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)

MONDAY, APRIL 23, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Toxic waste disposal. Ms. Cull –– 9077

Naming of polluters. Mr. Cashore –– 9078

Rent increases. Mr. Cashore –– 9078

Gambling. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9079

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 9079

Gambling. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9079

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 9079

Prevention of drug wars. Mr. Mowat –– 9080

Iskut Valley access road. Ms. Edwards –– 9080

Presenting Reports –– 9080

Supply Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9081

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 9082

Mr. Clark –– 9082

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9085

Mr. G. Janssen –– 9086

Mr. Peterson –– 9089

Mr. Williams –– 9089

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9092

Mr. Cashore –– 9093

Mr. De Jong –– 9095

Mr. Harcourt –– 9096

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 9098

Ms. Marzari –– 9099

Mr. Davidson –– 9101

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On behalf of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I am pleased

to introduce in the Legislative Assembly today Dolores Gould and three

Blanshard School, The students are Arlhette Cortes, Awna Wong and Radek

Bucholc. Would the members please welcome these students and their

teacher.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

ask all members to welcome my wife Beverley. She is with us today and

is accompanied by a longstanding friend of hers from the airline

business, Mrs. Shirley Finstad. Would the House please welcome these

two lovely ladies.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I don't have this opportunity too often, but I'm very pleased

to have my wife Lillian visiting here with us today. We'll be

participating in the festivities this evening welcoming the

Governor-General to our province. We certainly enjoyed the festivities

in front of the buildings this morning. All went well, despite the

weather. Certainly a good welcome was given our Governor-General.

With

my wife Lillian today is a very dear friend Bill (Ambassador) Clancey,

who is commissioner and the one spearheading many of the activities

planned for the Year of Music 1991. I would ask the House to bid

Lillian and Mr. Clancey a welcome.

MR. CASHORE : Mr.

Speaker, visiting in the gallery today we have 25 grade 5 students from

Pacific Academy School in Coquitlam. They are here along with their

teacher Mrs. R. Soderlund. Would the House join me in welcoming them

HON. MR. PARKER :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some friends of mine, Harry and

Deanna Nyce, who are in the House today from the great northwest. Harry

is the vice-president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council and chief of the

Gitwinksihlkw band, formerly Canyon City. Deanna has just completed her

requirements for a master's degree in education. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MR. PELTON : Hon. members, in the

gallery today we have three very delightful ladies: Mrs. Lamb from

Outlook, Saskatchewan; Mrs. Barrington from Vancouver; and Mrs. Toth

from Victoria. I would ask that you give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK : It is my pleasure this afternoon to announce that April

22 to April 29 is Volunteer Recognition Week. My ministry, along with the British

Columbia Association of Volunteer Centres and the Victoria Volunteer Bureau,

would like to acknowledge the tremendous effort made by tens of thousands of

British Columbians who volunteer each year. These are the people who give of

their own free time and of their own free will, without payment or any valuable

consideration. In order to acknowledge this tremendous effort, the B.C. Association

of Volunteer Centres, in conjunction with the Victoria Volunteer Bureau, are

promoting the red "V" tag. The red "V," which I'm wearing

this afternoon, shows appreciation for the contribution made by the volunteers

of British Columbia.

MS. PULLINGER :

I would like to add our congratulations and thanks from this side of

the House to the many volunteers who work in our society to make things

a little bit better. I think we are all aware that our institutions,

even those institutions that are high-budget items like hospitals,

schools and social services, simply wouldn't function well without all

those volunteers. Obviously this work that's done in people's spare

time, without pay and often unrecognized, makes life a little bit

better for all of us. It also contributes enormously to our economy. I

would like to add our congratulations and our thanks to all those

people for their work.

MR. SERWA : On behalf of my

good friend and colleague the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr.

Rabbitt), I would like to welcome to the House 38 Hope Secondary School

students. The students are escorted by their principal, Brian Warner,

and accompanied by Mr. Brian Boswell from Fletcher Challenge Canada,

the tour sponsor. Fletcher Challenge Canada recognizes and encourages

the students' outstanding academic and leadership qualities as vital to

the province's social and economic fabric. Would the House please make

this student group welcome.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : In

the gallery I just noticed an old friend of mine and a friend of the

Social Credit Party, one of our regional directors for many years who

is now retired and living on the Island, George Little. I would ask the

House to recognize him.

Oral Questions

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. This

weekend nearly 3,000 people showed that they are way ahead of this

government, when it comes to toxic waste disposal, by lining up at a

special city of Vancouver depot. Can the minister tell us if he has

decided to follow the public's demand and open all eight provincial

toxic waste depots at convenient hours, including weekends?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

I thank the member for bringing up this topic. She should be aware that

the city of Vancouver had its first toxic disposal day because of the

assistance of the province of British

[ Page 9078 ]

Columbia and this government, which paid the majority of the costs of the day.

must tell you that I was there and talked to a lot of the people in the

lineup, who thanked not only the city of Vancouver but the provincial

government for setting up this wonderful day.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

Earth Day involves the people of British Columbia, and that's what's

bothering the New Democrats over there. They don't like to see people

participate. They participated in great numbers, because this

government worked to put in a program. I hope the member will also

suggest to us that she will support the toxic waste site that we're

going to install and not keep on waffling as they've been doing all

over the province so far.

MS. CULL : Mr. Speaker, the

minister seems to be having some difficulty with the question. I'm

fully aware that there was some funding for the toxic waste depot this

weekend, but in doing so, you shifted the costs from the province — where they rightly belong — onto the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver was forced to hold this toxic waste depot because the Surrey depot is closed.

There

are seven other depots in this province, and it would be nice if people

in the rest of the province had a similar opportunity to take in their

toxic waste. But when you call the other seven depots, here is what you

get: Kamloops, three calls — no one is there to book an appointment; Smithers....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Can we have a question please.

MS. CULL : Mr. Speaker, the seven depots are either closed, not open yet, or there is no one available to book appointments — secret

hours and secret locations. Instead of dumping his responsibility onto

municipalities, is the minister now prepared to do his part and open

the other provincial toxic waste depots — including Surrey — at hours that are accessible to all the public of British Columbia?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : I want to advise the member of the program that was started yesterday I'm pleased to see that she's....

MR. HARCOURT : Window-dressing.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS :

The former mayor of Vancouver calls it window-dressing. Where was he,

in his responsibility as mayor of that city, to look after the problem?

He was letting the toxic waste run into Burrard Inlet.

Mr.

Speaker, this government, which helped initiate this program in

Vancouver yesterday, will be running that program all around this

province. I'm not proud of the fact that we have to send that material

back to Ontario or down to Oregon to dispose of it. I hope the members

on that side will be just as enthusiastic, when we build a toxic waste

site in British Columbia, in supporting it and supporting the location

we're going to put it in.

MR. SPEAKER : We are having speeches; we are not having questions and

answers. I would caution the minister, and those asking the ministers questions,

that the scope of question period should be questions and answers.

[2:15]

MS. CULL :

Is the minister willing to confirm to this House that he will not shift

the cost of opening such depots onto municipalities and will continue

to pick up 100 percent of the cost, as has been done in the eight

existing provincial toxic waste depots?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

NAMING OF POLLUTERS

MR. CASHORE :

A question to the Minister of Environment. A year ago the then Minister

of Environment promised to release the names of all polluters who are

out of compliance with their permits. Last July the minister told this

House that the list was complete and would be released by the end of

summer. Can this minister tell the House when he will honour the

commitment of his predecessor and release the list?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS : Very soon.

RENT INCREASES

MR. CASHORE :

I have a new question, to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

More than 50 tenants living in two apartment buildings in my

constituency face rent increases of up to 40 percent. Their landlord

uses the 7 percent federal GST to justify this increase, effective July

1990. Is the minister prepared to intervene personally on behalf of the

tenants to have these unfair increases rolled back, as he did last

month for a Victoria tenant?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I

have not suggested at any time that it was my intention to phone every

landlord, but we have phoned some and have talked to renters and

landlords. As I talk to landlords, one of the things that's very much a

concern is that many of them have increased their rents because they

feel threatened by the possibility of rent controls.

Interjections.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The opposition doesn't like to hear that. But that's the fact. It's

come from the landlords when I've talked to them. They have been

threatened by rent controls. It's unfortunate, but I think there are

many renters in this province — particularly in greater Vancouver and Victoria — who are paying more for rent today than they would be

[ Page

9079 ]

paying, because the NDP chose to make political hay out of a tight rental market.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary. Given this government's apparent impotence in the face

of B.C.'s rental housing crisis, what is the minister now prepared to

do to ensure that these people are protected from unjust rent increases?

MR. SPEAKER :

The scope of the question begs a very broad answer. I'm going to ask

the minister to restrain the answer, because the other previous answer

went a little bit beyond the scope of the question.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

We have done a great deal about meeting the needs of people as far as

rental accommodation is concerned. I can go into that, and I think I

can do it fairly well. But really, you should direct that question to

the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and he

will tell you about a number of programs that have been put into effect

to help those people.

We don't think that rent controls are

going to help renters. They haven't helped renters anyplace else in the

long term. I think the leader of your party has said that he was

against rent controls. He doesn't support them now — and never has, he said.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The question was about the goods and services tax and

not rent controls, so I'm going to restrict it. I ask the minister to

take his seat.

GAMBLING

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question is for the hon. Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Over

the weekend, the press have reported on the public gaming branch's

gaming report, which apparently advocates expansion of the gambling

industry in our province. I would like to ask the minister to tell the

House who authorized the report, and what terms of reference they were

given. More importantly, I'd like to know from the hon.

Solicitor-General if the government has decided to permit the expansion

of this industry, notwithstanding the dangers of increased crime which

this might entail.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, in

response to the question, I can assure the member that the government

has no intention of expanding the gambling industry in British

Columbia. Notwithstanding that, of course, it's always important to

investigate what possibility exists, and that's why that report was

prepared: to make sure that we would understand the dangers involved.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. I would

like to ask him why he's not prepared to tell this House whether he knew

that the RCMP had recommended laying charges against his predecessor. Why are

you ill-prepared to answer that question, Mr. Minister?

GAMBLING

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor-General. Over the weekend

there were reports of possible mob influence in the gambling industry

in British Columbia, including a $10,000 contract on the life of a

business agent for the Service Employees' Union. I want to tell you

that people in my constituency are outraged by any suggestion that that

kind of action could be taking place in our province. I would like to

ask the minister to tell the House what action he is taking to ensure

that organized crime does not take over the casino business in this

province.

