1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 11

[ Page 4893 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

M. Lord: Hon. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to welcome two constituents from Denman Island in my riding. Would the House please join me in welcoming Jim and Norma McLeod.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome Jim Cameron and Carole Burdett, with students from Keith Lynn Alternative Secondary School in North Vancouver. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

D. Symons: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House Karl Pollak, who lives in Richmond and has a long history of involvement with the political process. Would the House please make him welcome.

G. Brewin: On behalf of the MLAs and MPs for the south Island, I wish to introduce a group of University of Victoria social work students who have been doing their practicum work in our constituency offices. They have done some awesome work, members of this Legislature. I'd like to introduce them: Alicia Parker, Rennaa Bacy, Bonnie McMachon, John Campos, Pam Griffin, Rick Briggs and Diana Moffatt. Their supervisor is Cheryl Moir Van Iersel.

The federal constituency assistants -- Lynda Reid, Van Buchanan and Lynn Osborn -- and the provincial ones -- Cynthia Carver, Don Innes, Bruce Fogg and Lorie Bennett -- have been supervising them, and they've done a wonderful job. I want you to make them welcome.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I've had the pleasure of meeting a very special guest who is in our building today. Her name is Nonkolisho Sigcau. She's from Transkei in South Africa, and she is on a tour of Canada to learn about our government. She is the guest of my ministerial assistant, Shelley Canitz. I'd like us to give her an especially warm welcome.

J. Dalton: I'm pleased to welcome to the House today -- and I'm sure all members will do so -- approximately 15 members of the North Shore Women's Liberal Commission. They were going to bring over their thousands of fellow Liberals, but they didn't want to inundate the House. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, we have in the public galleries a couple of special guests who have come over today to follow up on the incredible news they heard yesterday. They wanted to see if all the details of the provincial budget were really true. Would the members of the House please welcome the publisher of the Province, Don Babick, and editor-in-chief, Mr. Brian Butters.

U. Dosanjh: I have the privilege to introduce to the House about 80 grade 11 students from Charles Tupper Secondary School in my constituency, Vancouver-Kensington. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. R. Pajala, and several other adults. Could the House please welcome them.

F. Gingell: I ask all members to join me in welcoming to the House today my good friend Rick Watts and my son, John Gingell, who kept me up half the night talking about this and that.

L. Krog: I notice a good friend of the third party -- and one of my constituents -- is here today. Would the House please welcome Mr. Pat Fraser.

K. Jones: It's with great pleasure that I introduce Dick Kirby to the House. He is a long-time Liberal participant in the Victoria area, one who has kept Victoria very active.

Oral Questions

CIVIL SERVICE TRAVEL

W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister explain why the budget for civil service travel in the province is slated to rise by $5 million, to a total of $65 million, when taxpayers of the province are being hit with $800 million to $1 billion in tax increases?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sure a fuller explanation will come during estimates debate. But we're very proud on this side of the House that we've brought the rate of government spending down from 12 percent to about 7 percent, and now to under 6 percent. We've protected health and education services, and we've brought the deficit down to $1.5 billion for next year.

W. Hurd: Supplemental to the Premier, who likes to travel himself. Perhaps the Premier can explain why his government ministries are spending the equivalent of $1.25 million a week -- or $250,000 a day -- on civil service travel. Will he at least commit to reduce the amount of civil service travel on behalf of the people of the province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We were able to find about $40 million in waste and inefficiency last year in the budget, and $35 million has been identified so far. If the hon. member can show where he thinks a public employee shouldn't leave Vancouver and Victoria to go to Terrace, or even to his riding.... Where it's a wasted trip, we like to hear about it. We don't want to see the taxpayers' money wasted.

PREMIER'S OFFICE SPENDING

W. Hurd: While the Premier is looking for spending cuts, could he perhaps tell the people of the province why spending in his own office is going up by $1.1 million in the current fiscal year?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The sooner we finish this year's budget and get into the estimates for next year's budget, which rests with the opposition, I'll be more than happy to talk about my estimates in the normal course of events.

[ Page 4894 ]

SIZE OF B.C. PUBLIC SERVICE

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier. According to the estimates tabled yesterday, 30,256 full-time employees are authorized in the provincial civil service in fiscal year '93-94; that's after an allowance is made for the contractors who've been rolled into the civil service. Can the Premier tell us how many employees are in the provincial civil service today?

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will get that detailed information for the Leader of the Third Party. Some of that information was in the budget; I'm sure he's read it. I'm sure he also realizes that the previous government had hundreds, if not thousands, of people illegally out on consultant's contracts and was not following the income tax, UIC and other rules laid down by the federal government. Those people had to be brought back into the civil service before the federal government descended on us for those actions.

J. Weisgerber: I would have expected that the Premier would at least know how many people work for the civil service. The fact is that 29,073 FTEs are employed by the government today, an increase of 1,600 over last year. How can the Premier possibly justify adding even more employees, given the horrible state of his government's finances?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think it's unfortunate that the Leader of the Third Party is advocating a return to the radical restraint program of the Bennett years. We've obviously rejected that approach. We have rejected the approach he is advocating: that British Columbians be less educated and that their health standards be lowered. We're not taking that approach; we're taking a balanced approach.

As a matter of fact, the hon. Leader of the Third Party was predicting a $3 billion deficit just a short time ago. I'm sure he will be pleased that we have reduced their $2.4 billion deficit to $1.5 billion, and it will come down further.

J. Weisgerber: Given the fact that government borrowing will increase by $3 billion dollars this year, there are many who would say I was right -- bang on.

In any event, my question to the Premier is: given the serious fiscal constraints his government faces, has he decided to place a freeze on public sector hiring?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think the Leader of the Third Party should go back and look at the 10 percent reduction in the acute care health system that has been worked out with workers and hospitals. That is a model for the kind of cooperation we need to bring about between employers and employees, instead of the radical restraint approach that the Leader of Third Party is trying to bring back. The government under the Social Credit Party tried to treat public employees as public enemies number one, instead of helping them to have good morale to work on behalf of the people of this province. With the last round of radical restraint, they didn't learn from history.

INCREASED TAXES AND CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

L. Stephens: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. We were winning the war against cross-border shopping, but given the increases in sales and gas taxes and the extension of the sales tax to a range of labour services, this government is sending consumers back across the border. How can this minister justify this further assault on small businesses of our border town merchants?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: After this budget B.C. will remain competitive with the jurisdictions around us. You know perfectly well that the major impact on cross-border shopping is the value of the Canadian dollar. Under all circumstances, that is what makes the difference. As long as the dollar remains favourable, we think that we have stopped the tide of cross-border shopping. Therefore....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have increased the costs minimally. But you have to be reminded that Washington is reputed to be thinking about putting on a 20-cent-a-gallon tax, which will more than redress the imbalance that may have been created.

L. Stephens: A supplemental to the Minister of Economic Development. The ministry has lost its mandate in promoting trade, real capital investment is down 16 percent, and now it has lost the community economic development program to B.C. 21. Will the minister table any feasibility studies that were conducted to determine the need for B.C. 21?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As is well known, this government transferred the responsibility for trade promotion very early on from this ministry to the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. It did that so that it would not be a bureaucracy but rather a corporation promoting trade overseas much more effectively. They could go to a performance-based system. It's a more businesslike way of handling it, and I don't think this government has anything to be defensive about. It achieves some efficiency, and it is a more businesslike approach to promote trade overseas. Now the....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't hear for the clatter coming from across the way.

The Speaker: If the minister would conclude his comments.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Well, it was a very long question; maybe I should conclude.

COMPENSATION TO SENIOR CIVIL SERVANTS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. In the past few months the taxpayers of B.C. have found that the government has been paying ridiculous

[ Page 4895 ]

perks for Crown corporation heads, including free ICBC car insurance for Robyn Allan and the West Vancouver golf club fees for the head of WCB. Given the $1 billion tax grab the taxpayers were hit with yesterday, will he release for public scrutiny all perks paid to senior civil servants in this province?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, the pay that goes to the senior people in the Crown corporations.... Some of the things that the hon. member has mentioned concern the government, too, and that's why we appointed Judi Korbin to look at the whole issue of compensation in Crown corporations, in municipalities, in school boards and in colleges and universities, where we provide a very significant amount of the funding for them without the kind of accountability that the public wants. That's the kind of accountability we want to bring to those various organizations.

G. Farrell-Collins: Supplemental. We want to talk about perks; $1,200 a day is a pretty good perk to do that type of report. I assume the Premier's answer was a yes. To the Premier again: last night the taxpayers of B.C. witnessed "Mr. Rogers Does the B.C. Budget," live on TV by satellite linkup. Will the Premier tell the taxpayers of B.C. how much he spent advertising this futile PR sham and why it was necessary to rent a satellite truck from U.TV, just so the Premier didn't have to leave his office? How much did it cost?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm just astounded sometimes by the people across the way. Who writes these questions that they throw out that are phrased in such a silly way? I am astounded that the member would be offended that the Premier deals directly with the people through the cablevision of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I can tell you that this Premier is proud of what we were able to accomplish in this budget in terms of protecting basic health and education services, bringing down the deficit and bringing some hope to the people in the regions and to the people who are hurting in this province. And I'm prepared, hon. Speaker....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. This is question period. If the member has a final supplemental for the hon. Premier, I will advise the House that we will extend question period to account for the enthusiasm of today's question period.

G. Farrell-Collins: I, too, hon. Speaker, am thrilled that the public of this province were allowed to see firsthand that this Premier doesn't know what his budget's about and how much of a sham it was. It's just unfortunate they had to pay for it, hon. Speaker.

EXTENSION OF CORPORATE CAPITAL TAX

Another question to the Premier. Seeing as he's looking to save so much money and looking to tax revenues, given the government's inability to control public sector wage increases during the last year -- and Ken Georgetti's comments yesterday that those who can pay more should be paying more -- will the Premier commit today to include the hundreds of millions of dollars of capital held by trade unions in this province in the corporation capital tax -- in the spirit of fairness and balance? I'm sure Ken Georgetti will be glad to go along with it.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Again, I'm astounded by these questions. He now wants the provincial government to bring in a corporate capital tax on the pension funds of this province. This is the new policy....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the Premier's response to the question. Premier, if you'd like to conclude your remarks....

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes, I will, hon. Speaker; I will conclude.

With those kinds of policies, I can see.... I'm an open Premier. I'm prepared to be in front of the citizens of this province like I was last night. I've always been an open and available political leader. If I was a member of this Liberal caucus, I'd want to hide.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Hon. members, thank you.

B.C. RAIL PURCHASE OF VANCOUVER WHARVES LTD.

