associations in B.C., Mr. Fred Herfst. Please make him welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery this afternoon we have Abby Anderson, the general manager of a very progressive chamber of commerce in Burnaby. Would the House please make her welcome.

F. Gingell: I note that the government benches don't take the opportunity to welcome one of their own, a gentleman who spent some years in this House, so I would like to introduce him: Mr. Jim Rhodes.

Oral Questions

LEAK OF BUDGET INFORMATION

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is for the Premier. I'll keep it very short and simple, so I hope we'll get a short and simple answer. Can the Premier inform members of this House at what time yesterday either he or a member of his government or staff learned of the potential budget leak?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is a matter that's going to be before the House at 2:30. Frankly, that is the appropriate time for us to be debating this particular matter. If he wants to know the approximate times, I can tell him that my staff members first heard about this matter around 5:30, and I was able to have the.... It was confirmed that there was a leak of the budget material at around 7 o'clock. I was then called about this matter just after 7 o'clock.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find that interesting. If the Premier is telling me that a member of his staff, of the government, was aware at 5:30 of a potential damaging leak to the government and it took an hour and a half to get hold of the Finance

[ Page 13082 ]

minister to find out whether those facts were true.... Can the Premier explain why it took an hour and a half to find out that information? If he knew before this House adjourned at 6 o'clock, why did the Government House Leader not recess this House pending finding out that information? Why did he not confirm whether there was a leak, so we could table the budget at the first opportunity rather than wait 16 hours to allow the minister to do damage control for herself, putting the interests of British Columbia at risk?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It's unfortunate that the House Leader of the Official Opposition is more interested in trying to pursue gossip, people's reputations and their integrity than in dealing with the real issues that are important to British Columbians -- which is that this is one of the best budgets this House has ever seen. It is a budget that carries out our commitments to get rid of the deficit, to have a debt-management plan and to have hope for the future, rather than the pessimism over there. It carries out our commitment to making sure we're creating jobs at a record rate in this province and defending medicare against the Liberals.

[2:15]

M. de Jong: The Premier knows better than anyone else that government of British Columbia securities are trading all over the world, 24 hours a day. If this leak was serious enough to require an acceleration of the tabling of the budget this morning, how can the Premier justify keeping members of this House uninformed for over 17 1/2 hours while his government went to work to cover its political backside?

The Speaker: The hon. member has a further question?

M. de Jong: While I watched the Academy Awards last night, little did I know that a comedy of mismanagement was unfolding in this government's offices, except that nobody's laughing. It's not funny anymore, and there won't be any awards. When will the Premier realize that his government's priority must be to preserve and protect the interests of British Columbians over and above the partisan political interests of his New Democratic Party, and when will he act accordingly?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The opposition may be used to attacking people's integrity on scarce information or wisps of rumours. They may be prepared to operate that way, and that's why the people of British Columbia would be scared witless of having anything to do with a Liberal government in this province. Look at the way they mistreat people's reputations, hon. Speaker. My staff and my government were are prepared to do due diligence, to verify that this wasn't just a rumour or just a guess, and that this was actually a leak of budget information. That did not get confirmed until 7 o'clock.

The matter was then addressed for the next five hours in order to look at the rules of this House and to make arrangements to bring this House back at the earliest possible moment to present the budget to the members of the Legislature -- one of the best budgets that this province has ever seen.

PHYSICIAN SUPPLY IN FORT ST. JOHN

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Health, the defender of medicare in British Columbia. [Applause.] Thank you. I appreciate that.

The Fort St. John General Hospital has written to the minister regarding the critical physician supply in the north. The patient-to-physician ratio in Fort St. John is the highest in British Columbia. There are 2,160 patients per physician in Fort St. John. Fort Nelson has 1,300 per doctor, and the average in the lower mainland is one for every 450. Given this dire situation, why is the minister wasting taxpayers' money plastering his face on TV ads instead of addressing the physician supply problem in the north?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a shame that the opposition doesn't want British Columbians to hear the news about wait-lists coming down in this province, or about the steps that this government is taking to bring them down by investment in capital facilities to reduce wait-lists for cancer treatment and by urging all British Columbians to participate in an organ donor awareness program.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: The people of British Columbia know how you've reduced your wait-lists, and that's by sending them to Alberta. People of Prince George understand very well where the Health minister's priorities are, and they sure as heck have nothing to do with health care. The minister has already turned his own community hospital into little more than a first aid treatment centre. Will the minister commit to cancelling his costly TV ego trip and redirect those resources to combatting the physician supply problem in the north, and start defending medicare to the extent that the budget and throne speech purport to do?

Hon. P. Ramsey: It's a shame that the opposition doesn't want British Columbians to learn the important facts about the steps we're taking to preserve medicare. We continue to work with the BCMA on physician supply, and the member knows that we are working on that issue for all rural areas of the province.

Quite frankly, I find this a little bit ingenious. Everybody in this House knows that the agenda of the Reform Party on health is to slash health payments and health budgets, and to introduce two-tier American-style health care. Maybe that's what you don't want the members of this House and the people of British Columbia to know.

COLUMBIA RIVER DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS

W. Hurd: According to budget documents tabled this morning, the government is engaged in an unconscionable bait-and-switch with $250 million in Columbia River downstream benefits. Would the Minister of Finance -- who claims to be concerned about the taxpayers of this province -- explain why the $250 million went into operating revenues this year and why in the world she wouldn't use that revenue to reduce the long-term debt of the province, something she must have heard during the prebudget meetings.

Hon. E. Cull: The member obviously wasn't listening when I was giving the budget speech this morning. I said that outside of the announcement the Premier made recently with respect to the benefits that have been returned to the Kootenay region, all the rest of the downstream benefits are going to pay down debt.

W. Hurd: The minister hasn't read her own Treasury Board document, which was leaked two months ago. It recommends that those benefits be used to reduce long-term debt. Clearly, in this budget the government is using a 20-year

[ Page 13083 ]

benefit to jack up spending in the current fiscal year. Why is the Minister of Finance ignoring a leaked document from her own Treasury Board about how the money should be spent?

Hon. E. Cull: If I recall correctly, that particular document recommended a number of scenarios for paying down the debt with downstream benefits, and suggested that 70 percent of the downstream benefits be used to pay down the debt. We're using 80 percent of the benefits to pay down the debt.

FUNDING INCREASE FOR HEALTH MINISTER'S OFFICE

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Health. This budget has clearly put its own interests ahead of patients in British Columbia. Medicare services British Columbians have come to count on -- emergency care, ambulance and hospital services -- have been jeopardized by this government's budget. Would this minister explain why he has given his own personal office a larger percentage increase in funding than either acute care or emergency services?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite might be interested in knowing that in the second week of April, Vancouver will be hosting a meeting of provincial health ministers from across Canada. I think that I will be the envy of that gathering when I tell them what this government is doing to fund and protect medicare. At a time when the federal members of this opposition party are slashing away at medicare -- reducing transfer payments to zero in six years -- this government is standing up for public health in this province and defending medicare.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

L. Reid: This budget underlines the fact that friends and insiders continue to come before patients. We already know that emergency services in this province are unreliable, particularly in Prince George. The minister continues to respond by giving a smaller percentage increase to hospitals and emergency services than he does to his own personal office. Why are the minister's own furniture needs more important than the needs of patients in the province?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I did want to talk briefly about emergency services in the north. As you know, this government has acted where others have not to redistribute air ambulance services, establish permanent bases in Kelowna and Prince George, and save the taxpayers of this province $2.4 million a year and put that money into care for patients.

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENTS

G. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Yesterday we learned about a massive development on Okanagan Lake in the community of Kelowna bordering on the foreshore of the Westbank Indian band. They are talking about 100 floating condominiums, which they claim will not be subject to any environmental review. Will the minister today commit that all developments, whether they are on or adjacent to aboriginal land, will be subject to exactly the same environmental review as developments that occur off aboriginal land? Will that commitment be made by the minister today?

Hon. M. Sihota: As the hon. member knows, the provincial government does not have jurisdiction over federal native lands. Consequently, the only way in which we can resolve those issues is through treaty negotiations, which my colleague the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is leading. If we can resolve those issues through Aboriginal Affairs and those treaty negotiations, we may well be able to conclude an agreement whereby environmental assessment applies to those federal lands. Right now they are not covered by provincial legislation.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Wilson: A supplementary, then, to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Will the minister commit to this House today that in every negotiation undertaken in this province we will not allow negotiations to be concluded unless the complete environmental legislation that applies to non-aboriginals applies equally to aboriginal developments?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, our standard is to meet or beat our provincial environmental standards.

INCREASES IN USER FEES

L. Stephens: Since taking office, this NDP government has introduced 637 user fee increases and 170 new fees. That means a grand total of 807 new fees and fee increases. How can the Minister of Finance claim that there is a tax freeze when she is using fee increases and new fees to drain more money from B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. E. Cull: I urge the member to have a closer look at the budget. The fee increases this year amount to 0.6 percent of revenues -- a very small increase. They reflect the advice I received from people -- not only in this year's budget consultation but in last year's budget consultation -- to freeze taxes across the board for all taxpayers and make those people who consume certain services pay for those services through user fees.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

The hon. member for Peace River North rises on a matter.

R. Neufeld: I ask leave to table a document.

Leave granted.

R. Neufeld: Physicians in Fort St. John are critically overworked to sheer exhaustion. There are a number of options that would assist us in obtaining a suitable patient....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. You requested to table a document?

R. Neufeld: Yes, I did, and I'll table that document.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

R. Neufeld tabled a document.

[ Page 13084 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Notice of motion under standing order 35, hon. Speaker.

Debate under Standing Order 35

LEAK OF BUDGET INFORMATION

The Speaker: The notice of motion under standing order 35 is now for debate. The duration of that time, hon. members, under the standing orders is one hour.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm just getting in order all the government leaks on the budget that came from the ministers, and I'll be referring to those in a few minutes.

I think that today we are dealing with an extremely important issue -- different than other leaks. I think it's different than all other leaks. It's the leak of a budget; it's the leak of the financial plan of this government for the next fiscal year. It's the strategy that a government takes to manage the province's finances, to manage its debt, to repay debt if possible and to expend money on behalf of the citizens.

