Hansard -- Volume 18, Number 7 -- Wednesday, March 29, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 18, Number 7

[ Page 14587 ]

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

Prayers.

C. Clark: I am pleased to introduce to the House today two of our army of young B.C. Liberals who are out there scouring every university and college while we wait for the next election: Jennifer Dibblee and Brock Worobel. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I would ask the House to bid a fond farewell to one of the distinguished members of the Legislature press gallery -- I didn't know they had distinguished members -- Mr. Shane Foxman of Global TV. He was originally sentenced to life on this rock pile but was given time off for good behaviour. He's being recalled to the Vancouver newsroom, and today is his last day. I have told him, in the corridor here, that he's been pleasantly obnoxious to deal with. Mr.

"Smiling" Foxman will be remembered as the worst New York Yankees fan in the history of the Legislature, but there is no truth to the rumour that he was expelled from the press gallery on that count. Please join me in wishing Sunshine Boy good luck.

G. Campbell: I want to join the Premier in wishing Mr. Foxman all the best. I had hoped to hear words of condolence from the Deputy Premier with regard to Mr. Foxman, because . . . .

An Hon. Member: Former Deputy Premier.

G. Campbell: Former Deputy Premier -- sorry. I'm sorry that he's just the former Deputy Premier and not a former member, hon. Speaker.

I want to say to Mr. Foxman that I know the city of Vancouver will look forward to your coverage. It's an excellent city -- it had a very good mayor for a few years -- and I'm sure you'll enjoy your time there.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've got a special introduction to make today. There's a young man, 11 years old, who's come down from Shawnigan Lake. He's come down specifically to be in the House today for his very first time, and I understand he's been looking forward to it for some time. I'd ask the House to help me welcome Jason MacDonald, who's the son of Sheryl MacDonald, who works in my office.

[1415]

Hon. I. Waddell: I too have some guests in the Legislature today, one of whom is Francisco Rodriguez, of Milenio magazine, a Spanish-language publication. I'd also like to introduce Rainer and Sarah Maas, who are visiting us today from Peace Reach Adventures Ltd., an ecotourism outfit in Aldergrove. I'd like the House to welcome them.

M. de Jong: In the gallery todaly is a constituent of mine, Mr. Darren Stollings, who I've come to know over the past couple of years. I'd like to have members make him welcome here as well.

Introduction of Bills

EDUCATION AS AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE ACT

G. Campbell presented a bill intituled Education As An Essential Service Act.

G. Campbell: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time.

Motion approved.

G. Campbell: This is the fourth time in seven years that the official opposition has sought the government's support for the declaration of education as an essential service in the province of British Columbia. This bill recognizes the crucial importance of education to our children's future, and it guarantees that our students' educational rights are protected without fear of disruption to studies or to safe, reliable access to schools. This bill does not outlaw strikes or in any way undermine the right of British Columbia's workers to the free collective bargaining process. Rather, it ensures that students' educational rights are maintained while the collective bargaining process occurs.

In particular, this bill amends the Labour Relations Code to ensure that when a labour dispute occurs, either party involved may apply to the chair to investigate whether that dispute poses a threat to the health and safety of British Columbians or to the provision of educational services. Where such a threat exists, it authorizes the minister to order a 40-day cooling-off period or to direct the board to designate those facilities as essential, ensuring that all facilities and services are maintained.

Our children are our future, and a strong, reliable education, based on the highest standards of excellence, is the most important service we can give them. I urge the government to allow this bill to be fully debated in the House, and on behalf of students, parents, school trustees and teachers across British Columbia, I urge all members of the House to join me in passing this crucial legislation. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

LABOUR DISPUTE NEGOTIATIONS AND

APPOINTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSIONERS

G. Campbell: Yesterday the Premier said that education is not measured by a day or two lost in free collective bargaining. By the end of this week, the Premier's inaction means that our kids have lost two million student-days in school. I've been a teacher, and I can tell the Premier that every day that's lost in the classroom is a lost learning opportunity, and it is gone forever. My question to the Premier is: doesn't the Premier understand that parents and students in the province of British Columbia do not want to lose one more day of school?

[ Page 14588 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As is quite clear to everyone in British Columbia, we appointed two inquiry commissioners, appointed by the Minister of Labour, to look into the matter. That was done with the consent of both parties in this dispute, and we're hoping that this dispute can be resolved by those mediators essentially. Hopefully they can return to work sooner than Friday. There's a deadline, and that's Saturday noon. By then, the commissioners are to make a report recommending whatever action they believe is appropriate to the Minister of Labour, and at that point we will look at our options.

I'm hoping that this matter can be resolved before Saturday noon and without any further action on the part of the government.

[1420]

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.

G. Campbell: We really don't need mediators or arbitrators to recommend a course of action. If the government would just declare education an essential service, our children could be in school and the collective bargaining process would continue. The Premier's comments over the last couple of days have reminded me of a former NDP Education minister's comments when she said that some of our children may be better off out of school. There is nothing more important than giving our children the education that they need, that they deserve and that their parents pay for.

There is not a reason on earth why children and teachers should not be back in the classroom at work today. Why won't the Premier do the right thing and end the strike now?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We took action yesterday, and that action means that the commissioners will mediate the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved by the parties through their mediation, they will make recommendations. It is my hope and it is my wish that students be in schools by Monday.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the Premier's hope and wish should have been that students were in school last Monday. That's when they were supposed to be in school. The dithering that has gone on here has cost students two million student-days in school. Now, the Premier may smirk at that and think that's okay, but I can tell you that for students that's not all right, for teachers that's not all right and for parents that is not all right.

The deadline that he has set for next Monday should have been last Monday or last Friday, so that we didn't have any disruption in schools in the province of British Columbia and our kids got the learning experiences that they deserve and that their parents pay for. The government has already made up its mind, hon. Speaker. Why should we carry on with this sham? Why should students lose another million student school days just so the government can kowtow to its union bosses? I don't understand that. Could the Premier please explain it?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, it is not my style of governing to make up my mind about an issue before the recommendations of the mediators in this particular matter are in. There is a process in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There are fundamental rights that people have in this province, and I am thankful that we have a province that respects free collective bargaining as much as it values the education of children and the lives of their families. That's the difference. The difference between this side and that side is that we have the utmost respect for the children's education and their families as well as the free collective bargaining rights of workers in British Columbia. There has to be a balance struck between the two, and we have struck that balance. The commissioners are at work, and I want the children to be back by Monday at the latest.

G. Hogg: Sa-hali Secondary School in Kamloops has over 100 grade 12 students preparing to write their provincial exams on April 18, less than three short weeks away. They will lose a week of in-class preparation time because this government is afraid to stand up for students. Can the Premier please tell us how he thinks the grade 12 students at Sa-hali Secondary and other students all across this province are going to make up for this lost week of education and prep time as they're facing their provincial exams?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Education is key to our kids' future; there's no question about that. But good-quality education, delivered in safe buildings -- buildings with proper facilities -- is an equally important part of education. Those are the issues that are facing us in this collective bargaining dispute right now, hon. Speaker. Those are the issues that are being put on the collective bargaining table to improve education, both by trustees and by the workers who are there. Children's futures will be better off when these issues are resolved by the parties in a free collective bargaining venue.

Solutions reached between the parties with the assistance of an industrial inquiry commissioner make more sense than what the Liberals would do, which is to not allow for any process where these issues can be worked out in a fair and free way. Their solution does nothing to help the grade 12 child who needs her provincial exams.

[1425]

The Speaker: The member for Surrey-White Rock on a supplemental.

G. Hogg: For the grade 12 students at Sa-hali Secondary and for other students on the quarter system, losing five days of school is the equivalent to losing five weeks in many other school systems. These students may well be facing the most important exams of their lives -- exams which will determine their future opportunities. We know through the government's words and actions that they're not willing to stand up for students. But can the Premier tell us why these grade 12 students have to pay the price for this dithering?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, there is a process in place where these matters can be resolved tonight. We are hopeful on this side of the House that the matters are resolved tonight. There are people of the highest expertise. The Liberals on the other side would undermine the expertise of the individuals appointed as industrial inquiry commissioners, but they are of the highest expertise. The people who are at the table have the goal to resolve the matters on behalf of the students that the hon. member refers to. We want the process to work. We have done everything possible to make the

[ Page 14589 ]

process work. We're urging the parties to get on and make the process work. Once again, fearmongering by the opposition does nothing to assist the grade 12 student.

LABOUR DISPUTE NEGOTIATIONS AND INTERIM ACCORD AGREEMENT

M. de Jong: The government actually signed an interim agreement with CUPE only two months ago and, incredibly, promised to pay that union up to half a million dollars to cover its negotiating costs. My question to the Premier is: how does he justify paying up to half a million taxpayers' dollars to a union that is today on strike, denying hundreds of thousands of students their right to an education and costing their parents millions of dollars in child care-related expenses?

Hon. J. MacPhail: The issues that are being resolved under the industrial inquiry commissioners are the narrow terms of the collective agreement -- the wages and working conditions. Such an agreement is not on the table.

The Speaker: The member for Matsqui on a supplemental.

M. de Jong: Well, the Minister of Labour doesn't understand. Maybe the Premier, who will start acting like a Premier and answering some of these difficult questions . . . . He wanted the top job. Maybe he'll explain how it wasn't just a coincidence that this half-million-dollar commitment was made by the government to CUPE at the height of the NDP leadership campaign.

Maybe he'll explain that, and maybe he'll tell us why his government is willing to spend a half-million taxpayers' dollars at a time when parents are having to dip into their own pockets -- into their own savings -- to pay for the cost of child care, while their children are being denied education that is their guaranteed right -- or at least it should be in British Columbia.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member is quoting from a tentative accord agreement. If he reads the title of it, it is a tentative agreement which was reached . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Proceed, minister.

Hon. P. Ramsey: . . . during previous negotiations. I must say that the conditions of this agreement were that we were embarking on a path that would lead to resolution of negotiations, that would not lead to job action. All of those items remain unresolved at this time. There is no $500,000 on the table currently in accord discussions with CUPE.

[1430]

PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER FROM MTBE CONTAMINATION

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Serious groundwater contamination from the gasoline additive MTBE has caused the state of California to introduce legislation that would (

a) require the labelling of gas pumps where MTBE is dispensed and (

b) eliminate the use of MTBE in California.

Last Monday Bill Clinton introduced legislation that will require a two-year phase-out of MTBE nationwide in the United States. He cited risks to public health and the environment as the reason for bringing that in. Can the minister tell us what steps she has taken to determine the level of MTBE in drinking water here in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Sawicki: I thank the hon. member for my first question as Minister of Environment. I would also like to commend the member. I know this is something that he has worked hard on in terms of the alternatives to MTBE, in terms of ethanol technology development. I certainly agree with him that something like ethanol is much kinder to the environment. We need to encourage that technology. That's exactly the kind of initiative that our government wants to take under the green economy initiative.

