1992 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1992

Evening Sitting

Volume 1, Number 13

[ Page 245 ]

The House met at 6:41 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Second reading, interim supply.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1992

(continued)

The Speaker: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove adjourned debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's good to be back after such a long break, all fired up and rejuvenated. I didn't quite make it to Switzerland or Hong Kong, but I feel good. I notice that the rest of the members of the government haven't managed to return from their dinner yet, but we're all here.

When I was interrupted and then adjourned the debate much earlier this evening, I was talking about the special warrants and particularly comparing the special warrants of this government to those of the previous government. I was making note of the sheer volume of special warrants that have come out by this government, and the fact that they do need significant debate -- more than we can possibly do in this House in a day and a half.

It is very interesting to look through these. After the last election and the campaign that this present government waged, I honestly never expected to see a special warrant with an NDP Minister of Finance's signature on it. Unfortunately, there is a whole stack of them here, and anybody can come and look at them if they want to.

It's very interesting to note the methods that this government has come to use in the short time that they have been in government, and particularly in this House. They expect the House to merely overlook the fact that they've spent on special warrants for five months. They expect this House not to pay attention to the fact that they have been worse perpetrators of special-warrant spending than the previous government -- which had to be the worst in all history.

H. Lali: So which one is worse?

G. Farrell-Collins: By far, the present government is the worst. It's amazing -- the blind loyalty of the backbenchers of this government, and how they just get right in there and cheer on their executive council.

An Hon. Member: There aren't many of them.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's true. You can't hear them very well now because there's maybe a tenth of the number that was here before. But they're starting to get fired up.

In all seriousness, these special warrants that have been put forth by this government are a disgrace and a supreme disappointment to the people of this province who thought they had voted for a different style of government. What they have now is exactly the same style of government. The names on the office doors have changed, the seating plan of the House has changed, but nothing has really changed. It's exactly the same system we had before.

The members opposite should really take that to heart and think hard and long about it before they start to call, ridicule and make fun of the fact that their NDP government is the most profound perpetrator of special-warrant spending in the history of this province. That's a disgrace to the taxpayers of this province, who have been paying into government for the last year.

They're going to pay into it for another four months, and we're still dealing on special warrants and interim supply, all because this government didn't have the foresight to call the House at a reasonable time like they did in Saskatchewan, like they did in Ontario, like NDP governments have done around this country. They refused to call the House. They waited five months.

They waited two weeks, once the House was called, to get into this debate, and here we are at almost 7 o'clock in the evening, and we're debating special warrants and fiscal ineptitude of this government one day before the end of the fiscal year. That's an outrage.

[6:45]

This government has had five months. They have had days. Now we hear them talk about fair wages again. They would rather.... Instead of having the public look at these special warrants, they tried to hide them. They were ashamed of them. They tried to put them behind their back and shove them under the desk, and instead engage in a debate on fair wages, another piece of regulation they've had months to bring in. Their friends in the construction industry have been waiting months to hear from them.

They put it off and they put it off, because they know it's the most unpopular, undefendable piece of regulation and legislation that this government will likely bring forth this year. They know that, and it's indefensible. There are no reports; there's no justification for that policy, and so they try and bring it in under the clutter of battle the day before the end of the fiscal year when we're trying to debate the special warrants of this province; we're trying to debate the interim supply of this government.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: If you'd like me to bring up Peat Marwick, I'd be glad to bring up Peat Marwick.

It's Amazing: there isn't a single member of the executive council in here. Maybe they're operating by remote control now or something, because they're not even here. They don't even need the strings.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Our members are here.

C. Evans: You haven't said anything yet that we didn't give you the idea for. You need us.

G. Farrell-Collins: You're right. Everything I've said here today you people -- I should say the hon. members of the NDP -- gave me the idea for. You gave me the idea of this charade and embarrassment of fiscal

[ Page 246 ]

spending -- this special-warrant spending. You gave me the idea of this Peat Marwick charade that's built up this straw person and is trying to....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'd just like to remind the member to address comments through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will endeavour to do so, hon. Speaker.

And it's intriguing. The member brought up the Liberal Party finances, a topic I love to talk about, because this party elected 17 members with $93,000, probably the most cost-effective and efficient election campaign in the history of Canada. I would love to see the government party's campaign debt from the last election, or has it already been paid off by the construction unions in this province?

C. Evans: Please address the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am addressing the Chair. This is the hon. Speaker.

Hon. Speaker, it's amazing that no matter what topic the members of the government bring up, they cannot defend it. They cannot defend special warrants, because they themselves have spoken so strongly against them. They cannot defend Peat Marwick, because they know it's fundamentally flawed. They can't defend accusations of campaign contributions, because they know they exist. The only thing this government can do is holler and scream and play like children, and play fast and loose with the rules in this House.

It's time the people of this province cleaned the other half of this House, got rid of this NDP government and started over with a Liberal government.

H. De Jong: The member to my left just said that if I would use his speech of last year.... I can assure you that I would not use his speech, because I'm a much milder type of person than he is in his expressions. At the same time, I do want to get up today and speak on this interim supply bill. In fact, I am speaking against this interim supply bill.

I have been in the House now for nearly two weeks. I spoke last week on the throne speech and mentioned the fuzzy lines that were in the throne speech and what perhaps would be between those fuzzy lines. I've looked at the things that have happened over the last couple of weeks. In fact, the lines in the blueprint are so blurred that they run in opposite directions. The events that this government has gone through, and which it has proclaimed and stated over the last couple of weeks, run in exactly opposite directions.

What makes me very uneasy is to approve an almost $5 billion interim supply bill. The reason I'm saying that they run in opposite directions is that, on the one hand, the government wishes to implement measures under this so-called fair wage policy to bring up the cost of construction of facilities for government to the highest level of wages paid to construction workers through union agreements. On the other hand, this government is espousing to put a limit, a cap, on doctors' total earnings, which in reality says that....

When a doctor is practising and has practised for a number of years in a community, he attains a credibility among his patients and has an incentive to serve his patients to the best of his ability. If ten months of the year have gone by and this doctor, because he is a good doctor, has reached this "capped agreement" or this "capped amount" that the government will allow to be paid to any physician, he would then have to say to a patient: "I'm sorry. I cannot help you, dear patient."

I'm just thoroughly frustrated as to what this government is really up to, and I'm sure many of the people of British Columbia are thoroughly frustrated.

We talk about increased taxes. The Premier himself has on many occasions stated that there would be no new taxes. Hon. members, whether it is increased taxes to an existing tax or a new tax, they are additional taxes to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Surely an interim supply bill is to pay people. Surely -- I believe I can speak for all members in this House -- we wouldn't want anyone who is providing service or working for the government not to get paid for a period of time while we are debating the estimates. But surely to goodness, since this government has been in office for nearly six months, without any problem it could have opened this Legislature perhaps a week or two earlier so at least we could have had all of the debates on second reading of the budget, as was proposed last week. We've had no debate on the budget as such.

There's been no dialogue between government and the opposition as to what is really in the budget. Now we are asked to approve a supply bill. Yes, we know the amount that is contemplated under this interim supply bill, but neither the people of this province nor we as legislators know what effect the taxation measures are going to have on British Columbians.

An. Hon. Member: They'll sure find out pretty quick.

H. De Jong: I agree, hon. member. The people will find out very quickly. Maybe the members on the government side know.

Many questions have been asked in regard to the tax implications, but no answers have been provided. The people of this province and we as legislators surely have the right to know what's in the budget document.

While there is little time left, we have no alternative but to let this bill go by, although I'm sure all my colleagues on this side of the House and I will be voting in opposition to it. I want to state again that we have no intention nor would we ever want to withhold payment to those who are providing a service for the people of British Columbia through government offices. At the same time, the people have the right to know before the money is spent how it is to be extracted from their pockets. From what I see in this budget, the extraction from the pockets of British Columbians is going to be very extreme.

This is why I'm very sorry. In fact, I'm sure the people of British Columbia feel uneasy about not having had the complete debate on second reading

[ Page 247 ]

of our budget before this interim supply bill is passed in this House.

I don't think I need to say much more. But by the sudden change in the course of action through various procedures that were introduced by this government today, the people of this province are losing confidence in the competence of this government at a fast rate.

C. Tanner: I rise today to talk on the bill that has been introduced this morning at such short notice, Bill 16 on supply. In some ways it's a bit like a situation that might happen if you went to cash your cheque on October 15, and $50 was deducted. And when you went to cash your cheque on November 1, there was another $100 taken out.

When you ask why, they say: "Wait until March 31, and we'll tell you then." On January 1 there's another $100 taken out, and when you ask, "Why are you taking this money from us?" they say, "Wait until March 31, and perhaps we'll tell you then." I don't think the members would put up with that. The members would want some explanation as to why the deductions have been made, and I think it's reasonable that the people of British Columbia should know how the government is spending their money before it is spent.

Madam Speaker, I think it's a shame that this government, which is a green government, and this opposition, which is a green opposition, and those 51 members in this House who are green.... We're all new at this game. I think it started out in the most unfortunate manner from everybody's point of view, but particularly from the point of view of the public. I don't think there was any need for what's happened now. I don't think there's any need to abuse the rules to accomplish what you wanted to do. There was a very obvious need to call this assembly earlier so that we could sit and debate it.

Even the new members could have participated, and we could have given you our approval to go ahead and spend money which is rightly the public's.

Madam Speaker, I was going to say earlier on -- I was slated to speak earlier -- that I didn't blame the members from the third party not being here, because unfortunately they might have been too ashamed to be here, because they taught those people over there how to play this game. It's unfortunate that they've learned so well.

[7:00]

I think the members on that side should remember that they now are government. Their responsibilities are different than when they sat on this side, and it's time they treated their responsibilities with the same respect that we in the opposition are trying to treat our responsibilities. That goes for all members, but particularly those who had experience in the Legislature prior to this sitting. There are about 25 or 30 of them on the government side who had experience. They're not setting a very good example for their new members, and they certainly aren't setting a very good example for the new members on this side.

It didn't have to be like that, Madam Speaker. It could have been like what we said we were going to do when we were in opposition, to try to offer reasonable alternatives and a different point of view. They haven't allowed us to do that, because of the stupidity and, in my view, the shortsightedness of those members who were on this side before.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I certainly welcome a good and thoughtful debate in this House, but the use of the word "stupidity" -- he's sort of conveying that in a general sense to all hon. members on this side of the House -- is somewhat unparliamentary, and I think that this House would be better served if the member would be kind enough to withdraw that word.

