1991 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

12321 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 12321

Tabling Documents –– 12321

Oral Questions

Pension plan for doctors. Mr. Harcourt –– 12321

Medical Services Plan premiums. Mr. Harcourt –– 12322

Music '91 resignations. Ms. Pullinger –– 12323

Voter registration. Mr. G. Hanson –– 12323

Omni-Script Services Ltd. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12324

Hospital laundry services contracts. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12324

Supply Act (No – 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Second reading

Mr. Jones –– 12324

Mr. Miller –– 12325

Ms. Marzari –– 12329

Mr. Michael –– 12331

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 12333

Mr. Kempf –– 12334

Ms. Cull –– 12336

Mr. Vant –– 12338

Mr. Sihota –– 12339

Ms. Pullinger –– 12343

Ms. Edwards –– 12347

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure

today to introduce two guests from Surrey White Rock–Cloverdale who are

in the precincts: David Harris and Mary Wade Anderson, from the Fraser

Valley Real Estate Board. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Vancouver Sun

issued some questions to some high-school students from Port Moody

Senior Secondary School and Burnaby North Secondary School. Several of

the young people responded, and as a result of their comments that were

later printed, we invited them to join us today in the House to watch

democracy in action. With us from Port Moody Senior Secondary are grade

12 students Ryan Wald, Anny Lee, Barrie Smith, Jared Alexander, Amber

Davis, Erik Stein, Vera Gamboa, Chris Dane, Darryl Hern, Mandi Sosnick,

Julia Stephens, Brooke Sheridan and Lee Oster. From Burnaby North

Secondary we have grade 10 students Danny Pero, Eliza Lee and Yvonne

Chen. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly very gracious of the

Premier to invite the students for lunch, and I know she picked up the

tab. I too would like to welcome grade 10 students Danny Pero, Eliza

Lee and Yvonne Chen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, would the House welcome 50 grade 7

students from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver and their

teacher Mr. B. Herrin.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today in the members' gallery

we have from the village of Lytton — also known as the rafting capital

of Canada — four delegates from the Lytton council: Mayor Joe Chute,

Ald. Norma Morrow, Ald. Russ Urquhart and Ald. Francis van Dyke. I

would ask the members of the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the

House the New Democrat constituency assistants, who are joining us for

their annual meeting here in Victoria. We'd like have the House join us

in welcoming them and acknowledging the contribution they make to the

work we do in our ridings.

HON. J. JANSEN: We have in the precincts 60 grade 5 and 6

students from Kent Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr.

Al Fraser. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

On behalf of the Minister of Forests, Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a

message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range

Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have two minutes to speak about this

bill, but I can only tell the assembly that it's a reintroduction of a

bill that was on the order paper earlier this year. I'm sure members

can look in Hansard and understand what the Minister of Forests said about it at that time.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1990-91.

Oral Questions

PENSION PLAN FOR DOCTORS

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. Now that the

federal government has quashed the doctors' pension plan, are the

Premier and her government prepared to abandon the

100-percent-taxpayer-funded pension deal?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the question would be better put to the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm surprised that the Leader of the

Opposition would put the question, given that he communicated to BCMA

his support of the pension plan and that he further....

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey, in a

radio broadcast, also indicated his support. I'm surprised he's not

here. Furthermore, that member is obviously also benefiting from the

plan. I haven't heard him indicate that he's going to return any money.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to sit down with BCMA and talk about the

impact of this ruling, and you'll be advised in due course what the

outcome of that is.

MR. HARCOURT: Neither of those statements are true, but he will continue to make them.

I have a supplementary question to the Premier. Could you please

assure the House that in any renegotiated deal that includes a pension

offer....

HON. J. JANSEN: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, his comments imply that I lied to the House. I would ask him to withdraw those comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

[ Page 12322 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition

implied that a member misled the House or failed to tell the truth, I'm

sure he will withdraw when he stands to bring his next question. If you

did, please withdraw. If not, please continue.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, as per your ruling yesterday, it was a dispute of fact. He said I said something I didn't. So it stands.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in an exchange across the

floor, the member for North Island said that the Minister of Finance

lied every day. I think he should withdraw that remark too.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If such a remark was made, I invite the member to withdraw. If not, the member can leave the remark.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in deference to the rules of the House, of course I would.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: I have a supplementary to the Premier. Given

that you're going to be entering into negotiations and that there is

going to be a renegotiated deal, could you please ensure that if it

includes a pension offer, it will be no different than other pensions

for British Columbians and that doctors will pay their fair share of

any pension?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, but the Premier may wish to answer it.

MR. HARCOURT: Has the Premier decided that if there is to be

any renegotiation of the pension package, doctors will pay their fair

share, like any other British Columbian?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It seems to me that the Leader of the

Opposition has a strange set of priorities. The questions are not in

order. I would suggest that he spend more time attempting to have

members on his side of the House clarify and face up to inaccurate

statements that they have made in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the remarks by the Premier, it's

left to the Chair to determine which questions are in order. The last

question was in order; the one before that wasn't.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've asked me to maintain order

and you've asked me to determine what is and what isn't in order. I'm

always prepared to accept extra help, but not during question period.

MR. HARCOURT: As the question was in order, I would like a very simple

answer from the Premier. Have you decided that in any renegotiated deal with

the doctors, they will pay their fair share of any pension, like any other British

Columbian?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, this refers to future policy.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

MR. HARCOURT: As the Premier has not made up her mind or

can't make up her mind on this, I have a new question. Your Finance

minister admitted that part of the reason for hiking medical services

premiums was to pay for doctors' pensions. As a matter of fact, he said

that was part of the package. Has the Premier instructed her Finance

minister to roll back these fee hikes?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For the Leader of the Opposition to

suggest that I haven't been able to make up my mind Id like to know if

he's changed his mind regarding leaked documents and members in his

caucus.

I would suggest that the question should more appropriately be put to the minister responsible.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it's just a very simple question

for Madam Premier. You raised the premiums to pay in part for the

doctors' pension deal. Have you now decided to roll back your MSP fee

increases — yes or no? British Columbians want to know.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest the question should be put to the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the Leader of

the Opposition has to read a question so simple. I indicated earlier to

him that we are going to sit down with BCMA and determine what the

impact of this ruling is. I should tell him that the premiums in

Ontario are 21 percent higher than in British Columbia. Our settlement

with the doctors is lower than that in Ontario. This is because of good

fiscal management.

Subsequent to the negotiations and discussions with BCMA, as I

indicated earlier in my response to him, we will let him know what the

outcome of that is.

MR. HARCOURT: Are you going into these meetings with the doctors with any position in terms of pensions and fee hikes?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, we are going in with the position of fairness.

MR. HARCOURT: Will it be fair for the taxpayers of British Columbia? That's the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It seemed to have started

yesterday, and it's deteriorating again today. Could we have a little

briefer answers and a little briefer questions?

[ Page

12323 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: By the line of questioning, I am reminded of

the light up there; the member's getting a lot older but he's not

getting very much brighter.

There is only one criterion: fairness to the taxpayer. Mr. Member, that's the only criterion we have.

MUSIC '91 RESIGNATIONS

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the minister responsible

for tourism on Music '91 — which we on this side of the House, for the

record, think is a good idea and support. Music '91's vice-president of

marketing reportedly left her position in April. On May 10 it was

announced that the president of Music '91 had resigned. Apparently

further resignations are expected — an exodus of board members that

goes right to the top. Can the minister explain to the House why senior

executives of Music '91s management team are jumping ship?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm really pleased that you asked, though I

thought the question would be, "What's going on on the legislative

lawn?" and I was going to give you a great dissertation on what was

going on.

This, by the way, is the kickoff to RoadShow, which will be going

throughout the province. It will be appearing in 12 different locations

in the province, and this is the big kickoff

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not time for a ministerial statement — just the answer to the question.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am very enthusiastic about what is going

on. Let me tell the member opposite that we definitely have had a

resignation, but I'm very surprised — I shouldn't be surprised — at

their slowness in recognizing that Robin Lecky's resignation is in.

That is a resignation we received earlier in the month, but it's been

coming for some time, since he wanted to be phased out. Robin did a

great job working for Music '91. He's an ideas person and certainly put

together a great show for the province. But that work has been

completed. We're now into an operational phase, and consequently Robin

found opportunities elsewhere in Columbus, Ohio, and we wish him well.

MS. PULLINGER: Supplementary to the same minister. Last year

the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism told the House that

Music '91 would cost the taxpayers of British Columbia only $12

million. He also said the board would raise matching private sector

contributions. Can the minister confirm that additional public money

has been allocated to Music.'91, and how much?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I was pleased to hear at the beginning, when the member

talked about Music '91, that they would support it wholeheartedly. Really,

that's what we're aiming for. Certainly by talking about the greatness

of Music '91, we will increase our revenues. We are still bringing sponsors

to the table. When the dust all settles on Music '91, that information will

be available.

MS. PULLINGER: Supplementary to the same minister. Is he

saying that the Year of Music Society has not received any more funding

and has not requested any more funding? Can you answer that simple

question for this Legislature?

HON. MR. DIRKS: In a program such as this, there are always

extra things that can be done. Certainly the Year of Music Society is

still looking at its budget. It's still looking at things that it would

like to do, and certainly we're having ongoing conversations about it.

VOTER REGISTRATION

MR, G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial

Secretary. Prior to the last provincial election, 160,000 British

Columbians were left off the voter list, but they did get out to vote

because they had that right. This government has taken away the right

to register on voting day and potentially disfranchised hundreds of

thousands of British Columbians. Has the Provincial Secretary decided

that he will restore voting-day registration for British Columbians not

on the list?

HON. MR. VEITCH: This member knows, if he would care to admit

it, that not only have we one day for people to register under

section

80, but we now have six days. Starting early in June, we have teams

spread throughout the whole province to ensure that people have the

opportunity to register. There is an obligation to register if one is

going to vote. It must flow both ways, and the hon. member ought to

know that. I don't know who you have in mind that you would bring on by

way of ineligibility. People have six times more opportunity to

register now than they had before.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The people of this

province should have the right to register to vote every single day,

including election day. The chief electoral officer, Mr. Patterson, has

indicated that a quarter of a million people are now off the list, and

30 percent of all British Columbians move every year. These short

blitzes in June can't possibly sweep up the quarter of a million people

not on the list. Why do you want to disfranchise thousands of British

Columbians?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It may be of interest to the hon. member

that a lot of those people have moved out here from the people's

republic of Ontario, and they are not eligible to vote yet.

We moved the time-frame up to three years. We have done blitzes, and

we are doing more blitzes. We've increased the time available for

people to vote by a factor of six. That's something you never thought

of doing, and they can't even do that in the people's republic of

Ontario.

