1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9119 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization. Mr. Williams –– 9120

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 9121

jurisdiction on Carmanah Valley. Mr. Davidson –– 9121

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 9121

Exclusion of women from membership in Union Club. Ms. Marzari –– 9122

Tenants' rights. Ms. Cull –– 9122

Tabling Documents –– 9123

Supply Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 22). Second reading

Mr. Barnes –– 9123

Mr. Mercier –– 9126

Mr. Jones –– 9128

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9131

Ms. Smallwood –– 9133

Mr. Vant –– 9134

Ms. A. Hagen –– 9136

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 9137

Mr. Barlee –– 9140

Mr. Bruce –– 9142

Mr. Miller –– 9143

Mr. Sihota –– 9144

Hon. Couvelier –– 9146

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure everyone is aware that there has been a

resolution on the order paper and some representation made to both our

provincial and federal governments by and on behalf of those who served

in the Korean War as Canadian volunteers. We certainly are aware of the

debt we owe to those who fought to preserve democracy, and who gave

freely and willingly and volunteered to be involved in the protection

and defence of freedom.

We have with us today some of the

veterans who are visiting the Legislature, and who will be meeting with

various MLAs to again forcefully make their case with respect to the

striking of a distinctive Canadian volunteer Korean service medal: Bob

Orrick from Richmond, Sam Urquhart from Richmond and Bud Bedwell

from Richmond. I would ask the House to make these visitors welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate this morning. I had an opportunity to visit

with some very dear friends of our family, who are also dear friends of the

member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the member for Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid): Larry and Eileen Martin and their grandson Jason

Rosen and their granddaughter Katie Toth. We had a very pleasant visit. They're

here to see a little bit of Victoria and the legislative session and buildings,

and I would ask the House to make these friends welcome.

MR. ROSE :

I had little warning of our visitors; therefore I won't be as general

or as eloquent as I sometimes am. But on behalf of the opposition, I

would like to welcome the Korean veterans, me being one of the few

people in the House — when I look around at all the young people — who

was around during the Korean War and knows what a bloody contest it

was. It was in many ways forgotten, and we on this side of the House

don't think that it should be.

I have a constituent, Mr.

Tom Spence from Port Coquitlam, and he's going to be talking to the

MLAs about the striking of a medal in commemoration of their

contribution. It followed a great tradition.

I'd like to

tell the House that this is one of the few provinces — perhaps the only

one — that doesn't have a memento of the contribution and a remembrance

of those people who lost their lives in that often cold and bloody

contest. I'd like to say that my colleagues in the opposition in

Ontario have already initiated and supported such a medal. If a

resolution were to come into the House, proposed by either side, I know

that we would be pleased on our part to support it.

MR. PELTON : Following along with the introductions that our Premier

and the hon. opposition House Leader just made, I would like, on behalf of my

colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and MLA for Dewdney (Hon.

Mr. Jacobsen), to welcome here Mr. Warren Byrnell from Pitt Meadows and Mr. Gus

Gollan from Maple Ridge.

While

I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if I may, on behalf of our colleague the

Minister of Health and MLA for Chilliwack (Hon. J. Jansen), I would

like to ask the House to welcome the following Korean vets: Reg Boucher

and Gerald Enright from Sardis and George Wade from Chilliwack.

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, visiting in the precincts today we have 38 grade 11

students from Centennial Senior Secondary School in Coquitlam, along

with their teachers Mr. Gordon Wickerson and Ms. Nancy Lutke. Would the

House join me in making them welcome.

MR. REID :

Along with the rest of the members today, I would like to pay special

recognition to the Surrey representative for the Korean Veterans'

Association, Mr. Ray Scoular. Welcome, Ray.

MR. PERRY :

It's a special pleasure today to introduce an old friend, Dr. Warren

Bell, affectionately known in Salmon Arm as Dr. One-Bell, whom I'm sure

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) will join me in

welcoming to the Legislature today. He's been meeting the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) on recycling issues, and we hope his

message has been well received.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Speaker, on your behalf and mine as well, I'd like to welcome, from

Unit 14 of the Korean Veterans' Association, Mr. Ken Barwise. Would the

House please make him welcome.

I have a second

introduction: Mr. G.T. Segodnia. He's regional collector of customs and

excise for the Pacific region. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. MOWAT :

My special guest today — and I would ask the House to make her

extremely welcome — is Kiran Basi. Kiran was my buddy during the recent

"Give It Your Best Shot" MLA program for the Diabetes Association for

the awareness of diabetes. Kiran is from Victoria and attends Cedar

Hill Junior Secondary School, and she was most helpful in my many times

of need during the weekend in how to test my blood.

MR. REE :

Again on behalf of members on this side of the House, it's a pleasure

to be here to welcome the Korean veterans. I was one of the two members

in this House who were in the service during the time of the Korean War

— my colleague the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) being the

other. I was with a recruit training company sending people to Korea at

the time. It's a pleasure to welcome them here and certainly to add my

support for the possible medal with respect to that conflict. As the

member for North Vancouver-Capilano, I particularly welcome Brig. Gen.

E.D. Danby to this Legislature.

[ Page 9120 ]

HON. S. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are three members from

Branch 17 of the Korean Veterans' Association whom I am pleased to

present and welcome to the House: Harry McDonald, John Webber and Jim

Stewart. Would the House please join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. LOVICK :

I would ask the House to join me, please, in making welcome a group of

70 students from Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo, along with

their teacher Mr. Garvin Moles. I had the pleasure some weeks ago of

having a session with these students at their school, dealing with a

mock parliament, and how pleased I am to see these students seeing the

real thing. Please join me in making them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY : Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased on this wrap-up day for

the "Give It Your Best Shot, MLAs" campaign to introduce some guests

from the Canadian Diabetes Association. From the B.C. division we have Doug

Sabourin, executive director; Isabel Williams, advocacy chairman, B.C. division;

Joan Johnson, nurse educator; Melanie Crombie, director of development and communications;

Diane Brown, Island regional director; Tory Ross, communications coordinator.

would like the buddies to our MLAs on both sides of the House to be

introduced. Some of the buddies — not all — could stay to be

introduced. They are Chris Downs, Jean Austen, Kiran Basi, Morgan

McLeod and also sponsor Elizabeth Nichols.

It's a great day

for those in our province who suffer from diabetes. At the luncheon

that the Minister of Health hosted today for this program, he announced

an expansion of the home blood-glucose testing program for diabetics in

British Columbia. It recognizes the importance of proper testing for

diabetes, and this is the first time the program will be picked up by

the Medical Plan. That's a great breakthrough for diabetic patients.

would like to complete my introduction by thanking members of both

sides of the House who cooperated so well and put political

philosophies aside and did the very best thing for those we serve.

Thank you.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce a gentleman in the gallery today. He's a good

supporter and a director of the Social Credit Party in the new

constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He promises to make the life

of the Leader of the Opposition as interesting as possible during the

next election. Would you welcome, please, Mr. Ross McLeod.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I am pleased to welcome today two Korean War veterans from Unit 49 on

the North Shore: Maj. Andrew Secord and Maj. Andrew Foulds.

MR. HARCOURT : I, too, would like to welcome one of the constituents

I have in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I wish him all the success that Social Credit

has had in the past in that riding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I have just noted in the gallery, visiting from Prince George, Paul Klotz. Would the House please welcome him.

[2:15]

MR. PERRY :

I would like, on behalf of this side of the House, to acknowledge again

the efforts of the Canadian Diabetes Association and compliment them on

the tremendous victory they have had today.

MR. CHALMERS :

I am sure that each and every one of us in the Legislature — and others

throughout Canada, for that matter — have enjoyed the many fine

products produced by Sun-Rype Products of Kelowna. Visiting my

colleague from Okanagan South and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Savage) today is Bob Holt, general manager of Sun-Rype Products in

Kelowna. Please make him welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Along with Dr. Warren Bell, visiting the precincts today from the

constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke is the mayor of the newest

incorporated community in the province: Gordon Mackie from Sicamous.

Accompanying Gordon are George Abbott, chairman of the Regional

District of Columbia-Shuswap, and Phil Cave, an alderman from Salmon

Arm. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

Just in case we've missed anybody in the precincts today, welcome to all the guests visiting the buildings today.

MR. SPEAKER :

For the benefit of the students who are attending today, most of the

proceedings you have witnessed to date have been out of order and would

not normally take place.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Premier: is it still government policy to "privatize in the

shortest possible time period" once a privatization decision is made?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, the privatization process in the province has, I believe, been a model for the country and perhaps the world.

am particularly pleased when I am told by those representing the

various financial institutions, as they monitor the impact, that the

result and the benefits have come in a variety of ways, not the least

of which is more investment into the province by those who see in our

province a responsible approach to reducing the amount of government

and providing the opportunities for this work to be done in the private

sector wherever possible.

I am also pleased it has been so

well received by the employees and that probably there will be pressure

upon us again as those still in the public service

[ Page

9121 ]

— in perhaps some area of government that could

equally be done by the private sector, and there may still be some of

those — see the successes we have achieved in other things that have

been privatized. So we are extremely proud of the privatization process

and the tremendous response we have received to it. If you're wondering

why there hasn't been more in the media or in the House during the last

number of weeks about this, it's probably a sign that it has been a

very effective and successful program.

MR. SPEAKER :

The scope of the answer should remain relatively within the scope of

the question. The question was a little broad but the answer was a

little broader.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

In 1987 cabinet approved the timetable for bidding on the Expo lands.

The cabinet order was to make expediency the number one priority. In

view of the disastrous results of the Expo land sale, is it now

government policy to try and have as many bidders as possible on major

sales such as those?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Well,

there are two points here. First of all, the member speaks of

disastrous results. I was the mayor of Surrey for six years, and

certainly I was aware of many projects during the NDP years where land

was purchased and contracts were let for the building of projects. The

evidence is still there today, although it's barely standing. So yes,

those were disastrous results. What we're looking for on the Expo land

False Creek, a beautiful place where people can live in proximity to

the downtown area. Certainly the former mayor of Vancouver would

appreciate and relate to this very well.

It's the quality

of development. If we were looking for the quickest buck up front and

let everything come — whatever may come — we would end up with the

disasters we saw during the NDP years, in '72, '73, '74 and '75. We'll

never let that happen again

MR. WILLIAMS : The

reality on the Expo lands sale is that there was really only one

bidder. Would the Premier confirm there were two major North American

bidders — Cadillac Fairview and Trammell Crow — two of the biggest

property companies in North America and Canada, that were actually

turned down when they asked for an extension with respect to bidding on

the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I will defer this to the minister responsible. I don't have that detailed Information.

JURISDICTION ON CARMANAH VALLEY

MR. DAVIDSON : My question is to the Minister of Environment. Federal

Environment minister Lucien Bouchard has indicated that his department is investigating

whether it has jurisdiction to interfere in the fate of the upper Carmanah Valley.

