[ Page 9103 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 22). Second reading

Mr. Lovick –– 9103

Hon. Mr. Reynolds –– 9106

Ms. Edwards –– 9108

Ms. Cull –– 9109

Mr. Loenen –– 9111

Mr. G. Hanson –– 9112

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen –– 9116

Mr. Barnes –– 9116

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the hon. Terry Huberts and myself, I would like to introduce....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's start all over again. The member knows the rules by now; we're almost at the end of this parliament. I'd like you to name the member by his constituency.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I appreciate the correction. I know it's customary not to mention names when we're speaking in a derogatory fashion, but I think so highly of my colleague that I just couldn't resist the temptation.

In any event, on behalf of my colleague the second member for Saanich and the Islands and myself, I want to ask the House to welcome some very important visitors this morning. Visiting the House are Master Dale Stevens and his grade 7 classmates from Lake Hill Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wall and several other chaperones. I'd like the House to join me in giving them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, a couple of very good friends — certainly great contributors to Surrey for which I was formerly MLA and mayor — Vern and Helga Hoing, are with us today, and I would ask the House to extend them a welcome.

Orders of the Day

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

(continued)

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Interim supply, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on second reading, I think, is the appropriate motion.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, in discussing interim supply yesterday, I think we were in danger of falling into the trap of failing to recognize that this is a rather unique debate. Interim supply, after all, is a routine measure; it ought not to take up much of our time and our attention. However, in this case we're dealing with something quite different. We are dealing with interim supply for the largest amount of money in the province's history; we are dealing with interim supply for the longest period of time in the province's history; and we are dealing with interim supply for the flimsiest of reasons in the province's history. The debate, therefore, is unique.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I note somebody across the way saying: "We have to pay the salaries." The simple point is — and I am going to say it slowly so everybody over there will understand — you have special warrants that will enable you to pay salaries and to conduct the business of government until May 6; you have that kind of money in place.

All these suggestions about urgency, therefore, do not hold up to close scrutiny. You know it; we know it. Clearly, the obvious conclusion is that there is another agenda.

That is the point I was touching on yesterday when I left off. I was talking about the other agenda — the crass politics agenda. The reason, of course, as we said yesterday — and certainly nobody across the way was able to dispute the proposition — is that what we're looking at is a four-month window so that this government could go the people and could run an election without ever being subjected to any kind of questioning or close scrutiny about its actions. And this government, we know, is scared spitless of doing that. They would much prefer to go to the people with lots of money in hand, without ever having been called upon to explain and to justify their record. That's the politics of it very clearly.

Let's look at some of the other reasons adduced by members opposite in that debate we witnessed yesterday. We heard stories that the budget debate itself would provide us with the opportunity to look closely at the government's record. But I want to tell members opposite, many of whom apparently are unaccustomed to debate in this chamber, that there are different rules in place when we have a budget debate from those we use when we have an estimates debate. During an estimates debate, we can ask questions and government has an obligation to answer them.

The problem is that in a budget debate what we have is simply the pro forma ritual responses from one side to the other. That is good, it's important, but it's not the issue; the issue is accountability. The issue is that members on the side opposite need to answer the questions about their spending and about their policy. That's why we are struggling with this.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I hear another one of the cleverer people across the way saying: "Call the vote." That's the other argument that is used. In other words, this is simply democracy unfolding as it ought, or some such thing.

The problem with that argument is that it fails to recognize the principal weakness inherent in the democratic system, and why parliament has developed to grapple with that particular weakness.

I know the member for Yale-Lillooet's (Mr. Rabbitt's) eyes are beginning to glaze over the moment I start talking in multisyllable words and about concepts like democracy. Bear with me; I'll try to do this straightforwardly, simply and clearly for you.

The principal flaw within a democratic system, if you regard a democratic system as simply majority

[ Page 9104 ]

rule, is that you can have what philosophers for hundreds of years have referred to as the "tyranny of the majority." Therefore we impose restraints by which we, the elected people, can protect ourselves against the abuse of majority power.

One of those protections is this chamber — this process called debate, the process called estimates and the entire process of establishing that government must account for every nickel it spends. Gladstone, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, said many years ago: "Until the last farthing is accounted for." That's the principle that, sadly, doesn't seem understood across the way. The budget debate, as I say, does not yield us the opportunities to pose the questions that need to be posed and to get the answers that need to be given from government.

Another comment made from across the way, and one that we heard repeated on numerous occasions — by the member for Langley, if my memory serves — had to do with irresponsibility, suggesting that we on this side were somehow being irresponsible for using this chamber to discuss, debate and demand that there should be debate before money was spent. I thought to myself: how curious it is that somebody elected to the parliament — literally the talking place; literally the place where debate goes on; literally the place that one person who hated parliaments once called the "talk shop".... How sad that in that very place somebody is telling us that what you mustn't do is talk; in other words, you mustn't exercise what you do as a parliamentarian by definition. I thought: how could anybody with any comprehension, any glimmering of understanding about this position, this role, this Legislature, make that statement? However, I should know from experience that members opposite are capable of doing that. To suggest that what we do here by talking, by demanding debate and by demanding an opportunity to discuss all the government's spending priorities is irresponsible — that is lunatic, in a word.

We also had the reference from the member for Yale-Lillooet — who I see and am pleased to note is still here — that what we could do if we were so concerned was.... I want to make sure I quote him correctly. When we suggested that this was an election ploy, this was crass politics, the member opposite was heard to remark: "Well, call an election, then." I thought: how interesting that somebody — the loose-lipped over there — let it slip. That's precisely what you'd like to do, isn't it, Mr. Member and members opposite? They'd like to have an election where they don't have to answer questions in this chamber. That's why the extra two months at least, that's why the four-month warrant and that's why the $5 billion.

I want to assure members opposite that we aren't afraid of any kind of election call. In fact, I'm going to have some words for your Premier. In my last few moments of the time allotted me I'm going to have a few words for your Premier about election calls. The predicament is that we have a measure presented to us about interim supply, the reasons for which are entirely bogus and don't hold up to any kind of close scrutiny.

[10:15]

The fundamental responsibility we are charged with as representatives of the people, of course, is accountability. We must account to those who elected us, and I want to share with members opposite a few comments from a document of some ten years or more now, the federal government's Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, the Lambert commission of 1979. The Lambert commission, some of you will recall, took two years to complete its work, and the opening statements in the Lambert commission report are ones we should never forget. They drew our attention to a problem with government, to a problem with the way the system was operating and, above all, to a problem with confidence, to the fact that more and more people looked at their elected representatives, looked at government with some cynicism and with some skepticism.

The Lambert commission, as I say, spent two years involved in careful study and they reached what they referred to as the deeply held conviction that there was a serious malaise pervading the management of government. And they suggested that that malaise "stems fundamentally from a grave weakening, and in some cases an almost total breakdown, in the chain of accountability: first, within government, and second, in the accountability of government to Parliament and ultimately to the Canadian people."

The report goes on to say — and I want to quote just a little; I think we could all learn from it:

"Accountability is the essence of our democratic form of government. It is the liability assumed by all those who exercise authority to account for the manner in which they have fulfilled responsibilities entrusted to them — a liability ultimately to the Canadian people owed by Parliament, by the government, and thus, every government department and agency. Accountability is the fundamental prerequisite for preventing the abuse of delegated power...."

That reference, of course, is to the Canadian government, but obviously it refers to government qua government. It refers to this House and to the process that we're involved in today. Parliament, of course, is the other side of the accountability coin.