[ Page 12324 ]

OMNI-SCRIPT SERVICES LTD.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the NDP member

for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asked me a question about Omni-Script

Services — the member who demonstrates that blind ambition still lives.

It can be answered this way: government and Purchasing Commission

tender-call requirements were satisfied.

HOSPITAL LAUNDRY SERVICES CONTRACTS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Last Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, the second

member for Vancouver–Point Grey asked a question entitled "Hospital

Laundry Services Contracts, " which I took on notice. I'd now like to

respond to that question.

We question where the member obtained his information with respect

to revenue losses with greater Victoria hospital services. They will

see a reduction in direct revenue from laundry operations. However,

there are significant factors that are not reflected in the figures the

member quoted.

First, the society's Fairfield laundry was operating well beyond its

capacity as a result of the consolidation of services after the

Glendale laundry burned down in March 1989. This meant the addition of

a graveyard shift and a move to a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week

operation, and resulted in frequent breakdown of equipment and

increased maintenance costs, which we estimated at $36,000 annually. By

removing approximately 15 percent of the laundry processed, the Greater

Victoria Hospital Society has been able to reduce the night shift and

devote more time to preventive maintenance, thereby avoiding costly

breakdowns. It must be remembered that these industrial washers cost up

to $100,000 each. Also, given the existing age of the Fairfield

facility, it is unclear how long the Greater Victoria Hospital Society

would have been able to service Saanich Peninsula and Mount St. Mary

needs in any event. It should be noted that the establishment of a

regional laundry service for all hospitals in the area is currently

under study.

[2:30]

Finally, I would like to point out again that serious sanctions and

actions have been taken against the hospitals involved. The two

hospitals involved now have to forward all contracts of substance to

the hospital care division of the Ministry of Health for review and

approval prior to signature by the hospitals. This represents a

significant sanction for an otherwise autonomous hospital board.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on Bill 8. The member for Burnaby

North adjourned debate, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991

(continued)

MR. JONES: I was talking this morning about the who, the what, the when

and the why and some of the implications of Bill 8, the money bill that is before

us. I was suggesting that the only reason we are faced with this bill at this

time is that it's coming from a very confused government that has had three

Finance ministers within a very few weeks — three Finance ministers who have

three different positions on what the actual deficit is. They can't make

up their minds about whether the deficit is zero, $1 billion or $395 million.

This is a government that has said in the past: "Not a dime without

debate." What we're faced with in Bill 8 is 50 billion dimes without

debate. We would not expect that the situation would be on time and on

budget; what we want is a budget that is on time in British Columbia.

This government is so confused that a few weeks ago it passed

legislation, a bill that is now the law of the land in British

Columbia, that there would be a tax freeze. What we see in this budget

is a number of tax increases in violation of that legislation passed in

the House unanimously only a few weeks ago. That's who is bringing us

this bill. This is a confused, desperate, tired government that really

cannot be trusted to keep its word.

What this bill really is, is not just an approval for spending $5

billion. This is a cut-and-run bill, a bailout bill; this is a

we-can't-take-it-anymore bill. This is a government that is tired and

that wants to get out of the legislative process. This is a government

that can't take it anymore. It is bringing in legislation that will

enable the government to function until July 31. But what it will

really do is allow the government to prorogue this Legislature without

having passed a budget. All we did yesterday was pass a motion that

would allow us to move into Committee of Supply.

This bill is an avoidance bill. It's a bill that is avoiding

scrutiny by the people's representatives of the spending of this

government. This government wants to avoid being accountable, and we

understand why. We understand the confusion on that side, and we

understand the necessity that they feel to avoid scrutiny.

This is a Premier bringing in legislation, a Premier who very

clearly wants to hide, who is bankrolling her leadership bid, who now

wants to hide the spending of this government from this Legislature,

because they know this government is fiscally incompetent. It can't

make up its mind whether it wants a tax freeze or a tax thaw. It can't

make up its mind whether the deficit is $1 billion, $395 million or

zero. This is a cut-and-run government. This is a government that wants

to bail out. This is a government that wants to leave this Legislature

to try and put some band-aids on the internal and external bleeding and

bruising that is going on on that side.

This is a government which has had this interim supply bill ready

for months. But when did they choose to bring it in? At the last

possible moment, two days before they ran out of spending authority.

The moment before the money runs out, they bring in, in hopes of speedy

passage, legislation that would allow spending until July 31 — an

additional $5 billion.

Since last July this Legislature has sat 25 days. There has been over 300 days in which this Legislature

[ Page

12325 ]

could have been called to do the public's business

and debate the spending authority of this government. Between March 11

and 25, when we would normally expect a budget, we were here for a very

short period of time. We were here for two weeks. We sat for ten days.

Then what did the government do? The government cut and ran. The

government felt the bruising. The government sensed the loss that was

happening out there in the province of British Columbia. So they cut

and ran, and they plan to do the same again.

Why didn't this government choose to bring in spending authority

legislation sooner? Why didn't we have Bill 8 between March 11 and

March 25? Of course, the reason is that this government was mired in

political chaos of their own making. They were mired in scandal after

scandal. They were preoccupied with purging their leader — not for any

perceived wrongdoing on their part; they were purging their leader

because they perceived that Premier to be incapable of winning the next

provincial election. So they went through an internal process, the

internal chaos that's gone on on that side of the House, rather than

doing the people's business, rather than bringing in a budget, rather

than being accountable, rather than allowing the public and the

public's representatives to properly scrutinize the spending authority

that this government has.

They bailed out in March, and with Bill 8 they're getting ready to

bail out again. Why are they doing that? They're doing it because they

prefer to hide in the bunker. They prefer to spend billions of dollars

without debate. They are afraid to account for their actions and

spending.

Very clearly, there are serious implications in what's happened in

this province, if we think of a couple of areas. The area that I have

critic responsibility for, post-secondary education, is a very

sensitive system. It thrives and flourishes on proper planning. There

are sequences of events that must take place every year, and they must

take place early in the year. Decisions have to be made in that

post-secondary sector. There have to be programs planned. There have to

be calendars printed. There have to be staff hired, or in the case of

this government, staff laid off. There has to be a thoughtful planning

process for that system to function properly. That system, unlike this

government, can't be run chaotically.

What did we have this year? Was there any indication on the part of

this government to those challenged with the responsibility of planning

the programs in our post-secondary sector? Was there any communication

of the resources that they would have to do the proper planning? It was

not there, and the result was that university, college and institute

administrators were pulling their hair out. They were planning for a

sequence of different budgets. They would plan for a 12 percent

increase, then an 8 percent increase, then a 4 percent increase — not

knowing at any time what the increase was or when it would be coming.

This government does not understand proper planning; it does not

understand the education system. And it denies the tools for that

system to do the proper planning job required of it.

We have seen the frustration that they have experienced with tied

hands. The post-secondary sector in this province is not a factory. It

cannot be buffeted around and abused by the improper treatment and lack

of planning that are characteristic and a trademark of this government.

What we also have in Bill 8 is a continuation of ongoing programs.

But there are questions that must be asked, and we are not allowed to

ask those questions in this particular part of the debate. What about

new programs? What about the programs talked about in the throne

speech? What about programs, for example, like the

freedom-of-information legislation that this government was bragging

about recently? Freedom-of-information legislation does require some

bureaucracy to function. Will this Bill 8, this spending bill, this

supply bill allow the establishment of those new programs so that the

public's right to know and the public's access to government

information will be ensured? I don't believe it will, Mr. Speaker. I

think the result will be that the public in British Columbia is going

to be denied — as they have been for years in this province by Social

Credit administrations — the right to have access to their information.

The proper bureaucracy will not be in place to ensure that freedom of

information in British Columbia can properly take place.

What about literacy programs? Two years ago this government

established the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee, which came down

with a good report. We have been promised for several years that there

would be funding for the recommendations in that committee's report.

But the report has sat idle and collected dust, and there has been no

funding for new programs for literacy in the province. Does Bill 8, the

supply bill, allow those new programs to go ahead now as they've been

promised for many years? We can't ask these questions. We are not

allowed in this debate to properly scrutinize the budget and the

aspects of this supply bill so that the government can be accountable

to the people for its spending authority.

Mr. Speaker, the legal mandate for this government runs out in a few

months, although the popular mandate for it ran out years ago. If

members opposite do not want to do the people's business, if they don't

want a full budget debate, if they don't want to live up to the British

parliamentary tradition, then I suggest the Premier should take a drive

down Rockland Avenue to Government House to dissolve this Legislature

and call an election, so that the people can decide and can put in

place a government that won't hide and that understands its proper role

in taxing, spending and being accountable, and so that the people can

restore integrity and good government to this province.

MR. MILLER: I just heard the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound say: "Give us supply and we'll go." The question is: where?

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Ninety days, yes.

[ Page 12326 ]

There's a reason why we're debating this bill at this time, and it

has to do with the history of this government with respect to what we

see as an abuse of parliament when it comes to budgeting. There are

some reasons for that. My colleagues have spoken of some of them, and I

hope to speak of some more. Essentially we're dealing with a government

that, in our view, has lost the moral authority to govern. The

government appears to have run out of steam. They've been corrupted by

being in power too long and have grown arrogant, tired and confused.

Half the time they don't even know what's going on in this House — and

they set the agenda. They really are confused. Now, Mr. Speaker,

they're desperate, and this supply bill is a measure of that

desperation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Just to briefly recap some of the history, in March the Minister of

Finance claimed he had both a budget and a supply bill in his pocket

ready to be tabled. March was only a few short months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a repetition.

MR. MILLER: If I have to repeat some of these essential

facts, it's because the members opposite seem to have a great deal of

difficulty grasping these issues.

Only in March the Minister of Finance.... How many Ministers of

Finance ago was that — three, four or five? It was only three. Think

about that: three Ministers of Finance since March.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Surely it relates to the fact that we're debating this supply bill.

Two months ago — but we've had two ministers since then: the

minister of the day; and the man who would be Finance minister and, for

all I know, the man who would be leader — the member for Burnaby

Willingdon claimed that his budget would be balanced We can only regard

that as a dishonest claim from a dishonest government that will promise

just about anything in order to retain power.

I don't want to go back too far; I'm not a student of ancient history.

But I have read a little about the history of our parliamentary democracy and

why we do certain things. I think it's sometimes difficult to convey to

the public some of the structure and some of the order that governs our activities

in this place. In general, I would think that the public tends to not get caught

up in details; they're more interested in results from government. They

really haven't seen much from this government. But there are some very important

reasons why we do things here, why there is such a thing as a requirement for

government to bring in a budget, why we have debate on estimates and why there

is a provision for special warrants. There is a provision to allow a government

spending authority under certain circumstances, and it leads, directly to why

we're debating this bill today. Charles I, who tried to bypass parliament

because he didn't like what they were saying about his ability to spend

money, lost his head. Now I am not proposing that we seek that kind of drastic

remedy today. Pardon me if I laugh, but I see a look of relief on the part of

members opposite that we're not calling for that kind of solution.