It's critical that that information come before the House and be given out to all the people in the public, whether they are in British Columbia or in New York on the bond traders, whether they're in Geneva or in Tokyo, and that all people -- not just in British Columbia but right around the world -- receive that information at the same time. The reason it's so important is that our bonds and securities in British Columbia are being traded around the world 24 hours a day.

What we have seen in the lead-up to this budget is the complete breakdown in the respect for this House and in the principle that all people should receive that information at the same time.

[2:30]

We have -- and I'll just run through here -- a leak that was in the Vancouver Sun on March 27, yesterday, from the government: "British Columbia will present a balanced budget and hold the line on income taxes in a fiscal blueprint designed to improve the NDP government's political fortunes, a source said on Sunday." So as early as Sunday, sources within the government....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, the standing orders are clear with respect to participating in debate. Each person will have an opportunity in due course to make a contribution, depending on the issues. But when a person is in his place speaking, it is most difficult for the Chair to maintain decorum when there are these unreasonable interjections. Obviously some members are going to want to interject, and that is permissible within moderation. But clearly we are starting to raise our voices to the point that it's difficult to hear the member who has his place. I would ask members to just keep that in mind when you're making your interjections.

Please proceed, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: The point I'm trying to make by referring to these documents and media reports is that this government has been anything but competent, I would say, in maintaining the principle that all people should find out about the budget at the same time.

It's not just the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Employment and Investment did the same thing in the past. This government has established a pattern of putting information out ahead of time. In this case, it just happens to be the budget. I don't understand why the government is so upset and expresses shock and indignation at the leak of the budget when they've been leaking the contents of it for some time. But I do think it's a serious matter.

I said earlier that there's a difference between budget leaks and other leaks, but the motivation behind people in the public service and other people in the know putting that information out to the public is the same. It happens for a couple of reasons.

First, and most importantly, it happens because the people who are the guardians of this province and who spend their whole lifetime careers protecting the interests of this province and serving the public are shocked and amazed and frankly disappointed by what this government has been doing over the last three years.

We have seen documents come forward from this government with regard to Treasury Board. The Trumpy memo came out and was released to us, and we released it to the public. That showed that this government was preparing to not tell the truth about the budget. They were going to try and make it appear that they were balancing the budget. Rather than actually balancing the budget, there were suggestions in there on how the government might pretend to balance the budget.

There were also some dire warnings in that document about what would happen to the people of British Columbia and the services they rely upon if this government didn't follow some of the fiscal advice that was given to it. We would lose our essential services, like education and health care; we'd start to crowd it out. Our debt service costs would rocket through the roof.

At a time when every other province in the country was improving their financial situation, when they were really grappling with and making tough decisions and dealing with their budgets and getting their fiscal houses in order -- like they did in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick and Alberta, and like they're starting to do in Ontario -- this government would rather use smoke and mirrors and try to deceive people as to what took place. That's a shame. That's one reason that one came out.

The other was the Vancouver Island land use decision. In a government communications strategy memo on the impact of annual allowable cuts on Vancouver Island, it was clear that the three communities of Gold River, Zeballos and Tahsis were very likely going to shut down but that the government should mislead people, "de-link" -- that was the word used -- the facts from the perception and tell people other than the truth. When professional people who have spent their careers serving the interests of British Columbians see that stuff cross their desks, what else do you expect them to do? Do you think they should let these guys get away with that sort of stuff? I don't think so.

The other reason those people are so upset is that this government and that minister in particular have parachuted their friends, their buddies, not only into the Crown corporations at the top, not only into political positions, but right into the ministries -- from deputy ministers to assistant deputy ministers to managers to directors.

When you do that, you corrupt the civil service in British Columbia, and all the people who are making their professional careers in the civil service and who are trying to serve the people in B.C. realize that the only thing that gets you ahead with these guys is your close connection to the Premier or somebody else in the cabinet. That's the litany. That's the reason we have leaks in this province. That's the reason people are losing confidence in this government.

[ Page 13085 ]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I note the cries of discomfort opposite when people are suddenly faced with the truth. The reality is that we have seen patronage under this government like we have never seen it before -- worse, if you can believe it, than the Socreds; worse, if you can believe it, than the way the Socreds and Bill Vander Zalm operated. This government has continually broken tender guidelines....

The Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member please take his seat.

The hon. member for Okanagan West is rising on a matter. Please proceed.

C. Serwa: On a point of order, the member doesn't seem to be addressing his own motion in his discourse. Under standing order 35, it is clear that not more than one matter shall be discussed in the same motion. The member is not complying with the requirements of debate on standing order 35.

The Speaker: It is rather unusual for us to have such a debate as this, as all members know. Perhaps we need a little more experience with it. Would the hon. member please try to stick to the tenet of his motion as much as possible. Please proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just for the member's edification, the motion, which I drafted and am familiar with, deals with the breach in security and the reasons for that surrounding this budget leak and other leaks. I am addressing why this happens. I know that the Minister of Employment and Investment and other members will get up and speak to this issue, and I am sure that they intend to refer to various documents that have been leaked, how that happened and the types of things government does to control that.

But I believe the reason for these continued leaks -- and, more importantly, the reason for this particular leak -- is that this government has shown an amazing lack of decent leadership, right from the top down. It has politicized the public service and has, on numerous occasions, been shown in public to have been less than frank and less than forthright with the public. That has been proven time and time again. So we have to ask ourselves: who are the real public servants of the province of British Columbia?

Clearly it's not members of the government; clearly it's not members of the cabinet; and clearly somebody has to do something.

I don't think that justifies, quite frankly, the leaking of a budget document. The ramifications for the people of British Columbia are too serious; the ramifications for our financial well-being are too serious. But I can understand the frustration. The reality is, however, that this budget document being leaked may well be -- I understand it hasn't been determined yet -- a criminal matter that's to be investigated by the RCMP. If that's the case, I hope that investigation takes place quickly and that we can bring it to some resolve.

Otherwise, or despite...I believe that this government should be referring this matter to a standing committee of this House for a complete investigation to find out what happened and why.

This government has dealt in a less than forthright manner with the public. They have corrupted -- not corrupted; I shouldn't say that.... But they have disrupted the civil service with their political appointments to the upper echelons. I believe that if anybody is to blame for the current disarray that's surrounding this government, for the number of clouds that are hanging over this government, for the constant revelations of issues that are contrary to what the government has been telling us, it is the members sitting opposite in the cabinet. They are discussing these issues.

They are the ones who have made the appointments. It is the Premier's signature on the orders-in-council that has put these people into the civil service. It's the people who the Premier has appointed who have been drafting and communicating with documents that are less than truthful to the people of B.C. It is those people who are to blame.

I hope that this matter is rectified quickly. I hope that in the future there is a better way of dealing with this. I think that the budget, for example.... There is not as great a reason as there used to be for budget secrecy. I think there are ways to go through the budget process in a much more open manner. The current Minister of Finance and the previous one took some steps in that regard, in consulting with people -- and that's a first step. But I think there is more to be done. I think budget consultations can be broader and more open.

I know that other people in other jurisdictions have talked about doing that, and it's certainly something that this government should look towards doing. The more open a government is, the better, and this government should know that as well as anybody else.

I hope that this matter is dealt with quickly and in a manner that puts it to rest once and for all. I hope that we don't see this type of leak next year when this government tries to table a budget. Heaven forbid that they're still around by this time next year. I hope the election is called before that. But I look forward to hearing what the government is going to do to try to increase security on these types of issues at the same time as they try to increase openness. I think a balance can be created there.

Those items that can be made open should be made open; those items that need to remain secret must remain secret, and this government should be doing things to ensure that they do remain secret.

Hon. G. Clark: When I first heard of a possible leak, I suspect my reaction was similar to thatof many members of the House and many members of the public, and that was to be extremely angry that someone would have abused their privilege as an individual to leak such information to the public before it had a chance to be tabled in the House. But upon a great deal of reflection in the last little while, I think the more appropriate emotion is one of sorrow, because I do believe that this leak represents a very serious breach of public trust.

It really is important that with documents of this nature our parliamentary democracy function in a manner that the information comes before the House first and be debated. That is part of the very essence of democracy: that those we entrust to an oath of secrecy and those we entrust to produce the document that the government has deliberated upon and decided to pursue as a course of action do in fact produce it in such a way as to uphold the traditions of parliamentary democracy. So I think it is with a great deal of sadness that we see this particular type of leak.

I would just like to distinguish a bit between a leak of this type and the need for public access to government information and government policy. I think the Opposition House Leader made this point to some extent. We have, as a government, introduced the most comprehensive freedom-of-information legislation -- certainly in the Commonwealth. We are very proud of that. It's regularly used in the House. It's regularly used by others to attack the government for policy positions it puts forward. We on this side of the House make no apologies for that.

We believe that in a democracy -- and we are rightly proud of our record -- this public information should be public; there should be maximum public access to it. Even though sometimes it's uncomfortable for government,

[ Page 13086 ]

it's an important tenet of democracy and something we are proud of. I think our record in terms of the legislation is second to none in the Commonwealth. I think most objective observers would agree with that.

In the budget process, the Minister of Finance.... Again, the Opposition House Leader made this point: increasingly in the 1990s the public do not want the Minister of Finance or the government of the day simply to come in and bring in a budget that tells British Columbians the direction that they have chosen on their behalf. Increasingly the public want consultation. They want to be involved in the decision-making. And that means a degree of openness far broader in budget-making than we saw, say, two decades ago or before that.

[2:45]

For the four budgets brought in under this administration, there has been an unprecedented degree of public consultation, not just public meetings all around British Columbia or feedback asked for in the form of budgetary material being mailed out, but consultation across the spectrum to include.... In this budget, for the first time, the Premier initiated a series of forums on jobs and investment, part of which dealt with the question of: How should we handle it? What is appropriate to deal with debt management in British Columbia?

Unprecedented in British Columbia, there was a working group of individuals that included prominent business people of all political parties, labour people of all stripes -- public sector, private sector -- and other people. We said to them: "Let's think about British Columbia. Let's not think about partisan politics. What is in the best interests of British Columbians when we manage this budget?" Last week we saw a group of citizens of all parties come together and recommend to government a strategy with respect to what might be appropriate to manage debt in a province growing as rapidly as this one.

