[ Page 12321 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991 (Bill 9). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 12321

Tabling Documents –– 12321

Oral Questions

Pension plan for doctors. Mr. Harcourt –– 12321

Medical Services Plan premiums. Mr. Harcourt –– 12322

Music '91 resignations. Ms. Pullinger –– 12323

Voter registration. Mr. G. Hanson –– 12323

Omni-Script Services Ltd. Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 12324

Hospital laundry services contracts. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 12324

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

Mr. Jones –– 12324

Mr. Miller –– 12325

Ms. Marzari –– 12329

Mr. Michael –– 12331

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 12333

Mr. Kempf –– 12334

Ms. Cull –– 12336

Mr. Vant –– 12338

Mr. Sihota –– 12339

Ms. Pullinger –– 12343

Ms. Edwards –– 12347

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 1991

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce two guests from Surrey White Rock–Cloverdale who are in the precincts: David Harris and Mary Wade Anderson, from the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Vancouver Sun issued some questions to some high-school students from Port Moody Senior Secondary School and Burnaby North Secondary School. Several of the young people responded, and as a result of their comments that were later printed, we invited them to join us today in the House to watch democracy in action. With us from Port Moody Senior Secondary are grade 12 students Ryan Wald, Anny Lee, Barrie Smith, Jared Alexander, Amber Davis, Erik Stein, Vera Gamboa, Chris Dane, Darryl Hern, Mandi Sosnick, Julia Stephens, Brooke Sheridan and Lee Oster. From Burnaby North Secondary we have grade 10 students Danny Pero, Eliza Lee and Yvonne Chen. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, it was certainly very gracious of the Premier to invite the students for lunch, and I know she picked up the tab. I too would like to welcome grade 10 students Danny Pero, Eliza Lee and Yvonne Chen. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, would the House welcome 50 grade 7 students from Hillside Middle School in West Vancouver and their teacher Mr. B. Herrin.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today in the members' gallery we have from the village of Lytton — also known as the rafting capital of Canada — four delegates from the Lytton council: Mayor Joe Chute, Ald. Norma Morrow, Ald. Russ Urquhart and Ald. Francis van Dyke. I would ask the members of the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House the New Democrat constituency assistants, who are joining us for their annual meeting here in Victoria. We'd like have the House join us in welcoming them and acknowledging the contribution they make to the work we do in our ridings.

HON. J. JANSEN: We have in the precincts 60 grade 5 and 6 students from Kent Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Al Fraser. Would you please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1991

On behalf of the Minister of Forests, Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Range Amendment Act (No. 2), 1991.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have two minutes to speak about this bill, but I can only tell the assembly that it's a reintroduction of a bill that was on the order paper earlier this year. I'm sure members can look in Hansard and understand what the Minister of Forests said about it at that time.

Bill 9 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1990-91.

Oral Questions

PENSION PLAN FOR DOCTORS

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier. Now that the federal government has quashed the doctors' pension plan, are the Premier and her government prepared to abandon the 100-percent-taxpayer-funded pension deal?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the question would be better put to the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would put the question, given that he communicated to BCMA his support of the pension plan and that he further....

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member for Vancouver–Point Grey, in a radio broadcast, also indicated his support. I'm surprised he's not here. Furthermore, that member is obviously also benefiting from the plan. I haven't heard him indicate that he's going to return any money.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to sit down with BCMA and talk about the impact of this ruling, and you'll be advised in due course what the outcome of that is.

MR. HARCOURT: Neither of those statements are true, but he will continue to make them.

I have a supplementary question to the Premier. Could you please assure the House that in any renegotiated deal that includes a pension offer....

HON. J. JANSEN: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, his comments imply that I lied to the House. I would ask him to withdraw those comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw, withdraw.

[ Page 12322 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition implied that a member misled the House or failed to tell the truth, I'm sure he will withdraw when he stands to bring his next question. If you did, please withdraw. If not, please continue.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, as per your ruling yesterday, it was a dispute of fact. He said I said something I didn't. So it stands.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, in an exchange across the floor, the member for North Island said that the Minister of Finance lied every day. I think he should withdraw that remark too.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If such a remark was made, I invite the member to withdraw. If not, the member can leave the remark.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in deference to the rules of the House, of course I would.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: I have a supplementary to the Premier. Given that you're going to be entering into negotiations and that there is going to be a renegotiated deal, could you please ensure that if it includes a pension offer, it will be no different than other pensions for British Columbians and that doctors will pay their fair share of any pension?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order, but the Premier may wish to answer it.

MR. HARCOURT: Has the Premier decided that if there is to be any renegotiation of the pension package, doctors will pay their fair share, like any other British Columbian?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition has a strange set of priorities. The questions are not in order. I would suggest that he spend more time attempting to have members on his side of the House clarify and face up to inaccurate statements that they have made in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the remarks by the Premier, it's left to the Chair to determine which questions are in order. The last question was in order; the one before that wasn't.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You've asked me to maintain order and you've asked me to determine what is and what isn't in order. I'm always prepared to accept extra help, but not during question period.

MR. HARCOURT: As the question was in order, I would like a very simple answer from the Premier. Have you decided that in any renegotiated deal with the doctors, they will pay their fair share of any pension, like any other British Columbian?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, this refers to future policy.

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN PREMIUMS

MR. HARCOURT: As the Premier has not made up her mind or can't make up her mind on this, I have a new question. Your Finance minister admitted that part of the reason for hiking medical services premiums was to pay for doctors' pensions. As a matter of fact, he said that was part of the package. Has the Premier instructed her Finance minister to roll back these fee hikes?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: For the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that I haven't been able to make up my mind Id like to know if he's changed his mind regarding leaked documents and members in his caucus.

I would suggest that the question should more appropriately be put to the minister responsible.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, it's just a very simple question for Madam Premier. You raised the premiums to pay in part for the doctors' pension deal. Have you now decided to roll back your MSP fee increases — yes or no? British Columbians want to know.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I would suggest the question should be put to the Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the Leader of the Opposition has to read a question so simple. I indicated earlier to him that we are going to sit down with BCMA and determine what the impact of this ruling is. I should tell him that the premiums in Ontario are 21 percent higher than in British Columbia. Our settlement with the doctors is lower than that in Ontario. This is because of good fiscal management.

Subsequent to the negotiations and discussions with BCMA, as I indicated earlier in my response to him, we will let him know what the outcome of that is.

MR. HARCOURT: Are you going into these meetings with the doctors with any position in terms of pensions and fee hikes?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, we are going in with the position of fairness.

MR. HARCOURT: Will it be fair for the taxpayers of British Columbia? That's the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It seemed to have started yesterday, and it's deteriorating again today. Could we have a little briefer answers and a little briefer questions?

[ Page 12323 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: By the line of questioning, I am reminded of the light up there; the member's getting a lot older but he's not getting very much brighter.

There is only one criterion: fairness to the taxpayer. Mr. Member, that's the only criterion we have.

MUSIC '91 RESIGNATIONS

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the minister responsible for tourism on Music '91 — which we on this side of the House, for the record, think is a good idea and support. Music '91's vice-president of marketing reportedly left her position in April. On May 10 it was announced that the president of Music '91 had resigned. Apparently further resignations are expected — an exodus of board members that goes right to the top. Can the minister explain to the House why senior executives of Music '91s management team are jumping ship?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I'm really pleased that you asked, though I thought the question would be, "What's going on on the legislative lawn?" and I was going to give you a great dissertation on what was going on.

This, by the way, is the kickoff to RoadShow, which will be going throughout the province. It will be appearing in 12 different locations in the province, and this is the big kickoff

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not time for a ministerial statement — just the answer to the question.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am very enthusiastic about what is going on. Let me tell the member opposite that we definitely have had a resignation, but I'm very surprised — I shouldn't be surprised — at their slowness in recognizing that Robin Lecky's resignation is in. That is a resignation we received earlier in the month, but it's been coming for some time, since he wanted to be phased out. Robin did a great job working for Music '91. He's an ideas person and certainly put together a great show for the province. But that work has been completed. We're now into an operational phase, and consequently Robin found opportunities elsewhere in Columbus, Ohio, and we wish him well.

MS. PULLINGER: Supplementary to the same minister. Last year the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism told the House that Music '91 would cost the taxpayers of British Columbia only $12 million. He also said the board would raise matching private sector contributions. Can the minister confirm that additional public money has been allocated to Music.'91, and how much?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I was pleased to hear at the beginning, when the member talked about Music '91, that they would support it wholeheartedly. Really, that's what we're aiming for. Certainly by talking about the greatness of Music '91, we will increase our revenues. We are still bringing sponsors to the table. When the dust all settles on Music '91, that information will be available.

MS. PULLINGER: Supplementary to the same minister. Is he saying that the Year of Music Society has not received any more funding and has not requested any more funding? Can you answer that simple question for this Legislature?

HON. MR. DIRKS: In a program such as this, there are always extra things that can be done. Certainly the Year of Music Society is still looking at its budget. It's still looking at things that it would like to do, and certainly we're having ongoing conversations about it.

VOTER REGISTRATION

MR, G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial Secretary. Prior to the last provincial election, 160,000 British Columbians were left off the voter list, but they did get out to vote because they had that right. This government has taken away the right to register on voting day and potentially disfranchised hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. Has the Provincial Secretary decided that he will restore voting-day registration for British Columbians not on the list?

HON. MR. VEITCH: This member knows, if he would care to admit it, that not only have we one day for people to register under section 80, but we now have six days. Starting early in June, we have teams spread throughout the whole province to ensure that people have the opportunity to register. There is an obligation to register if one is going to vote. It must flow both ways, and the hon. member ought to know that. I don't know who you have in mind that you would bring on by way of ineligibility. People have six times more opportunity to register now than they had before.

MR. G. HANSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The people of this province should have the right to register to vote every single day, including election day. The chief electoral officer, Mr. Patterson, has indicated that a quarter of a million people are now off the list, and 30 percent of all British Columbians move every year. These short blitzes in June can't possibly sweep up the quarter of a million people not on the list. Why do you want to disfranchise thousands of British Columbians?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It may be of interest to the hon. member that a lot of those people have moved out here from the people's republic of Ontario, and they are not eligible to vote yet.

We moved the time-frame up to three years. We have done blitzes, and we are doing more blitzes. We've increased the time available for people to vote by a factor of six. That's something you never thought of doing, and they can't even do that in the people's republic of Ontario.

[ Page 12324 ]

OMNI-SCRIPT SERVICES LTD.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the NDP member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asked me a question about Omni-Script Services — the member who demonstrates that blind ambition still lives. It can be answered this way: government and Purchasing Commission tender-call requirements were satisfied.

HOSPITAL LAUNDRY SERVICES CONTRACTS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Last Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey asked a question entitled "Hospital Laundry Services Contracts, " which I took on notice. I'd now like to respond to that question.

We question where the member obtained his information with respect to revenue losses with greater Victoria hospital services. They will see a reduction in direct revenue from laundry operations. However, there are significant factors that are not reflected in the figures the member quoted.

First, the society's Fairfield laundry was operating well beyond its capacity as a result of the consolidation of services after the Glendale laundry burned down in March 1989. This meant the addition of a graveyard shift and a move to a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week operation, and resulted in frequent breakdown of equipment and increased maintenance costs, which we estimated at $36,000 annually. By removing approximately 15 percent of the laundry processed, the Greater Victoria Hospital Society has been able to reduce the night shift and devote more time to preventive maintenance, thereby avoiding costly breakdowns. It must be remembered that these industrial washers cost up to $100,000 each. Also, given the existing age of the Fairfield facility, it is unclear how long the Greater Victoria Hospital Society would have been able to service Saanich Peninsula and Mount St. Mary needs in any event. It should be noted that the establishment of a regional laundry service for all hospitals in the area is currently under study.

[2:30]

Finally, I would like to point out again that serious sanctions and actions have been taken against the hospitals involved. The two hospitals involved now have to forward all contracts of substance to the hospital care division of the Ministry of Health for review and approval prior to signature by the hospitals. This represents a significant sanction for an otherwise autonomous hospital board.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on Bill 8. The member for Burnaby North adjourned debate, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991
(continued)

MR. JONES: I was talking this morning about the who, the what, the when and the why and some of the implications of Bill 8, the money bill that is before us. I was suggesting that the only reason we are faced with this bill at this time is that it's coming from a very confused government that has had three Finance ministers within a very few weeks — three Finance ministers who have three different positions on what the actual deficit is. They can't make up their minds about whether the deficit is zero, $1 billion or $395 million.

This is a government that has said in the past: "Not a dime without debate." What we're faced with in Bill 8 is 50 billion dimes without debate. We would not expect that the situation would be on time and on budget; what we want is a budget that is on time in British Columbia.

This government is so confused that a few weeks ago it passed legislation, a bill that is now the law of the land in British Columbia, that there would be a tax freeze. What we see in this budget is a number of tax increases in violation of that legislation passed in the House unanimously only a few weeks ago. That's who is bringing us this bill. This is a confused, desperate, tired government that really cannot be trusted to keep its word.

What this bill really is, is not just an approval for spending $5 billion. This is a cut-and-run bill, a bailout bill; this is a we-can't-take-it-anymore bill. This is a government that is tired and that wants to get out of the legislative process. This is a government that can't take it anymore. It is bringing in legislation that will enable the government to function until July 31. But what it will really do is allow the government to prorogue this Legislature without having passed a budget. All we did yesterday was pass a motion that would allow us to move into Committee of Supply.

This bill is an avoidance bill. It's a bill that is avoiding scrutiny by the people's representatives of the spending of this government. This government wants to avoid being accountable, and we understand why. We understand the confusion on that side, and we understand the necessity that they feel to avoid scrutiny.

This is a Premier bringing in legislation, a Premier who very clearly wants to hide, who is bankrolling her leadership bid, who now wants to hide the spending of this government from this Legislature, because they know this government is fiscally incompetent. It can't make up its mind whether it wants a tax freeze or a tax thaw. It can't make up its mind whether the deficit is $1 billion, $395 million or zero. This is a cut-and-run government. This is a government that wants to bail out. This is a government that wants to leave this Legislature to try and put some band-aids on the internal and external bleeding and bruising that is going on on that side.

This is a government which has had this interim supply bill ready for months. But when did they choose to bring it in? At the last possible moment, two days before they ran out of spending authority. The moment before the money runs out, they bring in, in hopes of speedy passage, legislation that would allow spending until July 31 — an additional $5 billion.

Since last July this Legislature has sat 25 days. There has been over 300 days in which this Legislature

[ Page 12325 ]

could have been called to do the public's business and debate the spending authority of this government. Between March 11 and 25, when we would normally expect a budget, we were here for a very short period of time. We were here for two weeks. We sat for ten days. Then what did the government do? The government cut and ran. The government felt the bruising. The government sensed the loss that was happening out there in the province of British Columbia. So they cut and ran, and they plan to do the same again.