MR. SPEAKER : It may not be the right minister to address this question to, but I recognize the Solicitor-General.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, I would only say that the matter is under investigation,

and I do not wish to prejudice that investigation by a comment.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA :

A question for the Premier. Could he explain to this House how he came

to learn that the RCMP wanted to lay charges against the former

Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I suppose many of us in the province were hoping that possibly

some clarification could be provided with the suggestion by this member

of the opposition that in fact he or other members of his party could

be or would be proceeding with an action as of April 19. That didn't

occur, and obviously he has or they have their reasons why nothing

happened or why they backtracked on something they made a great deal of

publicity about. But in the meantime, the member ought to be aware,

particularly given his profession as a lawyer, that when a matter such

as this is before the ombudsman and all things such as the process are

being considered and investigated, it would be improper for people to

comment on it. I think that would somehow interfere with the process.

In fairness to all and particularly to the process and the people

involved, I think we should allow the process to take its course.

MR. SIHOTA :

I assume from the Premier's response that he will be prepared to give

evidence to that public inquiry, to address this very issue.

several occasions the Premier referred in public announcements to the

fact that there had been an RCMP inquiry into the whole affair, as some

reason to exculpate the former minister. Yet the Premier chose not to

disclose the fact that the RCMP had recommended laying charges. Could

the Premier

[ Page 9080 ]

explain

to this House why he chose to not disclose the recommendation of the

RCMP and instead only to use that investigation as an excuse?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I would have no difficulty providing all the information with respect

to anything that might have been asked or said, but I think the

appropriate person would be the ombudsman, not someone who might be

asking a lot of questions in order to make politics of something that I

think ought to be properly considered.

PREVENTION OF DRUG WARS

MR. MOWAT :

My question is to the Solicitor-General. In view of this morning's

press report that 26 guns, including semi-automatic weapons, were

stolen recently from a lower mainland gun dealer, and with the gunning

down last Sunday evening of a Vancouver person possibly related to gang

war, I am wondering what action the minister has decided to take to

prevent the American-style drug wars from coming to the city of

Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER : The appropriate minister is not in the House at this time.

ISKUT VALLEY ACCESS ROAD

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. The northern communities of Smithers, Terrace and

Stewart are anxiously awaiting word on the construction of an access

road into the Iskut Valley from Bob Quinn Lake to service the mining

properties there. Will the minister confirm that agreement has been

reached to construct that road this year through British Columbia and

not from Alaska?

HON. MR. DAVIS : The construction of

the Iskut road is important, largely because we want to ensure that

development of the resources in that area will benefit the rest of the

province. Discussions are continuing with the mining companies in the

area, the forest interests and the local Indian band. Hopefully an

overall agreement will be reached shortly and construction will begin

this year.

MR. MOWAT : Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order. On my question to the Solicitor-General in the absence of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), could the Solicitor-General not take

that on notice?

MR. SPEAKER : The matter has been

noted. The House is much better equipped to deal with questions in

question period if the members who have prepared questions would

observe whether or not the appropriate minister is present. We only

have a limited amount of time — one hour a week for asking questions — and it applies to both sides of the House

Presenting Reports

Mr.

Chalmers presented the third report of the Select Standing Committee on

Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations for the third session

of the thirty-fourth parliament, respecting the matter of the report of

the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia,

December 1988.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be taken and read as received.

Motion approved.

MR. CHALMERS : I ask leave that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS : Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is that the report be adopted. All those in favour say aye.

MR. ROSE : Is it a debatable motion?

MR. SPEAKER : Yes, it's a debatable motion.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members in my caucus, and especially

those three who were members of the committee, I'd like to take this

opportunity to congratulate the hon. member from Okanagan for doing an

excellent job through a very difficult period.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE : There are no zingers in this one, Mr. Speaker; it's all sweetness and light.

think most people in British Columbia will agree that an excellent job

was done by Justice Thomas Fisher on boundaries that he recommended

and, incidentally, that were accepted by the committee. Most members

are pretty well satisfied, and except for places like Horsefly, Likely

and maybe Big Lake and 100 Mile House, I think most communities are

happy with it.

I'd just like to say, on behalf of the new

member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt), that he can't be found culpable for

the exclusion of Likely and the other communities from that riding,

because he wasn't even an elected member at that time.

I would also like to say that while some of us might have been slightly disadvantaged electorally by these new boundaries — and I can think of a few right off the top — most

people are very happy with it. I would like to add my congratulations

not only for the suggestions by Mr. Justice Fisher, but also for the

recommendation accepted by the government of a permanent electoral

boundaries commission to see that fairness extends into the future.

[2:30]

[ Page 9081 ]

March 15, 1990, after everything had been final, I wrote Mr. Justice

Fisher, and I would like to read part of what I had to say to him,

because it has implications for the Premier.

"Frankly, your work exceeded my wildest expectations in

succeeding to offer British Columbians a fair electoral process based on reasonable

and flexible representation by population. I believe, too, that more than a

little credit goes to our Premier for allowing your proposals to proceed" — as

I understand — "over considerable objections of some very highly placed government

ministers."

am not suffering from anything so far, but when I finish my speech, I

don't know what my own caucus is going to say to me. Let me conclude by

saying that I think the job was exceedingly well done. I think

democracy has been exceedingly well served, so I congratulate everybody

who made a positive contribution to this very important task.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1990.

HON, MR. COUVELIER :

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation

of government programs until the government's estimates for 1991 have

been debated and voted upon in this assembly. This supply act will

provide interim supply for the first four-month period of the 1990-91

fiscal year. This interim supply is urgently required in order that a

variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school

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

may continue uninterrupted.

The government is currently

operating on a special warrant. This restricts operations to only those

that meet the criteria of being urgently and immediately required for

the public good. Also, the estimated period covered by the warrant was

one month. That period will very shortly expire. Therefore, in moving

introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be

considered urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be

advanced through all stages this day.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I can't be as cooperative and complimentary

as I was just a moment ago. We've been back here now since April 5. We

could have been back here at least a month earlier, as we should have

been. When I had a look at the budget debate yesterday, I couldn't

understand what took an extra month. That was the excuse after the

federal budget.

We're not interested in holding up progress

here. We know people need to get their paycheques, and the universities

and institutions need to run. I haven't heard the extent and the size

of this particular proposal. I know you've been running on warrants up

to now. I don't know what the term is for $1.35 billion, which is what

I've heard. I have no objection to it being given first reading. If it

means that we, as an opposition, are being asked to fly blind for $135

billion....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

...$135 million. I haven't seen it, so how would I know? To ask us to

give it three readings now without even an adjournment I think is

asking too much. We will give it first reading today, and then we'll

have a look at the piece of legislation. And we will consider it with

all deliberate haste.

MR. SPEAKER : The Chair would

like to clarify a few things. First of all, the introduction motion is

a pro forma motion which is not debatable, so the first thing I would

like to do is dispense with the introduction. Therefore I put the

question.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER :

The second matter is the question of standing order 81. In order to

determine whether the matter falls under standing order 81, it is to

deal with the question of urgency, and the determination of the

question of urgency is left to the Chair. It is the Chair that must

decide on the matter of urgency, and the Chair is bound by positions

taken by previous Speakers. When the Minister of Finance of the day

brings forward an interim supply bill and states that the matter is

urgently required, the Chair must base the decision on whether to

proceed under standing order on that basis and on no other basis. The

minister having told us that the matter is now urgent, the Chair has no

choice but to rule that the matter will proceed.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, on a point of order — and I defer to your wisdom in these questions — I

would like to draw the Speaker's attention to the minister’s words

in requesting standing order 81. He said that the special warrants,

which we are currently running on, are only good for urgent and

immediately necessary items. He has failed to make the case — precisely — that the interim supply is urgent, given his own discussion of the matter.

MR. SPEAKER :

I can only listen to one point of order at a time, so while I was

listening to one, I would have preferred if the minister had remained

in his seat. Now I'll listen to yours.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I thought I followed closely what was happening here. You ruled, did

you not, Mr. Speaker? The issue is settled, is it not? The Speaker

ruled. So the previous speaker, on a point of order, was out of order,

was he not, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 9082 ]

MR. SPEAKER : The Speaker often listens to wisdom and counsel from members who have it to offer. One moment, please.

MR. ROSE :

I've had some advice that if Your Honour accepted it as an urgent bill,

that looks after the matter of its urgency. So we cannot quarrel with

that. However, if we have a large amount of money at stake and suggest

that we move on and debate second reading without even having a recess

in which we might consider the bill, then I think it's most unfortunate

and irresponsible. So I ask by leave that there at least be a one-hour

recess while we have an opportunity to study the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm certainly agreeable to seeing a recess for the bill to be

distributed. The request for an hour, in my judgment, is much more than

is needed to look at what is a traditional exercise. There is urgency

to this issue, and the matter is normally dealt with in this way. This

is the first day after the introduction of the budget itself. So the

government has taken every opportunity to comply with the normal rules

and procedures of this House.

But I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to move that there be a 15-minute adjournment for the purpose of distributing the bill.

MR. SPEAKER :

Since there is some debate on this, the Chair will take its prerogative

and adjourn for an informal recess. The members will be summoned back

by the ringing of the bell when a sufficient amount of time, in the

opinion of the Chair, has elapsed.

The House recessed at 2:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:06 p.m.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a second

time now.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the government would introduce a

bill of this magnitude and that the Minister of Finance would not take

the time in second reading to defend an extraordinary request that he's

made before this House.

We have here another example of a

dishonest approach to bookkeeping, a dishonest approach to the books of

this House. The only urgency before this House for four months of

interim supply is to take....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On

a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I find the word "dishonest," as it

pertains to actions in this Legislature, offensive and unparliamentary,

and I'd ask the member to withdraw it and refrain from using such

terminology.

MR. SPEAKER : As the Chair listened, the

remark was about the document and not about the person. It's only

members that we have to concern ourselves with. But if the minister has

asked the member to withdraw any unparliamentary language, I'd ask him

to.

Was the member imputing any improper motive to any member?

MR. CLARK : No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : Please proceed.

MR. CLARK :

I was saying that this supply act is a dishonest piece of legislation,

because it purports to be something it is not. The minister has said

that it's required for urgent matters. He went on to say that the

reason that special warrants aren't acceptable is because they're only

for urgent matters.

We have a special warrant passed by the

government which takes us to May 6. There is no urgency for this bill

to pass today. The urgency for four months, I submit, is an urgency

that the government wants in order to protect the possibility of an

election window this spring and to prevent public debate in this House

on estimates and the budget.

We have seen repeated attempts

by this government to stifle debate on taxing and spending of this

administration. The main purpose of the members of the Legislature — everybody should agree — is

to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House.

That's why we're here, Mr. Speaker. It was that side of the House that

at one time said: "Not a dime without debate." They're now asking for

$5 billion of public money to be passed post-haste, today, immediately,

under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of

the House.

