Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 13, Number 21

Part 2

[ Page 11535 ]

A. Sanders: Good morning. As a member of the Legislature, I've been asked to look at second reading of Bill 54, the Supply Act, and to speak in principle as to whether the government should be granted the privilege of interim supply.

[0110]

Today, the legislators here must ask two fundamental questions of government in order for them to obtain two sums. The first is for special warrants, the approval of the Legislature for money already spent -- money that has to be available for cost overruns in the 1998 year for the Ministry for Children and Families and for the Ministry of Health. This money was spent without the scrutiny of the Legislature or the permission of this House. Giving permission for something already done is a moot point, to say the least.

The second part of the supply bill is for approval of interim supply for the first-quarter funds for the 1999-2000 budget. This is money to cover government operations while the Legislature debates the current estimates of each of the ministries.

There is a question that is fundamental to this debate, and that is the following: should this government be granted money for overruns and money for the next quarter? Should the Legislature give this government the nod to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money? No matter how that question is couched, broached, coached, coddled, reframed, renamed, the answer is still no -- not one more penny, not one red cent. No is the only answer to that fundamental question: should the NDP be granted interim supply? This question is sort of like kicking a skunk.

No matter how you pose the question, it's still a stinker for the people of British Columbia. So where do we take an odious problem like this? Where do we teach this government that no means no?

Allow me to recommend four preliminary questions that may provide a framework for government to learn that no means no, and allow me to substantiate, by these questions, why the government has no right to interim supply and no right to govern. Four fundamental issues are at stake here. Four fundamental questions will pierce the heart of the problem, and these four concerns must be addressed in the issue of supply. Legislators, on behalf of constituents, must ask today: "Has this government maintained and earned the moral right to govern in this province?" No.

"Has the government demonstrated the fiscal responsibility necessary to govern?" No. "Does this government manage our affairs in a manner that gains and maintains the confidence of British Columbia voters enough to be granted the nod for further funds?" No. "Does this government have a plan?" No. No, no, no, no -- four questions, four consistent answers. These are consistent New Democrats.

Let's look at those four questions individually. Why do British Columbians no longer trust this government? When did the government lose the moral right to govern? What events led to a breach of trust so profound that we have a Premier who, in the annals of history, will challenge Brian Mulroney for popularity. What could this government have done in the face of British Columbians that was so heinous as to fuel recall campaign after recall campaign -- that has led, in this last year, to an effort that's called total recall?

What has fuelled the public to hold non-partisan meetings, unprecedented gatherings of numbers up in the thousands, in areas across the province -- Prince George, Cloverdale, the lower mainland? Where have these Had Enough gatherings come from, and where have they found their momentum? Where have they got the energy -- for that number of people to get together to want to remove a government from office?

[0115]

Where but in this province would we be in a situation where a private citizen has taken his private time and money to take the government to court for budget lies? What on earth could fuel such electric anger -- even hatred -- in a province that's pretty laid-back, in a country that's pretty undemonstrative? What could have done that -- create that much momentum among the electorate to remove a sitting government from office in the middle of its mandate?

The government itself has been the fuel for that particular fire. The government has provided the bullets; the government has loaded the gun. The government has held the gun to its own head. Now, in the last few weeks, it even seems to be willing to pull the trigger. How did all that occur? How did we get to that point in 1999 and in the middle of a government's term? I think it's pretty easy to see if you look at the litany of situations that have fed the flames of discontent towards the NDP government in the province of British Columbia in the last little while.

I think it would be fair to say -- not to drag up old historical issues -- that it started with Bingogate. I don't think, actually, that there's any question about that. The shame of a political party caught stealing from charity will never be erased from the minds of British Columbians. That will be something that will be remembered long after we, as legislators, have left this chamber, left this career and, perhaps, even left this life. The Premier's refusal to repay that money to those charities is still an open wound for many people in the Nanaimo area.

It is one of the things that over time has added salt to the wound and has done much on a daily, monthly and now yearly basis to denigrate what is considered the job of a politician in British Columbia.

Many of us thought Bingogate would have been enough. Many of us felt that the Parks report would have been enough shame. Many of us would like to put that behind us -- collectively, as politicians -- and move forward so that we can regain the trust of British Columbians. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case with this government.

Following Bingogate, there was Hydrogate, the Cayman Islands, offshore accounts, intrigue, foreign involvement in issues and efforts of B.C. and our economy -- things that the public were very worried about, that they were sure were unscrupulous and that caught their interest but also their dismay. But that wasn't enough. Not only did British Columbians -- the average person in the average job in the average town -- have to deal with being part of Bingogate and Hydrogate; there was much more in store for them.

We had the '95-96 and '96-97 budget untruths -- and that's being very generous to government. We had Budgetgate. We're living Budgetgate right now. The citizens of British Columbia are still reeling from Budgetgate. They're still trying to understand what on earth went on and what on earth would leave them to feel as deceived as they do. But that wasn't all. While they were reeling from Budgetgate and recovering from Bingogate and Hydrogate, we got Skeenagate -- $330 million of taxpayers' money at a time when health care and education were suffering, $330 million in a cabinet minister's riding. And $330 million to people in my riding

[ Page 11536 ]

whose fruit tree industry is suffering and whose health care is suffering . . . . They're wondering why. They're wondering how they could have been so unlucky and other people so fortunate.

[0120]

But that wasn't enough. British Columbians have had to endure Recallgate this year -- the use of secret, outside political organizers in recall campaigns, which this government put legislation in place to prevent. They were the first to abrogate the responsibility of that legislation itself. Then the public had to deal with the investigation into that and the reports back on the government's action.

Then there was Ferrygate. In fact, this Legislature was dismissed for a period of time and no longer debated the issues of the Nis g a'a in order that things could calm down from what was Ferrygate -- so that a new minister, a new Captain Highliner, could get into the post and start to complete his understanding of that portfolio and hope that Ferrygate would go away.

The unconscionable spending of hundreds of millions of dollars that could have gone to health care and education but were dumped into a project -- into a thing that the Premier wished to see go forward and that really had very much more interest to him and his career than it did to the average British Columbian in many areas of the province . . . .

While we were trying to recover from Ferrygate and people were trying to deal with the huge losses of dollars that would not be available for health care and education, we got broadsided with Casinogate, Pilarinosgate -- whatever gate you want to call it. Our Premier was involved, potentially, in a scandal that occurred with casino licensing. And the whole process of why we're bringing casinos and expanded gambling into British Columbia at all . . . .

It's something that's been a sore and a festering wound in this Legislature and certainly within the communities of British Columbia, as they wonder why on earth we would have expanded gambling as a source of revenue for British Columbia services. Surely we can do better than expanded gambling. Casinogate is just the tip of the iceberg for the problems that can occur when you use gambling as a source of government revenue for any province, especially this one.

Stay tuned. We haven't even got to SkyTraingate and Vancouver-convention-centregate, and people are already feeling the burn. They're already feeling the anxiety of recognizing that billions of their tax dollars could go towards projects that are not properly financed, that are not properly accredited, that don't have good business plans, and they certainly don't have the understanding that the best use of tax dollars will be maintained in order to have those projects go forward.

I think that if we look over the last seven or eight years, it would be fair to say that British Columbians have tolerated being lied to. If we look over the last eight years, I think it would be fair to say that British Columbians have tolerated being cheated. I think it would even be fair to say that British Columbians have tolerated being duped. They have tolerated all those things with the dignity that comes with being a British Columbian. But there's one thing, hon. Speaker, that they haven't tolerated.

They cannot tolerate the profound and deep humiliation they have felt nationally and even internationally by being likened, by association, to breaches of moral integrity. And this government has demonstrated that to them in the number of scandals that have occurred over the last number of years which are directly associated with the NDP government. It's difficult for British Columbians to be ashamed of their government.

[0125]

I recently had the opportunity to spend some time with a bureaucrat who worked in the Alberta government, and I was very interested to recognize the respect with which that individual held the people she worked with in the political sphere. It was something, quite frankly, that I wasn't used to. It was something that I don't see here. There was a genuine respect that the people she worked with, in political office and elected office, had a mandate, had a moral integrity and had a direction. It is not something that when I'm on the street -- in Vernon or Cherryville or Lumby or outside of my riding -- I truly feel British Columbians have for the people of this Legislature.

I think there has been a tremendous besmirching of that image, a tremendous humiliation of the average British Columbian when they look at what they voted in, in this province. That has affected both sides of the House. It is not reserved for government; it is not reserved for a specific politician. It is something that we all must bear: the mantle of scandal that has occurred over the last eight years in British Columbia.

Even when you can tolerate being cheated or duped, you cannot tolerate humiliation. You will find that the fundamental reasons for supporting the structure of government will become less clear. You will find that government, no matter who that government is, will be less trusted in the future because of past history and association. It will be more difficult for any government to gain the confidence and respect of the people who have voted them in. That is the principal reason why this government has lost the moral right to govern.

Unfortunately, their loss of that moral right will reflect on governments that follow. That is the first reason why the government has not earned the right, the privilege, of interim supply.

Logically, the second question follows the first: has this government demonstrated fiscal responsibility? Again, no. Let's look at the facts, and let's use the government's own facts, as opposed to partisan facts from someone else.

Total debt stands at $34 billion. This is an increase of 101 percent since this government came to power in 1991. Total debt for every man, woman and child in British Columbia is $8,582 each -- $3,337 more for every man, woman and child than when this government came into power. Provincial debt, projected to be $95 million, is $544 million -- six times the deficit projected by the Minister of Finance. Why do we need a Minister of Finance? My children could have made this projection and could have maybe got just as close, maybe closer. I do not see in these figures any reason to have a Minister of Finance.

Interest payments are $2.6 billion per year -- $7.23 million a day, ticking off every single day of the year. That's money down the drain, money to service debt, money that will be increasing as time goes by -- as this government racks up more and more of a deficit for this province. No balanced budget is projected until 2002-03. A government that ran in 1991 on a balanced budget, a government that ran in 1996 on two balanced budgets -- that never were, that never will be . . . . A plan to increase taxpayer-supported debt -- 27 percent in the next five years . . . . Again, that's up from 12.5 percent when this government came into power.

[ Page 11537 ]

We have a Finance minister who excuses a decade of fiscal incompetence because she needs to fund health care and education. Does she realize that we are all people who read the newspapers, who read financial reports, who talk to other people in other parts of the country? Does she realize that we all know, as many British Columbians do, that all the other provinces have managed to maintain health and education and balanced budgets? Her story has worn desperately thin.

[0130]

Does this minister recognize that servicing her debt is one of the biggest cash cows that this government has to feed? Does she recognize that the budgets of most of the ministries are less than the debt-servicing charges that we have in this province? Does she realize . . . ? Did any of these Finance ministers realize, at any time, that when we are servicing a debt with $7.230 million a day, we are actually losing one elementary school a day? We're actually losing three and a half high schools a week that could be built in British Columbia.