Why didn't this government choose to bring in spending authority legislation sooner? Why didn't we have Bill 8 between March 11 and March 25? Of course, the reason is that this government was mired in political chaos of their own making. They were mired in scandal after scandal. They were preoccupied with purging their leader — not for any perceived wrongdoing on their part; they were purging their leader because they perceived that Premier to be incapable of winning the next provincial election. So they went through an internal process, the internal chaos that's gone on on that side of the House, rather than doing the people's business, rather than bringing in a budget, rather than being accountable, rather than allowing the public and the public's representatives to properly scrutinize the spending authority that this government has.

They bailed out in March, and with Bill 8 they're getting ready to bail out again. Why are they doing that? They're doing it because they prefer to hide in the bunker. They prefer to spend billions of dollars without debate. They are afraid to account for their actions and spending.

Very clearly, there are serious implications in what's happened in this province, if we think of a couple of areas. The area that I have critic responsibility for, post-secondary education, is a very sensitive system. It thrives and flourishes on proper planning. There are sequences of events that must take place every year, and they must take place early in the year. Decisions have to be made in that post-secondary sector. There have to be programs planned. There have to be calendars printed. There have to be staff hired, or in the case of this government, staff laid off. There has to be a thoughtful planning process for that system to function properly. That system, unlike this government, can't be run chaotically.

What did we have this year? Was there any indication on the part of this government to those challenged with the responsibility of planning the programs in our post-secondary sector? Was there any communication of the resources that they would have to do the proper planning? It was not there, and the result was that university, college and institute administrators were pulling their hair out. They were planning for a sequence of different budgets. They would plan for a 12 percent increase, then an 8 percent increase, then a 4 percent increase — not knowing at any time what the increase was or when it would be coming. This government does not understand proper planning; it does not understand the education system. And it denies the tools for that system to do the proper planning job required of it.

We have seen the frustration that they have experienced with tied hands. The post-secondary sector in this province is not a factory. It cannot be buffeted around and abused by the improper treatment and lack of planning that are characteristic and a trademark of this government.

What we also have in Bill 8 is a continuation of ongoing programs. But there are questions that must be asked, and we are not allowed to ask those questions in this particular part of the debate. What about new programs? What about the programs talked about in the throne speech? What about programs, for example, like the freedom-of-information legislation that this government was bragging about recently? Freedom-of-information legislation does require some bureaucracy to function. Will this Bill 8, this spending bill, this supply bill allow the establishment of those new programs so that the public's right to know and the public's access to government information will be ensured? I don't believe it will, Mr. Speaker. I think the result will be that the public in British Columbia is going to be denied — as they have been for years in this province by Social Credit administrations — the right to have access to their information. The proper bureaucracy will not be in place to ensure that freedom of information in British Columbia can properly take place.

What about literacy programs? Two years ago this government established the Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee, which came down with a good report. We have been promised for several years that there would be funding for the recommendations in that committee's report. But the report has sat idle and collected dust, and there has been no funding for new programs for literacy in the province. Does Bill 8, the supply bill, allow those new programs to go ahead now as they've been promised for many years? We can't ask these questions. We are not allowed in this debate to properly scrutinize the budget and the aspects of this supply bill so that the government can be accountable to the people for its spending authority.

Mr. Speaker, the legal mandate for this government runs out in a few months, although the popular mandate for it ran out years ago. If members opposite do not want to do the people's business, if they don't want a full budget debate, if they don't want to live up to the British parliamentary tradition, then I suggest the Premier should take a drive down Rockland Avenue to Government House to dissolve this Legislature and call an election, so that the people can decide and can put in place a government that won't hide and that understands its proper role in taxing, spending and being accountable, and so that the people can restore integrity and good government to this province.

MR. MILLER: I just heard the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound say: "Give us supply and we'll go." The question is: where?

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Ninety days, yes.

[ Page 12326 ]

There's a reason why we're debating this bill at this time, and it has to do with the history of this government with respect to what we see as an abuse of parliament when it comes to budgeting. There are some reasons for that. My colleagues have spoken of some of them, and I hope to speak of some more. Essentially we're dealing with a government that, in our view, has lost the moral authority to govern. The government appears to have run out of steam. They've been corrupted by being in power too long and have grown arrogant, tired and confused. Half the time they don't even know what's going on in this House — and they set the agenda. They really are confused. Now, Mr. Speaker, they're desperate, and this supply bill is a measure of that desperation.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Just to briefly recap some of the history, in March the Minister of Finance claimed he had both a budget and a supply bill in his pocket ready to be tabled. March was only a few short months ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is a repetition.

MR. MILLER: If I have to repeat some of these essential facts, it's because the members opposite seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping these issues.

Only in March the Minister of Finance.... How many Ministers of Finance ago was that — three, four or five? It was only three. Think about that: three Ministers of Finance since March.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Surely it relates to the fact that we're debating this supply bill.

Two months ago — but we've had two ministers since then: the minister of the day; and the man who would be Finance minister and, for all I know, the man who would be leader — the member for Burnaby Willingdon claimed that his budget would be balanced We can only regard that as a dishonest claim from a dishonest government that will promise just about anything in order to retain power.

I don't want to go back too far; I'm not a student of ancient history. But I have read a little about the history of our parliamentary democracy and why we do certain things. I think it's sometimes difficult to convey to the public some of the structure and some of the order that governs our activities in this place. In general, I would think that the public tends to not get caught up in details; they're more interested in results from government. They really haven't seen much from this government. But there are some very important reasons why we do things here, why there is such a thing as a requirement for government to bring in a budget, why we have debate on estimates and why there is a provision for special warrants. There is a provision to allow a government spending authority under certain circumstances, and it leads, directly to why we're debating this bill today. Charles I, who tried to bypass parliament because he didn't like what they were saying about his ability to spend money, lost his head. Now I am not proposing that we seek that kind of drastic remedy today. Pardon me if I laugh, but I see a look of relief on the part of members opposite that we're not calling for that kind of solution.

Nonetheless, that established one of the historic precedents in parliament: that there should be no spending without scrutiny in the Legislature. We represent the people of this province. We should have the opportunity to fully debate, in a rational and orderly manner, the proposals that the government puts forward with respect to spending. Where do they propose to spend money? What do they propose to spend it on? What's the rationale behind those proposals? We've seen nothing but abuse of that process, and this also represents an abuse of that process.

The supply bill is really before us because we've got a government that is so erratic and unstable that it finds it difficult to plan from one day to the next what its next move is going to be. When the Premier introduced the group of students in the House today, I quipped to one of my colleagues that she was going to swear them in as the next cabinet. The one we've got now certainly isn't doing a very good job, and I'm sure those students could do a better job.

So why do we have these institutions? Why do we have these procedures with respect to estimates, budgets and supply? I recall the cry: "Not a dime without debate." It was a rallying cry advanced by members on the opposite side.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I hear the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke saying: "And it worked." Fair game. That's also one of the features of this place: we should be vigorous in our debate, and we should use what works. That's the nature of our, parliamentary democracy.

But let's get to the heart of why that phrase was coined and used. What were the circumstances that gave rise to that cry of "Not a dime without debate"? One of the things I am proudest of with respect to my party's previous time in office in this province is that we regularly brought in a budget in February or March, we laid it before this parliament, and we allowed it to be debated through the estimates procedure. There was never any change in that; there was never any bringing in of a budget this late; there was never the abuse of special warrants that we've seen by this government. We brought in a budget, we put it before the people and the parliament in February and March of every year, and we allowed the debate to continue.

During that first term in 1973.... I recall watching some of those estimates debates, and it might be useful for members opposite to go back and review Hansard on those estimates debates. It would be useful for their education, because I don't think some of them have that sense of history. I don't think they understand what took place here not that long ago. Those estimates debates were somewhat abused. They dragged on and on. I recall that the estimates debate for the Ministry of Highways took three weeks. The Social Credit opposi-

[ Page 12327 ]

tion of the day stood in this House and filled the time. They wasted the time of the people and parliament.

Nonetheless, they had the right to do what they did. When an attempt was made to bring some order to that estimates debate in terms of a time-limit....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Closure.

MR. MILLER: That's right. The member from Peace River says "closure" — if it can be viewed that way. When that happened, the Social Credit opposition coined the phrase "Not a dime without debate." Clearly they felt very strongly about that. They were upholding the tradition I spoke of at the outset, which is that the opposition, on behalf of the people of this province, should have the right to scrutinize the government's spending plans. There was a reason for what they said. It was in the venue of politics, and that's fair.

But where is that same feeling now? This government is poised to cut and run, shut this place down, and run out and operate on special warrants, which they have a history of doing. There's a combination of a contemptuous attitude towards parliament and.... Plain and simple, they don't know what they're doing half the time. They're just incompetent. But those are deadly combinations.

We can debate all of the politics in the world in this place, but there are certain fundamentals that should be followed. Governments should not seek to avoid having their spending scrutinized by the opposition, but this government has done just that.

A few short months ago the Minister of Finance said he had a budget. What did he do? What did they do in their own confusion in trying to deal with their own difficulties? They shut this place down in March without having presented a budget for our consideration. Despite all they say, the truth is that they called this parliament into session, the Minister of Finance said he had a budget, and two weeks later they shut this place down and didn't present a budget. They created an emergency. The emergency is the incompetence and erraticism of this government. That's the emergency we're facing.

They shut this place down and then proceeded to run on special warrants. They went to the back room and said: "We'll just vote ourselves this special warrant." I believe that's contemptuous of parliament. I don't know why they try to hide in the back rooms or why they're afraid to face scrutiny in this Legislature, but it's pretty clear that they are. I believe they're poised to cut and run again.

They want this supply bill because they want out of this place. They're confused and disorganized. They don't know what they're doing. They're rudderless and leaderless.

We are debating the remnants of a rag-tag gang that at one time stood in this House and said: "Not a dime without debate." Now they're saying: "Pass these special warrants, and let us get out of here, because we do not want to put our budget in front of the people to be scrutinized by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition."

Mr. Speaker, standing order 81 allows the government to proceed with a bill through all of the stages consecutively on one day. That order was created for unforeseen circumstances — emergencies. It's important to note that the government requested standing order 81 be used today, because they claim there is an emergency. The emergency was created by them.

It has been suggested that they've changed over the years, that the party that coined "Not a dime without debate" was the Social Credit Party, and the party that is trying to get special warrants passed and get out of this place is the social discredit party.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I accept the accolades from across the floor, from the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who is not in his seat.

They've forgotten some of their roots. Perhaps that has to do with the fact they have been in power far too long; and that has to do with the fact that they are leaderless. But these are important points we make.

I said that they created the emergency. In terms of this supply bill, the only thing the government did not foresee was they would be in such disarray and so desperate to avoid the Legislature that they could not present a budget.

[3:00]

As I said, from March 11 to March 22 they sat in this House. They said they had a budget. They didn't present it. They adjourned in disarray. And now they have an emergency.

A budget should not only be subjected to the scrutiny of the opposition; a budget is an important political document. It's not just a fiscal document, it's a document that presents the vision of the government. It allows us to question policy. It's not just straight numbers; it's where this government proposes to take this province. It seems, if they don't want to sit here and debate that, and if they want to get interim supply and get out of here, that they really have no idea where they want to lead this province.

When I canvassed some of the important issues the budget deals with, like the issue of forestry.... As I noted in my response to the budget speech, although the government made grandiose promises at the beginning of January with respect to what money they were going to spend on forestry — and I looked forward to the opportunity to debate that in this House.... They made these grandiose announcements. When I finally got the opportunity to ask the Minister of Forests a question with respect to one of those announcements, because the budget wasn't there and we had no opportunity to debate the budget.... The Minister of Forests advised this House there weren't enough seedlings available. The Minister of Forests advised the House that the ground wasn't ready for planting. I have been denied the opportunity to question the minister on these fundamental points, fundamental to the economy of British Columbia, of vital concern to the forest community in this province, because they don't want to debate a budget.

[ Page 12328 ]

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are saying: "Write him a letter." I must point out again, they don't seem to understand the fundamental point. They don't want to stand in this House and answer questions on behalf of the opposition for the people of this province. They seem to think that it's fine; it's fair to operate on special warrants. It staggers the mind.

I recall that a couple of years ago they dreamed up a program that wasn't in their budget. Again, this goes to the heart of it. They present budgets in the spring, and then halfway through the year they dream up some new programs. So they just pass special warrants. A few short years ago they did exactly that, and because they're fairly erratic, they dreamed up a new program — a regional development program. They were so disorganized that they passed a special warrant for $8 million about a week before this House sat, and when the House finally sat and we started asking questions, they admitted that they had no plans to spend the money. That's an abuse of special warrants and, again, an indication of the erratic performance of this government.

I think that — and the members opposite will discover this when they're in opposition — what they find amusing today and what they like to do in terms of not having budgets scrutinized by the opposition, they won't like when they're in opposition. They will find that their job is extremely difficult and that they won't have the information, and they will be standing up and.... Who knows, they might even recoin the phrase "Not a dime without debate, " having dropped it from their lexicon now. My guess is that when they get into opposition, as they surely will, they will be standing in this House crying crocodile tears and saying: "Not a dime without debate." That's what they will be doing. Watch them change their tune when they end up in opposition. Cut and run.

Mr. Speaker, the reason we're debating this is that we have no confidence that this government will keep the House in session. We have every reason to believe they want to get out of here as quickly as they possibly can. They are leaderless; there is no Premier. There's an acting Premier, and she won by only four votes in that caucus.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I'm astonished that a member of this Legislative Assembly would make light of the Premier of the province of British Columbia. Every member of this assembly is bound in addressing and in referring to other members of this assembly to describe them by the riding they come from — the member for such-and-such a riding — or by the portfolio they hold. The member for Surrey-Newton is the presiding member of the executive council and is the Premier of British Columbia, and I think the members should be aware of that. The member for Surrey-Newton was elected by a majority of the members of this Legislative Assembly to be the president of the executive council. To discredit her in any way or to in any way diminish the importance of that office is offensive in the extreme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As a matter of fact — if I may have a moment, hon. member, please — the Minister of Health is absolutely right. A number of times over the past weeks this term "temporary Premier" or "interim Premier" has been used, and I took the trouble of looking this up myself. There is no question about it: every person in this House is entitled to be addressed in a proper manner. The hon. lady is the Premier and the head of the council, and she is entitled to be addressed as Premier. I would suggest to all members that even from the point of view of common courtesy, this is the way we should handle ourselves.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I do know one thing. The Premier was not elected by the people of this province or by her party. She was elected by the Socred caucus, and her leadership is being contested. I thank the Minister of Health, who has held that portfolio for a couple of weeks now — who knows what he might be next week? — for his defence of the Premier. It gets back to the reason we're debating this bill: the erraticism and instability of this cabinet and this Socred caucus.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

We don't know from one day to the next — and I don't think they do — whether they're going to be here or who's going to be the minister of what. They simply do not know. They've been operating under special warrants; they've displayed contempt for parliament, in my view. As I said, it's a combination of their own instability and the fact that they don't know where they're going, and, I think, some contempt.