Nonetheless, that established one of the historic precedents in

parliament: that there should be no spending without scrutiny in the

Legislature. We represent the people of this province. We should have

the opportunity to fully debate, in a rational and orderly manner, the

proposals that the government puts forward with respect to spending.

Where do they propose to spend money? What do they propose to spend it

on? What's the rationale behind those proposals? We've seen nothing but

abuse of that process, and this also represents an abuse of that

process.

The supply bill is really before us because we've got a government

that is so erratic and unstable that it finds it difficult to plan from

one day to the next what its next move is going to be. When the Premier

introduced the group of students in the House today, I quipped to one

of my colleagues that she was going to swear them in as the next

cabinet. The one we've got now certainly isn't doing a very good job,

and I'm sure those students could do a better job.

So why do we have these institutions? Why do we have these

procedures with respect to estimates, budgets and supply? I recall the

cry: "Not a dime without debate." It was a rallying cry advanced by

members on the opposite side.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke saying:

"And it worked." Fair game. That's also one of the features of this

place: we should be vigorous in our debate, and we should use what

works. That's the nature of our, parliamentary democracy.

But let's get to the heart of why that phrase was coined and used.

What were the circumstances that gave rise to that cry of "Not a dime

without debate"? One of the things I am proudest of with respect to my

party's previous time in office in this province is that we regularly

brought in a budget in February or March, we laid it before this

parliament, and we allowed it to be debated through the estimates

procedure. There was never any change in that; there was never any

bringing in of a budget this late; there was never the abuse of special

warrants that we've seen by this government. We brought in a budget, we

put it before the people and the parliament in February and March of

every year, and we allowed the debate to continue.

During that first term in 1973.... I recall watching some of those

estimates debates, and it might be useful for members opposite to go

back and review Hansard on

those estimates debates. It would be useful for their education,

because I don't think some of them have that sense of history. I don't

think they understand what took place here not that long ago. Those

estimates debates were somewhat abused. They dragged on and on. I

recall that the estimates debate for the Ministry of Highways took

three weeks. The Social Credit opposi-

[ Page

12327 ]

tion of the day stood in this House and filled the time. They wasted the time of the people and parliament.

Nonetheless, they had the right to do what they did. When an attempt

was made to bring some order to that estimates debate in terms of a

time-limit....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Closure.

MR. MILLER: That's right. The member from Peace River says

"closure" — if it can be viewed that way. When that happened, the

Social Credit opposition coined the phrase "Not a dime without debate."

Clearly they felt very strongly about that. They were upholding the

tradition I spoke of at the outset, which is that the opposition, on

behalf of the people of this province, should have the right to

scrutinize the government's spending plans. There was a reason for what

they said. It was in the venue of politics, and that's fair.

But where is that same feeling now? This government is poised to cut

and run, shut this place down, and run out and operate on special

warrants, which they have a history of doing. There's a combination of

a contemptuous attitude towards parliament and.... Plain and simple,

they don't know what they're doing half the time. They're just

incompetent. But those are deadly combinations.

We can debate all of the politics in the world in this place, but

there are certain fundamentals that should be followed. Governments

should not seek to avoid having their spending scrutinized by the

opposition, but this government has done just that.

A few short months ago the Minister of Finance said he had a budget.

What did he do? What did they do in their own confusion in trying to

deal with their own difficulties? They shut this place down in March

without having presented a budget for our consideration. Despite all

they say, the truth is that they called this parliament into session,

the Minister of Finance said he had a budget, and two weeks later they

shut this place down and didn't present a budget. They created an

emergency. The emergency is the incompetence and erraticism of this

government. That's the emergency we're facing.

They shut this place down and then proceeded to run on special

warrants. They went to the back room and said: "We'll just vote

ourselves this special warrant." I believe that's contemptuous of

parliament. I don't know why they try to hide in the back rooms or why

they're afraid to face scrutiny in this Legislature, but it's pretty

clear that they are. I believe they're poised to cut and run again.

They want this supply bill because they want out of this place.

They're confused and disorganized. They don't know what they're doing.

They're rudderless and leaderless.

We are debating the remnants of a rag-tag gang that at one time

stood in this House and said: "Not a dime without debate." Now they're

saying: "Pass these special warrants, and let us get out of here,

because we do not want to put our budget in front of the people to be

scrutinized by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition."

Mr. Speaker, standing order 81 allows the government to proceed with

a bill through all of the stages consecutively on one day. That order

was created for unforeseen circumstances — emergencies. It's important

to note that the government requested standing order 81 be used today,

because they claim there is an emergency. The emergency was created by

them.

It has been suggested that they've changed over the years, that the

party that coined "Not a dime without debate" was the Social Credit

Party, and the party that is trying to get special warrants passed and

get out of this place is the social discredit party.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I accept the accolades from across the floor, from the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who is not in his seat.

They've forgotten some of their roots. Perhaps that has to do with

the fact they have been in power far too long; and that has to do with

the fact that they are leaderless. But these are important points we

make.

I said that they created the emergency. In terms of this supply

bill, the only thing the government did not foresee was they would be

in such disarray and so desperate to avoid the Legislature that they

could not present a budget.

[3:00]

As I said, from March 11 to March 22 they sat in this House. They

said they had a budget. They didn't present it. They adjourned in

disarray. And now they have an emergency.

A budget should not only be subjected to the scrutiny of the

opposition; a budget is an important political document. It's not just

a fiscal document, it's a document that presents the vision of the

government. It allows us to question policy. It's not just straight

numbers; it's where this government proposes to take this province. It

seems, if they don't want to sit here and debate that, and if they want

to get interim supply and get out of here, that they really have no

idea where they want to lead this province.

When I canvassed some of the important issues the budget deals with,

like the issue of forestry.... As I noted in my response to the budget

speech, although the government made grandiose promises at the

beginning of January with respect to what money they were going to

spend on forestry — and I looked forward to the opportunity to debate

that in this House.... They made these grandiose announcements. When I

finally got the opportunity to ask the Minister of Forests a question

with respect to one of those announcements, because the budget wasn't

there and we had no opportunity to debate the budget.... The Minister

of Forests advised this House there weren't enough seedlings available.

The Minister of Forests advised the House that the ground wasn't ready

for planting. I have been denied the opportunity to question the

minister on these fundamental points, fundamental to the economy of

British Columbia, of vital concern to the forest community in this

province, because they don't want to debate a budget.

[ Page 12328 ]

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are saying:

"Write him a letter." I must point out again, they don't seem to

understand the fundamental point. They don't want to stand in this

House and answer questions on behalf of the opposition for the people

of this province. They seem to think that it's fine; it's fair to

operate on special warrants. It staggers the mind.

I recall that a couple of years ago they dreamed up a program that

wasn't in their budget. Again, this goes to the heart of it. They

present budgets in the spring, and then halfway through the year they

dream up some new programs. So they just pass special warrants. A few

short years ago they did exactly that, and because they're fairly

erratic, they dreamed up a new program — a regional development

program. They were so disorganized that they passed a special warrant

for $8 million about a week before this House sat, and when the House

finally sat and we started asking questions, they admitted that they

had no plans to spend the money. That's an abuse of special warrants

and, again, an indication of the erratic performance of this government.

I think that — and the members opposite will discover this when

they're in opposition — what they find amusing today and what they like

to do in terms of not having budgets scrutinized by the opposition,

they won't like when they're in opposition. They will find that their

job is extremely difficult and that they won't have the information,

and they will be standing up and.... Who knows, they might even recoin

the phrase "Not a dime without debate, " having dropped it from their

lexicon now. My guess is that when they get into opposition, as they

surely will, they will be standing in this House crying crocodile tears

and saying: "Not a dime without debate." That's what they will be

doing. Watch them change their tune when they end up in opposition. Cut

and run.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we're debating this is that we have no

confidence that this government will keep the House in session. We have

every reason to believe they want to get out of here as quickly as they

possibly can. They are leaderless; there is no Premier. There's an

acting Premier, and she won by only four votes in that caucus.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm astonished

that a member of this Legislative Assembly would make light of the Premier of

the province of British Columbia. Every member of this assembly is bound in

addressing and in referring to other members of this assembly to describe them

by the riding they come from — the member for such-and-such a riding — or by the

portfolio they hold. The member for Surrey-Newton is the presiding member of

the executive council and is the Premier of British Columbia, and I think the

members should be aware of that. The member for Surrey-Newton was elected by

a majority of the members of this Legislative Assembly to be the president of

the executive council. To discredit her in any way or to in any way diminish

the importance of that office is offensive in the extreme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a matter of fact — if I may have a moment,

hon. member, please — the Minister of Health is absolutely right. A

number of times over the past weeks this term "temporary Premier" or

"interim Premier" has been used, and I took the trouble of looking this

up myself. There is no question about it: every person in this House is

entitled to be addressed in a proper manner. The hon. lady is the

Premier and the head of the council, and she is entitled to be

addressed as Premier. I would suggest to all members that even from the

point of view of common courtesy, this is the way we should handle

ourselves.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I do know one thing. The Premier was

not elected by the people of this province or by her party. She was

elected by the Socred caucus, and her leadership is being contested. I

thank the Minister of Health, who has held that portfolio for a couple

of weeks now — who knows what he might be next week? — for his defence

of the Premier. It gets back to the reason we're debating this bill:

the erraticism and instability of this cabinet and this Socred caucus.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We don't know from one day to the next — and I don't think they do —

whether they're going to be here or who's going to be the minister of

what. They simply do not know. They've been operating under special

warrants; they've displayed contempt for parliament, in my view. As I

said, it's a combination of their own instability and the fact that

they don't know where they're going, and, I think, some contempt.

I see the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who started out

making a good speech yesterday and then unfortunately went down into

the gutter. I was watching as he made his speech. I was watching

members of cabinet and members of the Socred back bench. Their eyes

were shining, because they thought: here's someone who might provide

some leadership. I urge him to run for leader of the Social Credit

Party, because they certainly don't have any leadership now.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I'll take your advice and smile a bit, Mr.

Speaker. But these are serious matters, and if I occasionally get a

little worked up about it, it's understandable. It's not just me, I can

tell you. People in my constituency feel the same way.

Some of the money they have spent and some of the money they hope to

spend. They're asking for authority for $5 billion. At one time they

would say: "Not a dime without debate." Now they want $5 billion

without debate. It's our job as opposition not to sit down quietly and

let this crazy gang — as Jimmy Breslin said, the gang that couldn't

shoot straight; he was talking about someone else, but I think it

applies over there — take the taxpayers' money and wander around the

province like drunken sailors, not knowing what they're doing with it,

but spending it.