In my community we're losing 35 new hospital beds a year that could be completely financed by the money we're using to service the interest on our debt. Does she recognize that we lose 12,500 civil servants -- teachers, firefighters, people who provide the most important parts of our government and public service? Does she recognize that those are 12,500 people who won't be here to vote, who won't be here to say that government has done something for them?

If we're talking about health care, does the government recognize that 13,000 diagnostic tests could be done every day of the year, 365 days of the year, for the amount of money that this government spends for debt servicing?

We're at a time when people can't get a diagnostic test to save their lives -- literally. We're at a time when people wait eight or nine months for MRIs. We're at a time when you can tell a 23-year-old mother of two kids that you think she has multiple sclerosis but that the test that she needs so she can make some decisions about where her life is going -- what she's going to do with her job, who's going to help her look after her kids -- will be eight months down the road. Thirteen thousand tests a day, and we're waiting eight, nine, ten months -- sometimes even more -- for routine tests that should be available in health care.

If you had $7 million a day to use on people in health care and education, this province would be a profoundly different place. That's the kind of thing that comes from making hard choices, where you actually work towards balancing budgets and getting rid of interest payments. Does this minister realize that we could send every man, woman and child in British Columbia to Las Vegas for three days, all expenses paid, on the money that we spend every day to service our debt? That's what this province could save on interest payments alone.

Those are the kinds of facts that make sense to people in my riding. Those are the kinds of facts that make sense to people who could give a darn about politics, politicians and the stuff that goes on here in Victoria. That's the kind of thing that they understand. And when we tell them those kinds of things, they say: "What is going on in Victoria? Who is there working for us? How could these things happen?" And you know what? There's no answer for that that's good enough.

This government has done everything but demonstrate fiscal competency. That is the second reason that the government does not deserve the privilege of granting interim supply.

Now we must address the third question: does this government manage our affairs in a manner to gain and maintain the confidence of British Columbia voters enough to be given the nod for further funds? The answer is no -- unfortunately, no. From all that's been said, there is no other answer but no.

[0135]

We are in a circumstance where this government is not governing under the mandate that they ran on, that they set out to steer British Columbia on, that they told taxpayers was their purpose and that they said, when they got into government, they would carry through on. This government is not running on the platform -- not even one plank -- of what they said in the last election.

Now, if you change your stripes that much, if you campaign on balanced budgets, if you assure taxpayers that you will not spend money you don't have . . . . If you are a government that does not keep a single promise, that does not meet a single projection, a single target, a single ideal that you've set out for yourself in the mandate that you've been sent into the government seats to carry out, you have lost your right to be there.

If you decide that the mandate has changed and that all the rules and all the focuses and promises and future plans have changed, then it's your responsibility to take that to the polls and ask the taxpayer: "Do you still want us in the driver's seat? We've changed everything. Do you still want us in the driver's seat?" It's up to this government -- it's up to any government -- to ask the taxpayer that fundamental question in order to receive the moral right, the political right and certainly the taxpayers' right to have you in the government seats, to have you spend the money from the taxpayers' coffers.

This government has lost that mandate. Quite frankly, I don't think they ever intended to carry it out. They are so far from home, so far out in space from the orbit that they are supposed to be in, that they are not even the same people that the people who voted them in thought they were getting, let alone those 61 percent of British Columbians who didn't want them there. We are in a situation where we need to go to the polls. If this government believes the taxpayer is behind them, then let the polls decide. Let's hear the voice of British Columbians.

Finally, I ask, on behalf of all British Columbians: does this government have a plan? Again the answer is no. The Minister of Finance says her plan is to grow out of the recession, the NDP-induced recession. This is a tired, banal, exhausted, 1970s view of economic strategy. It has been abandoned by all modern provinces. Even the NDP stronghold in Saskatchewan recognizes the sheer stupidity of that kind of economic way of doing business.

Will the Finance minister abandon what she learned in economics 100 a good 25 years ago and get in the know and get in with all the other Finance ministers and how they do business? Learn some new material. Get rid of the outdated, outmoded theories. Do some

[ Page 11538 ]

thing good and positive for British Columbia by stimulating our economy, getting rid of red tape and decreasing personal income tax.

This is a tired, tattered, unusable plan. There is no plan for repayment. There is no plan to get the deficit or the debt on track. Any plans that have been made by this government have been abandoned, renamed, refocused, forgotten, submerged and changed. After eight long, jaded years, there's not a single British Columbian left who believes that the NDP can make the hard choices that are necessary to get this province on track. There is no plan. There never was; there never will be.

[0140]

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member. Your time is up.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Chair. As a responsible person, I say to the government, take us to the polls.

L. Reid: Certainly, when I look at Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999, I wonder if indeed there's any ministry in this government that is budgeted for appropriately. This is an enormous magnitude of special warrant spending. This is, again, a government that lacks a plan, that's not particularly well organized, that truly didn't listen to the British Columbia Business Summit, that has committed this province to $2.6 billion in interest annually. What kind of legacy is that for British Columbians -- for the children of this province?

I mean, I have stood as a member in this chamber since 1991, and I can tell you that to see the debt load of this province double during the tenure of this government gives me no pleasure. It gives British Columbians no pleasure to know that fewer than four million people will indeed have the responsibility to pay off $35 billion. Again, my colleagues have been correct: there is no plan to do that. It's simply something that gets off-loaded every year. "Let's try and humour the taxpayers and suggest that there's a plan." Alas, every year there's no plan.

Every year it should be something that's considered before us; every year nothing comes to pass.

I'm not clear why this government, the members opposite, continue to believe that they have indeed done a good thing for the province. I cannot imagine that they can somehow stand together and know that they've indebted this province to the tune of $35 billion and that there's not some remorse from the members opposite. There's not an apology forthcoming from the members opposite in terms of what has been done to this province. There's no remorse; there's never an apology. We'll never return to baseline at the hands of this government. We'll never get a handle on the debt at the hands of this government.

This simply will not happen. And somehow the attitude passes for some kind of fiscal prudence in their minds.

It doesn't pass for that in my mind. It smacks of reckless irresponsibility when it comes to committing a province that has such potential to this level of debt load. That's not a legacy that I'm proud of. I don't know how members opposite can accept the fact that they have beleaguered this province to the extent that they have -- no apology for what has gone before, no apology for the fact that the province has been responsible for closing more beds, for creating longer wait-lists.

Every year they come in with something to sweeten the pie, saying: "We're going to try and correct that problem" -- never an acknowledgment that the problem was created at the hands of this government and again never an apology. Those things are just kind of basic to how we should operate as legislators. There should be some responsibility inherent in how this place does its job.

The members opposite . . . . I'm concerned that the people are left adrift. These folks won't be here when that debt is paid off. But somehow it's okay to run it up and then leave. Somehow it's okay to suggest that the necessity for a plan is simply not there. I don't agree. I do not accept the notion that any entity in the province of British Columbia can leave a debt load in the range of $35 billion to those who come after and that somehow that's an appropriate way to proceed. I'm alarmed by the rhetoric opposite, by the lack of apology, by the lack of remorse, by the lack of decency when it comes to funding projects the first time out.

We have a government that will tell you that they are going to create more beds in health care. No one opposite stands up and tells about how many beds they have closed in health care, how many people have been put on the wait-list -- waiting for surgical procedures in this province -- as a direct result of the fiscal mismanagement of this government. "More dollars in health care" is the common rant. The number of dollars in patient care needs to be the response that emanates from these government benches, hon. Speaker. How much money actually reaches the front line in health care and education?

[0145]

This same government talks about how proud they are of their education record. This same government puts new teachers into the system without supports. There's no one in place, at the hands of this government, to mentor new teachers. Every time there's a problem in education, it's: "Let's do away with the principals and vice-principals." That happens to be the rhetoric that emanates from the benches opposite. Those new teachers could be part of really profoundly gifted teaching teams. Not so at the hands of this government -- cut adrift. "Go out there. Teach. This is your first year.

You have no support systems in place. But we as the government have provided you with a job." Let's ensure that some of those young people who enter the profession of teaching actually experience success; let's ensure that it happens. Let's not cut them adrift.

Yet at the hands of this government, they plunk them out into the system and decimate what happens in secondary and elementary schools in terms of administrative practice, in terms of counselling support. They suggest that those brand-new teachers can go out there and deal with some very challenging children -- very challenging experiences for those young people -- with no support. I'm not grateful for that approach to a profession that I value very highly in this province. My professional colleagues are not grateful for that approach, because it's not thoughtful, not insightful, not responsible.

It doesn't suggest that teachers are an integral part of that team. It's a team approach that we require in British Columbia in educational programs today, not tossing in 200 or 400 more teachers without any support systems. Yet indeed that is what this government has done and continues to do -- continues to take great, enormous pride in the fact that young men and women as teachers are cut adrift, are absolutely unsupported by the education system today because the counselling budgets have been cut, the administrative budgets have been cut. Who do they think supports new teachers? It's not this government.

[ Page 11539 ]

When I and my constituents look at the last number of days in this session and at the press coverage that comes to pass, there isn't anything that anyone can be particularly proud of. We have a Minister of Finance who is quoted as saying and actually said it directly opposite in this chamber: "Our fiscal situation is probably going to get worse before it gets better."

"Bet on it," is the columnist's response. It gives British Columbians out there, working and attempting to keep their families together financially, little hope, little optimism.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: She's certainly telling the truth.

L. Reid: The Attorney General is saying: "She's telling the truth." We know for a fact that the truth around budgets has not been told in this chamber for the previous two sessions; we know that for a fact. You know that for a fact. Both ministers opposite, the Attorney General and the Minister of Women's Equality, know for a fact that this province is owed an apology, that this province deserves some honesty around those questions. I am not impressed that this honesty was not forthcoming. I'm continually unimpressed with the fact that people try and defend that attitude; it is not defensible.

I mean, the press coverage has ridiculed, with "Day of Reckoning Will Come . . . . " Unfortunately, the day of reckoning will be there for the young people of this province who will be left to pay the bills, to attempt to cover off $2.6 billion a year in interest payments -- not reasonable, not fair, not decent, not thoughtful.

I mean, for the ministers opposite who are so intrigued by this commentary, perhaps there's some defence from that side of the chamber when it comes to what happened to the debt management plans of the last five years. What happened to those plans? Not one of them was met. They quickly were replaced by the next debt management plan, none of it about the long-term prosperity of this province. It's like being on a wild spending spree for a number of years and moving on before you actually end up being responsible for what you've left in your wake.

But this is an issue that, frankly, I don't believe this government can escape. I think the public has been enormously patient in terms of giving opportunities to this government to bring forward a debt reduction plan that they can actually manage to stick to. I've not seen one in my eight years. Certainly the deficit annually, the debt load that continues to mount, the $2.6 billion in interest that must be paid and the debt servicing that will strangle this province don't suggest to me that anyone on the opposite side can be indignant at all about the public response to this budget.

[0150]

It tells me that the public response to this budget is fair. "Deficit or Not . . . " and "Damn the deficit -- full speed ahead!" are the quotes taken from yesterday's Vancouver Province. That's the strategy of the Premier which this rapidly sinking government adopted in yesterday's budget. The $890 million deficit for fiscal 1999-2000 is the New Democrats' eighth consecutive annual shortfall. It maintains their perfect record of never achieving a surplus. And there are people on the other side, hon. Speaker, as you know, who get agitated during this discussion. This is a fact; this is absolute fact.

