[ Page 11461 ]

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

L. Reid: There's someone in the gallery today that we're all very fond of -- Alistair Grant, fondly known as Red. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

[1410]

D. Symons: In the gallery today we have a councillor visiting from the city of Port Moody, Joe Trasolini, and his wife Jeannie. They're here today to find out about some concerns they have with the routing of the SkyTrain through that community. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Wilson: Today we have the pleasure of having four of the newly appointed members of the B.C. Ferries board here after concluding their first meeting. With us is Michael Francis, the new chair; Patricia McKim; Russell Moore; and Ron Moss. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Dalton: Visiting today are approximately 25 students from Collingwood School in West Vancouver, accompanied by three of the Collingwood School staff. They asked me some very perceptive questions at noonhour today, and I thought it would have been helpful if the Finance minister had been there to help me answer them. Please welcome all of the students.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the gallery today, to begin what is a recognition of people and their families in this province who struggle with cancer, is Mr. Richard Burke, president of the Vancouver Island chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today is a very special guest. My mom, Lisl Petter, is here today to watch the proceedings. She's joined by two of her friends, Professor Schaub and his wife, Diane Perry, who also happen to be constituents of mine. I'd like the House to join me in making them all feel very welcome.

B. Goodacre: In the gallery today I have a visitor from Good Hope Lake, Mary Reid, who is the principal of the school there. She has travelled 2,000 kilometres to get here. Please make her welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I'd like the House to welcome to the gallery and congratulate a very good friend of mine, the new president of the press gallery, Mike Smyth.

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm puzzled by the response to Mike Smyth's name.

The Speaker: Members, what an effect you have!

Hon. G. Clark: Seated in the gallery as well today are three very talented young British Columbians. Paola Baca holds an honours political science degree from UBC and has volunteered at the English Language Institute at UBC, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House and the Global Child Health Society. Jitesh Mistry is in the master's program in political science at Simon Fraser University, where he has been a teaching assistant for two years. Jitesh has worked as a publications editor at North Shore Community Services and as a researcher at the Institute of Governance Studies. Shaila Seshia holds a BA honours degree in political science from UBC. She spent the summer of 1997 in India with the Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute summer program. She has volunteered for the Fort Whyte Centre for Environmental Education and was part of the Urban Green Team at the Assiniboine Park Conservatory in Winnipeg. Of course, all three of these very bright and talented young British Columbians are the 1999 interns assigned to the NDP caucus. I'd ask the House to make them most welcome.

[1415]

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT DEFICIT SPENDING
AND DEBT MANAGEMENT

Hon. J. MacPhail: I have toured dozens of cities and towns over the last months, as have my colleagues, and I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, that there is universal agreement not only in the areas of the province that are represented on this side of the House but also in the areas of the province represented by that side of the House. People want us to improve the health care system, first and foremost. There is universal agreement not only on this side of the House but by the constituents represented on that side of the House too that they want their children to be able to get an education regardless of their family income. There's universal agreement on that.

[ Page 11462 ]

The Speaker: First supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: The key word in all of that was "responsibly." Every other jurisdiction in Canada, whether it's the NDP in Saskatchewan, or whomever they choose, has managed to balance their budget, pay down their debt, reduce taxes and continue to fund health care and fund education and put new money into them. If every other province in Canada can do it, why can't the NDP in British Columbia do all of those things?

The Speaker: The question was addressed to. . . ?

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Finance.

The Speaker: Thank you. I recognize the Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's very interesting that the member opposite would like to perhaps draw us into a comparison with one of our provincial colleagues and try to actually get us maybe to tell the truth about one of our colleagues. I know that each and every one of us on this side has the greatest of respect for the province that brought in medicare in this country. And we do have the greatest respect for our provincial colleague that shares the same party as us.

The member opposite, though, is wrong when he suggests that there is another province that hasn't cut health care and spending. He is simply wrong.

The Speaker: Second supplementary, Opposition House Leader.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reality is that Saskatchewan has added hundreds of millions of dollars to its health care budget, both last year and this year. They're balancing the budget, and they're paying down their debt, and they're giving people tax breaks. That's what British Columbia should be doing.

[1420]

The Speaker: Members, order.

G. Farrell-Collins: In 1993 the gentleman who now occupies the Premier's chair said: "The deficit is like your groceries, and you want to eliminate that because you're borrowing money to pay for consumption today." Well, today we're mortgaging the future to fill the Premier's beer fridge. Will the Minister of Finance tell us how this budget is going to pay for just the necessities, how it's going to put us back on track and how it's going to improve the economy of British Columbia, instead of driving it into the ground?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This budget has been both open and very transparent about the economic circumstances that we face. People in this province, especially if they're from towns that have to rely on the resource sector, know the tough economic times that we're facing. We on this side of the House are working with those communities to face the. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance, I don't like to interrupt, but I would like a little more silence. It's a little hard to hear the answer. The question was heard in some silence. We'd like to hear the answer.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those communities know, as do we, the tough economic times that we're facing. Hon. Speaker, British Columbians, though, don't want us to slash and burn our way out of these tough economic times. British Columbians want us to do everything we can to help grow the economy. That's why on this side of the House we'll be voting in favour of a 5.5 percent income tax rate for small business. I bet you that on that side of the House they'll be voting against that. And I also predict that they'll be voting against the 858,000 families who rely on those jobs for small business. I also expect that they would get their way out of the recession by slashing and burning and closing hospitals and schools, laying off teachers, laying off nurses, and making our wait-lists longer and longer for much-needed surgeries.

M. de Jong: Well, yesterday the NDP tabled its fifth debt reduction plan since 1992. Remember some of these old socialist favourites? The 1992 deficit reduction strategy, the 1995 debt management plan, the 1997 financial management plan, the 1998 revised financial management plan, and in 1999, the all-new five-year fiscal planning framework. Four previous debt management schemes, Madam Speaker, and the only thing they have in common is that the NDP ignored every single one of them.

The question is: on what possible basis does the Minister of Finance expect anyone to believe that her merry little band of fiscal incompetents has any intention of sticking to their fifth phony debt reduction plan?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This year we're building 13 new schools and renovating 103 others. We're investing $359 million to build and expand and improve. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Minister of Finance, please take your seat. Members, it's important to hear the answer. We heard the question.

Hon. J. MacPhail: We're investing $359 million to build and expand and improve hospitals so that when the surgeries are performed, there will be a bed there waiting for people. We have to build more classrooms, because we're providing for more teachers, for smaller class sizes. Our kindergarten class size now will be 20 students, and that's wonderful news for primary grades. And we're still investing in schools and hospitals in a way that has one of the lowest debt-to-GDP ratios in Canada. It's lower, actually, than in Saskatchewan.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

[ Page 11463 ]

[1425]

Hon. J. MacPhail: There is no question that this budget was about choices. We on this side know where we stand. We stand for health care. We stand for increased education and protection of our class sizes, etc. We know that we have to build more hospitals and schools. The population has increased by over half a million since this government took office. The choices are clear. The opposition is exactly right: choices have to be made. We made our choices clear in this budget.

I don't know, because they haven't come clean, but I suspect that the Liberal opposition is in favour of slashing and burning, and closing and shutting hospitals and schools. I suspect they're in favour of giving tax breaks across the board to the wealthiest. You know what I say: come clean; tell us what you stand for.

SALE OF CROWN ASSETS

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Government members, please come to order.

R. Neufeld: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

At the same time this government is increasing the debt by a record $3.5 billion, it has also ordered the sell-off of Crown assets worth hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. This is like heating your house by burning the furniture; it's not sustainable.

My question to the Minister of Finance is straightforward: what happens when the assets are sold and the bills are still left to be paid?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm reminded of the last election, when the Leader of the Opposition really probably caused his defeat by suggesting that they would sell B.C. Rail.

An Hon. Member: He was in a different party then.

Hon. J. MacPhail: He was in a different party? Oh, I'm sorry. There are just so many. . . . It's as often as I change my haircut. [Laughter.]

The Business Summit gave us some advice about the business that the government should be in. They have suggested that there are opportunities for government to sell some of its assets that are no longer part of doing regular government business. We certainly have a portfolio under B.C. Buildings Corporation that's in the billions of dollars in terms of land and building ownership. We're examining that right now to see whether it make sense that we be the big real estate owners that we are now. But I will tell you, hon. Speaker, that we will do it in a way that is responsible to the voters and the public. We'll do it in a way that makes best sense for the bottom line.

[1430]

R. Neufeld: A sell-off of Crown assets to pay this bankrupt socialist government's operating costs is unprecedented. It shows utter incompetence and irresponsible fiscal management -- absolutely disgusting. Not only is this government increasing the debt by record amounts, it is also covering up, as usual, the true extent of the disaster of selling off assets.

My question is to the Minister of Finance again: won't the minister come clean finally and admit that this bankrupt regime is selling off Crown assets to pay for the operating costs of government?

Hon. J. MacPhail: We have sold WesTel -- yes. We are in the process of selling B.C. OnLine -- yes. We've sold B.C. Systems Corporation -- yes. We've sold our vehicle fleet -- yes, we have. And do you know what that goes to pay for? It goes to pay for the $113 million over ten years for Fair Share -- right into that member's community. It also goes to pay for the tens of millions of dollars of highway construction -- right into that member's riding. And it also goes to pay for hospital services, for the beds and nurses -- right into that member's riding. Hon. Speaker, I come clean.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order members. The bell ends question period.

Ministerial Statement

CANCER MONTH

Although I introduced Mr. Burke earlier, it is important that I again recognize Richard Burke, the president of the Vancouver Island chapter of the Canadian Cancer Society, who's in the gallery today. I really want to express my appreciation not only to Richard but to all the members of the Canadian Cancer Society, particularly the many dedicated

[ Page 11464 ]

This year over 17,000 British Columbians will learn that they are facing a challenge that will change their lives. They will be told that they've been diagnosed with cancer. If you can imagine 17,000 as a number, it's like filling all of General Motors Place. That's the number of people in this province who just this year who will be diagnosed with cancer.

This morning Premier Clark and I were pleased to announce that our government will be investing almost $15 million in new funding to help ensure that each of these patients has access to the treatment that they need not only to fight this disease but to win. This new funding will provide 10,000 more cancer treatments -- 5,000 more chemotherapy and 5,000 more radiotherapy treatments -- for cancer patients in the high-growth areas of this province.

[1435]

In addition to that, almost $8 million -- a 40 percent increase -- will be invested in new cancer drugs to treat a variety of conditions, including ovarian and colon cancer, breast tumours, melanoma and lymphomas. These funds will be distributed amongst the province's four cancer centres in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Victoria -- busily building -- and 26 community oncology programs and 70 community pharmacies that provide chemotherapy drugs to cancer patients across this province. This funding will help to ensure that cancer patients in B.C. have access to the latest proven drugs and treatment and that care is available where and when it's needed the most.

We have, as I think people know, the very best cancer survival rates of anywhere in this country. We are 13 percent above the national average for surviving breast cancer, 32 percent above the national average for surviving colorectal cancer and 31 percent above for surviving prostrate cancer. That is not happenstance. It is because the B.C. Cancer Agency and the work done in this province and the commitment by this government -- a 25 percent increase in the Cancer Agency budget over two years -- is making a difference in the lives of British Columbians.

Cancer is a disease that touches most of us at some point in our lives. One out of every three of us here in this assembly will at some stage in our lives be diagnosed with cancer. In cooperation with the B.C. Cancer Agency and organizations such as the Canadian Cancer Society and other partners, our government is taking action to treat and to beat cancer. We're not there yet. But here in B.C. we are making real progress, and we're determined to continue to work towards that goal. In point of fact, we have no choice, on behalf of people in the province, but to do that.

C. Hansen: First of all, I would like to thank the minister for providing me with a copy of her notes ahead of time.

I would like to join the minister in saluting the many volunteers around this province who work for and with the Canadian Cancer Society.

But just before I touch on that, I want to address some of the comments the minister made with regard to her announcements today. One of the real concerns that we have is when we see announcements coming out -- photo opportunities -- that are not part of a bigger strategic plan. We've been promised that strategic plan. We've been promised a vision for what health care is all about in this province, and we don't see it. We don't see where this fits in. I'll tell you why that's an issue of concern. It's when you hear quotes that come from the Minister of Finance. . . . For example, on February 9 of this year she said: "Why is it when we add hundreds of millions of dollars each year, that waiting times [for surgery] increase?" The Premier himself, about two weeks after that, said on a radio show: "I'm getting tired of making announcements, and six months later or three months later the wait-lists are still there. And we keep putting money in."

That is the concern that those who are delivering services to cancer patients around this province have. First of all, we see announcements that aren't part of a bigger strategic plan. Secondly, they say, "Show us the money," because they've seen so many announcements that are supposed to help them deliver services to cancer patients and all other patients in this province, and they don't see how that's manifesting itself at the front line of health care delivery. We see wait-lists for cancer patients growing instead of diminishing. Reports that came out just last fall show that wait-times for urgent breast biopsy and for urgent vasectomies are in fact twice what they should be in this province. They're going in the wrong direction. That's our concern.

I think, as the minister said, that all of us have family -- those that are close to us -- who have been touched by cancer at some point in their life. Certainly I vividly remember the day in 1976 when I got a phone call from my father that my mother was going in for cancer treatments. She went through a couple of years of very, very difficult treatment in those days. At the end of it, she was very pleased with the medical care that she got but very frustrated with the lack of emotional support that she had during that ordeal. She was one of the first people in this province -- in Canada, as a matter of fact -- who was instrumental in starting the organization which is now known as Can-Surmount, which now falls under the auspices of the Canadian Cancer Society. She is still alive, doing well, living as a cancer survivor, and she's still very active as a volunteer with the Canadian Cancer Society after all these years, still trying to work to make sure that those who are going through cancer treatments have the opportunity for support that is provided by the volunteers of the Canadian Cancer Society.

[1440]

[ Page 11465 ]

Orders of the Day

Budget Debate
(continued)

Hon. Speaker, this is a government that has fundamentally abrogated its responsibility to future generations in British Columbia. This is a government that has decided on a scorched-earth political policy with the finances of the province in order to shore up their base of support. . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .across British Columbia.

The Minister of Finance tells us to smile. The Minister of Finance obviously doesn't understand at all the damage that she is doing to future generations of British Columbians by bringing in a budget that's going to increase debt by $2.7 billion. She has the nerve to stand up and smile and laugh and joke and clap when she brings in that kind of a budget for the people of British Columbia.

You know what's more outrageous? It's when the member for Peace River North stands up in the House to ask the minister and the members opposite about repairing the hospital in his riding at a time when the new Minister for Ferries and this government and this Premier just spent over $250 million over and above the budget. They wasted $250 million on some boys' toys for the Premier, some boats for the Premier, the fast ferry Ferraris. Do you want to talk about values? Do you want to talk about priorities? On that side of the House, the priority is more toys for the Premier -- half a billion dollars for fast ferries that aren't even fast and don't even work. On this side of the House, that money would be going into fixing hospitals and making sure that the beds in hospitals are open.

Do you want to talk about values? Let's talk about those values. Let's talk about the Deputy Premier, who, with his usual bravado when the Royal Bank snookered him around Skeena Cellulose, said: "Those guys don't understand business. They're lousy businessmen. They don't get business at all. I understand business." He ends up buying the most outdated pulp mill in British Columbia for $329 million and has the nerve to sit and laugh about it, when people are waiting on wait-lists and there are beds in hospitals that can be opened and there are surgeries that can be done. But because there's no money -- because this government has wasted it -- those people are suffering today. He has the nerve to sit in this House and to laugh as if it's funny.

[1445]

Does the Minister of Finance actually think that if she got Angus Reid to go out and do a poll like she did for the budget and asked them whether they'd rather see $250 million wasted on the fast ferry project or whether they'd like to see that $250 million put into health care and into classrooms for students. . . ? Which would they choose? Does she really think that they would choose to spend money on the fast ferry project? Does she think that's a good thing? Does she think that was a smart investment? Does that reflect the values of the NDP opposite? Certainly the Deputy Premier here, who sat there in charge of the fast ferry project for years with his "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" attitude. . . . Right next to him is the Minister of Health, who's trying to fund hospitals, trying to fund health care, trying to get rid of the waiting lists. He sits there in the chamber, and he sits there in his office and doesn't ask one question about how it's doing.

As a result of his sheer incompetence, sheer and total irresponsibleness and incompetence, $250 million goes out the door -- a quarter of a billion dollars for nothing. We didn't get anything out of it. The Deputy Premier says nothing. Maybe he can tell us what it is.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: He says it's a magnificent project. The budget was -- what? -- $211 million? It ends up being almost. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's $210 million and not a penny more -- right down to the toilet paper, according to the minister. He tells us it's a wonderful project, and it comes in over budget at $460 million, or whatever it's going to be -- almost half a billion dollars. He says it's a great project, that he's proud of it and it's absolutely wonderful.

He should come to my constituency and try and explain that to the voters in my riding. Let's have a debate in my riding about the fast ferry project. I would love to have a debate with the minister about the fast ferry project in any community in British Columbia. I'll make the minister a deal. Just to be creative and to make it really interesting, I'll go to the minister's riding and debate the fast ferries if he comes to my riding and debates Skeena Cellulose. Let's do it that way and see what we get.

The reality is that you could take any riding in the province of British Columbia, any community in the province of British Columbia, and debate the fast ferry project. I can bet you $200 million; I can bet you $250 million.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I don't mind heckling with the Deputy Premier. It helps.

[ Page 11466 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd be thrilled if the Deputy Premier would move to his seat so he could heckle me properly and I could respond to his heckles properly, if that's what he wants to do.

I can tell you that I could go to any community in this province -- it doesn't matter which one -- and we could have a debate about that fast ferry project that the Premier smiles about and the Deputy Premier laughs about and says is a wonderful project and worth every penny, and I can guarantee you that there aren't five British Columbians who would agree with him -- not five. Even the people who work on it, who have worked like demons to try and make this thing work, know that it was messed up from the start by people like the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the people who are designing this project. It's not the workers' problem; it's not their fault. It's the fault of the minister, the Premier and the New Democrats, who failed from day one to set that project out on the right path. That's one example of what the government has done wrong.

But you know what was so discouraging and so disgraceful about the display yesterday by the minister and the government members? It was the fact that they have decided. . . . Because they are at record lows for any government in any province in Canada in the polls, because their support has virtually vanished, they know that if an election were called today. . . . The independent people out there, the academics, have said that they'd be lucky to win two seats.

[1450]

The member for New Westminster, who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in somewhere very hot of getting re-elected in the current state of affairs in New Westminster -- what does he do? He sits there in the House and applauds a budget that puts his children $2.7 billion more in debt than they were the day before. What does he say to the residents in his community about the disastrous way this government has managed their finances? What does he say to them when he has to go and explain to them that this whole budget is designed around not even trying to get re-elected but trying to shore up their base of support? After eight years of scandal-ridden, conflict-ridden, plague-ridden, theft-ridden government, somehow they have to restore their base.

An Hon. Member: Just a minute. What do you mean by theft?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked what I meant by theft. Theft is expropriating properties illegally from charities and then changing the law so that they can't take you to court. It's expropriating revenues from charities that belong to them legally and then changing the law so that they can't even go to the court to get it back. That's not my judgment; that's the judgment of the courts.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, are we going to allow this absolute nonsensical drivel to continue? It's outrageous.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, if it's outrageous, maybe the minister can stand on a point of privilege and reserve his right, come after me and do it the right way, rather than sitting there and heckling like he usually does, with drivel.

The fact of the matter is that the government has. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: You know, you guys don't understand parliament. That's why you're a failure in here. You're a failure in this House. Everybody knows it. You know it. It's outrageous.

The Speaker: Members, it's very difficult to hear the member who has been recognized with the floor to make his comments.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. It's a little hard to take, though, to hear the minister of the fast ferry fiasco, who was asleep at the switch with a $250 million cost overrun, the minister who got snookered by the Royal Bank and everyone else for $329 million for a pulp mill that doesn't work, tell us on this side that we've failed. If ever there was a measure of failure in the history of British Columbia politics, that member is the poster boy for it.

The fact of the matter is that this government has given up trying to start this economy, trying to get this economy on the right track. They've decided to continue off in the wrong direction; they've decided to continue off at ever-increasing speed. It's like being on the Trans-Canada Highway. Every other province in Canada is headed one way, and British Columbia is headed in exactly the opposite direction. Do they stop? Do they slow down? Do they turn around? Do they make a U-turn? Do they even turn left or right? No, they stomp on the gas pedal, to try to get there even faster.

The analysis and the comments we're hearing from inside the government -- from Mr. Gunton's office and, I think the phrase is, "people close to Mr. Gunton" -- is that the government is taking a political scorched-earth strategy, so that after the next election, whatever government it is that forms the government won't be able to balance the budget for a long time. Have they become so obsessed with their hatred for the opposition that they forget what their job is? Have they become so obsessed with their desire to mess up the Leader of the Opposition after the next election that they would destroy the finances of the province in order to achieve it? Is that the adviser the Minister of Finance relied upon for a $900 million deficit this year? If that's the logic that we've got on that side, what have we come to?

[1455]

[ Page 11467 ]

If Tommy Douglas were in this House today, sitting on that side, do you think he would be applauding when that budget speech was tabled? Do you think he would be clapping and laughing and joking during question period? Or do you think he'd be having some serious second thoughts about where the New Democratic Party had gone in the years since he left it? I don't think he would recognize this government at all -- not at all.

I know the Minister of Finance doesn't like me talking about Saskatchewan, and it's not a perfect comparison. But it's the only NDP government in Canada aside from this group -- and, hopefully, it stays that way. The reality is that there are differences. If any one of those members from Saskatchewan came and sat in this House and saw what this government did with this budget, they would be appalled. They would be scandalized that that's the kind of budget that a New Democrat government would bring forward.

Tommy Douglas always believed that you can take care of people without breaking the bank. You can have volunteers play their parts without pushing them out in favour of unionized workers only. He knew that health care was important, but he knew that you had to pinch pennies in order to deliver it. He knew that education was important, but he knew that you had be careful about where the money went in order to pay for it. He knew that highways were important -- he built the grid system in Saskatchewan -- but he knew that if all you did was borrow money, at the end of the day you wouldn't have enough to do it or to maintain the ones you'd built. He knew that hydroelectricity was important; he knew that electricity was significant to economic growth. He also knew that you couldn't shut down the company that was doing it. You couldn't strip it down; you couldn't sell it off. You couldn't force it to go borrow money to pay for the day-to-day expenditures of the government without destroying it.

Where has the New Democratic Party gone? What has happened to it? Has it lost its way so much that we get this kind of budget at this period of time in B.C.'s history? If this is the shift to the centre that we were told about two months ago, I shudder to think what we would have seen if the Premier had decided in January to shift to the left. There wouldn't be anything left. Where is the centre in this budget that the Premier talked about?

The new Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and of fast ferries said that the reason he joined the New Democratic Party wasn't so he could have a cushy cabinet seat. It wasn't so he could finally have a bunch of staff to run around and clean up after him. It wasn't so he could get his face in the paper. It wasn't for self-aggrandizement at all; it was because he had some difference he was going to make. He was going to put his imprint on the New Democratic Party. He was going to shift it to the centre. He was going to make sure that the New Democratic Party was back where it belonged, that it was listening to real people. Well, if this is his impact in two months, heaven help us after he's been there a year -- if he's there a year. Is that the contribution that's been made? Is this as good as it gets? Is this the shift to the centre? Heaven help us if it is.

One of our staff members came across a document that had a quote from Hansard that I want to read to the House, because it just shows you how far the New Democratic Party has strayed from its roots, from the accountability that it used to preach before it became government. I want to read something out of Hansard. It says:

"The budget contains the largest deficit in British Columbia history -- over $1.2 billion. It marks the second large deficit in a row, and it projects continued high deficits into the future. The budget reveals that the province's direct debt has more than doubled since this government came to power. . . . It is now $9 billion." It's a lot more than that now.

"The budget does not have one new idea on how to protect jobs and paycheques of British Columbians, at the very time that the Conference Board is predicting that B.C. will have the worst economic performance of any province in Canada.

"The budget is a big-lie budget. . . . It contains misleading bookkeeping, contrary to the recommendations of the auditor general and every reputable financial analyst in Canada. A $746 million deficit last year is portrayed as a $15 million surplus." That sounds familiar.

"This government has had five years to improve the lives of British Columbians" -- this one has had eight -- "and it has been five years of neglect. . . . It has shown a lack of commitment to financial accountability. Above all, it has shown a lack of commitment to honesty."

[1500]

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

G. Farrell-Collins: It was the current-day Premier of British Columbia who said that in 1991, before he came to government. Now he's the Premier of the province. If you're not careful, you become that which you despise; that's exactly what happened to the Premier of the province. He's morphed into Bill Vander Zalm.

How does somebody read their words eight years later and reconcile themselves with that? How do you do that -- I mean personally, on a personal level? How do you read that and look at that and say: "Who was I then? And who am I now as a person?" How do you reconcile yourself with that? When you think of how much the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the current Premier, despised the Social Credit government, how much he ridiculed them, how much he ran down that government and said they were so incompetent, how many times he did that and with such great vitriol. . . . He became known as a pit bull for that. How does he read his words eight years later and reconcile himself with that on a personal basis? As he's about to leave political life -- not of his own doing but the doing of the members of his caucus and his cabinet -- and as he's about to depart from his public life, how does he go back and say: "Where was I when I started? And what have I done? What have I accomplished in my eight years in government? What have I done for the people of British Columbia?"

[ Page 11468 ]

One of the things that also upset me yesterday with the Minister of Finance's speech was just the -- I can't use the word "dishonest," so I won't use it; I'm trying to think of another word, so let me put it this way -- less than full explanation she made of a comment attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. She says he said about health care that $6 billion was enough. Let me flesh that one out a little bit; let me put the truth around that one; let me explain the context of it.

In 1991, when I and some of my colleagues first got elected, the Royal Commission on Health Care, the Seaton commission, had just reported out. It was a very, very significant document. The member for Richmond East was the Health critic at the time, so I'm sure she read it through many times. Justice Seaton said there was a lot of money in health care. In fact, he said, "There's enough money in health care. We've just got to spend it better. We've got to make sure it's getting down to the patients" -- that is, getting into the rooms with the patients, on the wards, in the operating rooms, not in the administrative part of the hospitals.

When the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, the Leader of the Opposition, was in Nanaimo and was talking about health care, he was asked. He said: "Look, Justice Seaton said that there is enough money in health care. We just need to spend it more wisely." The government has taken that quote and turned it into meaning that the Liberal opposition and the Leader of the Opposition say that $6 billion is enough for health care, forever. That was 1991.

For the Minister of Finance and the Premier -- and I know the Deputy Premier has done it too -- to stand up and distort that, take that out of context and try to deceive British Columbians into thinking that this is the position of the opposition is disgraceful, quite frankly. Why don't they tell the truth? Why don't they give the entire context? Why can't they understand the comments of the justice, who did. . . ?

[1505]

That's the kind of honesty this government has come to represent. That's the kind of messaging that gets across to the public. That's the kind of information that the NDP is giving to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members -- minister. I would like to encourage members to come to order, please, while the member is speaking. He does have the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I know that everybody's frustrated with the way the health care system is or isn't working in this province. Everybody is very frustrated.

The minister shakes her head. She's not frustrated.

Hon. J. MacPhail: More than frustrated.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's more than frustrated. I would agree with her -- very frustrated. The reality is that the minister stood up in the House yesterday and said they're going to put hundreds of millions of dollars -- more money -- into health care and that that's going to solve the problems. The wait-lists will disappear, everybody will be fine, and the health care system will be perfect. But a little over a month ago, on February 9, the Minister of Finance -- who has spent time as Minister of Health, I might add -- said: "Why is it, when we add hundreds of millions of dollars each year, that waiting times [for surgery] increase?" That's the frustration on the opposition side too.

And then what does she do? She goes and throws a few more hundred million dollars into it, with no plan as to how to use that money, with no idea of how they're going to make sure that that money gets into the operating rooms. They don't have any idea of measuring if it's going to work. They have no way to even tell if the hundreds of millions of dollars they're putting in are actually going to be of benefit -- are actually going to increase the quality of health care in British Columbia. She just stands up and she smiles, and the Minister of Health smiles, and she announces the money she's going to put into health care, and everybody on that side applauds and asks the opposition where they stand.

Let me look for a moment at what the Premier said on February 19 on radio station CKNW, ten days after the Minister of Finance. He said: "I'm getting tired of making announcements, and six months later or three months later the wait-lists are still there. And we keep putting money in."

I agree with him. Let's solve the problem. The problem here obviously isn't that the government isn't throwing a lot of money into it. The problem is that they're not tracking the money they're putting into it. They're not planning for it; they're not measuring. They're not determining and making sure that those dollars are going into the operating rooms, into patient care, onto the wards and to the nurses to make sure that people can get the surgeries they need when they need them.

Let me just compare for a minute. The government likes to run down the health care system in Alberta. They constantly talk about the cut-and-burn -- the cut-and-slash or slash-and-burn or whatever it is -- of the Alberta health care system. They continually do it. They hold it out as the bogeyman of how awful the province would be if we did what Alberta did. And then quietly, when nobody's watching, they fly patients, at cost of thousands of dollars, from British Columbia to Alberta to get health care -- to get heart surgeries, hip replacements, orthopedic surgery, cancer treatments. They send them south of the border to that demon of all demons, according to them -- to the big, evil United States -- to get health care, to get an MRI.

[1510]

[ Page 11469 ]

Hon. Speaker, let's talk a little bit, if we can, about the impact of this budget on the economy, because quite frankly, that's a big part of what a budget is about. British Columbia used to be the number one province in Canada as far as economic growth goes. We were booming; we were doing well. We sat out the last recession. British Columbia was on the top of the world. People wanted to come here. It's a great place to live. They knew if they came here and they worked hard and they brought their families, they could make a good life for themselves.

British Columbia is now the last place, as far as economic growth goes, in the country. We're the only province in Canada that's in a recession. We were in a recession last year, we are in a recession this year, and we will probably be in a recession next year. So what is in this budget that's going to turn the province around? What is it that's going to make a difference in this province? What is in this budget that's going to get B.C. back on track? The government will tell you that they're not going to cut their way out of the recession; they're going to spend their way out of the recession.

Let's look at what has happened to British Columbia since 1996 as far as job growth goes. The government will stand up and tell you about the thousands of jobs they've created in the last few months, about how wonderful everything is. "All our problems are behind us. Everything's wonderful." Let's look at what has happened. Since 1996, British Columbia has increased the employment in the public sector by about 13,000 people. There are 13,000 more people working in the public sector -- that means they get their paycheque from government, from the taxpayers -- and there are approximately 13,000 fewer people working in the private sector than there were three years ago.

So what does that mean? It means that the burden on the taxpayer is going up at a time when the private sector economy, which pays the bills to the government to pay the cheques and the salaries of those public sector employees, is going down. You've got a pull; it's pulling apart. The private sector is shrinking. They're the ones that pay the taxes. The public sector is ballooning. They're the ones that take the taxes. Where does it end? Does going out and borrowing another $2.7 billion and running the eighth consecutive deficit budget turn it around? Is that going to convince people from across Canada and across North America and across Asia to come to British Columbia and invest here? I don't think so.

This budget has probably been the largest, brightest SOS flare ever sent up in the history of the world. There's this big, glowing flare over top of British Columbia that every investor in the world can see today, which says: "Warning. Don't go to British Columbia. They'll tax the living daylights out of you. They'll put you out of business. They won't play fair with you. They'll change the law if they don't like it. They'll expropriate your property without compensation." And the Minister of Finance tells us that she's going to grow her way out of this recession.

G. Plant: Glow.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah -- glow, perhaps. Maybe I misunderstood her.

But it seems to me that if the government were trying to actually turn the economy around -- maybe they're not even trying anymore -- they'd be trying to do things that would attract investors to British Columbia and encourage the investors who live in British Columbia to stay in British Columbia.

[1515]

That's where the government loses. If you think you can tax and spend and borrow your way to prosperity, you're in the wrong. . . . You know, this must be the twilight zone or something, because it doesn't work. It doesn't work anywhere. Whenever the government pushes those businesses out, not only do they lose a little bit of revenue, they lose all of the revenue associated with those businesses and with their employees. That means that there are fewer businesses and fewer employees paying taxes in B.C., and there is lower tax revenue, which would normally allow you to pay for the programs that people want.

In this year alone, since January 1, 37 businesses -- and that was as of about a week ago -- have left British Columbia for Alberta. They took with them their employees, their knowledge and their capital. It's all gone to Alberta, and all the tax dollars that are coming out of that company and that enterprise are going to fund the Alberta tax base, not the British Columbia tax base.

I know that the Minister of Finance likes to denigrate business. She likes to run business down. She likes to talk about how bad business is, how all they want to do is cut and slash and how they don't care about anybody. But it's not just businesses that are leaving British Columbia; it's people. Actual individual British Columbians are packing up and leaving. Hon. Speaker, I know I'm not supposed to have a chart, so I won't actually lift it up and show it. But I've got a chart in front of me which looks at the out-migration of people from British Columbia to Alberta and to other jurisdictions. From 1995 to 1998 -- so three years. . . . I'm sorry; I apologize. It's worse than I thought. In 1998 alone, 20,553 people from British Columbia moved to Alberta.

That's more than all the people who live in Bulkley Valley-Stikine or, I think, Peace River North. You could move

[ Page 11470 ]

But that's 20,553 British Columbians who have left B.C. and gone to Alberta. That doesn't tell us how many people left B.C. for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec or any of the maritime provinces. It doesn't talk about all the high-tech people, the highly skilled people who've picked up and moved to Washington State, Beaverton in Oregon or the Ottawa Valley in Ontario. It doesn't tell us anything about those people. Those are StatsCan numbers. Those aren't my numbers; those are numbers put out by Statistics Canada.

