Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 3, Number 6

Part 2

[ Page 2177 ]

The House resumed at 6:38 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1997

(second reading continued)

S. Hawkins: Since it's my first opportunity to rise in the House to speak, I would like to thank my constituents for their patience in the past few months as I learned my new role as their MLA and how to deal with constituency issues. I'd also like to extend my gratefulness to my constituency assistant, Del La Marre, for all of her hard work and efforts on behalf of our constituents.

Tonight I rise to debate the interim supply that the government is asking for. I have some serious concerns about debating this very important issue at the eleventh hour before a long weekend. As has been mentioned by previous speakers, this House had the opportunity to sit last fall, through the winter or earlier this year, and this government has chosen the last few days in the last month before the end of the budget year and has left no opportunity to engage in responsible debate, to raise constituency issues, to make sure that this money is going to be spent responsibly and appropriately.

This government hasn't budgeted properly for the past six years. We've seen six successive deficit budgets. I heard someone say that at least they've been consistent. We are now going to see a seventh deficit budget, and they're asking this House -- they're asking members on this side -- to give them the confidence, to extend them spending authority for the next three months. They made promises of a balanced budget last year. They boasted of a surplus. That didn't take place. Within a week of tabling that budget, they announced a deficit.

How do we know that what they're proposing in this budget next year will actually happen? It certainly didn't come to fruition last year. I'm a strong believer that past performance is a very strong indicator of future performance. Just keeping that in mind, I have reservations about giving this government any confidence in the spending that they're asking for.

I heard the other side of the House talking about a lot of good news. I wonder what papers they've been reading; I wonder what TV stations they've been watching and what radio stations they've been listening to. I wonder if they've even been listening to anyone in British Columbia. In fact, they don't want to listen. They don't want to know, because they won't like what they hear.

Let me tell you what's happened in my constituency over the past few months under the continued mismanagement of this NDP government. Let's talk about municipal off-loading. Let's talk about municipal grants totalling $113 million in 1997 that were unilaterally and arbitrarily cut by this NDP government -- absolutely no consultation whatsoever with municipalities -- after they signed an agreement last September. They signed an agreement last September to consult. Imagine that! They were going to bring these communities into the consultation process.

And despite signing the agreement with the municipalities that they would consult, guess what happened. They didn't consult with them, and they off-loaded $113 million of extra burden onto municipalities.

That means people and families in my constituency, seniors in my constituency, will suffer from decreased funding. That means homeowners, renters and small businesses will be forced into increased taxes and cuts to services. Good news? I think not.

In my constituency this NDP government also reneged on several other agreements. Surprise! A 1994 agreement with the Okanagan Basin Water Board to provide $450,000 worth of Eurasian milfoil funding over five years has been cut to less than half. Good news for my constituents? I think not.

The NDP walked away from a 20-year-old amalgamation agreement with the city of Kelowna that provided for maintenance of roads and sharing of policing costs. Good news for my constituents? As my niece would say: "Not!"

Agriculture funding has been cut -- significantly reduced -- and has put many of the tree fruit farmers in our valley in a bind over the tree fruit replant program. Good news for farmers in my constituency? I don't think so.

Government services that the public pays for through their taxes have also seen cuts in my constituency, in the way of office closures: the government agent's office in Kelowna, which was known and shown to be the busiest office in the province. I have a very high percentage of seniors in my riding. There were over 200,000 transactions taking place in that office -- and guess what.

The largest community outside of Hope had its government service office cut, and now my seniors travel an hour through winter driving conditions, through winding roads, through rain this spring, for services that the government promised to provide. I asked the Premier to come and see what kind of roads these seniors have to travel on in the winter -- we had an awful winter this past winter -- but he chose not to do that. Good news for my constituency? I don't think so.

I think it must just be good news in the NDP constituencies. It's definitely not good news for a community made up largely of seniors who must travel an hour for services that people in other urban areas -- and perhaps constituents in NDP ridings -- take for granted. I ask you: where's the consultation? Where's the rationale or the heart in these decisions? No one asked my community if these services were needed or needed to be cut.

[6:45]

Besides the cuts and broken promises, my constituency is also feeling the impact of government regulation in the forest industry. As a result of this government's regulatory policies, people are very concerned about the viability and sustainability of the forest industry in the Okanagan. The Forest Practices Code, with its elaborate bureaucratic system -- built in B.C., built by the NDP and its revenue-driven stumpage system -- has put many forest jobs in jeopardy. Good news? I don't think so -- not even for NDP ridings. Those members sitting opposite are representing ridings that are resource-driven, that are. . . .

An Hon. Member: We'll be talking about it, don't worry.

S. Hawkins: They're talking about it, but they sure aren't listening, those members opposite.

Good news for forest workers? I think not.

Let's talk about this government's record for a moment. I mentioned it before. They promised a balanced budget. In six years, they've managed to table six deficit budgets. They have never seen a balanced budget. In fact, we're promised a balanced budget not next year but maybe the year after. Just like I

[ Page 2178 ]

said, I like to judge future performance by past behaviour, and I can tell you this government has been very consistent. We're going to see a seventh deficit budget next year, and we'll probably see an eighth. They keep promising balanced budgets, but I submit to you they don't know what that is. They've never seen one, they've never been able to prepare one, and they've certainly never delivered one.

They promised a fund for forestry workers: Forest Renewal B.C. That fund was supposed to be sacred. That fund was supposed to be set up for forest-dependent communities. No greedy ministers, they said, were ever going to get their fingers in it. No greedy minister was going to use that fund. It was going to be for forest workers. It was going to be used to restore the environment. It was going to provide displaced forestry workers with retraining. It was going to be a cushion, if you will, for forest-dependent communities.

But you know, as usual, it's not going for any of that. We see 5,500 forestry jobs lost. Do we see a penny of this money going. . .? Do we see this government extend a hand through Forest Renewal for funding for these workers? No, this fund is going to pay for this government's mistakes, for their budget gaffes and for bureaucrats in Victoria. That's what this fund has been used for, and that's why I can't support extending any more money for this government's mismanagement. Once again, the NDP government has shown that they say one thing and they do another -- over and over and over again.

Let's talk about health care waiting lists. They kept announcing all this money: $28 million last May, another $1 million in November, and another $6.5 million was offered again. They said: "Waiting lists are going down, and we're managing it." But you know what the facts showed? And the facts came from that side of the House; they were their own facts. The facts showed that last March the waiting list for cardiac surgery was 300 patients. In December, nine or ten months later, it was 500. It grew by 200 people. Now, how does that happen? They were going to manage it.

They were pouring millions and millions of dollars into it. Where did that money go? They were going to reduce waiting lists. They were not successful; they haven't done it. They have not protected health care for cardiac patients.

Today they announce an increase in ambulance fees. Now, it's not a person's choice to go to hospital. It's not a person's choice to have a cardiac arrest or choke at home -- or a child in an anaphylactic attack or a senior who collapses at home. It's not their choice. But do you know what? They're going to have to pay more to call an ambulance to take them to the hospital.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

S. Hawkins: It is a shame. It's a very sad statement. It's a tax on the sick. Last week, or the week before, they announced a tax on the dead, and now they're going to announce a tax on the sick. It is sick.

Hearing-aid fees have also increased today. We heard, anyway, that they're increasing. So they're even deaf to the needs of the hearing-impaired. Where does this stop? It's a money grab for a desperate government. They're looking everywhere for money. We see angling fees for fishermen go up. We see probate fees for widows and widowers go up. We see higher propane taxes. We see gambling coming in. We see no-fault insurance. We see this government taking away victims' rights. We see this government. . . . What will they do next? In the famous words of an honourable minister on that side of the House: "Government can do anything."

How are they able to do this? By not listening to the people of B.C.? Well, government can do anything. They don't have to consult with communities. They don't have to communicate with organizations. But this government -- those members on that side of the House -- live by the dictum uttered by the Minister of Forests in his famous words: "Government can do anything." And they have shown that they can and they will, and that's a shame.

They promised a balanced budget; they didn't do it. They promised to reduce the debt; they didn't do that. They promised to reduce the deficit; they've never been able to do that. They promised not to introduce new taxes -- I just listed a whole bunch; they weren't able to keep that promise. They failed over and over again to keep their promises. Time after time. This government can't do anything that they promise. We've seen that. What they do show us is that they can mismanage, they can miscalculate, they can mislead and they can certainly miss opportunities.

The majority of the public, when polled, feel that this government set its agenda on the basis of fraud and deceit. The people of B.C. entrusted this government with protecting the financial future of the province so that we could protect programs like health and education. This government has shown us that they failed to do this over and over again. Instead, they increased the debt load on the average B.C. family by $1,500. They put B.C.'s credit rating at risk, and they have robbed us of the chance of a debt-free future for our children and grandchildren. And I think that's a real shame.

This government has demonstrated how irresponsible and incompetent it is, and how incapable it is of managing the public purse six years in a row now. That's the only consistent thing they've done: deliver a deficit budget and increase our debt. They have nothing to be proud of as they carry on with their shameful legacy. On behalf of my constituents, I cannot in any way support extending any kind of confidence in this government or say yes to the interim supply that they ask for.

L. Reid: It intrigues me that this week was also the week of the Sixty-ninth annual Academy Awards. When you take a look at the list and try and bring it in line with what we're debating today, which is whether or not this government should have access to additional revenue, the question we must ask is: has this government ever budgeted appropriately? Tying this back to where we are and the Academy Awards. . . . In the form of our Minister of Finance -- in Jerry Maguire , the best supporting actor: "Give me the money. . . ." That's what this is about: "Give me the money. I don't want any accountability for it.

I don't want to deliver any measurement tools. I don't want to be responsible for the actions. Just give me the money."

In terms of where the Premier falls into this list of Academy Award winners, it's the original song by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, "You Must Love Me." This Premier is arrogant in the extreme when he talks about not delivering accountability to the people. It is an ego trip of the highest order when this Premier refuses to come before this Legislature and be accountable. That's an issue. The best documentary was When We Were Kings . It probably starred the Premier and the Deputy Premier.

Honestly, there are issues today where this government has to sit in this chamber and be accountable. That is what special warrant spending is about. That is what we are here debating this evening. I don't see that accountability. Frankly, I haven't seen it over the past six years that I have sat as a member in this chamber. That disheartens me, because what it

[ Page 2179 ]

says is that these parliamentarians don't respect the process, don't believe that the democratic process shall prevail. That is what special warrant spending is -- it's sidestepping the democratic process. It's not on.