I have a question for the Premier. One of the great secrets of yesterday's budget was the Crown corporation slush fund -- almost a billion dollars which apparently is going to be used for increased intervention in the private sector of the economy of British Columbia by this very activist government. Can the Premier tell us if he agrees that commercial Crown corporations should be diversifying into new business sectors, such as B.C. Rail's purchase of Vancouver Wharves Ltd. last week, where they now compete directly with their own customers?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't know if the hon. member was here yesterday -- I think he was -- when I think the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is responsible for B.C. Rail, answered that. As a matter of fact, what I've heard from the port people is that they're pleased that B.C. Rail, a stable and good B.C. company, has taken over Vancouver Wharves, which was struggling. It is now going to be able to serve

[ Page 4896 ]

a lot of the customers of B.C. Rail even more effectively for our overseas markets.

Hon. R. Blencoe tabled the 1992 annual report of the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia and the 1991 annual report of the B.C. Assessment Authority.

Hon. A. Charbonneau tabled the annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota tabled the annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia.

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

F. Gingell: Yesterday afternoon we were witness in this chamber to a massive smash and grab directed against the people of this province. The minister said today that this will only affect taxpayers who drive a Mercedes Benz, earn more than $100,000 a year and live in a $1 million house. What a load of rubbish! The vast majority of British Columbians will feel the direct effect of these taxes, and all of us will pay a price in lost jobs, diminished economic growth, faltering investment and, yes, reduced government revenues.

Today my office has been inundated with calls from these angry taxpayers. It's

an act of fiscal ferocity, unparalleled since the Barrett years. Fully $1.4 billion of tax increases will be sucked out of the people of this province in the coming year -- and this is on top of more than $1 billion in tax increases in this minister's 1992 budget. The taxpayers are bleeding and they are fed up. The fiscal lifeblood of this province is being drained; the minister has apparently embraced Count Dracula as his role model. As an insult to this massive injury, the minister has added still another billion dollars to the NDP spending spiral for the coming year.

This is a budget clearly out of control; it's a disgraceful example of voodoo accounting with this minister pressing home the pins. Mark my words: the government will pay dearly for this in just the same way as the people of British Columbia.

Let's look at some of these tax increases stripped of their velvet protectors. Take the income tax surtax. The minister spoke innocently about taxpayers in the first tier paying a mere 11/2 cents more and taxpayers in the second tier paying a mere 3 cents more. What he neglected to mention was that the first-tier surtax is now up to 30 percent. The second-tier surtax, which was 10 percent in 1991, 20 percent in 1992 and 30 percent in 1993, will now climb to 50 percent.

This means that the rate of B.C. income tax, including surtax for the second-tier earners, has risen from 56.7 percent of basic federal tax in 1991 to almost 79 percent in 1994 -- a 40 percent increase over four years. What sort of message does this convey to those who put in the long hours and take the personal financial risks that are the cornerstone of a healthy economy? It was interesting today to listen to the NDP members in this House chortle and shout with glee and bang their desks when the suggestion was made that the so-called wealthy of this province were going to pay more taxes.

That was a disgrace, hon. Speaker.

Let's look at the school property tax surtax. I think this was the most shocking tax grab in the budget -- a thinly veiled 1.5 percent wealth tax that in many cases will force middle- and lower-income earners and retirees from their homes. These people will lose their homes solely because they were unlucky enough, years ago, to move to the wrong neighbourhood in the wrong community. It will particularly discriminate against certain geographical areas in the capital region and the lower mainland, where rising property values have already placed a huge tax burden on homeowners.

It will send a clear message to offshore investors and would-be immigrants that if they bring their capital to B.C., they'd better watch out. The minister says these revenue measures are aimed at high-income earners. In this case he's missed the mark by a country mile. The elderly, trying to stay in the homes where they raised their children and now welcome their grandchildren, will be hit the worst.

Then there's the sales tax increase. The general increase in sales tax to 7 percent will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia hundreds of millions over the next 12 months. More importantly, it will provide a major disincentive to both consumer and business purchases at a time when the economy is struggling.

If raising the sales tax was not enough, the minister now wants to collect it on a much wider range of transactions in order to raise an additional $228 million on a full-year basis. So we are to have a sales tax on parking spots and a special sales tax on cars that cost more than $30,000. The sales tax will now apply to the entire value of a new car purchase, even when there has been a trade-in. Now certain labour services are subject to this sales tax. A stranger list of tax targets I've never seen. Lawyers' services are taxable, but accountants' are exempt.

Watch repairs are taxable, but house painters are exempt. Engine tune-ups are taxable, but automobile towing is exempt. Having someone alter your coat is taxable, but having your child's coat altered is exempt.

Not only has this government rejected harmonization with the GST, it now seems intent on constructing a parallel system of sales tax complexities to provide work for an army of tax collectors and to further frustrate business and consumers. There's the loss of the basic homeowner grant of $470 to those with homes worth over $450,000. Again, it's clear that this provision is targeted toward the lower mainland and the capital region, without reference to taxpayers' earnings.

The general corporate income tax rate is climbing again. It was raised by 1 percent last year and by another 0.5 percent in this budget. And the list goes on. Medical Services Plan premiums are going up by 3 percent. The Pharmacare deductible is being increased by 20 percent. Liquor prices are climbing by 3 percent. The renter's tax deduction is gone. The tax on gasoline has gone up by 10 percent. There is to be a new car rental tax of $1.50 per day. Fees and licences are going up by how much? We are not told.

[ Page 4897 ]

What about the backdoor tax increases that taxpayers face, as well? There's everything from higher ICBC premiums to the hydro rate increase announced last week. Of course, there are municipal tax increases resulting from provincial off-loading.

Hon. Speaker, none of these last-mentioned taxes, fees and premiums have any relationship to ability to pay or to income earned, but they all have a direct bearing on how outsiders view this province's investment climate and on how individual B.C. residents feel about their future economic opportunities. As for the corporation capital tax, it remains. If the minister is expecting congratulations from me on the slight increase in the exemption level, he will have a long wait indeed. The corporation capital tax is a destroyer of jobs and a stop sign to investor interest in this province. It should have been repealed; it must be repealed.

What this minister does not seem to grasp -- and probably never will -- is that our economy is dependent upon energetic individuals, financially healthy companies, an entrepreneurial spirit and the flow of investment dollars. When a government sends a message as blunt and discouraging as this to the private sector and to individuals, watch out! The people who should be marshalling our future economic growth will see themselves simply as flotsam in a rising sea of public spending. The cost will be to the economic well-being of this province and of all British Columbians.

Last year the government raised personal income taxes. They projected that the total personal income tax revenue would be $4.7 billion. And what did they get? They got receipts that were $700 million less than projected and $270 million less than the previous year, after they had raised rates. The minister's solution? Raise taxes again. He is blind to the likely result: yet another decrease in tax revenues, as economic activity is stifled, initiative is discouraged, investment is frightened off and the underground economy grows and grows.

I do believe people would have a greater tolerance towards these massive increases if they felt their finances were being prudently administered. But all they see is the minister with his hands in their pockets and his friends at the trough. While demanding massive increases from British Columbians, the minister is increasing spending in the coming year by $1 billion. And all of this will be by debt financing; all of this will be added to the provincial debt.

The direct provincial debt has climbed from $4.7 billion in March 1991 to $10.5 billion projected for the end of March 1994, an increase of 123 percent in three years -- a shocking and disgraceful result. And the total debt of government and Crown corporations is up $9.3 billion since 1991, a 56 percent increase. Not even the minister's Cheshire-cat smile can make this deficit disappear. It is now absolutely clear that the Harcourt government is determined to match the Barrett government's record as a one-term wonder, leaving the salvage efforts to others.

What will all of this new tax money be spent on? What compelling reason does this government have to take away the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars? To spend it. But to spend it on what? Is there something that will give the taxpayers so much extra value that they will be glad to pay their taxes? The hon. minister was too reticent to tell us where the money is going, so I will. Interest on the debt has increased by $180 million, welfare rolls have increased by $329 million, and the pay of civil servants employed directly by the provincial government has increased by $260 million.

Not for one second do the taxpayers of this province believe that this mess is good value for their hard-earned dollars.

Let's look a little closer at some of these numbers. The number of direct government employees has increased 2.4 percent over last year's budget. But listen to this: the pay and benefits of direct government employees will increase by 15 percent over last year's estimates. I have problems working out these calculations because they lead me to the appalling conclusion that government employees will, on average, receive an increase of 12.3 percent, which is so repugnant that I have trouble believing that even this government has that much gall. Is this restraint, or a betrayal of trust to the people of this province?

[2:45]

Let's turn to the welfare rolls. There's been a 17 percent increase in the Social Services ministry in the last year. In the past two years the Social Services ministry's spending has increased by $850 million, or 43 percent. Over three years it has increased by $1.2 billion, or 70 percent. This is truly government out of control. It is no wonder that the people of this province are incensed, both by the failure of the NDP social policy and by the overspending of this ministry. What an admission of failure of NDP social policy, and what a draw on the taxpayer.

When 43 percent of recipients are single males, the greater proportion of which are under 30 and employable, why does this government not seek an alternative? Instead they carry on, and the hard-working taxpayers foot the bill.

The lack of discipline in meeting goals and holding to spending limits is prevalent in virtually every ministry, but nowhere more so than in the Ministry of Social Services. That ministry was reviewed by the auditor general, who made numerous recommendations for improving efficiency and accountability. But we have a ministry which is ignoring these recommendations and neglecting to make the difficult decisions it needs to make to become more efficient.

Even when cheaters are found, apparently the minister won't follow the recommendations of the RCMP to prosecute. Is this fiscal responsibility? The ministry has not demonstrated any recognition of the need to change. That bureaucracy will expand to the tune of $408 million. No vision has come forward for breaking the dependency cycle of welfare, and the only certainty is that government policy will increase the number of welfare recipients.

The budget of the ombudsman's office is up by 18.9 percent -- a 37.5 percent increase in two years. Perhaps the increased funding is necessary for a review of the government's investment in MacMillan Bloedel.

Then there's Aboriginal Affairs, where spending is up 54 percent over two years; Education is up by 11.3 percent over two years; and Health is up by 13.2

[ Page 4898 ]

percent. Civil service travel is up $5 million, to $65 million. Finally, there's the debt servicing, the cost of paying for past overspending, which will go up by 20.8 percent this year. It's up almost 60 percent over two years. So where is the restraint?

The Finance minister was quite proud to point out that spending on government office furniture was down $3 million, presumably because they've finished renovating their offices and those of their patronage appointments. What a crumb to throw to the taxpayers!

There are other areas where the government is proposing to spend its tax-and-grab windfall. The shackles of our children's future is being forged link by link, bond issue by bond issue, by a government intent on borrowing from tomorrow to live beyond its means today.

Not all spending is up, hon. Speaker. If you look at ministries that involve wealth creation, investment and economic development, it's a different story. Agriculture is down 9.9 percent over two years, Economic Development is down 56.8 percent over two years, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is down 4.1 percent this year, Tourism is down 15 percent over two years and Forestry is down 2 percent this year. These figures are a study in contrast to the huge increases in the social ministries. It's the flip side of the social spending spree.

