[ Page 9077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Toxic waste disposal. Ms. Cull –– 9077

Naming of polluters. Mr. Cashore –– 9078

Rent increases. Mr. Cashore –– 9078

Gambling. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9079

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 9079

Gambling. Mrs. McCarthy –– 9079

GO B.C. grants. Mr. Sihota –– 9079

Prevention of drug wars. Mr. Mowat –– 9080

Iskut Valley access road. Ms. Edwards –– 9080

Presenting Reports –– 9080

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9081

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 9082

Mr. Clark –– 9082

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 9085

Mr. G. Janssen –– 9086

Mr. Peterson –– 9089

Mr. Williams –– 9089

Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 9092

Mr. Cashore –– 9093

Mr. De Jong –– 9095

Mr. Harcourt –– 9096

Hon. Mr. Parker –– 9098

Ms. Marzari –– 9099

Mr. Davidson –– 9101

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I am pleased to introduce in the Legislative Assembly today Dolores Gould and three of her students from the English-as a-second-language program at Blanshard School, The students are Arlhette Cortes, Awna Wong and Radek Bucholc. Would the members please welcome these students and their teacher.

On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask all members to welcome my wife Beverley. She is with us today and is accompanied by a longstanding friend of hers from the airline business, Mrs. Shirley Finstad. Would the House please welcome these two lovely ladies.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't have this opportunity too often, but I'm very pleased to have my wife Lillian visiting here with us today. We'll be participating in the festivities this evening welcoming the Governor-General to our province. We certainly enjoyed the festivities in front of the buildings this morning. All went well, despite the weather. Certainly a good welcome was given our Governor-General.

With my wife Lillian today is a very dear friend Bill (Ambassador) Clancey, who is commissioner and the one spearheading many of the activities planned for the Year of Music 1991. I would ask the House to bid Lillian and Mr. Clancey a welcome.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the gallery today we have 25 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy School in Coquitlam. They are here along with their teacher Mrs. R. Soderlund. Would the House join me in welcoming them

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce some friends of mine, Harry and Deanna Nyce, who are in the House today from the great northwest. Harry is the vice-president of the Nisga'a Tribal Council and chief of the Gitwinksihlkw band, formerly Canyon City. Deanna has just completed her requirements for a master's degree in education. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have three very delightful ladies: Mrs. Lamb from Outlook, Saskatchewan; Mrs. Barrington from Vancouver; and Mrs. Toth from Victoria. I would ask that you give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is my pleasure this afternoon to announce that April 22 to April 29 is Volunteer Recognition Week. My ministry, along with the British Columbia Association of Volunteer Centres and the Victoria Volunteer Bureau, would like to acknowledge the tremendous effort made by tens of thousands of British Columbians who volunteer each year. These are the people who give of their own free time and of their own free will, without payment or any valuable consideration. In order to acknowledge this tremendous effort, the B.C. Association of Volunteer Centres, in conjunction with the Victoria Volunteer Bureau, are promoting the red "V" tag. The red "V," which I'm wearing this afternoon, shows appreciation for the contribution made by the volunteers of British Columbia.

MS. PULLINGER: I would like to add our congratulations and thanks from this side of the House to the many volunteers who work in our society to make things a little bit better. I think we are all aware that our institutions, even those institutions that are high-budget items like hospitals, schools and social services, simply wouldn't function well without all those volunteers. Obviously this work that's done in people's spare time, without pay and often unrecognized, makes life a little bit better for all of us. It also contributes enormously to our economy. I would like to add our congratulations and our thanks to all those people for their work.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of my good friend and colleague the hon. member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), I would like to welcome to the House 38 Hope Secondary School students. The students are escorted by their principal, Brian Warner, and accompanied by Mr. Brian Boswell from Fletcher Challenge Canada, the tour sponsor. Fletcher Challenge Canada recognizes and encourages the students' outstanding academic and leadership qualities as vital to the province's social and economic fabric. Would the House please make this student group welcome.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: In the gallery I just noticed an old friend of mine and a friend of the Social Credit Party, one of our regional directors for many years who is now retired and living on the Island, George Little. I would ask the House to recognize him.

Oral Questions

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. This weekend nearly 3,000 people showed that they are way ahead of this government, when it comes to toxic waste disposal, by lining up at a special city of Vancouver depot. Can the minister tell us if he has decided to follow the public's demand and open all eight provincial toxic waste depots at convenient hours, including weekends?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I thank the member for bringing up this topic. She should be aware that the city of Vancouver had its first toxic disposal day because of the assistance of the province of British

[ Page 9078 ]

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

I must tell you that I was there and talked to a lot of the people in the lineup, who thanked not only the city of Vancouver but the provincial government for setting up this wonderful day.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Earth Day involves the people of British Columbia, and that's what's bothering the New Democrats over there. They don't like to see people participate. They participated in great numbers, because this government worked to put in a program. I hope the member will also suggest to us that she will support the toxic waste site that we're going to install and not keep on waffling as they've been doing all over the province so far.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be having some difficulty with the question. I'm fully aware that there was some funding for the toxic waste depot this weekend, but in doing so, you shifted the costs from the province — where they rightly belong — onto the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver was forced to hold this toxic waste depot because the Surrey depot is closed.

There are seven other depots in this province, and it would be nice if people in the rest of the province had a similar opportunity to take in their toxic waste. But when you call the other seven depots, here is what you get: Kamloops, three calls — no one is there to book an appointment; Smithers....

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

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, the seven depots are either closed, not open yet, or there is no one available to book appointments — secret hours and secret locations. Instead of dumping his responsibility onto municipalities, is the minister now prepared to do his part and open the other provincial toxic waste depots — including Surrey — at hours that are accessible to all the public of British Columbia?

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

MR. HARCOURT: Window-dressing.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: The former mayor of Vancouver calls it window-dressing. Where was he, in his responsibility as mayor of that city, to look after the problem? He was letting the toxic waste run into Burrard Inlet.

Mr. Speaker, this government, which helped initiate this program in Vancouver yesterday, will be running that program all around this province. I'm not proud of the fact that we have to send that material back to Ontario or down to Oregon to dispose of it. I hope the members on that side will be just as enthusiastic, when we build a toxic waste site in British Columbia, in supporting it and supporting the location we're going to put it in.

MR. SPEAKER: We are having speeches; we are not having questions and answers. I would caution the minister, and those asking the ministers questions, that the scope of question period should be questions and answers.

[2:15]

MS. CULL: Is the minister willing to confirm to this House that he will not shift the cost of opening such depots onto municipalities and will continue to pick up 100 percent of the cost, as has been done in the eight existing provincial toxic waste depots?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

NAMING OF POLLUTERS

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Minister of Environment. A year ago the then Minister of Environment promised to release the names of all polluters who are out of compliance with their permits. Last July the minister told this House that the list was complete and would be released by the end of summer. Can this minister tell the House when he will honour the commitment of his predecessor and release the list?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Very soon.

RENT INCREASES

MR. CASHORE: I have a new question, to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. More than 50 tenants living in two apartment buildings in my constituency face rent increases of up to 40 percent. Their landlord uses the 7 percent federal GST to justify this increase, effective July 1990. Is the minister prepared to intervene personally on behalf of the tenants to have these unfair increases rolled back, as he did last month for a Victoria tenant?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have not suggested at any time that it was my intention to phone every landlord, but we have phoned some and have talked to renters and landlords. As I talk to landlords, one of the things that's very much a concern is that many of them have increased their rents because they feel threatened by the possibility of rent controls.

Interjections.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The opposition doesn't like to hear that. But that's the fact. It's come from the landlords when I've talked to them. They have been threatened by rent controls. It's unfortunate, but I think there are many renters in this province — particularly in greater Vancouver and Victoria — who are paying more for rent today than they would be

[ Page 9079 ]

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

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary. Given this government's apparent impotence in the face of B.C.'s rental housing crisis, what is the minister now prepared to do to ensure that these people are protected from unjust rent increases?

MR. SPEAKER: The scope of the question begs a very broad answer. I'm going to ask the minister to restrain the answer, because the other previous answer went a little bit beyond the scope of the question.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have done a great deal about meeting the needs of people as far as rental accommodation is concerned. I can go into that, and I think I can do it fairly well. But really, you should direct that question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck), and he will tell you about a number of programs that have been put into effect to help those people.

We don't think that rent controls are going to help renters. They haven't helped renters anyplace else in the long term. I think the leader of your party has said that he was against rent controls. He doesn't support them now — and never has, he said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question was about the goods and services tax and not rent controls, so I'm going to restrict it. I ask the minister to take his seat.

GAMBLING

MRS. McCARTHY: My question is for the hon. Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Over the weekend, the press have reported on the public gaming branch's gaming report, which apparently advocates expansion of the gambling industry in our province. I would like to ask the minister to tell the House who authorized the report, and what terms of reference they were given. More importantly, I'd like to know from the hon. Solicitor-General if the government has decided to permit the expansion of this industry, notwithstanding the dangers of increased crime which this might entail.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, I can assure the member that the government has no intention of expanding the gambling industry in British Columbia. Notwithstanding that, of course, it's always important to investigate what possibility exists, and that's why that report was prepared: to make sure that we would understand the dangers involved.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. I would like to ask him why he's not prepared to tell this House whether he knew that the RCMP had recommended laying charges against his predecessor. Why are you ill-prepared to answer that question, Mr. Minister?

GAMBLING

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor-General. Over the weekend there were reports of possible mob influence in the gambling industry in British Columbia, including a $10,000 contract on the life of a business agent for the Service Employees' Union. I want to tell you that people in my constituency are outraged by any suggestion that that kind of action could be taking place in our province. I would like to ask the minister to tell the House what action he is taking to ensure that organized crime does not take over the casino business in this province.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would only say that the matter is under investigation, and I do not wish to prejudice that investigation by a comment.

GO B.C. GRANTS

MR. SIHOTA: A question for the Premier. Could he explain to this House how he came to learn that the RCMP wanted to lay charges against the former Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I suppose many of us in the province were hoping that possibly some clarification could be provided with the suggestion by this member of the opposition that in fact he or other members of his party could be or would be proceeding with an action as of April 19. That didn't occur, and obviously he has or they have their reasons why nothing happened or why they backtracked on something they made a great deal of publicity about. But in the meantime, the member ought to be aware, particularly given his profession as a lawyer, that when a matter such as this is before the ombudsman and all things such as the process are being considered and investigated, it would be improper for people to comment on it. I think that would somehow interfere with the process. In fairness to all and particularly to the process and the people involved, I think we should allow the process to take its course.

MR. SIHOTA: I assume from the Premier's response that he will be prepared to give evidence to that public inquiry, to address this very issue.

On several occasions the Premier referred in public announcements to the fact that there had been an RCMP inquiry into the whole affair, as some reason to exculpate the former minister. Yet the Premier chose not to disclose the fact that the RCMP had recommended laying charges. Could the Premier

[ Page 9080 ]

explain to this House why he chose to not disclose the recommendation of the RCMP and instead only to use that investigation as an excuse?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would have no difficulty providing all the information with respect to anything that might have been asked or said, but I think the appropriate person would be the ombudsman, not someone who might be asking a lot of questions in order to make politics of something that I think ought to be properly considered.

PREVENTION OF DRUG WARS

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the Solicitor-General. In view of this morning's press report that 26 guns, including semi-automatic weapons, were stolen recently from a lower mainland gun dealer, and with the gunning down last Sunday evening of a Vancouver person possibly related to gang war, I am wondering what action the minister has decided to take to prevent the American-style drug wars from coming to the city of Vancouver.

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

ISKUT VALLEY ACCESS ROAD

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The northern communities of Smithers, Terrace and Stewart are anxiously awaiting word on the construction of an access road into the Iskut Valley from Bob Quinn Lake to service the mining properties there. Will the minister confirm that agreement has been reached to construct that road this year through British Columbia and not from Alaska?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The construction of the Iskut road is important, largely because we want to ensure that development of the resources in that area will benefit the rest of the province. Discussions are continuing with the mining companies in the area, the forest interests and the local Indian band. Hopefully an overall agreement will be reached shortly and construction will begin this year.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. On my question to the Solicitor-General in the absence of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), could the Solicitor-General not take that on notice?