I will contend, and I will elaborate in my remarks, that this Premier, this government, ran a bogus election. They are, in fact, running a bogus government. They are not prepared to deliver accountability to the people in this province. I can assure you that this government had a plan to get elected; I don't believe they have a plan to govern. I don't believe that's in place.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the current BC Business article, in the March issue. I will quote. It refers to the current Premier:

"He has managed to sidestep his dismal record as Harcourt's tax-and-spend Finance minister by focussing on what he billed as the NDP's fiscal prowess in producing two consecutive balanced budgets, and promises to cut the size of government."

We know that's not true. You know that's not true, hon. members of the government. Certainly we have the documents to prove that. This is not assertion on our part; this is fact. This is fact that must be addressed by every single member of this chamber.

The

article goes on:

"It was an amazing turnaround for a man who, three years previously, increased provincial sales tax, hit high-income earners with higher taxes, increased the tax on alcohol, widened the capital tax to include most corporations and imposed a school property surtax on residential properties worth more than $500,000 -- withdrawn a week later because British Columbians stood up and said no. This government needs to heed that advice, because British Columbians today will be saying no more frequently."

Again, it is my contention that this was a bogus election:

"Very early in the pre-election period it became clear to Clark's inner team that economic performance had sagged to the point where it would not provide a platform on which the NDP could campaign for re-election. Revenue figures were down and the budget was heading for a substantial deficit. The spin doctors agreed that the only way to avoid the budget becoming a major issue and forcing Clark onto the defensive was to revise the revenue forecast upwards, which happened last February."

Again, the facts are clear, and we have the documentation to support this article, to support the contentions found within. This says that this Premier took a decision, knowing full well that the facts did not support the decision he took. Today he would come to us and ask us to trust and to provide special warrant spending, to trust that he's going to spend those dollars appropriately. Based on past performance, that is not likely to happen. Our role in government is to safeguard those dollars, to scrutinize that expenditure, and that simply is not possible, based on this Premier's past performance.

The

article continues, hon Speaker:

"It was an undeniably desperate effort at spin control, without which the NDP would probably have lost the last election. The facts speak for themselves. Mistruths were uttered frequently and, frankly, it worked. Finance minister Elizabeth Cull presented a provincial budget on April 30 which projected an $87 million surplus. She boasted that the previous year's books closed with a surplus. Later in the day, Clark called the election. Two days after delivering his budget, on June 28. . . ."

[7:00]

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. I hesitate to interrupt you, but on two occasions now you called a member by first name. You know from your experience in the chamber that that's not allowed, so please don't do that.

L. Reid: I respect your ruling, hon. Speaker. However, they were quotes. I am quoting what is in this article.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. Please take your seat.

Let's establish clearly what the rules are. There seems to be some confusion, so I'm going to ask the member's indulgence very briefly, if I might, to explain that. Whether one is quoting another source or not is irrelevant. The rule is very clear that we do not refer to members by their first names -- or their Christian names, I should say. If that wasn't clear to members, I am sorry; I thought everybody knew that. Please, let's live by those rules and conduct ourselves accordingly.

Thank you, member. I appreciate your time.

L. Reid: Two days after delivering his budget, this Finance minister broke ranks and disclosed to a reporter in Victoria that the 1995-96 budget had closed with a $200 million deficit.

Tying that to the request before us today, which is to grant this government special warrant spending, interim supply. . . . It's based on whether or not we can believe the information we've received in the past. We have proven that that is not possible, so why would we suddenly acquire a huge trust in the government benches? That is the question today, and it speaks very strongly to issues of credibility.

And it's not just the government whose credibility is at stake; it's the province of British Columbia. It alarms me that this government doesn't get that part. They are not just damaging themselves, they are choosing to mire the entire populace of British Columbia in a debt-and-deficit mistruth. They haven't told the truth. The facts speak to that, and the documents speak to that. I find it offensive that my province -- its credibility, its reputation -- is somehow being jeopardized by people who make political decisions to save their own skin.

That is exactly what transpired in this bogus election, hon. Speaker, and it's what has transpired following the election. Today somehow we're supposed to put that behind us and somehow believe that we can now trust these individuals. I can't do that; I don't intend to do that. My caucus colleagues and I will do our absolute best to hold these individuals to account, because they are damaging something that is very precious to all of us, which is the future of the province of British Columbia. This is about believing the numbers.

The

article goes on for many pages, referring to the Premier's shattered image. I will make one last quote:

"Reporters uncovered the evidence that the balanced budget was due to revisions apparently ordered by the Premier and his insiders before the election, to allow the Premier to put a more positive spin on the economic outlook than was justified. It soon emerged that the current budget was also deep in deficit, and the entire basis of this Premier's election began unravelling. He couldn't escape the consequences of a win-at-any-cost election campaign. His straight-shooter image went into free fall, plunging in the polls as opponents accused him of lying to the voters."

What has changed today? Not very much, I would say. This government was not willing -- it was certainly able, but it was not willing -- to provide this opposition with the documentation. We had to request that information through freedom of information, then the government had the audacity to question the cost of this opposition -- the members on this side of the House -- securing that information. When you play fast and loose, and somebody counters with the facts, you can't suggest that the methodology by which they acquired them was somehow flagrant. It doesn't make common sense.

What we're being asked to do today is give up common sense and grant more dollars to this government, when they've not been accountable in the past.

[ Page 2180 ]

The last line in the

article says: "There is a lesson here. Image without substance has no shelf life." We've been at this a number of months. I can only trust that when this government come to their cabinet table and come back to this chamber, they do so with some credibility -- that they search within their souls for some sense of personal integrity. I can't imagine that every single person on that side of the House believes that what happened was the decent way to treat the electorate; I can't imagine that people believe that. There has to be some conscience on that side of the House. There has to be some soul-searching going on by a number of members of the government bench.

There are some honest people in this chamber. Most of them, unfortunately, appear to reside on the opposition benches. I believe that this government needs to come clean when it asks for dollars, and I believe that it needs to do so today.

Interjection.

L. Reid: If this member wishes to rise to his feet and indicate that he is prepared to respond, I would be absolutely delighted.

In the last number of months, I have read many, many news releases that this government has issued, which start out saying: "This is a straight fairness issue." What in the world would this government know about that? They've been unfair to British Columbians in the way they've treated them. It is not a situation where they can come before us and tell us that they know what's best, when they haven't been truthful.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants wants this budget to more clearly disclose the breadth and depth of budgeting assumptions. That's what we want when we talk about special warrant spending.

The Speaker: The Attorney General, on. . .?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: A point of order.

Hon. Speaker, I don't mean to cause any prolonging of the debate. It is my understanding that you can't call any single member of the House dishonest or untruthful. If you can't call any single member of the House dishonest or untruthful, I don't know whether you can call the whole collective side of this House untruthful or dishonest. The member who just spoke just finished saying that. I take exception to that.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for his intervention. The rules regarding unparliamentary language are fairly clearly specified in standing order 40 and in MacMinn's commentary thereon. I would just caution all members to please be as respectful as one possibly can of one's colleagues across the aisle. I don't think that any of us are well served by constant points of order, and I would caution both sides to please not get into that process. But I accept the minister's caution, and I'm sure the member for Richmond East will take it in the spirit in which it was intended. I ask her to please proceed.

L. Reid: I'm going to refer to the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Mr. Doug Enns, because he talks about the tangible restoration of public confidence in the budgeting process. That, frankly, is what this is about. This is about whether or not British Columbians can believe in the process that this government will undertake -- certainly in the next six or seven months as we debate the estimates, but again following the next budget.

There has to be a belief system in place that says the information they receive is the same information that will be found in the documents that both sides of the House should have access to. That is what I speak of when I suggest that this is a bigger issue than tarnishing the reputation of government. This tarnishes the reputation of British Columbia. This is an issue of integrity, and I certainly wish to come back to that.

My hon. colleague from Okanagan West spoke about downloading to municipalities. That is not something that makes sense if a government truly understands which are provincial responsibilities and which are local governance responsibilities. I would suggest that this government again doesn't get that part of the discussion.

Interjection.

L. Reid: There have to be ways for the government to be very clear.

For the hon. colleague across the floor, let's look at the justice question. Justice is a provincial responsibility: yes or no, hon. member? It is, hon. member. It is a responsibility that should be borne solely by the provincial government, and that has not happened. This government has again shirked the responsibility, asking for more dollars in interim supply. We're not convinced on this side of the House that those dollars will be spent appropriately. That is a significant issue.

The courthouse question. It is exploitation of local communities. There's no question about that. If this Attorney General truly believes that it is a provincial responsibility, he will rethink the decisions that allowed him to suggest that those costs should be borne by municipalities. It's not an appropriate decision, and it doesn't suggest that this government understands where their provincial responsibility lies. Perhaps we need some kind of grid that talks about what now qualifies as a provincial responsibility. Indeed, is it going to continue to be as arbitrary as it has been in the past?

Frankly, that's not support for local decision-making. That's utter exploitation. Let's think about it from a consistent perspective. Why is it appropriate to regionalize hospitals and centralize courthouses? Perhaps this government caucus could have some discussions about the mixed messages they send, because that is indeed a mixed message.

Earlier, I touched on what I believed to be untenable arrogance on behalf of this government. I do believe they played fast and loose with the numbers in this discussion. It's not acceptable. It's not fair to the citizens who reside in this province. Some credible plan is required.

In the words of Suromitra Sanatani of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for British Columbia and the Yukon: "Public-private partnerships are not understood by this government." They talk about harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit. That's the best exhibition that they don't understand the topic. It's not harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit; it's unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit. It's not about asking government to control further what is best left alone. Again, this has to be one of the biggest divisions between what is free enterprise and what is completely misunderstood.

It's absolutely wrongheaded. Let's unleash the free enterprise spirit within British Columbia, because right now it's not an issue that any members of the government currently understand.

These New Democrats, in our view, are fixated on the notion that they understand fiscal responsibility and fiscal

[ Page 2181 ]

management -- you know, walk out words like "prudent fiscal management." But we have, frankly, not seen it. Implementation has always been troublesome for this government. Some of the better ideas have gone awry as a result of shockingly poor implementation.

The budget is a classic example. It wasn't good information to start with, and the decisions that follow will not be in the best interests of British Columbians. The result will be that this province's entire reputation will be tarnished -- and not just with the people who live in this province but the other provinces of Canada -- whether or not we have good support abroad, whether or not people overseas look to this country as people who understand how to manage their dollars. Frankly, the jury's out, and it's not coming back in a favourable light.

This government, in our view, doesn't have significant policies to tackle the deficit. The plan changes rapidly and continuously. Three strikes and you're out -- it happens in sports. They missed their targets yet again. Let's hope they move on, because it's not in the best interests of British Columbia.

I want to see a plan to govern. I haven't seen it, not in the last six years. We've seen plans for money grabs, for tax grabs, for calling a fee anything but a tax. When is a tax not a tax? In British Columbia, it's when you call it a fee, a licence, an increase, a surtax. This government has the language. But they don't have what we believe is integral to the exercise, which is fairness in the process. The language allows you to massage it beyond recognition. But the individuals who are waiting to hear something reasonable, relevant and useful from this government will be waiting quite some time.