This House hasn’t sat for eight months — which is unacceptable — in

order that there be no debate on or scrutiny of this government's

incompetent fiscal ability. There has been no debate for eight months,

because the House hasn't sat for eight months, and now they ask us to

pass a bill today, with very little debate, for four months, which

potentially means we could go for one year in this province without

debate on the estimates, on the taxing, on the ability of this

government to manage the province. It is not acceptable in a democracy

to have 12 months without debate on this kind of spending.

know, Mr. Speaker, that they have a lot of reasons why they do not want

the scrutiny placed before them; there are a lot of reasons why interim

supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature has been their

doing. It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the

largest-taxing government we've seen for some time; they have

regressively taxed and unfairly taxed working people, the poor and

seniors in this province; and they want to avoid that debate in this

House. They want the possibility of passing interim supply for four

months, which is certainly the longest that I have seen and the largest

[ Page 9083 ]

that we have seen, so that they can take it through the possibility of an election.

is no way to run a government, Mr. Speaker. It is dishonest; it is

deceitful; it is avoiding public debate, which is what we are here for;

and we won't accept it.

We have seen spending warrants

which take us through May 6. Those spending warrants were unnecessary.

The excuse they used to delay the House was $130 million in federal

government cuts. They knew those cuts were coming, Mr. Speaker; in

fact, the Premier asked for them. They got $130 million, and my God,

that meant we can't call the Legislature for debate because on a $15

billion budget they had to somehow re-jig the entire budget because of

$130 million in federal cuts.

It was a phony excuse, a fatuous excuse not to call the House. And now we have spending warrants at the time — a

fatuous excuse for spending warrants, which the Minister of Finance

didn't even know was one-tenth or one-twelfth.... He didn't even know

how much money they were asking for. Now they've come into this House

and asked for $5 billion to be passed without debate on one day. Well,

we are not going to tolerate that; it's no way to run a government.

The

government has been conspiring, essentially, to stifle debate on these

kinds of questions, because their track record on fiscal competence is

appalling. They don't want a debate on the Expo lands; they don't want

that kind of scrutiny. The Globe and Mail — I noticed the Premier likes the Globe and Mail — now says the Expo lands are worth a billion dollars — a

billion dollars. How much money did we lose on a prime piece of real

estate in the middle of a real estate boom? This government lost money

on it. How incompetent! No wonder they don't want debate on these kinds

of questions.

The Westwood Lands: we now find that school boards have to buy back land for schools — Crown

land that this government flogged for less than market value. No wonder

they don't want debate. It's no way to run a government, to have no

debate on these kinds of questions. It's hypocrisy, it's dishonest,

it's deceitful, and it's for political games that they are playing.

More than that, we have seen a pattern under this administration. We

saw the largest spending warrant in history; we are now seeing the

largest interim supply in history, for the longest amount of time.

We saw referendums legislation — not even introduced in this House — and

we saw school boards being invited to hold referendums even before they

were law. They said: "Trust us. We will pass this legislation after we

get in; just pretend the law is already passed and implemented." We

have seen municipalities be informed of details of tax legislation

before it was brought into this House and be told: "Go ahead, implement

that tax; implement that regressive flat tax. It's okay. Trust us;

we'll pass it once the House goes back."

That's no way to run a government; that's not public accountability, and that's what we're here for

Where

is the accountability when elected members of this House come here

after eight months of recess, when we have already been told that tax

bills would be passed, when major government announcements on taxing

authority and major government initiatives that deal with the spending

of taxpayers' dollars are implemented without debate in this House? Mr.

Speaker, "not a dime without debate" has never been a more appropriate

slogan.

[3:15]

They want us to pass $5 billion of public money without debate. It's

not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, just as those retroactive tax bills are

not acceptable. You cannot run a government and implement tax

legislation with municipalities and school boards on major questions of

public policy when those bills have not even been introduced in the

House. You cannot run a government by spending billions of dollars of

taxpayers' money before the House is called, before the House....

MR. SERWA : A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is being irrelevant and repetitious in the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. It's difficult to restrict the scope of debate in a

discussion on an issue such as this. It is essentially a window to

discuss almost anything fiscally, so I would ask the member to

continue. But bear in mind, of course, that under normal circumstances,

reasonableness has a role to play. I'd ask the member to continue.

MR. CLARK :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That goes to the heart of the question. If an

election is called after interim supply is passed, there will be no

debate on the spending estimates of this administration. I understand

why they don't want debate on their spending estimates. I understand

why they don't want debate on their fiscal competence. I understand why

they don't want debate on the fact that there is a deficit in British

Columbia and not a balanced budget as they purport. But that debate

will happen. That is the role of parliamentarians; that is the role of

all of us in this House. The kind of attitude that this government has

shown towards public accountability and taxing, the regressive attitude

they have shown in terms of their tax policy, is the kind of thing this

House must debate.

We cannot tolerate repeated retroactive

legislation. We cannot tolerate implementing tax bills, with

municipalities imposing new forms of taxation on the people of British

Columbia, without even a bill before the House, and we cannot tolerate

$5 billion of public money being passed today when it is not urgent. We

won't tolerate $5 billion of public money being passed without debate,

Mr. Speaker. That means that the range of initiatives, the fiscal

policy and the incompetence of this government will be debated, because

this may well be the real election budget. This may well be the only

opportunity

[ Page 9084 ]

members in this House have to debate the incompetence of that administration that we have seen for three and a half years.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, I'm getting some sage advice from my colleagues. I listen to advice from my colleagues on these questions.

Under

previous Social Credit administrations, we have seen this lax attitude

towards public policy, but we have never seen the flagrant disregard

for the rights of debate and for taxpayers in this province that we

have seen from this administration. It cannot be tolerated, and I

submit that it shouldn't be tolerated by any members on that side of

the House who have any regard for parliamentary democracy.

MR. LOVICK : Or any understanding of parliamentary democracy; there's the rub.

AN HON. MEMBER : Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER :

I can anticipate the point of order. I will caution the first member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) at this time, if I can have his attention. The

member for Nanaimo is not permitted to speak when sitting in a place

other than his own. Unfortunately, the mechanics of Hansard are that

everything you say while sitting in the seat that belongs to the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is recorded in the Journals of the House....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

The

member may assist in any manner possible, but may not speak from

another member's seat. You may sit in the other member's seat and pass

copious notes, if that's what you wish, but you may not speak there. I

would ask the member to continue.

MR. CLARK : In

reviewing some previous supply acts, we see: 1985, $428 million; 1986,

$149 million; 1987, $130 million; 1988, $80 million; 1989, $159

million; 1990, today, $1.336 billion. What possible explanation is

there for this kind of attitude? What possible explanation is there for

an interim supply bill of this magnitude and duration?

There

can be only one: this administration does not want the debate on their

spending and taxing policies over the last three years. This

administration does not want debate on their incompetence in dealing

with public assets. This administration has not had debate in this

House for over nine months, and does not want debate for another four

months. It will take them one full year without public scrutiny in

debate and through an election campaign should they desire to pass it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's what the estimates are for. Let's get to them.

MR. CLARK :

The member says: "That's what the estimates are for." Why, if that's

what the estimates are for, would they want an interim supply bill of

four months and of this magnitude? Why is it that we don't have a more

normal interim supply bill for a month or so to take us a way, and then

another interim supply bill if we don't complete those debates?

Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that this bill is urgent. Then he

said we can't continue to run on spending warrants, because they're

only good for urgent things. That's what he said in introducing this

and the reason why it's required.

Clearly his own words

betray the true intent. That is, urgent matters are covered under this

special warrant. We will debate those shortly, Mr. Speaker, or maybe

not so shortly, but we'll certainly have a chance today or tomorrow to

debate those spending warrants, and we intend to do so. But the

spending warrants take us to May 6. There is no need for an interim

supply bill of this magnitude, there is no need for an interim supply

bill of this length, and there is no need for an interim supply bill to

be passed in three readings with no debate.

We are not

going to allow no debate, and we are not going to tolerate this kind of

attitude with respect to the taxpayer. It is very clear that this

administration wants to avoid a public debate on its incompetence. It

wants to avoid a public debate on its fiscal ability. It wants to avoid

a public debate on questions of taxing, because it has taxed so

regressively. It wants to avoid a public debate prior to an election

campaign. That's the real reason why this bill is urgent. It's simply

to kill some time to take them through an election campaign without the

debate.

The essence of parliamentary democracy is to

authorize spending. When you go through Sir Erskine May, when you go

through all of parliamentary history — hundreds of years of parliamentary history — what

you see time and time again is that the principal role of parliament is

to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of

the government and their priorities for spending, and to scrutinize the

government's agenda for the province. We have been denied that

opportunity, Mr. Speaker. We have been denied that opportunity for

eight months between sittings, and we're now being denied the

opportunity, potentially, for a further four months; potentially 12

months without debate on this government's incompetence. That is not

acceptable.

That is the role of parliament. It is not the

role of governments, even Social Credit governments, to pass billions

of dollars of public spending without debate. That kind of debate must

take place in this chamber, and we intend to have that debate over the

coming hours, the coming days and the coming weeks. We are not simply

going to pass interim supply, as you would have it, in three sittings

in one day.

[ Page 9085 ]

MR. SPEAKER : The minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, that was the most bombastic....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. There were other members standing.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER :

The member indicates he'd like to let the minister speak. If the

minister speaks, he closes debate. The Chair will be thrilled to do

that; it will go to committee and the discussion can take place there.

However, I don't think that's the intent, so I recognize the Minister

of Education.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Speaker, I do feel compelled to get into this debate.

One

of my suggestions would be.... I know the member would never let common

sense interfere with his political posturing, so I guess I don't need

to advise him in that respect. But I think there is an element of

common sense here that he does not seem to be aware of. For someone who

is supposedly the finance critic to have somebody pulling his strings

behind him to say the right things and to ignore the very obvious

fact....

He talks about the next four months. Suppose the

government had not gone to special warrants for the month of April.

Since the member has apparently indicated that they are not going to

accept this interim supply bill, would he have us call back the

payments that went out to the school districts for each month — one-twelfth of the amount that they have to operate on to pay their salaries?

the member is simply seeking debate, I think the record will show that

the estimates are generally debated over the next couple of months. If

they would give a commitment to pass the estimates in one week's

debate, then perhaps something like this interim supply wouldn't be

necessary. But they have obviously indicated — and they're debating it all the time in public — that

they're going to block the spending of this government. They would

spend more. They have said they're going to block all of the legislation — that

you mustn't put out legislation. The Minister of Finance, when he

tabled the budget, tabled a number of bills that are going to cover the

announcements made in the budget speech. It is not that unusual for the

bills to be tabled, and it is expected that they will be debated.

suppose the answer would be that if the opposition is prepared to stand

by what they say and vote against this interim supply, then how do you

put money out — and I am using just the schools as an example...? If the member would just take a look at the rest of it, there is....

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

They got the April amount from special warrants. That runs out at the

end of April. What will you give them in May? Or will you have us hold

the cheques in the month of May?

[3:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Apparently you would. Then I would suggest, Mr. Member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that you vote against this. Vote it

down. Put your money where your mouth is and vote against giving the

grants to the school districts, the hospitals — vote against all of those.

suspect that there is going to be a lot of mouthing off, and then they

are going to recognize that there is common sense that has to kick in.