The minister will say that this is a budget about choices. What choice was possibly left for the people who will now have to pay those bills? No choice. They are saddled with debt that is insurmountable, and no choice was given to them. The visit to a chamber of commerce and four other spots around the province does not translate into people's response to this budget. It's anecdotal and it's interesting, but it in no way gives this government permission to indebt the province to the extent that they have.

It in no way suggests that it's appropriate for the young people of this province to be paying, all their lives, $2.6 billion in interest and to have $35 billion worth of debt. No one asked their permission. Frankly, this government promised them a dramatically opposite course of action -- that indeed there would be some fiscal prudence, some fiscal responsibility and that someone would look out for them as they reached their twenties and thirties and forties.

An Hon. Member: Not this group.

L. Reid: Obviously not this group. It's apparent to me that these folks are not that concerned about the 30-year-olds of this province today, who will indeed be left with insurmountable debt, in my view.

An Hon. Member: It's the unborn that are going to have to pay it. They'll still be paying.

L. Reid: The children yet to come.

More coverage from yesterday: "B.C. is Canada's only region that has yet to emerge from the 1990 recession . . . . " It has been ten years. As we're leaving the 1990s, it has been a decade. These folks entered this decade in 1991 and have not left a legacy that anyone is particularly proud of. There are more than enough examples along the front bench of individuals and previous Ministers of Health and previous Ministers of Education who have stood up time and time again to announce one-time-only funding. They're going to correct the problem with one-time-only funding. Then they've done it again and again and again.

There's no evidence of a plan, no evidence of a long-term strategy. When there's enough angst in the public domain, we'll try and pacify by pouring on a few dollars. Then we'll go on and wreak havoc in someone else's area of responsibility. When the public gets sufficiently irked about that, we'll calm the waters there and move on. So it's crisis management as opposed to any kind of long-term strategy. I can't recall the number of times I stood in this chamber and saw the minister opposite announce one-time-only funding. There is no plan when it comes to this government adequately funding health care and education.

This is an election budget. This is not a budget that's about long-term prosperity for the province. This is about a government that is again committed, absolutely committed, to indebting this province annually, in terms of $2.6 billion in interest, and long-term, in terms of $35 billion in debt. That's the legacy. I don't see any pride on the faces of the members opposite. The fact of the matter is that that legacy is insurmountable. We are fewer than four million people in the province of British Columbia, and we are in tenth spot out of ten. We're the last region in the country to realize that we should in fact have emerged from a recession, and we have not.

[0155]

I think that yesterday was the first time that members opposite actually used the word "recession." They spent the

[ Page 11540 ]

previous year denying that one existed, denying that they had played a

part in creating one. It doesn't strike me as forthright, honest behaviour. It strikes me as the bob-and-weave that this government is so famous for. There's got to be some accountability. There has to be accountability not just in this debate this evening but woven through this government, when mistakes are made. I will say this with reference to children and families: when mistakes are made, when people's lives have desecrated, this minister needs to come back and make amends, needs to apologize. And it doesn't happen. It doesn't happen - with rare exception. With rare exceptions, Mr.

Attorney, it does not happen on the part of this government. It's time that it did. This is the government that has said it's on the side of the people - that indeed this is a people government. When a government makes mistakes, just like any other, there should be some obligation to apologize. Again it's left undone. Accountability doesn't enter into it.

It intrigued me yesterday when the Premier introduced his good friend who was in the press gallery, Michael Smyth. The

article is entitled "A Price Tag on Recklessness. Trying to find the truth in an NDP budget is sort of like the RCMP trying to find the receipts for the Premier's sundecks." This

article was written by his good friend, as the Premier indicated to this chamber. In future, he may wish to rethink how he evaluates friendship. The

article goes on: "You practically need a search warrant, and even then it's a tricky puzzle."

I found one little piece of truth yesterday, hidden away on page 110 of the budget reports in a table called "Key debt indicators," and that was the total amount of money you'll pay this year in interest charges on the NDP's accumulated debt. Brace yourself: it's $2.6 billion in interest. Those rates go up even higher. According to this charming article, you get whacked even harder. That's the price you're paying for the ferries, the SkyTrain stations, the megaproject boondoggles, the deals, the taxpayer-funded propaganda and the endless perks for politicians that are so infuriating.

Take this year's budget for NDP caucus operations. It's up a whopping 31 percent. Again, where's the accountability? And despite the Finance minister's contention that this is the most honest NDP budget to date -- which I think are interesting adjectives, the "most honest" -- yesterday the government quietly shifted $700 million in health and transit debt off its own books and on to the municipal finance authority. No matter where they put it, from this

article written by the Premier's good friend, it's all your money.

Interjection.

L. Reid: It's the person you introduced in the chamber, hon. Premier.

And let me continue the article, now that he's here.

"When it comes to public finances, this government doesn't know whether it's coming or going. Forget their election promise to reduce the debt. That was a joke to begin with. And the Finance minister's promise last year to balance the books? That went bye-bye too. This is a political budget. By letting the red ink flow, the NDP hope to cast themselves as preservers of education and medicare . . . . It might have worked, if they hadn't lied and cooked us two phony budgets to get re-elected."

That's a quote in the words of the Premier's good friend, so introduced by the Premier himself.

British Columbians listen to that. They know in fact that their legacy is not one that anyone can be proud of. They know in fact that they're mired in debt, that fewer than four million people owe $35 billion, that debt servicing alone is an insurmountable cost -- $2.6 billion in interest. Earlier, one of our MLAs contrasted all the things one could purchase for $2.6 billion. So if I have time, I may canvass that same area later on this morning.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Indeed, it's an enormous sum of money. People aren't getting very much for that. They're not getting pride in their government. They're not getting service delivered in some kind of ethical fashion. They're not getting forthright candour from their politicians on the benches opposite. What does the average British Columbian do, faced with yet another deficit budget?

Interjections.

[0200]

L. Reid: A bunch of remarks are certainly in play. But for me, I find that there's tremendous disillusionment. I think people are truly disillusioned by how this government operates. I'm not particularly proud of the individual who jumped up and claimed to have some kind of handle on how the government spends its finances. I don't believe it. My constituents don't find that this is a crew worthy of their support, because it's a group of individuals that I believe has no remorse for having indebted the taxpayer to insurmountable levels.

There is no apology forthcoming; there are no apologies for mistakes made; there is no repayment of debt owed by the members opposite. It's kind of like: take, take, continue to take and never once go back and make amends. That alarms and frustrates me. I believe that it tarnishes all politicians. It doesn't surprise me, frankly, that not one person on the benches opposite has leapt to their feet, because there isn't a great deal to be proud of in this budget and in how this government interacts with the taxpayers of British Columbia.

There's a belief by the members opposite, hon. Speaker, that somehow it is government money. I've never accepted that notion, not in 1991 when I was first elected and not in 1999. It is always taxpayer money. The recklessness with which that taxpayer money is allocated and spent and the choices this government makes with money that does not belong to them absolutely astound me.

There are people out there who are absolutely dependent, reliant upon the services of this government: parents of mentally handicapped children, who can't get a week's respite care, yet they read in the paper that the province is engaged in yet another megaproject; teachers who can't be supported in classrooms; and children in care who are in nine or ten different foster homes within a year, and somehow the ministry would say to us that it's a superior placement to the one they left -- not fair, not decent, not honest and, frankly, not accountable.

Enough people slip through the cracks in British Columbia that someone on the government benches has to stand up and acknowledge that and, frankly, make some amends and some apologies. It doesn't happen. We have a government in this province that spends more on legal bills, in some instances, to separate families than they do on apologizing and returning children to families when mistakes have legit-

[ Page 11541 ]

imately been made. Timing is critical to some of these exercises. Timing, hon. Speaker, is something that this government doesn't understand. There's no immediacy, no urgency in terms of solving a problem that they have created. It is somehow just left.

Individual British Columbians are so disillusioned. Frankly, many of them are disgusted with how this government operates. They don't have recourse. They'll get a letter from a member opposite: "Well, seek legal counsel." It's rampant within the Ministry for Children and Families -- seek legal counsel, as if these individuals had resources to do that.

S. Orcherton: A point of order.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member take her seat.

I recognize the member for Victoria-Hillside.

S. Orcherton: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just want to bring to the member's attention a very sad occurrence this evening. The member should know that at 11:45 p.m., due to some solar fuel cell damage to the satellite televising the situation here at the Legislature, these proceedings have not been televised. I'm advised that hundreds of British Columbians woke up with a start at 11:45. I want to advise the House that now it is 2 a.m. The satellite is back on. These British Columbians that woke up can now safely go back to sleep.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that's . . . .

S. Orcherton: It's good news. It's frivolous, as the budget . . . .

L. Reid: It's absolutely irresponsible for this government to continue to behave in such a manner.

The Speaker: Now, member for Richmond East, continue.

[0205]

L. Reid: Thank you very much.

That was not a point of order, as that member knows full well. That behaviour is appalling, just appalling. These are important issues for the families of British Columbia. You should worry about your press coverage. It appals me that that attitude passes for some kind of reasonable intellect in this province. There are opportunities for this province . . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: Get to your feet, hon. minister. There are opportunities in this province for people to interface effectively and appropriately with their government. That is not it.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Again, a very interesting example of an individual who takes no responsibility, is not accountable, has not apologized to this chamber for something that is absolutely not a point of order. I resent the interruption. I resent the fact that he finds that interesting and amusing. This man has been in this chamber long enough to know what qualifies as a point of order.

In terms of where we were, I was speaking of families in this province who are treated with such utter disdain and disregard when they have enormous issues before them. The members opposite indicate that they should seek legal counsel -- as if they had the resources at their disposal to do that. It's a significant issue, not just for constituents of my riding or the members on this side of House but for constituents in that member's riding as well.

That's an issue where people in their hearts know that being indebted to the point of $2.6 billion annually -- $35 billion in debt -- is not a reasonable way for this government to proceed. It's not decent; it's not honest. It's frivolous, it's reckless, it's irresponsible, but it's not anything to do with good government.

It brings me to the

article "NDP Not Cracked Up to Running a Peanut Stand" -- and based on the performance of a moment ago, I would certainly agree with that. And "Budget at a Glance" says "Spending set at $21.05 billion . . . up 2.5 percent. Deficit in coming year will be $890 million, up from $544 million in 1998-99." The

article is riddled with commentary that the Premier was unabashedly unapologetic about the ballooning deficit. "This is not the time to balance the budget . . . . " If he were clear and honest on this question, there hasn't been a time over the past eight years to balance the budget. The bottom line is that those of us who will continue to be resident in this province and pay the bills of this province know that we have been saddled with insurmountable debt that is absolutely inappropriate.