One of the most interesting little news clips I saw was your Premier, hon. Speaker, coming into his NDP convention to suggest that the party would not take corporate donations, after that discussion had just been had on your convention floor. The folks are not in touch; that message is permeating widely through this province.

[7:15]

I have a particular interest in the issue of science, technology and research. A recent

article talks about science and technology taking a significant hit at the hands of this government and their fiscal policies. When he was Employment minister, this Premier said his government "was committed to strengthening the technology sector, because it can generate wealth and high-paying jobs." Yesterday the Premier's government weakened the commitment, announcing $6.5 million in cuts to the funding support for science and technology in fiscal 1997-98. The support budget this year is worth $25.8 million. The cuts will hit the Science Council of B.C., which receives $12 million from the Employment ministry.

The actual impact may not be known until the next spring, and maybe not even then if we don't get the correct documentation. It's not appropriate. If this New Democrat government is prepared to stand on its principles, one of its principles used to be that it would support science, technology and research -- that it understood what a significant contributor it could be to the economy of this province. Obviously it's gone. It saddens me greatly that it doesn't seem to be important.

I can tell you that it's not just this parliament. It's parliaments around the world that realize that measurement is the future, that benchmarking -- how people measure success by government in the delivery of public policy -- is an issue that every single parliament will need to come to grips with.

I will refer to the thirty-eighth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference and one of the papers tabled at that presentation: "The responsibility of democratically elected parliaments to ensure that governments practise sound financial management and promote stable economic development...." That is a goal that parliaments across this land and across this world are attempting to achieve.

This New Democrat government seems to believe it's not a goal that it too should have as probably its number one priority: to spend the dollars appropriately, to collect the dollars appropriately and then to report on the successes of those projects. As the critic for science, technology and research, I know that I am waiting for the measurement.

There have been a number of studies that have been begun by this government but have not seen the light of day. We can assume that they did not provide the desired outcome and, as such, have been buried. Or we can assume that at some point we will actually receive them under freedom of information. It seems to me that any time a study is conducted with taxpayers' dollars, with public funds, those documents should be in the public domain.

I want to end with a story, because I think it's absolutely appropriate to today's discussion. There was once a young shepherd boy who tended his sheep at the foot of a mountain in a dark forest. It was rather lonely for him all day, so he thought upon a plan by which he could get a little company and some excitement. He rushed down toward the village calling out: "Wolf! Wolf!" The villagers came out to meet him, and some of them stopped with him for a considerable time. This pleased the boy so much that a few days afterward he tried the same trick, and again the villagers came to his help.

But shortly after this, a wolf actually did come out of the forest and began to worry the sheep. Of course, the boy cried "Wolf! Wolf!" still louder than before. But this time, the villagers who had been fooled twice before thought the boy was deceiving them again, and nobody stirred to come to his help. So the wolf made a good meal of the boy's flock. And when the boy complained, the wise men of the village said: "A liar will not be believed even when he speaks the truth, because there is no way of telling when that time has come."

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, I recognize now the Minister of Finance, whose words will close debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. My apologies to that corner -- I have done this before.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I guess I'm going to have to start heckling a little louder to remind you that there are people down at this end of the hall, or maybe send you a pair of my old glasses.

I rise to speak to Bill 5, to interim supply, with a bit of regret. The member for Peace River South laid out a plan that I think this Legislature should lean to in dealing with interim supply. Like him, I don't have much problem with interim supply. I just think the way we go about it is wrong. I think we should be here earlier in the winter debating what is going to happen and what dollars are going to be spent through the estimates process. Then, when the fiscal year ends on March 31, the money would be approved, and we would carry on. Given that, I am going to speak a little about interim supply and what's in the government's plan for the coming year.

But first I want to quote from an hon. member who is not a member of the House anymore but who occupied the chair that you do presently, Mr. Speaker, and that is the Hon. Emery

[ Page 2182 ]

Barnes. When he spoke about interim supply while in opposition, he was very clear in what he said, and I think we should all take heed. What he said is: "Clearly, interim supply is a political tactic designed. . .to subvert the democratic process and to deny the opposition an opportunity for relevant debate before funds are spent." I can see no reason that we should consider this bill at all, quite frankly. I think we should really take that to heart.

We heard the member for Peace River South talk about how it's so easy to say it now, but that when one gets into power it doesn't seem to happen. That's unfortunate. I guess that's part of the problem of why politicians have a hard time convincing people that this is an honourable trade. I hope we would have some movement from this government towards that.

I want to take you back a bit to 1992. We witnessed the sitting of the first NDP government in many years, unfortunately. But part of their process, part of their manifesto, was open and honest government. It was number one, I believe, of 40 promises: open and honest government. Another one was no friends and insiders. That was under a different leader, a leader who in fact did live up to those commitments more than what we see happening today. That's unfortunate, because what it tells one is that as governments get re-elected, they get more arrogant and more forceful. They force on us their own opinion, which always seems -- as they think -- to be the right opinion.

We've had the Whip from the government side talk to us. We had other folks talk to us, and some heckling about we should rather. . . . The reason we're here in this short time frame is that last week was spring break. We couldn't be here then, because shouldn't we all be home with our families?

Hon. Speaker, there are many men and women in my constituency who worked through spring break, and those are the folks who pay the bill. Those are the folks who are paying the high income tax, paying the 7 percent sales tax on almost everything, and the increased fees -- you name it. Those folks are out there working hard so that the province can continue to operate. Yet we have such a lame excuse -- that it was spring break and we should be home with our children. Now, that might be a little easier for me to say, because my children are a little older.

But if you went to my constituency and told any one of those men or women who work in the oil and gas industry or the forest industry, "You don't have to go to work because it's spring break," they would look at you like you were nuts. They'd say: "I've got a job to do, and I've got to get that job done." And that's what we should be doing. It is absolutely ridiculous to come in here on a Monday and listen to a throne speech, on a Tuesday listen to a budget, and on a Thursday night at 7:30 debate interim supply and the warrants. It's circumventing the legislative responsibilities of every member of this House.

It's an absolutely arrogant way to do it. It's pushing on others what you believe should be done as a government. You continually think that you're right and everyone else is wrong; you never want to listen, you never want to take constructive criticism -- good criticism -- of any kind. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: I hear an "oh" from over there. Those folks that were elected along with me in 1991 will remember very clearly the holier-than-thou attitude from across the way -- from every one of those members who were elected in 1991 -- about the terrible Socreds. I was one of them, and I sat there and took that from this group that was going to be lily-white clean. We were finally going to see good government. And what have we seen? We have seen nothing but a financial mess in this province, nothing but deception -- I hope that's the correct word to use.

It never ceases to amaze me how these folks over here can think that way, but they do. It's unfortunate for all British Columbians, and it's unfortunate for all politicians -- every one of us. We get tarred with the same brush, and that's wrong. If you folks want to operate like that, if that's what your party tells you to do and if that's what is in your constitution, okay. But I'll tell you that the people of British Columbia don't believe in that kind of hogwash. They want to see good government for a change, and unfortunately you haven't brought it. You haven't brought it at all.

We go down to forestry, and the movement of funds out of Forest Renewal B.C. into silviculture projects -- $100 million. It still amazes me that we can talk about $100 million or $10 billion and just roll it off the end of our tongues like it's nothing. A hundred million dollars diverted out of Forest Renewal B.C., into what is actually the responsibility of government, to hide your deficit, to hide your mismanagement of funds. This government should be ashamed of itself for even presenting something like this. It's absolutely unacceptable that we should have to tolerate this kind of budget -- this kind of chicanery and this kind of movement of numbers -- just to justify a smaller deficit.

Talk about jobs created within Forest Renewal B.C., if this government would just try to live up to the legislation -- to the FRBC act -- we would find a lot more money being spent in my constituency. Right now all we do is contribute to the pot, and we don't get anything back. In fact, it's historical for Prince George-Omineca, which contributes 27 percent of the revenue, to receive 16 percent back. That's an absolutely lousy return. As you get east of the Rockies, it gets worse. Bre-X has got nothing on you folks.

If they just lived up to the legislation that they introduced in this House, that they spoke to, that they approved, that they said was going to be good for British Columbians, then I could tolerate a little bit of it. But when they continue to rip it out of our pockets in the north to fund things down here, whether they need it or not, it's not fair, because Forest Renewal B.C. says "equitably spent." One thing this government doesn't understand is equality and equity.

Highways. At one time we were proud of our highways. Until these folks came along, we had a budget of over a billion dollars a year for highways. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you should probably remember that quite well. You were the critic at the time. Over a billion dollars was spent on our highways yearly. What have we got now? You folks don't think you need anything but a bus to get from downtown Vancouver out to the Fraser Valley or somewhere. You got it down to just over $500 million. Yet you take in fuel taxes of over $600 million a year.

[7:30]

Road taxes. Some of you may not understand that, but it is, in fact, in the price of gasoline. That's unacceptable, and it shows a government that doesn't understand economics, doesn't understand infrastructure. You just want to stand and talk about how you're going to defend health care, education and social services. Important? You're darned right they're important, but they're not the end. They're not everything, because along with them you need an economy to support them. That's the part you folks don't understand. It's the economy. It's the dollar in, the dollar out.

That's the thing that every one of you -- all four of you that are in the House -- ought to take a lesson on. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I know I'm not supposed to quote numbers, but I can hardly believe it.

[ Page 2183 ]

An Hon. Member: Those are not numbers.

R. Neufeld: Thank you for correcting me. I'll carry on. I got a little carried away.

Talk about creating jobs. This government talks about creating 40,000 or 50,000 jobs this year. It just amazes me where all these jobs are. I've never been able to figure it out, but it seems as though every year that's a magic number. Right around 50,000 sounds good, doesn't it? Well, I'll tell you, Mr.

Speaker, if this government would just get rid of the overregulation that they've put in place, the overtaxation, if they'd quit intruding on small business, if they'd quit their intrusion in all of our lives, then magically, the private sector would create many jobs -- probably a lot more than 50,000 -- and we'd all be a lot better off. Having government create the jobs. . . . And that's what you folks think job creation is: hiring someone else in the public service. There has to be ten people out there working to pay for that. That doesn't work.

Then we get onto the debt. This group of financial wizards over here. . . . Can you imagine a total debt, when this government took office, of under $20 billion -- Crown corporations, public debt, everything? And today it is $31 billion. Five years later, it's $31 billion. We can't afford you folks anymore. And that, coupled with an increase. . . . If we look at what the budget was when this group took over, at about $16 billion -- isn't it interesting how you can say "about $16 billion"? -- it's now over $20 billion. That's $4 billion more a year just in the operating budget.

