[ Page 2139 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

T. Nebbeling: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a personal statement.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I want to advise members of the House that there is no particular or specific provision in our standing orders for personal statements. However, there is a longstanding precedent and practice in this House to allow personal statements, with the caveat that the member will indeed give advance notice to the Speaker of his or her intention and, secondly, that the member will provide the Speaker or the Chair with a copy of that statement. The member has complied with both of those regulations; therefore I am accepting that his statement is in order. Please proceed, member.

T. Nebbeling: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was reported in the morning paper that during the moving of the throne speech by the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant I mimicked the member's accent. Mr. Speaker, this is not accurate. During the course of the member's speech I called out the Cantonese phrase gong dai wa, which is clearly audible on the videotapes. In Cantonese, the phrase gong dai wa, literally translated, means "speak a big statement." It is, however, usually spoken in the sense of "tell a big lie." That phrase in any language is unparliamentary, and I hereby withdraw the remark.

As an immigrant who speaks with an obvious accent as well, and who has been aware from time to time of criticism of that accent, I fully understand and sympathize with the concerns the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant would have about my remarks. I tried last night and again this morning to contact the member to offer an apology. I have not been able to reach her. Therefore I wish to apologize directly and personally to the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant here today in the House.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I see the member for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant about to rise, but I would just point out that the member's statement is not debatable nor is a response permitted. Mount Pleasant, however, has indeed reserved her right to rise on a matter of privilege. If she wishes to do so, she can do that, but she cannot respond directly to this statement.

I wonder if anyone on the government side is familiar with the chaos theory. Chaos theory is best explained by what is known as the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect is the notion that by stirring the air in Beijing, a butterfly can transform storm systems next month in New York. Let me tell you that the theories of Maloney and Gunton, garnered no doubt from some theorist in Beijing, are causing storms in New York. B.C. bond-rating downgrades are forecast.

But, of course, it wasn't a butterfly that stirred the air, was it? Perhaps it was a moth. Now, the etymology of the word "moth" is important. It comes from "that which slowly decays and that which lives off tears." I submit that that's a pretty good description of NDP financial policy: that which decays, that which lives off tears -- for real tears from the people of this province will be the outcome of the policies the NDP is driven to by its addiction to more and more cash.

Don't forget that this government's history has been one long revenue grab -- including property tax hikes, Lotto fund raids, tax increases, tuition fee increases, insurance rate increases, Forest Renewal raids, gambling addiction, stumpage increases -- so that now the government takes in 50 percent more than the year before it was elected. And it spends it all, plus a little more.

That moth was the policy of covering up revenue shortfalls for 18 months, hiding the issue so that it couldn't be dealt with. Some people's purposes are better served by darkness than by light. On Tuesday I spoke of the three brass monkeys. Today I liken it to a fa�ade, a false front, a thin tissue hiding the incompetence behind. On Tuesday, both the Government House Leader and the Premier suggested that points of privilege and our questions are old hat, regurgitations -- that we were repeating ourselves, just like they keep reissuing good-news announcements. There was plenty of that in this year's budget. But the information on which we base our complaints and on which we keep speaking, both on points of privilege and in question period, are revelations that have been exposed since this House last sat. And the real issue, of course, is the consequences now being felt, now becoming apparent.

That revenue shortfall was a blow to social programs. The minister should spend time in my constituency office, in my community, listening to patients and families who are worried that by the time they get their urgent surgery, it will be too late. Why doesn't he come and listen to people who complain about our local mental health service, which is permanently short of clinicians, and hear about our public health unit, which suffers from the same personnel resources problem, the understaffing way below approved levels for speech pathologists -- I obviously need one -- and for public nursing services? This government says that it is protecting health care. That's the cruel hoax.

Rather than treating the wound, they hid it. And while it was hidden, it festered. Current NDP policies are nothing but the outcome from a wound gone septic from not being treated. The only difference between NDP policy and the chaos theory is that what has happened to B.C. was predictable and avoidable. We have been warning against it for years. They just had to come clean.

[10:15]

Now the storm clouds are gathering, and the NDP response was to strike a Faustian bargain: they sold their soul

[ Page 2140 ]

for power. The only difference, Mr. Speaker, is that they couldn't even get Faust right, because in the bargain they've sold our souls, as well. They sold the soul of this province to gambling. They threaten to sell our long-established right to access to a court of law by introducing no-fault. They sold our love and future use of our province's forests to a backdoor raid on the forest renewal fund. They sold our children's rights to education, to play petty pork-barrelling in their own ridings. All of these things have been brought about by the NDP's addiction to profligate spending and bad management. And all of these things, Mr. Speaker, will result in tears. We are truly in chaos in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention and the minister's attention to page 25 of the budget reports. Here are the summary financial statements. They show that in 1997-98 it's anticipated that there will be a deficit of $886 million. Now, is that bigger or smaller than the summary financial statement deficit for 1996-97? Well, it's bigger, Mr. Def. . . . [Laughter.]

L. Reid: Mr. Deficit!

The Speaker: Happily, Speakers can't jump on a point of privilege.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: None was intended, I assure you.

But why is the summary financial statement so important this year? Well, it's important because the Premier of this province, in the course of the election campaign, promised a freeze on hydro rates and ICBC premiums. Do the consequences of those freezes appear in the consolidated revenue fund? Are they part of the $185 million that this budget purports to be the plan for this coming year? No, they aren't. If you want to find out the cost of those particular promises, you've got to go to the consolidated revenue fund. So you have to go to the summary financial statements. I understand that within those numbers is a loss of $150 million for ICBC for last year and an anticipated loss this year of some $300 million. We will come back to that issue later.

"We've learned our lesson. Everything is upfront." Is it? They report now that there was a deficit of $395 million last year. But they didn't say: "Well, public, recognize that when we talk about $395 million, that doesn't include the $55 million that was going to go into the Transportation Financing Authority -- the 1-cent-a-litre gas tax that we decided to keep for ourselves." That's a change. You don't say recognize that.

You don't say: "Recognize the fact that we have demanded from B.C. Hydro an additional $70 million dividend" -- which they can't afford to pay. They're going to have to go and borrow the money. They borrowed $89 million last year. The Minister of Finance should go to the back page of the budget reports and see how much the debt of B.C. Hydro increased last year. I understand that the $70 million hasn't even been paid. So maybe it was an afterthought to try and make the $395 million deficit look a little better.