The issues I raise this evening are family issues. They are issues about which people need reasonable confidence in their government so that they can go forward and solve their personal issues, knowing that the government is getting a handle on their issues. That's not the case. There isn't a single

article that suggests confidence on the part of the taxpayer -- that indeed these individuals have got their fiscal house in order. That's an enormous concern for me -- the disdain and disregard woven throughout these articles that they frankly don't care.

[0210]

Low-income families looking for a break in the budget didn't find much. The 235,000 families receiving the B.C. family bonus will receive only $2 more a month per child -- $24 a year. And these folks continue to joke about how they're on the side of working families. I don't believe it. I don't know many families who do believe it today.

It continues to astound me that when we look at anything that talks about . . . . "Budget at a Glance," "Children Let Down," "It's Politics, Not Economics," "Too Much Spending," "Heading for Bankruptcy" and "No Lure to Investment." Who is it that this government thinks will craft employment in the province? It's not going to be individuals who are so alarmed and so disillusioned by the fact that these individuals opposite refuse to tell the truth and refuse to deliver an honest and accountable budget to British Columbians.

Hon. Speaker, it is time for an election.

B. Penner: For those who may have just tuned in, we're here tonight debating Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999. The content of this bill before the Legislative Assembly proposes to authorize $5.2 billion -- that's not million; that's billion -- in additional spending. Further, and what I have greater concern with, it seeks to retroactively give our sanction, the Legislative Assembly's sanction, to about $170 million that was author-

[ Page 11542 ]

ized and spent without any public debate. That is unconscionable, totally unacceptable, and it has to be changed. Every year we see the same practice. MLAs are called from around the province to rubber-stamp spending that has already occurred. I think that's an insult not just to the elected members but to the people that have elected us and pay our bills. Bill 54, although thin, in many ways represents what's wrong with politics in British Columbia and our government in particular.

I remember, a couple of weeks ago, my mother asking me if I was going to be around Chilliwack to join her and my father for a dinner. You see, it's my parents' fortieth wedding anniversary, which they just celebrated Tuesday evening. My mother wanted to know if I'd be around for dinner to help celebrate with them. I could not give her a straight answer, because I didn't know if the Legislature would be in session or not.

In British Columbia, the MLAs -- the people who are supposedly in charge of the province's finances and looking after this great place -- are the last ones to know when we're supposed to be here doing the people's business. Typically, we get seven days' notice. My mother was frustrated. She wanted to make a reservation at a nice restaurant. She wanted to know if she should invite my sister to come out and join us in Chilliwack, and she wanted to know if my brother should come, with his wife. I simply couldn't give a straight answer; I couldn't say yes or no. I said maybe.

If I'm in Chilliwack, I'd certainly like to join my parents. That's what I told them.

Imagine the frustration of our constituents -- the people that elect us, the taxpayers -- who want to know if their representatives are here working on their behalf at any given time. They're busy in their day-to-day lives. They've got jobs, families to look after, lawns to mow, cars to wash. They don't have eight or nine hours every day to pay attention to what's happening in Victoria, to find out if we're actually here working.

Everywhere we go -- and I'm sure all the members here have experienced it -- people stop us and say, "How's Victoria?" even when we're not here. Or when we are here, people say: "When are you going back to Victoria?" People simply don't know. That's because we don't have a fixed legislative calendar, and we don't have a fixed date for when the budget must be introduced.

That's why we're here now, at about quarter after two in the morning -- when most reasonable people are comfortably asleep in their beds -- trying to bring instructive, intelligent debate to a bill that would retroactively authorize $170 million in spending. That's just wrong. It doesn't have to be that way. The B.C.

Liberal Party has already tabled legislation in this House -- which has been rejected by the government -- that would require the Legislature to convene by the third week of every February to table a budget, so that we would get into meaningful debate about proposed expenditures before they occur, rather than call us back here and have us sit around the clock into the wee hours to retroactively approve money that's already been spent. It just doesn't make sense.

[0215]

I'm not a great student of American history, but my recollection of history courses tells me that American independence was largely based on the issue of representation and taxation. That is, the people living in the Americas did not like being taxed without having representation. They felt they should have some say over what happened to the money that was forcibly collected from them. That sparked a revolution. The same thing happens every year in British Columbia. Money is forcibly collected from British Columbians -- maybe not at gunpoint, but British Columbians have no choice; they have to pay tax.

Yet what happens? The money gets spent -- at least a sizeable portion of it -- without those British Columbians having a chance to have their elected representatives express an opinion about whether those expenditures are justified, reasonable or necessary.

I don't believe in suspenseful endings where they're not necessary, so I'll say right now that I'm not inclined to give my support to Bill 54 and the more than $5 billion in spending it proposes. I see our House Leader is relieved to find out the ending well in advance; I know I had him sitting on the edge of his seat.

The reason, in a nutshell, why I can't bring myself to support Bill 54 is as follows. I'll get this off my chest and out of the way right here so we can move on. I believe this incompetent government is irresponsible, self-serving, debt-addicted and represents modern-day Luddites who can't be trusted with a blank cheque or credit card. That is it, in a nutshell, for me. However, I do have some other issues I'd like to explore tonight in the time remaining.

The budget tabled two days ago in this Legislature indicates that the government simply hasn't learned from the errors of its ways. The government is comprised of individuals -- 40 of them now . . . . Forty government MLAs comprise the government, and I submit that they haven't learned the lessons of their individual lives.

I know many of them have attended university. To do that, they probably had to borrow money, either from their parents, from other relatives or through student loans. I know I did. I remember getting my first student loan when I was in university. I managed to complete a bachelor's degree without borrowing any money by working part-time. But when I went to law school, I was too busy to hold down a part-time job, and I needed some help. So I was grateful for the cash that I got through a student loan. I spent it on tuition, books and food.

I knew the money would have to be paid back, and that's why, at the time, I borrowed as little as possible. In fact, I can remember the student loan officer suggesting, when it came to filling out my student loan application, that I fudge the numbers a little bit so I could borrow a bit more. But I knew I'd have to pay that money back, and as soon as I did get a job after university, I started making extra payments as soon as possible. Instead of paying interest to a bank, I figured it would be better to pay that interest to myself by paying off the debt sooner and using the extra money for other things. I still think that.

The members opposite, if they've had that experience, should apply that reasoning to government. There are times when you need to go into debt, but when you do so, you need to have a plan for paying it back. You can't just keep borrowing more and more. We all know this, I think, in our personal lives, but that is not how our province's finances have been managed under the NDP government.

For the eighth consecutive year, the NDP has failed to balance the budget. In the past, I recall NDP Finance ministers promising to start paying back the money in some future year, but they never did. It reminded me of the old Creedence Clearwater Revival song: "Someday Never Comes." Now they've stopped even talking about reducing our debt; we

[ Page 11543 ]

don't hear about it anymore. As a result, taxpayer-supported debt has grown by 166 percent since the NDP took office. Their latest budget takes our total debt to almost $35 billion.

You know, the NDP budget does have some good news -- for banks. Interest payments on the debt this year will exceed $2.6 billion. According to my calculator, that's about $5,000 every hour, day and night. Not a single penny is going to actually paying down the debt.

[0220]

In contrast, Alberta has reduced its debt by $8.3 billion in recent years and is saving $650 million in interest each and every year. Do they have a government that doesn't care about people? Well, I don't know; I don't live in Alberta. But I do know that they are now increasing health care spending by $935 million over the next three years. Even the NDP in Saskatchewan have reduced their debt by $3.4 billion, freeing up more money for health care while cutting taxes.

In fact, in this year's budget, they've cut their provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 6 percent, an across-the-board tax cut that will benefit everyone in that province. Here in B.C. our children will be paying the price for this government's reckless use of its credit card long after the Premier and his gang of supporters have collected their million-dollar pensions.

During debate in the Legislature I've promised my constituents to drive home a very simple message to the government: the best way to start getting out of a hole is to stop digging. And the time to stop digging that hole deeper is now.

Taking a look at what the government plans to spend money on in the upcoming year, there are number of startling increases contained in the budget. You'd think that at a time when the government claims their hands are tied because of falling revenues -- a problem largely of their own making, in my view -- they would look for ways to save money. But looking through the budget in detail, we see some startling increases.

One that caught my eye is the almost threefold increase in the spending anticipated by legislative committees, projected to go from $180,000 last year to $535,000 this year. That's a very curious thing. In my time here in the Legislature over the past three years, most committees have never sat and done any public business. The Health Committee, the Education Committee, the Finance Committee . . . . They have never, ever sat. So what is the government planning to do with these hundreds of thousands of additional dollars for committees?

Well, I think we can get some idea from their past conduct. One committee that did sit last year was a special committee investigating the multilateral agreement on investment, which was a proposed agreement that has since died. Nevertheless, the government insisted on having that committee sit and then, to add insult to injury, chartered a private airplane and flew it around this province at taxpayers' expense. The total budget for that committee was $200,000. That was tantamount to spending taxpayers' money on a search party looking for Elvis Presley in a Burger King. The MAI is dead, Elvis Presley is dead, and they should both be allowed to rest in peace.

But this government, at a time when our economy is in trouble, chose to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on an absolute boondoggle that served the public no good at all. I'm proud to say that B.C. Liberal members of that committee refused to take

part in the taxpayer-funded travel, hotels and meals. They walked off the committee and did not rack up extra costs to the taxpayer. There are other anomalies contained throughout the budget, but I think that serves as a pretty good example of misplaced priorities.

There is a place for legislative committees, and that's to do the people's business -- on legitimate, live issues. So why don't we have a committee meeting to discuss Crown corporations? There is one on paper, but it's never been struck to examine in detail the conduct of Crown corporations. Perhaps if the legislative committee on Crown corporations had been functioning -- was allowed to function by this government -- the $225 million cost overrun on the fast ferries might never have occurred.

Instead, the government preferred to have complete control, they shut the opposition members out of the process completely -- despite the fact that the opposition members collectively received far more votes than the NDP did in the last election -- and they denied the public, the majority of British Columbians, the chance to scrutinize a project that now is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars extra.

[0225]

From day one, members on this side of the House warned the government that the fast ferry project was literally steaming towards disaster. The member for Richmond Centre was relentless in pursuing the issue. I know that the member for Delta South raised concerns, and this government just brushed them off and didn't take them seriously. They thought it was a laughing matter. We have to understand that the work that British Columbians do in this province is not a laughing matter. The money that they earn and would rather spend on their families and which gets directed to government is not a laughing matter. It needs to be taken seriously.

While we're on the topic of the fast ferries, with the assistance of the member for Richmond Centre, I did a bit of research some time ago. The first reference in this Legislature about the fast ferry project was from the Premier, who said that each ferry would cost about $60 million. That was on May 25, 1995, in Hansard . Within a month, the Premier reported to this House that the outside cost was $72 million -- "right down to the toilet paper." For those who wish to confirm that quote, you'll find it on June 22, 1995, in Hansard .

"The price is fixed," said the Premier, responding to rumours that the project is going over budget. That quote is referenced in the Vancouver Sun , February 1996. Not long after, fast ferries were budgeted at $74 million per vessel, according to a B.C. Ferries news release of July 7, 1997. Then cost estimates rose to $86 million per vessel by March 1998, according to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. Now we're told that the cost for each ferry will be somewhere around $120 million-plus, and it's still rising.