So it's not just business people who are voting with their feet. Actual British Columbians are leaving. B.C. used to be the place everybody came to. It used to be the place everybody wanted to retire in. It used to be the place that everybody wanted to come to live in. I would argue that people are still coming and retiring in British Columbia; they're still doing that. It's the people who are here already, the young people looking for work or the professional people, who are leaving. People are retiring to British Columbia, and that means that down the road we're going to have a large drawdown on our health care budget. We won't have the young people, the businesses, the entrepreneurs and the workers to pay the taxes to support it.

[1520]

I don't know which economists they're reading; I don't know which people are advising them. But I can't find anybody who will tell you in this modern day that the way to get your economy back on track is to spend your way out of it -- for massive government spending, for massive capital expenditures, for $2.7 billion in new debt at a time when the economy is struggling just to get by. Who is it who's telling them that it's the way to go? Where are the advisers and intellectuals and economists and the people that have experience in other provinces across Canada and the other political leaders that are telling them that is the way to go?

There isn't one other government in North America -- not one -- that is taking the tack that this government is taking. That's why it's so irresponsible. If half of the governments were doing it and this government decided to go with that half, at least they'd have a reasonable explanation. They'd say: "Look at it; there's a difference of opinion out there. Some people think we should do this; some people think we should do that. We're going to go one way. You guys go another way." Then we could have a debate about it. At least it would have been a responsible choice. We could argue about the wisdom of it, but at least there would be some rationale for it. But there isn't one government -- left-wing, right-wing, centre, extreme left, extreme right -- that is doing what this government is choosing to do -- not one government in North America. There are two territories, ten provinces, 50 states, two federal governments, and not one of them is making the choice that British Columbia is making.

Where is the rationale for it? How do they explain the wisdom of their approach to the voters in British Columbia? What explanation does the Minister of Finance use when she is telling people why it is they're doing the exact opposite of every other state, every other government in North America? I don't hear it; I haven't heard it yet. It certainly wasn't in the budget speech. All we heard was that she was going to spend her way out of the deficit, spend her way out of the recession, grow her way out of the recession.

There's no justification; there's no rationale. There's no logic other than pure politics. It comes back to what I said earlier: it's pure politics. They're at 11 or 18 percent in the polls; when you get down that low, it doesn't really matter what the number is. They've been stuck there for over a year -- a year and a half. They went there almost right after the election, and they've stayed there.

Every kind of trick the Premier was using -- the announcement a day, the press releases, the press conferences, the big megaprojects. . . . He's still campaigning; it's the only thing he knows how to do. He can campaign. He can't govern worth anything, but he can campaign. Everything the Premier is doing is doing nothing; it's accomplishing nothing. He's like a magician who's run out of tricks. The crowd wants more, and he doesn't know what to give them. He's like the singer in the lousy bar who's run out of songs, and the crowd's getting raucous. He keeps singing the same one over and over again, and they don't like to hear it. The Premier has run out of tricks. He has nothing left. He's run out of gas. He's got no new ideas. There's no idea of how to turn this around.

So what does he do? He goes back to his basics. He says: "Let's go out there and give our core supporters what they want. Let's go out there and convince them that it's okay to run the debt up. It's fine to spend like nothing, like there's no tomorrow. It's fine to rack up the debt further than we can afford to pay." He will do anything he can to convince his core supporters that it's okay to support the NDP and that they don't have to worry about it. "We're not as bad as everybody else." That's the strategy. That's what it's come to. After eight years in government, the Premier has become that which he used to despise. He is who he hated. He's become that person.

[1525]

But you didn't run on that. You told British Columbians that you were going to balance the budgets, that the days of deficits were gone, that they were going to pay down the debt and that British Columbia was on the right track. They told us that everything was going to be fine. I think the budget speech in 1996 said that it was an end to deficit spending, an end to borrowing money to cover operating debt. That's what they ran on. That's the mandate the people of British Columbia gave them. So if they want to go in the opposite direction completely, if they're going to change that tactic and go in exactly the opposite direction, maybe they should get a mandate from the people to do that.

[ Page 11471 ]

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that Bill 54 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1999-2000 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial three months of the 1999-2000 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 1999.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. In previous years, interim supply for these other financing transactions has received the full year's requirement in interim supply. This bill seeks supply for only 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 1999.

Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages today.

The Speaker: I'll recess for three to five minutes so the bill can be circulated, and then I'll come back and the Chair will make a ruling.

The House recessed from 3:30 p.m. to 3:35 p.m.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm going to call the House back to order. When the members come to order, I will. . . .

The Chair is about to make a ruling on the request for use of standing order 81. This interim supply bill falls into the category of a bill which has in the past indeed been permitted to advance through all stages in one day, and for this bill, I so rule.

Bill 54 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1999
(second reading)

The first section of the bill requests one-quarter of the voted expenses as presented in the estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government. In previous years 100 percent of financing transaction requirements has been provided for in the interim supply bill. However, because the nature of these requests has changed to include a considerable portion of capital spending for schools, post-secondary institutions, health facilities, transit and all of the government's direct capital spending, it seems appropriate to seek supply for only one-half now and the balance in the final supply bill. This will allow time later for more complete debate on these items. These requirements are set out in schedules C, D and E of the estimates.

The third section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and transferred to other entities, which appear in schedule F of the estimates. As there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular financing transactions, 100 percent of the year's requirements is being sought in this supply bill.

I move second reading of Bill 54.

R. Thorpe: Bill 54, interim supply act. The province is about to run out of money in eight and a half hours. This is the advance planning that this government is able to do. This is how they treat the moneys of hard-working British Columbians. This government is about to run out of money.

In hard-working British Columbians' language, this is required because this government has overspent, not managed its budget; or in this particular government's case, is another example of total, complete NDP incompetence. They have lost the credibility of British Columbians. They have lost the trust of British Columbians. It was only about a year ago that the Finance minister stood in this House and said: "The deficit will be $95 million, and I will do whatever is required to ensure that that's the deficit. We'll do whatever it takes." The only reason. . . . Hon. Speaker, the minister said she didn't introduce a balanced budget a year ago "because," she said, "people wouldn't believe me." Well, guess what's happened. The truth is out once again. The government will tell everybody, in their own document on page 29, that the deficit is going to be $544 million for this year, but in fact it's going to be $1.158 billion -- once again, not being able to tell British Columbians the truth.

G. Plant: Well, it's close to $95 million.

R. Thorpe: It's close in NDP terms -- $95 million and $1.158 billion. They say there's no problem. Well, since we left this House, I've been travelling throughout my constituency talking to constituents in Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton. I have met with many groups, numerous individuals. I regret to inform this House that the hard-working

[ Page 11472 ]

[1540]

Hon. Speaker, have you ever noticed -- I'm sure you have noticed -- how this government always blames someone else? It's always someone else's fault -- always passing the blame, never solving the problem. It's the doctors or the nurses or the health administrators or the Asian flu or whatever, but it's never their fault -- or it's a right-wing conspiracy. Since when did the truth become a conspiracy? It's really about what's right versus what is simply, simply wrong. And what is wrong is this government.

Very recently a new member -- although I personally called him No. 40 prior to his crossing the floor -- walked across the floor. You can now see him perched directly behind the Premier. It's almost like there's a string: the Premier pulls it, the head moves in orchestration. But what did this new NDP member say on April 10, 1997? What did he say? He was talking about the budget -- and I quote: "This budget can arguably be suggested to be fiscally prudent if -- and only if -- the government can demonstrate, can prove without question, that it has a debt management plan that is secure, is sound, and has had some kind of history of success. Regrettably, that is not evidenced in any of the documentation that's tabled in this House now. It wasn't evidenced last year, the year before or the year before that."

I ask that member: where are his principles today? Tell British Columbians where his principles are today. Stand up and be accounted for, because this government has no plan, it has no accountability, and they are going to spend and spend. The deficit next year isn't going to be $890 million; it's going to be $1.529 billion -- the government's own document. So get that member in here, and have him stand up and talk on his principles.

What do British Columbians want besides a government that tells the truth and is truthful when it makes a mistake? There is no shame in making mistakes; the honour is in admitting your mistakes. I'm reminded from time to time that the person who makes no mistakes usually makes nothing.

What else to British Columbians strive for? They want jobs for everyone, not just their friends and insiders. They want an education system that truly puts the student as the number one priority. British Columbians want a health care system that looks after all of the patients -- that is focused on patients and is not focused on a bureaucracy. They want a business environment that allows small businesses to develop, rather than be preoccupied and strangled by the ever-increasing, unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles of this government.

[1545]

People have made reference in here today to quotes of the Health minister. She cannot run away from those. But I want to talk about who's really affected by the deceitfulness and untruthfulness of this government. It is constituents like Lily Preston in my riding, who -- because of their incompetence, lack of vision and lack of planning in the health care system -- at 95 years of age cannot stay in Penticton to be close to her family but has to be moved to Oliver for long-term care. And I'm telling you, hon. Speaker, that that is wrong.

It's also about five-year-old Jeremy Rodrigues, his mother Barbara and his father Joe. Jeremy is an autistic child. The parents want nothing more than you or I want for our children. They want to be able to care. . . . It's too bad that some people let politics get in the way of young children. The Rodrigues family want to care for Jeremy, and this government is denying them the opportunity to look after their autistic child. That is wrong, yet they're going to say that they care about health care and that they care about people. No way, hon. Speaker. And they wonder why people are increasing in their cynicism towards this untrustworthy government.

Who said that the easiest thing he could imagine was to balance a budget? Yes, you guessed it; it was the Premier. And eight deficits later the debt has grown from $17 billion to $34.7 billion. In a mere eight years it has doubled. The NDP fiscal record of management skills was able to double the debt in British Columbia in eight years -- double all debts of all the governments before them. Isn't that an amazing achievement? At the same time, Lily Preston can't get care; nor can Jeremy Rodrigues.

Who said he'd pay back Nanaimo charities and has not? Who said the Island Highway would be done on time and on budget -- and then changed the specs of the projects? Who said the fast ferries would be on budget and on time? Who said they were casual acquaintances, and days later we learned that they were vacationing together for two weeks? Who said his government would take care of health care and has not? Wait-lists just grow. Who said they would cut the number of portables in half, and in fact, they've doubled them? You guessed it: the Premier and the NDP.

Remember the line: "You spoke; we listened"? This House deserves the truth. British Columbians demand and deserve that the truth be spoken to them all of the time. Instead of us debating this interim supply due to the fiscal irresponsibility and incompetence of this government, this

[ Page 11473 ]

I just have to get this quote in. On February 9, 1999, the Finance minister said: "Why is it, when we add hundreds of millions of dollars each year, that waiting times [for surgery] increase?" Why would the Finance minister make that statement if she didn't believe it?

[1550]

This government has to stop blaming others. Our problems are not caused because there is not enough money. The NDP government has created this debt because of their incompetence. I'm reminded of a Public Accounts meeting when we were talking about the money that this government has spent on regionalization -- some $40 million. After several rounds of questioning, the Deputy Minister of Health finally admitted that the ministry did not have a business plan for the implementation of regionalization and the spending of $40 million. That is the type of incompetence that exists on that side of the House.

This government apparently does not understand that there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. The people of Okanagan-Penticton asked this government to stop their irresponsible approach with their money and their future and to start listening and acting on the wishes and wants of all British Columbians, not just their special friends and insiders. Listen to the Street family; listen to the Rodriguez family. Listen. Start taking real action. Stop the photo ops and the smokescreens and the increasing of debt in the billions of dollars.

I am proud to serve my constituents and the citizens of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton, and on their behalf I will vote against this interim supply, as this government does not have the confidence of British Columbia. This NDP government does not speak the truth and is not accountable and is simply incompetent. This government does not deserve one additional red cent. This government must start practising what British Columbians have to do each and every day in their houses. That's balance their books and make real choices.

Only three years ago we heard great claims of two balanced budgets -- the "big-lie budget." Now the truth has come out, the truth in the auditor general's report. But this government still doesn't get it. I cannot support this government getting more money. The tax-and-spend and debt policies of the NDP government are going to put our critical and vital services of health care, which is about patients, and education, which is about our students -- those truly in need of care -- into a desperate position. Our communities cannot be expected to pick up that shortfall.

British Columbians know that irresponsible spending leads to crisis. Under this NDP government it is crisis after crisis. Yet they still don't get it. Yet they smirk; yet they joke. Yet they laugh all the time, while British Columbians continue to suffer and to see their paycheques shrink. They say that they hide behind the fact that it's about tough choices. Skeena Cellulose, at $450 million, didn't seem to be a big choice. Fast ferries, at $450 million, didn't seem to be a tough choice. SkyTrain, at $2.5-3.5 billion, didn't seem to be a tough choice. The Forest Practices Code, at $1 billion, doesn't seem to be a big choice.

Hon. D. Miller: Read the budget.

R. Thorpe: I'd like to just answer the member for North Coast over there. There's no sense in reading the budget, because it's never the truth. One day you should read it.

Government advertising -- $50 million. That didn't seem to be a tough choice for this government. And $300 million for a convention centre. That didn't seem to be a tough choice.

[1555]

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Fee-fee. Read page 65 in your own budget book. Fees are going up $47 million. And here's the big catch: "Other fees and licence changes will be introduced during the year as ministries continue to examine their fees and services to ensure that users pay a fair share of the direct costs of providing services."

We have the highest tax rates in Canada, and now we want to make sure that people are paying their fair share. If they were paying their fair share, this budget would have had a tax decrease in it for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

British Columbians want results. Above all, they want honesty in those results and for government to keep its books the way they have to keep their books.

The citizens of Okanagan-Penticton do not and will not buy into this sham of a government. Quite frankly, my constituents are offended by the government's ongoing propaganda machine, by the NDP party and all their misleading advertising. This money should be going to patient care and education. The citizens of Peachland, Summerland, Naramata and Penticton want their money, their hard-earned tax dollar, truly spent on patient care and education. They don't want any more money wasted on government propaganda. This masquerade must stop. Unfortunately, I'm concerned that it'll just be starting next week when they spend millions and millions of dollars telling everybody what a great, wonderful job they're doing and how they should be so appreciative.

British Columbians must always remember: it's not the government's money they're spending. This government cannot continue to attempt to fool British Columbians that it's government's money. There is only one taxpayer. This fiscal approach of introducing an interim supply eight and a half hours before the province is going to run out of money. . . . And next week or the week after, we'll be debating the budget and the irresponsible approach that it has. Those things are going to put our critical services of health care, education, children and families seriously at risk, and that is simply, simply wrong.

On April 20, 1990, as recorded on page 9068 of Hansard, the now Premier stated that the budget of the government of

[ Page 11474 ]

Today I challenge the Premier of British Columbia to support the Leader of the Opposition's Truth in Budgeting Act. Why doesn't the current Premier stand up and support the truth-in-budgeting legislation as proposed by the official opposition? Could it be that he just wants to continue, with the Finance minister, to mislead British Columbia? Is that a possibility?

[1600]

This incompetent NDP government is seeking interim supply because of their irresponsibility and their incompetent fiscal management. In their own documents, on page 29, the deficit was going to be $95 million this year, and the Finance minister promised that she would do whatever it took to make sure that number came in. She said that in the fall: ". . .do whatever it takes." They'll try to tell us that that deficit now is $544 million, but the truth is that it's $1.158 billion. Looking forward, the real deficit for next year is not going to be $890 million, as they would try to lead us and British Columbians to believe; it's going to be $1.5 billion. They're not telling the truth.

This government has lost its moral compass to govern, to look after those truly in need, like Jeremy Rodrigues and Lily Preston, and I cannot support giving this fiscally irresponsible NDP government one additional cent. My constituents say no to the NDP. You break the law, you don't tell the truth, you break the Criminal Code of Canada, you are subject to RCMP investigations, and you do not have the confidence or support of 77 percent of British Columbians. I cannot -- I will not -- support this request for additional funds, because this government does not have the confidence of British Columbians. Not one red cent to this government.

M. de Jong: It was Sunday night, and I was getting ready to come back to Victoria for the resumption of the session -- a session that we all thought was going to commence a couple of months ago. Of course, in order to believe that was going to happen, you would have to believe what the Premier said. But more about that later.

I'm at home in Abbotsford, I've got a couple of friends over, and we're chatting. Things aren't so good for them. A couple of them are out of work. A couple of them have some kids who are having to go to Alberta because they can't find work in British Columbia. But we're trying to have a night where we forget about that. We forget about what's happened to the economy in British Columbia, we forget about all of the bad news, so much of which is attributable to things that this NDP government has done, and we're going to leave all that behind for one night. We're going to watch a little sports, and we've got TSN on. Who do you think would show up on the screen on TSN, Madam Speaker? It was the Premier. Can you imagine? The captain of the team that has finished below 500 for eight consecutive seasons, whose bench is so weak that the member for Yale-Lillooet gets to play on the first line -- the captain of that team is now giving advice to professional hockey teams. Can you imagine that?

[1605]

M. de Jong: Who knows? Maybe he is planning for his future.

So yesterday it really didn't come as much of a surprise to me that British Columbians found out that for the eighth consecutive year, their so-called balanced budget team was finishing out of the playoffs one more time. I've got a little bit of advice. . . . And this is what the boys at my place Sunday night asked me to say to the Premier, Madam Speaker, and I want to do that now, through you. The advice they had for the Premier was: "For God's sake, take off your jersey, hang up your skates, and get out before you bankrupt the franchise." That, I'm afraid, is what this Premier is intent on doing.

So here we are. It's interim supply time again. I have to say I'm surprised that we're having the debate here on March 31 at 4:05 in the afternoon, because as I said, we were supposed to be here a month and a half ago. Remember, it was the Premier who said at the end of January: "We're going to take a couple of weeks off, because we've got a new member on the bench; we've got a new member on the squad. We're going to give him a couple of weeks to get up to speed on his new portfolio, and then we're coming back to do the people's business." Well, if you can believe this, the Premier broke his word.

G. Plant: Maybe he had an injury problem.

M. de Jong: Maybe he did. Maybe he had an injury problem. I hope he didn't, because if he had to get any health care services in this province, he'd be waiting for a lot more than two months.

So the two weeks turned into two months. The Premier's attitude, when we confronted him with that a couple of days ago was: "So what?" It has become so commonplace for this Premier and this NDP government to break faith with the people of British Columbia that they just dismiss it out of hand as if it's nothing significant whatsoever.

But this is the people's money we're talking about. This is a budget of billions and billions of dollars that doesn't belong to the government; it belongs to the people of the province of British Columbia. These members -- this cabinet, these backbenchers -- are so contemptuous of those people that they want this House to vote approval of interim supply in a couple of hours. What folly! What contempt! How sad! What's even sadder is that members of this NDP caucus, the back bench included, stood and cheered when the Premier dismissed, out of hand, his latest broken promise. That's what's really sad. That's what's really troubling to the people of British Columbia -- that these NDP members would have so little regard for them that they would cheer when their leader and their Premier breaks his word to British Columbians.

But you know, there is another reason that I'm surprised we're having this debate. As I mentioned earlier, there's a new member of the team over there -- a new member of the

[ Page 11475 ]

G. Plant: That was before the trading deadline.

M. de Jong: Before the trading deadline, before the government picked him up on waivers.

I remember that member arguing aggressively and passionately, as a fundamental tenet of his being in this House, for the need to rethink the budgetary process, to move away from these interim supply debates. He said that it was something that needed to happen so that the people's business could be undertaken in an atmosphere that wasn't designed to develop crisis, that wasn't conducted with the clock ticking away to when, in just eight hours, the government loses all spending authority. Madam Speaker, can you imagine that in a province the size of British Columbia, the government would wait until eight hours before it has lost spending authority to bring forward legislation that we could have been dealing with two months ago -- and should have been dealing with two months ago? Yet that's how they operate. And is it any surprise that we find ourselves in the dire economic straits that we do if that is the method by which they presume to manage the public purse?

[1610]

". . .it's not my intention to repeat a lot of the comments with respect to the inappropriateness of warrant spending. As the member for Delta South correctly pointed out, virtually all of the members who now sit on the government side and who were sitting on this side in opposition made a commitment that they would not use special warrants. Yet here we are once again, in the sixth or seventh subsequent year of their government, having to bring them in."

"I suggest that what is necessary if we are to get serious about eliminating interim supply and putting in place a better system of budgeting and budgetary delivery is the opportunity for us to go into multi-year budgeting, to be able to do long-range planning, to be able to carry a surplus from one fiscal year. . . " and so forth.

"What I'm saddened by in this warrant is that nothing has changed in our approach to budgeting in the time that I've been elected. From 1991, being elected in the fall of that year, we went to special warrants in '92, '93, '94, '95 and '96. We had an election in '96. We had a new Premier, somebody who was on record as being entirely opposed to special warrants. Here we are through '97 and now into 1998, with a budget that essentially requires us once again to go to special warrants."

The finale to that passionate address was:

"That's the difference between members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party. As this session continues and we proceed through the next number of months, I think that those differences are going to become more and more obvious to those who follow and deal with our debates. They will become more and more obvious as we start to recognize the different approach that each of the parties represented in this Legislative Assembly will take toward solving the needs of the people of British Columbia."

G. Plant: What happened to the PDA?

M. de Jong: My colleague from Richmond-Steveston says: "What happened to the PDA?" I don't want to dwell on that, because what we heard was that. . . . The member told us that in making his move, he justified it on the basis that the New Democratic Party was (a) moving to the centre, and (b) agreeing to adopt all of the policies of his party.

Well, we have already seen the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast distance himself from comments he made about the Nisga'a treaty, but that's something for another debate. Here again we see that either apparently the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast was being overly optimistic about the budgetary process and the influence he would be able to bring to bear, or he simply wasn't being forthright with British Columbians at the time he made that crass move, which can only be described as the worst form of political opportunism.

Let's dispel all these myths about the principles that went with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. Let's dispel all these myths about the move to the centre that that was supposed to represent. As my colleague the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said just a few moments ago, if what we see in this budget represents a move to the centre, God forbid that this government would have decided to move to the left, because bankruptcy, in that case, wouldn't be far behind. It's not far behind now, as the situation stands.

[1615]

Well, I can explain it. It's because no one takes this government seriously. Why would they bother taking the day off from work? I know that this is going to shock members of the government benches, but there are still some people in British Columbia that have jobs. You haven't driven them all out of British Columbia. Why would they take a day off their jobs to come here to listen to something that has no basis in fact, that is a piece of fiction, that the government has no intention of following through on?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

They don't take the Premier seriously, they don't take the Finance minister seriously, and they don't take the govern-

[ Page 11476 ]

I think this bears repeating as we consider their request today for interim supply, because after all, one of the things we have to decide is whether or not they are deserving, whether or not we can trust the government to effectively manage the people's money.

So let's take a little trip down memory lane; we went through this briefly earlier today. Let's go back to 1992, when we began our trip down this debt-ridden path.

An Hon. Member: Descent into madness.

M. de Jong: Descent into madness, my colleague described it as. But there isn't anything. . . .

The minister is about to attend to other business, I suspect. The truth hurts; the truth about his economic ineptness, I'm sure, is difficult for him to deal with.

So in 1992 there was a deficit reduction strategy. In 1995 there was a debt management plan. You'll notice that the word "reduction" is missing. In fact, we haven't seen the word "reduction" since 1992. Then in 1997 we got the financial management plan. In 1998 we got the revised financial management plan. And in 1999, just one day ago, we get the five-year fiscal planning framework.

Let's see if government members were paying attention. Let's see if the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca and the member for Prince George-Mount Robson were paying attention. What is the one thing that all of those supposed debt management plans have in common? What's the one thing that links them all? They still don't know. I'll have to tell them.

Mr. Speaker, the government ignored every one of them. The NDP didn't come close to hitting the targets that in each of those years they set on budget day -- and made a solemn promise to British Columbians. "Trust us," they said. "This is the plan we have laid out for British Columbians. This is the plan for the future. Trust us to abide by it." Every single year, they came up short, and every single year, I daresay, they never had an intention to meet those targets. It was propaganda; it was public relations; it was smoke and mirrors. And 1999 is no different.

[1620]

I'm thrilled to death that the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca is in the House, because I think that he, and certainly his constituents, would want to hear what he had to say one year ago tomorrow about that budget. Only a year ago he stood in this chamber and said: "I'm proud that the government's 1997-98 fiscal and debt management targets were met and exceeded." Oops. You know what? I know he's going to stand up in the House today and ask for our forgiveness for making such a ridiculous statement. I know he's going to stand in the House today and say: "Mr. Speaker, I was wrong -- dead wrong."

Let me go on. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. . . . I know there are constituents of his listening now, and they were listening then. "The three-year financial plan will see continued fiscal discipline in government. The deficit for '98-99 will be halved to $95 million. I know that the opposition has been critical of that, but it's a step in the right direction. If you look at the historical trends as to the deficit, it's been halved, halved, halved. A balanced budget is projected for 1999-2000 and a surplus in the year 2000-2001." Hallelujah to the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

G. Plant: I feel like a have-not, not a have.

M. de Jong: As my friend from Richmond-Steveston says, yes indeed, this government is turning us into a have-not province.

It was, by the way. . . . Here's what I'm interested in. Malahat-Juan de Fuca last year described what he was selling as a reduction in the deficit as a step in the right direction. Either he's moonwalking backwards, or today he's going to stand up and tell us that the government is taking a step in the wrong direction. We've got a deficit that's ballooned over $1 billion. I'd be very interested to hear this. He concluded one year ago tomorrow with this crescendo: "Yes, debt is a problem, but under this plan there will be a reduction of the debt and, more importantly, what all of us have advocated, the elimination of the deficit." After the next election, perhaps the member can apply to be on my speech-writing staff, because those are inspiring words. If only they were true.

The Minister of Employment and Investment one year ago. . . . Let us be mindful that we are trying to assess the validity of the bill and the request for spending authority that we're dealing with today. We're dealing with Bill 54, interim supply. Some members of the government side will be uncomfortable hearing their own words, but we're trying to assess to what extent we can have faith in this document that's been tabled today, where the government presumes to spend billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars.

The Minister of Employment and Investment said, one year ago tomorrow, commenting on the last budget: "The result of this is a $95 million deficit -- a half of one percent of total provincial spending, virtually a balanced budget."

An Hon. Member: He meant a virtual balanced budget.

[1625]

It wouldn't be interim supply day if I didn't at least make reference to my friend across the river in Mission. I know his fan is watching. I know his one remaining supporter is watch-

[ Page 11477 ]

It would be funny if it weren't so sickening, Mr. Speaker. The people who are watching these debates, who remember a Finance minister. . . . I always keep these; sometimes I read them. This is a budget speech. Sometimes I read them to see if members of the government can determine what year they're from, and it's hard. Here's the one I love: the budget speech 1998, one year ago -- the same Minister of Finance. The headline was: "Moving to a Balanced Budget." That was the sales pitch: "We're moving to a balanced budget." The car is stuck in reverse.

"I have decided to set the deficit target for 1998-99 at $95 million, close to half the level of last year's deficit and less than half of 1 percent of the overall budget. I believe that this is a reasonable and prudent target. Of course, we will attempt to do better, as we did last year. If our economy performs at the levels presently forecast, it is our plan to have a balanced budget in 1999-2000 and to have a small surplus the year after."

What could be more offensive? What could show more contempt for the people of this province than a government that (a) won't tell them the truth, and (b) is now reduced to measuring its success by how high it can drive the deficit? It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy for these socialists. Everything else they do has turned to stone; everything else they've tried has failed, so now they're going to base their entire marketing strategy on this promise: "We can run bigger deficits than everyone else in the country combined." Well done. Bravo! Bravo!

[1630]

My friend from Richmond-Steveston, as I pass the baton to him in this debate, is going to talk about fees. He's going to talk about probate fees. He's going to talk about a government that collected money from the taxpayers of British Columbia that it had no authority to collect and that the Supreme Court of Canada said it had no authority to collect.

G. Plant: It's still collecting.

M. de Jong: It's still collecting those fees. To the people that had to pay them and who have now learned that there was no authority for the government to take that money from them, they snub their noses. The Attorney General snubs his nose. He ignores them.

What do they do in this budget that they now, today, ask us for interim supply for? They're going to continue raising those fees. They're going to tell us about the tax break -- the minuscule, insignificant tax break over here -- and while no one's looking, they're going to increase the amount of fees that they collect from British Columbians by millions and millions of dollars. At the end of the process, British Columbians are going to be worse off today and tomorrow than they were yesterday even. What will they have to show for it? They'll be another day older and deeper in debt, just like the song.

So when we're asked to accede to this government's last-minute wish -- a government that's been reduced to politics by desperation, a government that is going to reduce the economic landscape to nothing, because that's how it has decided it can possibly preserve a political presence in the province -- members of the government should know that we aren't going to give them a penny. We aren't going to accede to their wish for one plug nickel. That's something I daresay they'll hear from each opposition member today.

G. Plant: Well, it's March 31; March 31 is the end of the financial year for the government. At the close of this day, the government runs out of the money that they got -- they gave themselves, really -- permission to spend a year ago. So it's up to us here in this Legislature to figure out and to decide whether or not we should give this government any more money so that they can, starting tomorrow, run the government of British Columbia for a little while longer. To that end, the government has introduced Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999.

They're not asking for much.

An Hon. Member: How much?

G. Plant: They're not asking for much at all; right now they're just asking for $5.2 billion. They'd like us, in the next three of four hours or however long it takes, to give permission to them to spend that money. I've always thought that the NDP had a remarkable ability to decide to spend billions of dollars without much in the way of any consultation, consideration or thought. But this is pretty good, $5.2 billion.

M. de Jong: That's a billion an hour.

G. Plant: That's not bad at all. My friend from Matsqui points out that it's a billion an hour. Well, let's rush right through that, shall we? After all, what's $5.2 billion?

Actually, it's a little bit more than that. It's actually a little bit more than that because, in section 2 of Bill 54, the government is actually asking us for another $780 million towards disbursements for prepaid capital advances. They actually want virtually all the money, or maybe it's just half the money, for all of the capital expenditures that they're planning for the next year.

[1635]

[ Page 11478 ]

Actually, if you turn the page over, they even want another $730 million for voted revenue transfers appropriation. Well that's starting to get awfully close to $7 billion, but what's $1 billion or so among close friends?

M. de Jong: Mere aluminum lifeboats.

G. Plant: That's true. You could buy a number of fast ferries -- even Ferrari fast ferries.

An Hon. Member: Well, two.

G. Plant: Maybe even three, for $8 billion.

You know what? I might even, just for a nanosecond, be prepared to think about whether or not I would give the government permission to spend that money, because I know that over the course of the next few weeks, we're going to have an opportunity to debate the estimates. We're going to have an opportunity to examine the spending plans of each ministry, and we're going to be able to determine whether or not those spending plans reflect prudent, sound public policy.

I think I have an idea of how I'm going to resolve that question at the end of it, but I like to keep an open mind for as long as I possibly can. You know, that's not all that this bill asks us to do. When you look at the schedule, you find that this bill also asks us to approve money for the fiscal year that's already just about over. What does that mean? What that means is that when this government came and asked for the billions upon billions of dollars that they asked for last year -- and they got last year. . . . When they set out to spend it, they actually got a little bit carried away.

The Ministry for Children and Families spent $45 million more than they told us they needed a year ago. To be honest, they didn't really seek my input about how much they needed. There wasn't really any intensive consultation with members of the opposition on how much money the government needed to operate the Ministry for Children and Families. That was their decision. They came to the House and said: "You give us these billions and billions of dollars to operate the Ministry for Children and Families for the next year. That's all we need. That's okay. We can do the job we have to do." Oops, it wasn't quite enough. They're just a little $45 million short.

Then there's more. In the Ministry of Health, vote 48. . . . I can't do the arithmetic as quickly as I'd like. It looks to me like $124 million was the shortfall there. In fact if you add up the shortfall, it's almost $170 million.

I'm confused and disappointed all at the same time, because I sat here a year ago, and I heard the Minister of Finance -- that was then her first budget -- deliver her budget speech.

M. de Jong: Was that her first balanced budget?

G. Plant: No, I think that was her first qualified, conditional, modified, soon-to-be-revised, fiscal-framework-arrangement-but-not-quite-plan budget speech. It was a long speech, as these speeches are, and I listened closely, because sometimes you do have to listen closely to actually get the facts. One thing struck me about the Finance minister's speech. That's the part that begins on page 13 of the text that she kindly printed for public distribution. The heading is a good one. It says: "A Prudent Fiscal Plan." She begins it by saying: "Hon. Speaker, let me now turn to our financial bottom line." That's good. Over the page she talks about maintaining principles of fiscal sustainability. Then she says this: ". . .budget forecasts must be built on prudent economic assumptions." I heard that and I thought: that's great; that's excellent.

[1640]

An. Hon. Member: Who said that?

G. Plant: That was the Minister of Finance a year ago.

I know what I was supposed to think. I was supposed to think: yes, this is a government that has a firm hand on the ship of state. This is a government that's going to make no unreasonable, unfounded predictions or assumptions. This is a government that is going to wisely, prudently, cautiously and carefully spend only the money that we are going to give them permission to spend. In fact, that was not what happened.

I'll talk, if I get a moment in due course, about the bigger-picture issues of the deficit and the surplus, but I want to begin by talking about special warrants. Everything about the Finance minister's projections and promises is proved false in the simple fact that they couldn't even live within their expenditure budget. They had to go down the hall to the Lieutenant-Governor and get permission in private to spend $169 million more than they asked the Legislature for last year, because they couldn't manage a peanut stand; they couldn't manage their way across a crosswalk. That's $169 million worth of bad planning, bad management, incompetent administration of government, and it's all supposed to be fixed, along with the other $7 billion or $8 billion worth of spending that we're supposed to approve, sometime between now and the end of this day, when the government loses its ability to spend any more money.