On top of that, you've added over $10 billion worth of debt. When will you guys catch on? When will you catch on to the fact that the taxpayers -- the working men and women of this province -- can't take it anymore? They're full to here.

An Hon. Member: What about equity?

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: What about equity? Yeah, really. Just listen to the guy over there. I guess if you go to the NDP ridings, you see some equity around, but you don't see anything anyplace else, unfortunately.

We shouldn't be one bit surprised about this group, because when they were first elected, it was interesting. The Premier, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, had a look at the books and said: "We've got some room to move." I remember that statement as clear as a bell. I remember the day the minister made it. "We have some room to move. We have the lowest taxation, lowest per capita debt, lowest debt charges in all of Canada." So what did you do? You ripped out, and in five years you got us right to the top, didn't you? You're afraid to put your bonds on the market, Mr.

Minister, because nobody will buy them. That's what happened in five short years. That's absolutely unacceptable. But I guess we had room to move. We wanted to get to that wall -- that big wall over there -- as quick as we could. And that's what you've done.

Then, a little later on, when he's the Premier and he's made some comments about balanced budgets that he knows in the back of his mind are not quite true -- he knows that he's really not telling the people of British Columbia the truth. . . . When he finally comes out, he says we need some wiggle room. Well, that's just typical of this government. If it isn't room to move in taxation, it's wiggle room. You folks are good at it.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: You know how to spend money and not get any equity -- to the member from Kitimat.

When we see the downloading onto municipalities that's been going on in this government. . . . I bring that to your attention. There are 1,100 people living in Hudson's Hope, and the dam is about 20 miles away. Guess what? Highways gave them the road. They said: "Here, it's yours. You can maintain it." This is a highway under their own estimates. Just a hill out of Hudson's Hope is going to cost $8 million to repair, and 1,100 people are supposed to just magically pay for this. That's how well thought out some of the program changes have been.

An Hon. Member: Room to move where?

R. Neufeld: Yeah, room to move. We take a community like Fort St. John and take away their municipal grants. This is a community that's having some real difficulty. They have the highest residential taxes in the whole province, the highest business taxes in the whole province and the highest commercial taxes in the whole province. What do we do? We get some downloading from this group of wizards over here. You know, they can just magically look after two more streets in town that both need millions of dollars' worth of work.

It's totally unacceptable. You've totally forgotten about what happens east of the Rockies. You don't when it comes to running the numbers in the budget about the revenue you get. You love that. You just love sucking the revenue down here, but you sure don't like to spend anything up there. In fact, if you look at the extra revenue that's been given out of that area, it's the oil and gas industry. It's peculiar to my area and to that of the member for Peace River South only, in the whole of British Columbia. In the five short years, fees alone have given the province over $2 billion.

You know what we got back last year for highways? One million bucks. We have the most gravel roads of any constituency in British Columbia, and we get $1 million. I'm not talking about 15 kilometres -- those that are gravelled; I'm talking about over 2,000 kilometres, and we get a million bucks, after you stick in the $2 billion. That's unacceptable to the folks up north, and it's unacceptable to me.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The member for Skeena would just love to get into the debate. I hope he stands up and tells us how much he got in his constituency. He says that's more than he received. Well, it will be interesting to see what he really received in Kitimat. I don't know, but I'll wait with bated breath and listen when that member finally stands in this House -- it's been a long time -- and speaks about it.

The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast talked about the government of the day not even living up to their own statutes, not even living up to their own legislation that they put in place -- specifically with the Ministry of Health; specifically with Municipal Affairs. I talked about the forest renewal act. They're not living up to that.

Hon. Speaker, it's a sad day in British Columbia when we have a government that produces legislation and enacts laws, and doesn't live up to them themselves. They're supposed to be the leaders. They're supposed to demonstrate some leadership to British Columbians and that they really believe in what they're putting into place, that they're really going to live up to it. But they haven't.

When I talk about $40 million in warrants in the Health ministry, I wonder how much of that is going to go into a new

[ Page 2184 ]

ambulance station in Fort St. John. Fort St. John, for instance, is one of the last places to run an ambulance service out of the fire department. And the government has just come down and said: "That's going to change. We're going to now put it under B.C. Ambulance. We're going to build a building." Wow, you've got all kinds of loot, don't you? When you tell me you don't have any money, I don't quite believe it. It's because of the union; it's because of this government's tie to the union. They dictate every move this government makes.

The unions dictated that they wanted those folks in the ambulance service in Fort St. John put into the B.C. Ambulance Service, even though we have a petition of 3,000 to 5,000 people in Fort St. John saying: "Leave it alone."

This government doesn't care. They seem to have millions to spend on buildings. You know, hon. Speaker, when you talk about trying to make some sense with this group, it just doesn't work, because their strings are pulled by government. We wonder how much of the $40 million is the previous Health minister's contract. A thousand bucks a day, eh? Not bad loot. And after it happens, the Premier says: "Well, I think we better look at it." Well, it's interesting. I don't think they've looked at it, because they are thinking that after the next election a few of them might need a spot to go to, too.

When you look at what else is happening in the Ministry of Health. . . . And I know that funding is up. I'm certainly not going to say that funding is not up in Health, because it is. What really disturbs me is the appointment of the CHCs and the RHBs that have taken place across the province, just by the minister's will.

It was pointed out very clearly in the legislation how it's supposed to be done. But you know, one of the people appointed in Fort St. John came to me with a letter from the Minister of Health, saying that if they didn't believe in pro-choice they could not be on the board. Hon. Speaker, can you imagine? There should be some heads hung over there -- absolutely hung -- because a letter like that went out. Whose business is it? Whose business is it whether you're pro-life or pro-choice? It should have nothing to do with whether you can sit on a CHC or an RHB -- absolutely nothing.

I'm not advocating one side or the other. I can tell you very quickly what my position is on abortion. But when we talk about forcing your view, forcing the government's view, on people. . . . How are they going to do it? Are they going to interrogate these folks now that they've appointed them? And if they don't totally agree with them, are they going to fire them? It's actually a bit sickening to hear that, and it's repulsive. People ought to be able to believe in what they want to believe in. That should be no basis for whether they can sit on a health board or a community health council -- none whatsoever. Anyone should be able to sit on those. But that comes from the Ministry of Health.

I talked about open and honest, and I see very little that's open and honest over there. We saw the chicanery that went into the budget numbers before the election. We finally saw the Minister of Finance admit, just this last Tuesday, that: "No, I was about four or five hundred million out; I'm sorry, folks."

He knew that a year ago. There are documents today which say that the minister knew that over a year ago. That's unacceptable to British Columbians. To be honest, I think the minister should resign. For anyone to represent to British Columbians that they've had two balanced budgets, knowing full well that both were not balanced, is absolutely shameful. And to come up with a $185 million deficit this year. . . . But to get to that number we're going to sell off $170 million worth of assets, so that we only have a $185 million deficit. That's wrong; that's absolutely wrong.

You go to anyone's household and say: "Well, folks, sell your house, keep your debt, and use the money that you got out of your house to live on." You tell me what financial institution will allow that. None, absolutely none. But these financial wizards across the way sell assets, and bring it into operating and spend it. It should be spent on debt. That's exactly what it should be spent on. How it originated in the first place was through debt for some of the things like infrastructure, which the member for Skeena talks about. That's where it should be put back, not taken into general revenue to reduce your lousy number so it doesn't look so bad.

Hon. Speaker, it's just shameful. And I can hardly wait until we get into budget debate, because I've kept a few comments for that time too, so I'll allow someone else to take their place.

[7:45]

D. Jarvis: I rise as well to talk about the Supply Act, Bill 5. First of all, to put you on notice in case you don't see anyone rise right away, there's about 20 more of us that will want to speak on this tonight. So if the government is expecting to go to bed early, I just wanted to let them know.

Madam Speaker, this government wants us to approve more money for them to run this province. This is interim money, and we ask: why should we? It's a government that has failed to properly run the government, as far as we're concerned, for these past five to six years since 1991. We're unable to filibuster, as you know, so we all have to get up and give our 30-minute little talk. There have been some great statements made by most of the members here. We've been here approximately five hours now, and they have done a pretty good job of validating why we shouldn't be giving you interim money.

The NDP government has, over the past five years, made such a mess of this province that we have not seen a balanced budget out of them. In fact, I think the records actually show that there's never been an NDP government in the history of British Columbia that's ever given us a balanced budget. And to start it all off, this party, this NDP government, should actually not even be where they are now. They won the election by default. There's no question of that: they won it by default. With their back-to-back deficits, they told the people of this province that they had their financial situation under control.

Well, they didn't. It was a case of almost pure fraud. I mean, 61 percent of the people. . . . Everyone in this House represents 61 percent of the voters of this province, and only 39 percent of this province supported the NDP.

Unfortunately, they are still trying to say that they are the people to answer the people's problems in this province. We have a financial problem because they didn't call this House back into session sooner, so they're trying to rush us. Well, we're not prepared to give them the taxpayers' money that easily. This government needs some authority to pay the bills, and we're not going to give it to them. When a prudent person goes to the bank to borrow money, he or she must have some credibility. That's what counts in life -- credibility. Of course, with this government, two lies don't make a right. Maybe I shouldn't be saying "lies"; that's not the right thing to say.

It does bring me back to a point about other parliamentarians in this country who have talked about lies, lying governments and things like that.

[ Page 2185 ]

D. Symons: Two incorrect statements don't make a right.

D. Jarvis: Yes, two incorrect statements. . . . That is correct, what my associate from Richmond tells me.

But I recall reading about that great MLA from Kamloops, Flying Phil Gaglardi. He got up in the House one time, and he said: "Madam Speaker, if I am telling a lie, it's because I think I'm telling the truth." I read just recently how lies are created in this country and how they are legitimized. Back in Quebec, an ex-member of the FLQ was convicted and put in jail, and then he was given a pardon. Then when he went before the board to be appointed a judge, he lied. He said: "I have never been convicted." Well, it was a moot point over the fact of whether he was or wasn't pardoned.

Anyways, the latest constitutional judge has come down, and this is the explanation he gave. He said it was a legalized lie.

From that, I could only assume that this government is working on the premise that they've now told two legalized lies, saying that they have balanced their budgets. It's a very pathetic example, Madam Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would like to draw to your attention. . . . That is not parliamentary; it's quite unparliamentary language. I would request that you withdraw the phrases.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker, because I thought I was telling the truth.

The Finance minister across the hall says he doesn't expect us to believe him -- the great caption that was in the Province the other day. I have it hanging up in my office, and I think it will stay in a lot of offices for years to come.