I understand from this morning's newspaper that $85 million has been put into FRBC as an afterthought for costs incurred last year. I understand that's also included in the accounts receivable.

When you add those up, you come to $605 million. Add to it the original surplus that this government purported to show for this year, and let's round it out to $700 million. That's what they are out because they've been playing around with the books.

Now, the minister also said in his speech: "For the first time since 1958, there will be a year-over-year decline in budget expenditures. Spending from the consolidated revenue fund will go down by more than $100 million, to $20.47 billion" -- no explanatory note, just a statement. Well, that may be the way you can do things in the legal profession. It may be the way you can do things in universities. And in the legal profession, of course, you're always putting your client's position in the best light you can.

But let's just deal with some facts that this Minister of Finance failed to mention when he made that questionable claim. The $70 million in rehab for highways that's moving from what was previously spent by the Ministry of Highways -- go back to your own budget documents -- this year is going to be in the Transportation Financing Authority.

There's $20 million of Tourism expenditures that are going into a special operating agency. A special operating agency I agree with; I'm really pleased. But you should mention that there's $20 million of costs that were in last year's budget and last year's expenditures that won't be in this year's, when you make your claims that total levels of spending are going down, because the money is still going to be spent. It's still going to be spent, and there are still going to be taxes paid by the people of British Columbia -- and our tourists -- to fund them.

Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't mention that there's $100 million in forest renewal silviculture expenses that are going to FRBC. I sat with other members of this House on the Forests Committee in the first year, on the occasion when we had the opportunity to talk about the FRBC business plan. The key was that all expenditures of FRBC had to be incremental. They could only be things that were not the responsibility of the licence holder, the person who holds the cutting rights. They could not be the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests, as presently required under the Forest Act. They could not be the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. They had to be incremental. So here we have $100 million worth of silviculture costs that the Ministry of Forests has been funding and administering, and now it's going into FRBC.

Schools, education. It's a minor item, but every year, the government has made available $35 million for the school districts around the province for what they call renovations and renewals. It's important money. It's for renewing roofs, doing major functions and maybe bringing some buildings up to standard, but it was always included in the grants from the Ministry of Education. School boards have been told: "You're not getting it this year. You can still spend it -- just put it onto your capital account. We'll let you spend the money, and we'll finance it through the British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority." That's $35 million.

Now, this government keeps referring time after time to credit cards -- you know, you don't pay for capital assets on your credit cards. Well, this is adding groceries to your mortgage. It's been paid for out of current expenditures, year after year. This year, it's still going to be spent. It's still going to be

[ Page 2141 ]

in the debt and taxpayers are still going to be paying for it, but it's not included in the expenditures of the consolidated revenue fund.

And has it gone down by $130 million? No, it has gone up. The issue isn't that it's gone up, so much as that this Minister of Finance stands up in this House, speaks to the people of British Columbia and says: "The most important thing is our credibility. And, by golly, the Premier says we've learned our lesson. Everything is upfront." You have to sit down quietly and go through all the numbers and find out.

I can't find -- and I'd be pleased if the minister can point it out to me -- where there's any reference or provision for funding in this budget for what may result from the settlement of the Kemano issue and Alcan. It has been going on -- it's in the courts, it's out of the courts. There are all kinds of things happening. We're always being told that it's close to settlement, and I don't see at the moment. . . . Although I've read it from cover to cover, I didn't notice it; I haven't seen anything in the budget for Kemano or for aboriginal land claims settlement issues. There's $50 million, I think, in the contingency allowance, but there are all kinds of other contingencies. A contingency allowance is for things that come up that you haven't thought about. They're not so much for items that you are aware of and that should be provided for.

In this year's budget, which is going to be lower than last year, there are some interesting items. One of the items is what we think of as one-time revenues: dividends from B.C. Hydro, dividends from B.C. Rail of $56 million and dividends from BCBC of $40 million, I understand. Fascinating.

[10:30]

In this morning's Vancouver Sun:

"Crown corporation executives were scrambling Wednesday to figure out just what Finance minister Andrew Petter meant when he said the Crowns will have to pay higher dividends and sell assets. . . .

"'I have no idea what we're selling,' Wall said Wednesday. 'And that $56 million dividend is our total net income in a good year. I'm puzzled about it all, but I'm sure there is an explanation.'

"It was the same at other Crowns. . . ."

The minister said details will be kept under wraps. If they're talking about selling assets, I can't even make a guess at what it might be. I think that answer has to come from Mr. Petter's office.

So there are all these things. I can't put my finger on it, but I read a quote that the Minister of Finance had stated that they were going to be small items -- a series of small items. Well, maybe we're a little overstocked in pencils and paper-clips.

There's a suggestion that we'll sell all the automobiles and start leasing them. Oh, my goodness me! I guess that's because this government is convinced that its credit rating is going to be so bad that it's cheaper to lease than it is to buy -- that a finance company, Avco Financial or some other finance company, can get a better credit rating, can borrow money at a lower interest rate than this province can and make a profit, as well. So we're going to sell all the cars, pull it into income and pay the cost next year, the year after, the year after and the year after that.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that I might hear that there would be one asset sale. There's one asset that I've been suggesting strongly to this government that they should sell. It's an opportunity I don't miss. I bring it up every time. It concerns the farmland that was expropriated some 25 years ago from the farmers in Delta and was never, ever used for the purposes for which it was expropriated. This government and the government before them -- the Socreds were just as bad -- have been lousy landlords. You need to get that land back into the hands of the original families who are still there. They're still farming that land. They will look after it; they will make the investment. I'm sure that all the issues of how you do that in a fair manner financially can be sorted out.

So let's move further along on the issue of credibility, Mr. Speaker. On page 1 of the minister's speech, he said that this budget "shows real progress in placing the province's finances on a sound, sustainable path." He went on:

"What makes balancing the budget and controlling the province's debt important is that these goals provide the fiscal foundation for building a strong economy from which all of our citizens can benefit.

"With sound fiscal management, we can be sure that valuable taxpayers' dollars are not targeted toward paying interest on the debt."