Almost every member of the government at some point in their life has probably. . . . We certainly know that the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast and the Premier have stood up on occasion in this House and deplored the use of special warrants, deplored the practice of allowing a government to spend money in circumstances where there is, essentially, no public accountability. That's what special warrants are all about. Yet year after year after year, a government that sought public office on the basis of a promise to restore and fix those kinds of abuses commits them itself repeatedly -- year after year after year.

Well, I was originally going to say that if I were given the opportunity to decide whether or not to grant this government interim supply -- and I guess I do have my small voice, my small opportunity to participate in that discussion -- I

[ Page 11479 ]

Now, hon. Speaker, we all know what we're talking about: the North Burnaby Inn proposal. I have to say that I used the words "approval in principle" in that context carefully, with some caution. I have been listening over the last couple of weeks to the minister responsible -- apparently responsible -- for granting that approval in principle talk about what it meant for the government to grant approval in principle for a casino licence, and I have watched him move from a situation where I think most people would think we are -- that is, approval in principle means you've got a deal. . . . You just have to sort out a few of the fine points, dot the i's, cross the t's, pass the cheque, and there you've got it. That's what most people think approval in principle is; that is what approval in principle is.

[1645]

The movement back and forth across the spectrum of approval and disapproval and unapproval and no principles is not the point. This government actually thought that it was perfectly appropriate to grant approval in principle for a casino licence to a group connected to strip shows, Internet porn sites and illegal gambling.

A government that can do that is not a government that deserves one cent from this Legislative Assembly. I wouldn't give a single penny to a government headed by a Premier who uses the platform of a public press conference to threaten members of the media with the allegation of a non-existent criminal investigation under provisions of the Criminal Code that are completely unenforceable.

Picture this. It's a public press conference. Serious questions are at issue. The Premier has apparently been involved in an all-afternoon caucus meeting, in which there has been some discussion about the important issues concerning the casino licence and the execution of a search warrant on the Premier's house. Who knows what else was discussed at that caucus meeting? But British Columbians are clearly at this moment waiting for an explanation from the Premier about what's up. What is it that's really going on, that has caused this problem to arise? So the Premier comes out and agrees to speak to the press for a moment. In the course. . . .

Interjection.

G. Plant: I'm sure, actually, if the Minister for Children and Families wants to give us a complete detailed description of the caucus meeting, she can do so during the course of that debate. I look forward to that.

M. de Jong: We're talking about gaming revenues.

G. Plant: We're talking about whether or not this Legislature should give this government permission to spend any money. Should this Legislature give permission to this government, headed by this Premier, to spend any money, let alone the $8 billion or $9 billion that's it's asking for here this afternoon?

I'm explaining what to me is the reason why I think the government doesn't deserve that permission. It's because when we have the Premier standing up in front of television cameras, in front of members of the media and in front of all British Columbians who happen to be watching, and we have a Premier who says, "You guys, you know what? There's a Crown counsel investigation underway into your conduct," I can only imagine what it must feel like to stand there and have the Premier of the province essentially say: "You're under criminal investigation." We talk sometimes about libel chill. I don't know what the term would be for that, but it would be a few steps worse than libel chill to be standing in a room and hear the Premier of the province not say, "I'm really concerned with this; I've consulted a lawyer," but to make the positive assertion of fact that the media were under criminal investigation.

The problem is, of course, that the positive assertion of fact by the Premier was completely and utterly false. There was no ongoing criminal investigation at the time that the Premier made those remarks.

M. de Jong: Chairman Glen was wrong?

[1650]

Hon. Speaker, I wouldn't give a penny to a government in which a minister of the Crown has so little respect for the office that he holds that he can make and repeat threats against the RCMP by alleging their participation in some clandestine conspiracy. We've heard the minister who made those remarks retract them, in a sort of way. I acknowledge that he has done that, but I have to ask myself: on what possible basis did it take him days -- in fact, I think it took him almost two and a half weeks -- to realize that those statements, which were completely and utterly unfounded, were also a disgrace to the office which he holds and an insult to the government which he is a member of.

[ Page 11480 ]

An Hon. Member: Malahat-Juan de Fuca.

G. Plant: Well, you never know.

We've already had some reference made to past speeches made on the occasion of interim supply debates. Once I sat down and thought about what interim supply was all about, and it occurred to me that there were three questions you could ask. The first question would be whether or not the government seeking interim supply came into power under circumstances that gave it the moral authority to govern. That is, was the government legitimately sitting there as government? The second question that it occurred to me was a perfectly legitimate question to ask is: has this government that is in office managed the affairs of the province in a way that gives us confidence in their ability to continue to do so? What's their record? How have they done when they are given tax dollars to spend? Then the third question, which it seemed to me was a legitimate question. . . . You could say: "Okay, even if you didn't get into office on the basis of legitimate circumstances, even if you never acquired the moral authority to govern, and even if your track record in government was pathetic and abysmal, maybe you've got a vision for the future. Maybe you have a plan. Maybe you have expressed some way forward that gives us some confidence that you're the people that should be entrusted to spend the money that you're asking for."

Two years ago, when I identified those questions, I thought that the answer to all three was no. Two years have gone by, and I'm afraid the answer is still no. In fact, the answer is kind of resoundingly, ever more so, no.

[1655]

We know, I think, beyond any shadow of a doubt in British Columbia that the NDP did not come to power in 1996 on the basis of the truth. They came to power in 1996 on the basis of something other than the truth. They never, in my view, acquired the moral authority to govern. So I don't think they've earned the right to interim supply today here, on the basis of that first question.

Well, the second question is: have they managed the affairs of the province since they were elected in 1996 in a way that gives me the confidence that they should continue to have access to the taxpayers' pockets? The answer to that question has got to be no also. This government has a record of complete and utter mismanagement on every single front imaginable.

Let me just talk for a moment about two issues. My friend from Matsqui introduced one of them; the subject is probate fees. Probate fees, hon. Speaker, are the amounts paid by people who wish to obtain a grant of letters of probate in order to administer the estates of, in most cases, their loves ones who've died. If someone dies leaving an estate and a will in British Columbia, and the person has named his trustees, and executors of that estate wish to administer the estate, they have to go and pay probate fees as part of their application for obtaining a grant of letters probate.

Now, one way you can charge a fee is that you can sit down and ask the question: "How much does it cost the government to provide the service of processing the applications for letters probate?" My guess is that in British Columbia today, the cost to government of actually providing the service required to process an application for letters probate would be on the order of some hundreds of dollars. It doesn't much vary from estate to estate. That is, some estates are going to be perhaps more complicated but not necessarily have more money in them. Other estates may be less complicated but may have huge amounts of money in them.

What this government realized a number of years ago was that the whole business of probate fees was a wonderful opportunity to start taxing death through the back door. They really took hold of this idea when, in 1997, they raised the probate fees charged on the estates of deceased persons from $6 per $1,000 of the estate to $14 per $1,000. That's a 133 percent increase. The government thought they could get away with this because, after all, dead people don't vote. It's really not an issue that is going to mobilize the electorate.

The problem for the government is this: the Ontario government had done the same thing a year or so before. A woman named Mrs. Eurig had been so agitated by the amount she was asked to pay as a result of the probate fee charges in Ontario that she took the government to court. She was actually a pretty courageous person, because she lost at trial at the court of appeal and she went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

[1700]

More fundamentally, the Supreme Court of Canada said that there's some deception going on. The constitution of

[ Page 11481 ]

One could say: "Then I guess the government of British Columbia would have done the right thing. They would have acted on that decision, and they would have returned all of the money that the government has unlawfully collected since April, 1997, from all those who have paid the probate fees that are being unlawfully charged by this government." But in fact that's not what this government has done. This government has continued to collect probate fees -- in fact, tens of millions of dollars worth of probate fees -- from the citizens of British Columbia.

One thing I waited for yesterday in the budget speech -- frankly, I also looked for it in the legislation that was introduced -- was some indication that the government acknowledged that it was doing something illegal and that it was going to fix it. I heard nothing. I heard nothing from the Finance minister acknowledging the problem. I heard nothing from the Finance minister indicating any intention to fix the problem. When I read the statutes introduced yesterday to implement this budget, I see nothing in them that will fix this problem, either for better or for worse.

Today, as I stand here -- as this government asks for billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to spend -- this government is collecting money from British Columbians illegally. I will not support a request for money from a government that can't even comply with the lawful requirements for collecting money. I will not support this bill.

J. Weisgerber: I welcome an opportunity to stand and speak to this 1999 budget and to the Supply Act we have in front of us at this particular moment.

I want to start by saying that I'm not fundamentally opposed to interim supply. In the years I've been in this House, we've had an interim supply bill -- at least one -- every year in all of the years I've been here. In one tragic situation, in 1991, we had two interim supply bills. So one has to be careful about pointing fingers when speaking about interim supply. Unfortunately, interim supply is a creature of our budget process. Here in British Columbia particularly but in most of our parliamentary systems, we've evolved into a system where a budget is tabled, initial debate at least is, hopefully, completed and then some interim supply is voted, to allow government to continue while our rather lengthy estimates processes conclude.

[1705]

As I said earlier, the tradition in this House has been for the government to call back members of the Legislature about the middle of March to present a throne speech which represents a vision -- the government's vision -- for the upcoming fiscal year and oftentimes beyond that. Then there's the prescribed week of debate that allows members on both sides of the House to respond to the throne speech -- to examine the government's vision, as laid out by the L-G in the throne speech. And then traditionally in this House, about the third week in March the government would table a budget and again permit a week or so of debate around the budget itself. Most members have an opportunity either to speak to the throne speech or to the budget -- or, if they're fortunate, both.

But there's a changing trend in this province -- a changing trend that I think we should give considerable attention to. Our current government has adopted a practice, up until this year, of introducing a throne speech and immediately introducing a budget -- both very near the end of the fiscal year -- and having a kind of combined debate on the two of them, often going to interim supply without any real opportunity for members to debate the budget itself.

I think it's important not only for members on this side of the House -- not only for myself as an independent member, not only for members of the official Liberal opposition -- but for government members to take this opportunity to speak to the budget -- if, indeed, they are proud of the budget. Even after examining the budget, one would have to conclude that they would wind up a little bit of enthusiasm for it. I know it would be hard; it would be a challenge. But members have a way of getting together and pumping themselves up, having a little rally in the caucus room and picking those threads -- those shreds -- out of a budget and actually winding up looking reasonably enthusiastic. So I'm going to look forward, as the afternoon and evening -- and early morning, perhaps -- progress, to hearing their enthusiasm for the budget from those members on the government side and to seeing them using interim supply as an opportunity to do that.

But this year is another of those years of turmoil in British Columbia. This year is dramatically different. This year has had quite an interesting history already. Mr. Speaker, you'll recall that members of the Legislature were recalled last fall for the purpose of debating the Nisga'a treaty. The Premier told us that this Nisga'a treaty had his name on it. This was his treaty, his deal, something that he was very proud of. With great pomp and ceremony we were brought back to the Legislature last fall to start debate on Nisga'a. The government had the good graces to suspend debate on second reading to allow for the Parksville-Qualicum by-election and to allow for that new member to take her place and speak on Nisga'a.

[1710]

Then we moved into committee stage. And then, in the midst of very heated debate around the fast ferry fiasco and with the crossing of the floor by the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, British Columbia's newest social democrat took over as Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries. There was incredible pressure on the government at the time, as you'll recall, Mr. Speaker. On February 1, calling members back from across the province on a Monday, less than 15 minutes into the session of the week, the government abruptly attempted to

[ Page 11482 ]

Well, things just got worse for the government. During the time that we were away from the House, the RCMP raided the Lumbermen's Club, the Pilarinos home, the Premier's home and, I think, nine other locations. My sense is that while there hasn't been a lot of debate about those raids at those other locations, they too are going to prove interesting as evidence and information around those investigations unfold. That appeared to be the reason this House wasn't called until March 29 -- either that or my friend from Powell River-Sunshine Coast is a much slower study than many of us thought he might be. I suspect, in fairness to him, that it was the Premier's unwillingness to come back and face the music on the casino scandal that kept us away from here as long as we were.

I raise those issues not necessarily to dredge up these unpleasant memories for members of the government -- although I don't mind doing it -- but in fact to try and set the stage for this particular interim supply bill. The government's unwillingness to come back and face the music with the casino issue and the fast ferries issue means that the Nisga'a agreement and the bill which would ratify the Nisga'a agreement is still unconcluded.

The government can't prorogue. The government couldn't bring in a throne speech -- a document that outlines its vision for the coming year. My sense, Mr. Speaker, is that that was a blessing for the government, because it's hard to imagine. . . . Given the events of the last 12 months, the economic outlook in this province and the fiscal mess of this province, it would have been incredibly difficult for someone to craft a speech that our Lieutenant-Governor would have read on behalf of the government. I suspect that everybody on the government side -- and particularly the speechwriters in the communications branch -- were incredibly relieved to have an excuse to not present a throne speech. It would have been a very, very difficult thing for the government to pull off.

But now, the failure to conclude Nisga'a means that we're going directly into interim supply, having heard only from the Minister of Finance and the official opposition critic, the Opposition House Leader. What we have is a government in chaos. Sadly, the events of the past few weeks and months are indeed reminiscent of those last days of the Vander Zalm government of which I was a part.

[1715]

The budget refers to the Nova line in the Fort St. John area, which is indeed a short line and one that is beneficial both to the local economy and to the gas and oil industry -- the gas industry in particular. The other is the Alliance Pipeline, a huge undertaking that is going to be some of the economic salvation for the northeast of this province at least. This is a huge pipeline into the Chicago area, a high-pressure line. It's going to create a lot of work in the construction. The drilling necessary to fill that pipeline is going to ensure some significant drilling and exploration activity in the northeast. I certainly feel very optimistic about the future of northeastern British Columbia, with respect to the natural gas industry particularly.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

But, Madam Speaker. . . . I'm pleased to see a change in the Chair, not because I didn't like the last one. . . . But indeed I want to acknowledge a change in the Chair. Those who might be listening would understand my change from Mr. Speaker to Madam Speaker.

But I do want to raise my concern over the inclusion in that list of what's called the southern crossing. B.C. Gas has proposed to build a pipeline through the Kootenays across the southern part of British Columbia into the Okanagan, ultimately to connect with Vancouver to provide some peak load shaving or a backup for high-demand times. The reason I am concerned about this being included in the budget speech is the fact that this proposal by B.C. Gas was turned down last year by the B.C. Utilities Commission. They have resubmitted an application. Hearings started in front of the Utilities Commission on Monday.

Now, I think it's presumptuous in the extreme for the government to announce in its budget a pipeline that is the subject of current hearings under the Utilities Commission -- hearings into a pipeline that, I must remind you, was already turned down once by that same Utilities Commission. I guess I raise that first of all because I believe that the southern crossing is a bad idea. I believe that the government is indeed biased in its support for that southern crossing and the involvement of B.C. Hydro in what I think is an inappropriate way in that project and in that application. The Utilities Commission would underline that.

But I raise it also because the Minister of Finance has tried to portray her budget and the budget projections as "conservative" ones; I know that's got to be a tough word for the Minister of Finance. I know that for members of the governing party to have to portray themselves as conservative or being conservative in any way is difficult. They struggle with the words, and they try to dance around and say those things without actually saying them.

[1720]

I want to say, as well, in support of my own constituents and the people in northeastern British Columbia, that I can't imagine why in the world this government would support a pipeline that would import natural gas from Alberta rather than allow the natural supply of northeastern gas into Vancouver, as historically has been the case. It's astounding to me that with a budget that trashes Alberta on almost every page, that same government appears to favour this importation of natural gas from Alberta, to the detriment of northeastern British Columbia. I'm opposed to that. I think it's wrong.

There are lots of other options, alternatives to the southern crossing pipeline. Some minor expansions of the current

[ Page 11483 ]

Madam Speaker, I'd now like to look at the budget itself. The first thing that has to strike any person considering this budget is the incredible increase in debt. That just simply jumps out at you, and I have a great deal of trouble getting past that. I had a great deal of trouble looking at and trying to rationally and even-handedly examine the budget, because the thing that is there -- it's in your face -- is $2.6 billion in new debt for British Columbians -- and probably not so much for this British Columbian as for future generations of British Columbians.

I have two daughters who live in this province, who are married and who have bought houses. I genuinely worry -- as I'm sure many parents do -- about the direction that our province is going in and what kinds of burdens we're putting on these younger generations of British Columbians. I'll tell you, the $21.5 billion debt, for me, is an enormous problem.

In 1991, at the end of the last fiscal year under the previous government, the total tax-supported debt in this province was $9.3 billion. During that period of time we built the Coquihalla. The B.C. Rail line was built through northern British Columbia. Most of the infrastructure of this province that we have today, including these buildings, was built in the period of time since Confederation, whereby all governments over the last 125 or 130 years, up till 1991, accumulated $9.5 billion in debt. Today, nine years later, we have a debt of $21.5 billion.

Look around this province, and think about some of the new projects that we've seen. Think of how many new schools you've seen in your communities, and compare those with the number of new schools that were built in the decade preceding that. Think about the new roads.

I see that the members for North Island and Comox Valley are here. The Island Highway is something to be proud of, but it's not unique. The Coquihalla was at least as big an accomplishment for British Columbia, and it was built out of operating funds.

[1725]

J. Weisgerber: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon says: "Was it built on budget?" I'll tell you, ma'am, it was built a hell of a lot closer to budget than B.C. Ferries' fast ferries were, and it was run over budget for a reason. It wasn't a political reason; it was an Expo reason, and it was outlined before the overruns were expended. There have been overruns. You bet there have been overruns, but there was a public debate about it. Indeed, it was the subject of a rather infamous special process here in this Legislature, which I've spoken about before and which still makes me angry when I think about it today.

But those things aside, when you consider the new capital construction, the new infrastructure that's been built in the last nine years. . . . Was it B.C. Place? Was it B.C. Place Stadium? Was it the convention centre? Was it the Coquihalla Highway? Was it B.C. Rail? Other than the Island Highway, what other roads were there? Where were all of the bridges that we see not only in greater Vancouver but across this province? They were in the $9.3 billion.

And what have we got to show for the next $12 billion or $13 billion? That's the question that I want to know. That's the question I think British Columbians should ask themselves and that members on the government side should ask themselves. What have you bought for this $12 billion that my daughters and yours and your sons are going to have to pay back? Because there will be a payback time; there's always a payback time.

I must say that I am deeply concerned about that trend. The $890 million operating deficit doesn't provide any infrastructure; it doesn't provide any bricks and mortar. It's simply putting groceries on your credit card and hoping that somebody else takes over the credit card before you have to pay it back, hoping that you can get by making the minimum $46-a-month instalment on your maxed-out Visa card and hoping that somebody's going to come along and someday pay it off for you.

The government has also taken to selling off assets to boost its revenues. That's wrong; that's fundamentally wrong. There's nothing wrong with selling assets; anyone who has them will from time to time decide to dispose of them. But it's fundamentally wrong and dishonest to take assets that have been purchased over time and for which there is debt, and then take the proceeds into revenue. This year we're selling off a bunch of BCBC properties, probably buildings that we're going to have to rent back, but we're taking the proceeds -- some quarter of a billion dollars -- into revenue.

The minister, in her defence against a question today, said: "Well, we sold WesTel, and we sold B.C. Systems. We sold the vehicle fleet." Four wrongs don't make a right. That simply underlines my concern with this practice of selling capital assets and taking them as revenues.

The former government -- the Socred government of which I was a member, a proud member -- privatized the Highways maintenance fleet, and they put the money into the privatization benefits fund. They set up a fund and only took the interest off that into revenue, until this government got into office. Then, with two quick sleights of hand, the privatization benefits fund is no more. It too went into revenues for this government -- basically, fundamentally wrong.

[1730]

Those things are a function of government. I applauded the government when they did them, but I don't think that rationalizes selling off assets and using them as revenue. I know what the people in the Peace are saying: "Just leave us our gas and oil money, and you can do whatever you want with the proceeds of capital disposals."

The government's budget this year reflects a 40 percent reduction in the budget -- roughly $100 million -- for munici-

[ Page 11484 ]

I know my time is running out here.

I want to touch on the health care initiatives, because I think there is some positive news there. I wanted to acknowledge the reduction in small business taxes for those small businesses that are fortunate enough to make a profit. But I didn't want to finish today without quoting that line that the Minister of Finance used both in this House and in her scrum afterward. She said: "Unlike other provinces, we intend to grow our way out, not cut our way out." Clearly the word "grow" is code for spend. This government intends to spend its way out rather than manage its funds.

Let me close by saying that this government would be so much better off if they simply followed the wisdom of leaders like Bill Bennett, Ralph Klein, Mike Harris and even Roy Romanow in Saskatchwan.

M. Coell: We're asked to give authority for the Supply Act, Bill 54, for this government to have three months of free spending without any debate on a budget, without a throne speech and without a vision. When you're asked to approve a Supply Act, you're asked to judge the government on their management in the past, their management of finances, of deficits, of debt, their management of the ministries that they're responsible for, and a measure of trust. Do you trust that the government will spend this money wisely?

[1735]

During the '96 election I ran a very short ad. It simply said: "The people of Saanich North and the Islands cannot be fooled. They know that you cannot spend your way out of debt." You cannot spend your way out of debt. This government is continuing down a road that everyone in this country -- in this continent -- knows you can't go down. You cannot fix your economy by trying to spend your way out of debt. It has failed everywhere, and it has failed here.

I want to touch on a number of issues that go to the crux of management and mismanagement. In the budget there's an increase for revenue from casinos. There is a desire for this government to go full bore into casinos, to have cabinet approve those licences. Surely, with the amount of money and potential problems that increases in gambling can cause, there should be a more independent, non-political, non-partisan way of approving those licences. I leave that for members of the government to consider as well.

I'm troubled by the events of the past month and that the trust in government that should be there, when these decisions are being made, is not. I think British Columbians are troubled as well. Those that support gambling and those that don't support gambling, I think, have something in common. They want to know that if government is going to pursue the expansion of casinos, it's done in a non-partisan and unbiased way that does the least amount of damage to this province. I don't see that happening. I bring that forward as a problem of management.

I'm deeply concerned about the comments of government members regarding the RCMP, as I know all British Columbians are. If there's anything that we must trust and place our faith in, in this province, it is the court system and the police. With a government member's attack on these two institutions, I question the trust that we can have in the government. I question the trust that we would have in the management of police and courts in this province.

[1740]

The government has watched as our credit rating has dropped and dropped and undoubtedly, in three weeks or a month, will drop again. People around the world look at our management of funds, and they grade us. Then when the government needs to go and borrow money, they pay either more or less interest. Unfortunately, in every year of this government's mandate they have paid more in interest because of the management of the economy and the management of the ministries which they are responsible for.

In my riding the municipalities have had downloading of highways and cuts to their grants every year. Municipalities are strong; they deal with it. They balance their budgets -- something that this province needs to learn how to do.

B.C. Ferries and mismanagement. We have a new Minister for Ferries who came in all bright and shiny -- going to solve the problems of B.C. Ferries. The only thing the budget solves is. . . . This government intends to increase the debt of B.C. Ferries. When they came into power, B.C. Ferries had a very, very small debt, and now it's $1.2 billion. That ferry

[ Page 11485 ]

A number of residents in my riding rely on the B.C. ferry system. I ride the ferry system regularly to visit the islands, and I've never once had anyone say to me: "What we need are ferries that get there faster." I've had comments like: "I wish the ferries ran on time. I wish they would quit breaking down; they're so old." But never once has the need for a fast ferry ever been mentioned to me.

So we have a government that decides on a megaproject. We have a government that appoints a board of friends and insiders. We have a minister who doesn't ask the right questions. And I stress that -- a minister who doesn't ask the right questions -- because that's what a minister is supposed to do: oversee every project and every budget. We had a minister who said he didn't know. We had a chairman of the B.C. Ferries board who said: "I don't know. I wasn't told." We had another chairman of the B.C. Ferries board who said he wasn't told as well. There seems to be a lot of heads that have rolled at B.C. Ferries, but the government, which is accountable, has never taken responsibility. The responsibility that I see is now that we're just going to increase the debt, we'll leave it up to a new board to figure out how to manage the corporation.

[1745]

Last year, 16,000 people moved to Alberta. I live in Central Saanich; there are approximately that many people. Can you imagine your entire municipality uprooting and moving to Alberta? That's a lot of people.

That's a lot of young people; that's a lot of our future. That's a lot of the young people who have been trained and educated in this province. We seem to be doing a lot of training and educating of young people. And we seem to have a lot of young people saying: "Thanks very much for the education, but I need a job." They move to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Washington; it's almost anywhere but B.C. It's time that this trend stopped. It's time that the management of government brought back a business-friendly atmosphere in this province that will create jobs for the young people we train.

My godson moved to Calgary about five months ago. He found three jobs the first week he was there. He wrote to his friends. A half-dozen of his friends moved to Calgary, and they all have work. They're good kids. That is a group of people that should be the future of this province. But whether they come back or not will depend on what opportunities we create in this province. It depends on the opportunities that we in this chamber can agree on and bring back.

It will matter how government manages the spending of money, the paying off of debts, the turnaround. When you think that we're paying $2.6 billion a year in interest, that's more than at least half of the ministries spend. Can you imagine how many hospitals and schools the interest that we pay could build? That's about management, but it's more about mismanagement. How did we get to a place in history where we spend $7 million a day on interest? We have a government that ignores the fact that they're broke and don't have any more room to borrow, but decides to borrow. That's about mismanagement. That's about a government that will continue to mismanage the economy through this mandate.

They don't have a mandate to run deficits. They don't have a mandate to build up the debt. They ran in an election and said they would do just the opposite. They do not have a mandate to continue the course that they're on.

A generation of young people will pay for this mismanagement. Or they'll leave the province. We are the big losers when the youth decide to leave this province because of the debts and mismanagement and because the only place they can get a job is anywhere but B.C. We can't spend our way out of debt; I don't think it can be said enough to this government. This government has chased business and the youth, and now it's going to chase the future of this province, right out of the province.

[1750]

The budget that was presented yesterday and the request for a Supply Act today is wrong. This government needs to come into the House in a timely fashion, to bring in a throne speech, to debate that throne speech -- the vision for this government. What we see is that this year the government doesn't have a vision. They need to present a budget and debate that budget, not just with the Liberal Party in the opposition but with the people of the province. You are robbing the people of the province of an opportunity to see that debate and to participate in that debate if they want. Then and only then should the government request an interim Supply Act, because the people would know they can trust you.

What could happen -- and I think the member who spoke before me alluded to it -- is that once this act is passed tonight, we may not see you for three months. You may decide that it's too hot in the kitchen, like you did two months ago, and disappear. And I think that would be a shame, because I think the people of British Columbia want to know what's going on with this government, and this is one way for them to do just that. You're robbing them of that chance.

I want to talk about SkyTrain. I want to talk about the tendering process for SkyTrain, for the fast ferries, for the Lions Gate Bridge, for the convention centre. There doesn't seem to be a tendering process in British Columbia anymore. How can business trust government that makes secret deals with their friends and insiders? How can the people of British Columbia trust this government? Well, I can tell you that they don't. I can tell you that SkyTrain, fast ferries, convention centres and casinos that are all done as secret deals behind closed doors and that seem to benefit friends and insiders of this government do not sit well with the people of this province. They do not sit well with the youth of this province, who will end up paying, yes, paying for all of those projects. While the Premier's retired and sitting on his deck with his friend, the youth of this province are going to be paying for that mismanagement and those megaprojects.

[ Page 11486 ]

[1755]

This request for an interim supply act is about trust, and it's about management. This government has neither one of those. The people don't trust you. The people believe you're mismanaging their finances, their services and their programs. They've lost confidence in this government.

I cannot support Bill 54, a Supply Act that would give unlimited spending for three months, because we don't know where the government will be tomorrow, let alone where they'll be in three months.

Madam Speaker, I would move adjournment of the debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call private members' statements.

Private Members' Statements

ON BEHALF OF FAMILY

"It has come to our attention that the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch (the local rehabilitation facility) on the outskirts of Oliver may be forced to cease operation. We, as a counselling staff at Southern Okanagan Secondary School have some serious concerns over this possible closure.

"Over the years, the staff at Victoria Creek Youth Ranch have worked closely with our school staff in supporting the needs of students in this facility. We have always felt that there was a need for this type of support for the youth in this rural area. One of the major questions we have is: where will these young people go to make the transition back to the mainstream in our high schools?

"In this small town, Victoria Creek provides these youth the opportunity to turn things around, learn coping skills and set new goals under the direction of very capable staff, Mr. Lloyd and Mrs. Cara Risling. If this facility is forced to close, you will take this opportunity away from these adolescents. Make this work. It is an investment in the future of the lives of these young people."

That is only one of probably 60 letters that have gone to the MLA for Okanagan-Boundary. From the town of Oliver, signed on behalf of the counsellor:

"To Whom It May Concern:

"I have known Lloyd and Cara Risling for many years. I have always found them to be caring individuals willing to lend a hand wherever required. They have on many occasions provided a bridge between the community and ministry staff, often able to resolve situations by connecting people with ministry resources.

"The Rislings are well-respected within the community for the exemplary job they do in operating the youth ranch and for the work they do within the community. They have a very good rapport with the local RCMP and the ministry staff. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a complaint filed at the town of Oliver regarding the Rislings or the operation of the youth ranch.

"It is difficult to find individuals with enough character and strength to deal with our troubled youth. The Rislings have proven themselves in their successful operation of the youth ranch and are considered a valuable asset to our community.

"I would be happy to meet with you if you need further information.

"Ron Casorso, Councillor

"Town of Oliver."

"The Osoyoos Indian band fully supports the Victoria Creek Ranch to remain in operation. The Victoria Creek Ranch owners, Lloyd and Cara Risling, have in the past had members of our band working on their property.

[1800]

"The Osoyoos Indian band believes that the Victoria Creek Ranch is a business that is for the youth of our community, and this business is a healthy alternative to incarceration for youth who have problems."

Certainly, as I continue to make a case here on behalf of the family, we have an individual who was actually a resident, who was in foster care in this particular situation. He has indicated that this letter can go forward. He's a former ranch boy.

"I was placed in the care of Cara and Lloyd Risling when I was 14 years old by my social worker and my mother. When I was first told about the ranch, I hated the idea of going there. I figured my life was great living in a foster home -- free to roam and do other things with no apparent consequence. I had no respect for anyone, not even myself. I was on my way to jail or worse.

"Cara and Lloyd helped me to realize and see life and myself differently. From the first day I was at the ranch, I felt welcome in their home and like a part of the family. I learned so much and grew so much from my experiences at the ranch -- like how to work hard, how to work as a team, self-respect, respect for others and, probably most important, self-discipline. I learned that there are consequences for my actions, whether they are negative or positive. Positive reinforcement was always the biggest part of the program.

[ Page 11487 ]

"I have since been back to school and plan on returning again to further my education so that I may one day be able to foster and open a program like the one that Cara and Lloyd now run. I strongly feel that the program at the Victoria Creek Youth Ranch is an asset to the community and to society.

"I visit with Cara and Lloyd often. They are like family to me, and I am thankful and grateful to them -- probably more than anyone will ever know -- for believing in me, even when I didn't. I would also like to thank Craig Hunter for counselling with my mother on all those times and for choosing to place me in the care of Lloyd and Cara instead of continuing to allow me to waste my life."

[The Speaker in the chair.]

We have a letter on the behalf of the retired deputy sheriff and the fire chief and a concerned neighbour, which says:

"I would like to voice my concern regarding the deplorable way that this government is accusing and dealing with the Risling family.

"During my career as senior deputy sheriff in Penticton and surrounding area courts -- Oliver and Princeton -- I worked with many of the youths that had been living with Lloyd and Cara. When I was escorting them from custody to court and back, I would hear them talking in the back seat of the sheriff's escort vehicle. At no time did I ever hear them say anything negative about the ranch or the Rislings. As a matter of fact, on numerous occasions I heard young boys begging the judge, in open court, to please send them back to [the ranch], and they promised that they would stay out of trouble. . . ."

"As the fire chief of the Willowbrook volunteer fire department, I had to deal with the question of a youth ranch being developed in our fire district. Some of the firefighters were quite apprehensive about the possibility of wayward youths. . . . I can assure you, we have never had to attend a fire of suspicious nature which might have been attributed to the youth ranch.

"As a hobby farmer in the surrounding area, I have had occasion to sell hay to a horse farm down the road. They, in turn, contracted Lloyd and some of the boys to pick up and haul hay from my farm. I found that Lloyd was like a father to these boys, and they seemed to enjoy working with him.

"As a neighbour, I have been to their home and have seen the interaction between Lloyd and Cara and the youths. I would say everything that I saw was strictly positive. We need more of this type of person to guide and control youths that require this service."

I will share another one written on behalf of the Okanagan-Similkameen regional hospital district.

"It has been brought to my attention that the Ministry for Children and Families has decided to close down the Victoria Creek Ranch. As a resident of the Oliver area for the past 20 years, I have been aware of the Victoria Creek Ranch since 1987.

"It is also my understanding that the Victoria Creek Ranch is the only facility of its kind south of Penticton. With the closing of three foster homes in Oliver, it is very important that this facility not be closed down.

"I know that over 60 youths have gone through the facility with great results, and I think that this is due in part to the way Mr. and Mrs. Risling work with the youths. I am very concerned what will happen to the youths if this facility does not carry on, so I feel the ministry should re-evaluate their decision and keep this facility open.

"William Ross,

"OSRHD Board Chairman."

[1805]

Given that the title of this private member's statement is "On Behalf of Family," I would like to move beyond the member's remarks and talk about the family, indeed, what we are doing for families in British Columbia. You know, I had the opportunity many years ago to work at an outdoor centre for foster children who were receiving psychiatric care. The opportunity to work with the children in that outdoor environment was a very important opportunity and, certainly, a great way to see the development of the children in an outdoor environment where there aren't a lot of constraints. This is one of the ways that we can assist with foster children. But again, as I said, this particular issue is under investigation, and the assistant deputy minister will be going into the community to resolve concerns with those community people.