We know that he says that the deficit is only going to be around $189 million. But our Finance minister, the one that this House all really believe in -- our member for Delta South, who is well known and well respected. . . . And I think everyone in the House, including the Finance minister, should pay strict attention to everything he says, because he does tell the exact figures, the true figures as they are out there. He says it's not a $189 million deficit; it is an $886 million deficit.

So it comes down to the point where the NDP government, or the party, has to go to the banks -- the people that they hate so much -- to borrow money. They want us to sanction the fact that they're going out to borrow millions and millions of dollars, and put us into debt again for years and years down the line. We are now $30.9 billion in debt, and that is just an unbelievable figure. Debt is the future taxes of our children and our grandchildren, and how the heck are they ever going to pay for it?

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: Maybe I'll go off on a tangent here, because I just heard the gentleman from Skeena ask: "Are you going to ask for more schools in your riding?" Well, I'm not going to ask for more schools in our riding. All we're asking for is more money to operate.

This government believes in equality in education, so they put equality into education. As a result, they downgraded the education system in this province to the lowest denominator -- not from the bottom up, which everyone else would work for. They start from the top and work down. My district, school district 44, was caught in the squeeze of the downsizing and equality method of the NDP Party.

An Hon. Member: ND Party.

D. Jarvis: Well, it's not. . . . It's the NDP Party, all right. They're not new, they're not democratic, and they're not really a party. They're a socialist party -- that's what they are -- trying to start a socialist experiment everywhere they go. Let's face it. It failed in Europe, and the only place a socialist party works in Canada, really, is in Saskatchewan. There, at least they are trying to balance their budget. They are trying to put in some plan to pay back the moneys that they have created. Anyway, Madam Speaker, I digress.

I was talking about our education system on the North Shore. This government downgraded the moneys that were supposed to be given to the education system in North Vancouver. As a result, in the first year we are shortchanged $1.5 million. It progressed from there on to the point where we ended up having a $5 million debt. Now they've come and said they are going to protect education, so they're going to give us $700,000 less. All we ask for is our fair share. We don't ask for as many new buildings as maybe they might want to build up in Skeena, but we are certainly just asking for our fair share.

Madam Speaker, if we sanction this bill -- it goes through -- and give the government more supply, they will only create more debt and more taxes for our citizens in this province. That is not the thing we ought to have to do. You know, I looked at the. . . . There was a statement I saw the other day, and I thought it was quite good: the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Well, we on this side of the House aren't going to stand by and let this government cause. . .

I've got to watch my wording on this one here.

An Hon. Member: Havoc.

D. Jarvis: . . .havoc amongst the province with a debt that's rising and completely out of control.

There's no way he could possibly do it, because they have put forward no plan whatsoever on how to create some wealth. Now, there are lots of ways they can do that. But somehow this socialist government has no comprehension how to create wealth whatsoever.

They have abused all the resource communities in British Columbia. I'm surprised how some of these individuals that are actually from resource areas, the Pecksniffian type of people, will go home and say, "Everything's all right, just let us look after you -- you know, pay up your taxes," while their families and friends all around them that are in the resource industry are losing their jobs day after day.

For example, mining. Right now we have nine mines that are ready to go on, that are going through the development assessment program in British Columbia. Yet right now three or four of them are being held up just by this government, actually.

An Hon. Member: Give your mine-the-Tatshenshini speech, Dan.

D. Jarvis: Yes.

That is wrong, Madam Speaker. When this government came in, the mining industry had 29,000 -- plus or minus -- people working in it. Last December there were 9,700 miners left in this province. They have downgraded one of the greatest wealth-producing industries in this province. This was one of our aces in the hole.

Now they're doing that to the logging. These people that live in the resource areas are going to go home and tell their

[ Page 2186 ]

constituents: "Everything is fine. We voted to increase the debt so that your children, your grandchildren, will never get out of hock."

As I said before, they wanted us to approve them spending more money. They say, for example, that they want to put in new programs. Well, one of the new programs coming forward that we know of is no-fault, a change in ICBC. Now, the Finance minister -- who's also asking for money -- is architect of this plan. He intends to take the rights away from the individual in this province. This is not about this government, this Premier, this Finance minister trying to save the individual premiums. This is about them trying to take away their rights. They're doing it completely improperly. There's too much fat in ICBC.

If they looked into ICBC, they could probably save millions of dollars. I've got a little thing here that I'd just like to tell the rest of the members about ICBC which may be of benefit to them. Maybe they don't know about it. Do they know that speed and dangerous driving cost ICBC $554 million a year? That's $554 million a year.

Now, should we give them money? Instead of them putting in those plans, should we give them money that would take our rights away? No. That's what they want to do: they want to take your rights away.

Did you know that impaired drivers cost ICBC $328 million a year? That's $328 million a year. So we take these things that I'm telling you into consideration. Then ask yourself, "Should we allow them to take our rights away?" because there's an answer why they shouldn't take your rights away. Did you know that impaired drivers, as I said. . .?

Inexperienced drivers, for example, cost this insurance company $50 million a year in accidents. Did you know that unsafe highways and roads in British Columbia actually cost ICBC -- they figured it out -- $123 million a year? Fraud and theft, they've estimated, are costing ICBC $120 million a year. The ICBC say that they could save $104 million a year if they did a new sort of enhanced claims program.

[8:00]

Madam Speaker, if you add it all up, all those figures, just those figures -- and there are other cost-saving alternatives that they have -- that would save them about $1.3 billion. That would solve their problems. So why do they want to go into these programs like no-fault to save, when they're about $300 million. . .?

You know, they say they're going to lose $150 million as of last year and probably $300 million this year. We don't know, because they won't open up the books to let everyone look at them. All we have is what the Finance minister says, this architect of no-fault insurance.

It is a situation that if they put in these alternatives, all the road sense and the protections they could, they wouldn't have to go to a no-fault system where they take away your rights -- the individual. Now they say they're trying to use, for example, the lawyers as whipping boys in this situation, that the bad lawyers are charging too much money. But we know that a very small percentage ever go to court. We have to look at the fact that if you're injured or a member of your family is seriously injured, you're going to want a darn good lawyer to look after you. Why is this government saying that. . .?

An Hon. Member: Let the clerk look after you, from ICBC.

D. Jarvis: Well, that's about it. That's another aspect of it, too, that I'll deal with in a little while.

But this government does not want to allow you to have the right, in case you are seriously injured or a member of your family is seriously injured, to have proper representation. The only reason that lawyers are being used right now is because ICBC has an abysmal record of handling claims, making settlements. The intimidation that they give out is unbelievable.

I have stacks of letters. When the bill comes forward, if it ever comes forward, I will tell you about these letters I have. Some of them are really very heartrending situations that have occurred to people in this province. The only salvation they've ever been able to have was the fact that they went to a lawyer, and that lawyer took ICBC to court and got these people a proper settlement. ICBC wasn't ready to give them a settlement.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I wouldn't want any of my family to be seriously injured right now and have that side of the House, that socialist over there, make a settlement that would allow them to live happily for the rest of their life -- not likely, Madam Speaker, not likely at all.

Another subject was brought up here by another member on this side, and that was having union members look after you. Through ICBC, we're seeing where they've. . . . Pretty soon they're going to run out of money, because this no-fault plan will not be the saviour they think it is -- that it's going to keep their premiums down to a level that's going to be satisfactory to the majority of the people. In every district or jurisdiction in North America, we have seen the rates go up eventually. The rates have gone up, and the accident rates haven't gone down.

We don't know what they're going to do. But I can visualize that in three years from now, they're going to have to go to a direct writing system. So you'll buy your insurance in the future from a member of the B.C. Government Employees Union, through the motor vehicle branch. Instead of cutting the fat out of ICBC and looking inside to see what's wrong there, they have this ideological viewpoint that no-fault insurance is going to be the answer.

Hon. A. Petter: That was your ideological viewpoint.

D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the architect of ICBC's no-fault system in the. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: You -- it was your viewpoint.

D. Jarvis: The Finance minister has just told me that this is my proposed plan. Well, something's wrong here, because he's suggesting that I've brought it forward.

All I'm doing is responding to the millions and millions of dollars that he's spent trying to push ICBC onto the people of British Columbia, foist it onto them. As I said this afternoon, he has spent. . . . He had Peat Marwick, or KPMG, go out and do a three-month study. It cost the taxpayers in this province $1.4 million for a three-month study, for something they already knew and something they'd already made a decision on. They just wasted taxpayers' money on the premise that they were consulting with the public. That's just a bunch of complete malarkey; it was just a pathetic excuse.

And on top of that, right after that, up to the end of February they spent $333,000 in newspaper ads and magazine

[ Page 2187 ]

ads. So they've spent $1.7 million in the last year on studies and newspaper ads on a no-fault program -- something they've already made up their mind they're going to do. I imagine the legislation is all rewritten, down the hall somewhere.

They're just waiting for a time when they'll bring it out -- if they have the nerve to do it, because I think that maybe there is something in their party. . . . The members of their government, their own side of the House, aren't happy with no-fault. The Attorney General, prior to this election, signed a statement saying: "I don't believe in no-fault, and I will not support no-fault." I wonder if he'll be the Pecksniffian that we think he is and vote for it if it ever comes forward.

Madam Speaker, I'll tell you something else about this government. The president of the NDP Party. . . . I think maybe Madam Speaker belongs to it; she probably has a card. The president of that party, prior to this election, wrote a letter and said the party is against no-fault insurance. Union after union has written to me, saying they are against it.

We wonder what's going to happen. We wonder what's happened. The Minister of Finance says he has not brought no-fault forward; it's me that's brought it forward. Well, I'm a little bit confused. This is the same man that's trying to ask me if we should give them more money to run this government further into debt.

Well, Madam Speaker, I believe that if they came forward with a real proper plan to show us how they could create wealth, the people on this side of the House would probably try to support them. We know that there's money out there to be made. We are blessed in this province with the greatest supply of resources in the whole world. It's a situation where we are able to compete with other jurisdictions in the world if we utilize our resources in a proper manner.

This government has taken the philosophical viewpoint that we don't need our resources, or else they would open them up and encourage people to come in and invest in development in our province. No, they discourage them. They discourage them with taxes and all these regulations.

I hear the Finance minister saying that he is in favour of mining. So why don't we see more approval from this government towards a good mining policy in this province? I would like to say at this point, before I get myself into trouble -- which the Minister of Finance would dearly love -- that I made a statement years ago, back in about ^92. I hear this statement rattled back and forth all the time, except they never quite finish it. They don't give the true picture of what I said. Everything is out of context. They take everything out of context, and that is exactly what they intend to do when they say that they're going to give us a balanced budget, maybe later on this year or next year.