And what's really the story? What really happened? The debt management plan for 1995 had projected that at the end of 1998 -- at the end of this fiscal period -- the direct debt would be down to $9.5 billion. This year's budget indicates that it will be $11.6 billion, an increase of $2.1 billion. That's how much it's out.

So let's go into recycling. We're all environmentalists. Let's scrap the old plan and turn it around -- recycling -- and come out with a new plan, now called the financial management plan. Now, the big advantage is this: just cross off "debt" and add "financial." It's another plan, a broken promise from before, a new promise made.

I'm just going to speak out of order a bit, because the Minister of Employment and Investment is still here. It's a specific matter that I would really like the Minister of Employment and Investment to hear, because it deals with management issues, credibility and financial planning.

When the Four Corners bank was originally proposed, there was a business plan proposed, just like the Minister of Finance's predecessor's debt management plan. One year later, they're way off base. Their capital costs are way up, their revenues are way down and the expenditures are way more. So what do they do? They just scrap it. I couldn't believe it. I was asking, in the Minister of Employment and Investment's estimates, about the original business plan of the bank. He didn't know what I was talking about. Do you know why? It was so far out that they had stuck it in the wastepaper basket and typed up another one. This government believes that you govern by typing up new plans.

I mean, even the minister's own speech. . . . He says: "But it is a budget of which I am proud." A budget of which he is proud? It's only a budget. They've never been on target once. They're always off budget. Next year, if he comes in and says, "We've bettered this budget; we accomplished what we said we would do, and we did better," then he can say he is proud, and we will congratulate him. You can hold me to that.

[ Page 2142 ]

You're just a bunch of paper tigers. One plan is down the drain. The Four Corners business plan doesn't work out, so stick it in the wastepaper basket. Type up a new one. The Minister of Employment and Investment thinks that's managing a business.

Well, the financial management plan. One of the tests they're going to use is interest cost as a percentage of revenue. That's nonsense. Please, Mr. Speaker, convince the Minister of Finance never to use, as a measure, interest cost as a percentage of revenue. It's a nonsense measure. The more you push up revenues, the lower the ratio and the more you'll say: "How good we are! I've got to get my ratio down -- push up revenues." That's the wrong measure. You're thinking wrong. You don't understand. The measure that you need to use. . . .

Interjections.

F. Gingell: You understand, Mr. Speaker. Tell the minister. Measure it as a percentage of GDP. That's the measure that counts. Measure your debt as a percentage of GDP. Now, I know -- and I hope the minister agrees with me -- that our measures of GDP are bloody awful, to be honest. It's terribly difficult to properly measure GDP, particularly as our economy changes. But please don't measure interests costs against revenue costs.

So the minister's statement was that this is a sound and sustainable path. The direct debt will go up by half a billion dollars; the total taxpayer-supported debt will go up by $1.4 billion; the percentage of total taxpayer-supported debt to GDP will go from 20.3 to 20.9 percent. They were never going to go over 20 percent, but they're now up to 20.3 percent, and they anticipate being at 20.9 percent by the end of the year.

In two years of this government's administration, which commenced at the end of May last year, debt in this province will go up by $2.7 billion, if they follow their plan -- and they've always been worse. As a percentage of GDP, the measure that the minister thinks is the right one will go from 19.3 percent to 20.6 percent. Is this a sound, sustainable path, Mr. Speaker? I suggest to you that it is not.

I was going at this point to refer to this briefing note, and the statement in the reports that "the province continues to diversify its borrowing sources." Yeah, I read about that. Provincial treasury has deliberately avoided issuing new securities into the domestic market this fiscal year. It got brought up in question period, and I know that the minister is aware of it.

I would like at this moment, Mr. Speaker, just to draw the minister's attention to the editorial in the Vancouver Sun this morning -- I think it's the editorial -- where they speak about a crisis that happened in Saskatchewan, when Saskatchewan was just about to be downgraded. Have I got the right article?

Hon. A. Petter: It's not "Sex Education."

F. Gingell: No, it wasn't "Sex Education."

Hon. A. Petter: "Canada's Close Call."

F. Gingell: Yes, "Canada's Close Call." It really is serious stuff. It's all very well for us to have different opinions and taunt each other about these issues, but it is serious and it's critically important.

What bothers me is that this government doesn't have discipline. They need to bring discipline to their financial management. They need to bring discipline to making decisions about what they should do and what they shouldn't do. I don't think you can go around cutting $100 million here and $50 million there and firing all of middle management -- the people with whom the skills and the knowledge and the history lie. We've got to think more about what it is we can do, what we can afford to do and how we can deliver it in the best, most efficient manner. We must not have the same kinds of things happen to us or have the same kinds of concerns that were apparent in Saskatchewan.

Yesterday in question period, the Minister of Finance responded to a question from. . .me! [Laughter.] I've had an identity crisis for years, Mr. Speaker. He said: "The financial management plan that is part of this budget is a plan that was recommended by private sector groups and endorsed by groups such as the Business Council of British Columbia." My phone rang yesterday afternoon. It was not endorsed by the Business Council of British Columbia.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, that isn't the issue, what the Minister of Finance says: whether they go up or down.

Now, they have put out a very perceptive document this morning. They suggested a whole bunch of things. They talked about debt caps, balanced-budget legislation -- no word of which I heard in the throne speech. Their point is that they did not endorse your financial management plan. I would suggest to the minister that the critique they have done of the budget, which came out late yesterday, is something that would be well worth his reading.

[10:45]

One of the other things that has happened in this past year that has fairly dramatic consequences has been the capital review. When I read it, I was somewhat surprised. This is a list of a whole series of things, all of which we've been talking about for donkey's years. This isn't anything new. This capital review is an admission of incompetence. The NDP have been in office in this province for six years, and they still think that this is new stuff they should be doing. What an admission of failure!

They can't even get the information in the document right. This document came out in January 1997. It says that total debt should be reduced over 20 years from 19.1 percent of gross domestic product. It should be reduced to 19.1 percent. You're already at 20.3 percent, for goodness' sake. This was only two months before the fiscal year ended. Don't you know how much money you've borrowed? You do a capital review, and you don't know what your debt is. You can't even calculate the numbers correctly.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: But the direct debt has gone up by $900 million more than the minister projected.

It says that the Ministry of Attorney General optimized the use of alternatives to custody. "Develop, investigate, optimize" -- there's nothing new. This stuff has been talked about for years.