Let me quote a little more from the Lambert commission:

"The key to Parliament's role as a body to which accountability is owed for the administration of government has always been the need for Parliament's approval of government's expenditure and its power to review that expenditure. Parliament's ability to undertake this task, both at the time expenditure is proposed and after it has been made, must be reinforced and improved. However, such bolstering of parliamentary resolve will require changes in organization and procedure and, above all, in the attitudes of the participants."

Take note, members opposite. Take note, all those who made those fatuous, facile and flaccid comments about our being irresponsible. The attitude of the members is absolutely crucial. The commitment to accountability must be paramount. Sadly, to judge

[ Page 9105 ]

from remarks exchanged yesterday by members opposite, that principle is not accepted as given.

Let me just add one other brief statement from the Lambert commission — the last paragraph — because I see I now have the attention of a couple of members opposite who are actually listening. I commend them for it.

"The process of scrutiny, surveillance, public exposure and debate helps to legitimize the actions of government to the public."

God knows, parenthetically, this government needs something to legitimize itself.

"The current widespread hostility to 'big government' can be partially explained in terms of a breakdown in the public's belief in the appropriateness of government spending. This, in turn, can be ascribed to the failure of existing arrangements to permit Parliament, on an informed basis, to undertake an open and comprehensible review of government expenditure and a comparison of results against stated goals."

Mr. Speaker, that's what we in this House are asking about. That's why we are bothered and offended by this interim supply measure. The issue — what we on this side of the House are saying — is that if we accept this interim supply measure, we have effectively condoned the government's virtual contempt for the assembly, the tradition and the principle of accountability.

We are giving you a blank cheque if we pass this measure. We are giving you an opportunity to go to the people without ever having had to explain and justify what you are doing. That's too much. It's not silly; it's not minor; it's not some arcane or esoteric point about procedure that doesn't matter. It's fundamental; it's absolutely crucial. Sadly, I don't think members opposite understand that, or at least embrace and accept that proposition.

Having regard, then, for fundamental and longstanding principles of responsible government, I would like to offer a comment or two to the Premier, through you, if I might, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, as we all know, has recently become fond of lecturing the members of this assembly, and indeed all the people of the province, on the marvels of democracy. He wants to tell us all about the marvels of democracy, and he likes to point to places around the globe.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I hear somebody opposite saying that that's precisely what I'm doing right now. The difference, Madam Member across the way, is that my behaviour doesn't contradict the point I am making. That's the issue, and that's why we have trouble with your Premier presuming to tell us about democracy, when obviously, by his actions, he shows he doesn't understand the concept.

This Premier, given that he is so fond of democracy and believes so much in accountability and the public's right to know, might like to stand in this chamber today and give us some assurances and give the people of British Columbia his undertaking — his promise — that his government's detailed estimates will be debated in full before an election is called. If the Premier could do that — if he would do that — obviously he would take away the case that we on this side have been arguing. So I would say to the Premier then: if you want to allay our fears, and if you want to suggest that what we are doing is entirely groundless, here is your opportunity. You can stand; you can say those things.

My guess, however, is that the Premier is not going to accept the challenge. He's going to tiptoe up to the edge of the abyss of calling the election and say: "That's a long way down, and I don't think I'm going to survive. Therefore I will step back and wait a little longer." I think the notion of the Premier believing in the public's right to know and in the principle of accountability can be demonstrated. He could show that to us. However, I don't believe he will, because despite his lofty and frequent rhetoric to the contrary, his actions demonstrate what amounts to a denial of that responsible, open and truly democratic government that members on the opposite side of the House like to talk about.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the Premier — the late arrival, as is typical — not having understood any of the subtle, sophisticated and complicated parts of the argument, nevertheless rushes in with his nice, simplistic, simple-minded statement as if all is solved. And that, you know, is part of our problem in this province. We have a Premier who believes that a smile and a shoeshine is sufficient. If you tell the folks that all they have to do is work harder, try a little harder, be nice and everything will work out nicely.... We have at least half a dozen statements of that kind on record. Right? You recall your advice to women — for example, "Pray more," and that kind of thing. I don't want to elaborate, but you'll recall — through you, Mr. Speaker.

The notion that we are afraid of an election is ludicrous, because it's quite the opposite, you see, Mr. Premier. What we are saying is: let's have an election, but let's do it in an open, aboveboard and honest way. Let's have a debate on your estimates, and if you're not going to do that, give us your undertaking that we will then postpone an election until such time as we've had that debate. Do that, Mr. Premier, and you'll solve all the problems; but I suspect you won't. As I said a moment ago, I suspect you'll tiptoe to the abyss, you'll look over and you'll say, "That's too far down," and you'll step back.

Therefore you'll get the Minister of Finance to stand up and tell us about the urgent need for interim supply — the urgent need that is demonstrably not urgent. We on this side would like to be supportive of and be able to respond to an interim supply measure— because it is routine — and simply say: "Yes indeed, we accept that the government needs this money. Therefore we'll go along with it without debate."

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the tradition in this assembly — indeed in all assemblies — is that interim supply doesn't get debated. And that's how we would like to operate. The problem is: given the track record of this government and given the fact that we,

[ Page 9106 ]

like the people, aren't sure whether we can trust this government — and we aren't sure whether the agenda we have before us is in fact the real agenda — we would be irresponsible in the extreme if we agreed to interim supply without considerable discussion. That's why we're going through this process, and why I, for one, make no apology for what we are doing.

In parliament the only weapon we on this side of the House have to prevent the abuse of power, to prevent the overreaching of power, is our voices, and thus the need to protract the debate. I don't think that most people in the province are really aware of why governments don't like the Legislature. The deck is clearly stacked in favour of the opposition. We know that; that's the nature of an adversarial system.

We have an opportunity in the Legislature to beat up on government and to ask questions of government. When the House isn't sitting, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) can run around painting signs with bigger and better features of her name saying: "Working for You." And none of us can ask how much it costs; we can't even do that. You can do that; you have an open season. You also have a huge budget to spend promoting yourselves.

It's only when the Legislature is sitting that we can, in fact, put some pressure on you. That's why you don't like the Legislature to sit very often, because you know that whenever it sits, your popularity goes down accordingly. That's why; it's obvious. The Legislature is a goldfish bowl; we all know it, and those folks over there are swimming in it. And it's true that when they swim, it is, for us, much like shooting fish in a barrel. I acknowledge that. We demand the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to keep shooting.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: What a way to start the day, listening to the first member for Nanaimo!

It's quite interesting to sit here and listen to the members of the opposition talk about this interim supply and how bad it is. It's $5 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Billion!

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I'll quote some of them. "Accountability is offended by the interim supply measure," the first member for Nanaimo said. "It's condoning government contempt for this House."

[10:30]

Now, Mr. Speaker, after listening to all that, I have to go back and wonder: where was the first member for Nanaimo last year? Where was the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) last year, when we had $3.2 billion in interim supply and they passed it in five minutes?

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't expecting an election last year.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: They talk about this government having an election before they get a chance to debate the estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: Picky, picky.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: "Picky, picky," the first member for Vancouver East says. I just want to remind the folks that one year you think it's great and you let it pass in five minutes; the next year there might be an election, so you want to put on a little show for the people, to let them know you're really concerned about this $5 billion.

What's really happening in this House with the NDP in delaying this passage is that they are delaying the vote on the budget and the estimates, where they can really get to the source of what's being spent in this province and ask questions of the members of this side. I think their problem is that they don't want to get to the estimates, because they know that in the estimates the ministers also get a chance to tell their side of the story, to tell the people of the province what's really going on. So here we've got the NDP delaying this House and the right of all its members to get to the estimates, where the real work is done.

