[ Page 12307 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No. 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Second reading

Hon. J. Jansen –– 12307

Mr. Clark –– 12307

Mr. G. Janssen –– 12312

Ms. A. Hagen –– 12315

Mr. Jones –– 12318

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 1991. As well, I'd like to advise you and the Members of the Legislative Assembly that due to the urgency of this bill, which is a supply bill needed by tomorrow, we will be appealing to you under standing order 81 to allow this bill to be read twice or thrice, or advanced two or more stages in one day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When this bill was introduced, the Minister of Finance put forward the urgency matter, and the Chair is satisfied that since the matter is put forward by the minister, section 81 applies.

The opposition House Leader on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: Actually, it's a point of clarification, but since one doesn't exist I won't ask it under that. I assume that what Mr. Speaker said was that he felt this was a matter of some urgency and that section 81 might be accepted at least by the Chair. But it requires unanimous consent.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. ROSE: Well, I would like to put forward this argument right now. We have been waiting for about three months... when this matter could have been put forward. It hasn't been put forward. Now, at the eleventh hour, we're asked for three stages under section 81 for a unanimous consent. I would like everybody to know that it's not the incompetence of the opposition but the incompetence of the government that requires this urgency. We don't accept it here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, perhaps you would reflect on the powers that the Chair is given in these matters. The Chair is given limited powers in determining whether or not a matter qualifies under section 81. The members of the government and the minister have indicated the urgency of this matter. It's not for the Chair to determine whether or not that urgency has any qualifications. The matter is stated as urgent by the government and therefore would proceed that way.

Members may wish to debate this, and I suspect that that may happen at the next order of business. For those members who wish to know which Speaker's decision clarifies this matter, Mr. Speaker Dowding gave a very distinguished ruling on this in 1974. It's always very handy to have Mr. Speaker Dowding's rulings.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills as required by the Financial Administration Act. Special warrants are included in the bill. Schedules I and 2 list those approved for the '90-91 fiscal year and the first part of the '91-92 fiscal year.

The amounts requested in sections 1, 2 and 3 of this bill include amounts previously approved for fiscal '91-92 by special warrant and which are almost completely expended. An additional two-month supply, as is traditional in this House, is also included to allow time for debate and voting upon the estimates.

The first section requests one-third of the tabled estimates to provide for the government programs. The second section requests the disbursement amount required for the government's voted 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, I point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the '91-92 fiscal year. I now move second reading of Bill 8.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just in case I go over, I would advise the Chair that I'm the designated speaker for the opposition.

This is a government in chaos. It's a government that has simply run out of steam. I think all members of the public would know that the government has lost the moral authority to govern. It has been corrupted by being in power too long. It has grown arrogant, tired and confused, and now it's desperate.

This supply bill, frankly, proves that. The supply bill is a measure of that desperation. They've been distracted by scandals and corruption. We had opportunities to deal with the supply bill in the session that was held from March 11 to March 22. We had an opportunity to have a budget in March, as we have had every year except for one since the Second World War. It is literally the latest budget in modern history, with the exception of May 1983, when an election intervened. It is the latest supply bill we have seen.

In March in this chamber, the then Minister of Finance claimed to have both a budget and a supply bill in his pocket ready to be tabled. But that was two months ago, and they've had two Ministers of Finance since then. The minister of the day, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, claimed his budget would be balanced — another dishonest claim from this administration that will promise just about anything.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, this supply bill asks us to do three things: firstly, it asks us to retroactively approve overspending prior to March 31, 1991; secondly, it asks us to retroactively approve spending from March 31 to roughly May 31; and thirdly, it asks us to approve two more months of spending past this date. But the government has been caught up in the political chaos of its own making. Preoccupied with purging a leader who left in disgrace, they have been incapable of

[ Page 12308 ]

governing the province; incapable of bringing in routine matters like the supply bill; incapable of bringing in even the most rudimentary obligation of the government, a budget that was is time.

The first thing the bill asks us to do is to approve retroactively a warrant where the government overspent $232,600,000. These so-called fiscal wizards on the other side overspent their budget last fiscal year by $232 million over and above the $500 million-odd predicted as a deficit in their last budget.

They were over budget by $232 million in two areas. First, they were over budget in the Ministry of Health by $142,600,000. This, of course, is one of the largest overruns of any administration in the history of British Columbia. And what was it for? Why were they over budget by $142 million? I quote: "For the increased costs related to the proposed settlement with the B.C. Medical Association." Part of the overspending in this administration for the last fiscal year was to pay for the doctors' pension plan and the settlement for doctors. In a recession or a slowdown, revenue declines, and often that results in problems for an administration. But health costs don't rise because there's an economic slowdown.

So why have they overrun their health care budget by $142 million, Mr. Speaker? This was predictable. They knew that they had to settle with the doctors, but they didn't have to put it in the budget, because they didn't think they would ever be held to account. They thought there would be an election in the interval, so they didn't care if they overspent the health care budget by $142 million. They didn't care that the deficit for last year was $800 million, because they didn't think they would be held accountable for it. They thought they could give $25 million — fully funded, 100 percent paid by the taxpayers — and they would never have to admit in the House that as a result of that gift they would be over budget. They overspent.

Remember that there was a time in this House when another government was over budget. We heard howls from the other side about being over budget.

Here we are, Mr. Speaker, $232 million over budget for last year. These so-called fiscal wizards, these people who think they're good financial managers.... In health care, in particular, we're $142,600,000 over budget for the last fiscal year. That's not small change; that's a significant overrun in a major ministry of government, in part attributable to special treatment for doctors. In preparation for an election campaign, the former discredited Premier, in a desperate attempt, tried to buy back popularity and the support of doctors by using taxpayers' money.

We have the proof in this House. Here is the bill for their incompetence in terms of financial management. Here's the bill in terms of paying for doctors' pensions. Here's the bill that they didn't think they would have to own up to, because they thought there would be an election in the interval.

It's one of the largest overruns in history — certainly in the health care field. This administration has been discredited in so many ways, but they cling to the faint hope that people believe they are sound fiscal managers. Here we have proof again — as if it's needed — that in this particular ministry they're over budget by $142 million.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In addition to being over budget in health care in the last fiscal year, in order to pay off the doctors, they're also over budget in Social Services and Housing. What do they say in the supply bill? They say they're over budget in order to pay for increased day care. They're $90 million over budget, and the note appended to the bill says that it is to pay for increased utilization of day care. Yet the entire day care budget for this administration is about $91 million, when you count everything. Yet they have the gall to come to the House and say that they're $90 million over budget because of day care costs. I suspect we'll have more to say about that in committee stage when we deal with the details of that overrun. But it's interesting to note that, again, a government that pretends to be sound financial managers comes to the House and admits they were $90 million over budget in the last fiscal year to pay for the overruns in their Social Services ministry.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The reality for the retiring member in the corner, whom I can faintly hear sometimes, is that it's not how much you spend. We're talking now about gross incompetence in terms of projecting what the government will spend. If the government had told the truth a year earlier, and said that we were going to spend $90 million more on Social Services, we could debate that in the normal course. But that's not what they've done. They budgeted a certain amount for health care, a certain amount for Social Services and Housing, and they overspent their own budget by a quarter of a billion dollars. They ask us today to give special dispensation to approve all three readings to retroactively approve this gross fiscal incompetence — a quarter of a billion dollars in overspending in two ministries, and part of it is to pay for their election promises to doctors in this province to give them....