It says that the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training requires high-growth school districts to implement extended days. Mr. Speaker, I was on the school board 30 years ago, but I had enough sense to get out. There comes a time when you've been in places for too long, where you become stale.

[ Page 2143 ]

Anybody elected before 1991 should think seriously about the decision that I made after being on the school board for ten years. It was time for fresh thoughts, fresh ideas, fresh blood. The voters of the province are going to do it to them next time whether they like it or not, so they might take the opportunity to do it voluntarily first.

Ten percent of the land -- we were talking about that and the sale of surplus assets: "Limit provincial funding for site acquisitions to 65 percent of the cost, with the balance to be provided by school districts from the sale of surplus assets." Well, yes, but surely they're already doing that. In Delta we had an elementary school, Boundary Bay Elementary, on a small four-acre site. As the need for K to 7 diminished, that site got closed. It's now a very attractive housing development. Surely these things are already being done.

"Reduce site standards for elementary and secondary schools" -- oh dear, I hope not, so that we'll have ghetto schools on small sites 20 years from now. Some 30 years ago, we in Delta were planning school sites with the municipality, with the parks. . . . All of our elementary school sites are adjacent to a park. Something new? No, it's common sense. I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he was on the parks. . . . They were leading the way 30 years ago. You're only just catching on now, for goodness' sake.

"Develop prototype designs for modular school buildings" -- I was on a special committee with Peter Oberlander and Fritz Bowers 25 years ago, and we made proposals. It's in the archives. All these things. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: And we're doing it.

F. Gingell: No, you're not doing it. That's the problem. You're talking about it. The Minister of Finance believes that talking about it is the same thing as doing it. In his speech he says: "I am proud of this budget." He'll be proud when he performs. The two Ps: perform, then you're proud.

Corporate governance, credibility. How good are the people, how competent are the folks you have appointed to run Crown corporations? Brian Smith's report essentially found all of the NDP-appointed board of directors of B.C. Hydro unfit to act as directors of a Crown corporation. Just as you can't become a nurse or a teacher without skills and training, buying an NDP membership doesn't given you the skill set to run major corporations. Those directors didn't seek advice on issues they were inexperienced in or take it when offered. This board is no exception. It is the standard: incompetent, partisan neophytes dealing with issues they don't understand. It's the children running the candy store; it's the high school biology class performing complicated surgery. It's ridiculous. There has to be a proper mix, and you, my friends, have not made it.

All over the business community of this province the stories are surfacing: NDP-appointed audit committees of major Crown corporations dismissing auditors without listening to their findings -- it's a fact; out of the House, quietly, I will give you the information -- their duty left undone. Lawyers making presentations before committees of the board and being shocked at their lack of understanding; they are clueless. And stay tuned, more disasters will be forthcoming.

Perhaps it's excusable when a single director fails to measure up. But when droves of directors fail to meet their responsibilities, then something's wrong with the person who appointed them. When all public company corporate boards around the province, around the country -- around the world, in fact -- are paying more and more attention to corporate governance, with the Cadbury report in Europe and the SEC report in the United States, it's shocking to know that this government doesn't care -- or if it does, that it fails so badly to do anything about it.

Now, we've dealt with chaos and we've dealt with credibility. I'd like to deal with the next C, which is consequences. This is a government who pride themselves on being social democrats. They think carefully about what kind of world we live in, what kind of province we have, what we want this province to be like for our children and our grandchildren. So what do they do?

Well, under the first heading I've got: "Threatened and dropped: ABE funding" -- adult basic education funding in our public school systems. It was threatened to be dropped; it was going to be cancelled. Only because there was an uproar, thank goodness, there are. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, it's no good the minister furrowing his brow and saying. . . . You sent memoranda out to the school boards that you would stop funding ABE in the high schools. So you deal with people who've got no education, no job, no prospect -- and you give them no hope.

You were going to unload a whole bunch of highways from the province onto the municipalities. You hadn't even thought about the contracts that were in place for the maintenance of the highways. I can't believe it. You throw those threats out; you float this stuff. I actually got a list of the highways in Delta that you were going to turn over to the administration of the municipality, and no one had thought about the contracts.

The Speaker: Address the Chair.

F. Gingell: It isn't you, it's them. It's this government who don't understand the consequences of the things they say.

Mr. Speaker, they were going to cancel Enquiry B.C.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh yes, you were! It was only when there was an uproar -- probably from their own back benches -- that it was stopped. When the Minister of Finance sits there, shakes his head and says, "Oh no," he again threatens his credibility, because he knows that that was planned.

[ Page 2144 ]

What else has been threatened but is not yet happening -- threatened, hanging like the sword of Damocles on the thin, thin thread above us? No-fault insurance, Mr. Speaker. Well, it's fascinating. This government talks about the costs of bodily injury pushing up premiums, turning the Insurance Corporation into a major loss. I thought I had here, somewhere amongst all this paper, a cutting from the Vancouver Province that deals with information received through FOI that says that bodily injury awards and costs remain constant. It's the metal that's gone up; it's the property damage that has gone up.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: The minister says no, but. . . .

L. Reid: No, he says "both."

F. Gingell: Oh, now he says both. But the article suggests that between '95 and '96, bodily injury claims remained static.

I was in Public Accounts the other day, and we had the opportunity to talk to the president of ICBC about corporate governance. The process is that the Public Accounts Committee will be making many recommendations to this government about ways in which we can perhaps ensure that governance issues in Crown corporations are improved.

The president said, and I paraphrase, that the premium freeze was their idea; that it wasn't a scheme put forward by government; that it was ICBC's idea to bring discipline, to deal with the issue of the rising costs. So if I am to understand that, what the president is telling me is that without any thought, without any plans, without anything definitive. . . . "Let's talk about what we might do for the next year or two. Let's freeze premiums now and, on top of the $150 million loss we incurred in 1995-96, we'll happily have a $300 million loss in 1996-97." If that's true -- and I have no reason to question the honesty of the president of ICBC; I question his sagacity, that's for sure -- that's absolute nonsense. That's not the way you run a business. You don't say: "My goodness me, we're losing money. We have a limited-size market. We're not going to go off somewhere else, so let's cut our selling prices and lose more money so that that will bring us discipline." That's nonsense.

Hon. A. Petter: You just increase rates.