The Speaker: The member for Peace River South on a supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: Well, the question was: what is the government doing to measure groundwater MTBE content here in British Columbia today? We know MTBE is a human carcinogen. It takes less than one cupful of MTBE to pollute 13 million gallons of water. We also know that refiners are adding 15 percent by volume MTBE to gasoline. Millions of gallons of MTBE are sold in British Columbia every year. It's time for us to protect our drinking water and our environment. Can the minister tell us what steps she has taken to look for alternatives to MTBE? And could she tell us again what steps they've taken to measure the amount of MTBE in our drinking water today?

Hon. J. Sawicki: I'm hoping that the hon. member's comments mean that as part of our freshwater strategy that I released just a few months ago, he will be supporting our work towards groundwater protection legislation.

In terms of the alternatives, I can say I was pleased, with my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology last week at Globe 2000, to announce Ethanol B.C. and the contribution of seed money from this government to help encourage the development of ethanol technology. It was also part of the recommendation of the Greenhouse Gas Forum, which my colleague the Minister of Energy and I presented to the joint ministers' meeting just a couple of days ago, to establish a national centre for the development of ethanol technology to replace the need for MTBE.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: I call second reading of Bill 4.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2000

(second reading)

Hon. P. Ramsey: Before moving second reading of Bill 4, I wish to advise the House that we shall be proceeding, by consent, to committee stage immediately upon completion of second reading. Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

[ Page 14590 ]

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

schedule lists warrants approved for the '99-2000 fiscal year. It is our intention that special warrants will become the exception rather than the norm in financial arrangements in our province. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act provides that supplementary estimates will become the norm in the future. This will result in increased scrutiny of government spending and will increase government accountability.

[1435]

The first

section of this bill requests one-quarter of the voted estimates, as presented in the estimates, to provide for the general programs of government. Fifty percent of financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates have been provided for in

section 2 of the interim supply bill. This will allow time later for more complete debate on these items. Finally, the third

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

schedule F of the estimates.

As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in the supply bill. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 4.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, today I wish I were able to say that I am pleased to rise and debate second reading of Bill 4, Supply Act (No. 1), 2000. But that would not be the truth. In fact, I regret that I have to stand here and debate the granting of interim supply to this government to show yet again how nothing has changed, even though there's a new Premier.

What we have is an incompetent government trying to fool the public that things have changed. But this is clear evidence that they have not. Here and now I register my disdain for today's debate brought on as a consequence of this sham of a government, since for me to be silent would indicate some form of endorsement of the inept and pathetic actions of this government. It is a sad day for the people of this province when they must bear witness to this continuance of pitiful government.

How many times have we done this? How many times has the request for interim supply been a norm during this government's administration? I don't intend to go back to 1991, because I wasn't here then. But I will go back to 1996. So let's get ready, for here's the listing.

Interim supply was requested Thursday, June 26, 1996; then again on Wednesday, March 27, 1997; then again on Tuesday, June 24, 1997; once again on Tuesday, March 31, 1998; followed by Tuesday, June 30, 1998; and then again last year on March 31, 1999; and finally on Tuesday, June 29, 1999. That bring us up to date, interim supply being requested always days just before the end of a fiscal year or days just before the end of the first quarter of the fiscal year.

It's not as though this government could not have avoided this. As a matter of fact, this whole sorry excuse could have easily been avoided if there had been just one ounce of leadership on that side of the House. I think there's probably some puzzlement for those government members, because they don't understand how they could have made interim supply this year a non-reality. So allow me to elaborate as to how this government missed a great opportunity.

When the former Premier, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, was forced to vacate his position last August, the appointed interim Premier, who I'm happy to see is here -- the member for North Coast -- was given the responsibility to deal with the NDP leadership issue. Knowing that he only wanted the job temporarily, you would have expected that he would have urged the selection of a new Premier, of a new leader, to occur before the end of, say, last November. But rather, it went until February of this year.

The interim Premier deferred his decision and put off the leadership race to satisfy certain members of his own caucus, I would imagine, rather than thinking about the people of this province.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. The Minister for Northern Development rises on a point of order.

Hon. D. Miller: A minor but important point, Mr. Speaker. I think the correct title is not interim Premier, but Premier for an interim period.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. Please continue, member.

[1440]

I. Chong: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I will be mindful of that correction for the Premier for an interim time.

What sound reasons did that Premier for an interim time have for the delay, other than to ensure that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast would have a chance at running for that top job? As we're all aware, that member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was, at that time last fall, undergoing an investigation for possible breach of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

So who was in charge, anyway? Was it the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin? Was it the member for Vancouver-Kingsway? Just who was pulling at those Pinocchio strings of our Premier for an interim time last fall? After all, there had already been three declared candidates. So was the real reason that this caretaker Premier delayed the leadership race because he was being pressured to allow more time for the massive NDP membership sign-ups? It doesn't really matter.

It doesn't really matter anymore, except that the NDP cannot use the leadership race as an excuse for not being able to bring forward the budget for the year 2000-2001 and to allow those budget estimates that should follow right after the introduction of that budget.

The people of this province have had to pay dearly for the inactivity of this government for those six full months -- August 1999 to February 2000. We have had to pay for an increase in debt and debt servicing. We have had to pay for ministry overexpenditures, as evidenced by the special warrants attached to Bill 4. And we have had to pay in terms of lost opportunities to find savings. The cost to our economy has been great. For six months, while this government dithered as to who should be their next leader, it prolonged the chill in our investment climate.

For six months no one knew who would ultimately end up as Finance minister, and thus no one was able to take the decisive action that was necessary to ensure that the Enns report recommendations surrounding the tabling of the budget and its subsequent debate could be implemented in time this year. It means that we have all returned to this Legislature -- like every other

[ Page 14591 ]

year -- in late March, with the budget being tabled in the final days before the end of a fiscal year so that interim supply would be inevitable.

What is the new vision of this new Premier? What kind of new governance does he intend to bring forward? What is his form of new leadership? I don't see vision, I don't see new governance, and I don't see strong leadership. What we do have is the same old faces, with their same old pitiful ways, with their same old tired excuses. On February 20 of this year the NDP government smiled bravely as they got themselves a brand-new Premier. But the joke's on them, because he isn't even brand-new at all. He's exactly the same; he's merely switched seats.

What's that saying that we hear so often -- "changing the deck chairs on the Titanic "? Well, he's changed the chairs of his seating here in this chamber.

The most incompetent government in the history of British Columbia changes leaders, but right away he maintains the same pattern as his predecessor. How many members on that side of the House have the courage to stand up and participate in this debate and explain to all of us here, explain to all of their constituents and explain to all British Columbians why it is that this government deserves to be granted interim supply?

If they were to participate in this debate . . . . I don't want an explanation as to the technical reasons, because we all know those. After all, Friday is the end of the fiscal year, and the government's spending authority will expire. It needs to come before us to ask that we give approval to spend $5.5 billion without debate. If any member on that side of the House has the courage to explain why we should give them that authority, speak up. You will have plenty of opportunity.

[1445]

I would also like to know if any member on that side of the House stood up in their caucus or even in their cabinet and said: "Enough is enough. It's time we did things differently, it's time we act responsibly, and it's time that we show the people of this province that we take our duties and our roles seriously." Did anyone on that side of the House stand up and say that? Anyone? I don't think so.

If anyone did protest, then maybe we wouldn't be looking at debating this interim supply bill now. If they did speak up and they did protest, we wouldn't have the need for another interim supply bill. I will wait, as will members on this side of the House, to see if any brave soul rises up from the other side of the House to defend this interim supply bill as to how it came about this time and as to why it needs to be supported this time, versus all those other times. What are those reasons?

Just like the B.C. Ferries -- everyone on that side of the House sat silently while close to $500 million was spent without so much as a business plan. Everyone sat silently while the debt at B.C. Ferries ballooned to over $1 billion. And everyone sat silent while B.C. Ferry ministers -- all of them, five or six of them -- defended the project, even though deep down inside they must have known something wasn't quite right. After all, spending targets were not being met; completion date targets were not being met.

So again, if any one member over there on that side of the House can tell us what action he or she personally took to stop the fast ferries fiasco, we'd like to hear from that member.

Interjection.

I. Chong: Oh, did I see a hand being raised? No, I don't think so.

Otherwise, members, you cannot expect us members on this side of the House to say to the people of this province that this government should be given authority to spend more money -- $5.5 billion -- without a full debate. I would like to see each and every member on that side of the House rise and defend this bill and explain what steps he or she personally took to avoid it. I'm sure everyone is eager and anxious to hear all of those excuses you must have lined up by now.

Maybe you could even produce a top ten list, like David Letterman does on his show -- you know, the top ten reasons why the NDP could not avoid introducing a supply bill this March. It should be quite entertaining. Maybe you'll even be up for an award at the Emmys.

Our job is to hold this government to account and to hold its record up to the highest public scrutiny possible, and the latter is only possible when they have the courage to call an election.

This is a government that continues to run from the taxpayer. It continues to rack up debt; it continues to spend more money than it takes in; it continues in the same way as before. So a change of Premier has not made any difference -- one iota. This government blew it; they blew their chance of showing the people of this province that they really meant what they were saying. They blew that chance on the very first day we returned to this Legislature. The people of this province are offended by this pattern of behaviour, because it could have ended, yet it didn't.

We have a government that has destroyed our economy, that has ruined our health care system, that has thrown our public education system into total chaos. We have a government that has forgotten what its responsibility is to its constituents and to all the people of this province. We were all sent here to do a job: to be stewards of the taxpayers' money -- not to take ownership of it.

Whenever legislation is brought forward for debate, our constituents expect that there will be some value or substance to that legislation. But this bill has no real value, and it has no real substance, in that it could have been avoided. This bill is just another excuse for fiscal irresponsibility, and I cannot support it.

[1450]

The people of Oak Bay-Gordon Head asked me to represent them, and I value that as an honour and a privilege, as I am sure many members do. The constituents that I represent also said to me: "Hold this government's feet to the fire; don't go easy on them." In effect, they said: "Give them that cold place where ice doesn't exist."

Hon. Speaker, this week the ninth consecutive deficit budget was tabled. We see that our total provincial debt has doubled since the NDP government took office in 1991. Our annual debt servicing -- that is, interest costs -- amounts to $2.8 billion, which translates to a daily interest cost of $7.704 million each and every day.

These actions by this government show reckless mismanagement. The spending warrants attached to this bill alone amount to $376.9 million -- over one-third of a billion dollars -- which this government requires that we ratify for last year's overspending. This government is out of control,

[ Page 14592 ]

and they want automatic approval to spend another $5.5 billion without debate. I say no, and I say stop this insanity and call an election.