Yesterday the Finance minister talked about the difference between spending on groceries and buying a home. Having insufficient personal income to buy all the groceries on his list, the minister is now remortgaging the home to complete his social shopping list, while ignoring the upkeep on his house. You can't expect any home to hold its value if you place no importance on its maintenance.

The proposed deficit is $1.5 billion. Deficits are simply deferred taxes that we will have to pay in the future. So what does a $1.5 billion deficit mean to us? All the new taxes this year total $855 million. In order to pay this future tax bill, we will have to suffer twice the pain of this budget, plus compound interest. The 1 percent increase in sales tax will raise approximately $300 million. To pay the future tax tab that we are now running up will require the imposition of the equivalent of an additional 5 percent in the sales tax. That is frightening.

But when you add in the borrowing to fund capital projects, you will find another $1.5 billion, for a total increase of $3 billion in government debt this year. That's $3,000 per family, and the cumulative debt at the end of this year for this province alone will be $26,000 per family. When will it stop? We must set goals for ourselves to pay our way as we go, to balance budgets and to pay off the accumulated debt.

During the last election this government promised to balance the budget over a five-year budget cycle. It has now clearly abandoned that goal. To explain to the hon. NDP members what this promise meant, it was that over a five-year period the revenues would equal the expenditures. Now there's no more talk of this; now this government talks of balancing the budget once in every five-year period -- maybe. They have betrayed the promise they made to the people of this province. Furthermore, the government's plan to reduce the debt by reducing the deficit is clearly nonsensical. It can't be done. You can't pay off debt by losing less money. Wake up, Mr. Minister. You have to make a surplus.

There are only two ways to fight the deficit: reduce government and develop practical policies that promote a healthy, diversified economy. This government has chosen to undertake neither option in this year's budget. The Finance minister likes to comment on the fact that B.C. is the province with the largest amount of growth in the country. But economic growth through a welcome-wagon economy is not going to prepare us to meet the Pacific tigers head-on.

The opposition is not alone in requesting a reduction in the level of government spending and a drastic reduction in the deficit. The Canadian Bond Rating Service has put up credit watches on the provinces as a result of the dismal financial performance of 1992. B.C.'s coveted AA+ rating has been put in serious jeopardy due to the spendthrift performance of this government during the past year.

In the Peat Marwick Thorne review, Moody's public finance department's "Ratings News" was quoted as stating: "The recent economic downturn, combined with continued high expenditure growth, has caused a deterioration in the province's financial performance.

The ability to demonstrate control over spending will be an important consideration to future credit quality evaluations." Considering that this government has been unwilling to control government spending in any way, shape or form, one can only imagine what the bankers in New York and Boston are doing at this very minute -- sharpening their pencils in preparation for the appropriate time to lower our credit rating and further add to the costs of our borrowing.

This is only half a budget; the other half is missing. The hon. minister has forgotten entirely that half of the job, which is to provide stimulus to the economy and to provide the right climate for growth so that the economy can sustain the burden of government. Given the content of the budget, perhaps he gave up the other half as a hopeless task. The NDP has completely abdicated the requirement to focus on economic growth. The budget does not address competitiveness. There is no economic planning for the future, no economic growth strategy. All of this is missing, with appalling results.

They clearly just do not understand their task and their responsibilities. What budget could be more disheartening to international investors and local businesses? Not only are there higher taxes, but the wealth-creating ministries continue to be cut back. What is this government doing to stimulate economic growth in this province? Nothing! What is this government doing to entice business to locate in this province? Nothing! It's scaring it away. The government treats wealth as a sin which they will purge. They consider any wealth left in private hands as simply unpaid taxes.

There is no realization of the relationship of provincial wealth to business investment -- no job creation and economic growth.

What is it doing to sustain existing business in this province? It's making business more difficult through unfair labour codes, the unreasonable timber licence

[ Page 4899 ]

provisions of Bill 2, higher taxes and greater uncertainty. The NDP have gone on about the need to rationalize the allowable annual cut available to the forest industry. They have insisted that they recognize the need to establish forestry as a continuous, sustainable and vibrant part of British Columbia's economy. For all their talk, there is still no accurate inventory of the province's forest resources. However, government has wasted no time in scooping 30 percent more revenue from the forest industry during this temporary rebound.

There has been no accounting of the return which we are getting for the use of the resource or of whether such innovations are economically feasible. Meanwhile, continued changes to the Forest Act and random, unexpected reductions in the AAC have shaken investor confidence and weakened the industry.

If that were not enough, they indicated their intent to pursue the direction outlined in the infamous Schwindt commission report. If they are sincere in this pursuit, they will completely destroy the underpinnings of both the forestry and mining sectors in British Columbia.

They have now delivered the coup de gr�ce to the forest industry. They have given themselves new powers to arbitrarily cut allowable annual cut under the guise of an economic development bill. This will allow them to reduce available timber at the discretion of the Ministry of Forests whenever production falls. This is without regard to market conditions, to supply and demand and to all the other tricky economic concepts which this government cannot grasp.

The minister will be able to reduce cutting rights, to force mills to produce at a loss or to close them down altogether; and all of this is almost entirely at his discretion. Rather than acting to promote and develop those areas which are the bread and butter of our economic security, this government has undermined them. Their professed concern for the rights of workers is commendable, but it will all seem rather academic when there is no work to do. Indeed, if words were action, the forests of B.C. would positively sing with harmony and prosperity. But words are just that, hon.

Speaker, and the only sounds we hear today are the sounds of protest and anger.

As bad as the plight of the forest sector has been under this government, it pales when compared to the desperate situation in which the mining industry now finds itself. From the abandonment of Cassiar to the crisis in the minister's own riding in the Kootenays, a once-prosperous industry has come apart at the seams. Rather than dealing with the issue, the NDP have continued to try to convince the people of the province that there really is no problem, as if people cannot see for themselves.

Instead of moving to aid the industry and finding ways to get it back on its feet, this government has decided to kick it while it's down. Last year we saw the massive expansion of the corporation capital tax -- a tax which bleeds money from companies when they're losing money. We witnessed huge increases in water rental fees. We saw a myriad of fee increases applying to prospecting, exploration and mine development. We have seen the average time spent acquiring government permits go from approximately six months to an average of four years.

Due to this past year of closure, there will be almost no mining taking place in B.C. by the end of this decade.

[3:00]

The minister has continually reassured the opposition and the people of British Columbia that there are great plans in the works and that relief is waiting just around the corner. We now know this to be untrue. The government has ignored the desperate need for reduced taxation, less bureaucracy, faster permitting and more certainty. Investor confidence in mining development has all but disappeared from British Columbia and is finding its home instead in places such as Argentina, Chile and Mexico.

For many decades B.C. remained the preferred destination for mining investment, exploration and development because of its natural mineral wealth and stable, reliable government. It is a sad reality that this government has managed to negate these advantages in the first year of its mandate. What is sadder is that there is absolutely nothing in this budget to indicate that they have realized their errors and are prepared to learn from them.

We have seen a phenomenal change in public opinion over the last few years on the subject of government spending, taxes and the deficit. At every level of society, whether in business or among the middle class or the disadvantaged, across all political lines and ideologies there is agreement on one proposition: that governments have spent too much, borrowed too much, taxed too much, and it simply must stop. People are worried. They do not wish to leave economic chaos to the next generation any more than they wish to leave a contaminated environment. This is one of those fundamentally decent collective determinations that a society makes in times of crisis, a decision to do what is right.

What all politicians will hear today, if they care to listen, is the voice of the people telling them it's time to get it right. The message is clear. People do not want to hear the cynical pronouncements that we all came to expect from budgets in the last decade, and they don't want flimflam, whether it be the BS fund or B.C. 21. They want straight talk and the job done right. They don't want to hear that governments create jobs; they know whose tax dollars provide the paycheques for those jobs.

They don't want to hear that government will stimulate the economy with handouts and giveaways; they know the money will be borrowed, and they know who will pay. And they don't want to hear governments blaming other levels of government and the governments of other years.

We are in a serious financial crisis. To those concerned British Columbians listening today, if you live in a constituency with an NDP member, write to him or her and send a copy to me. If your member is in opposition, write to the Minister of Finance, copied to me. We can all be reached at: Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C., V8V 1X4.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, debate in this chamber is not a place to advertise telephone numbers, postal codes, etc. I would

encour-

[ Page 4900 ]

age all hon. members to address the debate. Please continue.

F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I certainly hope that I haven't offended you in any way, but I do encourage the people of British Columbia to write to us. You know where we are; just put it in an envelope and address it correctly, and I'm sure the Post Office will get it here.

Now is the time for the best of cooperative leadership, for federal and provincial governments to start working together and stop this partisan finger-pointing. The puffery and posturing involved in debating the fiscal record of 1991 has no place, no relevance and no meaning in 1993. People simply want to hear that government is finally listening, finally getting it right. Hon. Speaker, this budget gets it terribly, terribly wrong.

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, traditionally.... I assume the Leader of the Third Party would follow the Leader of the Official Opposition. He appears not to be here. Perhaps we could recess for a few moments until he arrives.

The Speaker: It is up to will of the House. I recognize the hon. member for Abbotsford.

H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, I would ask for a couple of minutes' recess so I can get the leader up here.

The House recessed at 3:07 p.m.

The House resumed At 3:09 p.m.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, that's genuinely appreciated, I assure you. Like the repairman, it gets a little lonely at times.

Hon. Speaker, last week the government assured us it had the courage to change; now we know it doesn't. After raising our taxes by $1,000 a family last year, and racking up the largest deficit in B.C. history, the NDP said they were finally ready to make tough decisions necessary to cap the deficit. Well, there certainly was a lot of tough talk in the budget, and even more nerve. It takes a lot of nerve to increase taxes by $1,000 a family for the second straight year, while boosting government spending by double the economic growth rate.

It takes a lot of nerve to double the accumulated deficit in just two years, while actually bragging about capping and reducing the deficit. It takes incredible nerve to impose $800 million worth of new taxes, and then use that money to pay off your political supporters, and create a society dependent on welfare.

That's what this budget does; it's a tax-happy budget that proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the NDP are unfit to manage our money. It's an utterly irresponsible budget that will snuff out economic expansion and saddle our children with a monstrous debt, which will turn them into little more than indentured servants of the Crown. The NDP calls that courage.

All members opposite ought to hang their heads in shame, and indeed they appear to be doing so. This, in fact, is a cowardly budget -- a budget without a backbone. This budget shies away from the central challenge it's supposed to address: the problem of runaway government spending. Everybody in British Columbia knows that government has grown too large and too expensive for our own good. Incredibly, this budget not only perpetuates the problem, it compounds it.

Instead of reducing the size and scope of government, this budget will increase the bureaucracy by 1,183 full-time positions. It will sink us deeper into debt by more than $3 billion. It will suck $1.2 billion more out of our economy in higher taxes, and it will seriously hurt investor confidence, which has already been badly shaken by this NDP government.