[11:00]

F. Gingell: No, Mr. Speaker. The minister says we should just increase rates. The rates should reflect the costs of car insurance; the rates should reflect the costs of insuring cars, insuring damage and providing compensation for people who have been damaged. What you've got to do is to get the accident rates down. You're doing the right kinds of things. Do more of it. Get some of the intersections fixed. You've got all kinds of information in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways about critical issues and things that need to be done. Do that first. Don't put ICBC into a $300 million hole, for goodness' sake.

Where do you think that money comes from? ICBC has reserves of some $3.5 billion or $4 billion. They have a rate stabilization fund that is relatively small -- peanuts, in fact, by comparison. What is this reserve? It isn't a reserve. The $4 billion they have is a liability. It's for accidents that have happened, not accidents that are going to happen. It's for accidents that have happened that have not yet been settled. And every year that it grows, I would suggest, is another admission of incompetence. It just shows that the claims aren't getting settled.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: The minister says no, but it is true. How do you think it gets bigger? It gets bigger because your claims aren't getting settled.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: There have been all kinds of alternatives proposed to try to move ICBC to more efficient operation. The problem with no-fault, other than taking away our democratic rights, is turning ICBC into a Workers Compensation Board, for God's sake. You can tell that these ministers, who I know are very busy, do not have time to answer the calls in their community offices from people who phone in, and I understand that. But I can tell you that the greatest number of complaints that we get are relative to Workers Compensation Board issues: lack of settlement, what people believe is unfair treatment, a bureaucracy making decisions, no access to the courts to get closure. And they have been talking about turning ICBC into another WCB.

An Hon. Member: No way.

F. Gingell: You've been floating the balloon. Mr. Speaker, he's been floating the balloon. That is true. Come, come, come! My goodness me, we were talking about credibility earlier when we were on the second C. The minister is still diminishing his credibility rating.

There is a means by which ICBC can convert a portion of that reserve fund into a dividend into the consolidated revenue fund, and that's by producing some back-dated legislation. I just hope. . . . I am pleased to hear the commitment made today by the Minister of Finance that such will not happen.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: So let's move on to "irresponsible." Let's move on to responsible and irresponsible actions: how we look after the most vulnerable of our community: people on welfare. In Tsawwassen we had a welfare office. If you look at a map, Tsawwassen is sort of an appendage stuck on to the rest of British Columbia, with a big bay between it and White Rock. A road system takes you all the way around. Until this weekend or last weekend -- I'm not sure which -- we had a Ministry of Human Resources office in Tsawwassen serving some 800 clients, some disabled. Because of the type of community we are, many are older and many are single-parent families.

Since the closure of that office, they now have to go to the North Delta-North Surrey office. That is three buses and one and a half hours each way -- and that's if you manage to make all the right connections. If you miss a connection, you will delay your trip by at least 20 minutes, most likely 40 minutes, and possibly by one hour. That's what you -- this government, not you, Mr. Speaker. . . . I know that the Speaker is independent, non-partisan, separate, etc. That's what this government is doing to welfare recipients -- people on income support -- in South Delta.

Go in your car? Well, single-parent moms who are on welfare don't have cars. Even if they did, it's a 52-kilometre round trip. What's that in miles? Thirty-two miles. You know, that's $5 for gasoline. Well, it depends what you drive, but it's at least $2 for gasoline. They don't have bus fares, they don't have cars, and they can't afford the gasoline. This government, when the office had a full load. . . . I mean, there obviously weren't signs out: "Help: apply within. We are short of clients." It's a physical and a financial hardship.

The office is probably closed. I notice the Minister of Human Resources is busily reading the clips and he's not listening, but if I could catch his attention for one moment. . . . Perhaps the Minister of Human Resources will consider at least. . . . No, he won't.

[ Page 2145 ]

But I will, if I may, make my plea to the Minister of Finance. What we need there. . . .

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Right, I'll make it to the Speaker. If we could at least, Mr. Speaker, have a fieldworker from the Ministry of Human Resources located in Tsawwassen and one located in Ladner, we could find each a desk. There's an Attorney General office, and there's a public health office. There are other offices. If we could have one fieldworker assigned to the area and save these trips, it would be helpful. You know, a bunch of social democrats. . . . I know they are concerned. At least, I used to think they were concerned about the most vulnerable in our community.

What else have they threatened? Not yet done, I hope. They're going to backtrack. They're going to. . . . What's the word? When parents who were not particularly well off adopted special needs children, a deal was made that there would be a monthly cheque. There would be a monthly cheque to give financial support to adoptive parents of special needs children. The word has come: the word is renege. This government is reneging on the deal they made to give monthly financial support to adoptive families of special needs children who pass a means test. The support came about because of a means test at the time the special needs child was adopted.

I will be tabling a petition this afternoon signed by these adoptive parents. It's a critically important issue. These people really deserve our help. They save the province a lot of money. They look after handicapped children. They bring them into their homes, and you're going to take away their monthly financial support. Now you're going to replace it with some vouchers, I understand. You'll get a voucher for the dentist, a voucher for this and a voucher for that, but it used to come in the form of a monthly cheque. It helped pay for the groceries, send the kid to the ice rink and do whatever.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm really pleased that the Minister of Health is saying this isn't going to happen. I will ensure, before the day is over, that I will get for you the information I have.

It's fascinating. This government decided to close a bunch of courthouses, but they changed their mind when some other level of government chipped in some money, as in Richmond and Chilliwack. I was going to suggest to the Minister of Human Resources that perhaps there's some way we could avoid the welfare office being closed in South Delta, but people on welfare, people on income support, aren't the kind of people who can whip the hat around and come up with enough money to keep those offices open. At any rate, this government is going to close courthouses. I don't think that was thought through. That's going to download tremendous costs from the provincial government to municipal governments. I'm sure the Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of the issue, and I hope he does something about it.

They're now talking about firing court reporters. I guess they'll agree to keep reporters if the reporters agree not to be paid, but I think that if you speak to any lawyer -- and there's. . . . Well, I'm not sure that the Minister of Finance practised law, but I'm sure the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and the member for New Westminster did, and they will tell you what the lawyers are telling me. And that is that court reporters are an integral and important part of the system, and you simply cannot rely on electronic means to do the job properly. Justice must not only be seen to be done, but it must be seen to be done in the best and the fairest manner, and getting rid of court reporters, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, won't further that.

