Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1992

Volume 1, Number 12

[ Page 213 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to have the House welcome two visitors from Surrey who are in the gallery: Bob and Jean Pinkerton.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the thirty-sixth annual report of the business done pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act, part 2, for the year ended March 31, 1991; the fifty-second annual report of the business done pursuant to the Pension (Municipal) Act, for the year ended December 31, 1990; the fifteenth annual report of the business done pursuant to the Public Service Benefit Plan Act, for the year ended March 31, 1991; the fifty-sixth annual report of the business done pursuant to the Pension (Public Service) Act, for the year ended March 31, 1991; and the fiftieth annual report of the business done pursuant to the Pension (Teachers) Act, for the year ended December 31, 1990.

Hon. C. Gabelmann tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Solicitor General for 1990-91; the seventieth annual report of the liquor distribution branch, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1991; the annual enforcement report of the liquor control and licensing branch for 1990-91; and the twentieth annual report of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act of British Columbia, for January 1 to December 31, 1991.

Oral Questions

CAMPAIGN DONATIONS

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier. In the spirit of Freedom of Information Week, I'd like to refer the Premier to his own member's bill from last year in which he calls for full disclosure of election campaign donations. Will he commit today -- after the election -- to release to public scrutiny all campaign donations made to his NDP government during the 1991 election?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We'd be more than pleased to review the question of the disclosure of campaign funds. I would be quite interested in specific suggestions that the hon. member may have on how we can open up the whole issue of campaign contributions for public scrutiny.

G. Farrell-Collins: I take that as a no. My supplementary question, then, is to the Minister of Labour. Referring to this minister's own motion made in this House before the last election, "Be it resolved that this House establish a special committee on election financing to urge the government to pass legislation requiring full disclosure of all campaign contributions," will he commit today to disclose to the public all campaign contributions he personally received, directly or indirectly, from the construction unions of British Columbia?

Hon. M. Sihota: I appreciate the question from the member. The Premier has already answered the question: this government is committed to reviewing all options to ensure that there is disclosure in the future. As for disclosure in the past, the hon. member knows as well as all other members of the House that it was not the requirement in the past, and donations were made on that basis.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's interesting to note that both the Premier and the Minister of Labour had this policy set prior to the election, and they fail to follow it right now.

A supplementary to the Minister of Labour. During the last federal election the unions contributed over $2 million to the NDP. Since this closed and secretive government refuses to be open and honest about its campaign contributors, we can only speculate on the thousands of dollars that this NDP government and this NDP minister received. Given that there is no independent evidence supporting the throne speech commitment to wage-fixing, will this minister confess to this House today that this fair wage proposal is no more than a $200 million payoff to his personal election friends?

Hon. M. Sihota: I thank the member again for the question. Hon. members should understand that once a government is formed, its responsibility is to act in the public interest and not based on the interests of any one particular group in society. I can assure all hon. members that this government will be acting with the public interest foremost in its mind.

SUPPLEMENTARY HOMEOWNER GRANT

J. Weisgerber: My question today is to the Minister of Finance. In Saturday's Vancouver Sun, when questioned about the supplementary homeowner's grant, he is quoted as saying: "...the main impact is on well-to-do homeowners in greater Vancouver." Does the minister realize that the 435,000 homeowners in British Columbia who will lose the benefit of the supplemental homeowner's grant live in all parts of British Columbia and are not wealthy? Many of them live in very modest homes. We've had calls from people all over this province indicating that homes valued in the area of $100,000 to $150,000 will lose between $300 and $500 annually in supplemental homeowner's grant. The minister shakes his head. I can assure him that I can give him the documentation.

Does the minister -- I almost called him the Premier, and perhaps I should have -- really understand the effect of cancelling homeowner's grants on average British Columbians in all parts of this province?

Hon. G. Clark: I would be very interested in....

Interjections.

[ Page 214 ]

Hon. G. Clark: Do you want to hear the answer?

I'd be very interested in the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party's documentation. If he'd like to provide it, we'll take a look at it. Let me give you the information from my ministry. About 60 percent of British Columbians own homes. Slightly less than half of them are better off as a result of this policy, because we've increased the basic homeowner grant and increased the seniors' supplement. Those are the facts, member; these aren't opinions. In addition, my ministry estimates that over 60 percent of supplemental homeowner grant expenditures were received by the roughly 35 percent of households with incomes over $60,000 per year.

J. Weisgerber: Does the Minister of Finance not understand either that many of the people living in so-called expensive homes in Vancouver have perhaps been there all of their lives? Many of them are senior citizens. Many of them are on fixed incomes in property that has inflated in value over the years and are expensive properties only by virtue of their location in a neighbourhood. Folks may not want to be taxed out of them.

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, there is a very high correlation between income and the value of one's home. That's again a factual statement. In addition, as I said -- I won't repeat it -- the vast majority of people who benefit by this policy are people in the higher income levels. The previous government -- which you were part of, of course -- brought in the supplemental homeowner grant so that it increased with the value of one's home, which is not progressive; in fact, it's regressive. I would further make the case that we do have deferred property taxes for seniors, one of the few initiatives, hon. Speaker, where we supported the previous government. They reduced the eligibility to 60 years, so anyone over 60 who is asset-rich and cash-poor -- and there are very few people like that in terms of the statistics -- do have the advantage of deferring property tax if they should choose to do so.

The Speaker: Final supplemental.

J. Weisgerber: The former Deputy Minister of Education spent a lot of time examining the effect of school taxes on various homes around British Columbia. It's unfortunate that you no longer have the benefit of his services. I don't quite know the reason for that, but I suspect he was believed to have been tainted somehow. Will the minister go back and look at the significant amount of work done by the Deputy Minister of Education in the former government and consider again the effect of this policy and this taxation on homeowners in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: We reviewed all of the information available to government, including information arising out of the property tax tour which took place under the previous minister, Mr. Couvelier. Again it's quite clear that we've restored the level of tax burden that existed in this province two years ago. In fact, it's not quite as onerous, because we've increased the homeowner grant and the seniors' homeowner grant by 5 percent.

I reiterate that the majority of British Columbians are unaffected by this policy, and the minority who are affected are disproportionately those who have high incomes and high property values.

GROWTH IN THE LOWER MAINLAND

A. Cowie: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. During the past five years the average influx of people to this province has been about 60,000, with the vast majority settling in the lower mainland. Does the minister recognize the need for growth to be tied to the development of public infrastructure? A simple yes or no will be sufficient.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes.

A. Cowie: My supplemental is for the same minister. The chairman of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission stated on the weekend that due to the $30 million budget reduction to B.C. Transit, either transit fares will have to be increased by 10 percent or services will have to be reduced by 40 percent. Given that the minister recognizes the need for growth to be tied to public infrastructure, and given that increased fares will reduce ridership on public transit, why has this government chosen such a regressive policy?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I am fascinated by the transit question. My ministry is always interested in transit matters, but my colleague across the way may not have studied the critic roles as closely as you want, so I would defer to my colleague the minister responsible for transit.

Hon. G. Clark: Let me explain what we've done in transit. We have increased the funding for transit -- the subsidy -- by 2 percent, roughly the rate of inflation, and then added another 2 percent for growth to do precisely what the hon. member suggests, which is to accommodate a growing lower mainland. So it's a 4 percent growth, and over $200 million of provincial taxpayer subsidy has been pumped into the transit system.

There is a deficit as a result of the previous government's decision to build SkyTrain -- $30 million. We brought in legislation, which is before the House -- I'd like to debate it at some point in the future, surely -- which allows the regional transit commission or the government to simply extend the current regulations for some time, while we deal with this mess we've inherited, in terms of governance and taxing authority.

So we will be dealing with it. It is a problem. I want to make this point: there's absolutely no reason for increased bus fares at this moment to deal with the mess left behind by Social Credit.

[ Page 215 ]

WATERSHED LOGGING

W. Hurd: My question is to the Environment minister. I noted with interest the remarks in the press this past weekend pertaining to the Lasca Creek watershed, which were attributed to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. He is quoted as saying: "There is no alternative now. We have no choice but to log watersheds.... We're in a land use crisis that has come in the face of a depression." Has this bold new government's step in land use policy yet been communicated to Stephen Owen and his Commission on Resources and Environment?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'd like to thank the member for Surrey-White Rock for the question. The fact is that this government, in its first few months, has made very significant initiatives with regard to the whole area of land use. This government has no reason to apologize to anybody for the steps it has taken. I do not think that there's any advantage in trying to make political hay over the fact that we have difficulty with some very sensitive land use issues. Therefore when it comes to looking at the specifics of various watersheds in the province, we have done what we said we would do. We have addressed the issue of Hasty Creek, as has been an issue put before us by the forestry caucus of the B.C. Environmental Network. We are proceeding appropriately to make the kind of land use planning decisions that will serve the future of this province well.

W. Hurd: I take it from the minister's comments that logging watersheds is now government policy, so I will note a government press release that says that road development and timber harvesting will only continue at Lasca Creek subject to the development of an integrated management plan for the drainage. Do the comments from the hon. member for Nelson-Creston mean that the government has now decided that the land use crisis and the depression to which he so eloquently referred now take precedence over these vital integrated management plans?

Hon. J. Cashore: The member for Nelson-Creston has been joining with this government, and hopefully with all members of this Legislature, in seeking to find viable options that involve public consultation. The fact that the member was willing to meet with people from his community and his watershed should not be subject to criticism but to praise. I personally commend him for having done that.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, may I have leave of the House to move the following motion: "This House endorses the provision of a fair wage and skill development policy for public construction projects in British Columbia."

Leave not granted.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, given the fact that the opposition has decided to object to a motion, despite the fact that they wanted some debate on this issue, I then arise on a ministerial statement on fair wages.

Ministerial Statement

FAIR WAGE POLICY

Hon. M. Sihota: I regret that I have to commence this matter by way of a ministerial statement. The opposition had indicated for some time that it wished for fair wages to be debated in this House. We have made an unprecedented offer to the opposition to debate this issue, and I'm at a loss to understand why, after having demanded debate, they don't want to debate.

In any event, let me say as follows....

D. Mitchell: On a point of order, hon. Speaker, I understand from the minister's remarks that he may be rising to make a ministerial statement. If that is so, I would encourage him not to do anything other than make a ministerial statement and to keep it brief. If he wants to introduce a motion into this House, I could introduce him to the standing orders of this Legislature, in particular to standing order 48(1), which allows for 48 hours' notice before introducing a motion to this House -- which all members of this House would be very willing to debate. If he's wanting to make a ministerial statement, though, I hope he will fall within the ambit of the practices of this House in terms of a ministerial statement, which does not allow for debate.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I just thought I would respond to the point of order from the member, so the House knows that the government offered three and a half hours of debate today on fair wages, which we thought the members opposite wanted. We gave notice prior to, in advance....

An Hon. Member: Point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: You can't interrupt a point of order.

We gave notice this morning to the members opposite to have that debate. They have now denied leave, hon. Speaker, so we're proceeding by way of ministerial statement. We want to know where the Liberal Party stands on the question of fair wages.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order! I would like to thank both members of the House for their submissions on the point of order. The Minister of Labour had the floor for a ministerial statement, and I'm sure he is aware of the limits of a ministerial statement and will adhere to them.

Hon. M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

This administration's desire to achieve a number of important public interest objectives has guided us in developing a fair wage and skills development policy. The benefits of the policy we plan to implement are as 

[ Page 216 ]

follows. First, all construction workers must be treated fairly by their employers, and the rights that working people enjoy under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act and the Apprenticeship Act must be respected. Second, the best and most qualified tradespeople should be engaged to build our schools, hospitals and public buildings. The third benefit of such a policy is to ensure that taxpayers receive the best value for their dollar and that the cost of construction is both reasonable and certain. Fourth -- and this is an important benefit, in my mind -- young people, through proper apprenticeship programs, will have the opportunity to develop their skills and be employed on government construction projects. Fifth, all British Columbia construction companies, union or non-union, will have an opportunity to compete on an equal footing for public construction projects.

Under this government's fair wage policy, both union and non-union companies will be invited and in fact encouraged to bid on government construction projects. The evidence to date is that, in terms of cost to government, there's not much difference between union and non-union companies. Non-union companies usually bid within an eyelash of unionized companies. For example, for a recent project at the courthouse in Nanaimo, the differential between those companies was 1 percent. For the parkade built at UBC, the differential was 2.9 percent. Most recently, here in Victoria, the differential for the Jack Davis Building was approximately 4 percent.

Although the bids are very close, non-union companies, by their own admission, are paying their workers approximately $21 per hour, yet they are effectively, through the bidding process, billing the government the union rate of $25 per hour. These companies are taking the $4 differential from each worker every hour and pocketing it in the form of excess profits. As I say, the evidence on this point is very clear. Non-union companies bid within a few percent of union companies but pay their workers in the neighbourhood of 20 to 30 percent less. We, as government, quite simply say that if a company is going to charge us $25 for a worker's skill, then they must pay that worker $25 per hour. It's as simple as that.

[2:30]

Companies that do treat their employees fairly, and pay them the rate they charge to government, make a compelling argument. They tell us they need to compete on the same footing as competitors. They say, and it makes sense, that a company should secure a bid on its ability to compete in such areas as efficiency, productivity, creativity and ingenuity. I have received many submissions from employer groups requesting a fair wage policy, and I would, at some point, be happy to share that with hon. members.

This government has made a conscious decision not to insist upon the union rate as a part of its policy. Rather, this administration has prepared a schedule which demands that a fair wage be paid to workers. That wage, depending on the trade, is 10 to 14 percent below the union rate. By implementing this rate, it is the view of this administration that it is unlikely that the cost of construction projects will increase as a consequence of this policy.

This government is not resting its case simply on the need to pay working people fairly. We also believe that the government should have the best and most qualified people working on its construction projects. For years British Columbia has had laws that require workers to have appropriate trade certificates, certificates which testify to the fact that they have developed proper skills and passed appropriate exams. No one would go to see a lawyer who does not have a certificate to practise from the Law Society, no hospital would hire a nurse who has not met the minimum qualifications of the Registered Nurses' Association, and no one would engage the services of a dentist who doesn't enjoy the sanction of the college. For the same reason, this government will hire workers who have proper trade qualification certificates.

But simply hiring a qualified worker is not enough. We must guarantee that our young people have the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to ensure access to employment on these projects. That means apprenticeship programs and training, both on and off the job site. To the grade 12 student at Esquimalt Secondary School who wants to be an electrician, a plumber or a carpenter, we are saying to her that she has a future, particularly when one considers the potential of achieving employment-equity goals through apprenticeship.

Therefore this government will: (1) apply trade qualification requirements; (2) implement a fair wage schedule on the rates that I've already described; (3) insist that the provisions of the Employment Standards Act and the Apprenticeship Act be applied; and (4) reward efficiency by ensuring that competitive bidding processes continue with all construction firms eligible to compete for publicly funded projects -- provided, of course, that they meet the basic requirements of this policy.

In conclusion, let me say that this policy is about fairness: fairness to contractors, who deserve to compete for government work on an equal footing; fairness to construction workers, who all deserve a fair wage and recognition of their skills; and fairness to the public, who deserve buildings of the highest standard.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, given that the minister had seven minutes, I intend to take the same.

This debate is about anything but fair wages.

An Hon. Member: It's not a debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: It has become a debate.

There are rules in this House that the members know very well. This government has had five months to call the Legislature. They waited until March 17. This government has had a week and a half to bring in notice of this motion, and they waited until today -- two days before the end of the fiscal year -- when we have something that's much more important than their need for fair wages, which is to debate the interim supply that's going to pay for the bills of this province for the next three months.

[ Page 217 ]

We had the minister up talking about fair wages. He talked about a number of things in his presentation today. He talked about safety, qualifications and a number of things. The member has been a lawyer for a number of years, and I'm sure that he has sent out billings. I'm sure that many times he had someone in his office who typed something up and sent it out, where all he did was put his signature on it, and I'll bet you he didn't bill the $11 an hour he charged the person who paid for it. There is something in business which the NDP doesn't know about called overhead, expenses or administration when you have employees who work for you. When you get your car fixed, they charge you $45 an hour. They don't pay the employees $45 for the amount of work that they do.