The government claims to have its ear to the ground, but it can't hear the thunder on the streets. Taxpayers have reached their breaking point. They've simply had it with being had by this government. Not a soul in British Columbia believes that their taxes ought to be raised, because everyone knows full well that this government hasn't done a darned thing to cut costs. What people are saying to the government today is this: "Keep your hands out of my pockets. You've already screwed up our economy; you've already scared off investors from the world over.

Now screw up your courage, go back to the drawing board and bring us a budget that we can not only live with but prosper from." That's how taxpayers are responding to this budget.

British Columbians are more than willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to get our fiscal house in order. But they're not prepared to have their real income slashed by higher taxes that are going straight into the coffers of the BCGEU, the HEU and the BCTF. People aren't going to sit still for increased taxes while welfare fraud is allowed to run rampant and 73,000 single employable men are allowed to sit around and collect welfare.

Taxpayers resent being soaked for more money when the government is wasting the taxes it already collects on a $200 million fixed-wage program that's a subsidy for unionized construction workers. It's appalling that the government could even consider raising taxes when it's spending over $2 million a year on political staff in this building alone. British Columbians understand that there's no easy way out of our current fiscal crunch. It takes real leadership and political resolve, and it takes a little courage.

[3:15]

What needs to be done isn't easy, but it's really quite simple. We need to cut spending in real terms by reducing the size and scope of government, while at the same time increasing efficiency and productivity. That means cutting staff, freezing wages and eliminating programs. We need to increase revenue by creating more income and by eliminating the barriers to economic growth that this government created. We need to restructure our tax system in order to make it more sensitive to income and profit. We need to dedicate every new penny collected in taxes to reducing the debt.

[ Page 4901 ]

These are the measures necessary to restore investor confidence. These measures, unfortunately, are not reflected in the budget. The NDP has given up all pretense of fiscal responsibility. The election promises of "balanced budget" and "no new taxes" are out the window.

Remember what the NDP election platform said. After supposedly adjusting for the reduction in federal transfer payments, this is what the Premier promised: a maximum deficit of $900 million in 1992-93 -- not the $2 billion deficit his government actually delivered. He promised a maximum deficit this year of $400 million -- not the $1.5 billion deficit we're facing today. Here's the

part I like best -- keep in mind these are the Premier's words: "We will closely monitor economic conditions in the initial years and adjust spending accordingly to meet the legislative requirement of a five-year balanced budget. If the money isn't there, we won't spend it." Indeed, if the Premier had a nickel for every time he uttered that last phrase there wouldn't be a deficit; we'd all be rich.

After coming to office, what was the first thing the new NDP government did? It repealed the Taxpayer Protection Act, which the Premier had not only voted for but promised to abide by. This year the government's gone hog-wild. Instead of cutting expenditure, the government is planning to spend nearly a billion dollars more than the Premier projected at most for his second year in office.

In other words, the NDP misled the voters. Now they're playing with our tax dollars and telling us we should have the courage to suffer in silence. Even the goal of a balanced budget is now unthinkable for the NDP. The NDP member for Nanaimo said last week: "That's not courageous; that's frankly stupid." He said: "When you consider that...70 percent of gross provincial revenues are devoted to Health, Education and Social Services, anybody who has the temerity, indeed, foolhardiness, to say that courage is to cut the deficit and balance the budget....

That's foolhardy; that's not courage." Believe it or not, those are the words of the member for Nanaimo; and even though he languishes on the back bench, he really does speak for the Premier and for the cabinet.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

The trouble with the folks across the way is that most of them measure the value of government by how much it spends, not by how little it spends, or how it spends. So where is the money going? How will the government spend that $19 billion in this year's budget? How much of the money is for public sector salaries and benefits?

According to the Korbin commission, at least 60 cents of every dollar spent will go for wages and benefits. That means that close to two-thirds of this year's budget will go towards public sector salaries and benefits -- over $11 billion. Over three-quarters of all health and education spending will be for salaries and benefits. Over 300,000 British Columbians -- almost one in five people working in British Columbia -- are on the public payroll.

According to the government personnel services division, there are currently 1,600 more civil servants directly employed by the province than there were a year ago. That's not what the government reports in its books, but it's a fact. It's also a fact that most of those employees now have BCGEU membership cards. As of one month ago, the government had 29,073 full-time-equivalent employees. This budget plans to increase that number by almost 1,200 full-time employees. Again, that figure doesn't include teachers, health care workers and Crown corporation employees.

That's how this government is going to spend our tax dollars; that's why our taxes are being raised. It boils down to higher wages and more bureaucrats, which is not to say we don't have the best civil service in the country. We do, but when we talk about cutting the cost of government, let's understand that public sector salaries cannot be exempt from those cuts -- and neither can welfare costs.

Last year the government boosted its social services budget by over $400 million, a 22 percent increase in one year. The NDP has done it again this year: the welfare budget is up 17 percent, another $400 million. A good portion of these costs could have been avoided and should be cut immediately. One in ten British Columbians is now on welfare; 57,000 more people are on welfare today than were a year ago. The biggest jump in welfare caseloads has been single employable men. Why is that, when unemployment rates have fallen in the last year?

Vancouver fraud squad detective Dennis Tiessen might have some thoughts on that question. His unit has just busted a ring of welfare cheats who have ripped off the system for hundreds of thousands of dollars. As he said: "We're only scratching the surface. We're losing millions in welfare fraud every year and it's getting worse." Indeed, this government ignored similar, RCMP warnings about the extent of welfare fraud. It liberalized the rules on lost and stolen cheques. They don't even have to be reported to the police anymore. That's obscene.

Other policies have also contributed to the massive increase in welfare costs. Single parents are now regarded as unemployable. They don't even have to look for work until their youngest child reaches age 19. Meanwhile, this government's taxing the daylights out of those single employed people who are working harder than ever to make ends meet. These are the theoretically rich folks that the NDP has targeted to pay for its new dependency society.

Hon. Speaker, 11 out of 18 ministries will receive budget hikes that are larger than the projected increase in the gross domestic product. Even the Premier's office received a budget increase that's well above the GDP forecast. Is that leadership? Of course not. It's lolling -- plain and simple. It's more money for patronage appointments, more cash for the major unions and by extension more money for the NDP. If the NDP had even a little courage, they would live up to the Premier's election promise and they would reduce expenditures to live within the taxpayers' means.

I'll tell you what we would do, given the current fiscal crunch. We would freeze all public sector salaries

[ Page 4902 ]

for two years. Even Bill Clinton froze public sector salaries for one year. We would downsize the bureaucracy -- perhaps not to the extent we did in the early eighties, but substantially. We would eliminate programs that are not offering enough value for money. A Social Credit government would establish performance standards and move toward a performance-based pay system that rewards productivity and efficiency. In short, we would exercise restraint -- the forbidden "r" word that's as much taboo today in the NDP as it was 20 years ago.

But rather than cutting public sector salaries, this government lifted the wage freeze we had put in place on senior bureaucrats' salaries. Now it screams foul at school boards for raising administrators' salaries that had been part of that wage freeze. This government has given teachers retroactive wage settlements that were triple the rate of inflation. It's given the BCGEU a wage hike that's triple the average increase in the private sector. It's granted health care unions a whopping wage hike and a reduced work week that the HLRA estimates will cost taxpayers as much as $529 million over three years.

It has given those same unions a no-cut contract that puts them in the driver's seat over hospital staffing levels.

To add insult to injury, the government has hired 20 percent more political hacks in this precinct alone at an additional cost of $316,000. The total price tag for these wage hikes and additional bureaucrats is in the order of $1 billion extra. Future wage hikes will bump that cost even more. Every cent of that money will be borrowed and financed through higher taxes.

Over the past 18 months we've heard a lot of bellyaching from the NDP about the financial situation they inherited from the Socreds. It's true we spent too much, particularly in our last two years in office -- although it was never enough for the NDP. They always demanded much more. But according to the auditor general, we also decreased the accumulated deficit by $700 million during our first four years in office. Not only that, we left behind the second-lowest tax rate in the country.

It's worth taking a couple of moments, for a little reality check, to review the tax structure we left behind. Let's compare the situation with what exists today. Until yesterday, Social Credit's 6 percent sales tax was the lowest in Canada except for Alberta, which doesn't have a sales tax. Now we have a 7 percent sales tax that's been expanded to a wide range of services. Repairs and maintenance on motor vehicles, furniture, appliances and business equipment, sports equipment and clothing are being taxed. Even parking will be taxed.

Last year we said it was just the thin edge of the wedge when the NDP introduced the provincial GST on legal services and telecommunications. Now it is more apparent than ever that the NDP, the party that fought so hard against the federal GST, is setting the stage to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST. That's why they brought in this made-in-B.C. GST. This year consumers will pay a 14 percent tax on labour services, including the federal GST. If there is any doubt that the tax base will continue to be expanded in the years to come.... There is none at all. I don't think this government is fooling anyone.

These higher sales taxes will drain an extra $533 million out of our economy every year. That will barely cover the extra interest on the new debt incurred by this NDP government in its first two budgets. The Socreds left this government with the second-lowest tax rate in Canada. That rate has been increased. The Socreds' income surtax was 10 percent on incomes over $80,000 a year. This government has tripled that surtax and extended it to incomes over $60,000 a year. Any family making $60,000 a year is rich in the NDP's books. That is consistent with the Finance minister's view that senior citizens living on an $18,000 a year pension are doing -- and I quote -- "very well."

[3:30]

The former government left the NDP the third-lowest small business income tax rate in Canada; we now have the highest small business rate in the country. The Socreds left behind the third-lowest general corporate income tax rate in Canada; British Columbia now has the second-highest corporate rate in all of Canada. We had the second-lowest gas tax in the country; now it's the sixth highest. The Socreds were moving towards the total elimination of residential school property taxes; this government increased school taxes last year and again this year.

Last year the government also eliminated the supplemental homeowner grant that reduced school taxes by as much as 50 percent. Now the NDP is phasing out the basic homeowner grant altogether for many British Columbians with higher-valued homes. It's imposing a new surtax on homes valued at more than $500,000. In addition, this government has increased rural property taxes for the second year in row, and it has also increased non-residential property taxes.

Then, of course, there's the new corporate capital tax, which even taxes debt as an asset. The prices of beer, wine and spirits have all been substantially increased. Our tobacco taxes are now the highest in the country. Every fee, licence and permit in the book has been increased by this government, and new ones have been added.

This year alone the government is planning to grab $290 million from B.C. Hydro -- nearly three times the amount collected by the former government. This miraculous feat is explained by an increase in hydro rates that are double the national inflation rate. ICBC rates have been jacked up by 29 percent. Even the Medical Services Plan premiums have been increased in this budget for most families.

When the Socreds left office, interest payments on the public debt were 54 percent lower than they are today. Now the NDP is blowing a billion dollars a year on interest payments on the debt. This government's spendthrift ways have increased debt-servicing costs by $345 million a year, despite a drastic drop in interest rates.