T. Nebbeling: I, like my colleague, am pleased to rise to speak to this interim supply bill. I took a bit of a different angle than my colleague did. I basically took the perspective of: what is the government really asking me? Does the government truly deserve to have consideration for a request to basically hand over to them a large amount of money? My colleague identified the interim supply bill as $5.5 billion, with the special warrants representing $376 million. Looking at these numbers, I felt the need to consider what this government has done.

I didn't even have to go down the road for nine years to come up with what I believe to be a decent analysis of the action of this government when it comes to the financial management of our province.

The last budget, I think, can be taken and broken down in certain segments. When you do that, it clearly shows why giving this government the kind of trust they're asking us for would never be merited. The record of this government so far is that every year they have driven us deeper into debt, from $17 billion when they became the government of this province in 1991 to $36.5 billion today, which means that the debt service alone is close to $3 billion.

That is, of course, the first question I ask myself. If this government had been financially responsible and had managed its affairs the way anybody else has to manage their affairs, which means living within your means, and if this government had taken on the responsibility that they recognized in '96 and had started to service that debt and not just pay off the interest on that debt, we would not have generations to come that will face an incredible burden. Today it is $3 billion a year that we pay in debt.

When we see so much need in this province -- be it in health care, be it in education, be it in social services, be it in just building an economy -- it is almost shameful to see that this government has not been willing to recognize that the only way to prosperity is by undoing that debt that we face annually. If I were to ask my constituents, "Would you support me supporting this supply bill?" I can guarantee you right now that it would be a resounding "No Way."

[1455]

Why is this government continuing to do what it's doing when it comes to the financial management of this province? That is my second question. Why is it that this government really believes that it has to spend money to create jobs -- and unfortunately, at the end of the day after they have spent the money, has failed to create jobs? My colleague used the example of the fast ferries -- $500 million. One day not so long ago this government said: "Let's build a ship industry. Let's create some jobs for this province in the building of ships." They came up with a new concept.

They said: "Well, just building ships like it is traditionally done is done by many others, so let's do something different. Let's take aluminum, and instead of making beer cans out of them, let's make catamarans out of the aluminum that we have here as an industry."

We have spent, like my colleague also noticed, $500 million trying to create an industry that exists in a very flourishing way in many other countries. In British Columbia, we failed. Why? It's because this government was so determined to build this shipbuilding industry that they ignored all the basic principles that apply to running a business. It was almost like an attitude of government: "Well, we are government. We can spend money; we need to spend. We do not have to work within the guidelines that any for-profit business would have to." That has led to this dismal result. We now have three fast ferries that cannot be used anywhere in this province.

An Hon. Member: Pretty slow ferries.

T. Nebbeling: They are extremely slow, because they're always in drydock. Every time they come out, we see yet another problem develop with the ferry. It can't handle the volumes that are needed on the runs that are being used. As a consequence, the government has now, after all this money, realized that this was an experiment that was doomed to fail. But it took $500 million to come to that conclusion. When I look at that, and then this government says, "Now we want to spend another $5 billion, but we can't give you the plan; we cannot show you how we're going spend this money," I can't say: "Go ahead. You have proven to me that you are capable of doing that."

It is not only the fast ferries. Let's take Skeena Cellulose, a decade-old mill that just could no longer produce the amount of pulp it had to produce to be economically viable. It was pretty well ready to shut down, and then the Deputy Premier of this province said: "Hey, wait a second. This is a mill in my town, and I'm going to save that mill." The government went into the pulp business, and the government allocated $310 million to get this mill to flourish once again, to upgrade it. Again, two years later we know we wasted $310 million on a business that didn't have a plan. We just jumped into it.

There are four or five other examples I could use right now, Mr. Speaker, but I'm not going to do this. There are other elements that lead me to say that giving this government the trust to spend $5 billion without a debate, without a proper business plan, without a proper analysis of how they're going spend this money can't be done. It would be too risky. Ultimately, we're talking about money from the people in this province.

Why is it that this latest budget in no way, shape or form reflects any recognition of the fact that indeed business is not something this government should be involved in -- that there are business people in this province who clearly can assist this government to set the road to prosperity by allowing certain things to happen right here in British Columbia? Why is it that this government again rejects any attempt by business to say: "Government, things are wrong in this province. Our people are suffering. We're losing more jobs. We're losing more businesses to Alberta, to the state of Washington and to Oregon"?

[1500]

The business sector is saying: "There are ways to stop that drain. There are ways to reverse the situation." They did get together with the government prior to the budget, and they gave some advice. For example, they advised that the government should truly start trying to see how they can live within their means. They suggested that maybe government should, as an initial step, reduce the cost of government by 5 percent across the board -- a 5 percent reduction in bureaucracy. What did the government do? They hired 459 more bureaucrats. So business advice was clearly rejected in this particular instance. Government had no intention of liv-

[ Page 14593 ]

ing within its means. Government had no intention of listening to the business sector, which was willing to step in and say: "Okay. We will put our effort to putting the ship of state in a new direction. We will invest in this province under the right conditions, if indeed this government allows us to do that. But get rid of some of the bureaucracy. Get rid of some of the policies that truly undermine the viability of business in this province."

Like I said, instead of eliminating bureaucracy, they added more bureaucrats to it, which will create more paperwork, more demands for businesses to fill out forms and more pressure on the bottom line, because all this is costing. So rejecting the business sector is a major and fatal flaw in the budget that we had presented here. With that flaw, again, I cannot stand here and say: "Go ahead with the interim supply."

Over the last couple of weeks we've seen exposure of deals made by this government with the trade unions, where everybody was convinced -- because of the tough talk that this government did about how they were negotiating on behalf of the people in British Columbia -- that all the contracts were for three years; it was zero-zero-and-2 percent.

Suddenly we see that the government needs another $600 million -- not for the future; no, for the past -- to pay for the side deals that were made with the trade unions on behalf of their workers, their members -- $600 million in benefit packages that was never exposed to the public in British Columbia, $600 million out of the pockets of people who themselves had to live within their means because the government kept taxing.

So, Mr. Speaker, again the fact that this government is constantly involved in behind-closed-doors negotiations and making deals with the trade unions. How they can publicly be seen as not giving any extra money to the workers, because we are so tight, but then behind closed doors they give a little package that goes on the side that turns into a big benefit for the same workers -- we the people in British Columbia pay for that. When I see this underhandedness by government when they deal with the trade union, there is no way that I can support the supply bill. Nor I can I support, obviously, the special warrants.

I would talk completely differently if this government had shown any interest in listening to the business sector, if this government had shown any interest in listening to small and medium-sized businesses that are willing to take on the challenge to turn the economy around.

What people and small business basically said was: "Government, leave some more money in the pockets of our customers. Give our customers a little bit more on their paycheques, so when they come home at the end of the month and have their paycheque, they can say, 'Well, there is another substantial increase here. You know what? Let's buy that piece of garden furniture. Or let's have something done to the house.' " What small and medium-sized business basically said was: "Allow British Columbians enough money in their pockets so they can become consumers again."

The reason that small and medium-sized business said that is that they know that when people become consumers, there is going to be more demand for consumer goods. When there is more demand for consumer goods, obviously the stores get busier, which means they can start hiring people again. It also means that in the manufacturing sector we're going to have more demand for work, for jobs, because there will be more demand for the products that will create jobs. These are going to be jobs that will take people from the welfare rolls. So on the one hand, you save money as government, and on the other hand, you put them in the workforce, and they start becoming payers of taxes.

[1505]

The Leader of the Opposition said recently in a meeting: "Let me explain how that works. Today we have 100 people in the workforce that all pay $60 in tax. We believe," he stated very clearly, "that if we employ 200 people paying $40 in tax, as a government we actually make more money. We have more people working. We make more money as a government through income tax. That's additional money that in the long run will pay for the additional cost of health and education."

That's the message that was given to this government -- not once, not twice, quite a few times. This government again chooses to totally ignore it. This government chooses to say: "No, what we're going to do is introduce a budget that may not be liked by the business sector, but it certainly will please our union brothers."

It was the leader of the public servants, the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour, who said in an interview after he listened to the budget and analyzed it . . . . Jim Sinclair, President of the B.C. Federation of Labour, credited the government for not following the agenda of the business community, which had demanded significant tax cuts and balanced books: "They have fundamentally rejected" -- they being the government, of course -- "the business view of this world, which is to cut deficits on the back of working people."

Mr. Sinclair is of exactly the same mind as this government. Mr. Sinclair doesn't believe that you can balance your books by putting people back to work in the private sector. Mr. Sinclair believes, like many members opposite believe, that it is the government that should be creating jobs. After the billions of dollars of waste we have seen channelled toward these so-called business projects, I would have hoped that this government would have realized that that is not the path to go. I had hoped that Mr. Sinclair would have realized that being a partner with the business sector can actually make a difference in this province. But obviously none of that came true, Mr. Speaker.

So when I am asked later on to vote on this bill, clearly I will have to say no to this bill. I don't think that this government has the ability or the sense of responsibility to do the right thing when it comes to the financial management of this province. It is not a good thing for me to have to say that, because it will just mean that until we have an election in this province, this government will continue to waste money. It will just mean that more people will be out of work. It will just mean that more people will leave this province in the hope that they can find a job somewhere else in Canada.

Isn't that a ludicrous concept -- to think that we cannot afford to stay in this province because of policies and labour conditions that force people out of this province? It makes it impossible for businesses to survive.

I had hoped that the government would have come in with a budget this year that would reflect their strong desire to turn things around. I had hoped that they would deal with the skeletons that are today in the closet and basically have a new start -- give this province once again a bit of hope, a bit of desire for prosperity. It hasn't happened. We have a budget that continues to drive us deeper into debt. It is a budget that

[ Page 14594 ]

will take more out of the money that comes into the government coffers. To service that debt, it will take out of the system more money that should have been channelled toward health care. It will take more money that should have been channelled toward education.

[1510]

I can only hope that the new Premier realizes that he truly has a government that believes in the same things they believed in for the last nine years, and that he is not, as the new Premier of this province, a new broom that will sweep clean. I hope that the Premier realizes that the damage done by this government, and the damage that will continue to be done to this province by this government, is not justified.

I hope this will cause him to realize that the only way that will work for British Columbians right now is if this government calls an election and we have a new government to indeed turn the ship of state around and start working toward a boisterous economy. That's what the people of this province want. This government doesn't want it. I hope they will do the honourable thing.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and take

part in this debate. Every year there is hope on this side of the House that the government will make some effort to balance the budget and not overspend and have to use warrants. This year is not any different from the last few years. We are here once again to debate this government's overspending. We have come to another year-end with a desperate government out of money and out of control.

First let's take a look at the Ministry for Children and Families. This ministry overspent by a whopping $41.4 million. From that $41.4 million, $32 million was spent on compensation agreements for community social service agencies; $9.4 million went to indirect costs of the Community Social Services Employers Association contract agreement. Why these large amounts were ignored in the budgeting process is anyone's guess. Maybe truth wasn't in vogue when the bargaining took place.