Are they suggesting that all the government operations, all the

hospital and education funding and all of that, not proceed during the

month of May?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

You know, it would be very difficult for you to even understand. I am

asking: if you are going to block approval for last month — which was done by special warrants — are

you also going to block approval for the expenditures in May? That's

what your finance critic said, without reading the amounts.

it urgent that the school districts got their money for April, that

they will get their money for May? Your finance critic says that none

of these people need to get paid, that it's not urgent for them to get

paid until the estimates are passed — and the estimates generally take a couple of months to get passed.

guess my challenge to the opposition is that if you're going to say

stop all of these operations, and all you have to do is look at the

warrants

section that's there.... It gives you an indication of how

much per month it takes in this province to continue to service health,

social services, education and postsecondary — all of those. Yet here we have their finance critic saying: "We are going to turn it down."

would like them to please send out the explanatory letter to school

districts, saying: "You didn't get your money for the month of May.

You're not going to get your funding for the month of May to meet your

payroll, to meet all of those, because we have a political agenda, and

we are going to fight this all the way."

If you want to

fight politically, there is still two-thirds that you can vote against,

isn't there? You can still destroy the good programs that this

government has put in place through the budget, through the $15 billion

that it takes to run those programs. You can still destroy those if

that is your objective, but I would urge that even the members opposite

get off their political bandwagon long enough to let common sense set

in so that this government can provide the money that is needed to the

school districts, the hospitals and all the other programs to

[ Page 9086 ]

continue their operation in May. Or do they want to take the responsibility for shutting everything down?

know you are negative and want to stop everything that this government

does, but do your debating on that line and, for goodness' sake, don't

punish the people out there who are looking for their cheques in May by

voting against this interim supply.

What a ridiculous

argument they are making: we don't like this government, therefore we

are going to shut down all the things that need to be funded on a

month-by-month basis.

MR. LOVICK : We should be flagellated for...?

AN HON. MEMBER : You should be flagellated.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I thought I heard you flatulate, but I was speaking, so I didn't let it interfere.

Anyway,

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't go by without looking at this, because I am

concerned. I think those school boards next month are entitled to the

one twelfth of the grants....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I guess the member for Vancouver East doesn't think they're entitled to

the 90 percent of their funding that they get from this government. He

thinks that they should not pay their teachers next month, or the rest

of their employees, because it suits the political purposes of those

socialists over there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record that I think this is necessary and that there will be plenty of opportunity....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Would you shut up for a minute?

Mr.

Speaker, a person does have to yell here to overcome that first member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), because I know he's got a mean streak in him.

As a matter of fact, somebody was telling me the other day that he was

so mean, even as a kid, that his mother had to tie a pork chop around

his neck so the dog would even play with him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Two pork chops?

think it is important, and if for once those opposition members let

common sense overtake their political posturing, they will recognize

that there has to be a certain amount of money spent each month to keep

the operation going. That is what the Minister of Finance is asking for.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I'm just amazed. The Minister of Education talks about

responsibility. It is his responsibility, as a member of cabinet, to

see that the finances of this province are carried out in an orderly

manner, not to sit back and place in jeopardy those employees who fall

under his jurisdiction because they didn't have the common sense to

call back the House and let the process and democracy go forth.

They

accuse this side of the House of being negative. Is it being negative

to do the job we were elected to do — to scrutinize the way the

parliamentary system works in this province, and not to have the

Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations ask for almost a quarter of

his budget to be passed without due process?

School boards

need the money and paycheques have to be paid, the Minister of

Education has noted. Why didn't he consider that two or three months

ago? Surely he was putting his estimates together. Surely he was

putting toward the Minister of Finance's budget the amount of money he

felt would be necessary to run the school system.

I say the

budget is totally unprepared; they know they're unprepared. The

Minister of Education knows that the referendum issue won't wash. He

knows that school boards don't want to go to referendums. He knows that

an $864 million deficit is looming. He knows that even if the whole

budget is passed, there will be a tremendous shortfall. He knows that

school boards will not have the appropriate funds necessary to teach

the children of our province.

The fact remains that we're

the bankers of this province. We were elected to oversee democracy and

the finances of this province. The Finance minister wants to pass by

the elected bankers of this province. He has his own agenda. He's not

willing to allow scrutiny of the public trust.

He delayed the budget because the federal government didn't advance $130 million —

a $130 million cut that the members opposite asked for. They went to

Ottawa and said: "Please don't issue those transfer funds. The province

doesn't need them." When that happened, the Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations said: "Well, we have to delay the opening of the

House." Eight months' delay already, and they want to delay it another

two weeks so he can rework his books to try and make them a little more

saleable to the people of this province.

What happened to

the $140 million surplus? We know the BS fund is just that: b.s. One

minute the minister says: "There's no real money in it." During the

budget debate, he says: "Real money." From his own lips, we know

there's no money in there, so he couldn't go there to make up the $120

million. Why didn't he take the $140 million surplus to make it up?

Where did that money go? There's been enough fiddling with the books of

this province, and we're not about to let the fiddling go....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Minister of Finance rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I find that last remark objectionable, and I ask the member to withdraw

It. He accused this government of fiddling the books of the people of

this province.

[ Page 9087 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER : In the interest of the debate proceeding in an orderly fashion, I would suggest that the member might withdraw that remark.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I don't see what the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has

against fiddlers or fiddling in that regard, but I'll withdraw the

remark.

We're not about to allow $5 billion to go by

without debate. That would be irresponsible of every member of this

House, including members on the government side. I would like to see

them go back to their constituents and say: "Dear constituents, I just

let the Minister of Finance, on his own decision, take five billion of

your dollars and put them through without any debate of any kind." A

number of years ago, it was: "Not a dime without debate." What are they

afraid of?

Eight months of losing by-elections, and they

were afraid to come back to this House to ask for the proper

appropriation. They were down in the polls. It's not, as has been

suggested in this House, that we have a political agenda. They have a

political agenda, not a responsible agenda to the people of this

province, because they're afraid to go to the polls. If they weren't,

they would have gone last year after they lost the last by-election.

But oh no, the Premier had to make some announcements. He had to mold

his own party back together; he had to pull some members back in. He

had to beg, he had to plead and he had to bring them back on side

before he came back to this House.

The Minister of Finance

and Corporate Relations doesn't even know whether it's one-tenth or

one-twelfth of the budget. He has to ask the people who work for him

exactly what's going on with the books of this province. Why doesn't he

just step down and allow those people to run the books of this

province? Let them handle the finances. Perhaps they'd do a better job

than this government has been doing.

He says he's proud of

a balanced budget. Well, the budget isn't balanced, as we know; it's a

$5 billion unbalanced budget. They're asking us to approve almost $5

billion. What about the health of the people of this province? I'm sure

the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) is going to stand up and say

that he needs the money, otherwise he can't pay the bills. It seems to

me that what we need in the Health budget is enough money to buy bus

tickets, so people can go to Seattle to get much-needed operations

done. Is that why they're asking for this appropriation?

They

asked for this appropriation because they can't pay their schools. The

referendum question alone has to be passed, because they don't have the

money to fund proper schools. Communities are being asked to raise

their own money, because there isn't enough there to teach the children

or to educate for the future of this province.

transportation, they announced wonderful things. In my riding I have a

number of issues on transportation that I hope get funded. I'm not sure

that passing this interim supply bill is the way to do it.

In the Alberni riding we are waiting on an issue on forestry — a

vital issue to the economy of Alberni. Here we have the minister

saying: "Well, if you don't pass this bill in a hurry, then we won't

have any forestry." We haven't had any forestry in this province for

some time after we turned it over to the corporations, and now we're

attempting to get it back. In his budget, he tries to turn it over to

the Minister of Environment.

By passing this bill, are we

condoning the actions of the Finance ministry itself? The Minister of

Finance and Corporate Relations says he has $140 million surplus, yet

he can't operate for a further two weeks — and now for a further two months, by the looks of things —

without $120 million that he lost after he told Ottawa: "We don't need

the money; B.C. is in great financial shape. Look how great we're

doing."

We're doing so great that this House can't come

back to approve the necessary funds to make the paycheques to keep this

province running.

[3:45]

Why don't they just present the bill and take out that massive

advertising budget that they're using to tell the people of British

Columbia what wonderful shape we're in, and how great we're doing? Do I

see that in this bill? Not at all, Mr. Speaker; it's not in there.

That's the b.s. that's happening in this province; it has nothing to do

with that fund.

They've raised taxes — 600 tax and fee

increases in this province alone in the last two and a half to three

years. Yet he says he has a balanced budget, and there are no tax

increases. You can call them levies, but the people of British Columbia

know their taxes.

Not one banker in this province or

anywhere in the country would give a private, individual business $5

billion without debate. That is exactly what this Minister of Finance

and Corporate Relations is asking us to do. They say they know how to

run the books of this province. I would like to see the Finance

minister walk into any bank in Canada and say: "I need $5 billion. I

don't want to tell you why I need it; I'm just going to tell you I need

it."

That's the way they want to run the business of this

province. They couldn't run a peanut stand, yet they expect to run this

province by getting $5 billion without debate and without telling

anybody what it's for. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they have a political

agenda, and they don't believe in democracy or due process.

The

government is afraid to face the opposition over this allocation.

They're hiding on the other side of the House; they're hiding behind a

political agenda. If they operate in any business sense at all, they

wouldn't be putting this forward. We would have been debating this two

months ago, but they were lost in the political wilderness, trying to

get their members to come back on side, trying to prop up their Premier

and their Finance minister. And now they come along and say: "We're in

trouble. Will you please give us $5 billion?" — without any debate. Nowhere else in the British parliamentary system would this happen.

[ Page 9088 ]

We're

setting a dangerous precedent if we pass this without debate. The bill

is urgent, they say. Well, how urgent is it? If it was urgent, why

didn't they call the House back? Why did we wait eight months? Because

their political agenda was down the toilet. They're poor finance

managers, and they don't want to admit it.

We're going to debate this bill, because we don't believe in giving a blank cheque —

not with the financial mess that this province is in. No banker in the

private sector would even consider the request. They want $5 billion.

"Give it to us. Trust us," they say. This government has become

arrogant, Mr. Speaker. It has been in power so long that it has lost

its sense of democracy.

My own accountant, who used to be a

member of the Social Credit Party, tells me very simply that you don't

spend money unless you can prove where it's going. This government

wants to spend a bunch of money without telling the public where the

money is going.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You guys don't worry where it's coming from.

MR. G. JANSSEN : The Minister of Forests says we don't worry about where the money comes from. Let's look at that for a moment. I remember....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You don't worry about where it comes from.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I know he's just taken over the Ministry of Forests and is very

unfamiliar with it, but I would be very concerned if I were the

Minister of Forests. They took $212 million of my money and gave it to

another ministry, but he's not worried about that. He's glad to give

the Forests ministry away. He's glad to get rid of it, because they've

done such a dismal job in this province. That's why we're short of

wood, and that's why we have environmental pollution.