The 1 percent increase in the sales tax is expected to generate an extra $305 million a year. In essence, every penny of this year's sales tax increase will go toward paying the interest on new NDP debt. At the rate this government is going, the sales tax will be raised by at least 1 percent every two years just to offset the increased cost of borrowing. This government is

drown-

[ Page 4903 ]

ing in red ink, and it's taking our economy down with it. Not only is the NDP refusing to make any serious spending cuts; they're accelerating spending by 5.7 percent. That's twice the rate at which the economy is growing, twice the rate of inflation.

The NDP's only answer to revenue shortfalls is to tax, tax and tax. They slapped a 10 percent sales tax onto new cars and trucks valued at more than $32,000. That tax will add at least $1,300 to the price of those vehicles. To make matters worse, the government has wiped out the sales tax trade-in allowance on all cars and trucks. On a typical trade-in valued at $10,000, this punitive tax grab will add $700 to the price of the vehicle. This budget also increases the gas tax to 11 cents a litre, a 22 percent hike over the rate that would have been in effect under the Social Credit formula, which indexed gasoline prices to the rate of inflation.

Two years ago the NDP member for Boundary-Similkameen stood up in this House and said: "The provincial gasoline tax is probably the most draconian tax in British Columbia." Last year he stood up and said: "The price of gas in B.C. is much higher than it should be." Now that same Minister of Agriculture sits in cabinet and says nothing. And what about the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the member for Kamloops? He sat quietly by while cabinet decimated his capital construction budget.

Now he plans to impose tolls on new highways and bridges and foist today's construction costs on the backs of tomorrow's taxpayers. The government didn't even have the courage to mention the word "tolls" in the budget, let alone tell us how much it is planning to raise by this new form of taxation. They want us to sign a blank cheque. They want us to pass a bill that will give the Highways minister unlimited authority to determine how much those tolls will be and how they'll be applied.

For 125 years government after government managed to build new roads and bridges on a pay-as-you-go basis. Now the NDP wants to build them on our children's money. In the long run this method of mortgage financing will triple the capital costs of every new highway and bridge built. By capitalizing the costs of highway construction over 40 or 50 years, this government is effectively putting roadbuilders of tomorrow out of business. There won't be any money for new highways construction in the future, because it's all being blown by this government's deficit construction plan.

You simply can't keep borrowing more and more each year to build new roads if you can't afford to pay the interest on the debts you've already incurred. Heaven knows, we want to see continued construction of roads and bridges, but they should be built from existing revenues, not by going deeper in debt.

Hon. Speaker, that's why the former government had established the Freedom to Move special account. We dedicated over half a billion dollars in 1991-92 to capital construction projects aimed at improving our transportation infrastructure. This year alone the government plans to collect $857 million in fuel taxes, motor vehicle licences and permits, plus another $34 million in Coquihalla Highway tolls. Yet it's only dedicating $96 million from general revenue for highway construction. The rest of the capital budget will be borrowed money -- new taxes and tolls. That's the way it is with this NDP government.

Buy now, with little or no money down, and pay the rest later. That attitude won't impress the lenders; it won't inspire confidence in the investment community.

Last October the Minister of Finance bragged in this House that: "We have the highest credit rating of any province in Canada; we have the lowest per capita debt of any province in Canada; we have the best economic performance of any province in Canada." Indeed, such was the legacy of Social Credit -- even after last year's record deficit, even after the NDP's new Labour Code, the Schwindt report and the corporate capital tax. But now that legacy is in serious jeopardy. The province has already been put on notice by the bond-rating agencies that its credit rating is probably going to be downgraded. And no wonder.

In its first two budgets this NDP government has increased its direct debt by about $4 billion, or $1,200 for every person in British Columbia. Debt-servicing costs are up by 53.4 percent over two years ago. The total direct and guaranteed debt, including Crown corporations, has increased from under $20 billion to $26.4 billion with the NDP's first two budgets. Think about that. It took 125 years to hit the $20 billion debt mark. Think of all of the infrastructure that's been built since Confederation: dams, roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, ferries, public buildings, stadiums, power lines and railways.

It's amazing to think how much we've built. Yet what has this government built in its first 18 months in office?

An Hon. Member: Bureaucracy.

J. Weisgerber: Granted, it's built a massive bureaucracy -- a huge bureaucracy -- but that's hardly something to brag about or to hold up as an achievement for an increase of $5 billion, of $6 billion or of as much as $7 billion in increased debt. Simply put, this government has spent its money on public sector wages, welfare and hush money for its union friends.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Consider the accumulated deficit -- yet another measure of this government's fiscal incompetence. It's defined by the auditor general as the total of all government deficits and surpluses. The auditor general confirms that by March 31, 1992, after the NDP had been in government for five full months, the accumulated deficit stood at $4.96 billion. By the end of this fiscal year, that figure is going to double.

The government says it's not their fault, that it's the federal government who is to blame. What nonsense! Yes, the federal government has been offloading its costs onto the provinces, but that's nothing new. According to a report by Ernst and Young that was commissioned by this government, federal offloading cost the province $3.9 billion during the last government's term in office. The auditor general reports that during that same five-year period, the accumulated deficit was increased by a total of $1.4 billion. If the cost of federal offloading is deducted, we would have had a $2.5 billion surplus. That may be, but so what? The fact remains that governments must take full responsibility

[ Page 4904 ]

for the budgets they administer, and this year's $1.5 billion deficit is 100 percent made in B.C. by this NDP government.

Sooner or later this government is going to wake up and smell the coffee. It has to get a grip on reality. The cost of servicing the debt is growing out of hand. If you don't believe me, for heaven's sake listen to what the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada is saying. Just last month they warned that: "Government debt is accelerating at an alarming pace, both in absolute terms and relative to the economy.

Net direct debt as a share of GDP has vaulted by two-thirds in the past three years, after significant reductions in the debt burden in the late 1980s." They stress that government spending remains excessive and continues to expand faster than the underlying tax base. And to the member for Nanaimo, who doesn't believe in balanced budgets, the IDA also said that the government must place priority on balancing the budget by mid-decade. This time the IDA were charitable in their remarks. Rest assured they will be less so after they get a good look at this budget.

Unfortunately for all of us, lenders will also take note. The price of borrowing is going to go way up for this government, because it doesn't have the good sense to listen to what the market's telling them. The NDP has ignored the IDA's observation that: "The government's recent modification to provincial labour laws poses a very real risk to business investment over the longer term." That opinion is borne out by Lucy Roschat, president of the Hong Kong-Canada Business Association, who says that the new corporation capital tax and labour code are making foreign investors think twice about investing in British Columbia.

[3:45]

As Blair Wilson, president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, put it: "Money will go where it is respected and encouraged." Offshore money has lost confidence in British Columbia, so the government shouldn't be surprised by the fact that capital investment in B.C. dropped last year by 8.6 percent, double the rate of decline for Canada as a whole.

Business confidence in B.C. will not be buoyed by this budget. The government can trumpet its B.C. 21 initiative all it wants, but international investors will recognize it for what it really is: a scheme to disguise the true magnitude of this year's staggering deficit. The last thing we need right now is a new Crown corporation. How many bureaucrats will be hired to fill it? At what cost? Mark my words, B.C. 21 is a black hole in the making. At its centre is the dark force of Bob Williams. This new megacorporation is going to cost us a bundle.

Debt is debt, interest payments are simply interest payments, and regardless of what you call it, B.C. 21 means more of both. Likewise, spending cuts are spending cuts, restraint is simply restraint, and that's what investors are looking for: that, and for greater certainty and predictability from this government.

It's great that the government wants to build schools, hospitals, roads and ferries. That's what governments do. But they should do it within the taxpayers' means, and this government is already living too high on the hog. Our economy would be much further ahead if the government addressed the real barriers to wealth creation that it erected. If you want to know what those barriers are, read the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources' discussion paper on the problems facing the mining industry. Read the B.C. Chamber's two-part business review of this government's first two years in office.

If the members opposite haven't seen those reports, I would be happy to provide them with a copy.

The common thread that runs through all of the problems identified is a lack of certainty and trust in this government and its policies. Investors aren't going to invest a plug nickel in this province if they don't feel confident that they can trust the government, and right now they don't. They've been deceived time and time again, whether the issue was Bill 84, the future of the horse-racing industry or the promise of a balanced budget. The Premier can go back to Hong Kong, and I'm sure he'll get a polite reception; but he won't bring back the bacon, he won't inspire confidence.

The truth is, business leaders from here to Hong Kong don't trust this government to keep its word, no matter who the message carrier is. After all, what does the Premier expect people to think when he says one thing and does another, when he promises no new taxes and then brings in at least three new taxes in one budget?

The Premier may not care that no one from the B.C. business community wanted to stand beside him at the world economic summit in Davos, Switzerland. "Quite frankly, it has no impact on me one way or the other," he huffed. "If other people choose not to come to Davos, that's their problem, not mine." Well, he's dead wrong about that. He's wrong not to be concerned about the rapid deterioration in the relationship between his government and the business community.

It's not enough only to listen to the Ken Georgettis and John Shields's of the world; the Premier should also pay close attention to the sentiments expressed by the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce.

He speaks for thousands of small businesses and, indirectly, for their employees when he says: "The government either at best is lacking in an understanding of the real-world business risks and barriers being created by its policies or at worst is intent on imposing an ideological agenda on this province, regardless of the destruction caused to businesses, jobs and investment." This budget points to the latter. It's ideological to the core, and by that I mean naive, narrow-minded and shortsighted.

This is a classic NDP budget, sugar-coated for the nineties. All the right words are there, except the word "restraint." At the root of all the politically correct jargon are seven silent words that define this budget: higher spending, increased taxes and crushing debt. We're being buried alive in taxes and debt. If the members opposite meekly accept this budget, they're consigning our children to a fate worse than debt, for the sad truth is that this budget doesn't just tax us to pay for the NDP's excesses, it squanders the promise of a better world for our children.

It threatens their birthright as Canadians to quality health care, education and social services. It imperils their standard of living. If we allow this budget to pass, we will be digging a hole for future generations that they may never be able to earn their way out of.

[ Page 4905 ]

This budget doesn't steal just from today, it steals from tomorrow: from our children, our grandchildren and generations to follow. It's not leadership, it's a breach of trust. As such, our caucus will be voting against this budget on behalf of all those it disenfranchises.

E. Barnes: Hon. Speaker, I'm looking forward to participating in this debate, but for the present I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Sihota: I rise to seek leave of the House to call a motion to divide the Committee of Supply into sections A and B.

Leave granted.

Motion without Notice

DESIGNATION OF SECOND ESTIMATES COMMITTEE (COMMITTEE

A) Hon. M. Sihota: I move:

"Be it resolved that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this session to sit in two sections, designated

section A and

section B;

section A to sit in such committee room as may be appointed from time to time, and

section B to sit in the chamber of the assembly, subject to the following rules:

"1. The standing orders applicable to the Committees of the Whole House shall be applicable in both sections of the Committee of Supply.