Can the minister advise this House whether he has firmly asked the feds to butt

out of B.C.'s jurisdiction and let us manage our own environment and our

own economy without this unnecessary sort of political intervention?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Thank you for the question. I can advise the House that my office had a

call yesterday from Mr. Martin Green, Mr. Bouchard's executive

assistant, who advised my assistant that he did not mean to sound as

though he was considering interfering in our jurisdiction, and that the

comments that were reported here in British Columbia could be

attributed to the language barrier.

What he meant to say,

and what he said to the press scrum afterwards, was that he was

delighted with the establishment of a park and with the proposed

studies for the second half of the valley. He wanted to offer help in

any way with these studies. And we'll check to see if the federal

government has any jurisdiction in that matter.

I would

also report, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bouchard — I want to make sure he's

quoted correctly — wanted to clarify this matter with me to avoid any

jurisdictional confrontation. In the future his office will consult

more directly with my office and staff on such matters so as to avoid

this adversarial approach.

I can tell the members across

there that I have had cooperation with the federal minister, and I

expect that to continue because he is an honourable man and likes to

avoid an adversarial approach. I appreciate the fact that he called

British Columbia and explained that yesterday.

MR. DAVIDSON :

A supplementary. Can the minister assure the people of British Columbia

that the recently announced environmental review process for major

projects will not be jeopardized by any future government intervention

or by their political posturing?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I can assure the member for Delta and this House that the major policy

review process this government has set up on the ferrochromium plant,

which has federal government participation, will be the process that we

use on all projects in this province. We have agreement from the

federal government that it's an acceptable process that they agree with.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS :

Did I hear the Premier clearly, that he did not remember, on the

biggest land sale in British Columbia history, whether two of the

largest property owner-developers in America and Canada had requested

an extension of time so that they might consider applying? He did not

remember?

[ Page 9122 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, if I can remember all the disasters during the NDP years

of '72-75, 1 can certainly recall happenings of more recent dates.

Just for clarification, I did not say that. I said: "I don't have such detail. I'll defer to the minister responsible."

Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, the Concord Pacific company has now sold 5 percent of the

site of the Expo lands. They sold it for $40 million — virtually what

they made as the down payment. On a pro rata basis, Mr. Premier, what

would that now tell us the Expo lands are worth?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, again for the member's information, although I don't have

the details, and he should really ask the minister directly responsible

for these matters.... He should be aware that there's a great deal of

land set aside for parks and public open space, and yes, it will be a

very good development. Just exactly what the details are, as you've

asked, I can't respond to. But I will again recommend or suggest that

you refer to the minister responsible.

MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, 5 percent –– 200 acres; the arithmetic is straightforward. Is the Premier aware that in the current Globe and Mail

report on business, they've put a market value on the Expo site at $1

billion, which would suggest we've lost $860 million on the deal?

HON. MIL VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough when we rely on the media for all the

information, but it's particularly bad if you have to go to the Globe and Mail

for information about happenings in Vancouver. I'm afraid that if

that's your source, you perhaps ought to check out the figures and then

ask the question again.

EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM

MEMBERSHIP IN UNION CLUB

MS. MARZARI :

I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs.

Have you advised your caucus, as I have this morning, that the Union

Club in Victoria just took a vote last night and categorically refused

membership by women as regular members? Rather, the club has informed

me that women — even members of this House — are simply guests in the

facility. Have you advised your caucus not to use the services at the

Union Club henceforward?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the vote that was taken last

night at the Union Club. I don't tell members of my caucus what to do. We

don't have a special group in our caucus that makes decisions on its own

and tries to scuttle whatever the men in caucus do; we work as equals on this

side of the House. I think the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)

knows what I'm talking about when one group tries to scuttle someone in

their caucus.

reaction to the vote last night at the Union Club is that I don't

frequent the Union Club. I have no intention of frequenting the Union

Club, and they simply don't live in the 1990s.

[2:30]

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. We're not talking about

scuttling the aspirations of our caucus colleagues here; we're talking

about scuttling the aspirations of women who are aspiring to positions

of decision-making and leadership in our province. Is it true, Mr.

Premier, that you have a full honorary membership to the Union Club? If

so, are you prepared to cancel that membership in light of the

information that we have received on the vote last night?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

My membership is no different from what it is for every other MLA. I

don't know what the NDP has done or is doing, nor would it necessarily

be a matter for a caucus or a party. I think we should decide as

individuals.

TENANTS' RIGHTS

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Audrey Cope, a 29-year-old

woman evicted from her Victoria home because she is having a baby, was

told by the Premier's office there was nothing they could do. Has the

Premier now decided to demonstrate his commitment to the family by

supporting changes to the Human Rights Act or the Residential Tenancy

Act to make it illegal to discriminate against children?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order, but I'll let it proceed if you like.

MS. CULL :

A new question, again to the Premier. Citizens of this province are

being forced to take the government to court to defend their rights.

Who does your government speak for: families with children or landlords?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm very pleased that the member asked that question, because I think

one only needs to look at the record. It started in 1952 — the people

of this province elected a Social Credit government; and again in '55,

'58, '63 and '68. Then '72 was a bad period in between, but again in

'75, again in '79 and '83, and again in '86. I expect it will continue

that way. Obviously, the people of the province feel that they have

good representation by the Social Credit government, and it's going to

stay that way.

MR. ROSE : I feel that I must rise on

a point of order. As we know, questions planted by opposition

backbenchers are not at all unusual. Planted questions are part of the

honourable tradition of the

[ Page 9123 ]

House

and are sometimes considered good clean fun, at least by the

government. We used to shout: "Author, author!" We've done that quite

regularly over the years. When we receive, as a reply to the obviously

pre-wired question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds),

what really amounts to the reading of a ministerial statement, we have

to protest in all possible strongest terms.

Mr. Speaker,

I've recently written you a memo to do with the abuse of ministerial

statements. This was a ministerial statement, but not really designated

as one. What we found today, and what I'm getting increasing pressure

on from my caucus, is abuse in question period; and furthermore, the

recognition almost daily, or twice daily, of government members, even

if it means the interruption of our first round.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

With all due respect to my counterpart on the opposite side, I am sure

that even he would not deny the elected private members of this

assembly the right to ask questions of government ministers.

say this only to perhaps attempt to give a little guidance to the Chair

and to try for some balance, because it is one of the few opportunities

that private members, including theirs, get to ask important, relevant

and urgent questions of cabinet ministers. If we check the record, you

will find that the questions coming from the private members supporting

the government are usually at least as relevant, if not more so, than

those coming from the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER : The

backbenchers but, as I noted when he made it, opposition backbenchers

asking questions. I assumed that was a slip of the tongue; but there

may have been others involved.

MR. DAVIDSON : On the

same point of order, which has been canvassed many times before in this

House, I want to reiterate that as a back-bench member I am still a

member of this chamber, and as such I have every right to ask a

question at any time in this House.

MR. SPEAKER : The

Chair has taken this point of order as brought forward and will

consider it. I might advise the members that in other parliaments,

especially in the Mother of Parliaments, the Speaker's question period

lasts considerably longer, but opposition members have fewer questions

to ask than government members do, because it is split evenly. As there

are more government members than there are opposition members, some

members only get an opportunity to ask a question once a year.

have members in this House who ask questions almost every day; we have

some members we hear from very seldom. It would be the position of the

Chair to make sure that every member who wants to ask a question who is

not a member of the executive council gets to do so at some time during

the session.

Hon. Mr. Dueck tabled the 1988 annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make a

special introduction for a very special guest who just joined us in the

gallery.

MR. SPEAKER : It's not standard, but I will ask the question. Shall leave be granted? I hear a no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, I of course defer to your judgment, but my ears did not

catch a no. We have a visitor from another provincial government of

some importance and I....

MR. SPEAKER : Mr. Minister,

it's the Chair's job and the Chair's terms of reference that the Chair

is to ask the question. The Chair listens, and when the Chair hears a

no, that terminates the matter. Leave was not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : We adjourned the debate on second reading of interim

supply.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

(continued)

MR. BARNES : The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has asked the House to approve the amount of $5 billion for interim supply.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES : I think I'd better wait. Could we have a recess?

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Perhaps those members who wish to leave and go to other

committee meetings or return to their offices could do so quietly and

allow the second member for Vancouver Centre to have the floor.

MR. BARNES :

I know this matter has been canvassed over and over again, and we've

just about heard the arguments with respect to the validity of the

request for interim supply. All we can do is expose the bill for what

it is.

I have been in the Legislature for going on 18

years, and I have seen interim supply each year. I can't recall a time

when there wasn't interim supply, except when my party was in

government. We may have had one; but I do think that we were the

closest to bringing in our spending proposals on time, which is what

you would expect from a government that is committed to good management

of public tax dollars.

As I said this morning, I realize

that it is a measure that allows the government to carry on with normal

operations, and as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, there will

be ample time guaranteed by

[ Page 9124 ]

the

Premier to discuss all the ministry's spending estimates before the

House adjourns. In other words, there is no reason for us to suspect

that this is a ploy on the part of the government to call an election

once they get the $5 billion they are asking for in this bill.

However,

I think what we have done with the interim supply process, this

temporary means of getting funds in advance of debate.... The

government is blatantly abusing this idea, to the point that they are

asking for four months of money that can be spent regardless of what

happens in this Legislature. I think the time has come for the public

to begin to ask questions about the management of public tax dollars.

Why

do we spend money we don't have yet? The government itself has said it

has no money of its own. Premier Bill Bennett, when he was in this

House, used to say: "Not a dime without debate." I know this is

disregarded by the Minister of Finance, but it is a shameful situation

that we have to address today: bringing in interim supply when we could

have been sitting at least a month ago — perhaps two months ago;

sometime in February, or at least the first week or two in March —

instead of bringing in a bill this late in the new fiscal year and

asking the members of the Legislature to approve one-third of the

budget as though it were an emergency.

I think that is the

issue. Was this emergency self-imposed? Was this emergency, which the

government desperately needs in order to carry on, as it says, the

operations of all the various ministries and agencies of the

government, to be able to function without the use of warrants.... Who

created this problem and why was it created? Was it necessary? I think

these are the questions we should be asking.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

doesn't take a person experienced in high finance to know the

fundamentals of good management and good fiscal responsibility in the

planning and use of tax dollars. As I said this morning, I don't think

any of us has ever gone to a financial institution and made a request

for a loan — whether it be a business venture or just for a holiday —

when the lender hasn't demanded some security, some guarantees, that

the money would be protected, that there be some insurance so there

would be no loss by the lender. But we are being asked to pass an

amount of money without debate and without details; without the various

ministers being here to answer for what the Minister of Finance is

asking for on their behalf. And we are told that it's urgent.

The

minister, in introducing the bill, used only two paragraphs. This is a

major emergency for one-third of the budget — $5 billion — and he uses

two paragraphs. He says: "This interim supply is urgently required in

order that a variety of essential" — get that, essential — "payments to

GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities, social

agencies and the government's payroll may continue uninterrupted."