MR. SPEAKER: The matter has been noted. The House is much better equipped to deal with questions in question period if the members who have prepared questions would observe whether or not the appropriate minister is present. We only have a limited amount of time — one hour a week for asking questions — and it applies to both sides of the House

Presenting Reports

Mr. Chalmers presented the third report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations for the third session of the thirty-fourth parliament, respecting the matter of the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Boundaries for British Columbia, December 1988.

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

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

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

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

MR. ROSE: Is it a debatable motion?

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

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members in my caucus, and especially those three who were members of the committee, I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member from Okanagan for doing an excellent job through a very difficult period.

Interjections.

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

I think most people in British Columbia will agree that an excellent job was done by Justice Thomas Fisher on boundaries that he recommended and, incidentally, that were accepted by the committee. Most members are pretty well satisfied, and except for places like Horsefly, Likely and maybe Big Lake and 100 Mile House, I think most communities are happy with it.

I'd just like to say, on behalf of the new member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt), that he can't be found culpable for the exclusion of Likely and the other communities from that riding, because he wasn't even an elected member at that time.

I would also like to say that while some of us might have been slightly disadvantaged electorally by these new boundaries — and I can think of a few right off the top — most people are very happy with it. I would like to add my congratulations not only for the suggestions by Mr. Justice Fisher, but also for the recommendation accepted by the government of a permanent electoral boundaries commission to see that fairness extends into the future.

[2:30]

[ Page 9081 ]

On March 15, 1990, after everything had been final, I wrote Mr. Justice Fisher, and I would like to read part of what I had to say to him, because it has implications for the Premier.

"Frankly, your work exceeded my wildest expectations in succeeding to offer British Columbians a fair electoral process based on reasonable and flexible representation by population. I believe, too, that more than a little credit goes to our Premier for allowing your proposals to proceed" — as I understand — "over considerable objections of some very highly placed government ministers."

I am not suffering from anything so far, but when I finish my speech, I don't know what my own caucus is going to say to me. Let me conclude by saying that I think the job was exceedingly well done. I think democracy has been exceedingly well served, so I congratulate everybody who made a positive contribution to this very important task.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1990.

HON, MR. COUVELIER: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1991 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. This supply act will provide interim supply for the first four-month period of the 1990-91 fiscal year. This interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities, social agencies and the government's payroll may continue uninterrupted.

The government is currently operating on a special warrant. This restricts operations to only those that meet the criteria of being urgently and immediately required for the public good. Also, the estimated period covered by the warrant was one month. That period will very shortly expire. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages this day.

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

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I can't be as cooperative and complimentary as I was just a moment ago. We've been back here now since April 5. We could have been back here at least a month earlier, as we should have been. When I had a look at the budget debate yesterday, I couldn't understand what took an extra month. That was the excuse after the federal budget.

We're not interested in holding up progress here. We know people need to get their paycheques, and the universities and institutions need to run. I haven't heard the extent and the size of this particular proposal. I know you've been running on warrants up to now. I don't know what the term is for $1.35 billion, which is what I've heard. I have no objection to it being given first reading. If it means that we, as an opposition, are being asked to fly blind for $135 billion....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: ...$135 million. I haven't seen it, so how would I know? To ask us to give it three readings now without even an adjournment I think is asking too much. We will give it first reading today, and then we'll have a look at the piece of legislation. And we will consider it with all deliberate haste.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would like to clarify a few things. First of all, the introduction motion is a pro forma motion which is not debatable, so the first thing I would like to do is dispense with the introduction. Therefore I put the question.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The second matter is the question of standing order 81. In order to determine whether the matter falls under standing order 81, it is to deal with the question of urgency, and the determination of the question of urgency is left to the Chair. It is the Chair that must decide on the matter of urgency, and the Chair is bound by positions taken by previous Speakers. When the Minister of Finance of the day brings forward an interim supply bill and states that the matter is urgently required, the Chair must base the decision on whether to proceed under standing order on that basis and on no other basis. The minister having told us that the matter is now urgent, the Chair has no choice but to rule that the matter will proceed.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order — and I defer to your wisdom in these questions — I would like to draw the Speaker's attention to the minister’s words in requesting standing order 81. He said that the special warrants, which we are currently running on, are only good for urgent and immediately necessary items. He has failed to make the case — precisely — that the interim supply is urgent, given his own discussion of the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I can only listen to one point of order at a time, so while I was listening to one, I would have preferred if the minister had remained in his seat. Now I'll listen to yours.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thought I followed closely what was happening here. You ruled, did you not, Mr. Speaker? The issue is settled, is it not? The Speaker ruled. So the previous speaker, on a point of order, was out of order, was he not, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 9082 ]

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

MR. ROSE: I've had some advice that if Your Honour accepted it as an urgent bill, that looks after the matter of its urgency. So we cannot quarrel with that. However, if we have a large amount of money at stake and suggest that we move on and debate second reading without even having a recess in which we might consider the bill, then I think it's most unfortunate and irresponsible. So I ask by leave that there at least be a one-hour recess while we have an opportunity to study the bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm certainly agreeable to seeing a recess for the bill to be distributed. The request for an hour, in my judgment, is much more than is needed to look at what is a traditional exercise. There is urgency to this issue, and the matter is normally dealt with in this way. This is the first day after the introduction of the budget itself. So the government has taken every opportunity to comply with the normal rules and procedures of this House.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Since there is some debate on this, the Chair will take its prerogative and adjourn for an informal recess. The members will be summoned back by the ringing of the bell when a sufficient amount of time, in the opinion of the Chair, has elapsed.

The House recessed at 2:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 3:06 p.m.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

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

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the government would introduce a bill of this magnitude and that the Minister of Finance would not take the time in second reading to defend an extraordinary request that he's made before this House.

We have here another example of a dishonest approach to bookkeeping, a dishonest approach to the books of this House. The only urgency before this House for four months of interim supply is to take....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I find the word "dishonest," as it pertains to actions in this Legislature, offensive and unparliamentary, and I'd ask the member to withdraw it and refrain from using such terminology.

MR. SPEAKER: As the Chair listened, the remark was about the document and not about the person. It's only members that we have to concern ourselves with. But if the minister has asked the member to withdraw any unparliamentary language, I'd ask him to.

Was the member imputing any improper motive to any member?

MR. CLARK: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. CLARK: I was saying that this supply act is a dishonest piece of legislation, because it purports to be something it is not. The minister has said that it's required for urgent matters. He went on to say that the reason that special warrants aren't acceptable is because they're only for urgent matters.

We have a special warrant passed by the government which takes us to May 6. There is no urgency for this bill to pass today. The urgency for four months, I submit, is an urgency that the government wants in order to protect the possibility of an election window this spring and to prevent public debate in this House on estimates and the budget.

We have seen repeated attempts by this government to stifle debate on taxing and spending of this administration. The main purpose of the members of the Legislature — everybody should agree — is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here, Mr. Speaker. It was that side of the House that at one time said: "Not a dime without debate." They're now asking for $5 billion of public money to be passed post-haste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of the House.

This House hasn’t sat for eight months — which is unacceptable — in order that there be no debate on or scrutiny of this government's incompetent fiscal ability. There has been no debate for eight months, because the House hasn't sat for eight months, and now they ask us to pass a bill today, with very little debate, for four months, which potentially means we could go for one year in this province without debate on the estimates, on the taxing, on the ability of this government to manage the province. It is not acceptable in a democracy to have 12 months without debate on this kind of spending.

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

[ Page 9083 ]

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

It is no way to run a government, Mr. Speaker. It is dishonest; it is deceitful; it is avoiding public debate, which is what we are here for; and we won't accept it.

We have seen spending warrants which take us through May 6. Those spending warrants were unnecessary. The excuse they used to delay the House was $130 million in federal government cuts. They knew those cuts were coming, Mr. Speaker; in fact, the Premier asked for them. They got $130 million, and my God, that meant we can't call the Legislature for debate because on a $15 billion budget they had to somehow re-jig the entire budget because of $130 million in federal cuts.

It was a phony excuse, a fatuous excuse not to call the House. And now we have spending warrants at the time — a fatuous excuse for spending warrants, which the Minister of Finance didn't even know was one-tenth or one-twelfth.... He didn't even know how much money they were asking for. Now they've come into this House and asked for $5 billion to be passed without debate on one day. Well, we are not going to tolerate that; it's no way to run a government.

The government has been conspiring, essentially, to stifle debate on these kinds of questions, because their track record on fiscal competence is appalling. They don't want a debate on the Expo lands; they don't want that kind of scrutiny. The Globe and Mail — I noticed the Premier likes the Globe and Mail — now says the Expo lands are worth a billion dollars — a billion dollars. How much money did we lose on a prime piece of real estate in the middle of a real estate boom? This government lost money on it. How incompetent! No wonder they don't want debate on these kinds of questions.

The Westwood Lands: we now find that school boards have to buy back land for schools — Crown land that this government flogged for less than market value. No wonder they don't want debate. It's no way to run a government, to have no debate on these kinds of questions. It's hypocrisy, it's dishonest, it's deceitful, and it's for political games that they are playing. More than that, we have seen a pattern under this administration. We saw the largest spending warrant in history; we are now seeing the largest interim supply in history, for the longest amount of time.

We saw referendums legislation — not even introduced in this House — and we saw school boards being invited to hold referendums even before they were law. They said: "Trust us. We will pass this legislation after we get in; just pretend the law is already passed and implemented." We have seen municipalities be informed of details of tax legislation before it was brought into this House and be told: "Go ahead, implement that tax; implement that regressive flat tax. It's okay. Trust us; we'll pass it once the House goes back."

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

Where is the accountability when elected members of this House come here after eight months of recess, when we have already been told that tax bills would be passed, when major government announcements on taxing authority and major government initiatives that deal with the spending of taxpayers' dollars are implemented without debate in this House? Mr. Speaker, "not a dime without debate" has never been a more appropriate slogan.

[3:15]

They want us to pass $5 billion of public money without debate. It's not acceptable, Mr. Speaker, just as those retroactive tax bills are not acceptable. You cannot run a government and implement tax legislation with municipalities and school boards on major questions of public policy when those bills have not even been introduced in the House. You cannot run a government by spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money before the House is called, before the House....

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's difficult to restrict the scope of debate in a discussion on an issue such as this. It is essentially a window to discuss almost anything fiscally, so I would ask the member to continue. But bear in mind, of course, that under normal circumstances, reasonableness has a role to play. I'd ask the member to continue.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That goes to the heart of the question. If an election is called after interim supply is passed, there will be no debate on the spending estimates of this administration. I understand why they don't want debate on their spending estimates. I understand why they don't want debate on their fiscal competence. I understand why they don't want debate on the fact that there is a deficit in British Columbia and not a balanced budget as they purport. But that debate will happen. That is the role of parliamentarians; that is the role of all of us in this House. The kind of attitude that this government has shown towards public accountability and taxing, the regressive attitude they have shown in terms of their tax policy, is the kind of thing this House must debate.

We cannot tolerate repeated retroactive legislation. We cannot tolerate implementing tax bills, with municipalities imposing new forms of taxation on the people of British Columbia, without even a bill before the House, and we cannot tolerate $5 billion of public money being passed today when it is not urgent. We won't tolerate $5 billion of public money being passed without debate, Mr. Speaker. That means that the range of initiatives, the fiscal policy and the incompetence of this government will be debated, because this may well be the real election budget. This may well be the only opportunity

[ Page 9084 ]

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

Interjections.

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

Under previous Social Credit administrations, we have seen this lax attitude towards public policy, but we have never seen the flagrant disregard for the rights of debate and for taxpayers in this province that we have seen from this administration. It cannot be tolerated, and I submit that it shouldn't be tolerated by any members on that side of the House who have any regard for parliamentary democracy.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I can anticipate the point of order. I will caution the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) at this time, if I can have his attention. The member for Nanaimo is not permitted to speak when sitting in a place other than his own. Unfortunately, the mechanics of Hansard are that everything you say while sitting in the seat that belongs to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) is recorded in the Journals of the House....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The member may assist in any manner possible, but may not speak from another member's seat. You may sit in the other member's seat and pass copious notes, if that's what you wish, but you may not speak there. I would ask the member to continue.