[ Page

12329 ]

MR. BLENCOE: The hole-in the-wall gang.

MR. MILLER: The hole-in-the wall gang; the gang that couldn't

shoot straight; the gang that can't count. We've got a Minister of

Finance who doesn't know the difference between $395 million and $1.2

billion. He hasn't been able to explain it to the Premier; he hasn't

been able to explain it to the House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: The difference is $805 million....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Minister, rise on a point of order or not....

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, there was an aspersion on my

character in terms of me being able to discern the difference between

an operating deficit and a capital requirement of the province of the

British Columbia. I want to set the record straight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure that if the hon. member meant anything disparaging he would withdraw. Would the member please continue.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of

Finance is exceedingly defensive. Every time we talk about this I think

we touch a raw nerve, because clearly...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Finance on a point of order. Possibly he could state his point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: I simply asked the member opposite to withdraw those remarks, and I would ask him again to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member mean anything disparaging towards the Minister of Finance? If so, would he withdraw.

MR. MILLER: No, Mr. Speaker. Let me clarify my remarks. If

the Minister of Finance wants to take that as disparaging, then I'd

suggest he consult the Premier, because the Premier went on television

and said that the deficit was $1.2 billion. So if he has a problem, he

has a problem with....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member need only say he did not mean anything disparaging to the minister and that would be adequate.

MR. MILLER: I think he's a fine fellow, and he's doing the

best he can. We don't think that's good enough. We think it falls short

of what the public expects.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That will be taken as your withdrawal, thank you kindly. Will you continue with the debate.

MR. MILLER: The deficit, for the record, is $1.2 billion,

even though the Minister of Finance continues to insist that it's $395

million. They've got a problem on that one; they can't explain it.

They're going to have to deal with it, because pretty soon they're

going to have to go out to the public.

It's important that we debate this supply bill because of the sad

and sorry history of this government. They have ducked out of this

Legislature. They don't want to put their spending plans before the

people of this province; they like to operate in the back rooms on

special warrants. They're asking for authority to spend $5 billion of

taxpayers' money without that being debated. It is not our intention to

let them have that easily.

MS. MARZARI: We're in the business at this very moment of

spending $5 billion in five hours. My colleagues have mentioned this

works out to $1 billion an hour, and that's worth reiterating. It's

quite amazing to me that the government that brought in this supply

bill is not defending it here on the floor of the House in the

Legislature. You have one day — perhaps tomorrow — to discuss the

expenditure of over $5 billion.

[3:15]

It's interesting. Probably a lot of people who are watching this on

television don't understand what a supply bill is. If they haven't

listened to the debate thus far, it's basically four pages brought to

this House and entitled Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 1991. It says on

the first page: "Voted Expenditures Appropriation." This is very easy;

it's not in legalese. Everyone can understand this.

"From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may

be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine

the sum of $5,406,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, and

being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates"

— that being the budget — "for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, as

laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session."

These four pieces of paper stapled together represent one-third of the total

expenditure of this province in its operating grants for this fiscal year, beginning

April 1 of this year until March 31 of next year.

It is unbelievable to me that we in this House, duly elected by all

our constituencies across the province and brought here at the behest

of our constituencies, 69 of us sitting in this House for the sole

purpose of defining priorities and spending the taxpayers' dollars,

find ourselves after all our years of experience and all our community

work, sitting here and in one day — perhaps tomorrow as well; perhaps

two days — reading four pages to spend $5 billion. It boggles the mind

that this is the cumulative impact of all of our years of work, all of

our years of being here — that this government would expect this House

and this opposition to sit back, would expect it to be able to spend

over $5 billion in five hours.

This government gives same-day service an entirely different

meaning. We would generally expect sameday service to be a convenience

for us all, but to deliver

[ Page 12330 ]

a $5 billion budget to run the government through until the end of

July and to expect us to give them same-day service is beyond the pale.

It is something like what this government did when we debated the

GST. If you'll remember, the GST was only debated in this House after

the federal House had actually passed the bill. We were debating in

this House our stand on the GST after the bells had rung closure in the

federal House on the GST bill. It reminds me of the Meech Lake debate,

when late in June we were debating Meech Lake at literally the eleventh

hour in this House.

Yet this government wants us to write a blank cheque for over $5

billion here today so that they can limp their way through to the end

of July, when they think perhaps things might be in better order. They

won't be in better order, because they've brought us to this point in

such complete disarray.

If there is anything in this province that people are asking for

right now, it's accountability — the dreaded A-word. People in this

province can pronounce accountability who never even thought of the

word before. The rich can say it; the poor can say it. Business can say

it; labour can say it. Men can say it; women can say it.

Accountability, honesty, stability — these are the things that people

are looking for. Yet what do we have in this government? We have people

who are afraid of accountability. They are so afraid of bringing into

play the checks and balances that the parliamentary system has built

over 400 years that we end up with four pages.

This morning my colleague from Vancouver East read backwards in time

to try to find the last time a government did not bring in a budget

before the end of a fiscal year. It must have taken him 15 minutes to

read backwards in time, all the way to the 1940s, to discover that

never before this government did we have a late budget or no budget at

all at the end of a fiscal year.

Under

section 21 of the Financial Administration Act, running on

special warrants is only to be done in urgent situations, in

circumstances that are "not foreseen." Could you not foresee this on

April 1 when you had another special warrant in your hip pocket, and

you got out of the House as quickly as you could? Could you not foresee

back in February that a budget was not going to be ready? Could you not

foresee that moving to a special warrant sets a precedent which will be

decried across this land? Do you not think that perhaps the double-A

credit rating that we have in this province might be threatened by not

bringing in a budget? Doesn't it even cross your minds that the New

York bond market might be a little concerned about a government that

brings in four pages two months after it was supposed to have a budget?

Are we looking for stability here, or are we just going to flail about

in political incompetence and inadequacy as we move on through this

year?

This fear of accountability is worth talking about. We might call this government

"accountability-phobic." I notice that the second member for Kamloops,

in his response to the throne speech, took great umbrage with the auditor-general's

report and with the function of the auditor-general's office itself by saying

this about auditing and value-for-money auditing — which, if we are looking

for accountability, must be one of the mainstreams of what being responsible

for public dollars should be about:

"Value-for-money auditing is a growing boondoggle

invented by various self-seeking, self-administered professional

organizations across this country It will show over time that there

will be two certainties as a result: (1) for auditors it will create

more work than the GST, (2) for MLAs it will create a competing

debating House about public policy choices. Value-for-money auditing is

not an objective analysis and policing of public expenditures; it is,

rather, the imposition of a subjective analysis on those choices and

decisions by a non-elected person who does not have the responsibility

for the trade-offs that public policy choices inevitably require."

What about those public policy choices that the second member for

Kamloops talks about? What about value-for-money auditing and what it

can mean to the checks and balances and accountability framework for

how we spend our money and account for it?

The auditor-general describes value-for-money auditing in his 1989

report as such: "We conduct our value-for-money audits in accordance

with the value-for-money auditing standards of the Canadian Institute

of Chartered Accountants." Some boondoggle, flaky, greedy, grey-suited

undercover agency he would suggest! "As these audits involve a

comparison of actual performance against a standard of performance, the

institute prescribes standards as to the setting of appropriate

performance standards or audit criteria, and the nature and extent of

evidence that should be obtained to support the content of the

auditor's report."

He goes on to say:

"When undertaking value-for-money audits, auditors can

either look at results, to determine whether value for money is

actually achieved, or at management's processes, to determine whether

those processes should ensure that value is received for money spent.

However, as acceptable results information and criteria are often not

available, much of our value-for-money audit work concentrates on

management's processes...."

What the auditor-general is saying here is that what the

comprehensive or value-for-money auditing is attempting to do is take a

look at what the government says it is going to do and what it actually

does, and tries to measure it and give it a rating and a standard. It

tries to say whether or not a job has been efficiently or effectively

done.

Far from threatening MLAs and elected officials, the process of a

value-for-money audit should bolster, support, underwrite and assist an

MLA or an elected official. Far from being a subversive process which

threatens to kneecap political processes and decisionmaking,

value-for-money auditing should be perceived, in a system where checks

and balances work, properly, as an aid and an assistance to the process

of what we're about.

But no, that's not what this government would have. That's not what

this government would say — it's certainly not what the second member

for Kamloops had to say about it. We only have to look to yesterday

[ Page

12331 ]

when the Minister of Social Services released a letter that went to

every welfare recipient in this province suggesting that we, the

government, are doing a report card on you, the welfare recipient. And

if you're not out there pounding the pavement and finding those jobs,

you aren't doing your bit as a citizen, and we will have to step in and

make sure you are not draining the welfare bank.

Let me suggest that a value-for-money audit would probably.... I'm

guessing here, but if you brought in an auditor or the

auditor-general....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has been very diligent

here but.... Try to relate your comments to Bill 8. Possibly we could

enter into the debate on Bill 8.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking right now about this

government's inability to recognize a notion of accountability.

Therefore I'm trying to explain why this government might be bringing

before the House a four-page document to expend $5 billion in five

hours. The check and balance here is lacking because this government

does not understand what a check or balance might be. This refers both

to the political science of our enterprise and to the fiscal

arrangements.

What we should be doing in this House — if we want to get to a

positive note here — is discussing in depth a budget properly prepared,

properly planned and properly placed before the House before the end of

the fiscal year. What we should be doing is ensuring that each piece of

that budget is carefully allocated and prepared for a complete and

comprehensive budget review which we call in this House the estimates

process. What we should be doing — if we're interested in checks and

balances and a true accountability loop which starts a project, works

through its logical workings and brings it to an evaluated, monitored

and properly accounted-for conclusion — is having our estimates

procedure in committee, where the committees, depending on whose critic

area is what and where the minister sits, can sit around tables and

discuss the budget, bringing witnesses forward from the various

ministries and from the community to discuss how money should be spent.

Then certain ministries should be properly audited by the

auditor-general or by internal audit so that, as programs unfold and

money is expended, those programs can be tallied, evaluated, monitored

and brought back the following year. That's how it should be done.

[3:30]

On the completion of that, then the Public Accounts Committee should

have a chance to take a look at how the money in fact was spent, so the

government should be able to say: "This is what we're going to do; this

is what we are doing, and this is where it will land in public accounts

with proper monitoring."

The auditor-general suggests that that is not the process we actually live

through. In fact, the second member for Kamloops went to great and almost emotional

lengths to tell us how bad the idea of value-for-money auditing is. One can

only wonder if that member was a little bit concerned because the auditor had

done, in his 1991 report, a little overview on the Ministry of Regional and

Economic Development, during which he commented that the loans made from the

industrial incentive fund.... He noted that after the funds were disbursed from

the industrial incentive fund, they were not properly recorded or monitored.