I see the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, who started out making a good speech yesterday and then unfortunately went down into the gutter. I was watching as he made his speech. I was watching members of cabinet and members of the Socred back bench. Their eyes were shining, because they thought: here's someone who might provide some leadership. I urge him to run for leader of the Social Credit Party, because they certainly don't have any leadership now.

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I'll take your advice and smile a bit, Mr. Speaker. But these are serious matters, and if I occasionally get a little worked up about it, it's understandable. It's not just me, I can tell you. People in my constituency feel the same way.

Some of the money they have spent and some of the money they hope to spend. They're asking for authority for $5 billion. At one time they would say: "Not a dime without debate." Now they want $5 billion without debate. It's our job as opposition not to sit down quietly and let this crazy gang — as Jimmy Breslin said, the gang that couldn't shoot straight; he was talking about someone else, but I think it applies over there — take the taxpayers' money and wander around the province like drunken sailors, not knowing what they're doing with it, but spending it.

[ Page 12329 ]

MR. BLENCOE: The hole-in the-wall gang.

MR. MILLER: The hole-in-the wall gang; the gang that couldn't shoot straight; the gang that can't count. We've got a Minister of Finance who doesn't know the difference between $395 million and $1.2 billion. He hasn't been able to explain it to the Premier; he hasn't been able to explain it to the House....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: The difference is $805 million....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Minister, rise on a point of order or not....

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, there was an aspersion on my character in terms of me being able to discern the difference between an operating deficit and a capital requirement of the province of the British Columbia. I want to set the record straight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure that if the hon. member meant anything disparaging he would withdraw. Would the member please continue.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance is exceedingly defensive. Every time we talk about this I think we touch a raw nerve, because clearly...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister of Finance on a point of order. Possibly he could state his point of order.

HON. J. JANSEN: I simply asked the member opposite to withdraw those remarks, and I would ask him again to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member mean anything disparaging towards the Minister of Finance? If so, would he withdraw.

MR. MILLER: No, Mr. Speaker. Let me clarify my remarks. If the Minister of Finance wants to take that as disparaging, then I'd suggest he consult the Premier, because the Premier went on television and said that the deficit was $1.2 billion. So if he has a problem, he has a problem with....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member need only say he did not mean anything disparaging to the minister and that would be adequate.

MR. MILLER: I think he's a fine fellow, and he's doing the best he can. We don't think that's good enough. We think it falls short of what the public expects.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That will be taken as your withdrawal, thank you kindly. Will you continue with the debate.

MR. MILLER: The deficit, for the record, is $1.2 billion, even though the Minister of Finance continues to insist that it's $395 million. They've got a problem on that one; they can't explain it. They're going to have to deal with it, because pretty soon they're going to have to go out to the public.

It's important that we debate this supply bill because of the sad and sorry history of this government. They have ducked out of this Legislature. They don't want to put their spending plans before the people of this province; they like to operate in the back rooms on special warrants. They're asking for authority to spend $5 billion of taxpayers' money without that being debated. It is not our intention to let them have that easily.

MS. MARZARI: We're in the business at this very moment of spending $5 billion in five hours. My colleagues have mentioned this works out to $1 billion an hour, and that's worth reiterating. It's quite amazing to me that the government that brought in this supply bill is not defending it here on the floor of the House in the Legislature. You have one day — perhaps tomorrow — to discuss the expenditure of over $5 billion.

[3:15]

It's interesting. Probably a lot of people who are watching this on television don't understand what a supply bill is. If they haven't listened to the debate thus far, it's basically four pages brought to this House and entitled Bill 8, Supply Act (No. 1), 1991. It says on the first page: "Voted Expenditures Appropriation." This is very easy; it's not in legalese. Everyone can understand this.

"From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine the sum of $5,406,000,000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, and being substantially one-third of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates" — that being the budget — "for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session."

These four pieces of paper stapled together represent one-third of the total expenditure of this province in its operating grants for this fiscal year, beginning April 1 of this year until March 31 of next year.

It is unbelievable to me that we in this House, duly elected by all our constituencies across the province and brought here at the behest of our constituencies, 69 of us sitting in this House for the sole purpose of defining priorities and spending the taxpayers' dollars, find ourselves after all our years of experience and all our community work, sitting here and in one day — perhaps tomorrow as well; perhaps two days — reading four pages to spend $5 billion. It boggles the mind that this is the cumulative impact of all of our years of work, all of our years of being here — that this government would expect this House and this opposition to sit back, would expect it to be able to spend over $5 billion in five hours.

This government gives same-day service an entirely different meaning. We would generally expect sameday service to be a convenience for us all, but to deliver

[ Page 12330 ]

a $5 billion budget to run the government through until the end of July and to expect us to give them same-day service is beyond the pale.

It is something like what this government did when we debated the GST. If you'll remember, the GST was only debated in this House after the federal House had actually passed the bill. We were debating in this House our stand on the GST after the bells had rung closure in the federal House on the GST bill. It reminds me of the Meech Lake debate, when late in June we were debating Meech Lake at literally the eleventh hour in this House.

Yet this government wants us to write a blank cheque for over $5 billion here today so that they can limp their way through to the end of July, when they think perhaps things might be in better order. They won't be in better order, because they've brought us to this point in such complete disarray.

If there is anything in this province that people are asking for right now, it's accountability — the dreaded A-word. People in this province can pronounce accountability who never even thought of the word before. The rich can say it; the poor can say it. Business can say it; labour can say it. Men can say it; women can say it. Accountability, honesty, stability — these are the things that people are looking for. Yet what do we have in this government? We have people who are afraid of accountability. They are so afraid of bringing into play the checks and balances that the parliamentary system has built over 400 years that we end up with four pages.

This morning my colleague from Vancouver East read backwards in time to try to find the last time a government did not bring in a budget before the end of a fiscal year. It must have taken him 15 minutes to read backwards in time, all the way to the 1940s, to discover that never before this government did we have a late budget or no budget at all at the end of a fiscal year.

Under section 21 of the Financial Administration Act, running on special warrants is only to be done in urgent situations, in circumstances that are "not foreseen." Could you not foresee this on April 1 when you had another special warrant in your hip pocket, and you got out of the House as quickly as you could? Could you not foresee back in February that a budget was not going to be ready? Could you not foresee that moving to a special warrant sets a precedent which will be decried across this land? Do you not think that perhaps the double-A credit rating that we have in this province might be threatened by not bringing in a budget? Doesn't it even cross your minds that the New York bond market might be a little concerned about a government that brings in four pages two months after it was supposed to have a budget? Are we looking for stability here, or are we just going to flail about in political incompetence and inadequacy as we move on through this year?

This fear of accountability is worth talking about. We might call this government "accountability-phobic." I notice that the second member for Kamloops, in his response to the throne speech, took great umbrage with the auditor-general's report and with the function of the auditor-general's office itself by saying this about auditing and value-for-money auditing — which, if we are looking for accountability, must be one of the mainstreams of what being responsible for public dollars should be about:

"Value-for-money auditing is a growing boondoggle invented by various self-seeking, self-administered professional organizations across this country It will show over time that there will be two certainties as a result: (1) for auditors it will create more work than the GST, (2) for MLAs it will create a competing debating House about public policy choices. Value-for-money auditing is not an objective analysis and policing of public expenditures; it is, rather, the imposition of a subjective analysis on those choices and decisions by a non-elected person who does not have the responsibility for the trade-offs that public policy choices inevitably require."

What about those public policy choices that the second member for Kamloops talks about? What about value-for-money auditing and what it can mean to the checks and balances and accountability framework for how we spend our money and account for it?

The auditor-general describes value-for-money auditing in his 1989 report as such: "We conduct our value-for-money audits in accordance with the value-for-money auditing standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants." Some boondoggle, flaky, greedy, grey-suited undercover agency he would suggest! "As these audits involve a comparison of actual performance against a standard of performance, the institute prescribes standards as to the setting of appropriate performance standards or audit criteria, and the nature and extent of evidence that should be obtained to support the content of the auditor's report."

He goes on to say:

"When undertaking value-for-money audits, auditors can either look at results, to determine whether value for money is actually achieved, or at management's processes, to determine whether those processes should ensure that value is received for money spent. However, as acceptable results information and criteria are often not available, much of our value-for-money audit work concentrates on management's processes...."

What the auditor-general is saying here is that what the comprehensive or value-for-money auditing is attempting to do is take a look at what the government says it is going to do and what it actually does, and tries to measure it and give it a rating and a standard. It tries to say whether or not a job has been efficiently or effectively done.

Far from threatening MLAs and elected officials, the process of a value-for-money audit should bolster, support, underwrite and assist an MLA or an elected official. Far from being a subversive process which threatens to kneecap political processes and decisionmaking, value-for-money auditing should be perceived, in a system where checks and balances work, properly, as an aid and an assistance to the process of what we're about.

But no, that's not what this government would have. That's not what this government would say — it's certainly not what the second member for Kamloops had to say about it. We only have to look to yesterday

[ Page 12331 ]

when the Minister of Social Services released a letter that went to every welfare recipient in this province suggesting that we, the government, are doing a report card on you, the welfare recipient. And if you're not out there pounding the pavement and finding those jobs, you aren't doing your bit as a citizen, and we will have to step in and make sure you are not draining the welfare bank.

Let me suggest that a value-for-money audit would probably.... I'm guessing here, but if you brought in an auditor or the auditor-general....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has been very diligent here but.... Try to relate your comments to Bill 8. Possibly we could enter into the debate on Bill 8.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking right now about this government's inability to recognize a notion of accountability. Therefore I'm trying to explain why this government might be bringing before the House a four-page document to expend $5 billion in five hours. The check and balance here is lacking because this government does not understand what a check or balance might be. This refers both to the political science of our enterprise and to the fiscal arrangements.

What we should be doing in this House — if we want to get to a positive note here — is discussing in depth a budget properly prepared, properly planned and properly placed before the House before the end of the fiscal year. What we should be doing is ensuring that each piece of that budget is carefully allocated and prepared for a complete and comprehensive budget review which we call in this House the estimates process. What we should be doing — if we're interested in checks and balances and a true accountability loop which starts a project, works through its logical workings and brings it to an evaluated, monitored and properly accounted-for conclusion — is having our estimates procedure in committee, where the committees, depending on whose critic area is what and where the minister sits, can sit around tables and discuss the budget, bringing witnesses forward from the various ministries and from the community to discuss how money should be spent. Then certain ministries should be properly audited by the auditor-general or by internal audit so that, as programs unfold and money is expended, those programs can be tallied, evaluated, monitored and brought back the following year. That's how it should be done.

[3:30]

On the completion of that, then the Public Accounts Committee should have a chance to take a look at how the money in fact was spent, so the government should be able to say: "This is what we're going to do; this is what we are doing, and this is where it will land in public accounts with proper monitoring."

The auditor-general suggests that that is not the process we actually live through. In fact, the second member for Kamloops went to great and almost emotional lengths to tell us how bad the idea of value-for-money auditing is. One can only wonder if that member was a little bit concerned because the auditor had done, in his 1991 report, a little overview on the Ministry of Regional and Economic Development, during which he commented that the loans made from the industrial incentive fund.... He noted that after the funds were disbursed from the industrial incentive fund, they were not properly recorded or monitored. Benefits being described were often neither complete nor always costed. The auditor-general also stated that without regular monitoring the province may be jeopardizing its ability to realize any claim it may have if a project becomes unsuccessful.

The auditor-general, in very gentle language, is basically saying that we don't monitor the loans we give to businesses. There's a little scam going on there. Things aren't what they seem to be on the surface. We're not controlling the bucks when we do spend them. And is that not perfectly consistent with what we see in front of us? Four pages for $5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at estimates over the long term. We have to look at budgets properly brought to the House. We have to look at months of debate, not hours of debate, on $5 billion. I'm convinced that in doing it the right way we would be able to create more efficient and effective service in this province and be able to save hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think there's any doubt about it. People would welcome that in British Columbia, because it speaks to their cry for accountability right now.

It surprises me each day, as we go through the machinations of democracy in this chamber, that the Lieutenant-Governor isn't pounding on the door sometimes to throw this government out, because we don't have a budget and we don't seem to have a mandate. We get four pages for the expenditure of $5 billion. It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It's not good enough at all.

They're talking about a report card to people on welfare. There will be a report card for this government, and that report card is due in the not-too-distant future. I only hope that when the people of this province finally have a chance to mark their ballots, they are going to remember this bill of four pages and the $5 billion it represents, and the fact that it was passed through this House with only five hours of debate. That's not good enough; a report card this will be, indeed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome to the House some students from Mount Cheam Christian School with their teacher Mr. Adrian Stouqesdyk. I suppose there are some chaperones here; I see a bunch of them there. There are 35 grades 9 to 11 students from the best constituency in the province of British Columbia. Would you please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: I felt it's important to take my place in the debate today. In listening to the members

[ Page 12332 ]

opposite, it would seem that the whole world is coming to an end and that everything is gloom and doom in the province of British Columbia.

Let me just refresh some people's memories about things that are going on in other jurisdictions in Canada. Let's talk about how things are going on today in Manitoba. Let's talk about the pay freeze that's going on in Manitoba — a ceiling of 3 percent — as compared to what we have here. Let's talk about the increase that education is receiving in Manitoba as a result of their budget: a 2 percent level. Two percent is the limited growth in the education budget in the current fiscal year.

Let's talk about Newfoundland and the freezes taking place; there's an absolute, across-the-board freeze on all government employees in all sectors in the province of Newfoundland. Along with that, thousands of layoff notices have been given. Compare that to what's happening in the great province of British Columbia. Look at Saskatchewan: further freezes and layoffs.

The federal government were very bold some two months ago when they looked at the revenue and the finances, and they said: "We're going to put a 3 percent cap on federal civil servants." Guess what the decision was in the last 48 hours, Mr. Speaker. The decision is a complete freeze right across the piece for federal civil servants. Compare that with the positive things that are going on in the province of British Columbia.

Look at Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker. Look at the freezes and the cutbacks taking place in those eastern provinces, and compare that with what's happening here.