So what is happening? Where is this government, anyway?

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Gambling. Well, it should be no surprise that this NDP government has turned to gambling as a revenue source, because it worked in Nanaimo for them for years. Hopefully, they can avoid any kickbacks and criminal investigations this time around, but I warn them to be careful. This time, they may be dealing with the mob rather than with nuns.

Mr. Speaker, when a person of character has saved up money and wishes to improve their financial position and that of their family, they may well go out and start a business, work hard at it, work smart at it, make some sacrifices and work long hours. When a person of lesser character wants to get rich, they fall for get-rich-quick schemes, or they go to the racetrack with a hot tip. They go gambling, and it always ends in tragedy. The NDP has chosen gambling -- the quick fix of the ne'er-do-well, chosen not for entertainment or amusement but to make a living from it. What makes it so tragic is their admission that it will be a social disaster. They bargained $270 million in additional revenues for $70 million to clean up the social problems it will cause.

[11:15]

This sale of social tragedy for money, with a few crumbs going to its victims, is like prostitution. I find it pornographic. This government's role is that of the pimp, living off the avails of its prostitution while the victims suffer. But the government can't set tragedy right merely by spending some money on social workers. If they think that, they should listen to the social workers. It can help, but it can't heal the wounds. Does the minister really think he can buy, trade or redeem the lives that have become tragic with a few dollars of social work? No amount of social work and no amount of compensation can truly put people right again.

This government of all governments should know this. If this government goes ahead with its plans to expand gambling, to bring in slot machines and live off the avails of gambling, then it never really understood the plight of people in trouble, and it never really cared. If it did, it wouldn't stoop to this. Many, many members who sit across this chamber, Mr. Speaker, have. . . .

Words fail me, Mr. Speaker, and that is unusual. This country is what it is. . . . There are all kinds of studies. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he read the United States Congressional Quarterly review. I have a copy of it, and I will get it to your office right away. It talks about the quick fix of gambling and the long-term consequences. You know, there's gambling in Washington, and there's gambling here. There's gambling in Windsor. There's gambling in Detroit. There's gambling everywhere. People who want to go to gamble, if that's what their pleasure is, go away to places like Reno and Las Vegas.

Interjection.

[ Page 2146 ]

F. Gingell: If that's what you think this country, this province should be. . . . Mr. Speaker, if that's what the minister thinks, then he and I really are on different tracks.

I see in this year's budget that we're going to get new fees. We're going to get some fees for road signs. We are now going to pass through roads with these huge hoardings that we see as we go through aboriginal lands that have not been otherwise used. And I guess they will form another use: The Minister of Transportation and Highways will be able to hide traffic cops behind them, with photo radar guns.

Public gaming licences, in this year's budget, are going to go up 80 percent. I guess we know where we're going. Ministry of Health fees are going to go up 50 percent.

Angling. This government announced an increase in angling fees the other day to put money into the habitat conservation fund. Well, during this government's administration. . . . We can only go to 1995, because the new trust fund is information I don't have, but going back over the four years that we do have -- 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 -- this government took in $15 million for habitat conservation and spent $12 million. The unexpended funds in the special account went up from $1.5 million to $4.5 million. They hadn't spent that. They've taken in $3 million more than they've spent. Now, I haven't got the last couple of years, but I fail to understand at the moment why they're putting it up. They're not spending what they've got. They have been talking about it for four years, but they haven't done anything. Why, all of a sudden, instead of spending the money that they've got to start with -- which they've already taken from anglers for conservation -- do they put the fees up?

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why. It's because hidden in there was an additional increase for the consolidated revenue fund. "How can we get some more? I know, we'll get another $1.5 million from anglers. Well, if we add on a fraction more -- $1.6 million to go into the conservation fund -- that's what our headline will say. We'll put out a press release, and it will say: 'More money for habitat conservation.' It won't say we're charging the anglers $3 million more a year -- $1.6 million going into conservation and $1.4 million into the consolidated revenue fund." No, they haven't learned what credibility means yet.

The fines surcharge for the news trauma fund. The information that I have -- and I hope the Minister of Finance will shake his head that I'm wrong -- is that the increase in the fines, the surcharges, is anticipated to raise $10 million. Now, my understanding is that $2 million of that will go into the news trauma fund and $8 million will go into the consolidated revenue fund. But the administration. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, the minister says victims of crime. But I haven't had the opportunity to go back and look, to see whether you have been spending on victims of crime the money that you had before.

So we deal with the other issues that this government has heaped on our heads. Municipal cuts. Downloading. Mr. Speaker, I know we'll have an opportunity to talk about this later, because there are going to have to be amendments to the Local Government Grants Act. It was brought in by the predecessor to this Minister of Finance; Bill 20 repeals the Revenue Sharing Act of 1978 -- good common sense; the thing wasn't lived up to; it was just a bookkeeping exercise -- and creates a new funding framework for provincial support to local governments. There will be a formula-driven adjustment to respond to the prevailing economic conditions, which it was going to limit. We're going to limit the up. . . . No, it wasn't going to limit the up, it was going to limit the down.

I stood up in this House and said: "I can appreciate that municipal governments would exchange promises of great wealth and riches, which they never get, for something that is a little more clearly defined and, I hope, committed to. Commitments by provincial governments to support other levels of governments are, in the normal course of events, no better than one year's budget." Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that turned out to be true.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, I know that the federal government has reduced transfer payments. I understand the issue. I have long supported and pushed for a total reform of Canada's tax system -- cost-sharing arrangements and revenue-sharing arrangements. We should be pushing for it and getting the federal government to sit down and bring some common sense to these issues. We've got to get out of cost-shared programs that have bureaucrats in two locations, one set in Ottawa and one set in Victoria, the same way we should try to give local government and regional government direct revenue sources so that we don't have to go into cost-sharing arrangements with them -- with bureaucrats in Prince George, Vancouver, Prince Rupert or the Okanagan doing exactly the same function that bureaucrats. . .worrying about the 40, 50 or 60 cents of their dollar that is being spent by those sitting in Victoria.

Let's think about some of the issues that are the consequences of the municipal cuts. I'd like to just mention one, because we're going to have an opportunity to talk about them at some length later. This government has, understandably, without argument from us, brought in the need for criminal-record checks for people doing particular types of work. Those criminal-record checks are done by a local police force. Up until next Monday, our local police force is charging virtually everybody $20 for doing them, except municipal organizations which are already paying the costs of police. Effective April 1, because of municipal downloading, they will have to increase the cost of doing a criminal-record check from $20 to $50.

Who has it affected? Well, it has affected the Delta Hospice Society. They are already struggling for funds, but they are required -- and they believe it proper -- to do criminal-record checks on all the people that are dealing with dying people and helping them go through that traumatic experience. It has affected Delta Family Services -- their costs have gone up; Delta Gymnastics; Delta Community Career and Living Society, the non-profit organization, the NGO in our community that looks after the adolescent and adult mentally handicapped; Delta probation services; the Vancouver-Richmond Association for Mentally Handicapped; the Immigrant Services Society; Hope Pregnancy and Adoption Services Society. Costs for all these organizations have gone up.

We say, on numerous occasions: "No unfunded mandates." But, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what this exercise is. This government has mandated the municipal governments to do all kinds of things, and they don't fund them. It's very easy to tell someone else what to do if you don't provide the resources to make it happen.

[ Page 2147 ]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, it isn't Tex Enemark who makes the rules and regulations about what happens; it's this government.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, another bit of news we can pass on. It's not going to happen -- ferry fares. . . .

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh, I'm sorry. It is going to happen?

Hon. A. Petter: It's a recommendation.

F. Gingell: Is it going to happen? Mr. Speaker, ask the minister. Let's make this world a better place to live in.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I accept that criticism. I shall wait with interest to find out what happens. I accept that.

Let's deal with the issue of ferry fares. They're all going up. Why? Because of the fast ferry exercise. What a load of incompetence that is. B.C. Ferries looked into the issue of fast ferries time after time and kept turning it down, saying: "No, our routes are not suited, at least not in the lower part of British Columbia." They may be suited for Port Hardy to Prince Rupert. In fact, there may be a really good use for them there. But from Horseshoe Bay to Nanaimo, forget it. The trip is too short. The waters are too full of pleasure boats and the flotsam and jetsam of the forest industry. I cannot avoid mentioning the fact that the Ministry of Environment should be stopping them, because it's going to put more pollution in the air per unit of passenger and freight carried than conventional ferries. That's a fact.

[11:30]

What else is there? Well, this government has brought forward reference-based pricing. Reference-based pricing is something that has a lot of appeal. It's like the big banks or the big drug companies. The drug companies have told me that they have, on many occasions, offered to sit down with the provincial government and try and work out some solutions. Whether that's right or wrong, I haven't a clue. But I do know one thing: when we move into these kinds of initiatives, we really should ensure that we can start to measure the consequences.

Clinical Outcomes Research from Utah in the United States stated that restrictive drug programs were closely associated with increased illness and increased costs. I don't know whether that's true or not -- they say it is -- but clearly there is a caution here. Let's find out. Let's ensure that we pick up the right statistics and do the right measurements to find out if there are any consequences to reference-based pricing. The government's own statement said that in B.C. and most of Canada, the data collected regarding sickness and hospitalization are so inadequate that it is impossible to reach meaningful conclusions regarding the economic impact of any drugs. I don't know whether this government has put into place a framework by which these measures can start to be discovered, but I certainly suggest it to them.

The third C is corrective action. I think all British Columbians were disappointed that this budget speech and this throne speech had no vision. What do British Columbians really want? Yes, they want a tax break. I understand that. But the way this government goes about it, as far as the citizens are concerned, what they gain on the swings they're going to lose on the roundabouts. Taxes are held down, but there are going to be increases in fees all around.

What really is important to British Columbians? It's a vibrant economy. It's real, family-supporting jobs. It's jobs for their children. It's jobs that will support a mortgage. It's ensuring that the environment is protected. It's ensuring that we have a health care system that's working for patients. It's plans that really do protect, not just rhetoric.

So what is the current status? What did we not hear in the budget? For all the Minister of Finance says about tax rates for middle-income British Columbians, we still have the highest marginal rate in the country. The Science Council of British Columbia, which this government listens to and works with, says that this highest marginal tax rate is particularly damaging to the high-tech sector.

We still have a corporate capital tax on people other than banks -- on manufacturing businesses -- and we still have a sales tax on manufacturing inputs. I can understand that the Minister of Finance would not find this an appropriate time to cut the corporate capital tax, to cut the sales tax on manufacturing inputs, perhaps not even to cut the highest tax rate -- although I think that perhaps he should try and find some means. . . .

Hon. A. Petter: We brought the aviation fuel tax down.

F. Gingell: You put the aviation fuel tax up in the first place.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Well, your predecessor did. "We brought the aviation fuel tax down. We put it up above everybody else's level, but now we've brought it down."

What the people of British Columbia and the people outside British Columbia are looking for is a recognition that these issues are problems -- the Minister of Finance saying: "We know what kind of damage we are doing to economic growth by having the highest marginal tax rate in Canada. We recognize that, and, by God, we're going to try and do something about it. We're going to try and bring it down."

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I can't hear the minister. I'm getting a bit deaf, and I've got my hearing aid in my pocket rather than in my ear.

The minister knows that the corporate capital tax. . . . However little it raises -- $400 million -- you're still going to tax the banks, because that's part of dealing with the inequalities and inequities in the income tax system and how income is allocated. But the tax on new investment. . . . "Come to B.C., build a plant, buy machinery, and we'll tax you." We need the message Mr. Harcourt made when he was Premier. He went to the Far East and said: "I recognize how big a problem this corporate capital tax is. We're going to do something about it. We have a horrendous problem left to us by the incompetents that were in office before us, and as we manage to get those problems solved, reducing the corporate capital tax to encourage investment and job creation will be one of our priorities." It has never happened.

[ Page 2148 ]

It's the same as the sales tax on manufacturing inputs. Making the goods, having the jobs, having people go to work and making the sales across the world in a very competitive market -- that is important. I know that the sales tax on manufacturing inputs is a lot of money; it's about $800 million.

Hon. A. Petter: It's not quite that much.