Benefits being described were often neither complete nor always costed. The

auditor-general also stated that without regular monitoring the province may

be jeopardizing its ability to realize any claim it may have if a project becomes

unsuccessful.

The auditor-general, in very gentle language, is basically saying

that we don't monitor the loans we give to businesses. There's a little

scam going on there. Things aren't what they seem to be on the surface.

We're not controlling the bucks when we do spend them. And is that not

perfectly consistent with what we see in front of us? Four pages for $5

billion.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at estimates over the long term. We

have to look at budgets properly brought to the House. We have to look

at months of debate, not hours of debate, on $5 billion. I'm convinced

that in doing it the right way we would be able to create more

efficient and effective service in this province and be able to save

hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think there's any doubt about

it. People would welcome that in British Columbia, because it speaks to

their cry for accountability right now.

It surprises me each day, as we go through the machinations of

democracy in this chamber, that the Lieutenant-Governor isn't pounding

on the door sometimes to throw this government out, because we don't

have a budget and we don't seem to have a mandate. We get four pages

for the expenditure of $5 billion. It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

It's not good enough at all.

They're talking about a report card to people on welfare. There will

be a report card for this government, and that report card is due in

the not-too-distant future. I only hope that when the people of this

province finally have a chance to mark their ballots, they are going to

remember this bill of four pages and the $5 billion it represents, and

the fact that it was passed through this House with only five hours of

debate. That's not good enough; a report card this will be, indeed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House

some students from Mount Cheam Christian School with their teacher Mr.

Adrian Stouqesdyk. I suppose there are some chaperones here; I see a

bunch of them there. There are 35 grades 9 to 11 students from the best

constituency in the province of British Columbia. Would you please make

them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: I felt it's important to take my place in the debate today. In listening to the members

[ Page 12332 ]

opposite, it would seem that the whole world is coming to an end and

that everything is gloom and doom in the province of British Columbia.

Let me just refresh some people's memories about things that are

going on in other jurisdictions in Canada. Let's talk about how things

are going on today in Manitoba. Let's talk about the pay freeze that's

going on in Manitoba — a ceiling of 3 percent — as compared to what we

have here. Let's talk about the increase that education is receiving in

Manitoba as a result of their budget: a 2 percent level. Two percent is

the limited growth in the education budget in the current fiscal year.

Let's talk about Newfoundland and the freezes taking place; there's

an absolute, across-the-board freeze on all government employees in all

sectors in the province of Newfoundland. Along with that, thousands of

layoff notices have been given. Compare that to what's happening in the

great province of British Columbia. Look at Saskatchewan: further

freezes and layoffs.

The federal government were very bold some two months ago when they

looked at the revenue and the finances, and they said: "We're going to

put a 3 percent cap on federal civil servants." Guess what the decision

was in the last 48 hours, Mr. Speaker. The decision is a complete

freeze right across the piece for federal civil servants. Compare that

with the positive things that are going on in the province of British

Columbia.

Look at Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker. Look at the freezes and the

cutbacks taking place in those eastern provinces, and compare that with

what's happening here.

We have among the lowest taxes in every area you wish to choose in

all of Canada. There are the odd exceptions; you can look at Alberta

where they have no sales tax. But if you look at all the other areas,

the province of British Columbia leads the way.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Look at debt, Mr. Speaker. You compare the amount of cents per

dollar that this province receives and what we pay in interest on debt

with any other province, and you will see that British Columbia is the

clear winner at about 3.5 cents of every dollar spent on debt interest.

You compare that with any other province, and not one province can come

anywhere near the performance of the province of British Columbia,

Look at jobs, Mr. Speaker. We have created more jobs in this

province in the last four years than any jurisdiction in Canada — by

far the leaders on a per capita basis, without any question whatsoever.

The only reason our unemployment is as high as it is in British

Columbia is in-migration.

If you want to examine the rate at which we are creating jobs, look at in-migration.

If you could freeze in-migration for 18 months, we would have literally zero

unemployment. That's how fast people are coming to British Columbia. People

are coming into my constituency from Ontario literally by the hundreds. If they're

coming by the hundreds into Shuswap-Revelstoke, they're coming by the thousands

and tens of thousands into other areas of British Columbia.

Look at the record of this government in the area of

diversification. We have diversified this economy of ours in the last

eight years in spades. There was a time when we could look at British

Columbia and think of forestry, mining, fishing and agriculture. But

today we have diversification. We've got a very soft forest products

industry right now, with thousands of layoffs, but despite that,

British Columbia's economy is still comparatively quite strong. We have

high-tech and added value. In my constituency alone we have all kinds

of firms. I would say at least 20 firms in the forest products industry

have started up in the last eight years in the area of added value.

We've got an expanded agricultural industry Do you know today that

there are more people employed in agriculture than there are in the

primary industry of forestry? Were you aware of that? Agricultural

fulltime employment is on the upswing. The primary forestry industry,

meaning the loggers, is going down as far as numbers of employed is

concerned.

We have a lot to be proud of in this province of ours. We have an

expanded agricultural industry. Our horticultural industry is growing

in leaps and bounds with 20 and 30 percent growth. Did you know that we

in British Columbia are actually growing tomatoes, cucumbers, red and

green peppers, and exporting them to California? That's the kind of

strength we have in agriculture as a result of diversification and

other things that have happened in British Columbia.

Look at tourism. You would think — listening to the members opposite

— that everything was gloom and doom and that British Columbia was

going to hell in a handbasket. I can tell you that British Columbia

leads all of Canada in tourism growth. Our tourism growth in 1990 over

1989 was five solid percentage points. You lay that alongside any other

jurisdiction in Canada, and it will prove once again that British

Columbia is the leader and that we're the leader in spades.

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: Check the U.S. border crossings, Madam Member.

Mr. Speaker, look at the quality of life. Why are people from other

provinces coming to British Columbia? They are coming here because of

the quality of life, good government, good budgets, a good debt ratio

and the environment. You look at our air, our water, our environmental

laws, our regulations and rules, and you will find that people are

coming here for those reasons. We have a good, strong mixed economy. We

have the most literate province anywhere in Canada. We've got among the

highest wages and the best standard of living.

I give full support to this government and to this motion. I thank you for the opportunity to address the assembly today.

MR. SPEAKER: We're actually dealing with the second reading of a bill. We've passed the motion.

Before recognizing the next member, perhaps those members who are in their offices and listening to this

[ Page

12333 ]

on the squawk-box would realize that we're somewhat short of a quorum.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm glad that a member from the government side got up to try to defend the government's record.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: To try to defend the government's record — yes.

I notice he didn't talk very much about any of the reasons we're having

this debate. I wanted to bring it a little bit down to earth in terms

of what this supply bill means to the people in the Cariboo.

Interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Everybody knows about my family business. It's

out there in public, and everybody knows that I make sure the public

knows what my private business is so that they can't accuse me of any

conflict of interest.

It's very interesting to know that the heckling from the Minister of

Finance would attempt to take us off the topic today. The nasty mood

that he's in probably has something to do with the fact that people

come to British Columbia for the weather, the quality of life and the

wonderful endowment we have here and not because of statistics that are

dry.

When I talk to people in the Cariboo on the street and they ask

what's going on down there, they're really fed up with always being

behind the eight ball. They say: "Can't you guys do anything on time?"

I said: "It doesn't have anything to do with us. It has to do with the

government not bringing their budget in on time." They don't believe

that we sat before the end of the fiscal year and that there was no

budget presented for debate.

They realize that it's the political chaos the government is in that

has held this up and that they are being put to ransom — that if we

don't pass this bill in a day's debate, the welfare cheques will be

held up, the highways projects might not go ahead and, in fact, we

might not be paid. That doesn't bother me because I've put aside some

money in case you don't allow us debate on this bill. I've got money in

the bank so that I can afford to live down here in my basement suite.

[3:45]

People up there know that I sleep on the floor because you don't

give me enough money to buy a second bed. They also know that I can

manage my money well enough that we can afford to hold up a few things.

We won't hold up welfare cheques and the necessary money to run our

hospitals. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is glad to hear that. We

want to make sure that our point is made so that the people understand

exactly what we're doing here.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again, that over $5 billion

has to be approved here. It is going to be a little blank cheque that's

in the back of the government's pocket so they can pull out of this

session, go to a leadership race, have a new Premier and call an

election. Then we'll be faced....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Yes, I'm going to. I've been running for two

years. Due to the instability of this government I've had to be on

election footing ever since I was elected. That's why I live in a

basement suite and haven't even bought a bed — because I don't know

when you're going to pull the plug. I just wish you would. When we're

government I know I will be able to afford to buy a bed, get a better

sleep and not be so cranky in this House when I have to debate this

bill. It's really hard, thanks to you people, to go home and defend my

paycheque.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, I fail to discern what the comments of the hon. member opposite have to do with the interim supply bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Actually, the majority of his comments have been

on the funding under vote 1, which is probably covered under interim

supply. Since the member's remuneration is under vote 1, I presume

that's what it's about, although most of it should be addressed by the

Board of Internal Economy.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The heckling from the other side is sometimes

very difficult to take, and some of us are a little milder than the

others over there. Some of us don't have such thick skins that we can

take the unfair criticism and all the heckling.

We really want to talk about the bill. I've got pages of notes here

that I hope I can get through in the time allotted, but I'm trying to

convey a little bit of the feeling that I have as a new member of this

Legislature when some of the members on my side use the word

"contempt." I don't think it's too strong a word. It's not one that I

would have picked, but I think there's a disregard for the

parliamentary process. That's what I have trouble defending to people

at home in the Cariboo, because they are concerned that there be some

stability in government so that they know that business is being taken

care of. When they see us in the second session debating interim

supply, when they feel that there could have been a budget before the

end of the fiscal year, they don't understand it. There are no words we

can use to make a lot of people understand that we try. One of the

reasons I'm addressing this issue is that I feel that people have to

understand why we're in this situation. It's because of political

instability, which has resulted in some financial instability.

What this has done to the people in the Cariboo is that they feel a

little uncertain that we're going to be ready to go ahead and tender,

according to good business practices, on time some of the construction

projects that we need for our secondary roads. Breakup's over, it's

time to go back to work, and we're two months into the new fiscal year

without a budget. It seems to me that what is needed in areas such as

fisheries management, for example, is good planning and a budget in

place to manage the resources so that the people who depend on those

resources can carry on with their business. They do their planning and

[ Page 12334 ]

have budgets in place, and they don't understand why government can't do the same thing.

When I say that some of what's going on down here is indefensible,

it's really important that we as opposition say that we have an

obligation to use what time is available to us to try and debate what's

going on here. We look forward to line-by-line debate in committee,

where we can get into a lot of the specifics. But the principle here —

that we should be dealing with over $5 billion and you want approval in

one day — is simply an indefensible situation.

Businesses, municipalities, local governments and school districts

all have to bring in budgets on time, and I'm finding that there are

people in the local governments, school boards and regional districts

who do not understand why the provincial government doesn't have to do

what they are supposed to do. There is a set date for them to bring in

a budget. They have to submit a budget and pass it by a certain time so

that they can put the bills out to the taxpayers so they know what's

going on. I think there's a double standard going on here.

There's a desperate attempt to avoid lengthy debate on the spending

of the government. We see this in the context of serious criticisms by

the auditor-general. We see some suggestions that money is leaking out

of the resource-based economy, and we're not getting down to serious

debate about that. So our responsibility is to insist before the people

that we have taken time to register this point with the government and

remind them that this may be their last chance to treat the people of

British Columbia with the contempt that they're showing right now.

The idea that we would govern by special warrants seems to me to

violate a principle of parliament. Special warrants are here for times

when there is some urgency and no other opportunity. We maintain that

special warrants and interim supply could have been dealt with much

earlier than this, and failure to do so is just an admission that the

government is clearly out of touch with its own mechanisms, making it

unable to generate a budget or interim supply on time.

It seems to me that perhaps the intention of the government is to

try to avoid serious and lengthy debate which will focus on the $1.2

billion deficit, which some members of the government admit to being

there and others don't admit. But when I speak to the people of the

Cariboo, they ask in simple terms: "What is the difference between the

amount of money the government's taking in and the amount of money the

government's spending?" The answer is not $395 million but $1.2

billion. When I tell them that, they say: "What are they doing?" I say:

"Perhaps you should register your protests with the next minister you

see coming down the road."

What the people in the Cariboo and everywhere in British Columbia

want — whether they're in business or whether they're just a voter — is

some consistency, some financial credibility, some predictability....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: They do, yes. The Finance minister says that

we're well enough taken care of that we can really afford to set up a

second household down here and be here at their beck and call.

As I said, I'm careful in my own financial planning. I wouldn't want

to invest in anything that wasn't going to pay off. I want to know how

permanently I'm going to be here. I'm hoping that I'm going to be here

quite a while.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: That's right. The Minister of Finance is guaranteeing

that I'm going to be back in the Legislature after the next election. But

I wish they would give me peace of mind and just call the election so we can

settle it once and for all.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke talked a bit about agricultural

employment. I guess if he has the latitude to speak about that, then I

can. I'm glad to see that it's increasing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Since the member raises the

question, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke concluded his remarks by

saying that he was pleased to be able to speak to the motion. I think

perhaps he was mistaken and felt that the budget hadn't passed, because

he was speaking to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair

for the House to go into Committee of Supply. The rest of his remarks

were completely out of order, but no one raised the matter. However,

since you raised the matter, I'm going to caution you: you can stay in

order.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Speaker, being a junior member of the

House, I realize I'm occasionally out of line. But I still like to get

up and speak my mind, because the people at home will know what I'm

talking about.

Interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The members opposite want to talk about my

family business and the hard work that people are doing at home just to

keep some security for me — because there's such chaos around here that

we're not sure that we're even going to have an election.

Anyway, I've pretty well summarized my comments. I know the members

opposite are glad that I'm going to end. They'd really like to hear

more of how those of us in the Cariboo view the budget, but with those

words that I've already chosen, I think they've got a pretty good idea.

In order to leave on a positive note, I'd like to repeat what I just

said. We want some consistency. We want to get rid of the chaos. We

want some financial credibility and predictability. We are prepared to

give that to the people of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking in

this debate, but when I see the member across the way, the member for

Cariboo, speaking about this bill the way he just did in this

Legislature,

[ Page

12335 ]

I'm incensed and I've got to get up and speak in favour of passing this thing.

I heard the member say: "What does this supply bill mean?" Mr.

Member, had you read the bill — and it's in the bill book just at your

feet — you would have found exactly what this bill means. It means the

continuation of all of the programs as you see in the schedule. My

question to the member opposite is: which one of these programs does he

not want to see continue? Does he not want to see the highways

construction and highways maintenance, which can only be done from this

time of year until freeze-up, which isn't very far away in his own

constituency...? Does he want to see that kind of opportunity go

by, so that we miss it in the north?

I am very surprised at that northern member. He says he's

listening to his constituents. Well, his constituents — they're really

not very far away from mine — must be an awful lot different than mine,

because they're not worried about what's going on down here at all. In

fact, if you asked 99.9 percent of them, they couldn't even tell you

whether the Legislature was in session or not. They're hard-working

people who are worried about making a living for their families, about

doing things for their families, about making sure that projects happen

at the time of year that they should. That's the sort of thing my

constituents are worried about. They leave it to this government — and

have done so for many years — to make sure that the budget is right.

The member talked about blank cheques. I can tell that you my

constituents are sure, as they have been for many years, that if this

government writes a cheque on its account, it's covered. We don't have

to go out and borrow that money, as they do in other jurisdictions. I

won't talk about which other jurisdictions.

MR. MICHAEL: Where? Tell us, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Member, if you ask — in other

jurisdictions they have to go out and borrow as much as $9.7 billion

this year to cover the blank cheques. Mr. Speaker, that's why I stood

up and got into this debate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I heard the member say he was concerned about buying a bed here in

Victoria. If he was really listening to his constituents, and if they

were telling him what he wanted to know and hear, he'd go out and buy a

bed right now. Is he worried about his future in this chamber? Is that

what the member is worried about when he gives speeches in this House?

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, I really doubt the veracity of that member. I really

don't think he's from the north. And if he is from the north, he hasn't

been listening to his northern constituents. My constituents are quite

content with the budget brought in by this government. They are quite

content to leave the business of this province to this government,

where it has been very well taken care of since 1951. We had a little

blip....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go! Go!

MR. KEMPF: Yes, we'll go, and when we do they're going to get

a surprise. They salivate at the thought of power. That's all you see

coming from the members opposite: their wish to gain power. Some of the

older members over there know that's not going to happen, so they're

even getting off that roller-coaster. They're getting out because they

know it hasn't happened in the last four elections, and it won't happen

in the next one in this province. We saw one of the oldest members of

this House get out not two weeks ago. We're seeing the House Leader on

the other side getting off the roller coaster. They know why. They know

they're not going to be government in the province, because the people

aren't going to allow it. They want money in that account for these

blank cheques to be covered — blank cheques, indeed, Mr. Member.

You can take this

schedule and ask those members over there: "If you

don't like this bill and if you don't want all these projects going

ahead, why have you agreed to pass it tomorrow at 1 o'clock? When 1

o'clock comes tomorrow, let's see you stand up and say: "No, we don't

want to pass this bill." They're playing games with the people, as

they've done for decades. Decade upon decade they've tried to fool the

people of British Columbia. They're games-playing in this chamber.

The questions are: which of these projects don't you wish to go

ahead, and who don't you want to see paid? I see some of the big issues

here, the big-ticket items. One of the biggest ticket items is for

Social Services and Housing. If you really disagree with this bill,

stand up tomorrow at 1 o'clock and say: "No, I don't want it passed,

because I don't want the money to be available for Social Services and

Housing in British Columbia." Have the intestinal fortitude to tell the

people the way it really is on that side of the floor. We've heard

nothing from you in the last four and a half years; we've just heard

about all the wrong things coming from this side of floor.

The member for Vancouver East applauds. But what are you going to

do? When are you going to come clean with the people of British

Columbia and stand up and say what you're going to do should, heaven

forbid, they ever give you the right to govern in this province? Tell

them. We've heard nothing. We've heard nothing from your leader; he's

ducked the issue. He's allowed all the scandals to go on and has hidden

behind them so that he didn't have to tell the people what that bunch

over there would do should they ever become government.

We see what happens with people of like philosophies when they get

in power in other jurisdictions. But what are these people going to do?

Are they going to provide more with less? We don't know. Come clean

with the people of British Columbia and with us in this chamber and

tell us now which of these programs you don't want to go ahead. What

don't you want in the schedule?

I talked about big-ticket items. I could go on and on. For example,

don't they want money to go into the Ministry of Solicitor-General?

Don't they want money

[ Page 12336 ]

to go into the Ministry of Attorney-General, with the problem we

have with lawbreakers in this province? We saw what the statistics were

recently. Is that where they don't want money to go? They've got to

come clean with the people of this province. They stand up in their

pious way and by speaking against this bill, stop those projects from

going ahead. If they're really serious about what they say in this

chamber, let them stand up and be counted at 1 o'clock tomorrow. Either

stand up and be counted or really say to the people of British

Columbia: "We're going to stop everything: the business of government,

road construction and things like Music '91." That's a prime example of

what's coming from the other side of the floor.

I heard a question in question period that spoke against Music '91,

yet the questioner said: "I agree. We agree." How can you have it both

ways? The NDP thinks they can have it both ways, but I'll tell you that

the people who are going to have the last say are the people of British

Columbia at the ballot box.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave at this hour to make an introduction, and then I'll get into my speech.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: It's not too often that I have so many visitors

from the great constituency of Cariboo, but I'm very pleased that we

have 46 grades 5, 6 and 7 students in the gallery. Accompanying them

are their teachers Mrs. Joan Anderson and Mrs. Shelly Peel of the

Mountview School; that's on Dog Creek Road right near Williams Lake.

Accompanying them are Dave Jackson, Julie Mead, Judy Judd, Jane Folka,

Jim Harrop, Heather Nilson, Shirley Spreng, Rilla Warwick, Sherry

Broomfield and their driver Ron Anderson. I'm sure that the second

member for Cariboo and the whole House would like to give them a warm

welcome.

Mr. Speaker, now that I have the floor, I can't help but add to this debate about Bill....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but it's the custom

in this House to follow in rotation. The next speaker will be from the

opposite side.

MS. CULL: I'm really sorry that the member for Omineca has

left the House, because I wanted to congratulate him on his wonderful

rehearsal for being in opposition. That was just a terrific opposition

speech he gave. He talked about the bill and said that he wanted to

know what programs we weren't in favour of funding, why we were talking

about this and what we did not approve of in this bill.

He's absolutely missing the point, Mr. Speaker. He's missing the point

that the people in this province have learned from bitter experience that this

government isn't spending their money on the programs that they think are

a priority. In fact, they don't even know where their money is being spent,

because this government failed to bring a budget before the Legislature until

24 hours before they run out of money.

The member for Omineca can shout, wave his arms and rant and rave,

but he can't hide this government's fiscal mismanagement and their

flouting of parliamentary tradition. He asked: "When is the opposition

going to have the intestinal fortitude to tell it like it is?" Mr.