We have among the lowest taxes in every area you wish to choose in all of Canada. There are the odd exceptions; you can look at Alberta where they have no sales tax. But if you look at all the other areas, the province of British Columbia leads the way.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Look at debt, Mr. Speaker. You compare the amount of cents per dollar that this province receives and what we pay in interest on debt with any other province, and you will see that British Columbia is the clear winner at about 3.5 cents of every dollar spent on debt interest. You compare that with any other province, and not one province can come anywhere near the performance of the province of British Columbia,

Look at jobs, Mr. Speaker. We have created more jobs in this province in the last four years than any jurisdiction in Canada — by far the leaders on a per capita basis, without any question whatsoever. The only reason our unemployment is as high as it is in British Columbia is in-migration.

If you want to examine the rate at which we are creating jobs, look at in-migration. If you could freeze in-migration for 18 months, we would have literally zero unemployment. That's how fast people are coming to British Columbia. People are coming into my constituency from Ontario literally by the hundreds. If they're coming by the hundreds into Shuswap-Revelstoke, they're coming by the thousands and tens of thousands into other areas of British Columbia.

Look at the record of this government in the area of diversification. We have diversified this economy of ours in the last eight years in spades. There was a time when we could look at British Columbia and think of forestry, mining, fishing and agriculture. But today we have diversification. We've got a very soft forest products industry right now, with thousands of layoffs, but despite that, British Columbia's economy is still comparatively quite strong. We have high-tech and added value. In my constituency alone we have all kinds of firms. I would say at least 20 firms in the forest products industry have started up in the last eight years in the area of added value.

We've got an expanded agricultural industry Do you know today that there are more people employed in agriculture than there are in the primary industry of forestry? Were you aware of that? Agricultural fulltime employment is on the upswing. The primary forestry industry, meaning the loggers, is going down as far as numbers of employed is concerned.

We have a lot to be proud of in this province of ours. We have an expanded agricultural industry. Our horticultural industry is growing in leaps and bounds with 20 and 30 percent growth. Did you know that we in British Columbia are actually growing tomatoes, cucumbers, red and green peppers, and exporting them to California? That's the kind of strength we have in agriculture as a result of diversification and other things that have happened in British Columbia.

Look at tourism. You would think — listening to the members opposite — that everything was gloom and doom and that British Columbia was going to hell in a handbasket. I can tell you that British Columbia leads all of Canada in tourism growth. Our tourism growth in 1990 over 1989 was five solid percentage points. You lay that alongside any other jurisdiction in Canada, and it will prove once again that British Columbia is the leader and that we're the leader in spades.

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: Check the U.S. border crossings, Madam Member. Mr. Speaker, look at the quality of life. Why are people from other provinces coming to British Columbia? They are coming here because of the quality of life, good government, good budgets, a good debt ratio and the environment. You look at our air, our water, our environmental laws, our regulations and rules, and you will find that people are coming here for those reasons. We have a good, strong mixed economy. We have the most literate province anywhere in Canada. We've got among the highest wages and the best standard of living.

I give full support to this government and to this motion. I thank you for the opportunity to address the assembly today.

MR. SPEAKER: We're actually dealing with the second reading of a bill. We've passed the motion.

Before recognizing the next member, perhaps those members who are in their offices and listening to this

[ Page 12333 ]

on the squawk-box would realize that we're somewhat short of a quorum.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm glad that a member from the government side got up to try to defend the government's record.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: To try to defend the government's record — yes. I notice he didn't talk very much about any of the reasons we're having this debate. I wanted to bring it a little bit down to earth in terms of what this supply bill means to the people in the Cariboo.

Interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Everybody knows about my family business. It's out there in public, and everybody knows that I make sure the public knows what my private business is so that they can't accuse me of any conflict of interest.

It's very interesting to know that the heckling from the Minister of Finance would attempt to take us off the topic today. The nasty mood that he's in probably has something to do with the fact that people come to British Columbia for the weather, the quality of life and the wonderful endowment we have here and not because of statistics that are dry.

When I talk to people in the Cariboo on the street and they ask what's going on down there, they're really fed up with always being behind the eight ball. They say: "Can't you guys do anything on time?" I said: "It doesn't have anything to do with us. It has to do with the government not bringing their budget in on time." They don't believe that we sat before the end of the fiscal year and that there was no budget presented for debate.

They realize that it's the political chaos the government is in that has held this up and that they are being put to ransom — that if we don't pass this bill in a day's debate, the welfare cheques will be held up, the highways projects might not go ahead and, in fact, we might not be paid. That doesn't bother me because I've put aside some money in case you don't allow us debate on this bill. I've got money in the bank so that I can afford to live down here in my basement suite.

[3:45]

People up there know that I sleep on the floor because you don't give me enough money to buy a second bed. They also know that I can manage my money well enough that we can afford to hold up a few things. We won't hold up welfare cheques and the necessary money to run our hospitals. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is glad to hear that. We want to make sure that our point is made so that the people understand exactly what we're doing here.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again, that over $5 billion has to be approved here. It is going to be a little blank cheque that's in the back of the government's pocket so they can pull out of this session, go to a leadership race, have a new Premier and call an election. Then we'll be faced....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Yes, I'm going to. I've been running for two years. Due to the instability of this government I've had to be on election footing ever since I was elected. That's why I live in a basement suite and haven't even bought a bed — because I don't know when you're going to pull the plug. I just wish you would. When we're government I know I will be able to afford to buy a bed, get a better sleep and not be so cranky in this House when I have to debate this bill. It's really hard, thanks to you people, to go home and defend my paycheque.

MR. SERWA: On a point of order, I fail to discern what the comments of the hon. member opposite have to do with the interim supply bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Actually, the majority of his comments have been on the funding under vote 1, which is probably covered under interim supply. Since the member's remuneration is under vote 1, I presume that's what it's about, although most of it should be addressed by the Board of Internal Economy.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The heckling from the other side is sometimes very difficult to take, and some of us are a little milder than the others over there. Some of us don't have such thick skins that we can take the unfair criticism and all the heckling.

We really want to talk about the bill. I've got pages of notes here that I hope I can get through in the time allotted, but I'm trying to convey a little bit of the feeling that I have as a new member of this Legislature when some of the members on my side use the word "contempt." I don't think it's too strong a word. It's not one that I would have picked, but I think there's a disregard for the parliamentary process. That's what I have trouble defending to people at home in the Cariboo, because they are concerned that there be some stability in government so that they know that business is being taken care of. When they see us in the second session debating interim supply, when they feel that there could have been a budget before the end of the fiscal year, they don't understand it. There are no words we can use to make a lot of people understand that we try. One of the reasons I'm addressing this issue is that I feel that people have to understand why we're in this situation. It's because of political instability, which has resulted in some financial instability.

What this has done to the people in the Cariboo is that they feel a little uncertain that we're going to be ready to go ahead and tender, according to good business practices, on time some of the construction projects that we need for our secondary roads. Breakup's over, it's time to go back to work, and we're two months into the new fiscal year without a budget. It seems to me that what is needed in areas such as fisheries management, for example, is good planning and a budget in place to manage the resources so that the people who depend on those resources can carry on with their business. They do their planning and

[ Page 12334 ]

have budgets in place, and they don't understand why government can't do the same thing.

When I say that some of what's going on down here is indefensible, it's really important that we as opposition say that we have an obligation to use what time is available to us to try and debate what's going on here. We look forward to line-by-line debate in committee, where we can get into a lot of the specifics. But the principle here — that we should be dealing with over $5 billion and you want approval in one day — is simply an indefensible situation.

Businesses, municipalities, local governments and school districts all have to bring in budgets on time, and I'm finding that there are people in the local governments, school boards and regional districts who do not understand why the provincial government doesn't have to do what they are supposed to do. There is a set date for them to bring in a budget. They have to submit a budget and pass it by a certain time so that they can put the bills out to the taxpayers so they know what's going on. I think there's a double standard going on here.

There's a desperate attempt to avoid lengthy debate on the spending of the government. We see this in the context of serious criticisms by the auditor-general. We see some suggestions that money is leaking out of the resource-based economy, and we're not getting down to serious debate about that. So our responsibility is to insist before the people that we have taken time to register this point with the government and remind them that this may be their last chance to treat the people of British Columbia with the contempt that they're showing right now.

The idea that we would govern by special warrants seems to me to violate a principle of parliament. Special warrants are here for times when there is some urgency and no other opportunity. We maintain that special warrants and interim supply could have been dealt with much earlier than this, and failure to do so is just an admission that the government is clearly out of touch with its own mechanisms, making it unable to generate a budget or interim supply on time.

It seems to me that perhaps the intention of the government is to try to avoid serious and lengthy debate which will focus on the $1.2 billion deficit, which some members of the government admit to being there and others don't admit. But when I speak to the people of the Cariboo, they ask in simple terms: "What is the difference between the amount of money the government's taking in and the amount of money the government's spending?" The answer is not $395 million but $1.2 billion. When I tell them that, they say: "What are they doing?" I say: "Perhaps you should register your protests with the next minister you see coming down the road."

What the people in the Cariboo and everywhere in British Columbia want — whether they're in business or whether they're just a voter — is some consistency, some financial credibility, some predictability....

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: They do, yes. The Finance minister says that we're well enough taken care of that we can really afford to set up a second household down here and be here at their beck and call.

As I said, I'm careful in my own financial planning. I wouldn't want to invest in anything that wasn't going to pay off. I want to know how permanently I'm going to be here. I'm hoping that I'm going to be here quite a while.

Interjection.

MR. ZIRNHELT: That's right. The Minister of Finance is guaranteeing that I'm going to be back in the Legislature after the next election. But I wish they would give me peace of mind and just call the election so we can settle it once and for all.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke talked a bit about agricultural employment. I guess if he has the latitude to speak about that, then I can. I'm glad to see that it's increasing....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Since the member raises the question, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke concluded his remarks by saying that he was pleased to be able to speak to the motion. I think perhaps he was mistaken and felt that the budget hadn't passed, because he was speaking to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply. The rest of his remarks were completely out of order, but no one raised the matter. However, since you raised the matter, I'm going to caution you: you can stay in order.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Speaker, being a junior member of the House, I realize I'm occasionally out of line. But I still like to get up and speak my mind, because the people at home will know what I'm talking about.

Interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT: The members opposite want to talk about my family business and the hard work that people are doing at home just to keep some security for me — because there's such chaos around here that we're not sure that we're even going to have an election.

Anyway, I've pretty well summarized my comments. I know the members opposite are glad that I'm going to end. They'd really like to hear more of how those of us in the Cariboo view the budget, but with those words that I've already chosen, I think they've got a pretty good idea.

In order to leave on a positive note, I'd like to repeat what I just said. We want some consistency. We want to get rid of the chaos. We want some financial credibility and predictability. We are prepared to give that to the people of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but when I see the member across the way, the member for Cariboo, speaking about this bill the way he just did in this Legislature,

[ Page 12335 ]

I'm incensed and I've got to get up and speak in favour of passing this thing.

I heard the member say: "What does this supply bill mean?" Mr. Member, had you read the bill — and it's in the bill book just at your feet — you would have found exactly what this bill means. It means the continuation of all of the programs as you see in the schedule. My question to the member opposite is: which one of these programs does he not want to see continue? Does he not want to see the highways construction and highways maintenance, which can only be done from this time of year until freeze-up, which isn't very far away in his own constituency...? Does he want to see that kind of opportunity go by, so that we miss it in the north?

I am very surprised at that northern member. He says he's listening to his constituents. Well, his constituents — they're really not very far away from mine — must be an awful lot different than mine, because they're not worried about what's going on down here at all. In fact, if you asked 99.9 percent of them, they couldn't even tell you whether the Legislature was in session or not. They're hard-working people who are worried about making a living for their families, about doing things for their families, about making sure that projects happen at the time of year that they should. That's the sort of thing my constituents are worried about. They leave it to this government — and have done so for many years — to make sure that the budget is right.

The member talked about blank cheques. I can tell that you my constituents are sure, as they have been for many years, that if this government writes a cheque on its account, it's covered. We don't have to go out and borrow that money, as they do in other jurisdictions. I won't talk about which other jurisdictions.

MR. MICHAEL: Where? Tell us, Jack.

MR. KEMPF: Well, Mr. Member, if you ask — in other jurisdictions they have to go out and borrow as much as $9.7 billion this year to cover the blank cheques. Mr. Speaker, that's why I stood up and got into this debate.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I heard the member say he was concerned about buying a bed here in Victoria. If he was really listening to his constituents, and if they were telling him what he wanted to know and hear, he'd go out and buy a bed right now. Is he worried about his future in this chamber? Is that what the member is worried about when he gives speeches in this House?

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, I really doubt the veracity of that member. I really don't think he's from the north. And if he is from the north, he hasn't been listening to his northern constituents. My constituents are quite content with the budget brought in by this government. They are quite content to leave the business of this province to this government, where it has been very well taken care of since 1951. We had a little blip....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go! Go!

MR. KEMPF: Yes, we'll go, and when we do they're going to get a surprise. They salivate at the thought of power. That's all you see coming from the members opposite: their wish to gain power. Some of the older members over there know that's not going to happen, so they're even getting off that roller-coaster. They're getting out because they know it hasn't happened in the last four elections, and it won't happen in the next one in this province. We saw one of the oldest members of this House get out not two weeks ago. We're seeing the House Leader on the other side getting off the roller coaster. They know why. They know they're not going to be government in the province, because the people aren't going to allow it. They want money in that account for these blank cheques to be covered — blank cheques, indeed, Mr. Member.

You can take this schedule and ask those members over there: "If you don't like this bill and if you don't want all these projects going ahead, why have you agreed to pass it tomorrow at 1 o'clock? When 1 o'clock comes tomorrow, let's see you stand up and say: "No, we don't want to pass this bill." They're playing games with the people, as they've done for decades. Decade upon decade they've tried to fool the people of British Columbia. They're games-playing in this chamber.

The questions are: which of these projects don't you wish to go ahead, and who don't you want to see paid? I see some of the big issues here, the big-ticket items. One of the biggest ticket items is for Social Services and Housing. If you really disagree with this bill, stand up tomorrow at 1 o'clock and say: "No, I don't want it passed, because I don't want the money to be available for Social Services and Housing in British Columbia." Have the intestinal fortitude to tell the people the way it really is on that side of the floor. We've heard nothing from you in the last four and a half years; we've just heard about all the wrong things coming from this side of floor.

The member for Vancouver East applauds. But what are you going to do? When are you going to come clean with the people of British Columbia and stand up and say what you're going to do should, heaven forbid, they ever give you the right to govern in this province? Tell them. We've heard nothing. We've heard nothing from your leader; he's ducked the issue. He's allowed all the scandals to go on and has hidden behind them so that he didn't have to tell the people what that bunch over there would do should they ever become government.

We see what happens with people of like philosophies when they get in power in other jurisdictions. But what are these people going to do? Are they going to provide more with less? We don't know. Come clean with the people of British Columbia and with us in this chamber and tell us now which of these programs you don't want to go ahead. What don't you want in the schedule?