F. Gingell: Not quite that much.

But, Mr. Speaker, if this government were to make a statement that they recognize the barriers and hurdles they are putting up and that they intend to do something about it, then maybe we could get a change. Maybe we could get businesses to be created in British Columbia, rather than in Washington and Alberta. Maybe the test we make of the jobs vacant and the situations offered in the Vancouver newspapers versus the Seattle Times, which I mentioned the other day, will change. Maybe we'll start to get as many job opportunities in Vancouver, in the lower mainland and throughout all of British Columbia as there are in Washington State. For the test that was done by the board of trade, the statistics were that there were eight times -- eight times -- more advertisements for job opportunities in Seattle than in British Columbia in the weekend that they checked.

We have to deal, Mr. Speaker, with regulation. I'd like to suggest that the government starts to think about making regulations descriptive rather than proscriptive. We can't just keep building up cadres of bureaucracy to ensure that regulations are being kept. What we have to do is to make them descriptive, so that people know what it is they must accomplish, and then have real penalties when that doesn't happen. There have got to be consequences.

We need to deal with our labour laws. We have a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker in this House, and that gives you a feeling of confidence that it was the members of this House that freely elected you Speaker, Mr. Speaker. But we can't have a secret ballot on the issue of unionization. I find that strange. This government brought in a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker, but they took out the secret ballot for unionization. There are all kinds of things in our labour laws and in our Employment Standards Act which are important because they protect the rights of citizens in this province with their employers. But we need to make them flexible. We need, when there is agreement on both sides of the issue, to be much more flexible.

We need to deal with some issues in forestry. I suggest to you that, with the Forest Practices Code, switching from proscriptive to descriptive would be a good motto. There's a lot of good, professional people -- in fact, the licences are full of competent, professional people, people whose professionalism is recognized, who have a certificate, who can determine the right way to harvest in a manner that protects the environment and protects the land base and ensures that we'll get a new crop as quickly as we can. We can't make proscriptive regulations that deal with every situation -- a north-facing slope, a south-facing slope, a this, a that. When you're on the land, every situation is different. You need people to use their professional skills to determine the best way to harvest the timber with the least damage to the environment to bring the harvest back. They're better to do it with their minds and their heads and their knowledge and their skills than they are to open a book of regulations and look up the particular section. The Forest Practices Code. I don't believe it -- the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the member for Nelson-Creston, said: "I never read it; I just voted for it." That's quite an admission.

We need, I think, to deal with the issue of tenure. We need a tenure situation that encourages reinvestment, that has real consequences for people who do not live up to their responsibilities. And, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest to you that there may be ways of private-public partnership arrangements for getting investments into the forest land base that will show future rewards. There are all kinds of funds -- pension funds, people's RRSPs -- that perhaps could be well invested. Not in the forest companies of the province, although I'm not suggesting for a moment that it would not be a good investment. But I am suggesting that there may be ways by which we could channel those funds into direct investment in silviculture and other things. I think that would be important.

What are the other industries that are important to our province -- the real natural resource industries, ones that pay an average salary of $70,000 a year? That's the same as being an MLA, and it's all taxed just the same way ours is now.

The mining industry. What's been the history of the mining industry? In 1996 four mines closed: Goldstream, Premier, Nickel Plate and Similco. In 1996 there were no new mines. In 1997 we hope there will be three new mines: Huckleberry, Mount Polley and Bralorne. All these are old discoveries; there is nothing new. The mining industry does not feel that they have the certainty of tenure. They don't feel that there's a government who understands what their position is. They don't have a government that they believe they can rely on -- that if they go and spend money on this piece of land and explore it and come up with a discovery that's a real ore body, they will be able to mine it.

I was looking at some statistics about exploration expenditures by the mining industry, and for the last four years they have been flat -- really, really flat. From 1987 to 1990, in those four years the mining industry invested $180 million in exploring in British Columbia. In the four years 1993 to 1996, they spent $40 million. There's a message there. The geology of British Columbia is right. There is nothing wrong with our prospects; there are all kinds of ore bodies to be found. But the mining industry has reduced its expenditures in the last four years to less than one-quarter of what they were in the four years immediately before this government came into office.

[11:45]

So what's happening is that the capital and the expertise have gone to sunnier climes. They've gone to Chile; they've gone to the Far East. So what's going to happen this year? I haven't been able to find it in the budget, but I've been getting correspondence from the mining industry about proposals to downsize or to get rid of the geological survey branch. Whether that's going to happen or not I don't know, but there have been discussions going on relative to that issue, and I certainly hope that it doesn't happen.

Now I'm going to come to the fifth C, which I know everyone is looking forward to: the conclusion. The Premier of this province, during the course of the election campaign, kept saying: "Whose side are you on?" Well, Mr. Speaker, you look at this budget and the actions of this government and you know that he's not on the side of welfare recipients. This government has lowered benefits instead of toughening eligibility. He's not on the side of the handicapped; they are going to take away the monthly financial support for adoptive parents of special needs children. They're not on the side of people who have to rely on income support and have to deal -- of course and naturally -- with government offices, offices of the Ministry of Human Resources; they've closed the office in South Delta.

[ Page 2149 ]

They're not on the side of patients when they have to wait ten weeks for radiation therapy for cancer, and when the clinics are closed in the evenings and over the weekends. And they're not on the side of taxpayers, when you see how much the government has increased the revenue generation from the people of British Columbia over the five years they have been in office.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to suggest that his mother didn't get it quite right. But let me tell you what I'm told. I'm told that the Minister of Finance's mother told the minister that he should "expect the worst and hope for the best." But what she should have told him was: "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst." And that's one thing this government has once again failed to do.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: With that, and seeing the hour is almost lunchtime -- and the member from Port Alberni believes that he can barrack me from that seat when he is supposed to be down at the other end -- I would like to move adjournment of the debate.

F. Gingell moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Petter: Mr. Speaker, my mom also said: "If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything."

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1997.

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

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1997-98 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for the initial three months of the 1997-98 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because the spending authority granted by this House under the previous supply act will expire on March 31. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages this day. I move first reading.

The Speaker: The Chair has had advance notice of this motion, has considered whether it conforms to our standing orders, and it does indeed seem to comply with the requirements of standing order 81. The motion is therefore in order. I call the question, then, on first reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Petter: In light of the hour, I will move that the bill now be read a second time but at the same time move adjournment until later today, if I'm permitted to do so.

The Speaker: I think the motion before us is adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada