[ Page 9119 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization. Mr. Williams –– 9120

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 9121

jurisdiction on Carmanah Valley. Mr. Davidson –– 9121

Expo lands. Mr. Williams –– 9121

Exclusion of women from membership in Union Club. Ms. Marzari –– 9122

Tenants' rights. Ms. Cull –– 9122

Tabling Documents –– 9123

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

Mr. Barnes –– 9123

Mr. Mercier –– 9126

Mr. Jones –– 9128

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 9131

Ms. Smallwood –– 9133

Mr. Vant –– 9134

Ms. A. Hagen –– 9136

Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 9137

Mr. Barlee –– 9140

Mr. Bruce –– 9142

Mr. Miller –– 9143

Mr. Sihota –– 9144

Hon. Couvelier –– 9146

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure everyone is aware that there has been a resolution on the order paper and some representation made to both our provincial and federal governments by and on behalf of those who served in the Korean War as Canadian volunteers. We certainly are aware of the debt we owe to those who fought to preserve democracy, and who gave freely and willingly and volunteered to be involved in the protection and defence of freedom.

We have with us today some of the veterans who are visiting the Legislature, and who will be meeting with various MLAs to again forcefully make their case with respect to the striking of a distinctive Canadian volunteer Korean service medal: Bob Orrick from Richmond, Sam Urquhart from Richmond and Bud Bedwell from Richmond. I would ask the House to make these visitors welcome.

Mr. Speaker, I was very fortunate this morning. I had an opportunity to visit with some very dear friends of our family, who are also dear friends of the member for Surrey-Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid): Larry and Eileen Martin and their grandson Jason Rosen and their granddaughter Katie Toth. We had a very pleasant visit. They're here to see a little bit of Victoria and the legislative session and buildings, and I would ask the House to make these friends welcome.

MR. ROSE: I had little warning of our visitors; therefore I won't be as general or as eloquent as I sometimes am. But on behalf of the opposition, I would like to welcome the Korean veterans, me being one of the few people in the House — when I look around at all the young people — who was around during the Korean War and knows what a bloody contest it was. It was in many ways forgotten, and we on this side of the House don't think that it should be.

I have a constituent, Mr. Tom Spence from Port Coquitlam, and he's going to be talking to the MLAs about the striking of a medal in commemoration of their contribution. It followed a great tradition.

I'd like to tell the House that this is one of the few provinces — perhaps the only one — that doesn't have a memento of the contribution and a remembrance of those people who lost their lives in that often cold and bloody contest. I'd like to say that my colleagues in the opposition in Ontario have already initiated and supported such a medal. If a resolution were to come into the House, proposed by either side, I know that we would be pleased on our part to support it.

MR. PELTON: Following along with the introductions that our Premier and the hon. opposition House Leader just made, I would like, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and MLA for Dewdney (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen), to welcome here Mr. Warren Byrnell from Pitt Meadows and Mr. Gus Gollan from Maple Ridge.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, if I may, on behalf of our colleague the Minister of Health and MLA for Chilliwack (Hon. J. Jansen), I would like to ask the House to welcome the following Korean vets: Reg Boucher and Gerald Enright from Sardis and George Wade from Chilliwack.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the precincts today we have 38 grade 11 students from Centennial Senior Secondary School in Coquitlam, along with their teachers Mr. Gordon Wickerson and Ms. Nancy Lutke. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. REID: Along with the rest of the members today, I would like to pay special recognition to the Surrey representative for the Korean Veterans' Association, Mr. Ray Scoular. Welcome, Ray.

MR. PERRY: It's a special pleasure today to introduce an old friend, Dr. Warren Bell, affectionately known in Salmon Arm as Dr. One-Bell, whom I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) will join me in welcoming to the Legislature today. He's been meeting the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) on recycling issues, and we hope his message has been well received.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf and mine as well, I'd like to welcome, from Unit 14 of the Korean Veterans' Association, Mr. Ken Barwise. Would the House please make him welcome.

I have a second introduction: Mr. G.T. Segodnia. He's regional collector of customs and excise for the Pacific region. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

MR. MOWAT: My special guest today — and I would ask the House to make her extremely welcome — is Kiran Basi. Kiran was my buddy during the recent "Give It Your Best Shot" MLA program for the Diabetes Association for the awareness of diabetes. Kiran is from Victoria and attends Cedar Hill Junior Secondary School, and she was most helpful in my many times of need during the weekend in how to test my blood.

MR. REE: Again on behalf of members on this side of the House, it's a pleasure to be here to welcome the Korean veterans. I was one of the two members in this House who were in the service during the time of the Korean War — my colleague the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) being the other. I was with a recruit training company sending people to Korea at the time. It's a pleasure to welcome them here and certainly to add my support for the possible medal with respect to that conflict. As the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, I particularly welcome Brig. Gen. E.D. Danby to this Legislature.

[ Page 9120 ]

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are three members from Branch 17 of the Korean Veterans' Association whom I am pleased to present and welcome to the House: Harry McDonald, John Webber and Jim Stewart. Would the House please join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I would ask the House to join me, please, in making welcome a group of 70 students from Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo, along with their teacher Mr. Garvin Moles. I had the pleasure some weeks ago of having a session with these students at their school, dealing with a mock parliament, and how pleased I am to see these students seeing the real thing. Please join me in making them welcome.

MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased on this wrap-up day for the "Give It Your Best Shot, MLAs" campaign to introduce some guests from the Canadian Diabetes Association. From the B.C. division we have Doug Sabourin, executive director; Isabel Williams, advocacy chairman, B.C. division; Joan Johnson, nurse educator; Melanie Crombie, director of development and communications; Diane Brown, Island regional director; Tory Ross, communications coordinator.

I would like the buddies to our MLAs on both sides of the House to be introduced. Some of the buddies — not all — could stay to be introduced. They are Chris Downs, Jean Austen, Kiran Basi, Morgan McLeod and also sponsor Elizabeth Nichols.

It's a great day for those in our province who suffer from diabetes. At the luncheon that the Minister of Health hosted today for this program, he announced an expansion of the home blood-glucose testing program for diabetics in British Columbia. It recognizes the importance of proper testing for diabetes, and this is the first time the program will be picked up by the Medical Plan. That's a great breakthrough for diabetic patients.

I would like to complete my introduction by thanking members of both sides of the House who cooperated so well and put political philosophies aside and did the very best thing for those we serve. Thank you.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce a gentleman in the gallery today. He's a good supporter and a director of the Social Credit Party in the new constituency of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. He promises to make the life of the Leader of the Opposition as interesting as possible during the next election. Would you welcome, please, Mr. Ross McLeod.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I am pleased to welcome today two Korean War veterans from Unit 49 on the North Shore: Maj. Andrew Secord and Maj. Andrew Foulds.

MR. HARCOURT: I, too, would like to welcome one of the constituents I have in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant. I wish him all the success that Social Credit has had in the past in that riding.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have just noted in the gallery, visiting from Prince George, Paul Klotz. Would the House please welcome him.

[2:15]

MR. PERRY: I would like, on behalf of this side of the House, to acknowledge again the efforts of the Canadian Diabetes Association and compliment them on the tremendous victory they have had today.

MR. CHALMERS: I am sure that each and every one of us in the Legislature — and others throughout Canada, for that matter — have enjoyed the many fine products produced by Sun-Rype Products of Kelowna. Visiting my colleague from Okanagan South and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) today is Bob Holt, general manager of Sun-Rype Products in Kelowna. Please make him welcome.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Along with Dr. Warren Bell, visiting the precincts today from the constituency of Shuswap-Revelstoke is the mayor of the newest incorporated community in the province: Gordon Mackie from Sicamous. Accompanying Gordon are George Abbott, chairman of the Regional District of Columbia-Shuswap, and Phil Cave, an alderman from Salmon Arm. Would the House please make all of them welcome.

Just in case we've missed anybody in the precincts today, welcome to all the guests visiting the buildings today.

MR. SPEAKER: For the benefit of the students who are attending today, most of the proceedings you have witnessed to date have been out of order and would not normally take place.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier: is it still government policy to "privatize in the shortest possible time period" once a privatization decision is made?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the privatization process in the province has, I believe, been a model for the country and perhaps the world.

I am particularly pleased when I am told by those representing the various financial institutions, as they monitor the impact, that the result and the benefits have come in a variety of ways, not the least of which is more investment into the province by those who see in our province a responsible approach to reducing the amount of government and providing the opportunities for this work to be done in the private sector wherever possible.

I am also pleased it has been so well received by the employees and that probably there will be pressure upon us again as those still in the public service

[ Page 9121 ]

— in perhaps some area of government that could equally be done by the private sector, and there may still be some of those — see the successes we have achieved in other things that have been privatized. So we are extremely proud of the privatization process and the tremendous response we have received to it. If you're wondering why there hasn't been more in the media or in the House during the last number of weeks about this, it's probably a sign that it has been a very effective and successful program.

MR. SPEAKER: The scope of the answer should remain relatively within the scope of the question. The question was a little broad but the answer was a little broader.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: In 1987 cabinet approved the timetable for bidding on the Expo lands. The cabinet order was to make expediency the number one priority. In view of the disastrous results of the Expo land sale, is it now government policy to try and have as many bidders as possible on major sales such as those?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, there are two points here. First of all, the member speaks of disastrous results. I was the mayor of Surrey for six years, and certainly I was aware of many projects during the NDP years where land was purchased and contracts were let for the building of projects. The evidence is still there today, although it's barely standing. So yes, those were disastrous results. What we're looking for on the Expo land is a quality development: park space, open space, accessibility to False Creek, a beautiful place where people can live in proximity to the downtown area. Certainly the former mayor of Vancouver would appreciate and relate to this very well.

It's the quality of development. If we were looking for the quickest buck up front and let everything come — whatever may come — we would end up with the disasters we saw during the NDP years, in '72, '73, '74 and '75. We'll never let that happen again

MR. WILLIAMS: The reality on the Expo lands sale is that there was really only one bidder. Would the Premier confirm there were two major North American bidders — Cadillac Fairview and Trammell Crow — two of the biggest property companies in North America and Canada, that were actually turned down when they asked for an extension with respect to bidding on the Expo lands?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will defer this to the minister responsible. I don't have that detailed Information.

JURISDICTION ON CARMANAH VALLEY

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Federal Environment minister Lucien Bouchard has indicated that his department is investigating whether it has jurisdiction to interfere in the fate of the upper Carmanah Valley. Can the minister advise this House whether he has firmly asked the feds to butt out of B.C.'s jurisdiction and let us manage our own environment and our own economy without this unnecessary sort of political intervention?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you for the question. I can advise the House that my office had a call yesterday from Mr. Martin Green, Mr. Bouchard's executive assistant, who advised my assistant that he did not mean to sound as though he was considering interfering in our jurisdiction, and that the comments that were reported here in British Columbia could be attributed to the language barrier.

What he meant to say, and what he said to the press scrum afterwards, was that he was delighted with the establishment of a park and with the proposed studies for the second half of the valley. He wanted to offer help in any way with these studies. And we'll check to see if the federal government has any jurisdiction in that matter.

I would also report, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Bouchard — I want to make sure he's quoted correctly — wanted to clarify this matter with me to avoid any jurisdictional confrontation. In the future his office will consult more directly with my office and staff on such matters so as to avoid this adversarial approach.

I can tell the members across there that I have had cooperation with the federal minister, and I expect that to continue because he is an honourable man and likes to avoid an adversarial approach. I appreciate the fact that he called British Columbia and explained that yesterday.

MR. DAVIDSON: A supplementary. Can the minister assure the people of British Columbia that the recently announced environmental review process for major projects will not be jeopardized by any future government intervention or by their political posturing?

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: I can assure the member for Delta and this House that the major policy review process this government has set up on the ferrochromium plant, which has federal government participation, will be the process that we use on all projects in this province. We have agreement from the federal government that it's an acceptable process that they agree with.

EXPO LANDS

MR. WILLIAMS: Did I hear the Premier clearly, that he did not remember, on the biggest land sale in British Columbia history, whether two of the largest property owner-developers in America and Canada had requested an extension of time so that they might consider applying? He did not remember?

[ Page 9122 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if I can remember all the disasters during the NDP years of '72-75, 1 can certainly recall happenings of more recent dates.

Just for clarification, I did not say that. I said: "I don't have such detail. I'll defer to the minister responsible."

Any other questions?

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the Concord Pacific company has now sold 5 percent of the site of the Expo lands. They sold it for $40 million — virtually what they made as the down payment. On a pro rata basis, Mr. Premier, what would that now tell us the Expo lands are worth?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again for the member's information, although I don't have the details, and he should really ask the minister directly responsible for these matters.... He should be aware that there's a great deal of land set aside for parks and public open space, and yes, it will be a very good development. Just exactly what the details are, as you've asked, I can't respond to. But I will again recommend or suggest that you refer to the minister responsible.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, 5 percent –– 200 acres; the arithmetic is straightforward. Is the Premier aware that in the current Globe and Mail report on business, they've put a market value on the Expo site at $1 billion, which would suggest we've lost $860 million on the deal?

HON. MIL VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, it's bad enough when we rely on the media for all the information, but it's particularly bad if you have to go to the Globe and Mail for information about happenings in Vancouver. I'm afraid that if that's your source, you perhaps ought to check out the figures and then ask the question again.

EXCLUSION OF WOMEN FROM

MEMBERSHIP IN UNION CLUB

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs. Have you advised your caucus, as I have this morning, that the Union Club in Victoria just took a vote last night and categorically refused membership by women as regular members? Rather, the club has informed me that women — even members of this House — are simply guests in the facility. Have you advised your caucus not to use the services at the Union Club henceforward?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the vote that was taken last night at the Union Club. I don't tell members of my caucus what to do. We don't have a special group in our caucus that makes decisions on its own and tries to scuttle whatever the men in caucus do; we work as equals on this side of the House. I think the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) knows what I'm talking about when one group tries to scuttle someone in their caucus.

My reaction to the vote last night at the Union Club is that I don't frequent the Union Club. I have no intention of frequenting the Union Club, and they simply don't live in the 1990s.

[2:30]

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier. We're not talking about scuttling the aspirations of our caucus colleagues here; we're talking about scuttling the aspirations of women who are aspiring to positions of decision-making and leadership in our province. Is it true, Mr. Premier, that you have a full honorary membership to the Union Club? If so, are you prepared to cancel that membership in light of the information that we have received on the vote last night?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My membership is no different from what it is for every other MLA. I don't know what the NDP has done or is doing, nor would it necessarily be a matter for a caucus or a party. I think we should decide as individuals.

TENANTS' RIGHTS

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Audrey Cope, a 29-year-old woman evicted from her Victoria home because she is having a baby, was told by the Premier's office there was nothing they could do. Has the Premier now decided to demonstrate his commitment to the family by supporting changes to the Human Rights Act or the Residential Tenancy Act to make it illegal to discriminate against children?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, but I'll let it proceed if you like.

MS. CULL: A new question, again to the Premier. Citizens of this province are being forced to take the government to court to defend their rights. Who does your government speak for: families with children or landlords?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased that the member asked that question, because I think one only needs to look at the record. It started in 1952 — the people of this province elected a Social Credit government; and again in '55, '58, '63 and '68. Then '72 was a bad period in between, but again in '75, again in '79 and '83, and again in '86. I expect it will continue that way. Obviously, the people of the province feel that they have good representation by the Social Credit government, and it's going to stay that way.

MR. ROSE: I feel that I must rise on a point of order. As we know, questions planted by opposition backbenchers are not at all unusual. Planted questions are part of the honourable tradition of the

[ Page 9123 ]

House and are sometimes considered good clean fun, at least by the government. We used to shout: "Author, author!" We've done that quite regularly over the years. When we receive, as a reply to the obviously pre-wired question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), what really amounts to the reading of a ministerial statement, we have to protest in all possible strongest terms.

Mr. Speaker, I've recently written you a memo to do with the abuse of ministerial statements. This was a ministerial statement, but not really designated as one. What we found today, and what I'm getting increasing pressure on from my caucus, is abuse in question period; and furthermore, the recognition almost daily, or twice daily, of government members, even if it means the interruption of our first round.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: With all due respect to my counterpart on the opposite side, I am sure that even he would not deny the elected private members of this assembly the right to ask questions of government ministers.

I say this only to perhaps attempt to give a little guidance to the Chair and to try for some balance, because it is one of the few opportunities that private members, including theirs, get to ask important, relevant and urgent questions of cabinet ministers. If we check the record, you will find that the questions coming from the private members supporting the government are usually at least as relevant, if not more so, than those coming from the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The statement made by the opposition House Leader was not about government backbenchers but, as I noted when he made it, opposition backbenchers asking questions. I assumed that was a slip of the tongue; but there may have been others involved.

MR. DAVIDSON: On the same point of order, which has been canvassed many times before in this House, I want to reiterate that as a back-bench member I am still a member of this chamber, and as such I have every right to ask a question at any time in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has taken this point of order as brought forward and will consider it. I might advise the members that in other parliaments, especially in the Mother of Parliaments, the Speaker's question period lasts considerably longer, but opposition members have fewer questions to ask than government members do, because it is split evenly. As there are more government members than there are opposition members, some members only get an opportunity to ask a question once a year.

We have members in this House who ask questions almost every day; we have some members we hear from very seldom. It would be the position of the Chair to make sure that every member who wants to ask a question who is not a member of the executive council gets to do so at some time during the session.

Hon. Mr. Dueck tabled the 1988 annual report of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to make a special introduction for a very special guest who just joined us in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not standard, but I will ask the question. Shall leave be granted? I hear a no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I of course defer to your judgment, but my ears did not catch a no. We have a visitor from another provincial government of some importance and I....

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, it's the Chair's job and the Chair's terms of reference that the Chair is to ask the question. The Chair listens, and when the Chair hears a no, that terminates the matter. Leave was not granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We adjourned the debate on second reading of interim supply.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

(continued)

MR. BARNES: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has asked the House to approve the amount of $5 billion for interim supply.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: I think I'd better wait. Could we have a recess?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps those members who wish to leave and go to other committee meetings or return to their offices could do so quietly and allow the second member for Vancouver Centre to have the floor.

MR. BARNES: I know this matter has been canvassed over and over again, and we've just about heard the arguments with respect to the validity of the request for interim supply. All we can do is expose the bill for what it is.

I have been in the Legislature for going on 18 years, and I have seen interim supply each year. I can't recall a time when there wasn't interim supply, except when my party was in government. We may have had one; but I do think that we were the closest to bringing in our spending proposals on time, which is what you would expect from a government that is committed to good management of public tax dollars.

As I said this morning, I realize that it is a measure that allows the government to carry on with normal operations, and as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, there will be ample time guaranteed by

[ Page 9124 ]

the Premier to discuss all the ministry's spending estimates before the House adjourns. In other words, there is no reason for us to suspect that this is a ploy on the part of the government to call an election once they get the $5 billion they are asking for in this bill.

However, I think what we have done with the interim supply process, this temporary means of getting funds in advance of debate.... The government is blatantly abusing this idea, to the point that they are asking for four months of money that can be spent regardless of what happens in this Legislature. I think the time has come for the public to begin to ask questions about the management of public tax dollars.

Why do we spend money we don't have yet? The government itself has said it has no money of its own. Premier Bill Bennett, when he was in this House, used to say: "Not a dime without debate." I know this is disregarded by the Minister of Finance, but it is a shameful situation that we have to address today: bringing in interim supply when we could have been sitting at least a month ago — perhaps two months ago; sometime in February, or at least the first week or two in March — instead of bringing in a bill this late in the new fiscal year and asking the members of the Legislature to approve one-third of the budget as though it were an emergency.

I think that is the issue. Was this emergency self-imposed? Was this emergency, which the government desperately needs in order to carry on, as it says, the operations of all the various ministries and agencies of the government, to be able to function without the use of warrants.... Who created this problem and why was it created? Was it necessary? I think these are the questions we should be asking.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It doesn't take a person experienced in high finance to know the fundamentals of good management and good fiscal responsibility in the planning and use of tax dollars. As I said this morning, I don't think any of us has ever gone to a financial institution and made a request for a loan — whether it be a business venture or just for a holiday — when the lender hasn't demanded some security, some guarantees, that the money would be protected, that there be some insurance so there would be no loss by the lender. But we are being asked to pass an amount of money without debate and without details; without the various ministers being here to answer for what the Minister of Finance is asking for on their behalf. And we are told that it's urgent.

The minister, in introducing the bill, used only two paragraphs. This is a major emergency for one-third of the budget — $5 billion — and he uses two paragraphs. He says: "This interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential" — get that, essential — "payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities, social agencies and the government's payroll may continue uninterrupted." Certainly no one on this side of the House would oppose that; I certainly wouldn't.

But I suspect that this is politics, because the minister made that statement yesterday, April 23. That's 23 days into the fiscal year 1990-91. If this was such an urgent matter, and if it was so important that the funds be made available for these various responsibilities of government, then why didn't the government anticipate the need for proper debate, in order that the House would have been sitting sufficiently long to debate these matters?

[2:45]

Interim supply has two aspects to it. It can be used to assist a responsible administration to get over an obvious problem, where it had done all it could to follow good fiscal management and reasonable planning, and it ran up against an opposition that simply refused to cooperate.

Say we'd had a month's debate into the government's estimates, and the government was finding that it was getting nowhere. We'd discussed most of the issues, and then we got to the end of the fiscal year and found ourselves, as the Premier is doing over there.... I'm wondering if he's trying to get a connection with the high almighty or something; his fingers are going so much there. Is there a means of communication that I'm missing there, Mr. Premier?

If the interim supply idea was to be used as a fail-safe system, when the Minister of Finance introduced this bill, he should have stood in his place and explained in far more than two paragraphs why he was asking the opposition to cooperate with the government in expeditiously approving this request for one-third of the budget.

As some of the members have said already, $5 billion is almost as much as some of our provincial budgets were a few years ago. I can remember that when I was first elected, provincial budgets were certainly under $10 billion — $8 billion or $9 billion. Now we're talking about twice that much — up to $15 billion. We're being asked for $5 billion, essentially and in effect, without debate, because we can't debate this amount of money by talking to the Minister of Finance, who has no responsibility for those other ministries. They're not here. We can't talk to them. We don't know what's going on.

So we're being asked to do what the government wants to pretend is routine, which is the ordinary and customary approach to running a government's affairs, by passing this bill, as he said yesterday, in just a few minutes. He wanted to get three readings in one day. I guess he thought that, since we would have time to discuss all of the ministries later on, there was no big deal.

I think the public should realize what is happening here. I don't think anyone in the community, if he stopped to think about it, would believe that this goes on in the B.C. Legislature. We are in fact discussing spending after the fact. The money has already been approved and is being spent, and what we're doing here is academic; it is irrelevant. There is no way we're going to call back any of the money that has been spent, no matter how the vote goes in here. We've given interim supply without knowing the result of the vote. What if we were to defeat the

[ Page 9125 ]

government, by some miraculous means, in the vote, and they never got that money? But that doesn't matter, does it? It's only academic anyway; it's not real. It's all a façade; it's all a fake; it's all a game. We all know that.

But I'm saying that it's time we stopped pretending. It's time we stopped playing games with taxpayers' money and were responsible. There's no reason in the world, Mr. Speaker, none whatsoever.

This House adjourned on July 23, 1989, and since then we did not sit until April 5, 1990. Surely the government anticipated it was going to need a budget, and that it would have to debate these matters. Why didn't it call the House back in time? What do they mean by "an emergency"?

Do you want to know what the emergencies are in this province? The closure of women's centres: where's the emergency money for that?

MR. LOENEN: You're blaming us for that?

MR. BARNES: Yes, we blame you for it. You say you're fighting against the GST. Why don't you fight the federal government and tell them not to cut back on these funds? Why don't you demonstrate? Why don't you bash the feds on behalf of the women's centres that are being closed in this province? That's an emergency.

There are other emergencies as well. There is a need for affordable housing. There are people who cannot afford to pay the amounts of rent being asked by landlords, who are speculating on properties that we have given them a licence to operate in this so-called free and democratic society — to exploit at will their tenants, their consumers; to exploit people who are, in effect, homeless because they are vulnerable on a 30-day-by-30-day basis. They do not have security of tenure. They are without any security in this society.

If you want to be really descriptive about it, anyone who is paying rent is homeless because they are on a 30-day-by-30-day tenure. They have a contract that they cannot be protected. There is no rentalsman, no security of tenure and no redress for them to fight and defend themselves. They could be out on the streets. There are many people out on the streets in this province today because of the government's attitude with respect to people who pay rent, who should have every right, as anyone else, to a place to live in this society. That's an emergency.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: He keeps saying: "Pass the budget so we can get on with it."

There are lots of emergencies. The Minister of Finance talks about the invulnerability of our good health care system. He says that the health care system in this province is second to none. As I said this morning, I was looking at a piece in the Province. It's headlined: "A Price Too High For Everyone." The article is by Brian Kieran, and he's talking about a person who required a heart operation. That's a very sad case of what an emergency can really be like.

Before I go further with what he was talking about, I have a memorandum issued by the medical director at St. Paul's Hospital to the line staff, in which he tells them: 'Effective immediately and until April 17, admissions to" — and he designates four wards — "must be restricted to strict emergencies only. No patients on the very urgent list can be admitted." He's making a distinction between "strict emergencies" and "very urgent."

The Minister of Finance has said this interim supply bill is urgently required. He says that urgent and immediate approval is required. What is he really telling us? He's telling us that although this is urgent and he wants us to approve it right away, the hospital — which is dealing with a life-and-death situation — is saying that urgent matters cannot be addressed, only those that are strict emergencies.

Mr. Kieran was writing in his article about what happened when a doctor — who, by the way, was operating in Kamloops — sought to get that patient admitted in both VGH and St. Paul's Hospital. Neither of those hospitals could admit the patient. The patient finally was admitted to a hospital in Calgary. This was a strictly emergency situation that somehow was only urgent as far as that hospital was concerned. Unfortunately, the patient died on the operating table in Calgary.

I wonder, when the government talks about emergencies and asks the opposition to respond in order that they can carry out their duties, what the government is doing about the emergencies with respect to people being admitted to hospital who require open-heart surgery, who are going to the state of Washington and other places. These are the kinds of emergencies we should be addressing.

To add further injury, the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) suggested there was a commission presently studying the situation with respect to hospitals and the delivery of health care in this province, and that within 18 months they would have recommendations so that future services could be made more affordable in order to avoid loss of life as with this one patient who had to go to Calgary.

I guess that's what is meant by this headline: "A Price Too High For Everyone." No matter what the price is going to be after this commission has finished its study and come back with recommendations, this particular patient — who had a strict emergency — is not going to be able to take advantage of it.

Obviously, in the long run, we're going to have to capitulate as an opposition. We have to, Mr. Minister, unless we want to have a revolution or a revolt in this province. Because of your incompetence and your politicking and deliberate and diabolical designing of a system to force the opposition to pass legislation without debate, you have got us in a bit of a catch-22. We're not going to hold up this bill indefinitely. We're going to have to pass it, because, as you say, we do have to get on with looking after the GAIN recipients and the hospital districts, the universities and the social agencies, the government's payroll and all

[ Page 9126 ]

kinds of other programs that have to go on — that's true. But you are playing politics with these agencies, and it's irresponsible. You must remember — and I think every business person, all your friends out there, even the ones at the Vancouver Stock Exchange are going to be shocked at the way you've managed the affairs of this province.

You're asking us to pass a $5 billion bill, in effect, without debate. That's not a democratic process.

What it is, and it's very obvious, is that the government has taken advantage of a traditional courtesy which has been part of the parliamentary process in order to assist good governments or responsible governments who have fallen short, because even though their best efforts were put forward, even though they allowed sufficient time for debate, even though they were on the ball as far as doing everything conceivably possible to give the opposition a chance to debate the matters, something went wrong.

"We knew that. We'll cooperate and give you interim supply, because it's obvious we just can't come to terms." But it wouldn't be $5 billion; it would probably be one-twelfth, which is, by the way, tradition.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Not four months, one month. Well, you've still got a warrant, Mr. Speaker, that will carry you through till the end of May, which you've been using all along to run the affairs of this province. You use warrants; you do everything you can to avoid debate. We know that, and we know you're going to play politics, but you've gone too far. This is too far; this is an embarrassment.

Is this the way you would teach the youth who are taking administration, accounting and business, that's it's okay to overspend their budgets, that they can always go and get the money from somewhere else, that they can always go on a gamble or a bet? Would you also teach them to buy high and sell low? In effect, this is what you do. You pay a ransom for the Expo lands to Marathon Realty. You buy it, then you sell it for virtually nothing. You end up cleaning it up and spending more money than what it's going to yield, and you tell us: "Don't worry. One day you'll get the spinoff effect."

However, the spinoff effect also includes displacement of a lot of people from the contiguous communities because of high land values. It also means an impact on the existing communities, which you take no responsibility for, which you have not planned for and which the taxpayers are having to pay for.

[3:00]

So, Mr. Speaker, this simple little request for a routine measure, for just a few more dollars so that the government can carry on until we pass the budget, has gone too far. It's regrettable, because the opposition, being responsible, ultimately will have to accept that this bill has to pass. But I would hope that in the future this government — and certainly our government or any government — will endeavour to reconvene the Legislature in sufficient time so that there can at least be an appearance that the government is allowing some time to debate its spending proposals, rather than bringing them in five days after the new fiscal year has begun, when they're already overextended. There is no indication whatsoever that the government considered its responsibilities with regard to its proposals for the years 1990-91.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm hopeful that this person is still in the Legislative Assembly. We have Mme. Louise Robic, Junior Minister of Finance for Quebec, visiting with the Ministry of Finance, and she will be staying for the rest of the day. It was hoped that she would have been introduced a little earlier. Mme. Robic was born in Montreal and has served in the Quebec Legislature for a good number of years in various capacities. I would ask the House to extend a welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is second reading of Bill 22.

MR. MERCIER: The previous speaker said, "This debate is politics, " and I agree. On the part of the opposition, it's bad politics. They have absolutely no valid reason for extending the debate on the interim supply bill.

The interim supply is a process for handling payment of government accounts, and it is traditional in parliaments across this country to handle interim supply in the same fashion. In other words, the debate they're extending is for something that is not new and is not news; it is simply a waste of the time of this Legislature. In fact, they're flaunting the tradition of the House, like they did with the throne speech and like they did with the budget speech and the presentation of the budget. They're doing the same thing with the interim supply bill.

Just before we broke at noon today, it was quite interesting in this House to see how important this debate was to the opposition members. This is something that they want to carry a lot of support on. There were three members from the opposition sitting at that time. If it's as important as it should be for the members of the opposition....

Interjection.

MR. MERCIER: It's the opposition that wants to extend this debate. The estimates are the time for debating government expenditures. The sooner we get through the interim supply debate, the sooner we can proceed with debating and discussing the estimates of the various ministries.

The previous speaker today talked about tradition. I took the time to look back on the tradition of the interim supply process in this House. In 1983 the interim supply figure was $6 billion, and in each year

[ Page 9127 ]

since, the amount required for interim supply has averaged around and up to one-quarter of the budget for the coming year. It's the way the government can pay the bills for operating the government before the estimates and the budget can be completed. In 1982 interim supply passed in a matter of minutes, even though it accounted for nearly 30 percent of the budget that year.

I don't know how many members of the opposition are aware of this, but when they were in government in '72 to '75, they also used the interim supply process. The traditions were accorded them to pass them in short order so that the regular business of this House could carry on.

Looking back at history, in 1980 the interim supply bill passed on the same day it was presented; 1981, it was passed with all readings completed on the same day; 1982, it passed through all readings that day; 1983, $6 billion was passed with all readings completed on that day — and $6 billion in 1983 was worth more than it is today, as we all know; 1984, $2 billion passed on that day; 1985, $2.2 billion passed within a few days of being presented; 1986, it passed on the same day it was introduced; 1987, $2.375 billion passed with all readings on that day; 1988, almost $3 billion passed on the day it was introduced.

What is the opposition talking about? They're stalling and wasting the time of this Legislature. In fact, they're delaying the time when they can really go at the estimates, when they're presented in the normal course. Discussing estimates is the time for debating whether you think the government's money has been spent properly.

I think that over the past few weeks of this session the opposition has really gone against all the traditions of this House, if you look at the steps they've taken to delay debate and to stall the progress. They're talking about us being worried about going into an election; I think they're afraid that we might call an election. In the three years I've been in this Legislature, I have really been disappointed in the opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MERCIER: I know a lot of the members of the opposition. I enjoy some of the members of the opposition, but I am disappointed in all of the members of the opposition. When I was elected, I expected to come to this House and see people do good research, ask good questions, offer good criticisms and offer some alternatives. Instead of getting better research, better questions, better criticism and better alternatives, we have poor research, incompetent questions, inadequate criticism and very few alternatives.

What does that tell me? It tells me that they're stalling now because they don't want to head into an election. I don't think they have any programs to present. I think they're philosophically bankrupt. I can't understand why they wouldn't want to be bringing their programs forward at this time to let people know what a good job they think they can do.

When you speak of the traditions of this House and when you look back over the past ten or 15 years, you can see they've offended almost every tradition of this House in the past few weeks. It really bothers me that the opposition continues to perpetuate the biggest lie in politics in B.C. to this day. The biggest lie in politics these days is that they think they can run this province. Well, if the way they've conducted themselves as opposition is any criterion, they are not ready to run anything. They take a balanced budget — in a country where few provinces have had balanced budgets in the last 40 years, and where the federal government certainly hasn't — and they try to knock holes in it. The budget that was presented was balanced.

When they talk about this budget, the opposition has the philosophy that if you repeat this lie often enough, then the public will start to believe it. I defy you to say this budget isn't balanced. When you have a 5 percent reserve, no matter which label you put on it, and when you have a budget the size of this province's budget, at any particular time you are going to have a 5 percent underrun-overrun. You call it reserves at the municipal level and surplus in a corporate setting. For the NDP to come out and say this budget isn't balanced is the biggest lie I've heard in the three and a half years I've been sitting in this Legislature.

For them to stall the interim supply debate, to not come up on the interim supply debate and....

MRS. BOONE: On a point of order, that was very unparliamentary language that the member just used. He accused us of lying. I don't think that's accepted in this Legislature, and I would ask that he withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I was listening very closely, and I don't believe the hon. member said that anybody was lying. Please continue. You have used the term enough that I think we all understand it very well, hon. member, so perhaps you could continue.

MR. MERCIER: I'm talking about the NDP. It's a philosophical lie. It's the idea that if you can say something bad about people often enough, even if it wasn't true in the beginning, people may start to believe it. I'm just here to counter the arguments.... How can the finance critic for the opposition stand up in front of the people we have here on a budget day presentation and say that the budget is dishonest? Dishonest means "not factual." There is not a fact omitted from that budget. The budget was factual.

I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, that someone in the House, perhaps even the Speaker, did not rise at that point — even though it was a day when traditionally we don't do those things — and say that a speaker who would say such a thing was out of order and unparliamentary, because to say that the whole budget is dishonest is the biggest lie I have ever heard.

Getting back to the matter at hand, why would the opposition, if they really knew what they were doing,

[ Page 9128 ]

take a simple thing like a supply bill to stall the business of the people's parliament? Why would they do it? I think they haven't got anything else to talk about. The budget came through, and it is fiscally bombproof, and the opposition is really straining hard to find something they can criticize in the coming weeks while we're here. I would like to know when they will start to put their programs forth. If they think there's going to be an election coming, I would just love to see some of those programs. I would love to see the programs that can promise the people more services without raising taxes.

Speaking of taxes, I would love to see those people in the opposition promise those services without raising taxes.... And then, if they had to raise more taxes from people other than low- and middle-income people, who are they going to raise them from? The small business community: that's who they're going to raise them from. They're going to raise them from our friends and their friends in small business because somebody — it's what we've learned in this era of our parliamentary system — has to pay the freight. Somebody has to pay those taxes. And that is the second biggest lie that the opposition has always harboured over the years that I've been running against them. They have some idea that they can convince the public that there's a magical pot there, an endless golden rainbow to have all these dreams they talk about come true.

I'll tell you, the programs we have put forward — and they're going to be discussed in the estimates.... They're going to be very hard pressed to find any fault with those programs.

I would suggest that the opposition get on with finding some little things to criticize in the programs that have been presented. I would suggest that they improve their respect for the traditions of this House, direct themselves to the next part of the debates in this House — which should be dealing with the estimates — and quit stalling on the matter of interim supply.

MR. JONES: To paraphrase the second member for Nanaimo (Ms. Pullinger), who paraphrased the church lady: "Isn't this special!" Don't we have before us the grand-daddy of special warrants. This is five big ones — $5 billion — that this government wants us to approve with a rubber stamp and with five minutes of debate — a billion dollars a minute.

[3:15]

Well, it's not going to happen, Mr. Speaker. We're going to have a debate on this interim supply bill.

What does interim mean? Interim means "from this period in time to that period in time." What we're looking at with this interim supply measure is May and June and July and August. This is much much longer than the kinds of interim supply measure that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds quoted in his remarks. This is unusual — both in terms of length and time and also in terms of the amount associated with this particular bill.

Five billion dollars was almost half of the previous year's entire provincial budget. Certainly this side of the House does not want to interrupt the cash flow to those services and institutions — the colleges, the institutes, the hospitals and the school boards — that are going to have to carry on. But we're not going to pass a $5 billion interim supply budget measure as a rubber stamp. We're going to debate the issues because that's our responsibility here as an opposition. It is the privileged position of the government to collect that $5 billion from the hardworking taxpayers of this province — men and women in British Columbia who get up every morning, who ask for nothing but the opportunity to work and earn in this province, who pay their fair share of taxes, many of them willingly. They do not want this kind of interim supply measure to go forward without adequate scrutiny by the opposition.

It is this Finance minister who introduces this interim supply measure which asks us to pass it all in one sitting. This is the same Minister of Finance who does not know the difference between one-tenth and one-twelfth of his budget, some $200 million difference. "Well, it's only $200 million, " he says. Well, we're not going to pass this in its entirety at one sitting, as you've seen, and we probably won't pass it in its entirety in two sittings. We don't know how long we are going to debate this issue, but we are going to debate it until we feel that the public interest has been served.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier), the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) and other speakers yesterday really do not understand the Westminster model of British parliamentary tradition. They do not understand how this Legislature works. They do not understand what it's like to be in opposition. But after the next provincial election they will have plenty of time to find out what it's like to be in opposition.

The previous member said that this debate is an enormous waste of time, an improper use of the Legislature and of public money. That opposition, they're just being a nuisance, they're just delaying things. Why don't they recognize that the government has a job to do, and why don't they just move aside and stop being a nuisance? Well, that's not what a Legislature is about. That's not what it is for.

The truth is that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is absolutely essential to the successful operation of the government and of this parliament. We chose responsible, democratic government; we didn't choose a dictatorship in this province. We have a government that has to be held accountable, not just on the average every three and a half years, but with this particular group — a little unsure whether it has enough votes to call an election — not just every four years or five years, but every day when this Legislature sits.

As I mentioned, the government has the honour and the privilege to tax and to spend, but it can only do so legitimately under an appropriate system of checks and balances. We on this side of the House are providing that system of checks and balances. In fact, we legitimize the power that the government has, and this is the essence of the Westminster model of British

[ Page 9129 ]

parliamentary democracy. It's only because of the checks and balances, particularly on government spending, provided by this side of the House that we have a successful democratic system, that the public out there will trust that the government is being held accountable, is being held up to scrutiny, is operating in an open and reasonable manner because of those checks and balances.

So, Mr. Speaker, those members over there are very lucky that they have such a strong opposition that gives it any credibility that it has.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where is this strong opposition?

MR. JONES: If it weren't for the strong opposition Mr. Premier, you'd be finding the people in the streets, because they don't trust you, and the only reason they allow you to continue to operate with the power that you have is because they know that you are held up to scrutiny in this House. Without that, we would not have the British parliamentary system or the democratic system that we have in this province. You of all people, Mr. Premier, should understand that system and where your power comes from. Your power comes from the scrutiny provided by this opposition.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Well, Mr. Premier, after the next election, should you ever summon up the moxie to call that election, you will find out the importance of the opposition to our British parliamentary system. You will understand the importance of debate. You will understand the privilege that you have in taxing and spending. You will understand the importance of letting the sun shine in on the people's business. You will also understand the importance of the scrutiny that you're getting today and that you will get every day that this Legislature sits. Particularly after the election you will understand the importance of the role of the opposition.

We have in this province taxpayers who are cynical, who don't trust the government. But I think that's pretty typical. They are used to the kind of government that is not always totally upfront with the people. In terms of budgets, we have a history in this province — particularly with W.A.C. Bennett — of continually underestimating revenue and overestimating expenditure. But I think the people have come to expect that sort of low level of deceit on the part of their government — the sort of book-juggling acts we have seen in the past. That sort of behaviour in terms of budgeting on the part of W.A.C. Bennett is minor. In fact, this government makes W.A.C. look like a piker compared with the kind of chicanery we see in the government's budget in this case.

This government says: "Come on, trust us. Give us $5 billion. You can trust us." Where is the financial plan for that $5 billion?

The Minister of Finance doesn't want debate, doesn't want scrutiny, doesn't want to let the sun shine in. In fact, it was that minister who said: "We can't call this House. We can't convene a sitting of the Legislature, because the federal government has curtailed some $120 million in federal transfer payments. We're going to have to adjust all our programs, so we'll have to delay the implementation of a new budget. We'll have to redraft it, and it's going to take at least a month for us to do it."

But what did the Minister of Finance do with that $120 million? He did what this government does. He wrote another IOU into the BS fund, the so-called budget stabilization fund. It's called creative bookkeeping.

So there was absolutely no need for any delay of this legislative session. Had we been called to do the people's business at the appropriate time, we would not be dealing with this interim supply measure now. Very clearly the minister, in not calling the Legislature on the ruse of having to adjust the budget, was guilty of terminological inexactitude in dealing with the opposition and in dealing with the people's business. I didn't want to say he was being dishonest.

This bill was not necessary.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: I'm saying he was guilty of terminological inexactitude, member for Vancouver South.

So why is that? Why did the Minister of Finance not want this debate, not want this scrutiny, not want the sun to shine in on the Legislature of British Columbia? Very clearly it was because the kind of budget he saw was a weak budget, a deceptive budget, a dishonest budget, and a budget that the people of British Columbia have not been turned on by. Clearly it is not a pre-election budget, although should the Premier — who is leaving now — develop the moxie to call it, we'll see whether this budget is exciting the people out there. It is a continuation of this government's fiscal mismanagement and fiscal incompetence.

Only the Minister of Finance could come up with the term "budget stabilization fund" to come up with a method of creative bookkeeping.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's around the continent.

MR. JONES: It's around the continent, because people say: "Only in British Columbia, you say!" Only in British Columbia does the Minister of Finance come up with a BS fund where he writes IOUs.

I ask that member who sits next to the Minister of Finance: what bank is that fund in, and what level of interest are we generating on it? Where is that fund, and how much interest are we earning on it? We're not. The Minister of Finance fooled the people last year — he even fooled senior economists in this province — into thinking it was a real fund rather than a phantom or imaginary fund. But this year the people are on to this government. The people understand the chicanery and the deception that is clear in this budget. That's why we are into this debate right now.

[ Page 9130 ]

That government did not want any scrutiny. We were supposed to rubber-stamp that interim supply bill without debate, without doing the people's business, without providing the kind of opposition to give that government credibility, that the people will trust it to carry on, because of the strong opposition that we have.

A balanced budget, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) says. A balanced budget would be if your revenue and your expenditure matched on all the lines down with real money, not just the bottom line. But on one of those lines we have some $684 million that isn't real; it's an IOU. It's not there. We have a so-called balanced budget that doesn't balance to the tune of some $684 million, and I guess in a $13 billion budget that's not a great percentage deficit, and relative to other governments in Canada perhaps it is reasonable, because we are in good economic times, unlike the government, which is hoping for an economic downturn so that perhaps the electorate will be less disposed to vote for a New Democrat government. That's not going to happen, because we have a rich province and capable and talented people who are going to continue the prosperity in this province, which has nothing to do with the current administration.

So we have a $684 million IOU written in the budget stabilization fund. We have a government that comes in and says: "Trust us. Give us four months. Give us a blank cheque and rubber-stamp it." Why did they want four months? Why not one month or two months, as is usual?

[3:30]

I expect that the budget and the estimates are going to be approved, because the government had planned that after this wonderful budget they brought in, the people wouldn't see through their deception. They would think the budget stabilization fund was real. They would think that it was a balanced budget. They would maybe even think that if they called taxes "levies," there were no new taxes.

After all that, they thought there might be an election window here: "We might be able to pull it off. We will return some of the excessive school property tax" — which has been dumped onto the average homeowner in this province year after year at the direction of the Social Credit administration. "We'll give them a little bit of that back, and maybe they'll jump up and click their heels. Maybe our popularity in the polls will increase."

But that didn't happen. They're out there polling like mad now, but it's not going to amount to anything. The popularity of the government is down, so I don't know when you're going to call it. You're running yourself up against the clock. You're going to have to call it sooner or later.

The purpose of this interim supply bill was to give a four-month election window so that, should an election be called, the cash flow of government would flow normally to those institutions, to ensure that the agencies of government would be funded. That perceived election window isn't there. It was a good try, but what it proves to me again and again is that the people are away ahead of the Social Credit government. Sometimes in some areas they scramble hard to catch up, but the people have seen through this budget. They're not impressed. This budget has not won any votes for the Social Credit administration. The four-month window you've created with this interim supply bill is unnecessary.

I don't know what you're going to do next. You don't have the moxie to call it now. You have your four-month window — or you will have shortly, I expect — but it's not going to wash, because you haven't fooled the people of this province. The people of this province don't want to see $5 billion of public money brought forward and approved in this Legislature without debate, without scrutiny. They don't want to see the kind of debacle we've seen in the past with GO B.C. grants.

They don't want to see those kinds of unscrutinized, unregulated funds being given from the government side to people who are members of the public, but a special category of members of the public. They're a category of individuals who, by the nature of their political affiliations, happen to have political connections to the governing party. This, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of thing British Columbians do not want to see. They want to see the sun shine in. They want to see, in fact, all of those grants properly scrutinized and regulated. They want to see who was turned down, why, and the criteria that were used to grant certain amounts to certain individuals in certain places. They don't want to see the kind of rubber-stamping the Minister of Finance indicated was going to be the order of the day yesterday.

The students of this province want debate on their situation, too. They see through the words of the government; instead, they see the deeds of the government. They know that in this province they pay among the highest fees in Canada. They know that what they're doing by paying those high fees is paying more and getting less. They're getting less time with their faculty, because of the tremendous class sizes students experience in this province. They're getting less up-to-date equipment. They're getting less opportunity in terms of the kinds of courses they desire and aren't able to get.

What a tremendous waste of their time, the institution's time, the faculty's time and the taxpayers' money when students are forced to sign up for courses they do not want just so they can stay in the institution. They waste the taxpayers' money in the process. And those are the lucky ones, Mr. Speaker; those are the ones that get in. For every three qualified students that are accepted in this province, one is turned away. One student has lost opportunity. One student is not going to get the chance to take their rightful place in this society. One student is not going to get a chance to contribute, to earn the kind of income and return through taxes the kind of revenue we would like to see. One student is not going to get a chance to maximize their potential, to use their skills to contribute to the well-being of this province.

[ Page 9131 ]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Those students know that we still have the lowest participation rates in Canada. The Canadian average, in terms of participation rates, is increasing at a greater rate than British Columbia's. Those students know that we are short thousands of bachelor's degrees annually compared to other provinces in Canada. Those students know, as well, that the level of student assistance, despite the fact that it has improved in the last couple of years, is still markedly below that of other provinces in Canada that believe in education and that are willing to assist students in need to take advantage of post-secondary educational opportunities.

The greatest irony of all, in terms of our coming here and being asked to approve a billion dollars a minute — $5 billion in five minutes — is the whole business of how this government arrived on that side of the House. In 1986 they campaigned on a platform of open government. The public accepted that and hoped for that.

HON. MR. FRASER: And the public got it.

MR. JONES: We did not get it. What we got was a government that drops a $5 billion bill on the table and asks the opposition to approve it, without scrutiny, in five minutes. What we got was promises to televise what's happening here — a concrete promise even appeared in the throne speech in 1987. That's open government; that's the kind of thing the people voted for in 1986. Where is it? It's not here with this bunch. They don't want television; they don't want scrutiny; they don't want the people to know the dismal performance of the members opposite.

They also promised an end to confrontation. They wanted open government and an end to confrontation. Tell that to the federal government; tell that to the doctors of this province; tell that to the school boards; tell that to the public service; tell that to the nurses. We are back to confrontation, because you think that's going to win you some votes this time. But it's not.

Open government. That was the banner cry in 1986, but what did we see? What we saw was a virtual contempt for the Public Accounts Committee That was another specific promise in 1986. The Premier of this province went around British Columbia and promised a real, working Public Accounts Committee with the time and the resources to examine the spending accounts of this province. And what do we see right now? That has not happened, of course. This government has not even named — has not even called — the Public Accounts Committee.

There is certainly no glasnost in terms of the members opposite. They refuse to bring in freedom of information legislation that would let the sun shine in in this province. They don't want the sun shining in. They don't want public scrutiny. They don't want the people to know the weakness in that administration.

But after the next provincial election, we will let the sun shine in. We'll debate openly before the people of this province, and we won't be bringing in any $5 billion interim supply bills and expect the opposition to debate and approve it in one sitting to approve $1 billion a minute. We won't take advantage and show contempt for parliamentary democracy, and we won't carry on the chicanery that we've seen in this budget and in this interim supply bill.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I will start off by saying that I'm delighted that member is in the chamber. I certainly wouldn't want him out in the classrooms of the nation filling the children of British Columbia full of nonsense like that — really, truly incredible. Talk about fuzzification; he's the chief of fuzzification in this province. There's no question about that.

We have been accused here lately of almost everything known to man or beast. We have been accused of not wanting scrutiny and not wanting to let the light shine in; we've been accused of everything imaginable. I want the people in the gallery to listen to this, because that simply is not the case. All those members over there know that when we get into estimates and talk about these very same dollars, each one — each dime — will be debated in this House, just as it always has been with the Social Credit governments of British Columbia, without a doubt. Every dime will be done like that.

While they talk about interim supply being a magical invention of the Social Credit government, they conveniently overlook that in 1973 the NDP did it, in 1974 the NDP did it and in 1975 the NDP did it. Isn't it amazing that it's all right when they do it, but not all right when the government does it? It's funny how they don't like to hear that. In terms of 1989 dollars, the interim supply they had is in the order of $900 million. It was passed like that; they almost invented it, as a matter of fact, if you care to check the record, Mr. Speaker.

It's not a rubber stamp that we're asking for. We are asking for a debate on every dime, every dollar in every ministry. When I look at them here, I see that we are putting interim supply for the Ministry of Health and for the Auditor-General, who we want to have lots of money. We want him to look at what's happening in this very House in this Legislature in the province of B.C. to make sure that we're doing it right.

We certainly want money to go to the office of the ombudsman, so that he can do his job right. Every month I get reports in my ministry about what has been investigated, dropped, solved or is still ongoing. I want him to have the money to do that job right. That's why we need the money.

Money for advanced education, training and technology. We just heard a minute ago about the education system in this great province of British Columbia. I can assure you that we have a wonderful system expanded by this government. Our expansion was even copied by the opposition, who said they didn't

[ Page 9132 ]

like it. But they do and expanded it even more. Now we have universities in the Okanagan. We'll have the university of the north.

How could they possibly say that we're not doing what is in the interests of the students? The budget this year puts an extra $300 million into education. That's not an untidy sum; that's a large amount of money. There's $500 million in health care; that's a big sum of money. Do they complain about that? I don't hear anything about the complaints now. Maybe it's an election budget. I guess it could be. I guess it might not be. Good grief!

[3:45]

Then what do they say they're going to do? They claim they're going to win. I'm glad to hear they think they're going to win. I like to run against people who are superconfident, because they forget it's the door-knocking that counts. "We are going to win, " they say over and over again. Who are they trying to convince? Me or themselves? It's probably themselves they're trying to convince, because now they're running a little nervous. They doubt they're going to make it, and they probably won't make it. I'll be looking somewhere around here at those members over there who are trying to harass me.

Oh yes, and you talk about your leader, the man who tore down the heritage house to build a new little box on that place — tore down a heritage house without a permit. Did you know that the Leader of the Opposition did that?

As a matter of fact, I was reflecting on the statements this morning by the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). I want you to listen to this very carefully, because the first and second members for Victoria made a comment sometime in 1983, which I just thought of today when he suggested something about my character not being right. I didn't take to that kindly. And I thought, now let me see, what do I remember? I remembered that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has not been here for about three weeks.

MR. ROSE: He's ill; he's got pneumonia.

HON. MR. FRASER: If he's ill, it's legitimate. What I also remember about the first and second members....

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Where was he, they ask. I was doing my job. By the way, that member over there talks about televising the House as if what goes on in this chamber was the whole thing. This is only a very small part of the job of an MLA. It's in the riding, in committees, in the caucus and talking to the people in the community that makes the MLA's job. I actually would be delighted if we had TV in here because I would like to show the people what we have to look at every day. I don't think the opposition would like it, but I would.

Getting back to the first member for Victoria, those of us who were here in 1983 will remember there had been a recommendation that we get a little 6 percent raise in pay. Remember that? Do you remember Mr. Peck suggested that it was outside the limits and that we should get a 3 percent pay raise? Do you remember what happened after that? Remember the panic? The first and second members for Victoria — the two members who sit today — held an emergency press conference. Do you know what they said? They said: "We don't need the raise. We're going to donate the raise to charity." That's not just one paycheque; that's all the paycheques from then until today — all the way through until they're gone. I wonder if they've kept that promise. I'd kind of like to see that one, because I have the funniest feeling that one might have slipped by somehow. But they had a press conference; they promised to give it away. I'd like to know whether they've done it. I doubt it somehow.

The member over there talked about the loyal opposition. I would like to have a loyal opposition. I don't know that we want a stupid opposition, but we certainly want a loyal opposition and we want a....

MR. ROSE: Point of order. As always, when the member speaks, I sit here transfixed. Sometimes he gets carried away — and sometimes he should be. I'd just like to suggest that he might wish to withdraw the "stupid" part as applied to the very refined, eloquent and able members on this side of the House.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I talked about the opposition, not any member of the opposition. It seems to me that remark is very much in order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have listened to what you have said, hon. member. On the point of order, I would suggest that you would choose different wording.

HON. MR. FRASER: I will certainly choose new wording, Mr. Speaker. The election window they talk about — I don't care how big or how small the window is. We'll all go through the election window together, won't we? I wonder what's going to come out the other end. I've got the funny feeling we're going to do fine.

MR. SIHOTA: If it's North Vancouver, you might; if it's Vancouver, you won't.

HON. MR. FRASER: Wherever I run, I'll run as hard as I can, as well as I can. And if the people decide to support me, they will. I'll try to make sure that they do, and I'll be counting on members from all over the community for their support, no matter where they come from, no matter what religion they happen to follow. I'll knock on their doors, and they'll vote for me because I work for them like all my fellow members do. I remember the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) talking about our first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), saying his speech on Saturday made them nervous. Well, it should have — telling the truth. They don't want to hear that at all.

[ Page 9133 ]

What else did they say? "When we get elected,"  what are we going to do? We're going to tax businesses. Well, surprise — take over all the businesses. The Interesting thing is you would think you would have learned after watching for all these years and months that the system we have in place now creates employment. Isn't that what you want? You want people to earn a living; you don't want to put businesses out of business. Their government would tax business. So for a few days or weeks they would have this imaginary tax money rolling in. All of a sudden, we wouldn't be competitive. What's working is what is being done. That's the secret of it; that's why it's working.

They complained about the great GO B.C. program. I'm telling you that lots of good community programs have been supported by that program, and I think it's a good program.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Nanaimo as well.

HON. MR. FRASER: In Nanaimo, in Vancouver Centre — big ones. I'll tell you, it's good.

I want to make a final point on this, Mr. Speaker. You'll have other occasions because I know, as I said earlier — and as my friend the Minister of Consumer Affairs said earlier — this is not going to end the debate on the spending estimates — no, no, no. All this says, Mr. Speaker, is that we can pay the salaries of the teachers and the government workers all over British Columbia, and that's what we want. Every dime in this will be debated by us. We welcome the speeches and suggestions from the opposition. We hope they're good; we want them to have lots of insight; we want them to be strong so we can be stronger. Mr. Speaker, we should pass this interim bill now.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This being the first time that I've spoken in the House since you've taken the chair, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate you and welcome you to that position, and I hope that the government members afford you an easy time of it.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take my place in this debate. I'm astounded, quite frankly, listening to the government members protest our desire to debate this request for money. I was quite amazed to hear one of the members talk about the passing of $5 billion as a technicality, some little thing — a mere formality, I think he said. When you take a look at $5 billion, most people in this province can't even begin to comprehend how much money that really is. It's nine digits.

I think about the number of constituents I've met with in the last short while. Last week I went to a tenants' meeting, where those tenants are having their rent increased 50 to 65 percent — their rent going from $500 to $750. Some will have their pensions completely swallowed up by those rent increases. And this government says that it's a mere formality to pass $5 billion worth of a budget, $5 billion of taxpayers' money, and the opposition should see this as a mere formality. We should pass it; we should not debate it and not ask for some accountability. I just think about that senior, that woman on a handicapped pension, whose rent increase will swallow up her pension in total, and I think about telling her that $5 billion is a mere formality and that, as her representative, I should pass it in mere minutes. I'm insulted, quite frankly, by the mere suggestion that it should only be greeted as a formality.

If the government is dismayed at the difficulty they're having in this session, I would suggest first of all that they've brought it on themselves. This government is now at a time in its term where it's accountability time, time for the electorate and the people of this province.... The taxpayers want to know what you've done for the last three years, what kind of province you've brought about, what kind of accountability you have for spending taxpayers' dollars, what you have done with their money.

As I look at what this government has done and promises to do in the future, the reality is that this government promises to tax more and deliver less. Imagine a government going to an election promising to cost the taxpayers more money. Indeed, over the last three years of their term the taxes in this province have gone up. They have cost taxpayers more out of their pockets, and what have they gotten for it? Less. This government has delivered less, and that is their promise: a promise of a smaller government, a government that delivers fewer services in education, in health care and in the Environment ministry.

This government talks about its environmental record, and all we have to do is look at the fact that this government was the very government that downsized that ministry, that tied the hands of those people still left in the ministry, and who wanted to do a good job, by policing their own laws, regulations, permits and licences. This government cost this province more and delivered less.

What has the government promised to do with this $5 billion? Indeed, that's the question, and it's the question that we will insist this government answer.

The government says that it cares about the people of this province. For my riding, beyond the issue of tenants and whether or not the people I met with will have a home come June 1, I would like to look at what this government has delivered and has refused to deliver for the people of Surrey.

The hospital in the municipality of Surrey has a 2,600-person waiting-list. That's another staggering number that's hard to comprehend. It's not quite as hard to comprehend as the $5 billion that we're asked to pass, but it's hard to comprehend a waiting-list that takes people 16 months to get the kind of operation that many of them in my municipality are waiting for. That's a legacy of this government

The question is: if this government has increased the costs to the taxpayers in my municipality — and they have over the last three years — what are we getting in return? It's accountability time; there will be no formality of passing a $5 billion budget.

[4:00]

[ Page 9134 ]

The government asks us to pass these warrants, and they call it an emergency. The list of emergencies in my riding is long: the waiting-list that I referred to; the fact that we have only two beds per 1,000 in our hospital, compared to a provincial average of four beds; the fact that our schools and the schoolyards in Surrey are beginning to look like concentration camps, with lineups of portables one after the other. Those are emergencies. Those are real-life emergencies that are affecting people's lives on a daily basis. I think it's very clear that this government is so out of touch that they can't even begin to understand what it's like to live under a Social Credit f government.

The fact that the opposition will not pass a request for $5 billion as a formality is also a reflection, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that this government has lost all credibility to govern. This government has lost any trust that it may have had, not only in this province but in this House in general. What we have seen is a complete and total disregard and a complete lack of understanding of the parliamentary system.

We are called back to this Legislature late —past the fiscal year-end. You know, in the past many of us have said jokingly that the reason the House isn't sitting is because the government doesn't need any money. The fact that the British Columbia Legislature only sits when this government needs money is of itself, I believe, a reflection of the fact that this government would rather run the province on its own — a one-man show without the scrutiny of the parliamentary system.

Beyond the fact that the House was called back late, we saw again a disregard for the Legislature in the government's moving and instructing junior levels of government to initiate tax changes and go to referendum for school boards, even before they brought the legislation to the House for the scrutiny of the province, even before they had given the basic courtesy to the democratic parliamentary system.

I think they believe that they can — or that they should be able to, or that they have the right to — run this province behind closed doors, that they have the right to impose their views, values and way of doing things on all the people of this province without any questioning, without any scrutiny. I believe that is a total disregard not only for this House, but for the parliamentary system.

When this government cries foul and carries on about the fact that the opposition wants to debate, wants to ask questions — and those questions will be asked in the days to come when we get to committee stage — it's a shallow cry. It doesn't have much credibility when you look at this government's record.

I think that the people of this province are saying they've had enough of a government that has no respect for the democratic system and the taxpayers of this province; that has a basic philosophy of "make the poor pay." That's who are paying for this government's follies and mistakes: the poor in this province — and the numbers are growing.

I look forward to the opportunity to talk not only during this debate and committee stage, but also during estimates. I think that we'll have a full and thorough airing of people's reality in this province under a Social Credit government. The number of people in this province holding down full-time jobs, working in the workplace, collecting a paycheque and still living below the poverty line has increased as a direct result of this government's policy.

I look forward to full accountability from this government, and I will be participating when it comes to the committee stage of this $5 billion formality. Government members stand up time and again and say: "We're not talking about our money. This is the taxpayers' money." This government should know, because year after year it has increased the tax burden on regular taxpayers in this province, while at the same time withdrawing its commitment to the delivery of services that each and every family member needs. It's an abysmal record. I look forward to the government's response, to hearing how they are proud of this record and of asking for a formality in passing this taxpayers' expenditure.

Not only am I looking forward to the estimates and to the government's explanation of its record, but I am also looking forward to the election. That's when the real accountability happens. I will be working, as I have done since 1986 in my riding, for that accountability, for that openness. This government has not delivered. It has been a dishonest, incredibly deceptive government. It has been a government that has hidden behind taxpayers' dollars to advertise its version of the job it has been doing. I think there will be a lot of people in this province who will look for accountability.

I would like to close by looking forward to the time when we can question each and every minister who has signed a special warrant, asking for more taxpayers' dollars to deliver less. I look forward to their excuses, to their rationale as to not only why they continue to make the people of this province pay more but how they can justify constantly delivering less.

MR. VANT: I found the comments of the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley very interesting. They emphasized once again to one who sits on the government side of the House that the opposition in this Legislature seems to be very inconsistent. Indeed, in my time in this House since 1986 they have passed interim supply bills without all of this what I call politicking.

They keep making reference to a window for an election; I can't help but think to myself that they seem to be obsessed with the next election. If they feel as confident as some of the members opposite keep saying, why are they so afraid of this possible election window?

MR. LOENEN: Because they're going to lose.

MR. VANT: The second member for Richmond is right. They're going to lose, because the latest infor-

[ Page 9135 ]

mation I have is that the socialists seem to be declining in popularity. Indeed, whenever they are challenged about the latest polls they have taken — which they have — they seem to be very quiet. I wonder why.

Mention, too, was made by the socialist members opposite of special warrants. The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley mentioned doing things behind closed doors. Isn't it more appropriate that we have an interim supply bill here on the floor of this House rather then just waiting until May 6 and then having the cabinet pass another special warrant? I think it would be an emergency, don't you think, if all of a sudden we were in a position where we couldn't pay all of the members of the BCGEU out there who work for the government — all those hard-working civil servants? I'm sure that the members in the socialist corner of the House would just love to explain to Mr. Shields why the government was not meeting its payroll.

So really, this interim supply bill is very responsible. It's very open on the floor of this House, and it's very traditional. But I think the members opposite want to prolong this debate. For some reason, they don't want to get into the detailed estimates of each ministry, where every nickel and dime is very carefully examined. In light of the federal budget, we had to very responsibly and carefully work on the budget, and I commend our Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. VANT: Yes, I want to refer to the bill here. Before I do that, though, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) mentioned earlier in this debate that the funding we had by special warrant would expire in just a matter of days. In fact, that would be on May 6. Again, that emphasizes that this interim supply bill is very necessary.

I was somewhat offended by that puerile pedagogue — the first member for Nanaimo who likes to baffle us with his very erudite multisyllabic words — and his inference that somehow my very good colleague the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) wouldn't understand. I find those comments by the first member for Nanaimo during the debate on this supply bill as being less than desirable.

Indeed, that first member for Nanaimo mentioned the tyranny of the majority. Well, I remember very well the tyranny of the minority. That's when, with only 39 percent of the popular vote, that socialist government was government in this province from 1972 to 1975. At that time, I understand from some of the more senior members of this House, they had a limit. There was an actual limit of only 120 hours to discuss the spending estimates of that socialist government at the time.

[4:15]

Again, that well-read first member for Nanaimo mentioned Gladstone, a former Prime Minister of Great Britain. He said something like this — and I quote the Blues from this morning: the debates will go on "until the last farthing is accounted for." I would remind this Legislature that Bill Bennett was leading the opposition at the time, when he said: "Not a dime without debate." This Social Credit administration has been faithful to that ever since, when it comes to the spending estimates of each and every ministry of this provincial government. There is ample opportunity for very detailed debate and grilling of each minister on his estimates.

I would like to say that this interim supply bill is not only an emergency to ensure that we can pay those hard-working civil servants out there, but part of it, of course — and I can't help but notice that the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) is here — is to continue ongoing programs by the Ministry of Native Affairs, which is very important for the economic and educational well-being of this province's first citizens.

Also, being a member of this Legislature and having the honour to represent my constituents in the northern interior, I know that at this time of year it's very important that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways also has authorized interim spending.

We speak about narrow windows for political purposes, but in the northern interior we have a very short construction season. It's important that very necessary rehabilitation work proceed on our highway and bridge systems, especially in the north and in the interior, because we're just getting into the construction season. Any undue delays would cause great discomfort to our hard-working tax-paying citizens in that part of our province. Indeed, in every part of the province, there is much-needed work to be done which can only be done if the funds are authorized by this Legislature to do so.

Given opening day when there was absolutely no respect for tradition whatsoever, it is not surprising that the Minister of Finance did not in his wisdom decide to have this interim supply bill of this scope, amounting to $5 billion. That is one-third of the budget. Given the playing of politics consistently during this session, I think it was very wise of him to have an interim supply bill of that scope so that he isn't constantly coming back to this Legislature, as it appears we will be very slowly proceeding to the budget debate, and then, of course, finally, into the individual ministerial estimates.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley mentioned that somehow this government was offering fewer services for things like health care, education and the environment. Obviously she wasn't listening, or never took the time to read the budget, because according to what I heard and what I have read, we are increasing the budget this year in education, kindergarten to grade 12, by no less than 15 percent. To me, that does not translate into a cut in services.

We are going to increase the health care budget by 11.3 percent. Sensitive to the users of this system, there will be no increase in the medical services premiums.

[ Page 9136 ]

Also, this government, in its wisdom — and I know we've just celebrated Earth Day 1990 — will be increasing funding for environmental initiatives by no less than 24 percent.

I find it very hard that the speaker just before me is saying that this government is somehow insensitive to health, education and the environment and is cutting services. The facts just do not substantiate that somewhat irresponsible statement.

Earlier in the debate, somebody said we had not debated spending for over a year. If I recall correctly, this Legislature adjourned last July 21. Those estimates, which were amply debated at that time and those dollars approved, were being spent right up until just about 24 days ago. It has not been a whole year since this government sought the consent of this Legislature for spending of dollars.

I think we have an inconsistent opposition. Early on in my career in this Legislature, I referred to the members in the socialist corner of the House as the "toothless pit-bull gang." Often, in pressing them in debate, they seem to lack any substance to back up their at times high-sounding arguments with the facts.

We have had ample debate. If the members of the opposition would get on with it, we could really debate the budget, and we could get on with debating the individual ministry estimates.

A past Prime Minister of Great Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, said that every government needed a formidable opposition. It's a shame that we don't have what could be termed, in any way, shape or form, a formidable opposition in this House. It seems to me that they don't want to get into detailed estimate debates at this point in time; they just want to play politics with a traditional interim supply bill — a bill which I strongly support, which is very necessary at this time and which I, without any hesitation, would feel very comfortable in supporting.

MS. A. HAGEN: This afternoon we're debating a bill that is too much and too late. I wasn't in the House yesterday afternoon when the Minister of Finance introduced the bill, but I have this vision of the Minister of Finance breathlessly racing up one side of the House and down the other to see if he could manage to get that bill through in five minutes. The urgency of this issue is one that has the government calling into question our right and our responsibility to ask questions about this particular piece of legislation.

I have three premises that I want to address this afternoon. I've just noted two of them: one, that this bill is too much; the second, that it's too late; and the third, that it is the government's intent to provide itself with an opportunity to avoid debate on the estimates in this House.

Let me start with too late. It's been canvassed quite extensively by people on this side of the House, so I won't dwell on it excessively. There is no question that in our minds and in the minds of the people we represent this House has not been called into session to do its business.

In the body politic out there, there is a sense of offence that the government has played games, found excuses and sought ways to avoid having this Legislature meet to discuss the people's business. The hollow excuse that the federal government cut $120 million and the need for a full month for the Minister of Finance to find something like 1 percent — in fact, less than 1 percent of his budget — and then to have him find it in the BS fund really bear out the opportunism and the excuses this government has brought into play.

It's too late to be looking at major legislation that this government has been developing, expounding and causing to be implemented outside the range of debate in this House. We've just had too much experience in the past with the government to trust that it does not have a less than admirable, credible and totally open agenda for us.

We have been waiting for opportunities to discuss one of the most important tasks that we deal with: namely, how government plans for and spends the tax dollars of our people. We want the opportunity to discuss those issues fully.

Even when this House has sat, there have been far too many occasions when the government has not been totally aboveboard and open, and when they've sought to avoid scrutiny. There are two examples that have become symbolic in people's minds of how this government has misused the House and our need for and right to full debate on spending and financial matters.

One of those symbolic issues was the Coquihalla. When I was first elected in this House, it was as a result of initiatives on this side of the House that the government eventually called a full royal commission to look into the overspending without authorization by this House. It was clear in the decisions of independent inquirers into government activities on the Coquihalla that there had indeed been a misuse of the due process of debate on financial issues.

The other issue that is very much a part of people's perspective these days is the Expo lands. As we all know, that matter was again raised in the House during question period this afternoon. We are unpeeling the story of the bidding on that land, the amount of money this government negotiated to have as payment for one of the prime Crown land resources of the province, and what we have lost as a result of government management.

In looking at this bill, we are looking to a government that has all too often brought matters to us too late, in terms of their coming to our attention at all; too late in terms of the honesty of their presentation and the thoroughness with which we have been provided with information to examine their agendas; and too late in the amount of time we have had available to debate these issues.

That record has been getting worse as years have gone by. In the first year we sat in the spring and the fall. We actually carried that session forward into the early winter. Last year we were later in sitting, but we sat early enough to be well into the estimates by the time the fiscal year-end had come about. This

[ Page 9137 ]

year we did not even have an opportunity to sit before fiscal year-end, and now we are looking at the government asking carte blanche for the right to spend $5 billion without debate. That's not available, and it's not responsible, and this side of the House will ensure that the debate does in fact take place.

One of my colleagues a moment ago spoke about the checks and balances and the information that needs to be clearly stated. In this debate we've already had some of the rhetoric on the part of government that's designed to mislead. We can't tolerate that. We need to be sure that we thoroughly understand what is available in the various programs the government is proposing in this year's budget.

[4:30]

For example, this morning the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), in making a list of what some of this expenditure was for, said that the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) is going to be spending $27,410,000 as a result of the warrants in this bill. Well, in the minister's program for women, there is $2.5 million for the whole year. But here we have the Minister of Environment suggesting in a cavalier way that we have a huge sum of money for women's programs. We don't see that in the budget. We're now seeing the Minister of Environment on behalf of his colleague suggesting that there are endless numbers of dollars for women. We'd be delighted to see those dollars in more specific ways, but my thesis that this government may in fact not allow that examination of estimates to occur, that it may use this $5 billion special interim supply bill to simply shut down this place and go on with its agenda outside the precincts, makes us dubious and requires us to call those matters into question.

We know the method that this government will use, Mr. Speaker. What it will do is use the people's dollars not to have the Legislature functioning — which people believe to be an appropriate use of tax dollars — but to buy advertising, to have some more news updates mixed in with the regular news, to slant and present the issues without the opportunity for due process, for check and balance, for questions, for the deliberation that they require.

We know that they will spend money on polling for political purposes, money that should not be spent by this government for its political ends, and we know that it will spend money on print to inundate people with its side of the story. The check and balance of this place, Mr. Speaker, is that there is available to us in this House the opportunity to debate every aspect of the ministry's estimates. The $5 billion tells us that this government may indeed — perhaps I should say "does" indeed — have another agenda, which would enable it to go outside this House and carry its message without the checks and balances, the question and answer, the thrust and parry that occur in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for an interim supply bill of this magnitude. Members opposite have said over and over again that they need this money to pay essential bills. If at any time this House were not sitting, government has full power on a short-term basis to provide itself with all the dollars it needs to pay our workers' salaries and get grants off to hospitals, school boards and community agencies. It is absolutely wrong for this government to be suggesting that this is the tool it needs in this period of time. This House is sitting. This House is available on a daily basis, five days a week, 23 hours a week, to consider any money bill that this government wants to bring in. But this government wants the latitude to close down the House and operate as it has since last July, without the opportunity for opposition to daily question and deal with the people's business. Too late in calling the House, too much — far more money than is required for the government to transact its business while this House is in session — and with an agenda that leaves them the latitude to work outside the democratic process....

I found it absolutely stunning and disturbing that the question has been raised over and over again on the other side of the House about democratic process. Our American friends with the Boston tea party knew about the democratic process: no taxation without debate. We've known about it since the days of the Stuarts, in particular, when parliament exerted its supremacy in the British parliamentary system. We have guarded that right, and we will exercise it on behalf of parents, children, seniors, women, the poor, the disabled and also those people whose taxes provide for programs, who have a right to know in detail what this government plans to provide with the dollars that come from our personal income taxes and, regrettably, in a much-diminished way, from the business, industrial and commercial taxes of the province.

I would challenge this government to bring forward a reasonable interim supply bill, one that we can trust is indeed interim and not a licence for it to operate outside this House. I would challenge the government to ensure that in that interim supply bill it is prepared, through committee stage, to provide information about the essential programs that are going to be covered. Then we can get on with the business of the House. But until I'm satisfied that that is what the government is going to do through this bill, I will be joining my colleagues in opposing it. Too late, too much, and too much latitude to this government to absolve itself from a democratic process of debating the issues in this Legislature and leaving this place, which it can do with this kind of latitude, to continue to inform people through its advertising, through its own agenda — a totally and thoroughly undemocratic prospect that I don't want to be any part of enabling, on behalf of the opposition.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the interim supply bill. I think it's a tradition in this House. It has been done for many years.

Why is it done? Because we are saying to all members of this House that until the estimates can be debated, we need certain funds to pay the people who work for us — the ongoing expenses that are an

[ Page 9138 ]

ongoing thing with government. All we're asking is to see us through that period, so that people who work for us, for example, in Health, Social Services and Education can get their paycheques and will not have to be afraid that perhaps the money has not been allocated.

We're not asking anything that hasn't been done in the past. That is the tradition. I believe that in this particular case the opposition is doing this only for political reasons. It has nothing to do with anything we're discussing at this time, which is the interim supply bill. It is a chance to bring up all kinds of other things that have happened in the past, whether they are true or innuendoes, just so they can get a debate going and discuss various things that may have nothing to do with the supply bill. I will therefore deviate some also and talk about things that have been talked about by other members of this House.

There will be, in my opinion, and there always has been, much debate in estimates. We always go as long as the opposition feels is necessary to debate any minister's estimates. I am sure it will be no different this year than it has been in the past. I suppose we will then look at every item in the minister's estimates; they will be discussed thoroughly.

But you know, I find it very difficult to think that at this particular time, for political reasons, it is now raised as something unusual. When we look back at when the opposition was in power, they did the same thing. It was not something unusual. If the House had not yet had the opportunity to debate the estimates, an interim supply bill was put forward and accepted. It has nothing to do with looking at the ministries' estimates in detail; that will follow. It is only a natural progression, and that is part of the business of this House.

We find again and again that from that side of the House the attitude is: "Sock it to the business community. Sock it to the resource industry. Sock it to mining." When they were in business they did that very effectively; as a matter of fact, so effectively that we had no housing problem — no problems at all with too many people, because they were leaving this province. They were going to other parts of this great country of ours, whereas last year we had a net in-migration of 60,000 people.

Why did we have a net in-migration of 60,000 people? Do you think people just decided to come to British Columbia because somebody said: "Go to British Columbia"? No. They knew why they were coming to British Columbia: the economy in British Columbia is excellent. There is an opportunity to raise their families. There is a good education system. There are excellent resources for social services. The Health ministry, providing health care for people, is better than anywhere in Canada. As a matter of fact, we are so successful in British Columbia that we suffer because of our own success. However, when we have success like that, we have to provide resources and health care, and that is sometimes difficult to do in very short order.

We also have a housing problem due to the net in-migration of 60,000 people. There's no question about it. How can you otherwise explain it? We have a housing problem. But I would like to refer the members of this House.... We're talking a lot about housing; we're talking a lot about individual ownership of housing, which I certainly approve of and agree with. I would like to quote a few things that were said some time ago when the Leader of the Opposition was at city council. He said: "The single-family house is as dead as a dodo."

MR. BRUCE: Who said that?

HON. MR. DUECK: The Leader of the Opposition, when he was at city hall. Now they're saying, "We want to help our children into ownership, " which I agree with, if at all possible. But that is how they flip-flop on that side. One day the ownership of a single-family home is as dead as a dodo; the next time the government does nothing to help people buy their own homes and get established.

Another quote from the same member. The Leader of the Opposition, who was at city hall at that time, said he thought landlords should be able to charge more than the amount set down for renovations, which was 12 percent per annum at that time. Now they're saying we need rent control so it doesn't go more than 4 or 5 percent.

The leader also said.... They were discussing the ceiling set at a meeting with the B.C. Rent Review Commission, and he urged a higher rent limit. This is the same leader that wants control now. He urged, at that time — because there was rent control — a higher rent limit.

[4:45]

MR. BRUCE: Do you mean he wanted to charge more money for rent?

HON. MR. DUECK: He wanted to charge more money for rent, more money for renovations. That is how things change.

I was also quite disturbed when the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) yesterday said — I quote from the Blues: "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... units...."

Again, who is the confused one in this House? Is it the Minister of Social Services and Housing, or is it the individual who's speaking about 1,700 versus 8,000 units? We're talking of two entirely different things. We are creating and putting on the market roughly 1,900 units of social housing a year, which is a participating agreement between the federal government and the provincial government to provide social housing. It has absolutely nothing to do with the rental supply program. The rental supply program.... I would like to repeat for the four members still sitting in the opposition benches. We have allocated and approved 8,000 units. That's got nothing

[ Page 9139 ]

to do with social housing. If they can't even figure that out, if they can't in their own minds separate the 2,000 units of social housing versus the 8,000 of rental supply, then I'm not surprised that they keep saying that we're repeating the 2,000 units over and over again. They're talking about two different things. There's absolutely no correlation of one with the other.

HON. MR. REYNOLDS: How many rental units did they turn down in Esquimalt?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm coming to that. I would like to challenge the members opposite when they talk about housing and say: "What has this government done in the past or currently about the shortage of housing?" I would like to challenge them. How many of you have gone to your local mayor or alderman, when there's been a rejection of housing, and said: "Look, there is a critical situation in British Columbia, so please assist us with the housing development in your area"?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I appreciate the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) saying that he has. He has done his homework. But the people that are talking from that side of the House, again and again, when they talk about housing, are always forgetting that it's their own communities that are not allowing this housing to take place. I agree: we need more housing. But we need everybody's cooperation, including that of the members from that side of the House. I would like to challenge them to do exactly that.

MR. SIHOTA: Are you talking to municipalities?

HON. MR. DUECK: I certainly have, and not only my community. I gave them capital "H" for turning down a project in my own community.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's capital "H"?

HON. MR. DUECK: That's "for heaven's sake."

By not approving the interim supply bill, you are preventing us from continuing business. Most of our business is paying people on the payroll of government. These are people that belong to unions. These are people that work for my ministry and for the Ministry of Health. These are people that are looking after day care and, for example, homemaker services These are the nurses in the hospitals. These are not people you could do without for a month or two and nothing would happen; they are people we need daily.

You are blocking that. It has absolutely nothing to do with going to a ministry's estimates and looking at every cent that's going to be spent in that particular ministry. Why are you doing it? I know why. You're doing it strictly for political reasons to make some political hay. You think you'll get a few Brownie points.

It is political. That is all it is. It is nothing but political hogwash and cheap political manoeuvring. It is political rhetoric.

That side of the House thinks that being political and doing all this electioneering at this time will gain them some points. It will work against them, because the people of the province are much too intelligent to buy that garbage. They will not go for it. They will not accept it. They know what it's worth.

I've already had all kinds of calls. People say: "What is the matter with the people on that side of the House? Why are they blocking this when they can go into the estimates at a later time and look at every penny spent in every ministry? Why are they doing that?" When I tell them why they are doing it, they say: "Well, that's unfortunate. But we know that if they ever got into power it would be a sorry day." They are too intelligent to fall for that.

People are afraid of what the people on that side of the House are doing, and they will not buy it. That's why the people in B.C. have consistently voted for the Social Credit Party — not because they liked us personally but because they liked the system. They like the way we handled our finances. They like what we are doing today. They like a balanced budget. They like to see money paid off on accumulated debt. Why have we got people from the other provinces saying: "How in the world do you do it?"

We get credit from everyone in Canada except from the opposition in British Columbia. The other people all say: "What British Columbia is doing is tremendous." And I don't understand why they wouldn't say some of the things we are doing are good. Why don't they stand up and say: "Yes, paying off $800 million from the accumulated debt is certainly a good thing"? How could anyone argue against that? Have I heard anyone on that side say so?

Has anyone on that side said that we only spend four cents of every dollar on our debt servicing compared to the federal government rate of 39 percent and compared to other provinces' rates of 13, 15 and 18 percent? No, no one has mentioned that, because they don't want to talk about it. It is good news and why should they talk about good news on that side of the House? It would just be one more point for not winning the next election.

I want to tell you the things we have done in the last three and a half years that we have been in power. People in British Columbia, again and again when I travel the province, say: "Thank you. Would you tell the Premier and your colleagues that we like what you are doing. Please do everything you can to keep the other people from that particular side of the House away." So that makes us feel very good.

But what did the opposition leader do when he was mayor? He jumped on the bandwagon only after the thing was a success — whether it was Expo, the dome or anything at all.

Interjections.

[ Page 9140 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: Listen. I know they don't want to hear about it, but he is doing the same thing now. Have you ever seen the Leader of the Opposition get up and make a definite decision? No, because he can't. He doesn't know how to do it. He waffles, and that is why the opposition will not win. That is why the opposition's refusal to pass the interim bill is just a blow in the wind; it's nothing but puffery.

We talk about pollution; we talk about all these various good motherhood issues. Again, when they were in power, look at the mill in the estuary that was built. We can go back and talk about all kinds of things about environment, but we haven't got time for that today.

If we wanted to criticize, we could do all kinds of things. Now they jump on the bandwagon and talk about pollution. What did the Leader of the Opposition do when he was mayor? Did he do anything about pollution in the city of Vancouver? No, he never did anything. He let all the pollution go right down into the ocean. He did nothing at all.

Again, I would like to say that it is easy to criticize. The easiest job in the Legislature is to sit in the House on the opposite side and criticize. One can speak very abusively of things one doesn't know about. I hear that again and again. They speak so abusively about subjects they know very little about.

They talk about housing; they talk about 2,000 units of social housing and then they refer to the 8,000 units of rental supply. One has nothing to do with the other. They don't even know one from the other. They don't understand it. Yet we've spoken about it; we've sent out news releases. I've been on TV, on radio, and they still don't understand. They say we're doing it over and over again.

But ladies and gentlemen....

Interjection.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: I am sorry. I was addressing ladies and gentlemen. I take that back.

I want to end by saying that the people of this province are much too intelligent to buy what is being said on that side of the House — the excuses they are giving for not passing the interim supply bill — and that people in the province who are listening to and reading about this debate will see it for exactly what it's worth.

MR. BARLEE: I have been absolutely fascinated with the debate which has engulfed this House since yesterday, a debate, by the way...

AN HON. MEMBER: You're the only one.

MR. BARLEE: Because I'm able to concentrate that full length of time.

...which has taken place because this government attempted to ramrod a supply bill through this chamber without proper scrutiny or debate. This is no ordinary supply bill. It is, Mr. Speaker, as you have heard from other members from this side of the floor, a nearly $5 billion supply bill.

As one of the eloquent members from this side of the House stated yesterday, and most of them are eloquent — it was the first member for Vancouver Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) — you asked us to pass $5 billion in five minutes.

It would have been the most expensive legislation in the history of British Columbia. I am sure the members on the opposite side understand that that's $1 billion a minute. That's pretty expensive by anybody's reckoning, even for this government. A billion dollars a minute is considerable.

But, Mr. Speaker, if you will Indulge me somewhat for a few moments in a kind of wide-ranging address, I will eventually get back to my immediate concerns. I am interested in some other things. I am interested in the barely noticed nuances of the House, and I am especially interested in myths and their perpetuation. Why am I so intrigued by myths? There are two reasons, and I'll enunciate the first one.

[5:00]

As a boy I was fascinated with the history of the Pacific slope, and I think everyone in this House probably realizes that it has an intriguing history. I am also intrigued by the mining history of this province, its ranching and Indian history, the history of the mining ghost towns of British Columbia — those vanished towns and cities of the past like Phoenix, Sandon, Quesnel Forks and Discovery, and a host of other once-fascinating mining camps which once graced our province. I discovered that there were thousands of other people in this province who are just as interested in our history as I am.

So three years ago we came up with an idea for a television series. This does not seem to allude to the subject, but it does. It really does allude to what I'm going to talk about. We launched a pilot series, tentatively called "Gold Trails and Ghost Towns." Much to our amazement, our initial viewing audience grew from 4,000 to almost 100,000. In fact, it has been so successful that we sold the program rights to Global TV Inc, which, as you probably know, is the third-largest TV network In Canada. They will be sending this program back to Ontario and other parts of eastern Canada. In the last week or so we sold it to CHEK Television, which covers the lower mainland and Vancouver Island — so it has been relatively successful.

The reason I am bringing this program to your attention is because this program, this series, deals with history, and to a certain extent it deals with myth-making, and that's my point. We're very careful that we don't mislead our audience, because we realize that television is a very powerful and influential medium. Those who use television have, I believe, a very serious responsibility. My television crew takes this responsibility extremely seriously, and so do I.

I'll elaborate on the point I'm trying to make. Let's get back to myth-making. Since my election in this House in 1988, 1 have listened to members of the government side continually repeating their unique

[ Page 9141 ]

version of history. It's quite an interesting version — their almost unbelievable confusion of fact with fiction. In a word, Mr. Speaker, they are myth-making.

Even more astonishing is that I think some of them — God bless their trusting little souls — believe this fiction. Only yesterday in this chamber, we were again subjected to a rewrite of history by the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker). He stated flatly — by the way, so did the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Hon. Mr. Dueck) — and, of course, incorrectly that when the NDP government was in power from 1972 to 1975, people left this province in droves.

Let's examine that. The member for Skeena may have actually believed that preposterous statement, but that claim, which we and the public have heard so often in the last 15 years from the government MLAs and other sources, is patently false. It is simply another myth. That's the myth we should have set the record straight on, and I think we'll do just that.

I think we should be eminently fair and use an unimpeachable government publication. I have that publication right here; it's called "Budget 1990." After all, Mr. Speaker, this publication was issued under your Minister of Finance, so I would hesitate to question its veracity. But what we find out — and I think the member for Skeena and the first member for Central Fraser Valley should concentrate on this — is that what happened from 1972 to 1975 is exactly the opposite of what that member said. The exact reverse was true, and that's according to your own document.

If the member will look at page 41 of this document, he will see why it was a myth. The time from 1972 to 1975 — and I'm sure the member for Skeena would be interested in this — under the NDP government of the day, contrary to the public perception, was a period of dazzling growth in the population of this province, not according to our record but according to your own record on the top of page 41. In fact, in that four-year period the population growth of British Columbia averaged an amazing 2.7 percent annually, and it never dropped under 2.4 percent. So the member for Skeena must have been confused about the dates.

Guess when the population really dropped. The population sank dramatically in 1976, the very year the Social Credit Party came back into power in this province. That's when the people of British Columbia started leaving in droves, and they've continued since then. It was worse in 1977. That 2.7 percent was 1 percent under the Socred government, and that is a full percentage point below the year before. That percentage point is very important in terms of population growth; it's a truly dramatic drop. And they didn't stop leaving. Even more people fled the province the following year, and they continue to do so.

In fact, in ten of the past 14 years under the Social Credit government.... Despite what we hear and what the public is led to believe, the population growth of British Columbia averaged an anemic 0.7 percent to 1.9 percent in the last 20 years. In the last 20 years, no four years of population growth in British Columbia's history could match those four years when the province had an NDP government. So the myth that you've been perpetuating is simply that, based on nothing but fabrication from start to finish.

While we're on myths, Mr. Speaker, I think we should take time out to examine yet another fairytale. This myth to based upon the fiction that this government has done a miraculous job in lowering the chronically high unemployment rates. The truth is that their record in lowering our unemployment rates is generally poor. The unemployment rates in British Columbia are still not acceptable, and they are not spectacularly low, as the public is continuously told. In fact, when I checked the latest unemployment figures from this province yesterday, I discovered that our seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 7.8 percent. But wonder of wonders - guess what — it's still higher than the Canadian average, which is 7.2 percent; and that 7.2 percent includes such have-not provinces as Newfoundland and the Maritimes.

In my own constituency of Boundary-Similkameen — a marvellous job here — the seasonally adjusted rate is 11.2 percent. This comes very close to a true 15 percent, when those who don't qualify for unemployment benefits are included: people like small business men, people on welfare and so on. Our average is practically double the average of the lower mainland. The greatest payroll in my particular part of British Columbia is unemployment insurance, at about $3 million to $4 million a month.

By the way, the unemployment rate in British Columbia — again, according to this government publication entitled "Budget 1990" — was once quite low. I think the member for Skeena would be very interested that it was low. One year in the last 20 years the unemployment rate dipped below 6 percent, and 6 percent is low. That year, by the way, was between 1973 and 1974, when there was an NDP government in power. It has never even come close since that day. But you do have a record; your record is a magnificent 16 percent unemployed under the Social Credit government in 1983.

HON. MR. PARKER: What was the credit rating?

MR. BARLEE: We'll get to the credit rating too.

Now that's a real achievement. But let's be fair about it. Let's compare the whole four years of NDP government unemployment with the last 14 years of unemployment under Social Credit governments. It's quite interesting again.

Interjection.

MR. BARLEE: Evidently the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond) hasn't checked his own budget. Read page 41, top of the graph. The member for Kamloops has not done his homework, unfortunately. It's all there in the budget.

Let's take a look at it. The NDP averaged close to 7.9 percent unemployment during their governing years. Let's compare it with the Social Credit rate.

[ Page 9142 ]

The Social Credit rate for 14 years is between 11 percent and 12 percent — marvellous job on employment. That's another myth laid to rest.

While we're on unemployment, let's examine the grandiose government claims that they have created the greatest number of new jobs in the country. What kind of new jobs are they? I've heard that claim so often that I'm at the point of nausea, so I decided to follow up some of these highly acclaimed job creation schemes. I picked the JobTrac program from my own constituency of Boundary-Similkameen, where we have many areas of unemployment and where unemployment is rampant. At any rate, the JobTrac program, set up in 1987, created 12 new jobs — I emphasize new — for people who really needed the jobs and appreciated them. Those 12 jobs lasted precisely six weeks before they were terminated. They were not permanent jobs. But within several weeks, two of those people actually did get real jobs, which is amazing. The interesting part of it is this: the government counted those jobs as 14 new jobs created, although only two of them were permanent jobs. That's another myth perpetuated by this government. That's a magician's act. To turn two jobs into 14 is nothing short of miraculous.

Somebody mentioned interest rates. Again, from the budget of 1990.... I would hesitate to question it. It's great ammunition. I must thank the Minister of Finance for providing this. It makes our research much easier. From 1976 to 1989, interest rates under this government have averaged between 11 and 12 percent. Now, of course, it's about 15 percent. They've done a remarkable job. It's hard on people. It's hard on small businessmen. It's hard on everybody.

By the way, the interest rates when the NDP formed the provincial government — and I would suggest you check it — averaged just over... Did I hear it from there? Just over 7 percent. That was the best four-year span in 20 years, between 1970 and 1990.

The more I look at the fiscal record of this government, the more I realize the government not only loses the cookies; they lose the cookie jar.

Finally, let's take a look at what it's costing the present government to get their message out to the public. It's a pretty expensive proposition to circulate what I consider misleading information. What did it cost last year? It cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $100,000 a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year. That is pretty expensive.

But if you think last year was expensive, you'd better try this year. This year is going to be more expensive. This year it will be $30 million of the taxpayers' money. If you say it fast enough it doesn't sound like much, but that's $100,000 a day, six days a week, 52 weeks a year. That means the public will be paying $100,000 a day for the privilege of being inundated by questionable government advertising, for information that can be, at best, categorized as unreliable. When I say it can be best categorized as unreliable, that's probably the classic understatement of 1990.

[5:15]

These are a number of areas. (1) The old myth that people moved out of B.C. during 1972 to 1975 under the NDP government is absolutely and totally false. (2) The myth that the government has done an exemplary job to reduce unemployment figures is also a myth. It's absolutely false. We're even behind the Canadian average, which is bad enough. (3) The myth that the government has an unequalled record for creating new jobs, again, is absolutely false. They're fiddling with the figures as usual. (4) The myth that this government has a fine history of maintaining low interest rates, again, is absolutely false.

Most of these myths — in fact, almost all of them — have been fabricated out of whole cloth. They are figments of someone's very vivid and very flawed imagination. It's really quite astonishing. They have been inflicted upon a very trusting public. I believe it is a record something akin to deceit. It's no wonder we dig in our heels when the Minister of Finance asks us to accept, without debate, a $4.9 billion supply act.

The record of this government isn't very good. In fact, it's nothing short of deplorable. If we had a guarantee in writing, we would accept it. But we're not about to get that guarantee.

MR. BRUCE: I certainly have enjoyed listening.... No, I'll change that. I have listened to the second member for Boundary-Similkameen, and this whole aspect about myth and fiction and so on. One thing's for sure: when it comes down to myth and fiction, there's no doubt that the general elections that have been won over the past 30-odd years have always come down in favour of the Social Credit Party. It's been the Social Credit government of the province of British Columbia.

We can go on and on looking back. I guess that's pretty much the role of the NDP; they are always looking back. I would like to look forward. I'd like to look to the future. I'd like to deal with the estimates of this budget. I want to talk about the issues in forestry and the good things that are happening in forestry. I want to talk about the things that are happening in environment. I want to find out the details on the sustainable environment fund. I want to get on with the future. It's important to me; it's important to my children; it's important to my community. But no, all we ever hear from the opposition is the past. All they ever live in is the past. They're so far back they can never catch up. They always go on and on about the past. It's time now for us in this House to move on with the business at hand. The business at hand is to deal with the budget — a very good budget, mind you. It's important that we move ahead.

We want to talk about the estimates as they affect health. We want to talk about the fact that there are great increases in the Health ministry this year. The expenditures in Health will be good for the citizens of British Columbia. I want to debate that in this House. I want the people of British Columbia to

[ Page 9143 ]

know what this government is doing in the Ministry of Health for the people of British Columbia.

When it comes to education, we're talking about $3 billion in this year's budget dealing with education. I want to debate that. I want to get on with that. The people of British Columbia want to know what's happening in the Ministry of Education. But no, we're stuck here today talking about the past. That's all we've heard so far — the past. It goes on and on. It's all history, and we know what history brings to us.

The good news about history is that British Columbia continues to re-elect the Social Credit Party as the government of the province. What I find quite incredible is that the opposition here is so afraid to move ahead, to move off this interim supply for fear, some of them are saying, that we will go to an election. Do they want an election or don't they want an election? What's wrong? I don't understand. We don't want to go to an election. We want to get on with the business at hand, dealing with the estimates as good government for the people of British Columbia, and now they're stopping us from doing that. It does not make sense to me.

I want to talk about transportation. I want to talk about the new highway commitments being made here on Vancouver Island. I want to talk about the billion-dollar highway project for the province and for the citizens of Vancouver Island. Do you know that today work has started on the Malahat section? Trees have been cut down; road-widening is happening; they are going to four-lane that road right now. I want to make sure that the people doing that work can get paid, and that means we've got to move on to get into the estimates and discuss the budget as a whole. We've got to get in there so we can talk about that transportation budget, so we can talk about new ferries for British Columbia — big new ferries to bring people from around the world and from the mainland over here to this beautiful spot of Vancouver Island. That's good stuff. Let's get on talking about the future. New ferries for British Columbia are all part of the future, all part of the 1990s. It's important.

Why do we get mired in the past, always having to talk about the past? Is it that they can't talk about the future? Is it that they're afraid of the future? Let's deal with the future. The future is this good budget that we have before us, so let's get on.

Let's move ahead so we can talk about native affairs. Let's talk about some of the native cultural projects. You might be interested in the Cowichan Indian band in my riding. Mind you, it's the largest Indian band in British Columbia. In fact, it's one of the largest bands in Canada. Just today I had the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) up to the Cowichan Valley — and doing an excellent job, mind you — meeting with the chief and a number of band councillors, to take a look at the new native cultural centre.

That's why I'm excited about this budget and want to get past this interim supply and into this year's budget and on with the deeds at hand. That native cultural centre is going to enhance the languages of the Indian community in my area. It's going to provide jobs for the people in the Cowichan Indian band. You'll all want to come up and take a look at it. A salmon barbecue will be held daily. There's knitting, weaving and carving — some wonderful things. It's all part of the strategy happening here in British Columbia and on Vancouver Island, and it's really exciting. But you people are stopping me from getting ahead with the job I've got to do for the citizens of Cowichan. You're holding us back.

There are good things out there. My colleagues, you'll want to come and take part in that. Many, many people from around the world will want to take part in it, but I don't want to have to go back to the citizens of Cowichan — particularly the Cowichan Indian band — and say: "One of the things holding us back from moving ahead is the opposition and the filibustering that they're doing here in the House." We want to get on and deal with this good budget that's been presented by this government to lead us into the 1990s. The 1990s has a phenomenal future for British Columbia.

Back in 1972-75, somebody made the old statement: "Would the last person who leaves turn out the lights." Well, the lights are on in British Columbia and the lights are going to stay on in British Columbia. People in the province of British Columbia like the lights on; they like the brightness; they like the future. They know what the 1990s mean to them. The 1990s mean a progressive government, a free enterprise government, a Social Credit government. So let's get on with it.

I could go on and on about what the future means to me. I could get past the 1990s. I could go on to 2001, because this province has a phenomenal future. But if we're going to simply stand here and sit here and talk about the past and be mired in the past — all about the past, all the time back and back and back — we're never going to be able to get on with the future. This party and this government want to deal with the future.

I would suggest that we get this interim supply out of the way so that we can get down to the real brass tacks, the real nuts and bolts and dollars and cents of what this province is going to build for the future — what we'll find there in the budget, the good stuff in all those ministries that are going to be presented here as we move ahead into the 1990s.

Mr. Speaker, there are many important things for us within this House to deal with. Let's get on with the budget. Let's get on with the debate that's so important to the people and the province of British Columbia. This filibustering that's been going on by the opposition is nothing more than straight, unadulterated politics. Now it's time to move ahead to the 1990s, to move ahead to the future of the province of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: I can well understand the desire of the previous speaker not to dwell in the past. I am sure he has uncomfortable nights when he breaks out in a cold sweat, when he considers that he had to slither back into the Socred caucus. He tried to

[ Page 9144 ]

reform that party; but they wouldn't listen, and he had to crawl back in.

I find it fundamentally disheartening to listen to this Socred caucus talk as if it had a divine right to rule. It's bad enough that they're trying — as my colleague from Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) pointed out — to distort history; but they've also got a long, sordid history of using the taxpayers' money to peddle that distorted message. If they thought about why we're having this debate, surely that forms part of the reason.

When the citizens of this province witness a cabinet minister of this government shelling out money to friends and insiders without the benefit of even having to fill out an application form.... You don't even have to fill out an application form if you're part of the grease pit, if you're one of the friends and insiders. We have a minister who drives around British Columbia with huge plastic cheques in his car, giving them out at every opportunity to people who don't even have to fill out application forms to get the money. No wonder people mistrust this government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

This government has a long and sorry history of operating behind closed doors. When it passed the infamous $8 million special warrant.... I see that the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) wants to heckle about the $8 million warrant. He was fired. He was so incompetent that he was fired. They not only fired him as the development minister for his region, they fired him as the Minister of Forests. If I were you, I would keep your mouth shut. That's why they dumped you out of the cabinet. You've forgotten about that already, have you?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: That's right — so bad they had to fire you. You can't even manage your own region, Mr. Member.

Let's talk about some of the distortions that have taken place, some of the attempts to rewrite history. Let's talk about the Coquihalla Highway and the deeds done in the back rooms. These members opposite want to talk about a $100 million overrun in Pharmacare. I'm proud that we supplied those services to the senior citizens of this province. And this government hid in the back rooms a $500 million overrun.

No wonder they don't want to talk about the past. You bet they don't want to talk about the past. But we'll be talking about the past. We'll be talking about a Finance minister in the present who said he couldn't take money out of the BS fund, because the money wasn't there. His Health minister said: "Well, let's take it out of there. Why not? I think it's there." Then he did take it out of there. But it doesn't really exist. We're going to have a lot of fun talking about the past, and we're going to have a lot of fun talking about the present. The government's sordid history will be trailed around this province, and there will be a change. The light will shine in at last, Mr. Speaker.

[5:30]

MR. SIHOTA: It's remarkable to see that nobody on the other side of the House even stood up to take issue with the words of my friend from Prince Rupert. They can't, because the truth hurts, and in a few minutes I want to talk a little bit about that history.

I listened with interest to what the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) had to say — the member who sort of parachuted out of his party, left the fold and was no longer one of the sheep on the back bench. Now he's born again. He crawled, he slithered on his belly right back into that caucus.

I want to ask him — and he's going to have a lot of time in this session to answer this question: what has changed? The Premier of this province still imposes his moral values on people. This is a Premier and a government that would never admit they're wrong — a government that's totally out of touch with the wishes of the people of British Columbia. And the member for Cowichan-Malahat has come slithering back into that caucus, begging and pleading with his four cohorts. The revolution never happened, did it?

Then I hear him talking about that highway on the Malahat, and I think.... He comes in here and says one thing in this House, and he says another to his constituents. He says he wants that highway built right now; but on the other hand, he knows full well that all of those business people in Mill Bay and Shawnigan Lake, and the residents along that highway, are upset with the government's plans with respect to the Malahat highway.

I want to ask the member for Cowichan-Malahat just what his true position is. We don't know if he's a true Socred or a dissident. What's his true position on the Malahat highway? On the one hand he comes into this House and says he wants it, but on the other hand he knows his constituents don't like the plans. You can't have it both ways. I want to tell that member that we'll be on the radio in Duncan talking a bit about what you had to say here today about that.

This is amazing, Mr. Speaker. This debate is all about scrutiny of the public....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, it's not about politics, Mr. Minister. The Minister of Finance says it's about politics. This is the same Minister of Finance who a few minutes ago was outside telling the press that the public doesn't give two hoots about this debate. This is the same minister who said: "What's a million?" It's the same arrogant minister who said, "It's only $400,000," when talking about another matter.

I tell you, Mr. Minister, the people of this province want to scrutinize the spending priorities of this government. They have every reason to demand this

[ Page 9145 ]

type of scrutiny when you take a look at the history of Social Credit. Let's just take a look at the last....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you why it's scrutiny in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago the provincial debt stood at $8 billion.

MR. MILLER: Is it higher now?

MR. SIHOTA: What is it now: (a) $10 billion; (b) $12 billion; (c) $14 billion; or (d) $16 billion? It's $16 billion. In ten years this government has managed to double the accumulated provincial debt. That's why the people want scrutiny. My colleague from Prince Rupert talked about it; people want scrutiny. They want questions asked. They're not prepared for a blank cheque to be written for this government, because of the behaviour of this government.

No example serves us better than the Coquihalla Highway. You look at the Coquihalla Highway — a $500 million overrun. That's bad enough, as my colleague from Prince Rupert said. But what's worse — and this gets to the whole debate about scrutiny — is that this government chose to lie about the extent of that overrun. They covered it up. The former Minister of Finance and today's Premier, in September 1986, published the economic and financial review of the province. In that document they showed that the Coquihalla Highway was $11 million under budget, when it was $500 million over budget. Cover-up.

In March 1987 this Minister of Finance — as one of his first acts as Minister of Finance — tabled the public accounts of this province, and his records failed to disclose the extent of the Coquihalla overrun and provided false figures with respect to that overrun. No wonder the people of this province are not prepared to write a blank cheque to Social Credit. No wonder the Minister of Finance turns his back to us when we're raising these matters in the Legislature.

Then we had the commission of inquiry that the government set up in September 1987 — their own commission of inquiry. The former Minister of Highways — now the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) — went to that commission of inquiry and suggested quietly to them that the overrun was only $200 million, when it was $500 million. Cover-up, Mr. Speaker. Lies demand scrutiny. That's why we're saying that this government should not get this bill, should not get its $5 billion, without debate and scrutiny.

But it's not just that. The litany of Social Credit mismanagement goes on and on. We've heard about the Expo lands. As my colleague from Vancouver East has said in the past, it's amazing that in the middle of a real estate boom a government could sell a quarter of downtown Vancouver and still lose money. They bought it for more than they sold it for. Only Social Credit would buy high and sell low. Is that the kind of free enterprise this government brags about?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's VSE free enterprise.

MR. SIHOTA: My colleague says properly that it's VSE free enterprise.

The litany of financial mismanagement goes on and on. I don't want to go through the whole record between 1980 and 1990, because I don't have enough time. But my constituents are offended when they realize that this government gave $250,000 to David Poole in severance payments; $7 million for a jet that doesn't fly; $8 million to a decentralization program that never worked; $8 million on a special warrant....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right, and then they fired the member for Skeena (Hon. Mr. Parker) because he couldn't do his job.

Eleven million dollars nightly on TV ads. It's amazing, that kind of mismanagement. And now they have the audacity to come before this House and ask that they get, in a matter of minutes and three quick readings, this bill for $5 billion.

I see the Minister of Finance still not listening to what we're saying.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. He doesn't want to listen to the people; he doesn't want to listen to what we have to say. This is the Minister of Finance who just came down with a budget.... Talk about cover-ups; talk about deception; talk about dishonestly He has the audacity to stand up in this House and say that he's got a balanced budget, when he's spending $648 million more than he's taking in.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Even more: $684 million. Well, that's Social Credit economics, and it's no way to run a province.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you: the people of my riding.... Again, I cannot believe that during this debate the Minister of Finance would just turn his back to the members who are speaking, would show that level of disrespect....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, I hear the member from Merritt, the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), heckling in the comer. Well, I should talk about some of the Social Credit backbenchers while I'm on my feet — but very quickly, Mr. Speaker. The member for Yale-Lillooet is here in this House. It's funny, you know, he's been kind of silent during the debate on this and other issues. I heard the Premier today talk in glowing terms about privatization. Well, the member from Yale-Lillooet knows full well that the people of his riding are very upset with highway privatization. Why does he not have the moxie to quote the Premier? Why does he not have the moxie to stand up in this House and reflect the views of his constituents and say that they are opposed to the government's highway privatization programs? But the member for Yale-Lillooet goes into his riding and

[ Page 9146 ]

quietly listens to all those people he met last week when mainstreaming in Princeton. When they complain about highway privatization, he quietly nods; but he comes into this House and falls in line with the Premier.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member who had the floor was delivering untruths — knowingly so — and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not really a point of order. I've listened, and I don't believe the member has imputed an improper motive. If he has, I'm sure he will withdraw it; and if he hasn't, he'll continue.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that eight people, to my understanding, have died on the Hope-Princeton Highway this winter. I don't hear the member for Yale-Lillooet standing up in this House and saying anything about that.

Just who is it, Mr. Member, that you speak for? The people of your riding? Or that propaganda wish-wash from the Premier about privatization? Where do you stand? Well, I tell you, we're going to put those questions to you in your riding.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of other issues that I want to touch upon, and I guess we'll have to do it in committee. We'll spend some time questioning the government with respect to their plans on forestry, on health care, on housing, and their position on the GST. And we'll ask more questions about this type of fiscal mismanagement, because I've learned in my three and a half years in this place that the government is always trying to sneak something in — and there will be something in this budget that's a part of the Socred sneak attack. I think it was my first experience in this House, when the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) stood up and started asking questions about certain warrants relating to the Princess Marguerite. That's when I learned that there's always something in there that this government wants to sneak through without debate. So we'll be asking a lot of questions during the course of committee stage on this bill.

I see my time is up, and I know that the Minister of Finance wants to respond. He's turned half way around, so we'll hear from the Minister of Finance.

[5:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The opposition was so keen to start its filibustering exercise that I never did have the opportunity to put into the record some of the essential background surrounding the second reading information. I want to take a few minutes to do that just so that the proprieties of House operation are recognized. And for those members who didn't seem to have an interest in learning what it is they were talking about for the last two and a half days, at least when they read Hansard they'll find out what the subject was supposed to be all about.

Mr. Speaker, there have been so many political statements and so much puffery over the last while on this interim supply bill that I think my original ambition to respond to all of the outrageous comments has to be collapsed. Clearly it's in the public interest to proceed with the conclusion of the second reading process.

But I think some of the comments do deserve mention. In the early hours of this discussion, I picked up words like "conspired, " "jigged, " "deceitful, " "dishonest" and "hypocrisy." I lost track of the derogatory comments and, as a matter of fact, I lost interest in the debate after the first few hours, so the House might excuse me for not having a complete list of the irresponsible statements expressed by members of the opposition.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, as has been said by our side during this debate, there's nothing new or unusual about the introduction of an interim spending bill. There has been, in this discussion, some emphasis by members of the opposition on the fact that this bill this year covers four months' operation, as opposed to the normal three months' operation. The interim supply provided under this bill should take us through to July 31; that is, it is to cover the months of April, May, June and July.

It is now close to the end of the first month of that four-month period. It seems to me that what we've got in front of us is one month retroactive and three months in advance. It is traditional for the House to approve three months in advance, so there is nothing unusual at all about this bill, other than the paranoia that exists on the opposition benches surrounding the prospects of an early provincial election.

One has to wonder why the paranoia exists. We had been led to believe by the brave words of the members opposite that they were keen to see such an eventuality and were looking forward to It. Here we have, evidently, some great interest and paranoia existing in the members of the opposition, as if they were fearful of the prospect.

I can assure the member opposite that they should be fearful of the prospect. I can assure the self-important member who most recently spoke that, despite his impression, most people in this province understand exactly what kind of posturing has been going on here for the last few days and don't look upon the opposition's efforts to filibuster with favour at all. If influence or impact on any future provincial election is a consideration of the strategy and shortsighted tactics of the members opposite, I suggest they should notice the amount of coverage provided to them on this exercise over the last few days and ponder whether it is to their political advantage to pursue this nonsense much longer.

The fact of the matter is that there is nothing new or different about what we've done here by including four months. The delay of the House opening was prompted, as we've told you repeatedly, by the federal government's budget and its negative impact on the provincial fortunes by at least $120 million. I think it's a tribute to this government and our determination to provide responsible fiscal management to the province that we've managed to bring forward for a second successive year a balanced budget -a budget that includes no tax increases; a

[ Page 9147 ]

budget that, in effect, has tax reductions for 500,000 households in this province.

During the protracted discussion about irrelevancies, the members of the opposition seemed also to be fascinated by something called the budget stabilization fund. Of course, their criticism totally fails to recognize the fact that the application of the budget stabilization fund is no different this year than it was last year. In fact, when we made the decision to cap the budget stabilization fund, the natural consequence was that whatever savings we've been able to accrue in one fiscal year will naturally flow through to the following fiscal year. We did it last year, and we did it again this year. There is nothing new or different about that. Yet we have had to listen to hours of haranguing by supposed critics who allege to have some knowledge of the subject they were running off at the mouth about, when it's clear they didn't understand the issue at all. They still don't.

The fact is that we started this year with $1 billion in the budget stabilization fund; we ended the year with $1 billion in the stabilization fund. We reduced debt. I am not allowed to print money. Now you tell me how we failed to balance the budget.

The fact is that by virtue of this precedent-setting filibustering effort by the opposition, we are now very close to having some ministries run out of money. It is quite likely that within a few hours — possibly more than a few, but in any event within a period of time that can be expressed as business hours — this government will need to consider seriously what we are going to do about the prospect of running out of money. The members of the opposition should consider that.

There are at least five — possibly ten — ministries in which we are going to have to revisit this whole issue. Because we were so conservative when we struck the special warrant to carry us through the period until we could introduce interim supply, this government will be running close to the point of considering options.

So I think it is important for the members opposite to be on notice that the continued operation of responsible government of this province will be on your heads. The range of options that flows from the inability of government to provide essential services to GAIN recipients and to the various recipients of the grants that normally flow through on a weekly basis will be at risk and in jeopardy and on your heads. You should understand that while you continue this stupid, nonsensical, fruitless, no-point exercise of filibustering.

For the purposes of getting on with the official written record, let me put into the record my comments about second reading, so the members opposite might know what they are wasting time about. It might help them deal with the other issue, which will be committee stage of discussion.

Mr. Speaker, as required by the Financial Administration Act, special warrants are included in this bill. Schedules 1 and 2 list those approved for the '89-90 fiscal year and the first part of the '90-91 fiscal year. The amounts requested under sections 1, 2 and 3 of this bill include amounts previously approved for fiscal '90-91 by special warrant, which are almost completely expended. For this reason I am requesting four months' initial supply to allow time for debate and voting upon the estimates.

The first section requests one-third of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests the disbursement amount required for the government's financing transactions which appear in schedule D of the estimates. The third section requests an increase in the statutory authority for the Purchasing Commission working capital account to permit an increase in the delivery of goods and services provided through this account.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the fiscal '90-91 year.

I am pleased, therefore, to move second reading of Bill 22.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 34

NAYS - 22

Bill 22, Supply Act (No. 1), 1990, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind members that we sit tomorrow in the p.m. only.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.