This isn't about fair wages. This is about government-legislated wage rates. It's a payoff. We all know it's a payoff.

We asked the Minister of Labour a number of times in this House, and in one question period specifically, to table any independent documents, reports or anything at all that could substantiate the allegations that he made in his seven-minute presentation today. He has yet to do this. He has done it again today: he has refused to do that. The reality is that there is no study or report. There is no justification at all for legislated wage rates. It's the wrong way to approach any problems that there may be.

There are allegations flying around this province among union, non-union and independent contractors who say that quality is not good with the other person. The other person will then say the quality is not good with this contractor, that they hire unskilled labour, that they hire skilled labour -- and it goes back and forth. If there are problems in the construction industry, deal with it under the legislation. Don't go in and legislate a wage rate that fixes the rate, just totally blows away any competition that exists in the industry and makes sure that $100 million to $200 million of taxpayers' money goes to pay off the increased costs that are going to be included in these projects.

It's very interesting to note all of a sudden, at the last minute, the hurry, the need and the eagerness with which this government has been stampeding to debate fair wages today. It's quite humorous. I wonder why? Could it be the fact that they've been holding off on letting the contracts on the Commonwealth Games which are coming to Victoria in 1994? Might that be it? Might it be that friends of this government are lined up at the pig trough waiting for the contracts to be let so that they can get the higher wage rate?

It changes the bidding structure. Imagine that! Wouldn't that be a lot of money going to the people who also donate a lot of money to this party?

As I said the other day, this is not fair wages; this is government fixing wages. If this were private industry, it would be against the Combines Investigation Act. This government doesn't understand business or the way fair wages should work. Let the open market determine fair wages.

An Hon. Member: Are you against establishing a minimum wage?

G. Farrell-Collins: There is a minimum wage in this province and in this country for a reason, and the reason is to ensure that people aren't taken advantage of. There is a big difference between $5.50 an hour for the people who have trouble finding work or who have minimum-wage jobs and $30 an hour including benefits for construction workers. There's a big difference, and this minister and this Premier know it. They've been standing in this House trying to rationalize this election payoff in whatever way they possibly can.

It's unconscionable that they will be spending the taxpayers' money with no real debate. Let's follow the rules of this House, which you like to quote to us so often, and have a debate. Let's have it with the proper 48 hours' notice that's due in this House. Let's have the debate on Wednesday.

You're trying to avoid the other issue. The whole process of fair wages, as it has been brought to the House today, is to try and cover up the fact that we should be debating the special warrants this government ran the province on for the last five months. That's what we should be doing today. This is a cover-up. They're using a payoff to initiate a cover-up, and it goes on and on. This is not open government or fair wages; it's wage-fixing. This government, this minister and this Premier should be ashamed of themselves for spending the taxpayers' money in this way.

J. Weisgerber: Before I reply to the ministerial statement, I want to give the House notice that tomorrow I intend to bring in a motion of privilege, naming the Premier for misleading this House with regard to this issue. Tomorrow, being the first opportunity after today, is the time that I will present that motion.

NTo respond to the ministerial statement, first of all, on Wednesday morning, assuming we have finished by then the business of interim supply and special warrants on which this government has operated the province since its election, we would be happy to debate this whole question of fair wages. I would much prefer to debate it in the form of legislation, which is the honest, decent and straightforward way to bring a significant change into this Legislature. Give the opposition an opportunity to debate, to amend and to question the minister on the details of what's being proposed. This is a major shift in policy for British Columbia, and British Columbians, regardless of where they stand on this issue, deserve to have this issue debated clause by clause in legislation. That's the way we would like to see it done.

If that's not possible and if the government is afraid -- and my goodness, it has a majority -- to expose this underhanded bit of work to the people of British Columbia by way of legislation, then bring it into the House on Wednesday as a motion. Give notice today. We'll happily join the rest of the opposition in debating.

Had the government House Leader even indicated to us at adjournment on Friday that this issue was going to be brought forward, our Labour critic would have been here. He is someone who has significant knowledge. He is not here, because he's doing business in his constituency, and all you had to do was to give us the courtesy of notice -- a simple courtesy of notice. I want every-

[ Page 218 ]

body to understand clearly that we want to debate this so-called fair wage policy. We don't want to do it pressed with special warrants and interim spending. If ever there was a sneaky time to bring an issue into this House, it's with this other issue looming over the business of this Legislature.

To believe for a moment, as the minister says in his ministerial statement, that non-union contractors pocket the difference between the union and the non-union wage is ridiculous. It's absolutely unbelievable. Doesn't he understand the competition that exists in the non-union sector? Doesn't he understand there are half a dozen non-union companies who want to bid on every job, and do? Does he think they get together and fix their wages as he would fix them? They don't. They bid freely and competitively and independently, and that drives down the cost of public projects to the taxpayer.

This thing's a sham. It's a payoff to the Premier's friends, and it's a disgraceful way that it's been brought into this Legislature.

Orders of the Day

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1992

Hon. G. Clark presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1992.

[2:45]

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1992-93 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for the initial three months of the 1992-93 fiscal year to allow time to debate and pass the estimates. As the period covered by special warrant will expire shortly, interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, as well as the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81. Hon. Speaker, I move first reading.

The Speaker: We have voted on first reading. The government House Leader is now asking that this be considered under standing order 81.

J. Weisgerber: If, in fact, this business is as urgent as the government House Leader would lead us to believe it is, I'm at a loss to understand how they could have introduced the motion that they just did and how they could suggest that there was time available -- four hours or so, I understand -- to have debated this so-called fair wage policy. I now understand the government House Leader to say that the bill before us is so urgent, so pressing and so important to the people of British Columbia that the rules of the House must be waived in order for us to proceed.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I would like to respond. For your advice, as you rule on standing order 81....

Interjections.

The Speaker: Is it a point of order?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not a point of order. Standing order 81 is debatable, as I understand it. I apologize, hon. Speaker. I would like to debate it, to respond to the leader of the Social Credit Party.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. The request that the Chair decide whether this meets the criteria of standing order 81 is only that. The debate on the reason for the urgency certainly can take place at a later time, in consideration of the matter.

I recognize the government House Leader on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: As I understand it, standing order 81 is a debatable motion. The leader of the third party did debate it. I agree with....

The Speaker: With due respect, hon. member, it is not a debatable motion, as to whether an item can be considered under standing order 81.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, standing order 81 is very clear.

The Speaker: Is this on a point of order?

D. Mitchell: I'm speaking to the point that was raised by the government House Leader. Hon. Speaker, you have not issued a ruling yet on this matter. I understand that the government House Leader has asked that we proceed immediately to second reading stage on the supply bill, under standing order 81. I also believe that the third-party House Leader has raised what I believe is a very valid point: that is, if this is an urgent and pressing matter, then, of course, we should proceed to it. If, in fact, it is an urgent and pressing matter, we must decide as a House whether or not we should now set aside all the other business before this assembly -- which includes debate on the budget which was initiated last week -- to deal with this interim supply bill, which we've just had introduction of. The third-party House Leader has raised what I believe is a very valid point here. Today the government tried to move a government motion by leave and, without notice in this House, tried to set aside all other 

[ Page 219 ]

business, because it felt that its so-called fair wage policy should take precedence and be debated in this House before any other business because it took precedence over everything else. Having not received the unanimous consent of this House to debate that policy, they now wish to bring in another matter which is urgent and pressing. How many items before this House can be urgent and pressing at one time? In speaking to this point of order, I would question -- and I would ask the Chair to rule -- whether or not standing order 81 should apply here.

The Speaker: I'm going to take one more submission.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The leader of the third party suggested this would be waiving the rules. In fact, this is not waiving the rules; this is using the rules of the House as they've been adopted by the House -- rule 81.

The House Leader for the official opposition suggests interim supply was not urgent today because we were prepared, by agreement, to go to a debate this afternoon on the fair wage issue. We did not reach the agreement, hon. Speaker. But part of that agreement was that we would move to interim supply -- second reading and other stages -- this evening starting at 6 o'clock. It is urgent in this House that interim supply be debated today and, if the opposition wants, tomorrow, but it has to be debated, and it should be debated in full, as all members of this House know.

This is an unusual interim supply bill, given the history of this House. It's an unusual bill which requires full and as much debate as possible. We have the rest of today and all of tomorrow to debate this bill. I would urge, given the importance of this particular bill and the importance of a full debate on interim supply, that we begin immediately to debate this bill.

The Speaker: Having heard considerable representation from all sides of the House on this matter, I am satisfied the matter is urgent and comes under the criteria of standing order 81.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The Speaker: Actually, I should have stopped the government House Leader and asked for a short recess so the bill may be distributed to all members. With the cooperation of the House, could we perhaps pretend the motion was not moved to allow that distribution? I would ask members to stay in their seats. It should only be a matter of a couple of moments' recess while that bill is distributed.

The House recessed at 2:54 p.m.

The House resumed at 2:58 p.m.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker and members of the assembly, sitting in the gallery this afternoon are a number of people from my riding of New Westminster who have come under the organization of Century House, a major seniors' program and facility in New Westminster. There are many friends and colleagues in the House, and I would ask you to join me in welcoming them today. They already know that they're in for a lively debate in this House. Welcome to you all.

J. Doyle: I'd like leave to make an introduction of guests.

Leave granted.

J. Doyle: It is my great pleasure as the MLA for Columbia River-Revelstoke to introduce the first guest I've had down to Victoria since the House was recalled. I'd like to make welcome Olympe Astra and Ron Dyer from the city of Revelstoke.

Hon. G. Clark: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills, as required by the Financial Administration Act. Special warrants are included in this bill. Schedule 1 lists those approved for the 1991-92 fiscal year. The first section requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests the disbursement amount required for the government's voted financing transactions, which appear in schedule D of the estimates. The third section requests an amount of $28 million for the Purchasing Commission working capital account, to permit an increase in the delivery of goods and services provided through this account.

Finally, I point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1992-93 fiscal year. I move second reading of Bill 16.

[3:00]

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, what this supply bill purports to do is not only provide interim supply for the next several months of government, but provide retroactive approval for special-warrant spending by the former government as well as the current government. The former government spent $977,000 of the taxpayers' dollars, and special-warrant spending has seen this current government spend $2.012 billion of the taxpayers' dollars without debate and without approval in this Legislature.

What this is all about is trust in government. It's about making sure that people know that the money they discharge through their taxes to government is properly and adequately discharged. It is a debate that essentially has to justify for the people of British Columbia that billions of dollars have been spent in a manner that (1) is prudent; (2) will provide advantage to the people of British Columbia; and (3) is justifiable under the terms and conditions of this Legislature.

I would like to address the third point first, and then come back to the question of what that this government is spending billions of the taxpayers' money on.

[ Page 220 ]

First of all, let's talk about whether or not this is a justifiable way for us to proceed. It occurs to me that when this government went before the people in the forum of a general election, one of the main concerns they had was that there was a government largely out of control, which had been spending the taxpayers' money without proper authority of this legislative body and which was casting the money into projects that had not had scrutiny or debate. That simply was not a sensible and proper way to proceed. Indeed, I would quote from the very same Finance minister sitting now on the opposite side of this House, who said quite clearly: "It is no way to run a government.... It is dishonest; it is deceitful; it is avoiding public debate, which is what we are here for, and we won't accept it." Those were the words of our present Finance minister. And he was right. He was quite correct at that time, and I believe that he is equally wrong now.

We have to understand what the principles are with respect to the provision of adequate and proper debate. Despite the fact that when this government took office there was already a budget partially approved with spending in place, and despite the fact that there was a requirement for this government to continue to discharge money in order to look after the payroll of those within the public service, in order to look after the demand of those people who require welfare payments, and in order to look after the necessary health care and education expenditures, there was no reason whatsoever for this government -- the government that correctly chastised the former government for spending by special warrant -- not to come before this House in a short session, debate those matters and get proper legislative approval for spending.

This side of the House, the official opposition, offered that opportunity to this government. Despite the fact that we were, as has been told to us on numerous occasions by members opposite, green, untried and unproven in the Legislative Assembly, we were prepared to go forward and have a session of this Legislature where we would give debate and approval to special-warrant spending, so that the people of British Columbia could see that real change had been effected and that we were no longer going to carry on in a manner so reminiscent of the former government, which was discharged by the people of British Columbia.

Yet that did not happen. It did not happen when we started to look at the first of the special warrants approved on November 14; more than $776,000 was spent through special warrant at that time to maintain service. It didn't happen on December 11, when we provided $15 million to tree-fruit-growers in the Okanagan. In addition, on January 13 there was an additional $1 billion to maintain and provide government service.

There is a question of honesty and faith in government, which the people of British Columbia so desperately want to see. They did not want to have a government that would continue the faults of the past government. They wanted to have a government that would work in cooperation with members opposite to make sure that when they did discharge the taxpayers' money, they did so in a manner that had full, honest and adequate debate.

Indeed it wasn't only the Finance minister who spoke out. Let me quote from the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, who when in opposition said, referring to the former government:

"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."

Lest there be any confusion that there may have been no opportunity to come forward and to get approval, lest there be some concern that all that was allowed to take place was the spending of special warrants because of the crisis that this province found itself in, let us look to the example of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan went to the polls after British Columbia, elected an NDP government and found it quite possible to call the Legislature into session prior to the end of 1991 to fully debate and get approval for special-warrant spending that had been commissioned by the former Conservative government of that province. If it was possible in Saskatchewan, why was it not possible in British Columbia?

One has to look at the possible effects this special-warrant spending has had on the concern the people of British Columbia have for honesty and integrity in government. They heard the members opposite when they were in opposition take a strong, clear and direct position against the spending of special warrants, and they believed they were electing a government that in fact would be more open, honest and forthright with the taxpayers. Sadly, they have been mistaken. They heard the hon. Minister of Finance stand up in this House on May 30, 1991, and say that it was arrogant at best that they were prepared to spend $3 billion of public money without any public debate or scrutiny from the people's representatives in this chamber. This minister said that the former government held this body in contempt because they would not come forward and debate $3 billion worth of special warrants. I invite the people of British Columbia to look and see whose signature is on these documents for special-warrant spending. Whose signatures sit on these pages discharging $2 billion worth of taxpayers' money? They are the signatures of this Minister of Finance and this Premier, both of whom in fact had said that they would not spend by special warrant.

This province also heard the Premier take strong issue on the question of how it is proper and appropriate to discharge public money. They heard this Premier become so incensed and outraged by the way the former Social Credit government wished to put forward 

[ Page 221 ]

a spending program by special warrant that he even took it upon himself to write to the Lieutenant-Governor and demand that he not sign the special warrants because they were indeed wrong and inappropriate. He suggested -- as we start to look at what is taking place here -- that you cannot run a government and implement tax legislation with municipalities and school boards on major questions of public policy when those bills have not been introduced in the House. You cannot run a government by spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money without the House being called.

Quite clearly the Leader of the Opposition at that time was correct, and the people of this province fully expected that once he became Premier, this province would no longer cast taxpayers' money into program expenditures that had not had adequate debate and scrutiny. The questions are large. How can we expect the people of British Columbia to have faith and trust in the people they elect to come into this House if they are not given the opportunity to properly, adequately and fully debate how their tax money is expended and on what programs?

I come to my second point. The problem is one that requires a fiscal plan. In order to avoid this kind of process, it requires an ongoing statement of how we intend to develop the economy of British Columbia. It requires long-range planning. It seems to me....

Hon. G. Clark: Sixty years. Here we go again.

G. Wilson: It's interesting that I hear the Finance minister opposite ridicule the 60-year plan. I wonder if he's ever considered how long it takes a Douglas fir seedling planted today to reach even minimal harvest potential. If we had been planning in the 1930s on a 50- and 60-year cycle, I suspect that we would not have a fiscal situation in such chaos and such crisis that we have had this excuse presented that special-warrant spending is indeed the order of the day.

It seems on this side of the House that there was much more afoot than simply the need to carry on government spending. It seemed to me that there was a desire by this government to take to the people a very carefully orchestrated plan that would allow them the opportunity to convince British Columbians that the $2.6 billion deficit that they have now reduced -- they claim -- to $1.8 billion in this budget, was in fact something over which they had no control.