MR. CLARK: In reviewing some previous supply acts, we see: 1985, $428 million; 1986, $149 million; 1987, $130 million; 1988, $80 million; 1989, $159 million; 1990, today, $1.336 billion. What possible explanation is there for this kind of attitude? What possible explanation is there for an interim supply bill of this magnitude and duration?

There can be only one: this administration does not want the debate on their spending and taxing policies over the last three years. This administration does not want debate on their incompetence in dealing with public assets. This administration has not had debate in this House for over nine months, and does not want debate for another four months. It will take them one full year without public scrutiny in debate and through an election campaign should they desire to pass it.

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

MR. CLARK: The member says: "That's what the estimates are for." Why, if that's what the estimates are for, would they want an interim supply bill of four months and of this magnitude? Why is it that we don't have a more normal interim supply bill for a month or so to take us a way, and then another interim supply bill if we don't complete those debates?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that this bill is urgent. Then he said we can't continue to run on spending warrants, because they're only good for urgent things. That's what he said in introducing this and the reason why it's required.

Clearly his own words betray the true intent. That is, urgent matters are covered under this special warrant. We will debate those shortly, Mr. Speaker, or maybe not so shortly, but we'll certainly have a chance today or tomorrow to debate those spending warrants, and we intend to do so. But the spending warrants take us to May 6. There is no need for an interim supply bill of this magnitude, there is no need for an interim supply bill of this length, and there is no need for an interim supply bill to be passed in three readings with no debate.

We are not going to allow no debate, and we are not going to tolerate this kind of attitude with respect to the taxpayer. It is very clear that this administration wants to avoid a public debate on its incompetence. It wants to avoid a public debate on its fiscal ability. It wants to avoid a public debate on questions of taxing, because it has taxed so regressively. It wants to avoid a public debate prior to an election campaign. That's the real reason why this bill is urgent. It's simply to kill some time to take them through an election campaign without the debate.

The essence of parliamentary democracy is to authorize spending. When you go through Sir Erskine May, when you go through all of parliamentary history — hundreds of years of parliamentary history — what you see time and time again is that the principal role of parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending, and to scrutinize the government's agenda for the province. We have been denied that opportunity, Mr. Speaker. We have been denied that opportunity for eight months between sittings, and we're now being denied the opportunity, potentially, for a further four months; potentially 12 months without debate on this government's incompetence. That is not acceptable.

That is the role of parliament. It is not the role of governments, even Social Credit governments, to pass billions of dollars of public spending without debate. That kind of debate must take place in this chamber, and we intend to have that debate over the coming hours, the coming days and the coming weeks. We are not simply going to pass interim supply, as you would have it, in three sittings in one day.

[ Page 9085 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The minister closes debate.

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

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: The member indicates he'd like to let the minister speak. If the minister speaks, he closes debate. The Chair will be thrilled to do that; it will go to committee and the discussion can take place there. However, I don't think that's the intent, so I recognize the Minister of Education.

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

One of my suggestions would be.... I know the member would never let common sense interfere with his political posturing, so I guess I don't need to advise him in that respect. But I think there is an element of common sense here that he does not seem to be aware of. For someone who is supposedly the finance critic to have somebody pulling his strings behind him to say the right things and to ignore the very obvious fact....

He talks about the next four months. Suppose the government had not gone to special warrants for the month of April. Since the member has apparently indicated that they are not going to accept this interim supply bill, would he have us call back the payments that went out to the school districts for each month — one-twelfth of the amount that they have to operate on to pay their salaries?

If the member is simply seeking debate, I think the record will show that the estimates are generally debated over the next couple of months. If they would give a commitment to pass the estimates in one week's debate, then perhaps something like this interim supply wouldn't be necessary. But they have obviously indicated — and they're debating it all the time in public — that they're going to block the spending of this government. They would spend more. They have said they're going to block all of the legislation — that you mustn't put out legislation. The Minister of Finance, when he tabled the budget, tabled a number of bills that are going to cover the announcements made in the budget speech. It is not that unusual for the bills to be tabled, and it is expected that they will be debated.

I suppose the answer would be that if the opposition is prepared to stand by what they say and vote against this interim supply, then how do you put money out — and I am using just the schools as an example...? If the member would just take a look at the rest of it, there is....

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: They got the April amount from special warrants. That runs out at the end of April. What will you give them in May? Or will you have us hold the cheques in the month of May?

[3:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Apparently you would. Then I would suggest, Mr. Member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) that you vote against this. Vote it down. Put your money where your mouth is and vote against giving the grants to the school districts, the hospitals — vote against all of those.

I suspect that there is going to be a lot of mouthing off, and then they are going to recognize that there is common sense that has to kick in. Are they suggesting that all the government operations, all the hospital and education funding and all of that, not proceed during the month of May?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You know, it would be very difficult for you to even understand. I am asking: if you are going to block approval for last month — which was done by special warrants — are you also going to block approval for the expenditures in May? That's what your finance critic said, without reading the amounts.

Is it urgent that the school districts got their money for April, that they will get their money for May? Your finance critic says that none of these people need to get paid, that it's not urgent for them to get paid until the estimates are passed — and the estimates generally take a couple of months to get passed.

I guess my challenge to the opposition is that if you're going to say stop all of these operations, and all you have to do is look at the warrants section that's there.... It gives you an indication of how much per month it takes in this province to continue to service health, social services, education and postsecondary — all of those. Yet here we have their finance critic saying: "We are going to turn it down."

I would like them to please send out the explanatory letter to school districts, saying: "You didn't get your money for the month of May. You're not going to get your funding for the month of May to meet your payroll, to meet all of those, because we have a political agenda, and we are going to fight this all the way."

If you want to fight politically, there is still two-thirds that you can vote against, isn't there? You can still destroy the good programs that this government has put in place through the budget, through the $15 billion that it takes to run those programs. You can still destroy those if that is your objective, but I would urge that even the members opposite get off their political bandwagon long enough to let common sense set in so that this government can provide the money that is needed to the school districts, the hospitals and all the other programs to

[ Page 9086 ]

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

I know you are negative and want to stop everything that this government does, but do your debating on that line and, for goodness' sake, don't punish the people out there who are looking for their cheques in May by voting against this interim supply.

What a ridiculous argument they are making: we don't like this government, therefore we are going to shut down all the things that need to be funded on a month-by-month basis.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be flagellated.

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

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I couldn't go by without looking at this, because I am concerned. I think those school boards next month are entitled to the one twelfth of the grants....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I guess the member for Vancouver East doesn't think they're entitled to the 90 percent of their funding that they get from this government. He thinks that they should not pay their teachers next month, or the rest of their employees, because it suits the political purposes of those socialists over there.

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

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, a person does have to yell here to overcome that first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), because I know he's got a mean streak in him. As a matter of fact, somebody was telling me the other day that he was so mean, even as a kid, that his mother had to tie a pork chop around his neck so the dog would even play with him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Two pork chops?

I think it is important, and if for once those opposition members let common sense overtake their political posturing, they will recognize that there has to be a certain amount of money spent each month to keep the operation going. That is what the Minister of Finance is asking for.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm just amazed. The Minister of Education talks about responsibility. It is his responsibility, as a member of cabinet, to see that the finances of this province are carried out in an orderly manner, not to sit back and place in jeopardy those employees who fall under his jurisdiction because they didn't have the common sense to call back the House and let the process and democracy go forth.

They accuse this side of the House of being negative. Is it being negative to do the job we were elected to do — to scrutinize the way the parliamentary system works in this province, and not to have the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations ask for almost a quarter of his budget to be passed without due process?

School boards need the money and paycheques have to be paid, the Minister of Education has noted. Why didn't he consider that two or three months ago? Surely he was putting his estimates together. Surely he was putting toward the Minister of Finance's budget the amount of money he felt would be necessary to run the school system.

I say the budget is totally unprepared; they know they're unprepared. The Minister of Education knows that the referendum issue won't wash. He knows that school boards don't want to go to referendums. He knows that an $864 million deficit is looming. He knows that even if the whole budget is passed, there will be a tremendous shortfall. He knows that school boards will not have the appropriate funds necessary to teach the children of our province.

The fact remains that we're the bankers of this province. We were elected to oversee democracy and the finances of this province. The Finance minister wants to pass by the elected bankers of this province. He has his own agenda. He's not willing to allow scrutiny of the public trust.

He delayed the budget because the federal government didn't advance $130 million — a $130 million cut that the members opposite asked for. They went to Ottawa and said: "Please don't issue those transfer funds. The province doesn't need them." When that happened, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations said: "Well, we have to delay the opening of the House." Eight months' delay already, and they want to delay it another two weeks so he can rework his books to try and make them a little more saleable to the people of this province.

What happened to the $140 million surplus? We know the BS fund is just that: b.s. One minute the minister says: "There's no real money in it." During the budget debate, he says: "Real money." From his own lips, we know there's no money in there, so he couldn't go there to make up the $120 million. Why didn't he take the $140 million surplus to make it up? Where did that money go? There's been enough fiddling with the books of this province, and we're not about to let the fiddling go....

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I find that last remark objectionable, and I ask the member to withdraw It. He accused this government of fiddling the books of the people of this province.

[ Page 9087 ]

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

MR. G. JANSSEN: I don't see what the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has against fiddlers or fiddling in that regard, but I'll withdraw the remark.

We're not about to allow $5 billion to go by without debate. That would be irresponsible of every member of this House, including members on the government side. I would like to see them go back to their constituents and say: "Dear constituents, I just let the Minister of Finance, on his own decision, take five billion of your dollars and put them through without any debate of any kind." A number of years ago, it was: "Not a dime without debate." What are they afraid of?

Eight months of losing by-elections, and they were afraid to come back to this House to ask for the proper appropriation. They were down in the polls. It's not, as has been suggested in this House, that we have a political agenda. They have a political agenda, not a responsible agenda to the people of this province, because they're afraid to go to the polls. If they weren't, they would have gone last year after they lost the last by-election. But oh no, the Premier had to make some announcements. He had to mold his own party back together; he had to pull some members back in. He had to beg, he had to plead and he had to bring them back on side before he came back to this House.

The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations doesn't even know whether it's one-tenth or one-twelfth of the budget. He has to ask the people who work for him exactly what's going on with the books of this province. Why doesn't he just step down and allow those people to run the books of this province? Let them handle the finances. Perhaps they'd do a better job than this government has been doing.

He says he's proud of a balanced budget. Well, the budget isn't balanced, as we know; it's a $5 billion unbalanced budget. They're asking us to approve almost $5 billion. What about the health of the people of this province? I'm sure the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) is going to stand up and say that he needs the money, otherwise he can't pay the bills. It seems to me that what we need in the Health budget is enough money to buy bus tickets, so people can go to Seattle to get much-needed operations done. Is that why they're asking for this appropriation?

They asked for this appropriation because they can't pay their schools. The referendum question alone has to be passed, because they don't have the money to fund proper schools. Communities are being asked to raise their own money, because there isn't enough there to teach the children or to educate for the future of this province.

In transportation, they announced wonderful things. In my riding I have a number of issues on transportation that I hope get funded. I'm not sure that passing this interim supply bill is the way to do it.

In the Alberni riding we are waiting on an issue on forestry — a vital issue to the economy of Alberni. Here we have the minister saying: "Well, if you don't pass this bill in a hurry, then we won't have any forestry." We haven't had any forestry in this province for some time after we turned it over to the corporations, and now we're attempting to get it back. In his budget, he tries to turn it over to the Minister of Environment.

By passing this bill, are we condoning the actions of the Finance ministry itself? The Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations says he has $140 million surplus, yet he can't operate for a further two weeks — and now for a further two months, by the looks of things — without $120 million that he lost after he told Ottawa: "We don't need the money; B.C. is in great financial shape. Look how great we're doing."

We're doing so great that this House can't come back to approve the necessary funds to make the paycheques to keep this province running.

[3:45]

Why don't they just present the bill and take out that massive advertising budget that they're using to tell the people of British Columbia what wonderful shape we're in, and how great we're doing? Do I see that in this bill? Not at all, Mr. Speaker; it's not in there. That's the b.s. that's happening in this province; it has nothing to do with that fund.

They've raised taxes — 600 tax and fee increases in this province alone in the last two and a half to three years. Yet he says he has a balanced budget, and there are no tax increases. You can call them levies, but the people of British Columbia know their taxes.