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Finance critic is reading the budget documents. He's talking about overexpenditures and deficits. In fact, if he would read the estimates that are appended to the budget document, it indicates a surplus of $15 million. Perhaps the member would take some time to avail himself of the knowledge of the estimates that are included in the statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's not a point of order, Mr. Minister. You'll have your opportunity to make those views known.

MR. CLARK: I look forward to the minister contributing to this debate. But again, of course, he's wrong. His pathetic interjection that the budget last year was balanced is simply factually incorrect, and his own budget documents point that out. There was an $800 million deficit last year, of which a quarter of a billion

[ Page 12309 ]

dollars was the result of overspending. These warrants here today are proof of that — a quarter of a billion dollars in two areas.

The second area that this bill asks us to approve is even more offensive, to my mind. It asks us to retroactively approve spending from March 31 to about May 31 of this year. They ask us to approve today — in one day — retroactively a special warrant in the amount of $2,863,983,000. That almost $3 billion special warrant was brought in on April 1, April Fools' Day. Unfortunately, it's not funny; unfortunately, there's a very important principle of democracy at stake here. On April 1 they brought in special warrants that allowed the government to spend some $3 billion in taxpayers' money without approval of this Legislature, without any public debate — two full months of spending and taxing by this administration without any public debate.

It's the second year in a row that we've had billion-dollar special warrants because the budget was late. Again, the government was in such chaos and disarray over the last couple of years.... Last year they were late with their budget, and they had to bring in a special warrant without public debate to spend $1.3 billion. This year they brought in without public debate a special warrant that is close to $3 billion, because of their own incompetence, their own inability to govern, their own inability to come to this House and justify their spending and their taxing of the people of British Columbia.

Remember "Not a dime without a debate"? It rings so hollow today from this administration. "Not a dime without debate, " they said. Three billion dollars of taxpayers' money has been spent in this province without any debate in this chamber, without any accountability in this chamber.

But again, they didn't think they'd have to come in with a budget. They didn't think they were going to be accountable for this $3 billion without debate. They thought there'd be an election; they thought their former Premier, their leader, would have got through a few more weeks — enough time to call an election — and they wouldn't be held accountable. But they're forced today, with this interim supply bill, to acknowledge that they spent almost $3 billion in the last two months without any public debate.

It's the result of an incompetent government lurching from crisis to crisis: tired and arrogant. Arrogant I think best describes it, Mr. Speaker, when they're prepared to spend $3 billion of public money without any public scrutiny or public debate from the people's representatives in this chamber. They hold the Legislature in contempt, and through that, the people of the province. It is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy for the executive council, without any recourse to public debate, to spend $3 billion of public money without coming to the House for approval, particularly when that approval could have so easily been granted and debated when this House sat.

Mr. Speaker, our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle. It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government because we are elected representatives — all of us. We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money, and the government has to be held accountable. When the executive council spends some $3 billion without public debate, it undermines the very democracy that we are here to uphold. The reason we are here is democracy and to scrutinize the spending and taxing decisions of government. And when the government and the executive council acts unilaterally, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy.

When the government decided to embark on this radical course of a $3 billion special warrant without public debate, the leader of our party wrote to the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read for the record our objections to this special warrant, which were levelled by the Leader of the Opposition to the Hon. David Lam, Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. It says:

"Your Honour, it is with the greatest respect and reluctance that I request Your Honour take cognizance of a crisis affecting your government which I believe only Your Honour can address. The legislative authority for the administration to tax British Columbians and spend their money expires at midnight on March 31. When the Legislative Assembly was recalled on March 11, it was our expectation that a budget would be presented, shortly followed by an interim supply bill. This standard course of action would have allowed the routine operations of government to continue past March 31, while your government's budget was thoroughly reviewed and debated by the people's duly elected representatives.

"However, your Minister of Finance made it clear in the first week of the legislative session that it was not his intention to present a budget prior to March 31. Your Minister of Finance also indicated that he was considering the unprecedented step of presenting an interim supply bill in advance of a budget.

[10:30]

Of course, we know now, Mr. Speaker, that didn't take place. The Leader of the Opposition goes on in the letter to the Lieutenant-Governor:

"That a minister of the Crown would consider taking such action is troubling enough. But it now appears that your government is committed to a course of action which, if successful, would not only denigrate our democratic parliamentary traditions but could, in fact, constitute a breach of provincial law.

" Your Minister of Finance has already publicly stated that he would be seeking special warrants from Your Honour sufficient to pay for at least two months of government operations. He will no doubt cite the decision by your predecessor, the Hon. Henry Bell-Irving, to grant special warrants to the government when the Legislative Assembly was not recalled prior to the end of the 1982-83 fiscal year. The action of the government in 1983 precipitated a constitutional crisis and was a breach of the intent of the Financial Administration Act and the government's constitutional obligations.

"Today British Columbia faces an even more serious situation. Unlike 1983, the Legislative Assembly was

[ Page 12310 ]

recalled prior to the end of this fiscal year. Therefore every opportunity was present for the introduction of a new budget. However, the Legislative Assembly was prorogued suddenly on March 22, just nine days prior to a new fiscal year. Neither a budget nor an interim supply bill was presented by your government. By proroguing the Legislative Assembly without first presenting a budget, your government has denied taxpayers their right to see that their tax dollars are collected and spent in a legal and proper manner. Your government has also denied the Legislative Assembly its constitutional right to scrutinize the collection and expenditure of public moneys.

"The Financial Administration Act, section 21, places constraints on the ability of the executive council to spend money by special warrant. Your government cannot legitimately claim that the need for funds to enable your government to function past the end of the fiscal year was 'not foreseen, ' as required by the act.

"There is no question that the funds will be urgently needed, but the means by which they are legally approved is the matter Your Honour must now consider. Allowing your government to avoid tabling a budget, through prorogation, would seriously compromise those constitutional and legal mechanisms which hold your government accountable to the duly elected representatives of the people. Any suggestion by your Minister of Finance that the conditions which allow for the use of special warrants have been satisfied by virtue of the fact that the Legislative Assembly is not now sitting is, in my opinion, unfounded.

"Your Honour's official opposition is ready, willing and able to convene immediately should you choose to recall the Legislature. If your Minister of Finance presents the Legislative Assembly with a budget accompanied by an interim supply bill, Your Honour's official opposition will move with urgency to deal with the bill. This would provide your government the legal authority to meet immediate financial obligations, while allowing the Legislative Assembly to fully review and debate a proposed budget for the fiscal year 1991-92. I am confident that Your Honour will give due consideration to this matter."