The Speaker: In proceeding with his comments, the hon. member would like, I'm sure, to choose his words carefully, so as not to tread so close to the line.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I guess I'm forceful in the words I use, because I'm struck, quite frankly -- as many new members must be -- by the waste of time and effort put into trying to one-up one another, when I came to this House to do the best I could for my constituents. I'm not sure that the constituents of either the members on that side or those on this side are being well served by what they've seen in the last week or so in this House. If the member opposite is offended by the word "stupid," I withdraw it. I would replace it with the word "foolish." Would that be acceptable?

Unlike some of my colleagues, I find in the Peat Marwick report things that we might be able to use. If I might draw the members' attention to the

schedule of the special warrant, it says, if I might just read the front line: "Expenditures urgently and immediately required for the public good for which no appropriation has been made." The operative words in that sentence are: "no appropriation has been made." It is unfortunate that this government saw fit to spend $1 million on a report for information which they should have had as members of the opposition, and if they needed any expert advice, they had, within the facility of this Legislature, expertise which was available to them. But having spent the $1 million, maybe we can find items within the Peat Marwick report that might be of benefit to the government.

It is suggested in the executive summaries of the Peat Marwick report that greater use be made of more sophisticated techniques to manage the central aspects of the treasury function. I suggest that what Peat Marwick is saying there is that perhaps the idea floated from this part of the House that maybe we should be looking at an exchequer.

I address another recommendation:

"Consolidate all activities of government, including Crown agencies, into one principal set of financial statements, rather than the current practice of publishing three different sets of accounts. As part of this consolidation, adequately reflect the underlying value of investments in Crown corporations."

Another segment of the suggestion we're making -- if we had an exchequer type of operation instead of what we have presently -- is that the circumstances in which all members find themselves today wouldn't have come about.

[ Page 248 ]

I point out to all members of the House that what I'm quoting from is the Peat Marwick report, which we're not very fond of. But since they've spent the money, we might as well make use of it. Another observation is that there is no coordinated policy-development planning and financial-control capacity serving the government as a whole. I suggest that that is exactly what we're talking about. If we had an exchequer-type finance, which they're happy to use in Australia and Great Britain -- we must admit that Great Britain has had a little more experience at this game than this House -- there might be merit and benefit to the members of the public.

Lastly, just in that particular vein, I would draw members' attention to another suggestion: to establish a central governmentwide plan for revenue activities. I would suggest that all those examples -- the government's own reports, the $1 million that they spent -- they might well take advantage of and use to the benefit of everybody in this House.

There are other points made in the executive summaries which I'd like to draw to the members' attention. In the report the "British Columbia Financial Review: The Issue of Personnel" it is suggested that in some cases the hiring procedures are being circumvented as a means of obtaining the necessary staff.

That is a shocking report and one I hope the government will take to heart, because if the very employees of this government don't understand on what basis they're employed, you are setting a course where this government will find itself in extreme embarrassment within two or three years for the simple reason that the staff don't know to whom they report and they don't know why they were hired.

They're also suggesting in the financial control

summary that insufficient qualified financial resources to properly monitor and control all financial activities are in place. I would suggest that the government again should look carefully at the Peat Marwick report, since we've paid the $1 million, and see how better the functioning of this parliament could operate.

They're also suggesting the adoption of policies recommended by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It astounds me that a government of this size would even be operating without the proper professional people to assist them and would increase the current year's deficit to $2.6 billion.

The final one that I would like to draw the members' attention to is "that the Financial Administration Act should be changed to provide a requirement that the government justify in writing all requests to spend money by special warrant." This is the government's own report. I want to read it again; I think this is very pertinent to this debate. They're suggesting "that the Financial Administration Act be changed to provide" -- now listen, fellow members -- "a requirement that the government justify in writing all requests to spend money by special warrant." That's what you're doing right now.

Members on the opposite side are giving their government the authority to spend money without any checks; and they spent it already, and now they want us to approve it.

They want you to approve it, too, and you are doing that, fellow members of this House, apparently without any intention or any understanding of what you're up to. Madam Speaker, it astounds me that the members who were recently elected would be prepared, without any question, to spend $2 billion of the public's money. Do they not understand what they're doing? Are they not listening to the recommendations of their very own million-dollar report? Are they just believing the members of the cabinet because they're fellow political allies?

Or do they take their responsibility of being members of this House so lightly that it doesn't matter to them, and just by rote they stick their hands up or stand in their places when they have to? I think it's time they took their responsibilities a little more seriously.

Madam Speaker, I am....

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker to you.

The Speaker: Order, please.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, I am the Liberal critic for Tourism. I'd like to quote the present Minister of Tourism from a debate last year, when she stood in her place on this side of the House and made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker...." We had a "Mr." then.

Interjection

C. Tanner: If I might quote from the debates of the last House without being interrupted:

"Mr. Speaker, building a budget is...like building a house. You assess the terrain, calculate the measurements of the foundation, find the best materials you can afford to invest in your foundation, and build with a plan that reflects the needs of your family now and in the future.... You have to be honest with yourself, your contractors and your bank about what you have and what you can borrow. You have to make provisions for future additions at the beginning so you can avoid costly mistakes down the way.

"Right now, our province is faced with a careful architectural plan for a new house, but with a costly list of erratic, last-minute renovations to an old haunted house."

I'm quoting one of your members who presently sits on cabinet and who just a few short months ago sat on this side of the House.

"All the while you're telling the bank that you've got a rainy-day fund to cover the costs to reduce the loan. You've told the contractor that he'll be paid what you'd agreed on. You haven't told the bank that the rainy-day fund has never even puddled" -- whatever that means -- "and you haven't told the contractor that you'll pay only what you're able to pay depending on your mood."

"Nonetheless, you've built your foundation on the theme of caring. That's the theme the Social Credit architects want us to remember. I'm concerned about this house of caring. I'm concerned for Point Grey, for Vancouver and especially for the women of British Columbia, because the caring in this budget is not matched with political commitment to the priorities this government claims it wants to glue together -- most particularly environment and women."

[ Page 249 ]

Madam Speaker, I want to enforce the thought in this House and to my fellow new members -- green like I am -- that these are the thoughts of an experienced member in a budget debate just a few short months ago, when it was suggested by the member on this side, when they were in opposition, that the government was acting incorrectly.

She went on to say:

"I'm concerned because these born-again Care Bears don't back up their caring with the three other cornerstones that should be part of the foundation of this house they want to build. These cornerstones, along with caring, are accountability, integrity and honesty. Accountability, not just when it suits government, but as a principle of governing; accountability, not peekaboo accountability, the game we all played with our kids when they were little -- now you're here and now you're not....

I'm talking about a serious, steady, reliable legislated set of regulations and rules that enforce accountability and ensure that we, as politicians, truly do protect our heritage and truly do respond to the needs of people, that we can carry a message to people in British Columbia and be believed."

M. Farnworth: It sounded better when Darlene said it.

C. Tanner: I don't think it was quite as precise when she said it.

"I refer here to the Public Accounts Committee. I can't really talk about the accountability without talking about the public accounts, because that's where public accountability meets the bottom line. That's when you've got to match what you say you've got and what you say you did with what you actually did. If ever there was a game of peekaboo in this province, it's with the public accounts and the Public Accounts Committee. For the last three or four years since I've been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, we have been playing peekaboo with those accounts.

Every year this side of the House has asked for the public accounts to appear on the floor of the House. Generally, when we ask for those accounts, we are already 18 months away from when the public accounts began. Already we are looking into the far past. By the time we actually see the...accounts for the preceding fiscal year, we are looking at ancient history."

Madam Speaker, listen to this. This is the present Minister of Tourism speaking in this House in her position with the last government as to how they manage their finances. Doesn't the very fact that these words came from the mouth of one of your own make any impression on the members over there? You're guilty of the very things that you accused the government of last time.

[7:15]

She goes on:

"Last year the Public Accounts Committee actually managed to encourage government to do the following -- and this was announced only on July 25, 1990.... This was a speech by the deputy chair of Public Accounts -- a Social Credit member. The major change in policy is that, commencing with the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, the public accounts will be issued along with the auditor general's report immediately after preparation, notwithstanding that the Legislature may not be in session.

"This sounds like nothing. This sounds like something that should have been in situ since the beginning of time. The fact that this is one of the major accomplishments of the Public Accounts Committee" -- this is your member speaking; she's proud of what she's accomplished -- "is in itself a testimony to the fact that we have had to spend four to five years pressuring for the early release and preparation of the public accounts. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker -- not good enough at all. It's unforgivable when other jurisdictions can get their books together for public perusal within four months of the end of a fiscal year."

She goes on, but I think I've made the point. When the members on that side of the House were on this side of the House, they had a set of rules which they attempted to force the past government to abide by. In the transition of a few feet -- I believe it's two sword-lengths -- to the other side of the House, they've changed their tune. I think that's probably what's most disappointing to the new members. It certainly is to the new members on this side; it should be to the new members on that side. I don't think you should accept so lightly the fact of the change in what your government is doing today as compared to what they wanted to do six months ago.

There are 11 approved amounts of moneys being requested to be spent and approved, starting in November and going right through to February 28. The one I'm most concerned with is that of the Ministry of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture for $7,465,000. I don't think the members opposite should be treating the world and the situation they find themselves in quite so lightly.

During the campaign leading up to the election on October 17, 1991, we were treated to an advertisement put out by that party in which the present Premier was dropping pennies or nickels -- one of the two -- into a piggy bank. The point that the Premier was trying to make was that should they become government, they would be fiscally responsible and prudent with the public's money. If they wanted to be prudent, why didn't they call this House earlier and prove their prudence by asking us to recommend and endorse what they wanted to do? Why did they leave it to this late day to suddenly jump in the House and say, "Approve it"

An Hon. Member: We had to give you months to prepare your scintillating comments.

C. Tanner: Thank you. You don't realize what five months will do for a speech.

Madam Speaker, I am rapidly coming to a close. I would point out that the government has done little less than picked the pockets of the public. They've taken money out of their pockets, and then they've said: "Trust us; we'll look after you." Two billion dollars.

If they can't do anything about it this time, will the members give us the assurance that it will never happen again while this government is in power -- do I see the member nodding? -- and that those new members like myself will never allow their government to do it again?

[ Page 250 ]

Some Hon. Members: You've got it.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, could you take note of those people who have said: "You've got it"? Maybe they'd like to identify themselves, because it will be you that I will be quoting next time, not your Minister of Tourism.

C. Serwa: I am pleased to join the debate on second reading of Bill 16, the Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, and I am also very pleased to speak in opposition to that act.

Madam Speaker, I know it takes my colleagues opposite and adjacent by surprise to hear this, but before I go on, I would like to have a ruling if the work "turkey" is parliamentary or not.

The Speaker: I would ask the member to continue with his comments and recognize that the Chair does not give rulings on hypothetical situations.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The term "turkey" came to me because turkeys are rather foolish birds, as you might know. They don't know when to come out of the rain or when to do the right thing, and that is synonymous with the hon. members opposite. I'll refrain from calling them turkeys, because I think that would detract from the level of debate in this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, what we have here is obviously a government by default. Where is the government? Empty chairs represented by one minister, represented by a group of private members who can only heckle or, like peas in a pod, support whatever government does. Government does whatever the union echelons dictate that they do, and the union echelons, I suppose, only listen to the NDP provincial council.

This particular debate on the Supply Act probably points to the worst-case scenario for a new government which fought the election on the basis of open and honest government and a departure from what they believe is a perception of the former government -- and I was a private member in that government. This particular act, the Supply Act, brought to the debate in the Legislature at this time, is certainly a lapse in parliamentary democracy. This government could be well ashamed, knowing that they have been government for almost six months of the past fiscal year.

They come to this Legislature with the imposition on the Legislature that this matter is pressing, urgent and very important. The fact is that virtually six months has elapsed since they became government. This could have been attended to if they had called in the House earlier, and everyone, including the members opposite and adjacent, has to concede that.

What are they doing without any notice as far as the people are concerned, hon. members? I'll tell you what they're doing. Under special warrants for the Attorney General, they're ratifying, without intensive debate, 36.4 percent of the entire vote for the previous year -- carte blanche, a blank cheque. What for? No debate, no critic opportunity to enter into a debate.

Madam Speaker, the other thing is that I feel sorry for you, because at times like this I feel your position is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, but nevertheless I'm going to continue. [Applause.]

Madam Speaker, it's certainly nice to hear the members opposite occasionally become alive with remarks and some desk-clapping. It's nice to know that things are alive and well over there. I challenge the members opposite to stand up and speak, if they can speak in support of this Supply Act. I want to see each and every one of you stand up and tell your constituents out there that you're in favour of this type of a tactic. The people didn't get a government that they elected; they got a government by default and by tyranny. That's what's happening here in the Legislature tonight: legislation by exhaustion.

My, what a remarkable first step to hang your collective hats on! I can see buttons popping with a burst of absolute pride.

Enter the debate, hon. member -- through you, Madam Speaker. I challenge all the members opposite to enter the debate. What do we do in the matter of the ombudsman? We ratify 35.1 percent in the ombudsman's office, without the opportunity of a critic entering into the debate, without any fair warning. Open and honest government. I think the citizens of British Columbia are indeed wondering what open and honest and fairness are. Who defines those words? Does a socialist opposite and adjacent define open and honest and responsible government? I think not, by their actions tonight.

B.C. Trade Corporation and the Premier's office, 32.2 percent that we're asked to ratify tonight in second reading debate on Bill 16 -- 32.2 percent without the opportunity of allowing the critic to question in detail where this money has gone. The splendid opportunity that the members opposite, the government, in the corner all absent and disinterested.... I think the people of British Columbia can see that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services is the only member here. The government is completely disinterested in the affairs and the business of the people of the province of British Columbia.

Aboriginal affairs -- an increase there of 27 percent under special warrant. Again: what for, why, how, where, when, for what purpose? Is that being explained to the people of the province of British Columbia? No. This government is asking us to endorse and sign a blank cheque. Well, we're not going to do that. It was said before in this House, in the years '72 to '75, "not a dime without debate," and for a very good reason.

A tyranny right off the bat that is arrogant.... How arrogant? Madam Speaker, I'll tell you how arrogant. This government has indulged in a series of patronage appointments to an extent never seen before in the province of British Columbia. The senior echelons of the civil service of the province are being overturned with political patronage appointments by individuals formally associated with the socialists in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. They're being brought here at a great cost to the exclusion of the professional civil servants who serve this province so admirably.

I'm trying make a point that the figures in the Supply Act that we're being asked to ratify here in this debate are based on a number of factors that this current government had an opportunity to control. The patronage appointments of

[ Page 251 ]

people not familiar with the affairs of British Columbia is an example of why this government is completely out of control.

We go on, Madam Speaker. Advanced education -- 33.8 percent of that budget. It's a very complex, very large and very important ministry in the province of British Columbia. We are asked, blindly -- carte blanche -- to sign the blank cheque. "It's okay, trust us. We're the new government. We're honest. We're open. We have integrity and depth." I see none of that here -- none of it evidenced tonight. It goes on and on, ministry by ministry. Agriculture and fisheries: 65.6 percent. And we're being asked to ratify that tonight under special warrant.

[7:30]

For a government that has been in power for almost six months, this is unconscionable. I think that the people of the province of British Columbia are well aware of what's transpiring in here, and they're certainly getting an indication of what will transpire in debates on the budget estimates and in legislation. It's shameful. Indeed, it's most shameful. The government has also undertaken quietly to raise many taxes to justify the out-of-control manner in which they've attended to budget expenditures.

What they have accomplished is a lack of credibility with the public out there by sneaking in a number of tax measures that affect every person in the province of British Columbia -- broad, wide-ranging and encompassing, not attacking the rich as they like to, but going on in the nature of a government angry against success....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Well, it's certainly nice, Madam Speaker, to see another minister in the Legislature. This happens to be the Minister of Finance and the government House Leader, and we welcome you for your interest. But I see that now the other minister who took such an intense interest is vacating the premises. That's significant, because it shows how out of touch this government is with the reality in the province. They're out of touch absolutely and completely. It's an utter display of arrogance. None of the private members who support the present government, like peas in the pod, are standing up to defend the estimates on Bill 19.

Madam Speaker, if the government had paid attention to all of the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report, perhaps this wouldn't have come to this particular point.

An Hon. Member: Selective hearing, they have.

C. Serwa: Selective hearing and politically astute, perhaps, but certainly lamentably lacking in honesty and integrity.... Peat Marwick has confirmed that they must control public sector spending. But what did that hon. minister do when he newly became Minister of Finance in the province of British Columbia? Why, he immediately repealed regulations that put a cap on public sector wage increases. And what did that do?

It induced a responsibility on the part of the government of the province to impose an obligation on the part of all the taxpayers of the province to pay $300 million over the next two years to satisfy those demands. They were capped, hon. Speaker, at about 4.5 percent -- bearing in mind the downturn in the economy and bearing in mind that most of the jurisdictions across Canada had gone and accepted a zero percent wage increase. On top of that, jurisdictions like Newfoundland had to cut public service staff in order to balance the budget.

The current minister, right in the early stages when he knew the reality and knew the deficit position that we'd be getting into, started dumping the money off the back of that pickup truck -- and did he ever dump it off -- as a political payoff. That's where we're running into the problem here; it's a government completely out of control by a young and enthusiastic but unproven Minister of Finance who has been careless with the taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker, item by item by item -- 45 percent, 32.8 percent, 44.2 percent, 29.1 percent; yes, indeed, up to as high as 82.2 percent of the ministries' estimates.... And we're being asked....

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Ah, 82.2 percent -- and the Minister of Finance admits his ignorance in not knowing which ministry that is. Well, thank you very much for that admission, Mr. Minister. Nice to know that he really has his hands firmly in control of his mandate as Minister of Finance for the province of British Columbia. I'll leave the minister to ask his specialists to determine which ministry is 82.2 percent.

Madam Speaker, the important thing here is that a government that has been in power for the past six months has not seen fit to call this Legislature back to attend to the most important parts of the business of this Legislature, which are debates and estimates. Special warrants could have been attended to with a two-day session, and I've indicated that.

The members opposite indicate their ignorance in not knowing what the difference is. The difference is very substantial indeed, but the percentage differences that you've authorized through your activities make the average British Columbian sit back and wonder at what they have in this government by default.

Ah, a second minister is here, and I'm very pleased to see that second minister. As your government would say, that's a 100 percent increase in support. I compliment you for coming up from your dinner to take

part in this debate.

I'm absolutely appalled with a government that has pledged their word to the people that they would stand as open, honest and forthright. They are being anything but honest and forthright. They have been very devious in compiling the facts and figures.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: That's correct, hon. member, very devious indeed. Now they're asking us to pass the Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, on the basis of very limited debate.

Madam Speaker, as a member of this Legislature and as an elected member for the past five years, I am

[ Page 252 ]

devastated by the activities of this government. The public -- even those who supported this government by default -- are equally surprised and horrified with the antics. Certainly the unwillingness to face this Legislature on a matter as important as the budget is clearly evident.

I'm proud to have been part of a government that left this province in very good financial health.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Second reading debate is relatively wide-ranging, but I'm still talking on Bill 16, the Supply Act. I just want to confirm that if we had had the author of the budget economic outlook guidelines as our political writer, we would have perhaps been more successful in the election.

I note that the government has readily conceded that British Columbia's economy and export base has diversified since the last major recession. That's a compliment to good government, a government that worked very hard to achieve that and a government that had the best performance record of all jurisdictions in Canada. We're very proud of that, Madam Speaker.

The previous government left this new government well poised with the opportunity to do a good job for the people of British Columbia. They have failed to do that. This Supply Act is clearly evidence of that. If they continue to fail, as the hon. leader of the third party has indicated, indeed the entire province will become a non-profit society.

Madam Speaker, it has been a privilege to speak on Bill 16, the Supply Act, a most important act. I speak and register my strongest protest in opposition to the antics and activities of this government.

J. Tyabji: The reason I'm on my feet tonight and the reason I believe it's very important to extend this debate is the issue that we're dealing with here and the manner in which they brought this issue forward. As all the preceding speakers have mentioned, it has taken us over five months to get to this stage. I think that raises the question: why do we have a Legislature, why we are elected and what is the objective that brings us together?

The thing that strikes me most about this whole process is not that we are doing this again, as it has been done in the past, but that the hope and trust that the people of B.C. put forward on October 17 has once again been let down. On October 17 the people of B.C. voted for change. They trusted us to bring about a new form of government, a new style of government. They expected more from us than what they've had in the past. Instead, we've seen special warrants that have come forward to the tune of almost $3 billion.

What we find, too, is that this represents almost 20 percent of the gross revenue generated by taxes. That's a significant amount. What it says to us is that the process of reform that we thought we brought about during the election hasn't happened yet. We can only hope that it will happen in the future.

Certainly I believe that the members on the government side of the House are not unable to comprehend the magnitude of what we face together with special warrants. It's not only within their ability, but as we've said before, we have numerous quotes with regard to the implication of the use of special warrants on the effectiveness of the House. If we are continuing to use special warrants and we understand the implications, are we doing it out of a sense of incompetence? Or is it corruption? If you're smart enough to understand the implications, you almost have to say what your motivation is for not following through. It's not a lack of understanding.

I would like to quote the Minister of Finance on special warrants, from May 30, saying that when the government is spending special warrants: "They hold the Legislature in contempt, and through that the people of the province." Those were the principles that the people of B.C. endorsed on October 17. It was the principle of debate through the House and that all the elected members must come together. Even though the government has a majority and obviously the bill will be passed, debate is extremely important in bringing to light all the different issues.

To continue the quote: "It is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy for the executive council, without any recourse to public debate, to spend...public money...." This is the issue that we're talking about here. We had an increase in taxes through the budget. When we look at our gross provincial product, 15 percent of it was spent in 1980 on taxes; it's up to a projected 21 percent today. With this increase in taxes there should be increased accountability, not a decreased accountability through the continuation of special warrants.

After the election of October 17 the people of B.C. wanted us to work to justify the faith that they had placed in us. Instead, we had a long period before the Legislature was convened and a continuation of spending with special warrants. This is something that is not going to gain the faith of the people, as they see a continuation of the kind of government that went before. We started off with a certain level of credibility, which was based on the principles we brought forward during the campaign. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a follow-through on most of those principles.

I can only hope that it was out of a situation that will not arise again, and I can only add my voice to those of the preceding opposition members who said: "I hope this is the last time we see special warrants issued." There should always be debate, unless there is a real emergency. The emergency isn't that we don't have time to get together. The opposition was ready to come together for the Legislature at any moment -- with very little notice.

I must say that it's very unnerving to be standing here on an issue of such importance and to see the House empty. There are members on both sides, although I'd say at this point we outnumber the cabinet. When you come into public life, you come in with certain expectations and certain hopes. Some of those expectations are that you can make a difference and perhaps work for reform. Your hope is that you can contribute your perspective to the debate in the House; that when issues come forward from various parts of

[ Page 253 ]

the province from various portfolios, they can then be put before the people elected by the public to represent them; and that through that debate a better understanding and implementation of the bill will come to pass. Without that debate you can't possibly have the most effective operation of government.

[7:45]

It's unnerving to me as Environment critic to see that over $130 million was spent through special warrants in the Environment portfolio. I don't know how that breaks down. Does that break down into cleanup? Is it air quality? At this stage it's after the fact, and it's already been spent. We don't know where it's gone. It's very difficult to get a sense of where we're going in the future.

The Legislature doesn't sit for very long. Unfortunately, in B.C. we have a shameful tradition of not sitting often enough, and I hope that that changes. However, during the short period of time when we come together, it would be very nice to have a sense of what the government has been doing in the past. We've had over five months of this government, and we can't make a judgment on the direction, the philosophy and the values that are being brought to bear on the spending of tax dollars -- and the tax dollars are being given by 100 percent of the population base.

We have to remember that each of us here was voted in with percentages in our ridings, but when you look at the province as a whole, 60 percent of the public did not vote NDP but voted for the opposition. Our voices should be heard in the determination of what's being spent.

When we look at the international scene.... As Canadians, we're very proud of the system we have both federally and provincially as well as our municipal jurisdictions and regional districts. We have an excellent system. The strength of our system is the democracy, the participation of the people, and some would argue that the way things are set up right now, we don't have enough input from the people. We don't have enough travelling committees. We don't have enough direct input from the grass roots.

But one thing we do have is representatives in this House who are elected within each riding to bring their voice forward. When we have special warrants, those people are not heard, and our democracy loses its strength. It loses strength because the voices of all the different people from around the province are not participating.

Obviously the bill would get passed. So if we were willing to come together, and if the government knows the bill would get passed, is it a fear of debate, or is it just a rush that they're trying to get through? Either excuse is not really justification enough, because part of government is to make sure that everybody is represented and to give the most effective form of legislation. You can't do that without debate. If it's a case of being afraid that the debate will expose something that the public would not endorse, well, that's part of having political will and showing leadership.

If you really believe that what you're putting forward is the best decision for the people, then you will go forward in the face of controversy and do it. If it turns out that it's not in the best interests of the public, then all the more reason to have the debate ahead of time, so that it's exposed prior to becoming money that's already spent, prior to things already being passed.

We face a very dangerous situation when these precedents have been set by two separate parties. Here we have parties who are philosophically opposed on the political spectrum, and what have we seen? We've seen the people of B.C. flush one party out -- no regrets from me -- and put another party in. And what do we see in terms of the change of philosophy? We haven't seen any significant changes in the way in which we are governed.

Special warrants are a continuation of a very bad way of doing government, and during the election campaign the provincial Liberal Party constantly said, "We want to change the way in which we govern," and we haven't done that yet. I can only hope that we will do it in the future, that we will bring forward that sense of hope and trust and reform, and perhaps regain some of the credibility on the government side by not using special warrants in the future.

You can't justify the change of principle that we've seen here, unless there's some hidden emergency that we weren't aware of. There was no justification for a change in philosophy that is so articulately stated in the opposition benches and then flagrantly ignored on the government side -- no justification for that at all. It's that kind of complete turnaround that can make people very cynical. The people of B.C. were extremely cynical, because they had had a lot of examples of very bad government and of someone saying one thing and implementing another.

As a legislator, I'd like to be able to hold my head up and say: "I'm an MLA." At this point, we've done nothing to earn the trust of the people. There's been nothing done on the government side to earn the trust and the sense of hope that was put with us. And now we've got a case where, when a transcript can be read out and the exact opposite has been done, we have a real credibility gap, a real problem.

I also have to express an objection to the manner in which this debate is carried forward. Not only is there no one here, really, but there's very little time, and I think that when we look at the magnitude of the issue we're dealing with, which is the spending of money.... This is almost 20 percent of the revenue generated. We're talking about several days now where we're going to be debating the amount of money that we'll be spending, how we're spending it, how we're representing the people and how we're spending their tax dollars, which in this economy is extremely important, and we have very little time.

Granted, it has been extended a couple of hours, because we're going beyond 6 o'clock, but a couple of hours isn't enough.

We're talking about $3 billion. Look how it breaks down. You've got all these different categories. We should have had a legislative session in the fall and debate prior to special warrants. If we must spend special warrants, let's do it with a sense of apology: "I'm really embarrassed that I had to do this." Let's have a sense of the integrity that we've had in the past and say: "I recognize what I said in the past. I recognize this to be the truth, and here's my justification for moving away from that."

[ Page 254 ]

The one thing that is very disturbing to me is the sense of non-accountability: being able to say one thing when you're on one side of the House and do another thing on the other side without accountability. That's where we lose our credibility. If there was some justification or sense expressed to the public as to why it was done.... "There was no legislative session because there was no time for debate." If there were tax dollar savings or something -- and I'm sure they would have no problem even making something up -- then we could debate whether or not it's a credible excuse.

It goes back to the old children's story of Animal Farm. I was talking about the international scene earlier. If we look at a lot of different countries, we can see how we get dictatorships that don't allow for representation or input from the people. You have that dictatorship acting more or less as a regime, making decisions independent of the public and not in their best interests. Then you get a movement coming forward, and from that grass-roots movement you see a swelling of support. Eventually the dictatorship loses the ability to enforce the regime, and it gets overturned, whether violently or non-violently.

What we saw on October 17 was our own local form of overturning a non-representative government. Unfortunately, our new government has not departed from the manner in which we were governed. That's a very dangerous precedent to set. Very soon we'll have little slogans on the wall that say: "Some pigs are more equal than others." That's very unfortunate. People were looking for change and trusting change, and unfortunately that trust has not been realized.

That may be reversed. The only way we can possibly win back the faith of the people is to depart radically from the way government has been done in the past, including the past five and a half months. We have to stop special warrants altogether. We have to get rid of that ability to just arbitrarily say: "We're not having a legislative session." We have to have fixed legislative sessions. We have to know, as MLAs, when we will be in the House. This is when we're accountable. I can't tell you how many times in the fall I heard people come up to me and say: "When are you going to sit?" I'd say: "I don't know.

Maybe mid-March." For me, personally, that worked out fairly well, because I didn't have to buy a very big wardrobe that wasn't going to fit for very long. That probably wasn't a big concern for most of the other members. Even in the condition I was in, I would have liked to waddle up and down the halls and be able to present my voice here.

When we got elected, we got elected to bring our voices and viewpoints to the House. Seventy-five ridings, a unique province, far-flung regions, very different interests. Without the sitting of the House, the NDP backbenchers don't even get a voice, and look how many seats there are there. There are a lot of very valid viewpoints that have to be brought to the debate. Mind you, they are going to end up voting on the government side, but perhaps when they have their committees in the back rooms, they can have their scrums or whatever to come to some kind of compromise, and we will have a better form of representation in the House.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: The attitude of "what we're doing here doesn't matter" is a very unfortunate one. It's very easy to get carried away. It's a lot of fun to poke fun at each other and heckle and joke, but if I were somebody sitting at home watching us on television, I would be very disillusioned by what I saw, because I would say that it's taken five and a half months, they're talking about $3 billion, 20 percent of the gross revenue, and everybody's jeering and laughing and heckling. It's very easy to get carried away with that when we're here. It's very easy to participate in that, and it's very important that we not take ourselves too seriously except on issues that are very critical.

There are a couple of issues here. It's not just a case of why there is a total departure from the principles espoused for the whole term by the opposition. That's a very important issue. How do we believe anything that comes from the mouths of people who have said one thing for five years, and five months later are doing the opposite? How does the public perceive that?

Even as opposition members here, our credibility goes down because we might end up on the government side and someone might say: "How do we know you won't do exactly the same thing?" As I said before, this is especially so when we've got political parties of opposite spectrums doing the same thing. Who's going to look at the Liberals and say: "They might be different"? All of us legislators must be very concerned with what the public thinks of us. This is not good. This is not something about which we can hold our heads up.

We are all participating, whether it be through silence, participation, or being part of the executive council. Each one of us is responsible for this, and we should all be fighting for reform -- all of us.

When we get back to changing the way in which we govern, going toward reform and looking at the international scene, I can only hope that as we come toward future budgets and future terms, we start to look toward not just a fixed legislative session but a proper accountability mechanism that brings into account everybody's voice on the issue, because there are 75 of us. In theory, the cabinet is supposed to be dealing only with certain things within the debate of a legislative session; outside the legislative session, we should not be dealing with the kinds of things that special warrants were dealing with.

If we, as a group, are to combat the political cynicism, we all have to work toward reform through the legislative process. We have to eliminate special warrants. We have to go to the budget. We have to debate every item of the budget and every item of the special warrants. We have to make sure that these are acceptable ways in which we spend money.

The money's already spent, and that is the unfortunate part. The money has already gone. Now we can only talk about, "Gee, I wish it hadn't been spent that way," or: "Could you please tell me what this is?" You look at all these numbers, and you say: "What does that tell me? I don't know if it's salaries. I don't know if it's cleanup. I don't know which part of the province it's gone into." It could take you months to analyze what's

[ Page 255 ]

been done for five and a half months. In addition to this, we have the upcoming year's budget. Obviously that should be more pressing, because that's money we're going to spend. But we have no idea where the government has been going for the past five and a half months, because we don't know how this breaks down. That's very unsettling. As a taxpayer, I find it unsettling that I can be paying taxes and they're spent before there's even a debate. Someone in a riding might say: "I trust my MLA to make the right judgment." But what difference does it make if the MLA is not participating in the judgment?

If they're not participating in the decision-making process, it doesn't matter who you elect.

I remember the Leader of the Opposition getting quite frustrated when the legislative session was getting further and further away. He was saying: "If we're going to have government like this, we can certainly eliminate a lot of the buildings that we see around us. We could manage with a much smaller space, and maybe that would be a lot more effective in terms of tax dollars. Maybe we can just have a bunch of television monitors and fax machines, and we can all stay in our ridings and be notified by mail of what the government's doing." I don't feel that's an effective way of doing things.

That's not why we set up this democratic system. That's why we all have to stand up and make our voices heard about how incredibly important this is -- that not only do we debate it, but we should have extended the time for debate. We should have gone through it list by list.

I wish we had members of the cabinet participating in the debate. I would like to see the justification for the change in principle. I'd like to hear from our Finance minister why he changed his mind. I think it would be very important.

[8:00]

It's very important, as well, to know that when these principles are espoused, they're not espoused lightly. We have to take our roles very seriously. Every time we say something, we should realize that we're accountable for it. It's very frustrating that the manner in which they may be held accountable is that we might annoy them by dragging the debate on a little longer. Oh, isn't that an awful way of holding them accountable! Well, to me, there should be a better form of accountability than that. We can express our frustration and our anger as opposition members by taking up all the time that we're allotted.

Great; that's going to irritate them. But they're not even here, so I don't know how irritating it can be. It might be a little bit annoying, but not very. And that to me is not an adequate way of redressing the fact that this is a very serious issue and that we should be able to have input. We should have a cross-panel debate.

Just on this reading, I would like to hear from them how we ended up getting to the point where almost $3 billion was spent in that five and a half months. The people of B.C. deserve an answer. They deserve an answer on a point-by-point breakdown. They deserve to know what decisions were made by the government that got only 40 percent of the popular support. The other 60 percent are probably wondering where their money has gone. And I'm sure the 40 percent that supported them would still like to see what direction things are going in.

There were a lot of election promises made. Those should all be itemized, and somehow we can correlate them to the special warrants that have gone out before. If we can get a commitment from the government that they will not be using special warrants in the future, then we can all rest much easier in terms of how we feel about dealing with the next budget.

Because the thing that makes me a little upset is that if we can't rely on the things that were said while in opposition, and if we can pass a budget today and not have a legislative session in the fall, and if we can then run out of money in the fall and have more special warrants, then we'll be standing here a year from now in the same debate. This is the same debate that's been carrying on for how long? It's time for an end. If you really want to see an end to this debate -- and obviously they do -- let's stop the spending of special warrants.

Let's end this debate once and for all; let's not allow it to happen.

I think it's an obscene travesty of democracy. If we can have 20 percent of our revenue just spent, and then afterwards get a few hours to talk about it, that's not democratic. That's somebody else making a decision. How representative is it when you get a small group of people in a closed room, and they're issuing orders about how to spend money?

I guess the last

part I'd like to get to is how it affects people in our riding and how people feel about special warrants. As I said, the thing that struck me in the fall was the number of people who came up to me and said: "When is the legislative session? What's going on? Why aren't you sitting? Don't you have a fixed session?" In fact, our federal representative is constantly harassing me, because he's saying: "How come you guys only have to sit for a couple of months? We sit most of the year." And he's got a much further trip to make, and it's a lot more expensive for him to go back and forth.

I don't have an answer for these people. I don't know why we don't have fixed legislative sessions. I don't know why we sit only for a few months out of the year, and I don't know why we can get away with special warrants. I don't have any answers for the people of my riding when they ask me about this, except to say that my intention, as a legislator and a member of the opposition, is to constantly talk about changing the way in which we govern.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that if that message is what BCers want to hear, if they want to hear the opposition say that if we were government we would change the way in which we were governed.... We would have fixed sessions, we would stop special warrants and we would have an exchequer. That's the message we'll be carrying forward into the next election. If that message is not taken on by the government, and if we continue to have this debate on special warrants year after year, then I can guarantee that after the next election -- if that's the message BCers want to hear -- we'll be on that side of the House.

I can also guarantee that they will not be reading from transcripts of Hansard about what we will be doing, because we'll be following through on what we've committed in principle.

[ Page 256 ]

An Hon. Member: Do we have a quorum?

The Speaker: Yes, the Chair has determined that there is a quorum.

L. Reid: Just on that point, what is the number of a quorum?

The Speaker: Ten.

L. Reid: We'll keep a close eye on future developments. Not so long ago this chamber echoed: "Not a dime without debate." It was echoed again this evening many times. We're now in the throes of millions of dollars without debate in this House, and somehow that seems to be justification for this government to proceed any which way they choose. Where is the process? Do we understand process? I find it alarming and somewhat sad that consultation is something that is not taken seriously in this House. We've been subjected to it since March 17. We understand that it's going to continue in this way.

We truly hope it doesn't go forward. I believe, and I agree with my colleagues, that in fact we have the same process; we simply have different players. I would suggest this thought to you: all cats are grey in the dark. We haven't changed anything fundamentally in this House. What have we learned? We have learned helplessness regarding special warrants. We hear the refrain: "We had no choice." What happened to a government that said: "We're going to stand up. We're going to be forthright. We're going to be honest.

We're going to deliver something to the people of this province." I'm not convinced that's happening. I have many items I wish to bring forward this evening.

How could this government sit in this House for five years as opposition and suggest that they do not know where the dollars went, that Peat Marwick was a surprise -- a revelation of some sort? I find it absolutely unacceptable that anyone could sit in this House as opposition, end up in government and suggest they didn't understand a single thing that transpired while they sat in this House for five long years. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

I have with me this evening the

schedule of special warrants, and I have a question I'd like to pose: "Expenditures urgently and immediately required for the public good and for which no appropriation has been made." We seem to have two categories: we have the continuation of ongoing non-budgetary items and ongoing budgetary items. What is the distinction? Some we talk about and others we talk about even less? It seems to me that there's no consultation.

This entire list: non-budgetary programs of the Ministry of Advanced Education; non-budgetary items in the Attorney General; non-budgetary items in the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Who makes those decisions? It's not the taxpayers in this province, and I find it alarming.

Special warrant comments. Again, the thirty-fourth parliament of this House, the Minister of Finance:

"The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everybody should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here.... It was that side of the House that at one time said:

'Not a dime without debate.' They're now asking for" -- millions -- "of public money to be passed post-haste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of the House." Why is it the Minister of Finance can sit on that side of the House now and suggest that somehow the same actions don't deserve the same consequences?

We know they have a lot of reasons why they do not want this scrutiny placed before them. Again, the Minister of Finance, commenting on a previous government:

"...there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature has been their doing. It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the largest-taxing government we've seen for some time; they have regressively taxed and unfairly taxed working people, the poor and seniors in this province; and they want to avoid debate in this House."

I reiterate: all cats are grey in the dark -- same process, different players. To continue: "It is no way to run a government. It is dishonest; it is deceitful; it is avoiding public debate, which is what we are here for...." Somehow, when they sat on this side, they said it was unacceptable. They said:

"You cannot run a government and implement tax legislation with municipalities and school boards on major questions of public policy when those bills have not even been introduced in the House. You cannot run a government by spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, before the House is...."

I am alarmed that the same information from this side of the House has no basis when it sits on that side of the House: "...the principal role of parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending...." We have been denied that opportunity...." This is not an off-the-cuff comment. The comments of the Minister of Finance go forward for some 15 pages.

Arrogant best describes him, when in this case they are prepared to spend $3 billion of public money without any public scrutiny or debate from the people's representatives in this chamber. I personally take my role as a legislator very seriously. I do not accept the notion that it is somehow reasonable to deny me that opportunity to participate in debate. They hold the Legislature in contempt and, through that, the people of the province. It is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy for the executive council to spend public dollars without any recourse to public debate and without public approval.

Again, the same comments from the same individual:

"Our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle. It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government, because we are elected representatives -- all of us. We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money...."

[ Page 257 ]

We're prepared to do that. We were prepared to do that on October 17; we were denied the opportunity. "And when the government and the executive council acts unilaterally, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy." I fundamentally agree with that. I am here as a legitimate legislator in this province, duly elected to come forward to represent my constituents. I resent the fact that they were denied that opportunity and that I was denied that opportunity. I believe that the future of this province is in serious jeopardy.

Again, the minister, who somehow changes dramatically when he ends up on that side of the House:

"Any suggestion by your Minister of Finance that the conditions which allow for the use of special warrants have been satisfied by virtue of the fact that the Legislative Assembly is not now sitting is, in my opinion, unfounded. Your Honour's official opposition is ready, willing and able to convene immediately should you choose to recall the Legislature."

They didn't make that choice for us. Their predecessors did not make that choice for them. Surely at this stage we can have serious legislators be more responsible and not necessarily always fall back and rest on the experiences they had. It's time to be a little bit more progressive than that.

An Hon. Member: Double standards.

L. Reid: Absolutely.

Again, it is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree and to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy that we are here to uphold. It is unacceptable and it's disgraceful.

Out of the mouth of the Minister of Finance, again it continues: "...special warrants are only awarded under very, very clear circumstances -- crystal-clear circumstances." And: "But they don't want the debate on the real priorities of British Columbians. They don't want debate on their fiscal incompetence. They don't want debate on spending without approval in the House." You're probably asking yourself who said this. It could be anyone. In fact, it's still the Minister of Finance, when he sat on this side of the House.

Giving advice now:

"Perhaps if members spend a lengthy time in opposition they'll learn to appreciate parliamentary democracy, they'll learn to have less contempt for our parliamentary traditions, they will understand that democratic parliamentary procedure is an important foundation upon which our government rests, and they will not abuse it."

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

L. Reid: Again, the minister. I can't imagine he could have forgotten that quickly.

I say again very strongly that you should not have waited five months, Mr. Minister, because obviously your memory has failed you over time. It has not warmed our hearts.

In terms of supply, Bill 16, in our view this NDP government has abrogated its responsibility to deal with health care delivery in creative and innovative ways. Instead, this government has selected a highly visible group to use as a scapegoat. Real savings in our health care system will not come by bashing any one aspect of the health care delivery system of this province; real savings will come by moving our focus of health care from institutions to the community. We haven't been given the opportunity to do that. We're not convinced that bashing doctors is ever going to create any real change.

It didn't work with teachers, it did not work in terms of the overall health of the educational community in this province, and it will not work with doctors.

After reading this budget I can only assume that when the Premier said that British Columbia deserves a government that's as hard-working as the people who pay for it, what he really meant was: work as hard as you like, but don't expect to get paid for it.

I suggest that any group which has negotiated agreements with the province of British Columbia should hide those same agreements, lest the Premier and his cabinet seek to tear those up as well. Even the NDP friend, Ken Georgetti, is outraged that an agreement negotiated in good faith can be tossed out so easily by a new administration. This government has set a precedent of zero stability in the workplace, and what has it gained?

We have to have consultation in this province. The example I have just cited stresses strongly the lack of consultation in British Columbia. You cannot have a mandate....

[8:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, there is tremendous latitude in interim supply and we're delighted to hear the member's speech. We are particularly delighted to hear the member quoting speeches that I've made, and I'd be delighted to respond, of course. I will as we wrap up the debate. But matters before the House in the form of legislation will be debated at that time. The member has for about five minutes now talked about legislation which is before the House, which is clearly out of order.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak to the point of order briefly. It's clear that the members opposite don't appreciate hearing the truth. It's clear that they don't appreciate hearing the remarks of members on this side of the House during this interim supply debate. It's clear that they would like to avoid this debate entirely. The member was clearly relating her comments directly to this supply bill that's before the House. She's mentioning some specific aspects of government policy that are dealing with the supply bill and with the future spending provisions of this supply bill.

We are being asked to approve the spending of this government for the first three months of the fiscal year, which will begin at midnight tomorrow night. Clearly we cannot grant that supply before we have an opportunity to give full discussion and debate to the billions of dollars that we are being asked to approve in advance. I believe that the member's comments were specifically in order.

[ Page 258 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, both hon. members. I would ask the member who had the floor to continue with her comments, keeping in mind, of course, that we are discussing, as we have been for a few hours, second reading on the principles of Bill 16.

L. Reid: To reiterate very carefully, the issue here is process and consultation. The example I cited is an absolute abrogation of your government's responsibility to consult. I will continue with that example because I believe it is fully in order. What will we get as a result if this government fails to consult? I think we'll get more of this time-wasting process. I don't believe that this government truly has the interests of my constituents or British Columbians close to heart. I could and will cite many examples this evening of issues where I believe process has been brought into question, where serious legislators in this province have been denied opportunity to debate.

My colleague made the point over and over again that it's so interesting and so bizarre that you could come to us after dollars have been spent and try to push something through. Why does that make sense? It did not make sense to members of government when they sat in opposition. To reiterate, if need be, I could read that entire set of statements again, because obviously they were missed the first time.

I fail to see how two and a half sword-lengths can all of a sudden alter somebody's entire point of view. The flip-flop is absolutely incredible. I'm not impressed. I'm saddened and disappointed that this government takes so lightly the interests of my constituents and the interests of British Columbians.

Again -- to focus on British Columbia doctors -- to say that not to consult is the order of the day, that not to ask a serious question or sit down with one aspect of health care delivery in this province, to suggest that somehow their opinion is not valid or interesting, or that their opinion is not even going to be asked, sincerely offends me as a legislator.

I can take the case of small business. The government can sit here and say that economic development is important, process is important, discussion is important, and yet, 48 hours before this fiscal year terminates, we are asked to look at $3 billion worth of special spending warrants. I find it highly unacceptable. I find it appalling that this entire series of events, which was deplorable when the Social Credit government put the opposition through it, is all of a sudden acceptable. I am not able to accept that. I truly hoped....

I think what this government campaigned on was that they were going to provide something different to the province of British Columbia: they were going to provide consultation; they were going to ask and listen. We have not had that.

Special spending warrants -- all of them, the many pages that we have here -- show absolute, out-and-out contempt, in my view, for the voters in this province. To maintain service, a grant to tree-fruit-growers; to maintain service, financial settlement...more income assistance funding; MSP.... All of these things could have been brought forward if this government was truly serious about seeking their opinion and having constituents represented in this province. Five and a half months of this mandate has expired. Fully 10 percent of this government's mandate has been allowed to drift by while they continue to not be responsible, in my view, to the voters in this province.

Increase for independent schools. Variety of costs for the Attorney General. Imagine listing a special spending warrant as a "variety of costs." Variety of costs in Labour and Consumer Services. Grant to the B.C. Pavilion. Grant to tree-fruit-growers. All of these things deserved legitimate debate in this chamber following October 17. I cannot accept the fact that you can wait five and a half months, and then say: "Sorry, it's too late; the money's already been spent." No other business, no other entity would ever believe that you could just push something through without any kind of consultation.

We have an artificial situation in this province where something is fine for government and it's wrong for everyone else in this province. It's not appropriate for anyone in business to spend the dollars and then seek ratification. It's not appropriate for charities in this province to spend the dollars and then seek approval for the funds. Why, if it's not appropriate for anyone else, is it appropriate for government?

In my sense of what parliamentary democracy is all about, government sets the example; government leads; government behaves as some kind of model. This government has not done that. This government has let down what this parliament stands for and what British Columbians wanted to see. They asked for something that was different, something that was legitimate, something that had some honesty and accountability to the public. On October 17, British Columbians voted because they were looking for something that was going to be as honest and forthright as what these people profess to be.

In my view, they've been sadly let down. That side of the House has no clear sense of what it is to be accountable. Otherwise, they would not have brought something as serious as special spending warrants to this House 48 hours before the end of the fiscal year. This House should have been sitting many months ago.

D. Mitchell: Open government.

L. Reid: Open government? Interesting topic. It should be very simple to understand. I'm not sure the folks on the other side of the House understand what it is in terms of a concept. We have paid lip-service to it for five and a half months: yes, yes, yes, no new taxes; yes, yes, yes, all of these things will come down the pike at some point.

I haven't been introduced to anything that's legitimate in terms of where this government wants to go. Process is a significant issue, and it will be an issue I will continue to discuss every single day that I sit as a legislator in this province. I believe that when you are duly elected and your party forms government -- you seek enough seats to form a government -- you have an incredible responsibility to process.

They will stand up on that side of the House and cite standing order after standing order, point of order after point of order. That's a process. That's an understanding

[ Page 259 ]

of a structure, a framework to hang some kind of debate on. You can't have that kind of understanding when it suits you and no process for the people of British Columbia when it doesn't. That is completely wrong. I can tell you that every single Liberal member of this opposition will stand up and debate process in as much detail as we possibly can for as long as we sit in this House.

I find it fascinating that we can be presented with packages of some 20 and 30 pages outlining special spending warrants in this province. It's fascinating that, again, it's a disregard for process. It's not a sense of where we want to go. It's not a sense of understanding of how important it was for many people in the province of British Columbia to cast a ballot.

We have situations around this world where people are giving their lives to participate in their government. We have a democracy that is accountable. What we have today is contempt for that democracy. We have folks in eastern Europe and other parts of the world who would give their all to have something as reasonable as what we have in terms of parliamentary practice and parliamentary process -- what we should have. We simply have given it away. It should be possible to respect your government in the province of British Columbia. We have allowed this kind of latitude as a province.

I am not going to suggest that we would ever make the case that a special spending warrant is appropriate. To cite the case of Saskatchewan, which was given earlier, if that province, which had an election fully a week later than us, can be in their chamber debating their issues six weeks after an election call, there's absolutely no excuse for six months in our case. It's really important that people realize that this is just not six or seven hours of debate; this is a travesty of justice in my view.

You do not ever go back to people after the dollars are spent and say: "We're sorry." I've been personally subjected to that adage through this government's process -- or lack of it -- over the last ten days that this House has sat: "Oh, sorry about that. Sorry we didn't get it to you in time."

You have to have a sense of process to be a serious legislator, to be legitimate in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of your peers and to understand truly what it is to be a part of a democracy. We've given that up. Eastern Europe has a clearer sense. Russia will have a clearer sense than this parliament at some point, unless we get a handle on process, on where we want to go and what it is exactly that we want to do for the people of this province.

Hon. Speaker, I'm not going to read to you every single special spending warrant. However, I think it's incumbent upon the other folks who speak tonight to ensure that every single British Columbian is aware of every single special spending warrant that has gone forward from that government in the last five and a half months.

I think what happens when something is not given reasonable debate in this chamber is that the public are not always made aware of it. It's criminal in my view that something that impacts on their tax dollar and on how much money they have for other things is not given a reasonable debating time in this House. I'm appalled, disappointed and saddened by the fact that we have to continually look at making folks accountable. From the words of John Diefenbaker: "If the role of opposition is to be a detergent, work is yet to be done." We have not scraped the surface of the hypocrisy that is evident in this chamber.

You cannot have process when it suits you and a lack of process when it suits you; you have to be consistent.

I will stand here today before you, hon. Speaker, and suggest that the only reason this government can go forward and the only reason parliament is going to be valued in this province is that there is some consistency and some precedent. Anyone who has practised law will tell you that decisions are always reached on precedent. When you put down or denigrate the precedent, you certainly don't replicate it. In fact, when the minister was in opposition, he denigrated the precedent of the Social Credit Party in terms of special spending warrants, and then he has chosen to repeat it.

It makes no sense, and the British Columbia voter has to appreciate that they have voted in someone who is repeating the behaviours of the previous administration. We learned -- and the Social Credit Party learned -- that their mistakes were not acceptable. If it wasn't acceptable for the Social Credit Party, why all of a sudden is it acceptable for the New Democratic Party in this province to behave in exactly the same way?

I have significant difficulties with that, and I'm hoping and trusting that this House can rise to its parliamentary obligation to take itself seriously as a legislature and come back to this House with reasonable behaviour over the next term.

I do not wish to see this discussion become an annual event. I do not wish to see this come up for debate on an annual basis in this Legislature. It is really important that we get a handle on where we're going, and if that's not possible, that the public be aware that this government is treating them exactly the same way that they have been treated by previous governments in this province. It is completely wrong; it is completely unacceptable.

Hon. Speaker, there are many documents here that, in my view, cite many instances in which the New Democratic Party in this province received popular support for recognizing and denouncing activities and behaviours of the Social Credit Party. In fact, they traded on someone else's past behaviour only to replicate it. Why that makes sense is beyond the intellect of the average scholar, let alone the average Canadian voter. There is something fundamentally wrong when you come before a chamber of parliament and suggest that 12 hours of debate will somehow cleanse the record, that it's no longer something you have to be personally accountable for.

[8:30]

I will attest today, hon. Speaker, that this government will be accountable for the last five and a half months during their entire mandate of office. They will be hearing from us on this issue for the next five years. It's absolutely critical that we continue to hammer away at process. We've learned that in committees in this House. We've learned that in the public at large. It's time that this House was responsible to its voters. I

[ Page 260 ]

can't tell you, hon. Speaker, how disappointed I am that we had to wait five and a half months to see this government abuse the voter in British Columbia to the extent that they have.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

There are many examples of a lack of process, a lack of consultation by the government in terms of all the portfolios that will come before this House. A lack of consultation. A lack of direction. A lack of listening. This government said to us: "We will listen." They said to the voters in this province: "We will listen. We will take forward your views. We will be constituent representatives." Some 75 people are together in this chamber. What is the purpose? As my colleague noted, should we stay home and send in a ballot when we might be told at some point in our career that our opinion is valued?

Well, I can tell you that the constituents of the Liberal opposition who were voted in believed that their opinions were important. They wish to be heard on all these questions. They do not wish to continue to be sidestepped. This is a trade-off on behalf of the British Columbians who thought they were getting honest, forthright government. In fact, they're getting a balance sheet at the end of the day that says: "Sorry. We've spent the dollars. Thanks very much for your support during the election."

For five and a half months this government disregarded the wishes of these voters, these constituents and, absolutely, these legislators. That does not warm my heart, hon. Speaker, and I'm trusting it probably doesn't warm the hearts of the serious legislators found in this chamber today. We have to continually come back to the examples, and we have to continually educate the public as to what these examples are.

We had promises during the election. In my view, a promise is a process. It says that you're prepared to stand up and make a commitment to something you believe in. We had a promise of tuition fee freezes. That's a process. That means that somebody looked at both sides of the question and said: "Okay. This is what I fundamentally believe about that issue." That was disregarded.

If people have a clear understanding of process, when does the promise become a goal? Why is it all of a sudden appropriate to disregard things that were stated five and a half months ago? Selective amnesia, hon. Speaker. That is not a reasonable length of time for someone to say: "What I said with such fervour, such intensity, such tenacity, no longer applies."

D. Mitchell: They didn't mean it.

L. Reid: How can you not mean something you said only five and a half months ago? We had a government that promised no new taxes. In my view, a promise is a process. They said: "No new taxes." We have hidden taxes in this budget that are absolutely appalling to the average voter in this province. Knee-jerk supply. Knee-jerk government. Knee-jerk lack of process. If you truly understood process in this province, this parliament would be working in a reasonable fashion. We would have the voter in this province believing that somehow integrity and honesty had been returned to government.

That's what this government campaigned on, and it is what this government needs to be accountable for. The opposition, in my view, will make them accountable every single day that we hold office.

D. Jarvis: I request leave to introduce a guest.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce a friend of mine who has travelled all the way from the eastern parts of this country -- from the town of Calgary. Please welcome Mr. Bob Swail to this lovely province of British Columbia.

D. Symons: I rise with a great deal of dissatisfaction with what I have seen happen in this House today. We have seen the degradation of our legislative process. The abuse of this House is disgraceful. This government has delayed the calling of this Legislature for five and a half months. This government has delayed bringing a budget before us, and this government has delayed bringing the special warrants before us that they are bringing today. Nothing but delay.

They use the excuse that they had to get a handle on the financial mess left by the previous government. In the process of justifying this, they squandered $1 million in an independent study that our auditor general could have done -- and, as matter of fact, did do as well, and was paid for. We paid double. As well, any high-school student who has taken commerce could have found out much of what the Peat Marwick study did with the aid of a calculator. We were able to do it soon after the Jansen budget came down by simply adding figures that appeared in that budget.

If you added together the BS fund, Jansen's stated deficit and the moneys owed for the various Crown agencies and so forth, you came up with somewhere around $2 billion, which is not far off of the figure that you paid $1 million to get.

An Hon. Member: Why couldn't the NDP do that?

D. Symons: I wonder why. They had a resource department that we didn't have, and we were able to find that information out very quickly. So they've known this for about a year -- not the last few months, which they're claiming is the reason for all of this delay. They now come to us with this great rush of things. They could have called the House together a month ago. They could have called it together five months ago. But they delayed doing that, and I think they had a reason.

I noticed, though, that after this bill came up today and very quickly after we began our discussion and criticism of the government -- and, in particular, reading them their words that they had used before and the hypocrisy of the present government that was shown to this House -- they seemed to disappear quickly from the other side of the House. I assumed they were simply going to their offices to hide their heads in shame.

[ Page 261 ]

Indeed, the growth rate of the debt really increased during the time when this government was waiting to call the House together.

In the present budget now before the House they claim that they're reducing the deficit. The reason they're reducing it is that they let it grow at a fast rate before they brought in this budget. So while they were spending under special warrants, the spending rates were going up, not down. Now they're reducing it, they say, by 50 percent of what they allowed it to increase to. I don't think that's very sound fiscal policy.

We're going to find in this process that we're getting a whitewashing and a glossing over of the spending that this government has done under special warrants. They want to rush it through very quickly, because they don't want that intensive scrutiny that should take place in the House. But that is why we were elected. The Minister of Finance, when he was in opposition, said: "The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everybody should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." It seems that the government doesn't believe their words anymore.

One of the little things I noticed, in looking through what I was able to find out from these special warrants that we're asked to approve, was the spending in the office of the Premier. In the previous Jansen budget roughly $4 million was put aside for running the Premier's office. During the five months that the NDP have had charge of that office, they have run up a $4 million budget on their own in special warrants. It would seem that there may be things that this government does not want the public to look at too closely. It's unfortunate.

An Hon. Member: We're taking care of those in need.

D. Symons: The Premier's office is indeed taking care of those in need. Trips to the Orient, trips to Switzerland. Yes, indeed. Four million dollars' worth of the public's money.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Yes, that's where he should have been indeed: in Washington. He should be down there discussing the taxes the United States is insisting on putting on Canadian logs. That's where he was needed. Club Med was not the place to be.

The other quote from our current minister when he was in opposition: "...there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature has been their doing." This time he's referring to the Social Credit government. "It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the largest-spending government we've seen for some time...." That precisely describes them now that they're on the government side of the House.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

D. Symons: It was Mr. Clark who said that.

This rather reminds me of the final lines in George Orwell's book. You might remember it: Animal Farm. It tells the story of a group of animals who found that the humans who were governing them were behaving in a most poor manner, and gradually the animals drove the humans out and took over. One faction of those animals took charge of looking after the best interests of the animals. The very final lines are where the animals are looking through the window of the farmhouse into where the pigs have now gone and assumed the attire of the humans.

It became evident to the other animals that they could not tell the difference between their previous oppressors and their current oppressors. That is precisely the situation that we're seeing in this House when we read their words from Hansard s of a year ago.

An Hon. Member: Which ones are the pigs?

D. Symons: It's hard to tell anymore.

First we saw the government come before us in this House to try and sidetrack us. It was a beautiful bit of work, but it certainly reduced the legislative process. They were bringing forward a bill for approval at the beginning of the day knowing full well that we would not allow them to bring it in. Rather than having the fair wage legislation brought forth under bills, it was their way to bring it in as a minister's statement -- an insidious way of getting around discussing something in the House. Then they bring in the bill that we're now discussing.

Their method of doing this, first trying to slip one through and then bringing Bill 16 in here, was simply unacceptable. I find it every bit as unacceptable and dishonest and deceitful as our current government did when they were in opposition just a short year ago -- and they will certainly be there again after the next election. With that, I will end my remarks.

V. Anderson: I'm of mixed feelings this evening about the bill that is now before us. We came into the context of hearing the people in this Legislature give their inaugural addresses, and I'm sure as we listened to those addresses, we were quite proud and pleased with the quality of the discussion and with the intent of all the members who have come to this House to serve the people of British Columbia. We were all very clear in trying to set that before them.

And as I talked to the people in the community, I understood from them that they appreciated that not only had we heard the message that there would be a different kind of government, but we were actually going to do something about that different kind of government.

[8:45]

I think they were encouraged in the presentation at the beginning of the budget speech that it had been heard that the people had voted for a change of administration, a change of priorities and a change in the way government operates -- and that this means "the pursuing of policies that are fair to all British Columbians." Part of the problem of following through with that is that what often seems fair to ourselves does not seem fair to people who are outside our particular setting and are looking in upon us. I am particularly thinking of those on whose behalf I have been trying to

[ Page 262 ]

read this bill. Many of the people that I represent here will try to read it like they do a household financial statement, but this is not anywhere like a household financial statement.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In the final analysis, they want to know: "What is it going to cost me? What is it going to provide to me? And what am I getting for the money that I am spending in taxes or whatever else?" Unfortunately, I'm not sure that either they or I can follow this bill and discover what it does for the people of the province.