Hon. Speaker, that clearly is not true. The proof that it is not true is in these documents here today. If one looks at the signatures on $2 billion worth of that expenditure, they are expenditures by this government, the government that currently sits in the form of a so-called deficit-spending government that is looking to reduce debt. Yet one can clearly see that the debt under this government has risen to record levels. The debt is now higher than ever before in the history of this province. The deficit for this year's spending, the deficit that in large measure has been driven by the kind of program expenditures that these special warrants require, has very much been fuelled by this minister's preparedness to allow the deficit already inherited to balloon during the last five months, balloon to the point that we are at $2.6 billion.

Yet one has to ask oneself, in fairness to this government, in order to be completely fair to those reviewing my remarks today: what choices did the government have? Did they indeed have a real opportunity to do something over the last five months about bringing in fiscal responsibility or a reduction in government spending to reduce the deficit? The members in the official opposition believe they did have choices. They had very real choices.

[3:15]

I want to thank the Minister of Finance, hon. Speaker, for taking an unprecedented step toward opening the books and allowing the official opposition to have an opportunity to review them and to look at the detail of where we were in terms of spending. It was an opportunity that provided us the time to do some analysis back in November of where we were going. It is clear to those members who were able to review those documents that moneys were going to have to be committed in order to fulfil the obligations of government in the principal ministries that I mentioned earlier -- health, education and welfare. But it was equally clear that if we carried on in the spending program outlined by the former government, we were going to run ourselves into a record deficit. Members in the opposition asked of the Minister of Finance at that time why we do not see a reversal in the trend. Why do we not see programs cutting government spending? Why have we not seen any request of the ministries to stop spending at the rate that is going to create a $2.6 billion deficit?

It's very much as if this government took over the wheel of an automobile heading down the hill toward a brick wall and recognized that if they allowed the vehicle to smash into the brick wall, they would not be held responsible for the casualties that would result. They could simply turn around and say: "It wasn't our fault. This wasn't our deficit. We had no choice." Well, hon. Speaker, this government, this Minister of Finance, this Premier, did have a choice, and that choice was to implement a restriction on government spending, to start to integrate ministries, to start to look toward measures by which we could more effectively and more properly discharge the taxpayers' money, rather than by simply going out and writing what amounts to a blank cheque against the taxpayers of British Columbia.

It seems to me that an economic strategy that could have avoided special warrant spending was clearly available to the people that formed government opposite that now are the ministers of the Crown. I invite British Columbians to review the last days of the election campaign. I invite those British Columbians to take a look at what we tabled, as an opposition party that had no elected members at that time, that had not for four years had access to government accounts, had not for four years had an opportunity to find and to scrutinize the way that the former government was committing the taxpayers' money.

At that point we said that you are looking at a potential deficit of roughly $2.6 billion. If we had an opportunity to know that; if this party, before we took 

[ Page 222 ]

on the role of the official opposition, had a handle on where the debt was going to wind up because we knew that $1.4 billion in transfer payments was not coming into British Columbia, the question is: where was the official opposition? What were the NDP doing all of the years they sat in these benches in opposition?

If in fact they did know, if the opposition did have an inkling that the people's money was being cast away in a manner that was going to result in record deficit spending, then the second question that must be asked is why, when they took over the reins of government, did they do absolutely nothing at all to put the brakes on the car before it hit the wall, before we had the deficit, before we ended up in the situation we are in today?

The reason, I think, can be found in the approach taken by this government over the last number of months. The reason was because it was quite convenient to allow the budget of a former government that the now-government of the day believed they could blame for four years of a new session. This government believed they could stand on the government side for four years and point to the opposition and say: "It's not our fault that we have this massive spending, that we're in deficit spending, that we have a record deficit. It's your fault; it's the fault of the members opposite."

What this government did not count on when they went into the election campaign was the wisdom of the people of British Columbia, who sought to put in place a new political party with a new perspective in the form of opposition who cannot sit and be tainted by the past spending of the last government. And quite frankly, we cannot be there in such a position.

What we wanted to know, and what we continued to ask for was, in the commitment of taxpayers' money, in record deficit expenditures, through special warrant spending, how was this government going to cover the debt once it had reached its $2.5 billion? We wanted to know what this government was going to do because we had heard a promise from the Premier when he went around the province that there would be no new and increased taxes. And we heard this Premier say there would be a fair discharging of the taxpayers' money, that they would not in fact implement a spending program of tax dollars that would burden the people of British Columbia.

Well, that in fact has not been the case. We have seen tabled a document requiring spending that will mean taxpayers all over British Columbia are going to have to pay more in taxes, whether they are paying it in income tax or tax on service, or whether they're paying it through the kind of taxation that they may have through capital corporate tax -- a tax that will effectively go after corporations whether or not they make profit, something that was totally rejected by even the spendthrift NDP government of Ontario. So they did have a choice. This government did not have to discharge $2 billion worth of the taxpayers' money through special warrant.

As we start to look through where all of this money has gone, if we can look at where the discharging of this money has gone, we ask ourselves, in terms of the amount of expended dollars, what some of these millions of dollars have been spent on. The Ministry of the Attorney General -- $81 million. We're anxious to know, and we will in days to come be debating in detail what that money went for. The Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology -- I am sure that those students who were denied entry into our colleges and universities in the last few months will be anxious to know there was $1.5 billion in terms of.... Excuse me, $152 million discharged. Let's make sure we get these figures correct -- $152 million. The Ministry of Forests, which we all know is so desperately in need of some adequate money.... We're interested to know where the $106 million discharged has gone. We're anxious to know also, in terms of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, where $100 million has been discharged. Also we are anxious, as we start to look at the housing crisis that affects the municipalities, when we hear a minister opposite tell us that it is the federal government whose problem it is to deal with the housing crisis. We are interested to know where, in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, $94 million has been discharged by special warrant spending.

None of this has come before this House for scrutiny; none of it has come before this House for adequate and proper debate. And all this from an opposition that now is government, and that decried the former government for doing precisely the same kind of action. So when we say they had a choice, I think it is critically important that the people of British Columbia know that the choice that was taken was one to allow the deficit to grow and to expand.

This so-called fiscally responsible government, if the truth is to be known, allowed the deficit to balloon to roughly $2.5 billion so they could introduce a $1.8 billion deficit -- a record deficit -- and let the people of British Columbia think that they somehow had a more fiscally responsible government.

Hon. Speaker, those are the facts of the matter, and those facts are borne out by these special warrants. I welcome the opportunity for the people of British Columbia to see that, to analyze that and to hold this government accountable for the spending of taxpayers' money in a totally irresponsible way -- one that they argued was irresponsible when they were in opposition.

Furthermore, coming to the third point on this question, which is where this government has in fact discharged its money: has it been frugal? Has it been positive? Have we seen anything that might give us some opportunity to believe that we are headed in the right direction?

When this opposition, on election night, found that the people of British Columbia had entrusted us with the role of opposition, we said we wanted to be constructive and positive, and we wanted to be open and honest. We do. But we find it extremely difficult when over five months, despite our offer to have a short session in November when the Board of Internal Economy could have been brought together so there could have been proper, adequate, open and honest debate over the expenditures that run this Legislative Assembly, that was not provided. When the opposition 

[ Page 223 ]

offered the opportunity for this government to come forward in a short session so that we could have adequately debated the special warrant spending, and so that the people of British Columbia could have known where their money was being discharged, this government denied us the opportunity. This government denied the people of British Columbia the opportunity, because the strategy they had was quite clear. The strategy was one to justify the spending of $1.8 billion in the kind of program that we just saw rammed through today, without notice, without debate, without any proper and adequate provision in this Legislature: the fair wage legislation that will cost the taxpayers of this province anywhere from $100 million to $200 million.

Hon. Speaker, that is not open government. That is not a commitment to debate. We don't even know what the terms are going to be in this new proposed policy. We don't know whether or not the delay of introduction of this particular legislation -- as this government had a blank cheque through special warrant for $2 billion -- was not implemented simply because they had to put their own ducks in order, to look after their own interests, prior to the expenditure of millions of dollars on things like the edifices that are going to have to be built to look after the Commonwealth Games. And was that, in fact, a part of the overall strategy? Let us use the money. Let us hire our friends. Let us put in place the kind of government programs that we want to, but let us not, for heaven's sake, go to the people, through the Legislature and open debate, so that the people of British Columbia have an opportunity to know and see what we are doing; i.e., let us be like those who trained us. Let us be exactly like the government before us. Let us understand that the people of British Columbia will never know the difference, because they've never known the difference, with the government they've just tossed out. Well, hon. Speaker, this opposition knows the difference, and this opposition believes the people know the difference. We believe the people want to have a more open and honest government.

Hon. Speaker, I suspect that the strategy towards this special warrant spending became even more involved, as we saw the commitment of $1 million, untendered, without any open bid, to the one group that might be able to put together a rationale for why they were going to have to introduce a budget that would put taxation against the people of British Columbia. So we hired the now-famous firm of Peat Marwick to come in and do an "independent audit." Well, before we committed $1 million to Peat Marwick through special warrants, this opposition asked why it was not part of the government's policy to use the audit services that are already on salary. Why don't we just get the auditor we're already paying for? Are we suggesting that the auditor general, who is already on salary, who already has staff, who already had $1,100,000 through the special warrant expenditures for the auditor general...? Was that million dollars to the auditor general not enough, so that we had to spend an additional million on Peat Marwick? The question is why, hon. Speaker. Was it because the auditor general might have put out a truly independent assessment of where we were and wouldn't be subject to the political spin that could be put on by the new government, so that the government could take to the people this great tale of woe about how they had to increase taxes and go after the taxation through the process of being able to look after the people's business?

Hon. Speaker, I suggest to you that this government did indeed attempt through special warrant to go toward the process of a Peat Marwick....

D. Schreck: On a point of order, I call the member's attention to standing order 43, which calls for the member to take his seat once he falls into tedious repetition.

[3:30]

The Speaker: Would the member please proceed.

G. Wilson: I would suggest that the only thing we've witnessed in tedious repetition is special-warrant spending by this government. It's exactly what the previous one did. That is tedious repetition.

Hon. Speaker, I suggest to you that there was indeed a strategy, and I would give perfect credence here to that strategy, because it was politically very clever. Politically it was very wise that this government -- if they were to try not to be hung with a $1.8 billion deficit and major tax increases against British Columbians -- had to find a reason. They had to find an excuse. The way to do that was to have an "independent audit" that would provide an example of the previous spending that was, in fact, very poor -- much of it was done by special warrant. One could argue that, in fact, it was the special-warrant spending that created poor spending by the former government. Certainly we want to look at how that has been done. For that we can be thankful we have some documentation. But it seemed to me also that by putting out that special independent study on the finances, it allowed time, through special-warrant spending, to have the programs this government wanted to put in place, to be put in place -- programs that were going to be very expensive, and they knew would be very expensive, programs just like the one we heard today on fair wages, which is going to put up the cost of every piece of government construction substantially and probably cost the taxpayers of British Columbia very large sums of money.

They also needed time to put in place the kind of programs that they would need to go out and continue to sell the government line. They were able to do that through expenditures of dollars -- through special warrants, through the hiring of many people, partisans in particular, who are now advancing the notion that this government had no choice when we just demonstrated they had a choice.

There was a clear strategy, and special-warrant spending was equally the vehicle as was the Peat Marwick report. And let it be very clear that what was wrong for the Social Credit was wrong for the NDP, and the people of British Columbia will judge this government harshly because of it. When we start to examine -- and we will examine every dollar -- every nickel that was spent by special warrant, what I have just said to be 

[ Page 224 ]

the case will become eminently clear. It will become eminently clear that this government, which promised full, open and public debate, was not interested in that at all. We saw witness of it again today. I find it interesting that the special-warrant spending we've been requested to approve retroactively includes an enormous amount of money that has been committed to projects that were reviled by the government -- government said that many of the projects the Social Credit government introduced were unwise, were not fiscally responsible and were not sensible ways to commit the taxpayers' money. Many of those programs received funding through special warrants -- received this expenditure of taxpayers' money.

I come back once again to the notion that it is inherently dishonest. It is inherently arrogant. I suggest that this Finance minister go back and review his comments in Hansard, where he says: "But when the government attempts to rule by decree, when the government attempts to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are held here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful." Hon. Speaker, we will be requested to cast a vote very soon on this special supply, and in the interim period up to that time, we will review every dollar and every nickel so that we are sure that at least this party, the official opposition, is doing its job for British Columbia. It will be extremely difficult for this government to come forward and hold its head high and say to the people that they had no choice but to bring in a $1.8 billion deficit, on top of a $22 billion capital debt and on top of that a $1.9 billion requirement for servicing of that debt, and that they had no choice in November. They did have a choice. Their choice was to be fiscally responsible then and not allow the deficit to balloon so the taxpayers of British Columbia have to pick up the cost in servicing it now.

Hon. Speaker, in closing, let me say this. We in the opposition want to see a change in the way government is done in British Columbia. We hold ourselves committed to the removal of special-warrant spending. When we look at the arrogant, deceitful and dishonest way that this government has committed taxpayers' money, that is why we're suggesting that this government consider some real changes. That is why we introduced the notion of a fixed budget day, a day by which government must bring before this House an opportunity to table documentation that would lead to a budget that they can defend.

It is for that reason the opposition has put the notion forward to the government, and when they were in official opposition, that we ought to have an exchequer -- a concept that was ridiculed by the Minister of Finance because he doesn't understand it, he doesn't wish to understand it and he hasn't taken the time to see how such an exchequer would eliminate the possibility for the government to spend $2 billion without debate and legislative approval.

It would eliminate the government's opportunity to be able to commit the taxpayers' money, save and except through a single spending authority. When that single spending authority finds that due to revenue decline or increased costs of programs it has to spend more, it must, by law, come to this House. If it fails to get unanimous approval in this House, it will have to go to the people and get a requisition from the people of British Columbia to be able to spend their money to the tune that they have done here.

When the government trucked around the province in the election campaign, I don't ever remember -- either through the Premier or the Minister of Finance -- them asking the people of British Columbia if they could spend $2 billion worth of the taxpayers' money without their approval and authority, leaving them in one of the highest debt situations in the history of this country.

Hon. Speaker, much has been made of where we are in relation to the spending. I would like to close by saying this: if one looks at the spendthrift program of Ontario and the spendthrift program in British Columbia, under two NDP regimes, we are not very far away. If you look at what is going on there in terms of the per capita deficits, you can certainly see that in Ontario it's $5,000 per capita and in British Columbia it is $4,000.

One thing that this special warrant spending has provided is an opportunity to get an excuse for this government to commit more money than ever before, without any proposition to tell us how they intend to clear the debt and balance the books -- another election promise that is going to go down the tubes. The people of this province have had enough of it. They have had enough of this kind of expenditure and of this kind of commitment. They want honest government that respects the fact that there is a limit on the taxpayer to pay. There is no longer going to be a blank cheque that governments can simply write on any time they decide, for whatever reason they wish to go ahead and spend to their heart's content.

When we eventually come to vote on this bill, we will have had the opportunity to examine in detail the content of each of these special warrant spendings. I believe the people of British Columbia will then be given an opportunity to truly judge whether or not this is a fair budget. I believe they will judge this government harshly.

A. Warnke: I rise on this issue because it is of extreme importance, especially in the functioning of a democratic government and a parliamentary democracy.

In the first question period we had in this Legislature, I raised the question of special warrants and directed it to the Premier, answered by the Minister of Finance. Even the Minister of Finance had to concede that this was "an excellent question," and then proceeded to answer that "it's an unfortunate situation" that we are faced with. If it is so unfortunate, why was the Legislature not called to deal with this particular situation? Why continue with special warrant spending? The spending of special warrants did not begin in November and continue through December and January until the present; the history of spending through special warrants began with the previous Social Credit government, which made it a habit. We have here before us on the schedule that the order-in-council was 

[ Page 225 ]

approved April 1, 1991, and this is March 30 of the following year.