Not one banker in this province or anywhere in the country would give a private, individual business $5 billion without debate. That is exactly what this Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is asking us to do. They say they know how to run the books of this province. I would like to see the Finance minister walk into any bank in Canada and say: "I need $5 billion. I don't want to tell you why I need it; I'm just going to tell you I need it."

That's the way they want to run the business of this province. They couldn't run a peanut stand, yet they expect to run this province by getting $5 billion without debate and without telling anybody what it's for. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they have a political agenda, and they don't believe in democracy or due process.

The government is afraid to face the opposition over this allocation. They're hiding on the other side of the House; they're hiding behind a political agenda. If they operate in any business sense at all, they wouldn't be putting this forward. We would have been debating this two months ago, but they were lost in the political wilderness, trying to get their members to come back on side, trying to prop up their Premier and their Finance minister. And now they come along and say: "We're in trouble. Will you please give us $5 billion?" — without any debate. Nowhere else in the British parliamentary system would this happen.

[ Page 9088 ]

We're setting a dangerous precedent if we pass this without debate. The bill is urgent, they say. Well, how urgent is it? If it was urgent, why didn't they call the House back? Why did we wait eight months? Because their political agenda was down the toilet. They're poor finance managers, and they don't want to admit it.

We're going to debate this bill, because we don't believe in giving a blank cheque — not with the financial mess that this province is in. No banker in the private sector would even consider the request. They want $5 billion. "Give it to us. Trust us," they say. This government has become arrogant, Mr. Speaker. It has been in power so long that it has lost its sense of democracy.

My own accountant, who used to be a member of the Social Credit Party, tells me very simply that you don't spend money unless you can prove where it's going. This government wants to spend a bunch of money without telling the public where the money is going.

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

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

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

MR. G. JANSSEN: I know he's just taken over the Ministry of Forests and is very unfamiliar with it, but I would be very concerned if I were the Minister of Forests. They took $212 million of my money and gave it to another ministry, but he's not worried about that. He's glad to give the Forests ministry away. He's glad to get rid of it, because they've done such a dismal job in this province. That's why we're short of wood, and that's why we have environmental pollution.

It's great in this province. It's free enterprise, and I believe in that. I see an ad on television that says there's a business in British Columbia that has a cost-cutter. What do we have in the Ministry of Forests these days? We have a job-cutter. He has only to come to Alberni and look at the jobs that have been cut. Mr. Speaker, if he ever goes there, he'd better be wearing his running shoes.

Let me tell you, I would be worried, and I would be standing up and fighting for my $212 million if I were the Forests minister, but he's willing to see that go by. He's willing to give it away to another ministry. And we're asked to approve that nonsense in this bill. Not without debate, Mr. Speaker.

Where is our money? Where is it going? Where are you getting it from? Those are the questions that the people of British Columbia are entitled to hear, and this government is afraid to debate them. They want to set a precedent; they want money allocated without debate; they want to take it out of people's pockets without telling them what it's for; and they want to spend it on projects without telling them where it's going. That's not democracy. That's not British parliamentary democracy, and we're not going to allow that kind of precedent to be set. We're going to debate it here in this House for all of British Columbia to see.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN: They don't shovel it off the back of the truck anymore, Mr. Member. They drive down the highway with the tailgate open. This isn't $5; this isn't $1 million; this isn't $3 million. This is five billion bucks!

The people in my constituency are worried about that kind of money. The companies in my constituency are worried about that kind of money. We have a forestry operation that's worried about investing $120 million in a kraft mill there, but this government decides that you don't need to discuss $5 billion. The debate over investing $120 million in that mill has been going on for two years, and they still haven't made a decision. Yet this government wants to say that it runs the business of this province. Only it knows business practices, and therefore, "Give us five billion bucks" — without so much as a hiccup.

Well, that's not going to happen. We'll act responsibly, and I'm sure the people of this province will see who the responsible people are and which is the responsible political party of this province.

Again, Mr. Speaker, why don't they go out and instead of asking this House without debate for $5 billion, walk down the street and into any bank in this province, ask the bankers to advance them $5 billion, and walk out of there in 15 minutes? I doubt it; it is impossible. They're out of control; they're out of touch; they're arrogant.

Interjections.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Where are their own banks? Open up your own bank; maybe you can pull that off. But you can't pull that off in business circles. You have to be responsible; you have to act in a responsible manner. It's $5 billion of the public's money. You wouldn't get it from a bank, and you're not going to get it without debate in this House.

I wonder what the finance community is saying right now; I wonder what they'll say tomorrow morning when they read the newspaper. How much confidence will there be in this government, which simply says: "Give us $5 billion to do with what we want. We don't know where it's coming from; we don't know where it's going. But that's the kind of confidence in this province that we want to instill in foreign money markets and in Canadian money markets"? I think that tomorrow morning, when the bankers hear what's been going on in this House and the way this government has been acting with the public trust, they'll be saying, "Let's lower that finance rating just a bit," instead of: "Let's raise it."

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

[ Page 9089 ]

recession in 1982, who have lost their jobs and have found new jobs, who have opened up businesses, who have slugged it out in the trenches, who are trying to rebuild their lives and are finally getting it together, and who are finding out that this government is willing to throw it out the window, by simply saying: "Let's have $5 billion. Let's just go out and do that without debate." Financial confidence will be shaken in this province if this goes through without debate, and we're not prepared to let that happen.

We're prepared to stand up for the public trust. We're prepared to stand up and say — not only to the people of this province, who we have a direct responsibility to, but to the larger financial community — that there is a political party, there are members of this House and there are people in this province who are willing to act in a responsible fiscal manner and to run this province. This province's finances are out of control, and this $5 billion only proves it. We're not prepared to let Bill 22 pass without debate.

MR. PETERSON: You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes in the Fraser Valley, in the winter, we have a terrible wind that comes up — a southeaster, we call it. It causes a lot of damage, a lot of problems. Listening to the previous speaker, I think we would much rather deal with that sort of wind than with the wind I just heard in here.

The member for Alberni is probably the most misinformed individual I've ever heard in my life. He simply, absolutely does not know what he's talking about. Let me tell you why. Until this political posturing started this afternoon, what we were doing in this House was actually debating the budget — the great budget that our Minister of Finance presented to us last week. What we're doing while that process is going on, as a responsible government, is ensuring that funds are available so that many things, many of the good programs, can carry on: our health care, education, our environment and the stuff in the Carmanah Valley. I know that member is so happy about it: all those great things are carrying on and are happening because we are responsible.

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

MR. PETERSON: He wanted the House called back eight months ago so he could debate a budget that, of course, was passed some 12 months ago. Again, he is misinformed; he doesn't know how the process works. Well, he's only been here for a short time, so we'll forgive him. Come the next general election, he'll be absolute history like the rest of them over there, because all they're doing is putting up a lot of flimflam, a lot of nonsense, a lot of misinformation that's totally irresponsible on their part, like their leader sailing down Vancouver harbour on his yacht. Remember the thing about the barges and the one tug when our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) had already made arrangements at port?

[4:00]

I mean, it's just so typical of them, absolutely typical: misinformation for political purposes. You know, you make me laugh. You're an absolute joke. That's the bottom line. The people of British Columbia know it. I talk to people in Langley in my constituency and they say: "My God, that's really pretty pitiful." I said, "Yes. Most governments need a fairly good opposition, but unfortunately in British Columbia we don't have that." They're ineffective, inaccurate and very irresponsible in the statements and remarks they make.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that this bill of interim supply is necessary to keep all the excellent programs that this government has brought to British Columbia in operation while we debate the great budget that our great Minister of Finance presented to us.

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the member in mid-flight, as it were, but one of the first rules of debate in this chamber is that remarks are addressed through the Chair so we do not attack other members in the chamber. I would suggest that the member opposite, even though his attention span is limited, has been around long enough that he ought to know that. Would you please so advise him, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PETERSON: Hon. member, if I said "thick skulls" and it bothered you, I do apologize. What's another word for thick skulls? Perhaps "a little dense on some issues" might be a better way of placing it.

However, I don't want to take up a lot of the valuable time of this House. I want to say that I wish just for once that the opposition would be somewhat responsible in terms of this House and show it the respect that's due it. Quite frankly Mr. Speaker, it is very embarrassing.

MR. WILLIAMS: The member for Langley says: "Be responsible, approve it the way we backbenchers do, without any information, and just say 'aye.'" That's what he's asking for right now. No way, Mr. Member for Langley. What you're talking about is the ultimate in irresponsibility.

You and your back-bench friends always vote the way the government tells you to do, without any information whatsoever — you and the others who disappeared from the caucus and crawled back on their bellies in the last month or so, and now vote "aye," "yea" and "aye."

[ Page 9090 ]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: You said you didn't crawl on your belly. No, you didn't even crawl away on your belly when things were deserving of it.

This government Is asking for $5 billion right here and now — not a million, not $100 million, not even $1 billion. You make C.D. Howe look like a piker. You know, you want a rubber-stamp approval and you're not going to get it. You're not going to get it from this bench.

Our Finance critic says that what you're really asking for is a year without debate. You guys — and especially, I suspect, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks) — seem to think that this is "Alabammy North." Well, it ain't Alabammy North and we don't give that kind of approval. We don't accept the idea of a 12-month debate-free period for Social Credit, and neither does the population of British Columbia. It is no way to run a province.

I was watching the Premier when this thing came into the House today. This is really four months — on his fingers, the kind of financing he can handle — that he wants in addition to the eight. There's a possibility of an electoral window in the next few months. He wants to be able to slip through it without debate. That's what he's asking for. He's trying to slip back into office through the device of this bill, and we don't buy that at all.

You people have a record of fiscal incompetence that deserves the fullest of attention. You people need a Public Accounts Committee that is in here, day in and day out, year in and year out, just checking the books. You've been helping your friends. You've been helping your cronies. You're trying to avoid debate.

Four months, Mr. Minister of Finance, you're asking for, and you've already got approval until May 6. What's the rush all about? You're looking for protection. You spell it right out in the legislation. Let's look at section 1: "From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine the sum of $4,934,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service," etc. "In the manner and at the times the government may determine" — that's the clincher. That's what you want. It's a blank cheque.

We've had too much evidence so far. The member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) said: "Hey, this isn't shovelling off the back of a truck; it's actually running down the highway with the tailgate open." What he didn't say is: "And who's driving the truck?" It's the Minister of Finance, and his copilot is the member from White Rock with a GO B.C. shovel. Come on! How many of those big six-foot cheques will be coming out of this $5 billion in a pre-election period? Out of GO B.C., out of the lotteries grants, and that whole area that has never been examined in terms of the Lottery Fund — never been examined by the Public Accounts Committee in any detail.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who's the Chairman?

MR. WILLIAMS: And who blocks the action of that committee? Those members over there, that's who blocks access. We know how that works.

Let's look at what this minister is doing. Right now, at the top of the business cycle, he's running a deficit.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Not true.

MR. WILLIAMS: He says it's not true. Mr. Minister, you're taking in $684 million less than you're spending. By any measure, that is a deficit. At the top of the business cycle, when you've had good times, you're still running a deficit. And debt — you've got debt now at the $17 billion level, and it was down at $8 billion at the beginning of this decade. That's the kind of fiscal management, or mismanagement, we have there.

As the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said, who pays under your budgets? It's the people that pay. Under your budget, 18 percent of revenue just four years ago came from corporations; now only 9 percent. You've cut their taxes in half and you've picked up the difference from the average citizen — from individuals.

No regional fairness, as the other member for Vancouver East says; none at all. The lower mainland continues to have growth problems that are incredibly serious, yet other parts of the province are stagnant. The Kamloops region, the Kootenays — not the kind of development and growth they want and deserve.

What about other areas, like the Sullivan mine? That mine should be working today.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, you're going to solve that problem. You bet! What they're into in Kimberley, what the new Cominco is into, is the old-time union-busting game. Consolidated Smelting, when it was owned by the CPR, cared more about the people in that region — in Trail, in Kimberley, in the Kootenays. You people were not on top of it; no planning whatsoever.

Northeast coal. We're on the edge of the precipice with respect to northeast coal — a $3 billion project, and absolutely no planning in terms of dealing with that problem from either of those ministers or the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Davis); none whatsoever In terms of those regions.

My colleague from the Okanagan, the second member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee), will talk to you a little later about the tree-fruit industry in the Okanagan and the problems that they face in that region. All these regional problems are going untended by you people. The environmental area has been covered extremely well by my colleagues.