The Minister of Finance brought in a budget today which accepted all of the parameters of that public consultation process -- in fact went beyond that.

In days gone by, one might have said that that level of openness by a Minister of Finance would be heretical. There might be calls for resignation. You can't have that kind of open dialogue about how you manage the books. We make no apology. We're very proud of the fact that when it comes to freedom of information, we lead the Commonwealth. And when it comes to openness on budget-making in British Columbia and consultation with British Columbians, we are second to none in terms of openness and including people in that process.

I want to deal with the specifics of this case, and the Minister of Finance set them out this morning. The government was informed by a journalist that he had received detailed information about the budget. First of all, the government had to confirm that this was not uninformed speculation. It had to confirm that there were elements of the budget, the details of which would not have been known if such a leak had not taken place.

At this point, there were really two concerns -- and there should be two concerns for all members of this House. The first concern is whether there is opportunity for private gain to take place. Can someone profit if this information is public before it's tabled in the House? Given that the leak did not involve release of information about changes in taxation, did not involve anything which could be construed, in our view, as conferring upon an individual a pecuniary interest or a financial advantage.... It was determined very early that no one gained financially from an early release of this information.

If any member of the opposition thinks that is not the case, they should present evidence to this effect. Of all the pundits and all the third parties who have reviewed the matter today, no one has suggested that people would personally profit as a result of two or three hours of advance notice of the information which was published in the paper today.

Our second concern was that this information should have been released in the Legislature and instead, was being released in a daily newspaper -- the Times-Colonist, no less. As we could not recall the Legislature prior to the publication of information in the Times-Colonist, the Minister of Finance decided to table the budget at the first possible moment, at 10 a.m. this morning. The actions taken by the government are consistent with the rules of the Legislature and with the actions taken in cases of budget leaks at the federal level and by other provincial governments.

I will refer to a few. In the last decade or so there was the case of Mr. Miller, the Ontario treasurer. In 1983, a reporter searching through a pile of garbage -- as they are wont to do.... [Laughter.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry; I'm quoting, hon. Speaker.

It says: "I went through the garbage of the plant printing the documents." What was the result of Mr. Miller and the Ontario treasurer when a page of the budget was retrieved from the garbage by a reporter and printed? The minister came into the House at the first opportunity and tabled the budget. That was the response in Ontario in 1983.

In 1987, Quebec Finance minister Gerard Levesque -- a Liberal Finance minister, I might add -- read his budgetary statement to the National Assembly ahead of schedule, hours after its contents became known. To make it precise, the budget was leaked to a reporter a week before it was designed to be tabled in the House. I believe it was a reporter for CFCF, a Montreal television station. The response in Quebec was that it was on the newscast at 6 p.m. that night, and, at 9 p.m., the government called the House back and tabled it.

I want to quote from Eugene Forsey, arguably the country's leading constitutional expert in the Senate. He called the government's response a very sensible way of handling the thing. One week prior to the budgetary time when it was supposed to be tabled in the House, the minister tabled it. It was a week earlier than expected, and the constitutional expert of the day suggested that it was an appropriate response.

J. Weisgerber: It appears we all agree that the leaking of budget documents is serious business. There doesn't seem to be any difference about that. We all support the criminal investigation into the leaking of those documents. I certainly will support and encourage the prosecution of the individual or individuals responsible, should they be found, and I trust they will. I say that in recognition of the seriousness of the event.

It seems to me it is a singular activity, something that flies in the face of the history of the Ministry of Finance and the people who work in it. There are literally hundreds of people committed to their jobs and to the oath of confidentiality they take. Indeed, when you go to the ministry office as part of a budget lockup, you always find yourself faced with substantial security, and that's appropriate.

It seems to me that the government was faced with a difficult and embarrassing situation in this case, something no

[ Page 13087 ]

one would want to find themselves in. Having said that, it seems to me that the government has also taken the steps that someone would reasonably take under those circumstances.

I also believe that the continued leaking of information from the bureaucracy is an indication of serious morale problems existing within the public service. Most people who are observing the actions of this government, whether they are part of the public service or whether they are simply taxpayers, are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of this government's ability to manage the affairs of the province. I understand why certain documents are leaked, but I can't believe this can be used as justification with budget documents.

Those seem to stand alone, and there can be no way anyone can justify the leaks that occur. The government must look at the patronage and politicization of the public service that has occurred over these last three years, and it must recognize that this is part of the problem we are facing.

I wonder about the reason for having an emergency debate today. Given that the moving of the motion under standing order 35 didn't appear to call for any specific action, I wonder why we are spending one hour debating this issue. Perhaps it's because the official opposition finds itself pressed to respond to the budget and looks for an extra hour in which to prepare itself for budget debate. If nothing else....

L. Stephens: No, no, no. We've got your number.

An Hon. Member: How shallow can we get?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

J. Weisgerber: One can always tell when one hits a nerve.

I suggest that, if nothing else, the debate today under standing order 35 underlines the importance of you, Mr. Speaker, having an opportunity to consider the motion and bring back a ruling to the House rather than we agreeing to move forward with an emergency debate. Quite honestly, I don't think we've accomplished a thing today in this emergency debate. We should reserve the use of debates under standing order 35 for those areas where there is unresolved business and not use it simply for an opportunity to bring to the floor something that's already been debated.

G. Wilson: I find myself having to echo the sentiments of the Leader of the Third Party on this question. In rising on the initial motion, I recognized that it was important that the budget be put before all of the people as quickly as possible so that we could mitigate against any potential damage there may have been by information being advanced to some over others so that there may be some gain. There is a need, however, in this province -- and I'm not sure that this is the correct forum to do it -- to talk about the larger issue.

It has to do with the professionalism of the public service and the fact that it has become highly politicized in this province -- and, regrettably, in other provinces and, indeed, even in the nation's capital.

It is time for us also to analyze the concept of trust. The Minister of Finance correctly said that if any government, regardless of its political stripe, is to succeed, that government must put its trust in those people who are entrusted with the authority to be able to act on behalf of the government and to provide for the people of British Columbia adequate and proper service.

When such a leak as this one has occurred....

Let me say that I really don't make much distinction between the brown envelopes that seem to appear with somewhat regular occurrence and are used with impunity by members of the Liberal opposition as they bring forward one confidential document after another in an attempt to embarrass the government -- in what they see as their role as the opposition -- and an individual who clearly not only steps well beyond any standards of ethics but effectively breaks the law by phoning and providing a reporter with information that that individual knows full well is information that is protected not only by their own oath of secrecy to government but by the need to maintain secrecy on behalf of all British Columbians.

When that occurs, I think we have to ask ourselves two very simple questions: what is the motivation? And who seeks to gain? Let me say first off that I do not blame the reporter responsible for taking that information and providing it to that reporter's editors. But unlike other members in this Legislature, I am not so quick to let off the offending newspaper, because clearly the only group that stood to gain was the newspaper that had an exclusive document. They could put it on the front page of their newspaper and outsell their competitors by publishing that information. That's who stood to gain, and the editors of that paper knew it.

When a newspaper is prepared to take information and protect their sources -- as they have the right to do -- there is a responsibility and an obligation of members of the media to make sure that they do not abuse that privilege, because it is a very high privilege to protect the sources of information they know to be stolen. In this province when we have documents that are clearly stolen, then released and used, and when we know full well, as in this case, that that information will come forward at a prescribed time, one can only look to the gain that has been made through the release of that information.

[3:00]

Now with respect to motivation, I again echo the sentiment of the Leader of the Third Party, who says that we have politicized our civil service to the point that they now engage in the political action by making sure that information is leaked to embarrass the government. Let me say also that if we, as politicians of all stripes, don't stand up and say this is unacceptable behaviour, those of us who seek to and will form government will suffer exactly the same fate, because those people will see that that is now an accepted standard to come forward and leak these documents.

So while the opposition may glory in their ability to embarrass this government today, be forewarned that if we do not stand up and say this is unacceptable behaviour, they will suffer precisely the same fate should they be lucky enough to have the government entrusted to them in the next election.

We must get this debate pushed into a larger forum than we have today, because we are being seriously undermined by an enormously powerful and increasing electronic media that has access to tremendous amounts of information. Very few people in the public have any way to discern its accuracy or whether that information is relevant or is put forward for their benefit.

Did the public gain through the release of that information? Was it really something that was of pressing public importance? The answer is no, because there was a prescribed time and place for all members of the public to hear that document. Was politics better served by some civil servant -- or whoever it was that made the telephone call -- so lacking in their moral judgment and in their commitment to the oath they have taken that they are prepared to breach it? Does that serve our body politic? The answer is no. It undermines every one of us in this House, because none of us will find ourselves comfortable in trusting those who are closest to us.

[ Page 13088 ]

Does it serve our democracy to know that we can no longer trust those people whom we place next to us in positions of authority and power in order to be able to govern in the best interests of the people rather than in the partisan interests of whatever political party they seek to push forward? The answer is no, it does not serve our democracy well. Every one of us should be concerned about what happened today -- not just the government. If there is an embarrassment, it is an embarrassment of our political process.

It is something that each of us must be entrusted to correct because until we correct it, it matters not what political stripe we wear. This institution is jeopardized -- seriously jeopardized -- and with it our democracy. We must take firm action against it, find that offending individual and make sure that individual is brought to justice in the province of British Columbia.

W. Hurd: If we check the Hansard records from yesterday, we will find that at a few minutes past six the Minister of Employment and Investment for this government adjourned the House with the knowledge that there had probably been a budget leak in the province of British Columbia. It's incisive to understand the first reaction of that minister and this government to that information.

This is a government that has held all-night sittings in this Legislative Assembly on many occasions. Last year they pushed through a Forest Practices Code with 365 clauses in one 24-hour session. The Minister of Employment and Investment couldn't extend the hours of this House by two hours to track down a government leak of budget information.

Why should the public be concerned about the fact that the government decided not to make that investment of time in the members of this assembly? I asked myself why the members of the Third Party are not concerned that the government did not make the time to extend the hours of this session. The reason they didn't is that they were gathered in a war room somewhere in these buildings to do what they always do, which is exercise damage control, not to acknowledge to the public of this province or to the elected assembly that there was a budget leak and that information about the financial plan of this province was out there for public consumption.