It's

great in this province. It's free enterprise, and I believe in that. I

see an ad on television that says there's a business in British

Columbia that has a cost-cutter. What do we have in the Ministry of

Forests these days? We have a job-cutter. He has only to come to

Alberni and look at the jobs that have been cut. Mr. Speaker, if he

ever goes there, he'd better be wearing his running shoes.

Let

me tell you, I would be worried, and I would be standing up and

fighting for my $212 million if I were the Forests minister, but he's

willing to see that go by. He's willing to give it away to another

ministry. And we're asked to approve that nonsense in this bill. Not

without debate, Mr. Speaker.

Where is our money? Where is

it going? Where are you getting it from? Those are the questions that

the people of British Columbia are entitled to hear, and this

government is afraid to debate them. They want to set a precedent; they

want money allocated without debate; they want to take it out of

people's pockets without telling them what it's for; and they want to

spend it on projects without telling them where it's going. That's not

democracy. That's not British parliamentary democracy, and we're not

going to allow that kind of precedent to be set. We're going to debate

it here in this House for all of British Columbia to see.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

They don't shovel it off the back of the truck anymore, Mr. Member.

They drive down the highway with the tailgate open. This isn't $5; this

isn't $1 million; this isn't $3 million. This is five billion bucks!

The

people in my constituency are worried about that kind of money. The

companies in my constituency are worried about that kind of money. We

have a forestry operation that's worried about investing $120 million

in a kraft mill there, but this government decides that you don't need

to discuss $5 billion. The debate over investing $120 million in that

mill has been going on for two years, and they still haven't made a

decision. Yet this government wants to say that it runs the business of

this province. Only it knows business practices, and therefore, "Give

us five billion bucks" — without so much as a hiccup.

Well,

that's not going to happen. We'll act responsibly, and I'm sure the

people of this province will see who the responsible people are and

which is the responsible political party of this province.

Again,

Mr. Speaker, why don't they go out and instead of asking this House

without debate for $5 billion, walk down the street and into any bank

in this province, ask the bankers to advance them $5 billion, and walk

out of there in 15 minutes? I doubt it; it is impossible. They're out

of control; they're out of touch; they're arrogant.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Where are their own banks? Open up your own bank; maybe you can pull

that off. But you can't pull that off in business circles. You have to

be responsible; you have to act in a responsible manner. It's $5

billion of the public's money. You wouldn't get it from a bank, and

you're not going to get it without debate in this House.

wonder what the finance community is saying right now; I wonder what

they'll say tomorrow morning when they read the newspaper. How much

confidence will there be in this government, which simply says: "Give

us $5 billion to do with what we want. We don't know where it's coming

from; we don't know where it's going. But that's the kind of confidence

in this province that we want to instill in foreign money markets and

in Canadian money markets"? I think that tomorrow morning, when the

bankers hear what's been going on in this House and the way this

government has been acting with the public trust, they'll be saying,

"Let's lower that finance rating just a bit," instead of: "Let's raise

it."

We spent a lot of time with the people in this province who have been trying to recover from the

[ Page 9089 ]

recession

in 1982, who have lost their jobs and have found new jobs, who have

opened up businesses, who have slugged it out in the trenches, who are

trying to rebuild their lives and are finally getting it together, and

who are finding out that this government is willing to throw it out the

window, by simply saying: "Let's have $5 billion. Let's just go out and

do that without debate." Financial confidence will be shaken in this

province if this goes through without debate, and we're not prepared to

let that happen.

We're prepared to stand up for the public trust. We're prepared to stand up and say — not only to the people of this province, who we have a direct responsibility to, but to the larger financial community — that

there is a political party, there are members of this House and there

are people in this province who are willing to act in a responsible

fiscal manner and to run this province. This province's finances are

out of control, and this $5 billion only proves it. We're not prepared

to let Bill 22 pass without debate.

MR. PETERSON : You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes in the Fraser Valley, in the winter, we have a terrible wind that comes up — a

southeaster, we call it. It causes a lot of damage, a lot of problems.

Listening to the previous speaker, I think we would much rather deal

with that sort of wind than with the wind I just heard in here.

The

member for Alberni is probably the most misinformed individual I've

ever heard in my life. He simply, absolutely does not know what he's

talking about. Let me tell you why. Until this political posturing

started this afternoon, what we were doing in this House was actually

debating the budget — the great budget that our Minister of Finance

presented to us last week. What we're doing while that process is going

on, as a responsible government, is ensuring that funds are available

so that many things, many of the good programs, can carry on: our

health care, education, our environment and the stuff in the Carmanah

Valley. I know that member is so happy about it: all those great things

are carrying on and are happening because we are responsible.

MR. G. JANSSEN : Why didn't you call the House back?

MR. PETERSON :

He wanted the House called back eight months ago so he could debate a

budget that, of course, was passed some 12 months ago. Again, he is

misinformed; he doesn't know how the process works. Well, he's only

been here for a short time, so we'll forgive him. Come the next general

election, he'll be absolute history like the rest of them over there,

because all they're doing is putting up a lot of flimflam, a lot of

nonsense, a lot of misinformation that's totally irresponsible on their

part, like their leader sailing down Vancouver harbour on his yacht.

Remember the thing about the barges and the one tug when our Minister

of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) had already made arrangements at

port?

[4:00]

I mean, it's just so

typical of them, absolutely typical: misinformation for political

purposes. You know, you make me laugh. You're an absolute joke. That's

the bottom line. The people of British Columbia know it. I talk to

people in Langley in my constituency and they say: "My God, that's

really pretty pitiful." I said, "Yes. Most governments need a fairly

good opposition, but unfortunately in British Columbia we don't have

that." They're ineffective, inaccurate and very irresponsible in the

statements and remarks they make.

Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to say that this bill of interim supply is necessary to keep all

the excellent programs that this government has brought to British

Columbia in operation while we debate the great budget that our great

Minister of Finance presented to us.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON : Well, you can't get that through your thick skulls. You don't understand it. You're absolutely unbelievable!

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the member in

mid-flight, as it were, but one of the first rules of debate in this

chamber is that remarks are addressed through the Chair so we do not

attack other members in the chamber. I would suggest that the member

opposite, even though his attention span is limited, has been around

long enough that he ought to know that. Would you please so advise him,

Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I thank the hon. member. The member continues.

MR. PETERSON :

Hon. member, if I said "thick skulls" and it bothered you, I do

apologize. What's another word for thick skulls? Perhaps "a little

dense on some issues" might be a better way of placing it.

However,

I don't want to take up a lot of the valuable time of this House. I

want to say that I wish just for once that the opposition would be

somewhat responsible in terms of this House and show it the respect

that's due it. Quite frankly Mr. Speaker, it is very embarrassing.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The member for Langley says: "Be responsible, approve it the way we

backbenchers do, without any information, and just say 'aye.'" That's

what he's asking for right now. No way, Mr. Member for Langley. What

you're talking about is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

You and your back-bench friends always vote the way the government tells you to do, without any information whatsoever — you

and the others who disappeared from the caucus and crawled back on

their bellies in the last month or so, and now vote "aye," "yea" and

"aye."

[ Page 9090 ]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : You said you didn't crawl on your belly. No, you didn't even crawl away on your belly when things were deserving of it.

This government Is asking for $5 billion right here and now — not

a million, not $100 million, not even $1 billion. You make C.D. Howe

look like a piker. You know, you want a rubber-stamp approval and

you're not going to get it. You're not going to get it from this bench.

Our Finance critic says that what you're really asking for is a year without debate. You guys — and especially, I suspect, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) — seem

to think that this is "Alabammy North." Well, it ain't Alabammy North

and we don't give that kind of approval. We don't accept the idea of a

12-month debate-free period for Social Credit, and neither does the

population of British Columbia. It is no way to run a province.

I was watching the Premier when this thing came into the House today. This is really four months — on his fingers, the kind of financing he can handle — that

he wants in addition to the eight. There's a possibility of an

electoral window in the next few months. He wants to be able to slip

through it without debate. That's what he's asking for. He's trying to

slip back into office through the device of this bill, and we don't buy

that at all.

You people have a record of fiscal

incompetence that deserves the fullest of attention. You people need a

Public Accounts Committee that is in here, day in and day out, year in

and year out, just checking the books. You've been helping your

friends. You've been helping your cronies. You're trying to avoid

debate.

Four months, Mr. Minister of Finance, you're asking for, and you've

already got approval until May 6. What's the rush all about? You're

looking for protection. You spell it right out in the legislation.

Let's look at

section 1: "From and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine the sum of $4,934,000,000 towards defraying

the charges and expenses of the public service," etc. "In the manner

and at the times the government may determine" — that's the clincher. That's what

you want. It's a blank cheque.

We've

had too much evidence so far. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen)

said: "Hey, this isn't shovelling off the back of a truck; it's

actually running down the highway with the tailgate open." What he

didn't say is: "And who's driving the truck?" It's the Minister of

Finance, and his copilot is the member from White Rock with a GO B.C.

shovel. Come on! How many of those big six-foot cheques will be coming

out of this $5 billion in a pre-election period? Out of GO B.C., out of

the lotteries grants, and that whole area that has never been examined

in terms of the Lottery Fund — never been examined by the Public Accounts Committee in any detail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Who's the Chairman?

MR. WILLIAMS : And who blocks the action of that committee? Those members over there, that's who blocks access. We know how that works.

Let's look at what this minister is doing. Right now, at the top of the business cycle, he's running a deficit.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Not true.

MR. WILLIAMS :

He says it's not true. Mr. Minister, you're taking in $684 million less

than you're spending. By any measure, that is a deficit. At the top of

the business cycle, when you've had good times, you're still running a

deficit. And debt — you've got debt now at the $17 billion level, and

it was down at $8 billion at the beginning of this decade. That's the

kind of fiscal management, or mismanagement, we have there.

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said, who pays under

your budgets? It's the people that pay. Under your budget, 18 percent

of revenue just four years ago came from corporations; now only 9

percent. You've cut their taxes in half and you've picked up the

difference from the average citizen — from individuals.

regional fairness, as the other member for Vancouver East says; none at

all. The lower mainland continues to have growth problems that are

incredibly serious, yet other parts of the province are stagnant. The

Kamloops region, the Kootenays — not the kind of development and growth they want and deserve.

What about other areas, like the Sullivan mine? That mine should be working today.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, you're going to solve that problem. You bet! What they're into in

Kimberley, what the new Cominco is into, is the old-time union-busting

game. Consolidated Smelting, when it was owned by the CPR, cared more

about the people in that region — in Trail, in Kimberley, in the Kootenays. You people were not on top of it; no planning whatsoever.