This government, a New Democratic government -- and me personally, as a New Democrat -- has always cared about families. That's why we've been improving and continue to improve health care and education and to create jobs, because that's what families want. They don't want big tax giveaways that would benefit only the wealthy and the big corporations. When a loved one is sick and needs care, government needs to ensure that families have the support they need to make sure that that loved one gets the care they need.

I am very typical, I think, of many women in my age group. I have both an aging relative in care and young children. We talk about this group of people as the sandwich generation. These families, all across British Columbia, are looking for support at both ends of the age spectrum. We're looking for support for our elderly loved ones in care. We're looking for support for our young children to make sure they have the best opportunities for education and the best opportunities for access to health care that are possible in this province. We are moving very quickly and with confidence in that direction.

[ Page 11488 ]

How do families make ends meet? We all struggle to make ends meet. Families struggle to make ends meet by reducing their expenditures in any way they can. We are assisting them in doing that by ensuring that their personal income taxes will, once again, be lower this year. We are also assisting families by ensuring that the B.C. family bonus and the national child benefit will be increased a small but significant amount this year in British Columbia.

[1810]

The Speaker: Thank you very much, member; your time is now up. In reply, to wind it up, I recognize the member for Richmond East.

L. Reid: I thank the member opposite, the member for Comox, for talking, too, about the importance of foster families, because this is a foster family. This is a foster family that has given their absolute best to the province and to the community over the past 12 years.

I would like to close with a letter from a neighbour. This letter says:

"I have lived next door to the ranch for the past nine years. The Risling family and the boys are the best next-door neighbours a person could ask for. I have enjoyed a warm, kind and respectful relationship with the entire Risling 'clan' as well as with the boys who have resided there through the past years.

"I and my three teenage sons have been in the Risling home so often in the past nine years that each and every one of the boys that have passed through the doors of the ranch thought of us as family and friends. We are grateful for the opportunity of knowing the boys, sharing learning experiences and all learning lessons from listening and sharing with each other. Friends and family do that! Learning how to be a good neighbour is a great lesson on all parts. We share plenty of meals together, activities and achievements. Support, compassion and kindness are what we all share and learn about together with my family and theirs. All of us -- even the 'boys,' theirs and mine.

"I live within shouting distance of the Risling home. I do hear it all and see most of everything that goes on next door. It is not. . .a question of safety that ever enters my mind. I know, I see, I hear, and I am totally confident in Lloyd and Cara's skills as parents and role models."

The member opposite is not correct. The investigation has concluded. There is no decision at the present time, and frankly, to leave these individuals in limbo is not the way to proceed. Every review of the ministry's actions has been done by the ministry or by people hired and appointed by the ministry. The only thing that will restore a feeling of trust between the ministry and the hundreds of foster parents in the South Okanagan is an independent inquiry. I ask that respectfully, and I trust that this chamber and this ministry will deliver on the promise of appropriate, thoughtful foster care within the province of British Columbia.

VANCOUVER ISLAND CANCER CLINIC

We've had a cancer centre in Victoria at the Royal Jubilee Hospital site for some time, and that facility currently has three radiation therapy treatment units and a designed capacity for approximately 1,500 patients per year. Current cancer needs on the Island exceed that demand by about 30 percent, and many, many patients have had to travel to the mainland for radiation therapy. For those patients, that usually means four to five weeks away from their homes, their families and their social support systems.

Sadly, the number of people with cancer on Vancouver Island is also rising. In 1987, 1,400 new cancer patients came to the cancer centre in Victoria, at the Royal Jubilee Hospital site, for treatment. By 1997, a short ten years later, that number had grown to more than 2,500 new cancer patients annually. In the year 2006, it is expected that the number of new cancer patients referred to the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre will have reached a staggering 3,100 people.

[1815]

In October 1998, a meeting was convened. Representatives from the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health, the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, the capital regional district, the capital health region, the Vancouver Island cancer clinic itself, the B.C. Cancer Agency and people from the B.C. Buildings Corporation convened a meeting to look to see if indeed there was a way to fast-track this new Vancouver Island Cancer Centre.

For some time this process had been moving forward in a positive fashion; indeed, it was scheduled to go to con-

[ Page 11489 ]

It was not an easy task. We were scheduled to go in the fall. We had to move it forward to meet the needs not only of the people in greater Victoria but of the people from all over the Vancouver Island area who relied on this facility, which once served them well but no longer did. We had to move forward as quickly as possible on this project.

Through the process of getting this project at the Royal Jubilee Hospital site on line, issues around parking became, more often than not, the main issue of discussion for the community and for all those responsible for moving the project forward. Those were real issues around parking, because the new cancer clinic site indeed will locate itself on an existing parking lot. I am very pleased that after going through a series of processes -- going door to door and meeting with people in about a four-block radius around the cancer clinic site, talking to them about what kinds of solutions we could find to deal with this temporary parking issue to allow the cancer clinic to move forward to construction. . . . And it has today.

Actually, we have received tremendous support from the local community: 100-plus people in the neighbourhood around the Royal Jubilee Hospital site have offered up the use of their driveways and the on-street parking in front of their homes for that eight- to-12-month period to deal with the question of the 526 parking spots that will be displaced because of this project.

Not only that, but workers on site, members of the Hospital Employees Union, the Health Sciences Association and the B.C. Nurses Union have also embarked on a very aggressive program with their membership, in cooperation with the capital health region and people at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, to start a park-and-pool program. They'll be using a B.C. Buildings Corporation site off site, where they'll park their cars. Four cars will arrive; one car will leave with four people. We anticipate that 100 more people will be using that kind of program to get to and from work.

The community associations in the area. . . . The North Jubilee Neighbourhood Association, the South Jubilee Neighbourhood Association -- in your area, hon. Speaker -- the Camosun Community Association, the Friends of Bowker Creek and the Fernwood Community Association all came together on this question to find positive solutions. It really is a credit to the community when we see these kinds of things occur, which allow a health care facility to move forward in an expedited fashion -- when people in community associations and in unions and individuals who live in the immediate area recognize that there is a greater good that they want to be part of. They want to be part of the solution to a problem, the solution to allow the fast-tracking of the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre not only for the people in their own community but, really, for people all up and down the Island.

[1820]

We're going to be putting six radiation machines into that facility. It's a $46.7 million project, with $40.3 million coming from the provincial government. I think it's important to note, as well, that the B.C. Cancer Foundation is indeed contributing $6.4 million for a research floor of the building. So in this new facility, unlike the old facility, we will not only be offering treatment for people with cancer; we will also be offering hope in terms of the research component.

The Speaker: The member will see that his light is on; his time is up. I recognize in response the hon. member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head.

I. Chong: First of all, I would like to start off by thanking the member opposite for bringing forward this issue. As he mentioned, many of us have perhaps been touched by the issue of cancer. I know that I have not been immune to that myself, having some very close friends who have recently been diagnosed with cancer. That actually brought it to my attention that much more. I know that the member opposite has spent considerable time in trying to move this project, and for that I am grateful. It means that we can finally service the people in the capital region area and also those up-Island who come down here for treatment. I say in all sincerity that I am grateful for his efforts in working towards that.

What I'm concerned about, though, is this delay, which should have or could have been avoided. In March of 1995, the NDP at the time proudly announced the expansion of this cancer clinic, indicating that it would be completed by 1998. Here we are, just perhaps having the next groundbreaking ceremony in two weeks. As my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands has indicated, he has been to several groundbreaking ceremonies. So I am hopeful that the one on April 15 -- as the member opposite has indicated -- will take place and will actually mean that the project will commence. I'm looking forward to that day so that I can go back to those in my constituency to express to them that the wait is no longer there for them.

When I go back to the time when it was announced most recently, in 1995, that its completion would be in 1998, I am concerned, because we could have met that deadline. I recollect that approximately $125 million was wasted in terms of payments through the health labour accord that this government had negotiated. This particular clinic would have only cost somewhere around $50 million. So the money was apparently there; it had been diverted. For that, I am disappointed -- a $50 million project that has been held up, as we have been told most recently, for a parking problem. When I read some of the comments that have been made in the most recent months that the parking problem has actually been a problem for eight years. . . . Well, if it had been a problem for eight years, then why were we not told in 1995 that it would take that much longer for us to have this come to fruition?

So I am concerned that the reason this was fast-tracked was clearly a result of a rally that was held in October -- I

[ Page 11490 ]

[1825]

In October last year I did write a letter to the editor. At that time I was very clear in my support of the cancer treatment centre being built as quickly as possible and was urging all those who had concerns to write to their MLAs, particularly to this government and to the Health minister, to have this project proceed as quickly as possible, because, as we know, cancer waits for no one.

The Speaker: In closing remarks, I recognize again the member for Victoria-Hillside.

S. Orcherton: Hon. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her comments. But there are a couple of points that I should correct for the record. First of all, there were announcements made in 1995 regarding the Vancouver Island Cancer Centre moving forward to a construction completion date in 1998. That was with the B.C. Cancer Agency working diligently to use the existing facilities and add on to those facilities. It became apparent, I believe it was in late 1996 or early 1997, that that was not going to be the way to deal with the cancer patient backlog, and that was part of the delay. So what happened was that they had to move to looking at a completely separate facility, not using the existing facility but building a new facility -- which we have started construction on today.

The member is also right that there was a rally with many patients -- prostate cancer patients and other patients -- who required treatment and who were having to go to Vancouver to secure that treatment and were waiting patiently for the cancer clinic to move forward. At that point, as I said in my earlier remarks, the cancer clinic was scheduled to go to construction in the fall of 1999. I know that the member was there. Both the member for Saanich North and the Islands and the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head were there. I hope the members recollect that when I spoke to the prostate cancer patients and the other cancer patients in attendance, I said very clearly that I supported their position and that if there was a way to fast-track this project, we would find it and move forward as quickly as possible to do just that.

The member is also right that on October 25 there was an announcement from the Minister Responsible for the Public Service saying that the B.C. Buildings Corporation had been given overall responsibility and authority to coordinate and fast-track this project. It was asked to do that with all due diligence and was also asked to, if there was a way to fast-track the project, take the steps to do that.

To fast-track the project in this instance, as the members opposite should know, the original proposal was to build a parkade at the Royal Jubilee Hospital site and complete the parkade and then move to the cancer clinic. It became apparent that there was only one way to move forward on this question, and that was to postpone the building of the parkade and move immediately to the construction of the cancer clinic. That resulted in a substantial parking question that needed to be resolved. Indeed, 526 parking spaces needed to be found somewhere, either on site, in the community, in a park-and-pool system or through some other fashion, using transit passes and those kinds of things.

What has occurred is that all the communities, all the stakeholders involved in this question, have come together to find a very, very positive, multifaceted solution, one that sees an additional 187 permanent parking spots going on site, 100 parking spots in the community and the balance being used through transit and the park-and-pool system. This is an example of people working cooperatively and an example that I think the members could look at in the future in terms of how we do business here in this House.

LYMPHOMA AWARENESS

[1830]

Meanwhile, Pat began her legal career at B.C. Hydro, and after a few years the Mansons began their family. In my family, where we sometimes found two children more than a handful, we watched with some amazement as Tom and Pat produced first Malcolm, then Peter, then Cameron, then Patrick and then Kathleen -- five rambunctious children in about seven years.

Pat continued part-time work as a legal researcher, but mostly she became a full-time mom, living what she called a frazzled lifestyle on soccer fields, at hockey arenas, at dance and music lessons, and at home. Then came the diagnosis.

The story of Pat's disease contains the cycle of fear and hope and fear and hope that all of us associate with cancer:

[ Page 11491 ]

In February 1998, with the help of two doctors and with legal assistance, Pat established Lymphoma Research Foundation Canada. Pat established two primary goals for the foundation: to promote awareness of lymphoma and provide information to lymphoma patients and their supporters, and to raise funds to support lymphoma research in Canada. In the months after its incorporation, the LRFC -- the foundation -- set up a national scientific advisory board and developed a web site, www.lymphoma.ca, which provides information about lymphoma.

If you go to that web site, you will learn that two general types of lymphoma are commonly recognized -- Hodgkin's disease or Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. You will also learn that this year in Canada there may be as many as 5,500 new cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and 820 new cases of Hodgkin's disease.

The foundation's first budget established an ambitious target of $50,000 for research and patient support. Amazingly, that amount was raised by June 6. By the end of June over 290 donors had contributed to the fundraising campaign. By the end of September the number of donors had risen to over 380, and the foundation had privately raised enough money to fund a two-year research fellowship.

All in all, this is a tremendous achievement. It is, I think, a strong testimony to the possibility of making a difference and the power and potential of individual initiative. I find it remarkable that someone like Pat, faced with a life-threatening illness, could see beyond herself and her pain and, with the support of family and friends, find the strength to make a contribution to her community and to create a legacy to help those who come along later facing the same challenges. Hon. Speaker, all of this lies behind the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor last January 28 to proclaim February to be Lymphoma Awareness Month in B.C.

[1835]

On May 22, 1998, Pat and the foundation were honoured at a luncheon at Our Lady of Perpetual Help School in Vancouver. Pat spoke there about her decision to establish the foundation and her goals for it. She also talked about the strength that she drew upon from the saying of an old uncle, who said: "It's not so much the way the wind blows but how you set your sails that counts." Seven days later, on May 29, Pat died. Her memorial services in Vancouver and in Cameroon, West Africa, were attended by many, many people. There I learned Pat's last words. They were simple but, oh, so true. "Strong," she said. "I am a strong person."

J. Cashore: I would like to thank the hon. member for his very timely comments about an important health issue. To put such a human face on it in sharing a personal experience is, I think, something that perhaps we don't hear often enough in this Legislature. Indeed, given that two of the private members' statements today are on the topic of cancer, I think that might be a bit of a surprise to some of those people -- and we know they're out there -- who religiously watch the video of the proceedings in the chamber to find out, when so much of what they do see is polarized and controversial, that there are issues where we really do recognize a touching human bond.

I congratulate my colleague across the floor for the warmth with which he remembers and honours the individual to whom he has referred. I know that each and every one of us does have stories where not only does this tragic loss strike at members of the family and their sphere of friends and colleagues, but it also brings great hardship. Often out of that hardship comes the kind of heroic result that we have just heard about and that I was very pleased to hear about at this time.

I know that the member, in preparing his comments, visited the same web site that we did when we knew we needed to respond on this. I would just add with regard to young people that along with central nervous system tumours, lymphoma is the second-most-common type of cancer among the young in Canada. It comprises 17 percent of malignancies in the young -- that's those up to 19 years of age -- and is the most common cancer among teens of 15 to 19 years.

I do know that it wasn't many months ago that the hon. member and I had the opportunity. . . . He brought to the House and introduced in the gallery a young person from Richmond who had leukemia. I was able to arrange the meeting of an outstanding young aboriginal leader, Matt Underwood. At that time, again because of their collaboration, they were able to work together in raising awareness of the need for bone marrow donors, and they had very significant results from that. Unfortunately in the case of Matt Underwood, he was not able to find a donor who would be able to help his case. He passed away a few months ago, leaving his partner Dawn Frank and their new child -- again very touching stories, but stories of people who have faced death. As a result of that, they've inspired those of us who carry on and have left a legacy that is very worthwhile.

[1840]

Indeed, included in that was support for the B.C. Cancer Agency which has been increased by 25 percent to nearly $130 million. I know that many of the members opposite, as well as members on this side of the House, attended a reception put on by the Cancer Agency a few months ago. I think we were all truly inspired by the work of the Cancer Agency, which provides a provincewide system of cancer control, links research, prevention, early detection, diagnosis and treatment, supportive care, rehab, palliative care, education and community programs, along with providing a research centre which provides research into causes and cures for cancer.

[ Page 11492 ]

The Speaker: For closing remarks, the member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I want to express my appreciation to the member for his comments and to pick up on the theme that he has continued. Hon. Speaker, you may recall that in the summer of 1997, I did introduce Steven Hayward to this House. I hoped by doing that to bring to the attention of the House Steven's work in raising public awareness for the unrelated bone marrow donor registry. As a result of that, the member and other members of the government had the opportunity to meet Steven, and I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Underwood.

Steven had been diagnosed with leukemia. He had experienced treatment, then remission and then relapse. The doctors told Steven that his best hope was bone marrow transplant. But in Steven's case, the chances for a match were low. So Steven packed up his courage, enthusiasm and energy, and he set out to raise awareness of the bone marrow donor registry, not just for himself but for all bone marrow transplant candidates.

Steven succeeded in raising public awareness. There are many, many people now registered in that system who had never heard of it before Steven brought it to our attention. Lives will be saved because of Steven's work and the work of those who supported him. Unfortunately, Steven -- like Matt -- never found a donor match. So he underwent an autologous transplant, and for a time it did succeed. Then there was another relapse, and Steven passed away last spring.

Let me say -- and I think maybe on this occasion I do speak for my colleague -- that people like Steven Hayward, Pat Manson and Matt Underwood are role models for me and, I hope, for others. They remind me of the challenge of looking beyond ourselves, the importance of serving others and the possibility of making a difference. I am privileged and honoured to have been able to bring the life and work of Steven and Pat to the attention of this House.

The Speaker: Thank you very much for those presentations.

For the fourth and final private member's statement, I recognize the member for Alberni.

THE CLAYOQUOT BIOSPHERE

[1845]

What is a biosphere reserve? A biosphere reserve is an international designation of recognition from the United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization -- UNESCO. Under the man and the biosphere program, the designation signifies that the area is a good example of ways that conservation objectives can be balanced with development needs. The term "biosphere" refers to the association of the designated area within the UNESCO man and the biosphere program, and "reserve" means that there are already some protective sites within the biosphere reserve.

As of 1996 there were 325 biosphere reserves in 83 countries. The Canadian biosphere reserves are located in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Canada is proposing, through a national action plan, that at least another nine be established to promote a national contribution to the international network. Clayoquot Sound is the foremost of these.

The present biosphere reserves have core areas based on existing protected areas, such as the parks that we created in Clayoquot Sound, and proposals for new biosphere reserves should also be closely associated with existing and proposed protected areas -- also created by this government in Clayoquot Sound.

The long-term goal is to create a worldwide network of biosphere reserves to include examples of all the globe's main ecological systems, each with their different patterns of human use and adaptations. To receive a designation, each biosphere reserve must have a protected core of undisturbed lands which can provide a baseline for comparison with nearby areas being managed to meet human needs. For example, a biosphere reserve may be made up of forests protected as a park. or an ecological reserve along with an adjacent forest managed for resource extraction. Local administration arrangements must also be in place to foster cooperation along with managers or owners of different components of the biosphere reserve. This is where it really gets exciting.

As many in this House and British Columbia know, Clayoquot Sound has been a hotbed. For the past 15 years there has been confrontation. For the past 15 years there has been a world recognition of what has happened to our society, what has happened to our universe and what has happened to our ecology.

There were over 900 arrests -- the greatest number of arrests in Canadian history -- in Clayoquot Sound. There was community unrest. But because of initiatives such as those taken by this government to create parks, to preserve areas and to promote resource extraction in a responsible manner, the communities have come together. Tofino, Ucluelet, the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot, first nations represented by the Hesquiaht, Ahousaht, Tla-o-qui-aht, Toquaht and Ucluelet, who have inhabited the area for over 5,000 years. . . . People who have identified with the land as their mother -- who have identified with the land as part of their religion -- have come together. They have been joined by members of the environmental community and by industry, particularly MacMillan Bloedel. We have to congratulate industry, because it is a great leap of faith that they have taken, for they know and have come to respect the wishes of local communities.

[ Page 11493 ]

[1850]

I look forward to working with people in British Columbia to create more biospheres. We have set an example in Clayoquot Sound that it is possible to live together, to work together. It is possible to ensure that our biosphere, our ecology, is there for our future as an example of planning, of cooperation, so that we can leave our children a legacy that we and perhaps our forefathers virtually came to the point of destroying.

The old-growth forest, the ecological balance, that once existed in communities like Victoria and Vancouver has been wiped out. We have seen streams that were once full of salmon disappear. We are now spending simply millions if not billions of dollars to correct those wrongs. That was at the verge of happening in Clayoquot Sound. We were able to rescue that and to ensure that things like a biosphere could happen.

M. Coell: I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on the Clayoquot biosphere project. I would also like to say that I know that the member has been very involved in this project for a number of years and has been very supportive. I have taken the time also to speak to mayors and council members from the Tofino and Ucluelet area, Clayoquot, as well as business and community groups. There is indeed a consensus in this area of the province that the Clayoquot biosphere is a good idea.

It is one that had a lot of discussion in the beginning -- a lot of discussion around property rights and property values, about the potential for economic growth or lack thereof and the potential for saving an ecosystem for future generations. It was truly a community decision, one which this member and the municipal councils and the business and community groups in this area can take a lot of credit for.

The biosphere program, through UNESCO and the UN, is worldwide, and I think it will have some lasting benefits to humanity. It's not without its problems, as seen in some of the poorer countries where these systems have been set up, but I think that in this instance it's one that we will have pride in.

I would comment on the process by which it was chosen. I wish that all government decisions around the environment were made using the same process. I think of issues like Burns Bog and the Six Mile Ranch. Had the process been different, I think the decisions around those two issues might have been different as well.

The idea of reservation of land, conservation of land, and the economy is one that will be trying for any government that is in. I'm a firm believer that protection of the environment and the economy can work hand in hand. We have an opportunity here with the Clayoquot biosphere to see that work -- to see that loggers and fishermen can live alongside environmentalists and community activists and produce a community that is viable and that grows. They will have many challenges, no doubt, and many decisions over the types of land use and the intensity of economic development within a biosphere, to keep to the rules of preservation. But that's a discussion and a debate worth having.

[1855]

In closing, I respect the way the decision has been made to put an application forward: the federal and provincial governments working directly with the people in the communities affected. I think probably everyone in this House has visited that area. It is truly a beautiful and magnificent area that, if we can, we should save for future generations. I look forward to working with the member in doing just that.

The Speaker: For final remarks, I recognize the member for Alberni.

G. Janssen: I want to thank the member for his kind remarks and invite him to visit one more time.

I would like to just spend a few moments talking about the beauty of Clayoquot Sound. For hundreds of thousands of years, migrating waterfowl and shorebirds that feed on its extensive mud flats each year and the thousands of gray whales that pass its shores every spring and fall have long known the allure and value of Clayoquot Sound. Only recently have we grown to understand the true global significance of this area of forest and sea on the central west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia.

Clayoquot Sound is a remnant of the rare coastal temperate rain forest ecosystem. It is the last accessible area in North America where long-term temperate rain forest research and conservation of marine and terrestrial ecosystems remain a viable prospect. Originally found on almost every continent of the world, only a fraction of these forests still live. From mountains to the sea, from the submerged kelp forest to the majestic expanses of hemlock, spruce and cedar, from the continental shelf to the mountain tops, Clayoquot Sound supports a rich, diverse array of life, including some of the oldest and largest trees in the world and the Earth's second-largest fish, the basking shark. Here the forest and the sea interact to create a dynamic cycle. The rivers that flow out of the mountains and through the rain forest send nutrients to the sea, and the sea furnishes the wind and rain vital to the forest.

The Clayoquot biosphere program operates an innovative environmental information centre in Tofino -- the temperate rain forest centre. The centre's permanent exhibits and rotating, hands-on display depict the rich natural history of Clayoquot Sound's rain forest and marine ecosystems. The provincial government -- with the help of the interim measures agreement, the scientific panel and the federal government's endowment fund -- is leaving a legacy to recognize this initiative. It should be noted that Jean Chrétien, our Prime

[ Page 11494 ]

When the decision on awarding the biosphere is made in Paris, sometime in September of this year, and we create British Columbia's first biosphere, I want to invite all members of this House to come to Clayoquot Sound to join in a celebration that I'm sure will be planned to recognize British Columbia's first biosphere.

The Speaker: Thank you very much, members -- all of you who participated in the statements today. They were excellent.

Hon. D. Streifel: I too thank the members for their thoughtful statements. Before I call the business, I think I'd like to bring Newfoundland to the attention of the members. Today is the fiftieth anniversary of their joining Confederation. I thought that could be referenced in our House.

With that, I call second reading of Bill 54.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1999
(second reading continued)

[1900]

I believe that the debate is not so much about providing for the continuation of government programs, but rather about why this supply bill, just introduced, is immediately before us now. Instead, this debate is about an incompetent NDP government which British Columbians do not trust to be good stewards of their tax dollars. This debate is about British Columbians who do not have any confidence in this NDP government when it comes to fiscal responsibility. This debate is about an NDP government that is void of any sound financial plan or credibility. This supply bill is before us today because we have an immoral, inept and arrogant NDP government which has refused to cooperate with the official opposition in developing, implementing and adhering to a legislative agenda or schedule that benefits the people of this province.

A supply bill is necessary because the government's estimates for 1999-2000 -- that is, the budget -- were only introduced yesterday, March 30, 1999, one day prior to the end of the government fiscal year-end. It is our responsibility and our duty as members of this Legislature to debate and vote upon it in this assembly prior to any spending taking place. But unfortunately, that's just not possible, because tomorrow is the start of the new fiscal year. That's right: tomorrow, April 1, this spending of the 1999-2000 budget must commence. So what this NDP government is requesting is an opportunity to spend taxpayers' dollars without a full debate of the budget estimates. My answer is no, absolutely not.

In order that we grant the NDP this opportunity, it means we have to accept that unusual circumstances have occurred. Perhaps we do need to accommodate that. But I can assure you that since my election in 1996, this NDP government has seized upon this opportunity and so-called standard practice time and time again, without regard for democracy.

Let me remind you of the history of this NDP government surrounding interim supply bills since my term here, since 1996. On Thursday, June 26, 1996, Supply Act (No. 1), 1996, was introduced by the then Minister of Finance, the member for Saanich South. He immediately requested that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81. Now, as I understand it, standing order 81 permits legislation to advance through all stages in one day, thereby suggesting that it is reserved and invoked only in urgent or extraordinary circumstances. Well, in 1996 there had just been a general election, so I can accept that indeed extraordinary circumstances appear to have existed.

However, many of the NDP members opposite had been elected prior to 1996. Surely they could have reminded the Premier that in order to avoid this problem, he should have requested that the House convene sooner than at the end of June 1996. After all, we were told that the same budget introduced in April 1996 would be reintroduced after the general election. We now refer to that as the infamous fudge-it budget. Those were the events in 1996. There really was no basis for requiring interim supply back in 1996. And there really is no basis for interim supply now. This government is its own maker of its own problems. And there really is no basis for interim supply now. This government is its own maker of its own problems, so why would we reward it by giving a dime -- or even a penny?

[1905]

Hon. Speaker, you have to ask the obvious question: why didn't we return a month earlier so we could have been well into budget estimates debate and could have avoided the need for granting of interim supply? Was it because they needed the extra time to provide an accurate budget? I don't believe so, because as we've now seen, the minister was way off his mark anyway.

The reason for delaying the return to this Legislature is simple. It's because the government was not prepared, as usual, and the government did not have a sound financial plan, as usual, and the government was afraid to face public scrutiny, as usual. The similarity of March 1997 to this current March is astounding. Back in 1997 it was just before the Easter weekend, and we were debating an interim supply bill. So here we are again, just before the Easter weekend -- déjà vu, as one would say.

Later on during the 1997 session we were presented with a second supply bill, on Tuesday, June 24, 1997. The significance of this is that it clearly indicates how truly inept this government is. This government is just not capable of keeping on schedule or on budget on anything, it seems. The government said that within three months the budget estimates would be approved. Yet three months later the government was still behind schedule. Unbelievable, but that's what happens. And it gets worse.

[ Page 11495 ]

This supply bill required us to provide spending authority for, yes, three months. Like previous bills, it too had to be considered urgent under standing order 81. During the months of April to June, rather than using the time efficiently to debate the budget estimates in an orderly fashion, the NDP chose to use the time to introduce legislation that was not urgent and to also introduce legislation that they knew would be contentious and possibly very time-consuming. They interrupted the budget estimates to bring in their labour legislation. What that did, of course, was delay the completion of the budget estimates.

The result of those shenanigans last year meant that on Tuesday, June 30, 1998, around 10 a.m. again, we were presented with yet another supply bill.

[1910]

M. Coell: It's going to be scary.

I. Chong: It is going to be scary, as my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands says. But I think a few have been mentioned, so we'll brace ourselves.

This government's financial record. First we have fast ferry overruns in the $230 million range. Then there was money spent on a second translation, a French translation, of the Nisga'a treaty. We then also had wasteful advertising advising British Columbians of minor tax cuts introduced in last year's budget which wouldn't be effective until this year. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that I had many constituents calling and asking what that was all about, and I did have to remind them. It had been announced, but we were seeing the government spend precious taxpayers' dollars advertising it again. We also saw that over the course of this government's term, $329 million was spent on the Skeena Cellulose bailout, with very few benefits. We have irregularities in granting approval-in-principle casino licences, and we have RCMP investigations. That's just to name a few.

Up until yesterday we had seven consecutive budgets. What does this financial record mean? Well, it means that in January of this year B.C. received a downgrade of our credit rating outlook by Standard and Poor's. We went from stable to negative, and that is a direct result of this government's financial record. Now, surely members opposite must acknowledge that this step by a major bond-rating agency is an accurate reflection of how others are judging B.C.'s financial and governance performance. Given that action by Standard and Poor's, how can I or anyone on this side of the House allow this government to continue its reckless spending ways?

Back at the beginning of the month, on March 1, the official opposition leader demanded that the House be recalled so that we could at least deal with the government's financial crises. He wanted to let all British Columbians know the truth about our provincial debt at the time. He wanted British Columbians to know, as well, just how far over budget we were going to be for the current fiscal year. If we had been recalled on March 1, perhaps through an extensive and workable schedule, we could have ensured that the spending estimates for the 1999-2000 year could have begun and perhaps have been almost concluded by the end of this month, without requiring an interim supply bill as we now see. I know, hon. Speaker, that it is possible that this government can recall us back to this House. After all, we were recalled twice before, once for two weeks in December and then again for two more weeks in January, so I know it's a possibility.

So why were we not called back in February or early March to receive the budget and to begin debate? The reason is because there has been scandal after scandal, deception after deception. This government was just too busy dealing with crisis management and not financial management. This government was elected under the auspices of its ability to manage the government coffers, and we see now that British Columbians have been misled and that they deserve a general election now.

[1915]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Other speakers have already mentioned the exodus from British Columbia of our workers, our citizens, who are leaving our beautiful province and going to Alberta and other areas looking for work. I too would like to add that I have seen friends of mine leave British Columbia in search of jobs in Alberta. What is most disturbing is that these people, these friends of mine, have young families. By their moving away, we in this province are indirectly creating more and more single-parent families. When that happens, the demand for more support and for more social programs becomes that much greater.

This government has learned nothing from its first years in office except that it cannot balance a budget. Yesterday we were presented with the eighth consecutive deficit budget, with the promise only of more provincial debt yet to come. The most notable achievement of this NDP government is the doubling of our provincial debt in nine short years. What does that really mean? That means that we will see a debt-servicing cost of over $7 million per day. Hon. Speaker, $2.64 billion per year amounts to $7,232,000 every day. Debt-servicing costs are

[ Page 11496 ]

This government, as I stated earlier, has been reckless in its spending, and there is no hope of achieving credibility. So what did they do about that? They gave up hope and brought in an $890 million deficit budget, which actually, when you factor in all transfers and payments through Crowns, will be a $1.5 billion deficit budget. Let us not forget that. Did they consider how this would restore investor confidence? Did this government consider how this would restore consumer confidence?

My colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands spoke of how our provincial debt is choking future generations, and he is absolutely right. What is also significant is that the small business community -- the one that this government wants to encourage -- and potential investors know all too well that it will be they who will be responsible for paying down the debt. It will be they who will be targeted to pay down this horrendous debt. This government has lost the moral authority to govern, and to allow it to spend another $5.2 billion over the next three months -- $5.2 billion of taxpayers' dollars -- is absolutely inconceivable.

The Minister of Finance stated in her budget speech that British Columbians deserve better. Well, I couldn't agree more, because British Columbians do deserve better. They don't deserve this NDP government. British Columbians don't trust and don't believe this government. There is no accountability from this NDP government. And for that reason, they don't deserve another penny.

[1920]

I cannot understand, when a helping hand is given, why this government will not take up the offer. Would the convening of some of these committees -- particularly the economic committee -- be so difficult? Would it be such a hardship to the members opposite? I am certainly willing to give up more time to be on that committee, to work at finding solutions and to listen to presenters, because I know that through that effort, we will be able to find some solutions.

Having served as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. . . . I know that a number of the members opposite have also served on that committee, and they recognize that these select standing committees play an important role for us here. I am saddened that I am no longer on that committee, but it's important that all members have the opportunity to take the chance to serve on that committee -- for all members to have the opportunity to learn how government finances work. It's important for all members to have a relationship with the auditor general when he comes to that Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and provides those reports and for the members from all sides of the House to sit down together, to listen and to work cooperatively -- to understand what it is that this independent watchdog would like us to do.

I applaud those who actually serve on the Public Accounts Committee, provided that they are listening to the concerns that various senior government public servants bring forward and also if they are also listening to the concerns of the auditor general. It is only in that way that we will find some solutions for restoring the economy of this province.

The tinkering of tax cuts last year was an abomination. It was too little, too late. Everyone said so, and now we are seeing the results of that tinkering. There has been no economic recovery; there has been no investor confidence; there has been no consumer confidence. This year this government recognized that they couldn't do any more tinkering, because it didn't result in any substantial or significant benefit.

Instead they thought that they had to at least address or acknowledge the concerns of the business community. What they did was choose one item -- which was the cut to the small business tax -- that they thought they could live with. If you take a look in the estimates at the benefits that that is supposed to generate, that is a mere $38 million this year and possibly $63 million when fully implemented.