But where do you get your revenue? That's part of the problem. You don't deal with that here. This is part of spending. You're getting so little out of resources. Let's look at what the chart says. The chart indicates that from forests you're getting something

[ Page 9091 ]

like under 5 percent. It's down there in the category with booze in terms of revenue for the province of British Columbia. It tells you the way you run the ship — incredibly low resource revenues.

The competence question in terms of fiscal management by this government is really there for all to see. We saw it before, in the previous administration, with the Coquihalla; they tried to cover up $500 million in overspending.

But the classic of all, in terms of fiscal management by this group, is the Expo land deal — $140 million for that prime site stretching from Granville Street to Main Street along the shores of False Creek. Fifty million down and no interest for 20 years. Nothing could tell us more about the competence of this administration than the Expo land deal itself. Nobody else in this province is able to buy real estate and pay no interest for 20 years, but that's the deal they made with the Concord Pacific company — $140 million dollars!

Not only that, we're still stuck with the problem of dealing with the contaminated soil. The contaminated soil is now five times the original estimate, and that is our liability — the people of the province. Throw into that the need for social housing, and it looks like we may well be into losses of $50 million to $70 million on that real estate deal.

Just recently the owners of the site sold 5 percent of the site — ten acres — for $40 million. They got their down payment back in one deal.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, 20-40 hindsight, sure.

You could actually quote the earlier speeches of the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), who said that this was exactly the wrong way to do it, that there were clearly several parcels, that clearly they should be marketed separately and clearly that....

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't got a building permit yet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Does the member for Burnaby — soon to be Point Grey, or wherever he lands...?

MS. EDWARDS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood a direction given to this House a little earlier today to be about speaking from a seat other than one's own.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Absolutely correct, hon member. I would remind the member accordingly. Please continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, he is simply in flight from Burnaby and trying to roost somewhere in Vancouver, and he's....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, that's right. He's one of those fellows who was crawling on his belly like a reptile just a month ago. Back into the fold.... Can the member tell us what great change has come over the Premier that caused him to make that change?

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: A mutant Socred, my colleague says — a Mutant Ninja Socred. Well, that's the newest green party we've seen in British Columbia.

The financial competence we've seen in the Expo deal.... We saw it on the New Westminster waterfront last year, and we've seen it with the Haney correctional institute this year — all in the name of privatization. We saw it in the land deals at Whistler, and we'll see it again in other locations: in Delta, UBC and elsewhere. We've seen it with GO B.C. My God, we've seen it with GO B.C.

There's a desperate need for change in this province. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) says that we need all of these funds to pay the bills. We've accepted that in the past, when the funds were needed for immediate paying of the bills. That's not what you're talking about here. You're talking about a four-month free ride with $5 billion — a four-month plus an eight-month free ride.

MR. RABBITT: Speak to the Chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, we'll speak to the Chair indeed, and especially to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt).

It's an argument that does not wash at all, Mr. Speaker. We'd be more willing to handle current spending estimates in terms of a month or two months. But four months being requested by this government is clearly a political exercise. Like the Premier said when the bill came in, "four months...." That's what we want, isn't it, Mr. Premier? Four months of freedom to handle these things, so we can use that window for an election.

I don't really think that window is there, but the Premier thinks it's there. And we say: "No way."

As the member for Alberni said, you people aren't shovelling money off the truck; you're going down the road with the tailgate open, and you want to hand out all those dollars. Here in the opposition, we say: "We won't let it be." This is not Alabama North; you won't get rubber-stamp approval like you get from your back bench when you attend a caucus meeting. There are no rubber stamps in Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

I hope the Premier will join in this debate. I hope that he doesn't just sit there silent. I hope he will join in the debate and explain why he needs four months.

Why do you need four months? Are you a little afraid that that back-bench, rump group, that slid away on you and crawled back, might slide away again? Do you need this kind of hammer there so that the threat of an election can be used against a back bench that is going to become more and more

[ Page 9092 ]

disenchanted as it sees the real polling information that's out there and that the Premier is aware of?

Is that what it's all about? Have you shared all that polling information that we pay millions of dollars for, Mr. Premier? Have you shared it with your back bench? I think not; I think not. That's the problem.

No, Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the bill in this form at this time in terms of a vote today. We assure you of that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I am so happy that the first member for Vancouver East entered the debate because — I want people to pay attention — it really showed the true colours of what's happening over there. It really did, and I want to point it out.

Our $80,000 entrepreneur from Vancouver East really got up and showed it. I just want to point out the comments that member made about the resource industries in this province.

Did you hear him? He said: "We're not making nearly enough money off the resources in this province." Well, it just shows that they haven't learned anything from 1973-74. They haven't learned a thing.

I want to refresh the memories of those in the mining industry from 1973 to 1974, and he just said it again. He concentrated on Kimberley, Trail and Tumbler Ridge. He was talking about Tumbler Ridge being on the edge five years ago when the member for South Peace was in the House — Mr. Phillips was the member. He's been blowing that alarm bell for five years, and it hasn't happened yet.

But more importantly — and I'm going to circulate his comments widely to those in the forest industry and those in the mining Industry — he specifically mentioned: "We don't get enough money from forestry and mining." I'm sure they'd be happy to hear that.

The forest industry thinks that the stumpage is too high in this province right now, because we're getting more out of natural resources than we ever have. Can you imagine what the stumpage in this province would be if they, heaven forbid, ever formed a government? With their own leader standing up in Kamloops and saying that they're $3 billion short so they're going to raise $3 billion off the backs of the resource industry! So says the member for Vancouver East! Forestry and mining would indeed be in trouble in this province, heaven forbid, if that member were ever in charge. "Not enough from the resource Industries."

The recent member for Port Alberni said that I didn't care about jobs in Port Alberni. Can you Imagine? After the decision we made — the very sensible and technical decision on the Carmanah Valley — he says to me that I'm against jobs in Port Alberni. He should ask his own leader about that, and I'm going to refresh of the Leader of the Opposition's memory about the Carmanah.

They scrambled around the floor of their convention a month or so ago, trying to pacify everybody to not vote for a moratorium on the Carmanah — "Don't vote for a moratorium on the Carmanah," he said — because it might affect their chances in the next election. So they ran around and got people to come up with a compromise decision. Then their own leader stood up and said: "Watch my lips."

I want you to go and campaign with the member from Port Alberni and say: "Watch my lips; no logging in the Carmanah."

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You talk about jobs and then you say: "Watch my lips; no logging in the Carmanah."

How do you feel about the Tsitika Valley, Mr. Leader of the Opposition? Would you care to go to Port McNeill and stand up and say: "Watch my lips?" Ask your member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) if you want to stand up in Port McNeill and say: "Watch my lips; no logging in the Tsitika Valley."

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, you bet. I challenge you to go to Port McNeill, Mr. Leader of the Opposition; I challenge you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We challenge you. Go to Port McNeill.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Sure. Port Hardy, Port Alberni, North Cowichan. Stand up and give your watch-my-lips speech. I'm sure they'd be really happy to hear it.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that we've noticed is that the opposition has no understanding of where jobs and dollars come from. They know how to spend money, but they have no idea where it comes from and where jobs are created.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said: "We're going to tax business." I wonder if he noted the remarks of Mr. Matkin about what that would do to business and job opportunities in this province. I wonder what the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) thinks about taxing businesses? He'll have to pay more tax on his business and conform to the liquor laws while he's doing it.

We've seen the NDP in action in this province once, unfortunately. I don't think the people of this province are anxious to see it again. "Let's tax businesses; let's get more money out of our resource industries; let's do to the mining industry what we did to it before — the super-royalty." Remember that? The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) remembers what they did to the mining industry — and the first member for Vancouver East just reiterated the policy. If they should ever become government, the first thing they'd do would be to hit the resource industries in this province. They'd tax them out of existence, Mr. Speaker.

I sincerely hope that other members of the opposition get up and firmly state their position on resource industries, how they intend to vote on resource management and where the money comes from. I

[ Page 9093 ]

sincerely hope that they tell us and the people where they're going to get this money that they're going to spend. They continually tell us that we're not spending enough in certain areas, and I think they owe it to this province to get up right now, one after the other, and tell us where the moneys come from. We've heard that some of it — $300 million to $400 million — is going to come from businesses, according to the member for Vancouver East. Nobody knows how much more would come from natural resources or resource extraction, because the first member for Vancouver East wouldn't elaborate on that. All he says is that we're not getting nearly enough from the resource industries in this province. I'd like somebody over there to tell us how much is enough, because I think the people who work in the forest and mining industries have a right to know just how hard they're going to be taxed should that party ever form a government in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea when the opposition intends to conclude the debate on this interim supply bill, which normally goes through as a matter of formality, but I'm anxious to hear from them where they're going to get all this money that they're going to spend.

MR. CASHORE: What colossal hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker! The government House Leader stands in his place and talks about the problem with resources as he sees it, and he doesn't have the courage to admit that Socred mismanagement has resulted in so many problems with regard to our resources: pollution of the oceans; dumping into the rivers; situations that we find in resource management where people are set against each other. We find that people in communities in this province, because of the legacy of mismanagement of this government, are finding that they are up against it because of the lack of leadership that has existed in this province for far too many years, because of a government whose very style has been based on helping its friends and doing what it can to make sure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and, in the process, to see the degradation of the environment, the loss of the resources, the damaging of our forests, the polluting of the rivers and oceans, and the desecration of the land. Then he has the temerity to stand there and accuse the members of the opposition for somehow being responsible for that.

I think that we have a government that has been in power for far too long and that this interim supply act that we have before us now is an indication that this province can't afford mismanagement any longer. We simply cannot put up any longer with this type of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. What colossal arrogance to think that they can come into this House and try to ram this through — $5 billion — without having respect for our parliamentary institution and the public's right to participate in the decisions being made.

It's not just a matter, as some have said, of what's going to happen to health and to education and to the environment if these funds are not approved. The whole question is: how are these moneys raised and how are they spent? What approach does this government have to the spending of these moneys, and why on earth has this government shown such disregard for the parliamentary process that they avoid the sitting of this House as long as it possibly can because they're embarrassed about their record? They're embarrassed that the public has noticed what they are doing and is saying: "The jig is up." They're trying as much as they possibly can to avoid coming into this House and having to stand before the bar of the public and defend their lack of stewardship of this province's resource. Then we have the government House Leader standing up and trying to twist that in some way to suggest that anybody but this Social Credit government is responsible for the problems we see in the province today.

[4:30]

What colossal arrogance! They are afraid to deal with the public debate that is going to take place in this House — in this Legislature and in every corner of the province — on their incompetence and their mismanagement. This is from the government that lost money on the most valuable piece of urban land in North America during an economic boom and a real estate boom. Who else could accomplish that kind of mismanagement?

This government doesn't really understand the rule of parliament and would very much like to avoid parliament meeting at all. As a matter of fact, there seems to be an attitude that the meeting of parliament — the democratic process — is somehow an annoyance they have to endure. There is somehow a sense of superiority there and of being able to make decisions without going through anything that honours the traditions we have in this land with our parliamentary democracy.

The Minister of Education stood up earlier in the debate and accused this side of the House of blocking. He said that by standing up here and exercising our democratic responsibility for the stewardship of what goes on in this province, somehow we were blocking what was necessary in order to run this province. He was not acknowledging that the very approach this government is using is blocking. It is blocking the road that leads to appropriate health care and to appropriate education for our children; it's blocking appropriate environmental policies; it's blocking appropriate policies that deal with parks and with our other resources.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That is where the real blocking is. It's an undemocratic approach, and apparently this government doesn't understand why that approach is important, and why the scrutiny of this House has to be brought to bear. There seems to be a disregard for the fact that the members of this House are elected members who have the responsibility to go through every aspect of that with all due care — not in some kind of a document like this that tosses a few numbers onto a few pages of paper and uses political rhetoric. They try to posture it so that if somehow we

[ Page 9094 ]

delay this or vote against it, we're opposed to seniors or to health care. They try to manipulate the words in a way that is most inappropriate and does not serve this province at all.