I mentioned something else in the first question period. When the governments of Ontario and Saskatchewan were faced with the problem of how to spend -- and the election in Saskatchewan was after ours -- they brought their legislatures back together. They had no difficulty doing that. Why? Because those governments respected parliamentary democracy. In every jurisdiction that has practised expenditure through the legislatures, from the Mother of Parliaments to those throughout the world, they have respected one fundamental principle: the legislative branch of government is the place to initiate expenditures; it is not the sole prerogative of the executive branch.

This issue is indeed of extreme importance when one takes a look at it from a historical context. Issues surrounding taxation can be the focus of the most serious political problem facing any government. The question sometimes is not whether the tax is excessive but whether the process of taxation is improper. Sometimes that emphasis on the violation of the process is far more important than whether the taxation is excessive.

I reflect on a paper I wrote many years ago. I wrote an extensive paper on the Stamp Act in the United States -- a tax, incidentally, that was not excessive; nonetheless it was a tax that was a critical factor leading to the American Revolution. Interestingly, the question then was not whether a government was undemocratic, corrupt, autocratic or oligarchic. It was not even a question of whether the government was exploitative. Indeed, Samuel Adams from Massachusetts, I recall, said in 1759 that the best model of government, as far as he was concerned, was the British government practised by the American colonists. It was "the best model of government that can be formed by mortals." In 1761 John Adams, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, suggested that English government and parliamentary democracy was "the admiration of the world," and that "no government that ever existed was so essentially free."

[3:45]

So the problem was not an exploitative or corrupt government. The problem was not even excessive taxes. Nonetheless, with the Stamp Act, despite the fact that members of the Stamp Act congress who opposed this act conceded that British parliamentary democracy was the most perfect form of government, they said there are times in which governments must be challenged, not for applying excessive taxation but for not applying due process. This is essentially what we have here.

There is also another principle of parliamentary democracy. It's not a question of whether you're legally or technically correct. An executive, a Premier, a Prime Minister, a cabinet, can behave in such a way that is technically and legally correct. But that's not the question, really, with regard to following due process. It's a matter not only of whether one is doing what is legally or technically correct, but also of whether one is perceived by the people as doing good.

When we take a look at the Social Credit government and what they did in terms of introducing special warrants, the opposition, then made up exclusively of New Democratic Party members, had every right to vociferously react to such excessive behaviour by that government, because there was the opportunity for that government to properly bring in legislation, expose that to the Legislature, and have expenditures approved by the Legislature. Yet we know that since October this particular government has continued that process. I recall an issue that was introduced by Social Credit approximately 20 years ago, by a former Premier of this province, with the phrase: "Not a dime without debate." That phrase was a very critical factor in the demise and finally the fall of the New Democratic government. That should be a very sobering thought to this particular government. Instead, we have had a former government, which made a big issue of "not a dime without debate," introduce special warrants, not bringing the expenditures and taxation to this Legislature.

Since the early 1970s we've progressed way beyond dimes and dollars. We are spending millions and billions -- all without debate. This negates the essence of responsible government. Responsible government is a cornerstone of what we have come to believe in, our national parliament and, indeed, in all of the provinces. The history of how the legislatures have developed in this country has been essentially based on the principle of responsible government -- that you bring forth legislation and subject it to the legislature. That is the essence of responsible government.

To essentially violate the principle of responsible government, whether it is technically correct or not, to conduct oneself in such a way that the public perception is that the expenditures and the taxation are not subject to public scrutiny is extremely important.... No debate, no scrutiny of the expenditures, no attempt to bring forth to this chamber a look at all of the details of the expenditures leads to an extremely unfortunate precedent.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

I can understand why this government was perhaps seduced into spending by special warrants. The precedent had been established. A previous government behaved this way and so, as a result, the present government may be seduced into thinking that if the old government did it this way, they can do it too. What is so onerous is that it's done in the first year of their mandate. It is quite obvious that underneath it all is the calculation that people will forget in two or three years. They will forget about spending by special warrants the way we've spent. I do fear this sets an important precedent, and that unless it is vigorously challenged now, it is quite possible that governments of the future might also be seduced into spending by special warrants whenever it serves their interest to do so. This must be opposed now.

There is also the principle that spending by special warrants negates our role as legislators. I do not even believe that the spending by special warrants is benefi-

[ Page 226 ]

cial to the government, because we have seen in the past year how not subjecting expenditures to this chamber tends to interfere with the ability to develop an appropriate fiscal, financial and economic strategy. If there is the tendency that one can spend in any direction without any sort of countervail or questioning of that, then to a certain extent it obscures an ability to sharpen what ought to be done in the future. It distracts from setting forth a path and direction of where we should go in the future.

Therefore the fundamental principle that is practised in all parliaments -- a fundamental principle that is practised in the Congress of the United States and in its various state legislatures, and one which is practised in democratic governments everywhere -- is that expenditures must be subject to the scrutiny of the legislative branch of government. It's the principle that expenditures must obtain the support of the legislative branch of government. This is a basic, fundamental principle of how democratic governments must operate.

What surprises me, in some way, is that everyone learns this basic principle. Sometimes a course in civics or social studies doesn't do a very good job of describing how democratic governments are supposed to function -- in our schools and even in our post-secondary education, I suppose. But if there's one principle that everyone learns, that people pick up by osmosis, if nothing else, it's that the expenditures of government must be introduced in the legislative branch of government. While technically one can get around it and spend by executive action or executive order or, in our particular case, rely on special warrants, nonetheless, it is a principle that everyone learns, especially in the age of democracy. Everyone learns that we subject that expenditure, through the legislative branch of government....

I rise on this issue because I think it is extremely important that in parliamentary democracies, in democratic governments everywhere, there is a fundamental principle that is genuinely understood. In British Columbia we can almost be ashamed that we are so willing to practise this aberration. If there are two governments that do it back to back, it reflects not only on us in the Legislature but on all British Columbians, because once again, across Canada and especially in some other jurisdictions, the people will say that British Columbians think a lot differently. This is an illustration of that. It is something not to be proud of. I would hope that never again will any government in British Columbia, except under the most extreme cases -- and unfortunately we wouldn't want to see that anymore, because that leads to a back-door introduction of special warrants -- introduce special warrants.

Let us, from this point onward, bring every bit of expenditure and taxation into this chamber and have it approved by the legislative branch of government. It's possible that with the numbers the government has in this chamber they'll have no trouble passing the bill. But I know that myself, my colleagues and the people of this province will be vigilant, and we will remember in the next election campaign just how this government behaved in its first year.

F. Gingell: I listened with interest to my friend, who spoke about the importance of us vigorously pursuing the question of spending by special warrant. It's perhaps very difficult for the members of this House -- those who are listening -- to consider this question, because we have been talking about it at some length. I'm afraid that it's clearly within our responsibility to talk about it a little more.

I do wish to make the point, first and foremost, that there was another alternative. The alternative was clearly shown by the New Democratic government in the province of Saskatchewan. They were elected on October 21, and on November 17 they were in their assembly dealing with the passage of their budget. They admitted at that point -- and it's all recorded in the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan dated December 17, 1991 -- that all they could do was bring forward the budget that had been prepared by the previous administration. But that put them in a position where they would be able to debate it, to pass it, and then to prepare and work on their own budget.

[4:00]

We in this province have just been left in the dark. The government has, by means of special warrant, expended funds that have increased the deficit this province will suffer: an excess of expenditures over revenues for the year ended March 31, 1992 -- tomorrow -- of $2.344 billion, up from $1.2 billion. So this government has in a very casual, quiet and uninspected way increased the provincial deficit by $1.2 billion -- have in fact doubled it -- and have not allowed us any opportunity to speak, to question, to make suggestions or to offer our advice on various programs, procedures or things that could have been done to keep it to its minimum. In fact, what we in opposition saw was a government that immediately hired friends and individuals to work for them in their ministerial roles at rates in excess of government standard contract rates.

What a fine example to set to the people of British Columbia! Times are tough. Tighten up your belts and batten down the hatches. But don't do it until we just happen to slip some orders-in-council through first, so that we may pay people we wish to hire, who have worked for us for years, not at rates that other British Columbians are paid for doing this work, but at rates that are in excess.

Well, Mr. Speaker, one can speak for a long time on this question, and you've all heard quite a bit about it, so I would like to move off what has happened in the past and move into what's going to be happening in the future. Bill 16 calls for us to approve interim supply in the amount of $4.425 billion. You can appreciate that many of us on this side of the House have some concerns about that amount of money, because it has clearly been set out in the budget debate that this government intends to raise about $4 billion to pay these expenditures of $4.425 billion and have a shortfall of roughly $425 million in this quarter alone. That's quite easy to arrive at. The government has brought in a budget that has expenditures in the region of $17.9 billion, and anticipates that we'll show a budget deficit of $1.7 billion.

[ Page 227 ]

So they have this fine plan where we're going to tax the people 90 cents and spend a dollar. Well, that's the sort of thing that gets families into trouble. It's the sort of thing that gets businesses into the bankruptcy court. It's the kind of action that causes the trustees to move in. It's the kind of action, Mr. Speaker, that causes your bank or your mortgage company to start an action of foreclosure.

So why are we doing that in British Columbia? If we only anticipate raising $4 billion in taxes in the first three months of this year -- i.e., one-quarter of the $16 billion in taxes shown in the budget -- then surely this interim supply bill, Bill 16, should be for $4 billion. We simply can't spend $4.425 billion if we're only going to take in $4 billion in revenue.

And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to you, and to this House, that the question of whether or not we will raise $4 billion in this quarter -- or $16 billion in this year -- in various forms of tax revenue in this province to pay these costs is a matter of some conjecture and a matter that I question.

There were many proposals made by the hon. Minister of Finance in the budget last Thursday where he explained to us how the people of British Columbia were going to finance this year's expenditure plan. As we all know, in a proposal that will be dealt with later, corporate income taxes have been raised by about 7 percent. There is a proposal where corporate income taxes for small businesses will be raised by just a little more than 11 percent. That's correct: the small businesses in this province, in corporate income tax alone, are expected to increase their payments to the provincial government by 11 percent.

They are also expected to contribute to a new tax called the corporate capital tax. As we all know -- or as some of us know -- this really isn't a capital tax; it is an asset tax. It's not a tax that's just charged on capital and retained earnings. It is a tax that includes in its calculation the amount of indebtedness of the company guaranteed or secured by formal means. It is a tax this government is placing on the small businesses of this province that isn't even recognized by the federal government. The federal government has no intention of allowing the payment of this tax to be deducted in calculating your federal taxes. I even wonder if the provincial government is planning on recognizing it and allowing it as a deduction when you calculate your provincial taxes. I certainly hope so.

As I said, when we deal with this item, the expenditure of $4.425 billion, recognizing that we're only going to raise 90 cents of every dollar that we spend, we are going to add to that deficit those additional borrowings that have to be made from the international market. When this province is required to go out all the time and borrow from people and jurisdictions that look after their finances in a more responsible fashion -- they spend less than they earn and therefore are in a position to loan us money.... We are going to have to borrow $1.7 billion.

In addition, we are going to borrow a further $1.8 billion for public works. This additional $1.8 billion is not money to build a dam to make electricity -- which will be sold for many years; people will pay for the power and so enable the borrower to repay the borrowings. It is primarily to build things like schools and spend money on universities, which is fine. But in the end, those costs can only be paid by further taxation. That kind of expenditure is not any different from the kind of expenditure that we make on the current government revenues for which we have to borrow money, because we're not willing to have a pay-as-you-go program.

The financial plan that has been submitted this year by this government intends to put the province deeper in debt to the tune of $3.5 billion -- about $1,100 for every man, woman and child. I'm expecting my seventh grandchild within the next week. When he comes into this world, I will be able to advise him that he will be $1,100 more in debt at the end of the year than he was on the day he was born. That doesn't mean to say that he or she -- I'm expecting a boy, because there are already two little girls -- will only be $1,100 in debt. This child will be something over $7,500 in debt. What a shocking mortgage! Fancy coming into this world and discovering that your whole future has been mortgaged to the extent of $7,500 before you draw your first breath.

The expenditure plan for the year 1992-93 anticipates that the economic growth in this province will be in the region of 3 percent. I appreciate, as I am sure all other members of the Legislature do, that you can go out into the world of the economists -- and Mrs. MacPhail isn't here -- and we can give you a complete menu of estimated growth rates for this coming year that various and different economists believe will be the case. They will range all the way from 1 percent to 3.5 percent.

The reaction that I have had from economists since Thursday night, when the budget was delivered, is that to estimate economic growth in this province for 1992-93 at 3 percent is very optimistic. The ability of the province to raise $16 billion -- still $1.7 billion short -- is based on the premise that the economy in this province will grow at about 3 percent when inflation rates are in the region of 1.5 percent to 2 percent.

[4:15]

What are the things that will affect this? The first and foremost thing, the economy, isn't going to grow unless there are more jobs. We all know, and it was said by the New Democratic Party time and time again when they were in opposition, that the greatest and best engine for the creation of jobs in this province is small business. We think about what the climate is for small business in British Columbia in this coming year.

We've got an additional corporate capital tax. There has been additional pressure or costs put onto non-residential buildings for school taxes. They have been pushed up 6 percent. Their corporate income taxes, if they're small business, have been increased by 11 percent. There has been an additional tax brought on through all different types of fees.

Every corporation needs to go and talk to their lawyer once in a while. In this litigious and contentious world, small business, because they can't afford to make a terrible mistake, know that it is critically important to be able to talk to their lawyers and find out what the consequences could be of certain actions 

[ Page 228 ]

before they take them. Effective April 1 -- I presume it is -- it will now cost an additional 6 percent.

Six percent here, a corporate capital tax there, increased property taxes for school purposes and nothing done in the budget to help with the problem of cross-border shopping, one of the most serious concerns that small business in this province has. Nothing has been done. They've just been loaded down with more and more tax. This government believes that the economy in the province will grow by 3 percent, and I pray they are right. They believe it will grow by 3 percent so that we'll only have a deficit of $1.7 billion.

I really do believe that this Bill 16, in proposing that the amount of the interim supply be $4.425 billion, is irresponsible. It's a mistake, and I urge the members of this House to defeat it.

W. Hurd: It's my privilege to follow the Finance critic for our party and the leader in debating special warrants. I am glad that the hon. Minister of Finance has snuck back into chambers so I can address the issue of special warrants from a corporate perspective, something I have some familiarity with. He may leave at any time.

From a corporate standpoint there is a method by which dollars are expended on any major capital project. The most important component of any corporate expenditure of dollars is an appropriation request in which the project is fully described, fully costed out and ultimately presented to the board of directors, which approves the expenditure. There's a good reason for that, because the needs of the shareholders have to be protected. The board of directors has to scrutinize the project as to its logistics and its financial viability, and they have to ensure that the interests of the shareholders are adequately reflected in any decision. Now I ask you to contrast that type of scrutiny to the kind of things we're being asked in this chamber to approve today under interim supply and special warrant. I am delighted there are people still in the chamber to listen to some of the things on this interim supply document.

I quote to the hon. Finance minister: November 14, 1991, a total of $776,000 "to maintain service." January 13, 1992.... This is a good one here. This is: $1 billion to "maintain service." Now I try to contrast this with your children coming forward and asking for their allowance, and suggesting to you, as their parent, that the amount has to go up this week because "it costs more to maintain service this week than it did last week."

This is a very interesting list. When you go down some of the figures here....

An Hon. Member: Let's hear more.

W. Hurd: Let's hear more. Let's talk about a grant to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation for capital expenditures and an operating deficit of $8.4 million. Increased MSP use, drug costs and computerization in the Ministry of Health -- $58 million.

I return to the corporate sector and try and subject this type of spending scrutiny to what would be expected in a major corporation in this province. I can just imagine going to the board of directors and suggesting that I need a total of $15 million just to maintain service. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that if I survived to the end of the day in the company, the directors would suggest to me that maybe I was in the wrong line of work and should cross the floor and get into government.

I think it's also important for the people in the gallery to realize that this type of public spending has been the norm in this province, instead of the exception. We're being asked during the debate on this bill to approve not one set of special warrants but two, from the previous government and from the one that took office October 17. Not only do we have to scrutinize what has occurred since October 17, we also have to try and plow through the special warrants approved by the previous government. And they weren't even as detailed -- I'm referring to the previous government now -- as the ones we have from the present government. They just say that $2,863,983,000 is to be authorized in the special warrant of April 1, 1991, passed on May 31, 1991, and ultimately passed on June 27, authorizing the total spending for the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Services at $10 million. This includes $2,668,000,000 for voted expenditures for these ministries, including under Supply Act (No. 1). The second section of the second supply bill specifies that the remaining balance in Supply Act (No. 1), 1991, continues to provide supply for the remaining ministries, i.e., other than Health, Education and Social Services. If you can figure it out, let me know, but that's it.

So the Social Credit Party, the previous government, was even less direct than is the current government. At least they give us information that says: "Maintain services; financial settlement from closure, Cassiar mine and township, $12 million; funding for income assistance, $88 million; increased MSP use" -- as I've indicate -- "$58 million; increased independent school enrolment, immigrant settlement program, $3.5 million; to the Attorney General, $30,465,000 and a variety of costs." If we have an accounting term "variety of costs," I'd certainly be interested in hearing an explanation for that as well.

You start looking through these special warrant grants, hon. Speaker, and it certainly is an interesting exercise in doublespeak, in lack of accountability and in the kind of thing that this government, when it was in opposition, said it would never tolerate. I think it's important at this time for us to review some of the comments regarding special warrants offered in past sessions of the B.C. Legislature. It's important for them to be reintroduced in the pages of Hansard at this time.

This one is from the hon. Minister of Finance, who was then in opposition: "The main purpose of the members of the Legislature, everyone should agree, is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." That's why we're here, Mr. Speaker. It was that side of the House that at one time said, "Not a dime without debate," and they're now asking for $5 billion of public money to be passed posthaste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of the House.

[ Page 229 ]

An Hon. Member: Who was that?

W. Hurd: It says here the hon. Minister of Finance, but it couldn't have been him.

"We know, Mr. Speaker, that they have a lot of reasons why they do not want the scrutiny placed before them; there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature have been their doing. It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the largest-taxing government we've seen for some time; they have regressively taxed and unfairly taxed working people, the poor and seniors in this province, and they want to avoid that debate in this House." It gets better. "You cannot run a government and implement tax legislation with municipalities and school boards on major questions of public policy when those bills have not even been introduced in the House. You cannot run a government by spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money before the House is called."

These quotes are both April 23, 1990. Another one from the same hon. Minister of Finance:

"The principal role of parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending, and to scrutinize the government's agenda for the province. We have been denied that opportunity."

Here's another one from the hon. Minister of Finance, May 30, 1991:

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

"Mr. Speaker, our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle. It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government because we are elected representatives -- all of us. We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money, and the government has to be held accountable.... When the government and the executive council acts unilaterally, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy."

I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance for his eloquence. Having now been elected to this chamber, I have to admit it's some of the most amazing rhetoric that one can find, and it makes it especially interesting to do some research on this in light of the current debate in this House.

Here's one from the Member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, which I particularly like. It's one that I'm very fond of: "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." It certainly is interesting to recall this particular quote from Hansard in light of the emergency which has preceded the introduction of this bill in the House today.

[4:30]

I would like to talk briefly on why opposition parties are so concerned about spending under special warrant. As I indicated earlier, the record of special warrant spending in this province has been one of the worst of any provincial government in Canada. If one is to look at the financial affairs of 1991, it is to realize that for all but four or five months of the current fiscal year the government has spent by special warrant or interim supply. This House has been rendered irrelevant by both the third party and the opposition party now that it's in government. What is particularly galling for people on this side of the House is that you can pick up these quotations from Hansard; you can talk to people who understand how important it is that the proper scrutiny and financial accounting be in place. It's something we do in our everyday lives. It's something we do in our business. It's something we expect of our boards and municipal councils who are not entitled by law to run a deficit -- at least in the case of municipal councils. It is what we expect out of almost every financial dealing, yet when it comes to the provincial government, we have a government operating in a bunker that has spent billions of dollars under the so-called guise of an emergency on the basis of special warrants. It's absolutely shameful, and during the two or three days available to us to focus on this debate, we're determined to emphasize to the people of the province that it's an unacceptable way for governments to conduct their affairs. It's an unacceptable abuse of this House, which the government was fond of identifying when it was opposition and for which it has absolutely refused to take any responsibility today.

If we focus on the current government and the reasons it gave for spending by special warrants, they claim they inherited a mess. They claim that the only way to straighten it out was to hire an outside auditing firm. And we've ended up with the first budget in the history of this province to be written not by the Finance ministry but by the outside accounting firm of Peat Marwick Thorne. It's without precedent in the history of this province, and I suspect that it may be the modus operandi of this government in the future. When in doubt, go out and find an accounting firm willing to do the government's bidding and come up with what I call a financial review, not an audit. If you were a shareholder of a major company in this province, it's the type of vaguely worded financial review that you would never tolerate. And yet this government has passed off this report to the people of the province as being the final authority on where we stand in terms of our debt and our financial obligations.

C. Tanner: Rent a review.

W. Hurd: I'm glad that the hon. member for Saanich and the Islands talked about it being a rent-a-review, because that's exactly what it is. For $1 million, which our leader has indicated was spent by special warrant to pay them, they have come up with a carefully worded document that is not an audit but a 

[ Page 230 ]

financial review. And of that $1.7 billion or $2 billion they identified, $1 million is for their bill. A shameful and disturbing situation.

So where do we go from here? As I alluded to earlier, the government claimed it was in a financial mess. Yet they delayed awarding the contract to Peat Marwick Thorne for some two months, so the report conveniently dragged on into the New Year and was not released until just prior to this House sitting. It's a shameful situation. I hope it's not the kind of thing we can expect from this government in the future, but I greatly fear that it is.

We have never been able to understand -- and we continue to try to understand -- why the NDP government of Roy Romanow in Saskatchewan was able to recall the House five days after being elected. I'm sure that he rose in the House on many occasions and told his members of the shameful state of his province's finances and how the previous government of Grant Devine, who was every bit as popular as the government of the previous Social Credit Party in this province, had left them with a horrible mess to straighten out. But there was a Premier who was prepared to recall his Legislature and give his government authority to spend the public's money.

Unfortunately, there are no Roy Romanows on the opposition benches that I can tell. It is somewhat ironic that this has been declared a Freedom of Information Week. Yet the government continues to spend by special warrant with no recourse to anyone. How much freedom of information is there when $2.863 billion is approved "to maintain service"

An Hon. Member: Lots of information there.

W. Hurd: There are two pieces of information: maintain and service. This is one of the major reasons why we were so concerned about the Peat Marwick Thorne report. Nowhere in this report does it deal with the issue of the propriety of government spending by special warrant. Not one mention of whether or not the auditor general should be the one to scrutinize the past government's spending or whether there is a role for the Legislature in approving the expenditures of government. If you were making a million dollars on a contract, would you suggest that maybe someone else could do your work for you? I suspect not.

Without the watchdog role of a board like the auditor general, it's absolutely essential that we produce some alternative to outside accounting firms, which are really not accountable to this House. This is one of the reasons that the opposition has been continuously questioning the authenticity and accuracy of the Peat Marwick report during question period. Instead of coming to the auditor general, who would be accountable to this House, the contract is awarded and the information is seen by the executive council and cabinet. It's simply an unacceptable way of providing an accurate review of the province's finances. The reason is that outside accounting firms are hired by the government, paid by the government and produce a report which only the government can be satisfied with.

This is a government that promised a new beginning for the people of the province. It promised an end to the abuses that they claimed were so evident with the previous government. Again I refer to their comments in Hansard about the denigration of the legislative process by avoiding the scrutiny of spending. I have to say that they were tremendously gifted in their rhetoric and in their opposition.

I find it absolutely astonishing that so few of them are in the House today to listen to the concerns of the opposition parties. Seemingly so few of them care about how this special warrant spending is perceived by the people of the province. Is it any wonder that when the people of the province scrutinize this type of special warrant spending, they are cynical about the hyprocrisy of governments on both sides of the House?

I find it absolutely amazing as well that the hon. Finance minister has chosen to cast ridicule at the ideas of an exchequer, a fixed budget day and an expanded role for the auditor general -- something that the opposition party championed in the past election. It must have found some favour with the people of the province, because as we know, the Liberals form the official opposition, and demanding more financial accountability was one of the major reasons for our success.

My question to the hon. Minister of Finance for budget day next year, since we won't arrive there for some time yet, and....

F. Gingell: He won't be there either.

W. Hurd: I suspect not.

My question is: does he intend to use an outside accounting firm for next year's budget? Does he intend to establish a precedent for Peat Marwick Thorne or Deloitte and Touche or any other accounting firm to provide so-called independent financial data to this House? Is that going to be his modus operandi: to continue to spend by special warrants and interim supply?

When the government ends up in opposition or possibly even as the third party after the next election, I just wonder what they'd be saying to the people of the province if the Liberal government of the day were to stand and blame the past government for the financial mess they inherited and for the fact that they had to spend over $2 billion without scrutiny by the people of the province. What will they say then?

I'm going to continue to run through some of these special warrants, hon. Speaker, because they make for very interesting reading.

"Executive Council Chambers, Victoria. On the recommendation of the undersigned, the Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, orders that, whereas the Legislature is not in session and there is no provision for supply for the maintenance of certain services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, and whereas each minister of the Crown for the ministries listed in the schedule has reported in relation to those matters for which he or she is the appropriate minister that for the public good, money is urgently and immediately required to maintain...services for which he or she is responsible, and 

[ Page 231 ]

that no appropriation has been made for the continuation of these services, and whereas the Treasury Board has recommended that money for these services be provided by special warrant, and whereas the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers the payment of the following amount to be necessary, now therefore it is ordered that a special warrant in the form set out in the schedule be prepared for the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor, authorizing payment from the consolidated revenue fund of $716,000 for purposes and in amounts referred to in the schedule and, for the purpose of section 21(6) of the Financial Administration Act, the following ministers have responsibility for those matters appearing opposite their names."

Here are the names: the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations and the Attorney General -- the chief law officer as well as the chief financial officer of the province of British Columbia. That's the way in which they continue to spend the province's money as we speak today.

An Hon. Member: Where was the Premier at the time?

W. Hurd: He's not listed here.

So, in summary, we have no choice but to continue our opposition to special-warrant spending and to express our deep-seated opposition to the bill before us today. It's a bill that whitewashes an unacceptable practice in this province and in this House -- that of special-warrant spending and interim supply, which really is the basis of the parliamentary system and the basis of financial accountability. It's the type of financial accountability that will be demanded of every corporate citizen in this province and every person who is responsible for the expenditure of public money. In the most important elected office in this province -- the Legislature -- we can't even subject the books of the province to proper and ordered scrutiny.

It's a shameful practice that must end with this particular legislative session, and I hope that the ideas of a chancellor of the exchequer, a fixed budget date, an expanded role for the auditor general and quarterly financial statements -- which, I might add, are expected in almost every other type of financial venue -- will become the orders of the day in this Legislature, and that never again will we, with two days left in the fiscal year, be sitting debating expenditures totaling $2 billion on the basis of "maintaining service."

I could continue with the kind of messages that we're being asked to scrutinize here, but I understand there are other speakers. So I'll take my seat and offer my place in the debate to people who have a continued interest in this issue.

[4:45]

J. Weisgerber: It's ironic that I should stand today to chastise the government for interim spending and special warrants. I'm somewhat reluctant to do so, I must tell you. It wasn't that long ago that I sat on the other side and listened to the outrage of members then sitting on this side -- outrage about interim supply and special warrants, outrage that interim supply was brought so late by the government as to allow only a very limited debate on the expenditures of a huge amount of money. Things change, and the world has a way of turning things around. Here we are standing up today, and I'm not going to feign outrage. I think interim supply is something that we're probably going to see for a while. I would encourage the government to bring the budget in earlier in the session, even if for only a couple of weeks, so that the Minister of Finance would have an opportunity to table the interim supply bill a few days ahead of the debate, so as to give opposition an opportunity to truly examine the interim supply and perhaps special warrants and understand where the government might have spent its money more wisely. I think it's a legitimate exercise for the opposition to comment on those things.

But I can't pass up the opportunity of quoting a couple of well-known members of the opposition. Just one quote each, and they are fairly short ones. The first one, not surprisingly, is from the Minister of Finance. He rose in the House on May 30, 1991, and said: "Mr. Speaker, our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle." It's interesting to note that we continue to flout.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: A flouter, yes. "It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government because we are all elected representatives -- all of us." This is the Minister of Finance. "We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money, and the government has to be held accountable. When the executive council spends some $3 billion" -- he says $3 billion, and now it's up to $4 billion -- "without public debate, it undermines the very democracy that we are here to uphold."

That was a rather mild kind of statement for the Minister of Finance when he was in full flight. Mr. Speaker, you may recognize this one, if you listen closely. It was from the member for Vancouver-Burrard.

E. Barnes: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: That usually kind and gentle member said: "Clearly interim supply is a political tactic designed to subvert the democratic process and to deny the opposition an opportunity for relevant debate before funds are spent. I can see no reason that we should consider the bill at this time, quite frankly."

The government, after its outrage, has now spent by special warrant for the last almost six months. They had an opportunity, as has been noted and as happened in Saskatchewan, to call the Legislature back after their election victory and to table a budget that reflected their priorities. Instead they chose to use the budget the previous government had tabled, to overspend that budget and to use every opportunity to inflate the spending, so as to justify bringing down what they knew, I suspect, the day after they were elected was the 

[ Page 232 ]

largest deficit ever tabled in the province of British Columbia.

So the government started out, soon after its election on October 17, to build a case for their huge deficit. I think if we sit back and look at what happened after October 17.... First of all, the government was very slow to take office. They preferred to leave the previous administration there until November 5 -- a full three weeks after their successful election. They chose to leave an interim caretaker government in place while they developed a strategy. They had been critical of a budget tabled by the previous government that showed, clearly, a $1.2 billion deficit. Immediately after the election -- and, in fact, before the election -- they became aware that the current projections would not see that budget brought in with a $1.2 billion deficit. Soon after the budget was tabled it became obvious that anticipated transfers from Ottawa would not come, so the projected revenues in the budget would be down. In fact, at the end of the fiscal year they wound up some $200 million short of what had been projected in the budget. They were aware very shortly after the election that current spending would see an overrun of about $300 million in expenditures. That would then see the budget with a $1.7 billion deficit, unless some action was taken by the government.

I now want to remind the Finance minister again that halfway through the fiscal year, in many occurrences he will find budget spending running over. In the early months of the fiscal year, ministries will spend more than has been budgeted, and it's the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the ministers to correct that spending.

In the fiscal year previous to the one just concluding, at the six-month point our government found that we had overspent by $330 million -- a little more than this government found itself faced with when it took power on October 17 or November 5, whenever they got around to doing it. By eliminating discretionary spending and by cutting back in the ministries, we were able to offset that early $300 million overexpenditure and bring in the budget as it had been tabled.

This government had exactly the same opportunity. Had the government taken control when it was elected and dealt with spending overruns, it could have brought in the budget with a $1.4 billion deficit -- exactly, coincidentally, the figure that they used in their election material. When they were running the campaign, they knew that the revenue shortfalls would see a deficit of at least $1.4 billion. The government could have brought the budget into this House with a final figure of $1.4 billion.

Instead, they allowed spending to run rampant, they used a special warrant and they encouraged spending. They got the figure up, but only to $1.7 billion -- not enough when they knew that this year they were going to be bringing in a budget with a deficit higher than that. They needed some way, other than just profligate spending, to raise the size of the deficit in the previous fiscal year.

There came Peat Marwick. They came in and examined and found $700 million in doubtful accounts or bad debts -- we're not quite sure -- that we are led to believe probably accumulated over the past decade or perhaps longer. The Finance minister grabbed those like a dog grabs a bone and said: "This is it! This is the answer to my deficit problem. We'll add it to this year's deficit. We'll pretend that the government didn't spend $300 million over" -- and that government was as responsible as the one in the previous six months -- "but we'll add the $700 million in doubtful accounts. We'll pretend that it's part of the deficit, and we'll go to the people and say we've discovered that the budget deficit is truly going to be $2.4 billion."

Mr. Speaker, the government won't table any information on the debts that were written off. They won't tell us who is responsible for those doubtful accounts or on what basis they've decided that they should be written off. When we read the Peat Marwick report, we find that Peat Marwick didn't examine them. They simply looked at the government's accounts and decided that a percentage of them were doubtful accounts. When you apply that percentage to the total government portfolio, it comes out to just under $700 million. So there was the government's answer to its deficit problem.

We've asked the government, the Minister of Finance -- I have repeatedly -- to table the information on these accounts that it's writing off. We understand from Peat Marwick that some of them are student loans, and we understand that Peat Marwick has recommended that 100 percent of student loans should be written off. What a marvellous message to send someone who has just gone through university, assisted by the taxpayers: "Look, we're going to write your loan off, because we don't think you are going to pay anyway. We really don't expect you to pay." What an awful suggestion to put in front of someone who has just received at least a portion of their education as a result of loans from both the federal and provincial governments. Write them all off, the government says.

We're asking the government to table the details of the loans that were written off, to justify for the people of British Columbia the write-down of $700 million, and to justify the inflated budget figure of $2.4 billion, because it's absolute nonsense. The best the government could inflate the previous year's deficit was to $1.7 billion. That's not quite high enough, because they were bringing in a budget with a $1.79 billion deficit, and they wanted to look good. They wanted it to compare favourably with the budget in the previous year. Unfortunately, with the way interim supply and special warrants are set out, there is going to be no opportunity for us and for members of the official opposition to examine these written-off loans in third reading. We can examine overspending in a ministry, item by item; we can get that information. But there are no special warrants that cover the $700 million that the government used to inflate the size of its deficit.

This will be one of the few opportunities, although I suspect I'll take the opportunity during budget debate to raise this point again. The government is using the very limited time available for interim supply and special warrants to try to give credibility to this inflated budget-deficit figure from the previous year of $2.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, don't buy it. It's not a legitimate 

[ Page 233 ]

figure; at the very best, $1.7 billion is the size of the deficit in the previous fiscal year. The number beyond that is only an accumulation of accounts that we have no understanding of. We think they might be doubtful accounts. We think they may be bad debts. The government refuses to give us or the taxpayers any information. It's a disgrace that the government, which campaigned on open, honest, accountable government, would use that kind of manoeuvre to artificially inflate the size of the last deficit. I suspect they will have no trouble inflating the size of the deficit in the budget that they've tabled, because when I look at some of the revenue projections....

Let's look at the issue of B.C. Hydro. Last year the budget projected B.C. Hydro would pay the government a dividend of $89 million. They didn't get anything from them, because Peat Marwick and others said that taking that $89 million away from B.C. Hydro would impair their ability to maintain their system properly, and that it was poor economics to steal from B.C. Hydro for the provincial treasury and do away with necessary maintenance.

[5:00]

Examination of the budget suggests that this government is going to get $147 million in dividends from B.C. Hydro. Is all the maintenance done? Where will this newfound wealth come from? I'll tell you where it's going to come from. It's going to come from Hydro rate increases, that's where it's going to come from. The government is going to go ahead, raise water rentals, thereby bypass the B.C. Utilities Commission, and get an automatic increase in rates and, through that, is going to be able to get from B.C. Hydro -- at least it thinks -- $147 million. So if the $89 million last year was an inflated number, I don't understand how the government expects to get $147 million this year.

I suspect that a year from now we will be here debating a budget with a real deficit of about $2.4 billion, not a made-up, Mickey Mouse, phony $2.4 billion deficit like the one we've seen tabled this year. Next year I suspect we'll see a real $2.4 billion deficit. With that, I thank you for the opportunity to raise a couple of issues. I do hope that during third reading of the special warrants the government will see fit to table in this House some documents a little more easily understood than Bill 16. This thing is contrived deliberately to make everybody have a great deal of difficulty determining which ministry is overspent, how much they've overspent, and what they overspent on. I anticipated an interim supply bill clearly indicating what had been spent on special warrants as outlined in the budget, and what had been overspent in each ministry. Instead there has been a great deal of work done to make sure that the casual observer, the British Columbian who pays taxes, will have no way of ever determining which ministry overspent its budget, and which didn't. With that, I'll take my place and look forward to rising again tomorrow in third reading of this bill.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to rise in the second reading debate on Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 1992. I would imagine you would find it interesting, as I do, that in moving second reading of this bill today, the hon. Minister of Finance did not make any substantive comments in this House. He simply rose in this House to give first reading and then moved second reading of a bill offering to this House the right to retroactively approve spending billions of dollars, and to spend in the future, in the first quarter of the new fiscal year, billions of dollars, and yet he had nothing to say. He had no substantive comments to make. He had no defence. Perhaps I should call him the minister of defence, or perhaps the minister of no defence, because he offered no defence and there is no defence for the measures in this interim supply bill introduced by this government today.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The other extraordinary thing about this bill, and the manner in which it has been brought to this House, is that it's been moved today under standing order 81 of the rules of this assembly. Standing order 81 is very clear. It says that on urgent or extraordinary occasions a bill may be read twice or thrice or advance two or more stages in one day. I think we can ask: what is urgent or extraordinary about the circumstances the hon. Minister of Finance finds himself in today? What is urgent and extraordinary about the conditions in which we have received this bill today, and have been asked to advance it more than one stage today? It is very clear what is extraordinary. What is extraordinary about this bill is the manner in which this government has hesitated, vacillated and procrastinated. What they did was look at when the fiscal year ends and decide on the minimum amount of time they can give to the Legislature, with any credibility whatsoever, for approving their actions -- their actions that have been approved only by cabinet, by secret orders-in-council or special warrants in cabinet -- and get away with. Then they worked back from there. That's how they decided when to bring in their budget. That's how they decided when this Legislature would meet.

They could have called the House a lot earlier. We know that, and it's widely accepted by British Columbians that they could have. There's nothing urgent or extraordinary. That's proven and borne out by comments made by members in this debate today -- by the hon. leader of the third party and by members of the official opposition.

Let's take a look at what's happened in some other jurisdictions under similar circumstances. In Saskatchewan there was an election at approximately the same time as here in British Columbia. They were very similar circumstances. A government came to power, they had a budget that was not approved by the legislature, they disagreed with the practices of a previous government, and what did they do? They recalled the legislature and passed a final supply bill. They did the right thing.

A similar practice occurred in Ontario, when a new government not too long ago was elected under similar circumstances. What did they do? They called the House into session to obtain proper legislative authority to spend the taxpayers' dollars. Why would two 

[ Page 234 ]

governments of the same political persuasion as this new government in British Columbia have done the right thing, and why would this government now be doing the wrong thing? Why would this government, when it's composed of members of a political party which once castigated and criticized mercilessly a previous government for spending by special warrant, be doing the same thing now? Why are we in this truly extraordinary circumstance?

Hon. Speaker, I know you've asked the same question. I know that we all have as members of this House. Why was the budget so late? Why was the Legislative Assembly called into session so late? We know that the House could have been called last fall, as it was in Saskatchewan and in Ontario. But the government wasn't ready. They weren't ready to allow the people to provide scrutiny for their new administration. They weren't ready because they had to put together their defence, and the minister of defence was the quarterback in that whole process.

We know that there was a deficit. It was described in the previous government's budget presented to this House and never fully approved before the House was dissolved before the election was called last year. The incoming government knew there was going to be a deficit.

What did the government do in the first almost half a year after they were elected? They didn't do the right thing. We know that. They didn't call the House into session at an early opportunity. They ran up the deficit. How did they run it up? They did that by approving special warrants without any debate or scrutiny, and they spent the taxpayers' dollars without any legislative approval whatsoever.

That's wrong. If it was wrong for a previous government and for governments in other jurisdictions, it's equally wrong for this government. In fact, it's even more wrong because of the hypocrisy represented by the fact that they were the most severe critics of this practice not so long ago. In fact, it was less than a year ago in this House that members now in the executive council of this government criticized the practice mercilessly. Now they find themselves doing the same thing. How can they sleep at night? Shame on them!

These are extraordinary circumstances, but they're extraordinary because the government manufactured them. This is a manufactured crisis. Why are we being asked at the last possible moment before the expiration of the government's fiscal year to approve this bill? Why, when tomorrow we witness the end of this fiscal year, are we being asked at this late date to approve this bill?

There are two fundamental flaws with this Bill 16 that's been presented to us today, and the flaws really strike to the heart of what is in this bill. First of all, the bill is asking us to approve retroactively all of the spending associated with the previous government, all of the spending associated with this government to finish spending the budget of the previous government, and all of the spending -- the overspending -- on that budget spent by this government, much of it on the friends and insiders of the NDP. That is wrong. The interim supply measures themselves are wrong, and the special warrants are wrong as well. It's a flawed bill. And it's repugnant that we are being asked to approve it in this omnibus manner.

What we really need, and what we really should have as legislators if there's going to be any sense to this process of approving the spending of taxpayers' dollars, is two separate bills. We need one supply bill -- a final supply bill for the previous fiscal year -- so that we can debate the spending for the last fiscal year separately from the interim supply measure for the first few months of the new fiscal year. They should be presented to this House in two separate measures, so that they can be debated separately, because they are separate issues. But no, this government wants to mix them together, wants to combine the debate on both past and future spending. They want to put it together: billions of dollars of past spending and billions of dollars of spending in the first quarter of the new fiscal year. They want to combine them to confuse the taxpayers and to confuse legislators, if they can. They want to ram it through at the very end of the government's fiscal year.

I think it's dishonourable. I know they have the authority to do this under the terms of the Financial Administration Act. It's true. But perhaps the Financial Administration Act should be changed. Perhaps it should be amended to disallow this kind of abuse of power by an executive that doesn't take into account the rights and privileges of a democratically elected assembly.

Let me tell you what the Financial Administration Act actually says. It's interesting that that's what they're hiding behind. They are hiding behind the Financial Administration Act, which refers in section 21 to special warrants. What does it say? It says that if a matter arises for which an expenditure not foreseen or insufficiently provided for is urgently and immediately required for the public good, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can approve special warrants. Well, what is urgently and immediately required for the public good? For the last five months, has it been urgent and immediately required for this government to spend the taxpayers' dollars without legislative approval? We have to think about that. Has it been urgent and immediately required that they could spend taxpayers' dollars with no debate, by secret orders-in-council, by special warrants? Why was it so urgent that this House could not meet?

This House could have been called at any time. In fact, the official opposition offered an olive branch to the government and said: "Call the House into session. We will give you speedy approval of a supply measure, so that we can send a signal to British Columbians that we will not tolerate this kind of abuse of our powers and privileges of parliament ever again in British Columbia." We offered that olive branch to them; we never received a single response. Why?

Hon. G. Clark: They said no.

D. Mitchell: The minister of defence says that there was a response and that they said no. We have to think about that a bit, because this is the same member of the House who not very long ago was sitting on this side of the House castigating and criticizing and 

[ Page 235 ]

mercilessly pleading with a former government not to spend taxpayers' dollars without proper legislative approval. And what did he say when we asked him to please call this House into session, to send a signal to British Columbians that this kind of abuse would never again be tolerated? He said no. The minister of defence said no. The minister of no defence offered no defence. Hon. Speaker, shame on him!

I said there were two fundamental flaws with this bill. I have not mentioned the timing issue. This bill was presented to us today and we're trying to put it through the House -- all the stages: first reading, second reading, committee, third reading -- because of so-called urgent and pressing matters. Well, it's urgent and pressing because this government has made it so. It's a manufactured crisis. We could have had some intelligent, thorough, thoughtful debate on this without putting ourselves against the wall and without putting the people's elected representatives against the clock of the end of the fiscal year, which is tomorrow. They could have brought it in at any time in the last six months, and they know it. But they didn't do it. It was part of a plan by the minister of defence that included stalling and one of the slowest processes of transition that we've ever seen with a newly elected government.

[5:15]

The hon. leader of the third party referred to this in his remarks immediately prior to mine. He referred to the fact that this was a slow transition process and that this government, when it was elected, was not even sworn in for about three weeks after the election. Why was the transition process so slow? And then once they were finally sworn in on November 5, there was no action. It was a lame-duck government. Nothing much was happening publicly, but what was going on behind the scenes was very significant. A plan was put into place. First of all they decided that the House would not sit. There would be no approval by this Legislature for spending taxpayers' dollars. They were not interested in living up to the standards they tried to set when they were in opposition, because they've changed now. I find it hard to believe, and I think British Columbians find it hard to believe, that by virtue of crossing the floor of this chamber and sitting in one of those seats on the other side, a person could go through that kind of a remarkable conversion. How could it be that they no longer believe what they used to espouse with such fervour and passion in this chamber? What kind of hypocrisy is that? If it wasn't sincere, then I can only tell you that this opposition will try to be as sincere as we can, so that when we end up on that side of the House in a few years, we live up to the standards that we try to set in this chamber today.

Both the interim supply measures and the special warrants in this bill strike at the very question of why we have a Legislature. Both of these measures can be abused by the executive. They can be abused in a way that offends the rights and privileges of all parliamentarians. They can be abused in a way that offends the rights and privileges of an elected parliament. Both this interim supply bill and the special warrants we're being asked to approve with it do represent an abuse of power by this government.

And you know, hon. Speaker, I can demonstrate that simply by one very brief reference to the origins of parliament. Why do we have a Legislature? Why are we here in the first place? If the government can govern by special warrant, by secret orders-in-council passed through cabinet without debate, why do we need a Legislature? We've got to ask ourselves why we are here. Why do we have a parliament? Why do we have a Legislature if it can be handled in cabinet by special warrant with no debate and no accountability to the taxpayers? I'm pleased that members opposite are asking themselves the same question, because it's an important one. And if we go back to the origins of parliament some 700 years ago, we can see why we have a Legislature. Even in a perfect world where no new laws were required and no old laws were required to be amended, even where no legislation was brought forward by a government, we would still need the Legislature to meet every year for a very important function: to approve the spending proposals of the government of the day. Because that's one of the prime functions of this institution that we serve.

If you go back to the origins of parliament, as I was saying -- how did this happen? This is how parliament really evolved. When some 700 years ago the Crown wanted to raise taxes to fight a war, he had to call together the nobles from the countryside. He would ask them for some funds, for some taxes, for some tithes. They would be granted, and the king would go off and fight his wars. And when he'd run out of money, he would call the nobles together again and ask them for more tithes, for taxes, for supply. He would ask them for supply, and that's what's being asked for today in the Supply Act. Of course, pretty soon the nobles caught on to the fact that if they granted supply immediately to the king and he went away and spent it, they didn't have a chance to raise their grievances with him. They didn't get a chance to raise with him the grievances that were affecting them and their people and their parts of the realm. Pretty soon the nobles caught onto this, and they developed the principle of grievance before supply, and that's what parliament's origins are all wrapped up in. That's what the essence of parliament is: grievance before supply. It must take place. It was argued much less eloquently by a former member of this House in terms of not a dime without debate, but that's what grievance before supply is all about. That's the essence of parliament. That's why we are here as parliamentarians: to receive and approve, and to debate and express grievance before the government can spend any of the hard-earned dollars of the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's why we're here. We are direct descendants of the origins of parliament some 700 years ago.

Do we have the full opportunity to express our grievances before supply is granted? Do we have that opportunity today?

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: This is a serious matter. This is very serious, and I'm disappointed that members opposite make light of it. I encourage them to rise in this debate 

[ Page 236 ]

and give their points of view on behalf of their constituents as to whether they agree that taxpayers' dollars should be spent by secret cabinet orders. If the members opposite believe in that, then I encourage them to stand up in this House and stand for something, because if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything, my friend. I would encourage all hon. members not to make light of this, because this is a serious matter.

We have before us a supply bill that's asking us to do a lot in very little time. It's asking us to approve billions of taxpayers' dollars retroactively and into the new year. Why do we need this kind of bill? If we reformed our institution so that perhaps we had a fixed budget day, then we would never again need to look at an interim supply measure unless it was truly extraordinary. But, you know, if you take a look at recent history, interim supply measures seem to have become the practice. They seem to have become the norm, and we have to ask ourselves why is it that a government can't bring a budget to this House in sufficient time to have it debated and approved by the people of this province and their elected representatives before the end of a fiscal year. Why do we have to go through this practice every year? Why do governments have to push elected representatives to the wall, to the limit, to the March 31 deadline? There's something fundamentally wrong and flawed with a process that calls for a crisis every year. That's why the Liberal Party has proposed a fixed budget day as a significant reform to this institution. With that fixed budget day, we would never again have to suffer this kind of abuse, and we could have full scrutiny without rushing things through with artificial deadlines and manufactured crises. We need to really seriously look at the kind of reform that we have talked about in the Liberal Party -- fixed budget days. It's the kind of thing we should do if we're going to be a parliament in reform.

I've talked a little bit about the past. That was then. This is now. Why are we where we are today? Why does this government put us through this kind of process? Today we went through a kind of stunt in the Legislature which was really lamentable. At the start of today's proceedings the government tried to introduce a motion to bring another matter before the House before this important measure -- before interim supply was even introduced. Tomorrow is the deadline. The clock is ticking. When we get there, the government is going to scream if we get to the point where the clock is ticking and we're heading down towards the end of the fiscal year. And yet, given that, today we witnessed a stunt of unbelievable hypocrisy in proportions that we haven't seen in this House for a long time. The government tried to bring in a motion, without the required 48 hours' notice, and they wanted us to try to debate that today instead of this interim supply bill. Where is the crisis? They manufacture crises on a daily basis, and that's the order of the day for this government. That kind of stunt really takes away from any credibility that this government has. They tried to ram through a motion today on their so-called fair wage legislation and give that precedence over this supply bill. They said it was more important. When it was pointed out to them by members of this assembly that that could be debated at any time, with proper notice -- and, of course, members are eager and anxious for the government to live up to the commitment of the Premier to have a full and thorough debate on that policy, and in fact on all their policies -- they then quickly moved on to the next crisis, which is interim supply. I'm glad we're here, but that kind of stunt should never be allowed again.

Here we are debating the supply bill, Bill 16. Members of this House have talked about this time and time again. We don't need to go back to a former leader of an opposition who talked about not a dime without debate. We don't have to go back that far at all, because in much more recent times members of this House have spoken very eloquently about the fact that this kind of abuse should not be tolerated.

Hon. Speaker, I might ask you to just guess who said this. It was a member of this House, less than a year ago. "They have hidden themselves in a bunker" -- referring to a previous government -- "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." That was the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who now sits on the government side. That is what she said in this House less than a year ago, referring to the previous government's practice of spending by special warrant.

Hon. Speaker, let me just give you another quote and ask you to imagine who might have said this:

"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."

Hon. Speaker, let me give you one more quote and ask you to imagine who might have uttered these words: "It is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree, when the government attempts to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful." Can you imagine who might have said that, hon. Speaker? Perhaps you can. Yes, it was the former second member for Vancouver East, now the minister of defence -- the minister of no defence. Pardon me, the Minister of Finance -- I forgot his name.

The Minister of Finance spoke to this very eloquently on a number of occasions in this chamber. Do you know what? He was right. He forgets how right he was, though -- that's the problem. The selective amnesia of that particular minister is shocking; it's appalling.

Let me give you another quote from the Minister of Finance when he was an opposition member less than a 

[ Page 237 ]

year ago. That's the point that really disturbs me in a profound way: it wasn't that long ago. How can he forget? He was referring to section 21 of the Financial Administration Act, which I quoted to you just a short while ago. He said:

"Section 21 says special warrants are only awarded under very clear circumstances -- crystal-clear circumstances, Mr. Speaker. They are only allowed in unforeseen circumstances and when urgently required. How could the government argue that this was the case?" And: "It's preposterous for them to have made that argument, and here they are today asking us to retroactively approve this unprecedented abuse."

Hon. Speaker, I could go on and on, but I won't.

Some Hon. Members: Please do.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, since hon. members insist, I'll give you one more quote from the Minister of Finance. This was not when he was the minister; this was when he was a diligent opposition member, when he worked hard in this House to try to hold a previous government accountable. He was not then the minister of defence; he was simply a lowly opposition member like myself. But this is what he said on May 30, 1991. He said: "But when the government attempts to rule by decree, when the government attempts to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful." He went on and said: "One has to look no further than the government's record of fiscal incompetence to see why the government needs to spend a lengthy time in opposition. This kind of arrogance is a final proof that they've simply grown too old over there, too long."

Hon. Speaker, he was talking then about a government that had been in power for a long time. How could it be that this government in such a short time has grown old and tired in office, has fallen prey to the old evil ways a previous government fell into after many, many years. In five short months this government has fallen into the same rut, the same old, evil ways. It's shocking.

I want to tell you how disappointing it is, because the former Leader of the Opposition, who is now Premier, in this House less than a year ago was so disappointed with the practice of spending by special warrant that he wrote a letter to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor to complain about that practice.

Do you know what the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, said? Do you know what he wrote to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor? I'll give you just a brief quote from his letter.

An Hon. Member: No, not brief.

D. Mitchell: Just a brief quote. It's a long letter, and he builds his case, and I have a feeling the former second member for Vancouver East, now the Minister of Finance, the minister of no defence, probably had a part in this letter. I can see his hand in it.

It's a lengthy letter, and it articulates very clearly the essence of this problem, this dilemma, this crisis, this manufactured crisis we find ourselves in today. Here's what the former leader of the opposition said to His Honour. He said: "Your Honour, it is with the greatest respect and reluctance that I request Your Honour take cognizance of a crisis affecting your government which I believe only your Honour can address." He said:

"The legislative authority for the administration to tax British Columbians and spend their money expires at midnight on March 31. When the Legislative Assembly was recalled on March 11 it was our expectation that a budget would be presented, shortly followed by an interim supply bill. This standard course of action would have allowed the routine operations of government to continue past March 31, while your government's budget was thoroughly reviewed and debated by the people's duly elected representatives.

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

[5:30]

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

A breach of provincial law, hon. Speaker. He concludes his letter with these words:

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

I know there are a number of other members who have a contribution to make in this debate. We will be discussing this in much more detail in committee stage, but with these few words I would like to take my seat.

L. Fox: Thank you, hon. Speaker. You can see that I stand alone on this issue.

I'm not really standing before this House in order to debate the merits of these temporary measures. I would, however, like to point out that as a new member of this Assembly, I'm absolutely appalled at the lack of time given to this debate and at the lack of information given to the members on which to debate. It would appear to me that we could have had substantial debate 

[ Page 238 ]

on both this government's and the previous government's expenditures in the last year.

I'm concerned. In all my years in municipal and school board government, I have never been asked to make a decision of such magnitude with so little information and in such little time. I know that the minister was asked by our House Leader to make this information available to us last Friday so that we might have the weekend during which we could give an overview to the issues within this expenditure and these special warrants. But he didn't afford us that opportunity.

I'm concerned that in passing these special warrants we're endorsing actions not only unknown to us but also to the people of the province in terms of the accountability of this government. Whatever happened to open and honest government? I believe the people of this province deserve the opportunity to know the full contents of all the expenditures identified within this warrant document.

For instance, just let me tell of a few that concern me considerably. We notice that the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade has written off $96 million. Social Services had an increase in the last year of $82 million. Why? The taxpayers of British Columbia deserve to know the reasons.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Perhaps. You might be right; it may very well have been due to the previous government. But the people out there deserve to know whether or not that, in fact, was the case.

I also note the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology has written off $55 million in bad loans. Who and what are these? How old are they? All these questions are yet to be answered and have not been brought forth into this House so that we can debate them.

As I said earlier, I'm really concerned for the people of British Columbia that they cannot have the confidence that all people in this chamber have the facts and can debate the issue in their best interests. It's for those reasons that I have a very difficult time accepting Bill 16.

It is not my intent, given the lateness of the hour, to drag this out, but I would really have appreciated it had the Minister of Finance not wanted to cover up the information in this document and had made available to the members of this House the necessary information so that we might have been able to debate this with some certainty and in the best interests of the people of this province.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's indeed a.... I don't know if it's a pleasure. I suppose it's more of a duty today to rise in response to the government's Bill 16. I have some very grave concerns that I bring to this House on behalf of my constituents and the people of British Columbia.

I have in my hands two stacks of paper. One is the 1991-92 special warrants approved by the Social Credit, and the other one is the 1991-92 special warrants approved by the NDP. I doubt if you can see it at home, but the NDP pile is substantially heavier than the Social Credit pile. More substance, more weight, more money. This government, which raged so profoundly for the past five years, particularly last summer, about the Social Credit government's neglect of proper parliamentary practice, the special warrants they liked to run this province on, the methods by which they ran this House and the inequities and inefficiencies of their accounting practices, has now assumed the offices, the chambers and the seats of the last Social Credit government. The metamorphosis has been incredibly quick.

The Liberal Party and the Leader of the Opposition insisted that they call the House post haste, much like had been done in the province of Saskatchewan. "Let's get in the chamber, debate an interim supply bill and get this province back on track right from day one." They refused. We said it again in November, and again this Finance minister and this Premier said no. We said it again in December, January and February, and still they declined to call the House to debate the spending of this province in the proper way. They refused, and so we're left with a stack of special warrants and a government that is as embarrassed by its behaviour as the last one was. We have lists of huge amounts of money: $776 million to maintain service; $1.009 billion to maintain service. The list goes on and on. Those who now sit on the government side of the House and who spoke so vociferously and adamantly about the Social Credit government the last time have now taken on the seats and the personalities of the Social Credit government. It's becoming more and more difficult, day by day, to tell the difference between the two.

Today was a prime example. Here we have a full fiscal year worth of expenditures that we're supposed to debate in a day and a half. We're supposed to go through all the special warrants of the Social Credit and NDP governments in one and a half days of debate. How can we as opposition possibly do a proper job? How can this government possibly do a proper job of explaining and accounting for the expenditures that are contained in these special warrants?

We've been asking the government for months to call the House. How is it that the new NDP government in Saskatchewan, which inherited just as much of a mess as this government did, manage to call the House within a month or so of their election and debate thoroughly in their House the interim supply spending of the new government? Why weren't we weren't able to do that? I wonder why.

The government needed time, because they had to set up their report. They had to hire a private consultant to come in and set up a straw man. They paid them $1 million to give us a 12-volume report telling us how bad things were in this province. This party that's now in government had been berating the past government for months and months on end, for years and years on end, about special warrants and about spending, and now they're in government and they need a whole $1 million worth of a private report, aside from the auditor general, to come into this House and set up the straw man so they could knock it down.

[ Page 239 ]

N. Lortie: You must have another issue to talk about.

G. Farrell-Collins: We have lots of issues to talk about. I could go through these Peat Marwick reports one by one by one and tell you of the money this government wasted in order to set up that straw man.

Some Hon. Members: Straw person.

G. Farrell-Collins: Straw person. I apologize. I guess you can knock down straw persons as easily as straw men.

The interesting thing about this Peat Marwick report upon which this government's plan, their whole fiscal strategy -- if there is one -- was based is that it's fundamentally flawed. The single biggest problem that this province is facing right now, and that the majority of the small business in this province is facing -- as well as the majority of the manufacturing industry, not to mention the resource industry -- comes not from the province of Alberta, which has a recession of its own, but from the states of Washington and Oregon and California and Idaho. Yet nowhere in this $1 million report does it compare tax structures or fiscal structures between our biggest competitors. It talks about Alberta.

For $1 million this report is a waste of taxpayers' money, and it's a waste of our time.

H. Lali: Why are we talking about it?

G. Farrell-Collins: Why are we talking about it? Because the whole fiscal strategy of this government is based on it. It's based on a report that's a waste, which was faulty and flawed from day one. Yet they base the next five years of this government on it. It's a fraud.

[5:45]

It's important that we bring this up a number of times, because it still hasn't sunk into the members opposite how important this is. They don't see the errors of their ways, so I'm worried that next year they're going to spend another million dollars and maybe go to a different accountantcy firm -- maybe one that can do the job properly -- and do the same old thing again. The reality is, we have an auditor general in this province whom the NDP government promised to empower, to make more effective, to make the real accounting watchdog for this province. They spoke time after time when the auditor general's report was tabled in this House about the importance of the auditor general and the job that he or she has to do. Yet they totally ignored the auditor general and went out and hired a million-dollar company to come in and do it for them. Why go for all those years talking about the auditor general? Why go for all those years campaigning, talking about how you're going to empower the auditor general, and then turn around and hire an independent contractor to do the job for you? It doesn't sound very NDP to me, but they did it. Contracting out. I wonder what the civil servants in the auditor general's office thought of that.

The real thing of concern today, however, was the antics of this government. Here we have a full year's debate. How is it that six months ago this party that's now in government argued so vociferously about special warrants and the need to debate and the need to go through these special warrants, yet all of a sudden, today it's not important? Today, with only a day and a half left in the fiscal year, they finally bring in an interim supply bill. And do we have an opportunity to debate the special warrants separately? No. They tacked them at the bottom of the bill and said: "Oh, by the way, we spent so many billions of dollars last year, some of it Social Credit but a big chunk of it ours, and let's just sort of ignore that. Let's just debate interim supply and ignore all the special warrants that we spent last year."

The height of the hypocrisy today.... I wish these members would go back and read some of the quotations that our members have been showing them, read the debate surrounding it and how adamantly the NDP, which is now in government, spoke about the debate on special warrants. Yet today they tried to preempt the day and a half of debate on special warrants with the introduction of a motion on fair wages -- probably the most important piece of regulation that this government is going to implement this year. Depending who you talk to, $150 million to $250 million is going to be the cost to the taxpayers, and yet they want to talk about it instead of debating interim supply. Let's be serious. This government has had five months to call the Legislature. They wait until March 17, in the last two weeks of the whole fiscal year, to call the Legislature to do a throne speech, to bring in a budget, to debate the budget, to debate the special warrants, and to do fair wages. And they want it all done in the last day and a half. That's an outrage. I can tell you that when these members go back to their ridings this weekend and see in the local papers and hear from the constituents on the streets, if they bother to talk to them, that they tried to put through a full year's spending in a day and a half and then tried to preempt that debate, they're going to be in hot water.

How is it that this sudden metamorphosis can take place? I find it so fascinating that day after day there's the little group in this chamber that's the executive council.... It's almost like there are little strings going up to the ceiling and over and down to the other part of the caucus. They just wiggle their hands, and these other members of the caucus all shout and hiss in unison like puppets. They keep telling us that they're all individuals. It's amazing how these members, who spoke and campaigned day in and day out for a year and a half against the injustices of the Social Credit government and the way the Social Credit government was running this province, turn around and do exactly the same thing. They all line up behind their Finance minister and giggle and chuckle and say: "Boy, isn't this fun. Look at how Glen's socking it to 'em." The people they're socking it to are the taxpayers, who mistakenly voted for the NDP members who sit in this chamber.

How is it that suddenly these honest and hard-working members, who are working for the honest and hard-working people of this province, ignore the fact that there needs to be a process for debate? When they 

[ Page 240 ]

were in opposition, they said that special warrants were terrible: "We should debate this stuff. We have to debate it." Then when they're in government, they give you a day and a half to debate. The members of the NDP caucus sit there and support their House Leader when he tries to preempt the debate. How is it that we have five months, and in the last day and a half we have to debate a year's worth of spending, interim supply for the next three or four months and fair wages that are going to cost this province $100 million to $200 million?

What has this government been doing for five months? I'll tell you. They've been setting up their straw persons so they can knock them down. Strategy session after strategy session, never dealing with anything of substance.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Point of order, hon. Speaker. I note that the speaker wishes to have full debate, but I rise under standing order 43. The speaker wishes to get into full debate, but I would point out that if this member continues to violate section 43 of standing orders, irrelevant and repetitious debate, we'll never get to committee. You can ask the questions you want to on behalf of your side.

If I may, hon. Speaker, perhaps you would bring this member to order, so the people of British Columbia can have the proper debate that you wish us to have on the issues. We'll do that in committee, not now.

The Speaker: We have allowed considerable latitude in this debate of second reading, and I'm sure the member will take the comments under consideration.

Please proceed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you for the rest. I did need a glass of water. My throat was becoming hoarse. If you'd like to do it again in about five minutes, that would be nice.