R. Thorpe: If you have any profit first.

I. Chong: But the difficulty -- and I'm reminded of it by my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton -- which I was going to bring it up is exactly the point: you have to have profit in order to pay taxes. When this government dumps on additional user fees and additional costs to business, there is no profit. Very likely, even the calculation of lost opportunity of revenue won't materialize. I know that's a difficult concept for this government to understand.

[1925]

What we need to do is indicate to all those who are watching this province, all those national and international investors, those national and international business communities, as well as those within our own communities. . . . The business people have to know that they can bring their money to this province and it won't be grabbed right out of their hands before they have the opportunity to invest it in plants or equipment, but especially in people. They have to know that they will have a return on investment. That's not there either.

What is even more startling is the fact that when we cannot maintain a low enough personal income tax to retain our workers here in this province, it means that we lose many of our workers to other provinces. So again, it's another damaging effect on the economy, because businesses that want to relocate to British Columbia cannot find the most important resource, which is the people to work in their businesses.

I can tell you that it has been a very difficult time, even in the riding that I represent. The young people there are very

[ Page 11497 ]

Only a year ago I had six young nurses come to see me in my office, and they wanted to talk about health care in this province -- not so much health care in terms of what was happening. . . . They wanted to know whether, after graduation, they could depend on a job here. When I couldn't give them that assurance because, again, not having this government's financial plan, which of course changes year to year. . . . Without knowing this, I couldn't give them any assurance. They certainly weren't getting any assurance from this government. The government wasn't sending out any signals that they would be replenishing the nursing stock that we needed here. Instead, these six young nurses in their twenties made a conscious decision to look for jobs elsewhere in Canada and south. They have gone down to the United States. Six young, bright individuals that could be in the community that I represent right now are no longer here because they had no assurance at all from this government that there were going to be any jobs.

So as my colleague the member for Saanich North and the Islands stated: "Yes, we're training them here. Yes, they've got access to universities. But you know what? There are no jobs, and they won't be here." Guess what: that also erodes our tax base, because when we don't have workers, there's no tax base. Isn't that incredible?

One plus one equals two. Except, when you're on the government side, one plus one is. . . . I don't know. It's really disappointing that this government comes to us again. . . . Every possible time that they could ask for interim supply, every possible time since 1996, since I have been here -- June of 1996, March of 1997, June of 1997, March of 1998, June of 1998 and now March of 1999 again -- at every single opportunity they want a supply bill. I am not going to grant it this time. I did not grant it in the past, and I will not until this government acts more responsibly in their fiscal management.

[1930]

The thought that we are here today debating a bill where the government is saying: "Listen, we need $6 billion for the next three months. Just give us a blank cheque. We can't give you the details. We're not going to do a layout of where the money's going to be spent. Just give us the money. Trust us. . . ." I do not believe that with this government there's any room for any trust-me type of legislation. That's what we're doing here. You can't trust them. The history of this government in the last six, seven, going into the eighth year has clearly shown that everything this government is doing has to be watched, has to be monitored and, unfortunately, most of the time has to be criticized, because what they're doing is wrong.

As I say, I am not truly happy to have to debate this bill. I was thinking, after listening to many of my colleagues who identified and highlighted many of the wrongs that the budget presented yesterday, of taking a bit of a different route. I am going to talk a bit about what I would see if I, as a businessman -- or any individual British Columbian -- went to a bank, knocked on the door and said to the receptionist: "I'd like to see the manager." "Can I ask you what the purpose of your visit is, sir/ma'am?" "Sure, I'm looking for a letter of credit. I'm looking for a blank cheque." The manager, of course, is a very polite manager, and he says: "Well, I'll see the gentleman," or "I'll see the lady." We sit down and he asks me: "What is the purpose of your credit line that you're asking for?" Quite frankly, I cannot tell the bank manager what the purpose is of the credit line that I need. All I can say is: "I have spent too much money. I have to pay off bills. I foresee lots more spending, and I really cannot give you a layout or a business plan that identifies what this cost is going to be. So please just trust me as your customer. I may be a new customer, but trust me as a customer. Please provide me with a credit line so that I can carry on with doing the business I've been doing."

Of course, the bank manager doesn't know much about me, so he doesn't know if I've been doing well or if I've been doing bad. This bank manager's very, very first reaction is going to be: "I'm very sorry, but on the basis of this lack of information, I clearly cannot accommodate you." What the bank manager will say is: "Unless you show me a business plan to show me how you're going to recuperate the funds that you borrow from me or that you want in the form of a letter of credit. . . . How are you going to cover it, Mr. Customer?" I know, as the client, that I had better have the answers for the bank manager. I had better be able to lay out for the bank manager the exact plan and the reasons for wanting that letter of credit.

It's the normal thing that you would expect from a bank manager. If the bank manager did not ask for a business plan, if the bank manager did not know exactly why the money was going to be needed, how it was going to be spent and how it was going to be returned, then obviously that bank manager would not be a bank manager for a long, long period. His shareholders would question this bank manager and say: "Why would you give that person a loan if you don't even what it is all for?" It comes to the point, then, when the bank manager will clearly tell the customer: "No, you have no answers, so I can't provide you with this letter of credit."

[1935]

As long as we don't get any answers and all we're going to get in this House is stories, as we got yesterday. . . . When the Minister of Finance presented her budget, we had a one-hour-long story, a story that made all kinds of claims, of accusations, of promises. Unfortunately, nothing of what the Minister of Finance told us in her one-hour-long story was based on facts. This clearly was a budget presentation story -- nothing more than that -- based on pure fiction.

It is incomprehensible, after all these years that this government has been in power, that they still do not understand that the shareholders of this province, who will have to

[ Page 11498 ]

One of the words that was used a lot yesterday was the word "transparency." The minister was very proud confidently to say: "After we have spoken to the business sector, we know they need transparency." Well, I truly was not able yesterday to identify any transparency in what the minister told us. But what I find very cynical is that 24 hours after her storytelling, here we are in the House, asking the opposition to vote on and support a bill that is as transparent as mud, because we do not know what the money is going to be used for, how it will be used, where it will be paid and who it will be paid to. So the transparency of yesterday's presentation is gone suddenly, because we do not know any facts.

All we know is what the minister tried to tell us yesterday in that story. That's what I mean by the minister telling us: "Trust me." After the dismal record of the last eight years, it's just not an acceptable way of doing business in this province. I can clearly say that when I'm finished, I will tell you that I will not support the interim supply bill, but I can tell you that right now as well.

Rather than standing here not debating the budget, not debating the throne speech, which I thought was traditionally always going to be part of when this House reconvenes. . . . It is not just important for me that we should have had a throne speech and we should be debating a throne speech; it's important for the people living in this province. Because it's the only time every year that people have an opportunity to get some insight into what the government intends to do for the following year as far as a business plan for this province, a vision for this province. Once a year people expect to have a little bit of an opening of that window so they can look into the future and see what's going to happen in the next 365 days.

That people are not having that opportunity this time is something that offends me but, I know, appals people in my riding. Today I've had four or five phone calls that I could take -- I don't know how many other phone calls are on the answering machine -- from people expressing exactly that concern: that we are back here in the House not knowing what the real plan is, besides what the Minister of Finance has presented as a political statement. It doesn't matter if I talk to people from Squamish, West Vancouver, Whistler, Pemberton or Bowen Island; it doesn't matter where I go. The people tell me the same thing: "We need to know what's happening in Victoria, because we don't know." They're very worried. They hear very, very bad signals. When they talk to me whenever I'm in the riding on weekends, that's all people ask me: "What's happening in Victoria?"

[1940]

Then, of course, in many of these communities that I talked about, things are not going well. Some of these communities are resource-dependent communities, and quite frankly, in these communities people are very worried. Every time when this time of the year comes around, when we talk about the budget and about the throne speech, these communities in particular hope there is some message for them there to hang their hats on, to feel that there's something there that may turn things around in this province. That is just not happening.

It is not very healthy. It is not healthy for the communities; it's not healthy for the families living in these communities. Of course, in the past this government has put so much emphasis on what we call the healthy community approach -- how can we make communities wholesome and holistically well? There is a lot of money and effort and talk spent on that healthy community concept. Well, I can tell you: communities today are not healthy. Communities today are under incredible strain -- emotional strain, social strain. Communities that I go to. . . . Often I speak to the people living in these communities, and they talk about their hardship. I don't know if you, Mr. Speaker, or any of the members opposite have ever talked to a person who had to bring his or her son to the bus depot or to an airport because the kid had to leave town. They had to say goodbye to the child because the child was going to find a job somewhere else and couldn't stay in the community. That doesn't make a healthy community.

Last night we had dinner here in Victoria with a couple of people, and one of the families that attended had to come a little bit later because the babysitter wasn't there. I went over to pick them up with my car, and when the girl arrived, I just had a little chat, and I said: "Hey, it's great that you do babysitting." She said: "Oh, that's all I can do." There was a lot of disappointment her body language, so I asked: "What do you do for a living?" She said: "Oh, I'm just a nanny." I said: "Well, what do you mean by you're 'just a nanny'?" She was about 21 or 22. She said: "You know, this is all I do now. I don't think there's anything else for me to do in the future, so I'll be just a nanny." So I had a little chat with this girl and basically told her that this is not an attitude to have when you're 21 years of age and that things in this province will turn around and things will get better. It will not be with this government, but I'm an eternal optimist, and I must say that for myself: I do see brighter spots on the horizon when this government is gone. We on this side will take charge and do the right things which this province needs to do to get back on its feet and back into a situation where people can live and work and once again feel that there is a future.

Talking to all these people, I keep getting one message from them: when this is happening, when are you going to try -- or when are you going to succeed in -- getting rid of this morally corrupt government? That's how this government is seen. People want to know when we're going to get rid of these bullying, interfering ministers with their unethical behaviour that gets exposed in the newspaper. People just do not understand that we are not yet ready to kick this government out. Every week I get somebody asking me this: "When are you going to kick these guys into orbit? When is this government going to be space junk, never to be heard from or seen again?" These are the kinds of emotions that I get when I travel around, when I speak to people in my community. Like I said, on the one hand, it's not very healthy, but most probably it is that anchor that keeps them going. It keeps them going until the glorious day when we can indeed say: "Farewell and good riddance to this government."

[1945]

[ Page 11499 ]

Of course, the other thing is that we have to constantly be aware that this government is handing out misinformation on a daily basis about the true state of this province and the true state of the programs that this government is involved in. When I talk to people, they use the word "lie." I'm not allowed to. I'm not supposed to use the word "lie" in this House or say that this government is lying, but the people out there certainly overwhelmingly believe that this government is constantly lying to them. Somehow there is a belief among government members that if you keep repeating that misinformation, or that lying, as people call it, people will actually believe it one day. You know, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy that I don't think will come true, because people, after years of this kind of approach to the truth, are beginning to see through what really is happening here very well.

Let's take one example of this constant "things are doing so well." Every day I cannot look in a newspaper, listen to the radio, watch TV or be in this building without hearing the same mantra at least five or six times: "We won't cut funding for health care." I keep hearing it everywhere. I'm sure that the members opposite, when they're woken up in the middle of the night at any time, jump up and say: "We won't cut funding for health care." That's how ingrained in their brains it is. But is it the truth? I'm not so sure, and I'm going to use a little example that is the reason for my doubt.

One of the provincial regional districts that is growing faster than any other regional district is the Squamish-Lillooet regional district. Since the regionalization of health care, that district has grown in population by 25 percent. And 25 percent is an enormous number of people in a rather small regional district. At the same time, the funding for the district hospital and clinics has gone up annually by only 0.5 percent. So today the so-called fairness in funding and equal funding for rural areas and urban areas is as follows when it comes to hospitals and clinics: the average in this province is $200 to $250 per capita for clinics and hospitals; in Pemberton it's $152; in Whistler it's $96 per capita. So much for equal and fair consideration.

Now, it's not that the regional hospital boards haven't been talking to the government. As a matter of fact, they have been talking for years, and the time and the money that is spent on all these meetings must cost a fortune. Every time they meet, the government bureaucrats do agree, and they go away and say: "Something has to be done here, because the lack of funding is having a tremendous impact on the communities."

I'll give you an example. Pemberton, with its $152 per capita funding -- $100 less than in other areas -- has a number of patients living in the community that depend on home care. Now, this government likes to talk about home care and how they make sure that people at home are taken care of and are being taken care of well. Well, in Pemberton, because of budget constraints, there is very little money available for material for these patients who rely on home care. I know one case where a patient, for the last two and a half years, after having been in hospital for years, came home and had 14 days' supplies with him. Since that time, the family has had to come up with $1,000 a month in supplies to keep the patient slightly comfortable.

[1950]

When I hear the minister talk about equal and fair treatment, and when the Minister of Finance yesterday talked about health care and how, in the past, wrongs had been done -- but with this government, all these wrongs were corrected because it was right to correct them -- I thought about this patient. Please don't tell me that hospital funding and clinic funding are in good shape in this province. You may add some money to medical care, but you certainly don't care about patient care, and that is what the problem is with this government.

My hope is that the Minister of Health is going to get a little bit more serious when it comes to these cases. This particular case I just described she's very much aware of, because I've brought it to her attention a number of times. A number of times action was promised, but nothing happened. It is my hope that this minister stops her mantra of health care and no cuts in funding and starts practising what she is preaching. It will certainly help a lot of British Columbians.

One other area where again this transparency is so blatantly muddled that I can't help but bring it up is within the Ministry of Small Business. Last week we saw the Minister of Small Business and the Minister of Finance send out a press release that after long and hard negotiations with the small business sector, they had found a way to cut the bureaucracy; they had found a way to cut the red tape. What they have done is come up with this business plan -- what they call the business lens. The business lens is a document with ten questions. Whenever there's going to be a change in legislation or policy, these bureaucrats are going to take that document, they're going to look at these ten questions, and they're going to answer these questions. If they answer them right, then indeed we will see less bureaucracy and less red tape. "Now," says the Minister of Small Business, "isn't that a fantastic plan? We really show that we recognize that small business is the key to a strong, diversified economy, and we are going to be partners with them."

The first question: is government action justified? This is asked of a bureaucrat who most likely is involved in enforcing the action. If he says no, he may be out of a job. Because if the action is not justified, there won't be a need for the bureaucrat to be there. So have a guess at what the answer will be. I'll bet it will be yes.

Then: is regulation the best form of government action? We have to remember that this is the government which, when it came in, had 1,500 policies that directed the

[ Page 11500 ]

[1955]

So here is again a good, blatant example of how government believes that if they tell a lie or give misinformation and they tell it often enough, people will believe it. Well, it doesn't work, because the business people have said: "We will not allow them as a government to give that misinformation too often." This is just another blatant example of government abuse and misinformation. I could go on.

My time is running out, I see. It is clear that what I see happening here is unacceptable and undemocratic. It is clear that what I see here means a strong rejection from this member, the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi.

Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Delta South.

F. Gingell: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak to the issue of interim supply, where this government asks this House to vote them some ridiculous sum -- it's going to be in the region of $5.2 billion -- to continue this government's operations for the next three months.

After yesterday's budget was tabled, I happened to get caught talking by some media people, who came up and talked to Mayor John Ranta relative to his reactions to the budget. It was interesting to stand and listen to him, because they touched the right nerve. He was very succinct in expressing the concern that all of us have about this year's budget. He said that what this government has done is lose its sense of reality. It's living in a make-believe world. He didn't say that, but he spoke of this government losing its sense of reality.

He also spoke, of course, about the fact that grants to municipalities have been cut almost in half. Now, that will not affect small municipalities, but it will affect the municipalities, towns and cities where 95 percent of the population of British Columbia live. Does this government really believe in their hearts that this won't be passed on to local taxpayers? Don't they understand that municipal government has squeezed and squeezed as provincial funding has been cut, and there isn't much further to go?

Interjection.

F. Gingell: It will be most interesting if the Minister of Human Resources, who wishes to enter the debate, would go to her own community, talk to the mayor and councillors there, see what their reactions are and find out exactly what their attitude is. I hear the minister saying that they're actually Liberal supporters.

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, no -- New Democrats.

[2000]

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

What are the concerns of the majority of British Columbia citizens when they read and hear and listen to this year's budget? They realize that debt service costs in this year and in the future are going to grow at a tremendous compounded rate. The effect of taking those resources from the bag of resources that are there to service the needs of British Columbians in health care, education, justice, the social safety net and the protection of children is going to be dramatic.

Just going back to when this government came into office, I went and looked at the 1992-93 Public Accounts Digest. If you go there and look at the amount of the public debt at the end of the first four months of this government's mandate, the tax-supported debt on March 31, 1992, was roughly $14.2 billion. At the end of the year 2000, after the effect of the budget that has been tabled in this House and that we're now dealing with, it will have grown to an immense $26.2 billion. It has almost doubled.

What's going to be the result? We are at a point at the moment of historically low interest rates, but believe me, that may not necessarily stay. What is going to be the attitude and the reaction of the companies and the organizations that grade provincial credit? What are they going to say? Well, I can assure you that if there's one crisis in this province, there are many. There are crises in health care; there are crises in some of our schools, as we see. There is certainly a crisis of confidence by institutional lenders and credit raters about the financial trends and position of British Columbia.

Why is there that crisis of confidence? It's because this government has a history -- an unbroken history -- of broken promises. The only unbroken string is the string of promises that have been broken, one after the other. Their commitments to cut red tape -- and every six months we get another announcement. . . . They've made the announcement about five times that they're going to cut red tape, and nothing ever happens. They've made continual promises about balanced budgets. They have even tabled documents in this Legislature and run an election on the basis of incorrect information that we and the majority of British Columbians believe was knowingly false.

[2005]

One of the real tests of the institutional lenders and their attitudes, their thoughts and their confidence in the admin-

[ Page 11501 ]

They went down recently. The amount of the spread increased when the Minister Responsible for the Public Service, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, made some announcements about how he was going to get involved in solving the financial affairs and the economic disaster that this province is in. The institutional lenders immediately wanted higher interest rates if they purchased B.C. securities. After yesterday's budget, the spread widened again this morning. And as soon as the bond-rating agencies have had time to do a thorough analysis and have digested the proposals of this budget and our credit is downgraded yet again, those spreads will further widen.

Why does our credit get downgraded? What are the circumstances that give the rest of the world such a poor opinion of what's happening fiscally in British Columbia? It's exercises like the fast ferry fiasco, where the costs have gone up dramatically -- a subject that is close to my heart. I entered into a lot of correspondence with the then Minister of Employment and Investment, now the Premier, relative to the fast ferries, trying to point out to him that it was a very expensive solution that wouldn't work for getting rid of the backups at Horseshoe Bay; there were better solutions, solutions for which B.C. Ferries had skilled experts and which it was experienced in handling.

[2010]

Interjections.

F. Gingell: They stole it -- stole it -- and you know that.

How embarrassing to be a British Columbian when the Premier goes around the province speaking continually of how we're going to get this plant or that plant -- perhaps as many as three aluminum smelters -- and none now are on the horizon.

How embarrassing to be a British Columbian with all of the press releases and the folderol that went with the announcement of the jobs and timber accord, which has been an absolute disaster.

How embarrassing to be a British Columbian when this government brings forward a proposal to extend the SkyTrain when the capital budgets and proposals are so wrong that now the GVTA must surely be having second thoughts about it.

How embarrassing to be a British Columbian and have a report like the report of the auditor general on the fudge-it budget come out. How embarrassing. We are the laughingstock of the world, and it will show up in our borrowing costs. It will show up in further credit downgrades.

And believe me, the risk of higher interest rates is real. We always live with a feeling of comfort because interest rates are at historic lows and have been for the past 18 months. But they can change, and they can change quickly. They can change quickly because in other parts of North America -- in our neighbour country to the south, the United States -- and in the rest of Canada the economy is relatively warm. It wouldn't be unexpected for the Fed. . .or for the Bank of Canada to push up interest rates in Canada to ensure that the economy doesn't get overheated and we don't go into a period of high inflation. They don't worry that there's one little corner on the North American continent, that little bit that's just north of the 49th parallel, that happens to be in a recession. It won't affect them. We're the only people with a dreary economy. We're the only part of this continent with a lack of investment. The federal bankers won't worry about that and the effect of high interest rates on British Columbia when they deal with what they see to be an important issue for the other 275 million people who live on the North American continent.

A recession here is a B.C. recession, a B.C.-grown recession, a recession and a downturn in the economy that has been caused by this government. If you think it's any different, if you think it's the fault of Asia, just look to our neighbours to the south in Washington State and in Oregon, who deal with exactly the same markets and are doing fine, thank you very, very much.

[2015]

So this budget that this government has tabled proposes to increase the taxpayer-supported debt by $3.165 billion. Now, that's almost $1,000 a head -- man, woman and child. It's fractionally under, maybe $750,000. It's just added on to all of the debt that we presently have that has to be serviced and has to be, surprisingly, repaid at some point. There isn't any arrangement here where you can pay your Visa card off with MasterCard and then pay your MasterCard off with American Express, which seems to be the way this government believes things can be done. So $7 million a day is spent by the people of British Columbia, because of the incompetence of this government, to service funds this government has borrowed.

So we look at this budget. One thing I think we all, on both sides of the House, support is the reduction in the small business tax -- a great sum for a company claiming the maximum amount and having a December year-end. For this current year, the savings, I think, will amount to something like $3,000.

[ Page 11502 ]

G. Plant: NDP cabinet ministers.

F. Gingell: Yeah, NDP cabinet ministers.

What's happened in the past is that these tax increases have been pushed mainly onto the heads and backs -- the now much-bent backs -- of small business, the majority of property owners in the commercial and industrial areas. That's who's going to pay.

You know, it's funny. It was in Elizabeth Cull's first budget -- I'm not exactly sure which year it was; I think it was 1995 -- when this government included the $250 million phony amount for the sale of the downstream benefits that was going to arise after the current contracts had expired. There were opinions given by the comptroller general's office that it wasn't income and couldn't be included in the current year. There were opinions given by the auditor general's office that it couldn't be included as income in the current year. So they went out and looked for an opinion, and they got an opinion from what is now KPMG, which said: "If you have a contract and it's signed and sealed and it's a deal for sure, then you can include it." I think their accounting principles are subject to argument at the very least. But this government didn't have a signed and sealed deal. There wasn't any deal. There was just a vague agreement; there was a letter of understanding. That is not a contract. It had to be ratified by various people, and the Americans didn't ratify it, so it didn't happen.

[2020]

But in this year's budget, there is a quarter of a billion dollars -- $246 million -- anticipated to be income from a dividend from B.C. Buildings Corporation. I went to B.C. Buildings Corporation's financial statements. How much money do they have in the bank? About $30 million. How do they get a quarter of a billion dollars to pay a dividend? I guess they have to go and sell something.

R. Thorpe: I thought they could just borrow it.

F. Gingell: No, I don't think they can borrow and pay it out, because the quarter of a billion dollars is greater than their retained earnings. The famous case of the Waltham Abbey greenhouses, heard in the House of Lords in the 1890s, forbids you paying dividends from capital; you can only pay them from retained earnings. They'll have to create these earnings, so they're going to have to sell something.

Here we are back at the secondhand store -- not the pawnshop this time -- to sell some of British Columbia's assets. B.C. Buildings Corporation, as I understand it, is an efficient, effective organization that supplies the necessary space for servants of the province to work in and do their job. But this government sees it as an opportunity to do a subdivision at the bottom of the garden and sell off a spare lot. I'm not particularly comfortable about that, and we will have the opportunity, I would hope, to discover more about that proposal in the estimates debate.

You look through the budget, and where is the biggest single increase? The government trumpets the increase of 2 percent in education spending. There's going to be an increase -- or at least they have anticipated an increase -- in the population of 1.3 percent. My immediate reaction and my gut feeling is that amongst those numbers of people migrating into the province, the number of school-age children is probably greater than the percentage of school-age children within the total population, so it sounds as though there really isn't any increase in education spending. It will just be another stand-pat budget for them, and the increase will all be taken up by the increase in population.

Where is the biggest increase in the budget? The one I found -- or that one of the members of the media did, and I went and looked at it too -- is the 31.5 percent increase in the NDP caucus budget. The NDP caucus budget has been overspent year after year after year. They can't bring discipline to the financial administration of this province, because they can't bring financial discipline to their own operations.

[2025]

It's an opportunity to stop doing those things that just waste the taxpayers' money. When you know there are goals you want to accomplish that are worthwhile goals which we on both sides of the House support -- the improvement in the health of children at childbirth, the delivery of special services to special needs children, a whole series of government services that are critically important -- it's an opportunity for you to find out which work and which don't. Let's stop doing those things that don't work, that don't produce the desired outcomes, and start putting those funds into programs that do succeed. The rest of the world was, in 1994, behind British Columbia when this report was first tabled; it was behind B.C. The deputy ministers' council -- they're your bureaucrats. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I regret that your time has expired.

F. Gingell: Can I just finish off fast?

Deputy Speaker: Very quickly.

F. Gingell: I'm on my last line.

[ Page 11503 ]

S. Hawkins: In about three and a half hours, the government's going to run out of money. What a surprise! Here we are, March 31, at the last minute once again. It's like a recurring nightmare. Every year, we're back in the House at the very last minute. The budget gets tabled. The government crawls into this House on their knees and asks the opposition for a blank cheque. The blank cheque keeps getting bigger every year -- this year Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999 -- because. . . . If we don't finish debating the budget in time -- they're asking for three months' supply -- we might be here longer. Who knows? This year they're asking for $6 billion; I can't even fathom that.

You know what the sad thing is? The sad thing is that the budget was just tabled yesterday. We've had less than a day to look at it. The government has the gall to come in here the very next day -- without giving anybody the opportunity to look at the budget, to scrutinize the budget, to get some expert opinion on the budget -- and they want a blank cheque for $6 billion.

Well, you know what? The initial response to the budget has been frightening. I'm not using my words; I'm using words that I've seen used in news stories, from constituents that have phoned me and from regular citizens on the street. Frightening is a word that I've heard used with this budget. "Shocking," "outrageous," "out of step," "disastrous" and "a tragedy" -- that's the initial overnight reaction to this budget.

[2030]

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: I've heard a lot of heckling, and I hear the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine over there. I keep hearing some rumblings. But you know what? I haven't heard one member. . . . If they're so proud of this budget and they want me, on behalf of my constituents, to give them a blank cheque for $6 billion for the next three months. . . . They can do whatever they want, because we don't know what they're doing. We didn't get a throne speech this year, so we don't know what the business plan for this government is. We never got a throne speech. And you know what? We only got a budget yesterday, and in three and a half hours money is going to run out, and they are crawling in this House, asking us to support this bill. I think that's shameful.

You know what? Even before. . . . Here is the reaction of a media source -- actually, it's the Province -- that ran an ad. I believe it was Sunday when I read it. The budget was tabled Tuesday, yesterday. It was a nice, half-page ad back in the business section of the Province on Sunday last. It had a picture of the Finance minister, and right beside it were the words: "Taxes, lies and red tape. Stay tuned for our review of the provincial budget." Wow! There's a proud moment for the government as well.

No one believes you. Nobody believes this government; no one believes their numbers. In fact, we saw an auditor general's report that was released earlier this month, and the auditor general condemned this government for misleading people, for using numbers that were too optimistic, for not being honest with people.

Again, I'm waiting. I'm waiting for one of those members to stand up, while we debate this bill, and convince me why I should give them approval for $6 billion. Well, you know what? I'm going to end the suspense, in case you're wondering how I'm going to vote on this bill. I'm going to end the suspense right here. This bill. . . .

An Hon. Member: Don't end it.

S. Hawkins: Don't end it?

An Hon. Member: Save it till the end.

S. Hawkins: Save it till the end? You know what? I want to end the suspense, because I want people to understand that the vote on this bill is a confidence vote. It's a confidence vote. This government has lost the confidence of the people in this province; they've lost the confidence of constituents in my constituency; they've lost my confidence. I've been here now for almost three years -- four sessions. Every year we come back, it's the same old story. The government doesn't have a plan. In fact, the first two budgets. . . . Well, the '96 budget, which we saw tabled here in the House, was a fudge-it budget. Ever since the fudge-it budget, who's going to believe the numbers? Why should we give them a blank cheque for $6 billion when they don't have a plan? No one believes their numbers, and frankly, no one wants to believe their numbers. Why should we give them anything?

A couple of years ago I said that I wouldn't give them my niece's piggy bank to manage. And you know what? I wouldn't give them a penny today; I wouldn't give them a penny out of her piggy bank today, because they've shown us over and over -- eight times over, because what we saw yesterday was the eighth consecutive deficit budget tabled in this House. . . . We've seen how incompetent they are, what sorry, pathetic managers they are and how much they are willing to mislead the people of this province. It's unbelievable. It's so typical of this government to come in at the last minute and slide through something as important as this bill. It's just so very, very typical.

This Finance minister had the chance in the last couple of months. She could have brought a budget in in January; she could have brought a budget in in February; she could have brought it in on March 1. But you know what? They were so rocked with scandal that they couldn't do it.

[2035]

[ Page 11504 ]

Here are some of the headlines in the three major papers in the province, which I thought were kind of interesting. The Times Colonist from Victoria: "There's No Plan to Get Economy Back on Track." Hey, there's a good review; you should be proud of that headline. The Vancouver Sun: "Credit Card Budget Strains Credulity." There's a great headline. And in the Province: "NDP Not Cracked Up to Running a Peanut Stand." I couldn't have said it better myself. I believe the Leader of the Opposition said the other day that this government went from being a provincial embarrassment to a national disgrace. In the Globe and Mail, a national paper: "Big-spending B.C. Plunges $890 Million Further in Red. Clark's troubled government shrugs off calls for restraint."

Before you correct me, I apologize for using proper names, hon. Speaker.

What we have seen -- what I have seen, anyway, in the three short years that I've been here; it seems longer; it's the fourth session now -- is that this NDP government has been very, very consistent. You can't take points away from them for not being consistent. They've been consistent in tabling eight deficit budgets.

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: If the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine wants to stand up and defend the budget, I'm willing to sit down and give up my time. I think I could still be convinced. If someone on that side of the House stood up and told me why I should give them a blank cheque for $6 billion, I'd be willing to. . . .

Interjection.

S. Hawkins: If the member wants to heckle, perhaps he'd like to heckle from his seat, which happens to be on our side of the House. He seems to have moved over here. I don't think he's going to be getting a cabinet seat anytime too soon.

The government has been very consistent: eight consecutive deficit budgets. There's something to be proud of. They've consistently raised taxpayer-supported debt. It's increased 133 percent since 1991. They're very consistent; consistency is the theme here for this government. They've consistently presided over successive downgrades to B.C.'s credit rating. And guess what. We're on credit watch. I'm sure the Finance minister has probably got notice already -- if not, in the next couple of days -- from the bond-rating agencies. And that's not going to be a proud moment for British Columbia either.

An Hon. Member: What's that going to cost us?

S. Hawkins: That's going to cost us millions -- millions that could be used for health and education, like they keep screaming about over there. The debt-servicing costs are crippling to health and education services. Shame on this government. They consistently fail to keep promises. Maybe if I get time, I'll list some of those later. They've consistently wasted millions upon millions upon millions of taxpayers' money.

They've consistently stumbled from one scandal to another. My goodness, I've almost forgotten about the sequence of scandals, but I think it went from Bingogate to Hydrogate to Fudge-it-budgetgate to Skeenagate to Fast-ferrygate to Casinogate, and now we're back at Budgetgate again, with the reruns, because the auditor general's report is out again.

[2040]

I couldn't believe it when I heard the Finance minister say yesterday that they were going to spend their way out of the recession. I can't tell you how many constituents I took phone calls from yesterday, saying: "If we couldn't manage, if we were in debt in our household budget, wouldn't it be funny if we went to the bank and said: 'Guess what. We want to do what the provincial government is doing. We want to spend our way out of our debt. Can we get our kids some credit cards too? Like, we'll just keep spending our way out. Maybe a credit card for our family dog too.' If the government can do it, why can't we do it? Why can't we keep our books the way the government does?" What a sorry, sorry example from a government.

It's interesting. Before the budget even came out, there were business groups and chambers from around the province that were asking for this government's resignation. The Vancouver Board of Trade came out and said: "Call an election. These members should resign, and there should be an election." The Surrey Chamber of Commerce came out and said exactly the same thing; they said that this government should resign. In fact, it was reported on March 29, the day before the budget was tabled, that the chamber president, Veronica Mallin, said that there is zero confidence left in this government -- she hadn't even heard your budget -- and that nobody would care to read the budget on Tuesday. She said that the early election call demanded by her members last week also included -- I can't say his name -- the Premier's resignation but noted that the entire NDP caucus must also be held accountable.

The chamber of commerce in Kelowna issued a press release a week earlier, on March 25. "Kelowna Chamber Calls For a Provincial Election," says the release.

"The Kelowna Chamber of Commerce has unanimously passed a resolution calling for the provincial government to call a general election and end this term of government. The resolution was passed at the chamber's monthly board meeting on Tuesday. The board based its decision on the current government's mismanagement of the finances as demonstrated by the following. . . ."

". . .the expected budget deficit of $700 million for the current year" -- which we found out yesterday was actually $190 million more, at $890 million -- "the auditor general's report, which showed political interference in the preparations of the 1996 provincial budget; the cost overruns on the B.C. fast ferries. . . ."

[ Page 11505 ]

". . .the expected cost overruns on the SkyTrain extension; the crisis in the forest industry due to massive increases in stumpage and compliance costs; the stated intention to four-lane Highway 97C for clearly political reasons at a time when the province can ill afford it."

"It is clear that the government of the day has lost all credibility with the business community as well as with the public at large. This continued crisis of confidence in the government, together with their clearly demonstrated inability to properly manage the finances of British Columbia must be reversed immediately if we are to avoid further long-term harm to our economy and to our quality of life."