Northeast coal. We're on the edge of the precipice with respect to northeast coal — a

$3 billion project, and absolutely no planning in terms of dealing with

that problem from either of those ministers or the Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Davis); none whatsoever In terms of those regions.

colleague from the Okanagan, the second member for Boundary-Similkameen

(Mr. Barlee), will talk to you a little later about the tree-fruit

industry in the Okanagan and the problems that they face in that

region. All these regional problems are going untended by you people.

The environmental area has been covered extremely well by my colleagues.

But

where do you get your revenue? That's part of the problem. You don't

deal with that here. This is part of spending. You're getting so little

out of resources. Let's look at what the chart says. The chart

indicates that from forests you're getting something

[ Page 9091 ]

like

under 5 percent. It's down there in the category with booze in terms of

revenue for the province of British Columbia. It tells you the way you

run the ship — incredibly low resource revenues.

The

competence question in terms of fiscal management by this government is

really there for all to see. We saw it before, in the previous

administration, with the Coquihalla; they tried to cover up $500

million in overspending.

But the classic of all, in terms of fiscal management by this group, is the Expo land deal — $140

million for that prime site stretching from Granville Street to Main

Street along the shores of False Creek. Fifty million down and no

interest for 20 years. Nothing could tell us more about the competence

of this administration than the Expo land deal itself. Nobody else in

this province is able to buy real estate and pay no interest for 20

years, but that's the deal they made with the Concord Pacific company — $140 million dollars!

Not

only that, we're still stuck with the problem of dealing with the

contaminated soil. The contaminated soil is now five times the original

estimate, and that is our liability — the people of the province. Throw

into that the need for social housing, and it looks like we may well be

into losses of $50 million to $70 million on that real estate deal.

Just recently the owners of the site sold 5 percent of the site — ten acres — for $40 million. They got their down payment back in one deal.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, 20-40 hindsight, sure.

You

could actually quote the earlier speeches of the first member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), who said that this was

exactly the wrong way to do it, that there were clearly several

parcels, that clearly they should be marketed separately and clearly

that....

AN HON. MEMBER : They haven't got a building permit yet.

MR. WILLIAMS : Does the member for Burnaby — soon to be Point Grey, or wherever he lands...?

MS. EDWARDS :

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood a direction given to

this House a little earlier today to be about speaking from a seat

other than one's own.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Absolutely correct, hon member. I would remind the member accordingly. Please continue.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, he is simply in flight from Burnaby and trying to roost somewhere in Vancouver, and he's....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Oh, that's right. He's one of those fellows who was crawling on his

belly like a reptile just a month ago. Back into the fold.... Can the

member tell us what great change has come over the Premier that caused

him to make that change?

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : A mutant Socred, my colleague says — a Mutant Ninja Socred. Well, that's the newest green party we've seen in British Columbia.

The

financial competence we've seen in the Expo deal.... We saw it on the

New Westminster waterfront last year, and we've seen it with the Haney

correctional institute this year — all in the name of privatization. We

saw it in the land deals at Whistler, and we'll see it again in other

locations: in Delta, UBC and elsewhere. We've seen it with GO B.C. My

God, we've seen it with GO B.C.

There's a desperate need

for change in this province. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) says that we need all of these funds to pay the bills. We've

accepted that in the past, when the funds were needed for immediate

paying of the bills. That's not what you're talking about here. You're

talking about a four-month free ride with $5 billion — a four-month plus an eight-month free ride.

MR. RABBITT : Speak to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, we'll speak to the Chair indeed, and especially to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt).

It's an argument that does not wash at all, Mr. Speaker. We'd be more

willing to handle current spending estimates in terms of a month or two months.

But four months being requested by this government is clearly a political exercise.

Like the Premier said when the bill came in, "four months...." That's what

we want, isn't it, Mr. Premier? Four months of freedom to handle these things,

so we can use that window for an election.

I don't really think that window is there, but the Premier thinks it's there. And we say: "No way."

the member for Alberni said, you people aren't shovelling money off the

truck; you're going down the road with the tailgate open, and you want

to hand out all those dollars. Here in the opposition, we say: "We

won't let it be." This is not Alabama North; you won't get rubber-stamp

approval like you get from your back bench when you attend a caucus

meeting. There are no rubber stamps in Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

hope the Premier will join in this debate. I hope that he doesn't just

sit there silent. I hope he will join in the debate and explain why he

needs four months.

Why do you need four months? Are you a

little afraid that that back-bench, rump group, that slid away on you

and crawled back, might slide away again? Do you need this kind of

hammer there so that the threat of an election can be used against a

back bench that is going to become more and more

[ Page 9092 ]

disenchanted as it sees the real polling information that's out there and that the Premier is aware of?

that what it's all about? Have you shared all that polling information

that we pay millions of dollars for, Mr. Premier? Have you shared it

with your back bench? I think not; I think not. That's the problem.

No, Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the bill in this form at this time in terms of a vote today. We assure you of that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I am so happy that the first member for Vancouver East entered the debate because — I want people to pay attention — it really showed the true colours of what's happening over there. It really did, and I want to point it out.

Our

$80,000 entrepreneur from Vancouver East really got up and showed it. I

just want to point out the comments that member made about the resource

industries in this province.

Did you hear him? He said:

"We're not making nearly enough money off the resources in this

province." Well, it just shows that they haven't learned anything from

1973-74. They haven't learned a thing.

I want to refresh

the memories of those in the mining industry from 1973 to 1974, and he

just said it again. He concentrated on Kimberley, Trail and Tumbler

Ridge. He was talking about Tumbler Ridge being on the edge five years

ago when the member for South Peace was in the House — Mr. Phillips was the member. He's been blowing that alarm bell for five years, and it hasn't happened yet.

But more importantly — and I'm going to circulate his comments widely to those in the forest industry and those in the mining Industry — he specifically mentioned: "We don't get enough money from forestry and mining." I'm sure they'd be happy to hear that.

The

forest industry thinks that the stumpage is too high in this province

right now, because we're getting more out of natural resources than we

ever have. Can you imagine what the stumpage in this province would be

if they, heaven forbid, ever formed a government? With their own leader

standing up in Kamloops and saying that they're $3 billion short so

they're going to raise $3 billion off the backs of the resource

industry! So says the member for Vancouver East! Forestry and mining

would indeed be in trouble in this province, heaven forbid, if that

member were ever in charge. "Not enough from the resource Industries."

The

recent member for Port Alberni said that I didn't care about jobs in

Port Alberni. Can you Imagine? After the decision we made — the very sensible and technical decision on the Carmanah Valley — he

says to me that I'm against jobs in Port Alberni. He should ask his own

leader about that, and I'm going to refresh of the Leader of the

Opposition's memory about the Carmanah.

They scrambled

around the floor of their convention a month or so ago, trying to

pacify everybody to not vote for a moratorium on the Carmanah — "Don't vote for a moratorium on the Carmanah," he said — because

it might affect their chances in the next election. So they ran around

and got people to come up with a compromise decision. Then their own

leader stood up and said: "Watch my lips."

I want you to go and campaign with the member from Port Alberni and say: "Watch my lips; no logging in the Carmanah."

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You talk about jobs and then you say: "Watch my lips; no logging in the Carmanah."

How

do you feel about the Tsitika Valley, Mr. Leader of the Opposition?

Would you care to go to Port McNeill and stand up and say: "Watch my

lips?" Ask your member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) if you want to

stand up in Port McNeill and say: "Watch my lips; no logging in the

Tsitika Valley."

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Yes, you bet. I challenge you to go to Port McNeill, Mr. Leader of the Opposition; I challenge you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We challenge you. Go to Port McNeill.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Sure. Port Hardy, Port Alberni, North Cowichan. Stand up and give your

watch-my-lips speech. I'm sure they'd be really happy to hear it.

Mr.

Speaker, one thing that we've noticed is that the opposition has no

understanding of where jobs and dollars come from. They know how to

spend money, but they have no idea where it comes from and where jobs

are created.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Clark) said: "We're going to tax business." I wonder if he noted the

remarks of Mr. Matkin about what that would do to business and job

opportunities in this province. I wonder what the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) thinks about taxing businesses? He'll

have to pay more tax on his business and conform to the liquor laws

while he's doing it.

We've seen the NDP in action in this

province once, unfortunately. I don't think the people of this province

are anxious to see it again. "Let's tax businesses; let's get more

money out of our resource industries; let's do to the mining industry

what we did to it before — the super-royalty." Remember that? The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) remembers what they did to the mining industry —

and the first member for Vancouver East just reiterated the policy. If

they should ever become government, the first thing they'd do would be

to hit the resource industries in this province. They'd tax them out of

existence, Mr. Speaker.

I sincerely hope that other members

of the opposition get up and firmly state their position on resource

industries, how they intend to vote on resource management and where

the money comes from. I

[ Page 9093 ]

sincerely

hope that they tell us and the people where they're going to get this

money that they're going to spend. They continually tell us that we're

not spending enough in certain areas, and I think they owe it to this

province to get up right now, one after the other, and tell us where

the moneys come from. We've heard that some of it — $300 million to $400 million — is

going to come from businesses, according to the member for Vancouver

East. Nobody knows how much more would come from natural resources or

resource extraction, because the first member for Vancouver East

wouldn't elaborate on that. All he says is that we're not getting

nearly enough from the resource industries in this province. I'd like

somebody over there to tell us how much is enough, because I think the

people who work in the forest and mining industries have a right to

know just how hard they're going to be taxed should that party ever

form a government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have no

idea when the opposition intends to conclude the debate on this interim

supply bill, which normally goes through as a matter of formality, but

I'm anxious to hear from them where they're going to get all this money

that they're going to spend.

MR. CASHORE : What

colossal hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker! The government House Leader stands in

his place and talks about the problem with resources as he sees it, and

he doesn't have the courage to admit that Socred mismanagement has

resulted in so many problems with regard to our resources: pollution of

the oceans; dumping into the rivers; situations that we find in

resource management where people are set against each other. We find

that people in communities in this province, because of the legacy of

mismanagement of this government, are finding that they are up against

it because of the lack of leadership that has existed in this province

for far too many years, because of a government whose very style has

been based on helping its friends and doing what it can to make sure

that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and, in the process,

to see the degradation of the environment, the loss of the resources,

the damaging of our forests, the polluting of the rivers and oceans,

and the desecration of the land. Then he has the temerity to stand

there and accuse the members of the opposition for somehow being

responsible for that.

I think that we have a government

that has been in power for far too long and that this interim supply

act that we have before us now is an indication that this province

can't afford mismanagement any longer. We simply cannot put up any

longer with this type of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. What colossal arrogance

to think that they can come into this House and try to ram this through — $5 billion — without having respect for our parliamentary institution and the public's right to participate in the decisions being made.