Certainly no one on this side of the House would oppose that; I

certainly wouldn't.

But I suspect that this is politics,

because the minister made that statement yesterday, April 23. That's 23

days into the fiscal year 1990-91. If this was such an urgent matter,

and if it was so important that the funds be made available for these

various responsibilities of government, then why didn't the government

anticipate the need for proper debate, in order that the House would

have been sitting sufficiently long to debate these matters?

[2:45]

Interim supply has two aspects to it. It can be used to assist a

responsible administration to get over an obvious problem, where it had

done all it could to follow good fiscal management and reasonable

planning, and it ran up against an opposition that simply refused to

cooperate.

Say we'd had a month's debate into the

government's estimates, and the government was finding that it was

getting nowhere. We'd discussed most of the issues, and then we got to

the end of the fiscal year and found ourselves, as the Premier is doing

over there.... I'm wondering if he's trying to get a connection with

the high almighty or something; his fingers are going so much there. Is

there a means of communication that I'm missing there, Mr. Premier?

the interim supply idea was to be used as a fail-safe system, when the

Minister of Finance introduced this bill, he should have stood in his

place and explained in far more than two paragraphs why he was asking

the opposition to cooperate with the government in expeditiously

approving this request for one-third of the budget.

As some

of the members have said already, $5 billion is almost as much as some

of our provincial budgets were a few years ago. I can remember that

when I was first elected, provincial budgets were certainly under $10

billion — $8 billion or $9 billion. Now we're talking about twice that

much — up to $15 billion. We're being asked for $5 billion, essentially

and in effect, without debate, because we can't debate this amount of

money by talking to the Minister of Finance, who has no responsibility

for those other ministries. They're not here. We can't talk to them. We

don't know what's going on.

So we're being asked to do what

the government wants to pretend is routine, which is the ordinary and

customary approach to running a government's affairs, by passing this

bill, as he said yesterday, in just a few minutes. He wanted to get

three readings in one day. I guess he thought that, since we would have

time to discuss all of the ministries later on, there was no big deal.

think the public should realize what is happening here. I don't think

anyone in the community, if he stopped to think about it, would believe

that this goes on in the B.C. Legislature. We are in fact discussing

spending after the fact. The money has already been approved and is

being spent, and what we're doing here is academic; it is irrelevant.

There is no way we're going to call back any of the money that has been

spent, no matter how the vote goes in here. We've given interim supply

without knowing the result of the vote. What if we were to defeat the

[ Page 9125 ]

government,

by some miraculous means, in the vote, and they never got that money?

But that doesn't matter, does it? It's only academic anyway; it's not

real. It's all a faade; it's all a fake; it's all a game. We all know

that.

But I'm saying that it's time we stopped pretending.

It's time we stopped playing games with taxpayers' money and were

responsible. There's no reason in the world, Mr. Speaker, none

whatsoever.

This House adjourned on July 23, 1989, and

since then we did not sit until April 5, 1990. Surely the government

anticipated it was going to need a budget, and that it would have to

debate these matters. Why didn't it call the House back in time? What

do they mean by "an emergency"?

Do you want to know what

the emergencies are in this province? The closure of women's centres:

where's the emergency money for that?

MR. LOENEN : You're blaming us for that?

MR. BARNES :

Yes, we blame you for it. You say you're fighting against the GST. Why

don't you fight the federal government and tell them not to cut back on

these funds? Why don't you demonstrate? Why don't you bash the feds on

behalf of the women's centres that are being closed in this province?

That's an emergency.

There are other emergencies as well.

There is a need for affordable housing. There are people who cannot

afford to pay the amounts of rent being asked by landlords, who are

speculating on properties that we have given them a licence to operate

in this so-called free and democratic society — to exploit at will

their tenants, their consumers; to exploit people who are, in effect,

homeless because they are vulnerable on a 30-day-by-30-day basis. They

do not have security of tenure. They are without any security in this

society.

If you want to be really descriptive about it,

anyone who is paying rent is homeless because they are on a

30-day-by-30-day tenure. They have a contract that they cannot be

protected. There is no rentalsman, no security of tenure and no redress

for them to fight and defend themselves. They could be out on the

streets. There are many people out on the streets in this province

today because of the government's attitude with respect to people who

pay rent, who should have every right, as anyone else, to a place to

live in this society. That's an emergency.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES : He keeps saying: "Pass the budget so we can get on with it."

There are lots of emergencies. The Minister of Finance talks about the invulnerability

of our good health care system. He says that the health care system in this

province is second to none. As I said this morning, I was looking at a piece

in the Province . It's headlined: "A Price Too High For Everyone."

The

article is by Brian Kieran, and he's talking about a person who required

a heart operation. That's a very sad case of what an emergency can really

be like.

Before

I go further with what he was talking about, I have a memorandum issued

by the medical director at St. Paul's Hospital to the line staff, in

which he tells them: 'Effective immediately and until April 17,

admissions to" — and he designates four wards — "must be restricted to

strict emergencies only. No patients on the very urgent list can be

admitted." He's making a distinction between "strict emergencies" and

"very urgent."

The Minister of Finance has said this

interim supply bill is urgently required. He says that urgent and

immediate approval is required. What is he really telling us? He's

telling us that although this is urgent and he wants us to approve it

right away, the hospital — which is dealing with a life-and-death

situation — is saying that urgent matters cannot be addressed, only

those that are strict emergencies.

Mr. Kieran was writing

in his

article about what happened when a doctor — who, by the way, was

operating in Kamloops — sought to get that patient admitted in both VGH

and St. Paul's Hospital. Neither of those hospitals could admit the

patient. The patient finally was admitted to a hospital in Calgary.

This was a strictly emergency situation that somehow was only urgent as

far as that hospital was concerned. Unfortunately, the patient died on

the operating table in Calgary.

I wonder, when the

government talks about emergencies and asks the opposition to respond

in order that they can carry out their duties, what the government is

doing about the emergencies with respect to people being admitted to

hospital who require open-heart surgery, who are going to the state of

Washington and other places. These are the kinds of emergencies we

should be addressing.

To add further injury, the Minister

of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) suggested there was a commission presently

studying the situation with respect to hospitals and the delivery of

health care in this province, and that within 18 months they would have

recommendations so that future services could be made more affordable

in order to avoid loss of life as with this one patient who had to go

to Calgary.

I guess that's what is meant by this headline:

"A Price Too High For Everyone." No matter what the price is going to

be after this commission has finished its study and come back with

recommendations, this particular patient — who had a strict emergency —

is not going to be able to take advantage of it.

Obviously,

in the long run, we're going to have to capitulate as an opposition. We

have to, Mr. Minister, unless we want to have a revolution or a revolt

in this province. Because of your incompetence and your politicking and

deliberate and diabolical designing of a system to force the opposition

to pass legislation without debate, you have got us in a bit of a

catch-22. We're not going to hold up this bill indefinitely. We're

going to have to pass it, because, as you say, we do have to get on

with looking after the GAIN recipients and the hospital districts, the

universities and the social agencies, the government's payroll and all

[ Page 9126 ]

kinds

of other programs that have to go on — that's true. But you are playing

politics with these agencies, and it's irresponsible. You must remember

— and I think every business person, all your friends out there, even

the ones at the Vancouver Stock Exchange are going to be shocked

at the way you've managed the affairs of this province.

You're asking us to pass a $5 billion bill, in effect, without debate. That's not a democratic process.

What

it is, and it's very obvious, is that the government has taken

advantage of a traditional courtesy which has been part of the

parliamentary process in order to assist good governments or

responsible governments who have fallen short, because even though

their best efforts were put forward, even though they allowed

sufficient time for debate, even though they were on the ball as far as

doing everything conceivably possible to give the opposition a chance

to debate the matters, something went wrong.

"We knew that.

We'll cooperate and give you interim supply, because it's obvious we

just can't come to terms." But it wouldn't be $5 billion; it would

probably be one-twelfth, which is, by the way, tradition.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES :

Not four months, one month. Well, you've still got a warrant, Mr.

Speaker, that will carry you through till the end of May, which you've

been using all along to run the affairs of this province. You use

warrants; you do everything you can to avoid debate. We know that, and

we know you're going to play politics, but you've gone too far. This is

too far; this is an embarrassment.

Is this the way you

would teach the youth who are taking administration, accounting and

business, that's it's okay to overspend their budgets, that they can

always go and get the money from somewhere else, that they can always

go on a gamble or a bet? Would you also teach them to buy high and sell

low? In effect, this is what you do. You pay a ransom for the Expo

lands to Marathon Realty. You buy it, then you sell it for virtually

nothing. You end up cleaning it up and spending more money than what

it's going to yield, and you tell us: "Don't worry. One day you'll get

the spinoff effect."

However, the spinoff effect also

includes displacement of a lot of people from the contiguous

communities because of high land values. It also means an impact on the

existing communities, which you take no responsibility for, which you

have not planned for and which the taxpayers are having to pay for.

[3:00]

So, Mr. Speaker, this simple little request for a routine measure,

for just a few more dollars so that the government can carry on until

we pass the budget, has gone too far. It's regrettable, because the

opposition, being responsible, ultimately will have to accept that this

bill has to pass. But I would hope that in the future this government —

and certainly our government or any government — will endeavour to

reconvene the Legislature in sufficient time so that there can at least

be an appearance that the government is allowing some time to debate

its spending proposals, rather than bringing them in five days after

the new fiscal year has begun, when they're already overextended. There

is no indication whatsoever that the government considered its

responsibilities with regard to its proposals for the years 1990-91.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm hopeful that this person is still in the Legislative Assembly. We

have Mme. Louise Robic, Junior Minister of Finance for Quebec, visiting

with the Ministry of Finance, and she will be staying for the rest of

the day. It was hoped that she would have been introduced a little

earlier. Mme. Robic was born in Montreal and has served in the Quebec

Legislature for a good number of years in various capacities. I would

ask the House to extend a welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : This is second reading of Bill 22.

MR. MERCIER : The previous speaker said, "This debate is politics,

" and I agree. On the part of the opposition, it's bad politics. They

have absolutely no valid reason for extending the debate on the interim supply

bill.

The

interim supply is a process for handling payment of government

accounts, and it is traditional in parliaments across this country to

handle interim supply in the same fashion. In other words, the debate

they're extending is for something that is not new and is not news; it

is simply a waste of the time of this Legislature. In fact, they're

flaunting the tradition of the House, like they did with the throne

speech and like they did with the budget speech and the presentation of

the budget. They're doing the same thing with the interim supply bill.

Just

before we broke at noon today, it was quite interesting in this House

to see how important this debate was to the opposition members. This is

something that they want to carry a lot of support on. There were three

members from the opposition sitting at that time. If it's as important

as it should be for the members of the opposition....

Interjection.

MR. MERCIER : It's the opposition that wants to extend this debate.

The estimates are the time for debating government expenditures. The sooner

we get through the interim supply debate, the sooner we can proceed with debating

and discussing the estimates of the various ministries.