[2045]

Hon. Speaker, a lot of people don't believe that this government has the mandate to govern. They don't believe that. This government ran an election on two balanced budgets and a surplus. That's what they ran an election on, and that's what they got voted in on. Today the deputy leader, the member for Delta South, mentioned that there was a court date set for a lawsuit against the government, against the NDP, for misrepresenting. . . . Well, they say it's lying; I can't say that. They say that the government lied about the provincial budget, so they are suing the government. Apparently there is a date set now for July 5.

Interjections.

S. Hawkins: There is a date set, and I see that that excites the members opposite, because I think they can't wait to testify. And under oath, maybe we'll get some truth. Maybe we'll finally get some honesty. Wouldn't that be a change? Wouldn't that be novel? That would be really novel.

July 5. What a sorry day for government and what a sorry day for British Columbia -- that the citizens of B.C. are going to take this government and its members to court. They are angry, they are upset, and they are furious that they were misled, that they were defrauded and that this government is misgoverning because they don't have the mandate to do what they promised to do. They promised balanced budgets, and they promised surpluses, and they have posted deficits eight years in a row. In eight years they have never balanced the books and they've doubled the debt. It's embarrassing. We're an embarrassment.

I saw an analyst from Wall Street speaking on CBC's "The National." You know, the news is not good for B.C. I see the members opposite smiling. They think it's funny, but frankly I'm scared. When I hear numbers like $7 million a day to service the debt -- $7 million a day. . . . Imagine what that could buy in health and education services. Seven million dollars a day, hon. Speaker, is $210 million a month. That would wipe out all the cardiac surgery wait-lists. That would probably wipe out all the wait-list for cardiac surgery for kids. That would probably wipe out all the hip and knee replacement surgeries. We'd probably have money left over to pay for the cancer treatments that the Minister of Health was talking about today.

But you know what they've decided to do? They've got different values. They've decided to borrow from our children and spend it today -- not for economic purposes, not in a responsible way, but for political purposes. The Minister of Finance commissioned a poll, and in her interpretation, the poll said that health and education were very, very high on the list of priorities for people in British Columbia. Of course they are. But you know what? So is the economy, because if we don't grow the economy and if we don't get revenues in, we're not going to be able to pay for those services.

[2050]

We are on credit watch. When our credit rating gets downgraded once again. . . . And it was scary last year, because when B.C. got downgraded last year, the message was: "Get a debt reduction plan and stick to it." That was the message. That is why we got downgraded, and they are watching. And guess what: we never stuck to it. There was some kind of a plan last year. There's been a plan every year. I can't even begin to name the plans. Every year this government has put a new label on some nefarious plan and has never stuck to it. We've got a new plan this year. Again there are no details for this plan. When we look through the budget documents, we can't find the details. And you know what? We're not going to have the chance to debate the details. That gives me absolutely no confidence that the government has actually got a plan that's going to work. So for the next three months, for the $6 billion that you want, we don't know if you're actually going to pay off any debt or stick to a plan. It's absolutely ludicrous to come into this House and table a budget one day, and the next day say: "Cut me a check for six billion bucks; I want to start spending." Absolutely ridiculous!

Let's look at the NDP record in the last year. In the last year we've seen forestry revenues fall. Forestry is huge in my riding; I've got a lot of families that depend on forestry. This government had the gall, two years ago, to unveil this jobs and timber accord which was going to provide 15,000 jobs or 20,000 jobs or however many jobs the Premier had in his head that day. Within a year 20,000 jobs that were going to be created became 15,000 jobs lost and ghost towns created in some areas of the province. Absolutely embarrassing!

[ Page 11506 ]

With this very proud budget that the NDP introduced, with $890 million in deficit and $3 billion in debt, I'm sure we're going to see a fine-tuned ad campaign. I wonder what's going to be in those ads. I wonder if they're going to tell people how proud they are that they've got an almost billion-dollar deficit built into the budget that's taking us into the millennium. I wonder if they're going to tell people that. Back to the future; back to days of deficit. We're going into the millennium with a billion-dollar deficit.

[2055]

An Hon. Member: How much was it?

S. Hawkins: They've increased it by -- what was it? -- 30 or 35 percent. Unbelievable!

I'll give them a chance. I'm willing to give up my place if any one of them will just give me a sign. If you want to stand up and defend this bill, show me a sign of life. If you want to stand up and defend this bill and tell me why I should, on behalf of my constituents, give you a vote of confidence on this bill, stand up and defend it. I'm willing to listen. I haven't heard any arguments yet that are going to convince me that I should vote yes to this vote of confidence -- nothing at all.

Forestry revenue is down. Mining is decimated. Housing starts are down -- a big blow in Kelowna, I can tell you that. Retail sales are down. Investor confidence. . . . Well, let's talk about investor confidence. Let's see.

We've got a "B.C. Economic Update" for March 1999. It's put out by the Business Council of British Columbia. Surprise! I think I will quote from it. The header is: "Business Investment in the Province Continues to Plummet." I hope some of those members over there are listening.

"Statistics Canada's latest investment intentions survey paints a sobering picture of B.C.'s troubled economy and suggests that 1999 will be another poor year for business growth and expansion. Total fixed investment by the B.C. private and public sectors fell 8.3 percent in 1998, the second biggest decline amongst the provinces." My goodness. "For 1999, Statistics Canada forecasts a 4.4 percent drop. Over the five-year period 1995-99, B.C. will have seen overall investment spending fall in four years and rise in just one -- the worst performance in the country."

If they're really worried, if they really want to take action. . . . I can tell you what you can do. Why don't you take the board of trade's advice and resign and call an election? That will bring confidence back.

G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise and join in this interim supply debate. I see we're about to have a change of the guard in the Speaker's chair.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

G. Abbott: I'm kind of pleased to see that, as the now former Speaker is an old duelling partner here in the Legislature. I'm glad to see him slowly make his way back to his seat so he can again participate in the debate in his usual limited way. Not quite there yet.

As I was awaiting my turn to speak, I came across a historical artifact in my desk. This is from the Vancouver Sun, April 2, 1998. It's an advertisement which this government bought to aggrandize their 1998 budget. The headline is interesting. It says: "A Three-Year Plan to Stimulate the Economy." A three-year plan. I guess we did it all in one year. Obviously that plan is over, so clearly we've achieved everything we hoped to in one, because that plan is gone.

[2100]

It's a little bit like the scandals on the other side of the House. Hon. Speaker, you'll be amused by this, undoubtedly. I had a constituent in the other day -- and she was quite distressed by this -- and she said: "I think the NDP is creating new scandals so we forget about their old ones." I thought to myself: that is an astonishing theory. I think the member for Yale-Lillooet, the Minister for Transportation and Highways, should put that in his conspiracy pipe and smoke it -- and maybe inhale, as well, when he's there.

Let me just mention a couple of other things about the ad before I go on and get into the full text of my remarks here. This ad talks about revitalizing the resource sectors. That's an encouraging headline for any of the thousands and thousands of laid-off miners and forest workers in this province. I'm sure they found great hope in that headline. But as it turned out, the NDP's idea of revitalizing the resource sector -- and particularly, I guess, the forest sector -- was to take a Cuban labour model called the HCL, or Highway Constructors Ltd. model, package it up in something called New Forest Opportunities, and compel any silviculture worker who wanted to work on an enhanced forestry project under FRBC to union-

[ Page 11507 ]

One of the other headlines here is: "Creating a positive business climate." Well, I guess we'd all agree if we were talking about Alberta, but that isn't specified here. It further goes on to say: "Sound financial management. This year's deficit will be half of last year's" -- I don't think so; I don't think it quite worked out that way, did it? It turns out it's about double last year's -- "and we're projecting a balanced budget for the year 1999-2000."

Can you imagine that? I guess that maybe that part of the three-year plan hasn't quite worked out as expected, given that we're looking at an admitted deficit of $890 million, and undoubtedly it is much larger than that. Of course, if we take into account, as some have suggested here, the demands made on the Crown corporations in the province, the real deficit is certainly at least $1.5 billion for the coming year.

The last thing I'll note on this advertisement of last year is that they generously provided a 1-800 number that folks could call to find out more about B.C.'s '98 budget. I want to note that the one good thing that's come out of this year's budget -- and I really welcome it -- is that in the interests of helping the public understand this year's budget and the massive deficit that's a part of it, they have once again put out a 1-800 number. This year's it's easy to remember: it's 1-800-DEFICIT. That way you don't have to remember the number; you just have to remember it's a deficit.

An Hon. Member: It's 890.

G. Abbott: Right -- 890-DEFICIT.

Yesterday, budget day in the Legislature, the Premier made a comment which I guess in retrospect was a wise one. He mentioned that it felt like Groundhog Day to him. Well, imagine how it felt to British Columbians living through their eighth consecutive deficit budget from this government.

An Hon. Member: Didn't the groundhog croak this year?

[2105]

In many ways an NDP budget day in British Columbia also reminds me of a movie which I watched with my children some years ago. It was called The NeverEnding Story. And in many ways an NDP budget day is like that too. The years are a little different; some years are better than others. In some years we have a tremendous burst in our resource sector; in other years, maybe not. Economies go up and down, but the one thing we can always expect, regardless of whether things are good or bad, is another deficit budget from the NDP. It's a never-ending story.

I think, too, when I was listening to the Finance minister deliver her budget yesterday, it also called to mind an episode of the old show. . . . I'm sure you're familiar with this one, hon. Speaker. Do you remember the show Dallas? The long-running kind of soap opera thing? I see you're making notes on this, and I appreciate that, because I'm just getting to the good part here. Dallas, with Patrick Duffy and all those guys, about ten years ago. . . . You'll probably remember this, because this was the last episode before the summer break. It was just before the summer break, and J.R. Ewing got shot. Remember? J. R. Ewing got shot, and it was the last episode before the end of the summer, so we waited all summer to find out who shot J.R. And I was thinking, as the Finance minister gave her Finance speech: who shot B.C.? That was the question that came to my mind: who shot B.C.?

Well, one of the great things about this is that we don't have to wait all summer to find out who shot B.C. We know -- or at least we've got a pretty good idea -- who shot B.C. They're across the way; that's one clue. And they have the initials NDP -- another clue as to who shot B.C.

Maybe there are a few other clues we can look for as we're trying to ascertain who shot B.C. For example -- and I think this is a good clue -- who took the B.C. economy from being number one in Canada to number ten in Canada? Oh, that would be the NDP. Maybe that's a good clue as to who shot B.C. It's the NDP, who took B.C. from number one to number ten.

Let's see. In trying to determine who shot B.C., there's another clue that we can look at. Who doubled the provincial debt over the past eight years? Who took the debt of British Columbia from $17 billion to $35 billion? It was the NDP. So that's another good clue here as to who shot B.C. The NDP shot B.C. Over the past eight years they have more than doubled the provincial debt of British Columbia.

What does that mean? Why would that mean that the NDP shot B.C.? It means, for example, that we now spend approximately $2.7 billion hard-earned taxpayer dollars in British Columbia to simply service the debt. That's shameful, and that's one of the reasons that the NDP have shot B.C. They have made us a debtor province. Seven million dollars a day we use to service the debt. And this government is happy to keep adding to that debt, knowing full well that we are going to be paying a very major price for that tomorrow and in every year ahead, and our grandchildren will be paying the price for that debt.

[2110]

Today the western Canadian migration flow in and out of B.C. from 1992 to 1998 was released. This migration flow tells us a good deal about the consequences of NDP mismanagement in this province. We have gone, for example, from an inflow from Alberta in 1992 of 10,796 people, with similar numbers in '93. . . . But in '94, '95 and '96 it starts to fade. In '96 we're down to 1,198 as the inflow from Alberta into British Columbia. Then we see in '97 an outflow to Alberta for the first time: 7,582 people. And in 1998 -- a sorry testimony to the pathetic economic and political management of this government -- 20,553 British Columbians left this province for Alberta to find employment. It's a pathetic testimony to the work of this government.

[ Page 11508 ]

Let me note that in between, we had the creation of the joint council. The joint council was supposed to be a new mechanism which would show some respect from the province to its municipalities. It was supposed to be a way in which new policies and new changes in government policy would be delivered to municipalities. Well, that sure lasted a long time. Recently again -- just before Christmas, just before a weekend, just before 5 o'clock, when the NDP hoped nobody was looking -- there was another $40 million in arbitrary and unilateral cuts to municipalities by this government. It's shameful -- absolutely shameful.

Further, this government has been talking a good deal about their tax cuts for small business, but one of the other provisions in this current budget -- and it's something I'm sure our critic will be exploring in great detail -- is the $99 million in additional cuts to the Municipal Affairs ministry. What's that going to mean to small business? It's going to mean higher taxes. It's as simple as that. Again, it is a shameful part of this government's program to gut those transfers to municipalities.

[2115]

So who shot B.C.? I think it was the government that allowed health care to deteriorate, particularly in rural B.C. We've seen -- apparently despite lots more dollars being thrown in that direction -- growing waiting lists every year, every day in this province. Twice I stood in question period in this House and told the House about situations where my constituents have waited over a year for vital heart surgery. It's absolutely shameful. In the North Okanagan-Shuswap -- I don't know; this may well be worse in the north; I wouldn't be surprised if it is -- people wait 18 months for joint replacement. They have to put their lives on hold for 18 months. Why does that happen? If you phone the surgeon, it's because there's not sufficient funding for the operating room. The waiting list could be reduced to zero in no time, but there is not enough funding for the operating room. This is the government that shot B.C.

Who shot B.C.? Well, I think it's an NDP government that squanders millions of dollars every year on self-aggrandizing, self-promoting advertising. If there is one thing that by consensus there is almost universal disgust about with respect to this government -- and I think it even includes rank-and-file New Democrats across the province -- it's disgust at the amount of money that is wasted by this government on self-aggrandizing advertising. I'm sure we'll even see in the days ahead probably several hundred thousand dollars in advertising. Who knows? There's probably no limit. Maybe it'll be a million dollars to tell British Columbians of the wonders of an $890 million deficit. That's what this government specializes in: self-aggrandizing advertising. Some $27 million or $30 million a year is spent on advertising -- money that is desperately needed for purposes more noble than that.

The mother of all bogus advertising campaigns was the jobs and timber accord. I'm going to talk -- I'm sure you're waiting with bated breath for this -- a little bit more about the forest industry presently, but I want to mention the jobs and timber accord. This was an accord that was founded upon the fatuous notion of the Premier that somehow he could create or cause to be created 21,000 new direct forest jobs in British Columbia.

[2120]

The Premier, during one of his earlier incarnations, believed, I think, that he could wave a wand or wave an edict here in Victoria and suddenly, somehow, the whole nature of the B.C. forest industry would change, and he could cause to be created 21,000 new direct forest jobs and 40,000 new indirect jobs flowing from those forest jobs. Obviously that's nonsense. What we have seen in almost direct proportion since the signing of the jobs and timber accord is that we have gone in precisely the opposite direction. To this point we are on target to lose 21,000 forest jobs over the course of the jobs and timber accord, and undoubtedly we are losing 40,000 indirect jobs as well. Absolutely shameful!

The Premier's notion about creating new jobs was promoted in part, I think, by an infatuation that he had with Jeremy Rifkin and the ideas contained in The End of Work. One has to give them some credit here. The NDP have come very close to achieving the end of work in British Columbia. Give them credit, too. . . . I remember this very distinctly in the throne speech in '96, and I think it was repeated again in '97. The Premier said: "We're going to have shorter hours of work in this province so that more people can work." Well, you know, give him some credit. I mean, some people's workweek now is so short that they don't have to work at all, particularly in the forest industry. That's the NDP model of economic management -- the complete elimination of work.

So do we need any other clues about who shot B.C.? Well, I think so. I think that the people who shot B.C. were the people who, for the purposes of getting elected in the 1996 election, chose to deceive the people of British Columbia about the true state of the province's finances by claiming two surplus budgets when, in fact, there was a mountain of evi-

[ Page 11509 ]

Hon. Speaker, I think that the people who shot B.C. are the people who have mismanaged every public project that they have undertaken since they came to office in British Columbia. Now, I think my constituent might be on to something about the conspiracy around the NDP creating new scandals in order to forget the other ones. It seems like only moments ago, though it's now weeks ago, that the fast ferry scandal emerged. I guess it's a classic example of NDP project management, where first of all the Premier boldly announces that these three fast ferries are going to cost $210 million -- not a dollar more, right down to the toilet paper. That's how specific he was. Very expensive toilet paper. Right down to the toilet paper -- $210 million. So where are we now under NDP project management? I think that at last count, we are up to $460 million in costs for those three projects, certainly well over 100 percent over budget on a project that has never yet seen an actual British Columbian riding in that boat, as a fare, going somewhere. It's unfortunate, but I guess it's typical. Clearly this budget points to the fact that this government is prepared to do it all again -- except, in an even bigger way -- with SkyTrain. Pretty scary thought.

[2125]

I want to talk for a moment about the forest industry in British Columbia. As Forests critic, it's something I feel very passionate about. I don't believe that there is going to be a turnaround in British Columbia without a turnaround in the forest industry. I know that this NDP government has done its best to turn the forest industry from being a sunrise industry into being a sunset industry, but there's no reason why that has to be. The forest industry could be the economic backbone of this province for decades and centuries to come. But it can't be managed in the abusive fashion that it has been by this NDP government. The forest industry provides -- at least, in good times -- around 100,000 direct jobs in this province. It provides investment, and spinoff jobs. Most importantly, it provides government revenues. It is by far the largest producer of tax revenue in this province. Without it, our health care and our education system are in great jeopardy.

One of the reasons why we are in such trouble with our debt, with our ongoing deficits -- thank you to this government -- and why we're here talking about approving special warrants is because of the abuse of the resource sector by this government. There is only one way, I think, that the resource sector in British Columbia is going to get turned around. There's only one way we're going to restore confidence in the forest industry, the mining industry and indeed all of the other industrial sectors in British Columbia. There's only one way we're going to achieve that: we've got to get rid of the guys who shot B.C., the NDP. They are the guys we've got to get rid of.

This NDP government can talk all the nonsense they want to about moving to the centre, about becoming a moderate political force in the province. But actions speak way louder than words. This is a goofball government. It's not a centrist government. This is a government that simply can't manage anything. They can call themselves right, centre, left -- whatever they want. They can't manage anything. Their mismanagement has taken this province into the ditch. They're not running down the centre of the road; they're in the ditch. And they're taking the province with them.

There is only one way to restore confidence: call an election. We need an election in British Columbia so that we can get rid of the NDP and restore prosperity to this province.

J. Reid: In considering the interim supply bill before me, I have to ask several questions. I have to ask: does this government deserve my support? I have to ask: what do my constituents think? I feel fairly close to my constituents, having just recently won a by-election. I know what they've been saying to me. I've been on the streets; I've been talking with them at their doors; I've been meeting with them.

As I look at the past record of this government and I look at the budget that's before me, there's only one conclusion that I can come to. This provincial government is supposed to provide leadership for the province. Now, I examine this budget and the request for interim supply on that basis, on the basis of leadership, and I ask: what kind of leadership is being offered here? What direction are we being led in, and is this good for the province? If we allow this government to lead and to spend our money, where will we end up? Where are we going?

[2130]

We have been told that this budget is about choices. Indeed, every time we spend money, it's about choices. So we look at our choices. We are faced with problems. We have to ask: "How do we react?" and "How do we expect our government to react?"

This government seems to know only one approach to solving problems, and that's to add more money. This is a sad theory -- that you can take a problem, stir in more money and wait to see what happens. Maybe by some lucky chance, someone will come along and find the solution in that mix of problems and money. It won't just appear by itself.

We definitely have health care problems in this province. This government believes that if it adds more money, every-

[ Page 11510 ]

The question is: what does that leave for next year and the next, and is this sound planning? Can we logically increase health care funding every single year? Can we keep going at this rate? The answer, logically, is no. Where is the plan? Where is the vision? Where is the looking ahead and looking down the road to provide for the long term for all British Columbians?

This spending -- the amount suggested in this interim supply bill -- is not sustainable. We cannot keep spending at this rate. This government has increased our debt every year, and we logically know that this cannot go on. When does it stop? Where does it stop? And how does it stop? Other governments have woken up to the fact that this can't go on. This is the only province in Canada where the government believes that it can create a world of its own, a world apart from every other, where the laws of economics are suspended. Even for governments, it's simple that what goes out has to come in at some point in time. You can't keep spending without the revenues to come in and balance that off.

In the long term, how will we support health care? There's only one way of supporting health care, and that's with revenues. How will we support education? There's only one way we can support education, and that's with revenues. So I have to look at this budget and ask: what are they doing to increase revenues? If we're going to support health care and education, we also have to have the balance of bringing in revenues.

[2135]

The facts are simple. If people are to live, they need jobs. Who provides the jobs? People either work for business or work for government. And where does the government get its money from? It gets it from businesses and those who work for businesses. Out-of-control spending means out-of-control taxes. We need businesses. We need small businesses; we need medium-sized businesses; we need large businesses. The government cannot employ everyone. That's proven. It doesn't work.

This government doesn't understand what makes businesses function and why businesses are so discouraged in this province. They don't seem to understand what the problem is, and they certainly haven't addressed it in this budget. People who run businesses have a certain set of skills. Just as we need computer programmers with special skills, we need business people with their special set of skills. Not all these skills can be taught in school. How do you teach someone to be willing to risk all that they have? How do you teach someone to be willing to work 16 hours a day, seven days a week? How do you teach someone to try, fail and learn and to try, fail and learn some more?

Not everyone wants the problems of their own business. Not everyone is prepared to run their own business. Business people are an asset of this province, and business people's greatest asset is the knowledge that they have in their head and the experience that they've gained. These people are mobile. They can move, and they're not easily replaced. What is happening to these people in this province? Everyone has only so much time and energy and so many hours in a day. Many of these business people spend more time in meetings with government than they do in running their own business.

Day after day and week after week I'm dealing with business people who are so frustrated with the time that they spend in dealing with government. These people are frustrated by ongoing dialogue that never seems to go anywhere. They're frustrated with the amount of energy that they have to put into making presentations and trying to explain their point of view, only to have regulations imposed upon them that go against everything that they've tried to recommend. The government makes their lives more and more complex. The government isn't just taking their money and taxes; it is sucking the energy out of them. Not only energy -- initiative and innovation are being killed.

These people understand the bottom line. Business people know that someone has to pay. They know that the money government spends isn't magical money. It doesn't grow on trees. It comes from the people of the province; it comes from those who live and work here. Sooner or later, we have to pay what we owe. With this budget, we will be paying over $7 million a day on interest alone. That's not what people are asking for -- not in my riding. The business people know that this is a short-term budget and that the government is suggesting that someone else pay tomorrow for what we enjoy today.

People talk about accountability. They want accountability from this government. That means that we are responsible for what we take, not that we're making someone else responsible. Accountability means that we are willing to pay for the benefits that we receive, not make our children pay. Accountability means that we will find solutions for ourselves and not defer the problems to another generation.

[2140]

I can offer an example. Let's look at B.C. Ferries. Let's look at the problem-solving ability of this government. Did they develop a plan? Did they have a well-thought-out busi-

[ Page 11511 ]

So what has this government done? It has overspent without solving the problem. It has left B.C. Ferries in such a position of debt that in the future, we're looking at fare increases to service that debt. How are we going to pay for that debt? Where is the vision? Where is the accountability? And where is the trust? Where is the problem-solving, the creativity? And where will we be in the future? We have short-term political gain versus long-term societal loss. How could I possibly agree to fund this government?

This government dares to suggest that this is a budget for the people -- the budget that the people of B.C. want. If the government of B.C. doesn't understand the requirements of business and doesn't understand how it's chasing business away. . . . Is there anything here that would indicate anything different? Is there anything in this budget that would encourage investment in B.C.? Absolutely not. I have to ask: is that the fault of business? Has business not done its job of communicating the problems to government?

It's because government has not listened. It refuses to understand, or perhaps this government is incapable of understanding. Any businesses that are surviving are surviving in spite of the government. Business has to find ways of cutting costs. Business has to be innovative, and business knows that when the crunch comes, it can provide service -- and good service -- and still maintain it's budget. Or they're not in business. Business people understand this concept; this government does not understand the concept.

[2145]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. It's difficult hearing while the speaker is talking.

J. Reid: It has intrigued me to listen to this government talk of its budget and its position. I've been listening to the words they use, and there are certain words they use as though they have a magic quality, words that can be used as though they're fairy dust. They sprinkle them around, and everyone gets a happy smile on their face and forgets what they're going to complain about. Those magic words, for the NDP, are health care and education. They work those words into just about everything they say. How can anyone disagree? We all support health care and education; that's obvious. I'm for health care; I'm for education. So the magic dust lulls us.

But I challenge them and say the spell is wearing off. People are seeing through this. Words are cheap. People are asking: "What is the track record of this government? What is their solution? Is it short-term; is it long-term? Is it working on the problem, the heart of the problem? Or are we looking at band-aids on the surface -- very, very expensive band-aids?"

This government has attacked anyone who steps away from their magic words. If you challenge their years of deficit spending, you're labelled a person who will slash and burn -- very emotional words, words meant to upset people, to scare people. So this describes anyone who believes that we should live within our means; it describes anyone who believes in planning for their future; it describes anyone who doesn't want their children to inherit their debt. These are the people who are attacked.

We have learned that we are not to leave our environment in a mess for future generations. It has taken a long time for society to learn that lesson -- that we're to be responsible for the environment that surrounds us, that we're accountable, that we can't act in a way and then say that someone else can inherit this problem, can take care of this problem. Just as it is with the environment, so it is with the financial picture. We can't say that someone else is going to clean up our fiscal mess. How can I put that onto future generations with a clear conscience?

The words I hear from people are words like accountability, honesty, long-term planning, responsibility. This government is hired by the people to provide a service, to look after the affairs of the province, to look after its money. I have to think, when I hire my accountant to do a job. . . . If my accountant were to draw up financial statements to make me feel good -- financial statements based on optimism and that I later found out were not accurate -- would I want to continue hiring that accountant? If my accountant said to me, "Go ahead; keep on spending. Your children will pay your bills," would I go on hiring that accountant? Absolutely not. How can I support this interim supply bill to put more money in the hands of this government when it has those kinds of attitudes? If I wouldn't take that kind of behaviour in my personal life, then how can I condone it in the actions of the government?

What favours are we getting from this government? How kind are they to us? Well, they're cutting grants to municipalities for another year. This is something we have to realize: we're paying and paying and paying again. But they get someone else to get their dirty work for them. The municipalities don't have any choice. Those costs will be passed on directly to the taxpayer. There's only one taxpayer. Those costs will be passed on in our property taxes, and we will see that reflected this next year. Are we to reward the government for this behaviour? Absolutely not.

[2150]

[ Page 11512 ]

With this government, we see the damage that's being done to this province. There is a track record here. The government wants to blame B.C.'s troubles on the world commodity prices, and those have hit us hard. So are we to sit back and wait for the rest of the world to change and to, hopefully, go back to the way it was? The world changes. It goes ahead; it doesn't go backwards. What are we going to do in British Columbia? Do we pretend that we can revisit the past?

We have to prepare for the future. We have to be ready to innovate; we have to be capable of change. We have to encourage businesses. Business is not an enemy of this province, but so often it's treated as though it's the enemy. That's why business people are leaving the province. Does this government think that business is the enemy because business people tend to be radical freethinkers and because it wants social control, and those are the people that they can't control, that they can't mislead?

They talk about social diversity, but they seem to want cookie-cutter people -- people made up in an image that they approve of. They say that this is the budget that the people want, and I strongly disagree. If they truly think that, then they'd be willing to put it to a vote. They have an example. Just a short while ago, in December, when people had a chance to vote, they didn't vote in support of this present government.

We are now spending so much to service this debt, and there's no end in sight. People want to be proud of this province. How can they be proud when they see what's happening, when they see this government taking this province -- I won't say leading, because I don't call this leadership -- and dragging it in a direction that the people of the province don't agree with?

When there was discussion about the budget providing new opportunities in resource-dependent communities. . . . I remember my visit to Gold River, my discussions with the people there and their frustrations, because they'd been in the process of dealing with this government. They desperately wanted some solutions; they desperately wanted those new opportunities. They're willing to cooperate in whatever way. The government had a lead time; there was lots of time to be able to help these people. And what did the government provide? Consultants and then some more consultants, some more meetings and some more consultants. These people said to me: "They haven't told us anything we don't already know."

[2155]

There's talk about investing in capital projects, yet this government hasn't learned yet how to make a business plan. The most basic business in this province understands the importance of a business plan, understands preparing for the long term and justifying its actions, and this government doesn't get it.

This government talks about transparency and does the opposite. Sometimes I sit here in this House and listen to the answers given by the government. I think they must be speaking a different language, because they say the opposite words to what they actually mean. They say the opposite words to what actually goes on in this province. They talk about openness when deals are made in secret. They talk about accountability when there's no accountability. They talk about fiscal responsibility when they continue to increase the deficit every year. They talk about caring about young people while they're mortgaging their future.

This government talks the opposite of truth, except for one statement that I heard them make. That one statement was: "It's going to get worse before it gets better." Never was a truer statement made. The reason is because of this government and the direction that they're taking us in. There's no credibility here, no proven track record that the NDP have done any good for this province. In fact, there's much evidence to the contrary. The people of B.C. have become so cynical about their politicians because they've been lied to and misdirected so often. They've seen unethical and questionable behaviour. After witnessing this total lack of accountability, I cannot support this government in any way.

To serve the people of B.C. should be a noble calling. Instead, it has been disgraced. This isn't a budget for the people of B.C., and I cannot support the interim supply bill.

J. Wilson: Once again it's March 31, late in the evening, and what are we doing? Another interim supply bill. We've been there; we've done that for three years in a row. Why?

An Hon. Member: Eight.

J. Wilson: Eight years in a row -- I'm corrected. Sorry, I stand corrected. I've only been here three. I'm a newcomer.

[2200]

Yesterday we got a budget. What a budget! I'll tell you, it sends a pretty good message to the people of British Columbia

[ Page 11513 ]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I've got a few things I want to cover here. I couldn't help but think that an ant can move a mountain. . . . They do it a bit at a time. It takes them a while, but they can move a mountain. I thought that I would go over the record of the government -- all of their non-accomplishments since 1996. Actually, we can go back to '91. I don't have time to move a mountain -- not in half an hour tonight -- but I can touch on a few of the accomplishments of this government.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Lack of accomplishments, pardon me. They haven't accomplished anything, to my knowledge. They have promised us, year after year after year, a balanced budget. We don't expect one anymore. No one believes what they tell us. What's the point? Eight deficit budgets; eight balanced budgets promised. Well, except last year, they had a slight deficit. They only missed it by one decimal point. Instead of being $95 million, it was $950 million. Anybody can make a mistake like that, I guess. Just a small accounting error. That's all.

When you look at what has gone on here. . . . We're dealing with the supply bill. I couldn't help thinking. . . . The other day, before I left home, the last thing. . . . The kids were heading out the door, and they were going to school. They stopped and said: "Oh, I need some money." Well, what are we doing here tonight? The government's come in. They're going out the door and holding out their hand. They want some money; they need some money. What for? We don't know. To spend it.

In 1996 this government was elected, and they promised the people of British Columbia a balanced budget. That is the reason that they got re-elected, no other reason; that reason alone. What happened? We found out from the auditor general's report that they deliberately misled the people of British Columbia. It was no accident. Believe you me, it was no accident whatsoever. We were deliberately misled. For that, they do not deserve the right to sit in this chamber and run this province. The people of British Columbia don't need a budget in 1999. They need an election today.

[2205]

And what's happened? Shuffle it off. "Oh well, so it's an overrun. But it's creating jobs."

An Hon. Member: For how long?

J. Wilson: For how long.

And it goes on. It gets better, actually. We have a casino licence that was issued to a casual acquaintance.

An Hon. Member: They turned out to be pretty good friends.

J. Wilson: A pretty good friend, actually. That's what we were. . . .

An Hon. Member: Deck-building buddies.

J. Wilson: A holiday friend, yeah. Someone you can take a vacation with; that's a casual acquaintance.

Hon. Speaker, who in the world do they think they're fooling here? Not the public, that's for sure. It's time that someone on that side of the House stood up and took some responsibility -- took some blame for the things that have gone wrong, for the scandals that are going on -- and had the integrity to stand up there and say: "Yes, we're wrong; it shouldn't have happened, and we'll correct it." But do you think that'll happen? Never, never, never.

So this comes out into the open. And who gets blamed? The RCMP and the media. They're the ones that are to blame. It's not anything to do with government or ministries or the Premier or anything like that; it's the fault of the media, the opposition and the RCMP. Where will it end?

This list is rather lengthy. We had a recall not too far from my riding. It just about worked, you know; it was very close. As a matter of fact, it was close enough that this government got a little bit worried. So what do they do? They sneak in some outside help, just to make sure they can tip it in their favour.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: In the taxpayers' favour? I don't think so. In their favour, so they can hang onto the reins and hang onto government at whatever cost. They don't care; it doesn't matter.

[2210]

You know, hon. Speaker, an ant can move a mountain. They can also level a mountain, and the ants on the other side of this House have levelled this province. It used to be a magnificent province, and they have levelled it to the ground. Shame on them.

[ Page 11514 ]

This House recessed in January. There were a lot of people around this province that said: "We'd like to have a say in this treaty process that we think maybe you're trying to ram down our throats. It may not be so good for us; we'd like to have a say on that." They came out, and they were very vocal. They made it very clear to this government. "We would like to have a say on the Nisga'a treaty. We would like to have a referendum in this province." This government realizes, of course, that if they hold a referendum on it, then this Premier won't be able to build a monument to himself -- be the first one to sign a treaty in the province. You've got to keep building these monuments. The taxpayers think differently.

Every day, there's a new backroom deal. How many more are out there that we haven't heard about yet? They seem to be coming out on a pretty regular basis now, one or two a week. But how many more of them are hanging around just waiting to be exposed?

We've got a convention centre suddenly that's going to become. . . . The taxpayers of British Columbia will be the owners of this. We have no idea what it's going to cost. We know it won't be cheap -- probably three-quarters of a billion dollars by the time it's done, said and over with.

This is recent: we've learned that another backroom deal was cut with Bombardier. If they don't get the maintenance contract on the rapid transit, well, the good old taxpayers are there, and they're going to bail them out again; they're going to take it over. How much is that going to cost? How many more millions of dollars?

It gets to the point where you throw up your hands and say: "What's the use?" It's hopeless. These people haven't got a clue what they're doing. They're going to bury us before they're done; maybe that's their agenda. So many things have happened in the last two years in this province that are just atrocious, because of the policy of this government. They have broken their word more times than I could care to think about. Everything they say has a double meaning. Everything they tell you will turn out to be either the opposite or. . . . You can't say they lied to you, but they will say they may have misled you a little bit.

[2215]

When I look at this budget, it is a disaster. It's economic insanity, that's what it is. How much support do you think you'd get for this budget if you went to Gold River? I doubt if you'd get any.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Oh, there might be a couple of tourist operators up there maybe; I don't know. That would be about it. But this isn't what they need to hear; this isn't the news they want to hear.

Look at the mining industry. It has been decimated in this province.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: We used to have a mining industry, that's right. No more; there is no longer a mining industry in British Columbia. We had a copper mine in my riding, the Gibraltar mine. It shut down -- 280 jobs; more than 200 good, family-supporting, well-paying jobs are gone. Why?

Interjection.

J. Wilson: That's right -- a government that doesn't care about private sector investment. They don't care whether or not industry succeeds or whether industry can operate in this province. They chase them out as fast as they can. And we have another mine, Highland Valley -- another 1,000 jobs. What's the government going to do? Probably nothing. They'll say: "Oh well, that's too bad. That's the way it is in the resource industry. It's a sunset industry; don't worry about it."

I'd like to touch on the budget a little bit. There are. . . . Yeah, why not? That's what we're here for. We'll look at this. I pull this right out of some of the background to the budget: "Financial Indicators." Business incorporations are down. Business bankruptcies are up. The stock market is not doing real well this year.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Yeah, they have to leave the province; they can't operate here anymore. They dropped by two-thirds in volume.

Interjection.

J. Wilson: Yeah, they went with Finning.

And here's one that. . . . You may go over it, but it really is important. Personal savings deposits at chartered banks have dropped by $1 billion. If we look at our main economic indicators, our provincial GDP is down, capital investment is down, retail sales are down, motor vehicle sales are down and housing starts are practically nonexistent. What does that tell you? We're doing great in this province; we couldn't be doing better. We're going downhill so fast that we think we're. . . . Oh, it is frustrating.

[2220]

[ Page 11515 ]

An Hon. Member: Did you say movie industry?

J. Wilson: Moving.

An Hon. Member: Allied Van Lines, buddy.

J. Wilson: Allied Van Lines -- there are quite a few of them. They go all the way from here to the Atlantic provinces.

They admit it's been hard on some B.C. families. That's an understatement if I've ever heard one. Just in my riding, in the city of Quesnel alone, we have had 80 families that have lost their homes in the last year. They've lost their jobs, and now they've lost their futures. And they say: "Oh, it's been a little bit hard on some families." Give me a break. Shake your head over there. Wake up, I tell you.

Here's a nice one: "We believe in cutting taxes for small business to help create jobs for people." Well, if that isn't misleading the public, I don't know what you'd call it. They're gonna reduce the small business tax by 3 percent -- on small businesses that can't even make a go of it today. They're not making any money. Why do you think they've spent their billion dollars in savings? It's to keep their businesses operating. And you're going to cut the taxes. Well, whoopee. Good for you. What do they do on top of that? They download municipal grants to the tune of $98 million and increase their assessment rates, which will probably put half of these 40,000 small businesses into bankruptcy in the next year. That's where they're going. This is just fantastic, this reading. I don't know who dreamt this up, but it is great.

We have an economic plan here. This is something; you should really study this. When the auditor general's report came out. . . . Well, first I'd better digress a little bit here. They have gone around this province endlessly, for two years, talking to people: "What's your problem? What do you need? What'll get this straightened out here in this country?" People consistently said three things: "Lower taxes, reduce the regulatory burden and give us some flexibility in our labour laws." They heard that consistently, everywhere they went. What happened, hon. Speaker? We've got three things here: "We're gonna cut taxes, we're going to get rid of red tape, and we're going to make investments to improve both our economy and our quality of life." That's the third one.

When the '96 budget report came out, what did they do? They spent a hundred and some thousand dollars putting their own report out first to try to point the blame somewhere else. Do you know what they should have done with that money? They should have taken this cabinet out, and they should have taught them how to read sign language so they could have got the message when they went around the province and asked the people what's wrong. At least then they might have understood.

[2225]

J. Wilson: That's right. Cutting taxes -- what a joke! We need to get our tax rate down to where it'll do some good. We've got to be down in that 30 percent range, so that we can become competitive in this province once again. We're still at the. . . . We're still up there. We're probably the second-highest in Canada right now, and it's not changing.

This is their economic plan. This is how they're going to bail this province out. I find this hard to imagine, but they claim they can do it. They're going to reduce jet fuel tax, number one. Now, that should be a real good one. And they're going to make this the Hollywood of the north. They could make a movie on that side of the House any day of the week, and I'll bet you they'd do pretty good on it, because it's unbelievable. Talk about fiction, fantasy land.

Then we go on to business tax cuts. I've pointed out what a farce that is, how that's misled the public. They're going to get rid of regulation and red tape. They've streamlined 33 provincial laws. We've got 3,300 regulations in this province that prevent us from operating, and they've tackled 33. Well, that's pretty good. And they've reduced liquor regulations. That's how we're going to get back on our feet. They've created what they call a business lens, which is a regulation to regulate a regulation. Now, that's good thinking.

Hon. Speaker, that's the way our economy is going. They have totally ignored the main wealth generators in this province, which are our resource industries. They have buried mining. I would like to just point something out here. Land use planning was brought in with the Harcourt government. It was going to be the saviour of all the resource industries. As of January 28, 1999, the Mining Association of B.C. has walked away from land use planning. I would like to read a little bit out of this. Land use planning is the most pressing issue facing the future of mining in this province. "Without access to the land. . . [this industry], the second-largest in the province, will die, and along with it the jobs and economic activity that it is responsible for." The land use planning process has become a zoning process, a process that creates zones that, in effect, prohibit mining: ". . .50 percent of this province will soon be off-limits to mining." There has been no increase in certainty as promised when the current process was first embarked upon at the beginning of this decade. Just the reverse has happened. They go on to say that it is impossible to raise money for exploration in this province any longer. So that, in effect, is the end of mining exploration in this province as we know it today.

When you look at the mines that are shutting down and you look at the hydro rates that have been frozen and all the rest of it. . . . Where they could have helped, where they could have done something to keep those industries going and viable, they refused to do it.

This government has been around for a while. They should have learned something by now. It's pretty obvious they haven't, so I guess they're incapable of learning anything. That doesn't leave us a lot of options, does it? But it does leave us one option, that is, when the people of this province get the chance to mark their X on the ballot, they will give all the direction that is needed to the government on the other side of the House here. They've already made plans for this.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I think you will probably have noticed the red light, which means that your time is now up.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Sorry to tell you all that. You've got lots more to say, I know.

[ Page 11516 ]

The Speaker: All right, one second to close.

J. Wilson: I cannot support this budget. I cannot support this supply bill. The only thing this government should do with this supply bill is rip it up.

[2230]

The event, as I said, was very festive. There were balloons. There was face-painting. There was a rube band that was playing honky-tonk music. There was all sorts of wonderful food, of course, courtesy of B.C. Ferries. There were glossy picture books advertising B.C. Ferries, and all, of course, was very, very nicely done -- and, I might add, very expensive.

Why do I make reference to this particular event? Because at the end of it I asked myself: "Why are they doing this? What is the purpose of this?" I didn't know how much it cost. I thought maybe $500,000 to hold this little party. But it didn't make a lot of sense to me.

When we went to this event, we were ushered into the shed, we were taken around, and we were shown the progress of the new ferry -- which I must say was not very far advanced. It was just in stages where it was beginning to like a vessel, but certainly by no means was it anywhere near completion. I mention this, hon. Speaker, because I want to illustrate to you where this fits into the entire schedule of this entire project.

The summer of 1996 was the first date that was announced for when this new ferry was supposed to be in the water. That was announced, of course, by the now Premier of B.C., who was then the minister for ferries. But construction didn't start on this ferry until the spring of '96, so somehow magically this thing was going to be put together in the space of three months. The next announcement came, and it was to be in the water in the summer of '97. And that brings us to the date of this event that I was at: the summer of '97.

While I was at this party, with the balloons and the face-painting, with all sorts of children running around and with people very, very jolly and listening to the rube band and all the honky-tonk music that was going on, we were told that this ferry was going to be in the water in three months. I do not know very much about building ships, but even I was rather suspicious of that particular date, because I couldn't imagine how this was going to be finished in three months. It simply had too much to do; it wasn't anywhere near finished. So I thought that even that was stretching credibility a little bit.

Of course, a few months later we heard from the government that they couldn't put it in the water then. This was to be around Christmas of that year, and they said they couldn't put it in the water because of the tides. Have you ever heard anything like that?

[2235]

Now, what does all this have to do, hon. Speaker, with an interim supply bill? Well, I think it has a lot to do. . . . I think that fast cat, that ferry, is like a logo for this government. It is illustrative of the modus operandi of this government. It shows us that this is a government that flies by the seat of its pants. It shows us that it has no strategic plans -- announcing that a vessel's going to be in the water before they even have a design for it.

It shows that they have no concept about making budgets. This was a project that simply, like Topsy, just sort of grew. Somebody got the idea: "Gee, I think these ferries are really great. We're going to build them, and we're going to make them part of our fleet without ever really drawing up a business plan, looking at the value of it, seeing whether or not these were what was needed and making it part of the overall strategic needs of the B.C. Ferries fleet." This is a plan that illustrates an absolutely runaway budget.

Now, if that is not illustrative of this government, I don't know what is. It's a plan that has no time line. I've illustrated to you the absurdity of the time line and how, over and over again, this has gone on for so long that nobody believes anything anymore. There was no plan as to how these three new ships were going to form part of the new fleet. Now, of course, we are paying the price. I have to ask: where were the people marching in the streets, demanding that they get to Nanaimo 30 minutes sooner? When you add all of this up, what you have is a snapshot of a government that behaves in a reckless way; that is the modus operandi of this government.

And that is why we are here tonight, because this government is unable to manage its affairs so that we do not have to do this every March 31. It is in fact with sadness that we stand here tonight debating yet another interim supply in the late hours of March 31. This is simply one more symptom of a government that can't manage its affairs. It hasn't got its house in order.

Let's do a little walk through time, just the last few months, and just look at some of the events that have happened since last October. You will recall last fall how the government said that the Nisga'a treaty was the absolute flagship of their legislation and how it was so important that this be debated and put through this House. We will recall, last December, the pomp and ceremony and pageantry and speeches that surrounded all of that particular issue. Then, of course, I think we know what happened. The fast ferry scandal happened.

We had the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast crossing the floor. Ministers were changed in midstream. Now, if I had a piece of legislation and this was the most important legislation to the government morally and philosophically, I would not stop in midstream and change ministers. I see the former minister there laughing about it. I can only imagine that he felt probably that this was not quite the right thing to do, but nevertheless did it. It showed once again that this government has lost its road map. It showed that this

[ Page 11517 ]

[2240]

C. Clark: It slinks.

K. Whittred: It slinks. Yes, that's a very good word, and that is a very apt description. But when you put that together, hon. Speaker, what we have is unpredictability. We have something that you maybe don't trust very much.

I suggest that the whole fiasco surrounding the fast ferry program would be a very, very appropriate sort of logo for the government, because it represents all of those things that we have seen in every aspect of everything that they do: the flying by the seat of the pants, the lack of planning, the lack of budgeting, no business plans, runaway costs, no time line -- just do it, change your mind, and so on. Let's just keep that in mind whenever we think about the fast ferries -- that they are the very epitome of this particular government and everything that they represent.

Moving on and going on to another event that occurred recently in my riding. . . . It was an event, actually, that was celebrating International Women's Day. I happened to be at a luncheon, and I was sitting with a group of constituents. They were talking about fundraising in schools. The gist of the conversation was that they were sick of it. They were sick to death of fundraising in schools. What does that have to do with interim supply? This government precedes everything it says with "save health care and education," and everyone in the province, I think, is getting sick of it. Give us a break. Let's go back to before this government. Education and health were much safer then.

Let's look at just how education has been jeopardized since this government came to power. First of all, fundraising. Fundraising used to be something that schools did for something extra. They did it to raise money for a time clock, perhaps. Or they did it to raise money for a trip for the band. Or they did it for something that was out of the ordinary. It wasn't for ordinary, everyday stuff. Do you know what they're raising money for now, hon. Speaker? Paper -- duplicating paper to put through the copying machine. Paper has become a luxury in our schools.

These parents at this meeting were telling me that they were raising money to fix a hole in the driveway of their school. This was at Eastview school in North Vancouver. That is what most people would call maintenance. Apparently there was a great big hole, the pavement had sunk, and the only way this was going to get fixed was to go out and fundraise.

[2245]

C. Clark: Aren't the NDP protecting education?

K. Whittred: Well, they keep saying they're protecting education. I have to wonder. If they're protecting education, why is there less available now than there was when I started my teaching career, which was a great many years ago?

C. Clark: Are they deceiving us?

K. Whittred: I don't know if they're deceiving us. The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain wonders if they are deceiving us. They certainly protect things in a very strange way. People who are valuable workers are disappearing from the schools -- people like aides; people like janitors. Do you know that is one of the most common complaints we have today -- that the schools are filthy? Well, they're filthy because you have to cut back somewhere. You cut back, I guess, wherever you have to. Ultimately, the janitors are gone.

An Hon. Member: Maybe this is tough love and how they show they care.

K. Whittred: Well, perhaps it is tough love. It is a peculiar way to be saving education.

We look at post-secondary education. This government, again, prides itself. . . . It says: "We're saving it." Yet the only way the colleges are functioning today is by cutting courses. Granted, tuition is frozen. But you're lucky if your child can get three courses. When I went to university, five courses was a semester load. Now you're lucky if you get three. I see the member for Nanaimo shaking his head. Well, I would like you to go and talk to the young people I know. Talk to my daughter; talk to her friends. They're lucky if they get three courses. What happens then? It takes them longer to finish. So instead of finishing in four years, they perhaps take six years. That, ultimately, is not a saving.

Moving along to the other golden mantra of the government -- of course, health care -- again, save us from this government and the way it saves health care. In recent months I have been -- as have all MLAs in this chamber -- I wouldn't say inundated, but I have had many calls from people who cannot get what they would classify as service. One of the most disturbing calls that I had was from a woman who was having a second bout with breast cancer. This was six weeks after she had seen her doctor, and she had still not been called for her biopsy. That is not acceptable, and that is not what I would call saving health care. We are in a position right now where we are in a crisis of confidence regarding health care.

Since 1991, this government, I believe, has demonstrated in its administration of health care those very things I alluded to earlier when I talked about the fast ferry and used that

[ Page 11518 ]

[2250]

If I look at industry on the waterfront in my riding, I note that one of the major terminals is Lynnterm. Normally Lynnterm has piles of lumber. You can go down there, and you can drive by it. You can actually see it from the Second Narrows Bridge. You can see all kinds of lumber, and you can see the ships being loaded, and so on. You don't see that anymore. Lynnterm is virtually empty. I see by the export figures that exports were down 31/2 percent last year.

These are but a few illustrations of how the casual observations or the anecdotal observations that we view around our constituencies, around our ridings, are in fact very, very true when compared to the statistics.

I would like to conclude by going back a little bit to my original point about this government and the way it flies by the seat of its pants and doesn't plan -- it does not have strategic plans, or if it does it changes them all the time -- and relate this to the actual record of fiscal history. We have pointed out that there have been five different debt management plans. If that isn't an example -- a living, breathing example -- of a government that really doesn't know how to make a plan and live by it and make it work, I can't think of what would be.

This started, of course, in 1995 with the debt management plan. It went on to the next one, in 1997, the financial management plan; in 1998, the modified financial management plan; and then, of course, whatever the latest one is called. . . .

Interjection.

K. Whittred: It's the five-year fiscal planning framework. One wonders if these are going to be any more reliable than the others. I doubt that they are, because I think that this government, like the stealthy cat, probably cannot change the way it operates.

An Hon. Member: Do you think they intend to? Do they intend to live within their plans?

K. Whittred: I do not think so. I think that this government has given up on plans. I think that it probably realizes that it is not going to meet those plans, and it's just kind of playing games. So when this government comes to us and says we need -- what is it? -- $6 billion to see us through the next three months. . .

An Hon. Member: Give or take a few zeros.

K. Whittred: . . .give or take a few zeros on those numbers, I would like to be able to say: "I'm sorry, but you people really don't deserve to get this sort of consideration." On that, hon. Speaker, I will close.

[2255]

Bill 54 includes a number of items. First of all, it includes $169.5 million in special warrants. Of these special warrants, $45 million is to provide funding for costs of residential and related support programs for children, youth, families and adults with mental handicaps; $84.5 million is to provide funding for the higher-than-anticipated ongoing expenditures of the Medical Services Plan, acute and continuing care and Pharmacare; and $40 million is to provide funding for the higher-than-anticipated one-time expenditures related to the reimbursement of drug costs, start-up costs associated with the new national blood program, and debt-servicing contributions related to the timing of the transfer of debt to the province from the greater Vancouver regional hospital district. This is money required for overruns incurred in the last budget.

Bill 54 also includes voted expenditures appropriations -- the sum of $5.2 billion for the first three months of the 1999-2000 fiscal year. This bill also includes voted capital and loans, investments and other financing transaction appropriations totalling $780 million. The third item of Bill 54 is a voted revenue transfers appropriation of $730.5 million.

I guess the really sad part about all this is that this will be inherited by our children.

It certainly gives me a feeling of déjà vu to once again be confronted by another interim supply bill. You know, the Oxford dictionary defines déjà vu as something tediously familiar. This definition probably best describes my feeling over the past few weeks as the various events have been unfolding. This government's history of deficit budgets, disastrous economic decisions and scandals keeps recurring. Tediously familiar -- what an appropriate definition to describe the conduct of this government.

This government has now established itself as the worst government this province has ever seen. This is a government that is taking British Columbia toward economic disaster. As the Leader of the Official Opposition has stated, referring to the budget: ". . .it's a blueprint for bankruptcy and unemployment that will sink our children $3.5 billion deeper in debt. It's another mad spending spree that will put us all in the poorhouse."

[ Page 11519 ]

[2300]

As the NDP continues their policy of tax and spend, confidence has been eroded to the point where British Columbians have no faith in this government's ability to spend their hard-earned tax dollars wisely. So British Columbians are voting with their feet. They are moving out of this province, taking their businesses and finding greener pastures -- climates that support business -- in the neighbouring states and provinces.

In 1998, B.C. suffered an estimated net outflow of 18,700 residents to other provinces. It was only international migration of 28,000 people that has kept migration levels positive. Businessman Jimmy Pattison is among those who have joined the exodus from British Columbia. This is the same Jimmy Pattison who a short time ago met with the Premier to discuss how to improve the business climate in British Columbia. When that meeting took place, we were all hopeful that finally our Premier would recognize the problem, take some of the sound advice offered by Mr. Pattison and start to rebuild confidence in the business sector of this province. But true to form, our illustrious Premier only used this meeting as another photo op to really hide his true intentions.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The Premier once again created the illusion that he would legitimately recognize British Columbians' opinions in trying to help him solve the province's economic death spiral. He attempts to create the illusion that he actually cares about overtaxed families in British Columbia. He mouthed the words, but true to form -- as he has done so often -- he did not take the advice of Mr. Pattison and other B.C. entrepreneurs. Instead he continues to follow his misguided agenda of tax and spend.

From 1992 to 1998 there was a 44 percent increase in tax revenues, from $9 billion to $13 billion, while at the same time, the increases in fees, licences and other charges has resulted in a more than $2 billion increase in the amount of taxes that British Columbians pay.

NDP taxes have decreased personal incomes. The average British Columbian's take-home pay has decreased 5.6 percent from 1992 to 1997. Since 1991, total taxes, fees and royalties have increased at a rate one and a half times faster than that of average personal incomes. B.C. families are having a harder and harder time meeting their expenses. This government's marginal tax rate, which ranks as the highest in North America, combined with a spending scheme that is out of control, has cost British Columbians billions of our hard-earned tax dollars -- dollars that should be spent on health care and education.

This spending spree has turned out to be a disaster for the province and has done nothing but create short-term solutions for long-term financial problems -- problems that our children will have to deal with. Jimmy Pattison has reacted to this total disregard for business by opting to move his lease company to Calgary. He's moving to a climate that appreciates the contributions businesses make to a province. He is moving to a province that doesn't tax the life out of them and smother their growth with red tape.

[2305]

Real estate boards have offered some potential remedies for the current situation. Number one is to eliminate the property transfer tax. They claim that this will improve housing affordability, create jobs, boost the economy and increase government revenue. Over a ten-year period, the estimated benefits will be that 9,623 households will be able to purchase a resale home and 4,403 more households will be able to purchase a new home -- $1.27 billion in additional spending, 13,975 more person-years of employment and $185 million in provincial revenue. Their second suggestion is to accelerate reductions in the marginal taxation rate, leaving more money in the pockets of British Columbians. Unfortunately, once again these suggestions will fall on the deaf ears of this NDP government.

Mr. Speaker, we've been asked to support this Bill 54. This interim supply will give money to this government to carry out its business for the next three months and to pay the bills until the budget is finalized. This $5.2 billion represents three-twelfths of the total budget and therefore is meant to last for three months. But I wonder: considering the spending habits of this government, we'll be very interested to see if it lasts until June 30.

Not only does this bill continue to show the incompetence of this government, but it also proves their mishandling of public funds as they continue to rack up more and more debt. To be asked to consent to giving this out-of-control government access to more money, with the understanding that they will -- what? -- spend it more wisely than they have in the past, is like dealing with an individual with obsessive-compulsive behaviour, an individual who has lost control over their spending. The last thing in the world you would do to help them with their condition would be to hand them a credit card, because you could be assured that they would reach the limit of that credit card very quickly.

[ Page 11520 ]

In my hometown, the city of Kelowna, they have their budget deliberations in December, with the simple intention of allowing departments, where there are sensitive projects, to get a jump-start in the spring. Not only do they get adequate time to finish some projects, but because of early planning, they can be done more efficiently and more cost-effectively. Money is saved, because projects are not rushed and are done under better conditions. What a novel idea for this government -- to bring a project in under budget.

[2310]

I find it disturbing that we convened for a few weeks in January and the beginning of February and had to wait until March 29 to come back to this House. It is a sad day when the government has to delay the session until the eleventh hour because they are not able to handle the scrutiny of the opposition and the public by being back in the House. It is a sad day when the public has lost complete confidence in the ability of this government to give an honest budget. It is a sad day when the auditor general has confirmed the charge hanging over the NDP since the last election, and that is that the campaign-year budget did not tell the real story about the provincial economy. It is a sad day when the Premier of this province is experiencing the least popularity in the history of this province, and his business connections are questionable.

This interim supply bill is about much more than the government needing money to pay its bills. It is about competence -- the need for competence among the people we elect to manage this very complex part of our economy. It's also about responsibility -- the responsibility held by our elected officials that is meant to reflect the public's wishes. They act on the public's behalf, and they have a responsibility to be accountable for their actions. Part of assuming responsibility is being prepared to address important issues directly. Time and time again we have seen this government making excuses or blaming others for their problems. We all remember that the NDP blamed falling forest revenues on the weather, and they have blamed our current economic woes on the Asian flu.

This government has failed miserably to be both accountable and responsible. They have compounded these failings by refusing to listen to those who are capable of providing them with good advice. The government's refusal to respond to the B.C. Business Summit recommendations is a classic example of this government's contempt for sound advice from the business community. The entire discussion at the summit was based on a very simple formula: business activity creates wealth, wealth creates tax revenues, and tax revenues are the basis of government's ability to deliver services. The end result is the creation of an environment in which business can prosper.

This government appears to believe that you can create a poisonous business atmosphere where businesses of all kinds are taking measures to escape B.C. and, when your economy collapses as a result, still carry on and deliver an expensive program of government services with money we don't have. The government was not willing to listen to the solutions presented by the B.C. Business Summit. The government cannot seem to make the connection that a healthy economy is the only way to generate the tax revenues needed to produce a first-class health care system. Unfortunately, when faced with complex economic problems, this government finds it easier to blame everything else -- from a global recession to a media conspiracy. At this critical point in our economic situation we don't need excuses; we need solutions. A government that is either unwilling or unable to devise these solutions should at least have the integrity to listen to those in the community who can.

[2315]

Why should we give the government of this province any more money? It has wasted billions of dollars on the fast ferry program, the Skeena Cellulose bailout, Nisga'a propaganda, inoperable minibuses, assorted union sweetheart deals and numerous other boondoggles. It has not given British Columbians a chance to express their opinion on the Nisga'a template through referendum. It has repeatedly deceived B.C. taxpayers about the state of B.C.'s finances.

It has not balanced the budget in eight years. It has increased taxpayer-supported debt by 133 percent since 1991, and it has committed $300 million of taxpayers' money to the Vancouver convention centre without any public approval or open tendering. Its economic policies have made B.C. the only province to suffer a decline in private sector investment between 1992 and 1999. Its economic mismanagement has caused an unprecedented movement of people, jobs and companies to Alberta. It has failed to keep its promise to create jobs under the jobs and timber accord and has threatened the survival of forest-dependent communities around the province.

It has breached its own guidelines by granting approval in principle for a casino licence to a friend and neighbour of the Premier that is now the subject of an RCMP investigation. It has attacked the integrity of the RCMP and the judiciary and made false statements regarding a non- existent criminal investigation of the media by regional Crown counsel. It has misled the people of Prince George, Skeena and Comox Valley over the secret use of outside political organizers in the recall campaigns.

It has stumbled from one scandal to another, such as Hydrogate and the NCHS bingo scandal. It has arbitrarily cut municipal grants by $40 million. It has broken the Criminal Code and retroactively robbed charities of gaming revenues

[ Page 11521 ]

It has allowed surgical wait-lists to grow and health care to deteriorate, particularly in rural British Columbia. It has interfered in the collective bargaining process by overruling locally elected school boards. It has failed to adequately protect children and to implement the recommendations of the Gove inquiry. It has failed to protect Burns Bog, by giving a $21 million loan to a private company for the development of a theme park in that fragile ecosystem.

An Hon. Member: It's $25 million. Get it right, John.

J. Weisbeck: It's $25 million -- thank you.

Because this government is in a state of disarray and utterly incapable of restoring confidence in our economy and of governing generally, it is time for the government of this province to cut up their credit card. It is time for the affairs of this province to be conducted with honesty and integrity. Frankly, it is time to call an election.

J. van Dongen: Thank you, Hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today on Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999.

What we witnessed yesterday was a tragedy for British Columbia. Irresponsible, reckless, arrogant and ignorant of reality -- the tabling of a provincial budget that piles a huge deficit and more debt on the already-existing massive debt. The numbers are staggering -- a $2.7 billion increase in total debt, from $32 billion in March of 1999 to $34.7 billion in March of 2000. The overall deficit plan for British Columbia in the coming year is $1.529 billion -- and this government is actually here today seeking interim supply.

[2320]

I quote from Mr. Morfitt's report:

"In our opinion, information provided by government when these budgets were presented did not make full and fair disclosure of the extent of the business risk being assumed and the government's plan to address it. In that sense, crucial information was missing, and consequently, the prudence and appropriateness of budget decisions could not be properly examined by the Legislative Assembly and the public.

"We concluded that the revenue and expenditure amounts reflected in the 1995-96 revised forecast resulted in an overstatement in a material way of projected operating results for that fiscal year. . . ."

"We concluded that revenue estimates in Budget '96 and the Estimates for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1997, as introduced and tabled by the Minister Petter on June 26, 1996, carried with them disproportionate risks. In this regard, current information needed to examine the prudence of budget decisions was inadequate. . . .

"For all these reasons, prescribing arbitrary optimism to improve the accuracy of revenue forecasting had no merit. Nevertheless, as explained below, the interest in introducing optimism into the revenue forecasting was conveyed to Ms. Eaton and her staff, both directly and by inference.

"As Minister Cull told us regarding her meetings to brief the Premier in late February and again in early March of 1996: 'There were numbers being discussed that were beyond my comfort level, and I did go in to tell the Premier that my comfort on the revenue forecast was in a different place.' "

"Ms. Eaton told us in her testimony that she was under the impression that Mr. Gunton was providing her with the views of the Premier's Office when discussing matters in the fiscal budget steering committee."

This is a government that has not balanced a budget in eight years. It's not that the NDP haven't talked about it. In 1991 Mr. Harcourt promised that his government would not spend any money that it did not have, as he dropped a penny into the piggy bank. His successor, the current Premier, proclaimed that balancing the budget would be easy -- absolutely the easiest thing he could think about doing. There was lots of talk -- lots of big talk -- by the Premier for the last eight years. There was lots of talk, but no balanced budget -- not one. And this government wants authority in this interim supply bill to spend another $5 billion-plus in the next three months.

[2325]

What is the result of this massive increasing debt? One of the results is ongoing increases in provincial interest payments. At a time when interest rates are at near-historic low levels, next year we will be paying out $2.64 billion to the banks that the NDP love to hate. Our Premier is every banker's dream customer. How much is $2.64 billion? It is a huge amount of money. It is one-half of the total education budget. It is one-third of the health care budget. Our debt is so

[ Page 11522 ]

Yes, hon. Speaker, over $2.6 billion is more than the province is spending in all 12 of these ministries. The government continues to rail against the banks in its ongoing program of class warfare, yet at the same time, every year that goes by, the government sends more money, in the form of huge interest payments, to those same banks. Yet this government has the nerve to come here for a line of credit of over $5 billion for the next three months.

This is a government that in the last two years has had at least two credit rating downgrades and a downgrade in economic outlook from stable to negative. After yesterday's debacle of another NDP budget, there can be no doubt that future credit rating downgrades will be coming in the near future. It will be abundantly clear to the bond-rating agencies that the NDP government is abandoning all hope of a balanced budget, and this time this same government is again seeking interim supply today.

This is a government that has brought B.C. Ferries to the brink of bankruptcy with the Premier's ill-fated fast ferries program. Against all the advice of all the experts and the people at B.C. Ferries, the Premier ordered full speed ahead on fast-track construction of an untested and unproven design. The original projections were for the price tag to be $210 million. The current projected cost is $450 million -- $250 million over the mark. B.C. Ferries had a legal debt limit of $975 million until recently. As part of yesterday's budget, the debt cap is now being increased to $1.35 billion. That's like a homeowner going to their bank and expecting to get a 50 percent increase in their mortgage to finance a whole slew of credit card debt. The first thing the banker will ask is: "What are you doing with the money?" In this case, the homeowner went out and bought a Ferrari -- lots of sex appeal but totally unaffordable.

[2330]

In an almost deliberate attempt to prove that the government hasn't learned a single thing from the fast ferries scandal, the Premier recently announced that the government was going to front the new $300 million convention centre in Vancouver. Originally, the intent of the government was that the convention centre would be financed and built by the private sector. When the private sector declined to front the investment, our starry-eyed Premier came riding in again to front an investment that everyone else had rejected, just as he had done with B.C. Ferries. The Premier promised to front the project for $300 million with no plans, no fixed-price contract and the government assuming all of the risk. This is the same Premier that signed a blank cheque on the taxpayers' account for the fast ferries and later said that he didn't know that the ferries were being built on cost-plus contracts. This is the same presumptuous government that today wants us to approve an interim supply bill.

Then there is SkyTrain, another example of abuse of power by the Premier and this government. It's another long and unbelievable story. The Premier makes a deal with the GVRD on a plan to transfer authority for transportation to regional government. The Premier has railed on for years about the cost of SkyTrain, and he supported light rapid transit. The deal with the GVRD was barely made, including a provision for LRT, and lo and behold, the Premier changed his mind. The legislation setting up the GVTA was not even passed through the Legislature, and all of a sudden he decided he wanted to install a SkyTrain extension. There was no consultation with the GVRD; it was decided by edict out of the Premier's office.

The first figure we heard was $1.2 billion last summer. It didn't take long for the Premier to grow restless with such a tiny project as $1.2 billion, so the province decided to add another extension to SkyTrain. Now the cost escalated to $2.6 billion plus the cost of new cars. In other words, with predictable overruns, the SkyTrain extension proposal will check in at $3 billion. It doesn't sound like much when you say it quickly, but it is a horrendous amount of money.

I mentioned earlier that the interest cost on $2.6 billion is more than the total spending in the 12 ministries. But that's not the end of it, hon. Speaker. Recently released documents show that the overall impact for provincial taxpayers will be about $4.5 billion for construction costs, debt servicing and other financial assistance to the GVTA. This does not include the taxes that will be levied on taxpayers by the GVTA to fund the SkyTrain extension.

When I look at the provincial government today, I see a government that is very centralized around the Premier. I have heard it said that three people run this whole government. I see a focus on issue management, media management and plain, outright politics. Delivering good government and delivering it effectively is a secondary objective of this government, and it shows.

[2335]

The government has clearly not come to grips with its escalating debt problem. Provincial debt is up to $35 billion -- double what the debt was in 1991. The government is fond of saying that this new debt is okay, because it is for building schools, hospitals, roads, etc. It's the good debt versus bad debt routine. However, not all of the new debt is for schools. The government is still incurring debt to fund operating deficits. Clearly operating deficits are being understated, because more of the government operations are being recorded outside the consolidated revenue fund. The summary financial statements, again, show the deficit at $1.529 billion -- a figure

[ Page 11523 ]

On that note, the government and the Minister of Finance continue to ignore the admonitions of the auditor general, who has continued to urge the government to report to the public using the summary financial statements. It is irresponsible on the part of the government that it continues to ignore the advice of the auditor general in this regard.