The Ministry for Children and Families should have been provided with the funds in their budgeting process to cover these costs. The government knew they were going to have labour negotiations, but instead of preparing themselves for these negotiations in the budget, they simply ignored the process. I guess the NDP wanted another fudge-it budget, until they were told to tell the truth.

It's really amazing. Not one cent in the ministry went to children who desperately need help. B.C. has the highest child poverty rate in Canada. What about the children waiting for speech therapy, children suffering from autism, children with special needs? Did you know, hon. Speaker, that children waiting for speech therapy have a waiting list of 6,000? That is disgraceful. That is not a hard and fast number. The list is so long that many do not even bother putting their names on it.

I could go on and on about where the money should have gone. This NDP government is trying to tell the people of this province that special warrants reflect public priorities. Once again I have to say that this is not so and that the money is not servicing people's needs. Their needs are not a priority with this government.

The Minister of Finance said that our health care would receive $376.9 million. This is to meet the higher-than-budgeted costs for the fiscal year 1999-2000. He also said that his government was meeting the demand for health care services and that it was a priority for them. We have a growing and aging population that is increasing the demand for our health care system. The NDP are trying to make us believe that they have found it necessary to provide added health funding this year for that reason alone. I dispute that. This government has never paid any attention to the people in this province. They dance to the tune of big labour, and they know it.

The patients in this province never saw a penny of this money. The wait-lists continue to grow, and our health system continues to deteriorate, because the patient is not given any consideration. Our health care facilities are deteriorating. This government does not have a strategic plan for our health care system. They have no direction. They are completely lost.

[1515]

This government continues to give knee-jerk reactions to what happens on the BCTV news. That is exactly how our health care is run. For example, BCTV reports on the 6 p.m. news that Surrey Memorial Hospital is having a crisis. Guess what, hon. Speaker. Within 48 hours, 30 beds close at another hospital in the province, and Surrey Memorial announces the opening of 30 new beds. That's what our health care has deteriorated to.

Let's take a look at where the money really went: $143 million went to regional programs, which include wage settlements again. That phrase, "wage settlement," keeps coming up. The Medical Services Plan will receive $54 million towards a government-negotiated settlement with the B.C. Medical Association, pending its ratification. Wages again. Pharmacare received $24.6 million to cover increased drug costs, $7.2 million went to the health care sector for Y2K readiness and $16.5 million went to reduce the Health ministry's total warrant requirement to get it to $217.4 million. Again we have to ask: where is the help for our waiting lists?

Let's take a look at the special warrants to the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education received $23.3 million in warrants. The government signed an agreement with the BCTF regarding an early retirement incentive plan for teachers over 55 and a teacher career transition plan for teachers over 50. The incentive paid to the teachers is the difference in salary costs between teachers participating and new teachers hired to replace them. The government, under this agreement, has made a commitment to those teachers who retired or left the system on June 30, 1999.

The office of the comptroller general has advised the government that in accordance with government accounting policy, the full three-year cost of the agreement must be recognized in the fiscal year of 1999-2000. That total cost is $28 million.

The independent schools receive $900,000. The ministry is required by the Independent School Act to fund each independent school in accordance with the regulations in that act. I have many independent schools in my constituency. Many parents who send their children to independent schools are concerned by this budget and the amount of money the ministry has given to them. The wording is very vague and creates concern. It appears that the government is only providing independent schools with half the money required. They only receive half the funding increase that they gave the public schools.

Year after year we hear the BCTF calling for abandonment of the independent school programs and the funding for them.

[ Page 14595 ]

This year the budget looks like the government listened, and that bothers me. It makes me question again what this government is up to. They are quietly reducing their commitment to the independent schools. It is interesting: of all the money the Ministry of Education receives, only 7 percent goes to the school boards to make sure that our children have a sound education. This has to pay for the school supplies, and as we well know, many of our students do not have the books necessary to get a sound education.

We continue to have strikes in our system. Most of the children in this province are out of school. We have a government that is afraid to show leadership and make education an essential service. Kids want to go to school; they want an education. Parents and children are once again being held hostage, and this government is to blame.

As we continue looking at the warrants, I see that the Ministry of Forests needs a warrant for $22 million: $7 million of that is going to manage the bark beetle infestation; $15 million went to rehabilitation of bridges on Forest Service roads. I believe that both of these could have gone through the budgeting process; then this ministry wouldn't need warrants to get by on.

Well, we come to the most disgraceful of all warrants: $70 million to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations -- $70 million thrown away on the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, a convention centre that this government is fully responsible for destroying. The government's excuse is that they needed to keep the project moving while they were continuing to negotiate in concert with the federal government, or else they could terminate the project altogether. Everybody knows they couldn't negotiate anything with our ex-Premier. Everything he touched sank to the bottom of the ocean.

Everybody on that side of the House supported him and let him run wild with taxpayer money. To the members opposite, it was only a mere $70 million.

[1520]

I think the members opposite need to be reminded once again of the real cost of the fast ferry fiasco and what it really meant to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We could have funded 200 teachers' salaries for one year.

We could have funded 400 nurses' salaries for one year, funded 200 RCMP officers' salaries for one year, eliminated cardiac and hip surgery wait-lists, built seven new rural hospitals, paid for 600 kidney and liver transplants, paid for 250 air ambulance trips from Prince George to Vancouver, bought ten mobile mammography units, constructed and operated 900 long term care beds for one year, bought six MRI scanners, bought 12 CT scanners, paid for the care of 200 children in foster care homes, bought textbooks for 10,000 high school students . . . .

What's more, the compound interest on the fast ferry debt will cost an extra $32 million in the first year alone.

If we had a competent government sitting opposite, hon. Speaker, these warrants would have been part of the budget. The auditor general has told us that these cost overruns could have been avoided. This government has shown the people of British Columbia that they don't care. They don't care how much they spend, what they spend it on, whom they spend it on or who suffers because of their negligence.

How can the members opposite support a government that has skyrocketed our debt and wasted billions of tax dollars on projects such as the fast ferry fiasco, the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre and the Skeena Cellulose buyout, and on lost revenues from Nanoose Bay, the fixed-wage policy and numerous mismanaged megaprojects? How can any member opposite support a government that has given this province needless red tape, put the taxpayers on the hook for liabilities such as the Carrier Lumber decision . . . ?

The throne speech was disgraceful. There was no vision for this province. The budget is a budget of spend, spend, spend. The NDP's spending disasters have made British Columbia the laughingstock of Canada -- a once great province brought to its knees by an incompetent government. I will not support this bill.

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

I recognize the member for Prince George-Omineca.

P. Nettleton: I should extend, on behalf of myself personally and my constituents congratulations to you on your election as Speaker. I know you're going to do a great job in that position.

The matter at hand deals with the whole question of special warrants. I have before me a news release dated February 11, 2000. The heading of this news release in fact is: "Special Warrants Reflect Public Priorities." I just want to talk briefly, if I may, about health-related public priorities as they relate to this request for warrants. I have an advisory before me with respect to the priorities of the folks that I represent in Prince George-Omineca -- not only the constituents of Prince George-Omineca but the Stewart-Nechako region -- as they relate to a proposed multilevel-care facility.

Last evening -- March 28, 2000 -- the Northern Interior regional health board medical advisory committee met. This was a public meeting attended by a number of folks from the community, and they were assured that a multilevel-care facility was the number one priority of the health board's capital project list. They went on to point out that it didn't necessarily mean that it was the number one priority on the province's list. Their concern was: where are we at with respect to the provincial list in terms of priorities for this type of project?

I checked the priority list -- page 50 of the budget reports -- with respect to health capital projects. This facility, which is a number one priority with the Northern Interior regional health board and the people of the Stewart-Nechako, does not appear on this list that has been provided to this House in the past days.

[1525]

I have checked further with the Treasury department for a complete list -- if in fact this list is not complete -- which may or may not include this project, the multilevel-care facility to which I referred. Treasury will not provide that list, hon. Speaker. They will not provide this information not only to myself as the representative of Prince George-Omineca but, more importantly, to the people of the Stewart-Nechako region, who have hoped and waited for some two decades for a multilevel-care facility. I think this is a concern in terms of not only the priorities of the people of this region but also the claim by this government that in fact the special warrants reflect public priorities.

With respect to the list that I had requested of the Treasury department, I'm just wondering if there is in fact a list establishing provincial priorities for capital projects. I don't

[ Page 14596 ]

know. Perhaps there is a list and this project does not appear. We may never know. In any event, we're waiting to hear with respect to that.

There's been a lot of work that's gone into the proposed multilevel-care facility for Stewart-Nechako. There was a report commissioned by JB Clark and Co. of Vanderhoof, which is a wonderful little town in the Prince George-Omineca area that lies geographically between Prince George and Fort St. James, where I reside. That is the site of the current outdated facility. JB Clark, as I say, prepared a report which was part of the preliminary work that went into doing the proposal, which went forward initially to the Northern Interior regional health board and from there found its way to Victoria as part of the application process. Some months ago that proposal was denied.

By way of background, the JB Clark report points to the efforts to obtain a long term continuing care facility in Vanderhoof for the Stewart-Nechako, and it points out that in fact the application spanned two decades. During the history of the initiative, it talks about how there have been three changes of provincial governments and federal governments, four provincial elections, over half a dozen different provincial cabinet ministers, three different MLAs representing Stewart-Nechako, three mayors of Vanderhoof and, more significantly, a fundamental change in the management of regional health care facilities.

This change in governance models, called New Directions, was the province of British Columbia's response to the Closer to Home initiatives which came out of the Royal Commission on Health Care in 1991. "The absence of a local care facility that provides a high quality of appropriate care to seniors and to individuals who are severely limited or cannot care for themselves is a source of high frustration and despair in the Stewart-Nechako community." I don't think that's an exaggeration by any means.

In terms of what the priorities of the public are, if as this news release claims, there is some attempt by way of these special warrants to reflect public priorities, I'm just wondering why it is that we in our region find ourselves in the position we're in with respect to this facility and the ongoing rejection of this proposal.

[1530]

Briefly, as well, with respect to the current status of the proposal, this report points out that the need for extended care has evolved into a need for a multilevel-care facility. With the appointment of members to the Northern Interior regional health board, there was renewed intention to bring this issue forward in order to see a multilevel-care facility built and operated in Vanderhoof. I know that with the previous Minister of Health, I did have the opportunity to discuss this proposal in some detail.

I met with her and her staff and was given some assurance not that the facility would proceed but in fact that it would be considered. The last piece of correspondence that I received from the minister was dated May 26, 1999.

This was prior to the formal rejection of the proposal for the multilevel-care facility, in which the minister indicated that local capital planning is the responsibility of each regional health board or community health council. The Northern Interior regional health board considers a replacement multilevel-care facility for Omineca Lodge a regional priority, and they anticipate submitting a proposal for a new facility. I should add that in fact that has been done, and in fact the proposal has been rejected.