The issues we are dealing with today are extremely important. It's important for members of this House to finally understand the error of their ways. It's important for the members who now sit in government, the cabinet -- but I don't think they'll ever understand -- but more important for the members of the caucus who support them and who have to vote for this at the end of the day, to understand the errors of their ways. I know many of those members are new members, and weren't here for the period of Social Credit. But they are new members like we're new members, and we had hoped this would be a different type of government, and would be a more open and honest government. What we're seeing is the same old games being played. The hon. House Leader is playing the same games the last party that occupied those seats played. So I call upon not the executive council, hon. Speaker, but the members of the NDP caucus, the new members in this House who have yet to be totally tainted by this government, to send some messages to the cabinet, send some messages to the executive council, that this is not the way they're going to do business in this province ever again.

We have seen a number of things go on today that are interesting. We have seen the members do a number of things, and always with humour. The government seems to find today to be a really big joke. You can hear them giggling in the background. I wonder how these members manage to forget all the important things they apparently had learned while they were in opposition. I wonder how they managed to forget all those things. We've had members today quote things.... Here we have another quote from another member. It says: "Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree, when the government attempts to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold. It's unacceptable and it's disgraceful."

That comes from a member who now sits in the cabinet. Why is it that things change so quickly? The people at home want to know what happened to the principles of this party when they became government. What happened to them? They campaigned and the people of this province believed them. A good number of people in my riding -- not enough, mind you -- believed this government. They believed this government when they said things were going to be different. They now realize nothing has changed. The faces have changed. The party has switched to the other side of the House, but nothing has changed. It's the same process. It's the same principles they applied before.

I wonder what it is that happens to members when they become members of cabinet. What is it that happens to them? The most surprising thing is: what is it that happens to members when they become government backbenchers? That's the real question. What happens to their spine? What happens to the stamina? What happens to the determination that they had when they stood on the podium during the campaign and said: "We're an honest and open government. Things are going to change." They do things exactly the same. Can they really and truly go back to their constituencies and hold their heads high? Can they stand on those same podiums and talk to those same people? I doubt it.

We have another quotation from a member of this government. It says:

"But they don't want the debate on the real priorities of British Columbians. They don't want debate on their fiscal incompetence. They don't want debate on spending without approval in the House.... They don't want to deal with this parliament, because it impedes their own agenda...."

This government would much rather never have come into this House. The fact that they waited five months to call it is a prime example of that. If this government was truly serious about debating the people's business, they would have done it months ago and not put us in a time constraint and put a gun to our head and said: 'Let's do it in a day-and-half.' It's a shame." The quote continues, and it is interesting. It says:

"Perhaps if the members spend a lengthy time in opposition" -- another lengthy time, probably another 20 years -- "they'll learn to appreciate parliamentary democracy, they'll learn to have less contempt for our parliamentary traditions, they'll understand that democratic parliamentary procedure is an important foundation upon which our government rests, and they will not abuse it."

[ Page 241 ]

This party that now sits in government sat in opposition itself for 20 years. It took them 20 years to learn that valuable lesson they were quoting to Social Credit. Hon. Speaker, 20 years, and they forgot the whole thing in five months. Next time they are in opposition, maybe they should stay there for 40 years.

Once again, I'm amazed at the back bench of this government and the way they, just like a cheerleading squad, follow their minister.

Let's have another quote from a member of this government who used to be in opposition, the member who's now the caucus chair, I believe, of this government. We've heard this before: "They've hidden themselves in a bunker." Which bunker is that in this building? Is it the Finance minister's bunker, or is it the bunker out here? They've spent billions of dollars by special warrant. They pretend there was an emergency.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I appreciate your courtesy, even if I don't have that of the rest of the House.

An Hon. Member: We've heard it all before.

G. Farrell-Collins: I find it intriguing that the members say they've heard it all before, because they said it all before. These are their words. I'm not making this up. These are members who now sit in the executive council. These are members of cabinet. The Finance minister, the Health minister, the minister of whatever -- you name it, they're there. They all said it. Of course they've heard it before, because they said it.

[6:00]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Minister of whatever, it's all the same.

An Hon. Member: No wonder you're in opposition.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I find the comments intriguing: "No wonder you're in opposition." We're in opposition because we didn't have three more days until election day. If there had been three more days, we'd be in government.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Maybe we can have a debate about elections sometime; that would be even more intriguing. But I'd like to stick to Bill 16 today, if I may.

I look through this list of special warrants approved by this government, this very hefty document that's twice the size of the Social Credit document, and I wonder where it all went. The people of this province are wondering where it all went. The cursory statements in here don't do the people of this province any service. When they try to look at some of these documents from an open and honest government, how are they supposed to understand where this money was spent? We have a full fiscal year of expenditures by this government in this stack of paper. The people of this province, the ones who are supposed to hold them accountable, are supposed to be able to go to the library, pull this out and find out where their government -- this honest and hardworking government we heard so much about during the election campaign -- is putting their money, which piggy bank it's going into.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I notice that we've reached the regular hour of daily adjournment, it being 6 o'clock. I just draw that to your attention.

The Speaker: Could I ask the member who has the floor to move the appropriate motion?

G. Farrell-Collins: Seeing as we are at the regularly scheduled time of adjournment, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until later tonight.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned for five minutes.

The Speaker: All those in favour say aye. Those opposed say nay.

The motion is carried.

D. Mitchell: I believe that motion would be a debatable motion. I wonder if I could speak to it.

The Speaker: Yes, it is debatable. Hon. Member, as I did not see anyone standing to debate, I did call the question.

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I tried to speak to that before you put the question.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order, please. I will allow some short comments from the opposition House Leader. Perhaps I called the vote more quickly than necessary.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

We've reached the hour of regular adjournment. The government today has brought before the House a bill without any notice. They brought it in and advanced it through various stages. Today we have moved from first reading and introduction directly into second reading. We have had the start of what I think appears to be a good debate on second reading of this bill, but we've reached the hour of regular adjournment now. The essence of the debate that we've heard in this assembly today by members who have contributed is that it's unfortunate to steamroll legislation through this House under difficult circumstances. These are the kinds of abuses of parliament that we cannot tolerate. 

[ Page 242 ]

Yet we have reached the hour of regular adjournment, and the government House Leader is now basically trying to force this thing through with extended hours in extraordinary circumstances. I wonder if that's the appropriate thing to be doing under these circumstances.

He introduced this bill today. We've allowed that to go through and have started what appears to be a good debate. Perhaps it would make much better sense to continue this debate at the next sitting of this House under the regular standing order 2. I wonder if this government really wants to push this through, and whether or not they want to respect the standing orders of this House and the regular hour of daily adjournment. We can come back tomorrow ready and prepared to discuss this bill further.

I would like to invite any other members of this House who so wish to comment on this matter, because this is a debatable motion, after all. And here we are; it's after the hour of regular adjournment. So with those few words, I'll take my seat.

Hon. G. Clark: Speaker after speaker on the other side has been demanding more time for debate. Everyone has stood up in this House and said that we don't have enough time to debate. We on this side of the House agree with you. We're extending the sitting hours to have further debate.

They can't have it both ways, hon. Speaker. They can't, on the one hand, say they don't have enough time, and then on the other hand they don't want to sit until 10, 11 or 12 tonight. These people, who for five months have been demanding the House sit and saying that we should be calling the House back, are standing in here self-righteously saying there should be more time for debate, and we give it to them. Now they're opposed to it. What hypocrisy, hon. Speaker!

They said they wanted a debate on fair wages, and they opposed it. We offered a debate on fair wages, and they opposed it. We offer now to sit for four or five or six more hours tonight to have full canvassing of this interim supply bill and special warrants, and they oppose it. They can't have it both ways. They can't stand up in the House and complain, and then when we agree to accommodate them, they try not to.... I don't think they're prepared. They sat there for five months, and we hardly heard a peep out them. We get into the House, and they complain about not having enough time. We give them more time, and now they're opposed to the motion. We should sit here for several more hours today to have full and thorough debate on these special warrants.

The members and the public have a right to hold us accountable for our spending. We're quite prepared to be held accountable, hon. Speaker. We're quite prepared to deal with any issues they have before them, and we will sit here and have debate. It is unfortunate there is not a lot of time. We agree with that. We will have that discussion later. So what we'd like to do is extend the amount. I might say that with this extension and with tomorrow if we sit later on, we will have more than the normal amount of time for the supply bill, including the last two years, when the opposition led a great debate -- I might say -- on this subject of special warrants. I've looked at the times, and with this extension there should be more than ample time to scrutinize the spending decisions that this government has made. And then, of course, we will move into estimates debate, where I know we will have lengthy discussions on the spending plans of this administration.

It is the height of hypocrisy, hon. Speaker, for the members opposite to demand more time for debate and then want to get away for their dinner or something and not come in and do the people's business for a few more hours of debate. This motion allows the House to continue sitting and do the people's business. I believe that hon. members opposite should agree. They've been demanding it, and we should have more time to debate this important bill.

J. Weisgerber: I certainly have no difficulty continuing with the debate. What I do have a great deal of difficulty with.... Apparently, the government lost a little tiff earlier today, and so now they're going to try to impose their will on the House. This House started out in a cooperative mode that lasted a full nine days, but today without any notice the government sprang on us the motion to deal with their so-called fair wage policy. No notice. No notification. No opportunity for us to have critics or prepare for it.

Interjections.

J. Weisgerber: There's an awful ringing in my ear here. I'm not quite sure what it is.

Had the government House Leader really been sincere in those comments that he thought he was making on television, he would have given us notice at least at 2 o'clock today, which would have said we will continue tonight until 10 o'clock or until we finish second reading. He could have, at the very least -- just out of courtesy -- given this House notice earlier today of his intention not to adjourn at 6 o'clock. Instead he chose, around a quarter to six -- by comment, not even officially -- to advise us that we were going to carry on.

That's okay; this House can, with his guidance, sink down, down, down until it gets back to pre-1986 kinds of things. But if you want to cooperate, and if you want this House to run smoothly, give us a little notice. That's all we ask. It's fair and reasonable to ask for at least two or three or four hours' notice for a late sitting. That's not unreasonable, and I think the government should be willing to grant that very modest concession, instead of playing around. I know it's a novelty for them to finally have their hands on the levers of power, and they're like kids with a new toy over there: "Well, we'll do this and then we'll do that; that will trick 'em and that will foul 'em up." It's amateur; it's really very bad.

But if we want to go tonight, I would suggest we take a bit of a recess -- perhaps an hour -- to give us an opportunity to contact our critics, get ourselves prepared and then come back at that time.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm very happy to become involved in this motion -- or whatever it is -- put forth by the Minister of Finance. The 

[ Page 243 ]

minister must be a farmer, given the way he was just shovelling it a minute ago. You know, this is the same minister, and beside him sits the same Premier, who held this House in abeyance for five months while they set up their process. Now we come down to a day and a half, and they want to cram the whole thing through in a day and a half.

This party is ready; our members are here, and we're ready to debate this issue. We've been debating it all day.

Why is it that this member -- this House Leader -- takes this province at its will as if this was his House that belonged to him alone? He can play fast and easy with the rules, he can change the rules as he wants and he can push them to the limit. There's absolutely no discretion on behalf of this member. There is a process, there are procedures and there are traditions in this House that you give members notice when this House is going to sit beyond its regular sitting time. We had ten minutes.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's nice to finally hear the Premier's voice in this House. It would be interesting if he said something that was intelligible.

This House Leader, probably at the direction of the Premier -- or perhaps the Premier takes his direction from the House Leader, I'm not sure -- had the option of calling this House ages ago, days ago. We could have gone into this debate a long time ago. They're just putting this thing off, and then they're going to try to cram it through in a day and a half, while the people don't have any chance to watch this thing or to see how it's going. I think it's breaking the procedures of this House, and it's against every tradition in this House.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, a better piece of political chicanery we haven't seen so far in this session. I notice that the Minister of Finance is looking a bit puzzled by the term. Let me use the word "trickery," and perhaps he'll understand that.

I don't think there's a member on the official opposition side of this House who does not wish to have adequate and proper debate on this process. The question is not whether or not we stay on until 10 o'clock now. The question the government is going to have to face is why they have left it to the eleventh hour to force through debate on special-warrant spending and on interim supply, when in fact they've had five months to put this together to bring before the people so there wasn't this kind of stress and inability.

[6:15]

It seems to me that this government had its priorities quite different earlier today, when they tried to introduce without notice the question on fair wage. It would seem to me also that if this government is serious about changing the way business is done, they will essentially allow this debate to adjourn until tomorrow morning when we can get into an effective, proper and adequate debate on behalf of the people of British Columbia. It was not our session that essentially waited for five months. We did not wish to have this kind of debate at the eleventh hour. We offered this government a time in November to come forward, and they haven't done so. I think now it is incumbent upon this government to allow the opposition the time it requires to sit down and to adequately look at the documents that have been tabled, so that we can make proper and honest debate possible in this House.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, with all due respect to the young blood on the opposition benches, I think we're getting a little bit carried away here. I have to observe that young blood exhausts remarkably easily, because I feel quite rested. I've just come through a weekend, and I've enjoyed a scintillating afternoon of debate from the opposition benches. Every minute of it was as precious as the next, but I feel quite rejuvenated. I found the government House Leader's approach to be convivial. He too has enjoyed the debate so much that he's prepared to extend it and enjoy more of it.

Just on a pure matter of practicality, for those members who are new here, I think government members took it as assumed that the opposition would understand that interim supply must be passed by midnight tomorrow, and to avoid the necessity of stopping the clock at midnight tomorrow we might as well get on with the debate.

Government ministers have gone to the length -- for example, in my case -- of asking ministry staff to be on standby all afternoon. They are on standby right at this moment, and I would invite all members to take the opportunity to enjoy their democratic right to question me as the first alphabetical minister present in the House today and, through me, to pose questions of a detailed nature which my officials may be able to help me answer.

I say let's get on with it. I don't see why the opposition at this early stage in the legislative sitting is so tired. If we get on with it, you can take shifts and get out to dinner, and we'll all have a good evening of it and do the people's business.

D. Schreck: It was with considerable interest that I listened to the leader of the third party make accusations of dragging this House down to the levels that existed under that discredited government. I look forward to circulating Hansard from this afternoon not only to my own constituents but to the constituents of the members opposite so they can judge for themselves the high level of debate that took place in this chamber.

Had the members reflected on their five months of research instead of going on with considerable tedium, we wouldn't have to extend this enormous courtesy. We are all used to going to meetings in our constituencies night after night. We may as well take that same opportunity here to engage in lively debate. On this side of the House, we aren't in a hurry to go off to dinner. We came here to engage in intelligent debate, and we're looking forward to hearing some of it this evening.

D. Symons: I have witnessed today three really disgraceful uses of the privileges of this House; the first one being the attempt to introduce a bill at the last 

[ Page 244 ]

moment, saying it was very important to bring in; the second one being the bringing in of the interim supply bill at this late date and trying to force it through; and now a third one, when we had a motion to adjourn for five minutes. In most jurisdictions, when rules are used, that would be considered to be a usurping of the original motion and wouldn't be accepted, because it's killing the intent of the original motion to say five minutes. It's ridiculous, and you should not accept the motion for a five-minute adjournment.

W. Hurd: I have a quick question. I want to review the facts of today, because they provide a very interesting analysis. We started off this afternoon with the...

Interjections.

The Speaker: As long as it's on the motion before you, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The motion is to adjourn the House. I understand that. We had an effort this afternoon to introduce fair wages as a crisis. This is the bill we're debating today -- a crisis, supposedly an interim supply. Can this government advise the opposition what crisis is involved? Is it fair wages? Is it interim supply? Is it the fact the House hasn't sat for five months? Is it the hon. member for Vancouver East who's advising us now that we have to sit the rest of the night to get through something that should have been done five months ago? Or does he have....

Interjections.

W. Hurd: We have no problem debating the motion that's put before us, but we've seen a violation of almost every rule in this House in the past 24 hours from the government that promised the people of this province better. They should be ashamed of themselves if we have to sit until 10 o'clock tonight because they wouldn't do the province's business in the last five months.

Motion approved on the following division:

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada