Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 6, Part 1 -- Thursday, March 27, 1997

T. Nebbeling: It is my pleasure today to welcome 28 students -- they are behind me -- from Howe Sound Secondary School in Squamish.

I would also like to welcome the family of one of our legislative assistants, Heng Neoh, and his wife Betty Neoh, and a friend from Australia, Lina Brown. May the House make them very welcome.

G. Wilson: It's a sad occasion today. I wish to report to the House that a noted Canadian, British Columbian poet and historian Charles "Red" Lillard, died this morning in Victoria at the very young age of 53. His last book of poetry, Shadow Weather, was short-listed for the 1996 Governor General's award. He will be missed by not only those in the literary field but all of us who looked for the strengthening of our culture through poetry and through the great historical work he did. Perhaps this House could pass on sympathies to the family.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. I'm happy to give my assurances that as your Chair I will be more than pleased to send a letter to the family of Mr. Lillard.

A. Sanders: I'd like to welcome to the House Ken and Mary Mackie. These are family friends of mine from Victoria-Beacon Hill -- Saskatchewan natives who know all the stories about Mr. Douglas McArthur, who works for our government. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

K. Whittred: In the gallery today are two constituents from my riding of North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Lise-Lotte Loomer and her husband Tereus Scott are in Victoria today to visit the Legislature and to observe Lise-Lotte's sister, Anne-Lise Loomer, one of our legislative interns. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

M. de Jong: I'm happy to have in the gallery today my constituency assistant from Matsqui, Wendy Whittle. I hope the House will make her welcome.

C. Clark: I am pleased to introduce to the House today someone I've neglected to introduce for the last few days. He has attended every sitting of the Legislature of this new session. He's an old, old friend of this House. Mr. Campbell Atchison is with us today, and I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a very special individual, a constituent of mine. His name is Michael Cuccione, and he is a cancer survivor. He has twice battled Hodgkin's disease and has currently been in remission for about 17 months. He's here today to meet the Premier, and later the Leader of the Opposition, before he travels to Ottawa and Toronto. He is somewhat of a rising star, having produced a CD of songs which is selling extremely well and which has raised over $65,000 for cancer research. He's in the gallery today with Domenic, his father; Steven, his brother; and Gloria, his mother. While we were chatting, his mother and I were talking about some things and realized that we used to be neighbours about 25 years ago. What a small world it is! So would the House please welcome Michael and his family to Victoria.

Hon. C. Evans: In the gallery today, just to the right of the clock and up a little bit, are some constituents of mine: Marianne Gorsline and her kids, Kevin and Jenny, from Nelson. Kevin mentioned today some similarities between the courthouse in the city of Nelson and this building, and I was able to tell him that they were actually designed by the same person. Thanks for coming down here and seeing the other half of that building.

J. Weisgerber presented a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1997 (Special Warrant Abolition).

J. Weisgerber: The purpose of this bill is twofold. First, it abolishes completely the use of special warrants.

Second, the bill introduces the use of supplementary supply, which requires the summoning of the Legislative Assembly and the approval of this body prior to a minister authorizing the spending of funds not previously passed during the estimates process. As the auditor general notes, a fundamental cornerstone of parliamentary democracy is the principle of parliamentary approval of government spending.

Conditions in the late 1800s and early 1900s -- slow transportation and inadequate communications -- resulted in the evolution of special warrant spending. Times have changed a great deal, and the Lieutenant-Governor may now, with a few hours' notice, summon the Legislature. Yet governments -- some more so than others -- continue to authorize millions of dollars in spending by special warrant, thus completely circumventing all opportunity for public debate on the merit of spending those funds.

The special warrant is a Canadian aberration not found in other jurisdictions, and later in the day I will certainly quote back to the government Whip and the Premier some comments made by them in the period from 1986 to 1991.

This is an antiquated practice that doesn't permit public scrutiny of government spending decisions. At the same time, we recognize there must be a mechanism for debating and passing legitimate additional government spending. This bill recognizes the demands of taxpayers, who require and deserve accountability from their politicians. No longer should governments be legally entitled to spend taxpayers' money without public debate or scrutiny.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Symons: I'd like to amend his motion: that not only do we do first reading but move to second reading as well, by standing order 81.

The Speaker: Sorry, member for Richmond Centre, but the motion on first reading is not amendable. Thank you, though.

Bill M201 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Symons: Under standing order 81, I move that we move into immediate second reading of this particular bill.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member, but the standing order 81 provision is not available to opposition backbench members; it is a ministerial initiative. Moreover, passing that motion would have the effect of denying the motion we just passed, so the motion is clearly out of order.

F. Gingell: This morning I suggested to the Minister of Finance -- through you, of course, Mr. Speaker -- that the correct budgetary deficit for 1997-98 is $886 million. At lunchtime I discovered that the auditor general of British Columbia shares my view and was critical of the way this government cooks -- sorry, keeps -- the books. Since 1992 this government has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures off British Columbia's books in an effort to hide the true state of B.C.'s finances. Will the Minister of Finance stand up in this House today, open page 25 of his budget report and read from there, and tell this House and the people of British Columbia what the real deficit will be for 1997-98 -- without all his budgetary hocus-pocus?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm delighted to remind the member of what I said the other day, and that is that the real operating deficit projected for the coming year is $185 million, a cut in the deficit of more than half from the previous year and an indication of substantial progress in meeting the fiscal goals of this province and of this government.

Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, for five years the NDP government has refused to bring in any kind of believable financial reporting. In the report on the 1995-96 public accounts, the auditor general recommended that the debt management plan include more detailed information on the plan of the government, if the main assumptions fall significantly short of expectations. Well, as the minister knows, they have fallen substantially short of expectations.

F. Gingell: Will the minister please tell us why his budget speech and his budget reports did not contain the detailed information that the auditor general called for? And would he please tell the House when he and his cabinet colleagues will start to listen to and take heed of the good advice given to them by the auditor general of British Columbia?

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, the auditor general was on television last night congratulating the government for having included additional information in its budget reports on precisely these matters. The financial management plan and the background of the budget reports that demonstrate how we reached our prudent economic assumptions are unprecedented in terms of disclosing to the people of British Columbia and the opposition how we reached those conclusions.

Now I've had a chance to consult the page in the reports that the member referenced. The member knows full well that in terms of the operating budget of this province, the consolidated revenue fund has always been and will always be the measure of the deficit. What this member is referring to are other measures outside consolidated revenue -- measures like schools, hospitals and transportation, investments in our future that the members over there cry for out of one side of their mouth, while they claim out of the other side of their mouth that the deficit and the debt are increasing too much. It's time they got their stories straight. It's time they were candid with this House. It's time they provided some solutions instead of hollow criticism.

F. Gingell: I love the use of the word "candid" by this minister. It's time they started to be candid. If the government would stop continually pushing expenditures off the CRF and into other funding agencies, we'd know what the true numbers are.

Now, will the minister please tell us what the proposed $185 million deficit would be if all of the expenditures of prior years were included in that calculation?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, I have to sort of read through the haze to decipher the question, but I think the member is referring to the fact that there are working capital requirements of government which are accounted for in these accounts. If that's what he's meaning, there's nothing new with respect to that in this budget.

But I'm not surprised to hear the members deride other agencies, because I recall that those are the members over there -- they and the other members of the party -- who voted against the forest renewal plan and the creation of the forest renewal agency to invest in our forests. They opposed the Transportation Financing Authority and the building of roads and infrastructure on the Island Highway and around this province. They are opposed to investing in our future. Again, they are all too quick to tell us what they're against. They're all too quick to criticize. They have no positive solution; they have no vision of the future. It's time to stop carping and criticizing. It's time to be constructive, hon. members.

G. Plant: We understand that the Attorney General has today appointed Don Sorochan as a special prosecutor to investigate alleged breaches of the gag law provisions of the Election Act. We already know that the NDP's gag law is not only a fundamental violation of freedom of speech in our society but clearly unconstitutional. Can the Attorney General tell us why he chooses to waste the time and money of his ministry, the courts and the taxpayers of British Columbia in pursuing this frivolous and unconstitutional persecution?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm disappointed that my learned and honourable friend does not understand the process of appointing special prosecutors in this province, which is completely independent of the Attorney General. The Assistant Deputy Attorney General has appointed a special prosecutor in this case, and it is within the wide mandate of that special prosecutor to determine if any charges should proceed. One of the issues I'm certain the special prosecutor may consider -- and I'm not directing the special prosecutor in any way -- might be the constitutionality of those provisions in question.

G. Plant: The last time I looked, there were lots of lawyers in the legal services branch of this government's Ministry of Attorney General who could give the Attorney General the opinion he so desperately needs.

In every jurisdiction in which this gag law has been challenged, it has been struck down by the courts. Yet this government is so bent on persecuting groups with the courage and temerity to speak up for what they believe in that they've appointed a special prosecutor. I know full well the process this involves. The question is: can the Attorney General tell the House if he is willing to take this expensive, ill-advised political vendetta all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm extremely disappointed that this learned friend in the law, this honourable friend, does not understand -- particularly if you're a lawyer and a member of the bar, you must understand -- that there ought not to be any politicization of the process of appointing special prosecutors in this province. I would not interfere in the appointment of a special prosecutor by the Assistant Deputy Attorney General in this matter.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, on March 7 the Minister of Environment announced huge angling fee increases of over 1,000 percent. She should know that for some lodges up in the Smithers area, for example, this is going to amount to over $74,000 in added costs. Some businesses have lost 40 percent of their bookings this year. I'd like the minister to explain to this House exactly how this job-killing tax hike fits in with the Premier's job creation plan that he announced in the throne speech.

Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you. I'm pleased to give the answer -- my first answer as a minister in the House.

There were a number of angling fee increases recently announced which will generate more than $3 million in additional revenue to government, and $1.6 million of that revenue will go directly to habitat conservation. In fact, that habitat conservation improvement fund was recommended by the same guide-outfitters that the critic makes mention of today and will go towards an increase in the river guardian program so that we can continue to have strong enforcement measures on the river and protect habitat.

C. Clark: What the minister fails to mention is that half of the money that she is collecting through this job-killing tax is going to go directly into the Minister of Finance's pocket in general revenue. This is another desperate tax grab to prop up a desperate Finance minister's attempt to fill his budget sinkhole. What I would ask the minister to do today is to put a stop to these changes before her government lays to waste yet another sector of the resource industry in this province.

Hon. C. McGregor: The member properly points out that a portion of the revenue does go to general revenue. But indeed that continues to support the fisheries programs and enforcement measures that we continue to offer as a part of our agenda and protection of environmental regulations.

S. Hawkins: We've seen a lot of fee increases -- cash grabs -- in the last few days, and we understand that this government is planning to raise fees for calling an ambulance in an emergency. This would mean that in British Columbia in 1997, it would be cheaper to take a taxi to a hospital than an ambulance. Can this Minister of Health assure us today in the House that British Columbians are not going to see an ambulance fee increase?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Our government has already announced in the budget that there will be changes in fees. I would just say that it is better that we have an NDP government in here which actually contributes, I think, $340 million more -- a 4.4 percent increase -- to the health care budget this year than last -- unlike the opposition, which would have cut it by $1.3 billion.

S. Hawkins: It will be cheaper to be sick in Ontario, where they charge $45 and no extra per-kilometre fee for an ambulance. It will be even cheaper to call an ambulance in King County, Washington, where there is no user fee. Can the Minister of Health tell us how this ambulance fee increase will make health care more affordable and more accessible for British Columbians, as they say it is?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This might have been the second showing of the Academy Awards today; I'm not sure.

I rise once again in the House and reassure the public that it was good that they voted for an NDP government that has increased health care funding by 4.4 percent so that there is more money for surgeries and for cancer treatments. We are actually building hospitals; we're building cancer centres; we're expanding our ambulance service. It's good news for British Columbians, and they can rest assured that we have a strong and healthy health care system. Thank God the Liberals weren't elected; there would have been $1.3 billion in cuts.

D. Jarvis: The B.C. Liberal opposition has obtained a copy of the contract between ICBC and KPMG, which shows that KPMG were paid $1.4 million for a study of no-fault insurance. It's only been four years since KPMG was hired for less than $1 million by the same NDP to review the workings of the entire provincial government. Can the minister responsible for ICBC tell the House who approved this outrageous contract for a three-month study?

Hon. A. Petter: Unlike the Liberal opposition, this government is committed to protecting consumers by keeping ICBC rates frozen, not seeing them rise year after year. Through ICBC we engaged KPMG to undertake the most comprehensive review of ICBC and of auto insurance in this province's history. That review is setting the stage for changes in policy that will ensure that the consumers of this province continue to be protected and that ICBC premiums do not rise in the way the Liberal opposition would like them to rise -- year after year. This government is on the side of auto insurance consumers, and we're determined to protect those consumers from those who want to see those rates rise.

Members, just a brief comment, if I might. It is not the habit of the Chair to intervene with points of order and impediments to debate during question period. I must, however, give notice that it seems to me pretty obvious that one side of the House is being rather quiet and letting the questions be heard. But when the answers come, the same courtesy is not being extended. Now, I would suggest that we must treat one another equally fairly in this chamber if we are to function, so I offer you. . . .

The Speaker: You know, members, as the person charged with upholding and enforcing your rules, I am trying to ensure that we don't make a travesty of debate in this chamber. It would seem to me that we are not well served when members respond as some did just a moment ago when I am trying as gently as I can to explain the rules and why we have them. Again, I offer that caution to members for future reference, and I hope they will take it seriously.

F. Gingell: This morning I spoke briefly about an issue dealing with the closing of the Tsawwassen Ministry of Social Services office, and I have with me a petition signed by approximately 175 citizens.

I also have a petition which deals with the issue of recent legislation -- I think it should be "regulation" -- concerning adoptive families with special needs children.

With it is a letter that is referred to in the petition. That petition is signed by about 275 citizens.

Hon. A. Petter: 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. The schedule lists those approved for the 1996-97 fiscal year and not previously included in a supply act presented to and approved by the House.

The first section of the bill requests one-quarter of the voted expenditure as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests the disbursements amount required for the government-voted financing transactions which appear in schedule C of the estimates. The third section requests an amount of $2 million in statutory authority for the Purchasing Commission working capital account, to permit the delivery of goods and services provided through this account. I think I've already moved second reading of Bill 5, so I suspect that it isn't necessary for me to do again.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, through this bill the minister is asking the Legislature to give this government spending authority for the next three months. Normally, we would accept that this is a pretty straightforward matter. However, that's normally, and we don't believe we're living in normal times in British Columbia; nor has this government managed its finances in a normal way. This spending authority is being asked for by a government that has missed literally every target that it has set for itself. It is spending authority that's being asked for by a government that thinks it can do anything it wants. It's spending authority that's being asked for by a Finance minister. . . . Hon. Speaker, I'm not sure whether you have received this learned document, but the front page of this learned document points out that the Finance minister says that he doesn't expect us to believe him. Although I don't think that I always agree with this document, I certainly agree with it this particular day.

The problem for us on this side of the House is that the people of British Columbia do not believe this minister, and they don't believe they can trust this government. Just last night, the auditor general, an officer of this Legislature, pointed out that the government's and the Finance minister's credibility were in question once again. What he pointed out on television was not what the Finance minister reported to us earlier, but the true deficit this government is facing. The true deficit the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia are facing is not the $185 million that the minister has been proclaiming, but indeed it is around and over $800 million. And this is a minister that says to us: "Please give us some authority to spend money over the next three months." I don't think that that's appropriate. I don't think he's shown that he has earned either our trust or the taxpayers' trust in that matter.

I think the government should notice that the auditor general actually has a very good record of giving this government advice. Unfortunately, the government has a very bad record of ignoring the advice. You may recall that the auditor general has pointed out that since 1992 this government has taken over 30 percent of the cost of government off the books that the taxpayers are regularly allowed to see. And the auditor general pointed out quite clearly in 1995 that what the government was doing with the Columbia downstream benefits was wrong, that they should not be put in a budget, that it would mislead the people of British Columbia -- and the government ignored that. The only problem with that was that taxpayers paid more, the costs of government went up, the deficit soared, jobs were lost, and the people of British Columbia were hurt by this government ignoring the auditor general's advice.

Why would we or anyone in this Legislature want to give this government the authority to spend? Again, hon. Speaker, if the government had any record of any credibility, if they had ever met a target that was worthwhile, it might well be something where we could say, "There is some credibility with the government," and we could move forward. But they haven't, and it goes back to before they were government.

But let's take 1992, just when they were elected. A major report; a major plan laid out; Peat Marwick lays out the problems of government; the New Democrats heap scorn and

opprobrium on the Social Credit government and say: "This financial mess was caused by Socreds." In fact, that was not the case. Again, there were lots of games played with the books, but with a contract of about $980,000, they hired Peat Marwick and said: "Give us a plan." I can recall the Finance minister of the day, who happens to be the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the Premier today, saying: "Yes, we're going to follow this plan. It's a blueprint for us to follow." From the day that announcement was made, the government ignored every step that was recommended to them, hon. Speaker.

What about the debt management plan? You'll all recall the Treasury Board document in 1995 that laid out the problems this government was going to face with mounting debt, consistently and continually mounting debt. The Treasury Board said the fact of the matter was that mounting debt would kill our health care services, would damage our public education services and would lead to reductions in programs that the taxpayers of British Columbia pay for and should rightly expect.

So the government, the New Democrats, came forward and with broad announcements said: "We've got a debt management plan." What happened, hon. Speaker? Not once was that in the debt management plan. In year 1 this government did not spend $400 million. They went $400 million in the hole. That's taxpayers' debt; that's the debt of the next generation of British Columbians. Year 2, they missed by $1.5 billion. By year 3, there was $2.1 billion of additional debt. Not once did this government attempt to meet the plan that they had put forward and that they had announced to the people of British Columbia. So why would we give this government authority to spend anything, particularly when the taxpayers are saying: "Do not let this government near our wallets; stop them if you can"? And that's what we're going to do.

Six successive budgets, six successive deficits. For the first time in the history of this province, we face a debt of over $30 billion -- almost $31 billion in debt. The debt continues to mount. Yet this government has the nerve to say to us that we should pass this bill of interim supply, we should give them authority without review over the next three months of spending. We can't do that.

It's not like we haven't asked this government to call the House back. It's not like we haven't asked them to come forward so we could do the public's business. As long ago as September of 1995, when it was clear that the government had missed in terms of all of the costs and that they hadn't given the public the information that they deserved in terms of the financial status of this province, when the government was clear that they were facing an enormous deficit for 1996, we asked for the government to call the House back so we could debate it, so we could create for the government some opportunities for constructive dialogue and help meet the needs of the people of British Columbia. The government didn't meet.

Again, we asked for the government to call the Legislature back in the late fall.

G. Campbell: They said no. They don't want the public to know. They don't want a public debate. They don't want a public examination of how they are spending taxpayers' dollars, how they are driving jobs out of the province, how they are destroying and damaging our health care system and our public education system, how they are restricting access by the people of British Columbia to the courts, how they are trying to pursue policies that will restrict victims' rights and restrict people's access to courts. None of those things did this government think we should debate, and yet they try and rush us through on March 27 to give them an interim supply bill -- which simply should not happen.

It is important for this NDP government to understand clearly that it is not their money. It is the taxpayers' money, and each month and each day that they reach into the pockets of the taxpayers of British Columbia and withdraw more and more dollars for less and less service, they are doing a disservice to the people of British Columbia. We believe that must be stopped. It is important.

How can we give spending authority to a government who doesn't keep its word to the people of this province? I can recall sitting in this Legislature and listening to member after member of the government talk about Forest Renewal B.C. and how every single dollar of Forest Renewal B.C. would be protected for people that lived in forest-dependent communities. One member stood up and said that no greedy minister would ever get his hands on the Forest Renewal B.C. money. The Deputy Premier stood and said: "There will not be a government this month, next year and in any year for 20 years who will ever dare to take money from Forest Renewal B.C." Yet this is a government that the day before yesterday reached into Forest Renewal B.C. and pulled out $100 million and said: "We're going to spend it on the regular old services of government."

It's like fining the people in forest communities because they need some assistance. Instead of saying that we are going to focus those dollars on restoring the land base, on protecting the communities that are dependent on our forests, this government has taken it and has used it to pay for services that were formerly provided by the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Environment. That's wrong. How can we possibly give this government, which the people of the province can't trust, authority to spend any money that the taxpayers worked so hard to earn?

We heard from the Minister of Forests yesterday. He told us that this wasn't a raid on Forest Renewal. No, no, that's totally wrong. He used that technical term the Minister of Forests is so well known for. This was a "sideways shift in funding." It's the same sideways shift in funding that the auditor general is concerned about. It's the same sideways shift in funding that has taken over 30 percent of the cost of public services off the public books so we don't get to review or discuss them, so the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia don't know what is happening with their resources and their assets. That's the same sideways shift in funding that the Minister of Forests is talking about.

The auditor general opposes a sideways shift in funding. I would expect the Attorney General would too, but he's mute, unfortunately. People in forest-dependent communities oppose the sideways shift in funding. Bond agencies oppose the sideways shift in funding and are not fooled by the sideways shift in funding. In fact, what people are tired of is this government's shiftiness altogether. It is time that we stopped them. We cannot support this bill, hon. Speaker.

We would like to think we can trust this government to spend the taxpayers' money wisely, but the problem is that this government literally hasn't made an agreement that I recollect that they have held to. In 1995 this government said to homeowners and small businesses and renters across the province of British Columbia: "We will give you predictable,

stable revenue-sharing for your property taxes." As late as September 1996, this government went to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and signed an agreement that said they would not impose unilateral actions on the municipalities and the property tax payer. What has happened since then is that the government has gone and unilaterally cut municipal grants.

Worse than that -- as is true to this government's course -- when they announced those cuts to municipal revenue-sharing, what they said to the people of British Columbia was that this was simply a cut of 3 percent. What did the municipalities say about that? What was the truth the people of British Columbia should know? Cutbacks to municipal grants were not 3 percent, as the government suggested. They were 30 percent. That $113 million in cutbacks, which are going to be direct costs on homeowners and small businesses and renters across this province, represented a 30 percent reduction. How can those homeowners trust this government? How can those renters trust this government? How can those small businesses trust this government? How could we therefore trust this government to spend money appropriately and wisely over the next three months? We can't and we won't trust this government to do that.

It doesn't stop just with the revenue-sharing. We've watched throughout the province -- through the interior, through the Fraser Valley and through Vancouver Island. We have watched as this government has tried to restrict the access of the people of British Columbia to the courts of British Columbia. We will have an opportunity perhaps to talk in more detail about that later, but the fact of the matter is that this government is loading costs upon the people of British Columbia at an unprecedented rate, and it's doing it in a sly and shifty manner. It is inappropriate, and it is wrong for us to support an interim supply bill from a government that has these kinds of standards. We will not support it, hon. Speaker.

We have asked on a number of occasions for this government to meet. We have asked for this House to be called back. We asked in September; we asked in November; we asked in January; we asked in February. The government couldn't bring themselves to bring the House back until the last week of March, right before Easter, when they knew there would be pressure. They said: "Oh well, we'll throw in the throne speech and the budget speech, and hopefully no one will notice and will get on with their lives." That is wrong, hon. Speaker. People deserve to have these issues fully debated in their House. I take my hat off to the member for Peace River South for the introduction of his act today. The government had an opportunity today to take some real steps to re-establish its credibility.

The fact is that the people of this province have taken the Finance minister at his word. They can't believe the Finance minister. "I don't expect you to believe me," is what the Finance minister said. Well, I can guarantee the Finance minister that that's one statement he made that we concur with. The opposition does not believe the Finance minister.

The opposition agrees with the auditor general. The opposition agrees with the taxpayers of the province, who are tired of being hit -- day in, day out, month in, month out, year in and year out -- by this government. The opposition agrees with the young people of this province, who are tired of being burdened with massive amounts of debt, which is really just a tax on their future and on the services they have a right to expect in the years ahead.

Hon. Speaker, we cannot support this government. We cannot support this bill for interim supply, and we will not. We will do everything we can to make sure we protect the taxpayers' interests and hold this government to account.

G. Plant: Hon. Speaker, there is before us an issue of principle. The issue is whether this House should give the government interim supply -- supply for the next three months. I've been thinking about that issue, and I have decided that there are three questions that arise when you think about the issue in the context of the present circumstances.

The first question has to do with the circumstances under which this government acquired power. In a democracy, the moral authority to govern is in large measure derived from an informed decision by a free electorate. The first question is therefore whether this government came into power in circumstances that gave it the moral authority to govern. We in this House have more insight into that question today as a result of documents that are now available to us but were not available during last summer's sitting of the House. In answering that first question, I suggest that we in this House are able to say whether, in our view, this government should be granted interim supply. I will return to that in a minute.

The second question. Even if the answer to the first question is no, we as a House might nonetheless choose to give this government interim supply if we were of the view that, since the election, the government had managed the affairs of British Columbia in a way that gave us as members confidence in their ability to continue to do so. What is their record over the past year? I'll return to the answer to that question in due course, too.

The third question. Even if the answer to the second question is no, we in this House might decide to give this government interim supply if we thought that the government had laid out a plan for the future that gave us confidence in their ability to manage the affairs of the province from this point forward. I will have an answer to that question, hon. Speaker.

I want to begin my examination of these questions by registering my own concern about the context in which this examination takes place. It seems to me to be vitally important that we in this chamber are able to speak freely about the questions that come before us. It also seems to me that there is no more important question asked of this House than whether it will give the government the power and the authority to collect and spend billions upon billions of dollars -- billions upon billions of the hard-earned dollars of hard-working British Columbians.

It seems to me that we in this House should be able to speak freely about the reasons why this government should or shouldn't be granted supply. I participate in this debate today with the strong feeling that one hand has been tied behind my back, because when the Leader of the Opposition is required to leave this House for simply asking the Premier to tell the truth, I feel as though my right to speak freely on the important question now before us has in some measure been restricted.

I have not the slightest interest in offending the privileges of any member of this House, but if it were my considered view that members of this government were elected into office on the basis of a lie, I can imagine no more important place in a parliamentary democracy than this chamber to raise that question. It seems to me ironic that in this respect I have greater rights of free speech outside this chamber than inside it.

I turn now to the three questions. I say, hon. Speaker, that the answer to the first question is no. This government was

elected on the basis of an assertion about the state of the province's finances -- not a promise, not puffery, not a political promotional statement but a statement of fact. And this statement of fact -- that the NDP had in fact balanced the province's budget -- was false. What this means is that the decision of the voters of British Columbia last May 28 was neither properly nor correctly informed.

The legal consequences of those circumstances are now before the courts of British Columbia, but the moral consequences are clear: this government never acquired the moral legitimacy to govern. Seventy-five percent of British Columbians believe that to be so. On that basis alone, I do not think this House should give the government interim supply.

Mr. Speaker, the second question is: on the basis of its conduct over the past year, has this government earned its right to continue to govern? I say the answer to that question is no.

I want to speak, first, about the conduct of the government as it has affected my community of Richmond. We have a government that professes the importance of education, but its actions demonstrate exactly the opposite. I live in a growing and diverse community that has far more than its share of outdated, unsafe school buildings and far more than its share of portables. In the schools of Richmond, when high school students wish to perform lab experiments, they do so in portables where there are no fire extinguishers. If a fire happens in the school portables of Richmond, someone has to walk into the school, grab the fire extinguisher off the wall, go back into the portable and put the fire out. That is the true measure of this government's commitment to education in British Columbia.

G. Plant: I am always grateful to realize that I have excited the interest of members on the opposite side of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we have a government that says it listens to British Columbians and then off-loads the cost of provincial services to the taxpayers of Richmond. We have a government that professes the importance of health care and then reorganizes the delivery of health care in Richmond in a way that completely ignores the special needs and circumstances of a self-contained city of 145,000 people by merging its health care delivery into the much larger community of its neighbour.

We have a government that promises no new taxes but delivers tax increases disguised as fee hikes instead. Probate fees. Parents in my community, who have worked hard and saved all their lives to build equity in their family home, may no longer be able to pass that home on to their children as a result of the tax increases of this government.

We have a government that promised a budget surplus, and yet we are on track for a $400 million deficit for the year I'm speaking of -- a half-billion-dollar credibility gap that is far from being bridged.

I want to speak for a moment about one special issue, the issue of justice. A year ago, the throne speech from this government pledged this government's commitment to making our neighbourhoods safer. The government promised 100 new community police officers patrolling our neighbourhoods. What is this government's record? None of the 100 police officers has been hired -- not one. And what is worse, in community after community across British Columbia, fully qualified police officers -- men and women with years of training in preventing and detecting crime -- are sitting in minivans parked on roadsides and highways, taking photographs of licence plates. We don't have more community policing in British Columbia; we have less. And British Columbians have been treated to an embarrassing spectacle of one flip-flop after another under the spurious heading of justice reform.

Decisions were made to close 14 courthouses, decisions made without public consultation and without adequate study. The courthouse closures were justified on the basis of savings to government. Then people in the communities affected by those decisions got their pencils out and proved to everyone's satisfaction that there were no savings -- additional police costs, additional costs for transporting witnesses and costs to relocate government support services. The message and the result was clear: the cost to government and the cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia of closing those courthouses was greater than the claimed savings.

So began the second series of announcements. The communities that had not been consulted about courthouse closures were forced to make deals with the Attorney General, trying to protect the interests of their citizens in access to justice, and as a result of their hard work, some courthouses are now to be kept open. But the message is clear: the cost of operating the province's court system will be off-loaded onto municipal taxpayers.

As someone said to me in Chase when I visited there to learn about the impact of the court closure in their community, this is not just about money. This is about access to justice in our communities. When I visited Ashcroft, I was told that immediately after the government announced its decision to close the court there, two businesses closed down -- there was no longer the economic rationale to carry on business, given that the court was no longer to be operating in Ashcroft -- and a third was put up for sale. The mayor and the councillors told me that when government removes vital services from communities like Ashcroft, government undermines the community's reason for existing.

But this government doesn't listen to ordinary British Columbians. This government is more interested in fixing the fiscal mess that it has created for itself than it is in access to justice. So I examined the record of this government since its election and asked myself the question -- whether, on the basis of that record, it has earned the right to request of this House interim supply. And I say the answer is no.

I turn, then, to the third question. Notwithstanding its failings in the past, has this government set forth a platform today and this week in this House that restores the confidence of British Columbians? Here, again, the answer is no.

There was a throne speech that British Columbia needed. There was a budget speech that British Columbia needed, and there are things that this government, returning to face the people of British Columbia in the House this week, could have done to restore its credibility and integrity. In the throne speech and the budget speech that B.C. needed, this government would have apologized for its budget lies. It did not. In the throne speech and the budget speech B.C. needed, this government would have apologized for having promised to eliminate more than 5,500 civil service jobs, when in fact it added 1,400 jobs. It did not.

have apologized for politicizing education, for funding school projects on the basis of party politics rather than student needs. It did not.

In the throne speech and the budget speech which this government should have given to British Columbia, this government would have apologized for having ignored the wishes of British Columbians and foisted gambling on British Columbia. It did not. It has said nothing about the issue at all.

In the throne speech and the budget speech this week, this government should have apologized for having conducted a no-fault campaign on a platform of insults to the judiciary, without any public consultation. But it did not apologize. Instead, it has said nothing about the issue at all. Are we to assume that the government has no plans to adopt no-fault? Or are we to assume that the government is simply afraid to talk about it?

In the throne speech and the budget speech which this government should have given British Columbians this week, this government would have put forward a positive, constructive plan for enhancing public safety and improving access to justice. Instead, there was not one word about public safety in either the throne speech or the budget speech.

I can only conclude that public safety is no longer a priority for this government. I can only conclude that this government is more intent on taking people's rights away -- the rights of citizens to exercise free speech in election campaigns, free from the unconstitutional restraints of a gag law, and the rights of victims of motor vehicle accidents to sue those who injured them. It's more interested in taking away those rights than it is in enhancing access to justice.

There is more this government could have done to warrant the request that it now makes of this House for permission to spend funds over the next three months, but it did not do so. Instead, we have the promise of higher deficits, higher taxes disguised as fees, never-ending debt, more off-loading and declining government services in communities across British Columbia.

The third question: does this government have a vision, a platform, a way forward that gives me the confidence that it has earned the right to spend the hard-earned dollars of British Columbia's taxpayers for the next three months? The answer to that question is no. My confidence in this government is not restored, hon. Speaker. I would not grant this government interim supply.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me today to rise and speak to this supply act, Bill 5. As we do, I think it's important to recognize that this supply bill, as with most supply bills, has two clear and distinct elements. One is to approve special warrants, to approve spending that government ministers have already undertaken on their own without scrutiny and without the permission of this Legislature.

Second, the bill asks the members of this House to provide interim supply to allow the government to continue with its operations while this Legislature debates the current budget. With both of those issues -- they are important -- I think it's necessary for us to distinguish the difference between them. Special warrants are for money already spent. Interim supply is at least some measure of permission for government to spend in the future.

I look at this bill. This year we're being asked to approve $98,930,000 -- tax dollars already spent by ministers of the government without the approval of this House, therefore without the approval of taxpayers. There's nothing new about that. I went back to the auditor general's report. Since 1982 there have been special warrants in every year. The NDP government, in 1991, '92 and '93, followed the practice. The Socred governments, in the years from 1983 to 1991, followed the practice. The current government, in the year 1991-92, actually spent almost $6 billion, Mr. Speaker, by way of special warrants before coming to this House for permission to spend. In the year 1996-97, the government of the day spent $5.6 billion without having the courtesy to come to this Legislature and seek and receive spending permission before they moved forward.

So when I talk about special warrants and interim supply, there are members across the way who are wont to heckle and suggest that somehow the role that I played in the government in the years 1986 through 1991 was somehow unique, that somehow this notion of special warrants and interim supply was something that was brought out at that time.

I was recalling some of the rather heated debates that went on in this House in the years 1987 through 1991. As I looked through Hansard, the year 1990 seemed to be a particularly fruitful year in that respect. The first one I picked up was by the Whip, the member for Alberni, on April 23, which, like this day, was the day that interim supply debate started. The member for Alberni said: "We're going to debate this bill, because we don't believe in giving a blank cheque -- not with the financial mess that this province is in." Sounds rather familiar, doesn't it?

The member for Vancouver-Kingsway, now the Premier of the province, said: "Mr. Speaker, I find it appalling that the government would introduce a bill of this magnitude and that the Minister of Finance would not take the time in second reading to defend an extraordinary request that he's made before this House."

In 1990 it was $1.5 billion. But I noticed today that the Minister of Finance introduced second reading with no explanation and, quite honestly, left the chamber for quite a period of time after introducing second reading and has now, thankfully, returned. The member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and of Labour today, was a critic in that year. He was very offended by the notion of special warrants and interim supply back on April 23, 1990. He said:

J. Weisgerber: Well, indeed. Your research, Mr. Minister, if it was working well, would have that in front of you.

The member for Vancouver East, the now member for Vancouver-Kingsway, felt obliged again back in May of 1991. He 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."

Mr. Speaker, you yourself felt moved back in 1990 to address this rather important issue. I'll just remind you that you said it "would be irresponsible in the extreme if we

agreed to interim supply without considerable discussion. That's why we're going through this process, and why I, for one, make no apology for. . ." that.

Back in April of 1990, the now Premier was already showing the leadership that he demonstrated in the caucus, and he felt obliged to speak again on this issue. He said:

He goes on to say: "That is the role of parliament. It is not the role of governments, even Social Credit governments" -- and you can imagine the disdain with which he said that -- "to pass billions of dollars of public spending without debate. That kind of debate must take place in this chamber, and we intend to have that debate over the coming hours, the coming days" -- and if necessary, weeks before passing interim supply. So for those of you who have early passage booked home tonight, you may want to reflect back on the words of your Premier when he was standing on this side of the House back in 1990.

Nor has the auditor general been quiet on this issue. He says: "Special warrants are thus a statutory exception to the basic principle of democracy that requires parliamentary approval before the government spends public money." He goes on to say that the purpose of his report is to ". . .reiterate the need for government to amend the statutory authority that provides for special warrant funding." As you know, Mr. Speaker, I attempted in my own small way to deal with that earlier today.

I guess what disturbs me about this process this year particularly is the fact that the government waited until Monday -- March 24, I believe it was -- to call the Legislature back and present a throne speech the first day back, a budget the second day back, and here we are, the fourth day of this session, in an artificially created crisis.

I'm sure that before long, one of the members, probably the Minister of Finance, will stand up and say: "If you don't pass this bill, folks, we're not going to be able to pay the public employees. We're not going to have the money necessary to carry on with our business. So if you mean, old folks in opposition want to hold up the paycheques, you go ahead and do it. But we want to make sure our people are paid." I sat on the other side; I know the rebuttal. I've been through this. I've heard the arguments from both sides.

Mr. Speaker, the difference is this growing disregard for the traditions of this House. Governments have traditionally at least had the courtesy to call this House back mid-March so that there could be a throne speech, a week of debate around the throne speech, followed by a budget speech with a week of debate, as required in the standing orders, before the question of interim supply was put. The difference this year is that the government has taken away from the members of the opposition, from this Legislature and, ultimately, from the people of British Columbia the opportunity to have any debate around the budget before we're asked to approve interim spending.

I raised that question with the government Whip. He said: "Well, would you have us work during spring break?" And the answer was yes. Most other British Columbians work that week, unless they book it off for vacation. I remind members that we've been adjourned since August 25, 1996. Would I have us work during spring break? You're darned right I would, if it's to bring in a budget and allow people. . . .

This really calls out, in my mind, for a legislative calendar. Our federal government has seen the need and the wisdom of adopting one. The province of Ontario has adopted a legislative calendar so that there are fixed sitting dates, so that the public know when they can expect the House to be recalled, know when they can expect to see a throne speech presented and a budget debated. Alberta is in the process of negotiating between the opposition parties and the government parties a legislative calendar.

Mr. Speaker, without saying more, I think it's absolutely critical that this House move into the twentieth century before we hit the twenty-first century and adopt a legislative calendar and a process to deal with those items that are currently now dealt with as special warrants. There is no reason in this day of transportation and communications that, if the minister or the Attorney General finds he needs more money for corrections. . . . And they have, in every year I've been in this House. Never has a year passed but what any Attorney General hasn't come back and asked for more money. Never in my recollection has there not been the Minister of Health coming forward with the need for more spending. Never has Social Services not come forward for more money. That's understandable; that's predictable.

This House should be called back, and the minister should come and say to this Legislature that we underestimated the costs of running our hospitals or that we didn't know when we introduced B.C. Benefits and got rid of the three-month waiting list that costs would shoot up. Fair enough. Come back, make the argument, convince members -- if only those on your own side -- that the spending is justified, pass some supplementary supply and then move forward.

But don't spend money that you haven't the authority for. Don't abuse the House, and ultimately the taxpayers of the province, by continuing a practice that has been here. It's not a practice that is unique to the New Democrats. It's not a practice that is unique to the Socreds. And, Mr. Speaker, if we don't change the policy, it will be a practice that is adopted ultimately by whoever succeeds this New Democrat government.

J. Weisgerber: Well, I know the Liberal members are sincere in believing they wouldn't do it. But if I hadn't read off a list of quotes from the other folks when they were in opposition, I would be more inclined to accept that. I think we need to change the rules, and I think we have to do it in a way that doesn't punish one side or reward the other group. They simply need changing.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any great argument with the need for the interim supply that's presented here today. I am offended, as I said earlier, that we weren't given at least the courtesy of a couple of weeks to consider the throne speech and the budget before these items were presented. But I say again that it underlines for me the serious need for a legislative calendar and for a change in practice in the way we deal with extra spending in this House. If we can accomplish that sometime over the next three or four years, I will feel that the members of this Legislature have taken a step forward.

M. de Jong: It's customary often for members to rise and begin their addresses in this chamber by saying how pleased they are to participate in the debate. But along the lines of what we have just heard from the hon. member for Peace

River South, I'm not pleased to be participating in this debate, because it shouldn't be happening now. It shouldn't be happening in this context, and it shouldn't be happening under the guise of a manufactured crisis.

So as I turned my mind to the debate we would be embarking upon today, I thought I should try to place this into some sort of historical context. Here we are on March 27, 1997. What else of note has happened on March 27 through the ages? Well, you'll be interested to know that on this date in 1866, an inventor by the name of Andrew Rankin invented the urinal. I can think of all sorts of parallels that I might draw between the invention of the urinal and the budget and the throne speech that we are confronted with by this government, but I won't do it.

In 1884 there was the first long-distance phone call. And guess where it took place -- the eastern United States. And, of course, we're all familiar with how the phone lines have heated up in the past between this government's offices and Mr. Struble out in Washington. So there's a historical parallel, Mr. Speaker.

But the one that jumped out at me most of all, given the context within which this debate is taking place, is the fact that in 1958 Nikita Khrushchev consolidated his power in Russia by becoming the supreme chief of Soviet. . . .

M. de Jong: My friend says: "Don't take off your shoes." The good thing is that if members opposite take to pounding their shoes on their desks, at least we know that the member for Yale-Lillooet will have his Guccis where we can all see them.

I should say that the analogy with Khrushchev's rise to power is one I make jokingly, because I don't think there are parallels here.

I don't think we live in a totalitarian state. I don't think we live in a Stalinist world in this country -- and thank God that we don't. We live in a parliamentary democracy. But therein lies the difficulty, because we do have democratic traditions in this country that have evolved, that have been fought for and that we cherish. I like to think we cherish them.

But it is the abuse of those traditions that we are addressing here today. The member for Peace River South talked about a timetable. It offends me in the extreme, hon. Speaker, that after waiting since last August for this House to reconvene, we would be sitting here participating in a debate at 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon before Good Friday, dealing with something as crucial as ensuring that our government has the money it needs to pay its employees and to pay for hospital care and education services for the people of British Columbia. I find that offensive in the extreme.

It's about a government that has run out of the authority to spend and that has run out of money. And it needs this House to give it the authority to continue governing this province, to continue to have the authority to spend. As the member for Richmond-Steveston correctly pointed out, it's not an automatic thing. There's a test, I would submit, that this government must meet. You've heard it articulated one way. Let me put it in my own, more simplistic mode -- that is, the government should be able to demonstrate to these members and British Columbia that it can responsibly manage the finances of this province.

Interim supply is a mechanism that has evolved over time to take account of the fact that there can be natural disasters, that situations can arise unforeseen by government that may necessitate the recalling of the House for authority to expend beyond the original budgetary allocation. But I'm not aware of any unusual circumstances. I don't think members on this side of the House are aware of any unforeseen natural disasters that may have taken place.

Yet we sit here, having disregarded the intent if not the letter of the law that governs this chamber. I still consider myself relatively new here, and I still consult the rules on a regular basis. Those rules say that there shall be six days of debate on the budget and six days' debate on the throne speech. You couldn't even hear a response to the throne speech from the Leader of the Opposition, hon. Speaker, because this government was in such dire straits, having artificially created such a crisis that required them to get on with tabling a budget so that they could get on with interim supply.

Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition have been thrown out the window because they're more intent upon manipulating politics in British Columbia than managing the economy responsibly.

So the government comes to us today and says: "Well, we need your help; we need your authority; we need your vote." And I ask myself: are they worthy of that trust? Are they worthy of a further authorization to spend more money, to create more debt? And I ask myself: where do I go to determine whether they are worthy of that trust? And I think to myself: let's go to the budget. And I've done that.

Now here's the part where members opposite get to cheer, because I'm going to read a few quotes from this Finance minister's budget: "We're forecasting 40,000 new jobs in B.C. this year." "We're increasing funding in the K-to-12 system to fully fund enrolment growth." "We've chosen to protect our services by reducing the size and cost of government. We're eliminating more than 2,200 positions." "We have set the target of 21,000 more forest sector jobs." "We're expanding job opportunities for youth, which will be a central part of our strategy."

I see the hon. Minister of Education applauding. Except that if he had been listening carefully, he would know that although I was quoting the Minister of Finance, I wasn't quoting from this year's budget. I was quoting from last year's budget, the 1996 budget. If he had been listening carefully, he would have known that.

Now, this document, the 1996 budget, is a very interesting document for a number of reasons. First of all, it's interesting because -- and you're not going to believe this -- it's very difficult to find. I couldn't find one anywhere, until I went to the library. After spending hours and hours in the Legislative Library, I still couldn't find it. But, you know, I made a funda-

mental error. I was looking in the government document section of the library, and it wasn't until one of the library assistants redirected me to the fiction section that I was able to find a whole raft of them, and there they were.

When I look at the document, there are a couple of words that jump out at me. One is "prudent." That's an interesting word, I thought. Where have I heard that before? Prudent financial management, in fact. Then I thought to myself: well, it was only a few short days ago that the Finance minister talked again about prudent economics. I thought: well, I wonder what that means. Maybe if I look at the 1996 budget to see what he said and what happened, I'll have a better idea of what he meant in 1997 when he said prudent.

So why don't we do that? Why don't we look at what he said and what happened? In the 1996 budget, he talked about creating 40,000 new jobs -- that's what was going to happen. In support of that, he quotes a raft of Statistics Canada material.

Well, we've got some Statistics Canada reports now and, in fact, those reports say that this government didn't create 50,000 jobs -- if you accept for the moment that government creates any jobs, and I don't. I don't believe that for a moment. The private sector creates jobs. But far from creating 50,000 jobs, hon. Speaker, it lost 5,200 jobs. So when I go to the '97 budget and I hear the Finance minister talking about creating another 40,000 jobs, I think: can we afford to lose another 5,000 jobs? That's 10,400 jobs over two years. I guess that's what he meant by being prudent.

In the 1996 budget, the Finance minister talked about the commitment to K-to-12 education. Well, let me tell you what that 1996 budget commitment has meant to one school district in the province of British Columbia. School district 34 in Abbotsford is going to lose up to $1 million. They are bracing for a cut in their annual budget in the area of $700,000 to $800,000. Why is that? Because although they announced a phony injection of funds, the actual figures mean that the funding per pupil in the Abbotsford school district is going to drop. If that's what Mr. Finance Minister means by prudent financial management, then I've got some students in Abbotsford that are very concerned about another budget built around prudent financial management.

In 1996 we heard that we were going to reduce the number of positions in the civil service by 2,200. We've got some figures on that as well, and in fact there are more people on the public payroll. What this Finance minister and this government don't seem to understand is that you can shift the figures from book to book, from Crown corporation to agency, from here to there, but at the end of the day it's one taxpayer footing the bill. It's one individual who is paying all these people, no matter where they appear on the books, if indeed they appear on the books at all -- and in many cases they don't. But they represent a draw on the finances of this province, and in my book it's reprehensible for the government to continue to play fast and loose with money that doesn't belong to them but belongs to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

They were going to create 21,000 forestry jobs. That's in the 1996 budget. The numbers are in, thus far, and it's not quite 21,000. We didn't quite get there. In spite of all the prudent financial management, in spite of all the prudence, we came up a little short. Did we get to 19,000?

M. de Jong: No, we got to 843. Let me check my notes -- I don't want to mislead. It's 943. But let's see. How much did we spend at Forest Renewal B.C.? How much did Forest Renewal B.C. spend -- $540 million? So it's about $500,000 a job. Is that what it works out to? For those forestry workers who were formerly employed, formerly earning an income to support their families, formerly earning an honest day's pay doing the work they were trained to do, that's not good enough. And it's not prudent in any way, shape or form.

Here's the one that bothers me the most and that I think bothers most members the most. It is what this government had to say about youth employment and how that was going to be the priority. That was going to be the focus. A guarantee for youth, they said. Well, what does a guarantee for youth mean -- as I look at the 1997 budget and see those same words from this same Finance minister a second time? This guarantee for youth: when I looked at the '96 budget, what did it mean?

Well, here's what it meant. This past summer has been the worst summer for youth unemployment in the history of this province. Let's go back to StatsCan. The minister loves to quote from StatsCan when it's favourable to him. He kind of disregards those figures when he doesn't like what he sees. But StatsCan says there were 8,000 fewer jobs for youth this summer than in the same period the previous year. That's not the kind of guarantee that the youth of this province are looking for. They guaranteed -- money-back guarantee, maybe, if there were any money -- 11,000 new jobs for youth, and they didn't come anywhere close. But in a desperate attempt to bring the number up to somewhere where it could be measured, they started counting jobs for people that lasted one or two days, or a training seminar.

That's not good enough. If you're a young person looking to earn money to pay your tuition fee, to go to school or to pay the necessities of life through those eight months in school, one day doesn't cut it. The minister went to school. Was he able to pay for his education on the basis of a two-day job? Yet those are the kinds of jobs they're counting. That's how they're bouncing their figures up, and it's phony.

If he doesn't believe those figures, if that has no impact on him, no impact on his colleagues. . . . I see the member for North Island, I see other members. If that has no impact on them, just look at the hard numbers surrounding student loans. They're up dramatically. The number of applications are up dramatically, the amounts of money being requested are up dramatically, and the Minister of Education doesn't seem to care. But then, of course, he's looking for kindred spirits. If the government is going to be billions and billions of dollars in debt, why shouldn't students be billions and billions of dollars in debt by the time they get their degree? It belies a lack of understanding, a lack of sensitivity and a lack of common sense.

We should look at the facts. I beseech the government to look at the facts. I came across this quote from Bertrand Russell: "Never let yourself be diverted either by what you would wish to believe or by what you think would have beneficial social effects if it were believed. Look only at the facts." And the facts, Madam Speaker, are pitiful. The facts are pitiful indeed.

"Hon. Speaker," said the Finance minister on that fateful day, "British Columbians. . .told us. . .they want to see us reduce the size of debt. Today, I am announcing new action that will do exactly that." Reduce the debt. A couple of pages further, it's lowering the debt, reducing the debt. It appears in this document six or seven times: we'll reduce the debt, we'll reduce the debt, we'll reduce the debt. And here we are a year later, and what has happened? The debt is continuing to spiral upward, out of control.

What is most deplorable is that when that '96 budget was tabled, the minister knew better, because he had a whole raft of documents telling him so. He had memos from February '95, September '95, December '95, January '96 -- all the way through -- and ministerial briefing documents. The one I love is the one from May '96 -- the transition documents -- where this minister was told point-blank that the $87 million surplus he was talking about would be difficult to achieve, and a deficit of a billion dollars was more likely. That's the advice this minister was getting on the eve of standing in this House and providing an absolute, contradictory story to members of this Legislature.

And today he comes before us, on the eve of the Easter long weekend, armed with all of the arguments the member for Peace River South spoke of earlier, saying: "Trust me. Trust me to manage the economy." When he does that, I'm offended. I'm offended in the extreme, and I know that that bothers the Finance minister. I know that he will lie awake, tonight particularly, troubled at the offence he has caused me. Of course, that presupposes he's going to get any sleep tonight -- which is far from certain.

M. de Jong: If I am boring the minister, let me say this. I don't mind him looking at his watch; I'd just rather he didn't shake it where I could see it.

I take exception to a Finance minister who stands before this House and has the temerity to say there will be no tax increases, and then I learn that the cost of riding in an ambulance has just gone up. In fact, as we heard earlier this afternoon, you can ride in a taxi cheaper than you can ride in an ambulance. Maybe that's part of the plan. Maybe there are going to be taxi meters in the ambulances.

I notice the Attorney General here, and when we talk about tax savings to the people of British Columbia. . . . Of course, what the Finance minister doesn't talk about is the people in Chilliwack who have just absorbed the half-million-dollar cost of running a courthouse that has been there historically and traditionally for years and years. That money doesn't just come from anywhere. It's going to be paid by those taxpayers. And are those the taxpayers that the Finance minister is saying are going to realize a reduction in their taxes? They're going to go way up.

I have to say -- and I'm sure the Attorney General and I will discuss this further -- that I do take offence at the manner in which a community has been blackmailed. I have to use that word when you have an edict issued by a government -- by the state -- that says: "A service you have historically enjoyed for upwards of a hundred years is going to be taken away from you. That is irrevocable, that is my decision, that is the path this government is going down. But if you pay a little bit, if you can fork over a little bit of cash, well, we'll see."

M. de Jong: We'll get to the sideways shift in a moment, because that's a fascinating accounting term, and I'm no accountant. God knows I'm no accountant.

But I take exception. If the hon. Attorney General is of the view that this province cannot afford to operate court facilities in certain jurisdictions, then let him say that and at least be upfront enough to say to those communities: "You have this option." But to take a community through the wringer the way that that town and other towns in this province were taken through the wringer I think is terrible, and I think it's dishonourable.

You have heard about the manipulation of the budget documents, and to have funds transferred around holus-bolus -- a little money from Forest Renewal B.C. . . . That's the one I love. You heard earlier about the sideways shift in funding, from the Minister of Forests. I have been to that part of the province from which he hails, and I'm thinking that perhaps if it's not an accounting term, it might be a local term that I am unfamiliar with. It sounds like some sort of a jig, some sort of a dance that maybe you would partake in: the Cariboo shuffle, perhaps, or the Williams Lake wiggle, or the NDP twist. Maybe that's what it is. And I've been to dances in Williams Lake -- I mean, all great dances.

But, quite frankly, it's disingenuous in the extreme, mendacious in the extreme, to manipulate the books for the people of the province of British Columbia, who, if nothing else, in my view deserve to know just how broke we are, deserve to know just how far in debt we are. We're big people. The people watching this show -- this theatre, this Legislature, this place where the people's business is done -- deserve to know. That's all they ask: "Be honest with us. We know that this government has created a debt monster that's out of control. At least describe for us accurately the nature of the monster." This government won't do that. This government hides. It shuffles; it wiggles; it giggles. But it won't confront the truth. It won't come clean with the people of British Columbia and tell them either, "I'm sorry, but our policies are out of control," or, if they are purposeful, and that's what troubles me most of all: "We have decided to burden you, your children, your grandchildren -- and when we get to $30 billion, I daresay your great-grandchildren -- with a burden of debt that is inconceivable for any average right-thinking British Columbian."

The downloading, the transfers, the revenue shifts, all of that amounts to a government, amounts to an administration and, I daresay, amounts to a minister who has refused to confront the dilemma that is one of his own making -- the dilemma he caused, his government caused, when it refused to follow the advice that has been sitting on his desk and his

predecessors' desks for years and years now: and that is, deeds speak louder than words; debt management plans are supposed to equal debt management action. Except that there seems to be a growing gap in the synapse there. It just doesn't seem to be going. Great plan; bad execution. Great slogan; bad action -- no action. It's not good enough. And for the government and the minister to come before this House now, asking -- I say, demanding -- that this opposition, the members on this side of the House, abide by their wishes in voting them this appropriation of money, I think, quite frankly, is shameful under these circumstances.

I began my address by making some historical references. Let me end with one. It was on this day about 120 years ago that the Barnum and Bailey circus was formed. Of course, we all remember P.T. Barnum: "There's a sucker born every minute." Well, that's the way this government is proceeding. That's their attitude: a sucker born every minute. We can fool them at election time, and we'll fool them again next election time. But guess what: the jig is up, and people aren't going to be fooled. They're not fooled today; they won't be fooled tomorrow; they won't be fooled next year, next week or next month; and they won't be fooled at election time. And I vote no to this appropriation.

G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, in rising to speak to the principle of Bill 5, I think it's worth pointing out that there are really four aspects to what the government is asking us to approve today. One is a voted expenditure appropriation a little over one-third of what they hope to spend out of next year's budget.

The second is a special warrant allocation, which they list as a special warrant to Attorney General, to Health and to Human Resources -- a substantial special warrant that is recoverable moneys for recoverable disbursements, which they refer to in schedule C of the Estimates. The third, I guess, is an aspect of budgetary process that suggests we need to have this last-minute interim supply dealt with in three readings in one day, and I want to talk about that.

Lastly is the notion that somehow we should just now automatically in one day approve these special warrant expenditures without sorting out in our heads -- if you go to each vote, vote 17 with the AG, vote 40 with Health and vote 52 with Human Resources -- why those special warrants are of the magnitude they are. We're talking $18.4 million in the case of AG; $40.5 million in the case of Health; $40 million in the case of Human Resources. Those are substantial special warrant allocation requests. This is not a small amount of change in terms of cost overruns of government or a government being able to live within its budget. And what that reflects. . . .

G. Wilson: The minister is saying that that's just one-half of 1 percent of his total budget. That may well be true, but the point is that they are substantial requests in light of the fact that the government in 1996 had not one but two chances to table a budget. It had a chance to table a budget before it went to the public, before it went to the electorate. It tabled a budget in which it promised a lot of things. It went to the people. The people cast their votes, and the verdict was made. The government came back and then tabled the budget again -- a second chance. The same budget with predominantly the same figures -- there were very, very few changes -- was tabled again, even though it became fairly evident to anybody who was observing that by the time the election was over and the second budget was finally tabled, projections were, in fact, off.

The time when we really started to learn that this situation was going to be problematic for the people of British Columbia was in August and September, when the government recognized that its projections were clearly way off, that its targets and its timetables were not going to be met. The honourable and proper and correct thing for the government to have done at that time was to have recalled the Legislative Assembly and have tabled a new budget, so that we could have debated those new figures, those new spending priorities, and then have taken into account the fact that their projections were wrong. In September the government should have come forward -- or at the very least in October -- recalled this House and said: "Look, our budget is so bad; it's so way off line here. Our projected deficits are so high that we can't in good conscience any longer go out and govern on behalf of the people. We believe that our mandate is now in jeopardy, because what we took to the people at election time was this. This is what we're dealing with now, and the two are not even comparable, let alone compatible. So we must now, in order to fulfil our constituted authority, recall the House, introduce a new budget, correct those anomalies and allow members on this side of the House to debate them, to analyze them, to scrutinize them." That would have been the appropriate thing to do.

But sadly, notwithstanding my call -- and I heard today from the Leader of the Official Opposition that apparently they called as well -- this House was not recalled. I was outraged at the time, I expressed that outrage, and I think British Columbians expressed that outrage. That has translated into a whole host of events that I don't need to go into in the short time I have to talk about this particular interim supply bill. The critical issue of principle here is: why should we now, when the government had the opportunity at that time to correct the inadequacies of the last budget, be asked to look at special warrant expenditures and give them approval because they, through their own fiscal management strategies, couldn't live within not one but two tabled budgets in 1996? That's a bit much for us to take.

Now, I would suggest that the people of British Columbia are perhaps not as well informed about the workings of this House as they may like to be or as perhaps we might assist them in becoming. I think it's important for the people of British Columbia to know that this Legislative Assembly did not convene and has not been back in session since August 1996. Yet this government has certainly not limited itself with respect to its opportunity to spend, to change its program delivery methods, to be able to embark upon a whole host of new projects which have had profound economic effect on the people of British Columbia.

If it was just the fact that we are now being asked to do interim supply at the last minute. . . . I'll talk a little bit about that in very brief detail, because I think my friend and colleague for Peace River South articulated very clearly the need for a legislative calendar, and I won't go back into that. But it seems to me, it strikes me, that not only is there a need for that, but that if the government had embarked upon multi-year budgeting -- a four-year base financing system that provided the opportunity, where surplus exists, to allow surpluses to ride and to allow areas where deficits are incurred within a budget year to be dealt with immediately when that deficit is being seen -- and used this Legislative Assembly properly, the way the rules intended, the way our parliamentary democracy demands, we wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't be having to debate this bill today.

But, hon. Speaker, I've come to the conclusion that this government doesn't care about the rules of parliament. It

really doesn't care whether or not it's in breach of the standing orders. If it did, it wouldn't have waited until March 24 to recall the House, knowing full well it was going to bring a budget in on March 25. When asked, when pressed, "Why didn't you call the House back a week earlier, on March 15?" the response was: "Well, it was spring break. The kids were out of school." Well, I've searched the Standing Orders of this Legislative Assembly, and I don't see any reference to spring break anywhere, anytime.

You know, there are people out in British Columbia who are suffering financially right now. There are people out there who need this Legislative Assembly to debate the very, very serious issues that affect their daily lives. The really offensive aspect of the smuggery that we see coming from the opposite side is that they know that if this side of the House filibusters this bill, if this side of the House delays implementation, if this side of the House denies them what they ask today, the people who will suffer are not the members opposite but the people of British Columbia, who will find that no longer can they have their government work in the manner it should.

So they don't care. Why should they care? Parliament, ha! Parliament is a necessary evil that we have to have every time we present a new budget. Does it matter if it's a realistic one? Not really, because in the interim time after we adjourn, we prorogue while the government can go ahead through special warrant and spend any old way it likes. It can go ahead, if it wants, through order-in-council and even amend the acts that we pass in this Legislative Assembly. So what's the point? Why are we even really here? Those are the questions that are being asked by people I run into on the street who watch our proceedings. They say: "My goodness, is this worth anything at all?" Because the business is not being done; the people are not finding that the business of the province is being done.

Now, I want to draw attention to the reason why I will not support this bill. Not only has the government had an opportunity to bring in a new budget -- which is what it should have properly done -- and use this House on numerous occasions. . . . But as outraged as I and others were, I went out and called for the recall of the Legislature. Sure, every now and again we get a few lines in the popular press that so-and-so was calling for it. I think I was called a "one-man crusade" by one noted. . . . I was going to call him an editorialist, but I'm not sure that aptly describes what he does. The point at which I said "enough," at which I was actually prompted to write to the Lieutenant-Governor in this province to ask him to intervene. . . . And I wrote to the leaders of the other parties. I don't know what their response was; I didn't get a response.

I was asking them to join me in petitioning the Lieutenant-Governor to recall this Legislative Assembly. I wrote a letter because it seemed to me, it struck me, that we had reached a point where we could no longer allow this government to proceed in the manner in which it was. I was referring to two specific pieces of legislation which this government had decided it was going to abuse -- and which, in fact, I believe they are now in breach of. In writing to the Lieutenant-Governor, I wanted to make sure that he was aware that the duties charged to this House were being violated. Hon. Speaker, I refer to two particular issues. One is the decision by the Minister of Health to simply arbitrarily abandon the community health council and regional health board proposition where the statutes are absolutely specific that limit the powers of the minister.

I want to refer to the sections of the act which have been law in this province. It says under the regional health boards, under section 4(2)(b): ". . .a prescribed number of members appointed by the minister, not to exceed 1/3 of the total number of members." That's what it says. That's the law, but that's not what we've got in the province of British Columbia, because they don't care what the law is, because there is no law for these guys over here.

Then it says that the community health councils will be designated under this section with:

I reason that this is relevant in this debate now -- as I can see that you're questioning that, hon. Speaker -- because one of the warrants that we're being asked to approve is a warrant for the Ministry of Health, and we expect to know from the minister exactly what the cost impacts of these changes are.

And then, on the same day that it changed the community health council-regional health board structure, the government had the audacity to amend by order-in-council the regulation -- they claim -- with respect to the degree to which liability can be assigned to the members who serve on those councils. And this act protects those members safe harmless. The order-in-council says that they may "be sued in its own name or that of the old board in any proceeding relating to the property or right," and that they are severally and jointly liable.

This amends the act. This government can't amend acts by orders-in-council. You know, this is the reason that I will not support this bill. This government has got to realize that it is governed by the rules, if not by this Legislative Assembly, surely to goodness by the acts that it passes in it.

Now I want to draw your attention to one other area that I think really needs to be raised, and that's the question with respect to the Local Government Grants Act, because this also is an area that has created considerable difference in the budgetary process that we are now having to give special warrant to approve.

This government doesn't care about that. When they found that the budget they tabled in 1996 didn't work for them because their projections were out of whack -- because we found that there was no way for them to be able to deal with it -- what did they do? They said: "Well, that's fine. We'll just change the grants to the municipalities. We'll pass the buck. We'll pass it on down, because there are municipal elections coming along, and we'll all get messed up in the November elections and nobody will know what's going on. And guess what, guys. We'll create just a great diversion over here, and nobody will realize that we're in violation of our own statutes."

That's when I said: "Enough." That's when I wrote to the Lieutenant-Governor and said: "Does this building mean anything? Does this institution have any weight at all?"

You know, it's bad enough that you've got a party over there that forms government, saying that they're not going to

increase revenue and our dependency on gambling, and then goes ahead and does it -- something that I think is absolutely shameful. It's bad enough that we had two opportunities to have budgetary review, both of which were inaccurate. We should have recalled the House, admitted that our budget is wrong and tabled a new budget. That was the proper thing to do, and they wouldn't do it.

But then, in a high-handed and arrogant way, they decide they're going to amend something as important and significant to our communities as the way we administer our health care, by changing the CHCs and RHB model and violating their own statutes -- and not even care.

That's when I draw the line and say we can give no more authority to this government, because they cannot even respect the authority that is legitimately theirs as a result of this Legislative Assembly -- the authority that they created for themselves to allow them to govern. It's a shameful, shameful record, and it's one that I think speaks to this institution and the degree to which this institution has become taken for granted -- the degree to which the people of British Columbia are poorly served by a government that is so arrogant that it no longer even respects the laws, the rules, of the institution of parliament, our Legislative Assembly.

There is a matter in this bill that I think we need to focus in on a bit. I could go on about a whole host of other aspects of where the breaches have occurred, but I think two examples are examples enough. There are at least four cases in which I believe the statutes are no longer valid, or at least that the government's action no longer reflects the statutes. But rather than get into all of that, I want to cover off two other points which have to do with the special warrants, because these special warrants require a detailed examination.

First of all, yesterday I raised with the Ministry of Attorney General the establishment of a provincial prostitution unit. And it's one that I'm going to stay on the case of this Attorney General about. I have asked that ministry to give me a detailed accounting of where that money -- the reported $770,000 that has gone into that program -- shows up in last year's budget or even in this year's warrant. To date, they haven't been able to find it. I'm hopeful that they will.

That's a pretty substantial discrepancy if you're talking about $330,000-some-odd that are budgeted, and an additional $400,000 that hasn't seemed to have found its way there yet, into a unit that has assisted in two charges and no convictions in one year. It's a lot of money, $700,000. And now we're asked to approve $18.4 million in special warrant expenditures under this schedule in this act.

Well, we're going to want to know in some detail where those differences are, because to date I haven't heard back, and yet I'm told that it's on its way when they can find it. That will be useful.

I want to know, under the special warrant in terms of Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors, whether or not this special warrant takes into account questions of severance packages that I understand have now been passed by hospital boards -- which this government is aware of. They know, when they fire those boards, because those boards refuse to leave -- if they will honour those severance packages, if they have budgeted for them and where they are going to get the money to pay for them. . . .

There are a number of hospital boards that have just outright refused to quit, and those hospital boards have indicated that they already have severance packages assigned to their administrators and that their administrators will expect full payment. I am told, although I haven't seen the details of it, that we're into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some say millions.

So the question is: is this $40.5 million going to take into account that kind of offset? We want to know those details. And exactly what is this government going to do with respect to the firing of those boards and the implementation of community health councils or regional health boards that violate the very statute that they introduced and passed in this Legislative Assembly? Are we supposed to accept that? We'd better know what the details of that $40.5 million are. We'd better know the details of what the government's going to do with respect to those severance packages, because I'll tell you, they are going to be claimed. And we'd better know exactly what the security is of the assets held by the various health organizations -- those societies who are operating within their communities who find that their assets will be seized by government, even though those assets were generated by local private donation. Is that where we're at in this province?

We're in the situation where no longer do we have elected community health councils or regional health boards -- no more community representation. There is just straight appointment by the minister. Even the chair will be appointed. Hospital boards will be fired. The government's going to have to come up with severance for it. And now the situation is that those societies that are dealing with people in long-term care, and other societies that are working with people who have health needs -- independent societies that have raised money through volunteer community work, that have people who have put volunteer dollars into community assets through their societies -- have now been told those assets will be seized. Now, is that part of this $40.5 million? Are we now accounting for the asset acquisition program? Is that going to be part of it?

Hon. Speaker, I am telling you that the people of this province have a right to be outraged. The government has had four years to get their health administration program right. Even after they tabled the budget last year, they changed their mind and now stand in violation of their own statute. And that's really, really disappointing.

The last issue is the $40 million for Human Resources. Let me close by saying this. Last year, when this government amended the social safety net and put in the new programs that were going to provide youth employment opportunities and were going to change the manner by which people on income assistance were able to apply, we were told it was going to be a more cost-efficient, more cost-effective way of proceeding. That's what we were told.

G. Wilson: The minister says that it has been. I hear him today say it has been.

I am prepared, hon. Speaker, to analyze in detail whether or not indeed it has been, because what we need to look at are the number of people who now find themselves ineligible for support who desperately need it -- the number of people who have been shunted into different ministries and into different agencies of responsibility.

One great, large one is Workers Compensation. I tell you that the number of people who were on income assistance

previously, who have now been shunted into WCB -- who find that their claims have been denied and find themselves without resources of any description -- is alarming. And it's disgraceful.

If I've ever had a crusade since I've entered into public life, getting rid of the Workers Compensation Act and replacing it with something that allows for accountability and an opportunity for people to litigate where incompetence has been provided is my crusade. The Workers Compensation Act is an absolute travesty, and the people affected by it is an absolute travesty, and they have no way of.... [Applause.]

I cannot support this bill in principle, for the reasons I have outlined. A government that is not prepared to live by the rule of parliament and is not prepared to adhere to the letter of the law is not deserving of our trust in interim supply.

W. Hurd: This bill to approve interim supply for the government is, as we know, a confidence motion, and I don't believe that on fiscal matters any member of the official opposition could vote with the government in any motion of confidence or feeling of trust with respect to the government's handling of the books of the province of British Columbia.

When I prepared for this debate, I looked up the government's original press release when it announced its special warrant spending -- a press release dated March 14, 1997. I am one of those masochists who still read government press releases, particularly the ones coming out of the Ministry of Finance. I don't believe anything I read, but I do save them and look at them.

The key phrase in the press release, which was issued by the Ministry of Finance in connection with the special warrants, was contained in the first paragraph -- the dateline was Victoria -- where it said: "Funding to pay for higher-than-budgeted costs in three ministries has been approved by cabinet order. . . ." You have a great deal of difficulty explaining to British Columbians just what that means -- cabinet order, as opposed to coming before the Legislative Assembly and seeking approval.

I guess the best way to describe it is the lineup you see at the ATM or the bank machine. I think we've all had this experience at one time or another in our lives -- we go to the bank machine, put our card in, and the notice comes up saying: "You have exceeded your authorized authority." It's always interesting to watch the lineup when that notice comes up and the poor chap has to slink away with no money. Everybody in the lineup knows that the poor guy didn't get any money and that he was over his limit. He has to walk away denied.

But governments don't face that problem when they line up at the ATM machine of the taxpayers of the province because they have a cabinet order. They can simply overdraw the limit. They stick the card in and they always leave with the money. This Minister of Finance has been leaving with the money for two years. I think it's an accurate way of describing what we're being asked to approve here today. The government and the Minister of Finance have stuck their card into the machine. We're over our credit limit, but the machine still spits out $100 million in special warrant spending.

W. Hurd: My colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain likes to compare the ATM machine to one-armed bandits. I'm told they're coming to British Columbia.

As I said earlier, this is a confidence motion in the government's ability to handle its books, and there isn't one member on this side of the House who could possibly vote with the government on this type of confidence motion dealing with its finances.

I only have to go through the press coverage of the recent budget which was brought down, of which we will be dealing with approximately three months of spending under this bill. I mean, look at the headlines: "Sleight of Pen Means Debt Looks Lighter," "B.C. Faces Possible Cut in Ranking by Credit Firms. . ." -- the minister says; this is a quote from the minister in a headline. "Controversial Corporate Capital Tax to be Expanded as Deductions to be Disallowed," "Taxman Sneaks in Via Fee Hikes," "Province Writes Off Ferry Losses," "B.C. Plans to Hawk Fleet of Vehicles to Raise Cash." If you took this file into a bank and applied for a loan, they'd show you the fire exit. Here's the one I love: "NDP Fortunes Ride on the Minister's Credibility." If ever I was sure that a government was in trouble, it's that headline right there. Here's the one that I love: The minister ". . .Vows to Balance the Books -- Next Year." Now that's progress. I won't read into the record the Krieger cartoon, because even I have some standards.

On this side of the House, we can't possibly support a government which had so much time to bring in this type of legislation if only they had recalled the House when they should have. I know that others who have spoken previously have pointed out that this Legislative Assembly has met for a total of about 45 to 60 days since the summer recess of 1995. It's almost unparalleled in the Commonwealth, I believe, for a legislature or a parliament to have met as infrequently as this one has when, as speakers have pointed out, there are so many weighty issues, particularly budget issues, that we have had to deal with or have to try to deal with.

As I look at the special warrants, we are not dealing with insignificant issues here. I'm sure we'll have the opportunity to debate them with the ministers responsible when we get into committee stage on this interim supply bill. But reference has been made to the health councils, and the government press release specifically mentions the costs associated with the fact that transfer of authority to the regional health councils didn't occur as fast as the government anticipated. So, clearly, when we're debating this portion of the legislation, we will be asking the hard questions about why that transfer is not taking place as quickly as the government had anticipated. In fact, we know the answer because it has been articulated earlier in the debate. But the fact of the matter is that the regionalization health process and the failure of it so far is one of the biggest single reasons why we are facing a special warrant under the Ministry of Health.

Human Resources, vote 52, which is a total of approximately $40 million under special warrants. . . . I'm going to spend some time on that with the minister responsible when we get into that. The government recently signed an agreement with the federal government, which we're led to assume will transfer $40 million in revenues that the government of Canada had withheld, and we'll be very interested to know where that money shows up with respect to vote 52.

So I think there are some important issues that we have to deal with with respect to this interim supply bill, but not at 4:30 in the afternoon the day before a religious holiday, Good Friday, and not after we have spent two of three days in this assembly debating a budget and a throne speech. This is simply an abuse of the Legislative Assembly, and there's no other way to categorize it. I don't see how in the world any opposition party could be expected to grant interim supply

and special warrant spending to the government under these kinds of circumstances. If they were on this side of the House, they would hardly expect it to be otherwise.

It's impossible for us to, in principle, support this bill. It's impossible for us to support a government that has demonstrated so completely that it cannot manage the books of two consecutive budgets. We will be authorizing, under this bill, interim supply for a budget that may be $185 million in the hole or could be $800 million in the hole, as the member for Delta South and the official opposition Finance critic indicated earlier. When will we actually run out of money over the next three months, given the government's credibility on budget matters? Hon. Speaker, it's impossible for me to support the bill.

I'm going to be very interested to debate with the ministers responsible in committee, particularly the Human Resources aspect of it, because I know that the government's residency requirement rule was a controversial issue within their caucus and may or may not have resulted in the shortfall of $40 million that we talked about earlier.

These are important issues. I think they are issues that deserve more than a few hours of debate on a Thursday afternoon before a holiday. Certainly, it will be my intention to, in principle, vote against the government and the way it has handled its finances and the way it has handled this bill -- the way it has handled the approach to the Legislative Assembly. I will certainly be asking the hard questions with respect to the special warrant spending that has been authorized.

Again, it's almost impossible for me to explain to British Columbians how it is that governments can run out of money and still, on the basis of a simple cabinet order, borrow an additional $100 million to meet expenditures. It's not supposed to happen under a parliamentary system. It shouldn't have happened in British Columbia, where our parliament has met for, as I said, less than 60 days in almost two calendar years. I believe it represents the loss of moral compass of the government in understanding the importance of grievance before supply, which is the longest-standing principle of parliamentary democracy in the world. I really believe that this issue has been badly mishandled. It's a moral failing on the part of the government.

As I read through the clips earlier. . . . There is no credibility left. The government has no credibility left on fiscal matters, and it would be impossible for those on this side of the House to support a government that wants to go back to the bank machine, put a card in, borrow another $100 million and expect that transaction to occur within a few hours, late in the first week of the legislative calendar.

A. Sanders: Today the government has asked us, under section 81 of the standing orders of this House, to urgently pass through the interim supply bill for special warrant spending. Understand that this is an artificial urgency created by this NDP government, which has left recalling the Legislature until the very last minute. Why have they done that, hon. Speaker? My best educated guess would be: to avoid accountability that would naturally follow from the elected representatives of this province being here to ask the important questions we would direct towards cabinet. I would suggest that this weekend all the eggs that will be laid will not be by the Easter Bunny; the NDP will claim their fair share.

I have watched this government for less than a year now, and I've watched intently since our last session especially, during the time when we've been out of the House. I've analyzed some of the behavioral themes. True to form, these have emerged time and time again, and we see this behavioral theme in the way that this issue has been handled today.

The first theme of this government is: all the power and no responsibility. We see that in the downloading from the province to the municipalities, contravening the government's own legislation. The second one we see in terms of behavioral themes is: all the power and no accessibility. There is no accessibility to justice in this province, be it a matter of free speech or policing or whether you are an elected hospital board representative. The third rule I've seen emerge over the time elapsed since last summer is: keep changing the rules, keep changing the players and keep changing the playing field.

I've watched this in my own area in Education. I had a minister last summer who told me he was going to be here for the long haul. I had a minister in estimates last year who told me he would be the Minister of Education for a long time and that our deputy would remain. We are in a situation presently where I have a new minister to deal with and I have a new deputy. We've had a deputy and a minister change every single year in Education and health care. There is no stability in this cabinet and in this province for these taxpayers.

The fourth thing I've watched is the protection of friends, and the only friends that I see this NDP government having left are big labour.

The fifth one is to sacrifice all for the leader. I've watched as different people have been put in their place in order to keep the leader scot-free. This is a government that practises something I would call moral relativism and situational ethics. I will enjoy watching this government drink its own bathwater this session.

The NDP has crowed over the last few days on a regular, droning basis that they are the protectors of health care and education. I want British Columbians to know this is not the case. I have forgotten more about health care and education than some of the government ministers in these areas -- and I work in these areas on a regular basis. If we look at the reality of health care and we take away the chest-beating and puffing of the Minister of Health and look at it from the patient's point of view, we see a very different scenario.

In my riding, I have a patient who has emphysema. She has it from a hereditary disorder, and from that disorder, because she cannot breathe, she was in the intensive care unit with a tube down her throat for two months. Following that, she was sent to Vancouver and evaluated by a specialist to have surgery for lung replacement. The specialist said the patient was a good candidate. Her bones were too thin, however, to withstand the stress of the surgery, and she required a drug called Fosamax. Fosamax is something that helps thicken the bones of people who have osteoporosis.

What happened is that this woman went to get Fosamax from her pharmacy and found that it is no longer covered under reference-based pricing or under Pharmacare. She could not afford it, being a widow, being in a low-income area and being sick. What happened to her? As her MLA, I phoned the ministry and Pharmacare and asked them to give her compensation. The alternative was for this woman to end up back in the ICU at a minimum of $1,000 a day in terms of overall costs. The answer I got from this government to that question was to phone the drug company and ask them to

give me the medicine for this woman on a charity basis. The other option, of course, was ICU, and that would be funded if she was lucky enough to make it out.

Other constituents do the same. I had a constituent recently who had to go to Bellingham to have treatment for a malignant melanoma. She has children, and they were left in Kamloops. Her husband has no job. She had to get a motel room in Bellingham. Unfortunately, when she got there, there were no rooms, because they were full of other British Columbians trying to get some kind of help for their particular cancer therapy. She and her family lived in their mobile trailer close to the site where she would receive radiation.

We have in this province, under this government, closures at home and no direction. I think it's a travesty for this government to stand up here, day after day, and tell me that they are the protectors of health care and education.

Let's look at the schools. I say shame on this government for making education a partisan issue in British Columbia. I say shame on them, right off the top, for building 11 schools in NDP ridings. I say shame on them for punishing kids because of how their parents voted. I say shame on this government for making our kids demonstrate and carry placards to get attention to the circumstances under which they are being educated. I say shame on this particular government and this cabinet for making FOI detectives out of parents who are spending time getting freedom of information to find out where -- if ever -- their school will be on the list and the criteria for what will be built in the province of B.C.

Now the NDP say 100 projects will be built, but there are 13 cost-saving criteria to be met. Guess what: some of these criteria are diametrically opposed to each other. In other words, they cancel each other out and effectively negate the possibility that these schools can be built.

A. Sanders: What do I mean by that? Let me explain. For example, "extended days" is diametrically opposed, in some districts, to the idea of "smaller space per student." If we have our children on extended days in all communities in British Columbia but we have no common space for them to go, where are those kids going to go when they have two hours off in the middle of the day and they aren't in a classroom? Every classroom is full. What's going to happen is that they're going to go into the homes in communities. They're going to go into areas where they loiter. They are going to go and do things that have nothing to do with education.

What about the kids who live on Hornby Island -- the kids who take a ferry in the morning before they get on the bus to then go to their schools in the Courtenay-Comox area? How about the kids who live in Wells and travel 250 kilometres round trip to Quesnel to go to school on a daily basis? How are they going to have an extended day? My thesis is that there is a reason these criteria have been put into place, and I will not believe that one single project will be built in terms of schools until I see the shovel in the ground in those areas.

Other people today have mentioned no-fault. I won't belabour the point that no-fault is something that again takes away the rights of victims. At this point, all of us who work in constituency offices know that probably around 40 percent of everything we handle is WCB complaints. The news for you will be that those WCB claims will be overtaken and superseded by the no-fault claims. No-fault is a form of WCB, or WCB is a form of no-fault.

Then, of course, there's gambling. I have a letter that was sent to me by a constituent of mine that says:

We are in a province that is short on justice. It is short on morals and on ethical responsibility by government. If one of my children came to me and said, "I want your money; I don't have a target, I don't have a vision and I don't know how to manage it -- and I can prove that for the last six years I haven't been able to do so -- I can't keep a promise and I'm not reliable," my answer to that child would be no. My answer to Bill 5, to the asking for money by this government -- which is desperate, visionless and impoverished -- is no. They have not earned the right for anything more.

G. Abbott: I'm glad to substitute here for the Attorney General, who had to step out for a bit.

It's a pleasure to rise and join this debate. Obviously, what we're debating here is the question of interim supply and the wisdom of providing that to the government. There has never been a government that has made a better case for truth in budgeting than this NDP government. Every year we see more and more examples of the reasons we should have truth-in-budgeting legislation. I understand that even the Minister of Finance is beginning to become convinced, given the sorry record of his own government, that truth-in-budgeting legislation should be considered. Obviously the case is being made, and even New Democrats are starting to believe in the proposition.

The Finance critic for the B.C. Liberals, the member for Delta South, made a very masterful presentation earlier on the inconsistencies, the sleight of hand and the sundry failings of this government with respect to the finances of this province. What comes through most clearly with respect to the performance of this government is that it has delivered six consecutive deficit budgets despite promises in years four and five that they had in fact delivered surplus budgets. But no, that was not the case. In fact, they delivered six consecutive deficit budgets.

This is a record that has never been equalled in British Columbia at any point in our history. This is a proud moment for the NDP. They're even joining with me in saluting themselves on their sixth consecutive deficit budget. This is a record that has never been matched in British Columbia, but I suspect it will be bettered -- and bettered by this government -- when next year we're promised the seventh consecutive deficit budget. In fact, we on this side of the House have every confidence that they will be able to deliver a seventh consecutive deficit budget. What a proud moment that will be for this government: seven consecutive deficit budgets. What a remarkable record.

When we look back in history, even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, governments were unable to come even close to the record of six consecutive deficit budgets that this government has achieved in very good economic times. May I underline the point by saying that those good economic times were despite this government, not because of it.

The Tolmie government, from 1929 to 1933, and the Pattullo government, from 1933 to 1941, grappled with enormous

economic problems -- nothing like what this government has. This government could not budget its way out of a paper bag. They couldn't run a peanut stand. They can't even eat the peanuts. They can't take the good economic times we have and translate them into even a balanced budget.

Can you imagine what this province would be like if they had to budget in difficult economic times? My goodness, we'd rack up record amounts of debt every year, just as they have, but I'm sure the amounts would be much larger. I suspect that we could look around all over Canada. We could look back in the history of every province and not find a government that had duplicated the record of this government's six consecutive deficit budgets.

You'll notice that I refer to provincial administrations. We wouldn't want to talk about the federal government, because they have created sins that none of us would even want to talk about in here. We're talking about provincial administrations. No government has ever come close to touching the sorry, dismal, disgusting record of this government with respect to budgeting. The fact of the matter is that in almost every instance, a government that delivered four or five deficit budgets in any province in this country would be chucked out of office.

G. Abbott: If they told the truth -- exactly. We would have to say that had this NDP government accurately transmitted to the people of British Columbia the real financial budgetary situation in this province during the last provincial election campaign, they would never have had an opportunity to provide us with this record sixth consecutive deficit budget. What we found, of course, was that the surplus budgets this government promised for years four and five -- that is, 1995-96 and 1996-97 -- were not surplus budgets. In fact, they were bogus budgets.

G. Abbott: What a surprise, yes. Two consecutive bogus budgets. In fact, maybe in some ways we've got six consecutive bogus budgets, because what we've done in British Columbia over the past -- what is it now? -- six years. . . . It's hard to remember back to the time before this government was in office. It seems like forever that they've been in office. But over the past six years, we've racked up record debt in this province, along with record deficits. It's an amazing record, Mr. Speaker. I hope it's never duplicated again. Unfortunately, it's probably going to be bettered next year and the year after that again. Who knows how many deficit budgets this government might pile up before they're finally thrown from office?

Some may view the comments on this side of the House with scepticism. Certainly the members over there will. I want to just briefly cite a reference from a column in the Vancouver Sun today by Vaughn Palmer. And it has. . . .

G. Abbott: Absolutely. They're right. I'm pleased that members opposite agree that not only is Mr. Palmer a very fine source of information, but he is an objective and unbiased observer of the political scene in British Columbia as well. It's rare that we have agreement. This is a beautiful bipartisan moment -- don't you think, Mr. Speaker? -- that finally some of the members opposite are coming out of their shells. I've noticed this in recent days, that they seem to be in a shell this session. They're hiding their true feelings, and at last some of those are coming out. It's really a bit of a compliment to me, I think, that I'm drawing them out of their shells. I think that's excellent.

At any rate, let me just quote briefly, if I may, from this article, which has a very neutral title. It's a very neutral, objective, non-partisan title. It says: "A Sneaky Three-Step Keeps the NDP Dancing Around Its Red Ink." Of course, it's not a provocative article, as the title would suggest. Let me just quote briefly from it here. It's datelined Victoria. "Struggling to put the best front on their financial record, the New Democrats have noted that the deficit for the budget year just ending was 'only $400 million.' "

Ho! Imagine this, Mr. Speaker -- a fine, objective, non-partisan source like Vaughn Palmer suggesting that. And he continues:

So there we have it. That's one of the reasons, obviously, why we are unable to give our blessing to interim supply here. Not only did we have bogus budgets for '95-96 and '96-97, and again for '97-98, we've got another bogus budget coming to be considered by this government.

The NDP does indeed, as I've said, make an awesome case for truth in budgeting. If we had truth in budgeting. . . . [Applause.] Thank you for that enormous and spontaneous round of applause. If we had truth in budgeting, this NDP government would be acknowledging that their budget is built in considerable measure on the backs of local government and through them onto the backs of homeowners, renters and small business.

G. Abbott: That's right. You've finally picked up on the notion that there is only one taxpayer. This is very good. I'm proud of you. There is only one taxpayer.

Why, Mr. Speaker, would any government say to the people of British Columbia, "We're going to freeze taxes; we're not going to put any new burdens on you," and then turn around and pass them on to the next level of government?

G. Abbott: Oh, I see, we're. . . . Yes. He did engage me with some provocative comments, Mr. Speaker. I do want to apologize. I temporarily lost control because of his provocative comments, but I will try to retain my decorum in future.

The downloading that's associated with the cuts to the Local Government Grants Act, the downloading of provincial roads, the closure of courthouses -- these are all ways in which this government has thrust the burden of its incompetence, the burden of its mismanagement, onto local government and onto homeowners, renters and small business in British Columbia. I'd like to return, obviously, to this very important issue as Municipal Affairs critic a little bit later on in my comments.

But what I'd like to do at this point is talk briefly about the auditor general's report on this issue of the special warrants. I don't want to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, because some of this material has been referred to previously. But there's some excellent material in here, and I think members on the government side may find it most instructive. I'm sure that after I advise them of this, they'll probably leap at the opportunity to press their government to do what the member for Peace River South mentioned: proceed with the abolition of special warrants. Let me just quote briefly:

In the special warrants presentation, the auditor general also notes a little bit of the history, which others have already mentioned. Just to quote the most important phrase or sentences here -- and he's referring to the nineteenth century:

It's interesting that if one looks back at the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s -- indeed, even back to the late nineteenth century and the meetings of the assembly of this Legislature -- it was commonplace, Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, for the Legislature to meet for about three months in the spring -- normally February, March, April -- and again in the fall -- October, November and a portion of December.

It's curious that this assembly has not met since the middle of last August. Have we advanced or declined as a democracy over time? One would have to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in fact we have gone backwards in that respect. Again, I think some of the members earlier in this debate made the suggestion that we should be looking at a fixed parliamentary calendar that calls us together much more frequently than has been the case in the past few years, and I certainly agree.

Again, a hundred years ago the parliamentary schedule was based on the fact that many of the members of the assembly were farmers. The farmers, of course, liked to plant their crops and harvest them and so on, and the parliamentary schedule tended to be built around that. I'm not suggesting that we should all become farmers again. But I am suggesting that it would work far better, in terms of democratic government in British Columbia, were we able to get. . . .

G. Abbott: Farmers are great, yes. The member for Richmond-Steveston, that breadbasket of agriculture in British Columbia, is absolutely right. Farmers are great. I do compliment myself frequently on having been one for a time.

If I may just continue briefly with a couple more quotes from the auditor general here, Mr. Speaker:

Well, I don't think that's the case here, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what we are seeing again in 1997, as we have seen continuously with this NDP government, is a misuse of special warrants.

This quote we've heard earlier. But I think it's such a fine example of selective hypocrisy that it's worthy of quoting again.

G. Abbott: Yeah, let's hear it again. Everybody wants to hear this quote. This is from the Premier, but this is when he was a mere NDP backbencher back on May 30, 1991. He said at that time:

A fine and inspiring speech, I'm sure you would agree, Mr. Speaker. And that. . . .

G. Abbott: Oh, we're getting requests to repeat and repeat this material. I'm going to resist the request to repeat this, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to repeat it. Rather, what I'm going to do is just refer briefly to exhibit 1.1, which tends, I think, in some way to cast some doubt on the sincerity of the Premier in. . . .

G. Abbott: Tell me it ain't so. But it may in some respects cast some doubt on the sincerity of the Premier in following through on his concerns about the abuse of special warrants.

Now, if we look back to 1992-93, this House considered requests for special warrants from the NDP government of $103,558,000. In 1993-94 it rose to $107,582,000 in requests for special warrants; in 1994-95, $199,558,000 in special warrant requests; in 1995-96, $179,500,000 in requests for special warrants from this NDP government. And then we find in 1996-97 the mother of all requests for special warrants in the province of British Columbia, the crowning moment in this government's performance in the abuse of special warrants, contrary to the opinion the Premier expressed back in 1991. . . .

G. Abbott: Wait for the final total: $5,615,706,000 in special warrant requests.

G. Abbott: The king of special warrants, yes; the mother of all special warrants.

It's an amazing record. It's not surprising that some members on this side of the House have expressed skepticism about the extension of the same today.

If I may just conclude this portion of my comments, Mr. Speaker, these are the conclusions of the auditor general. He says:

What I'd like to return to in my remaining moments here is the unprecedented downloading from the province onto local government that has occurred in the past few months. Cuts to transfers are both a symptom of and a consequence of the financial incompetence and mismanagement of this government.

The record of this government with respect to relations with the municipalities and regional districts in this province is dismal, at best. What we have seen in the past two years -- beginning, I guess, with Bill 55, back in 1995 -- is a government that imposes its will on municipalities without even the courtesy of consultation. What they did with Bill 55 was throw the burden of railway taxation onto the back of local government by depriving them of approximately $7 million a year in revenue without any opportunity to consult on the matter.

G. Abbott: The Liberals voted against it. I'm glad you asked that question. The Liberals voted against it; you are absolutely right. And again, Mr. Speaker. . . .

G. Abbott: Yeah. If it's not the banks that this government is aggressively courting, it's the big railways. I mean, this is a government that is mad to bring the corporations onside with them. That's obvious, isn't it?

Mr. Speaker, my chain of thought was disrupted by the member. He almost drew me into an unparliamentary exchange across the floor. Fortunately, my leader stepped in. He intervened and saved me from that breach of parliamentary conduct. I want to thank him for that, and I want to thank you again for keeping me in line.

I should mention while I'm up that the sorry record that began with Bill 55 was certainly continued with the breach of the Local Government Grants Act on November 26 of last year. Back in 1994 the NDP said: "We're going to provide municipalities with predictability, certainty, in provincial transfers. This Local Government Grants Act -- just like Forest Renewal -- is going to last forever. This is a permanent thing. You can count on it." Two years later, down the tube

goes the Local Government Grants Act. We see in 1996 a very fundamental breach of the Local Government Grants Act: cuts in transfers to municipalities of up to 80 percent. So what they've done -- and I see that my time is almost up here. . . . [Applause.] Hey, I appreciate that. I'll take applause from anyone, even from that side of the House.

What they've done is to transfer the burden of their incompetence, their mismanagement, onto the backs of homeowners, renters, small business in this province by saying: "Hey, we're going to freeze taxes, but we're going to make the other levels of government increase theirs because of it."

K. Krueger: There has been some discussion by my learned colleagues in speeches that we've heard this afternoon about the fact that tomorrow is a holy day to much of the world. Tomorrow is Good Friday. It's an important day to me and to my family and to my community. It's the day when we commemorate someone who died for us, someone who said that he was "the way, the truth and the life." He said: "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

Truth is a word that we don't hear an awful lot from the other side of the House. Truth is something that my leader asked for two days ago and was expelled from the House for asking for -- because he asked the Premier to tell the truth. Truth in budgeting is something that the official opposition has been asking for for a long time. In fact, we tabled legislation last session to make truth in budgeting mandatory. This government refused to debate it. We believe in balanced budgeting. We think that should be mandatory, as well.

My daughter is probably watching me right now. Happy Easter, Keturah, if you are. My daughter said to her mother recently that sometimes she doesn't feel like she has a daddy anymore, because I'm away all the time. I don't mind being away all the time. That's what we expected when we were elected; it came with the job. But I do mind when being away is a waste of time. I mind when we stand here hour after hour, representing our constituents, speaking to a government that is absent. I look across the way, and I only see two members of cabinet here. The people who are most accountable for the debacle we're dealing with -- the Finance minister and the Premier -- aren't even bothering to show up and probably don't read Hansard, believing that this debate has a foregone conclusion. And of course they've been able to demonstrate that to us time after time, because time after time they've failed to listen to the concerns of our constituents and the things that we try to get across to them. Time after time they do things in the same old twisted ways.

We're here tonight because of NDP falsity in budgeting, chicanery and deception. That's wrong. It's wrong that our families don't have us with them on the night before Good Friday because of that. It's wrong, more so, because the people of this province expect something better from us, something a whole lot better. The four million people out there who look to the 75 of us who form government expect us to start doing the right thing.

Why are we here tonight? Why is it necessary to consider this request for special warrants? It's because the same people who have been in cabinet in this NDP government since 1991 still can't or won't get it right. They won't bring in an honest budget. They can't seem to bring in a balanced budget, even when they told the people of British Columbia throughout early 1996 that they brought in two, back to back. That falsehood was repeated over and over again. It was in the throne speech of the summer session. Disgracefully, the Finance minister admitted within three days of having had the Lieutenant-Governor read that in the throne speech that it wasn't true, that in fact he was expecting a $250 million deficit -- which I believe later inflated to a $369 million deficit. Of course, the alleged balanced budget for '96-97 has turned out to be something disastrously less. I expect those numbers will also inflate.

Yet here they are again, cap in hand, coming to us and asking us to rubber-stamp their financial incompetence. Obviously we can't do it. I respect a number of the members who sit across the way, members of government. I think it's disgraceful and disrespectful of their leader and their Finance minister to time and again look to them to vote for things they don't believe in, and to besmirch themselves and their reputations and the way their constituents feel about them, by doing things that are so obviously wrong.

This government said it had a surplus, went ahead and ran a giant deficit, and now comes to us wanting us to bless $100 million in overdrafts. I talk to constituents every day who are just hurting -- hurting because of the things this government has been doing, hurting because of its withdrawal of services, hurting because they aren't well served by the government of British Columbia. Once again we've suffered from inflated revenue projections. Once again we've suffered from an NDP government that doesn't have a revenue problem but has a spending problem, a goverment that continually spends beyond its means, spends more than it should on a lot of things, gives money to the wrong programs and the wrong people, and doesn't fulfil its obligations or duties. It's no wonder this government has run out of money again. It ran out of credibility a long time ago. It ran out of moral authority, certainly, when it finessed re-election on the basis of back-to-back balanced budgets that didn't exist and on false assurances that it had learned its lessons and was now going to provide some financial accountability. Well, we can't go along with that.

I wish all of the government members would come in and participate in the debate. I think it's shameful that they are constantly missing. I hear that a poker game goes on in the back rooms while we're talking about things so crucial to the lives of the people that they and we represent. There aren't going to be any blank cheques signed by the people on this side of the House. Don't come crying to us that you have once again failed to fulfil your responsibilities -- speaking to the Finance minister and the Premier. We hope that this government will stop flying by the seat of its pants. We hope that this government will stop making it up as they go along, because what we're trying to do here is far too important. The future of our children and all the children in this province depends on what we're doing.

This isn't just empty talk coming from our side of the House, Mr. Speaker. We're here, as I believe you are, because we want to make a difference. We want to do the right thing, and I believe that a lot of the government members are also here for those reasons. When will we start performing for the people of British Columbia?

On this side of the House we believe in sound business practices. We believe in genuine budgeting. We believe in truth in budgeting. We believe that we ought to equip our auditor general to audit the books of this province using modern, contemporary means. We believe that we ought to give him a new Auditor General Act, for which he has been pleading for years, and which has been drafted and is somehow being held in the basement of government, it seems, because he just can't get the legislative authority to use those

modern-day forensic auditing techniques that he needs to use. Why is that? Why would a government resist equipping its auditor general to do things in contemporary ways? I think the answer is obvious, but I will state the obvious: this government doesn't want to be held to account.

Speakers much more experienced than I have outlined the chicanery of past years. They have talked about how 30 percent of the actual cost of running British Columbia has been slipped sideways off the books, as the Forests minister phrased it earlier -- a sideways shuffle of government expenditures so that they don't show up on the books. We sat here last summer and debated with the government its desire to move motor vehicle branch employees over to ICBC. We had to be suspicious, and still are, that that move was more about getting full-time employees off the government books than it was about believing that that was the right place to put those employees.

We have discussed at length the way Forest Renewal B.C. funds are used to do the same sort of thing: to do the business of government but to hide it in the business of a Crown corporation that is much less accountable to the people through this Legislature.

We don't like that at all. We believe it should all be upfront. We heard our Premier say that this was going to be upfront, and it isn't. This is wrong. The fact that we have continued to accumulate debt at massive rates in a time of plenty in British Columbia is a verification of terribly poor stewardship, incompetence and, many feel, dishonesty. We want balanced-budget legislation, truth-in-budgeting legislation and a new Auditor General Act. We don't want financial shell games, or shell games with full-time employees -- a ridiculous situation where the government of British Columbia really doesn't know from one day to the next how many employees it has. There are real-life consequences to all of this, and they're experienced by my constituents every day. They are heartbreaking, and it's wrong for us to tolerate them.

I'm sure that every MLA opposite also has constituents who are really in pain because of the way this government conducts itself, and it's not as if they're new to what they're doing. This has been going on since 1991. For almost all of this decade the people of this province have been captives of an NDP government. During a time when British Columbia was on a financial roll, how can it be that we are in such a mess? How can it be that we're asked to do this unconscionable thing, to allow another overdraft -- a major overdraft -- and to give this government three months' free reign? A blank cheque? Not likely.

Let me tell you a little bit about some of the people I hear from in my constituency. I stopped in Barri�re on the way home from Clearwater the week before we came down here. A lady had asked me to come and see her and the two fetal alcohol syndrome children that she had adopted and loves and looks after tremendously well. I went and met the children, and met with her for a long time. She poured out her heart to me about what it's like in this province to adopt handicapped children and then be abandoned by the government. To her dismay, she has encountered huge dental bills which are attributed to the fetal alcohol syndrome and the period during the pregnancy when the alcohol ingestion took place, and she can't get any help with those dental bills. She tells me that she can't get any help from the education system, not the kind of special attention that these children need. She tells me -- and she's tremendously well versed on these subjects; she has a library of material to back her up -- that fetal alcohol children tend to end up costing the province $1.2 million each, many of them ending up in lives of crime because they aren't dealt with by experts the way they need to be during their early lives.

I take my hat off to the Minister for Children and Families. I was delighted when she was chosen to be the minister for that tremendously important ministry, and I know it's a horrific job; it's absolutely huge. We see the social workers protesting that they have too many cases on their plates, and I believe they're right. I believe that they have far too many cases to be responsible for, and they're in desperate straits. They are afraid. They have been suspended and disciplined and had punishment meted out to them because some cases have gone terribly wrong. Yet they're overloaded, and they don't see how they can do the job.

I continue to hear from constituents who tell me that their children aren't getting any attention at all; they don't even come within the scope of the Ministry for Children and Families. They're falling through the cracks. More than anything else, I believe that is because this government is spending its money in the wrong places. From a financial point of view, it's penny wise, pound foolish not to give these children the attention they need while they're young.

Special needs programs in our education system seem to be continually cut back. Again, it's the wrong way to be going. I meet with senior citizens and their families, and continuing-care nurses and public health nurses, and they tell me horrific stories of what it's like for people growing old in this province -- reaching that point in their lives that we know we'll all come to one day, if something unfortunate doesn't happen to us first, where we begin to lose the ability to look after ourselves. There are supposed to be facilities in place to help deal with that decline at the end of life so that senior citizens can maintain their dignity and can feel that society respects them, and so that their families don't have to be completely overwhelmed by the huge burden of dealing with their physical problems in addition to the emotional turmoil that we all know comes with seeing parents, grandparents and loved ones come to that point in their lives.

But there are atrocious lineups. Several weeks ago when I spoke with the nurses involved in one facility -- just a single facility in Kamloops -- they had a lineup of 21 women and 23 men. That's just a single facility; there's nowhere for them to go. People die while they're on the wait-list, and their families somehow have to endure the stress and the turmoil and the pain of dealing with all of those problems by themselves. On average, our continuing-care nurses are overwhelmed by the increase in caseloads and the severity of the cases. It's far worse than it used to be.

So I'd like to know: where was the money spent? In 1995 the Health ministry spent $6.707 billion. I'm not sure what we spent in total in 1996, but they come crying to us for the $40.5 million by which they've apparently overdrawn the account. Where did they spend it? Apparently they didn't spend it on enough intermediate-care, continuing-care and extended-care facilities. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Is it any surprise to this government that we have the number of senior citizens that we have? Surely, with the census that is done regularly, with all the government statistics that are kept, it shouldn't be any surprise to this government that it has a given number of people reaching the age where they need that kind of care.

K. Krueger: But it seems to take them by surprise. And the government member across the way who is making these rude comments had better first check his own constituency to find out if he has seniors who are unable to get into homes and be looked after in the way they deserve to be.

I believe that we ought to be doing the right thing in this House. I believe that when we know. . . . We've heard it loud and clear from the people of this province, for example, that they are opposed to gambling expansion. I believe that when government press releases and public statements by the Premier and his ministers over the past years -- 1994, 1995, 1996 -- have said repeatedly: "We don't need that kind of activity in British Columbia. . . ." This is a beautiful province, a magnificent province with a robust economy, and one that doesn't welcome that kind of activity. I believe that when government has said that, then it shouldn't, just because a new minister is appointed who on his very first day in the job says he thinks casinos are a good idea for British Columbia. . . . Just because one man hasn't put the research and the time into the question that thousands of British Columbians have. . . . They've expressed the results to the government. I believe that this government should not override the wishes of its citizenry and trample on their rights, trample on their expectations, and go ahead with gambling expansion.

I was at the press conference where the Deputy Premier announced his bold intentions, in the face of all the opposition that I know he's received, because I get copies of the letters and the faxes that go to him. I get phone calls by the hundreds. I know the kind of input he's received, and he's had very little in favour of gambling expansion, except from those people who expect to make a lot of money on it. I was there, and I waited and waited to hear what he would have to say about the issue of gambling addiction, because all through the summer session I spoke to cabinet ministers about that issue, about the hurting people whose families call me about the existing high level of gambling addiction in this province, which is thoroughly documented by extensive studies which this government has paid for through its Crown corporation, B.C. Lottery Corporation. I waited and waited to hear what the Deputy Premier would have to say on that subject, and he tossed off one line. He said that a program would be created to be administered by the Ministry for Children and Families.

Well, they don't have time. We have already heard that very clearly from the desperate people who are working to try to preserve the lives of children who are in the care of the ministry in this province.

K. Krueger: My colleague says that their status is shameful, and it is. It was shameful last summer when it took us days and days of peppering the Social Services minister with our concerns about the failure to implement the recommendations of the Gove inquiry, and we were pleased when the Premier finally moved on the subject. As I said, when he created the new Ministry for Children and Families, the Premier finally moved on the subject. As I said when he created the new Ministry for Children and Families and gave it to a competent person to handle, we were delighted with that. But it is wrong to saddle that ministry with this responsibility in the face of the difficulties it already has.

I had a commitment -- it's recorded in Hansard -- from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance, who is not listening to me, as usual. I had a commitment that they would work with me to develop programs to deal with the victims of gambling addiction -- the addicts themselves and their families, who have terrible problems because of this affliction. Spouses of male pathological gamblers are three times as likely to attempt suicide as women in the general population. There's a tremendously high percentage of child abuse in the families of gambling addicts. There's a strange reactive form of violence that psychologically afflicts people who live with gambling addicts, not necessarily the addicts themselves. But the addicts themselves attempt suicide more than any other type of addict. This is a horrible problem, and this government has been tremendously negligent in not coming to grips with it, although it has said over and over again that it's going to. It just hasn't done it.

With all of that negligence, with all of that failure to come to grips with the problem, the Deputy Premier announces his intention to barge on into gambling expansion. I don't think he even read Peter Clark's report, although he'd apparently been sitting on it for several weeks, hiding it while the NDP convention took place, finessing getting the debate off the convention floor, where the members of the party would have had strong things to say to him if they knew what he contemplated and fully intended doing.

On page 17 of the Peter Clark report, recommendations are made that the Deputy Premier doesn't seem to have paid any attention to. The Deputy Premier made it clear to the population when he sent Peter Clark out on his little expedition that this was not a public consultation; it was a review of his options. When he gleefully came in with the report to his press conference, he pretty well announced that he was going to take all the options. He said he was ruling out two things. One was Las Vegas-style casinos -- whatever those are, because he couldn't tell us. He could only respond to the press as they grilled him on the subject that Las Vegas-style casinos are either really big or quite big. That was as good as it got. The other thing his press release said was that he wasn't going to allow VLTs in pubs and bars, whatever that means. Is he going to allow them everywhere else? Is he going to allow them in corner stores? Anyway, he made it very clear that he's going to allow slot machines. Of course, all a VLT is is an electronic slot machine. So he hasn't really barred very much.

It's sort of been an announcement a day since, trying to shore up his position, no doubt trying to deal with some of the members opposite who must be furious that he has trampled all over their stated convictions on this subject, no doubt trying to pacify the members of the party who are no doubt furious that he would go ahead in such a treacherous way to bring about the course of action that he wanted and to keep them out of the decision-making process -- as we are. We're continually left out of the decision-making process. We weren't there when people decided to squander $100 million more than they had budgeted for these programs -- and look at them. The B.C. Liberals say that there are three key priority responsibilities of this government: health care, education and public safety. And look where the expenditures have occurred. These people are apparently out of control.

In my own constituency we have a raging debate going on about the regionalization of health care and the incredible series of blunders that has taken place in Kamloops, whereby a very good man who has been the administrator of Royal Inland Hospital -- his name is Paul Chapin -- has been done out of his job. The job has been given to someone else. He was passed over for it. And the regional health board chair has since admitted that she didn't realize they were making a financial decision when they did that, because Mr. Chapin is assured by his contract of close to half a million dollars in severance pay. How many half-million-dollar severance packages are included in this $40.5 million overrun that we're

expected to bless? How many? How much has been thrown away in stupid severance packages?

K. Krueger: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, there is a member across the way who wants to make a point about severance packages. Maybe he believes in them. I don't know what he's trying to say; I can't hear him properly. I wish he'd stand up and speak, because surely some of these members across the way don't approve of this kind of ridiculous, incompetent financial mismanagement. I can't believe that they are all yes people. I can't believe that all of them will continue to vote with this government, against the best interests of their constituents.

In Clearwater the people were promised a multilevel health care facility many months before the election. It wasn't one of the vote-buying promises made in the 60 days of desperate running around the province just before the election; it was a promise made after apparent due consideration. And it was a firm promise; it was a commitment. Well, that project, which should have been built by now, according to the government's promise, hasn't seen a spade in the ground, and it was worth $8 million. So what happened to Clearwater's $8 million? It didn't get spent on that, but it obviously got spent somewhere -- and another $40.5 million besides. How can that be?

I toured the Royal Inland Hospital emergency ward with our Health critic not long ago, and it was a disgrace, an absolute disgrace -- that, and the radiology department beside it. There was a woman lying on the gurney waiting for X-rays, and she had just a little hospital gown covering her. She had to close her eyes to pretend that she had any privacy as we were all trooping by. I was ashamed, really ashamed, of a government that will allow that to happen to people, a government that is creating something getting close to Third World conditions in what used to be state-of-the-art facilities. That is very, very wrong.

Yet somehow, in spite of not having built the things and not having done the upgrades that it should be doing and has promised to do, this government is $40.5 million in the hole over what it budgeted on health care alone. Unbelievable! The whole boondoggle of health care regionalization in this province is absolutely shameful -- the way the years have been squandered, the way the employees have been demoralized, the disruption, the heartache, the waste of volunteer time.

We have a group of wonderful people in Barri�re, who happily accepted the assignment to serve on the community health council there. And they worked like beavers; they applied themselves; they poured their energies into it. And then they were fired by the Health minister without so much as a thank-you -- just gone, as if all their work amounted to nothing, just as the whole failed regionalization experiment has largely amounted to nothing. That is so wrong.

How can it be, Mr. Speaker? How can this government have so little regard for the people: the volunteers, the voters, the patients, the victims, the families? How can this be? We don't understand it, and we can't accept it. We can't accept that health care dollars are squandered on golden handshakes that are arrived at accidentally by the incompetent appointees of an incompetent government. It's unacceptable. People wait for heart care, people wait for cancer care in long lineups, unbelievably stressed on top of their physical afflictions, because the money has been squandered in the wrong areas.

K. Krueger: My colleague is warning me, Mr. Speaker, that the red light is on. I'll wrap up, but I've got to tell you that this is not just talk to us. It's unacceptable that we've had this kind of incompetent financial management of this province again. We won't stand for it. We're here to say so, whether or not it takes our Easter weekend. . . .

The Speaker: I'm sorry, member. I've allowed you considerable latitude. You are much out of time.

M. Coell: Hon. Speaker, I rise to speak to interim supply, the request of us to approve funds for the continuation of government. I think that over the afternoon, you've heard many very good comments on why it shouldn't get our approval. I would like to share with you some of the thoughts that my constituents have, because I think it's important that we ask our constituents who send us here how we should deal with each individual issue.

It's been eight months since we were in the House, eight months since the people of British Columbia have had a chance to hold the government accountable. Three days of debate on a subject like this is not common. It has never been done before, and we on this side of the House are not happy that the government has chosen to shut the people of British Columbia out of this debate. Over the last eight months since your government passed a budget, it has affected the people in my riding. And I want to share with you some of their thoughts.

The people on Saltspring Island are affected by this government's decisions in many ways. They now have to pay more to use the ferries to come to this island or to go to Vancouver and the rest of British Columbia. They've had their courthouse shut down. I would hope that the Attorney General, who is present today, would reconsider that courthouse decision. It is clearly the provincial government's obligation to continue the judicial process in many parts of the province. I believe, and my constituents believe, in community policing. And it's my hope, because I've heard the Attorney General say this many times, that he believes in community policing. Community policing means that your laws, your police officers and your judicial system are within touch of viable communities.

Saltspring Island is a viable community that has had a court for many years. I think the important thing is that in taking away that court facility from an island, you are forcing additional costs onto the government. The police officers -- and there are only a half-dozen of them on that island -- will now have to go to court in Victoria rather than run up the hill and attend court and then go back to work. So you're going to be paying for police officers to sit in Victoria courtrooms while there are no police officers on Saltspring Island. Surely that doesn't make any sense for community policing.

You're going to be paying for lawyers and judges to come over here from an island. You are also adding legal costs to individuals who will now have to pay a lawyer four to eight hours more just to attend a court in Victoria. You're going to have to pay overtime for policing. You're going to inconvenience the citizens of Saltspring Island who use that court, but I can tell you that there's one group of people who are very glad that you've decided to do that. It's called the career criminal. They can delay their court case now, and delay it and delay it, and it will finally get thrown out of court. In dealing with the courts on Saltspring Island, you have made a group of people happy: those people who want to get out of dealing with their court dates and their problems with police.

The courthouses have already been an issue with many speakers, but another one that I hope the Attorney General can address is the Sidney courthouse. Again, the peninsula is a very viable community of three municipalities that have just invested heavily in a new courthouse, but they are told -- indeed, at the end of this weekend -- that the reason we're discussing the Supply Act is that the money will run out for the courthouse. Surely a viable community that has the desire from three municipal councils, the RCMP, the legal profession in that area and literally hundreds of citizens who have turned up at rallies and support for that courthouse. . . . Surely the Attorney General can reconsider a decision like that. It's one that was made in haste, I believe, and as with the Ganges courthouse, it is deserving of reconsideration.

We talked earlier about the 100 police officers that were going to be hired. None of those police officers has showed up in the constituency I represent. I gather that if they have, it has been temporary and it's been in a van, taking pictures. When we heard we were going to have 100 new police officers hired in this province, we thought we would have 100 new police officers actively working on the street -- front-line officers.

Another issue that has affected my constituency, and my reason for discussion of this bill, is the provincial emergency program. In December we had tremendous snow on the peninsula, crushing and ruining many greenhouses and farm operations. These farmers needed the government's help. They needed the provincial emergency program to act quickly. Literally hundreds of farming operations put in applications for help from this government. To date, only four have had any assistance whatsoever.

As I came to the Legislature this morning, the fields were full of people. The crops are up and the snow is long gone, and only four out of literally dozens of applications have been dealt with. I would certainly not consider that a good performance out of this government.

We've had cuts to our social services offices that have inconvenienced people. On the Gulf Islands, we have some of the worst roads in the province. Pender Island and its roads have not been dealt with. They have been asking for years for this government to help by paving and cleaning up some of those roads. The cycling community on Saltspring Island has been asking for safe cycling lanes and for at least some help from this government. They have not found that help. My constituents have had numerous user fees, which we discussed earlier today, so I won't mention them.

One area in which they have had tremendous disruption is the capital health board. At one point, the Saanich Peninsula Hospital was independent. It had its own board. That board is dissolved; it's gone. The Lady Minto Hospital on Saltspring had an independent board, volunteers, fundraisers and a long history of community activism on that board. It's gone. The advisory boards that were very much appreciated on the peninsula and the island are gone. They've now been amalgamated and have one representative for my riding, sitting on a very small board based in downtown Victoria. That's not adequate for the people of my riding.

I have people coming to my office who are waiting in line for cancer treatment. They can't even get to Bellingham. Surely the government can do a better job than that. I have people coming into my office who have had problems with their heart and are needing heart surgery. They're in lineups and are postponed month after month. The ambulance fees have gone up for my neighbours and friends. The schools in my community have less money per student.

I think one of the things that bothers people more than anything is that they've lost trust in government. They want to trust government -- I want to trust government -- but when we're hit year after year with budgets that are shell games, with deficits and with a seeming desire on the part of government to hide that and not face up to it, I think that's more damaging than many of the things I've mentioned, because the people of British Columbia want a government that governs for all.

During elections, we all have people who support us. The NDP, the Liberals and the Reformers have their supporters, but once you're the government, you govern for everyone. You don't govern for your friends and put your friends in patronage positions. My residents tell me they don't want that. They want a time when anyone who is capable can apply for a job, and they don't have to be a friend of the government, whether it's this government or any other government.

There were three things in the budget that annoy the citizens of my riding. There was no mention of gambling, and I know there are two members of the opposition who have put about as much time into fighting gambling as many of us have on this side. I hope they will do what they can inside their caucus to change the government's decision. Gambling needs a provincial debate, and it needs a debate in this chamber. It doesn't need to be done by regulation. We want government by legislation, not government by regulation. Gambling deserves discussion in this House.

In the throne speech -- a 45-minute speech -- there was only one sentence that dealt with the deficit and the debt. This issue clearly needs more than one sentence. It needs debate in this Legislature.

The other issue that wasn't in the throne speech was no-fault insurance. I support the position that Mothers Against Drunk Drivers have put forward: that this will encourage more people to be careless and cause more deaths. That issue needs discussion in this Legislature.

I think we all listen to the residents in our communities, because they are indeed our neighbours and friends. I've shared with you some of the thoughts some people have given to me over the last eight months, and I am sure your constituency offices, like mine, are getting similar calls and letters. Surely, some of these -- gambling, no-fault, the deficit. . . . Let's not have a debate the night before Good Friday. Let's have a true debate. I'm disappointed in the government placing this item on the agenda before a religious holiday. I think they could have done better, and I think we're going to demand that they do better, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think the residents in my community want me to support this bill. They want to send a message to the government that they must do better. They must listen. We want government by legislation, not regulation.

As it's 6 o'clock and my friend from Matsqui would like his dinner, I move adjournment of debate until later tonight.

The Speaker: If I understand the member's intention, the motion would be to adjourn the debate until later today.

Hon. A. Petter: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for 35 minutes and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Introduction of Bills

Oral Questions

Petitions

Orders of the Day

To be continued . . . Part 2

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