The government's budget for fiscal 1999-2000 boosts health care funding by $615 million; $21 million has been allocated for additional long term care beds. For the most part, these are new long term care beds and facilities currently under construction and due to open this year.

Following the formal rejection by the Ministry of Health of the proposal, the proposed multilevel-care facility in Vanderhoof, I met with ministry staff in Victoria. Again I expressed the sense of frustration, the sense of hopelessness and despair, which I think characterized the sentiment with respect to this much-needed, long-overdue long term care facility.

Much to my surprise, not only was this facility not on any provincial list with respect to priorities, in fact there was no list. There was no list for projects of this sort -- new facilities which would meet these kinds of needs. In fact, there was never any chance that this proposal would go anywhere other than the desk of the then minister in Victoria. So all of the work and effort, all of the expectation that had been raised with respect to this proposal, with respect to funding for this facility was for naught.

Having said that, again I would point to the request that this government makes with the special warrants for funding to, in their words, "reflect public priorities." My response, I can tell you -- on behalf of the constituents that I represent, on behalf of the Stewart-Nechako region and, if nothing else, in light of the treatment of the people that I represent -- with respect to this proposal is an emphatic no.

I'm quite happy to be able to respond in that way, in much the same way that this current government has responded to the requests of the constituents I represent. In fact, I think it would have been preferred had they been straightforward with respect to this proposal and said no from the outset, rather than allow the groups and individuals involved in this proposal to put in the hours and the work, the energy and the money that they have done in order to see this facility go forward.

[1535]

Having said that, it is my hope that the new minister will consider this facility in terms of their claim to their willingness and their claim to reflect public priorities. If in fact there is any legitimacy to that claim, any truth to that notion, I would challenge the current minister in the current government to respond to the very public proclamation by the Northern Interior regional health board in the Stewart-Nechako region, the constituents of that entire region, that in fact this is their priority. This is their priority, hon. Speaker.

Thus it becomes my priority, and I carry this forward to the current government and the current minister. I lay it on their desk and ask them, in turn, to respond. Again I say on behalf of my constituents, with respect to the special warrants and the requests for additional moneys, that I'm quite happy to respond in the negative and say no. That concludes my comments, then, with respect to the whole question of special warrants.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I'd also like to congratulate you on your position in the chair this year. Although I wasn't here when it took place, it's good to see you there, and I hope you have a House that is going to be civil and easy to manage. I'm sure it will be . . . . If the other side just adopts some of the programs that we put in place and some of the ideas that we've got, I'm sure you'll see a very civilized House, a very good House and one that we can be proud of.

[ Page 14597 ]

Today I rise to speak to Bill 4, Supply Act (No. 1), 2000, under a brand-new Minister of Finance and a brand-new Premier. I want to go back again in time and talk a bit about what took place in earlier years. You and I will recollect many of these quotes I'm going to make, as we were both elected in the same year, 1991. Many of these quotes that I'm going to put forward into Hansard today are ones that I'm sure some of the members opposite in government wish they had never made or, secondly, wonder why they made them in 1992. This all has something to do with the supply act, and I'll get to it as I get on a little bit further.

The Speech from the Throne in 1992 committed that it would do no more than British Columbians could afford and would manage our province's finances openly and responsibly. That was made by the then Premier, Mr. Harcourt. In fact, I remember . . . . I'm not quite sure now -- it's been a while -- but I think the Premier of the day said: "Not one penny more than British Columbians can afford." It was either a penny or a nickel falling into a little piggy bank. That was the commitment made. The resulting deficit for that year was $1.79 billion.

Then in 1993 we had a Speech from the Throne, and we were here, Mr. Speaker -- you and I and some other members in the House right now -- listening to what was going to take place. One of the comments made was: "The new British Columbia Investment Office, reporting to the Premier, will work to cut unnecessary red tape and duplication within the normal regulatory and review processes." When I think about the time I spent here from 1993 till now and witnessed every year anywhere from 50 to 80 to 100 pieces legislation passed by this House and all the resulting regulation that goes along with it, I wonder what happened to that promise. In fact, if you think about it, what the . . . .

[1540]

So many people have changed over there. They've gone from one place to the other. I can never remember, but I think it's the member for Cariboo South -- who used to be the Forests minister and who threw his cell phone out the window and now is over there on that end of the House -- who talked about the cost of the Forest Practices Code being over $1 billion, which was of absolutely no use to either government or industry. It cost the taxpayers $1 billion. That's the kind of commitment that this government made at that time. They were going to reduce regulation, and in fact they increased it.

In 1993: "This government will ensure that we remain among the lowest-taxed jurisdictions in Canada and that our tax dollars are spent wisely and efficiently." That was a commitment made by the last Premier we had, when he was Finance minister. He now sits down at that end of the House.

Then there was the Speech from the Throne in 1994. It says: "In the last two and a half years, we have indeed seen a profound change in provincial government, especially with regard to fiscal policy . . . . Conservative estimates project a balanced budget by 1996, and a practical plan for managing government debt will soon be put into effect." That's the Speech from the Throne, March 14, 1994: " . . . a practical plan for managing government debt will soon be put into effect." One wonders what was meant by "soon."

An Hon. Member: Shortly.

R. Neufeld: Shortly.

The same year, Elizabeth Cull, the Finance minister, said:

"Our debt management plan has two goals: one is to eliminate the province's deficit;" -- this is in 1994 -- "the other is to ensure that the level of total tax-supported debt reflects the province's ability to repay through increased economic growth and revenues. The progress we've made in reducing the deficit in this and previous budgets has slowed the growth of British Columbia's direct debt, and we'll build on this progress by eliminating the deficit in 1996-97."

Well, that commitment was made in 1994.

March 22, 1995: "A government's responsibility is to provide that foundation upon which jobs can grow -- from the ground up, business by business, community by community." Now, that's a pretty nice statement -- make everyone feel really good, all those people who are out there looking for work. That was made in 1995. I'd suggest that the same people who said that in 1995 should maybe go to Gold River. Maybe they should go to where Cassiar used to be. Maybe they should take a trip to Tumbler Ridge. Maybe they should take a trip to a few other communities in British Columbia that have been devastated by this government's inaction, overregulation and overtaxation.

Then we go on to, again, the Finance minister in 1995, Elizabeth Cull. Her statement on March 28 was: "With this year's budget, we have completed a key part of the job we started when we took office." Heaven forbid that British Columbians wish today that they had never started that job and taken office. "There will be no budget deficit for the government of British Columbia this year. With this 1995 budget, we balanced the budget a full year ahead of our promise to the people of British Columbia, and we have done it while maintaining our commitment to freeze taxes." This is Elizabeth Cull in 1995.

That was one of the first fudge-it budgets, which almost every one of the members across the way took

part in and actually approved. Now, I can understand some of the backbenchers of the day not knowing what was going on. I can understand that clearly. But many of the people -- in fact, all the people -- in cabinet today were there and approved those kind of statements. They clapped; they cheered. They stood in this House and clapped and cheered. I was here -- so were you, hon. Speaker -- to witness it.

[1545]

G. Plant: But they're really sorry now.

R. Neufeld: And they're really sorry now: "I didn't really tell the truth."

She went on to say: "The first goal will be to maintain British Columbia's credit rating as the best of any province." Well, they've certainly done that. We've lost credit ratings steadily. One would wish they wouldn't have any goals. On second thought, maybe they don't have any goals. "Our second goal will be to balance the budget and use surpluses to pay down the $10.2 billion of debt incurred from decades of operating deficits.

A 20-year payback period will be established, based on realistic economic and fiscal assumptions." Well, the taxpayer-supported debt that Elizabeth Cull was talking about at that time -- the $10.2 billion -- I believe is about $20-some billion today. That's the plan that they've implemented to pay it back.

[ Page 14598 ]

Then we go to 1996. The same Minister of Finance, on April 30, says: "We will have a surplus of $87 million in this fiscal year . . . our debt management plan will eliminate B.C.'s direct debt within two decades." That was in 1996. Let me see. Direct debt in 1996 was $20 billion, in round figures. Direct debt today is $28 billion. Now, is that the way that you pay down direct debt? I guess that's the socialist way of paying down debt.

Then the same minister stated that B.C.'s second balanced budget in a row . . . . "Jobs will be up; the debt will be down. Health care and education will be protected, and there will be tax relief for small businesses and the middle class." The second year in a row of a lie about a balanced budget -- less than honest; less than truthful. It was way off the mark that Mike Harcourt had talked about in 1990-91 when he ran for Premier of this province, when he said that no longer would that happen in British Columbia; not under an NDP government would they ever mislead British Columbians like they felt they had been misled prior to that.

We still have it today, a decade later -- one full decade later. You can go back in Hansard and look and get quotes from person after person on the government side of the House talking about being open and honest. In fact, that was one of the 54 promises, I believe it was, in the Harcourt manifesto: open and honest. You haven't hit either one of those words once, not once, from 1991 when you took office -- and it was a sorry time for British Columbia -- until today. And I doubt you're going to change. We thought maybe there would be some small glimmer, that the door might have opened a little crack with the new Premier -- in transparency -- but it didn't happen.

Then in 1996 the member for Saanich South, another new Finance minister, talks about a five-year health care funding guarantee. It "means that health care spending will keep pace with population growth and cost pressures." I wonder if there's anyone in B.C. who really feels that today. I wonder if you have lived up to that promise -- this government that says health care and education are their top priorities. Tell that to the people who are on the longest waiting lists that British Columbia has had in decades. Tell that to people who can't get in for MRI scans.

Tell that to people who can't get hip replacements or cancer treatment. Tell that to those people. Tell them that you had a five-year plan to guarantee . . . .

[1550]

The only guarantee British Columbians got out of you folks was more debt -- more debt and less service -- and the statistics are there to prove it. That's no one saying it just because they want to say it. The statistics are there to prove that on any mark -- any mark you want to take -- this government has failed miserably, failed the people of British Columbia miserably. And in Bill 4, you want interim supply for $5.5 billion. You know, we shouldn't give you a penny -- shouldn't give you a lousy cent. In fact, most British Columbians would like to boot you out and start all over again -- very quickly.

An Hon. Member: Let's go for it.

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, members.

R. Neufeld: Then we had the budget address from March 30, 1998, from the now Minister of Labour.

An Hon. Member: Which riding?

R. Neufeld: Vancouver-Hastings, I guess, is her riding.

She stated: "I have decided to set the deficit target for 1998-99 at $95 million, close to half the level of last year's deficit and less than half of 1 percent of the overall budget." Those are some of the quotes made from 1992 forward. I know that it makes a number of the members uncomfortable, and so it should.

Some of them are in this House yet today, who made those statements and haven't been able to live up to them. You know what, Mr. Speaker? I don't doubt for one moment that it would be hard to be in government and live up to some of those statements. But I didn't make those statements; I didn't stand there and make those statements. But members on that side of the House sure stood up and made those statements and hardly lived up to one of them.

Is it any wonder that British Columbians feel a bit deluded? They wonder what in the world is going on in their province when they're at the bottom of the economic heap of every province in Canada, including Newfoundland. I mean, this group of financial wizards, I call them, has taken us from number one in Canada. Wouldn't you like to be number one again? Had they kept some of their promises, maybe we could be number one. But we're at the bottom of the pile, all because of some socialist dogma that doesn't work; it never has worked and never will work.

Let's go on to our new Premier. When British Columbians saw the NDP elect a new leader after the last disgraced leader had to leave office . . . . You know, some of this may sound a little bit tough. But I stood in this House in 1992 and listened to almost every one of those members from across the floor slag me because I was elected as a Socred in 1991 -- every one of them. They deserve what they're getting, every one of them.

So we had hoped and most British Columbians had hoped that maybe this group of financial wizards had figured it out, got a new leader, a new road. "We saw the light. We turned on the lightbulb. We're out of the socialist darkroom. We're going to look at things in British Columbia in a different way. I'm going to be open and transparent, and I'm going to be honest. And my goodness, I'm sorry I wasted $500 million on ferries that don't work; I'm really sorry. But what can I do?"

[1555]

Well, this new Premier promised on November 7 . . . . I guess he was still running for the job of Premier. He said: "We must balance the budget, and we must keep it balanced." That's in the new Premier's announcement of his candidacy for leadership of the NDP.

When he talks about that and says those kinds of things, one wonders how hollow it is, because you go back to March 24, 1992, when that same person stood in this House and talked about a budget in 1992 that was farsighted: "It doesn't go 60 years, but it sets a trend for years to come." Well, I guess that's the only piece of truth I can find, because in 1992 this present Premier knew how poorly this government was going to do. He could actually look into the future; it was transparent. I think that if you left this group here for 60 years, you'd have a deficit budget 60 years from now. Even if the

[ Page 14599 ]

feds give you $100 billion a year, these folks would figure out how to fritter it away on something that doesn't work and never would work.

An Hon. Member: Skeena Cellulose.

R. Neufeld: You name it -- they'd figure out how to get rid of it.

Also, on January 12 the present Premier, on "Voice of the Province," said . . . . This is the Premier that said: "We're going to do it differently; we're going to be open and transparent." "Honest" went out of the whole equation, because they know how far that went. Mike Harcourt had used that, and they blew that term right out of the water. What he said on "Voice of the Province" on January 12 is: "We also need to make sure that we have all the big projects and small projects well managed and backed by solid business plans so that we don't have overruns and so we don't spend or waste money unnecessarily." Well, that's quite a mouthful for a socialist to talk about.

Let's go to page 50 in the budget manual. If they were truthful and honest with the budget -- if the Premier really meant what he said about big projects and small projects backed by solid business plans . . . . Well, here they are. Capital projects: school construction in Burnaby, Victoria, Surrey, Chilliwack, Kelowna, Prince George, Richmond, Sooke, Cobble Hill and Kamloops; post-secondary construction in Merritt, Prince George and Prince Rupert.

Health facilities: construction of a replacement tower for Surrey Memorial Hospital; construction of Royal Jubilee Hospital Diagnostic and Treatment Centre and Vancouver Island Cancer Clinic in Victoria; fit-out of the Vancouver General Hospital tower; second floor redevelopment and construction of a facility at the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops; replacement of the health care centre in Clearwater; replacement of the Keremeos Diagnostic and Treatment Centre. Justice facilities, roads and transportation, power generation -- it goes on and on.

Well, I'm telling you, if you've got a business plan, I'd like to see it tabled here this afternoon -- for each and every one of those projects. If the Premier of the day, the Premier that is the Premier today, was actually honest on January 12 -- talking about big projects and small projects, well managed, backed by solid business plans -- I shouldn't think that any one of those members in cabinet should have a wit of problem coming back in the House here in ten minutes and putting on the table those business plans for every one of those capital projects in this book. I'll bet you there's not one.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: Okay. There's one. I'll give you one. Maybe there are a couple more, because these have been in the book for the last ten years, so I don't know whether you've got a business plan or not. But it's interesting how it's so easy to say something, so easy to promise something and so easy for this group to not live up to those promises.

[1600]

Continued construction of the third fast ferry. I find it absolutely amazing. We've got two ferries that don't work. They're far too expensive to run, they cost too much money to build, they don't work, people don't like them, they cost twice as much as what they should have, and you're still finishing the last one. You can't sell the two you've got running right now . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, please, member.

R. Neufeld: . . . through the Chair, and we're still going to build more.

But what's happened, Mr. Speaker? It doesn't matter where you go, when you look at some of the promises that were made in the budget, there is nothing you can live up to. But if we go back to what I said, from 1992 forward, about a growing economy that every Finance minister talked about, every Premier talked about . . . . The list goes on and on -- and how we're going to pay back taxpayer-supported debt. Well, they've done a wonderful job. When this group took over in 1991, taxpayer-supported debt was at $9.8 billion. In 2001 it will be at $28 billion. Well, Mr.

Speaker, they have sure met those targets -- not even close. Debt-servicing charges are up to $2.8 billion a year, and when this group of financial wizards took over, it was $1.7 billion. And $2.8 billion is $7.704 million a day in debt charges. Yes, you should cover your ears, minister, because it is absolutely deplorable what this government has done.

When they talked about all the nice things about jobs -- how the jobs are going to be so great . . . . Well, if you go back to 1991 and look at the B.C. government record, they're last of any province in job creation. The B.C. government record . . . . They're last of any province in Canada in economic growth -- absolutely dead last. The people right next door -- their growth was 118 percent in private economic investment, and here it was about 11 percent. That's what all the promises have done -- what this government has accomplished. At the same time that this government wants interim supply and wants money to spend . . . .

Let's look at the record of some of the other provinces across Canada when it comes to balanced budgets -- surpluses. Alberta: seven consecutive balanced budgets right next door to us, while we went through nine deficit budgets. It's deplorable. I have been here and listened to six sorry Finance ministers get up and give nine deficit budgets -- nine deficit budgets by six different Finance ministers, all with the same promises, and under the leadership of three different Premiers. I'll tell you, if that isn't disgraceful, I don't know what is. If I was one of those folks, I think I'd be leaving town.

Manitoba: five balanced budgets. Mining in every province across Canada is on the upsurge except in British Columbia. We close 'em regularly. We've closed more than we've opened. Way to go. And yes, we have the best mineralization in the whole country. New Brunswick: five balanced budgets. My goodness, it must be a bit of a trend. I don't know if these folks haven't caught on yet, but maybe not. Newfoundland balanced its budget; Prince Edward Island has balanced three budgets; Nova Scotia has balanced four budgets. At the same time, these folks have driven us to wrack and ruin.

[1605]

Saskatchewan -- now, this is the home of socialism; this is where it started: seven consecutive balanced budgets. Health care spending has increased by 17 percent in each of the last two years. They've got a new tax system that they're putting into place, which this government just will not have anything

[ Page 14600 ]

to do with. They're going to eliminate a 15 percent high-income surtax. When the new tax system in Saskatchewan is fully implemented, roughly 70 percent of all Saskatchewan taxpayers will pay income tax at a rate equal to the residents of Alberta, and it will mean savings of about $260 million per year for taxpayers -- or roughly $1,000 for a family of four.

And we sit around and listen to these folks talk about how great they are by giving tax breaks of one point that amount to about two show-hall tickets and a bag of popcorn. It's terrible. British Columbia is in terrible debt -- $36 billion. It has over doubled since this group took office.

What do we have to show for it? There's certainly not too much floating anymore. The ferries, yeah, we've got that to show for it -- all kinds of bailouts, all kinds of tried things. We don't even know what's on the horizon when it comes to court cases; British Columbians don't, unfortunately.

I would think that the best thing that this group could do is actually call an election. I'm glad my red light's gone on, Mr. Speaker . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, member.

R. Neufeld: . . . because that's what should happen in British Columbia: an election tomorrow.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I too must congratulate you on your election. You will probably end up being one of the few Speakers that have been here since 1991 who hasn't thrown me out of the House, because I intend to behave today and for the rest of the session. In any event, I hope you do a good job. Everyone is looking to you to be one of the best Speakers we've had.

Today we're back here again discussing supply; this is sort of an annual event that we have had since I first was elected in '91. We arrive in Victoria, and the first thing we find out is that this NDP government has failed again once more to be able to balance its books. Subsequently we have to create more money for them, which is a sad state of affairs when you look at the government that is supposed to be conscious of the moneys that it handles for the people of British Columbia. And they have failed to do it, in a miserable way, over the years.

The issue today is one of principle -- that is, whether we are to give them more money. Should we give the government approval for interim supply to the tune of $5.5 billion more? The general consensus on this side of the House, I believe, is no. I doubt if we will support the government on this aspect.

Should we give interim supply to a government that has overspent this last budget? Again we have to say no. Should we give interim supply to a government that for year after year has mismanaged this province and put every man, woman and child in debt?

Some four million people in this province each owe about $9,000 -- each and every one of them. That is a very sad state of affairs in this province. For example -- a little bit of humour here -- the member for Richmond East, who was the second MLA to ever have a baby during a session . . . . Her daughter, Olivia Amy Victoria, is only eight weeks old today. She's down in one of our caucus rooms right now. Little does she know that she owes $9,000. She's in hock up to her neck already.

[1610]

In this decade, B.C. is the only province in Canada that has never balanced its budget. So should we be giving interim supply to a government that, contrary to the promises to balance these budgets, hasn't done so for nine consecutive years? The answer has to be a resounding no. As I said, it's a matter of principle. This is really not how the NDP did actually get elected. This is a government that, unfortunately, feels it can do anything and get away with it; they can go ahead in spending.

Our friend from Peace River North was discussing quotations from different members on the other side of the House that he had pulled out -- how they had said that they were going to balance the budget. But I actually have here -- I know we're not supposed to use props -- a booklet. It's called " New Democrat Fiscal Framework: The Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan." This is signed by New Democratic leader Mike Harcourt, September 20, '91.

If you'll bear with me, there are a few things in here that show the fact that these individuals across the other side of the House are essentially here under false pretences, because they ran on the basis that "New Democrats will not commit British Columbia to increased government debt simply to suit the short-term political needs of this election."

An Hon. Member: Unbelievable.

D. Jarvis: It is; it's an unbelievable statement.

This is the former Premier and now the sort of sub-Lieutenant-Premier of the present Premier: "One promise I have made is that my government will pursue these priorities within a balanced budget over the business cycle." Well, this has never been done in nine years -- and especially in his first four years.

Again, he said that his platform and their platform -- the one that they ran on, all of them -- "sets out where we aim to take government." They didn't tell everyone that they intended to take us down to the bowels of the depths. He said: "It shows the people of B.C. that we're on their side -- that we're listening and we have B.C.'s spending priorities right." He had forgotten about the $300 million-plus that they've spent on Skeena Cellulose and the convention centre that's going to cost us maybe $150 million by the time all the books are in.