The

previous speaker today talked about tradition. I took the time to look

back on the tradition of the interim supply process in this House. In

1983 the interim supply figure was $6 billion, and in each year

[ Page 9127 ]

since,

the amount required for interim supply has averaged around and up to

one-quarter of the budget for the coming year. It's the way the

government can pay the bills for operating the government before the

estimates and the budget can be completed. In 1982 interim supply

passed in a matter of minutes, even though it accounted for nearly 30

percent of the budget that year.

I don't know how many

members of the opposition are aware of this, but when they were in

government in '72 to '75, they also used the interim supply process.

The traditions were accorded them to pass them in short order so that

the regular business of this House could carry on.

Looking

back at history, in 1980 the interim supply bill passed on the same day

it was presented; 1981, it was passed with all readings completed on

the same day; 1982, it passed through all readings that day; 1983, $6

billion was passed with all readings completed on that day — and $6

billion in 1983 was worth more than it is today, as we all know; 1984,

$2 billion passed on that day; 1985, $2.2 billion passed within a few

days of being presented; 1986, it passed on the same day it was

introduced; 1987, $2.375 billion passed with all readings on that day;

1988, almost $3 billion passed on the day it was introduced.

What

is the opposition talking about? They're stalling and wasting the time

of this Legislature. In fact, they're delaying the time when they can

really go at the estimates, when they're presented in the normal

course. Discussing estimates is the time for debating whether you think

the government's money has been spent properly.

I think

that over the past few weeks of this session the opposition has really

gone against all the traditions of this House, if you look at the steps

they've taken to delay debate and to stall the progress. They're

talking about us being worried about going into an election; I think

they're afraid that we might call an election. In the three years I've

been in this Legislature, I have really been disappointed in the

opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. MERCIER :

I know a lot of the members of the opposition. I enjoy some of the

members of the opposition, but I am disappointed in all of the members

of the opposition. When I was elected, I expected to come to this House

and see people do good research, ask good questions, offer good

criticisms and offer some alternatives. Instead of getting better

research, better questions, better criticism and better alternatives,

we have poor research, incompetent questions, inadequate criticism and

very few alternatives.

What does that tell me? It tells me

that they're stalling now because they don't want to head into an

election. I don't think they have any programs to present. I think

they're philosophically bankrupt. I can't understand why they wouldn't

want to be bringing their programs forward at this time to let people

know what a good job they think they can do.

When you speak

of the traditions of this House and when you look back over the past

ten or 15 years, you can see they've offended almost every tradition of

this House in the past few weeks. It really bothers me that the

opposition continues to perpetuate the biggest lie in politics in B.C.

to this day. The biggest lie in politics these days is that they think

they can run this province. Well, if the way they've conducted

themselves as opposition is any criterion, they are not ready to run

anything. They take a balanced budget — in a country where few

provinces have had balanced budgets in the last 40 years, and where the

federal government certainly hasn't — and they try to knock holes in

it. The budget that was presented was balanced.

When they

talk about this budget, the opposition has the philosophy that if you

repeat this lie often enough, then the public will start to believe it.

I defy you to say this budget isn't balanced. When you have a 5 percent

reserve, no matter which label you put on it, and when you have a

budget the size of this province's budget, at any particular time you

are going to have a 5 percent underrun-overrun. You call it reserves at

the municipal level and surplus in a corporate setting. For the NDP to

come out and say this budget isn't balanced is the biggest lie I've

heard in the three and a half years I've been sitting in this

Legislature.

For them to stall the interim supply debate, to not come up on the interim supply debate and....

MRS. BOONE :

On a point of order, that was very unparliamentary language that the

member just used. He accused us of lying. I don't think that's accepted

in this Legislature, and I would ask that he withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. I was listening very closely, and I don't believe the hon. member said that anybody was lying. Please

continue. You have used the term enough that I think we all understand it very

well, hon. member, so perhaps you could continue.

MR. MERCIER :

I'm talking about the NDP. It's a philosophical lie. It's the idea that

if you can say something bad about people often enough, even if it

wasn't true in the beginning, people may start to believe it. I'm just

here to counter the arguments.... How can the finance critic for the

opposition stand up in front of the people we have here on a budget day

presentation and say that the budget is dishonest? Dishonest means "not

factual." There is not a fact omitted from that budget. The budget was

factual.

I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that someone in the

House, perhaps even the Speaker, did not rise at that point — even

though it was a day when traditionally we don't do those things — and

say that a speaker who would say such a thing was out of order and

unparliamentary, because to say that the whole budget is dishonest is

the biggest lie I have ever heard.

Getting back to the matter at hand, why would the opposition, if they really knew what they were doing,

[ Page 9128 ]

take

a simple thing like a supply bill to stall the business of the people's

parliament? Why would they do it? I think they haven't got anything

else to talk about. The budget came through, and it is fiscally

bombproof, and the opposition is really straining hard to find

something they can criticize in the coming weeks while we're here. I

would like to know when they will start to put their programs forth. If

they think there's going to be an election coming, I would just love to

see some of those programs. I would love to see the programs that can

promise the people more services without raising taxes.

Speaking

of taxes, I would love to see those people in the opposition promise

those services without raising taxes.... And then, if they had to raise

more taxes from people other than low- and middle-income people, who

are they going to raise them from? The small business community: that's

who they're going to raise them from. They're going to raise them from

our friends and their friends in small business because somebody — it's

what we've learned in this era of our parliamentary system — has to pay

the freight. Somebody has to pay those taxes. And that is the second

biggest lie that the opposition has always harboured over the years

that I've been running against them. They have some idea that they can

convince the public that there's a magical pot there, an endless golden

rainbow to have all these dreams they talk about come true.

I'll

tell you, the programs we have put forward — and they're going to be

discussed in the estimates.... They're going to be very hard pressed to

find any fault with those programs.

I would suggest that

the opposition get on with finding some little things to criticize in

the programs that have been presented. I would suggest that they

improve their respect for the traditions of this House, direct

themselves to the next part of the debates in this House — which should

be dealing with the estimates — and quit stalling on the matter of

interim supply.

MR. JONES : To paraphrase the second

member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), who paraphrased the church lady:

"Isn't this special!" Don't we have before us the grand-daddy of

special warrants. This is five big ones — $5 billion — that this

government wants us to approve with a rubber stamp and with five

minutes of debate — a billion dollars a minute.

[3:15]

Well, it's not going to happen, Mr. Speaker. We're going to have a debate on this interim supply bill.

What

does interim mean? Interim means "from this period in time to that

period in time." What we're looking at with this interim supply measure

is May and June and July and August. This is much much longer than the

kinds of interim supply measure that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

quoted in his remarks. This is unusual — both in terms of length and

time and also in terms of the amount associated with this particular

bill.

Five billion dollars was almost half of the previous

year's entire provincial budget. Certainly this side of the House does

not want to interrupt the cash flow to those services and institutions

— the colleges, the institutes, the hospitals and the school boards —

that are going to have to carry on. But we're not going to pass a $5

billion interim supply budget measure as a rubber stamp. We're going to

debate the issues because that's our responsibility here as an

opposition. It is the privileged position of the government to collect

that $5 billion from the hardworking taxpayers of this province — men

and women in British Columbia who get up every morning, who ask for

nothing but the opportunity to work and earn in this province, who pay

their fair share of taxes, many of them willingly. They do not want

this kind of interim supply measure to go forward without adequate

scrutiny by the opposition.

It is this Finance minister who

introduces this interim supply measure which asks us to pass it all in

one sitting. This is the same Minister of Finance who does not know the

difference between one-tenth and one-twelfth of his budget, some $200

million difference. "Well, it's only $200 million, " he says. Well,

we're not going to pass this in its entirety at one sitting, as you've

seen, and we probably won't pass it in its entirety in two sittings. We

don't know how long we are going to debate this issue, but we are going

to debate it until we feel that the public interest has been served.

The

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier), the second member for

Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and other speakers yesterday really do not

understand the Westminster model of British parliamentary tradition.

They do not understand how this Legislature works. They do not

understand what it's like to be in opposition. But after the next

provincial election they will have plenty of time to find out what it's

like to be in opposition.

The previous member said that

this debate is an enormous waste of time, an improper use of the

Legislature and of public money. That opposition, they're just being a

nuisance, they're just delaying things. Why don't they recognize that

the government has a job to do, and why don't they just move aside and

stop being a nuisance? Well, that's not what a Legislature is about.

That's not what it is for.

The truth is that Her Majesty's

Loyal Opposition is absolutely essential to the successful operation of

the government and of this parliament. We chose responsible, democratic

government; we didn't choose a dictatorship in this province. We have a

government that has to be held accountable, not just on the average

every three and a half years, but with this particular group — a little

unsure whether it has enough votes to call an election — not just every

four years or five years, but every day when this Legislature sits.

I mentioned, the government has the honour and the privilege to tax and

to spend, but it can only do so legitimately under an appropriate

system of checks and balances. We on this side of the House are

providing that system of checks and balances. In fact, we legitimize

the power that the government has, and this is the essence of the

Westminster model of British

[ Page 9129 ]

parliamentary

democracy. It's only because of the checks and balances, particularly

on government spending, provided by this side of the House that we have

a successful democratic system, that the public out there will trust

that the government is being held accountable, is being held up to

scrutiny, is operating in an open and reasonable manner because of

those checks and balances.

So, Mr. Speaker, those members

over there are very lucky that they have such a strong opposition that

gives it any credibility that it has.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Where is this strong opposition?

MR. JONES :

If it weren't for the strong opposition Mr. Premier, you'd be finding

the people in the streets, because they don't trust you, and the only

reason they allow you to continue to operate with the power that you

have is because they know that you are held up to scrutiny in this

House. Without that, we would not have the British parliamentary system

or the democratic system that we have in this province. You of all

people, Mr. Premier, should understand that system and where your power

comes from. Your power comes from the scrutiny provided by this

opposition.

Interjection.

MR. JONES :

Well, Mr. Premier, after the next election, should you ever summon up

the moxie to call that election, you will find out the importance of

the opposition to our British parliamentary system. You will understand

the importance of debate. You will understand the privilege that you

have in taxing and spending. You will understand the importance of

letting the sun shine in on the people's business. You will also

understand the importance of the scrutiny that you're getting today and

that you will get every day that this Legislature sits. Particularly

after the election you will understand the importance of the role of

the opposition.

We have in this province taxpayers who are

cynical, who don't trust the government. But I think that's pretty

typical. They are used to the kind of government that is not always

totally upfront with the people. In terms of budgets, we have a history

in this province — particularly with W.A.C. Bennett — of continually

underestimating revenue and overestimating expenditure. But I think the

people have come to expect that sort of low level of deceit on the part

of their government — the sort of book-juggling acts we have seen in

the past. That sort of behaviour in terms of budgeting on the part of

W.A.C. Bennett is minor. In fact, this government makes W.A.C. look

like a piker compared with the kind of chicanery we see in the

government's budget in this case.