What I listened to all of yesterday — and I'm sure we'll hear it today — is talk about the delays and the $5 billion, but none of the members has got to the bill. I heard the first member for Point Grey — and I think I quote her absolutely correctly — say: "This warrant reads like Christmas." Obviously the first member for Point Grey hasn't read the bill. Does she think Christmas is the air ambulance service? Is that Christmastime in British Columbia? That party over there, delaying this bill, could be delaying air ambulance services in this province. Irresponsibility!

Mr. Speaker, I would bet you that the NDP will probably wind down this debate today, because if they were reading the bill like they should.... I haven't heard one of them go through the bill yet clause by clause and talk about what's in it.

Government Employees' Union employee benefits are part of this bill. The NDP is holding up the benefits for employees of this province — that's what they're doing. So I would bet.... They come in and out — the leader just got here. Some of them go.... Their phones are probably ringing in the office from the employees of this province saying: "What are you guys doing holding up the government, holding up the money that's supposed to be going to its employees?"

If they looked further into the bill, they would see the Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare. Does the NDP want the people of this province to know that they're holding up Pharmacare? That's exactly what they're doing. Last year and in years previous to that, interim supply passed in five minutes. Why do the NDP pick this year to debate it for a couple of days, delaying the estimates, delaying the passage of the budget? They're holding up medicare and Pharmacare payments. I'll bet you, Mr. Speaker, that that's why they're running back to their

[ Page 9107 ]

offices. Their phones are probably ringing off the hook. They're worrying the people of this province.

It's going to be interesting when we get to the vote, because this also includes the home oxygen program. The NDP is delaying that in this House. We could go on and on, and I will. There are many items. They can talk about all the great things they do, but the NDP are delaying the home oxygen program in this province. Shame on them!

They're also holding up the ombudsman and the auditor-general. Their budgets are in here also. Advanced education and technology, the Attorney-General's department — all the important things in the government, the NDP are holding up, talking about an election. Well, this party's looking forward to the next election, especially when we see what's to offer on the other side of the House.

In this bill there is $222,940,000 for education. The party over there says it cares about education — two days of delaying the education money in this House. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) is here. Imagine what he's going to be able to tell the teachers and the students out there, who are wondering why the party over there is delaying the money from this government from flowing out into the province, to keep all of the great programs this government has around this province.

I'm glad to see that the environment critic is here. There is $12,723,000 for the environment in the interim supply. That party over there is holding up the environment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I think it's great that the critic for the party and the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).... I'm hoping that one of them wants to get up to explain their new policy on spotted owls. I've heard the member who lives in my constituency, Jack Munro, with his new policy on behalf of the NDP: "Go out and shoot 'em." That's the NDP policy on spotted owls. If we don't get the money in this interim supply quickly, I might not be able to get our people out there to make sure they catch the people who are shooting those owls, as recommended by the NDP.

The Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran): $27,410,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: For what?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: How about transition houses and safe houses? There's a 25 percent budget increase for them, and the NDP is holding that up in this House. That's a $10 million increase for transition houses and safe houses for the women of this province, and the NDP are holding that program up by this debate.

Social assistance and day care subsidies are in this interim supply, and the NDP are holding up those great programs. We have a Minister Responsible for Women's Programs who is ready to get out there and improve this province, and what's happening? The NDP is holding that up, holding up the estimates, because they probably aren't looking forward to the minister in charge of women's issues getting up in estimates to tell the people of this province all of the great things this government is doing in those areas.

Mr. Speaker, $51 million for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) — the NDP are holding up those programs, the silviculture programs, by delaying this House.

What interests me is that in the two days we've had this debate, they haven't got into the issues. They haven't talked about interim supply. There is $447 million in this bill for the Ministry of Health and for seniors. What's happening here? The NDP is holding up money for seniors.

The Ministry of Parks, $2 million — the NDP talk about their programs; they're holding up another $2.5 million for parks. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing, $159 million — the NDP are holding up those programs. I could go on and on.

I wish the NDP would look at the details of interim supply, because they're there. They voted on them last year: $3.2 billion in five minutes. This year they're making an issue of us holding up this House; we're doing something we shouldn't be doing. This is something that parliaments have done since the day they were formed.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

They talk about the timing of it. They looked at the bill and said: "Why isn't it two months or three months?" We intend to be here for a long time, and we don't intend to cut the opposition off in the estimates. If we had brought this interim supply in for two months, they would have been arguing that we were cutting them off on the rest of it. We gave you four months; you have lots of time. Let's get on with the issues of this House instead of this silly debate we've been having for the last two days, which is not serving the people of this province; it's just serving the NDP.

We get statements by the first member for Vancouver East and the Leader of the Opposition that we lost money on the Expo site. That's absolute nonsense, and they know it. I think any member from Vancouver should be ashamed even to talk about that. They know that of the 200 acres of land and marine land down there, 100 acres are going to be park and roads, paid for by the developer. It's going to be one of the finest parks in the lower mainland. That sale was a good sale by this government; it's a great development. Just like Expo, which they and the leader of their party were against, ten years from now they'll be standing on the platform taking credit for the new park down at the Expo site. They'll be begging, as members of the opposition, to get on that platform.

That project will make millions of dollars in sales taxes and development costs for this province, and it will also give us the finest piece of land in the core of any city in North America.

Interjection.

[ Page 9108 ]

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I certainly will defend the Expo land sale. It was a good sale — good for this province and good for the people of this province, just like Expo.

Mr. Speaker, it must be tough to be in the opposition. In fact, I know how tough it is, because I was in the opposition when I was in Ottawa. It gets even tougher as you get close to an election, because you think you have a chance of winning. I see the hon. House Leader for the opposition is coming. He knows what it's like to be in opposition. Unfortunately, he's probably going to retire before he ever gets a chance to be in government. That's unfortunate, because he should have a taste of it. It's a wonderful feeling when you can be positive every day when you wake up, instead of having to be negative.

As I say, I could go on and on, but I don't want to delay the House unduly. I think the opposition will come to their senses, sit down and have a vote on this issue, and get on with interim supply, so we can get on with the budget debate and get into the estimates, which are the real issues here. If they want to talk about issues and question ministers, let's get into the estimates and get on with it.

MS. EDWARDS: It's very tempting to respond to the Minister of Environment, who has just gone on and on so that he doesn't delay the House. But that's sort of typical of what's gone on over there on the government side of the House.

I want, for a minute, to suggest to the minister who said this interim supply bill was urgent but who didn't have the courtesy to even stand up when he introduced the bill and tell us why he thought it was urgent and whether in fact he had it straight this time.... Let's remember, this is the minister who with the last warrant he signed didn't know whether it was one-tenth or one-twelfth of which budget. He had to be told.

This time, we're told that we should think this is just normal. However, this takes in a four-month period instead of a three-month period. I believe you will understand, Mr. Speaker, that the minister had to be questioned on whether he understands that it is really four months instead of three months and on why there is urgency for having four months' worth of special warrants for this government to go ahead instead of what would be normal and perhaps a little more acceptable to the opposition. There is no reason in the world for us to suppose this minister knew what he was doing.

The members of his government say that they can't pay the bills unless they get this. Why can't they pay the bills? Because you can't pay the bills until you're here. Why weren't we here? Why have we not been in session?

It's a long story. It began with six by-elections, which the government lost. They lost one, two, three, four, five, six — an honest half-dozen by-elections that they didn't want to lose. They lost. The polls were down, and the leader was in trouble. The whole thing was a shambles for the Social Credit Party.

The Premier had to put everything off after the last by-election until the middle of January. The Premier thought he could manipulate everything until he could get back and say whether he was going to stay on the tightrope or get off the tightrope. By mid-January, when we should have had some indication of when we were going to be sitting in this session, the Premier assumed he was saved. He had several other steps to take. He had to get back into the party his four dissident members, who were creating the problem which he said he would no longer tolerate. It took him some time to do that. He got one back, first of all the fellow near our riding who had left on principle and then came back because he didn't have principles, I guess. The three other dissidents finally decided their best political hope was to get back into the party. After a few more Hawaiian holidays and a few more meetings with a few more persons — who were maybe not going to necessarily be as friendly and act with such unity as the Premier wanted — they were finally brought in.

[10:45]

The Premier wasn't ready to call this House. Why? Not for the good of the people, but for the good of the Social Credit Party. He was not ready to call this Legislature into session until sometime in late March, by which time we had a federal budget and the Premier had another agenda. He still wanted to delay. Then we had to take another two weeks, he said, because we were losing the $120 million that the Premier had suggested the federal government take anyway.

Two weeks for $120 million is quite different. It's really less than a billion. And yet we're asked to approve $5 billion.... It was less than a billion if you took it for the two-week period. If you add that all up, we are expected to pass $5 billion in five minutes for a government that took two weeks to find $120 million. It's pretty clear that we need some explanation here. We need to be able to look at what's happening. We need to look at the government, whose agenda is dependent on a political party's welfare more than it is on the welfare of the people in the province.

The members on the other side are calling us responsible for delay. They are saying that because we have suggested we need to scrutinize this bill, that in fact we are holding up payments to schools, hospitals and seniors. You've heard it all; it's all gone through here. We're even interrupting the payroll, as the Minister of Environment has just said. It's got to be the cheapest attempt to misplace the blame that could be dreamt up by a party which really wants something other than what they're saying they want.

What the government is trying to say is that it is the opposition which is preying on the weak and the halt. Let me suggest for a moment that we look at where the weak and the halt are. Let's look at the administration and see how strong or how unfaltering they are. It's amazing. As I say, it took this government two weeks to find $120 million — although they expect us to approve $5 billion in five minutes. This minister, who the last time didn't know

[ Page 9109 ]

whether he had drawn one-tenth or one-twelfth of a $15 billion budget, expects us to trust him on whether he's going to get it right this time — and he hasn't had the courtesy to explain what he wants in the first place.

That side says: "Debate when the estimates come up. That's what the estimates are for." Right. So why are we not, by this time in the year, into the estimates debate? Why are we not talking about where the money is going for this year? We are trying to deal with a government that has dragged its feet in getting into this House and tried to delay debate on everything that is coming into the estimates this year.

One of your ministers suggests: "Oh, don't worry about It. You can still vote on the other two-thirds." Isn't that a grand suggestion after what the government has just put to us?

That side says: "Don't pick on the hospitals, the schools, the old people and the workers." It's a cheap attempt to sentimentalize what the government is doing. It reminds me very clearly of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), who consistently tries to make out that someone is attacking his parents when we're attacking him for what he did. Doesn't he understand that? Doesn't this government understand that the attack here is on your delay, not our delay? Why are we now asked to approve this bill because we haven't been in session? Who's picking on the halt and the lame? It's not us, Mr. Speaker.

This government did one of two things: they either deliberately delayed the sitting of this House, knowing that the estimates debate would not be complete in time to pay the bills; or else they didn't know what they were doing or were distracted somewhere. Maybe they didn't take into account any of the realities of governing this province and fell into this black hole where they don't have any money. In fact, they're like Old Mother Hubbard: they turn around and the cupboard is bare, because they haven't done their job. They haven't kept their house in order — and this is our House. They didn't realize there would be an empty cupboard when they turned around. Did they not think about that?

Let's be fair. Let's suppose that the government didn't deliberately set up the situation so that they couldn't pay the halt and the lame and the children and the seniors, and all of that sentimental stuff that the government is trying to put out as though they could make that work. Let's be fair and recognize that this government was incapable of managing the time to get the money approved. They didn't get here, because they had a political agenda for their party and not an agenda which dealt with the welfare of the people in the whole province. They couldn't get the budget forward in time to be scrutinized, in time to get to the estimates and do it on a normal timetable. If you're going to base what you do on the agenda of the Premier, you're not going to get things done for the agenda of the people of the province. That's what has happened here. This money that this government wants is based on an agenda that's totally directed to one party and one election, the one that's coming up. And boy oh boy, it's tempting to have it. Let's have it.

It's absolutely impossible for us to approve, without some scrutiny, the passing of this bill for $5 billion put forward by a minister who can't count past his toes. We can't pass $5 billion for this government, who needed two weeks to find $120 million, which is really only one-fortieth of the amount being put forward in this bill. We can't trust this government on that kind of money. Look at the Coquihalla, the northeast coal proposal, the Expo lands, which cannot be defended no matter how much the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) likes to suggest that it's going to be a good deal because we're getting lots of parks and roadways.

You can't expect this side of the House to extend carte blanche to this incompetent administration for another four months, making it a full year since we've last had the opportunity to examine what's going on with this government. Even if they throw out the possibility, it's very tempting to us that it might be because they're going to call an election. Even with that kind of bribe we're not going to buy it.

I visited a grade 5 school class in my riding the other day. The question from the class was: "What does an MLA do?" The answer that I gave them — I suppose any reasonable MLA might have given a similar answer — is that we have the responsibility of examining spending in the province. The other special thing is that we are allowed a public forum. In other words, we get to see where the money goes, talk about it out loud and have the opportunity to be listened to.

If we are not allowed to examine the expenditures, an opportunity which they are attempting to deny us, we certainly will be able to speak out about what hasn't happened. I think the government is afraid that when we speak out we may speak out about what has happened. So they want to hide what's going on, avoid debate on the estimates and go ahead for a four-month period with no debate whatsoever on $5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this House has many instances where the real spirit of parliamentary democracy doesn't happen. We have committees that are called but never meet. We have a finance committee that's not allowed to meet because it's either not named or the members don't attend and make a quorum. We have those kinds of things happening. When we have this proposal for a supply bill put forward, which gives one-third of the budget before we're even closing in on debate, it is not acceptable. I oppose this bill from word one to word infinity.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat incredible that we're being asked to approve a bill that's supposed to be so urgent that after eight months of avoiding this House — the House has not been recalled — and after simply 1 percent is cut from the budget by the federal government, the House has to be delayed for yet another two weeks; so urgent that we will go almost 12 full months, if this bill is passed, without any debate on the spending of this govern-

[ Page 9110 ]

ment. We were asked yesterday to pass this bill in less than five minutes — one-third of the provincial budget in five minutes.

We have ministers standing up, telling us that if we don't pass this without delay, without any further debate, bills won't be paid. Mr. Speaker, I think the people on the other side of the House may need a calendar, because I knew when the fiscal year was ending. People on this side of the House knew when the fiscal year was ending. What's the matter with the members on the other side of the House that they didn't know several months ago that we were coming to the end of a fiscal year? Why didn't they recall the House then, ask for the funding that was needed at that time, put forward their budget and have the debate in the normal manner, instead of delaying it and delaying it with one excuse after another?

Why does this debate go on? Why does the government want to avoid this debate? Why does the government want to bypass the role of this House? Why do they want us to simply roll over and pass $5 billion without any further debate? Because they don't want scrutiny; they don't want any further scrutiny of this government's management of our budget and of the provincial funds before the next election. They don't want the people in this province to know what they're doing with our money before the next provincial election.