That's the end of the letter sent by the Leader of the Opposition to the Lieutenant-Governor.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree, when the government attempts to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful. The House was sitting from March 11 to March 22. We should have had a budget, or at the very least we should have had an interim supply bill.

But the session went very badly for the government. They were floundering under the weight of the former Premier. They didn't want to be here. They thought there would be at least an election, to put them out of their misery. They thought that it was dumb to be in the House, facing the scrutiny of the opposition, and suddenly they adjourned. They just prorogued on March 22. Normally we've had a budget by that time, or at least an interim supply bill. In normal times we would have been well into the debate, but these are not normal times. The government is completely incapable of governing. They've been so consumed by internal divisions, by internal problems, that they cannot even bring in such elementary things — such important things in our democracy — and certainly not on time.

So they use their emergency powers, as the Leader of the Opposition said in his letter. Section 21 says special warrants are only awarded under very, very clear circumstances — crystal-clear circumstances, Mr. Speaker. They are only allowed in unforeseen circumstances and when urgently required. How could the government argue that this was the case? The House was sitting. They adjourned the House and then declared an emergency. That's what they did: they simply adjourned debate here and then had to go and declare: "We're out of money. It's an emergency. We need special permission to rule by decree without the consent of the Legislative Assembly."

It's preposterous for them to have made that argument, and here they are today asking us to retroactively approve this unprecedented abuse. The only thing that was unforeseen was that they weren't going to be able to call an election, because of the problems of the Premier and the rest of the cabinet that were part of all that sordid mess around the sale of Fantasy Gardens. That's the only thing that was unforeseen. They thought they could adjourn the House, bring in these dramatic, radical and unprecedented emergency spending powers, get approval without debate for some $3 billion in spending, and then call an election and not have to face the debate in the chamber, not have to bring in another budget, not have to be accountable. They were convinced of that. That's why they did it, Mr. Speaker.

The only thing unforeseen was that it couldn't be done. It couldn't be done because they were in such disarray. It was a desperate attempt to avoid the Legislature, to avoid further embarrassment, to avoid sitting in the chamber with the former Premier on the front benches, to avoid being seen on television.

Did you ever notice, Mr. Speaker, that when the former Premier stood up to speak in that little two week session, all the members of the executive council sort of moved their seats away? So when people watched on television they couldn't see the present Minister of Health right behind him. They couldn't see all those members sitting there pounding their desks and applauding the former Premier. They couldn't take it; they didn't want a session where they would be seen right next to him, seen supporting him, seen with him. They wanted to get out of the Legislature. They wanted to get through an election and not be held accountable for their spending decisions. But they couldn't do it. The Hughes report finally put them out of their misery and finished off the former Premier.

What do they do now? They had to call the House back. They had to bring in a budget, and they have to bring in an interim supply bill. We've been here for some weeks now. We could have had a debate on this $3 billion worth of spending. We could have had a lengthy debate about the priorities of the government. That's what this place is for. But they waited until the day before the government runs out of money, and then they said: "It's an emergency again. We have to bring this in now, and we want special dispensation to approve in one day the $250 million overrun for the

[ Page 12311 ]

last fiscal year and the $3 billion spending without debate for the last two months." Then, of course, they have asked for another two months of approval.

The government has demonstrated that they have no vision beyond serving their own select cadre of friends and insiders that bankroll their election and leadership campaign. They are not capable of planning. They couldn't even plan the debate on this Supply bill to give full and frank debate in the House on their spending priorities, the kind of debate that people expect the opposition to engage in and the kind of debate that people expect parliament to engage in. But they don't want the debate on the real priorities of British Columbians. They don't want debate on their fiscal incompetence. They don't want debate on spending without approval in the'House. They really want to get out of here. They don't want to deal with this parliament, because that impedes their own agenda, because that impedes their election strategy and their ability to hand out money to their friends.

MR. LOVICK: You mean if we give them supply, they might leave?

MR. CLARK: I'll get to that, Mr. Member.

One has to look no further than the government's sorry record of fiscal incompetence to see why the government needs to spend a lengthy time in opposition. This kind of arrogance is a final proof that they've simply grown too old over there, too long.

Perhaps if the members spend a lengthy time in opposition they'll learn to appreciate parliamentary democracy, they'll learn to have less contempt for our parliamentary traditions, they will understand that democratic parliamentary procedure is an important foundation upon which our government rests, and they will not abuse it.

I had the library review the budgets over the last 100 years of British Columbia's history, and it's interesting to look at them. The latest budget for a long time, of course, was last year, April 1990; March 1989, March 1988; March 1987; March 1986; March 1985; February 1984. Then there was that anomaly because there was an election. That's not at all the case now. But at that time, in '83, there was an election that intervened, and so the budget was late. Prior to that in '82, April; in'81, March; in'80, March; in '79, April; in '78, April; in '77, January; in '76, March; in '75, February; '74, February; '73, February;'72, February; 1971, February; 1970, February; 1969, February; 1968, February; 1967, February; 1966, February; 1965, February; 1964, February; 1963, February; 1962, February — it's getting harder to say –– 1961, February; 1960, February, –– 1959, February; 1958, February; 1957, February; 1956, February; 1955, February; 1954, March; 1953, February; 1952, March; 1951, March; 1950, February; 1949, February; 1948, March; 1947, February; 1946, March; 1945, February; 1944, February; 1943, February; 1942, January, 1940, November.

They changed the fiscal year, but to be conservative, this is the first time since 1940 that the budget has come in this late. For close to 50 years governments, no matter how discredited, have been able to bring in a budget before the fiscal year ends and before we run out of money. For 50 years, in this wild and woolly province with all of the antics of the parties over the years, with governments that have been defeated, with governments that have been elected, with governments that have been discredited, they've always been able to bring in a budget before we run out of money.

[10:45]

You don't need a degree in economics or commerce. You don't need....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: I'll refrain from commenting on your predecessor, Mr. Minister.

You don't need any special knowledge to realize that when the government runs out of money on March 31, they have to bring in a budget. Before we run out of money they have to come to the House for permission to spend money. But not this administration. Here we have 50 years of history turned upside down because of a government in such chaos and drift that they can't even bring in a budget before we run out of money. Two months after we run out of money the government retroactively tries to bring in a bill for one day's debate — they say — for us to approve something which is unprecedented in the history of British Columbia.

The third thing this interim supply bill does is ask us to approve an additional $2.6 billion in spending for the next two months. It asks us to approve a warrant for overspending for last year; it asks us to approve a warrant for the first two months of this fiscal year, — and it asks us to approve, in advance, the next two months' spending. When you combine these two amounts for this fiscal year, the result is that today they would ask the House to approve spending for $5,406,000,000 in one day.

This is the amount of money the government will be able to spend without ever having passed a budget for this fiscal year. Therefore the government will be able to function without a budget, without approving the spending estimates until the end of July.

Time and time again this government has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted. Rather than introduce a budget in March, the government abandoned the Legislature and obtained two months' funding. Two months ago they passed legislation making it illegal for the government to increase taxes, and then last week they raised them. They brought in a debt reduction plan in the budget which increases debt. They can't be trusted.