This government says:

"Come on, trust us. Give us $5 billion. You can trust us." Where is the

financial plan for that $5 billion?

The Minister of Finance

doesn't want debate, doesn't want scrutiny, doesn't want to let the sun

shine in. In fact, it was that minister who said: "We can't call this

House. We can't convene a sitting of the Legislature, because the

federal government has curtailed some $120 million in federal transfer

payments. We're going to have to adjust all our programs, so we'll have

to delay the implementation of a new budget. We'll have to redraft it,

and it's going to take at least a month for us to do it."

But

what did the Minister of Finance do with that $120 million? He did what

this government does. He wrote another IOU into the BS fund, the

so-called budget stabilization fund. It's called creative bookkeeping.

there was absolutely no need for any delay of this legislative session.

Had we been called to do the people's business at the appropriate time,

we would not be dealing with this interim supply measure now. Very

clearly the minister, in not calling the Legislature on the ruse of

having to adjust the budget, was guilty of terminological inexactitude

in dealing with the opposition and in dealing with the people's

business. I didn't want to say he was being dishonest.

This bill was not necessary.

Interjection.

MR. JONES : I'm saying he was guilty of terminological inexactitude, member for Vancouver South.

why is that? Why did the Minister of Finance not want this debate, not

want this scrutiny, not want the sun to shine in on the Legislature of

British Columbia? Very clearly it was because the kind of budget he saw

was a weak budget, a deceptive budget, a dishonest budget, and a budget

that the people of British Columbia have not been turned on by. Clearly

it is not a pre-election budget, although should the Premier — who is

leaving now — develop the moxie to call it, we'll see whether this

budget is exciting the people out there. It is a continuation of this

government's fiscal mismanagement and fiscal incompetence.

Only

the Minister of Finance could come up with the term "budget

stabilization fund" to come up with a method of creative bookkeeping.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's around the continent.

MR. JONES :

It's around the continent, because people say: "Only in British

Columbia, you say!" Only in British Columbia does the Minister of

Finance come up with a BS fund where he writes IOUs.

I ask

that member who sits next to the Minister of Finance: what bank is that

fund in, and what level of interest are we generating on it? Where is

that fund, and how much interest are we earning on it? We're not. The

Minister of Finance fooled the people last year — he even fooled senior

economists in this province — into thinking it was a real fund rather

than a phantom or imaginary fund. But this year the people are on to

this government. The people understand the chicanery and the deception

that is clear in this budget. That's why we are into this debate right

now.

[ Page 9130 ]

That

government did not want any scrutiny. We were supposed to rubber-stamp

that interim supply bill without debate, without doing the people's

business, without providing the kind of opposition to give that

government credibility, that the people will trust it to carry on,

because of the strong opposition that we have.

A balanced

budget, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) says. A balanced

budget would be if your revenue and your expenditure matched on all the

lines down with real money, not just the bottom line. But on one of

those lines we have some $684 million that isn't real; it's an IOU.

It's not there. We have a so-called balanced budget that doesn't

balance to the tune of some $684 million, and I guess in a $13 billion

budget that's not a great percentage deficit, and relative to other

governments in Canada perhaps it is reasonable, because we are in good

economic times, unlike the government, which is hoping for an economic

downturn so that perhaps the electorate will be less disposed to vote

for a New Democrat government. That's not going to happen, because we

have a rich province and capable and talented people who are going to

continue the prosperity in this province, which has nothing to do with

the current administration.

So we have a $684 million IOU

written in the budget stabilization fund. We have a government that

comes in and says: "Trust us. Give us four months. Give us a blank

cheque and rubber-stamp it." Why did they want four months? Why not one

month or two months, as is usual?

[3:30]

I expect that the budget and the estimates are going to be approved,

because the government had planned that after this wonderful budget

they brought in, the people wouldn't see through their deception. They

would think the budget stabilization fund was real. They would think

that it was a balanced budget. They would maybe even think that if they

called taxes "levies," there were no new taxes.

After all

that, they thought there might be an election window here: "We might be

able to pull it off. We will return some of the excessive school

property tax" — which has been dumped onto the average homeowner in

this province year after year at the direction of the Social Credit

administration. "We'll give them a little bit of that back, and maybe

they'll jump up and click their heels. Maybe our popularity in the

polls will increase."

But that didn't happen. They're out

there polling like mad now, but it's not going to amount to anything.

The popularity of the government is down, so I don't know when you're

going to call it. You're running yourself up against the clock. You're

going to have to call it sooner or later.

The purpose of

this interim supply bill was to give a four-month election window so

that, should an election be called, the cash flow of government would

flow normally to those institutions, to ensure that the agencies of

government would be funded. That perceived election window isn't there.

It was a good try, but what it proves to me again and again is that the

people are away ahead of the Social Credit government. Sometimes in

some areas they scramble hard to catch up, but the people have seen

through this budget. They're not impressed. This budget has not won any

votes for the Social Credit administration. The four-month window

you've created with this interim supply bill is unnecessary.

don't know what you're going to do next. You don't have the moxie to

call it now. You have your four-month window — or you will have

shortly, I expect — but it's not going to wash, because you haven't

fooled the people of this province. The people of this province don't

want to see $5 billion of public money brought forward and approved in

this Legislature without debate, without scrutiny. They don't want to

see the kind of debacle we've seen in the past with GO B.C. grants.

They

don't want to see those kinds of unscrutinized, unregulated funds being

given from the government side to people who are members of the public,

but a special category of members of the public. They're a category of

individuals who, by the nature of their political affiliations, happen

to have political connections to the governing party. This, Mr.

Speaker, is the kind of thing British Columbians do not want to see.

They want to see the sun shine in. They want to see, in fact, all of

those grants properly scrutinized and regulated. They want to see who

was turned down, why, and the criteria that were used to grant certain

amounts to certain individuals in certain places. They don't want to

see the kind of rubber-stamping the Minister of Finance indicated was

going to be the order of the day yesterday.

The students of

this province want debate on their situation, too. They see through the

words of the government; instead, they see the deeds of the government.

They know that in this province they pay among the highest fees in

Canada. They know that what they're doing by paying those high fees is

paying more and getting less. They're getting less time with their

faculty, because of the tremendous class sizes students experience in

this province. They're getting less up-to-date equipment. They're

getting less opportunity in terms of the kinds of courses they desire

and aren't able to get.

What a tremendous waste of their

time, the institution's time, the faculty's time and the taxpayers'

money when students are forced to sign up for courses they do not want

just so they can stay in the institution. They waste the taxpayers'

money in the process. And those are the lucky ones, Mr. Speaker; those

are the ones that get in. For every three qualified students that are

accepted in this province, one is turned away. One student has lost

opportunity. One student is not going to get the chance to take their

rightful place in this society. One student is not going to get a

chance to contribute, to earn the kind of income and return through

taxes the kind of revenue we would like to see. One student is not

going to get a chance to maximize their potential, to use their skills

to contribute to the well-being of this province.

[ Page 9131 ]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Those

students know that we still have the lowest participation rates in

Canada. The Canadian average, in terms of participation rates, is

increasing at a greater rate than British Columbia's. Those students

know that we are short thousands of bachelor's degrees annually

compared to other provinces in Canada. Those students know, as well,

that the level of student assistance, despite the fact that it has

improved in the last couple of years, is still markedly below that of

other provinces in Canada that believe in education and that are

willing to assist students in need to take advantage of post-secondary

educational opportunities.

The greatest irony of all, in

terms of our coming here and being asked to approve a billion dollars a

minute — $5 billion in five minutes — is the whole business of how this

government arrived on that side of the House. In 1986 they campaigned

on a platform of open government. The public accepted that and hoped

for that.

HON. MR. FRASER : And the public got it.

MR. JONES :

We did not get it. What we got was a government that drops a $5 billion

bill on the table and asks the opposition to approve it, without

scrutiny, in five minutes. What we got was promises to televise what's

happening here — a concrete promise even appeared in the throne speech

in 1987. That's open government; that's the kind of thing the people

voted for in 1986. Where is it? It's not here with this bunch. They

don't want television; they don't want scrutiny; they don't want the

people to know the dismal performance of the members opposite.

They

also promised an end to confrontation. They wanted open government and

an end to confrontation. Tell that to the federal government; tell that

to the doctors of this province; tell that to the school boards; tell

that to the public service; tell that to the nurses. We are back to

confrontation, because you think that's going to win you some votes

this time. But it's not.

Open government. That was the

banner cry in 1986, but what did we see? What we saw was a virtual

contempt for the Public Accounts Committee That was another specific

promise in 1986. The Premier of this province went around British

Columbia and promised a real, working Public Accounts Committee with

the time and the resources to examine the spending accounts of this

province. And what do we see right now? That has not happened, of

course. This government has not even named — has not even called — the

Public Accounts Committee.

There is certainly no glasnost

in terms of the members opposite. They refuse to bring in freedom of

information legislation that would let the sun shine in in this

province. They don't want the sun shining in. They don't want public

scrutiny. They don't want the people to know the weakness in that

administration.

But after the next provincial election, we

will let the sun shine in. We'll debate openly before the people of

this province, and we won't be bringing in any $5 billion interim

supply bills and expect the opposition to debate and approve it in one

sitting to approve $1 billion a minute. We won't take advantage and

show contempt for parliamentary democracy, and we won't carry on the

chicanery that we've seen in this budget and in this interim supply

bill.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I will start off

by saying that I'm delighted that member is in the chamber. I certainly

wouldn't want him out in the classrooms of the nation filling the

children of British Columbia full of nonsense like that — really, truly

incredible. Talk about fuzzification; he's the chief of fuzzification

in this province. There's no question about that.

We have

been accused here lately of almost everything known to man or beast. We

have been accused of not wanting scrutiny and not wanting to let the

light shine in; we've been accused of everything imaginable. I want the

people in the gallery to listen to this, because that simply is not the

case. All those members over there know that when we get into estimates

and talk about these very same dollars, each one — each dime — will be

debated in this House, just as it always has been with the Social

Credit governments of British Columbia, without a doubt. Every dime

will be done like that.

While they talk about interim

supply being a magical invention of the Social Credit government, they

conveniently overlook that in 1973 the NDP did it, in 1974 the NDP did

it and in 1975 the NDP did it. Isn't it amazing that it's all right

when they do it, but not all right when the government does it? It's

funny how they don't like to hear that. In terms of 1989 dollars, the

interim supply they had is in the order of $900 million. It was passed

like that; they almost invented it, as a matter of fact, if you care to

check the record, Mr. Speaker.

It's not a rubber stamp that

we're asking for. We are asking for a debate on every dime, every

dollar in every ministry. When I look at them here, I see that we are

putting interim supply for the Ministry of Health and for the

Auditor-General, who we want to have lots of money. We want him to look

at what's happening in this very House in this Legislature in the

province of B.C. to make sure that we're doing it right.

certainly want money to go to the office of the ombudsman, so that he

can do his job right. Every month I get reports in my ministry about

what has been investigated, dropped, solved or is still ongoing. I want

him to have the money to do that job right. That's why we need the

money.