It's

not just a matter, as some have said, of what's going to happen to

health and to education and to the environment if these funds are not

approved. The whole question is: how are these moneys raised and how

are they spent? What approach does this government have to the spending

of these moneys, and why on earth has this government shown such

disregard for the parliamentary process that they avoid the sitting of

this House as long as it possibly can because they're embarrassed about

their record? They're embarrassed that the public has noticed what they

are doing and is saying: "The jig is up." They're trying as much as

they possibly can to avoid coming into this House and having to stand

before the bar of the public and defend their lack of stewardship of

this province's resource. Then we have the government House Leader

standing up and trying to twist that in some way to suggest that

anybody but this Social Credit government is responsible for the

problems we see in the province today.

[4:30]

What colossal arrogance! They are afraid to deal with the public debate that is going to take place in this House — in this Legislature and in every corner of the province — on

their incompetence and their mismanagement. This is from the government

that lost money on the most valuable piece of urban land in North

America during an economic boom and a real estate boom. Who else could

accomplish that kind of mismanagement?

This government

doesn't really understand the rule of parliament and would very much

like to avoid parliament meeting at all. As a matter of fact, there

seems to be an attitude that the meeting of parliament — the democratic process — is

somehow an annoyance they have to endure. There is somehow a sense of

superiority there and of being able to make decisions without going

through anything that honours the traditions we have in this land with

our parliamentary democracy.

The Minister of Education

stood up earlier in the debate and accused this side of the House of

blocking. He said that by standing up here and exercising our

democratic responsibility for the stewardship of what goes on in this

province, somehow we were blocking what was necessary in order to run

this province. He was not acknowledging that the very approach this

government is using is blocking. It is blocking the road that leads to

appropriate health care and to appropriate education for our children;

it's blocking appropriate environmental policies; it's blocking

appropriate policies that deal with parks and with our other resources.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That

is where the real blocking is. It's an undemocratic approach, and

apparently this government doesn't understand why that approach is

important, and why the scrutiny of this House has to be brought to

bear. There seems to be a disregard for the fact that the members of

this House are elected members who have the responsibility to go

through every aspect of that with all due care — not in some kind of a

document like this that tosses a few numbers onto a few pages of paper

and uses political rhetoric. They try to posture it so that if somehow

[ Page 9094 ]

delay

this or vote against it, we're opposed to seniors or to health care.

They try to manipulate the words in a way that is most inappropriate

and does not serve this province at all.

The question is

not simply the amount. The question is: what is the intent? What is

going on here? How does this document fit into plans that would enable

this government to go on the road and start handing out plums to

different parts of the province in an attempt to buy votes? To what

extent is this an attempt to hoodwink the public by using the public's

own resource to try to seduce that public? It's a game that has gone on

with this government year in and year out, and the public is wise to

it. The jig is up, and they're not going to put up with it again.

think that the Socreds would just as soon shut down the House and say

that for them it would be "business as usual." They find democracy

cumbersome; they have an approach that is a total denial of fiscal

planning. So what is the context in which this takes place? It's a

context where the basic issue is not whether these dollars will be made

available right away. The basic issue here is a question of trust. Can

this government be trusted?

The second member for Langley

(Mr. Peterson), responding to our member for Alberni, said that he was

one of the most uninformed people he had ever heard. That was quite a

sad statement. I would ask has he met the Premier? Has he met the

Minister of Finance? Obviously they are going about this either in a

very crafty way or in a way that is totally lacking in common sense or

appropriateness whatsoever. I leave it to the voters to decide which

one of those courses this government is following.

Either way, it's folly for the people of British Columbia — this

approach that is being taken by approving $5 billion at this time and

in this way, when they have cast aspersions upon the democratic process

by failing to make use of the opportunity to call the House. Why didn't

they call the House? Why did they not call the House in February or

even March? The reason was that they were embarrassed about what was

happening with the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid).

They were worried about embarrassing questions being asked in this

House that they didn't want to have to deal with. That's why this House

is so late sitting this year.

This government is afraid of

democracy. It's afraid of what is going to be turned up as the members

of the opposition have the opportunity to ask questions of an urgent

and pressing nature about trust and dealing with members of this

cabinet.

I think it's an indication of this cabinet that

the Premier's gotten to the point where he really doesn't have the

bench strength to be able to turn to other members of the back bench to

bring them in so that he can deal with the cabinet ministers that

aren't doing their job. That's just one aspect of the way in which not

only the stewardship of this province has been mismanaged but the way

in which the Premier has mismanaged the stewardship of his cabinet and

his own caucus.

Here we are with this group that would so

much delight in using the term "not a dime without debate," and this

cabinet that would bring forward this interim supply act at this time.

They talk about some of the things they're going to do with this money.

For

instance, I find parks in here. They have some interim funds in here

for parks to enable the ministry to get on with the "ongoing budgetary

programs of the Ministry of Parks." At this time in the history of our

province we're looking at a political resource that desperately needs

to have parkland added. We're recognizing that this government, which

has agreed to the Brundtland report in looking at the stewardship of

this whole province, has not moved in any way to fulfil the commitment

this government made in agreeing to support the Brundtland report.

was only in 1987 that this government removed $200 million from the

Crown land fund and put it into the BS fund. Why? It's most

interesting, in view of the fact that two of the key issues of public

policy in this province at this time are the acquisition of housing and

the acquisition of parkland. At that time, the resource was taken and

removed.

Here we have this government having the temerity

to come before this House and ask that this $5 billion be approved

without the kind of debate that enables the type of scrutiny that is

needed to go into the actual details of why this spending is wanted,

what they're intending to do with it, and what that's all about.

This

is a mischievous process going on here, a process that makes it very

apparent when we look at the budget that has just come down that this

government really does not have a plan. It is not organized. I find it

absolutely shocking when we look at the environment protection fund

that has recently been announced in the budget that $20 million to $50

million out of that fund has come from GO B.C. grants. It would be

interesting to know just exactly how much of that money was not spent

in the last fiscal year because of the embarrassment of the affair with

regard to the member for Surrey-White Rock Cloverdale (Mr. Reid).

are finding that this government is moving around like a shell game

trying to hoodwink the public into thinking that somehow it's putting

forward an approach that is appropriate; yet the public sees through

it. The fact is that this government is embarrassed.

The

first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) recently went through

some of the disasters that we have experienced in this province over

this government's mismanagement. One that I would like to remind

members of the House of is the Westwood Plateau lands. Those lands were

sold to one developer. It wasn't long until the school trustees from

School District 43 had to go cap in hand to the Minister of Education

to ask for money to buy the land back after it had already existed

within the Crown lands. They had to buy it back at a much inflated

price over what it was sold in the first place. That is part of the

legacy of mismanagement in this

[ Page 9095 ]

province, a legacy we have seen too much evidence of.

few days ago in the House, my colleague the first member for Vancouver

East pointed out the mismanagement again with the sale of 91 acres of

lands in Haney that were Crown lands. It was excellent land, and it

went for $660,000. We're dealing with a legacy of mismanagement by a

government that now wants the people of British Columbia and the

opposition of this House to stand here and say, "That's all right, go

ahead, you can have that money," without having any sense of how that

should be dealt with.

This is a government that is really

concerned about its friends and insiders. It has lost touch with the

public. Therefore the question of public trust is going to be very

significant in the forthcoming election. Whether the government decides

to use this money as a slush fund to help it win that election or to

try to manipulate people during that election or whether they find that

it is something that they have to wait on, the fact is that the public

is very much aware that they've been getting away with murder in the

way they have been handling the public trust.

Mr. Speaker,

the fact is that this government has a divide-and-conquer mentality.

They've set people against each other. They've played cat and mouse

with the people of the province, taking away during the early part of

an administration and trying to make it appear that they were giving

back during the last part of an administration. That simply isn't going

to work.

We see a government that does not have any

significant influence from its back bench. We have a back bench that is

performing as lambs being led to the slaughter, and it's simply

inappropriate. What we have here is something that the people of

British Columbia are not going to accept. We're not going to accept it,

and we are going to continue to demand that there be absolutely

thorough debate on this interim supply. Thank you.

MR. DE JONG :

I am rising here to speak in support of the supply bill for the simple

reason that there is nothing unusual about it. I am really taken aback

by the lack of leadership in the socialist sector there. The Leader of

the Opposition was mayor for many years in the city of Vancouver, has

been very involved in municipal politics, and he should know that an

interim supply bill — and it is called something different at the municipal level — is

nothing unusual. In fact, every year in January a municipality will

pass an interim supply bill which carries it over until the middle of

May — four and a half months. It has nothing to do with elections; it's

simply a matter of carrying on the financial obligations of the

municipality. And so it is for this government.

I am somewhat....

Interjection.

MR. DE JONG :

Yes, it's a nickel without debate You talk about "not a dime without

debate." If, in fact, the opposition was serious, they would get on

with third reading of this bill, because then you really can discuss

the intricate details of the supply bill. But they don't want to do

that, they just want to haul everything into it. They want to haul

every skeleton out of the closet to deal with this bill, and that's the

whole upset of this thing.

[4:45]

We've been here now for a few weeks. It started on the first day,

with delay after delay. We've experienced this throughout these past

three weeks. There seems to be no urgency on the part of the opposition

to get on with the real business of this House. To have several members

speak on the interim supply bill.... If they even spoke about the

interim supply bill, it would be a different matter. But they don't;

they speak of everything but the interim supply bill.

MR. WILLIAMS : Are you attacking the Speaker?

MR. DE JONG : No, I'm not attacking the Speaker. I'm simply expressing a few of the things that I've experienced in this House.

Over

the past three years, we've had detailed discussions about

expenditures. Every year when we go through the detailed estimates,

what is being talked about is not the expenditures that are proposed in

the budget books; it's the things of the past that are being touched

upon — every year, time and time again. We heard the same thing this

afternoon. We heard about things that happened three or four years ago.

They hauled them back on to the table instead of speaking about things

that they are — so-called — so concerned about.

AN HON. MEMBER : Tell us about the 1,200 dark days.

MR. DE JONG : I don't think I need to remind British Columbians, because they have a very good memory of that.

I would just like to say that if the opposition is really serious about cutting expenditures — as this government is — and

holding the line on expenditures.... If this debate continues the way

it is at the present time, we may in fact have to change this interim

supply bill to six months instead of four, because there may not be

enough time to accommodate everything within the four months.

Again,

I just want to say that I feel that this kind of debate certainly does

not prove the intelligence of the other side. I believe there is a lack

of intelligence.

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, come on now!

MR. DE JONG :

Yes, I certainly believe that, hon. member, because, as I have already

stated, the real thing that is in the supply bill is not being

discussed. You, hon. member, have certainly added to the debate in that

respect, unlike some others. I just hope that while they are discussing

the province's most important business, we can really get on with the

business

[ Page 9096 ]

that should be discussed instead of all the political rhetoric we hear from the socialist corner.

MR. HARCOURT :

I was intrigued by the remarks of the minister of the rapidly shrinking

Forests ministry, and by the second member from Matsqui, who reminded

me of my experience as a mayor. I'll tell you, I never experienced

anything like a four month blank cheque worth $5 billion. If the member

thinks it's a lack of intelligence to trust this Social Credit

government with a four-month blank cheque for over $5 billion, then we

plead guilty. I question how he is determining intelligence. I'd like

to read the comic book he got that from, because I don't think that our

taking our job seriously about $5 billion is something that we should

take lightly.

The rapidly diminishing Forests minister — who is shrinking in the budget he has for taking care of the forests — talked

about people not having any idea of how to raise money. Well, we know

this government's idea of raising money: it's to overtax the working

people of this province, to overtax small business, to raise over $500

million in taxes from small business and from the working people of

this province, and then to extract another $500 million from them

through B.C. Hydro with an indirect tax. Their idea of how to raise

money is to raise money in that way — from the working people of this province and small business — so

they can give tax breaks to their political friends and insiders.

That's their idea of how to raise money. It's not to provide services

for the people of this province; it's to provide services for their

political friends and insiders.

If either the Minister of

Forests or the second member from Matsqui thinks that we're going to

let this erratic government have a $5 billion blank cheque, they can

forget it. We're not prepared to do that. They have redefined the idea

of budgeting. Their idea of fiscal prudence is blank cheques and BS

funds.

One of the reasons why we're not prepared to give this free-spending Social Credit government — on their friends and insiders — a

blank cheque for this $5 billion on a four-month warrant, which is

unprecedented.... And we just heard from the member from Matsqui that

he wants to extend that to six months, after we haven't been here for

eight months. We're not going to let you do that. Let me give you a

couple of examples of why we're not going to let you do it.

Last year about this time, on March 31, we had 2,600 top people in our civil service — good

people. This government so demoralized these people that they took

advantage of an early retirement scheme, and in 12 hours we lost 1,600

of the top 2,600 people in the British Columbia civil service because

they couldn't take the incompetence of this government anymore; they

couldn't take the erratic nature of this government. This Minister of

Finance was so good at budgeting for this — people leaving a sinking ship called the Socred ship — that

their budgeted amount of $30 million for the people who would take

early retirement turned out to be over $100 million and climbing, let

alone the loss of skilled people that this province has suffered.

Then we have all the musical chairs that has happened — all

the reorganizations of the reorganizations. Every three months the

Premier and whoever is trying to advise him these days, whether it's

with numerologists or a Ouija board, or whatever.... He says: "I'm just

going to shake everybody up. It'll cost another $100 million, but what

the heck, you've got to shake people up. What's $100 million?" That's

their idea of blank cheques and BS funds — a very "Couvelier" attitude

indeed towards the budget of this province. And you wonder why we're

not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to give a blank cheque.

MR. SPEAKER :

For a number of reasons I have to ask the member.... You see, we're not

allowed to use members' names. And so if there's a pun....

MR. HARCOURT : I'm sorry. I mispronounced that. The word I meant to use is "cavalier," Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER :

I appreciate that. And while you're on the subject, perhaps you'd

acquaint yourselves with the names of constituencies. The member who

spoke before you is not from Matsqui. He is the second member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong).

MR. HARCOURT :

Central Fraser Valley. I take that and apologize to the member for

Central Fraser Valley, who keeps trying to get farther and farther away

from this Legislature and his colleagues — and I don't blame him.

The second example I was going to give, Mr. Speaker — and thank you for that correction in geography — is

that this Social Credit government has not just redefined a blank

cheque and fiscal prudence with BS funds and blank cheques, but they

have redefined free enterprise to read: "Buy high and sell low." They

don't know whether they're buying or selling, or whether they should

buy or sell in up times or down times. Anybody who came on a spaceship

from Mars and had some idea of buying and selling land and taking care

of a government would look at that Expo land deal.... We should seal it

in a time capsule so that 100 years from now, when our friends from

Mars come to this planet — hopefully we'll have got it back in shape

and got rid of our pollution and dealt with the poverty and

annihilation-weapons we have — when they do come down and we greet them

peacefully, they will look at the Expo land deal as an example of

Socred free enterprise: buy high and sell low.

Who else

could take one of the five best urban development sites in North

America, bar none, and sell it in one chunk to one developer and lose

money — in a real estate boom? And the Minister of Finance and the

rapidly shrinking Minister of Forests wonder why we're not prepared to

let $5 billion of blank cheque go by the by so that everybody can go to

the Governor-General's ball. I'll tell you why, Mr.

[ Page 9097 ]

Speaker.

We are here, as the past president of the Alberni Chamber of Commerce

and our member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) has said, as the bankers,

as the trustees of the money that the people of this province work hard

to bring before the Legislature to provide the services that our people

want.

The Expo lands. We've received $50 million, and

that's all we'll see until somewhere into the latter part of this

decade. That's gross money — and it is a gross deal. It's gross money

because from that we have to deduct the land that we bought for $9 a

square foot, that we have to buy back at $30 to $50 a square foot to

build the affordable housing for the people who we want to build

housing for. They didn't even keep the land for the affordable housing.

We have to deduct from that the cost of carrying that site for two

years and the cost of fixing up the site, which is anywhere from $40

million to $100 million. We're going to lose money on this site. It's

just unbelievable. All they had to do was not even use binoculars, but

just peer — even if they're nearsighted — right across the creek to the

south side, and they'd have seen a chunk of land that the city of

Vancouver put into its property endowment fund; it leased it out and

built expensive housing, modest housing and housing for low-income

citizens beside Granville Island. It is one of the finest developments

anywhere in the world.

Any government that didn't add the

Expo lands to the property endowment fund that we should have instead

of a BS fund.... We should have a real property endowment fund, not

this fund created by the Minister of Finance. The property endowment

fund is what we needed, but they sold the Expo lands and are going to

lose money.

Let's take an even worse example: the Westwood

lands. They did even worse there, Mr. Speaker. What they did.... I'll

give one saving grace on the Expo lands — they at least reserved a

school site for the Vancouver School Board. In Coquitlam the school

board had to go and talk to the private developer and buy the site for

the schools. Ten million dollars the school board had to pay.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I don't like to chastise the opposition House Leader

unnecessarily, but he must be in his own seat in order to assist the

person speaking.

[5:00]

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker,

the same problem is being visited further to the east in Mission, where

we have 275 prime acres of land that could be sold very soon, again on

the same disastrous Socred free enterprise principle of buy high and

sell low. A place where the vacancy rate is zero, where housing prices

have gone from $76,000 to $126,000 in the space of eight months, and

those people who are trying to get from Vancouver and Coquitlam out to

less expensive housing are closed off too.

They're selling

off this site, and when you look at the way this government has handled

just those three sites on the Socred free enterprise principle of buy

high and sell low, you can see why we are not going to let this $5

billion go through. Look at the other ways they have mishandled the

funding of this province and the affordable housing problem. They let

flippers get away with flipping real estate in a boom market. They

allow young families to pay the property transfer tax when they buy

their first home; but they let big real estate corporations, by selling

their corporation instead of selling the asset, get away with not

paying millions of dollars of taxes that could have gone to build

affordable housing in this province.

The demolitions are

going on in the greater Vancouver area on a redefinition of free

enterprise by Social Credit, where the profit-and-loss statement of

Social Credit on real estate reads as follows: the developers profit

and the tenants and the public lose. The profits go to developers who

are tearing down apartment buildings with 30 units of perfectly sound

15- to 20-year-old housing. Affordable rental housing in Kerrisdale is

being torn down, and over 400 people are chased out of the

neighbourhood. Some of those people have lived there for decades and

raised their children there. They are being chased out of their own

neighbourhood, and there's a zero vacancy rate wherever they go. Do you

know what's replacing them? It's not more housing; it's 15 units

replacing 30 units, and those 15 units cost half a million dollars and

up. Now what kind of a government would allow that injustice to happen?

Those are just some of the examples that we have of the Social Credit redefinition of fiscal prudence — blank cheques and BS funds and redefinition of free enterprise to buy high and sell low.

Then

we have the buying of by-elections. They tried that in

Boundary-Similkameen when they put out $6 million or $7 million. We

know the result of that: we had one of the largest turnarounds in the

history of this province and elected a fine New Democrat MLA, and they

had to eat that $6 million to $7 million. They said that wasn't enough,

and they had to really buy a by-election in Cariboo. They threw $130

million into that by-election, and that didn't work either. As a matter

of fact, we elected — again, with one of the largest margins we've seen — a New Democrat MLA in the Cariboo.

will close with this point: this $5 billion is to buy an election. "We

didn't spend enough on the by-elections, and we've got to spend $5

billion to buy this election."

This Minister of Finance is unbelievable. He's watched too much TV. He saw the $6 million man they had — Lee Majors — and

he said: "I can do better than that; I'm going to be known as the $5

billion man." Well, we're not going to let that go by without a fight.

This

is the government that gave us the Expo buy-high-and-sell-low, the

Westwood buy-high-and-sell-low, the David Poole pension precedent and

the White Rock recycling scam. Those were the pilot projects. What

they're doing now is the biggest recycling project in B.C. history, a

$5 billion recycling project to recycle funds to Socred friends and

insid-

[ Page 9098 ]

ers. We are not going to let that go by without debate, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. PARKER : I rise in support of my colleague the Minister of Finance and Bill 22.

We're

really fortunate that British Columbia has been 15 years in remission

from that deadly disease of socialism. I'll tell you that for those of

us who lived in the north in those dark days, Nimsickness was one of

the worst bloody illnesses we ever saw in this province, and that was

socialist, socialist, socialist attitudes and management techniques

that go to kill the resource industry, and they killed it. Fortunately,

it's flourishing now.

In the north, what we saw was a

travesty. We saw the Forests minister of the day picking up, by

bullying techniques, a whole industry out in Vanderhoof and then using

public money to build a road right out of their log yard down into the

heartland of their timber. Nobody else in the private sector was

allowed to use Crown money for that sort of purpose Everybody else had

to operate by the policy of the day, which said that in no way could

your haul-road wind up in your yard — absolutely not; it had to be

available for the public to use. But when you wanted to use it at

Plateau Mills, no way, because it ended up in their back yard.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.1

Double standards — a standard for them and a standard for everybody else.

They

claim we're embarrassed as a government. Well, we certainly are,

because we have the most mediocre official opposition probably in the

British empire. It's an absolute travesty.

This government

has the most democratized organization of any jurisdiction within the

British parliamentary system. The regionalization initiative of our

Premier has given everybody in this province an opportunity to

participate in the day-to-day operation of government. It's their

recommendations and it's the long hours put in by volunteers throughout

this province — people who contribute their time to the regional

advisory councils and the eight economic development regions. That

regionalization initiative is unique. In talking with my colleagues

across Canada in a similar capacity in regional economic development, I

find we are the only ones with this sort of initiative, the only ones

that make it possible for the native community and the non-native

community to participate in those regional advisory councils and to

participate in regional economic development and, indeed, in provincial

economic development. It has never been done before. It certainly

wasn't done by the so