Speaker, when is this Finance minister going to have the intestinal

fortitude to tell it like it is? Tell us about the $1.2 billion deficit

and quit trying to hide things with the BS fund and other things and

manipulating with the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have talked about this interim supply

bill and have brought out the fact that it's yet another example of

Social Credit fiscal mismanagement, that the fiscal management policies

of the government are in total disarray and in fact this party is in

total disarray It is incompetent to be unable to bring in a budget

almost two months after the end of a fiscal year.

As my colleague the second member for Vancouver East said, 50 years

of governments have been able to bring in a budget on time before the

end of the fiscal year with one exception — a good exception — when an

election was called. This administration can't even find its calendar

to bring in the budget before the end of March. You don't have to be a

financial wizard. All you have to do is look at your calendar and

realize that every year the fiscal year ends on March 31 — every year

with regularity. It's no surprise. We can plan ahead for this. The

civil service certainly plans for it. They start doing their budgeting

in August and bring everything forward. Why can't the government get

its act together to bring it before this House before the end of the

fiscal year?

It's truly incompetent to underestimate day care expenditures by 100

percent. That's what this bill tells us. It's truly incompetent to have

underspent in key ministries that desperately needed money last year.

Education left $40 million unspent; Advanced Education left $27

million. Advanced Education is a ministry of great interest to people

in my riding. We have students turned away from the University of

Victoria every year. We had 400 students turned away from Camosun

College last year because they do not have the budget to provide the

spaces for all the students who come to their door. And this government

left $27 million unspent in advanced education.

The people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head don't understand why a government

cannot run its business the way any competent business person would do.

Municipalities do it. School boards do it, and the businesses in my

community do it. They provide a budget every year. They follow it and

spend their money. They collect their revenues, and they can plan ahead

on a five-year cycle — if that's what makes sense to them — without

having to create imaginary and unlikely surpluses in future years just

to balance it. They don't have to have a fund that has no money in it

to manipulate the bottom line to show that their budget's balanced.

The people in my community just don't understand how a government

can run its budget this way. But it's more than just financial

incompetence that's at issue here. It's the way this government manages

its finances

[ Page

12337 ]

in contempt of the traditions of parliamentary democracy. This bill

seeks retroactive approval for a $232 million special warrant to cover

the cost overruns from last year's budget and a $2.9 billion special

warrant to cover just the last two months of this year. The Financial

Administration Act provides for special warrants where they are

urgently needed in circumstances that cannot be foreseen. How can these

expenditures not have been foreseen? We all have calendars. We all saw

March 31 coming up. One of the past Ministers of Finance — it's hard to

remember which one it was, but it was either number two or three or

four ago — said in March to this Legislature that he had the budget

almost complete and an interim supply bill in his pocket. That was in

March, when we were sitting here. In fact, we were here in March and no

budget was brought in. No interim supply bill was brought in. Just four

weeks before we were convened there was something that was unforeseen

and urgent, and special warrants were brought in. We were here for less

than two weeks, and nine days after we adjourned — again unforeseen and

urgent — $2.9 billion of special warrants are signed away.

What was the urgency? What was unforeseen? What could not have been

dealt with when we sat here in this House in March? What was unforeseen

was the mess, the disarray, the chaos in which this government was

going to find itself in March. They came into the House in March and

after two short weeks were in such chaos and disarray that they

couldn't stand the heat in here any longer, and they pulled the plug

and got out. They did not want to submit their spending and revenue

plans to the scrutiny of this parliament.

[4:15]

They've been in power over there for so long that they don't think

they have to come before the Legislature to discuss how they raise

money and how they spend money. They have so little respect for our

parliamentary traditions. That is one of the most fundamental

principles: that the government come into the House and justify its

taxing decisions and its spending decisions.

Almost five years ago, when this administration came into power,

they talked about a new openness in government. They promised an

openness to the people of British Columbia. They said they would

consult with people and be open about their spending plans and their

priorities. What we've had is secrecy. They have deliberately tried to

hide from the people of British Columbia by staying out of the

Legislature for most of the time and doing the majority of their

spending with special warrants and not bringing a budget into the

Legislature until almost two months after the end of the fiscal year.

And why? Why do we find ourselves in this situation right now? Since

1986 this government has lurched from crisis to crisis until they've

now almost reached the point of paralysis. They are unable to govern.

They have no vision; they can't even stick to a plan unless it's a plan

to avoid the Legislature.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: They don't have a plan, says my colleague from

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. That's true, but even when they do have a plan,

you can't depend on them to stick to it from one month to the next.

When we were in here in March for that all-too-brief session, the

centrepiece of government legislation was the taxpayer protection plan,

which was designed to freeze the tax rate so that the people of this

province would know that their government would not raise their taxes.

Now we are back in here less than two months later with a budget. What

does it do? It raises taxes. One month taxes are frozen; the next month

they're not frozen. How can the people trust a government that can't

even stick to a plan for more than two months?

So what do they want us to do? They want us to approve $5 billion in

five hours without the benefit of the full debate that we go through

traditionally in estimates. They're saying, "Trust us, " even though

they can't be trusted to bring in a budget on time, even though they

can't come clean and admit to the people of British Columbia that their

deficit is $1.2 billion, even though they change their minds from one

month to the next, and even though after five years of the most callous

and cynical government we've had, the Minister of Finance stands up

here a week ago and shamelessly tells us that his government has

discovered caring and compassion and people first in this province —

after five years of cutting services to people, of privatizing and

contracting out, and of chopping the things that people in this

province care for and depend on most.

That's the problem: it comes down to a matter of trust. This

government has so flouted the traditions of parliament that people in

the province find it very difficult to trust them anymore. It has been

caught so many times misrepresenting what's really going on, whether

it's the Knight Street Pub, the cost of the Coquihalla Highway, the

Expo land sales, the real benefits of privatization.... In every one of

these cases and many others, the members on the other side of the House

have deliberately tried to hide the facts about what is really going

on. It has come out in the auditor-general's report year after year.

Quite simply, the people in this province have a very difficult time

trusting this government when it says: "Trust us. Give us $5 billion in

five hours of debate. Trust us; we'll look after you and have your

spending priorities right."

What will we get with this bill? Members on the other side keep

asking us what we are not in favour of and what do we not support? But

it's the other agenda that I'm concerned about with this bill. After

this bill's passed, are we going to get the opportunity to start into

the estimates debate? Will we get the opportunity to start asking

questions about things like funding cutbacks to Camosun College? Will

we get an opportunity to discuss the money that's going into the

Georgia Basin initiative? Will we find out exactly how these kinds of

things are going to be spent?

I don't know, because what the government on the other side and what

the Minister of Labour is saying is: "Trust us." This is a government

that the people of British Columbia no longer trust. You have to earn

[ Page 12338 ]

trust, and this government has not earned the trust of the people in

this province. That's why we're debating this bill. We may not have

another chance to debate the estimates. This government's past record

deserves and demands a full and lengthy debate on its spending plans.

The Social Credit government has become erratic and confused. The

inability to bring in the budget on time is the most telling sign of a

government that's in fatigue, chaos and disarray. The government has

lost the moral authority to govern, but it seems desperately determined

to carry on. For that reason, we are going to hold them accountable and

we are going to continue this debate.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place and support

this interim supply bill which is very necessary to have the approval

of this Legislature on funding for some very worthwhile programs.

I was very surprised to hear the second member for Cariboo talk

about being concerned about buying a bed in Victoria. I can't help but

recall during that short sitting we had in March, when we were only

here for two weeks, that he wasn't here 35 percent of the time. I'm

sure he could just rent a bed here in Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. VANT: I certainly live in my constituency.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, pardon my interfering with your

speech, but the Premier seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall

leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I know the member for Cariboo will want

to join me in welcoming grade 4, 5, 6 and 7 students visiting us this

afternoon from Mountview School in Williams Lake. They are accompanied

by a school board trustee, Mrs. Rilla Warwick. I would ask the House to

please make them welcome.

MR. VANT: It is indeed a special day to not only have their

own MLA introduce them but also the Premier of the province. It's quite

an honour.

I'd like to say, too, that part of Bill 8 is very worthwhile

expenditure for such programs as forestry. Who on earth in this chamber

could possibly be against our community forest program, which ensures

that farming of forests can continue. I do know, too, that the second

member for Cariboo would want funding so that we have silviculture done

in every part of the Cariboo. I'm sure in the fact that he has a

woodlot licence that he'd want to see good forest practices in the

Cariboo. Indeed, I notice funding in Bill 8 for the very important

Ministry of Lands and Parks. This is very important to the people in

the Cariboo. Many in our ranching community depend on that ministry to

administer the very successful program of leasing Crown land for

agricultural purposes.

Indeed, it is somewhat disconcerting to some of my constituents that recently

the Leader of the Opposition named the second member for Cariboo the critic

for Crown lands. They are getting nervous about that because it appears that

both the former mayor of Vancouver and Leader of the Opposition and the second

member for Cariboo were, for example, very reluctant to have an ag lease issued

to Evergreen Ranch in the Quesnel area. If there was ever a perfect ag-lease

situation in the Cariboo, that was it. It was 80 percent arable land. It was

confirmed and reconfirmed, yet instead of just a very short, inexpensive phone

call to me to clarify the details of that particular ag-lease application, what

did the Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Cariboo do? They

went yelling and screaming to the ombudsman. Of course, this Bill 8, this interim

supply bill, provides funds for....

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There's

latitude and there's latitude, but I don't know what an agricultural

lease has to do with the supply bill. Perhaps you might remind the

member that we're on Bill 8.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The speaker is absolutely right — there has

been latitude. As a matter of fact, there has been so much latitude

that I don't think one of the speeches has been in order.

HON. J. JANSEN: My response, Mr. Speaker, was that I recall

the member for Cariboo speaking about his bed. He was complaining about

a bed during Bill 8 debate. I'm surprised that the NDP would raise this

question of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are no points of order being made in this chamber that I've heard.

MR. VANT: I see I've got the socialist corner a little

stirred up this afternoon. But speaking about Bill 8 and the excellent

Ministry of Lands and Parks programs.... One of them, as I was saying,

was the leasing of Crown land for agricultural purposes. This enables

our ranchers to increase their land base so that they can have more

viable operations. Indeed, the experts tell me that to have a viable

ranch in the Cariboo, you should have at least 200 head to support one

family In some areas of the Cariboo you need a land base of about a

thousand acres in order to achieve that.

I find it ironic that the second member for Cariboo and the Leader

of the Opposition went out of their way to oppose this excellent ag

lease to the Evergreen Ranch. The facts that were shown by the

ombudsman's report confirmed that the arability of the Evergreen Ranch

ag lease was higher than that of the Zirnhelt ranch ag lease.

On Bill 8, this funding for Crown lands is very important.

There is also funding in this Bill 8, the interim supply bill, for

education. It's quite a contrast, when you compare our budget in

British Columbia to the budget in Ontario. A much higher percentage of

the budget in British Columbia is dedicated to education than it is in

Ontario. So it makes me wonder just what

[ Page

12339 ]

the members opposite would do in terms of priorities if they ever did get into power.

From their statements, it's very hard to figure out what their

priorities would be. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying:

"I've made it very clear that our goal is a balanced budget." He said

that last April. Within 15 days the opposition Finance critic said:

"The NDP would not attempt to balance the budget every year. Deficit

financing would likely be necessary." Again we see a flip-flop. The

leader says that yes, their goal would be to have a balanced budget.

The Finance critic, the would-be Minister of Finance, says that there

would be a deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: But what did Mr. Krog say?

MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Krog, one of their candidates said: "Oh

yes, if we get elected, income taxes for sure will go up." the Leader

of the Opposition said in Kamloops that they would spend $3 billion

more on programs than the current government. How on earth would they

come up with the money? Perhaps they would implement a payroll tax and

tax lower and middle income workers to finance this expenditure of

money. Wherever the NDP has had power in Canada, they've instituted

this payroll tax. In the province of Manitoba, they were even taxing

hamburgers at McDonald's.

In Bill 8 we have provided funds for some very worthwhile programs,

and of course, it's all in the context of the overall budget. We want

to have money for education, we want to have money for social services,

we want to have money for health care, and so I strongly support this

Bill 8, this interim supply bill.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA: It's very tough to follow that kind of

scintillating presentation from the member for Cariboo. I note he's not

running again, and that may well be his last speech. He's running away

from here, but it may be his last speech in the Legislature and will go

down in the history books as one of the memorable events in this House.

I see the Minister of Finance is ducking out of the House. I guess

he can't stand the heat either, and it's unfortunate, because he really

should be here to hear a number of comments I want to make.

You've got to ask yourself: why are we debating interim supply

today? Here it is May 30, and all of a sudden this government, which

has lurched from scandal to scandal and crisis to crisis, finds itself

facing another crisis. It runs out of money tomorrow. Now these are

people who say that they have some monopoly on being able to manage our

province's financial resources, and that only they can look after the

province, and only they can look after the taxpayers' interests and

make sure that dollars are wisely spent. But here we sit, and in about

29 hours this government will be bankrupt. It will have run out of

money.

MR. MILLER: We know they're bankrupt in ideas.

MR. SIHOTA: They're bankrupt in ideas; they're bankrupt in morals. Now they're going to be financially bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker, they need this legislation in order to continue to

provide financial sustenance for the operations of government. This

government has known — and you don't have to be a political scientist

to know — that the financial year ends on March 31 every year. That is

something basic to the political process. Everybody knows that the

financial year ends on March 31. Therefore everybody knows that the

government has to have its financial house in order and must be able to

present a budget to the people of this province, through this chamber,

prior to March 31 each year.

My colleague from Vancouver East and subsequent speakers have

pointed out over and over again that governments in British Columbia

have regularly, for the last 50 years since the Second World War — with

one exception, when there was an election — been able to produce

budgets on time. We find ourselves in a situation here where this

government, for reasons that I'll get into in a minute, was unable to

produce a budget for March 31, 1991. In fact, it wasn't until May 21 or

22 that the government actually introduced a budget — a week ago this

Tuesday. It just realizes now that it's going to run out of money, so

it needs interim supply to see its way through the next few months.

This is a government that says that it can plan, but surely it

can't. This government says it knows something about financial

management; clearly this experience shows otherwise. Other experiences

show to a greater extent, and I'll talk about those experiences in a

minute.

Why was it that this government introduced its budget on May 22 as

opposed to some time in March, as it has done since I've been in this

Legislature since 1986? Quite frankly, the reason is that this

government finds itself in utter and total political chaos. It is an

administration without even a hint of a political agenda, a government

that has lost not just its moral compass but the moral authority to

govern. It is a government that has run out of ideas, that has run out

of steam, that in the past few months has not produced one visionary

idea in terms of the kinds of changes we need in British Columbia to

deal with the problems that face the province today.

HON. S. HAGEN: Did you get that from a government source?

MR. SIHOTA: No, I can see with my own eyes. The people of

this province can understand clearly that this administration has run

out of ideas.

The reason we find ourselves in this situation is that the

government never expected to find itself in this situation, when you

think about it. The government made a decision last January, when the

first member for Richmond was still the Premier, that it wanted to go

to the polls in February or March. They came up with a plan to present

a gimmick to the people of British Columbia. Before every provincial

election, Social Credit tries to come up with a gimmick to bring

[ Page 12340 ]

people back into the fold and win the election campaign.

BCRIC was a gimmick in 1979, I believe, in the election campaign. It

was a financial fiasco, but the member says: "Yes, that's right. It

worked in terms of the political objective." But in terms of the

financial fiasco, it was no more than just a gimmick to get people

onside, to drive up the numbers prior to a provincial election and to

hold on to them during an election campaign.

In 1986 Bill Vander Zalm was a gimmick, and now they've changed

leaders and all of a sudden everything has changed. In January the

gimmick that this government was hoping to come up with to salvage its

political fortunes was a "taxpayer protection plan." The hope over

there among you people in cabinet was that somehow people would be

fooled by that kind of program and that you could call an election in

February or March. So why bother to worry about a budget?

The public didn't buy it, and I'll tell you why they didn't buy it.

They didn't buy it last January, when the Premier went on TV to do his

whole thing to promote that program, because they saw this government

for what it is: a desperate government that will say anything and do

anything to win favour with the voters. It's not working.

You came into the House in March thinking that you would just rev

through the Taxpayer Protection Act and a couple of other pieces of

legislation to do with a referendum — maybe something on property

rights — and we'd be out of here: "We'll be on the hustings in March."

It didn't work, did it? Why didn't it work? It didn't work for the

simple reason that at the helm was an individual — the former Premier —

who was involved in one of the most incredible scandals involving

conflict of interest that this province or this country has ever seen.

People can't stomach any more after four and a half years of Knight

Street Pubs, David Poole escapades and tampering with the

administration of justice by Attorneys-General. Now we have a

conflict....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill

before us is second reading of a supply bill. It's the Ministry of

Finance and has nothing to do with the issues that the member is

attempting to bring to this debate. The member is clearly out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw the member's attention to the fact that we're dealing with the principle of Bill 8.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I can fully understand why those

members over there don't want to be reminded of the scandal, and I can

fully understand why they feel the sting of those comments. But I'm

explaining why we're dealing with this legislation here today.

So in March, all of a sudden they found that they had a liability with their

current leader. I know that the member for Prince George South, who objected

a minute ago....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, I'll do it again. The

act before us is a supply act from the Ministry of Finance. It doesn't

deal with the behaviour of any member of this House. But if the member

wants to do that, we can certainly get into that type of debate with no

problem at all. The bill is a supply bill, and I think the Legislative

Assembly would be well served if the member would direct his remarks to

that bill. If he doesn't have the capacity to understand the bill, then

maybe he should take his place and let another member debate the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point in question is Bill 8, and we're

dealing with the principles of the bill — I would just remind the hon.

member. Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: As I was about to say, I only wish the member for

Prince George South had been here to listen to his colleague from the

Cariboo talk about agricultural leases a few minutes ago. I hasten to

say that I don't understand quite how that fell within the parameters

of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That was done, Mr. Member. I would suggest that you do as well when he does it again.

So now we have a situation where the government has to come before

this House and ask for $5.6 billion in approvals for expenditures,

without time to scrutinize, without time to analyze, without time to

study. They just want blanket authority to go out and spend $5.6

billion in taxpayers' dollars. They don't even have a sense of concern

over the fact that they're asking for that remarkable amount of money

to fund their operations.

We intend to take advantage — and will continue to — of every

opportunity to ask questions about that $5.6 billion in expenditures.

The ministers have to account for what's going on in their ministries.

We have asked — and we will ask — questions during the course of this

debate about the government debt, the government deficit. We have, in

this instance, documents which tend to confirm the position we've taken

all the way through: there's a $1.2 billion deficit in British

Columbia. It's not $395 million, as the Minister of Finance would say,

but $1.2 billion, as the Premier would say — as she has said on

television, but not to the face of her Minister of Finance here.

As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, these people somehow think

that they have some tremendous financial skills that no one else can

possess, which is why they should just be blindly secure that there is

approval.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Labour says: "Yes, you're right.

We do." Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Labour hasn't studied the

financial history of this province. Let me just give him a very quick

lesson. If he were to take all of the governments elected in this

province from the time of Confederation in 1871 to

[ Page

12341 ]

1975, when the NDP left office, and to add up all of the debt

accumulated by all of those governments over 104 years, the total

accumulated debt would be $4 billion. Since Social Credit took power in

1975, in the 15-year period between 1975 and 1990, that accumulated

debt has increased to $16 billion.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In 15 years you've managed to quadruple the accumulated debt of this

province, in comparison to all of the governments from 1871 to 1975. No

other government has managed to quadruple its debt....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You ask: "How do we compare?" I'm telling you how you compare: $16 billion.

[4:45]

Let's face the facts. No other government has had that type of horrendous track record with respect to finances.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period is held at the

beginning of each afternoon, to be used then. We are now in debate on

Bill 8, interim supply.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, that member should be worried about

Harry Lali. I was talking to Harry yesterday. He's out knocking on

doors today — I think in Lillooet.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! All comments should be directed to the Speaker and not to each member directly.

MR. SIHOTA: That's true, the member is right. I gave him some advice when I was up in Merritt, that if he doesn't run scared he will....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member! Direct your

comments to the Speaker and not directly to each member, and then we'll

have orderly debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker I was directing that comment through you to the member opposite.

In any event, let's go back to the history lesson. I know they like

to heckle when they hear this, but the fact of the matter is that

between 1975 and 1990 — and it's in the financial documents appended to

the budget last year; I haven't had a chance to go through the

documents this year — the deficit of this province had accumulated to

around $16 billion.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member didn't hear me. I said it was in last year's

documents. I'm sure this year it has gone up to somewhere in the neighbourhood

of $20 billion, from the numbers that I hear. The members who have read it tell

me it's very close to $20 billion. So there you go. In the 16-year period

between 1975 and 1991, they've increased it five fold to $20 billion. This

government has overexpended its expenditures by $1 billion a year in one of

the richest provinces in Canada. We now have accumulated debt of $20 billion

in this province. If you want to go on the election trail and run on that kind

of financial mismanagement, be my guest. In fact call it today. I'll be

quite happy to go out there and talk about that kind of record.

Just over the last four or five years we've seen example after

example of financial mismanagement, which has led us to the predicament

we see reflected in the numbers that are attached to this interim

supply bill. The special warrants attached to the interim supply bill

indicate that this government