Money for advanced education, training and

technology. We just heard a minute ago about the education system in

this great province of British Columbia. I can assure you that we have

a wonderful system expanded by this government. Our expansion was even

copied by the opposition, who said they didn't

[ Page 9132 ]

like

it. But they do and expanded it even more. Now we have universities in

the Okanagan. We'll have the university of the north.

How

could they possibly say that we're not doing what is in the interests

of the students? The budget this year puts an extra $300 million into

education. That's not an untidy sum; that's a large amount of money.

There's $500 million in health care; that's a big sum of money. Do they

complain about that? I don't hear anything about the complaints now.

Maybe it's an election budget. I guess it could be. I guess it might

not be. Good grief!

[3:45]

Then what do they say they're going to do? They claim they're going

to win. I'm glad to hear they think they're going to win. I like to run

against people who are superconfident, because they forget it's the

door-knocking that counts. "We are going to win, " they say over and

over again. Who are they trying to convince? Me or themselves? It's

probably themselves they're trying to convince, because now they're

running a little nervous. They doubt they're going to make it, and they

probably won't make it. I'll be looking somewhere around here at those

members over there who are trying to harass me.

Oh yes, and

you talk about your leader, the man who tore down the heritage house to

build a new little box on that place — tore down a heritage house

without a permit. Did you know that the Leader of the Opposition did

that?

As a matter of fact, I was reflecting on the

statements this morning by the first member for Victoria (Mr. G.

Hanson). I want you to listen to this very carefully, because the first

and second members for Victoria made a comment sometime in 1983, which

I just thought of today when he suggested something about my character

not being right. I didn't take to that kindly. And I thought, now let

me see, what do I remember? I remembered that the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has not been here for about three weeks.

MR. ROSE : He's ill; he's got pneumonia.

HON. MR. FRASER : If he's ill, it's legitimate. What I also remember about the first and second members....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Where was he, they ask. I was doing my job. By the way, that member

over there talks about televising the House as if what goes on in this

chamber was the whole thing. This is only a very small part of the job

of an MLA. It's in the riding, in committees, in the caucus and talking

to the people in the community that makes the MLA's job. I actually

would be delighted if we had TV in here because I would like to show

the people what we have to look at every day. I don't think the

opposition would like it, but I would.

Getting back to the

first member for Victoria, those of us who were here in 1983 will

remember there had been a recommendation that we get a little 6 percent

raise in pay. Remember that? Do you remember Mr. Peck suggested that it

was outside the limits and that we should get a 3 percent pay raise? Do

you remember what happened after that? Remember the panic? The first

and second members for Victoria — the two members who sit today — held

an emergency press conference. Do you know what they said? They said:

"We don't need the raise. We're going to donate the raise to charity."

That's not just one paycheque; that's all the paycheques from then

until today — all the way through until they're gone. I wonder if

they've kept that promise. I'd kind of like to see that one, because I

have the funniest feeling that one might have slipped by somehow. But

they had a press conference; they promised to give it away. I'd like to

know whether they've done it. I doubt it somehow.

The

member over there talked about the loyal opposition. I would like to

have a loyal opposition. I don't know that we want a stupid opposition,

but we certainly want a loyal opposition and we want a....

MR. ROSE :

Point of order. As always, when the member speaks, I sit here

transfixed. Sometimes he gets carried away — and sometimes he should

be. I'd just like to suggest that he might wish to withdraw the

"stupid" part as applied to the very refined, eloquent and able members

on this side of the House.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr.

Speaker, I talked about the opposition, not any member of the

opposition. It seems to me that remark is very much in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

I have listened to what you have said, hon. member. On the point of

order, I would suggest that you would choose different wording.

HON. MR. FRASER :

I will certainly choose new wording, Mr. Speaker. The election window

they talk about — I don't care how big or how small the window is.

We'll all go through the election window together, won't we? I wonder

what's going to come out the other end. I've got the funny feeling

we're going to do fine.

MR. SIHOTA : If it's North Vancouver, you might; if it's Vancouver, you won't.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Wherever I run, I'll run as hard as I can, as well as I can. And if the

people decide to support me, they will. I'll try to make sure that they

do, and I'll be counting on members from all over the community for

their support, no matter where they come from, no matter what religion

they happen to follow. I'll knock on their doors, and they'll vote for

me because I work for them like all my fellow members do. I remember

the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) talking about our first

member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), saying his speech on Saturday made them

nervous. Well, it should have — telling the truth. They don't want to

hear that at all.

[ Page 9133 ]

What

else did they say? "When we get elected," what are we going to

do? We're going to tax businesses. Well, surprise — take over all the

businesses. The Interesting thing is you would think you would have

learned after watching for all these years and months that the system

we have in place now creates employment. Isn't that what you want? You

want people to earn a living; you don't want to put businesses out of

business. Their government would tax business. So for a few days or

weeks they would have this imaginary tax money rolling in. All of a

sudden, we wouldn't be competitive. What's working is what is being

done. That's the secret of it; that's why it's working.

They

complained about the great GO B.C. program. I'm telling you that lots

of good community programs have been supported by that program, and I

think it's a good program.

AN HON. MEMBER : In Nanaimo as well.

HON. MR. FRASER : In Nanaimo, in Vancouver Centre — big ones. I'll tell you, it's good.

want to make a final point on this, Mr. Speaker. You'll have other

occasions because I know, as I said earlier — and as my friend the

Minister of Consumer Affairs said earlier — this is not going to end

the debate on the spending estimates — no, no, no. All this says, Mr.

Speaker, is that we can pay the salaries of the teachers and the

government workers all over British Columbia, and that's what we want.

Every dime in this will be debated by us. We welcome the speeches and

suggestions from the opposition. We hope they're good; we want them to

have lots of insight; we want them to be strong so we can be stronger.

Mr. Speaker, we should pass this interim bill now.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

This being the first time that I've spoken in the House since you've

taken the chair, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you and welcome

you to that position, and I hope that the government members afford you

an easy time of it.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the

opportunity to take my place in this debate. I'm astounded, quite

frankly, listening to the government members protest our desire to

debate this request for money. I was quite amazed to hear one of the

members talk about the passing of $5 billion as a technicality, some

little thing — a mere formality, I think he said. When you take a look

at $5 billion, most people in this province can't even begin to

comprehend how much money that really is. It's nine digits.

think about the number of constituents I've met with in the last short

while. Last week I went to a tenants' meeting, where those tenants are

having their rent increased 50 to 65 percent — their rent going from

$500 to $750. Some will have their pensions completely swallowed up by

those rent increases. And this government says that it's a mere

formality to pass $5 billion worth of a budget, $5 billion of

taxpayers' money, and the opposition should see this as a mere

formality. We should pass it; we should not debate it and not ask for

some accountability. I just think about that senior, that woman on a

handicapped pension, whose rent increase will swallow up her pension in

total, and I think about telling her that $5 billion is a mere

formality and that, as her representative, I should pass it in mere

minutes. I'm insulted, quite frankly, by the mere suggestion that it

should only be greeted as a formality.

If the government is

dismayed at the difficulty they're having in this session, I would

suggest first of all that they've brought it on themselves. This

government is now at a time in its term where it's accountability time,

time for the electorate and the people of this province.... The

taxpayers want to know what you've done for the last three years, what

kind of province you've brought about, what kind of accountability you

have for spending taxpayers' dollars, what you have done with their

money.

As I look at what this government has done and

promises to do in the future, the reality is that this government

promises to tax more and deliver less. Imagine a government going to an

election promising to cost the taxpayers more money. Indeed, over the

last three years of their term the taxes in this province have gone up.

They have cost taxpayers more out of their pockets, and what have they

gotten for it? Less. This government has delivered less, and that is

their promise: a promise of a smaller government, a government that

delivers fewer services in education, in health care and in the

Environment ministry.

This government talks about its

environmental record, and all we have to do is look at the fact that

this government was the very government that downsized that ministry,

that tied the hands of those people still left in the ministry, and who

wanted to do a good job, by policing their own laws, regulations,

permits and licences. This government cost this province more and

delivered less.

What has the government promised to do with

this $5 billion? Indeed, that's the question, and it's the question

that we will insist this government answer.

The government

says that it cares about the people of this province. For my riding,

beyond the issue of tenants and whether or not the people I met with

will have a home come June 1, I would like to look at what this

government has delivered and has refused to deliver for the people of

Surrey.

The hospital in the municipality of Surrey has a

2,600-person waiting-list. That's another staggering number that's hard

to comprehend. It's not quite as hard to comprehend as the $5 billion

that we're asked to pass, but it's hard to comprehend a waiting-list

that takes people 16 months to get the kind of operation that many of

them in my municipality are waiting for. That's a legacy of this

government

The question is: if this government has

increased the costs to the taxpayers in my municipality — and they have

over the last three years — what are we getting in return? It's

accountability time; there will be no formality of passing a $5 billion

budget.

[4:00]

[ Page 9134 ]

The

government asks us to pass these warrants, and they call it an

emergency. The list of emergencies in my riding is long: the

waiting-list that I referred to; the fact that we have only two beds

per 1,000 in our hospital, compared to a provincial average of

four beds; the fact that our schools and the schoolyards in Surrey are

beginning to look like concentration camps, with lineups of portables

one after the other. Those are emergencies. Those are

real-life emergencies that are affecting people's lives on a daily

basis. I think it's very clear that this government is so out of touch

that they can't even begin to understand what it's like to live under a

Social Credit f government.

The fact that the opposition

will not pass a request for $5 billion as a formality is also a

reflection, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that this government has lost all

credibility to govern. This government has lost any trust that it may

have had, not only in this province but in this House in general. What

we have seen is a complete and total disregard and a complete lack of

understanding of the parliamentary system.

We are called

back to this Legislature late —past the fiscal year-end. You know, in

the past many of us have said jokingly that the reason the House isn't

sitting is because the government doesn't need any money. The fact that

the British Columbia Legislature only sits when this government needs

money is of itself, I believe, a reflection of the fact that this

government would rather run the province on its own — a one-man show

without the scrutiny of the parliamentary system.

Beyond

the fact that the House was called back late, we saw again a disregard

for the Legislature in the government's moving and instructing junior

levels of government to initiate tax changes and go to referendum for

school boards, even before they brought the legislation to the House

for the scrutiny of the province, even before they had given the basic

courtesy to the democratic parliamentary system.

I think

they believe that they can — or that they should be able to, or that

they have the right to — run this province behind closed doors, that

they have the right to impose their views, values and way of doing

things on all the people of this province without any questioning,

without any scrutiny. I believe that is a total disregard not only for

this House, but for the parliamentary system.

When this

government cries foul and carries on about the fact that the opposition

wants to debate, wants to ask questions — and those questions will be

asked in the days to come when we get to committee stage — it's a

shallow cry. It doesn't have much credibility when you look at this

government's record.