Why should we be concerned about budget leaks? The sad reality is that the potential exists for people to trade on that information and to benefit from that information. It appals the members of the public in this province that at a time when the Premier's Office can be the subject of three separate investigations -- an investigation by the conflict-of-interest commissioner and an investigation by the auditor general of this province -- we should, in this particular situation, have the government do what it always does, which is deny the truth to the people of the province.

The public have a reason to ask themselves: if the government can't keep a budget document sacrosanct in this province, what document can they keep secure? As my colleague the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove has indicated, we have seen a litany of leaked documents from this government over the past number of weeks.

It's important to know that these documents have gone to the media first. The Leader of the Third Party and the leader of whatever party don't do their research. Those documents go to the media first, as the budget leak did. The members seem to be suggesting that if the leaks go to the media first, the opposition has no responsibility to raise them in this House. It's nonsense, absolute nonsense.

The sad reality is that the government of British Columbia has lost control of the civil service that it manages; that's what this says to me. They have lost control of the bureaucracy and they cannot control the leaks. The reason for this is that the government has hijacked the professional civil service of this province. The people of this province should know that their professional civil service is now staffed by hacks and political appointees, people who have cut off the avenues for advancement of professional civil servants, who are now taking the only avenue open to them, which is to release the truth to the province through leaked documents.

The Minister of Finance acknowledged during her budget remarks in the House that this government leak has placed a cloud over her staff. The reasons for holding a special debate under standing order 35 should be readily apparent to this government. We need a referral of this matter to the Ethical Conduct Committee of the House to find out what the government knew, when they knew it and whether anyone in this province benefited from that information.

This is no more or less than what the Premier and this government would have demanded when they were in opposition five years ago. The public of this province deserve answers. The government owes people answers about this budget leak, which has cast another cloud over the government and has resulted in further erosion of public confidence in the ability of this government to manage. The fact that the Speaker has ruled on the emergency nature of this debate clearly indicates the concern that the Speaker has for the role that we are playing in this assembly today in engaging in this debate.

I call upon this government to activate the Select Standing Committee on Ethical Conduct in this House; to put this matter before the House, where it belongs, and not to stonewall, as it has done for 17 hours, with a budget leak that should have been before this House in an evening session of the B.C. Legislature.

The Speaker: To conclude the debate, I recognize the hon. Minister of Forests.

Hon. A. Petter: Like the Government House Leader, my reaction this morning, upon considering the seriousness of the situation and what had transpired over the evening, was one of sadness. I must say that my sadness over the leak of budget information has been added to during the course of this debate by further sadness that the official opposition would use this opportunity to play politics over a matter of such seriousness. As has been suggested by the Leader of the Third Party, the government's actions in this case were consistent with and appropriate to the circumstances.

This is not the first time a government has faced a situation in which there have been leaks of information pertaining to the budget. The Government House Leader indicated previous such examples. One he did not have an opportunity to mention, which I'm sure members of the House will remember well, was a situation in 1989 concerning the federal Finance minister, Michael Wilson, in which there was a leak of budget information.

That doesn't make the matter any less serious, but it does establish for us some indication of what the appropriate course of action is when such occurrences happen. As the Leader of the Third Party indicated, the government in this case took the appropriate action, consistent with those precedents.

The fact is, regrettably, that there's nothing a minister can do when an individual in a position of trust chooses to leak confidential information, budget information, to the media for whatever motivation. In this case, the minister has clearly

[ Page 13089 ]

performed her duties with respect to her integrity, confidence and ability. Nevertheless, there is a situation in which someone, for whatever reasons, has decided to breach their public trust. As a result, information that ought not to have been disclosed before being shared with this House was disclosed. That's something we must deeply regret.

I think the minister indicated this morning that all the appropriate security measures were in place at the time when this leak occurred. Indeed, she also indicated that the information about the leak was not confirmed -- contrary to statements by members opposite -- until after the House had adjourned. So I, along with the Leader of the Third Party, agree that the appropriate action that needed to be taken in this case was taken and that we must address seriously the question of the leak. As members have suggested, it is a matter of the utmost seriousness and must be addressed as such.

Perhaps more disturbing this afternoon is that members of the official opposition would use this opportunity, as I've indicated, to try to play politics over a matter which they originally represented as a matter of the utmost urgency requiring a debate of this kind, but which they clearly have chosen to use instead to try to distract the members of this House and the public from the real issues before us. As the member for Delta South said this morning, the real issues before us are the budget and the finances of this province.

Rather than acting as quasi-apologists and offering up explanations to condone those who may have participated in leaking information, as I have heard the members opposite suggest, I think the members opposite would do well to take the lead from the member for Delta South, put aside this tactic that's aimed at distracting the House from getting on with the finances of the people of British Columbia and join issue for once on the substantive issues around this budget and the future of this province.

We have before us a budget that discloses a surplus and a comprehensive debt management plan. We have before us a budget that contains the continuing fulfilment of a tax freeze and that maps out a direction to ensure that medicare will be protected and that B.C. will continue to deliver more jobs to British Columbians than any other jurisdiction.

I can understand the temptation on the part of members opposite to use this unfortunate circumstance to distract public attention from a budget like that. I can understand why they might wish to capitalize on the convenience of this situation to engage this House in a pseudo-emergency debate -- to distract attention from a budget like that. But I thought they would have resisted for once the opportunity to play politics and get down and debate the real issues that face this province: creating jobs, protecting medicare and delivering the future of this province, as this government is determined to do.

The Speaker: My remarks about the minister closing debate were perhaps premature, in that one hour is available under the standing orders, so I will recognize the hon. member for Richmond East. I would like to recognize more members, but unfortunately I have no idea how long members will speak. There are about 15 minutes remaining. Please proceed.

[3:15]

L. Reid: I would like to rise in this debate and talk about truth in budgeting. It's not possible with this government. We cannot receive truth about the presentation of this budget. We have a Premier in this House who stood up and talked about that information coming to him at 5:30 yesterday evening. That's 17 hours.

Interjections.

L. Reid: Check the Blues. Seventeen hours elapsed. We have a Minister of Finance who rose this morning and said that she took the earliest opportunity to advise members of this House of these events. Neither of those statements can be seen to be factual.

We have a situation where the public must be able to trust their elected representatives. We must see this Legislature as having some responsibility to elected members. Why did this government wait? I have serious questions that surround that decision. It was obviously a decision that was taken deliberately by this government. The only thing a politician has in this life is their word, and once it has been compromised, I don't believe you have the opportunity to get it back.

The hon. Minister of Employment and Investment spoke yesterday about Maclean's magazine as somehow being an apolitical document, so I too will continue. One of their writers, Peter C. Newman, talks about deference to the political process, about the regard the public must be able to hold politicians in, about deference and about honesty when elected members come before their constituents and bring forward factual information.

My contention this afternoon is that this government had ample opportunity to bring this information forward to the House in the preceding 20 hours that elapsed. I don't suggest that they took the correct course of action. I would suggest that there was opportunity and there was knowledge on the part of this government. I hope the words we heard this morning when the Minister of Finance talked about trust actually carry some weight for members of this chamber. I have some serious concerns when we suggest that it's appropriate to release budget information to anyone before it comes before this chamber.

I have serious concerns about the Leader of the Third Party when he talks about depoliticizing this debate. This is the same individual who called for the resignation of the Minister of Finance this morning and has typically done another Socred-Reform flip-flop in this chamber. It is not appropriate.

R. Neufeld: Point of order.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Peace River North rises on a matter?

R. Neufeld: Yes, I was lulled into a bit of a nap here in the last few minutes, and all of a sudden an inaccuracy caught my attention. The Reform Party did not ask for the Minister of Finance's resignation at any time over this issue.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's not a valid point of order. It can be raised at any time in debate.

Would the hon. member please proceed.

L. Reid: We would like very much to have this issue taken seriously; we would like to know the facts. We are not attempting to politicize this issue; we have simply said to investigate. We will stand by the remarks that were made this morning, and we will make those same remarks as we continue to unravel the current state of affairs that this government finds itself in.

There are some issues around where we want to be, how much this government has evolved and how much the political process has evolved. I too would stand with my colleagues and talk about an open process for the budget in the future.

[ Page 13090 ]

When you say to the taxpayers that this is how you intend to spend their dollars, it's absolutely critical that they find out about it along the road, not at the end of the journey. There are some things that any legitimate politician can do to ensure that this kind of process is taken seriously and is actually implemented with some kind of efficiency in this Legislature.

I look at a number of ideas that have come before this House from this government. Implementation has never been their strong suit. Am I surprised by this course of events? No, I'm disappointed for my constituents and for the process. Quite honestly, I think more people in this province will have reason to doubt politicians, the political process and this government. It doesn't warm my heart that this government has again put us in that position. I have some serious concerns about it. The issue truly is one of merit in the public service.

Hiring is one of the most important tasks any government can do, and if people were hired based on merit, perhaps some of these trust issues would not be quite as damaging to this government as they seemed to have been in the past.

When I talk about an open process, I do not speak of the remedial television program that we as taxpayers in this province were all subjected to. We saw this government pay a quarter of a million dollars to abuse the public, and that was absolutely inappropriate.

I also want to refer in my comments this afternoon to when we had the hon. member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talking about somehow never having been involved in leaking information. In fact, that's not correct. On March 19, 1993, this individual was the one who leaked the information about Build B.C. and Crown corporation spending. These individuals who rose up in debate today have each attempted to politicize this issue in their own special way. It is not appropriate. It causes me great concern that we continue to have that kind of piety and dishonesty in this chamber.

The hon. minister this morning talked about a cloud on her ministry. Once you bank the clouds, you end up with a significant rainstorm, and there are some problems with continuing to see the government in this light. It has put trust in politicians in this province another 20 years behind. The public doesn't wish to be treated this way, and if this government had indeed committed to an open and public process, we wouldn't find ourselves in the situation we are in today.

I want to talk about merit and honesty in government. That's the very least anyone can expect from their elected members, and I trust that this also forms the agenda as we lead into the next election. I suggest that it's not about the witch-hunt for this individual, even though I submit that this government has had issues around witch-hunts in the past.

An Hon. Member: Especially in Matsqui.