They don't want any further scrutiny or debate on how they've been mismanaging our funds at Expo, in the Westwood lands and in many other cases that we haven't yet brought to light and that they're afraid are going to be coming up if they don't call an election and get out of here. They don't want the people in this province to look closely at what they're doing with the environment, at what money is really committed to the environment in that budget that was brought in last week. They're afraid that the shell game of moving money from one budget to the other is going to be exposed and that we'll discover that less than 1 percent is really being spent on the environment.

They're afraid we're going to start talking about the sustainable environment fund, and we'll find that that's just another slush fund that's been set aside for cabinet to dole out money as it likes without public scrutiny.

They're afraid that the hazardous waste corporation is going to be exposed as simply another way to shift provincial responsibilities onto local governments. That's what they're trying to avoid. They don't want this discussion to occur before the next provincial election, so they bring in a bill that's going to cover one-third of the budget, four months, $5 billion, to avoid the scrutiny that this province deserves.

They're afraid that we're going to look too closely, that there's going to be too much scrutiny of their housing policies. We're going to discover that the housing program that's been announced as so wonderful and brand-new is simply the same housing program that was brought in last year. Look at the terrific effect that's had on vacancy rates and housing prices in this province.

They're afraid that people are going to discover that the "very affordable" housing units they've announced, the 8,000 units they've announced three, four or maybe five times now.... I'm losing track of how many times these units have been announced. They're afraid the people are going to discover that it's going to take an average income of $32,000 to afford those "very affordable" housing units, of which only 62 have been built so far.

They're afraid that people are going to start adding up the units that are actually proposed for greater Vancouver and discovering that even if they are all built — and that is a big question mark, Mr. Speaker — the rental vacancy rate will not go down, because that's not even coming close to keeping up with the need. It's certainly not keeping up with the needs of those families, those British Columbians, who have the greatest need for housing in this province.

They're afraid of having their housing policies looked at too closely before the next provincial election, because there is nothing in their housing policy. It is the same old, tired housing policy that they trotted out a year ago, and it has had no effect yet on housing prices and vacancy rates in this province.

They're afraid that we are going to start looking at what they're doing to municipalities. Municipalities have been crying for help to improve their infrastructure. Here in greater Victoria they have been crying for help on sewage treatment, and what do they get? Is there any promise for sewage treatment from this government? No. In fact, what they're promising to do is fine them instead. They're going to take money away from municipal budgets to make it more difficult for them to be able to afford sewage treatment. Now that makes a lot of sense. They're shoving the responsibility of their provincial environmental programs onto local governments.

[11:00]

The toxic waste issue is one of the clearest examples. In greater Vancouver they very nicely managed to shift 50 percent of the cost of a provincial responsibility onto a local government, and the local government had no choice because there is no provincial leadership in this matter. There is nothing in the budget on this matter. There is no hope held out that the province will ever live up to its responsibility on sewage treatment, on dealing with toxic waste, on showing leadership in solid waste management and recycling.

The members on the other side of the House whine about $130 million cutbacks which they asked for, while they turn around and give local governments an increase of less than 2 percent in their budgets. Then the Minister of Environment says, "Get on with sewage treatment, but we're going to fine you in the meantime if you don't," after giving them absolutely no help.

Those are the kinds of things that this government is afraid to have looked at before the next provincial election. They're afraid that we will start talking about the fact that there is nothing in the throne

[ Page 9111 ]

speech or in the budget about our urban areas. There's no urban policy coming from the other side of the House.

What's the rush with getting this through in one afternoon or without any debate? Why do they want us to rubber-stamp the largest interim supply bill in the history of this province — four months' worth of funding, one-third of the budget? What's the rush?

It's in case sometime within the next four months their polls tell them it's the right time to go, so that if the timing looks right they can avoid the proper debate that should be happening in this Legislature, so they can avoid explaining that the budget they presented last week has really got very little in it once we've exposed their shell game.

No, Mr. Speaker, they don't want that scrutiny. They want to carry on in the arrogant manner they have been carrying on in this province, running it for their friends. They want to deny the rights of parliamentary democracy. They want to deny us the right to debate how public money is spent. This side of the House is not going to stand for that. We are not going to stand for the contempt that the other side is showing for the traditions of parliamentary democracy.

The Minister of Environment says that we are delaying the debate of the estimates, that we should get on to the estimates. That's precisely what this debate is all about, because if we pass this interim supply bill of four months — one-third of the budget, $5 billion — we will not have the opportunity to debate the estimates. We will have gone 12 months without any debate at all on how this government has been spending our money.

The Minister of Environment says that he gets up every day and feels positive, and how wonderful that is. I'd like to let him know that I get up in the morning and feel positive too, until I start looking at what's coming across from the other side of this Legislature. When I start looking at the policies of this government I feel negative, and the people in British Columbia are feeling negative too. I feel particularly negative when I'm asked to consider passing a third of our budget — four months — without any further debate, in one afternoon.

That's the kind of thing that makes me negative, when it comes from a Finance minister who can't remember whether it's one-tenth or one-twelfth that he needs, or from the other side of the House when they don't have a calendar and can't look up when the fiscal year is going to run out. The negative feelings that I get from the other side of the House come when they try to shut down parliamentary democracy and deny us the right to have debate.

The people in this province deserve to know what is going on. They deserve to know what's in that budget. They're going to get it. This side of the House is going to insist on it. I oppose this bill, and I will be continuing to oppose it with all my might.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to be positive for a moment.

I have an opportunity today to introduce some positively fine young people who are here visiting, learning all about democracy and how the opposition is the watchdog over the King's spending. They are here from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School with their teachers Mr. Fuller and Mr. Riley. I wonder if all the members of the House could welcome their first visit here, and I hope that they'll come again.

MR. LOENEN: I'm not particularly proud to take part in this debate. I was here all yesterday and all today. This debate is not only against all tradition; it's unnecessary, frivolous and it's crass politics.

I'm sorry to note that there are schoolchildren in the audience today, because I want them and the people of this province to know that certainly the people I represent do not take pride in what is happening here today.

As I said, this shows a great deal of contempt for the great British parliamentary democracy that we all honour and obey. Throughout the Commonwealth there are countries that follow the practice of having interim supply provided to meet the daily needs of the province. That is a common practice, embedded in tradition. For the opposition to say that this is somehow done without debate is misleading and fraudulent.

British parliamentary democracy has a principle called accountability, under which the ministers of the Crown are called upon to face their peers and give an account for every nickel and dime being spent. The members opposite know full well that under our procedures in the days to come — there will be days, weeks and months; it will go on endlessly — you will have the opportunity to make the points you want to make today. For you to stand up and say that somehow we're asking for money without debate is misleading in the extreme.

Unlike other jurisdictions, unlike other provinces in Canada, unlike the time in '72-75 when we had an NDP government, today in British Columbia there is absolutely no limit to the time that the estimates of the various ministries can be debated. You know that, and you're misleading the public when you say otherwise. In fact, it's a proud record of the Social Credit government under former Premier Bill Bennett, who coined the slogan: "Not a dime without debate." We fulfilled that promise; we acted on it. Before that there was a limit on debate. After good Social Credit government came to this province in '75, we fulfilled those promises, and you know it.

MR. CASHORE: Talk to the first member.

MR. LOENEN: He is proud of British parliamentary democracy, but you, Mr. Member, are not. You are in contempt of it. You are misleading those schoolchildren and the people of this province.

You know, it costs at least $100,000 a day....

[ Page 9112 ]

MR. CASHORE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that I am in contempt of parliamentary democracy. I would ask him to withdraw that comment, without editorial comment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the Interests of the debate continuing in a placid manner, maybe the member would withdraw that comment.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, my comment was directed at the policy, the strategy and the methods used by the members opposite. When I used the word "you, " I used it in the plural. I was not singling out any one particular member.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, the member very clearly directed his comment at me individually. Hansard will show that. I would call on him to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Was the member impugning the reputation of any of the members opposite?

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to impugn the motives of any member opposite. If I've done so, I will gladly withdraw that.

I do want to say to the members opposite — and, in fact, to the people of this province — that the methods and the strategies that the opposition are currently engaged in are hypocritical, odious and repugnant to the extreme. You have lost all credibility, and you're not about to fool the people of this province. You're not about to fool the media. Even the media are not fooled by this.

Interjections.

MR. LOENEN: The members opposite are calling for an election. We are not afraid of an election. They're saying that we may be scheming to go to the people before we can properly face parliament. There is absolutely.... What are they afraid of? What is so undemocratic about going to the people? There is nothing more democratic. Why would the opposition think that that is somehow a reason to oppose this? If we so choose, why can't we go to the people? In fact, we're looking forward to that.

The election will be called in the fullness of time, as the Minister of Finance used to say. In the meantime, we have to attend to the people's business, and we intend to do so.

I do not believe there is any real substance to the arguments that have been put forward. I've tried to listen to them and I've tried to understand the logic behind them. They are empty and specious arguments, and there is no substance to them. It's no wonder that the NDP has never been elected except for '72-75.

I can tell you that the people in my riding are certainly not looking forward to that possibility repeating itself. I know that during that time, the mining industry was devastated and destroyed. When I was listening to the remarks of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) yesterday, I could not help but be reminded of what happened during those years. He was talking about the fact that somehow we're not taking nearly enough money out of the resources of this province. It was a time when, as I said, the mining industry was destroyed and devastated. I know that within our community alone there are some 60 companies that supply the mining industry. The mining industry is a very important component of our economy.

It was also a time when people left this province. Today we have some 5,000 people a month coming into British Columbia to enjoy the great quality of life that we all enjoy. In fact, I know a friend who bought property south of the border so that should the NDP ever again form the government he could move his family and move south of the border.

[11:15]

Of course, we know this won't happen. People can see through it, and they see the filibustering as nothing but emptiness, wasteful rhetoric and empty words. When I look at the speeches of yesterday and again today, there is nothing of substance there. It is all silly and frivolous.

As I said, I am not proud of what is happening, because I believe it is debasing to all of us. I want this House to know that my people at home would like me to get on with the work they've sent me to do here. As I've said before, it costs a great deal of money to keep this House going. We're not getting the work done that we ought to be addressing. We're not fulfilling our responsibilities the way we should. We're merely holding up progress. I'm sad to see that. For that reason, I hope the NDP will yet relent.

I have not used up all my time, Mr. Speaker, because my colleague the Minister of Labour would like to take up some of my time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the minister entering this debate? I don't think this is quite proper, minister. I'm sorry. We try and go from side to side. If a member doesn't utilize his time to the fullest extent, that's his problem. I think we'll recognize one of the opposition.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. We noticed that the last time it did not go from side to side. It remained on that side.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That, hon. minister, was because no one stood up on our side.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) has abysmal knowledge of the precedents of this parliament and what we're all about. I'll make sure that that speech goes to all the social studies classes that I can think of as an example of how the system was not intended to work. I have four books here from the provincial library that I'll commend to that member so that he will understand what has happened since the twelfth century in England and what we're supposed to be doing here.

[ Page 9113 ]

I think it derives from a philosophy on that side of the House that they want to treat the people of B.C. like mushrooms. They want to keep this place closed and dark, and they want to feed people Eli Sopow news updates regularly. That provides a flourishing mushroom crop in the humid subtropical climes of this part of the province.

Since the twelfth century, Mr. Speaker, in the British Parliament and our history, consent was supposed to be obtained by the King for extraordinary taxation. Gradually, over time, only foolish kings ignored consultation with the community, I think our problem derives from the fact that we have a Premier who's also a part-time king living in a castle, and that his attitude towards ruling is somewhat along the lines of the Tudor kings of the mid-thirteenth century.

Let me read: "In practice, the strength of the Tudor monarchy in England depended more on finance than on political theory. The strongest weapon in the armoury of the House of Commons was its claim that its consent to taxation must be obtained."

Just turning the members' minds' odometers back, to think of when we last were brought together and we enjoyed each other's company in the hot tropical summer of August 1989, when we were.... I guess it was July 20, 1989, when we sat here as people were enjoying the sunshine outside. We passed a supply bill at that time, which was customary, to provide one-twelfth of the supply to enable bills to be met until we next met. We didn't know, of course, that we would not be brought together again until after the fiscal year had ended and already budgetary expenditures were being made into the new fiscal year of April 1990.

Any of these books littering my desk would indicate that regular meetings of parliament are an inherent part of the system that we are participants in. Discussion of the taxation to be levied against the citizens whom we all represent here was supposed to have commenced prior to the king's expending that money. We did not come back until after the new fiscal year had commenced. Already money that had not been debated and discussed...where consent now is always an afterthought. Consent of taxation in British Columbia is always retroactive — retroactive consent for the expenditures of the king of British Columbia, who happens to live in Richmond and not here in the capital. He waves to his citizens as they pass going into the Port Mann tunnel.

Mr. Speaker, the matters being discussed today are serious; they are not frivolous. It is a fundamental principle that the representatives duly elected to sit in this House have an opportunity to bring forward the concerns of their citizens regarding the taxation levied by this king's ministers. Again I'm referring to the king of Richmond.

As you read the history of the English Parliament and its relationship with the monarchy, you will see that from time to time various kings, during their tenure, grew impatient with Parliament. They wanted to govern without parliament. They didn't want regular sittings.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: We know now that the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) served notice on us yesterday that if the Social Credit government is re-elected — and of course it won't be; we are going to be the next government of British Columbia — if they ever had an opportunity, the next supply bill, he says, is six months. "Why four months?" he says. "Make it six months. Then we can come back every 18 or 24 months." Rebellion in England occurred on a number of occasions when kings avoided parliament and the natural consent of the community on taxation.

There are a lot of things buried in these warrants. I don't think that we have the detail that we need so that our constituents really know what you've been doing with their money. There are many implications in the fact that we don't sit. We do not have public accounts committees that can sit between sessions like every other informed and sophisticated jurisdiction on this planet.

In Australia, for example, the public accounts committee can decide that it wishes to investigate the financing of the power authority, so it goes and does that. It doesn't have to have reference continuously with parliament. It has power as a watchdog of the public purse. It is armed with a mandate to go out and explore and make sure the taxation is expended properly for the citizens.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? We don't even have a public accounts committee that can ask for the computer printouts and vouchers to see what government has been doing and what the tendering process has been. It's no accident that all of the vouchers of the 1989-90 year — of course it's a year behind, which makes it ancient history by the time we get a chance to have a look at it.... Consistent with my thesis that this government wants to keep the citizens in B.C. as mushrooms, in the dark and being fed Eli Sopow news updates as their only source of nutrition....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who's about to go back to his previous occupation, says he has poll results. I'll bet him, Mr. Speaker, that we will be the next B.C. government in this chamber. I know that it's something that you're looking forward to.

The idea is that this is a supply-act government. If we look at the supply acts over the last number of years, they get larger every year. This is the largest supply act in the history of British Columbia. This government's tombstone will say: "The government that sat the least number of days and had the largest number of advance borrowing of any government in history." What a dubious distinction!

This House should sit twice a year. It should have a fall sitting and a spring sitting — one for legislation

[ Page 9114 ]

and one for estimates. Committees should be empowered to hear citizens. This chamber should be televised, and open and available to people.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser) laughs. Remember, he's the one who said: "If students can't afford their education, they shouldn't have an education." That's why he was banished to Coventry and was not allowed back into cabinet until recently. Now he's got some bone-headed idea that this place shouldn't have the scrutiny of public view through television.

HON. MR. FRASER: On a point of order, I think he's trying to cast my character in the dark, and I want him to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the member would withdraw the remark.

MR. G. HANSON: Of course, Mr. Speaker.

What we need in British Columbia is an open process of regular sittings, televised debate, committees that can hear the concerns of citizens. We need an accountable process with two sittings a year: legislation in one and estimates in another, or some combination of that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We need to stop the abuse of the mega-supply bill, the humongous supply bill. It was bad enough that it used to be for three months — a quarter of the entire spending estimates — but now it's four months, one-third. The member for Central Valley says it should be half of the total expenditures of the province. That's not what the balance of power was supposed to be all about in the House of Commons. Our role and responsibility is to hold you to accountable processes.

There are a number of things that really need to be looked at in this warrant, and we'll be looking at it and asking questions in committee stage. The use of government aircraft, which is folded into the first warrant.... You know, the big jet recently put up for sale, with the big red crosses on it, that flew to Ottawa twice a week....

MR. DAVIDSON: There are a lot of sick people back there.

MR. G. HANSON: So we ran a medivac system for politicians between the capital and Victoria. Is that what we did, Mr. Speaker? I'm sure the taxpayers would like to know more about that and about those little seats. The cabinet ministers had to phone around and say: "There are empty seats; fill them up. Who wants to go for quiche and a good shopping trip in Ottawa?"

Mr. Speaker, I think the expenditures in these warrants should be looked at in more detail. If you look back in time, you find less and less detail given on the warrants, and you find apples and oranges being pushed into the same box. You get oxygen resuscitation for someone, and then you get political activities of the cabinet ministers all in the same little basket and all in the same little warrant. The only way you find out about that is if you get the vouchers and have a look; you go over to that little Douglas Building and sit with a staff member who watches you. You can't copy the document, and you can't take researchers with you. Is the public served by that kind of process?

[11:30]

It doesn't exist in most other jurisdictions. They sit between sessions. They have research capability. They trust the MLAs to examine and let the cabinet ministers be accountable on their expenditures. What do we have? It's a Houdini operation; you're shackled, you're in a box, you're in the dark; then you have someone with reflecting mirrors flipping numbers on the wall, and you're supposed to do a job for your constituents. That's not the way it's supposed to work, is it?

Many of these large books are written about the kind of thing we are discussing today. All of these books and these pages are really about the debate we are having today. You think it's frivolous. The kings want to get on with the matter of taxation — getting on, doing your hunting with your hounds, meeting with your barons and discussing how to organize the shires, the trout-fishing and chasing the foxes and doing all those kinds of things. These books are about the issue of taxation, consent, accountability and dealing with this province as a modern democracy, with precedents, following the trail.

You don't always have to crash your way through the bush and the devil's club with a machete; you can follow a path that's been made. That's what these books are, a path through the devil's club. You want us to go lurching right into the devil's club.

MR. WILLIAMS: The second member from Richmond is leaving.

MR. G. HANSON: He's off to the library, Mr. Speaker. I've lent him my library card.

There's money in these warrants for polling, I'll bet you. I'll bet you that somewhere in these warrants — in number 1, 2, 3 and so on — there is money being expended for Mr. Kinsella and all these other chaps and that little piece of paper that the little member there for Yale-Lillooet, that number there.... These dollars in this supply bill, retroactively — prior to March 31, because there are some warrants there, and then there is a whole series of warrants into the new fiscal year.... Some of that money is on polling for Mr. Kinsella, and I think my constituents should know about it and how much. Does that sound fair to you?

When public money is expended for political purposes, the people of the province should have a right to do it. I'd like to know how much those little political news updates cost, cranked on television,

[ Page 9115 ]

when everybody decides to go to the fridge. I'd like to know how much money in these warrants is going to go to pay for those pseudo-political television ads that masquerade as news updates.

Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of grim stuff in this supply bill. They want four months. I think they should be prepared to indicate in the committee stage how much will be spent on political polling in the warrants, and to table in the House the use of government aircraft, for what purposes. I think all of that should be disclosed.

MR. RABBITT: How many days the Leader of the Opposition was absent.

MR. G. HANSON: Pretty weak. Go on another raft-riding expedition.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of important things that we want to find out for our constituents, because they asked us why we hadn't sat for nine months and why the government was spending money this House hadn't approved. The bills are being paid and taxation is being levied on the subjects; no consultation, no discussion, no openness.

Let me see if I can find you a couple of things. This is from The Power of Parliament: "...the unrelenting claim of the community of the realm to be consulted on matters of high policy and the demand that no extraordinary taxation, as distinct from customary feudal dues, should be levied without consent." You have extraordinary measures in there — extraordinary taxation, small and large, that you're going to levy — and no consultation. When we refer to it in this chamber, which is our job — when we do our job, which is to see what you're doing with the money of the subjects of the realm — you don't want to discuss it. You think it's frivolous.

Other kings thought the same thing, and what they experienced was rebellion. What we're going to experience in this province is an election, where the people of the province are going to tell you what they think of the way you've managed this province and the way you've abused power. You epitomize the abuse of power. You're arrogant. You don't sit regularly.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: We're here, aren't we?

You don't sit regularly. There's no openness in your government and the people know it. That's why you're toast. That's why this government is toast.

This is the biggest supply bill in the history of B.C. My constituents don't like it; they don't like the arrogance of it. They don't see why we couldn't split this bill into two portions as has been traditionally done — something reasonable to make sure that the flow and expenditures of government are met. We already have coverage until sometime in May under existing supply bills. Everything can be done. There is no obstacle to frankness with the people and with us as duly elected representatives.

I think it's a bit cheeky when they treat the duly elected MLAs of this House, who represent 45 percent of the people of this province, with contempt. When you treat us with contempt, you're treating the people who elected us with contempt.

Sir Erskine May said: "The strongest weapon in the armoury of the House of Commons is its claim that its consent to taxation must be obtained no matter what." The Clerks of this House and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association have meetings and talk about the principles of parliamentary democracy. It's a very fragile thing. It demands a respect for process, and that's what we are about. It demands a structure, which we have here. It demands a way of conducting the public business that involves the community and their consent, so that when they give their taxation to the king— to the parliament, the House of Commons — there is accountability.

There were kings who didn't have regular sittings of parliament, so that the king's ministers would not be scrutinized, and pressure built up. It was said to me once, when I first got elected, that this place was like a pressure cooker with a release valve on the top. People who talk about this House as a zoo are doing it a disservice. This House reflects our society, our community — the desires, tensions, stresses and so on of our community. Every member in this House knows the drama that occurs as matters of magnitude or small things are reflected and expressed in this House. Every member has the duty to safeguard and stand up for this institution.

When you bring in a supply bill that goes beyond the amount of supply that is under any circumstances required, when you refuse to bring this House into session so discussions can be held, when you refuse to allow committees and public input into this forum which is theirs, you build the pressure in the pressure cooker. You are going to reap the benefit of it — the whirlwind of it. They're waiting for you. Those people who get phoned by the pollsters and are asked, "Do you think the current provincial government and its leadership and so on are reflecting the concerns and interests of British Columbians?" say, "Sure, " because they're waiting for you. Think about it.

This is not a frivolous bill; it's $5 billion. It takes a lot of effort and work by three million British Columbians — I think it's 2.8 million — to raise $5 billion. I don't know how you think about it, but that's a lot of money. It's bigger than the budget was not that many years ago. For you to come in and say, "You don't have the right to spend 24 hours talking about $5 billion," is contempt of parliament, in my view.

As you are aware, this parliament could dissolve; and we could have a provincial election, and the people of this province would have no idea how you're spending $5 billion. You have no right to have that authority. That would be an abuse. That would be in violation of every one of these books.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask these members to consult these books, see where we've come from, see what this institution is all about. Let's have a discussion

[ Page 9116 ]

about the particulars in the warrants. Where's the political dough? And tell the people what you're doing with it.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I have to leave the Legislature in just a few minutes, but I do want to make a couple of comments on some of the debate that's taken place. We had an interesting history lesson just a few minutes ago about what some of the kings in the olden days did or did not do. How that's relevant to us I'm not quite sure, but at least the speaker seemed to think it was. I thought it wasn't.

We've heard a lot of comments going back and forth, and just today I heard repeated three or four or more times the matter of 12 months of spending without debate. I heard it yesterday, and I think we need to at least clarify that. I know that if you've got a good story, maybe for some people you shouldn't let the truth interfere with it. But the fact is that the spending that was taking place up until April 1 of this year was debated for a long time. I almost said that it was well debated, but that would be an error, because it was not well debated. It was debated, though, for a long time.

About four and a half months we sat here last year and listened to speaker after speaker get up and talk, or try to talk, about the spendings and the budget and the estimates and so on. Certainly if anything was lacking in the debate on that part of the spending, it was not because they did not have an opportunity. The opportunity was there, and they took advantage of it and spent many, many months in this House talking about that spending. So let's at least clear the record so we know that we are talking about spending starting April 1, and not March 31 back the past eight months since the House last sat.

[11:45]

They talk about this freedom to spend for the next four months as if that's some kind of an offence on the part of the government. I look at the supply bills that have been brought in year after year, and I notice that these supply bills have increased in amounts each year. As the economy becomes larger, as the total budget becomes larger, the supply bills tend to become larger. There's nothing very unusual about that.

They tie it to an election. They say: "It's some devious plan for the government to enter into an election." The government, I think, has the prerogative to enter into an election any time they want. I don't think they need a supply bill for four months to do that. The House is in session now. We will presumably go into estimates and debate all the spending that takes place by all the ministries in proper order.

They also seem to suggest that the government has brought in this supply bill because they are afraid to debate the estimates or the budget. Why would anybody on this side of the House be afraid to stand up and debate the best budget that's ever been brought down in the province?

It appears to me that the other side of the House is delaying the debating of the estimates. They don't particularly want to get into it. They know it's a good budget. They know about the millions and millions of dollars that have been added to education, health care and the environmental concerns.

It's a budget that all British Columbians are proud of. This side of the House is certainly very anxious to have the opportunity to stand up and discuss it item by item, ministry by ministry, with the opposition. It's time for them to show that they really are interested in democracy and give us the opportunity to stand up and debate this on a one-by-one basis and go through the estimates of each ministry.

Let's talk about how we're spending the money. Let's talk about what's happening to the economy of British Columbia. Let's talk about what we're doing for the people of British Columbia. Let's talk about the benefits here for young children who are going to school and for those who enter secondary education. Let's talk about those issues. We're anxious to talk about them, believe me. Let's get on with the debate. Let's get on with the discussion. Don't try to camouflage it by saying that somehow or other you're now serving a noble cause for British Columbians by not allowing us to really get into the process of discussing and debating the money that's proposed in this budget.

MR. BARNES: I just want to say that this is politics as usual. There is really nothing new about bringing in interim supply. It's clearly a political tactic to deny the opposition an opportunity to make relevant debate about the government's proposed expenditures before the money is spent. Really, that's about all there is to it.

I don't think any logical person or any business person would expect to be able to expend moneys without the road-map in advance. If you go to the bank to borrow money, they want to know what the plan is. They want to have some guarantees that the plan is sound. They want to be sure that they are dealing with competent people who can manage that money, and that there are certain guarantees and assurances.

Clearly interim supply is a political tactic designed, as so many members before me have said, to subvert the democratic process and to deny the opposition an opportunity for relevant debate before funds are spent. It's a technique. We know that. It is, by tradition, a customary device that has been used for many years.

However, as has been so eloquently stated time and time again, we're talking about a third of the budget — a third of the budget that the government could have introduced well before the end of the fiscal year. The fact that it didn't introduce this bill before the end of the fiscal year should concern the business community, with respect to this government's responsibility as a fiscal manager, a planner, a government that really has the ability to look after the public's affairs. I can see no reason that we should consider this bill at all, quite frankly. It's about time we got back to basics. It's time we stopped using

[ Page 9117 ]

devices which subvert the democratic process in this way.

If this were truly an emergency, then the minister should have at least explained why it is an emergency, why it is unique and why this request is different from any other request. It is, as I said before, an attempt to deny the opposition a chance for relevant debate before the funds are spent. He stood up and said, as I recall: "This will take about five minutes." He has taken for granted the interim supply approach to managing the economy. It's a condition that has become so common and so traditional, and it is a bad business practice that should be stopped.

There's no reason that this government couldn't have called the House back at least a month before the end of the fiscal year, at least to appear on the surface to be concerned about attempting to manage public affairs. But what is happening? We have had this situation year in and year out. I recall the first time I was elected, having to experience this interim supply concept. It doesn't matter what government it is; it's a common practice. Warrants are used too much, and interim supply is used too much. Why, in a 12-month period, can't we find a way to come up with spending proposals enough in advance of the end of the fiscal year to do business in a businesslike way? That's really what all this is about.

What's the big emergency, Mr. Speaker? We have the Minister of Finance standing in his place and saying that he would like approval to spend $5 billion. He is speaking on behalf of each minister, but none of those ministers is here to answer for their portions of interim supply. How could we possibly stand here and debate interim supply? Are you going to stand up, Mr. Minister, and speak on your portion? Are all of the other ministers going to stand up and speak on their portion?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We have.

MR. BARNES: The Minister of — what is it now, universities? I'm not sure what your portfolio is — Advanced Education. This Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) knows full well that he would be ruled out of order to try and represent this bill other than as a speaker standing up. He is not required to answer questions. There is no dialogue. I'm not going to be able to interrogate you as I would if your ministry were up before the House on this bill, and the House Leader knows that. They all know that, and they know it's a big sham. That is fine with me, because I think the public knows that as well. I think the member for Victoria laid it out quite well. This is a sham, and we all know it.

Let's get back to the emergency aspect of the bill. The minister says that he has to have this money because the government can't operate without it. But what about the emergencies that are happening, for instance, in the health care field?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not my department.

MR. BARNES: That's not your department.

I would just like to ask how many of you members took the time to read in the Vancouver Province this morning a story by Brian Kieran.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If it was written by Kieran, you can't believe it.

MR. BARNES: You can't believe it. Well, in this situation, I think that if you can't believe it, then you can't believe very much about what you're doing, because he talked about a case where a patient required emergency heart surgery. He tried both St. Paul's and VGH to get emergency services, and do you know what? They told him that they couldn't take him in. He ended up going to Calgary, where he finally was admitted to a hospital, and he died before they could begin the operation.

The Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) says that there is a commission studying the affordability of health care so that in the future such patients as the one I've just mentioned will be able to afford emergency services.

MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, I am just curious about the numbers we require for a quorum in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will count.

I'll accept a motion to adjourn until later today rather than have a division bell, which would take us to a point past which we would normally adjourn.

Mr. Barnes moved adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.