I think that the people of this

province are saying they've had enough of a government that has no

respect for the democratic system and the taxpayers of this province;

that has a basic philosophy of "make the poor pay." That's who are

paying for this government's follies and mistakes: the poor in this

province — and the numbers are growing.

I look forward to

the opportunity to talk not only during this debate and committee

stage, but also during estimates. I think that we'll have a full and

thorough airing of people's reality in this province under a Social

Credit government. The number of people in this province holding down

full-time jobs, working in the workplace, collecting a paycheque and

still living below the poverty line has increased as a direct result of

this government's policy.

I look forward to full

accountability from this government, and I will be participating when

it comes to the committee stage of this $5 billion formality.

Government members stand up time and again and say: "We're not talking

about our money. This is the taxpayers' money." This government should

know, because year after year it has increased the tax burden on

regular taxpayers in this province, while at the same time withdrawing

its commitment to the delivery of services that each and every family

member needs. It's an abysmal record. I look forward to the

government's response, to hearing how they are proud of this record and

of asking for a formality in passing this taxpayers' expenditure.

Not

only am I looking forward to the estimates and to the government's

explanation of its record, but I am also looking forward to the

election. That's when the real accountability happens. I will be

working, as I have done since 1986 in my riding, for that

accountability, for that openness. This government has not delivered.

It has been a dishonest, incredibly deceptive government. It has been a

government that has hidden behind taxpayers' dollars to advertise its

version of the job it has been doing. I think there will be a lot of

people in this province who will look for accountability.

would like to close by looking forward to the time when we can question

each and every minister who has signed a special warrant, asking for

more taxpayers' dollars to deliver less. I look forward to their

excuses, to their rationale as to not only why they continue to make

the people of this province pay more but how they can justify

constantly delivering less.

MR. VANT : I found the comments of the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

very interesting. They emphasized once again to one who sits on the government

side of the House that the opposition in this Legislature seems to be very inconsistent.

Indeed, in my time in this House since 1986 they have passed interim supply

bills without all of this what I call politicking.

They

keep making reference to a window for an election; I can't help but

think to myself that they seem to be obsessed with the next election.

If they feel as confident as some of the members opposite keep saying,

why are they so afraid of this possible election window?

MR. LOENEN : Because they're going to lose.

MR. VANT : The second member for Richmond is right. They're going to lose, because the latest infor-

[ Page 9135 ]

mation

I have is that the socialists seem to be declining in popularity.

Indeed, whenever they are challenged about the latest polls they have

taken — which they have — they seem to be very quiet. I wonder why.

Mention,

too, was made by the socialist members opposite of special warrants.

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley mentioned doing things behind

closed doors. Isn't it more appropriate that we have an interim supply

bill here on the floor of this House rather then just waiting until May

6 and then having the cabinet pass another special warrant? I think it

would be an emergency, don't you think, if all of a sudden we were in a

position where we couldn't pay all of the members of the BCGEU out

there who work for the government — all those hard-working civil

servants? I'm sure that the members in the socialist corner of the

House would just love to explain to Mr. Shields why the government was

not meeting its payroll.

So really, this interim supply

bill is very responsible. It's very open on the floor of this House,

and it's very traditional. But I think the members opposite want to

prolong this debate. For some reason, they don't want to get into the

detailed estimates of each ministry, where every nickel and dime is

very carefully examined. In light of the federal budget, we had to very

responsibly and carefully work on the budget, and I commend our

Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. VANT : Yes, I want to refer to the bill here. Before I do that, though,

the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) mentioned earlier in this debate that

the funding we had by special warrant would expire in just a matter of days.

In fact, that would be on May 6. Again, that emphasizes that this interim supply

bill is very necessary.

was somewhat offended by that puerile pedagogue — the first member for

Nanaimo who likes to baffle us with his very erudite multisyllabic

words — and his inference that somehow my very good colleague the

member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) wouldn't understand. I find

those comments by the first member for Nanaimo during the debate on

this supply bill as being less than desirable.

Indeed, that

first member for Nanaimo mentioned the tyranny of the majority. Well, I

remember very well the tyranny of the minority. That's when, with only

39 percent of the popular vote, that socialist government was

government in this province from 1972 to 1975. At that time, I

understand from some of the more senior members of this House, they had

a limit. There was an actual limit of only 120 hours to discuss the

spending estimates of that socialist government at the time.

[4:15]

Again, that well-read first member for Nanaimo mentioned Gladstone,

a former Prime Minister of Great Britain. He said something like this —

and I quote the Blues from this morning: the debates will go on "until

the last farthing is accounted for." I would remind this Legislature

that Bill Bennett was leading the opposition at the time, when he said:

"Not a dime without debate." This Social Credit administration has been

faithful to that ever since, when it comes to the spending estimates of

each and every ministry of this provincial government. There is ample

opportunity for very detailed debate and grilling of each minister on

his estimates.

I would like to say that this interim supply

bill is not only an emergency to ensure that we can pay those

hard-working civil servants out there, but part of it, of course — and

I can't help but notice that the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) is here —

is to continue ongoing programs by the Ministry of Native Affairs,

which is very important for the economic and educational well-being of

this province's first citizens.

Also, being a member of

this Legislature and having the honour to represent my constituents in

the northern interior, I know that at this time of year it's very

important that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways also has

authorized interim spending.

We speak about narrow windows

for political purposes, but in the northern interior we have a very

short construction season. It's important that very necessary

rehabilitation work proceed on our highway and bridge systems,

especially in the north and in the interior, because we're just getting

into the construction season. Any undue delays would cause great

discomfort to our hard-working tax-paying citizens in that part of our

province. Indeed, in every part of the province, there is much-needed

work to be done which can only be done if the funds are authorized by

this Legislature to do so.

Given opening day when there was

absolutely no respect for tradition whatsoever, it is not surprising

that the Minister of Finance did not in his wisdom decide to have this

interim supply bill of this scope, amounting to $5 billion. That is

one-third of the budget. Given the playing of politics consistently

during this session, I think it was very wise of him to have an interim

supply bill of that scope so that he isn't constantly coming back to

this Legislature, as it appears we will be very slowly proceeding to

the budget debate, and then, of course, finally, into the individual

ministerial estimates.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The

member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley mentioned that somehow this

government was offering fewer services for things like health care,

education and the environment. Obviously she wasn't listening, or never

took the time to read the budget, because according to what I heard and

what I have read, we are increasing the budget this year in education,

kindergarten to grade 12, by no less than 15 percent. To me, that does

not translate into a cut in services.

We are going to

increase the health care budget by 11.3 percent. Sensitive to the users

of this system, there will be no increase in the medical services

premiums.

[ Page 9136 ]

Also,

this government, in its wisdom — and I know we've just celebrated

Earth Day 1990 — will be increasing funding for environmental

initiatives by no less than 24 percent.

I find it very hard

that the speaker just before me is saying that this government is

somehow insensitive to health, education and the environment and is

cutting services. The facts just do not substantiate that somewhat

irresponsible statement.

Earlier in the debate, somebody

said we had not debated spending for over a year. If I recall

correctly, this Legislature adjourned last July 21. Those estimates,

which were amply debated at that time and those dollars approved, were

being spent right up until just about 24 days ago. It has not been a

whole year since this government sought the consent of this Legislature

for spending of dollars.

I think we have an inconsistent

opposition. Early on in my career in this Legislature, I referred to

the members in the socialist corner of the House as the "toothless

pit-bull gang." Often, in pressing them in debate, they seem to lack

any substance to back up their at times high-sounding arguments with

the facts.

We have had ample debate. If the members of the

opposition would get on with it, we could really debate the budget, and

we could get on with debating the individual ministry estimates.

past Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, said that

every government needed a formidable opposition. It's a shame that we

don't have what could be termed, in any way, shape or form, a

formidable opposition in this House. It seems to me that they don't

want to get into detailed estimate debates at this point in time; they

just want to play politics with a traditional interim supply bill — a

bill which I strongly support, which is very necessary at this time and

which I, without any hesitation, would feel very comfortable in

supporting.

MS. A. HAGEN : This afternoon we're

debating a bill that is too much and too late. I wasn't in the House

yesterday afternoon when the Minister of Finance introduced the bill,

but I have this vision of the Minister of Finance breathlessly racing

up one side of the House and down the other to see if he could manage

to get that bill through in five minutes. The urgency of this issue is

one that has the government calling into question our right and our

responsibility to ask questions about this particular piece of

legislation.

I have three premises that I want to address

this afternoon. I've just noted two of them: one, that this bill is too

much; the second, that it's too late; and the third, that it is the

government's intent to provide itself with an opportunity to avoid

debate on the estimates in this House.

Let me start with

too late. It's been canvassed quite extensively by people on this side

of the House, so I won't dwell on it excessively. There is no question

that in our minds and in the minds of the people we represent this

House has not been called into session to do its business.

the body politic out there, there is a sense of offence that the

government has played games, found excuses and sought ways to avoid

having this Legislature meet to discuss the people's business. The

hollow excuse that the federal government cut $120 million and the need

for a full month for the Minister of Finance to find something like 1

percent — in fact, less than 1 percent of his budget — and then to have

him find it in the BS fund really bear out the opportunism and the

excuses this government has brought into play.

It's too

late to be looking at major legislation that this government has been

developing, expounding and causing to be implemented outside the range

of debate in this House. We've just had too much experience in the past

with the government to trust that it does not have a less than

admirable, credible and totally open agenda for us.

We have

been waiting for opportunities to discuss one of the most important

tasks that we deal with: namely, how government plans for and spends

the tax dollars of our people. We want the opportunity to discuss those

issues fully.

Even when this House has sat, there have been

far too many occasions when the government has not been totally

aboveboard and open, and when they've sought to avoid scrutiny. There

are two examples that have become symbolic in people's minds of how

this government has misused the House and our need for and right to

full debate on spending and financial matters.

One of those

symbolic issues was the Coquihalla. When I was first elected in this

House, it was as a result of initiatives on this side of the House that

the government eventually called a full royal commission to look into

the overspending without authorization by this House. It was clear in

the decisions of independent inquirers into government activities on

the Coquihalla that there had indeed been a misuse of the due process

of debate on financial issues.

The other issue that is very

much a part of people's perspective these days is the Expo lands. As we

all know, that matter was again raised in the House during question

period this afternoon. We are unpeeling the story of the bidding on

that land, the amount of money this government negotiated to have as

payment for one of the prime Crown land resources of the province, and

what we have lost as a result of government management.

looking at this bill, we are looking to a government that has all too

often brought matters to us too late, in terms of their coming to our

attention at all; too late in terms of the honesty of their

presentation and the thoroughness with which we have been provided with

information to examine their agendas; and too late in the amount of

time we have had available to debate these issues.

That

record has been getting worse as years have gone by. In the first year

we sat in the spring and the fall. We actually carried that session

forward into the early winter. Last year we were later in sitting, but

we sat early enough to be well into the estimates by the time the

fiscal year-end had come about. This

[ Page 9137 ]

year

we did not even have an opportunity to sit before fiscal year-end, and

now we are looking at the government asking carte blanche for the right

to spend $5 billion without debate. That's not available, and it's not

responsible, and this side of the House will ensure that the debate

does in fact take place.

One of my colleagues a moment ago

spoke about the checks and balances and the information that needs to

be clearly stated. In this debate we've already had some of the

rhetoric on the part of government that's designed to mislead. We can't

tolerate that. We need to be sure that we thoroughly understand what is

available in the various programs the government is proposing in this

year's budget.

[4:30]

For example, this morning the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Reynolds), in making a list of what some of this expenditure was for,

said that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs.

Gran) is going to be spending $27,410,000 as a result of the warrants

in this bill. Well, in the minister's program for women, there is $2.5

million for the whole year. But here we have the Minister of

Environment suggesting in a cavalier way that we have a huge sum of

money for women's programs. We don't see that in the budget. We're now

seeing the Minister of Environment on behalf of his colleague

suggesting that there are endless numbers of dollars for women. We'd be

delighted to see those dollars in more specific ways, but my thesis

that this government may in fact not allow that examination of

estimates to occur, that it may use this $5 billion special interim

supply bill to simply shut down this place and go on with its agenda

outside the precincts, makes us dubious and requires us to call those

matters into question.

We know the method that this

government will use, Mr. Speaker. What it will do is use the people's

dollars not to have the Legislature functioning — which people believe

to be an appropriate use of tax dollars — but to buy advertising, to

have some more news updates mixed in with the regular news, to slant

and present the issues without the opportunity for due process, for

check and balance, for questions, for the deliberation that they

require.

We know that they will spend money on polling for

political purposes, money that should not be spent by this government

for its political ends, and we know that it will spend money on print

to inundate people with its side of the story. The check and balance of

this place, Mr. Speaker, is that there is available to us in this House

the opportunity to debate every aspect of the ministry's estimates. The

$5 billion tells us that this government may indeed — perhaps I should

say "does" indeed — have another agenda, which would enable it to go

outside this House and carry its message without the checks and

balances, the question and answer, the thrust and parry that occur in

this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for an interim

supply bill of this magnitude. Members opposite have said over and over

again that they need this money to pay essential bills. If at any time

this House were not sitting, government has full power on a short-term

basis to provide itself with all the dollars it needs to pay our

workers' salaries and get grants off to hospitals, school boards and

community agencies. It is absolutely wrong for this government to be

suggesting that this is the tool it needs in this period of time. This

House is sitting. This House is available on a daily basis, five days a

week, 23 hours a week, to consider any money bill that this government

wants to bring in. But this government wants the latitude to close down

the House and operate as it has since last July, without the

opportunity for opposition to daily question and deal with the people's

business. Too late in calling the House, too much — far more money than

is required for the government to transact its business while this

House is in session — and with an agenda that leaves them the latitude

to work outside the democratic process....

I found it

absolutely stunning and disturbing that the question has been raised

over and over again on the other side of the House about democratic

process. Our American friends with the Boston tea party knew about the

democratic process: no taxation without debate. We've known about it

since the days of the Stuarts, in particular, when parliament exerted

its supremacy in the British parliamentary system. We have guarded that

right, and we will exercise it on behalf of parents, children, seniors,

women, the poor, the disabled and also those people whose taxes provide

for programs, who have a right to know in detail what this government

plans to provide with the dollars that come from our personal income

taxes and, regrettably, in a much-diminished way, from the business,

industrial and commercial taxes of the province.

I would

challenge this government to bring forward a reasonable interim supply

bill, one that we can trust is indeed interim and not a licence for it

to operate outside this House. I would challenge the government to

ensure that in that interim supply bill it is prepared, through

committee stage, to provide information about the essential programs

that are going to be covered. Then we can get on with the business of

the House. But until I'm satisfied that that is what the government is

going to do through this bill, I will be joining my colleagues in

opposing it. Too late, too much, and too much latitude to this

government to absolve itself from a democratic process of debating the

issues in this Legislature and leaving this place, which it can do with

this kind of latitude, to continue to inform people through its

advertising, through its own agenda — a totally and thoroughly

undemocratic prospect that I don't want to be any part of enabling, on

behalf of the opposition.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr.

Speaker, I rise to support the interim supply bill. I think it's a

tradition in this House. It has been done for many years.

Why

is it done? Because we are saying to all members of this House that

until the estimates can be debated, we need certain funds to pay the

people who work for us — the ongoing expenses that are an

[ Page 9138 ]

ongoing

thing with government. All we're asking is to see us through that

period, so that people who work for us, for example, in Health, Social

Services and Education can get their paycheques and will not have to be

afraid that perhaps the money has not been allocated.

We're

not asking anything that hasn't been done in the past. That is the

tradition. I believe that in this particular case the opposition is

doing this only for political reasons. It has nothing to do with

anything we're discussing at this time, which is the interim supply

bill. It is a chance to bring up all kinds of other things that have

happened in the past, whether they are true or innuendoes, just so they

can get a debate going and discuss various things that may have nothing

to do with the supply bill. I will therefore deviate some also and talk

about things that have been talked about by other members of this House.

There

will be, in my opinion, and there always has been, much debate in

estimates. We always go as long as the opposition feels is necessary to

debate any minister's estimates. I am sure it will be no different this

year than it has been in the past. I suppose we will then look at every

item in the minister's estimates; they will be discussed thoroughly.

But

you know, I find it very difficult to think that at this particular

time, for political reasons, it is now raised as something unusual.

When we look back at when the opposition was in power, they did the

same thing. It was not something unusual. If the House had not yet had

the opportunity to debate the estimates, an interim supply bill was put

forward and accepted. It has nothing to do with looking at the

ministries' estimates in detail; that will follow. It is only a natural

progression, and that is part of the business of this House.

find again and again that from that side of the House the attitude is:

"Sock it to the business community. Sock it to the resource industry.

Sock it to mining." When they were in business they did that very

effectively; as a matter of fact, so effectively that we had no housing

problem — no problems at all with too many people, because they were

leaving this province. They were going to other parts of this great

country of ours,

whereas last year we had a net in-migration of 60,000

people.

Why did we have a net in-migration of 60,000

people? Do you think people just decided to come to British Columbia

because somebody said: "Go to British Columbia"? No. They knew why they

were coming to British Columbia: the economy in British Columbia is

excellent. There is an opportunity to raise their families. There is a

good education system. There are excellent resources for social

services. The Health ministry, providing health care for people, is

better than anywhere in Canada. As a matter of fact, we are so

successful in British Columbia that we suffer because of our own

success. However, when we have success like that, we have to provide

resources and health care, and that is sometimes difficult to do in

very short order.

We also have a housing problem due to the

net in-migration of 60,000 people. There's no question about it. How

can you otherwise explain it? We have a housing problem. But I would

like to refer the members of this House.... We're talking a lot about

housing; we're talking a lot about individual ownership of housing,

which I certainly approve of and agree with. I would like to quote a

few things that were said some time ago when the Leader of the

Opposition was at city council. He said: "The single-family house is as

dead as a dodo."

MR. BRUCE : Who said that?

HON. MR. DUECK :

The Leader of the Opposition, when he was at city hall. Now they're

saying, "We want to help our children into ownership, " which I agree

with, if at all possible. But that is how they flip-flop on that side.

One day the ownership of a single-family home is as dead as a dodo; the

next time the government does nothing to help people buy their own

homes and get established.

Another quote from the same

member. The Leader of the Opposition, who was at city hall at that

time, said he thought landlords should be able to charge more than the

amount set down for renovations, which was 12 percent per annum at that

time. Now they're saying we need rent control so it doesn't go more

than 4 or 5 percent.

The leader also said.... They were

discussing the ceiling set at a meeting with the B.C. Rent Review

Commission, and he urged a higher rent limit. This is the same leader

that wants control now. He urged, at that time — because there was rent

control — a higher rent limit.

[4:45]

MR. BRUCE : Do you mean he wanted to charge more money for rent?

HON. MR. DUECK : He wanted to charge more money for rent, more money for renovations. That is how things change.

was also quite disturbed when the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari) yesterday said — I quote from the Blues: "I think of some

of the difficulties this minister and this House have had with numbers.

For example: 8,000 housing units. Social housing last year received an

allocation of 1,700... units...."

Again, who is the

confused one in this House? Is it the Minister of Social Services and

Housing, or is it the individual who's speaking about 1,700 versus

8,000 units? We're talking of two entirely different things. We are

creating and putting on the market roughly 1,900 units of social

housing a year, which is a participating agreement between the federal

government and the provincial government to provide social housing. It

has absolutely nothing to do with the rental supply program. The rental

supply program.... I would like to repeat for the four members still

sitting in the opposition benches. We have allocated and approved 8,000

units. That's got nothing

[ Page 9139 ]

do with social housing. If they can't even figure that out, if they

can't in their own minds separate the 2,000 units of social housing

versus the 8,000 of rental supply, then I'm not surprised that they

keep saying that we're repeating the 2,000 units over and over again.

They're talking about two different things. There's absolutely no

correlation of one with the other.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : How many rental units did they turn down in Esquimalt?

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm coming to that. I would like to challenge the members opposite when

they talk about housing and say: "What has this government done in the

past or currently about the shortage of housing?" I would like to

challenge them. How many of you have gone to your local mayor or

alderman, when there's been a rejection of housing, and said: "Look,

there is a critical situation in British Columbia, so please assist us

with the housing development in your area"?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I appreciate the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) saying

that he has. He has done his homework. But the people that are talking

from that side of the House, again and again, when they talk about

housing, are always forgetting that it's their own communities that are

not allowing this housing to take place. I agree: we need more housing.

But we need everybody's cooperation, including that of the members from

that side of the House. I would like to challenge them to do exactly

that.

MR. SIHOTA : Are you talking to municipalities?

HON. MR. DUECK : I certainly have, and not only my community. I gave them capital "H" for turning down a project in my own community.

AN HON. MEMBER : What's capital "H"?

HON. MR. DUECK : That's "for heaven's sake."

not approving the interim supply bill, you are preventing us from

continuing business. Most of our business is paying people on the

payroll of government. These are people that belong to unions. These

are people that work for my ministry and for the Ministry of Health.

These are people that are looking after day care and, for example,

homemaker services These are the nurses in the hospitals. These are not

people you could do without for a month or two and nothing would

happen; they are people we need daily.

You are blocking

that. It has absolutely nothing to do with going to a ministry's

estimates and looking at every cent that's going to be spent in that

particular ministry. Why are you doing it? I know why. You're doing it

strictly for political reasons to make some political hay. You think

you'll get a few Brownie points.

It is political. That is

all it is. It is nothing but political hogwash and cheap political

manoeuvring. It is political rhetoric.

That side of the

House thinks that being political and doing all this electioneering at

this time will gain them some points. It will work against them,

because the people of the province are much too intelligent to buy