L. Reid: Especially in Matsqui.

I do believe that this situation requires some serious investigation and understanding of how the public will view this. Public perception is the issue, but public perception must be met by fact. We must come forward and present the facts on this case. I hope we can see the facts come before this House very soon, not in an additional 20 hours, as we've been subjected to in the past.

Mind you, I have to say I can understand why somebody would want to leak this budget, because it's an awfully fine budget. We were anxious to put it out, but someone was just a little more anxious than we were to get it out to the public. It's a great budget. It protects jobs and medicare; it's a balanced budget, with an excellent debt reduction program far exceeding what the Premier's summit recommended.

Having said that, however, it's not the substance of the leak that matters. It's the kind of breach of public trust we have here and the potential problem that it is. What we are hearing from the Liberal opposition is a defence of that kind of breach of the public trust. What they are saying is that it's okay to cheat, and it's okay to break your oath of office if you don't happen to like what you see come across your desk. I would offer to this assembly that that is not acceptable. Either the Liberal opposition has no understanding of what this issue is, or they don't care about the consequences of this kind of an issue.

In order for our democracy to work, we have to respect this institution and how it functions. A budget document has to come to this assembly and be released to those elected by the people of British Columbia and to the public at the same time. A leak of that budget document in advance can do serious harm. It can erode this institution in its final culmination. Happily, in this case there was no damage done. The nature of the leak was not something that provided anyone with an opportunity for private gain. But let us not forget that the potential is there.

If we can't trust this institution, if we can't trust those people who take an oath of office, then we have a serious problem. The democratic process ultimately can't function as it ought to function.

We have the Liberal opposition saying that it's okay to cheat if you don't happen to like what you see, it's okay to ignore the solemn oath taken when you are hired in a position of trust if you don't happen to like what you see.

I would like to remind the House that this is not an issue about whether or not government has carried out its obligations, or whether or not government has brought in a good budget. That is absolutely beyond the issue. This is an issue about our system and about this institution, and it rises above partisan politics.

Although the Liberals would try to make it into a partisan issue, I would suggest that every single member of this House ought to be concerned about a leak of this nature, because it is the kind of issue over which we need to all stand up and say: "This is unacceptable behaviour in a democratic society and democratic institution." It is a question of the integrity of this parliament; it's a question of democratic process; it's a question of our ability to function as a democratic institution.

I would suggest to the Liberals that they listen to everybody else in this House who is saying that this is unacceptable behaviour. I'm pleased that there's an investigation into the source of the leak. That certainly needs to be investigated. But above all, what I think we've seen in this House today is that the Liberal opposition will even take an issue of this type and twist and bend it to their own partisan purposes. I think that is reprehensible.

All of us who understand this issue and care about this institution need to stand together today and say: "We simply reject this kind of behaviour in the interest of protecting this institution, which is, after all, the basis and the place of our democratic process in British Columbia.

[ Page 13091 ]

[3:30]

The Speaker: The time that was allotted for this debate has expired. We will now move on to the next matter.

The hon. member for Yale-Lillooet rises on a matter.

H. Lali: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Lali: I've noticed that sitting in the galleries today is my niece Raj Lali. I understand that her friend sitting with her will be introduced by the member for Kamloops-North Thompson. I'd also like to point out that my niece is attending Camosun College. Would the House please make her welcome.

F. Jackson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

F. Jackson: A simple pleasure after the last hour. Of course, as the member for Yale-Lillooet said, a constituent of mine from Barriere, Ms. Tracy Bagley, is in the gallery. She is taking a dental assistant course at Camosun College and probably would be better off looking after people's teeth than sitting in here for the last hour. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

L. Reid: I, too, would beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Jackie Tegart, the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association, who has joined us in the gallery this afternoon. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

Budget Debate

(continued)

The Speaker: The debate was adjounred by the hon. member for Delta South. Please proceed.

F. Gingell: After a brief reflection on how I would respond to this budget -- it was a very brief reflection that I was allowed -- I'm afraid I must disappoint those who believe that the exclusive role of opposition is to go for the jugular. I'm not a political vampire by nature, and I think that the public is actually becoming a little bored with politicians who vamp for the media.

Instead, today I'll go after the juggler -- that's the clown, not the vein. The juggler is the NDP adviser behind these misleading budgets we've been treated to since this government was elected. This juggler has mesmerized the current Finance minister and her predecessor. They have entered a trance-like state under the hypnotic influence of this mysterious juggler.

He has them believing that debt is actually good for us, that government spending is a substitute for real economic growth and that if you appear to balance the budget for 24 hours, even if it means bankrupting the next generation through hidden debt, the public will reward you with a new mandate. This infamous juggler has obviously been at work again, advising the government on today's budget. Like every previous year, his advice has been followed. They have even tried to give it the cloak of respectability by presenting it as a prudent response to advice from business and labour.

Sadly, once again we have a budget based on the advice of the institute of discredited economic theory and the diehards of dogma.

Let's go step by step through the claims made today by this government. First, the government claims they have a balanced budget. It just isn't so. Even by their own numbers this budget is based on a one-time payment for Columbia River downstream benefits. Without that one-time payment which they previously committed to debt retirement, there is a deficit of $136 million. In fact, the real deficit is even higher.

This budget continues the NDP's new practice of hiding ongoing highway construction spending, which used to be reflected in the government's operating budget, in the new Transportation Financing Authority. When you add the cost of transportation funding to the deficit, as it was in the past, you add another $337 million to the deficit, bringing the total to $473 million.

Second, they claim they are reducing debt. Once again the government is playing fast and loose with the truth. In my grade school arithmetic class a reduction means less debt. This budget leaves us with more debt. The reality is that this province is borrowing $1 billion more this year than last year. As usual, the government has continued to promote the myth of good and bad debt. As Chris Trumpy would be pleased to tell you, all debt has the same effect: it increases our debt-servicing costs and crowds out program spending.

If you want to see the impact of debt on programs, just look at the impact of the last three years of borrowing on this year's spending. Over the past three years, you have borrowed $10.6 billion. Debt-servicing costs have increased by $450 million. And that doesn't include the costs hidden away in other votes. I believe, from my own calculations, that the interest costs hidden away in other votes this year will amount to $530 million; that's up from $395 million in the year '91-92. In total, there is going to be an additional $585 million in interest costs.

Just think what you could do with that. First of all, you could actually balance the budget without any questions on the way it has been done. You could even cut taxes. You certainly could eliminate portables. You would have a freedom of action that you do not enjoy today and that British Columbians will not enjoy again until this debt is repaid.

Third, they claim there is a tax freeze. We all know that when the NDP say tax freeze they mean tax pause. The NDP do not recognize that taxpayers have been taxed beyond their limit. The NDP merely recognize that it would be political suicide to raise taxes yet again before the next election. At least they have stopped the hypocrisy of claiming they are against taxes.

No longer do we hear the Premier say: "You simply can't spend money you don't have." No longer do we hear the Premier saying: "We don't anticipate and will not bring in any major tax initiative." We know that NDP advisers like Maureen Maloney have a long list of possible tax initiatives. We should also not forget the NDP's ongoing policy of hidden tax increases through increased fees and levies. Finally, we must remember that the existing taxes will take more money from working British Columbians -- $300 million in additional personal taxes and $159 million in increased sales taxes.

So when we look at the numbers behind the words in this budget, we see British Columbians are paying more in taxes, the government is further in debt and the budget is nowhere near balanced. If the first year of the plan is not based on reality, how can we believe the government's promise for 20 years down the road? If the first year is a lie, the whole plan is a lie.

[ Page 13092 ]

This government has had one fundamental problem during its one and only term. That problem has to do with advice. The problem takes three forms. First, they pay for bad advice and follow it. Second, they pay for very good advice and ignore it. And third, they pay exorbitant prices for advice on the condition that it's not given -- strange behaviour, indeed.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

Let me refresh your memory on each aspect of the advice problem and demonstrate how it has resulted in yet another budget fiasco. Some members of this government might be tempted to disagree that it pays for bad advice and follows it. Before you challenge me, I have three words of caution: now, now, now.

The prebudget foray into the world of television, on the advice of spin doctors who should have quit while they were merely failed politicians, would be humorous if it were not so sad. The fact that the Finance minister and Premier could participate in such a transparent exercise in fiscal flummery shows how out of touch this government is.

Nobody's laughing anymore. People are genuinely worried, because they know that this government is going down, but also that it's so out of touch with reality it can do tremendous harm as it clings to power for its final few months.

When the Premier scooped his Finance minister last year with his televised flip-chart budget, the opposition viewed it as contempt of the Legislature. This year's episode of "whose mess is this anyway?" showed contempt for the public's common sense. How anyone could go into such a meeting expecting a public relations triumph is beyond me. You came face to face with the realities that everybody else has been talking about for years -- and that the leaders had to be taught by the public is shocking. This morning's shenanigans just compounds the credibility problem that this government has.

Paying for good advice and ignoring it is an even greater folly. The government did this when they dismissed the sound advice on affordability and accountability in the Peat Marwick report. Instead, they used that report for crass political purposes to discredit a previous government that most people were trying to forget anyway. They even manipulated the findings in Peat Marwick in order to give their first budget a camouflage of good fiscal management.

Had the government followed the advice in that report, every family in British Columbia could be facing the future today without an extra burden of taxes -- of debt of more than $3,000. Instead, the government started a cycle of unsustainable spending, year after year, culminating in this document before us today.

As if following bad advice and rejecting good advice was not enough, this government exceeded itself when it agreed to pay top dollar for advice on the condition that it wasn't given. This was the case with the Korbin commission report on the public service. The report could have been called "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Public Service Except the Things You Didn't Have the Guts to Ask." The commission was directed by them to avoid, at all costs, any reference to the delicate question of how large the public service should be. The government never wanted that answer.

One wonders how they could have convinced themselves that such a confused and contrived style of government would escape censure. I believe it's because they actually thought they had a mandate. They convinced themselves that the voters of B.C. really wanted big government, really wanted big debt and really wanted big payoffs. I have news: they simply threw the previous government out. You looked harmless, so they shifted some support to you: no mandate, no socialist renaissance in British Columbia and no public rejection of free-market principles. You looked harmless, and for a little while looks were deceiving.

Looking back on our previous budget debates, I'm quite amazed at what the government was able to get away with in those days before their debt addiction made its way to the front pages. The official opposition would call for restraint in public spending, and the government would piously contend that any attempt at restraint would savage the health care system and savage our schools. Even while you increased the total debt since 1992 at a level four times the rate of increase in health care spending, using the income of future generations to pay for your political favours, you looked so concerned.

Even though your handpicked commissioner acknowledged in her report that the ranks of health care bureaucrats, not caregivers, was growing at a rate out of all proportion to the rest of the economy, you managed to escape serious public censure on your spending.

[3:45]

The spin, as you call it, actually worked for a while. But the spin cycle is over. You're up to your ears in dirty laundry and the Maytag man won't save you at the next election.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, given that brief pause in your speech, could I ask you please to direct your remarks through the Chair rather than directing them across the way?

F. Gingell: I am doing my very best to change this as I go along, Mr. Speaker.

On the issue of increasing debt, nobody in these precincts or beyond them is even a little surprised that this government would roll out the downloading decoy as part of the rhetoric surrounding this budget. This has been the staple fare of this government. It's called the "whine-and-dine" theory of provincial politics. You whine about provincial transfer payments while your friends dine out at the public trough.

As for the whine, you can actually get back all of the dollars you claim to have lost in the federal budget if you gently pry a few noses from the trough. The health labour relations accord, the fair-wage policy and the Island Highway agreement, if scrapped, would give you all of the $400 million with enough left over to make a small payment on the more than $19.5 billion in tax-supported debt that we face. Before they were elected, tax-supported debt was 13 percent of gross domestic product. At the end of this year, it will be 18.8 percent, according to their own numbers.

But you've been doing some juggling again, Madam Minister, haven't you? You have applied the remainder of the Endowment Fund to reduce the tax-supported debt this year. If you did not include that, the percentage of tax-supported debt to GDP this year would have increased, not decreased as they have claimed.

My own preference -- and I think the correct treatment -- would have been to include the fund last year as sinking fund assets. When this government committed them, on our advice, to debt retirement.... All sinking fund assets are deducted to arrive at net debt. However you do it, the result is the same. Tax-supported debt has gone up this year, not by $1 billion but by $1.5 billion, and the percentage of tax-supported debt to gross domestic product has gone up, and not down.

I was hoping that there would be -- even at this late date in this government's mandate -- a commitment to reform, a proposal to sit down with the other provinces and the federal government to sort out the mess of overlapping bureaucracies and shared-cost programs that confuse federal and provincial priorities.

[ Page 13093 ]

If the other provinces won't cooperate, go it alone. I'm sure that the federal Finance minister Paul Martin will welcome this government's approach. In case you don't know what to put on the agenda, here's a list for starters: fisheries, forests, environment, communications, natural resources, tourism and regulation. In the spirit of accountability, the opposition is prepared to go beyond criticism. We are prepared to say what should have been done in this budget and previous budgets introduced by this government.

To repeat, their biggest failure was their lack of courage to act on the advice they paid for when they were elected. They were given a blueprint for financial management by Peat Marwick, and they just didn't or wouldn't or couldn't understand it. We would have done what they haven't done.

Here are some specifics of advice they should have followed. They said to tailor tax measures to maintain the competitiveness of British Columbia. But this government decided to give British Columbia the top marginal tax rates for personal income tax in North America -- the highest -- adding $3,000 to the tax bill of the average family, increasing all taxes by an aggregate 24 percent and adding $1.5 billion in new taxation.

This government decided to expand the corporation capital tax to tax new investment in the province. They continually speak of new investment, in their hopes for economic growth. Peat Marwick said to be mindful of the economic contribution of mining to the province. They decided to say adios to the mining industry and see it leave for Chile; they sent them to Chile and said: "Hasta la vista."

They said to implement monitoring and collection procedures for fines. This government decided to let over $100 million in deadbeat traffic fines accumulate, while bragging in paid ads about the million-dollar fines they were going to levy on industry.

They said that the budget debate should include all agencies of government, including Crown corporations. This government decided to take more of the budget debate away from this Legislature and hide it in the books of Crown agencies.

Peat Marwick said that Treasury Board should conduct value-for-money audits on all ministries. This government decided to ignore the concerns of Treasury Board officials and to take tax advice from left-wing academic ideologues and pay ministers for doing nothing.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

F. Gingell: Shame is right.

Peat Marwick said to replace the Taxpayer Protection Act with a plan that would encourage fiscal management by expanding the definition of debt and revenue in order to reduce the temptation to window-dress results. This government has given us a real dog-and-pony show called "Good Debt, Bad Debt."

Peat Marwick recommended a zero-base approach to ministry budgets. This was ignored in their first budget, and the problem has increased year after year. We are now spending close to $3 billion more than we would have if this government had held the line as advised.

There was no scenario whatsoever in that entire report which supported the remote possibility of balancing the budget in four years without a courageous mix of spending cuts. It is therefore a travesty for this government to suggest that they have achieved anything like that result. A balanced budget is not achieved through asset fire sales, one-time windfalls and deferred cost accounting. You do not balance a budget with speechwriters; you balance it by law. That is what we will do.

You cannot spend your way to a balanced budget, and you can't take the well-intentioned advice on balanced budgets from concerned citizens, run it through the NDP truth processor and spit it out the other side, disguised as accountable financial management.

We would have followed the early advice you ignored and taken some strong initiatives, and the people of British Columbia would have been supporting a lot less government today. I really should be facing 12 cabinet ministers, not 18. I recognize that this government will probably end its term with fewer ministers. But that will not arise from spending reductions; it will result from conflict-of-interest rulings.

When we told this government in this debate last year that they could not continue to spend at a rate that was more than double the growth rate in the economy, we were telling them what we stood for and asking them to be responsible. When we told them in 1993 that debt is not an investment, did they remember that? We were advising them not to attempt to fool the public with the tired notion that you could mortgage your way to prosperity. We could only advise.

They could only act. They were in power, and they have failed. They have also failed miserably to make the right decisions in a relatively good business cycle. This is a resource-driven economy, and right now it's a price-driven economy in the resources sector. Any buoyancy in the resource sector is in spite of this government, not because of it. They should have taken the opportunity to cut spending and pay down the debt. Instead, they acted like the foolish farmer who eats his seed corn and has nothing to plant in the spring. Commodity-based economies have down cycles.

The forest sector will face one in this decade, in all probability. They have added to that probability with layer upon layer of overlapping forest legislation that will certainly cost jobs and sacrifice communities.

An intelligent government would be trimming the cost of government now, in anticipation of a market adjustment -- not this government. An intelligent government would be building investor confidence in our key sectors -- not this government. Instead, we're shipping jobs to Alberta and the Yukon, because the Forest Practices Code, as predicted, has produced gridlock in the woods. The land claims negotiation process has created an investment chill. And the made-in-Washington park strategy is all about image rather than ecology.

We need a strong, confident resource sector. Their own statistics reported on March 20 that the B.C. rate of adoption for computer-based manufacturing technologies in Canada was well behind the Canadian average and only one percentage point ahead of the Maritimes. Last month, B.C. ranked seventh among Canadian provinces in export growth. You have to remember that 60 percent of our exports are from one single industry.

Do they have any understanding what these indicators mean? It means there isn't going to be any huge influx of high technology plants to take up the slack if we choke our resource sector with misguided regulatory overburden. It means that the debt burden of this province cannot be sustained in the next down cycle.

There is no plan B for British Columbia, and they are jeopardizing plan A. As for this government's plan, there is none. We see that all the tired schemes have become unravelled. The friends have been paid, the infighting has started, and the paper shredders have been oiled and made ready. We see a government waiting out its inevitable end, a

[ Page 13094 ]

frightened, reactionary, fractious government beset with internal dissent, a lust for power and an insufferable sense of self-righteousness in spite of all its failures. They may regrettably be with us a little while longer. If so, and if there is any lingering decency, I ask one thing: please, do no more harm.

[4:00]

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in response to the budget, an opportunity for us to talk about the central issue today: the budget and what it contains or doesn't contain.

It seems to me that this budget is little more than pulp fiction. It's a prescription for debt creation under the guise of a phony balanced budget. By deferring real and meaningful cuts to the budget, the government is adding new debt to the shoulders of British Columbia taxpayers. This growing, spiralling debt is going to be an ever greater burden on British Columbia. It is going to choke off investment, opportunity, job creation and confidence in our economy.

At the end of the day, this growing burden of debt is going to jeopardize our health care system, our education system and our ability to provide basic social services to those people who need them. Each and every time it adds millions and billions of dollars to our debt it puts in jeopardy the very services this government purports to protect.

The government tabled something in its budget document called a debt management plan. It's a joke. If you look at, it would be a kind assessment to say that it's a debt mismanagement plan. We've seen a sorry legacy by this government of increased taxes, runaway spending and ever-growing debt.

Today the government once again thumbed its nose at B.C. taxpayers and voters. It completely ignored the message that voters have been trying to send to this government for months now. Despite all of the concerns raised and all of the protests we've heard about increasing debt, this budget, rather than paying down the debt, will increase the tax-supported debt by $750 million this year. Once again that's an increase in debt under the budget.

In the four budgets by this government, the debt has increased -- a debt that can only be repaid by tax dollars; your tax dollars and mine -- from $12.5 billion when they took office to $19.5 billion today. The provincial debt will increase by $950 million overall this year despite a tax revenue increase of $900 million -- almost a billion dollars. There's a $250 million windfall from the one-time, upfront sale of downstream benefits and a $400 million one-time budget adjustment, an accounting entry, from the collapse of the B.C. Endowment Fund.

Those funds came to government in the 1980s as a result of highway privatizations. They've been held in a special account, and this year, almost four years after it was elected, the government decided to transfer the money, in a bit of bookkeeping manipulation, to appear to pay down the debt.

If it weren't for those unusual sources of revenue, the government situation would be even worse than the one we see today. And the government has the nerve to brag about the fact that it's going to take us 14 more years to pay down the debt to where it was in 1991 -- not even where it was in 1991 in real terms but where it was in 1991 in terms of the percentage of GDP. Fourteen more years for us to get back to somewhere near where we were when this government went on its three-and-a-half-year spending spree.

Unfortunately, the cabinet doesn't appear to have any idea just how absurd this plan looks to anyone who sits back and objectively analyzes it. It seems to us that the government is so preoccupied with its own political troubles -- investigations by the auditor general, by the conflict-of-interest commissioner and by who knows who else -- that it hasn't listened to the very clear message that I, at least, heard from the electronic town hall debacle. It was pretty clear. Even people who were picked to go to the meeting were telling the government to get its act together and start dealing with this problem of debt.

Taxpayers want to see this government take a page from what's happening across the country. They want the government to look at the actions taken by the governments of Alberta and New Brunswick. Even the government of Newfoundland, the poorest province in this country, has managed to cut spending.

It's amazing that the Minister of Education, even halfway through this debate, still hasn't heard the nickel drop. He is still talking about the need to spend, spend, spend, and that's apparently something that runs through this cabinet like a virus. Unless we take substantive measures to reduce the size and cost of government and pay down the debt in real terms, we are going to continue to waste money on debt payments that should be going toward health and education spending.

The so-called interest bite on government debt will now rise to 8 percent. When this government took office, with higher interest rates than are in place today, it was spending less than 4 cents of every dollar on interest. In its spending spree, this government has doubled the cost of debt payment even while interest rates are falling. Under the NDP's so-called debt management plan, it would take us until the year 2010 to reduce the debt as a percentage of GDP to where it was in 1991. That's what this government calls a debt management plan.

An Hon. Member: And that's calculated in '95 dollars.

J. Weisgerber: Yes. And I'm sure people in British Columbia are shaking their heads wondering how a government can spend three and a half years creating debt, and then, as it's sliding out of office with one foot on a banana peel, bring in a plan to reduce the debt over the next 14 years. It is hoping that some other government will be able to undo its mistakes, and that's sad to see. To think that a government would take 14 years to bring it down to 12.5 percent, when the debt in British Columbia four years ago was 11.9 percent of GDP!

Even in percentage terms, we can't get back to where we were in 1991 in less than 14 years. That's the government's much-talked-about, much-bragged-about debt management plan.

I expect the government is reaching that kind of sorry point in its mandate when it starts to grope around for the silver bullet, the thing that's going to bring it back from the brink of disaster at the election. Let me tell all the members here that the debt management plan isn't the silver bullet. Indeed, it isn't a bullet at all, or perhaps a dummy bullet at best. It has no zing. There's nothing there. Nobody is going to buy the fact that the government is going to take 14 years to pay off the debts it alone racked up over the last three years.

On top of that, the government plans to borrow $612 million for highway construction and hide it under B.C. 21. For 125 years, expenditures like this, including a much larger project, were paid for out of operating budgets. The Highways minister now simply manages maintenance contracts, and once in a while, she gets to go on stage with the Minister of Employment and Investment to announce a new highway project.

This government, now launched into its debt management plan, is actually going to spend 3 percent more this

[ Page 13095 ]

year than it did last year. It would have us believe that next year and in the years after that it's going to bring spending increases down to zero. And if the government can't bring spending down to zero today, why would anyone want to believe that they'll do it next year? Why would anyone want to believe that this government would finally find the fortitude...?

An Hon. Member: Dishonest as they are.

J. Weisgerber: What we know will happen is that the government will spend.... Next year it will come in here and table a budget, and then hope, before it has to live up to it, that it can go to the voters. I can tell them now that the news won't be any better next year than it is this year.

And this, a $3 billion increase.... This is a government that spent $3 billion more than its leader promised in 1991, a government that's raised taxes six times more than its Premier -- the Leader of the Opposition at the time; the leader of the NDP seeking to form a government -- promised taxpayers he would do. Indeed, in 1991 the NDP led taxpayers to believe they would only increase taxes by a total of $225 million a year. Once in government, they jacked the taxes up by $1.6 billion a year.

R. Neufeld: They had to pay their friends and insiders.

J. Weisgerber: And pay them they did.

In this budget the government says it's going to streamline the size of the bureaucracy. Indeed, it says we're going to reduce the number of supervisory positions by 450. What it fails to mention in the budget highlights is that it's also going to increase the public service by another 900 people, for a net increase of 500 new FTEs and an increase in costs for the public service of $90 million. And that's on top of 3,600 new public servants that have been added by this government since 1991. That's driven a 26 percent increase in the cost of the public service.

The government this year indicates by its budget documents that it's going to hire 238 more bureaucrats in the Ministry of Social Services, and at the same time is going to run another $1.9 billion account for welfare. There are no meaningful reductions in the $900 million increase in welfare costs that have been developed, have grown, under the NDP.

There is no leadership from the top with this government. Out of 19 ministries -- and we have three of the culprits here today -- 15 of them, including the Premier's office, had a budget increase. This government that's going to hold the line on spending can't even control costs in a minister's office. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has an increase in his office budget -- not his ministry, but the small group of people who work in his office -- of $38,721.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: He waves it off and says it's accounting.

The Minister of Forests is going to see an increase in his budget of $16,000; the Minister of Government Services, $21,000, even though it appears that the fact that this office isn't operational may slow down that increase by a little bit. The Minister of Skills, Training and Labour is in there with both feet, with a $29,000 increase in that budget. And there's $11,000 for the Minister of Women's Equality.

It's clear that there is no commitment. The government brags about having taken a 5 percent reduction in their cabinet allowances. They fail to mention that you, Mr. Speaker, took an equal cut, as did the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Third Party. A symbolic gesture, but not one that indicates any dedication to expenditure reduction by the cabinet.

[4:15]

An Hon. Member: Well, you didn't do it when you were minister, did you?

An Hon. Member: It wasn't such a big issue.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. I think we all want to hear what the Leader of the Third Party has to say.

J. Weisgerber: Again, you can always tell when you hit a nerve: up goes the volume. You get talking about their office expenses and you get their attention. A $1 billion debt, a $1 billion budget overrun -- they yawn and wave it off as not being very important. But talk about the increases in their ministerial offices and their ears perk up and you start to get some attention out of the benches.

What probably should be of great concern to members on both sides of the House is that, in this budget of $20-plus billion, not one nickel is provided for the costs of settling aboriginal land claims -- the biggest lurking expenditure in the province today. And not one word, one indication.... The government's 20-year debt management plan doesn't once consider, once acknowledge, the potential costs of the settlement of native land claims.

Indeed, what the government should do is go back to basics. The government should go back to a commitment to balancing the budget in real terms and then move toward creating surpluses that can pay down the debt in a reasonable period of time. Let's not play around with percentages of GDP, and stretching out for 20 years the repayment of the debts created over the last three years. Let's, as British Columbians and as a government, get serious about the issue of debt reduction. Let's deal with debt so we can move on to reduce taxes. Let's get rid of the corporate capital tax.

Let's then move to restore confidence in the economy. Let's make cuts evenly and prudently across the board. Let's start to look at the effect of ever-increasing welfare costs and the ever-increasing cost of bureaucracy. Let's assess those in view of what British Columbians can afford today, what they demand of government today.

Let's bring government spending down in real terms by at least 3 to 5 percent a year. They've done that in Ottawa. Provinces across the country have done it; their governments brought spending down. Other governments have demonstrated the ability to do that. Surely to goodness, here in British Columbia, the wealthiest province in the country, with the best economy and the strongest economic base -- no thanks to anybody sitting across the way -- we should be able to deal with this matter much more effectively than we have today.

Indeed, it's time we cut spending, even in this budget, by somewhere between $600 million and $1 billion, in anticipation of cuts in transfer payments, which I don't think we should resist. I don't think we should resist cuts, and I don't think we should resist transfers from Ottawa. The Minister of Education -- who must have dozed through my throne speech response yesterday -- says: "Show me where you'll make the cuts." I'd refer you to Hansard, Mr. Minister. I dealt with it in complete detail.

I don't think we can trust people to make these judgments and these balanced budgets without some kind of discipline. And I believe balanced budget legislation, brought

[ Page 13096 ]

in under the B.C. Constitution Act, is the way to ensure that it happens. We should require governments to balance their budgets, and to spend more than they take in in revenue only if they go back to taxpayers by way of referendum and get permission to, or come to this Legislature and make such a compelling argument for overspending that they could convince every member of the House of the validity of that requirement. If you can't do that -- if you can't convince this House that you need not balance your budget, if you can't convince taxpayers and voters that you can't balance your budget -- you shouldn't be allowed to overspend.

We should not only require governments to balance their budget but we should limit by legislation their ability to borrow. We can't have governments continue to misuse vehicles like B.C. 21 to hide highway construction spending and who knows what under the guise of capitalization. We've seen the government again fall into the temptation, and we've got to see a fundamental turnaround.

I expect that the most critical issue facing this province is the issue of reductions in government spending -- the control of government overexpenditures. I predict that sometime in the next 18 months voters are going to bear that fact out for us -- each one of us -- as we stump our way around the province. The government should simply abandon this capitalization initiative and move to deal with the real problems facing the electorate.

And we should start at the top. I said it yesterday, but for the benefit of the Minister of Education I'll say it again today. We should get rid of the MLA severance plan. I know that a lot of you folks are kind of counting on that sometime over the next 18 months or so, when you move on to wherever it is you're going after this place. The six-month severance packages may look pretty attractive today. We should get rid of pensions for MLAs who aren't age 60 or older. And we should rewrite....

An Hon. Member: How old are you?

J. Weisgerber: There have been several people ask how old I am. I'm young enough to be severely affected by the increase in age to age 60.

An Hon. Member: You'll always be young, Jack.

J. Weisgerber: I'm always young, and I'll always be young at heart.

I want to tell you, my friends, that when you bring measures in like this, the best thing you can do is make sure they affect you as an individual, as well as the rest of the people you are dealing with. Indeed, I believe that it's symbolic and it's critical. If governments can't and ministers and MLAs won't control their office expenses -- won't forgo perks like six-month severance when they get defeated in office or decide not to run again, or take pensions when they're in their late forties or early fifties -- then who can expect them to take the tough measures that are necessary to get our economy and our spending back under control?

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Again the nerves have been hit. I suppose these folks aren't going to be allowed to respond to the budget. I suppose the discipline of party whips will require that they sit out this budget speech debate, or they would be making some notes and preparing to respond. I feel sorry for those people, kind of stuck in the back bench, not allowed to get on their feet and formally address the House...

An Hon. Member: Sit down and we will.

J. Weisgerber: ...and limiting themselves to heckling.

L. Stephens: You're taking all the time.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, I digress.

L. Stephens: Yes, you do.

J. Weisgerber: I've been distracted. I confess that this merciless heckling in here has actually distracted me from my carefully prepared notes, and I find myself responding to poorly-thought-out questions screamed from the back bench.

L. Stephens: Lost and bewildered.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, back to the central issue -- and indeed your cooperation.

L. Stephens: Is this from the U.S.A.? Is this speech from Karl Struble and associates?

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Speaker, whenever they're ready, I'm ready.

There are specific areas that require attention. The enormous growth in welfare costs is one that simply can't be overlooked. We should bring in some simple measures that start to deal with misuse in that area. I believe we should have employable individuals go down regularly to pick up their welfare cheques. There should be an opportunity at least every two weeks to go down and pick those up. Single parents should be considered employable when their youngest child reaches six months of age. Those people who....

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: These folks fail to recognize that working mothers, the working poor and others are lucky to get a six-month leave of absence from their jobs. We are not saying for a moment that single mothers on social assistance should be cut off welfare; they should simply be considered employable and encouraged to go out and get back into the workforce. I won't apologize for that today or any other day. I think that's a responsible use of taxpayers' dollars.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: One thing I didn't expect was to be heckled from the Liberal benches on that issue, but it does kind of support a theory I have put out at political events from time to time: there really isn't an awful lot of difference between the Liberals sitting here beside us and the NDP members sitting across the way.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I am sure the speaker would recognize that them's indeed fightin' words, but I would ask us all to please allow him the courtesy of making his comments.

J. Weisgerber: There has always been a certain enjoyment in putting the fox in the henhouse -- or the chicken in the fox house, whichever it may be.

Having now been heckled by the Liberals on the thought of constraining welfare spending, I almost hesitate to move

[ Page 13097 ]

into the area of cuts in health care. I believe we should start by eliminating the health labour accord; we should get rid of that $300 million extra cost. We should put a hard cap on doctors' billings. We should move into encouraging the availability of private health care alternatives to reduce waiting lists for specialized services. I think that is a reasonable approach to health care. I don't think people should have to go to Alberta or Washington State or California or Massachusetts for services they pay for. They should have an opportunity to have those specialized services made available here in British Columbia by British Columbians.

We should cut education costs, and start right off the bat by reducing the number of school districts. The minister doesn't seem to want to deal with that issue. We should restore education as an essential service. That sounds kind of reasonable to me.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, they're arguing over whose idea it is.

We should restore fair government tendering practices. We should get rid of the fixed-wage policy -- the so-called fair-wage policy. We should cancel that sweetheart deal called the Island Highway construction contract. We should abandon the Victoria accord. We can't afford to spend $150 million to create new luxury office space for government here in Victoria, while at the same time driving up office vacancies in Victoria by as much as 13 percent. We should start to look at Crown corporations seriously, with the intent of privatizing them in part or in whole where indeed that makes sense.

[4:30]

We should limit ourselves to expenditures that are brought on by government decisions. I refer, firstly, to the decision at Windy Craggy where the government, simply as a knee-jerk reaction, interrupted a public process that could have examined the opportunities for the exploration, use and extraction of the largest mineral deposit in British Columbia today -- probably in North America. But instead the government decided to simply cancel that deal in the midst of a public process.

What was alarming, because the Liberals joined us in condemning that practice, was that they then turned around and did exactly the same thing in anticipation of the BCUC report on Kemano. The government and the official opposition are both guilty of exposing British Columbia to substantial costs that haven't been well thought out. Indeed, we have....

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: Those members anxious to get to their feet will understand that I've taken my half-hour to speak to this when I could take two, under standing orders.

But I want to again emphasize how bogus this budget is. It's bogus because it doesn't deal with the fundamental issues facing British Columbia today. It doesn't attack government spending. It incurs new debt while purporting to put forward a debt reduction plan. It's a sham, and it's a hollow response from a government that I would have thought had heard the voices of taxpayers when the Premier ventured into that world of town hall meetings by way of the electronic media.

I expect that after British Columbians have an opportunity to examine this budget, they'll recognize it for what it is. And it will be the subject of ongoing debate around the province and ongoing condemnation from a wide range of interests around British Columbia.

G. Wilson: Let me start my remarks in response to this budget by saying that I think there is much in this budget that is actually quite good, that there is some in this budget which I think needs to be clarified in some detail and that there is some in this budget which I think is not good at all. Having said that, I think what we have to try to do is present to the people of British Columbia a fair analysis of what the government is attempting to accomplish with this document.

I know that as we come closer to a provincial election, the tendency is for politicians to want to play politics on issues, and of course the budget is probably the best issue to play politics with. But I think that British Columbians are at a crossroads, and it's a serious crossroads that we're going to have to make some very serious choices about.

We heard from the Minister of Finance this morning, saying that British Columbia's economy is strong and that comparatively we are among the strongest economies -- in fact, we are the strongest economy -- in Canada. I think that statistically that can be proven to be true, and that is something British Columbians should feel good about, regardless of what political party is in power.

It is important if we are to be taken seriously as politicians that we point out and acknowledge that which is good so that people can understand that when we take issue with something, we're doing so with legitimate motivation, and that it is for the well-being of the people we're elected to represent -- and not simply because we think it might be an area that we might gain some points on.

With that in mind, I really think the Leader of the Third Party should be given some credit today, because the Leader of the Third Party has at least come forward and put in front of the people of British Columbia some policy options that the Reform Party would like to implement. I don't happen to agree with them, but at least they've done something. Sadly, we heard nothing of that from the official Liberal opposition, who gave a rather circular kind of argument about the debt: what they intend to do with the debt, whether it's $4 billion and so on. So I think we have to take this opportunity to put in place some kind of policy options, and I think the leader of the Reform Party did that.

But I have to take issue with it, and I only raise it now because it's fresh in my mind from the comments just made by the leader of the Reform Party. I think their approach with respect to single mothers who require assistance is quite wrong. I'm not sure what information or data the leader of the Reform Party is relying on when he makes the comment about the six-month period, the requirement of sale of homes and the requirement of greater and more draconian measures brought against the working poor. It wasn't single mothers on welfare who created either the provincial or the national debt.

It wasn't the single parent struggling to feed, clothe and educate their children who was responsible for the provincial debt.

I think it does bear mentioning that while we had a very clear direction presented by the leader of the Reform Party, it wasn't so many months ago that the leader of the Reform Party sat in the caucus of the Social Credit government which left this province with a $2.6 billion deficit. So it does smack of perhaps just a bit of opportunism, now that the Social Credit coat has been shed and the Reform Party jacket has been put on, to say that somehow the debt that was accumulated under that regime is no longer there.

L. Fox: You used to wear a Liberal jacket.

G. Wilson: I hear from my Reform colleague from Prince George who says: "Well, you used to wear a Liberal jacket."

[ Page 13098 ]

That's true; I did. It was precisely because that party chose to embark upon a very right-wing agenda -- one that's even further right than the Reform Party -- that I simply could not sit there and be a Liberal. I can't follow the thinking and the direction of the Leader of the Opposition, the now-leader of the so-called Liberal Party, who for all the world reminds me of a young Brian Mulroney in his approach to politics. I can't follow that, hon. Speaker. I can't simply...be there.

While a kind of young Brian Mulroney figure might lead the Liberals to wherever they're going to go, I think the people of British Columbia are more interested in recognizing that we have a serious problem. That problem is one of debt and debt management.

I disagree intensely with the direction that was taken by the Leader of the Third Party with respect to social programs and how we deal with that issue. I don't think that you should try to balance budgets off the backs of the poor or that you should take issue with people who, for reasons well beyond their own control, are simply unable to look after their own welfare.

I do agree with the analysis that was presented by the Leader of the Third Party with respect to the debt management plan that was put in here, and I think it's inadequate. I agree that the figures and the analysis that was done and presented there are correct and that it is going to take roughly 15 years for us to try to get back to where we were in 1991-92. If you look at it in terms of its calculations, it means we're going to try to get back there with calculations on the basis of 1995 dollars.

When we look at the budget figures that are in front of us now, the cost of doing business with respect to the borrowing here, we see that the cost of borrowing under the regime that we are governed by -- the New Democratic Party -- has risen by an enormous amount. It has gone from a $1 billion annual service cost to roughly $1.7 billion. Interestingly enough, if we look at the population increase and therefore the nominal GDP in terms of billions, we see that the increases demonstrated here in no way reflect a similar kind of increase.

Therefore we have to ask ourselves how, with roughly 3.7 million British Columbians, we are going to be able to manage this so-called debt retirement plan that the government has put forward, which is going to take 20 years -- or 14 years plus five -- to actually put in place when we're looking at a debt-servicing cost of about $1.7 billion annually. This is a big problem.

The one thing this budget does not do, and is silent on, is come to the people of British Columbia with a very clear and detailed analysis of what we're going to do about real debt reduction in that sense. If there is a failing in this document -- and I believe this is a significant failing -- it is that it does not take issue with the accumulated debt that is brought by Crown corporations, by infrastructure costs and by direct government spending. What it does is only take issue with the $10.2 billion in direct government spending.

What we're actually doing is simply saying that we're going to try to separate from our debt calculations that which we deem to be capital assets, and we're going to focus in and concentrate on that portion of the debt which is supported directly by taxpayers, which is about $10.2 billion.

Philosophically and ideologically I can understand why the government would do that. That is actually not unlike what Ralph Klein did in Alberta, although not a lot of focus and attention has ever been brought to that fact. For all the talk of the great Klein debt reduction plan, Klein dumped a lot of that debt off by saying that it's covered by secured assets.

If you look at what he's doing now, he's attacking the deficit in precisely the same way that this government is attempting to attack it here, in terms of the calculation of figures -- although Klein's methods of doing it differ somewhat from the methods of this government here. Klein is going directly after that debt in Alberta and is reducing it through a direct reduction in government spending,

whereas this government is doing it without a reduction in government spending but by simply trying to off-load expenditures into Crown corporations by borrowing and having that borrowing amortized over longer periods of time so that they are able to demonstrate an increase in revenue.

It's important for the people of British Columbia to engage in this debate, because this is where we ca