Is it any surprise that B.C. Ferries debt is up 5,314 percent since the NDP took office? The debt, in absolute numbers, has gone from $14 million to more than $758 million. That figure does not include the fast ferries; add at least another $400 million for that.

Then there's the issue of the time savings. We were initially told that "the fast ferries would save from 40 to 45 minutes on every crossing." That's a direct quote from the Premier on June 24, 1994. Now the promised time savings are down to around 30 minutes, and many people expect that the ultimate savings may be as little as 20 minutes. The fast ferries have to go slower near the harbours because the wake is larger than expected, and the new ship is tough on moorings of pleasure craft at docks.

[ Page 11544 ]

Then we're got the management issue -- or should I say mismanagement? This government's hand-picked board of experts included Jack Munro, chairman of the board of Catamaran Ferries International, who candidly admitted on television that he knew nothing about building ships. Yet this government thought that he was the appropriate person to be in charge of a revolutionary project spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. This entire project reflects NDP mismanagement and deception, through and through.

Then there are the delays. The Premier told us that the first fast ferry would be ready by early 1996. That's what he said back in June 1994. Well, again I'm thinking of that Creedence Clearwater Revival song, "Someday Never Comes." Here we are, almost three years after the first proposed completion date, and the first vessel is still not in service -- never mind the other two. Construction didn't even start until April Fools' Day 1996 -- appropriately enough -- just before the last election was called. At that time, the Premier said that it would be in service by the end of summer, 1997.

By the summer of 1997, the launch date had been pushed back to the fall of 1997. By the end of 1997, B.C. Ferries claimed that they couldn't put the boat in the water due to unusual tides and then said that they might be in service by early 1998. However, on January 19, 1998, the head of the project suddenly resigned. By March 1998, we were told that the vessel would go into service by Labour Day of 1998. Even that would have been more than two years behind the original schedule.

[0230]

On June 21, 1998, the first fast ferry was lowered into the water -- so that the Premier's wife could break a bottle of champagne over the bow. However, we've now learned that much of the plumbing work and other interior details had not been completed. So in order for that photo opportunity to be made possible, taxpayers were stuck with a larger bill to complete the more difficult work, now that the vessel was sitting in the water rather than in the construction bay.

Labour Day came and went, and the project missed another deadline for commencement of service. Finally, by September 1998, when it was supposed to be in service again, we were told that it might be ready by early 1999. Sea trials began on December 7, 1998, but by that time the ferry already needed a major engine overhaul after one crossing. That overhaul required the vessel to be laid up for three weeks. Now here we are, and it's April 1999. The first fast ferry is still not in service, but the bills continue to come in.

That's the brief history of the fast ferry fiasco that was started, conceived and driven by the Premier with the full support of his NDP colleagues. Children throughout British Columbia will be paying for that ill-conceived project for many years to come.

There is one other point, though, before I move off fast ferries, that really needs to be stressed. When this project was announced, the government insisted that there would be an international market for the vessels made in British Columbia. Well, here we are. Incat of Australia, a competitor, makes a very similar catamaran. However, it's cheaper. It costs about $66 million (Canadian) per vessel. It's about ten times faster and has 11 percent more horsepower. Unlike the NDP's fast ferry, which has yet to enter service, the Incat fast ferry is already in service and has proven that it can operate on the open sea.

The NDP vessel can't operate on the open sea, because the waves would cause too much disruption. Our vessel is much more limited than the Incat ferry. Our fast cat has to be operated on inland waters only. By the way, Incat's fast ferry is now being built without a subsidy. As I stated earlier, the cost now for each B.C.-produced fast ferry is estimated at about $120 million-plus versus the cost for the Incat vessel, which is 10 percent faster with 11 percent more horsepower at $66 million per copy. Tell me: where is the market demand going to come from for a vessel that is twice as expensive, slower, doesn't have a proven track record and can't operate in rough seas?

The government has made much of the proposed budget, saying they are doing so much more for health care. But as a report on Global TV tonight revealed, it appears that this provincial government is in fact engaged in yet another sleight of hand. The federal government is increasing transfer payments to British Columbia for health care by a larger amount this year than this government is putting into extra funding for health care. Stated differently, the government is diverting health care dollars from the federal government into political projects other than health care. I don't think very many British Columbians are going to be impressed when they find out about that.

Let me give you some specific figures. This year the federal government has increased the Canada health and social transfer to British Columbia by $488 million. However, the budget for the Ministry of Health is increasing by only $478 million over last year, when you include the $124.5 million approved in special warrants for fiscal 1998-99. Right off the top, you can see that the province is putting less money into health care this year than they're receiving in additional funding from the federal government.

If you break those figures down further, you find that $209 million is going into capital expenditures, leaving an additional $125 million for patient care, and $100 million is being spent on computers, which I submit isn't going to help patients one bit. So out of a total of $488 million in extra revenue from the federal government for health care, $125 million is actually being authorized to go to patient care. Talk about a fiscal sleight of hand. Talk about a ripoff for patients in British Columbia.

[0235]

In recent weeks and months there has been an increasing concern in the upper Fraser Valley around the issue of home support and home care cutbacks. In the upper Fraser Valley -- in Chilliwack particularly -- hundreds of people have had their home support eliminated entirely. I've met with these people. In fact, one lady, Alice Buckell, is 82 years old. She is a very feisty lady, a survivor of cancer and a number of heart attacks who is trying to continue to live independently on her own and has had her home support changed. Let me stress: it's not entirely reduced -- in fact, it's not reduced at all.

They've increased the total number of hours, but in a way that doesn't help her. She used to get six hours a week. Now, in their wisdom, they are giving her seven hours a week, but instead of coming twice a week -- four hours on one day and two hours on the other, so that she can go out, do her banking and shopping and look after mundane things so that she can maintain an independent existence -- they come every day for only one hour. Every day, they give her a bath, and that's all they have time to do before they leave.

In total, taxpayers are paying more, and Alice Buckell is receiving less and finding that she can't maintain an independent existence. That's mismanagement. It's not helping the

[ Page 11545 ]

people it's supposed to help. Rather than sitting down with individuals and finding out what their needs are and then trying to tailor the programs to those needs, we're imposing some kind of a bureaucratic, one-size-fits-all solution that, sadly, does not fit Alice Buckell's situation.

Last week a lady phoned my office. She is 90 years old and blind. She has artificial eyes, and she relied on getting professional help in her home to help her clean and disinfect the artificial eyes once a week. That help has been terminated, and as a result, she now has a very serious infection and has been hospitalized. Tell me, how much money are taxpayers saving now that this 90-year-old lady is occupying an acute-care bed in a hospital, rather than getting a couple of hours a week of home support so that she can remain independent and healthy? It's absolutely shameful.

The government wants to boast that this is a health care budget. As I've already indicated, they are passing on only a portion of the federal money being made available for health care this year. Further, because of the extra debt being incurred in this year's budget -- about $3.2 billion of taxpayer-supported debt -- interest payments will increase, using an interest rate of 5 percent, by $150 million next year. We all know that banks are the first ones who want to get paid. Next year, an extra $150 million will have to be found, over and above the $2.64 billion we're spending this year on interest, to satisfy the banks.

I submit that is stealing another $150 million from people like Alice Buckell who need support at home. That extra $150 million going on interest next year because of this year's deficit will be money not available for health care. In my mind, that's pretty simple mathematics.

I didn't do that well in algebra in grade 11, so I didn't pursue it in grade 12. But even I can understand that when you have higher and higher fixed costs every year due to higher debt, your options in terms of providing services to people are reduced every year.

I've already stated that in Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provinces in Canada, they are experiencing the opposite effect. They are going in the other direction. Their debt is going down, so they're paying less in interest and using that interest for other things: increasing health care and education spending, while providing for a better future in the long run for their young people.

Regrettably, I see that the red light has come on. I will continue my remarks during a later stage in this session. I'll say one last thing: not one more penny before the next election.

[0240]

R. Neufeld: I rise at this hour of the morning, twenty to three, not to say it's a pleasure to stand and speak to Bill 54, the Supply Act, but rather to speak a little bit about why I don't think we should be passing a supply bill for this government.

If we go back just a short time ago, to the fall sitting . . . . I think all of us here remember it clearly. We came here to debate the Nis g a'a agreement. It was something this government said was their centrepiece -- it had to be debated immediately and it had to be passed by this Legislature. In fact, I clearly recall second reading -- when they taunted everyone that didn't vote with them, called us racist if we didn't agree with them and said that it was time to pass the Nis g a'a agreement because that group of individuals had waited for so long.

I remember clearly when Mr. Gosnell stood at the bar and spoke to the House. I remember clearly looking at all the Nis g a'a that were in the galleries and that were dressed in their traditional garb. I remember those first number of days, sitting here going through the Nis g a'a agreement. I remember a short recess for Christmas and an agreement that we would come back somewhere around the end of January and begin discussions again, because it was so pressing for this government. In fact, the Minister of Finance stated that it was time to get on with finishing the Nis g a'a debate.

The Premier of the province said the same thing. It was time to get on with the Nis g a'a debate. "We don't care whose lives we're upsetting. We're going to come back early, and we're going to debate Nis g a'a."

Well, we came back, and along came the police. You know, hon. Speaker, it was actually quite disgusting to see this government completely reverse itself, from being concerned about the Nis g a'a agreement to again being concerned about their own political hide. They recessed this House for two full months after telling British Columbians, and everyone on this side of the House, that we had to come back and debate Nis g a'a immediately, because it had to go through.

What a slap in the face for Mr. Gosnell, who stood at that bar and who pleaded with this government that said they were concerned about the Nis g a'a. Were they concerned about the Nis g a'a? No, they were concerned about the Deputy Premier being in so much trouble. They were concerned about how they were going to boot him out, take the ferries away from him and give it to a new person that crossed from this side of the House. That's how concerned they were about Nis g a'a. They weren't concerned one whit about Nis g a'a when their own political hide was on the line, and that's disgusting.

It's about as disgusting as what we're witnessing here today with supply and Bill 54. It's hard to imagine that they could even come back to this House with their heads held high after that performance this last year.

[0245]

It's always interesting to go back in time and refresh some people's memories about this government's commitments to the people of British Columbia and to their own membership. Some that were elected here in 1991 -- and there's a number of them in the House on both sides -- will remember the Harcourt hoax, will remember "A Better Way for British Columbia," the document that has 48 solemn promises to the people of British Columbia, 48 solemn promises of policy to their own membership of their own party. Hon. Speaker, we'll go through a number of those commitments. I will demonstrate to you that they had as much disrespect for their own membership as they had for the Nis g a'a this spring.

We'll go to No. 1 out of 48. No. 1 says: "The New Democrats are committed to open and balanced government that deals fairly with ordinary men and women instead of playing favourites with political friends and insiders." Now, that's your promise. Some of you were elected in '96, but others across the way were elected in '91.

The Speaker: Through the Chair.

R. Neufeld: Through the Chair.

[ Page 11546 ]

That's your promise, not mine. That's your government's policy, your party's policy, not mine. It says: "A New Democrat government will put an end to secret deals and special favours for political friends." Can you believe that? Do you wonder why even your own membership is disgusted? Through the Chair, I am speaking directly to you.

The Speaker: Hon. member, the word that you are to leave out is the word "you." We make no direct comments to other members in the House, and I'm just reminding you of that.

R. Neufeld: I'm going to read again another policy; it's a policy statement of the NDP government: "We are determined that politicians will not use elected positions for gain of themselves or their families, will not favour their friends, will not cheat and lie, and will not otherwise abuse the public trust given to them." I ask: have the government lived up to that promise and that policy put forward in 1990? "The New Democrats believe it is wrong for the government to shroud in secrecy controversial decisions" -- another policy. How about all the secret decisions that have been made by this government, shrouded in secrecy? How about it?

We'll go to promise No. 2: "You won't need an inside track to get fair treatment from a New Democrat government."

An Hon. Member: You just need a party membership.

R. Neufeld: I guess so.

"It is wrong for the government political appointees to profit at public expense with huge cash severances; $100,000 is too expensive a farewell gift." There are pages and pages of $100,000 gifts by this government to their friends and insiders; it's absolutely unbelievable.

Another NDP policy statement -- this party's policy: "We believe it is wrong for the provincial government to spend thousands of taxpayers' dollars in opinion-polling on partisan political issues. And we believe it is wrong for the government to use that data to develop expensive advertising campaigns to promote itself in a highly partisan way."

[0250]

Have you met that test? I say that not one of the members across the way, not one of the members of the New Democratic government, has met that test -- far from it. They've shown their own members that they don't believe in their own policy. They've demonstrated to British Columbians that they will use and abuse them as long as they're in office.

Promise No. 3: "Our justice system will be free from political interference." Not a bad statement, except that we remember a past Attorney General. When there were problems in the ministry, he wouldn't step aside. We remember very well a past Finance minister who wouldn't step aside when there were investigations going on about gambling.

We recently went through quite a process with the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who likened the police to home invaders. It took a week for that member to finally apologize halfheartedly to this House. It's absolutely disgusting that that member knew full well what the policy was but elected to do it because he thought he was a minister of the Crown and could do anything he wanted.

The Deputy Premier, authorizing phone calls to judges when deals are being made with Skeena Cellulose . . . . The Deputy Premier! He doesn't meet this test; he doesn't meet the test of his own party, let alone the test of British Columbians. And then we have the Premier and his search. We have the Premier . . . .

Interjection.

The Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat, please.

I recognize the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

J. Sawicki: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, throughout this evening there have been several references that I believe really do impugn the motives of other hon. members of the House. I would like to refer the hon. member opposite to standing order 40. It makes it very, very clear that there is a certain standard of language that's acceptable in the House and a certain standard that is not when it's directed to other individual members. I hope the hon. member would refresh his memory and perhaps turn to page 74 before he continues his remarks.

The Speaker: The member continues and, I'm sure, is aware of those comments.

R. Neufeld: Thank you. I know the truth hurts. In fact, when you rub the salt in a little bit harder, it gets a little bit touchy. I understand that, hon. Speaker. I will attempt . . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, take your seat, please. Another member has risen. Would you take your seat, please.

J. Sawicki: Hon. Speaker, let me read standing order 40 for the hon. member in this House: "No member shall use offensive words against any member of the House." And the notes say: "The conduct of a member cannot be canvassed in debate nor charges of personal character be made, save on a substantive motion under notice."

R. Neufeld: I am only talking about what is actually out there, what is actually the truth. Did the RCMP . . . ?

The Speaker: Hon. member, there is a way of talking about what happened, and there is a way of adding views about what happened. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Willingdon has raised some very good points. I encourage you to make your remarks in light of those suggestions.

R. Neufeld: You know, hon. Speaker, I take the chastisement. But if you wish to do it to me, I wish that you would tell the member for Skeena to watch the way he says things also. Maybe the member for Burnaby-Willingdon would like to stand up and read into the record for that member what he says. But I will carry on, because it wasn't me who conducted a search on the Premier's home. And these are not my words; it's NDP policy. It's written in "A Better Way," and all I'm trying to do is remind the members that they made a promise to British Columbians.

They made a promise to their own members that they would free the justice system from political interference. I'm reminding them of how they did it. I can understand why they may be a bit upset.

We'll go on to promise No. 4.

[ Page 11547 ]

[0255]

An Hon. Member: We're only on 4?

R. Neufeld: Yeah, we're only on 4, and already I've had three or four of them up.

"We'll balance the budget over the business cycle and keep taxes fair for everyone. We will not spend more than British Columbians can afford." That is promise No. 4. Hon. Speaker, I don't know what the government thinks the people can afford, but I can tell you that in Bill 54, I don't think British Columbians can afford $35 billion worth of debt. I don't think British Columbians can afford to pay $7 million a day in interest charges on that debt. I can tell you that probably 80 percent of the people in the province think likewise. They don't believe in this airy-fairy way of finance, and that's what we've got with members across the way.

You go out and sell your assets daily -- that whole group over there. To go out and sell the assets of the province of British Columbia to put groceries on the table is absolutely unacceptable. We've got a group in government that will have brought the debt from $17 billion in 1991 to $35 billion by the year 2000 -- by the end of this fiscal year. You know, it took 130 years to get to $17 billion.

An Hon. Member: It's still not as bad as Guatemala.

R. Neufeld: It's still not as bad as some of the Third World countries. That's exactly right.

But it is absolutely astounding to me that we could have a government and a Finance minister stand up in this House and talk about how great a budget it is and say, "We made choices," when the choice they should have been looking at was promise No. 4: "We will not spend more than British Columbians can afford." By golly, they're spending more than British Columbians ever, ever can afford.

This is a government that's gone absolutely wild in spending. But it shouldn't surprise us, because if you go back and look at some quotes prior to this sorry lot being elected, hon. Speaker, you will find statements like this from our now Premier: "It's not a priority at this point. I think the priority is money being spent creatively and not to pay off the debt. Reducing the debt is not an NDP priority." That is in fact true, but yet that person -- that Premier -- told us in 1995-96 that he had two balanced budgets for the province of British Columbia, and they were both a lie.

We go to the member for Nanaimo. He says, about the same time: "Maybe it's not the case that a balanced budget is the greatest of all possible goods, because it's debatable whether a balanced budget is something to brag about. It's debatable whether a balanced budget is a desirable commodity or entity." That's the member for Nanaimo. He should know about money, the member for Nanaimo. Nanaimo rings bad bells for the NDP.

We could also have a policy statement. Actually, no, this is a response to a throne speech by a past NDP Premier, Mike Harcourt: "What you get with a New Democrat caucus is honesty about the state of the province's finances." In fact, I couldn't say it right, it was such a mouthful. "No mythical funds, no election budgets brought in two years in a row." I tell you, the shades of the past are coming to rest on this group across the way.

[0300]

Just think of it -- $7 million a day on the debt. Others talked about how many services that could provide -- $7 million a day. I tell you, hon. Speaker, what really frightens me is that we're at a time with very low interest rates. They could easily double, and then guess what. It's $14 million a day or over $5 billion a year -- almost as large as the whole education budget -- and then what have we got? We have chaos.

I'm going to give the members a bit of a break, because there's a little break here and I'm running a little bit short of time, but promise No. 16 talks about fair treatment for our regions and our suburbs. "Our growth, our prosperity and our services must be shared fairly by all British Columbians . . . . We will make sure that needed public services, such as hospitals and health centres; new universities and colleges; and public works programs, such as new highway construction and transportation facilities, are fairly distributed among the communities throughout B.C."

It's absolutely amazing. I can remember the Premier saying one time in this House: "We're shovelling money off the back of a truck, and if we spend any more on this tip of Vancouver Island, it's going to tip into the ocean." That's what the NDP call a fair distribution of money.

Revenue sharing. Revenue sharing with the communities -- what did they do with it? They cut it -- just plain downloaded it. They talk about a slash-and-burn Alberta, but I live close to Alberta. I don't think it's such a slash-and-burn province. Actually, I think they're doing quite well. I don't know. We seem to fly almost all of our health problems by air ambulance to Grande Prairie, Edmonton or Calgary. Prince George sends most of theirs over there. I don't know what the slash-and-burn is. They've been able to pay down their debt, they've been able to balance their budget, and they've been able to do that by caring for people.

When I talk about the fair distribution of money and services, I want to bring to the government's attention a report from the North Peace health council about the hospital in Fort St. John. It says: "A master planning exercise was completed for the hospital in November of 1992." Nothing has been done.

Three years ago the Health minister promised that our ambulances would be under a roof in no time. They're still sitting outside. And I'm still receiving Workers Compensation Board compliance letters with regard to the hospital on a daily basis. The air exchange system doesn't work. There are no sprinklers. There's no access for the handicapped. The laboratory and X-ray rooms don't have enough air exchange. In fact, where they take the air exchange out is down at street level. Is this what the government talked about -- fair treatment for our regions?

Is this what they meant, that they would actually look at all the regions of British Columbia and treat them fairly? It's another promise broke, and it doesn't surprise me.

[0305]

Promise No. 17. "B.C. needs a balanced forest policy to guarantee jobs in our forests for generations to come." The forest industry has cut more and more wood in B.C. while we get fewer and fewer jobs. Isn't that the truth? The jobs and timber accord was announced -- when? -- a couple of years ago. It was supposed to create 16,000 jobs, and we've actually probably lost that many. Those were good family-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that we need in British Columbia. If we're

[ Page 11548 ]

going to continue to have the health care and the education that people want in this province, we've got to have some decent jobs.

What we really do, in a way, is buy antiquated, worn-out, worst-polluting pulp mills to be able to save those jobs, and then we leave that pulp mill strangled. It's the real way to do business. It was the Deputy Premier who pulled that one off. It's only some $300 million -- not a bad buy by NDP standards, when we think about all the other purchases they've made. That's the minister who lost the Forests portfolio, that's the minister who lost the Ministry of Employment and Investment portfolio, and that's the minister who couldn't answer any questions about fast ferries correctly.

Even though the member from Richmond constantly reminded him that he was walking on quicksand, he laughed at our member and overspent and then tried to tell us that he didn't really know that it was overrun that much.

Promise No. 27: "Local services are running down and need fixing; we'll help. Local roads, bridges, sewers, water and sewage treatment systems and other facilities badly need upgrading in many areas of the province."

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

H. Giesbrecht: It's pretty hard to take this seriously.

R. Neufeld: Yeah, it is. The member for Skeena says that this is hard to take seriously. This is his own policy manual. It's no wonder the people of British Columbia are so disgusted with this group, especially the member for Skeena. He can't even live up to the promises in his own policies, and then he calls them disgusting. It's absolutely unbelievable. Well, I guess it is believable from that person.

"A New Democratic government will help local governments get the job done. It's a sound investment, a realistic source of jobs. And it's better to start now before the costs of complete breakdown become prohibitive." We've had the downloading of roads on communities. Way to go, folks; you really looked after them there. You've ruined the road system by not looking after it, not just in the north but all over the whole province. You folks didn't even know you needed a road until just prior to an election budget that the Minister of Transportation and Highways threw out here. And what have we got for it?

Can you go around the province and see what we've really received for that $17 billion in debt? Hon. Speaker, you can't. You cannot see, around the province, what we really got.

There are so many promises here, and I'm running out of time. It's interesting to listen to members talk about how terrible some of these things that I mentioned are, but it's their own policy. It's from their own manuals. It's their commitment that they made to British Columbians. But what's a commitment from a New Democrat? It's not worth anything. A commitment from any one of those New Democrats that ran on this campaign and that has these policies in place isn't worth a whit. It's no wonder that their own members are leaving them in droves.

[0310]

I just want to read couple of things into the record. I see my time is expiring fairly quickly. But a person by the name of Abraham Lincoln wrote a few things in 1861, and it would do well -- especially for the member for Skeena; I believe that's where he's from . . . . The only time you ever hear from that member is when he heckles; other than that, he can't stand up and speak; he can't talk about anything. The only thing he's doing is writing defensive letters in the newspaper in his community.

It says: "Bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift." You cannot. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member.

R. Neufeld: You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. I will not, in any way, support a bill put forward by this government that is so devoid of any real meaning, when they come to this House and talk about serving the people of British Columbia.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Prince George-Omineca with reference to Bill 54. It's just after 3 a.m., and I'm certain that there is an audience out there somewhere. Right here we're all on pins and needles. In any event, it is a privilege to be in this position. It's a privilege to be here, and I have a few comments with reference to Bill 54.

I was recently reviewing the Hansard reports from about this time last year, when special warrants and interim supply were debated. It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. If it were possible to analyze and compare the debate of last year and this year's debate -- in terms of substance, tone or any parameter you can name -- would there be a statistically significant difference? Isn't it the same thing again, and hasn't it been the same thing year after year? Have we learned anything from our mistakes?

This isn't the first time the NDP has asked for this House to toast their illegitimate excesses. We've done this every year. It's an annual ritual which we could christen "making a mockery of the budget ceremony," if it were possible to make a mockery of something that was as absurd even as it was conceived.

It's true that other governments have also attempted to patch up the holes in their budgets with special warrants and interim supply bills, but this government doesn't have the decency to be ashamed of itself. This government has more to be ashamed of than any that have gone before it. Are they asking for more money because some unforeseen and unforeseeable crisis demanding action has arisen? No, unless the unforeseeable circumstance is the sudden realization that there really is an external, objective reality that defies all their meditations, positive thinking and wild imaginings.

They have made it perfectly clear that they have no interest in the revenue projections of their own Ministry of Finance, preferring their own out-of-a-hat figure projections. I suppose the rationale is that if they produce their budgets without reference to facts of any kind, then heck, everything is unforeseen. Why not ask for more money? How could they have known that they would need more money? How could they know anything? I for one don't believe any of this special warrant and interim supply stuff has anything to do with any unforeseen crisis. They're asking for more money now and in this way because they always planned to get more money now and in this way.

[0315]

[ Page 11549 ]

The really distasteful thing is that there's not even a hint of sheepishness to the government. They're absolutely brazen. They do what they do because they can, and for no other reason. Whether it's right, proper, responsible or prudent is absolutely immaterial. This is about power -- survival of the fattest.

We are supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. This isn't supposed to happen. This House has been abused. The government calls us and dismisses us as it suits its purposes strategically to advance its agenda, with as little interference from the public, the media or the official opposition as possible. We should be sitting in judgment on the government. We should be debating the appropriate sanctions for the reckless spending of a government that now must resort to special warrants. Instead, hon. Speaker, we debate moot points whose resolution is not even attempted and whose dissolution is of no consequence.

There is a crisis, no question, but it is one of the government's creation -- in part reckless, in part wilfully blind, but for the most part wilful and deliberate. This government has engineered its own crisis, which is the destruction of the economy of British Columbia.

It's frightening. Look at this new budget. What's the projected deficit this time -- $900 million? And that's just on the books. Remember the '96-97 budget? It talked about a $187 million deficit, as I recall. However, that figure did not factor in the $200 million dumped on FRBC; the funding of the Transportation Financing Authority; the $373 million squeezed from B.C. Hydro, a Crown corporation deeply in debt in its own right; and $56 million from B.C. Rail -- more than its reported income. It gulped $170 million from the sale of government assets without considering the cost of having to lease or buy back similar facilities.

These sorts of budget games are still going on. The government is still using the sale of assets to boost its revenue, and it's drawing down three-quarters of the one-time-only windfall from the federal government health and social transfers. If you consider the debt shuffled off the books, the true 1999-2000 deficit will be closer to a billion and a half dollars, and everyone knows it -- or rather, everyone knows it will be at least that.

I cannot support these special warrants or interim supply. I realize my support or opposition makes absolutely no difference to the government. Practically speaking, they will do what they want, opposition or no. This is a war in which we are not even allowed to engage the enemy. That isn't that surprising, since we have chosen the moral high ground and the government just isn't interested in that hill. Nevertheless, while there may be nothing that I can do to prevent the passage of these measures, I will not help the government to help themselves.

Hon. Speaker, I might have felt differently about supporting these measures if I believed that the government cared about the people of this province. Even credit card companies will hold off on turning you over to collections if you are making some effort to make payments, however token. If I could see even some token effort to clean up the mess this economy is in, I might look more favourably on some temporary reprieve. Unfortunately, we have seen one deficit budget after another. This new one is a biggie, but maybe it's just more honest than the others.

The NDP never did have any commitment to any kind of fiscal restraint, but they were once more circumspect about it. They used words like "balanced" for "deeply in debt" and "optimistic" for "not in a million years" and "soon" for "when hell freezes over." With this new budget they finally declare their colours, proclaiming their allegiance to deficit spending. They are proud of the large deficit and of the whole mess. They are like a secret drinker who has been nipping on the sly all along, who may be tipsy in public once in a while but who now has finally gone on a real bender -- ripsnorting roaring drunk, careless of anyone's opinion.

[0320]

What right has the government to ask for more money? Are they a government of integrity? Do we know that they can be trusted to tell the truth? They cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and nowhere has this been more apparent than in the area of the province's finances. The NDP government was re-elected on the basis of certain representations. It represented itself as more moderate, more business-friendly and more fiscally responsible. None of this, of course, was true.

It specifically represented that it had balanced the books for '95-96, even claiming a surplus of $16 million, and it projected another balanced budget for the '96-97 year, with an $87 million surplus. This went a long way to assuaging the fears of the middle class, the business community and the rest of the just generally common-sense kind of folk who have always known that you can't spend more than you earn.

A different picture began to emerge after the election, as we all know. In fact, '95-96 produced a deficit of $355 million, and '96-97 produced a further debt of $352 million. At least, I think so. I mean, who knows? The Finance ministry warned that '96-97 could produce a $1 billion deficit. Did it? This warning was given more than a month before the Minister of Finance announced his surplus figures. At the time he announced it, his own notes advised that '95-96 ended with a $235 million deficit.

They have reneged on every single commitment to fiscal responsibility that they have made. Balanced budgets are no longer even projected until 2002-03, and we know how credible these projections are. They said that it was balanced in '95-96. They have not maintained B.C.'s credit rating as the highest of any province, as they said they would. They've been downgraded by Moody's, Standard and Poor's and the Canadian Bond Rating Service. They no longer plan to eliminate the operating debt over 20 years. Instead they have continued to accumulate operating debt through consecutive operating deficits.

The list goes on. The long and short of it is that they have no plan to eliminate the deficit, let alone work on the debt. They don't believe in it, and they never have. The mask has slipped with this latest budget. They paid lip service to sound financial management when they were re-elected. We all remember Premier Clark's sombre reflections following his narrow victory, when the majority of the electorate rejected his government and its policies. In 1997 and again in 1998, they determined to tackle the deficit problem and even claimed success.

Okay, so we can't trust them to tell the truth. Can we trust that they mean well? There have been charity proceeds stolen by the NDP Party to finance its election campaign, Hydrogate, budget misrepresentations tantamount to electoral fraud, improper fast ferry overruns and misinformation, and a suspect casino-approval process in which the Premier is somehow entangled. These are only a few of the more obvious examples. They don't mean well. They mean to do well -- but for themselves.

[ Page 11550 ]

Okay, so we can't trust that they mean well. Mightn't they still try to do what's best for us?

Well, we have the NDP to thank for the unserviceable fast ferries; futuristic SkyTrains to be constructed for another $1.5 billion, plus cost overruns of maybe 100 percent or so; $300 million for a white elephant of a pulp mill; FRBC administration costs in the hundreds of millions; a civil service larger than ever doing less than ever; a fixed-wage policy with an estimated cost of $237 million; higher taxes by 44 percent; a declining real per-capita after-tax income; lower private sector investment than in 1992; a net out-migration of people and businesses; and the highest unemployment rate west of Quebec.

No, the NDP has not done what's best for us.

In my own region in northern British Columbia there are 5,000 fewer people working than one year ago, and 14,000 people are looking for work -- not including those who have resorted to welfare or just given up hope of finding any type of work. Prince George has an unemployment rate of 17 percent, and business bankruptcies have tripled over the last year. That is what I see.

[0325]

Does the government intend to address these issues? Is any of this interim supply going to get up north? Not that we want to be bailed out; I don't think any amount of government money is going to revive the economy. You can stimulate the economy with government spending, I suppose. You can also stimulate a dead frog with an electrode; it will jump, but it will still be dead. We want to live up there. We need business confidence and investment. We need less regulation and lower taxes. We need certainty as to timber and other resource supply. We need local control.

This government could care less. They ask this House for more money than they have budgeted, but the fact is that they are not exactly holding their breath for the support of the House. They'll get what they want. They have been characterized by just this sort of arrogance throughout their time in power. In my own region a government member suggested that northerners shouldn't care about the cost of the ferries, because, as he put it: "Last time I checked, the fast ferries don't dock in Prince George." How patronizing! Exactly whose money is it that's paying for those fast ferries?

If the ferries don't dock in Prince George, that's all the more reason for Prince George residents to be outraged at the costs.

Seven thousand people in the Prince George area rejected the Nis g a'a treaty in a plebiscite, and the NDP suggested that these results could not be taken seriously. Again, that's arrogance. The regionalization of health boards was audacious in the extreme. Local, elected boards were summarily dismissed and replaced with party appointees. In the north and in other regions as well, good, respected doctors with whole lifetimes of service often devoted selflessly to northern communities have had to pack up and relocate. Why? Because the government was not dealing with them in good faith.

The government meant to force them out and impose its model of salaried doctors on rural British Columbia. In the north the standard of care has been severely compromised as a result.

Property has been expropriated from charities without compensation. The government simply legislated itself back into the charity-fleecing business, after an embarrassing court decision slapped the government's hands. That's arrogant as well.

I don't believe that the government knows what is in the best interests of British Columbians. I don't believe that the government cares what is in the best interests of British Columbians. And I don't believe that the government even wants what is in the best interests of British Columbians.

I wish we could maintain the illusion that the government had a chance of re-election, because they would try to placate the electorate with some fiscal sense, but it seems that they are determined to leave as large a mess as they possibly can for us to deal with. They're in retreat, but they're leaving nothing of value behind. This may be the first time in modern history that any government has had spite as its guiding principle. This may be the first time that a scorched-earth budget was ever tabled. It is frustrating to sit in opposition and watch the ruins of this province burning, but there's little that we can do.

When I think about it, I guess the feeling that overwhelmed me when I read last year's Hansard was more of despair than disgust -- some distaste co-mingled, but definitely despair. To read these things is to go back in time. There's nothing that the government has done since that time that couldn't be predicted. So why couldn't it be prevented? Why is this pathetic, ragtag bag of NDP ideologues hanging on? They are discredited. Their policies have failed, and they have failed. They have no mandate from the people to experiment with their pet policies and ideology. They should call an election now. They should have called an election a long time ago.

[0330]

Again, what is the purpose of debate over decisions already taken? What is the point of approving the spending of dollars already spent? What is the point of debate on an interim supply bill when there is really no question that it will be passed? This debate is not going to cause any reconsideration or inspire any redrafting. When I read Hansard , I wasn't really disgusted, as it turns out. I was just frustrated and saddened and a little bit sick of the whole charade. I'm still capable of that.

I'm also capable of empathizing with my constituents who, if they ever read the record of what goes on in this chamber, and not being in the employ of the local street cleaners, would no doubt be disgusted as well. But I couldn't do my job if I were disgusted -- or could I? I had to think again of what it is I do. What is my job -- to perform in this theatre of the absurd? I don't think so. My job -- or 90 percent of it, at least -- is to represent my constituents, and every day I work for their interests.

I get involved in their problems, their crusades, I try to promote their collective interests and the interests of the communities in which they live, the interests of the industries and businesses which support these communities. That is my job -- or most of it.

That is also a large part of the job of every other member sitting here today, whatever side of the House they happen to be sitting on. I believe that most, if not all, of us work awfully hard at that particular job. I think we all know how clean and wholesome and good it feels to be making a difference in those individual lives.

Yet when the government convenes as government and when the Premier, his cabinet, his senior policy advisers and other cohorts get together, all of that personal good intention is transmuted into a kind of clumsy, petty bullying of this House and of the electorate -- some sort of mob mentality, I suppose.

[ Page 11551 ]

That brings me back to the Hansard reports, hon. Speaker. All of our words so faithfully recorded accumulate in archives, in the filing cabinets of our constituency offices and even in the bottom drawer of the odd private individual. Occasionally they are summoned forth to haunt us for a time. We can't deny our words, but they can't really hurt us. Sadly, no one cares. Lying is expected. That's the real legacy of this government.

B. McKinnon: I am pleased to rise and speak against this interim supply bill. Hon. Speaker, in the three years that I have had the privilege of serving my constituents, this province has gone in a downward spiral that has now spun out of control. We have an NDP government that refuses to listen to what is happening in this province. We have become a province spinning out of control, a province in chaos.

Low-income families didn't find much, if anything, in this budget that would help them feed their children. Child poverty has risen to alarming rates. Our children are going to school hungry. Who on that side of the House is doing anything about it? Who on that side of the House hears their cries at night when they go to bed hungry? Who on that side of the House is listening to the agony of the parents of these children whom they are feeding when they have nowhere to go for help?

We have an NDP government that has an agenda that is destroying our province. They are sending a message of despair to the people. I will not be supporting this interim supply bill. The NDP has never had any goals or visions for this province. The NDP have never given this province a straight answer on anything that they have done. This government does not have a clue as to how to run a business. They don't have a clue or understand that it is small business that creates jobs and gets the economy going. This budget that the NDP tabled is going to take British Columbia on the road to ruin.

It will only further cripple our ailing economy. Yes, the NDP have set British Columbia on the road to ruin with this budget.

[0335]

Generations of children will now have this burden of debt forced upon them. What this government has given us is a blueprint for bankruptcy and unemployment -- $3.5 billion of debt. What a burden for the children! I can't understand how members opposite can support this government's spending. They sit on the other side of the House, and they don't even blink as this province teeters on the edge of disaster. We have a government that is out of control, a government that has soiled our entire democratic system, a government that has rattled the very foundation of trust between the elected and the people of this province, on which members of this Legislature depend.

There are so many reasons why this government should not be supported, why this bill should not be supported, that it makes you wonder how the members opposite can look in the mirror each morning and face themselves. The taxpayers of British Columbia have been besieged with one incompetent decision after another. Scandal upon scandal has rocked our province, and it shows us that the NDP has lost the right to govern this province. Every scandal this government has caused is a reason why we should not support this bill.

Every scandal this government has created has caused the people of this province to do without the services they deserve to have. We had the Nanaimogate scandal and still wait for this government to have the courtesy to pay back the money they owe the charities. We had the Hydrogate scandal, the Ferrygate scandal and the Casinogate scandal. Will it ever end? Looming in the future is the Premier's fast-tracking of SkyTrain. Will SkyTrain be the next scandal to feel his Midas touch?

We go from crisis to crisis, hon. Speaker. Important issues are put on the back burner while this government spins out of control. Our economy is the weakest in Canada, and we need a government that will build investor confidence so that we can begin the steep climb back to prosperity for this province. We do not have anyone on that side of the House with the ability to do that. We need an election -- the sooner the better. It makes you wonder who in their right mind would support this government.

When we take a look at what is in this bill and actually read what the NDP are asking for, it's really scary. This incompetent government is asking us to support a supply bill that would give them the authority to spend billions of our tax dollars. As a matter of fact, over $6 billion is what they want to spend in the next three months. We have come to the end of the financial year, and now funds are needed to run this province. The Finance minister tells us they are going to spend themselves out of debt. How can they do that? This NDP government has lost all moral authority to govern this province.

We have a government out of control, out of touch with the rest of the world. They sit on that side of the House . . . .

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: If you wish to speak, you'll have your moment.

An Hon. Member: Can you name a year when there wasn't an interim supply bill?

B. McKinnon: Can you name a year when you haven't . . . ?

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, members.

B. McKinnon: We have a government out of control, out of touch with the rest of the world. They sit on that side of the House in their little cocoons, pretending that they are addressing the needs of this province. When we take a look at the global economy, we realize that investment can go anywhere in the world. Add red tape overregulation and taxes, and a noose tightens around the neck of investment, and it disappears from our grasp. Red tape is like putting a red flag in front of a bull. That is what the NDP have done to business and investment in this province: they have tightened the noose on British Columbia.

[0340]

But let's try and look at the bright side. Is it possible that there is some good in this budget? Well, let's see. Shampoos and other products for treating head lice are now tax-exempt. Forestry companies will no longer be charged provincial tax on broomsticks. The NDP caucus operations for advertising, spin-doctoring and polling are up 31 percent. Nice raise they gave themselves. It must be nice. I say shame on them.

We know from the auditor general's report that this government was elected on the basis of a lie. Working families in

[ Page 11552 ]

this province are paying for this NDP madness with their jobs, with their livelihoods and with their futures. When one looks at this government's record, on the basis of that record, how could anybody in their right mind support this interim supply bill, let alone this budget? There was a time when British Columbia led in Canadian job growth -- for most of the last ten years. And then, all of a sudden, we became the worst in job performance across Canada. If we stop and ask ourselves what happened, the answer is simple: people are fleeing the province in masses.

In 1998 it was a miserable year for our forest industry. Ten mills shut down, and over 16,000 jobs were lost. The industry faced a record loss of over $1 billion. The Gold River mill closed, 382 workers lost their jobs, and a whole community lost its future.

Hon. Speaker, it doesn't take a genius to figure out -- to know -- that when your income drops and your debt goes up, you have to cut your overhead whether you like it or not. You have to decide to cut costs and set priorities in spending. If you continue to spend more than you take in, the day of reckoning usually comes sooner than later. We need a competent government that is prepared to build a competitive economy that isn't dependent on our dwindling natural resources.

Every man, woman and child in B.C. will owe $8,582 on the debt -- a 63 percent increase from the $5,245 owed on a per-capita basis in 1991-92. On average, each British Columbian's share of the debt has increased by $417 per year since 1992. At the end of the day, British Columbians are suffering from an NDP-induced decrease in their standard of living. We all have less money in our pockets now than when the NDP took office in 1991.

Let's take a look at what kind of government we have on that side of the House, hon. Speaker. We have a Premier who needs to answer many questions about the casino licence approval for his close friend Dimitrios Pilarinos. He's a Premier that promised the Nis g a'a a treaty and then left the Nis g a'a in the lurch halfway through their bill. He shut down the House when the going got too rough for him. It's funny how soon the Premier loses interest when things don't go according to his plan.

Interjections.

B. McKinnon: Members on the opposite side, if you wish to take your time and speak, please do it on your time, not mine.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Just make your comments through the Chair. I've been hearing your speech.

B. McKinnon: Thank you. I have to keep the other side in order; nobody else is.

We have a Premier that fast-tracks the ferries without any consideration for the taxpayer, a Premier that has brought the B.C. Ferry Corporation to the brink of bankruptcy. We have a Finance minister who should try and explain how the deficit she forecast last year to be $95 million became an overrun of $500 million, a Finance minister who should be hanging her head in shame for tabling such a disgraceful budget for the people of British Columbia.

Then there is the Minister of Advanced Education. He had his judgment questioned by the auditor general on the fudge-it budget he tabled in 1996. He even stated: "Why should anyone believe me?" We cannot forget to mention the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and how he loves to pose in swimming pools to get on the cover of his favourite magazine.

[0345]

Then we have the Minister of Highways. This minister has gone to great lengths to insult and demean the RCMP. He believes that there is some sort of conspiracy between the Liberals, BCTV and the RCMP. This, hon. Speaker, was a disgraceful attack on the independence of the police. He doesn't even have the courage to apologize properly and take responsibility for his childish behaviour. When will any member, any minister, on that side of the House take responsibility for any of their actions?

These are some of the stars who are in charge of running our province. Not one person on the other side of the House is prepared to stand up and defend the supply bill. Not one member of the NDP has the courage to do something right for a change and vote against this ridiculous budget. Perhaps the most shocking part of the budget is that this year's new five-year fiscal planning framework doesn't even anticipate a balanced budget until the year 2002-2003.

There will be no tax cuts beyond the ones already announced. Leaders and investors will be shocked to see that the NDP is now planning to increase taxpayer-supported debt to as much as 27 percent within the next five years -- up from 12.5 percent in 1991.

The economic potential that the NDP has squandered in this province is an absolute travesty. This government has demonstrated with this budget that it is completely incapable of resolving the economic crisis it has created. It is time the NDP did the honourable thing and called an election.

The interest on the debt is now $2.6 billion. Imagine how many places in this province could use that money: patients waiting for heart surgery and hip replacements, books for our kids' schools, our highways. The list goe