"2. Subject to paragraph 3, within five sitting days of the tabling of the main estimates, the House Leader of the official opposition and the House Leader of the third party may jointly advise the government House Leader in writing of three ministerial estimates which they require to be considered in

section B of the Committee of Supply and, upon receipt of such notice in writing, the government House Leader shall confirm in writing that the said three ministerial estimates shall be considered in

section B of the Committee of Supply.

"3. All estimates shall stand referred to

section B, save and except those estimates which shall be referred to

section A on motion by the government House Leader, which motion shall be governed by the provisions of standing order 60A. Practice recommendation No. 6 relating to consultation shall be applicable to this rule. In the absence of the consent of the House Leader of the official opposition and the House Leader of the third party, estimates from nine ministries only may be referred to Committee A.

"4. The Committee of Selection shall appoint 22 members for

section A, being 14 members of the New Democratic Party, six members of the Liberal Party and two members of the Social Credit Party. In addition, the Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole, or his nominee, shall preside over the debates in

section A. Substitution of members will be permitted to

section A with the consent of that member's Whip.

"5. At 30 minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for adjournment of the House, the Chair of Committee A will report to the House. In the event such report includes the last vote in a particular ministerial estimate, after such report has been made to the House, the government shall have a maximum of ten minutes, and each opposition party a maximum of five minutes, to summarize the committee debate on a particular ministerial estimate completed, such summaries to be in the following order: (1) third party; (2) official opposition; and (3) government.

"6. Committee B shall be composed of all members of the House.

"7. Divisions in

section A will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells four times.

"8. Divisions in

section B will be signalled by the ringing of the division bells three times, at which time proceedings in

Section A will be suspended until completion of the division in

Section B.

This proposes, with the consent of the House, to continue the practice which occurred during the last sitting in this House. I think it has to be considered in the context of parliamentary reform. There were concrete steps taken last year which allowed for estimates to be done in the Douglas Fir committee room under the committee system, and which allowed for all members to participate in wide-ranging debate with regard to the number of estimates that were heard in that room.

I think the general experience was that it was a progressive and rational step in the evolution of bringing about some kind of reform to parliament. I'm not persuaded that it went far enough, and, if I may, without telling too many tales out of school, I'll say that I've canvassed this matter with the House Leaders. I would like to commend the House Leader for the third party for some of the comments that he made during the course of the throne speech debate -- his ideas about opening up the procedures and the process with regard to estimates.

I'm hopeful that as time develops, and as people become more familiar with this process, we will be able to reform and allow for a greater degree of scrutiny and openness during the course of the estimates process in the other room.

I appreciate that there are times when, given the size of the opposition caucus -- both the Liberal Party and Social Credit Party -- it does place some demands on their caucuses, as it does with members on this side of the floor as well. Nonetheless, it's a system that worked well last year. I think it was an experience that most enjoyed, and it's one that we should (

a) try to continue this year, and (

b) endeavour to reform should the opportunity arise.

With that said, I look forward to the support of all hon. members with regard to this arrangement being accepted by the House.

J. Dalton: Even though the official opposition certainly is, to use some of the words of the House Leader, progressive and rational -- I think everyone in this House will agree with those -- I have to rise on my own behalf and on behalf of the official opposition to oppose this motion.

We don't mean to be obstructionists -- in case the members opposite are thinking that we're stepping back in time. I have two or three reasons that I'm going to advance, and then I believe some of my colleagues may also wish to participate.

I don't share the wild enthusiasm that the Government House Leader has expressed about last year's

[ Page 4906 ]

experiment. It never hurts to be innovative and to break new ground, but I think we all have to appreciate that there's a proper venue and avenue for debate -- whether it be estimates, legislation, motions, or what have you. And this House -- the chamber itself -- is that place. So unless we can be convinced -- and quite frankly, we were not so convinced from last year's splitting the committees into A and B.... From our perspective, that experience was not a comfortable one.

Admittedly, we now have a year under our belt, but we anticipate -- and perhaps this will alleviate some of the concerns of both the government side and the third party -- that this year's estimates will progress in a smoother and more orderly fashion than sometimes was the case last year.

Quite frankly, I think this forum -- the chamber, the floor of the House itself -- is the appropriate place for every minister to be held accountable for his or her estimates so that we can adequately discuss the budget for each ministry and the policy decisions. I truly believe -- and I don't think that this is just a statement to fill some time -- that the people of this province want the opportunity for each minister to be questioned in this environment.

Let me refer to some of the difficulties of last year. It was not always easy for members on our side to be in two places at once; I think everyone can appreciate that. It's not always the critic who leads in questioning the ministers. So if an estimate in Committee B is taking place in the Douglas Fir Room, it is very awkward for the opposition, which has a particular function and role to play in this Parliament, to effectively do its job. I hope the government is not inviting the opposition to back off from its responsibilities; the debate in estimates is certainly a very important part of those responsibilities.

[4:00]

I listened intently to the format and procedure that the Government House Leader advanced. Those are some of the details that have to be worked out over time. Again, our concern is that even though the government advances the cause of parliamentary reform, we are not convinced that the process and format of splitting the Committee of Supply into A and B is functional or is best serving this Parliament and, more importantly, the people of this province.

I will conclude by saying that even though the Government House Leader spoke of scrutiny and openness, I have to wonder whether there will be true scrutiny and openness and whether the process will be best served if we allow this motion to go forward. I and the official opposition will certainly be opposed to this motion.

C. Serwa: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular motion. It's not often that I agree with the government of the day on a variety of issues -- certainly not in this term -- and I don't intend to set a precedent here. But, in fact, Committee A and Committee B have functioned very well.

Our Social Credit caucus sees that as an important first step in the types of reforms that have to be implemented. I was encouraged not only by the comments of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in the introduction to the throne speech but also by the comments in the throne speech with respect to change. I believe that the change that occurred last year with Committee A and Committee B was most positive. It didn't take anything away from the estimates debate, which was covered in both committees by Hansard. The written record could be used by members for the express purpose of holding ministers accountable for their ministries' actions and expenses over the past year.

Our caucus would be much happier if all the estimates would be moved out of this chamber and into the Douglas Fir Committee Room. There are a number of reasons for that, and I think it is a very progressive and positive reform. Most jurisdictions do not hold estimates in the chamber.

We are elected as legislators, first and foremost. Traditionally we have occupied this chamber for an inordinate length of time, believing that we are making some political points in the various estimates. The reality....

D. Lovick: You've never done that.

C. Serwa: How soon we forget, hon. members.

The reality is that we're mitigating our responsibilities as legislators, because we take an inordinate amount of time in this chamber on estimates, and then we run a number of bills through without proper scrutiny. The public has not been well served. We're staunch advocates that accountability will be first and foremost. It can be handled very effectively in the Douglas Fir Room. The permanent record of Hansard is kept in the Douglas Fir Room. There are opportunities for the future in the Douglas Fir Room that hold great promise for the whole process.

The fact that it is in another chamber has created an entirely different atmosphere from the partisan-political atmosphere that occurs here. I found that the questions and responses were far more objective in nature than they tend to be in this very political arena. So, along with my caucus, I entirely and wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by the hon. Government House Leader.

D. Mitchell: In this House we all believe in parliamentary reform. Parliamentary reform requires trying new ideas from time to time. In the first session of this parliament a new idea was tried in this House. It was one that required a large degree of cooperation among all members in this House to try to make it work. It may not have worked perfectly, and I think more reform is required. In many of the most progressive parliaments in the Commonwealth today, all estimates are reviewed outside of the main legislative chamber in standing committees of the House so designated for that purpose.

We haven't gone quite that far, but we have made one step in the direction of change. We may not be completely satisfied with that, but the interesting experience that occurred in the first session of this House was that the debate that occurred -- the scrutiny that occurred for the spending estimates of certain

[ Page 4907 ]

ministries outside of this chamber, in Committee A -- was often much more detailed. The debate was better, the tenor of discussion was better, the scrutiny was more complete than anything we witnessed in this main legislative chamber, where members perhaps tend to grandstand somewhat.

Perhaps we need to think about parliamentary reform in the context of achieving scrutiny, achieving accountability of government. Perhaps that can best occur when we refer things outside of this chamber on a regular basis. That's not to say that we should ever allow this chamber to give up the power of control over the public purse. That will always be maintained, because supply bills must always come through this chamber. Supply bills must always be introduced into this House and debated in this full House. That maintains the element of control of the public purse that this chamber should always maintain and preserve as its right.

The Government House Leader's motion to replicate the process of last session is one that we should support. I would actually want to amend it further, but in the spirit of cooperation, I support the Government House Leader's motion. I would only make one suggestion. I noticed that when he outlined the membership on Committee A he didn't refer to membership of any independent members. I hope he will want to amend that, because I'm sure the House wouldn't want to disallow independent members from participating in that process.

With those few words, I wholeheartedly support the Government House Leader's motion.

K. Jones: Having been on the committee that sat in the Douglas Fir Room for a good part of the whole session, I participated with the House Leaders or representatives of the three parties in trying to address some of the very serious problems that were brought forward by that situation. We had no television or voice communication in that room, so people in their offices in this legislative precinct did not know what was going on in there. We had no public scrutiny. This estimates process is important. It's important for the public to see exactly what is going on. The people who can watch this on television and pick it up in the media know what is really going on within the ministries.

It is the real opportunity to know from the ministers exactly how they are going to spend their money this year. I don't think this government, or any person in this House, should take the stand that taxpayers have no right to know what's going on with their money. We have a public responsibility, in the process of freedom of information, to make sure that every part of the debate -- not only the Hansard process but also the visual accountability process -- relating to the analysis of what a ministry is spending is open to everyone. We have to see that the process of government is going on.

The government is taking this opportunity to try to hide their weak ministers from the scrutiny of television analysis, public analysis. By running these two concurrently, our research staff, which is hard-working but fairly limited, has great difficulty. They are not able to cover the workload without working extended hours. I don't think it is right for us to expect people to have to work overtime to do the amount of work required with double sittings such as these.

I definitely urge that this motion be turned down. It is not in the best interests of true parliamentary democracy, which we in this House stand for.

A. Cowie: I must rise in opposition to this motion and support our Opposition House Leader's position. I too took

part in the debate in the Douglas For Room most of the time, although occasionally I was able to come in here. I found it very unsatisfactory when I missed part of a debate because I came in halfway through. I think it would be much better if we have it in one chamber. I agree that it is better to have it on television so that everybody from outside can participate if they want to.

For some of the speakers in the Douglas Fir Room -- even on our part, of course -- there was a lot of unnecessary duplication. I will admit that some of it was boring. If we were able to have it in the House, and if we were able to streamline it and come to some agreement on how we would manage it better, we would all be much better off and get through this thing much quicker than we did last year by having the two committees. I will be voting against the motion for that reason.

A. Warnke: I have been listening to a debate that has just broken out. I didn't expect this. As I reflect on the debate thus far, it is interesting that the last three or four speakers have been from the opposition side. Some of the government members want to get so enthusiastically involved in this debate, yet they don't stand up and essentially assert and affirm their own positions. I find that kind of puzzling, but there you go. Sometimes they cannot fully articulate on that side as to why they advocate the positions they do.

As I listen to the opposition express some concerns, I think it is worthwhile to suggest that what the opposition seems to be concerned about -- as put by my colleague from Surrey-Cloverdale -- is that the scrutiny that occurred in the Douglas Fir Room and the scrutiny that occurs in this chamber are conveyed quite differently, obviously, to the public in general. We have to recognize that what occurs in this chamber does extend to the public as a whole. That is not the case in the Douglas Fir Room. It seems, as I listen to the debate, that there is a concern that what occurs in the Douglas Fir Room will be concealed from the public to a greater extent than what is concealed in this chamber.

[4:15]

Some Hon. Members: Shame, shame!

A. Warnke: Since some enthusiastic government members want to get involved in this debate, perhaps they could suggest a resolution as to how we could move towards having the opposition define what is debated in estimates in the Douglas Fir Room. Indeed, if this government wants to be innovative and more open than it has in the past, then move in this direction to allow the opposition to define what is to be discussed in

[ Page 4908 ]

the Douglas Fir Room and what is to be discussed in this chamber, because it is in this chamber that the essence of the debate can occur.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Well, hon. Speaker, here we go again: the enthusiastic government members want to get involved. To show just what kind of a person I am, since the hon. members on that side want to get involved in this debate, I shall take my seat now and see what, in fact, they do come up with.

W. Hurd: It's a pleasure to rise in my seat today and express my opposition to the motion before us in the House. I have to think back to the events in Committee A in the Douglas Fir Room last year, when we had the spectacle of perhaps six or seven deputy ministers, one or two members of the opposition and, at times, not a single member of the government other than the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale who, I'm glad to say, is here today and was a valuable contributor as a watchdog for the government in Committee A last year.

C. Tanner: Lap dog.

W. Hurd: But I might add, hon. Speaker, that he was the only one who was there.

C. Tanner: Was he lapping up the information?

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, I think it's a....

The Speaker: Order, please. One moment, please, hon. member. I would call the House to order. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock has the floor at this time.

F. Garden: On a point of order, the previous speaker has made several comments alluding to the presence or absence of members in committees. I think he should consider his protocol at this time.

The Speaker: I recognize the Third Party House Leader. Is this on the point of order, hon. member?

C. Serwa: A point of order. I just heard on the news today of the announced state of the Liberal leadership campaign, but I do not think that the chamber is a place to initiate that campaign, and that's what I'm hearing at the present time.

The Speaker: That was not exactly on the point of order, hon. member. On the point of order, the Chair would remind all hon. members that at all times it is not the practice of the House to mention the presence or absence of members in the chamber.

W. Hurd: I must say I'm baffled that the third party in this Legislature would actually be supporting this motion. But I guess they haven't had a lot of practice in opposition in the past 20 years in this province, so I can understand.

I think it's significant to note that one of the most important innovations in this chamber in the past number of decades has been the introduction of television, which has allowed the people of the province to participate in all manner of debate in this assembly.

And I think it's important for us to remember that during the course of estimates debate, when the television cameras are rolling, there is an opportunity for interest groups in this province to listen to the debate, particularly in areas that affect their businesses, their enterprises, their companies, their associations, and phone in to the official opposition and render their concerns about statements the minister has made. So there is an accountability beyond this chamber.

I think it's also important to note that this initiative of splitting the Committees of Supply into A and B might have worked before the government handed down two of the most outrageous budgets in the history of this province. It's absolutely essential, given the kind of budgets that this government is bringing down, that the people of the province are able to participate as a wider audience through the medium of television, which I think was one of the most important innovations in this chamber.

It's also important to realize that the government of the day has a budget of about $18 billion to $20 billion, and that compares to the budget for the official opposition of some $1.4 million. I think it rather significant that the members opposite who support this motion were the ones who, for whatever reason, were not questioning or scrutinizing the spending of the estimates of their own ministries.

Hon. Speaker, I speak against the motion. I believe it's a motion that did not work well for the people of the province last year. And any comparisons to the House of Commons, where they have 400 or 500 members, are irrelevant, because there are 75 members of this assembly, and there are 26 members in opposition. I believe that any government that professes to be open and honest would have no problem with debating Committee of Supply in this House -- what has occurred for the last who knows how many years. It was a good experiment, we tried our best, but it didn't work for the people of the province.

D. Lovick: It wasn't many months ago we had promises across this province that we would see a new, constructive, hard-hitting Liberal opposition. I put it to all members of this chamber, and to those people who are watching: this is constructive? This is hard-hitting? This silliness, this change of heart in less than one year seems to translate into one reason and one reason only. If you listen to the Liberal House Leader's comments, you discover the only argument is as follows: "We don't want to divide into Committee A and Committee B, because we aren't competent to do our job. Therefore give us a break." That's the argument.

We had a motion introduced in this chamber a little over a year ago, hon. Speaker, to divide into Committee A and Committee B to accelerate and do more efficiently the business of this House. The motion was adopted unanimously without debate. In less than a year, however....

Interjection.

[ Page 4909 ]

The Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member sit down. I must ask the hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale to come to order; he has already taken his place in this debate.

D. Lovick: I think we could forgive the hon. member, hon. Speaker, because none of us really noticed he had taken

part in the debate.

The fact, however, is that we have a change of heart, a miraculous conversion -- this miraculous recognition that somehow, in short order, "the system we as the opposition endorsed doesn't really work." And one is moved to speculate why that should be. What caused this change of heart? What led that group of 17 worthies -- or is it 16 now? -- to change their ways? And all one can think of -- at first blush at least -- is that it has something to do with television. Those people -- Marshall McLuhan notwithstanding -- haven't figured out that they don't look any better on TV than they do in Hansard.

You don't make it. There may, of course, be other possible hypotheses to explain their change of heart. It could be that they don't want two committees going because if they have two committees, there could be two leadership candidates operating in each room, and that could cause them difficulties. But one ought to give them the benefit of the doubt and figure out what the real reason for their case is. In listening, I could not pick up a case.

I want to remind them of a couple of things they should know. When they are asking us to go back to the old way, they seem to be working on the assumption that we don't devote enough hours in this chamber as a government or as a parliament to discussion of estimates or to the normal business of the House. They might like to know a little of the history. They might like to know what has happened to debate in this province over the last number of years. For example, in the twenty-fifth parliament between 1957 and 1960, under W.A.C. Bennett, the Legislature met for an average of 34 days annually.

The thirty-fourth parliament from 1968 to 1991, under Bill Vander Zalm, met for 74 days annually. The thirty-third parliament from 1983 to 1986 -- I'm sorry if I'm out of order; it might confuse them -- under Bill Bennett, met for 75 days annually. The thirty-second parliament from 1979 to 1982, under Bill Bennett, met for 76 sitting days. Take note that last year the House sat for 112 days, despite Committee A and Committee B. Given the beating that my friends opposite took in all the estimates debates I witnessed, one wonders how they could logically ask for more.

Another point I want to make -- albeit briefly, hon. Speaker -- is that the same official opposition that is crying and caterwauling about budgets and the public's ability to pay nevertheless wants us to return to a measure that will cost about twice as much. We achieved efficiency and effectiveness by the method of Committee A and Committee B. They now want to take us back.

I would submit, hon. Speaker, that they have presented an argument that doesn't bear up to any close scrutiny. They don't have a case. Rather, they're trying to demonstrate once and for all -- to counteract the bad press -- that they really are an opposition. Frankly, I think they make us all look rather silly by protracting this debate on what is, after all, a simple and straightforward matter.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I always enjoy following the member for Nanaimo because I can point out all the ridiculous comments he makes.

Today in question period, a little less than two hours ago, the Premier stood up in this House and answered for an expenditure that he undertook last night, which was to hire a satellite truck to park in front of the Legislature and broadcast a public relations sham to the people of this province, because he was too lazy to get out of his office and go to the Rogers Cable TV studio.

We have a Premier who stands up and says something to the effect that he is an open and accessible Premier with an open and accessible government, and that he will never hesitate to use whatever expenditures are necessary to communicate directly with the public of British Columbia. Everyone in the NDP was hammering on their desks and cheering, hooting and hollering.

And a little less than two hours later those same members, including the member for Nanaimo, stand up in this House and say: "Why would you ever want to analyze the budget expenditures of this government in front of a television set so that the people of this province can look at it and see what's going on?"

I sometimes wonder if these members actually think before they take a position on something, or if they just receive the memo from the House Leader -- or the former House Leader -- and react accordingly. I wonder if there's any independent thought going on on those benches at all. I have yet to see it.

We have the members of the Social Credit Party -- I can't believe it -- who introduced television to this Legislature.... In 1986 it was one of their campaign items: Premier Vander Zalm would bring television to this chamber. He finally got around to it in the last session of his government, when in fact he wasn't Premier anymore. The House Leader for the third party was one of those government members who endorsed television. He wanted to bring television in. It was going to be open government.

It would open the doors to the public so that they could see what was going on; they could be part of the scrutiny that was going on in this province. This is the same Social Credit Party whose leader stood up less than an hour ago and said how important it was that the public know the disastrous budget that this government had brought in.

Two budgets in a row increased debt to the point where we have $23 billion worth of deficits in this province, accumulated to the point now that that's our debt. We have this government adding another $1.5 billion of operating deficit this year, and perhaps another $1 billion or $1.5 billion in other capital expenditures through the Crown corporations.

[4:30]

C. Serwa: You are a Liberal leadership candidate after all.

[ Page 4910 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, hon. Speaker, we have the Social Credit members standing up and saying how important it is that the public be able to scrutinize every single penny of the government. This is the party of fiscal accountability, and we heard all the wonderful things they'd done. Yet less than an hour later they're standing up saying: "Let's take that scrutiny and shuffle it off into another place where the people can't see it, the people can't hear it, where the reporters aren't even there to see what's going on." They're saying one thing on one hand and another thing on the other hand.

It's also extremely interesting that the independent member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi would stand up and speak to this issue, because I know that at the end of the last session he wasn't very happy with the process. In fact, he spoke against it, and he said to the members of this caucus that it shouldn't continue. Yet today, he changes his mind. I wonder why?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: The entertaining member for Nanaimo stood up and talked about the length of time this House sits. We sat for 35 days, and then we worked it up to 72 days. Perhaps that's because the budget of the province was rising. Perhaps that's because the expenditures of government were increasing and the size of government was increasing, and therefore it's more important that we take that extra time to scrutinize the types of things that the government has been doing.

Perhaps, if he had been better at scrutinizing it when he was in opposition, we wouldn't have the mess that was left behind by the Social Credit government that his Premier talks about so much. Perhaps, if the House sat more often and if he participated in estimates as much as he now says he should, we would have better scrutiny. Perhaps, if that member had participated in estimates in the last year, we wouldn't have a $1.5 billion deficit now, because he would have taken his own ministers to task to cut expenditures and reduce taxes instead of increasing them. So perhaps he should listen to his own words.

At a time when the public is asking for greater access to government, at a time when the people of this country -- not just this country but the whole world, as a matter of fact; in the United States the same thing is going on -- are asking for better access to government.... They want to know how their money is being spent; they want to know how their taxes are being raised and why.

After going through the referendum process we went through last year, where every single one of the government members was wrong and didn't listen to the public, the government hasn't learned a darn thing and is going to turn around and do just the opposite of what they promised. We have the Premier and 50 other NDP members in this House who campaigned on open government, and yet they want to take it and hide it. They want to take their weakest ministers and half of their budget deficit and they want to put them in the other chamber where nobody can see what happens.

The Social Credit members, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, the member for Nanaimo and, in fact, the Government House Leader himself talked about how we have to be progressive and about how in the House of Commons in Ottawa, for example, all the estimates are done in committee. But there is great pressure on the House of Commons in Ottawa to televise those committee hearings, because the Canadian public don't know what the heck is going on with the way the government is spending money.

Perhaps, if they hadn't moved them out of the chamber and if the public could look more closely, and if even those government backbenchers would be more responsible in scrutinizing the expenditures of the government, we wouldn't have the outrageous deficits we still have at the federal level.

Why would the Social Credit members, who brought television into the House -- a great innovation, a great progression -- side with the government to help them hide half of their deficit? Why would they do that?

An Hon. Member: There's nothing hidden.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, they say there's nothing hidden. It seems to me that the same rationale that the Social Credit Party used to bring television to this House, the same rationale the Premier used last night when he talked about the budget on television, the same rationale that this government and the member for Nanaimo used in the last election campaign to bring open government to this province would apply in this case. Why not?

There is only one answer: this government is embarrassed; they are ashamed of their budget and of their spending, and they know that starting today and tomorrow and the next day, the opposition is going to look under every stone, to find every patronage appointment and to find every bureaucrat who's got a bonus, who's getting their car insurance or their golf fees paid for. We are going to find every single one of them; we are going to turn them over and expose this government's rampant, insulting and excessive spending. Because of that, they want to put it off in the other room so that nobody can see.

That is the only reason for what this government is doing; it's the only reason why they would break their promise of open government; it's the only reason why the Premier would stand up a little over two hours ago and say one thing and then have his House Leader come in here and say something else.

There are problems with Committee A and Committee B. The former House Leader for the Liberal Party, who now sits as an independent, is aware of those problems. Social Credit members have complained about those problems. Specifically, they deal with the substitution process. It is difficult. It is my understanding that there are administrative problems with

Hansard , with other parts of this House and with substituting members into that committee. Those haven't been worked out; there have been no discussions. There have been one meeting or two meetings, I

[ Page 4911 ]

believe, between the House Leaders to try and look at this thing, but they certainly haven't come to any solution. Yet the government goes ahead and does it without the agreement of the parties. Changes to the rules of this House only work when all parties agree, when there's unanimous consent and when it's in the best interest of the whole process.

This government has gone against those principles and against that tradition. The Social Credit Party, for some unknown reason, is siding with them. The government is breaking the promise they made to the public for open government. They are going against the comments the Premier made today. They are going backwards, not forwards. This motion should be defeated.

We should ensure that the public has a chance to scrutinize what goes on in this House, especially today, the day after the NDP government has tabled the worst deficit in the history of this province, when they're going after a billion-dollar tax grab for the second year in a row. Today especially, the government backbenchers, the Social Credit Party of all people, and certainly the independent members should get behind us and defeat this motion.

M. Farnworth: I listened with interest to the comments of the previous speaker, and I feel that it's incumbent upon me to correct a number of the factual errors that he's made and to set the record straight. I intend to do that, and then perhaps speculate as to why they are so vehemently opposed to this commonsense resolution.

Last year, when we took over, we took over a Legislature which by and large had some very archaic methods of dealing with business. What we did, hon. Speaker, was look to legislatures across the country to see how they dealt with House business to see if there were ways that we could make the process more efficient; save money; involve the opposition parties in the consultative process; and at the same time ensure that the ability of the opposition, members of the press and the public to scrutinize government activities was not diminished.

D. Lovick: Did we succeed?

M. Farnworth: We most certainly did succeed, hon. member for Nanaimo. We established Committee A and Committee B, with agreement of the opposition parties -- complete with input from the opposition parties on deciding which ministries could go to which committees. That was consultation, hon. Speaker. The opposition was involved, and the whole process at all times was open to members of the press gallery, and the public, and was recorded by Hansard.

So, hon. Speaker, Hansard is there for every British Columbian to read. The opposition was free and able to ask their questions. I remember seeing all members of the opposition participating in the debates, as did many of the government backbenchers, by asking questions. The fascinating thing was, we got a lot of business done. There was an opportunity for members to go to different committees and to hear different ministries' estimates being debated and to ask questions.

The funny thing is, we took this Legislature, which had been operating on some rather archaic nineteenth-century precepts, and we brought it into line with just about every other Legislature in the country. We were one of the last Legislatures in the country to go to a dual-committee system. I'd like to point out to the member for Surrey-White Rock -- who said before that just because the federal government does it, that doesn't mean we should do it -- that if something works, it's worth looking at. If it can make a system more efficient, if we can deal with government business in a more efficient way, then that's what we should be doing. That's what this debate is about.

I have a real problem in trying to understand why the Liberal opposition would be opposed to the two committees this year. I mean, you've got Committee A and Committee B. There's one committee for each of their leaders. Leader A can go to Committee A and leader B can go to Committee B. Maybe that's what they're really concerned about.

An Hon. Member: Maybe they want Committee C.

M. Farnworth: That's right. Maybe they want Committee C for the member for Surrey-White Rock, and Committee D for the member for Richmond-Steveston when he declares. Maybe that's the problem. They don't like the idea of the leader in one committee overshadowing the leader in the other committee.

D. Lovick: You forgot the interim leader; he's feeling left out.

M. Farnworth: We wouldn't want the interim leader to feel left out.

It seems that they're more interested in their own internal divisions and problems than they are in the business of this House. The Social Credit caucus, with their one leader, is quite happy to try to work in two committees. Why is it so difficult for the Liberal Party? Could it be that their total leadership just doesn't measure up to working in one committee?

[4:45]

D. Lovick: It's possible.

M. Farnworth: I doubt if they could do that.

Hon. Speaker, I think I've made my point: we've got a system that works. It worked last year. It saves money, and it's more efficient. It's open and accessible to the press and to the public. The problem lies in the Liberal Party and their internal difficulties and the fact that they can't control what would happen with half of their caucus in one committee and half in the other committee.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise in opposition to this motion and to support the debate of my colleagues in the official opposition. This is another example of this NDP government's broken promises of open and honest government, which members opposite like to speak of so quickly and so often. This

govern-

[ Page 4912 ]

ment likes to talk about open and honest government. The process last year was not efficient, as some members like to bring forward. In various debates on estimates last year in which a number of members participated, it did become tedious and repetitious. The member for Port Coquitlam and the member for Nanaimo are very familiar with tedious and repetitious debate. I would like to urge all members to defeat this motion.

F. Garden: Hon. Speaker, I find it rather strange to be taking

part in this debate at this time; I thought we had this debate last year. I believed the Liberal opposition when we all came to the House -- many of us as new MLAs -- and they said: "We are prepared to cooperate. We want to get on with the business of government." I was really pleased when we were able to come to an agreement whereby the debates of this House would be split into two committees, and we went about our business. I can't recall once in the spring session or the fall session when a member of the opposition stood up and said that it wasn't working. I can't understand the dramatic change.

You can go through the debates in Hansard and you won't find any derogatory remarks about the process. As a matter of fact, I recall sitting in on the other committee, which I was not part of, and hearing the Liberal members going on ad nauseam during the estimates. One of the members of the opposition admitted today that they were boring, but they got the opportunity to debate the estimates fully. That was progressive, just as it was progressive in the makeup of the legislative committee work we did last year. That was given an expanded role.

There was participation by the opposition, the independent members, the members of the third party and the members of government, and it was a good year for legislative committees. It was open and honest, and I can't understand why we're not here debating.

If the problem is that they're not getting on television often enough, because they can't afford it out of the money that is lent to them by their members, then by all means the debate here should be.... There should be better coverage in the committee. If the TV coverage is a problem, let's debate that. Let the House Leaders get together and talk this out. That's going to be kind of difficult because of the musical House Leaders we've seen in the opposition. We don't know who to talk to on these deals. But we did make deals, and there's absolutely no reason.... I applaud the independent member who stood up earlier and said that this is progressive change.

Interjection.

F. Garden: If you want to talk honestly about being open, tell the people your real reasons for wanting the change. I'm sure we're prepared to sit down and discuss proper coverage in the other committee with you. We don't want to be spending the hours in this Legislature dragging on in debate, as has gone on in the past. I don't know about the rest of the members in this House, but I want to spend as little time as possible dragging out these interminable debates. I want to be back in the riding and working for my constituents, as you should be.

But for some reason there's been a change in attitude. I sense it's strictly political. I don't want to accuse them of that; I just say that I sense it's strictly political. I'm convinced that if they're serious about some of the statements they've just made about openness, they'll sit down with us and get the debate going about proper coverage in that committee. Let's get on with the work. I'm proud of what we did last year. I'm proud of the opposition members. I'm proud of the real opposition -- the third party -- for the way they've cooperated and the way they seem to want to continue to cooperate this year.

So let's get together. Let's get out and cut the rhetoric. The House Leaders should get together and discuss coverage, and let's go on with business. Stop this nonsense, and vote for this resolution that's before the House.

D. Symons: I found the previous speaker quite entertaining. Unfortunately, he's missed the point entirely -- missed the reason why this is not a good concept. And I'm not surprised that he's missed the point, because obviously he missed the point that we never debated estimates last November at all, and he made reference to the fact that we didn't complain about it then. It wasn't an issue at that time.

Just on one other point made by the member for Port Coquitlam. I wasn't here during the speakers before him. I was speaking to one of the members of the press, and I said: "In the House right now we are discussing Committee A and Committee B that we did last year." He said: "That didn't work very well for the press." So it seems that what you said is in contradiction to what the press have told me, hon. member for Port Coquitlam.

Where I find the difficulty with this is not with press coverage and not with the TV in the room here. As far as I'm concerned, you could turn that off. What I'm concerned about is due process. I'm concerned about the operation of it in an effective way that gives the opposition what it is supposed to have during estimates -- an opportunity to investigate and scruti