I am sure that most of the people reading this will say: "It must be doing something for somebody, but it's certainly not me." I think of the single parents struggling to look after their finances and to care for their children, whether on minimum wage or as a working person caring for their family with GAIN payments. They will be saying of all these budget items: "There is nothing there for me. Indeed, it looks like there must be something being taken away from me, because there's so much money being spent here in areas that I have nothing to do with, and that are no

part in my life or my daily living. This money must be used by somebody other than the people with whom I live and work." I'm sure the people who line up at the food bank, if they took the time to read this budget would say: "I don't understand. How could they be spending their time this way? It has nothing to say to my needs.

When I have read it -- even if I was able to get the details of it -- I'm sure I'll continue to be just as poor after these are all passed and spent as I was before, and there will not be funds for my children." I'm sure they will discover again and ask the same question they've asked before: "How is it that I cannot get enough money to provide for my children's needs in their daily lives, but if those same children are put into foster homes, there will be more money provided for their needs and care than they can get if they stay in my own home?"

These are the kinds of questions that this bill needs to present an answer to. The answers may be in here, but they're not visible to the people of the province who need to understand it. After all, as legislators, in presenting a bill it seems to me that we need to present it in the same way we presented our speeches, saying that we were responding to the needs of the people within our community. This bill, as it's presented, does not provide that kind of information or insight. It may be valid -- I don't know. You can't tell by reading it whether it is or not.

I've worked in many community organizations in my life. One thing I'm very aware of is that the annual reports are very important, because people want accountability for what has been done on their behalf and what is being planned. In order for them to understand it, they have to have it in a form that is readable, in a way that they can read it, understand it and know what it means. This form does not provide that kind of information for them and, therefore, it is difficult. In annual meetings I have heard the people of the community say: "Take this back. We will not pass it until we can understand it, because we are not going to write a blank cheque."

As I read this bill, it sounded to me like a person came to me because we had a joint chequing account and said: "You sign one half of the cheque; I'll fill it out later, and I'll sign the other half of the cheque. It will be fine." Well, that's not what a joint chequing account is about. I have to be able to understand it before I can endorse it, sign it or recommend it.

I'm sure, if we look at this, that there are not many members in the House who understand what these figures mean, what has been or what will be accomplished by them and what the effect will be upon the people within our constituencies. So when they ask us if we'd had more detail, if we'd had more time to look at it, would we have had the opportunity to support it...? We have to think of those people in our communities. We need to present it in a way that they understand it.

One of the concerns that I also have with this is on the questions that people will come to me with. Does this mean that one of the best teenage alcohol treatment programs in all of Canada has been closed down by this government because they did not want to fund it? Is this what this document says? Is that the principle I would be endorsing if I endorsed this document? I can't say that that would be the principle I was endorsing, because I'm not sure -- with the kind of money we're talking here, in the kinds of ministries that should have covered the maintenance of that program and others like it -- why that took place.

There has to be a reason and a rationale for the figures. The figures by themselves do not give that reason and rationale. At least in the budget speech there was some attempt to give a reason and a rationale for the figures that were presented. In this report there is no

preamble, no explanation, no appendix and no way to understand the meaning of the document and what it means for the people in the community.

We have to have the time to examine this in order that I can go tomorrow to the people in my community and say: "Yes, I voted for this because it means this, this and this, and it will do this and this for you in your lifestyle." What will it do to the people who are seniors, the people I mentioned before who are 50 to 65, who are not yet "official seniors," and who yet are not able to get the benefits that you get when you're privileged to become 65 years of age? Yet you're too old to work. At least, you're too old to be hired to work, because people want younger people in their place.

What does it mean to the teenager who reads this or the university student who can't get into college? Yes, there's been a large increase in money to Advanced Education, Training and Technology, but where did it go? It hasn't provided them a place to get into university. In my own riding, Langara Campus -- at least, if we go by the newspaper reports -- is in dire straits and may be closed down because there are not funds. How come this document says that more money has been put in? Where has it gone to?

Unfortunately, this kind of document, as it's presented, raises suspicions, uncertainties and anxieties. That's not the kind of document that I believe we should be putting forward. I'm not saying at this point

[ Page 263 ]

that the figures are right or wrong. There's simply not enough information here to tell me whether they're right or wrong. Therefore I would be unable and unwise to endorse it until I have more information about it.

You can go down through each of the categories within this. Labour and Consumer Services.... I can't even read these big figures and figure them out. I wouldn't try, because the people in my community aren't used to dealing with these kinds of figures. Yet they're the people we should be reporting to, and our report should be in a way that they can understand.

This is the way that this budget needs to be presented, so that these people can hear it, understand it and appreciate it, and then they will be able to. Not us. It's not up to the opposition to be challenging. We are here to enable the people themselves to challenge and ask the questions. But unless the material is presented in a way that they can receive it and understand it, they cannot challenge it.

In our inaugural address, each one of us, in one way or another, said that we would provide the information to them in a way that they could understand. I say that this is a common challenge, not just to the government and not just to the NDP members, but to all the members of the Legislature, that we will present to the people a new style of information, a new style of response, a new style of their ability to understand so they know what this government is doing.

Let me use a simple illustration about this building. I'll start with a building which is not this, because it's part of what we're reporting here. For a time I taught in the Vancouver School of Theology on the university campus, and I was dean of residents. I went from there over to the university residence meetings, and they were surprised to find me come, because there was that castle building, and they wanted to know how I got across the moat. They were surprised that you could come out or that anybody could come in.

For a number of years I worked here in Victoria with Canadian Ecumenical Action. I had a press card for the press gallery here at one point and was able to look down upon you from the gallery. I was part of the group you talked about. One of the things I discovered in Victoria, to my surprise -- coming across from Vancouver -- was that when I talked to people about the Legislature in the government building, they said: "What's that?" The people in Victoria did not know what was going on in this building.

They did not know what happened here, because it wasn't part of their life, their undertakings or their ability. The people in Vancouver knew more because most of the offices were in Vancouver, and they had more friends that interacted within it.

We need a report and a financial statement. Maybe we have to do the technical one in this way, but along with the technical report there needs to be a people's report of everything that we put out, including this. Then I and others could read the people's report, and we could say yes, we can endorse this, we can understand it, we can approve of it or we can improve it, whichever the case may be.

I would plead with all of us to rethink what we're doing here: we're not here to be opposition and government, to be NDP, Liberal or Social Credit. We're here to be the representatives of the people. This must be a people's document, not a government document. This must be a document of the Legislature -- of the people of British Columbia. I would urge and encourage us to move in that direction so the people can say, when they pick this up, that they understand it, they accept it, or they have suggestions for change."

[9:00]

Finally, I would say that we need to be very aware of the impression we convey to the community at large. Even as was mentioned earlier this evening, one of the attitudes in this debate that has shown up which will do all of us a discredit is that in this House, at one point today, there were only ten members here. The people elected us to do collective legislation, and for them to discover we're not here doing that together, it's their attitudes that we need to deal with, live with and respond to.

On this basis, I am not able to endorse this document.

R. Neufeld: Before I start, hon. Speaker, I would like to read a quote out of Hansard by Dale Lovick: "...we would be irresponsible in the extreme if we agreed to interim supply without considerable discussion. That's why we're going through this process and why I, for one, make no apologies for what we are doing." That was in 1990. Here we are tonight at the hour of 9 o'clock, discussing interim supply.

It's rather.... I was going to say "surprising," but it's not surprising to find that the government this morning tried to throw a bit of a red herring into what was happening by bringing forward the fair-wage policy at a moment's notice. We find that very unfair. And then we are to spend two days discussing interim supply for the first three months of government expenditures.

I find it rather surprising that after five and a half months this government finally decided to call the Legislature. Why was it not called quite a long time ago? I'm not going to specifically say how long, but if you go to the Saskatchewan government, which happens to be an NDP government, you will find that they did not take much more than a month to call the Legislature and to bring down budgets and start talking about interim supply and all the problems that they were supposedly facing, left by a previous administration.

What went on with this government over here that they could not call the Legislature long before five and a half months? Was it because it would take that long for them to instil in British Columbians' minds that the deficit was far greater than it really was, and to be able

[ Page 264 ]

to inflate that deficit as much as they could? We know that spending went unchecked. It was "spend as much as you can to get the deficit up as high as you can," to what the Finance minister says is about $2.3 billion.

For a government that preached all through the election and long before the election that it was going to be open and honest to the people in British Columbia, they have really let them down. Hon. Speaker, if you go back in Hansard , you will find the members opposite who say now that the deficit we had proposed that was only about $400 million was really $1.2 billion. They knew that, because they all talked about it -- every one of them, and especially the Minister of Finance. Now he tends to tell the people we were misled; the budget deficit was only $400 million, according to Social Credit.

I can tell you that this open and honest government was not very open and honest, and had they been, maybe they would have put out a pamphlet that said exactly what they were doing. Maybe they would have put in their pamphlet that they were raising taxes this year by $800 million, but they're still going to have a record deficit of $1.8 billion. It's absolutely disgusting, as far as I'm concerned, that those figures weren't put out to British Columbians correctly.

I make no excuses for some of the things that happened, because I was not here, but when I read in this book Budget 1992 some of the expenditures that are added on to the deficit that we had proposed already of some $624 million.... I'll just read a few of them.

"Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations spending is $119 million above budget, mainly because of increased allowances for doubtful loans and investments and expenditures related to the Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-op." That's added to the deficit. That's what brings it up to the $2.3 billion.

Another one. "Expenditure of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade -- $96 million above budget mainly because of increased allowances for doubtful loans, guarantees and investments. Yet the government will not give us the information that says what they're writing off. We've been asking for it, yet it is still not coming.

An Hon. Member: Who made those bad loans?

R. Neufeld: Nobody made those bad loans.

Spending by the Ministry of the Attorney General -- $90 million above budget due to higher expenditures for flood relief, the October 1991 provincial election and increased program utilization.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Obviously, hon. Speaker, I'm getting under somebody's skin.

The Ministry of Social Services expenditure is $82 million above budget due to higher spending for income assistance. Why aren't these things in the small pamphlet that most British Columbians read?

Ministry of Health expenditures -- $55 million higher than budget because of higher spending in the Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare.

Ministry of A