Fast ferries -- we've blown $500 million on the fast ferries, and that is not even counting the interest, which they estimate will be another $100 million to $190 million. Overall, on those three little items, they've blown over a billion dollars.

The sad thing about this New Democrat fiscal framework is that they say in this platform booklet I have here, which represented their philosophy before they were elected in 1991 -- and the basis of how they were elected, because they sent it to every household . . . . They say that this booklet represents priorities, that "the following fiscal framework sets the financial bottom line . . . which we will not go.

All New Democrat budgetary decisions will be based on two basic goals: a balanced budget over a five-year business cycle," and "a steady reduction and elimination of the government's annual operating deficit by the third year" of their mandate. Because they had inherited a debt of about $17 billion from the Socred government that they took over from, they promised that "New Democrats, under this provincial legislation, would require "a 'balanced budget plan,' in which the total projected expenditures for five years must not exceed projected revenues."

[ Page 14601 ]

We wonder whatever happened. Whatever happened to those things that they told us -- their sort of front-line platforms or planks that they were going to run on? On the basis that they criticized the Social Credit government for the last couple of years on their overspending . . . . And they now have come in and told the people of British Columbia: "We are going to fix that situation, and then we are going to continue with balanced budgets ourselves. Every year there'll be a balanced budget -- no debt under the NDP."

[1615]

Well, now we know what the real truth is. We have had deficits for nine years running. We now have a deficit this year of $1.4 billion, I believe, and our debt will then exceed $36 billion. B.C. is out of sync with the rest of the country -- all of Canada and especially the socialist prairie provinces where they were first formed. Remember those days when Tommy Douglas used to be sort of the godfather of the NDP party. The rest of the country . . . . While we increased our spending by 6 percent and our economy has grown by only 2.2 percent, Saskatchewan balances its budget and pays down its debt. We in British Columbia are going the wrong way.

This year, as I said, our deficit is $1.3 billion. In '91 it was $1.1 billion; in '98 it was $1 billion even, and in '97 it was $430 million. You can see that while everyone else in this country is lowering their deficits and having balanced budgets, B.C.'s debt is growing and growing and growing. Every province in this country is focusing on paying down their debt, but B.C. is not balancing their budget. It's a nefarious horde we have here running this government, Mr. Speaker.

I want to mention a short little story that deals with monetary supply. Years and years ago I was an independent adjuster in the lower part of the Fraser Valley and north side of the river from where you are. My associate was a gentleman by the name of Mr. Creighton Lytle, who had a son, Clive Lytle, that you may have known, who was a great NDP worker and who also worked for the B.C. Federation of Labour. Clive's mother, Margaret, invited me out to their home one day to meet a friend of hers, because she knew I was interested in politics.

I went to have coffee with her, and lo and behold, I was there one on one and sat and talked for about an hour and a half with Tommy Douglas. That was back in 1962 -- a long time ago -- when he had been bounced out of Saskatchewan, when the people of Saskatchewan suddenly realized that they didn't want him and had actually defeated him. He came out to British Columbia and ran in a by-election in Coquitlam.

I sat down with the infamous Rev. Douglas and found him to be quite a nice gentleman. No question, he was the guru of the CCF party and, as I said before, probably the real godfather of the NDP party. His theme at that time . . . . What he told me and what stuck with me was the fact that he said that it was a sin for a legislator to foist debt on the public, on the constituents that elected him.

Here we have the godfather of the NDP party, Tommy Douglas, saying that it was a sin to have a debt -- to owe the money to a bank -- and this nefarious gang here, for nine years in a row, has heaped untold debt on this province. We now have a debt way in excess of $36 billion. It's amazing why none of them seem to be concerned.

[1620]

Tommy Douglas, being from Saskatchewan, the home of the CCF-NDP socialist party . . . . Maybe they're not aware of what Saskatchewan's present year 2000 budget is. I thought I would give them a few highlights just to tell them what Saskatchewan -- that other sort of agrarian socialism party, not this hard-core, labour-orientated socialist party in B.C. -- does. Saskatchewan has had seven consecutive balanced budgets -- seven of them. We've had nine in the opposite end. In 1999 to the year 2000 the surplus in Saskatchewan is going to be $53.1 million. We've got a deficit of $1.4 billion.

In the year 2000-2001 they forecast a $9.4 million surplus, with balanced budgets until the year 2004. In our budget book -- I think it's on page 20 or something -- we see that this socialist government here, this NDP government, is now saying that they expect to see us have deficits to the year 2005.

The total debt in Saskatchewan will decline by $286 million this next year. They will have paid off all the debt that they've incurred since 1994, where B.C. is continually increasing their debt.

So it's a sad state of affairs that we have in this province, in which this government is continually putting our people, our children and our grandchildren in debt -- and doubtful if they'll pay it off for years to come. As I mentioned, every person in this province owes $9,000; they're in hock for it. We look at the students around this province that already are in debt trying to get an education, plus the other basic debts they have, and it's rather frightening how they look at the future.

It's no wonder that people are leaving this province. According to the Toronto-Dominion Bank, B.C.'s economy suffered the weakest performance in the 1990s; it was down 6 percent. B.C. was the only province in Canada where the real per-capita GDP actually decreased; it increased in Alberta by 20 percent, in Saskatchewan by 23 percent and in Manitoba by 14.9 percent. All the rest of the provinces in western Canada had increases. Yet in B.C. we had a decrease. In fact, we are in a minus position. B.C. experienced the lowest annual economic growth rate in all of Canada, and that is nothing to be proud of.

Yet we see the NDP across the floor here smiling and thinking that all's right in the world.

B.C. recorded the worst rise in business bankruptcy in Canada during 1992-98 -- the worst. The dollar value of business bankruptcies in B.C. shot up from $449 million to $1.4 billion in 1998, a 226 percent increase. And 131 B.C. companies moved to Alberta in the last year, in 1999 alone. Over 600 companies have headed off to Alberta since 1992.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're in a situation where this government now is asking us, because they have overspent, to loan, to pass Bill 4 -- a supply act, No. 1 for the year 2000 -- and is asking us to supply them with another $5.5 billion to cover their excessive spending -- the incompetency, as it was just pointed out to me. But they do not know how to handle the books. I just wonder if any of them over here have ever even run a peanut stand.

It's unbelievable, the incompetence that we see in the way they handle the taxpayers' money. It used to be a tax-and-spend government, and now it's just a spend, spend, spend government. It's unbelievable. We're not going to see any relief for the people in British Columbia until such time as we have another election and we kick this gang out of the province.

[1625]

In any event, I'm going to say that I do not intend to support this bill. I would hope that the members of the NDP party on that side who aren't necessarily in sync with their

[ Page 14602 ]

own party would also agree that this is a time when we've got to be a little more confident in how we spend our money and not spend it foolishly, the way they have done without looking at business plans -- such as the B.C. Ferries.

I notice that ICBC and the Advanced Education ministry are building a university and using -- how do I put it? -- premium money for your driver's licence and your driver's insurance now. They're using that to help build a university in British Columbia out in the Surrey area, instead of using the line ministry, but they have no business plan for that. No one seems to know where that cost is going. Moneys are being spent, and there's no control.

This is B.C. Ferries all over again. This is what this government continually does, time after time after time. Every project they see, they figure this is the greatest thing in the world, knowing full well that none of them have ever had the experience of being able to look after a project. So they waltz ahead without control. And we end up having to spend it all. So as far as the Supply Act goes, I have to put my name down that I shall not support it, and I will vote against it.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: I notice that up in the gallery right now . . . . My daughter Catherine Jarvis-Laba, who is an oncologist nurse out at the Surrey cancer hospital, is on the premises. Also with her is a young lady that I first introduced in this House some seven years ago. She has now returned, seven years . . . . Well, she wasn't here at that time. It's my first granddaughter, Diandra Laba. Would you please make them welcome.

B. Penner: I rise today to take

part in this debate, this being second reading on Bill 4, Supply Act (No. 1), 2000. For those people just tuning in, in principle this bill deals with two key issues: the retroactive approval of significant overspending by the NDP government over and above the budget that this Legislature approved for fiscal 1999-2000, as well as approval for spending for the next three months, carrying them into the next fiscal year. That would represent about one-quarter of the total spending that was tabled in the provincial budget on Monday of this week. I'll have more to say about that later.

I want to just maybe give a little bit more detail about what this bill contains. First of all, having to do with the overspending, the wording in the bill appears fairly innocuous at the outset. It states: "AND

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, expenditures by special warrants of $376 900 000 in respect of the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 have been submitted to the Legislature in the

schedule of this act." That is the overspending to which I just referred to a moment ago.

The second significant issue contained in this bill that's put before us today for consideration is contained in

section 1, "Voted expenses appropriation." It says: "From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine the sum of $5 500 000 000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 . . . . "

Hon. Speaker, you can literally say that this is a $5 billion bill. I'd probably like to say that I've never before held a $5 billion bill, but I have. Exactly a year ago today, almost, we were here in the Legislature debating a similar bill. I think that one was Supply Act (No. 1), Bill 54 from last year. That bill was for a slightly lower amount of money, but it was still in excess of $5 billion. So you can see at the outset that in many ways, what we're doing here today is not new.

[1630]

I think we need to pursue that issue a little bit further, because we've heard this government say over and over in the last couple of weeks -- it's obviously in their talking points -- that this is a new government with a new approach for governing British Columbia. In fact I'm told that in the text of the Finance minister's speech -- at least the prepared text -- there were 14 references to the term "new government." However, the Finance minister -- probably wisely -- chose to actually say only seven of those references. Perhaps he was growing weary of the mantra, as were the rest of us.

But the government would like us and, obviously, British Columbians to believe that the government has changed its way of doing things.

Let's go back up to those other

definitions. "Not existing before, now first made, brought into existence, invented, introduced, known or heard of, experienced or discovered for the first time." Hon. Speaker, this is not the first time that the NDP government has overspent its budget, because that is what the special warrant component of this bill is all about. That means that despite receiving a record amount of money last year to be spent by the Legislature on behalf of taxpayers, they still overspent that budget.

Last year, when I was here debating the supply bill, I noted that they had overspent their budget the previous year by $170 million. This year, the overspending is even worse. The overspending is almost double. Actually, it's more than double; it's $376.9 million.

Far from becoming new or getting a grip on the problem, this government is acting in a far less responsible manner than it did before. Things are getting worse. And that's not new.

Again, just to put things in context, I think I'll refer to some of the remarks that I made when I stood here in the Legislature a year ago, the last time the government came here looking for us to rubberstamp and approve their overspending. Here's what I had to say last year: "The content of this bill . . . proposes to authorize $5.2 billion -- that's not million; that's billion -- in additional spending." That also gave retroactive approval to their overspending in the previous year. In many ways, this represents what's wrong with government in British Columbia.

[ Page 14603 ]

I went on to note last year that although I'm not a great student of American history, I do recall that the main issue with the American Revolution pertained to the entire issue of representation and taxation. That is, the people occupying the colony of America felt that they were not receiving adequate representation, considering all the tax that they were forwarding to Great Britain. That sparked the revolution.

The same thing happens every year in British Columbia. Money is collected from British Columbians by law -- they don't have a choice; while it might not be at gunpoint, you could say it is, in a sense, collected forcibly -- and a sizeable portion gets forwarded to Victoria. And yet British Columbians get very little chance to have a say in what happens with their money. Once, maybe every four or five years, they get to have an election and actually go to a ballot box and mark an X next to the name of the person that they would like to have represent them in their community.

But in between those elections, they get to have very little say in what happens to their hard-earned tax dollars once they're forwarded to Victoria.

Then, to make matters worse, the provincial government goes and authorizes overspending without consulting those elected representatives, and it comes back almost like a dog with its tail between its legs towards the end of the fiscal year, saying: "Oops. We've blown it again. Please pat us on the head and tell us it's okay that we couldn't live within our means."

That really undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy. It's bad enough that the voters only have a real say in what happens in government once every four or five years. It's even worse that the people they elect don't get a say in what happens to the finances of the province. But I digress.

[1635]

I went on to note -- and I think this is a fairly succinct

summary of the government's performance to date: "I believe this incompetent government is irresponsible, self-serving, debt-addicted and represents modern-day Luddites who can't be trusted with a blank cheque or credit card." I think that analysis holds true today, notwithstanding the government's claim to be new and different.

I went on further to note that the NDP budget, which was tabled a year ago, did contain some good news -- mostly for banks. Interest payments on the debt last year were to exceed $2.6 billion, and I worked it out on my calculator that that amounted to about $5,000 every hour, day and night, without a single penny actually going to paying down the debt.

I further observed that my constituents know that the best way to start getting out of a hole is to stop digging and that the time to stop digging that hole deeper is now. But the government carried on and not only went on to borrow all of the money they told us last year they were going to, but again, as noted, exceeded that budget by more than $300 million, putting us even further into debt.

Rather than getting their spending under control, the government just feels that they can come here for retroactive approval for their special warrants, which are really just a cabinet order authorizing the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. So that's not new. I think we've established that the conduct of the government between last year and this year, coming back both times for approval of their overspending, is not new and doesn't meet that definition.

What else could we say might be new -- that they've curbed their excessive spending? That is, spending in excess of revenue. Well, no, because the budget that was tabled on Monday again predicts a $1.3 billion deficit, despite an increase in revenue of $1.1 billion. So that's not new. How about other actions of this government? Well, in the past they were accused of saying one thing but doing another.

We remember that in the last election they went around to British Columbians and explained and committed to the fact that they had already balanced the budget -- not just that they were going to but that they already had -- and they presented what they purported to be factual financial statements prepared by the Ministry of Finance alleging that they had indeed made ends meet and that revenues matched expenditures. Well, that wasn't true.

So probably quite rightly, the NDP government of the day, under the former Premier -- who had to resign due to an RCMP investigation -- were tagged with the label of being a government that said one thing but did another. Has that changed? Well, let's consider. There's a different person occupying the Premier's chair -- who, incidentally, is the same person who revealed to the public that the previous Premier was under RCMP investigation. I think we need to examine his conduct in government to see whether or not he differs at all from that moniker of saying one thing but doing another.

I can use a local example to help us in making that decision. Late last July the former Attorney General, now the Premier, came to Chilliwack and issued an invitation to all staff working for the Attorney General's ministry in my community to attend a very important news conference that he was holding. The purpose of that news conference was apparently to announce something to do with the dilapidated, 45-year-old Chilliwack courthouse facility. Well, I crashed that event, because I didn't receive an invitation directly from the Attorney General.

I was there, and I heard him say that he had great news for Chilliwack, because he had been able to secure $5 million in funding to renovate the existing court facility.

[1640]

Now, I won't argue here and say that many people feel that wouldn't be a wise investment of funds, given that the building is so old and that the money would probably be better put towards a new building. However, he did come to Chilliwack and say that he had $5 million in funding for the Chilliwack courthouse.

It turns out that wasn't true. In making inquiries with staff who work for the Treasury Board, I found out that Treasury Board had never approved that $5 million -- not in July, not in August, not in September, not in October, not in November, not in December. By December they were saying, "Just wait until January," but in January they said, "Well, it will come soon -- maybe by March," and by March of this year they're telling me that . . . .

G. Plant: Any day now.

B. Penner: The member for Richmond-Steveston is correct: "Any day now -- perhaps by the end of March." Well, guess what: there's still no news. There's still no official confirmation that Treasury Board, of which the former Attorney General was a member, had actually approved that $5 million that he told people in Chilliwack last July he had for them.

[ Page 14604 ]

In my view, that is saying one thing and doing another. That's not new.

Interjection.

B. Penner: Maybe the cheque's in the mail. The member for Cowichan-Ladysmith points out that it's not true, and I guess it wasn't true. He came to Chilliwack, and his ministry essentially issued an edict to employees working for the Attorney General's ministry to come out and hear this command performance -- to be told something, in the member's words, that was not true. That's still, in my view, saying one thing and doing another, and that's not new.

How about the debt? Have they changed their ways in that? Have we seen anything new from the government in terms of their handling of the provincial finances in terms of the debt? Apparently not. I refer to a column which appears in today's Times Colonist , written by that insightful journalist Les Leyne, under the headline "NDP Transparently Doesn't Care About B.C.'s Debt." Aside from the witty title to the column, he goes on to note: "It is the most transparently obvious thing about the NDP through the 1990s that they simply don't care about debt."

That's their past track record. Has anything changed in this budget? Well, no. We see that taxpayer-supported debt will be increased deliberately, consciously -- not accidentally but on purpose -- by this NDP government, under the supposedly new leader, by $3 billion in one year. That's nothing new, or if it is new, it's the size of the increase in one year. That's new: by how much more it's going up.

In the past we had things like, back in 1995, the debt management plan. The following year it was called the revised debt management plan, and the year after that it was turned into the financial management plan. Then we had the modified financial plan, which evolved into the 1999 five-year fiscal planning framework. The goal set out in all of those so-called plans, in terms of debt management, has never been met. Every year they move the goalposts to make life easier for themselves, but every year the NDP fails to live up to even those reduced standards.

That's a pretty outrageous record, especially when you compare it to other provinces in Canada, and many provinces are not as blessed as we are in terms of our resources and our people.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Mr. Leyne goes on to note an interesting observation in one of the documents tabled by this government as part of their budget way back in 1995. This was the original debt management plan. It stated: "Recent borrowing requirements to fund capital investment cannot be sustained over the long term." That was $7 billion in debt ago. Since then the government has not heeded their own words.

In fact, I'd like to take you back a little bit further -- and I have to thank my colleague the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for supplying me with this interesting document. As he explained yesterday, I think, in his response to the budget, he found it while cleaning up his office. It's a government-written, taxpayer-funded publication.

Deputy Speaker: I call the member's attention to the use of props in the House. It's a violation of standing orders. I would like to remind the member of that. If you'd remove the prop, please.

[1645]

B. Penner: Thank you. I'll just be reading it, and I think I'm allowed to read from documents. I would like to share with the members in the chamber that this document, which was funded by taxpayers, authored by the government and sent out across the province, stated as follows: "We are pursuing a balanced approach." This was back in 1993.

"No to ignoring the deficit. Some will say: 'Don't worry about the deficit. We owe the money to ourselves. Just keep spending, or spend even more.' That's what they did in Ottawa during the seventies and the eighties. The result has been higher deficits and fewer services. Ignoring the deficit simply means that more and more of your tax dollars will be diverted to banks and other creditors to pay off interest on the debt. And less and less will be available to care for the elderly, to teach our children, or to create new jobs. No, we cannot afford to ignore the deficit."

That's according to a document written by the NDP government back in 1993. I don't know what's worse: the fact that they seem to have erred in their ways or the fact that taxpayers were charged to promulgate this falsehood around the province and have what could probably most accurately be described as a propaganda sheet distributed under the guise of provincial government news. But that's what they said, hon. Speaker, back in 1993.

If you hold them accountable to their own standards, you see that this government has failed -- and failed miserably: "Ignoring the deficit simply means that more and more of your tax dollars will be diverted to banks and other creditors to pay off interest on the debt." That's the NDP talking. It sounds much like the Fraser Institute. But do you know what? The NDP was right when they said that in '93; they're just wrong in that they didn't live by their own words. By that standard, they have failed.

It's not just us here today that will pay that price but all of the young people in the province and people who hope to live here in the future. My colleague the member for North Vancouver-Seymour mentioned earlier that there's a young child here today that's eight weeks of age that's sharing some space in one of our caucus offices -- the daughter of the member for Richmond East. She was born owing $9,000 in provincial debt. That's quite a legacy to leave to person that's only three weeks old -- quite a challenge.

However, let's go back to the analysis. Do we see that what the NDP has done with the budget is anything new? The government would like us to believe that it's new. They'd like us to believe that their approach is balanced. In fact, we heard that throughout the budget speech: that they're taking a balanced approach. Well, is that a new slogan? I'll refer again to this document that you don't want me to show to anyone, called "Budget '93: Choices and Challenges." This is the one paid for by taxpayers, written by the NDP government. Throughout, it uses the slogan: "Balanced Approach Builds Recovery." I see that again on page 5 on the inside: "Yes to a Balanced Approach."

That was seven years ago, and yet we heard the same slogan in the budget on Monday. But we certainly didn't see balance in terms of the bottom line. We didn't see balance in terms of the fiscal state of the province. And that's not new either. The NDP has lived true to its word -- talking about balance but not living it, not actually having the courage to live up to their own standards that they've set for themselves.

Rather than meet the definition of new, hon. Speaker, I submit that all of this experience of us standing here debating

[ Page 14605 ]

this interim supply bill more accurately describes the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word "déjà vu." That's defined as "an illusory feeling of having already experienced a present situation" or "something tediously familiar." Well, I think this is getting to be tediously familiar. For people who are avid fans of the Legislature's television channel, they're probably pinching themselves, too, and thinking: "Haven't we seen this all before? Haven't we heard this song?" Yes, we have. But the government, which claims to be new, hasn't changed. It's outrageous.

We do have to embark on a new course of providing government in British Columbia. This is not the way to do it. Unfortunately, this tired group of 40 MLAs that comprises the NDP government simply don't seem to have it in themselves to provide anything that is really new -- more of the same perhaps, but nothing new.

[1650]

Voters across the province deserve a chance of having a new government. It's been almost four years since the last provincial election. You know, in most provinces elections are held every four years -- or maybe even a little less. Certainly it had been the history in British Columbia, on average, that elections were held every three and a half years. That had been a tradition, which unfortunat