The question is not simply the amount. The question is: what is the intent? What is going on here? How does this document fit into plans that would enable this government to go on the road and start handing out plums to different parts of the province in an attempt to buy votes? To what extent is this an attempt to hoodwink the public by using the public's own resource to try to seduce that public? It's a game that has gone on with this government year in and year out, and the public is wise to it. The jig is up, and they're not going to put up with it again.

I think that the Socreds would just as soon shut down the House and say that for them it would be "business as usual." They find democracy cumbersome; they have an approach that is a total denial of fiscal planning. So what is the context in which this takes place? It's a context where the basic issue is not whether these dollars will be made available right away. The basic issue here is a question of trust. Can this government be trusted?

The second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), responding to our member for Alberni, said that he was one of the most uninformed people he had ever heard. That was quite a sad statement. I would ask has he met the Premier? Has he met the Minister of Finance? Obviously they are going about this either in a very crafty way or in a way that is totally lacking in common sense or appropriateness whatsoever. I leave it to the voters to decide which one of those courses this government is following.

Either way, it's folly for the people of British Columbia — this approach that is being taken by approving $5 billion at this time and in this way, when they have cast aspersions upon the democratic process by failing to make use of the opportunity to call the House. Why didn't they call the House? Why did they not call the House in February or even March? The reason was that they were embarrassed about what was happening with the member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid). They were worried about embarrassing questions being asked in this House that they didn't want to have to deal with. That's why this House is so late sitting this year.

This government is afraid of democracy. It's afraid of what is going to be turned up as the members of the opposition have the opportunity to ask questions of an urgent and pressing nature about trust and dealing with members of this cabinet.

I think it's an indication of this cabinet that the Premier's gotten to the point where he really doesn't have the bench strength to be able to turn to other members of the back bench to bring them in so that he can deal with the cabinet ministers that aren't doing their job. That's just one aspect of the way in which not only the stewardship of this province has been mismanaged but the way in which the Premier has mismanaged the stewardship of his cabinet and his own caucus.

Here we are with this group that would so much delight in using the term "not a dime without debate," and this cabinet that would bring forward this interim supply act at this time. They talk about some of the things they're going to do with this money.

For instance, I find parks in here. They have some interim funds in here for parks to enable the ministry to get on with the "ongoing budgetary programs of the Ministry of Parks." At this time in the history of our province we're looking at a political resource that desperately needs to have parkland added. We're recognizing that this government, which has agreed to the Brundtland report in looking at the stewardship of this whole province, has not moved in any way to fulfil the commitment this government made in agreeing to support the Brundtland report.

It was only in 1987 that this government removed $200 million from the Crown land fund and put it into the BS fund. Why? It's most interesting, in view of the fact that two of the key issues of public policy in this province at this time are the acquisition of housing and the acquisition of parkland. At that time, the resource was taken and removed.

Here we have this government having the temerity to come before this House and ask that this $5 billion be approved without the kind of debate that enables the type of scrutiny that is needed to go into the actual details of why this spending is wanted, what they're intending to do with it, and what that's all about.

This is a mischievous process going on here, a process that makes it very apparent when we look at the budget that has just come down that this government really does not have a plan. It is not organized. I find it absolutely shocking when we look at the environment protection fund that has recently been announced in the budget that $20 million to $50 million out of that fund has come from GO B.C. grants. It would be interesting to know just exactly how much of that money was not spent in the last fiscal year because of the embarrassment of the affair with regard to the member for Surrey-White Rock Cloverdale (Mr. Reid).

We are finding that this government is moving around like a shell game trying to hoodwink the public into thinking that somehow it's putting forward an approach that is appropriate; yet the public sees through it. The fact is that this government is embarrassed.

The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) recently went through some of the disasters that we have experienced in this province over this government's mismanagement. One that I would like to remind members of the House of is the Westwood Plateau lands. Those lands were sold to one developer. It wasn't long until the school trustees from School District 43 had to go cap in hand to the Minister of Education to ask for money to buy the land back after it had already existed within the Crown lands. They had to buy it back at a much inflated price over what it was sold in the first place. That is part of the legacy of mismanagement in this

[ Page 9095 ]

province, a legacy we have seen too much evidence of.

A few days ago in the House, my colleague the first member for Vancouver East pointed out the mismanagement again with the sale of 91 acres of lands in Haney that were Crown lands. It was excellent land, and it went for $660,000. We're dealing with a legacy of mismanagement by a government that now wants the people of British Columbia and the opposition of this House to stand here and say, "That's all right, go ahead, you can have that money," without having any sense of how that should be dealt with.

This is a government that is really concerned about its friends and insiders. It has lost touch with the public. Therefore the question of public trust is going to be very significant in the forthcoming election. Whether the government decides to use this money as a slush fund to help it win that election or to try to manipulate people during that election or whether they find that it is something that they have to wait on, the fact is that the public is very much aware that they've been getting away with murder in the way they have been handling the public trust.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this government has a divide-and-conquer mentality. They've set people against each other. They've played cat and mouse with the people of the province, taking away during the early part of an administration and trying to make it appear that they were giving back during the last part of an administration. That simply isn't going to work.

We see a government that does not have any significant influence from its back bench. We have a back bench that is performing as lambs being led to the slaughter, and it's simply inappropriate. What we have here is something that the people of British Columbia are not going to accept. We're not going to accept it, and we are going to continue to demand that there be absolutely thorough debate on this interim supply. Thank you.

MR. DE JONG: I am rising here to speak in support of the supply bill for the simple reason that there is nothing unusual about it. I am really taken aback by the lack of leadership in the socialist sector there. The Leader of the Opposition was mayor for many years in the city of Vancouver, has been very involved in municipal politics, and he should know that an interim supply bill — and it is called something different at the municipal level — is nothing unusual. In fact, every year in January a municipality will pass an interim supply bill which carries it over until the middle of May — four and a half months. It has nothing to do with elections; it's simply a matter of carrying on the financial obligations of the municipality. And so it is for this government.

I am somewhat....

Interjection.

MR. DE JONG: Yes, it's a nickel without debate You talk about "not a dime without debate." If, in fact, the opposition was serious, they would get on with third reading of this bill, because then you really can discuss the intricate details of the supply bill. But they don't want to do that, they just want to haul everything into it. They want to haul every skeleton out of the closet to deal with this bill, and that's the whole upset of this thing.

[4:45]

We've been here now for a few weeks. It started on the first day, with delay after delay. We've experienced this throughout these past three weeks. There seems to be no urgency on the part of the opposition to get on with the real business of this House. To have several members speak on the interim supply bill.... If they even spoke about the interim supply bill, it would be a different matter. But they don't; they speak of everything but the interim supply bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you attacking the Speaker?

MR. DE JONG: No, I'm not attacking the Speaker. I'm simply expressing a few of the things that I've experienced in this House.

Over the past three years, we've had detailed discussions about expenditures. Every year when we go through the detailed estimates, what is being talked about is not the expenditures that are proposed in the budget books; it's the things of the past that are being touched upon — every year, time and time again. We heard the same thing this afternoon. We heard about things that happened three or four years ago. They hauled them back on to the table instead of speaking about things that they are — so-called — so concerned about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the 1,200 dark days.

MR. DE JONG: I don't think I need to remind British Columbians, because they have a very good memory of that.

I would just like to say that if the opposition is really serious about cutting expenditures — as this government is — and holding the line on expenditures.... If this debate continues the way it is at the present time, we may in fact have to change this interim supply bill to six months instead of four, because there may not be enough time to accommodate everything within the four months.

Again, I just want to say that I feel that this kind of debate certainly does not prove the intelligence of the other side. I believe there is a lack of intelligence.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, come on now!

MR. DE JONG: Yes, I certainly believe that, hon. member, because, as I have already stated, the real thing that is in the supply bill is not being discussed. You, hon. member, have certainly added to the debate in that respect, unlike some others. I just hope that while they are discussing the province's most important business, we can really get on with the business

[ Page 9096 ]

that should be discussed instead of all the political rhetoric we hear from the socialist corner.

MR. HARCOURT: I was intrigued by the remarks of the minister of the rapidly shrinking Forests ministry, and by the second member from Matsqui, who reminded me of my experience as a mayor. I'll tell you, I never experienced anything like a four month blank cheque worth $5 billion. If the member thinks it's a lack of intelligence to trust this Social Credit government with a four-month blank cheque for over $5 billion, then we plead guilty. I question how he is determining intelligence. I'd like to read the comic book he got that from, because I don't think that our taking our job seriously about $5 billion is something that we should take lightly.

The rapidly diminishing Forests minister — who is shrinking in the budget he has for taking care of the forests — talked about people not having any idea of how to raise money. Well, we know this government's idea of raising money: it's to overtax the working people of this province, to overtax small business, to raise over $500 million in taxes from small business and from the working people of this province, and then to extract another $500 million from them through B.C. Hydro with an indirect tax. Their idea of how to raise money is to raise money in that way — from the working people of this province and small business — so they can give tax breaks to their political friends and insiders. That's their idea of how to raise money. It's not to provide services for the people of this province; it's to provide services for their political friends and insiders.

If either the Minister of Forests or the second member from Matsqui thinks that we're going to let this erratic government have a $5 billion blank cheque, they can forget it. We're not prepared to do that. They have redefined the idea of budgeting. Their idea of fiscal prudence is blank cheques and BS funds.

One of the reasons why we're not prepared to give this free-spending Social Credit government — on their friends and insiders — a blank cheque for this $5 billion on a four-month warrant, which is unprecedented.... And we just heard from the member from Matsqui that he wants to extend that to six months, after we haven't been here for eight months. We're not going to let you do that. Let me give you a couple of examples of why we're not going to let you do it.

Last year about this time, on March 31, we had 2,600 top people in our civil service — good people. This government so demoralized these people that they took advantage of an early retirement scheme, and in 12 hours we lost 1,600 of the top 2,600 people in the British Columbia civil service because they couldn't take the incompetence of this government anymore; they couldn't take the erratic nature of this government. This Minister of Finance was so good at budgeting for this — people leaving a sinking ship called the Socred ship — that their budgeted amount of $30 million for the people who would take early retirement turned out to be over $100 million and climbing, let alone the loss of skilled people that this province has suffered.

Then we have all the musical chairs that has happened — all the reorganizations of the reorganizations. Every three months the Premier and whoever is trying to advise him these days, whether it's with numerologists or a Ouija board, or whatever.... He says: "I'm just going to shake everybody up. It'll cost another $100 million, but what the heck, you've got to shake people up. What's $100 million?" That's their idea of blank cheques and BS funds — a very "Couvelier" attitude indeed towards the budget of this province. And you wonder why we're not prepared, Mr. Speaker, to give a blank cheque.

MR. SPEAKER: For a number of reasons I have to ask the member.... You see, we're not allowed to use members' names. And so if there's a pun....

MR. HARCOURT: I'm sorry. I mispronounced that. The word I meant to use is "cavalier," Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate that. And while you're on the subject, perhaps you'd acquaint yourselves with the names of constituencies. The member who spoke before you is not from Matsqui. He is the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong).

MR. HARCOURT: Central Fraser Valley. I take that and apologize to the member for Central Fraser Valley, who keeps trying to get farther and farther away from this Legislature and his colleagues — and I don't blame him.

The second example I was going to give, Mr. Speaker — and thank you for that correction in geography — is that this Social Credit government has not just redefined a blank cheque and fiscal prudence with BS funds and blank cheques, but they have redefined free enterprise to read: "Buy high and sell low." They don't know whether they're buying or selling, or whether they should buy or sell in up times or down times. Anybody who came on a spaceship from Mars and had some idea of buying and selling land and taking care of a government would look at that Expo land deal.... We should seal it in a time capsule so that 100 years from now, when our friends from Mars come to this planet — hopefully we'll have got it back in shape and got rid of our pollution and dealt with the poverty and annihilation-weapons we have — when they do come down and we greet them peacefully, they will look at the Expo land deal as an example of Socred free enterprise: buy high and sell low.

Who else could take one of the five best urban development sites in North America, bar none, and sell it in one chunk to one developer and lose money — in a real estate boom? And the Minister of Finance and the rapidly shrinking Minister of Forests wonder why we're not prepared to let $5 billion of blank cheque go by the by so that everybody can go to the Governor-General's ball. I'll tell you why, Mr.

[ Page 9097 ]

Speaker. We are here, as the past president of the Alberni Chamber of Commerce and our member for Alberni (Mr. G. Janssen) has said, as the bankers, as the trustees of the money that the people of this province work hard to bring before the Legislature to provide the services that our people want.

The Expo lands. We've received $50 million, and that's all we'll see until somewhere into the latter part of this decade. That's gross money — and it is a gross deal. It's gross money because from that we have to deduct the land that we bought for $9 a square foot, that we have to buy back at $30 to $50 a square foot to build the affordable housing for the people who we want to build housing for. They didn't even keep the land for the affordable housing. We have to deduct from that the cost of carrying that site for two years and the cost of fixing up the site, which is anywhere from $40 million to $100 million. We're going to lose money on this site. It's just unbelievable. All they had to do was not even use binoculars, but just peer — even if they're nearsighted — right across the creek to the south side, and they'd have seen a chunk of land that the city of Vancouver put into its property endowment fund; it leased it out and built expensive housing, modest housing and housing for low-income citizens beside Granville Island. It is one of the finest developments anywhere in the world.

Any government that didn't add the Expo lands to the property endowment fund that we should have instead of a BS fund.... We should have a real property endowment fund, not this fund created by the Minister of Finance. The property endowment fund is what we needed, but they sold the Expo lands and are going to lose money.

Let's take an even worse example: the Westwood lands. They did even worse there, Mr. Speaker. What they did.... I'll give one saving grace on the Expo lands — they at least reserved a school site for the Vancouver School Board. In Coquitlam the school board had to go and talk to the private developer and buy the site for the schools. Ten million dollars the school board had to pay.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't like to chastise the opposition House Leader unnecessarily, but he must be in his own seat in order to assist the person speaking.

[5:00]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, the same problem is being visited further to the east in Mission, where we have 275 prime acres of land that could be sold very soon, again on the same disastrous Socred free enterprise principle of buy high and sell low. A place where the vacancy rate is zero, where housing prices have gone from $76,000 to $126,000 in the space of eight months, and those people who are trying to get from Vancouver and Coquitlam out to less expensive housing are closed off too.

They're selling off this site, and when you look at the way this government has handled just those three sites on the Socred free enterprise principle of buy high and sell low, you can see why we are not going to let this $5 billion go through. Look at the other ways they have mishandled the funding of this province and the affordable housing problem. They let flippers get away with flipping real estate in a boom market. They allow young families to pay the property transfer tax when they buy their first home; but they let big real estate corporations, by selling their corporation instead of selling the asset, get away with not paying millions of dollars of taxes that could have gone to build affordable housing in this province.

The demolitions are going on in the greater Vancouver area on a redefinition of free enterprise by Social Credit, where the profit-and-loss statement of Social Credit on real estate reads as follows: the developers profit and the tenants and the public lose. The profits go to developers who are tearing down apartment buildings with 30 units of perfectly sound 15- to 20-year-old housing. Affordable rental housing in Kerrisdale is being torn down, and over 400 people are chased out of the neighbourhood. Some of those people have lived there for decades and raised their children there. They are being chased out of their own neighbourhood, and there's a zero vacancy rate wherever they go. Do you know what's replacing them? It's not more housing; it's 15 units replacing 30 units, and those 15 units cost half a million dollars and up. Now what kind of a government would allow that injustice to happen?

Those are just some of the examples that we have of the Social Credit redefinition of fiscal prudence — blank cheques and BS funds and redefinition of free enterprise to buy high and sell low.

Then we have the buying of by-elections. They tried that in Boundary-Similkameen when they put out $6 million or $7 million. We know the result of that: we had one of the largest turnarounds in the history of this province and elected a fine New Democrat MLA, and they had to eat that $6 million to $7 million. They said that wasn't enough, and they had to really buy a by-election in Cariboo. They threw $130 million into that by-election, and that didn't work either. As a matter of fact, we elected — again, with one of the largest margins we've seen — a New Democrat MLA in the Cariboo.

I will close with this point: this $5 billion is to buy an election. "We didn't spend enough on the by-elections, and we've got to spend $5 billion to buy this election."

This Minister of Finance is unbelievable. He's watched too much TV. He saw the $6 million man they had — Lee Majors — and he said: "I can do better than that; I'm going to be known as the $5 billion man." Well, we're not going to let that go by without a fight.

This is the government that gave us the Expo buy-high-and-sell-low, the Westwood buy-high-and-sell-low, the David Poole pension precedent and the White Rock recycling scam. Those were the pilot projects. What they're doing now is the biggest recycling project in B.C. history, a $5 billion recycling project to recycle funds to Socred friends and insid-

[ Page 9098 ]

ers. We are not going to let that go by without debate, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. PARKER: I rise in support of my colleague the Minister of Finance and Bill 22.

We're really fortunate that British Columbia has been 15 years in remission from that deadly disease of socialism. I'll tell you that for those of us who lived in the north in those dark days, Nimsickness was one of the worst bloody illnesses we ever saw in this province, and that was socialist, socialist, socialist attitudes and management techniques that go to kill the resource industry, and they killed it. Fortunately, it's flourishing now.

In the north, what we saw was a travesty. We saw the Forests minister of the day picking up, by bullying techniques, a whole industry out in Vanderhoof and then using public money to build a road right out of their log yard down into the heartland of their timber. Nobody else in the private sector was allowed to use Crown money for that sort of purpose Everybody else had to operate by the policy of the day, which said that in no way could your haul-road wind up in your yard — absolutely not; it had to be available for the public to use. But when you wanted to use it at Plateau Mills, no way, because it ended up in their back yard.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.1

Double standards — a standard for them and a standard for everybody else.

They claim we're embarrassed as a government. Well, we certainly are, because we have the most mediocre official opposition probably in the British empire. It's an absolute travesty.

This government has the most democratized organization of any jurisdiction within the British parliamentary system. The regionalization initiative of our Premier has given everybody in this province an opportunity to participate in the day-to-day operation of government. It's their recommendations and it's the long hours put in by volunteers throughout this province — people who contribute their time to the regional advisory councils and the eight economic development regions. That regionalization initiative is unique. In talking with my colleagues across Canada in a similar capacity in regional economic development, I find we are the only ones with this sort of initiative, the only ones that make it possible for the native community and the non-native community to participate in those regional advisory councils and to participate in regional economic development and, indeed, in provincial economic development. It has never been done before. It certainly wasn't done by the socialists opposite. When they had an opportunity, they did sweet tweet.

This government has led the way in the Commonwealth in having the first opportunity for back-bench members to participate in the development of the budget. You never saw it from the other side, because they don't believe in democracy. That's why they have three parts to their caucus. Why have a democracy? The back bench of this government has been very much a part of the policy formation of the government. They've had the opportunity to participate in all levels of operation of this government. We go out of our way to meet the requirements of our benchers. We listen to them; we understand where they have differences of opinion, and we work positively with our benchers to resolve all such rifts. We have a united caucus; we don't have a caucus of ladies and a caucus of men, and a caucus of Vancouver East and a caucus of what — what? Absolutely not.

The operations in northern British Columbia fuel the economic engines of British Columbia and always have. It's a resource breadbasket. The socialist years, '72 to '75, all but shut the power off in northern British Columbia. They set up a minister without portfolio for northern British Columbia. In those days, there we were in the north, doing the best we could to fuel the economic engines of British Columbia but constantly set back and set down by the socialists of the day. Real estate was never lower. Productivity was never lower. Bankruptcies were up. If you tried to spend any time with any of the representatives in the government of the day, they embarrassed you and whomever you appeared with. The language was certainly ungentlemanly, not to say unparliamentary. The housing vacancies in the north were substantial because people were leaving this province; they weren't flocking to the province.

We have seen substantial growth in British Columbia in the last three years. The number of people moving into British Columbia from other provinces and from other parts of the world is unprecedented. We have a demand for housing that other provinces wish they could come close to. It's opportunities that attract these people, not handouts — opportunities, good management, capable fiscal management, leadership by the Premier of this province, leadership by his cabinet, leadership by his benchers, leadership by all of these people.

MR. BARLEE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member from the north stated that people left British Columbia. He hasn't read his own budget speech which was just given to us a few days ago. If he looks at page 41, he will find that there was a considerable increase in population between 1972 and 1975. That population growth....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a point of order.

The member continues.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's a simple matter of record. Check the bankruptcies and the number of businesses that folded from '72 to '75. What we see today is growth due to opportunity, good fiscal management and strong leadership. That leadership was sadly lacking from '72 to '75.

We hear the Leader of the Opposition crying about a redefinition of budget numbers. Well, we're on top of the budget numbers; we share those numbers. You

[ Page 9099 ]

have had an opportunity, as have others in this caucus, to deal with the preparation of the budget and the numbers. We're not surprised, all of a sudden, that we're $100 million out; or that we don't know where it went, like Mr. Levi, back in the good old days — '72 to '75. "What's $100 million? I haven't got a clue what happened." That shouldn't surprise anybody. Look at the ineptness of the record of the day.

That is why they are not the government today, and that's why they won't be the government tomorrow. They're a government of yesterday. Thank God it's long past, and we are in remission.

MS. MARZARI: I kind of admire the debate as it unfolds in this House, as the people stand in the marble halls, with schoolchildren and the gallery looking on, and we really have a go at it and have a good time at it. I would like to return the attention of this House to the issue of accountability, which is where we started. [Applause.] Do I hear backbenchers on the other side applauding that?

[5:15]

It occurred to me, when the Minister of Finance brought forward this supply bill, that in effect he was asking for $5 billion, and that that $5 billion, in his estimation, was going to be run through this House in about five minutes. I have a mind which is increasingly political in nature, and my mind immediately thought: now this is a setup; there's going to be a discussion on the other side of the House to try to encourage the opposition to become rabid over this bill, and perhaps even to turn this bill into the budget debate of this House for this session. I thought maybe we should be careful about how we approach this supply bill; perhaps we should take it seriously. I actually did consider that for one moment, Mr. Speaker. I must admit my innocence, at this point.

Then I saw, as we stood, starting with our finance critic, to address the issue of accountability.... I watched as our critic talked to the government side and to the Minister of Finance about the nature of actually putting forward a single act of six pages, asking for eight months' worth of funding amounting to $5 billion. Actually, the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations looked shocked.

I have to conclude from that, and from the fact that the other side seems to be in some disarray, that this was not planned as a political setup for the opposition. I have to assume, from the reaction in this House, that the Minister of Finance actually thought this bill would go through in five minutes. That's a billion dollars a minute; that's what the minister anticipated, with no accountability.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's pretty fast money.

MS. MARZARI: Easy come, easy go.

I was prepared to speak to the budget today. In my budget remarks, I was going to suggest that never had so much been spent in this province by so few people with so little vision and so little debate. That was the major thrust of my budget debate.

Then I come to this House to be insulted by the fact that $5 billion — fully one-third of the total operating budget of this province — was on the floor at 2:20 p.m. on a Monday.

MR. WILLIAMS: Blue Monday.

MS. MARZARI: Blue Monday indeed.

Why? What happened here to catch the other side of the House so completely unaware? How did the Social Credit Minister of Finance think? What got into his head to even think that this would go through? How did he interpret that this could pass through the House in five minutes — $1 billion a minute? How could he assume that the House and its processes, established over the 700 years we've been sitting around — and it certainly does feel that way just before an election — which are to spend and collect money from taxpayers responsibly...that he could get away with whipping through $5 billion in five minutes? Lack of accountability is the answer to that question.

I say this on the very day I promised the House Leader of the other side that I would be going to the press to protest the fact that here we are, three weeks into a new session, and the Public Accounts Committee has not yet met; indeed, it has not yet been named. This is a committee which looks at the accounts of a year and a half ago — a full two years ago. We have yet to delve into those accounts, because the committee has not yet been named by the other side of the House. Accountability, Mr. Speaker.

Did the Minister of Finance forget what his place was? Did he forget who he serves? Putting it politically, very crassly, did he forget the people whose votes he needs in order to go into this election with any confidence of ever winning? Let me put it to you that way. Who are the people this government needs in order to win an election? Not surprisingly, a good number of them are the same ones we need on this side of the House. They are the uncommitted voters, the people who are thinking through which side of the House they deem will be more accountable when the crunch comes and when the money is to be collected and spent.

Who are those people? Well, they are the very people that this budget was intended to please and that this $5 billion is intended to buy. Who are they? They are the people in education: the teachers, the parents and the school boards. Where are they? Right now they are desperately trying to have in camera meetings to discuss whether or not they will go for referenda. They have been caught between a rock and a hard place by this government on an issue which is going to destroy them. They know that the seeds of destruction for themselves and the school system that we know lie within the budget you have presented to this House, the warrant you have brought forward and the new bill you are bringing to this House in the next few days. You have offended the people that you want.

Who else are they? They're the mayor of the city of Vancouver — someone who has often been touted as

[ Page 9100 ]

a potential candidate for the Social Credit Party. He's saying to his local newspapers that this budget is superficial and shallow, and that it does not serve the interests of the city.

AN HON. MEMBER: The mayor of Vancouver?

MS. MARZARI: The mayor of Vancouver is talking about shallowness of intent. If the budget is shallow, bringing forward a $5 billion warrant is barely ankle-deep in the depths of political thought and philosophical thinking, in terms of what we should and could be doing.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ankle-deep, eh?

MS. MARZARI: Or shall we say toe-deep?

Who else is offended? Small business is offended — another constituency that this government pretends to speak for. Small business is told on a daily basis by their accountants — I've been there, and so have my colleague from Port Alberni and a number of other people on my side of the House, unlike some of the free-lunchers on the other side — that you don't is skim the till; you don't take it off the top; you don't spend and take in money unless you account for it. That's called skimming the till, Mr. Speaker. That's something like spending lottery money without any terms of reference or any regard for the rules of the game. It's something like handing out government money without even reading or asking for applications. It's called skimming the till. Others in this room have called it handing it off the back of the truck or driving pickups down the highway. I'm not a trucker; I talk about skimming the till.

Another thing that accountants won't let small business get away with is milking the company — that's what they call it — somewhat in the way the regional ministers, who were put in place last year for $8 million, were instituted. They have folded that program, just as the accountants probably told them to do. You don't take the assets of the company and fritter them away without accountability. You don't do it. Small business doesn't do it. Why should government do it?

There's another thing that accountants will tell you not to do when you're in small retail. They say: "Don't overstock your shelves when it's not Christmas. Your turnover isn't going to be great enough to justify the expense you put into your inventory." You don't do that. You don't run up your line of credit when there is not a Christmas season coming along. Mr. Speaker, this warrant of $5 billion reads like Christmas to me, and in our terms — in politics — that’s called "election." This $5 billion, unless it's accompanied by an election, flies this government nowhere. It is an indication to me of the first ringing of the bell towards the election to come — an election without accountability.

Assuming that the Minister of Finance is not interested in accountability here — and I wonder whether the Public Accounts Committee ever will meet before the election call — I have to remind this

House that in the last few months the Minister of Finance has not shown himself to be very good at numbers. Perhaps he forgot momentarily that it was $5 billion. In the past, when we have been dealing with warrants of this nature, they have come nowhere near to that. In fact, I remember a major debate in this House about casinos aboard a gambling ship. I remember a major debate around the $8 million for regional ministers. This is $5 billion.

I think of some of the difficulties this minister and this House have had with numbers. For example, 8,000 housing units. Social housing last year received an allocation of 1,700 housing units from the federal government. Those same 1,700 to 2,000 housing units were announced, believe it or not, by the Minister of Housing four times. At the end of the year we were told that, in fact, we had 8,000 housing units. In this year's budget — and in the warrant — I'm sure that we will be told that 8,000 housing units will be built when, in fact, only 2,000 are allocated.

I also have to speak to the difficulty with numbers that we have in the education ad that went into the newspapers a few days ago, a full-page ad, sponsored by our tax dollars and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), which speaks of a 300 percent increase in the education budget this year, from $1 billion to $3 billion. Some of that will be spent here.

I have to say, and I should remind everybody, that that is not a 300 percent increase. If you do the mathematics, $1 billion to $3 billion — you subtract 1 from 3, divide it by a billion and then multiply that by 100 — it turns into a 200 percent increase. I would hope that the Minister of Education, who is sponsoring a very expensive ad to talk about the Excellence in Education opportunities in our province because of his budget, has a simple error in mathematics. He might want to correct that.

[5:30]

I should talk, too, about the minister's inability to determine the difference between one-sixth of a year and one-fifth of a year, a few weeks ago, when he was taking his first warrant through cabinet. That amounted to $200 million. That's a simple ten-minute forgetting of whether he was dealing with a sixth or a fifth of the overall budget.

Those are just some of the small numbers that our government has difficulty with. The larger numbers, of course, have to do with the equalization payment financing fund and the Canada Assistance Plan funding which should be coming from the federal government. But because our government has very little to do with the feds and has managed to offend them in virtually every conceivable way over the last few weeks, months and years, we in British Columbia are losing literally hundreds of millions of dollars. There's no way of knowing how many more housing allocations we could have received or how much better we could have done in EPF, and if we could put up a half-decent fight on the Canada Assistance Plan — if we would be much further ahead than we are now.

Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat: what we've got here is a government that doesn't seem to be in competent

[ Page 9101 ]

charge of its own finances. If it cannot pull together a budget or a warrant properly, one can only wonder and begin to guess how it spends the money it takes in. One can only guess that the minister has really forgotten who it is he serves and whose votes he wants. But I can guarantee the minister that the people whose votes he wants won't forget this warrant — and we won't let them.

MR. DAVIDSON: I hadn't intended to speak in this debate, as many of us hadn't. There really is no necessity to speak in a debate that is virtually not necessary when you consider the alternatives before us over the next several days.

I have to compare much of the debate going on right now with an incident that took place not so long ago when I wrote a very stinging article in my local paper against the federal government and the GST and the way in which they have treated British Columbia. The response I got from the sitting Member of Parliament was most interesting. He began his retort to my criticism by saying: "Gee, I don't know really what they're so upset with. We only took 1 percent, which was only $120 million." And I thought to myself poor Stan Wilbee, he's only been a Member of Parliament for a short time and already they've convinced him that $100 million is hardly anything at all. Well, maybe in Ottawa that's the way they think, but in British Columbia it creates a very real problem for us.

The Minister of Finance was forced to realign many of his figures because all of a sudden the federal government said to him that $120 million would not be coming to British Columbia.

It's very sad that at this time, when we have so much opportunity ahead of us to debate, we're confusing a very straightforward issue. Sure, $5 billion is a lot of money, but it is not without debate.

I want to tell you that there was a time in this House — the member smiles, because he knows what's coming — during 1972 to 1975, when the people of British Columbia didn't have an opportunity to have debates on spending estimates put through. There was a would-be Premier then who went around this province and promised the people that there would not be a dime spent in this House without debate, and the first thing that this government did when it took office....

Interjection.

MR. DAVIDSON: Go the full time? Back in 1905....

From 1972 to 1975, when it came time to pass estimates there was a limit on the time for debate, and once that time-limit of 120 hours or less was passed, all estimates were deemed to have been passed. So if members of the opposition wanted to debate a particular estimate, there was no opportunity if the time-limit had been spent on other matters. For this opposition to stand up today and try and indicate that there is no opportunity for members to debate, because this is a quick $5 billion, five-minute bill, is absolute nonsense. There might be a hint of politics in what they're saying, but there's certainly no hint of reality.

A great deal has been said about the budget stabilization fund. I want to let some of the members know that south of this border, in the United States of America, there are 29 states that have budget stabilization provisions. Not every year is going to be a bumper year for income. Not every year is going to show a positive cash flow. There are going to be times when the going out there is a little rougher and tougher than at other times. When those times come, governments are not going to want to tax additionally; they are going to want to spend additionally.

Unlike the federal government, which has no borrowing power left.... The bond issue of the federal government is virtually bankrupt. While British Columbia enjoys a positive rating in the bond community, no such benefits accrue to the federal government. The reason is very simple: we have been able to take measures over the years that have led this province into fiscal responsibility.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.)

Five billion dollars is only a fraction of what will be spent in this province on social programs, education and health care. It is misleading at best for members of the opposition to take their place in debate and try to indicate or suggest that in any way the money asked for by the Minister of Finance is going to be passed without debate in this House. That is simply not the case. Every member of this chamber will have an opportunity not only to take his or her place in the budget debate, which in essence is taking place right now, but to take his or her place in estimates and go into each and every ministry as we go through April, May, June, July, and possibly longer.

There is not a single person in this Legislature that in any way whatsoever wants to deny paycheques to those individuals who work for and are responsible for the people of British Columbia and the policies of British Columbia.

Instead, we have an opposition here that sees an opportunity to try and make a few political points. But it's not going to work, because the people of British Columbia know what interim supply is, if the opposition doesn't. The people of British Columbia know what "not a dime without debate" means and the people of British Columbia know that every person in this chamber will have an opportunity to debate the estimates and the spending programs of this government between now and the time that this session comes to an end.

This is not a short step; this is not an effort to deny anyone an opportunity to debate. It is an opportunity to see that the services and the payroll of the province of British Columbia are met in a timely and orderly fashion.

MR. LOVICK: So much for government caucus solidarity. We all heard the member for Delta, given

[ Page 9102 ]

his instruction to "use the whole time." And what did he make it to? About 12 minutes? So much for caucus solidarity.

When I heard the member for Delta begin his remarks, I thought we were really in for a treat. He began with a logical proposition that I thought we could pay close attention to and perhaps even profit by. Do you know what his opening statement was, Mr. Speaker? It was one of those wonderful declarations where we all feel we should take a course in logic so we can keep up with it. He said that this debate is not necessary because the debate is not necessary. I thought: that represents a leap of faith that would make Kierkegaard look like a piker. I was impressed with the member for Delta, and I want you to know that it is the first time I have offered that observation.

As we listened to the Finance minister's explanation of this interim supply measure, a number of us were turning one to the other and saying: "Why would they do this? There must be something happening. Could it be a hidden agenda?" And then we thought: maybe what we're looking at is an election gimmick. I use the terms advisedly, because after looking closely at this measure, and after listening to the debate from our side and the rather pathetic response from opposite, it becomes very clear to me that what we're talking about has nothing to do with interim supply measures. This is crass politics, nothing more.

You want to know why? I can tell that some members opposite have already been lost in that leap, so perhaps I could slow it down a little and explain it. We're talking 5 billion bucks; we're talking four months. The obvious question is: why would we do that? You don't have to think too long and hard about it to recognize that we could have a very quick adjournment of this House before we have an opportunity to debate the budget.

The budget debate, as we all know, is pro forma. We all go through the ritualistic half-hour, usually with a view to saying something to our constituents rather than focusing on the areas of incompetence and stupidity and other assorted sins associated with that government. And if they pull the plug, guess what? We lose the opportunity to expose this government for what it truly is doing or failing to do. That's the politics; it's just that simple.

[5:45]

For members opposite, such as the member from Peace River, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), to say that members on this side of the House would do something to prevent teachers from being paid or would do something to hold the public service to ransom is ludicrous in the extreme. We all know it. We are talking here nothing but crass politics.

On that theme, I note that when I look at this supply bill I see something that we — in the time I have been here, certainly, and I've checked it out with some other members who have longer service in this chamber — have never seen before. If you look at the first page of the bill itself, in the top left-hand corner.... Am I going too quickly? Have we got it? It says: "Draft 2." And I say to myself: were they originally planning on 11 months or 15 months or two months? Is it possible that we have drafts 2, 3, 4 and 5 coming down? What is the reason why we suddenly have draft 2? Was the first one scarier? Was it maybe that the first one was 2 because somebody clever and really political — say, the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) — said: "Look, guys, if we're going into an election, give us a window. Give us four months, not two. Because in two months, you really don't have time to move and shake."

MR. WILLIAMS: He's too busy recharging electric eels.

MR. LOVICK: Probably, yes. Probably not that member but somebody over there with some political moxie. I'm looking around in vain at the moment to find somebody, but I'm sure there are some I'm missing. I see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) isn't here, and normally we would assume it was the A-G. It could have been the former Minister of Highways, whose stellar performance on British Columbia television dazzled us all and, needless to say, has got us scared spitless about having an election — but I'll let that pass.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are so.... It's very tempting, of course, to dismiss this out of hand and to be frivolous, but there are so many serious dimensions to it, and clearly those ought to be reserved for the next session of....

I understand that by agreement we are going now to move that this debate do adjourn until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Lovick moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.