Recent history tells us that the government can't be trusted. I think all British Columbians know that. So what happens if we approve this spending, as they would have us do? It means they could adjourn and they could legally run the province for two more months without debate, without having full and frank debate on the spending priorities of this administration, on the problems facing British Columbians, on the health care situation, on lineups, on doctors' pensions, on inadequate silviculture, on tax unfairness and all the spending and taxing priorities of government. If we

[ Page 12312 ]

approve this, it means that they can adjourn without ever having to be accountable, without ever having a debate on women's issues. We've heard a lot of empty rhetoric on the other side on women's issues. But when we get into the debate, the women of British Columbia will see that this government doesn't have any commitment to real equality for women. We know that; the people of British Columbia know that. We want an opportunity to hold those members to account, to have that debate, to demonstrate again — if they need it again — that those words are hollow, that there is no money in the budget to really deal with equality for women. If we approve this as quickly as they would have us do, the government could potentially avoid debate on important priorities that British Columbians want us to raise. They want and expect the opposition to raise these important matters in this House. If we approve it, as they would have us do, we may well not have an opportunity to debate those kinds of important issues.

This bill is proof that the government has simply run out of gas; that they have lost the moral authority to govern; that they are not even capable of bringing in a budget on time, before we run out of money; that they were fiscally incompetent by overspending by a quarter of a billion dollars last year; and that they have asked us to approve some $3 billion retroactively and another $2 billion for the next two months without real debate.

Mr. Speaker, we will be opposing this legislation. We will be having a full debate on issues that concern British Columbians, because that's what people sent us here to do. The people want us to hold this government accountable. We know, and the people know, that they want to get out of here and that they want to try to patch over their internal problems and call an election without a real debate on the issues that concern British Columbians.

As members of the opposition, we're determined to hold this government accountable for their spending and taxing decisions. We're determined to raise the priorities that we believe are important to British Columbians, and we will demonstrate that their misguided priorities are what is driving them. We will have a full debate on those issues, in spite of the fact that the government pretends at this last minute that they want us to approve this quickly so that they can get out, try to sort out their own problems and go to the people without a debate on those spending priorities. With that, we will be opposing this legislation.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, may I request permission to make an introduction?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, this morning we have a group of approximately 40 grade 7 students from Lakeview Elementary in the great constituency of Okanagan South. Their school is on a ridge that overlooks a most beautiful panorama eastwards over Okanagan Lake and Kelowna. The group is accompanied by teachers George Staley and Nancy Chalmers, and a parent, Mrs. Sandy Silvester. Will the House please make this group welcome.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm rather disappointed that members of the government side of the House aren't speaking on the supply bill. I can understand why they're not speaking on the supply bill: they're embarrassed. We're talking about the mismanagement of the economy of British Columbia. They don't want to get up and defend their government, because there is no defence for this kind of action.

For the second year in a row we have been faced with a government that has to bring in a supply bill and that is operating under special warrants. It's like a fairy tale, Madam Premier. First we had the Premier of fantasyland; now we have the Premier of wonderland. It's like the Mad Hatter — the minister of Mad Hatters, the new Finance minister. Curiouser and curiouser it gets, the further we go down the road of mismanagement.

We are investing in the economy and people of this province, but this government doesn't see that investment. This government simply has problems with the economy. There's a deficit; there's a recession. They've waited too long. And what do they do? They don't have the members to get up and speak on the Supply Act. They're embarrassed by it. They don't understand how they could get into this kind of trouble. They talk about their management of the economy — how they can run affairs. And what do they do? They've mismanaged — running government by order-in-council and special warrants, and denying access by the people of this province to the financial facts.

There's a great amount of concern among the business community in British Columbia about which direction this government is taking. The business leaders are saying: "What is the true deficit? How can we plan long-term investment? Which direction the government is going? How will we invest? Can we build on the economy? Can we build on a deficit? Can we build on special warrants? Should we invest this year or should we wait six months? Do we know what's going to happen?"

There's no year-end statement. A statement due on March 31 wasn't presented. It still hasn't been presented. How much debt is there? We don't know. Let's read what the auditor-general had to say about the budget stabilization fund and the deficit: "It is strictly an accounting technique to alter the bottom line. I'll keep asking the government not to refer to that set of numbers." And what did Ron Pickerill, the president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of B.C. say? And the Finance minister is a member of that organization. Ron Pickerill said: "I can't think of a public accountant doing that sort of thing in private business. And I can't see any auditor allowing it in a private business. It's all smoke and mirrors."

Business leaders in this province are looking for stability and direction so they can plan their financial affairs — unlike this government which is wandering through the wilderness with no plan at all. They're

[ Page 12313 ]

looking for a government with both feet on the ground. Instead, this government has lost its footing; it's drifting aimlessly through the wilderness.

Scandal after scandal. We've had three Finance ministers in three months, all with different ideas, all looking to put their own stamp on B.C.'s financial future. Where is the stamp? The stamp is in the form of a supply bill, orders-in-council and money without debate. That's what this government is looking for. There is no stamp. There's a recession out there, and the government answers with a deficit and interim financing.

Is the deficit $395 million? The Finance minister, the Mad Hatter, says it is $395 million; the Premier publicly says it's $1.2 billion. We have a long-term deficit that's gone from $6 billion to $9 billion. We have an overall deficit of $20 billion. It took the province from the date it was formed to 1975 to come up with a $3 billion overall deficit. Social Credit has raised that to $20 billion — $17 billion in additional overall debt since 1975. It didn't take them long. And now they want us in one day to approve $5.5 billion worth of expenditures without a financial statement. It's not acceptable to the people of this province; it's not acceptable to this side of the House.

They can't agree on the amount of the debt. They can't agree on where they're going to spend the money. A debt is a debt is a debt. A promise made is a debt unpaid. Let's pay off the debt. Let's come clean with the people of British Columbia. Let's quit being irresponsible. "Let's try going to the bank" — that's what this government is saying. The Finance minister is coming to the Legislature and saying: "Please approve $2.9 billion worth of additional debt." Because until we know where the money's coming from, it is debt, and he hasn't indicated where that's coming from. We already owe $2.5 billion, because that's what they gave in an order-in-council. Now they want an additional $2.9 billion.

[11:00]

"Let's try going to the bank." Try walking into your bank manager and saying: "Hi, I'm in debt for $2.5 billion already I want an additional $2.9 billion. I'm not going to tell you where I'm getting the money. I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to spend it." See if you get lucky This government is irresponsible. Fiscal irresponsibility has been the trademark of this government since it got elected in 1986. They have tried deception with the BS fund. They have tried to pull the wool over people's eyes. They have tried to have money appropriated without the Legislature sitting. It hasn't worked. Government must be held accountable to this House, and we'll see that it is held accountable during these debates.

They wait until the last minute, the twenty-fourth hour, the last day, to come in and say: "Give us $5.5 billion." They're desperately trying to stay in power. They're clutching; they're grasping at the last straws. Whose money is it anyway? It's the money of the people of British Columbia — hard-working people with a vision for the future, a vision that's being flushed down the toilet by this government's inaction on the economy. In the middle of a recession they're running a deficit. While times were good they said they were putting money away in a bank account. Where is that money now? The auditor-general, the president of the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia and every working man and woman in British Columbia knows where that money went. It was spent by this government on three false election starts. "Maybe if we promise them something, " they prayed, "we'll get re-elected."

There are hospitals in this province with patients waiting to get in. There are people in need of social services. People in need are relying on direction from government as to what the plan will be and where they will be next month or next year. Schools: educators and students wanting an education want to know what direction this government is taking.

People in the forest industry are going through a very difficult time right now. Mills are closing. People are out of work, and they don't know for how long. The Minister of Forests says: "I have a plan and a vision. I want to spend $1.4 billion on reforestation and silviculture." Where is that money? Just this week he said: "We don't have the trees so we can't spend the money."

What's going to happen to that promise? Is it going to be like all the other promises, such as taxpayer protection? Taxes are going up. Is it going to be like Bill 82? School boards and teachers sit down in good faith and negotiate a contract; school boards present budgets only to find that this government says: "That won't do. Scrap it. We don't care if you've got a deal between the employer and the employees. We're going to tell you what you can spend, because we know better." They know better with a $1.2 billion deficit, and probably that won't be all by the time they're through.

What happened to economic development in this province? They shut it down. The new interim Premier got elected, and no sooner did she take over the executive chair than she said: "We'll have no more economic development in this province. We don't believe in that. We'll sweep the table clean." At a time when we're in the midst of a recession, this Premier says that the government does not have faith in the business community of this province. So we'll let them starve. We'll let them move out to Washington, Oregon and Alberta. We'll let them go to other jurisdictions where those governments have faith in their expertise and in the entrepreneurs of this province. "We'll help them get started, " is what they say in other jurisdictions. This province doesn't have that kind of faith in its business community.

Our creditors also want some answers. The people to whom we owe that $20 billion in overall debt would like to know where the money is coming from and where it's going. They want to see a financial statement. This government is trying to hide the true state of finances in this province, because they aren't there. The province is in a financial mess, Mr. Speaker. That's why the members opposite don't get up to talk about the supply bill.

[ Page 12314 ]

Incidentally, it says Bill 8, Supply Act No. 1, 1991. Will we see No. 2 later on this year, or No. 3? The way the economy has been running, who knows?

Interjection.

MR. G. JANSSEN: The new minister of regional economic development over there — or whatever they call him these days — says we'll never know whether we need a second supply bill. Is that an indication, Mr. Minister, that we will possibly need another one? Things are so bad in British Columbia....

HON. MR. DIRKS: It shows a lack of intelligence on your part.

MR. G. JANSSEN: No, it's a sad state of affairs. For the second year in a row, due mainly to incompetence on behalf of various Finance ministers and the government as a whole, we're running on billion-dollar special warrants. That's unheard of in other jurisdictions and outlawed in some. But in this province it is becoming a regular state of affairs.

Last year it was $1.3 billion, and this year it's $2.9 billion — more than double. What will it be next year? Hopefully there won't be a next year, because if this government were to remain in power, it would probably be worse next year. Thank the Lord this is the last year they're in power. Thank the Lord that there has to be an election so that these people — the members opposite — will have to go out and face judgment day and the people of this province can say: "Yes, there is a problem with the finances of this province. There is a problem with what direction we're going in. We don't like that direction, and we're going to vote for somebody who at least will tell us the truth about the state of finances in the province of British Columbia and won't try to hide it with a BS fund, so we won't have to try to figure out whether the Finance minister or the Premier is right about the deficit. We'll elect a government that tells the truth."

The incompetence of this government, lurching from one crisis to another, whether it's the Premier having to resign or the Finance minister getting the sack, or another Finance minister being replaced — in and out, nobody knows where they're going.... The province has no direction.

They have no regard for their own financial act — their own legislation. This government sat from March 11 to March 22. The then Finance minister — I'm trying to remember which one it was at the time — said he had a budget in his back pocket ready to go. March 31 was coming in a week, the budget was in his back pocket, he was ready to go. What happened? They bailed out. They had a problem — an image problem. The Premier had to resign. The chief executive officer of this province had to hand in his resignation because of another scandal.

Why, while the House was sitting from March 11 to March 22, was a budget or an interim supply bill not put forward? Because they have disregard for the Legislature; they have disregard for their own legislation. The financial act of British Columbia is very clear in section 21. Interim supply can only be used in urgent and unforeseen circumstances.

If we take that act at its word, we recognize the incompetence over there. They didn't foresee that they were going to run out of money in a week. They didn't see any urgency in that matter. If that's not incompetence and lack of planning, what is? Try going to your bank with that one. If anybody ran a business like that in the province of British Columbia.... If I tried to run my business like that, it wouldn't have been there for 34 years, I can tell you that. In 34 years Janssen's Jewelers has had some deficits, but they've always had their financial statements there on time, because the banks demanded it. And this legislation demands it.

A budget should not only set out what it plans to spend but how it plans to pay for those expenditures. It's income versus expenditures. Well, they've gone over expenditure; we're running a deficit of a minimum of $1.2 billion, I would suspect, from the chaos that's happening over there.

Yet they want us to approve $5.5 billion in five hours of debate. That's $1 billion an hour. That's the kind of regard they have for money. They want to spend $1 billion without telling us where it's going, without saying to the people in the province: "We have a plan. This is what we'll spend it on. This is where it's going — the hospitals, the administrators, school boards. Those people in municipalities can count on us." No, they just want $1 billion an hour to throw away — not to tell us what it's for or where it's coming from. For four months out of the entire year — one-third of the year — money without debate, without any answers.

They had a whole year to plan for this budget, and they're not ready. It's mismanagement and incompetence over and over again. They're busy trying to cover their own tracks and the mess they've made in the term they've been in office. Well, the tracks turned into a trail and then into a road. Now it's a four-lane expressway, and they can't cover it up anymore. They used to drive down the highway shovelling money out of the truck. Now they're driving down it with the tailgate open, and the money's going everywhere.

We will stand up in this Legislature and say to the people of British Columbia: "No, we've had enough.' They've misspent on three false election starts, hoping that it would do them some good. But the public confidence just isn't there. Social Credit has read those polls. They know what the people of British Columbia are saying. They're saying: "We've had enough; we won't take it anymore and we want an election."

Fifty-five months of mismanagement by this government. They've mismanaged it. They're out of money, out of time, out of Finance ministers, out of Premiers, and they're completely out of ideas. They're caught up in a political chaos of their own making and are preoccupied with purging a leader who had become unelectable. So they got rid of him. They lost sight of who they worked for and why they're here.

[11:15]

They're here as MLAs. When most of us ran for that high and honourable office, we thought we could make this province a better place to live in. We thought we

[ Page 12315 ]

could help some folks — the people of British Columbia. We thought we could plan a new direction, no matter what party we came from. We still hold those ideals on this side of the House. Those elected members on the government side have forgotten why they're here.

They should put it to the estimates. Why do we have to wait until the twenty-fourth hour to plan the financial future of the people of this province? Because they've forgotten why they're here. They're here to do the government's business. They're here to do the business on behalf of the people of the province. But those people over there are here to get themselves re-elected, to cover up their political scandals and to cover up their wrongdoing. They're covering up their mismanagement. Their administration is falling apart. Not only have ministers left, but deputy ministers have been transferred. Whole departments have been shifted. Nobody knows what's going on anymore.

The time has come, not for a debate on a supply bill or on special warrants, but for an election in this province. The time has come for them to own up to 55 months of government. If they can't get it right in 55 months, when will they get it right? They'll never get it right, because they've lost direction. The rudder is off the ship. All we can do is ask this government to drop the writ and call the election, so that the people of British Columbia can pass judgment on the way they've handled the affairs of this province.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an announcement?

Leave granted.

MR. LONG: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to this House, in the galleries today, 22 students from James Thomson Elementary School and their teacher Warren Miller, as well as their chaperones Jim Veenhof, Cathy Francescutti, Gino Francescutti and Anne Jones. I'd like to have this House make them very welcome here in Victoria.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering if I might ask leave of the House to also make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, we are visited today by a group of women from the central Vancouver Island region — 25 from Nanaimo, 20 from Duncan and 20 from Victoria — of the Inter-Cultural Association's immigrant women's committee. Ms. Tomoko Okada is the president. Also accompanying this group is a good friend of mine from Nanaimo, Ms. Cecilia Chong. I'd ask the House to please join me in making them welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to enter into this debate on Bill 8. One of the characteristics of this House in 1991 has been the state of confusion, anger, lack of control, obstinacy and frequent rudeness on the other side of the House. In fact, as we started this very serious and important debate this morning, some of those characteristics I've just listed have been very much in evidence with the few members of the Social Credit administration who are here for this first debate on the substance of the budget. The Minister of Finance, the minister from Yale-Lillooet and the former Finance minister from Burnaby-Willingdon have all made comments about "Wait and see — it all will unfold, " and have tried to put into question the nature of the debate in which we have engaged this morning.

I characterized this House as a kind of twilight zone for the Social Credit administration in my budget response speech. This morning, for the first time in ten months since this House adjourned last July, we have a few lights to shed on one of our most important tasks. There are two jobs that face us as legislators: one is to deal with actual legislation that define ' s policies and programs of government; and the second is to debate the revenues and expenditures of government. As my colleague for Vancouver East noted, the lights on the latter task, the task of debating the expenditures and revenues of government, have gone up in May for the first time — the latest in history. It was fascinating to note that except for 1983, when there was a provincial election in May, every budget has been presented to this House prior to the end of the fiscal year, with one or two exceptions — last year being one of them; last year being one of the latest, and this year the latest ever. What that tells us is that this government, which so often in its rhetoric wants to speak about its management and its ability to deal with the people's business, has once again demonstrated its failure.

I want us to cast our minds back over the ten months since we last dealt with budget matters in this House, to what the people are saying. They're very cryptic and very descriptive in their comments and analysis of what's going on in British Columbia at this time. They use statements like: "There's no one in charge over there in Victoria." "It's chaotic." "In my 30 years in public administration I've never seen such lack of direction. Nobody knows where we're going, because no minister seems to know where he or she is going." "Let's for heaven's sake have an election." "It's time for some predictability and stability in British Columbia."

Overriding all of those comments has been the concern about the integrity of government, focused on the Premier but expanded to include the cabinet and the caucus, which have been part of all that this government has stood for in such a seriously flawed way over its term — but particularly over the last ten months, when its only concern has been to save its own hide, not to do the people's business and not to adhere to the traditions that its predecessors understood in dealing with the budget and with the financial affairs of the province.

It was epitomized last night in a little exchange between the government House Leader — one of the members from Kamloops — and our House Leader, our senior Senator from Coquitlam-Moody. When the government House Leader finally acknowledged that

[ Page 12316 ]

yes, we would be debating the interim Supply Act (No. 1) today, he said: "We hope with all three readings."

This is a government that has had innumerable opportunities to do its duty around bringing forth its spending plans to this House. It had opportunities in March, when it called a session, and it has had opportunities since it began to meet again with a new session in May. But it has, as others have noted before me, left this matter to the last possible day in terms of its spending ability, because I'm sure it's going to say to us: "We're running out of money." That's the nature of this government in terms of how it deals with its financial affairs.

In our households most of us like to look ahead a bit more. Certainly when you're managing a $16 billion enterprise that affects the lives of three million people in the province, with programs for people very much a part of those expenditures, we'd like to have a little time too, to know where we're going, to know that the direction is sound and to know that we have the resources to carry out those plans. But not this government. This government is working on crisis management within its ministries, within its executive council, within its caucus and within its administration of this budget. This supply bill that we're debating today on May 30, on the last day of the warrants that were improperly accorded in April.... It is simply a testament to this government's history.

Just in terms of that history, let's look back in relation to the very extensive dollars we are debating today: $5 billion. If the government House Leader and this government had had their way, we would have been passing $1 billion an hour today to get all of that through within a single day without any examination of what's in that billion. For most of us it's such a large sum that we can't even imagine what it represents. It represents hospital programs, advanced education, assistance to people in need, education, policing, environmental initiatives, our attempts to do better things with our forests and whatever minimum efforts are in this budget around job creation and dealing with the need of British Columbians to have a healthy economy.

Let's look at the history of how we got to this particular place. I remember the infamous two-week session in March, which was actually a resumption of the session we left in July 1990. In that session the then Premier — the disgraced Premier — was hastily marshalling legislation that he wanted to push through to get to a better position — not a winning position — for re-election: the infamous Bill 82, the Compensation Fairness Act, the now abandoned Taxpayer Protection Act and other pieces of legislation. All through that very short nine-day session, the government knew and we knew that one of the things it should be doing was bringing forth a budget and interim supply.

We had at that time the second of our revolving door Finance ministers — the good burgher from Burnaby-Willingdon, who laboured mightily in the halls of the Ministry of Finance. He did tell us on numerous occasions during that short nine-day session that a budget was coming and that he had an interim supply bill in his pocket.

One of the most interesting days I've spent in this Legislature was the last day of that session. I happened to be at an early meeting where we were discussing what the day would be bringing and planning for our representations on behalf of the people of British Columbia, when a phone call announced that the Speaker's office was advising Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the government was planning to cut and run. They called it by its official name, prorogation, but really it was a cut-and-run strategy. It was getting out from under the heat.

That was something of a surprise, but there was some more street theatre to be watched that day I want to very briefly — and I don't have the ability to do this as graphically as some of my colleagues.... If one can imagine, the Speaker's corridor outside this chamber had the House Leader of the government at one end and the Minister of Finance — the interim, temporary, revolving-door Minister of Finance from Burnaby Willingdon — at the other. Let's start with the Minister of Finance, who was stating: "Well, I have....

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order, we're debating the supply bill, and I really appreciate the recount of theatre, but maybe we should concentrate on a supply bill in our debate in the Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, we're digressing a little bit. While that side may find some of the comments humorous, I do think we're not focusing.

[11:30]

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me continue to describe the supply bill that wasn't, Mr. Speaker, as a part of one of the reasons why the supply bill that is today is so much in question. The supply bill that wasn't actually did exist, at least if we are to believe the then Minister of Finance. It was in his hip pocket; it was all ready, he told us on numerous occasions, to present to this House. I might add that at that time he expected, it seemed, to be presenting it. Somewhere over on that side of the House the communication had gone awry. Somewhere someone had failed to tell this senior and most important minister what the agenda for the day was. Because at the other end of the Speaker's corridor, I understand, the House Leader, who is responsible for the agenda of the day, was indeed advising that the House would prorogue that morning. What a passing strange series of events on that day! If it weren't so serious it would indeed cause us some mild amusement about the state of confusion and the lack of any leadership and direction on the other side of the House.

So we left on March 22, with this government running out of money on March 31. We left knowing that the only alternative the government would have legally, seven days after this House prorogued, would be to establish special warrants, and those special warrants would indeed be a violation of the spirit of our Financial Administration Act. Special warrants are for urgent and not predictable events. There is nothing more predictable than the budget in the fiscal year ending, to prepare for the fiscal year coming. My colleague our Finance critic went back 50 years to say

[ Page 12317 ]

that every government — with the exception of one government legitimately delayed because of an election — brought in a budget in that time-frame, or marginally out of that time-frame in April.

This government is now bringing us a budget and a supply bill in its twilight zone, in the dying days of an administration and much later than it has any excuse whatsoever for doing in this year. There is absolutely no excuse for this administration, which prides itself — wrongly and unjustifiably — on its ability to manage and plan. There's no justification for it being late in bringing in this budget to us at this time and now asking us to deal with one-sixth of that budget without so much as a by-your-leave: $230 million or $240 million in warrants, almost $3 billion in spending for next year and then anticipated spending for the next two months.

Let's take a look at some of the matters that need to be examined at this time. Surely we have to look at some overspending from the last fiscal year. I won't spend much time on that, because other colleagues have already canvassed the overspending in Social Services and in Health and raised some of the legitimate questions that need to be answered.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the other aspects is that that budget was also underspent. We have an underspending in some areas which I'm sure are going to surprise people in the fields funded under these ministries. For example, last year's Education budget was underspent by $40 million. The Advanced Education ministry's budget was underspent by $27 million. Altogether in the last fiscal year this government underspent its budget by about half a billion dollars. Is that good management? Is that competent management?

I think those questions need to be asked, especially as we look, for instance, in those two domains — Education and Advanced Education — where teachers, boards, councils, college boards and faculties are working so hard to provide the quality and extent of education we need for our citizens for the economy of the future.

It's interesting that the 1990-91 budget was also underexpended by $72 million in the vaunted sustainable environment fund special account. What we have is money being promised and then not expended. We have the smoke and mirrors of this government rather than the delivery of programs. We have budget and estimate debates to ask questions such as: where has that money gone? Why was the government making a promise in the field of environmental sustainability that it obviously didn't begin to keep, if $72 million sits unspent at the end of a fiscal year? Those are questions about the integrity, commitment, competence and management of this government that are a part of any budget and any estimates debate. We need to ask those questions.

I could go on and on about those earlier warrants, but I'm much more concerned about events since March 31. On April 1, nine days after we left this place in surprise, when the government obviously made a cut-and-run decision to get out of here because it couldn't stand having the lights on and having people see, as well as read, what goes on in this House.... Nine days after prorogation, on April Fools' Day — a day that happened to be a public holiday — there was the signing of massive special warrants for two months of spending which we now have no accounting for.

Mr. Speaker, we've already gotten some indication of issues from last year. There are any number of questions that we as serious and responsible members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition need to bring to this House. We know that this government has a single agenda, which is to try to figure out how to save its hide — whether with or without a leadership convention or with an early or a later election. We know their attention is not on their most important responsibility of providing good government and good management for this province. Right now it is saying: "Give us a blank cheque." My colleague from Alberni talked about going to the bank and saying: "Can we borrow this amount of money? Don't ask us any question. Don't tell us what you want us to do with it. Just give it to us because we're the government, and we say that's the way we should go."

Parliamentary tradition, the long history and the good record of this Legislature — as my colleague from Vancouver East noted — in bringing in budgets in time for a serious and thoughtful debate, is something this Social Credit administration has abandoned. As time goes on and as it gets closer to fading from its twilight zone into its nether zone, they are abandoning those traditions more and more.

We have commitments that the government has made in words. We have in this very cryptic bill.... I think people would be astounded to know that we're talking about $5 billion worth of spending in something that is reduced to a matter of six pages. We have nothing in this to tell us what the government is going to do about such matters as the Royal Commission on Education, where there's not a dime or a line in the budget; its plan to talk about feeding hungry children, let alone doing anything about it; or providing services for women.

This morning a few of us witnessed a video produced by the Victoria Women's Transition House. I want to publicly thank the first member for Vancouver~Point Grey for arranging with the Victoria Women~s Transition House to make that showing available to us. It was a very graphic, moving and real film about the lives of women and children in this province who are battered and hurt by people within their households and communities. I hope that many will see this video. It's called "One Hit Leads to Another." In about ten minutes anyone seeing that film will know that no government — through its Social Services, Attorney-General or Solicitor-General ministry and, very particularly, its women's ministry — can fail to act on the needs of women and children who are suffering from those kinds of abuses quietly, silently, painfully and terribly within their homes and our communities. A couple of members from the government side saw that film, and I'm sure those who did

[ Page 12318 ]

were as moved as we on this side of the House who took the opportunity to see it.

Mr. Speaker, in all of those domains we do not have answers. We certainly do not have answers in lines that say, for example, with the women's ministry: "For the continuation of ongoing budgetary programs for the Ministry of Government Management Services and the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs..." — $70 million for two programs. There's nothing to tell us how much of this is for women, nothing to tell us that there's anything to provide for women in circumstances such as we witnessed this morning.

For the Minister of Education it says: "For the continuation of ongoing budgetary programs for the Ministry of Education" But there's nothing to tell teachers, school boards and parents what is in store for the education reform that this ministry has begun. There is not a dime or a line in the budget to tell us what financial resources are available for that program, let alone what the government's commitment is. This is at the end of a school year, when all districts are planning for next September, for the children, for the programs that will be there, for the in-service that will provide the direction that those districts have evolved for their ongoing reform, renewal and continuation of good practice under the Royal Commission on Education.

[11:45]

I could go on. What is there in the budget for hungry schoolchildren? We don't know. There's nothing to indicate in which budget it might be — Education, women's ministry or Social Services and Housing. We are now months late in debating all those issues, because this government has ignored its responsibility to bring forward a budget into this House and deal with it in a way that allows the people of British Columbia to know its intent and allows us to bring forward issues that exist within our communities.

It's serious business, Mr. Speaker. It's business that is the most fundamental responsibility of this House, and it should be in on time and on budget — not with a flimflam deficit such as this Minister of Finance continues to defend. The deficit is not $395 million, but $1.2 billion, $1.3 billion or $1.4 billion with other debts added onto that.

People have a right to know where we stand, why we're there and what we're going to do with the resources we have. This government wants us — in this first opportunity to deal concretely with its budget figures — to put that through in five hours. That's $1 billion an hour without any scrutiny or any questions.

That's not why I came to this House, and that's not why my colleagues on this side of the House came. I think it must be a shame and a disgrace to many members sitting on the other side of the House to have to defend their mismanagement and their inability to manage the affairs of the government in the interests of people.

It's interesting that all through this morning there have been the fewest members on the other side of the House that I can remember. That tells us something about the importance they give to this particular issue and this particular discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to do the people's business. The people's business has to do with how we are providing the services that government is responsible for, how we as government are encouraging, supporting and stimulating the economy of the province and how we are sustaining our environment in ways that will leave a future for our children. All of those are encapsulated in these six pages with $5 billion of expenditures — more than half of them already gone and done with without any examination. We have had billions without a budget. We're now asked to give supply without debate, and those are not the standards by which this House is known and wants to be known in the annals of the parliamentary tradition.

Mr. Speaker, I regret deeply that this government has been so recalcitrant in its attention to its duties. We all know, as I said at the beginning, that they're full of anger, confusion, obstinacy and rudeness, rather than integrity, seriousness and long-term planning approaches to their job. All of that has to do with a survival instinct, which in the political realm is something we have to acknowledge, but which is something that the people of the province quite candidly are fed up with. I'm ending it with a good, solid preposition. They are fed up with this government and how it is managing their affairs.

We will do whatever is necessary to call this government to account, and that is the job for which we are elected. As long as this government refuses to go to the electorate to let them say what they feel about this government and its role and management of their affairs, we'll stand up for those people in this House. We'll do our job, and we hope that this government can find the stamina and the integrity to show some sign of doing the same.

MR. JONES: I would like to make a few remarks on Bill 8 — this supply bill or this money bill. Id like to talk a little about the who, the what, the when, the why and some of the implications of this bill.

The who is really who has brought us this bill. This bill has been brought in courtesy of a Barnum and Bailey government. We have the Bailey Finance minister over there and we have the Barnum Premier. They have brought us this piece of legislation which I think will go down in history as an infamous piece of legislation.

This is from a government that really can't get its stories straight. It's a very confused government. In a very short period of a few weeks we had three Finance ministers. We had the Finance minister from Saanich and the Islands, who talked about the government deficit, and he talked about a $1 billion deficit. One billion dollars was the figure from the Finance minister from Saanich. Then we had the Finance minister from Burnaby-Willingdon; he had a different figure. In fact, I don't know whether he had a figure. But the Finance minister from Burnaby-Willingdon told us that there would be no deficit. It had changed, within a period of a few days, from $1 billion down to zero. This is very clever bookkeeping on the part of that Finance minister. And then we had the member opposite, the Finance minister from Chilliwack. He tells us that the deficit for

[ Page 12319 ]

this year is some $395 million — not a billion, not zero, but $395 million. Three different figures within a very short period,

This bill is brought to us courtesy of a government that can't get its story straight from one week to the next. In fact, this government can't even get its story straight from one day to the next. On provincial television last Wednesday, the Premier of this province said that the borrowing for this budget would amount to something greater than a billion dollars. The very next day in this Legislature, on repeated questions from my colleague the member for Vancouver East, that Finance minister stuck to the old story that the borrowing will be $395 million; not $1 billion, as the Premier had said the night before; not zero, as the Finance minister from Burnaby-Willingdon said; not $1 billion, as the Finance minister from Saanich had said — but he stuck to his $395 million figure.

This is a government that is bringing us this bill. It can't get its story straight from one week to the next. It can't even get its story straight from one day to the next. This is a confused government. It is a tired government. It is a government that has run out of steam. This is a government that has lost it. They are desperate. They are a government that is arrogant, tired and confused.

They do not understand that, in bringing this bill before us today, they have a fundamental responsibility as a government in our British parliamentary system. It is their responsibility to tax, to spend and to be accountable for that spending, and to come before the people's representatives and defend that spending in the form of a budget.

The opposition has its responsibility, The opposition is being denied its responsibility. Our responsibility on this side of the House is to scrutinize that spending and to point out the alternatives and the shortcomings of that government. We are being denied. The Social Credit opposition in 1975 made a very valuable statement when they talked about "not a dime without debate." That had a ring to it. The people of the 'province accepted that principle, and they accept that principle today. They accept the principle that we should be fully debating the estimates of this government.

What we have today is not a dime without debate. What we have in this Bill 8.... I know the Finance minister will be interested in this. Guess how many dimes this is. This is 50 billion dimes without debate, a $5 billion bill before us that we are expected to debate in five hours. There is a no more telling sign of a confused and tired government than its inability to meet what is the most fundamental responsibility of a government, and that is to come before this chamber with a budget that can be scrutinized by the people, a budget that it can then defend and that we can debate in this House. This $50 billion clime-without-debate bill before us denies us that opportunity It is a contempt of this Legislature and this parliament. What we want is not for this government to be on time and on budget; we just want a budget on time.

So that's part of the who of this bill. This bill has been brought to us courtesy of a government which time and time again has proven that it cannot be trusted. Can you trust a government who told us two months ago that it wanted to freeze taxes in the province? It brought Bill 92 before this chamber, the centrepiece of the taxpayer protection package that was going to vault that side of the House into an election campaign that it had hoped might resurrect its fortunes with the public. The foundation of the taxpayer protection package was Bill 92: a freeze on taxes.

My colleague the member for Burnaby-Willingdon stood in this chamber and said: "Yes, taxes will be frozen." What does he say now about freezing taxes? "We had a thaw. It's not so cold out there anymore. Things have warmed up in British Columbia. Taxes are not frozen anymore." What they said two months ago is different than what they are saying today, They are a very confused government.

Can you trust a government that stands in this House with a centrepiece bill that says it's going to freeze taxes one day and turns around and introduces a bill that overrides that previous bill in a very short period of time? Is there any fundamental belief on that side of the House in this parliament when they turn their backs and cast away a bill that was voted for in this House? This is no longer a bill; this is now an act of the Legislature, a law of British Columbia on the legal books of this province. It has now been cast aside by that government. It was voted on by every member in this chamber — in fact, every member in this chamber supported that piece of legislation that is now the law of the land and has now been changed.

This government is collecting taxes at this moment that are contrary to that legislation that was passed a few short weeks ago. That's who is bringing this bill before us at this time: a confused government. It can't get its story straight from one day to the next, one week to the next. It can't even carry out its legislation that it passed a couple of weeks ago. This is a government that is contemptuous of this Legislature. This is a desperate government. This is a tired government. This is a government that cannot be trusted.

That's the who of who is bringing us Bill 8. I am most anxious to get into the what, the when, the why and some of the implications of this bill, but I see that we are at adjournment hour, so I would move that we adjourn debate at this time.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.