We cannot believe them, and I've told you before why we can't believe them. As I said before. . . . No, I won't say that, because you're looking at me, and you know what I'm thinking about, don't you? I know you were going to say it. You know, my mother used to look at me that same way -- and I dearly love my mother, Madam Speaker.

All I'm going to say now is that this government is costing the taxpayers more and more money. They're going to double our debt. A short while ago the member for North Coast was quoted as saying he believes that maybe the debt should be doubled. Well, that's a dangerous statement for him to make. That's a dangerous thing for all the citizens of British Columbia, because that's going to cost us money.

At this point I'm going to say that I'm not going to support Bill 5, this interim supply act. With those words, I will sit down and pass it on to another member.

R. Coleman: The Legislature is sort of a special institution. It's a place where we make decisions as far as passing laws and bills and on the financial direction of the province, and we have a chance to debate those in fairness. It's also an institution that can be brought together fairly quickly to make decisions. Tonight I'd like to deal with special warrants in a brief discussion. I'd like to go back to some statements that have been previously made by people more experienced in this Legislature, and probably more learned in the debates of the Legislature than I. The first one is:

"So why do we have these institutions? Why do we have these procedures with respect to estimates, budget and supply? I recall the cry: 'Not a dime without debate.' It was a rallying cry advanced by members on the opposite side. But let's get to the heart of why that phrase was coined and used. What were the circumstances that gave rise to the cry: '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 or March of every year, and we allowed the debate to continue."

Those were the words of the Deputy Premier of this province.

And this is the auditor general speaking now:

"The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy, established centuries ago, provides the elected representatives of the people with control over the expenditures of public moneys. The basis for this derives from the 1869 Bill of Rights enacted in England and which is still in effect. The Glorious Revolution of the time saw the autocratic King James II driven from the country by William of Orange and Mary, who took the throne upon accepting the Declaration of the Rights of Parliament.

Under this model of governance, the Sovereign and his or her ministers request the use of publicly raised funds for the government's programs, and the Commons or assembly of members considers the request and grants or denies the authority to spend.

"Two of the most fundamental cornerstones of parliamentary democracy are the rule of law and the principle of parliamentary approval of government spending. In British Columbia, the Legislative Assembly passes

an act each year to assert its right to give precedence to matters other than those expressed by the Sovereign. The act is called

An Act to Ensure the Supremacy of Parliament.

[8:15]

"Across Canada, at both the federal and provincial levels, we also have a distinctly unique Canadian convention for authorizing the government to spend. Through a special warrant, the government can authorize itself to spend public moneys, without obtaining the prior approval of members of the elected assembly. Special warrants are thus a statutory exception to the basic principle of democracy that requires parliamentary approval before the government spends public money. The common requirement in all jurisdictions for the use of special warrants is that the assembly must not be in session at the time the warrants are issued.

"The circumstances of those earlier times made an instrument like special warrants necessary. Nineteenth-century conditions -- great distances, slow transportation, difficult communications, and parliamentarians meeting for only a small

[ Page 2188 ]

portion of the year -- justified the need to have some form of special spending authority available for fast-arising crises. Such is no longer the case in our modern society, where members of the assembly can be called together in a matter of hours."

That is the opinion of our auditor general, Madam Speaker.

Since the proroguing of the last session of this parliament in August of last year, we have repeatedly called upon the government to call this House back to deal with the business of this province. I want to refer to a letter dated May 30, 1991, and I'll read you a paragraph:

"Your Honour's official opposition is ready, willing and able to convene immediately should you choose to recall the Legislature. If your Minister of Finance presents the Legislative Assembly with a budget accompanied by an interim supply bill, Your Honour's official opposition will move with urgency to deal with the bill. This would provide your government the legal authority to meet immediate financial obligations, while allowing the Legislative Assembly to fully review and debate a proposed budget for the fiscal year 1991-92. I am confident that Your Honour will give due consideration to this matter."

That letter was quoted in the debate. Subsequently, it was stated:

"That's the end of the letter sent by the Leader of the Opposition. . . .

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

Those words, Madam Speaker, come from the Premier of the province, who was obviously not Premier at the time.

An Hon. Member: Does he believe it today?

R. Coleman: I guess you'd have to ask him, hon. member.

"The province's Financial Administration Act, passed in 1981, provides for the use of special warrants. The predecessor Financial Control Act had a similar provision; and prior to that act, the province's Audit Act, which dated back to the early part of this century, also allowed for the use of special warrant spending authorization.

"Special warrants in British Columbia are approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council only when the Legislative Assembly is not in session. The Lieutenant-Governor signs an order-in-council to authorize the special warrant spending, upon receiving the advice of the provincial cabinet to do so. . . .

"In recent years there has been considerable public discussion about the government's practice of using special warrants to authorize its spending. Our" -- the auditor general's -- office -- has provided comments and recommendations on the subject in at least three of our public reports over the past ten years -- in March 1989, June 1992 and February 1996. Our political leaders, and some government studies, have also provided official commentary on this subject over the years. The consensus generally is that reform of the practice of using special warrants is needed, particularly to ensure that the rights of members of the assembly are respected before the government spends public money.

"Before the Financial Administration Act was passed in 1981, the government established a task force in 1980 to receive and consider public submissions on a discussion paper, and new financial legislation drafted for the province, and to recommend appropriate action. . . ."

The greatest use of dollars with regard to special warrants is during election years, and the largest dollar value ever spent on a special warrant in the history of British Columbia was by this government last year, when they spent $5,615,706,000 on special warrants. That is unacceptable to the people of this province. This government knew that all they had to do was call this Legislature back earlier, and this would be unnecessary this evening.

"Special warrant spending authority has evolved over the years into being used for three categories. . .: (1) unanticipated requirements necessitating urgently and immediately providing funding; (2) insufficiently provided-for government budget appropriations needing additional funding. . .; and (3) the routine funding of the day-to-day running of government. . . .

"The first category represents the original intent for special warrants, but is now the least used of the three. Examples of this category of use in recent years were the 1991-92 funding in the amount of $12 million to assist the residents of Cassiar, affected by the closure of their mine and townsite, and the unanticipated expenditure to remove asbestos from the Royal British Columbia Museum.

"The second category has become an annual, almost routine use for special warrants, particularly for supplementing the annual budgets of certain ministries such as Health, Social Services and Attorney General."

One would think that if it has become a routine thing, these ministries would budget accordingly and be able to fund themselves in their fiscal budget.

The third category, which has been the subject of the greatest amount of public discussion and debate, has become the one in which the largest amount of dollars is used for special warrant spending authorizations. In the current 1996-97 year, until the Legislative Assembly was called together last summer, the funding for government spending, both routine and urgent, was, as I said -- bar none -- the highest ever.

"Public commentary from special studies, political leaders and our office about special warrants" -- and this is the auditor general speaking now -- "have all been virtually unanimous about the need for reform in the use of special warrants. The only way this will occur, however, is if the statutory authority for the provision of special warrants is amended, if not deleted.

"The auditor general has previously recommended that reform of the special warrants authority take place. Amendment of the statutory authority for special warrants should give full recognition to the rights of the Members of the Legislative Assembly in granting government the authority to spend public money."

Madam Speaker, the reason I used a lot of the auditor general's words is because I don't think anybody has more authority, more knowledge and a better way to comment on the use of special warrants than our auditor general.

The government is asking us to deal with Health, Social Services and Attorney General in this special warrant this evening, and I wish to comment on those three. Yesterday the Ministry of Health, through an order-in-council, fired the board of directors of the Langley Memorial Hospital and appointed a public administrator. I want to read you the

schedule that was issued to the board of directors today.

"1. The board of directors of the Langley Memorial Hospital shall cease to hold office, but where the public administrator considers it appropriate, he may retain one or more members of the board to act in an advisory capacity."

This is the important one, Madam Speaker:

"2. The public administrator is given the exclusive right, in consultation with the Ministry of Health, to exercise all the powers of: (

a) the society, (

b) the board, (

c) the members of the society, together with exclusive control and disposition of the property, assets and revenues of the society."

Shame!

"3. The public administrator may, where he considers it appropriate for the orderly management of the property and affairs of the society, delegate any aspects of his powers, duties or responsibilities to the person or persons selected by him."

Why was this done? Is the Langley Memorial Hospital badly run? Or is it considered to be one of the best-run facilities of its kind in Canada? It is one of the best-run facilities of its kind in Canada. It is one of the few hospitals in Canada with a four-year accreditation, which is unsurpassed by most hospitals in this province and across the country. And that was when they had a volunteer board. So what do we do? We get rid of the volunteer board. What's the reason? It's

[ Page 2189 ]

because this government is intent on an asset-and-capital grab of the hospitals in this province so that it can leverage it in the future for more debt to download on the people of this province.

Some Hon. Members: Shame!

R. Coleman: Because this hospital has a huge asset base, built by volunteers, the Ministry of Health is literally stealing from the people in the community of Langley, who have put in volunteer hours, raised volunteer dollars. All of a sudden, those assets they worked for are no longer theirs. That is disgusting, it is wrong, and it should not be done.

Madam Speaker, not only did they do this to the board of directors, but the Ministry of Health went through a bogus process to do this. They asked this society to hold a meeting to vote on amalgamation of hospital boards. They asked them to vote on the amalgamation of their hospital and their hospital society with another regional health board. They were given that option. They constituted the meeting under a democratic process. They sent out a notice to all their membership. Close to a thousand people showed up at the meeting. They debated the issue.

Representatives of their legal firm were there, and representatives from the ministry were there. The presentation from the ministry was made, and the people voted. Only four people voted in favour of amalgamation.

Do you know why this hospital board was fired? Because it went through a democratic process allowed by them under law, and the ministry said: "You can't vote that way. We don't believe in democracy. You're gone, and we're going to appoint a board." There's no democracy on the regional health board, as was promised when this process started. As the member for Cariboo North related earlier, we actually have some harassment, if you wish, or at least some discrimination as to the selection of people to regional health boards.

I would tell the ministry and the Premier and the people involved in this decision-making process to look at your own Human Rights Code with regard to what you can and cannot do to your own employees in the province, and also to the people in this province. You cannot discriminate based on their personal views. That is wrong.

Another interesting question is: who did get appointed to the regional health board? Did a member of the hospital board, who was a member of a board that had a four-year accreditation at one of the top hospitals in Canada, get appointed to the regional health board? No. But did a failed NDP candidate, a failed NDP municipal election official, get appointed to that board? You're darned right they did -- and that's wrong. That's why interim supply to the Ministry of Health isn't right -- because they're abusing their privilege to use our funds for the benefit of all people of the province of British Columbia.

Now let's deal with the Attorney General's ministry briefly. I don't want to get into everybody's portfolio in long detail tonight, but I must say there are certain things that have happened since last year, when we discussed interim supply and went through estimates. This photo radar thing hap- pened. Photo radar was going to bring us all this revenue, and, as one of the offshoots, we were going to get 100 new policemen.

Imagine this. Think of 100 policemen, whom we send through training in Regina or through the Justice Institute, and whom we send back and forth for training so that they can become senior investigators that learn how to do drug enforcement and become breathalyser technicians. We take hundreds of thousands of dollars of training, and we stick them in a van on the side of the road to operate a camera and radar. The truth of the matter is that that's a terrible, terrible waste of manpower.

Those people have the capability of conducting major investigations, doing community policing and putting patrols on the street where they're really needed. What do we do? My question has to be: how many community policing initiatives, how many preventative policing initiatives, have failed because these members were out of the system, sitting on the side of a highway? When we wasted these funds, how many investigations of sexual abuse or serious assault, or whatever, did not take place because these 100 capable, qualified policemen were out of the system? That's wrong. That's why the Ministry of Attorney General should not get an increase in funding.

[8:30]

I just want to touch on courthouses briefly. When you look at the sheer economic impact of the decision on courthouses, it's two things. It's definitely downloading on municipalities. But in addition to that, it does something else: it takes away from the fabric of a community -- to have safer streets. This is a government that said they were for that. The interesting thing about downloading courthouses is that BCBC, the B.C. Buildings Corporation, actually holds the leases on most of these courthouses.

So when the ministry decides to close a courthouse, they're out of their lease in six months, but the corporation has to take the lease on and pay the bills and the costs. They're the ones that are going to be downloaded on. It's not just downloading on municipalities; it's also downloading on the Crowns, to hide the dollar that they're telling us they're saving, when they're not saving a dime.

It also ignores something very important. I can give you an example I know of. That would be the courthouse in the city of Langley, in the member for Langley's riding. There are two transition houses in that community, and there is no direct-link bus service to the courthouse where these services are being downloaded to. These are the people most at risk, with their children, who have come from abusive situations and are afraid. We're asking them to find a bus, make connections, get to court and get back so they can protect themselves. Do you know the only way they'll be able to do it in that riding?

They'll get a motel overnight in Surrey in order to do it. If they have to do that, where are they going to get the money? They've already left an abusive situation. They're already isolated from society. How are they going to get there?

I don't believe the ministry took that into account. I don't think there was enough planning in this decision. Do you know that there's an additional $300,000 cost to the RCMP in the Langleys because of the shutting of the courthouse and the overtime and staff time to get members back and forth from court? Nobody thought of that. They couldn't have thought of that, because they wouldn't have made the decision on a building that has a lease that's about $90,000 a year.

I have a number of concerns with regard to health care, and I'm not going to deal with them here tonight. What we do is keep moving things around in the Ministry of Health. We've now moved a number of issues over to the Ministry for Children and Families -- including speech therapy -- where children are not getting the service they need under the Ministry of Health, and now nobody knows who is supposed to give these kids the service.

Madam Speaker, a number of other things in this province are in a mess as a result of bad planning and bad

[ Page 2190 ]

fiscal management, including the Residential Tenancy Act -- how we deal with residential tenancy and other items. I will not sit by and watch the abuse of our system, something that I thought was very important when I ran for election.

I would have to agree with the Deputy Premier of this province when, on May 30, 1991, he said: "You know, we brought in a budget, we put it before the people in parliament in February and March every year, and we allowed the debate to continue." They did it early then. Why couldn't they do it early now? Don't give me the spring break argument. The truth of the matter is that they didn't want to do it. They wanted to push it to the night before one of the most major religious holidays in our province and in our country, just to see if they could push us to the wall. I find that unacceptable.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

D. Symons: I will make my comments fairly brief. I'd like to just reminisce for a moment, though, about when I was first elected, on October 17, 1991. I remember that back at that time, I came in here full of optimism and, I guess, a little bit of na�vety, in the sense that I was a newly elected person here. I had watched the operations of this House over the decades before. I had watched the NDP in opposition, and, you know, I thought they were pretty good, because they seemed to have a social conscience. They spoke much of things that I was concerned about.

But when they moved from this side to that side, as we heard from the previous speaker, that mantle of social conscience fell off them. Indeed, it seems to be the Liberal Party of this province that's carrying those concerns forward -- the concerns of the people of the province.

I also thought that the legislative process would be somewhat different than it was, because I watched for years as the Social Credit Party basically gave no options and gave no part to the opposition party at that time, the NDP. They certainly made sure that at every chance, they made things difficult for the opposition. Having observed that and felt that for years, I thought that when the NDP came to power we would see a different atmosphere in this chamber, an atmosphere where, working together, we could cooperatively bring about the best interests of this province. But what did we find? We found that immediately, as the mantle of power fell to them, they lost that vision.

They don't call House committees together and give business to them. We appoint House committees at the beginning of each session, and we name members to those committees. The members meet once to choose a Chair, and that's the only time those members meet during the sitting. That is really unacceptable in a society such as we have here.

This House could be used much more effectively if we used the House committees, referred things to committees and didn't waste time in this chamber arguing things out, discussing things and looking for compromises that we could find in a committee, before the legislation came here for third reading. This would be one way of moving a legislative session ahead more quickly, I believe.

Anyway, getting back to it, when I was first elected I had these concerns that rapidly evaporated my optimism for how the Legislature was going to operate. I still have that desire for it to happen, though, and I look forward to the day that any government will bring those things into effect. But about two weeks after we got into the Legislature, I found that we were doing exactly what we are doing this evening: we went into an emergency debate. But at least then, in 1992, we had two weeks.

We had one week where the throne speech was brought up and debated, we had one week where the budget speech was brought up and debated, and then we moved into Committee of Supply and into special warrants. Still, the government did exactly the same thing. They waited till the very night when the next day was the end of the fiscal year to bring forth those bills so we could discuss them. It was a matter of pressure of time that they brought in. They were not wanting these topics to be debated rationally over a lengthy period of time, when we could do it in a reasonable atmosphere rather than late at night.

And they are doing precisely the same thing this year.

Then, as now, I wondered why it was -- and now is -- an emergency. Did the government only recognize this morning that this is the last legislative sitting day of this fiscal year? We knew that last year, we knew it the year before, and they knew it then. There was no emergency. I'm rather surprised that the Speaker would allow these bills to be brought forward today on an emergency basis, by that particular

part in the regulations. It isn't really an emergency; it was known in advance. Things that are known in advance are not emergencies -- except that's how it's ruled in this House.

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. For the record, I think that's a very important point you raise. Standing order 81 says two things: extraordinary and urgent. It says nothing about emergency. I would like to emphasize that, member, just for the record, if I might.

D. Symons: I thank the Speaker so much for that correction. I'm not quite sure, then, what the extraordinary

part is nor what the urgent

part is. Indeed, if we had started this House sitting in March or February, we would not be doing this tonight.

I have to ask why we were not sitting in February or early March of this year. That rests entirely on the government. It's their option when to call the House together, and they chose not to. So again, under your definition of urgent, I can't quite imagine how we can call it urgent when they have intentionally delayed calling this House together. I do not believe -- with the exception of when there was an election coming on -- that the government has left it this late in the fiscal year to call the session together.

I don't believe there's another time in history where that has occurred in this province: where they have left it to just four days prior to the end of the fiscal year to call the House together, and then they bring in a throne speech and a budget back to back. It is an abuse of the legislative procedures for this government to be doing that, but they seem to think their government can do anything.

I was going to read a quote that was read earlier, but I'll just read an earlier part of it where it talks about this: "The supply bill is really before us because we've got a government that is so erratic and so unstable that it finds it difficult to plan from one day to the next what the next move is going to be." That was followed by the other statement that the previous speaker had made about previous governments in the 1970s that brought forth their budgets in February or March. Going back to the quote from Hansard of May 30, 1991, why do we have these institutions?

Why do we have these procedures with respect to estimates, budget and supply? I recall the cry: "Not a dime without debate." It was a rallying cry advanced by the members on the opposite side at that time, and tonight we are also advancing that rallying cry.

The government had the opportunity to call us together earlier. I heard a comment earlier from the government Whip, I believe it was, stating: "You wouldn't want us to come back

[ Page 2191 ]

during spring break, would you?" Well, that is the weakest argument I've ever heard for calling this House back at this very late date. There's no reason, as I said earlier, that it couldn't have been called back in February or March.

That brings us to the point made by the member for Peace River South that we need a fiscal legislative calendar. Indeed, this party has brought forth legislation in this House and tabled it, and the government has done nothing about it. So why are we here tonight? We're here to debate Bill 5, Supply Act (No. 1), 1997. The brackets -- (No. 1) -- would almost give the impression that maybe there will be a Supply Act No. 2, 3 or 4. Who knows? With this government and the way they handle money, that might be a necessity a few months from now.

So what is a supply act, hon. Speaker? Maybe for the people watching on television this evening, we should give a little explanation. The supply act is a bill that the government brings in when they have not passed their spending authority. That means the budget and the estimates for each of the ministries have not been passed before one fiscal year runs out and the next fiscal year begins. It reads:

"WHEREAS it appears by Message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Estimates accompanying the Message that provision is required to defray certain expenses of the public service of the Province, and for other purposes connected to this public service, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998..." -- That's for the coming fiscal year. -- "AND

WHEREAS, in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, expenditures by Special Warrants of $98 930 000 in respect of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997 have been submitted to the Legislature in the

Schedule of this Act. . . ."

That's the fiscal year that is ending this weekend.

What that special warrants

part is doing is covering the backsides, in a sense, of this government, which has overspent the estimates made last year in the budgets at that point. They are just making up for that overspending at this time. They are asking for our approval in hindsight, I suppose you can say, or in retrospect, for their past inaccuracies in funding those particular ministries.

It goes on:

"THEREFORE HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows. . ." -- this is what we are passing tonight. -- "voted expenditures appropriation. 1. From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine the sum of $5 040 000 000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, and being substantially 3/12" -- that's one-quarter -- "of the total amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998...."

That basically, then, is giving the government spending authority without explaining how they're going to use that money for the next three months. So we are going to give them spending authority, basically a cheque for that amount of money, to use in a way that we have not yet approved in this House.

The minister responsible for Finance says: "It's in the budget." Indeed, it's there, but that budget has not been passed. It has not been authorized by this Legislature. That's the problem. If they had called us together a few months earlier, that could have taken place. I'm simply saying to the hon. minister that if they had called us together two months earlier, we wouldn't be needing this tonight.

[8:45]

Second part:

"Voted financing transactions appropriation. 2. 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 $942 423 000 for recoverable disbursements referred to in

Schedule C of the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998."

That's what I referred to earlier. That was the spending deficit of last year, and we're having to go to three ministries where they overspent because we hadn't budgeted for these amounts of money. So although they've already spent it, we're now going to authorize them to spend the money they've spent.

And finally, the third part:

"Working capital account appropriation. 3. 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 $2 million to the Purchasing Commission Working Capital Account. . ." -- That's so they will have an advance on purchases they'll make for government accounts and government vehicles, etc. -- ". . .established under

section 23.1 of the Purchasing Commission Act, being the amount shown for this purpose in the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session."

That is what we are discussing tonight -- the $5 billion plus appropriations, one-quarter of the government's projected budget for the next fiscal year. I say "projected" because that's the word the Finance minister quite correctly pointed out in trying to explain why the 1996-97 budget had a $395 million deficit rather than the $87 million surplus they had projected. The word projected has to be watched very carefully, because their projection there was basically half a billion dollars out. We have to be very careful when this government talks about projections and, indeed, that projection they talked about before was out by close to half a billion dollars.

The NDP, then, are projecting this year a $185 million deficit for the '97-98 fiscal year. How can we believe that the $185 million projection will be any more accurate than last year's fiscal mismanagement? The answer is that we can't. We're really being asked, in the dying moments of this fiscal year, to give the NDP a blank cheque for how they will be spending that $5 billion advance they are seeking. Can we trust them to be fiscally responsible with this advance? The answer, again, is no.

I'm not alone in this opinion. Besides those on this side of the House, who I'm sure agree with the opinions I've expressed so far this evening, here are members on the opposite side who also agree. Why, one of the NDP members has said, if I can find the quote here quickly:

"We have seen repeated attempts by this government to stifle debate on taxing and spending of this administration. The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everybody should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here, Mr. Speaker. It was that side of the House that, at one time, said: 'Not a dime without debate.' "

Remember, this is an NDP member speaking

"They are now asking for $5 billion of public money to be passed posthaste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency" -- there's the word you used, hon. Speaker -- "and it's not acceptable to this side of the House.

"This House hasn't sat for eight months, which is unacceptable" -- how long has it been since we've sat? -- "in order that there be no debate on or scrutiny of this government's incompetent fiscal ability. There has been no debate for eight months because the House hasn't sat for eight months, and now they ask us to pass a bill today with very little debate.

"We know, Mr. Speaker, that they have had a lot of reasons why they do not want the scrutiny placed before them; there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in calling the Legislature have been their doing. It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the largest-taxing government we've seen for some time; they have regressively and unfairly taxed working people, the poor and seniors in this province; and they want to avoid that debate in this House."

[ Page 2192 ]

Who said that? Well, my goodness. Hon. Speaker, it was the then critic for Finance, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who today is our Premier.

Now, one would think that if these people were ethical. . . . I don't know if that's the right word to use here, but if they believed what they said back on April 23, 1990, regarding interim supply and doing it at the last moment, if they believed in that when they were in opposition, I really thought that when they moved to that side of the House they would then carry forth in a responsible manner. But are they? No, because look what we're doing tonight, hon. Speaker. It's the same thing.

So let us take a look at something further that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who is now our Premier, said in the same vein:

"The essence of parliamentary democracy is to authorize spending. When you go through Erskine May, when you go through all the parliamentary history -- hundreds of years of parliamentary history -- what you see, time and time again, is that the principal role of a parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending and to scrutinize the government's agenda for the province."

We have been denied that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. We have been denied that opportunity for eight months between sittings, and we're being denied the opportunity now. Again, that was the Premier of the province speaking on April 23, 1990. So we find that this government seems to have a hypocritical sense of when they're in opposition and when they move to the government side of this House.

One would think that after all those striking words, they would be behaving in a much more responsible and proper manner toward the people of this province and the legislative procedures that should be taking place in this House. I said earlier that we can't trust the NDP. Well I would like us to examine their record.

This is the NDP's sixth consecutive unbalanced budget, and by that I mean deficit budget. The sixth one. I don't believe there's another government in the history of B.C. that can top that dubious honour. In 1992 and '93 they kept blaming the previous administration for the deficit that was left in 1991, but let me remind the hon. members that for almost half of that fiscal year it was the NDP who were at the helm of this province. Did they deal with the crisis immediately? No. They continued to let the debt grow so they could have a larger number that they could blame on the previous administration.

It's worth noting that in the previous year, the year 1990, the Socreds actually posted a surplus, something this government has been incapable of doing.

Let's also take a look at the now Premier, who was Finance minister when this government was first elected in 1991. Look at his record as Finance minister and remember now that this is the person who has the reins of this government in his hands. The first thing that happened was that there was an announcement by the then Finance minister, in 1992, of a reduction in spending. He asked every ministry to reduce spending. All but one increased their spending.

Not only did he announce once that there were going to be reductions in spending, he announced it twice; and at the end of the fiscal year, spending had gone up. Also, during his first year as Finance minister, in 1992, taxes increased close to $1 billion. Even after increasing the tax load on British Columbians by $1 billion, they still had a $1 billion deficit. That meant spending must have gone up considerably. The next fiscal year: same minister, same response. Some results were further tax increases. The tax increases now totalled close to $1.8 billion, and they still posted another large deficit.

Then we had a new Finance minister. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway was culled out of the Finance ministry and put into Employment and Investment. Wrong move, hon. Speaker. It was like putting a kid in a toy store with no supervision. But that's another story for another day. The new Finance minister fared no better, only now the NDP discovered that fee increase was also a way of garnering more funds for their spending increase. In her second year she introduced something called a debt management plan.

Now, one would have thought that the debt management plan would manage the debt. Not so. What was the essence of this debt management plan? Well, if you looked at it carefully, you would find they had planned that in 20 years they would bring the debt back down to the place it took them to get to in two and a half years. It was going to take them a 10-to-1 ratio to get the debt back to the place they had put it up to. So it was not too much of a debt management plan, but that was the plan they had in mind.

Did it work? Well, the first year of her budget they were $500 million short of their debt management plan, and the second year, as this government was going into an election, the same thing was repeated. They were nowhere near the benchmarks they had set in their debt management plan. Indeed, they were far below it, and they posted two more deficits, one of which they claimed to be a surplus.

I'd like to now move into a period when the NDP also had a leadership crisis, because there was a while there when there were some problems on the opposite side with the leader. We had a Gang of Six and so forth, who were trying to change the upper echelons.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Well, no, we're talking about yours at this particular moment. We've solved ours; I don't think you've solved yours yet.

A few years earlier, the Social Credit also had a similar leadership problem. And what did the NDP Finance critic of that time have to say after that -- that is, when they brought in the following legislative session? Well, let's take a look at what he said. This is a quote from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway on May 30, 1991, just as the Social Credit government was falling apart: "But the government has been caught up in the political chaos of its own making. Preoccupied with purging a leader who left in disgrace. . . ." Now, who said this? You know, hon. Speaker, it was the man who would be king.

Do you remember the story by Rudyard Kipling, The Man Who Would Be King ? Remember that when he got the power of being king, it sort of went to his head, and indeed at the end of the story he lost his head. I think it might be instructive for the Premier of this province to read that story and learn the lesson from it.

Anyway, to continue with his quote:

"Preoccupied with purging a leader who left in disgrace, they have been incapable of governing the province; incapable of bringing in routine matters like the supply bill; incapable of bringing in even the most rudimentary obligation of the government, a budget that was on time."

That was the then Finance critic, now Premier of this province, who is not living up to the words he said in those days. All I can say is: how history repeats itself.

[ Page 2193 ]

Let's now move on to the present. Two days ago this NDP government introduced its budget. It boasted of being the first budget in many years to reduce spending. Did they really do it, or is it another fudging of the figures? In the budget speech it says: "For the first time since 1958, there will be a year-over-year decline in budget expenditures. Spending from the consolidated revenue fund will go down by more than $100 million, to $20.47 billion."

Let's look more carefully at that, because what we find in the budget books is that $70 million for rehab in Highways is disappearing off the government books and being shunted into the Transportation Financing Authority. It no longer appears in the consolidated revenue books for the ministries under the Ministry of Highways. It's no longer there. There are $20 million of Tourism expenditures that are now going into a special operating agency. They no longer show up in the budget books that we discuss in this House. They were last year; they're not this year.

[9:00]

So how much is that that we've been told has been moved off the books? Let's see, we had $70 million and $20 million; that's $90 million. Remember, hon. Speaker, that the government was talking about reducing spending by $100 million, and we've already found $90 million they just shifted off the books.

But we find more. There's $100 million in Forest Renewal. Silviculture expenditures that are supposed to be paid -- or were, up until this year -- out of the Forests ministry, will be no longer. It's going to paid for by FRBC. It's no longer on the books.

Schools, education. Each year the government has been giving $35 million out of the Education ministry to school districts for renovations and renewals. Not this year, hon. Speaker, but last year it was. This year they're to get it from the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority -- $35 million that has been moved off the books.

And then there's the $60 million in municipal grants. Again, $60 million has been moved off the books and onto the shoulders of the taxpayers of the communities around this province -- to the renters, to the homeowners. That's where the $60 million appears when it disappears off this government's books.

If we add up those figures -- and there are other little ones, but these are the larger ones -- that's $285 million they've shunted off the books this year that were on the books last year. They tell us that they're reducing spending by $100 million, when they've shunted $285 million off of the books. That is a lot of hocus-pocus or smoke and mirrors. If the books were kept the same way this year as they were last year, that's not $100 million less but $185 million more.

That was the spending side. Now let's look at the reverse side. Remember that this is the government that said: "No new taxes." We've had a propane fuel tax, a tax that discouraged conversion of vehicles to a more environmentally friendly fuel, and a regressive one at that. We've had an increase in probate fees, a huge increase in fishing licences, an increase in other fees, etc., that bear no resemblance to the service supplied. All add money into the consolidated revenue fund just like tax revenues. I would agree that most of this government's fee and licence increases are tax increases in all but name.

It is deceitful and despicable of this government to be talking about not increasing taxes when they're using every backdoor way of increasing the expense and the cost to the people of British Columbia.

For that reason, there is no way I could stand up tonight and support this bill -- to more or less rubber-stamp their desire to force a bill through this evening with no real, proper debate on the spending the government is asking for.

R. Thorpe: It's a privilege for me to speak on behalf of the constituents of my riding, Okanagan-Penticton, to say a few brief words on this spending authority and this Supply Act (No. 1). We are really talking about fiscal management here. This government continues to show us, year after year, irresponsible fiscal management, and now they want us to believe that it's prudent fiscal management. That is not believable for British Columbians.

In six short years the debt has risen from just under $20 billion to $31 billion -- numbers that people in my riding cannot understand. The only thing they can understand about these big numbers is that it puts their children and grandchildren at risk. They are going to have to pay back this mismanagement that this NDP government is caus