I talked about big-ticket items. I could go on and on. For example, don't they want money to go into the Ministry of Solicitor-General? Don't they want money

[ Page 12336 ]

to go into the Ministry of Attorney-General, with the problem we have with lawbreakers in this province? We saw what the statistics were recently. Is that where they don't want money to go? They've got to come clean with the people of this province. They stand up in their pious way and by speaking against this bill, stop those projects from going ahead. If they're really serious about what they say in this chamber, let them stand up and be counted at 1 o'clock tomorrow. Either stand up and be counted or really say to the people of British Columbia: "We're going to stop everything: the business of government, road construction and things like Music '91." That's a prime example of what's coming from the other side of the floor.

I heard a question in question period that spoke against Music '91, yet the questioner said: "I agree. We agree." How can you have it both ways? The NDP thinks they can have it both ways, but I'll tell you that the people who are going to have the last say are the people of British Columbia at the ballot box.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave at this hour to make an introduction, and then I'll get into my speech.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: It's not too often that I have so many visitors from the great constituency of Cariboo, but I'm very pleased that we have 46 grades 5, 6 and 7 students in the gallery. Accompanying them are their teachers Mrs. Joan Anderson and Mrs. Shelly Peel of the Mountview School; that's on Dog Creek Road right near Williams Lake. Accompanying them are Dave Jackson, Julie Mead, Judy Judd, Jane Folka, Jim Harrop, Heather Nilson, Shirley Spreng, Rilla Warwick, Sherry Broomfield and their driver Ron Anderson. I'm sure that the second member for Cariboo and the whole House would like to give them a warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker, now that I have the floor, I can't help but add to this debate about Bill....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, but it's the custom in this House to follow in rotation. The next speaker will be from the opposite side.

MS. CULL: I'm really sorry that the member for Omineca has left the House, because I wanted to congratulate him on his wonderful rehearsal for being in opposition. That was just a terrific opposition speech he gave. He talked about the bill and said that he wanted to know what programs we weren't in favour of funding, why we were talking about this and what we did not approve of in this bill.

He's absolutely missing the point, Mr. Speaker. He's missing the point that the people in this province have learned from bitter experience that this government isn't spending their money on the programs that they think are a priority. In fact, they don't even know where their money is being spent, because this government failed to bring a budget before the Legislature until 24 hours before they run out of money.

The member for Omineca can shout, wave his arms and rant and rave, but he can't hide this government's fiscal mismanagement and their flouting of parliamentary tradition. He asked: "When is the opposition going to have the intestinal fortitude to tell it like it is?" Mr. Speaker, when is this Finance minister going to have the intestinal fortitude to tell it like it is? Tell us about the $1.2 billion deficit and quit trying to hide things with the BS fund and other things and manipulating with the bottom line.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have talked about this interim supply bill and have brought out the fact that it's yet another example of Social Credit fiscal mismanagement, that the fiscal management policies of the government are in total disarray and in fact this party is in total disarray It is incompetent to be unable to bring in a budget almost two months after the end of a fiscal year.

As my colleague the second member for Vancouver East said, 50 years of governments have been able to bring in a budget on time before the end of the fiscal year with one exception — a good exception — when an election was called. This administration can't even find its calendar to bring in the budget before the end of March. You don't have to be a financial wizard. All you have to do is look at your calendar and realize that every year the fiscal year ends on March 31 — every year with regularity. It's no surprise. We can plan ahead for this. The civil service certainly plans for it. They start doing their budgeting in August and bring everything forward. Why can't the government get its act together to bring it before this House before the end of the fiscal year?

It's truly incompetent to underestimate day care expenditures by 100 percent. That's what this bill tells us. It's truly incompetent to have underspent in key ministries that desperately needed money last year. Education left $40 million unspent; Advanced Education left $27 million. Advanced Education is a ministry of great interest to people in my riding. We have students turned away from the University of Victoria every year. We had 400 students turned away from Camosun College last year because they do not have the budget to provide the spaces for all the students who come to their door. And this government left $27 million unspent in advanced education.

The people in Oak Bay–Gordon Head don't understand why a government cannot run its business the way any competent business person would do. Municipalities do it. School boards do it, and the businesses in my community do it. They provide a budget every year. They follow it and spend their money. They collect their revenues, and they can plan ahead on a five-year cycle — if that's what makes sense to them — without having to create imaginary and unlikely surpluses in future years just to balance it. They don't have to have a fund that has no money in it to manipulate the bottom line to show that their budget's balanced.

The people in my community just don't understand how a government can run its budget this way. But it's more than just financial incompetence that's at issue here. It's the way this government manages its finances

[ Page 12337 ]

in contempt of the traditions of parliamentary democracy. This bill seeks retroactive approval for a $232 million special warrant to cover the cost overruns from last year's budget and a $2.9 billion special warrant to cover just the last two months of this year. The Financial Administration Act provides for special warrants where they are urgently needed in circumstances that cannot be foreseen. How can these expenditures not have been foreseen? We all have calendars. We all saw March 31 coming up. One of the past Ministers of Finance — it's hard to remember which one it was, but it was either number two or three or four ago — said in March to this Legislature that he had the budget almost complete and an interim supply bill in his pocket. That was in March, when we were sitting here. In fact, we were here in March and no budget was brought in. No interim supply bill was brought in. Just four weeks before we were convened there was something that was unforeseen and urgent, and special warrants were brought in. We were here for less than two weeks, and nine days after we adjourned — again unforeseen and urgent — $2.9 billion of special warrants are signed away.

What was the urgency? What was unforeseen? What could not have been dealt with when we sat here in this House in March? What was unforeseen was the mess, the disarray, the chaos in which this government was going to find itself in March. They came into the House in March and after two short weeks were in such chaos and disarray that they couldn't stand the heat in here any longer, and they pulled the plug and got out. They did not want to submit their spending and revenue plans to the scrutiny of this parliament.

[4:15]

They've been in power over there for so long that they don't think they have to come before the Legislature to discuss how they raise money and how they spend money. They have so little respect for our parliamentary traditions. That is one of the most fundamental principles: that the government come into the House and justify its taxing decisions and its spending decisions.

Almost five years ago, when this administration came into power, they talked about a new openness in government. They promised an openness to the people of British Columbia. They said they would consult with people and be open about their spending plans and their priorities. What we've had is secrecy. They have deliberately tried to hide from the people of British Columbia by staying out of the Legislature for most of the time and doing the majority of their spending with special warrants and not bringing a budget into the Legislature until almost two months after the end of the fiscal year.

And why? Why do we find ourselves in this situation right now? Since 1986 this government has lurched from crisis to crisis until they've now almost reached the point of paralysis. They are unable to govern. They have no vision; they can't even stick to a plan unless it's a plan to avoid the Legislature.

Interjection.

MS. CULL: They don't have a plan, says my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. That's true, but even when they do have a plan, you can't depend on them to stick to it from one month to the next. When we were in here in March for that all-too-brief session, the centrepiece of government legislation was the taxpayer protection plan, which was designed to freeze the tax rate so that the people of this province would know that their government would not raise their taxes. Now we are back in here less than two months later with a budget. What does it do? It raises taxes. One month taxes are frozen; the next month they're not frozen. How can the people trust a government that can't even stick to a plan for more than two months?

So what do they want us to do? They want us to approve $5 billion in five hours without the benefit of the full debate that we go through traditionally in estimates. They're saying, "Trust us, " even though they can't be trusted to bring in a budget on time, even though they can't come clean and admit to the people of British Columbia that their deficit is $1.2 billion, even though they change their minds from one month to the next, and even though after five years of the most callous and cynical government we've had, the Minister of Finance stands up here a week ago and shamelessly tells us that his government has discovered caring and compassion and people first in this province — after five years of cutting services to people, of privatizing and contracting out, and of chopping the things that people in this province care for and depend on most.

That's the problem: it comes down to a matter of trust. This government has so flouted the traditions of parliament that people in the province find it very difficult to trust them anymore. It has been caught so many times misrepresenting what's really going on, whether it's the Knight Street Pub, the cost of the Coquihalla Highway, the Expo land sales, the real benefits of privatization.... In every one of these cases and many others, the members on the other side of the House have deliberately tried to hide the facts about what is really going on. It has come out in the auditor-general's report year after year.

Quite simply, the people in this province have a very difficult time trusting this government when it says: "Trust us. Give us $5 billion in five hours of debate. Trust us; we'll look after you and have your spending priorities right."

What will we get with this bill? Members on the other side keep asking us what we are not in favour of and what do we not support? But it's the other agenda that I'm concerned about with this bill. After this bill's passed, are we going to get the opportunity to start into the estimates debate? Will we get the opportunity to start asking questions about things like funding cutbacks to Camosun College? Will we get an opportunity to discuss the money that's going into the Georgia Basin initiative? Will we find out exactly how these kinds of things are going to be spent?

I don't know, because what the government on the other side and what the Minister of Labour is saying is: "Trust us." This is a government that the people of British Columbia no longer trust. You have to earn

[ Page 12338 ]

trust, and this government has not earned the trust of the people in this province. That's why we're debating this bill. We may not have another chance to debate the estimates. This government's past record deserves and demands a full and lengthy debate on its spending plans.

The Social Credit government has become erratic and confused. The inability to bring in the budget on time is the most telling sign of a government that's in fatigue, chaos and disarray. The government has lost the moral authority to govern, but it seems desperately determined to carry on. For that reason, we are going to hold them accountable and we are going to continue this debate.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take my place and support this interim supply bill which is very necessary to have the approval of this Legislature on funding for some very worthwhile programs.

I was very surprised to hear the second member for Cariboo talk about being concerned about buying a bed in Victoria. I can't help but recall during that short sitting we had in March, when we were only here for two weeks, that he wasn't here 35 percent of the time. I'm sure he could just rent a bed here in Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. VANT: I certainly live in my constituency.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, pardon my interfering with your speech, but the Premier seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I know the member for Cariboo will want to join me in welcoming grade 4, 5, 6 and 7 students visiting us this afternoon from Mountview School in Williams Lake. They are accompanied by a school board trustee, Mrs. Rilla Warwick. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. VANT: It is indeed a special day to not only have their own MLA introduce them but also the Premier of the province. It's quite an honour.

I'd like to say, too, that part of Bill 8 is very worthwhile expenditure for such programs as forestry. Who on earth in this chamber could possibly be against our community forest program, which ensures that farming of forests can continue. I do know, too, that the second member for Cariboo would want funding so that we have silviculture done in every part of the Cariboo. I'm sure in the fact that he has a woodlot licence that he'd want to see good forest practices in the Cariboo. Indeed, I notice funding in Bill 8 for the very important Ministry of Lands and Parks. This is very important to the people in the Cariboo. Many in our ranching community depend on that ministry to administer the very successful program of leasing Crown land for agricultural purposes.

Indeed, it is somewhat disconcerting to some of my constituents that recently the Leader of the Opposition named the second member for Cariboo the critic for Crown lands. They are getting nervous about that because it appears that both the former mayor of Vancouver and Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Cariboo were, for example, very reluctant to have an ag lease issued to Evergreen Ranch in the Quesnel area. If there was ever a perfect ag-lease situation in the Cariboo, that was it. It was 80 percent arable land. It was confirmed and reconfirmed, yet instead of just a very short, inexpensive phone call to me to clarify the details of that particular ag-lease application, what did the Leader of the Opposition and the second member for Cariboo do? They went yelling and screaming to the ombudsman. Of course, this Bill 8, this interim supply bill, provides funds for....

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There's latitude and there's latitude, but I don't know what an agricultural lease has to do with the supply bill. Perhaps you might remind the member that we're on Bill 8.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The speaker is absolutely right — there has been latitude. As a matter of fact, there has been so much latitude that I don't think one of the speeches has been in order.

HON. J. JANSEN: My response, Mr. Speaker, was that I recall the member for Cariboo speaking about his bed. He was complaining about a bed during Bill 8 debate. I'm surprised that the NDP would raise this question of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are no points of order being made in this chamber that I've heard.

MR. VANT: I see I've got the socialist corner a little stirred up this afternoon. But speaking about Bill 8 and the excellent Ministry of Lands and Parks programs.... One of them, as I was saying, was the leasing of Crown land for agricultural purposes. This enables our ranchers to increase their land base so that they can have more viable operations. Indeed, the experts tell me that to have a viable ranch in the Cariboo, you should have at least 200 head to support one family In some areas of the Cariboo you need a land base of about a thousand acres in order to achieve that.

I find it ironic that the second member for Cariboo and the Leader of the Opposition went out of their way to oppose this excellent ag lease to the Evergreen Ranch. The facts that were shown by the ombudsman's report confirmed that the arability of the Evergreen Ranch ag lease was higher than that of the Zirnhelt ranch ag lease.

On Bill 8, this funding for Crown lands is very important.

There is also funding in this Bill 8, the interim supply bill, for education. It's quite a contrast, when you compare our budget in British Columbia to the budget in Ontario. A much higher percentage of the budget in British Columbia is dedicated to education than it is in Ontario. So it makes me wonder just what

[ Page 12339 ]

the members opposite would do in terms of priorities if they ever did get into power.

From their statements, it's very hard to figure out what their priorities would be. The Leader of the Opposition was quoted as saying: "I've made it very clear that our goal is a balanced budget." He said that last April. Within 15 days the opposition Finance critic said: "The NDP would not attempt to balance the budget every year. Deficit financing would likely be necessary." Again we see a flip-flop. The leader says that yes, their goal would be to have a balanced budget. The Finance critic, the would-be Minister of Finance, says that there would be a deficit.

AN HON. MEMBER: But what did Mr. Krog say?

MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Krog, one of their candidates said: "Oh yes, if we get elected, income taxes for sure will go up." the Leader of the Opposition said in Kamloops that they would spend $3 billion more on programs than the current government. How on earth would they come up with the money? Perhaps they would implement a payroll tax and tax lower and middle income workers to finance this expenditure of money. Wherever the NDP has had power in Canada, they've instituted this payroll tax. In the province of Manitoba, they were even taxing hamburgers at McDonald's.

In Bill 8 we have provided funds for some very worthwhile programs, and of course, it's all in the context of the overall budget. We want to have money for education, we want to have money for social services, we want to have money for health care, and so I strongly support this Bill 8, this interim supply bill.

[4:30]

MR. SIHOTA: It's very tough to follow that kind of scintillating presentation from the member for Cariboo. I note he's not running again, and that may well be his last speech. He's running away from here, but it may be his last speech in the Legislature and will go down in the history books as one of the memorable events in this House.

I see the Minister of Finance is ducking out of the House. I guess he can't stand the heat either, and it's unfortunate, because he really should be here to hear a number of comments I want to make.

You've got to ask yourself: why are we debating interim supply today? Here it is May 30, and all of a sudden this government, which has lurched from scandal to scandal and crisis to crisis, finds itself facing another crisis. It runs out of money tomorrow. Now these are people who say that they have some monopoly on being able to manage our province's financial resources, and that only they can look after the province, and only they can look after the taxpayers' interests and make sure that dollars are wisely spent. But here we sit, and in about 29 hours this government will be bankrupt. It will have run out of money.

MR. MILLER: We know they're bankrupt in ideas.

MR. SIHOTA: They're bankrupt in ideas; they're bankrupt in morals. Now they're going to be financially bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker, they need this legislation in order to continue to provide financial sustenance for the operations of government. This government has known — and you don't have to be a political scientist to know — that the financial year ends on March 31 every year. That is something basic to the political process. Everybody knows that the financial year ends on March 31. Therefore everybody knows that the government has to have its financial house in order and must be able to present a budget to the people of this province, through this chamber, prior to March 31 each year.

My colleague from Vancouver East and subsequent speakers have pointed out over and over again that governments in British Columbia have regularly, for the last 50 years since the Second World War — with one exception, when there was an election — been able to produce budgets on time. We find ourselves in a situation here where this government, for reasons that I'll get into in a minute, was unable to produce a budget for March 31, 1991. In fact, it wasn't until May 21 or 22 that the government actually introduced a budget — a week ago this Tuesday. It just realizes now that it's going to run out of money, so it needs interim supply to see its way through the next few months.

This is a government that says that it can plan, but surely it can't. This government says it knows something about financial management; clearly this experience shows otherwise. Other experiences show to a greater extent, and I'll talk about those experiences in a minute.

Why was it that this government introduced its budget on May 22 as opposed to some time in March, as it has done since I've been in this Legislature since 1986? Quite frankly, the reason is that this government finds itself in utter and total political chaos. It is an administration without even a hint of a political agenda, a government that has lost not just its moral compass but the moral authority to govern. It is a government that has run out of ideas, that has run out of steam, that in the past few months has not produced one visionary idea in terms of the kinds of changes we need in British Columbia to deal with the problems that face the province today.

HON. S. HAGEN: Did you get that from a government source?

MR. SIHOTA: No, I can see with my own eyes. The people of this province can understand clearly that this administration has run out of ideas.

The reason we find ourselves in this situation is that the government never expected to find itself in this situation, when you think about it. The government made a decision last January, when the first member for Richmond was still the Premier, that it wanted to go to the polls in February or March. They came up with a plan to present a gimmick to the people of British Columbia. Before every provincial election, Social Credit tries to come up with a gimmick to bring

[ Page 12340 ]

people back into the fold and win the election campaign.

BCRIC was a gimmick in 1979, I believe, in the election campaign. It was a financial fiasco, but the member says: "Yes, that's right. It worked in terms of the political objective." But in terms of the financial fiasco, it was no more than just a gimmick to get people onside, to drive up the numbers prior to a provincial election and to hold on to them during an election campaign.

In 1986 Bill Vander Zalm was a gimmick, and now they've changed leaders and all of a sudden everything has changed. In January the gimmick that this government was hoping to come up with to salvage its political fortunes was a "taxpayer protection plan." The hope over there among you people in cabinet was that somehow people would be fooled by that kind of program and that you could call an election in February or March. So why bother to worry about a budget?

The public didn't buy it, and I'll tell you why they didn't buy it. They didn't buy it last January, when the Premier went on TV to do his whole thing to promote that program, because they saw this government for what it is: a desperate government that will say anything and do anything to win favour with the voters. It's not working.

You came into the House in March thinking that you would just rev through the Taxpayer Protection Act and a couple of other pieces of legislation to do with a referendum — maybe something on property rights — and we'd be out of here: "We'll be on the hustings in March." It didn't work, did it? Why didn't it work? It didn't work for the simple reason that at the helm was an individual — the former Premier — who was involved in one of the most incredible scandals involving conflict of interest that this province or this country has ever seen. People can't stomach any more after four and a half years of Knight Street Pubs, David Poole escapades and tampering with the administration of justice by Attorneys-General. Now we have a conflict....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is second reading of a supply bill. It's the Ministry of Finance and has nothing to do with the issues that the member is attempting to bring to this debate. The member is clearly out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I draw the member's attention to the fact that we're dealing with the principle of Bill 8.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I can fully understand why those members over there don't want to be reminded of the scandal, and I can fully understand why they feel the sting of those comments. But I'm explaining why we're dealing with this legislation here today.

So in March, all of a sudden they found that they had a liability with their current leader. I know that the member for Prince George South, who objected a minute ago....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact, I'll do it again. The act before us is a supply act from the Ministry of Finance. It doesn't deal with the behaviour of any member of this House. But if the member wants to do that, we can certainly get into that type of debate with no problem at all. The bill is a supply bill, and I think the Legislative Assembly would be well served if the member would direct his remarks to that bill. If he doesn't have the capacity to understand the bill, then maybe he should take his place and let another member debate the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point in question is Bill 8, and we're dealing with the principles of the bill — I would just remind the hon. member. Please continue.

MR. SIHOTA: As I was about to say, I only wish the member for Prince George South had been here to listen to his colleague from the Cariboo talk about agricultural leases a few minutes ago. I hasten to say that I don't understand quite how that fell within the parameters of this bill.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That was done, Mr. Member. I would suggest that you do as well when he does it again.

So now we have a situation where the government has to come before this House and ask for $5.6 billion in approvals for expenditures, without time to scrutinize, without time to analyze, without time to study. They just want blanket authority to go out and spend $5.6 billion in taxpayers' dollars. They don't even have a sense of concern over the fact that they're asking for that remarkable amount of money to fund their operations.

We intend to take advantage — and will continue to — of every opportunity to ask questions about that $5.6 billion in expenditures. The ministers have to account for what's going on in their ministries. We have asked — and we will ask — questions during the course of this debate about the government debt, the government deficit. We have, in this instance, documents which tend to confirm the position we've taken all the way through: there's a $1.2 billion deficit in British Columbia. It's not $395 million, as the Minister of Finance would say, but $1.2 billion, as the Premier would say — as she has said on television, but not to the face of her Minister of Finance here.

As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, these people somehow think that they have some tremendous financial skills that no one else can possess, which is why they should just be blindly secure that there is approval.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Labour says: "Yes, you're right. We do." Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Labour hasn't studied the financial history of this province. Let me just give him a very quick lesson. If he were to take all of the governments elected in this province from the time of Confederation in 1871 to

[ Page 12341 ]

1975, when the NDP left office, and to add up all of the debt accumulated by all of those governments over 104 years, the total accumulated debt would be $4 billion. Since Social Credit took power in 1975, in the 15-year period between 1975 and 1990, that accumulated debt has increased to $16 billion.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

In 15 years you've managed to quadruple the accumulated debt of this province, in comparison to all of the governments from 1871 to 1975. No other government has managed to quadruple its debt....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You ask: "How do we compare?" I'm telling you how you compare: $16 billion.

[4:45]

Let's face the facts. No other government has had that type of horrendous track record with respect to finances.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period is held at the beginning of each afternoon, to be used then. We are now in debate on Bill 8, interim supply.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, that member should be worried about Harry Lali. I was talking to Harry yesterday. He's out knocking on doors today — I think in Lillooet.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! All comments should be directed to the Speaker and not to each member directly.

MR. SIHOTA: That's true, the member is right. I gave him some advice when I was up in Merritt, that if he doesn't run scared he will....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member! Direct your comments to the Speaker and not directly to each member, and then we'll have orderly debate.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker I was directing that comment through you to the member opposite.

In any event, let's go back to the history lesson. I know they like to heckle when they hear this, but the fact of the matter is that between 1975 and 1990 — and it's in the financial documents appended to the budget last year; I haven't had a chance to go through the documents this year — the deficit of this province had accumulated to around $16 billion.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member didn't hear me. I said it was in last year's documents. I'm sure this year it has gone up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 billion, from the numbers that I hear. The members who have read it tell me it's very close to $20 billion. So there you go. In the 16-year period between 1975 and 1991, they've increased it five fold to $20 billion. This government has overexpended its expenditures by $1 billion a year in one of the richest provinces in Canada. We now have accumulated debt of $20 billion in this province. If you want to go on the election trail and run on that kind of financial mismanagement, be my guest. In fact call it today. I'll be quite happy to go out there and talk about that kind of record.

Just over the last four or five years we've seen example after example of financial mismanagement, which has led us to the predicament we see reflected in the numbers that are attached to this interim supply bill. The special warrants attached to the interim supply bill indicate that this government overexpended its budget by $232 million for the 1990-1991 budget. Yet despite the evidence of that special warrant, which shows that the government obviously overexpended its budget by $232 million.... That's $1 million for every day that you go to work. This government was spending $232 million more than it was taking in, which is now being required in special warrants to fund those over expenditures.

Yet the previous Minister of Finance — and I think all members know that with this administration we've had something like four Ministers of Finance in a period of five weeks; it's a revolving door with this ministry....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says his jobs aren't frozen. Well, he's right, but I think we'll need one more revolution of that door during the election campaign to get rid of all of you.

We've had four Finance ministers. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon, who was the Minister of Finance two ministers ago — about two months ago — indicated at that time that he would produce a balanced budget. It is clear now that he must have known all along that we were $232 million in an overrun situation. Yet this government had the gall — because it had a political agenda — to come out and try to suggest that the administration could produce a balanced budget. It could not and it did not. It ran up a deficit that is in harmony with its historical practice of a billion dollars a year. That's what you've been running up every year from 1975 to the current date — a terrible record, compounded by bad business decisions and overruns.

Let's not forget the overruns on the Coquihalla Highway. This government somehow likes to further the myth that it can manage the taxpayers' resources well. They built a highway. They said they would build it for $500 million; it came in at $1 billion.

It's bad enough to be over budget, but it's another thing to lie about the extent of that overrun. I choose my words very carefully, because ultimately there was a commission of inquiry which took a look at the government's handling of that construction project. It showed that the government, through the then Pre-

[ Page 12342 ]

mier, the member for Richmond, in September 1986 when he also was Minister of Finance, tabled before the Legislature the financial review of the province. The documents that he filed and put his signature to indicated that the project was $11 million under budget. The member for Saanich and the Islands, when as Minister of Finance he presented the public accounts in March 1987, indicated that the Coquihalla Highway project had come in on budget and on time. He put his signature to that document. All of a sudden it came to our attention in July 1987, in this Legislature, that there was something untoward about those documents. There was a commission of inquiry This government went to the commissioner of inquiry in September 1987 and presented documents showing that the overrun was $230 million. In fact, I think it was $233 million, which is interesting, because it's about the same number as the special warrant. But it wasn't. The commissioner of inquiry looked at the numbers and realized that it was $500 million over budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're fudging the figures.

MR. SIHOTA: The member from the Penticton area says it's $500 million.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says it's not unusual. We'll deal with that point.

Mr. Speaker, do you know something? That commissioner of inquiry said that the story of the Coquihalla Highway was a tale of "deceit, prevarication and lies." The member says there's nothing unusual about an overrun. That may be, but there is something highly offensive about a government that overruns its budget and then lies and seeks to cover up the extent of the overrun. That's what was wrong with the Coquihalla, Mr. Minister. You think about that. You think about what your administration did in that case.

When these people opposite say that they and only they have some ability to manage the finances of the province, it is not true. Another classic example, of course, are those lands that are akin to Manhattan, situated in the city of Vancouver — the Expo lands. Every group in the real estate industry in this province came to the government, which doesn't listen — that's been one of the hallmarks of this administration — and said: "Look, don't try to market it as one piece of land to everybody around the world. There are only so many people who have the cash to buy a huge chunk of land. If you subdivide it into smaller pieces of land, you're going to get more buyers and you're going to get more value out of that land. So do that or, alternatively, lease out the lands to any developer and let them put their buildings or their enterprise on it for a period of 50, 75 or 100 years. That way, when the term of the project has expired, at least the land reverts to the Crown, and as taxpayers we get money off the land in terms of annual lease payments and also maintain the land and get the natural increase in equity in the land."

Those were two very good proposals put forward by the real estate industry and, if I may say so, by the opposition in this House. Good ideas. Did the government listen? No. What did it do? It sold them to an offshore investor at some incredible deal. There were no payments for the first seven years, interest-only payments for the next five years, and then principal and interest in the final seven years of that agreement. Most people in British Columbia would love to buy a house on those terms. They gave it away to an investor on those terms. The selling price was about $140 million in today's dollars. And when you add up what we paid — about $60 million, plus another $60 million for the improvements we made, and then the cleanup costs, which are conservatively estimated at $100 million — it's $220 million.

Only Social Credit would take a piece of property like that, buy high and sell low. That's what they did. They sold a quarter of downtown Vancouver in the middle of a real estate boom at a loss. Brilliant! And they say for some reason that only they have the ability to manage the resources of this province. But the experience of the Coquihalla Highway, the Expo lands, northeast coal and others demonstrates that this government just does not possess the kinds of skills that it would like — in its own myth — to suggest to British Columbians that it has.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

When you are dealing with interim supply, the fundamental question that is before us is whether this government should be given a blank cheque to go out and spend $5.6 billion and secure an approval for that kind of money over a five-hour period. But when you've got that kind of track record of accumulating debt — like I say, you take a look at 104 years of government compared to the last 16 — and when you've got that example of giveaways like the Expo lands, when we have that kind of experience with "deceit, prevarication and lies, " to quote the words from the MacKay commission on the Coquihalla, then I think it's quite justified....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: You want to deal with that, Mr. Member. We can deal with that in some other.... It's quite justified to say that this administration and this government can no longer fool the people of British Columbia into thinking that they have a monopoly on being able to look after the tax dollars.

I venture to say that's why, in part, it finds itself in political trouble and why it finds itself now with its back against the wall in terms of timing for an election. Very few governments — none since the war — have gone the five full-year term. But this administration is going to. Why?

[5:00]

HON. MR. MESSMER: We're gamblers.

[ Page 12343 ]

MR. SIHOTA: You're not gamblers. You would have called an election a long time ago. Like the Premier said the other day, she'll call it when she thinks she can win. But time is running out. No one has waited this long. One of the reasons — in the context of this debate — why British Columbians never fell for the taxpayer protection plan gimmick, and why they never fell for the gimmick of this budget, is that they realize clearly over the experience of the last four and a half years that this government just does not possess the financial skills it says it has.

It's a fundamental failing of Social Credit. Before, you could always rally home the troops on the basis that you can manage the economy. But when you lie about the extent of your deficit — $1.2 billion; when you overspend on highways — the Coquihalla; when you give away land, you lose that credibility.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, second reading debate on a bill is the principle of the bill. There isn't very much scope for principle discussion in this bill. I've been listening to the debate, and we have been straying somewhat from the principle of the bill on both sides of the House. So perhaps for the rest of this afternoon we could try and keep it relatively in order.

MS. PULLINGER: As I rise to speak to this interim supply bill, I must say that the arrogance of this government and its members opposite never ceases to amaze me. We hear again and again, both inside this House and outside in our ridings, a whole lot of collective chest-beating about the ability of fiscal management and fiscal responsibility of this government. I guess, in a way, it's not surprising that they're beating that particular drum of fiscal responsibility and economic management and so on, because it's probably the only drum left that they even dare to beat.

This government is amazingly arrogant. They talk about fiscal and economic responsibility, yet they're coming and asking this Legislature to approve over $5 billion in five hours. That's a third of the annual budget. What's surprising is that today is May 30. They've waited until the very last minute to introduce it, in spite of the fact that this Legislature sat in March, a few weeks ago. There was no reason the government couldn't have had a budget at that time, as is customary. In fact, that would be late. As my colleague from Vancouver East pointed out, most governments for over 50 years have managed to bring in a budget in February, year after year — with one exception, which was an election year.

This government was late last year because it was in chaos, and it's late again this year because it's in chaos We had an opportunity in March when the House was sitting. Yet after it cut and ran and left the Legislature hastily.... I left for Vancouver Friday morning when the House was still sitting, and by the time I got back at noon they were out, because they were afraid of what was happening and were in such chaos. And here we are at the end of May, and now we've got five hours to debate $5 billion. That is hardly accountability. It's hardly responsible. I think the arrogance of the people opposite who are defending that and trying to say that there's something wrong with us, who are arguing and being somewhat incensed that they would do this, that they would flout the Legislature and insult the people this way, is contemptuous.

It's worth noting that the timing of this debate shows again this year that this government is unable to fulfil even so much as its most fundamental and basic responsibility, which is to put together an economic plan, to bring in a budget and to do so on time, to show the people of British Columbia what they want to do and how they plan to do it and what the financial situation of the government is.

I would offer that probably what's going to happen this year is that the government is going to ram this through at the last minute and then cut and run again. It's afraid to let this House and the people of British Columbia see precisely what it's doing with the finances of the people.

It seems to me fairly clear that the reason we've had interim supply at the last minute and a late budget — not just this year but last year as well — is that the government is in chaos and has run out of steam. This government has simply lost it. They've been corrupted by being in power too long — that's pretty obvious. They're obviously very determined to hang on until their last shred of respectability and integrity is gone. They've grown arrogant, as we see in the presentation of this bill. They're tired, they're stale, and it seems to me that they would do well to have a long time in opposition to sort themselves out.

The fact that we are debating this supply bill today with five hours before it's passed is an indication to me that this government is desperate. This supply bill is a measure of this government's desperation. Let's not forget that when the House sat in March, the Minister of Finance claimed that he had both a budget and a supply bill in his pocket ready to go. It was supposedly there. Why, then, did it take so long to get to it?

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: As my colleague from Surrey says, they were squabbling among themselves. They were infighting. They were trying to decide who ought to lead the party, and they finally appointed their leader from their own caucus. So we have a desperate government that at the eleventh hour is bringing in this supply bill for $5.6 billion.

Of course, one of the problems is that since March, when they claimed they had a budget and an interim supply bill ready, we've had at least two Ministers of Finance. Quite frankly, I've lost touch with this revolving-door cabinet. There were 47 members elected to the other side of the House four and a half years ago, and all but about five of them have been in the cabinet, so it's not surprising.

The government claimed, of course, that the budget would be balanced, and, as we know, the budget was not balanced — nor was it last year. In fact, this interim supply bill shows that not only was last year's budget not balanced, but it was overspent by some $200 million from what they predicted they would spend.

[ Page 12344 ]

So at the eleventh hour we have this interim supply bill being brought in. There's a clear indication, given the timing of this, that they're simply afraid of public scrutiny The government doesn't want to be accountable to the people of British Columbia. We have operated since March 31 on a special warrant, and as we all know special warrants are to be used in emergencies. They're to be used when the House is not sitting, in a situation where there's an unforeseen difficulty and there's no other option. We had the House sitting in March and there were lots of other options. We've operated for two months on a special warrant and now we're being asked to retroactively approve that money that the government spent. I simply don't think it's good enough.

I think it's worth noting that there are times when the use of special warrants is appropriate. An obvious example is with the election of a new government. But this government uses special warrants in a way that is simply not appropriate, in an attempt to hide the real state of B.C.'s finances from the people. That's not acceptable.

We see a government that is arrogant, that is flouting the procedures of this Legislature. It's afraid of accountability, and it can't carry out that most basic fundamental responsibility of putting together a financial plan and bringing it to the Legislature on time.

It's not surprising that they're afraid. After all, this is the third year in a row that we've seen a deficit. Last year's was greater than it appeared. The deficit this year is the largest in British Columbia's history: it's $1.2 billion. Worse than that, we've seen in this government's time in office a more than doubling of the direct debt to government. We've got $9 billion of direct debt to government. And these people tell us that they are the only ones who can manage the economy.

We've also seen the government, as we move into a recession, increase its spending by 12 percent two years ago, 12 percent last year and then 8 percent this year. Certainly one has to balance the budget and increase the spending to get the economy going when things are slow. But rather than that, what we've seen is 12 percent extra, but it's been for run-ups for three elections that have never happened. We continue to have these blitzes of spending around the province and a run-up to an election — it's very clear. Then the next thing you know is that the election's off. We've got yet another scandal.

MR. CLARK: It doesn't work.

MS. PULLINGER: It certainly doesn't work, and it's not going to work for Social Credit. It certainly doesn't work for the people of B.C.

It's worth noting that we see this incredible avoidance. The government does not want to have its books scrutinized. The Legislature sits, then they cut and run. Then it sits again, and they're going to cut and run again, get out before their books can be subject to real scrutiny.

The auditor-general has made it very clear. It has criticized the government's accounting. It's criticized the BS fund as being just that. It said the method of bookkeeping is inaccessible, that they should straighten it out, come clean and make it obvious what it is. Similarly, we saw Peat Marwick Thorne last year with a great amount of criticism saying that the BS fund was nothing. It didn't exist. There's no money in it, never has been. It's simply a sleight-of-hand bookkeeping trick to make it appear as if the books are balanced when in fact they're not. It's not surprising that this government is afraid to have this Legislature and the public scrutinize its books. It's simply afraid.

An issue I raised earlier today is a very clear example of how this government functions. It's been a very secretive government. It's operated behind closed doors. It's operated for friends and insiders. We've seen an excellent program such as Music '91, which I said today is a tremendous program. We have a wonderful cultural base in British Columbia. We can work at that and add it to our "super, natural" image. But this government has demonstrated again that what happens in this province is often in spite of the government, not because of it. We see $12 million allocated, not out of general revenue, not out of tourism for a tourism program, but out of the Lottery Fund, which lacks accountability, as the auditor-general continues to point out year after year. It's not only the Lottery Fund that is not accountable, it goes through the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. As the auditor-general pointed out this year and last year and in other years, the Crown corporations are not directly accountable to the people.

Now we hear that Music '91, which was $12 million of the taxpayers' money, has suddenly turned into $17 million of the taxpayers' money and perhaps $19 million, but the minister is not prepared to admit that. He simply skidded every way but truthfully in the question period.

We have a government that is simply out of touch with the priorities of the people of British Columbia. It's out of touch with what the people want. It's caught up in a political chaos of its own making. As I pointed out yesterday, this government is making history in a lot of ways. Scandals: there's been scandal after scandal, and those members on the other side stood by They supported the government, they supported the Premier, they supported all of the scandalous things that have happened — until they discovered they couldn't win. When they discovered they couldn't win an election, then suddenly they started jumping ship. But it was interesting to notice how fast they scurried back to the ship when the election was coming. In this province, you can't win a seat without being part of a political party in a party system. So they all ran back and continued to support the government.

MR. CLARK: They climbed back on board.

MS. PULLINGER: They climbed back on board. It's worth noting that those people who objected never objected to the scandals.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You were doing so well, and you slipped off again. Just as long as you stick to the principle. The coaching you're getting from

[ Page 12345 ]

the member for Vancouver East is not of very good quality in terms of parliamentary order.

[5:15]

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to follow what has happened before me in this Legislature all day. I will try to keep within the bounds of the debate as it's been. I appreciate that.

In any case, this government is caught up in a political chaos of its own making, and the consequence is that we don't have the books here, and we have not yet been able to see what this government's budget is all about. Instead, we're asked in five hours to pass a $5.6 billion interim supply bill.

I think it's worth noting that when the government bailed out of the last session in March, just after the ten days of chaos that we had, they broke their promise of a budget and supply. They said in March that they would bring forward a budget and an interim supply bill, and that unlike last year they would be on time this year. Unfortunately, because of chaos of their own making, they've had to get out. Their leader resigned in disgrace. The consequence is that the people's business has not been done. They're so busy with their infighting and their chaos, their ongoing Socred soap opera, that there's simply no one minding the store.

Instead of bringing forward a budget and interim supply as they ought to have done in March at the latest, they have hidden themselves in a bunker and spent billions of dollars by special warrant. They pretended there was an emergency You have to have an emergency to have a special warrant. They pretended there was an emergency that prevented the recall of the Legislature. Well, there was an emergency for Social Credit, but it was a party emergency: their leader was up to his neck in scandal and had to resign — an unhappy, historic day for British Columbia. The only emergency, then, was the discovery by the people of B.C. about the truth of the leader and the reality that these people opposite supported the leader and supported everything that went on in the last six months and previous to that.

What we have here is a government that's avoiding debate. This is a very clear attempt to ram a bill through without any kind of debate or scrutiny.

I want to respond to a comment made by a previous speaker on the government side, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, the most recent former Minister of Tourism. He noted that employment was going down in the forest industry and spoke as if it was a sunset industry. I think it's important to note that this side of the House doesn't believe that the forest industry is a sunset industry — not at all.

In fact, what we've seen is the government's incompetence and mismanagement — just the kind of thing that this government doesn't want exposed to the public just before an election. For instance, they cut the tie between access to our forests and local job creation. They don't want the people to know that in Washington they get three and a half jobs for every unit of wood for which we get one job up here in British Columbia. In Sweden they get two and a half for that same unit of wood. That's mismanagement.

The problem isn't with the people who work in the forest or with native people or with environmentalists. The problem is with a government that refuses to make the tough decisions, that refuses to prioritize things the way the people of British Columbia want them. The auditor-general made it very clear. He pointed out that the government doesn't even know what's going on in the forests; they don't have the staff. Through misguided cuts and decapitation of the public service they have now lost 40 percent of the public service in the Ministry of Forests — some 2,000 people. They don't have the staff to do the job. They're not monitoring logging or road building or forest practices. They simply don't know what's going on in the forest.

The auditor-general has made it very clear that they have undervalued the forest resources by $6 billion annually. And this is a government that likes to ride on its record of fiscal competence.

We find it distressing on this side of the floor to hear the government side talk about the forest industry as a sunset industry. The only way we'll have forestry as a sunset industry is if these people continue in office.

 It's also worth noting that the member for Omineca said he couldn't resist rising and speaking in this debate, although they've been ignoring the debate. They obviously expected just to ram it right through with one or two speakers from this side. Those people on the other side are not even prepared to defend what they're doing. They're not even listening — there are hardly any of them in the Legislature. That's how important they think it is.

In any case, the member for Omineca was defending this government's arrogance and arguing that the people of B.C. have trusted Social Credit and that they should just continue to trust them. He argued that the people of B.C. don't care what's happening in the Legislature and don't even know we're here. He's arguing, therefore, that it's okay for them to ram through a $5.6 billion bill two months late without any time to debate it properly.

I think the people of B.C. may have trusted Social Credit at one time, but I don't think they trust Social Credit any more — not with one-third of the year's budget, not after the Knight Street Pub, not after the Expo scandal, not after the Coquihalla scandal. How about interference with the justice system? This government will say anything and do anything to hang onto power.

The member for Omineca accused us of playing games by demanding that we debate this interim supply bill. He accused us of playing games by doing what this Legislature is here to do, which is to ensure that the people's business is done and done properly. He thinks that objecting to the government spending $5.6 billion with five hours' debate is not right; he doesn't think we should do that. He doesn't think we should object to the fact that the government wouldn't bring in a budget in March. They cut and run in March rather than bringing in a budget.

We, of course, object to the fact that they have waited until the last minute, and he doesn't think that's fair. This government has waited until the very last

[ Page 12346 ]

minute; they will run out of money on Friday at midnight. We can't properly debate this bill, because if we do, government workers don't get paycheques and people in the welfare system and the social service system will not get their cheques. In fact, what they're doing is holding the people of B.C. hostage in an attempt to ram this bill through. I don't think that's responsible government. I don't think that's fiscal or any other kind of competence. We're hearing a lot of silly rhetoric from the members opposite in an arrogant attempt to ram this bill through.

More than their fiscal incompetence and more than the arrogant flouting of the legislative procedures here, I think the way the government is handling this is an insult to the people of B.C. People expect the government to respect the rules, to bring forward the budget on time, to carry out the business of the people as it ought to be carried out. We see it in the $232 million special warrant in this budget, which is last year's overrun.

We all remember B.C. News and we remember the TV ads, the near-news, and all the other political spending that we've seen over the last two years. And we wonder why we've got the enormous overruns of $1.2 billion again this year. It's a huge deficit.

They say the government has had good programs. They have mismanaged them. We've seen programs that ought to be good — like the TRY program, for instance, that ended up to be mostly political advertising, creating more need without supplying the resources to deal with that need. The program that was announced recently to deal with violence against women was the same: an awful lot of advertising with the government's name and the minister's name everywhere. At the same time women's sexual assault centres have been cut for two years in a row by the amount of inflation. That's the kind of fiscal irresponsibility we've seen from this government.

There's been an enormous amount of money changing highway signs as we change Ministers of Transportation and Highways. How about stationery? How, about the signs on the ministers' doors? I would love to know what the budget has been for moving all the ministers' offices back and forth. Yet they are asking us to trust them. A revolving-door government is a tremendous expense — business cards, stationery. Yet they're asking the people of B.C. to trust them to spend a third of the year's budget without any debate, without any public scrutiny. I doubt that people are going to trust this government in that way, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that they are not going to hand this government $5 billion happily to spend as they please — a government that can't even bring in a budget on time and has no respect for the traditions of this Legislature.

I doubt that working people who have been kicked in the teeth twice by Bill 19 and more recently by Bill 82, that Draconian and unnecessary piece of legislation, are ready to trust this government with $5 billion without debate. I doubt that women, who this government has tried to impose their own moral views on, who have watched $500 million go for tours around the province and ended up with three medals and a logo contest, are going to trust this government with their money.

The tourism industry. What have we seen? Four, five, six changes in the ministry? It's hard to keep track of. They keep shuffling the Tourism ministry around from one shape to others: it's been with Provincial Secretary and is now with Development and Trade. We've seen the government try to impose its eight regions, which that look suspiciously like the weather map, on the nine tourism regions with no consultation, not a word. Those eight regions cost millions of dollars to the taxpayers. My colleague and I from Nanaimo questioned the Vancouver Island region minister of state for a long time and couldn't discover what his job was. I don't think he knew. There wasn't a job. It cost millions of the taxpayers' dollars. We never knew what their job was. We never saw any benefit to the people of B.C. All we saw was a Social Credit minister coming in and doing the job that the local MLA would do as a rule.

The people in the tourism industry aren't going to be happy about this government asking to have $5.6 billion without any debate or any accountability. They've suffered from resorts that are left standing in the middle of clearcuts, and the minister says clearcuts are good for the tourism industry.

We've seen fisheries close, and the minister inviting us to eat crab and shrimp that glow in the dark. Then this government loosens the pollution limits for pulp mills: that's its response to the problem. We see mountain peak-to-shoreline clearcuts. We see negative advertising in the United States. And this government thinks these people are going to trust them with $5.6 billion to do what they like with? I don't think so.

They're asking the people to trust a government who sold one of the best pieces of property in North America — a prime piece of urban land, the Expo lands — at a loss to the people of B.C. We're going to trust them with $5.6 billion?

How about trusting a government in which we've seen a former Minister of Tourism recycle his lottery funds to his friend and campaign manager? How about trusting a government in which the Premier has had to resign in the midst of an ugly scandal? How about asking people to trust a government that just yesterday, we see, continues to harass social assistance recipients?

I don't think people will trust a government who say that the problem of child poverty isn't really poverty. They say the fact is that their mothers don't love those children enough, and that's the problem, and the solution is that they should turn to Jesus Christ. That's the kind of government that we're being asked to trust with $5.6 billion.

How about our health care system? We have a health care system that's in chaos. We have lineups of 2,000 people and two-year waits. We have people with heart disease waiting for surgery, and what this government does is cut the preventive funding. They've cut drug and alcohol funding. They've cut funding that keeps handicapped children at home with their parents by a million dollars. It's bizarre.

We see a government that had a taxpayer protection plan six weeks ago that promised to freeze taxes even

[ Page 12347 ]

though we know that freezing the taxes meant freezing in the tax unfairness that has happened through this government — that $3,000 a year more that this government has dumped in the lap of the taxpayer in British Columbia.

Just a few weeks ago they say they are going to freeze taxes where they are, yet we just hear that they're going to raise taxes. Suddenly families have to pay $100 a month more for their medical insurance.

This government has just brought in the biggest deficit in the history of British Columbia, and claims that it's not $1.2 billion, as the Premier says at the same time the Finance minister is saying it's only $395 million, not $1.2 billion. We've got two people sitting two seats apart, giving different figures. You want us to trust you with $5.6 billion, without debate? I think that's a little arrogant of the government, to say the least, asking people to trust them with that.

[5:30]

The bill in front of us is $5 billion. A government that has shown in every way that it can't be trusted is saying: "Trust us. You've always trusted us." Sorry, Mr. Speaker; I don't think the people of B.C. trust this government any more.

We've got a government that has had ample opportunity to bring in a budget and to bring in an interim supply bill on time. It was late last year; this year it's even later. It's very clear to me that the government is getting ready to cut and run again. Two months ago the government was forced to bail out of the last session. They're getting ready to do it again, Mr. Speaker. They're desperate.

Interjection.

MS. PULLINGER: As my colleague says, they can run but they can't hide.

They're desperate. Once this bill is passed they are going to bail out of the session the same way they did in March. They're just going to get out rather than do the people's business, so the mismanagement of this government can't be scrutinized by the opposition and by the people of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, this is a government that has lost its direction. It has lost its credibility. It has run out of ideas. It hasn't one visionary idea. It has lost its right to govern, quite frankly This government has no intention of submitting its $1.2 billion deficit budget to the people for scrutiny, or to the full scrutiny of an estimates debate, and that's why we intend to hold them accountable now,

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today an interim supply bill that suggests that we allow the tap to be turned on so that we can fill three buckets. There are basically three parts to this. They're not all equal buckets, but they are different and they have a different character. The first one involves a $232 million special warrant for two votes that come out of last year's budget, the 1990-91 budget. After that we've got a $2.8 billion special warrant, which was passed. It dealt with the period of April 1 to approximately tomorrow, and it is there for us to turn the tap on for $2.8 billion. Then we have interim supply worth $2.6 billion, which will take us through to the end of July without having one dime's worth of debate about how the spending goes on. I'd like to talk about the buckets individually, because each has an individual character, a character that very clearly defines what we should be looking at.

The first bucket, Mr. Speaker, you could call the top-up bucket for the 1990-91 budget. Remember the 1990-91 budget? It was the one that was supposed to be balanced. It wasn't the first one that was supposed to be balanced, but it was one that was supposed to be balanced. It wasn't really balanced, but it was almost balanced, if you thought that you could borrow the money to balance the budget, to say that it was balanced, so that you didn't have to say that it wasn't balanced. I'm not sure exactly where the balance was, but somewhere around there it was talked about a lot. There was this marvellous balanced-budget BS fund, and it really made out as though, as the government said, the budget was balanced. Well, now it seems that we need $232 million even to achieve that balance, which really wasn't achieved when we got there, because it was a bigger deficit than was announced — which wasn't announced in the balanced budget.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go on about this if I could describe it, but I'm sure that if I went on too long you might find that I was out of order. Besides, it's extremely confusing, and I would hate the people to think that something in this interim supply bill didn't make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, entirely the opposite is the case. You are perhaps the only member I've heard speak in this House who has been entirely in order so far.

MS. EDWARDS: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker. If I knew what had been said about this, I'd probably go on. But this interim supply bill doesn't for one minute help us understand what went on in the 1990-91 budget, except that we now need more money to top up this budget, this pail, this bucket or container that's needed for the first little batch of money that would come out of the tap from this interim supply bill.

After that bucket gets full, we are going to go on to another bucket. I like to call the second bucket the comfort bucket. That one covers the $2.6 billion the government decided it had to cover in a special warrant for which it created an emergency on March 22. The emergency was that they wanted to get out of the House, so they called an end to it and prorogued the House. That was the emergency that came up on the following Monday, when all of a sudden we had special warrants for $2.6 billion worth of government activity — or at least government comfort.

That gave a great deal of comfort to the government, which on Friday morning, after ten days of sitting for the whole year — that was the best we could do by March 22; five days one week and five days the next week — all of a sudden made an emergency announcement that we were through and were going to prorogue. The government turned tail, went on to

[ Page 12348 ]

the Monday and passed a special warrant, which is supposed to come only for funds urgently needed for unforeseen circumstances. But no, it was for $2.6 billion. I may even have those two mixed up — that was the $2.8 billion. My goodness, that comfort bucket is bigger than I thought it was.

In one sense, I suppose, it was comforting for the people who are going for the record, because it was an, even larger special warrant than one the government passed the previous year, which was only a $1.3 billion special warrant dealing with a quarter of the year. This particular special warrant is more than double that amount.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As I say, it didn't get the record, because the record special warrant in British Columbia is a $3.2 billion special warrant passed in 1983 by the Bill Bennett government. That is the Bill Bennett who spawned the phrase that everyone in this House is enjoying so much: "Not a dime without debate." That is the man who got the biggest special warrant going. But this one is big; it certainly does push on the record.

I hope the government feels a great deal of comfort in having nearly broken the record for special warrants; for telling the people of British Columbia that they have no right to even have their Legislature consider $2.8 billion worth of spending which didn't need to go there, because the only reason we went to the special warrant was that the government was not ready to do its job. It was not ready in January, February or even March, when they finally called a session and promised the budget the first time around. They weren't ready with a budget after that or even when we got in here. They weren't ready, because it is difficult to make a budget when you're doing political damage control and changing your Finance minister so often that he barely gets time to get into the desk and clean it out for the next guy.

So in March we actually did a considerable amount of debate without a dime. We didn't get a dime through. Not a dime was approved there, with all that talk and all that time. We still haven't had any spending approved by this Legislature.

Why did the government cut...? Why did the government decide that it couldn't debate? Well, we don't quite know, because they haven't written it out and signed that that's it. But it certainly looked, from everything we saw, including the fact that the Premier had to resign in a scandalous situation, and we had to have a new Premier and new Finance ministers and so on and so forth.... In fact, the government needed this money just so they didn't have to talk to the people of British Columbia.

They did pass that warrant despite considerable objection by anybody who understood exactly what the government was doing. However, what the government did was to pass a near-record special warrant of $2.8 billion. Once they get that bucket filled up for this interim supply bill, they're going to push the bucket back under the bed, lie back and relax.

The third kind of bucket that comes under this interim supply is what I would like to call a fire control bucket. This one is being filled up with $2.6 billion, and it covers one-third of the year. The fiscal year doesn't start until the 1st of April, so this interim supply — if we pass all those dollars and dimes with no debate — takes this government through until July 31. They don't need to allow us to debate the budget and the estimates or to know exactly how the spending will go on or what's going to happen.

Once this passes, the government could be seized again.... We never know when it's going to be seized with an election fright, and it could cut and run again. Then where would debate be? The government would be quite free to last until the end of July.

This is the government that has increased its spending and the direct government debt in British Columbia to $9 billion and the total government debt to $20 billion. This is the government that can't play straight with people, and that basically can't come straight about its budgets or its deficits. It has refused to represent the deficit honestly. It's unable to predict its spending. It underspent some parts of its budget. It has basically brought in interim supply and passed special warrants outside the House when it should have been bringing a budget to the House. It leaves this Legislature here on May 30 trying to debate an interim supply bill without being able to get on with the estimates debate from the budget that finally got through.

I believe this government wants this bucket full so that it can put out all the fires of criticism that it's currently hearing about how it deals with its finances. It's really not been able to show that it is able to come in with a budget and tell the people of British Columbia where it wants to go — mainly because it's in chaos and it doesn't know where it wants to go.

It's been unable to manage the money, the programs or the projects. We have people in the ridings waiting for projects to go ahead. We had an announcement in my riding just this morning by the Ministry.... Just a minute, where is apprenticeship and job training now? It's the Challenge program for money for students. Things move around so fast we don't know where they are anymore. There's no provincial money for the Challenge program for summer employment from the province. This was the announcement that the provincial representative was able to make at the federal student employment office opening. They opened their office for student employment, the provincial government is there, and they don't have a budget and they don't have any money This is the government that can't do that.

[5:45]

We had an interesting thing happen in the House about this. On this side of the House we are trying to make the point that this is not the appropriate way to go about spending money in British Columbia; that British Columbians, as does anybody in a western civilized country, expect that the Legislature will review the spending estimates, that the budget will come in, the estimates will be reviewed and that will be what we're talking about — it will be done on time;

[ Page 12349 ]

it will be done early enough in the year that it can be done with some dispatch and consideration.

On this side of the House we're concerned about that. The other side of the House? There are very few people who have said anything this afternoon. Very few people spoke at all this morning, as a matter of fact. On that side of the House, nobody spoke at all this morning.

But by this afternoon we got some of the members. As a matter of fact, one of the more interesting outbursts today was from the member for Omineca. The member stood up and suggested that we shouldn't debate, that dimes should go out without debate and we didn't need to worry about this little bill, because it was only $5.4 billion. Why should anybody worry about $5.4 billion? We were obstructing, he said — not debating, but obstructing.

It was very interesting that this should come from the member for Omineca, who very recently — as a matter of fact, back in 1989 — was in debate in this House.... That was when the member for Omineca was sitting where the current first member for Richmond now sits, although he wasn't sitting with us and he wasn't sitting with the government side. He suggested at that time that he wanted to add his own balanced approach to a discussion. Anyone who was in the House at the time will remember how the member for Omineca said the "yes sir, no sir, three bags full, sir" approach required by the government members opposite.... He made the appropriate sound which simulated that of a furry animal, a woolly animal called a baa-baa black sheep.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS: That was then and this is now. I tell you that when that's the only kind of debate we get on this bill, it's very discouraging to think that the government cares at all how they bring in their spending proposals.

That member also said previously, on the past two budgets, that every conceivable user fee has doubled, quadrupled or worse. Some fees have gone up as much as 200 percent. Fees of all sorts have gone through the roof. That's a member who now speaks for the government, a member who represents the chaos and confusion that we're trying to deal with in this House. It's constant chaos.

The members are here, they're there, they're on government cabinet benches, they're over here in the hall of shame, they're back over there.... Mr. Speaker, I haven't taken the opportunity to congratulate the latest member of cabinet. I believe he is No. 111. It's the one hundred and eleventh cabinet move, and 111 is a very lucky number. So I'd like to congratulate the new Minister of Advanced Education.

To get back to the chaos shown by the speech from the member for Omineca today, he also said earlier that he had projects that had been promised for years but had never been delivered on. Then, this morning, that member, who didn't agree for one minute with the people on the government side, is all of a sudden putting his oar in from that ship. But there is only enough water for three buckets, so I'm afraid it isn't going to go very far.

There are all kinds of arrogance and incompetence that have been demonstrated by this government since 1986. That arrogance and incompetence have been seen by all of us. It puts this Legislature in the position of having to be in a debate on the 30th of May in a fiscal year, debating a supply bill that would give $5.4 billion to spending without any audit whatsoever from this House. There hasn't been a single gesture from the government toward real disclosure or real presentation of their plans. They have simply told us at one point: "We're not going to call the House." Then they called the House; then they closed the House; then they called it again; then they had another one.

Interjections.

MS. EDWARDS: The government is making a big thing this afternoon. This is the first I've heard of this from the government. Maybe they've turned a corner on their road to ruin, but they are saying they want to get to the estimates. If they wanted to get to the estimates — they've been in control — they could have got to the estimates any time this year, if they hadn't been in such a delicate situation.

When this happens, it behooves all of us to stand up and object to this procedure to deal with the financing of the government of this province, because it's still here clinging to the rafters by the claws. It is true that people in British Columbia want a budget and some reasonable debate. That's only because they can't have an election, because the government hasn't called it. Second only to that, they would like a decent budget and a decent debate.

This is the point I'm trying to make. This lurching and falling over your own feet from one position to the next and from one direction to another is not adequate for the people of British Columbia. It won't do. We believe that the government should bring in a budget. It should have brought in a budget earlier, so that we're not in the position of having to go from March 31 to July 31, and spend $5.4 billion, part of it for last year's budget and most of it for this year's budget, for reasons that are not acceptable to the people of British Columbia. That, as one of my colleagues has said, is $50 billion worth of dimes. If you let that many dimes out of the place without a single look at them, there is no way of being accountable to the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, because we are so close to adjournment hour, I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.