Clearly it is very difficult for our citizens to figure out the real numbers and what the true state of the province's finances really is. Two comments are in order, however. The public knows that this province and this economy are in trouble. They see it in the exodus of businesses and people from this province. They see it in the difficulty for young people to get any kind of job. They see it in the absolute parade of young people to other provinces to pursue their professional careers, to find jobs -- jobs in construction, new small business and many other types of work.

In the past eight years this government has had the benefit of one of the most resilient economies in the world, based on factors such as B.C.'s location, a mother lode of natural resources, an attractive climate and lots of in-migration in recent years. I believe that the government was lulled into believing that things would never change, because B.C. is so gifted that people would come here regardless. However, they are wrong, and they will see the continuing negative impacts and spinoffs from their actions as they continue to multiply in the coming year.

Young people are not even thinking twice about seeking jobs elsewhere. My youngest son is studying in Saskatoon, and he has already made it clear that he is not coming back to B.C. Our oldest son finished a computer science degree at the University College of the Fraser Valley last June. Today he is working for a large computer company in Seattle. Any time I go to the Abbotsford airport, I see sons and daughters of constituents coming in to visit or going back from visiting their parents in B.C.

When I look at the natural resource industries which I am familiar with, the story looks very bleak. Farming is under severe pressure. Fishing is going into another very bad year. Mining is down to virtually nothing, and certainly new exploration is nonexistent. The mining industry is begging for some respect in this province. I don't need to comment on forestry and the disastrous impact of the government's role in that industry. Salmon farmers in B.C. have completely lost faith in this government, and the shellfish growers are equally frustrated. We have also witnessed a massive exodus in the food processing sector in recent years. We did not need to lose all these jobs. We lost them because the government did not make the slightest effort to keep them. Once they're gone, they're likely not coming back. It's a lot better to try and keep a business than to work to try and get it back.

[2340]

When one considers the absolute incompetence of the government in tabling yesterday's budget, it's not as if the public needed any more evidence. We have seen people in various constituencies make incredible efforts to recall government MLAs. We have seen the damning evidence of 1,200 pages of Ministry of Finance documents regarding the government's deceitful election budget. We have seen the persistence and commitment of David Stockell in challenging the truthfulness of the government's balanced-budget election promise. His organization, HELP B.C., is committed to help eliminate lying politicians.

In our constituency office and on the street, I've experienced the outrage of the public. People are in disbelief at the arrogance, the incompetence and the total lack of ethics of the government. I do not understand how government MLAs face their constituents. I do not know how they can rationalize their government's totally irresponsible budget. I do not know how they justify the government's broken promises of a balanced budget.

In the end, I appeal to them personally, on behalf of all British Columbians, to free themselves from the shackles of groupthink and herd mentality. I appeal to them to use their influence in their caucus to bring some honesty, integrity and competence to the government. On behalf of all British Columbians, I urge them to question what they are being told by the Premier and his handpicked agents. No one who understands one iota about finance and responsible spending would support the government's latest budget. No one would support it.

The public is begging and pleading for a glimmer of hope. They are looking for their government MLAs to inform themselves of the financial folly of their government and to act on that knowledge. So far, no one has come forward; no one has demonstrated an ability and a willingness to think and act outside the box of NDP caucus discipline. No one has demonstrated the courage to accept personal responsibility for the serious damage that their government is doing to the economy, to jobs and to families. Yet this government wants this Legislature to approve an interim supply bill.

I want to quote again from the auditor general's report: "A government's budget is about the right of the Crown to collect revenue from the people and the right of the people to receive services for which they pay. It is also about the need for the government to be answerable for how it intends to meet its responsibilities in the exercise of the authorities granted to it in trust." The right and responsibility to govern in a democracy is a sacred trust to be acknowledged and protected every day. This trust cannot be demanded or bought. It must be earned, and it must be earned every day. It must include the elements of respect and confidence, which also must be earned every day.

[2345]

I am reminded of the book entitled Breach of Promise, written by Graham Leslie, a former Deputy Minister of

[ Page 11524 ]

D. Symons: I note that it's less than 15 minutes before the end of the current fiscal year and the beginning of a new fiscal year, a new fiscal year in which we have not yet had the opportunity in this House to discuss the bill and the money that the government wishes to bring forward for that year. They are simply asking for, basically, a blank cheque of $5.2 billion to spend as they see fit over the next period of time.

What we are facing tonight is really a manufactured need for supply. The purpose of supply is really to meet an emergency situation where the government has been unable, due to systems beyond its control, to bring forth to this legislative chamber the budget -- and the budget debates that go on, followed by the ministry expenses and discussions on the various ministry payments for that year. We in this House believe that it is important that those debates take place before the government gets the right to spend the money.

We have -- and I used the term -- a manufactured state where we need this supply bill, in that this government has had ample opportunity to bring forward those budgets and to discuss the estimates process; they've had ample opportunity to do it before this point in time tonight. Indeed, we were sitting in this legislative chamber on February 1, and there would be no need then. . . . There would have been a possibility for this government to have brought forth a budget then. They could have introduced their budget, taken six days out of the Nisga'a debate to end up bringing in the budget debate, and they could have gone into the debate on the estimates. That would be the proper way to do things.

But what do we find that this government has done? We find, over the years of the NDP being in office, that they have moved that date for the beginning of the legislative session and the date on which the budget has been introduced to the Legislature closer and closer to the last fiscal day. Today, this year, we've had the ultimate in that; we had the budget one day before the end of the fiscal year. That's the closest it has ever got in the history of this province.

When we look back at the starting dates for the Legislature, we find out that in 1985 it began on March 4, followed very quickly by the budget debate; in 1986, March 11; in 1987, March 9; in 1988, March 15; in 1989, March 16 -- a different one in 1990, April 5. We do know what was happening in that particular time; it was the destruction of the Social Credit Party. They were in great difficulty. That's the first date we find this Legislature meeting after the middle of the month of March.

[2350]

If we look at the NDP record under the current Premier, that record is even worse. We find in 1996 that they called us together first on April 26. We had a couple of days in the Legislature, and then they went to an election. They called us back on June 25, 1996, to bring the real Legislative session into being. In 1997, when did we call the House together? March 24. Notice those dates I said in March earlier, for the Socred years? Not one of them was past the middle of the month. Here we started under this new Premier, with his new mandate, on March 24. Last year, when did we begin the session? March 26. And this year we set that new record I referred to a moment ago: March 29.

Hon. Speaker, it's deplorable that this government would not bring the House together in a timely manner so that we can do the business that we are elected to do, and that is to discuss the budget estimates -- the budget spending that this government's going to do -- and discuss them before they start spending that money. But we're here tonight to discuss it after the fact, basically -- to give them this blank cheque and let them go ahead and have $5.2 billion without explaining at all how they intend to spend it and where it's going to go. I find that really disgraceful.

Now they have the nerve to put before this House this supply bill for $5.2 billion. It's not the way that a responsible government would do the business of this province.

An Hon. Member: It certainly isn't.

D. Symons: I have some support in this House for that statement.

The Legislature should be given the opportunity to debate spending before the fact, not a blank cheque for the spending of $5.2 billion.

I know the members opposite, the government members there, are thinking that it's those Liberal talking away again. They don't represent anybody but themselves, and their thoughts just are not correct. I do have some other experts, though, that I would like to bring into the House -- or figuratively bring into the House -- and I will give you a few other statements that people have said on this very topic in the past. We have someone who said this: "We have seen repeated attempts by this government" -- not meaning the one currently sitting there, mind you -- "to stifle debate on the taxing and spending of this administration. The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everybody should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here."

It was that side of the House that at one time said: "Not a dime without debate." They're now asking for $5 billion of public money to be passed posthaste today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. This is not acceptable to this side of the House.

Hon. Speaker, do you recognize those words? Do you know who said them? This is a historical figure, of course, that I'm referring to. It happens to be the man who now sits in the Premier's chair. It's the Premier of the province. But he said that when he was in opposition back in April 23, 1990. Here's someone who's agreeing with precisely what I was saying a few minutes ago.

I have to ask what the heck we're doing here tonight if the Premier of this province knows that what we're doing tonight is wrong, wrong, wrong. He said so himself in 1990. He went on to say:

[ Page 11525 ]

"We know, Mr. Speaker, that they have a lot of reasons why they do not want the scrutiny placed before them; there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature has been their doing. It is because they want to hide the fact that they have the largest-taxing government we've seen in some time; they have regressively taxed and unfairly taxed working people, the poor and seniors in this province; and they want to avoid that debate in this House."

[2355]

He didn't end there; he had a lot more to say. I think we should again listen to what he said, because these were wise words then. They don't seem to be so wise today -- the people who said them. "I understand why they don't want debate on their spending estimates. I understand why they don't want debate on their fiscal competence. I understand why they don't want debate on the fact that there is a deficit in British Columbia and not a balanced budget as they purport." Where did we hear about balanced budgets just a couple of years ago? "But that debate will happen," he went on to say. "That is the role of parliamentarians; that is the role of all of us in this House." What we're doing tonight. . . . We're being denied that opportunity for that debate before the spending is to take place.

The Premier went on to say -- back then, mind you, not when he was the man responsible but when he was sitting across the floor. . . . He's the man irresponsible now. He went on to say: "We won't tolerate $5 billion of public money being passed without debate, Mr. Speaker. That means that the range of initiatives, the fiscal policy and the incompetence of this government will be debated, because this may well be the real election budget." Well, I think those were words said then that every member opposite, every member of this NDP government, should listen to and then realize that what is going on tonight is something that their Premier certainly would not have approved of, because those words are exactly what we are doing this evening.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Well, they were given by our Premier.

What happened when the NDP opposition became the government? We really have to think, you know, that the first thing that happened was that, particularly when that person became Premier. . . . You may remember that a few moments ago I read those starting dates of the legislative chamber -- those starting dates that came so close to the end of the fiscal year that there was no opportunity whatsoever to take place. . .what he was railing against just a few years earlier. It's amazing that he would have the courage to say those things in this House that obviously paint him as a hypocrite.

Well, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway's record as a fiscal wizard -- if we can call him that -- when he was the Finance minister is certainly open to question also. He moved into the Ministry of Finance and became the Minister of Finance for this province. What did he do in his first year as Minister of Finance, particularly when he talked about tax cuts and the high tax rate of the Social Credit government? In his first year in office as Finance minister, in 1992, he raised taxes by $800 million, and not to be outdone in the next year, 1993, by another $800 million. And every year since then the people of this province have been paying close to $1.5 billion to $2 billion more in taxes -- and that's cumulative, year by year by year -- than they did before the NDP government were elected.

[2400]

D. Symons: The member opposite says they're coming down. They reduced income tax by half a percent one year, and they're holding off the next 1 percent for another year yet, to the year 2000. Still, the debt in the province has increased, year by year, by $1 billion. Now, I said a moment ago that they increased taxes by $1.5 billion. But in spite of the extra money brought in in revenue, the expenditures were still more than the increase in revenue, so they were $1 billion further in debt each year of this government's terms in office. Well, the government recognized fairly early that they had a problem.

Oh, I neglected to mention that we have now passed into our new fiscal year, the 1999-2000 fiscal year. We're now in it -- without proper debate on the budget and the estimates, I might add.

The government did recognize they had a problem with the debts they were running up for the province. So the government thought: "Well, let's see. We have to do something about this. We'll bring in a debt management plan in 1994." By that time, the Premier -- by the way, hon. Speaker, to refresh your memory -- was removed from the office of Finance minister. The Premier of the day, I think, had had enough of what was going on with that particular person as Finance minister. He's now graduated to be Premier, mind you, but that's another story.

The new Finance minister recognized the mess left by the Premier as Finance minister and decided: "We need a debt management plan." When we look at the debt management plan they brought in, we find what it was going to do: over a period of 20 years, they were going to get us back to the damage they had done in two years. Actually, it would be three years by the time that particular fiscal year came in. But it was going to take them 20 years to get us back to the starting point of when the NDP were elected.

But at least it was a plan. They were going to do something about the debt in the province of British Columbia. Well, that debt management plan lasted two years. They didn't make their targets in the first year. By the second year, it was

[ Page 11526 ]

Then, indeed, we did, as I mentioned, go for an election in British Columbia. We had an election in 1996. We had an election campaign by this NDP government. What was the main plank in their campaign? "Hey, we have two balanced budgets." Remember that? Every one of them campaigned on two balanced budgets. Soon after they were elected, we found that those balanced budgets evaporated very quickly.

What seemed to be balanced, rather, was a huge deficit each of those two years, one that they did not recognize during the election campaign and one that. . . . The finance people in the government, in the Treasury Board, were telling the government that the economy of this province was in the tank. They were told that in 1995 -- that there was no way, except for an awful lot of optimism, that you could possibly balance those budgets. Indeed, it seems the Finance minister of the day added a lot of optimism to those estimates and came up with a balanced budget figure which, of course, was all false. They went out for an election, winning the election on that balanced budget lie.

Those balanced budgets, anyway, are now history. The auditor general has come in and pretty well emphasized the fact that everybody should have known. If they didn't know, it was wilfully not knowing that those budgets were nowhere near balanced. Indeed, we were in a bad financial situation in the province.

[0005]

An Hon. Member: Oh, come on. How about those commodity prices?

D. Symons: All you have to do, hon. members who are differing with me on this, is read the auditor general's report, look at what you were told back in '95 and '96, and find out that indeed you were told that the economy of this province was going down. We were in financial trouble back then. It didn't start in 1997-98.

We go on. After the election -- won, I think, by deceit -- again, we had a new fiscal management plan. It was no longer a debt management plan but a fiscal management plan. Notice the distinction between the two: debt management plan, fiscal management plan. It lasted an even shorter time than the debt management plan, because after one year it had to be changed. What we had then was a modified financial plan. My goodness, they're certainly great at thinking up new names for failed programs.

[R. Kasper in the chair.]

But we're lucky; we're very fortunate to have this government sitting over there, because we find now. . . . What are they offering us in this budget? We have a five-year fiscal planning framework. Now, there's something to look forward to. They had four other programs, plus the budget during the election campaign -- of absolute failures on the part of this government to deal with anything to do with money in this province.

So I have no faith in this government's fiscal abilities, and I could not possibly support a bill that's asking us to give them $5.2 billion worth of spending without an explanation as to how they are going to spend that. This government's incompetence does not give me confidence that they will handle the supply amount of $5.2 billion any better than they've handled the economy over the last seven and a half years.

The budget presented yesterday in this House laid out the government's vision for the future. It should, I say, lay out its vision for the future. It should be designed to give the people of the province the idea that their government has a plan that shows that their government knows where they're going and that shows how they're going to get there. That budget tabled yesterday did not do that. Again, it doesn't give me confidence that they can even handle money for four months, let alone the coming year, in any responsible manner at all.

The Premier's Finance minister in the NDP's new government in 1992, introducing the NDP's first budget, said that his government was "committed to policies which foster economic stability and confidence." Every year since 1992, they have done exactly the opposite. The words then that were to that effect were repeated in every succeeding budget address this government has given, including the one this year. They've told us the same things. And every year up until this year we've had the same failures on those words, the same failure to deliver. We can expect no better from the budget that was brought in yesterday in this House. They are hollow words, and they can no longer be believed.

[0010]

After all those things that this government's done and that members of the government have been involved in, we

[ Page 11527 ]

The government has stated that its priorities are health care and education. And what are we hearing from the government today when they've been railing back at us? When we are castigating them about their spending habits, they say: "What hospital do you want closed? What schools do you want closed?" You know, those same things were said to me as critic for Highways by the then Highways minister of the government back in 1992 and again in '93. Anytime I would say: "Why are you letting the infrastructure of this province deteriorate to the point where it's going to cost more to repair it? You're wasting money by not spending it in a timely fashion. . . ." Our highways are deteriorating, and only now is the government beginning to address that. They're having to pour a lot more money into highways now than they would have if they'd done it in a timely fashion over the intervening years. Well, what did that minister say to me then? He said: "What hospital beds do you want me to close? Or what schools should we close?" That phrase is worn out, hon. members; stop using it. You've used it for seven years. It's worn out, and it doesn't mean anything anymore because its words, like most of your other words, are hollow and meaningless.

This government has brought health care in the province to its knees, yet they say that it's one of their priorities. They've had the failed experiment in Closer to Home, regionalization and the health accord, which, basically, as one of the things behind it, was going to reduce the number of nurses in the province and save money. And in today's budget what are they saying? "Oh, we're going to put more nurses in." Well, the health accord was designed to reduce the number of nurses, and now they say: "Gee, we have a nurse shortage, and we're going to address that matter." It's rather interesting, isn't it?

I'd like to tell you, hon. members, about a health care problem in the Vancouver-Richmond health region. I'm now going to tell you Teresa Mowat's story. I first heard from Teresa Mowat at the very beginning of this year; I got a letter from her. In her letter she said that she was concerned about the fact that she was supposed to have a brain biopsy in early December. It had been cancelled because of a nurses' strike. It was rescheduled for December 11. It was cancelled because of bed closures. It was rescheduled for January 15 of this year. A few days after that date it was finally done. But she asked in her letter: "Does the government now have people put down as elective until they become emergency surgery?"

[0015]

An Hon. Member: What's the point?

D. Symons: "What's the point?" the member asks. The point is that Teresa is no longer with us. Teresa died earlier this month from complications of the brain operation that she had that had been delayed. That's the point. Would she have lived if she had had more timely addressing of her health needs? I don't know. But what I do know is that she deserved that chance, and she didn't get it. The point is that her doctor tried. I spoke to her doctor, and he tried, and unless she was an emergency case. . . . They don't refer to emergency what you're thinking of. If a person is hit by a car or something, they get them in. But that's the case. . . .

Interjection.

D. Symons: It's not irresponsible. The woman died because she couldn't get the care she needed, and her doctor couldn't get it for her. I am amazed that you would continue to argue that that's not the case.

Go into the Richmond Hospital any day. I haven't gone into the hospital recently, but we. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, your time has expired.

D. Symons: I have a lot more I would like to say on that.

L. Stephens: It's a pleasure for me to rise this evening to debate Bill 54, Supply Act (No. 1), 1999. We are in the wee small hours of the morning -- and the new budget and the new fiscal year -- debating a supply bill asking this assembly to authorize past and future spending of this government. I think it's important to understand that this supply bill is made up of two parts: the special warrants, which is the past spending of the government; and interim supply, which is the voted expenditures appropriation giving the government permission for future spending.

This particular act is talking about amounts of $169.5 million in special warrant spending. The government ran out of money and needed to go into this year's budget. This is public money, taxpayers' money, spent without the authorization of this assembly. The Supply Act also asks for money to be paid: ". . .out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be and applied in the manner and at the times that the government may determine the sum of $5 200 000 000 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000, and being substantially 3/12 of the total amount of the votes of the main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000."

The government is asking for authorization before the estimates are passed for three months' worth of spending -- for April, May and June. Why is that? It's because this government didn't see fit to call the House back. It simply shows the contempt that this government has for this assembly and for the people of British Columbia -- and certainly for the members of the House.

[0020]

"The Westminster model of parliamentary democracy established centuries ago provides the elected representatives of the people with control over the expenditures of public moneys. The basis for this derives from the 1689 Bill of Rights

[ Page 11528 ]

enacted in England and which is still in effect. The Glorious Revolution of the time saw the autocratic King James II driven from the country by William of Orange and Mary, who took the throne upon accepting the declaration of the rights of Parliament. Under this model of governance, the Sovereign and his or her ministers request the use of publicly-raised funds for the government's programs, and the Commons or assembly of members considers the request and grants or denies the authority to spend.

"Two of the most fundamental cornerstones of parliamentary democracy are the rule of law and the principle of parliamentary approval of government spending. . . . This involves having the members of the assembly meet, discuss, debate and vote on the government's funding requests."

Now, the circumstances of those earlier times made an instrument like special warrants necessary. Nineteenth-century conditions -- great distances, slow transportation, difficult communications and parliamentarians meeting only for a small portion of the year -- justified this need to have some form of special warrant spending available for fast-arising crises. Such is not the case and has not been for a very long time in British Columbia, where members of the assembly can be called together in a matter of hours. We have the ability today, hon. Speaker, to make sure that members are coming back to debate these kinds of spending proposals.

So why, why, why are we just now, at 20 minutes after midnight in the new fiscal year, talking about special warrants and supply with a government that didn't see fit to come to this chamber to debate the budget, didn't see fit to come to this chamber to uphold the parliamentary traditions that members opposite -- a great number of members opposite -- like to talk about and like to say that they particularly support? What is so offensive about this particular bill today is that the House could very easily have been called back. We could very easily have had a budget debate. We have been in this House in December and again in January. We could very well have been called back in February. All members of this House were expecting to be called back, certainly to finish the Nisga'a debate. We could certainly have been called back at the beginning of March. There is no need for this government to show such contempt for this House, this parliament and the people of British Columbia.

This debate should not be happening now, and the fact that it is is simply another example of the contempt that this government has and a clear example of the fiscal incompetence of this government as well. They can't get a budget in on time. They can't manage the affairs of the province. The fact that the budget was introduced on March 30, one day before the spending authorization ran out, is an abuse of the authority of this House.

I suspect that the reason we didn't come back is because this government is afraid. It was afraid to call the House back. It was afraid to face the accusations of the opposition. It was afraid to face the condemnation of the press. It was afraid to be held accountable for its mismanagement and total incompetence in handling the finances of the province of British Columbia. And it was afraid to be held accountable for the reckless, irresponsible deception of government policy.

[0025]

So this government has a long record of special warrant spending, something they said in opposition that they would never do, something they castigated the Socred government for time after time. It's the same thing for interim supply. Here we are once more at the eleventh hour, debating interim supply.

I looked back in Hansard to see what the NDP had said about these special warrants and interim supply when they were in opposition. I found a Hansard record of the now Premier. This was in April of 1990. The present Premier, who of course was a backbencher at that time, said:

"The essence of parliamentary democracy is to authorize spending. . .the principal role of parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending. . . . That is the role of parliament. It is not the role of governments. . .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."

It's this kind of abuse of the House by the NDP government that compels me to call for parliamentary reform in British Columbia. We've talked about it many times. We've urged it on the government in every interim supply debate and special warrant debate we've had in this House. We've called for a fixed parliamentary calendar. There has been some appetite on the other side, on the government side of the House, to at least discuss this. But nothing seems to come about, nothing seems to happen. It appears that the government is perfectly happy to continue to abuse the parliamentary traditions of the House and to wait till the very last minute to call the House back to debate a budget.

So the question is: does this government deserve to have this supply bill passed? I believe that the answer is no. Judging by the budget that was tabled on Tuesday, it clearly shows a government that is taking this province to the brink of financial ruin. The budget clearly demonstrates that the members opposite have no understanding of what is morally, ethically and financially accountable or responsible. Opposition members on this side of the House have no confidence in that government's ability to manage the affairs of the province.

[0030]

[ Page 11529 ]

There's a famous phrase that this government couldn't run a peanut stand, and I don't think it was ever truer than it is today. We saw the budget tabled yesterday with an $890 million deficit -- the true deficit, not the one that the minister is trying to push -- a $34 billion total debt and a $2.6 billion interest cost on the debt. That works out to over $7 million a day that's going to pay the interest on the debt. We could do a lot with that $7 million a day. Just think of how many schools we could build and how many services to patients we could provide. There are a huge number of public services that could be presented to the people of this province if we didn't have such a huge millstone hanging around our neck. Who knows when we'll be able to get that paid off? With this government, it'll be never.

There are many reasons why I cannot support this interim supply bill and why this government doesn't deserve an interim supply bill or special warrant spending. It has repeatedly deceived British Columbia taxpayers about the state of B.C.'s finances, and it has repeatedly misled the Legislature about the '95 and '96 budgets. It has presided over successive downgrades to B.C.'s rating, and we're going to see another one after this budget. It has not balanced a budget in eight years. It has brought B.C. Ferries to the brink of bankruptcy with its fast ferry program. It has breached its own guidelines by granting approval in principle for a casino licence to a friend and neighbour of the Premier that is now the subject of an RCMP investigation. It has attacked the integrity of the RCMP and the judiciary and made false statements regarding a non-existing criminal investigation of the media by Crown counsel.

It misled the people of Prince George, Skeena and the Comox Valley over the secret use of outside political organizers in the recall campaign, and it has wasted billions of dollars in the Skeena Cellulose bailout, along with a number of other government subsidies that this government said it would never do. But when it's politically expedient and advantageous to one of the cabinet members of government, they're right there, quick to hand out taxpayers' money -- the Nisga'a propaganda, the inoperable minibuses, assorted union sweetheart deals and numerous other boondoggles. It has committed millions of taxpayers' money to the Vancouver convention centre without knowing what the project will cost or how the taxpayers will pay for it. No business plan. Not a clue. Not the faintest idea of what the eventual cost is going to be or who is going to pay for it.

[0035]

It has constantly broken its word and legislative commitment to homeowners, renters and small businesses by arbitrarily cutting municipal grants by almost $800 million in seven years. We're going to talk a little bit more about that during the budget debate. It has broken the Criminal Code and retroactively robbed charities of gaming revenues that were legally theirs. It signed the SkyTrain contracts, which have been kept secret from taxpayers and will add billions of dollars in unnecessary costs to the project.

It has allowed surgical wait-lists to grow and health care to deteriorate, particularly in rural regions. When members of the opposition caucus travel to other parts of the province, particularly to the northern parts of the province, what we hear time after time after time is the crisis in health care -- the fact that patients in the rural areas have no access or limited access to their health care services. This is an appalling state of affairs, and this government is doing nothing to correct that. No matter how much they like to say that they're protecting health care and education, the facts are otherwise. We're going to talk more about that during the budget debate as well.

It has interfered in the collective bargaining process by overruling locally elected school boards -- the loss of autonomy by our local school boards. Again, this government likes to say that they're protecting education. The facts say otherwise.

It has failed to adequately protect children and implement the recommendations of the Gove commission. Almost every day in the local papers or in the dailies you see instances of where our children are not being protected. This government's much-touted prostitution unit is nothing more than a public relations scam. It has failed to protect Burns Bog, while giving a $25 million loan to a private company for the development of a theme park in that fragile ecosystem.

Its economic mismanagement has made British Columbia the only province to suffer a drop in private sector investment from 1992 to 1999, and it has caused an unprecedented exodus of people, jobs and companies from British Columbia.

It has increased taxpayer-supported debt by 133 percent since 1991. It has not given British Columbians a say on the Nisga'a template through a referendum. And it has stumbled from one scandal to another, such as Bingogate, Hydrogate, Budgetgate, Skeenagate and Casinogate. Because that government is in complete disarray and is utterly incapable of restoring confidence in our economy and governing the people of British Columbia, that government does not deserve one more cent of taxpayers' money.

B. Barisoff: This morning I rise to join with my colleagues in debating this interim supply bill for in the neighbourhood of $7 billion. It seems to me that it's after midnight now, so it's April Fools' Day. You would think that the people out there would understand that this budget is almost like an April Fools' joke for most of them.

[0040]

B. Barisoff: Well, it's an election budget, an April Fools' budget. It could be a number of things.

[ Page 11530 ]

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: The Premier laughs. He thinks it's funny to put the province in debt another $3 billion in one year. It's costing $7 million a day. Is this the kind of budget that's going to be advantageous to health care or education? No, I doubt it. It's not the kind of budget that's going to be advantageous to health care or education.

An Hon. Member: It gives a pile of money to health care.

B. Barisoff: It gives a pile of money to health care. How are we going to pay for it? It's not going to be paid. The member on the opposite side knows full well. . . . They sit there and laugh, thinking that this is a joke. This is not a joke. You have just mortgaged our children and our children's children forever and a day. And you think it's funny? Well, it's not; it is not funny. It is not funny that you would think that you would. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: You're not investing in anything. You know it. You're carrying on, putting us in debt to no end. There's no end to what's taking place.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, if you could address the Chair.

B. Barisoff: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I will address the Chair.

It's a sad day in British Columbia; it truly is a sad day. When I look at April Fools' Day. . . . I really wonder whether it's an April Fools' joke that would. . . .

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: No, the only joke that's happening is the people on the other side. The NDP is a joke. In the eyes of the people of British Columbia, they're a joke. If you really want to do it, call an election. See what the people say. If you've got that much confidence, call an election. You would think that there would be some integrity with some of the members on the other side of the House.

There's an old saying that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. There's no doubt in my mind that we're facing a government that has lost touch with the people of British Columbia. There is a growing cynicism, even anger, in the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: They say, on the other side: "Tell us what to cut." That's the idea. Cut the other side -- the whole works of them.

I also notice that the Minister of Agriculture has come in. That budget went down by 10 percent. The minister has indicated on a number of occasions: "Let's get agriculture into the big House; let's discuss this." I've had the opportunity to travel throughout the province as the Agriculture critic. Farmers are suffering in the Peace River; farmers are suffering in the Okanagan; farmers are suffering all over this province. But what is one of the smallest budgets? The Ministry of Agriculture.

The NDP said: "We're just going to cut it; we're going to cut that portion of it." We're going to flip away $890 million, but there is no care for the farmers of British Columbia. There isn't any care. You know it.

An Hon. Member: You want to spend more.

B. Barisoff: No, what we want to do is spend wisely. But the people on that side of the House, hon. Speaker -- I'm sure I'm addressing it to you -- are not spending it wisely. They don't care.

The Minister of Agriculture was in the Okanagan telling the farmers -- the apple growers, who are really the hardest hit -- that there is going to be some support for them. What happened? A 10 percent cut in the Agriculture budget but an $890 million deficit with the rest of it. I have to wonder. I have to question whether the Minister of Agriculture was there defending the farmers of British Columbia -- the backbone of this province. These are the people that put food on the table. They are the ones that make sure that we eat every day. But the NDP government has chosen to say: "No, we're not really concerned about them. We're more concerned about the fast ferries. We can waste $235 million on the fast ferry corporation, but we can't do anything for the farmers of British Columbia."

[0045]

This government has proven to be fiscally irresponsible, to put it mildly, with an obvious lack of vision and understanding of how a healthy economy works. This government, with its track record of cover-up and scandal, has contributed to a growing public distrust of politicians. When you think about that and you think to yourself how these hallowed halls here, where we're trying to make things work. . . . Then yesterday this government came in and laid down a budget that's going to put us in debt another $3 billion. The laughing and carrying-on that's going on over there -- to think that this is funny. . . . It's funny that we're going to mortgage our kids' future. It was unbearable for me to sit here and watch what was taking place on the other side of the House -- to think that this was a joke. We are now paying $7 million a day. Do you know how much you can do for health care and education with $7 million a day? You can do a lot. I'm telling you what you can do. But you can't continue to put the debt farther and farther in. That's fiscally irresponsible.

[ Page 11531 ]

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Speaker.

Where is this integrity? Where is their sense of responsibility, and where is their accountability? It's a mystery to me how this government continues to hold its head up in this chamber and pretend that what it's doing is okay -- not only that they want us to vote in favour of them spending more money. . . . It's wrong. This government obviously believes that it's okay to fudge the budget. They've done it more than once. They don't mind. They can fudge it here, fudge it there. You know, some people call it lies. It's fudging the budget. They're telling the people of British Columbia something that's not true. That's wrong; that truly is wrong. They believe that it's okay to mislead the Legislature and all the taxpayers.

They believe that it's okay to overspend to the tune of $435 million in the fast ferry program. I notice that the minister of fast ferries has just arrived too. At one point in time he sat on this side of the House, saying how wrong it was to do those kinds of things. But all of a sudden now it's right to overspend, and it's right to do these kinds of things. It is really, really wrong. The people of British Columbia will not take it. It's okay because the taxpayers will ultimately pay the bill -- in fact, not only them but their children and their grandchildren. At the rate that this government is going, who knows how far into the future we're going to be paying? We're going to be paying forever.

They believe it's okay to expand gaming and to breach their own guidelines in granting approval-in-principle for a casino licence to a friend or neighbour of the Premier -- anything like that. It's okay. They don't mind who happens to get a licence here or there. It's okay. Even if the local municipality agrees. . . . But, you know, if they decide a friend of a friend of a friend. . . . "Well, we can find a way; we can make it work."

These kinds of things are wrong, particularly in light of cutting agriculture -- the farmers, the backbone of this economy. You see, it's okay in their minds because the government believes that it can do anything, that it has absolute power.

[0050]

An Hon. Member: Does this have something to do with Bill 54?

B. Barisoff: It sure does have something to do with Bill 54. It's exactly that. You want us to grant you money, and when we. . . .

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair.

B. Barisoff: Sorry, hon. Speaker. What I'm saying is that side of the House, the NDP, wants money granted from this side of the House in an interim budget, with the kind of integrity that's taking place there. You have to second-guess. . . .

An Hon. Member: Not a dime.

B. Barisoff: My colleague beside me says: "Not a dime." I wouldn't even go a dime -- not a penny. Not one single cent do they deserve -- nothing. They say there's more money for health care, more money for kids. You know, they don't care how they spend money. They know full well what's going to take place. They're maybe spending more money for Skeena Cellulose, more money for fast ferries. You guys have spent -- wasted -- half a billion dollars. Now you want to build a convention centre. Who knows what the contract is there? You want to build a SkyTrain that. . . . We don't even know what kind of tendering process is going out on SkyTrain. They just want to go with it. Who cares? What's a billion dollars here, a billion dollars there?

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: I understand that one person over there knows. We don't know who that one person might be, but we understand that government on that side is run by only one elected person over there. The rest of them just raise their hands and are told what to do, and a couple of other bureaucrats kind of make up the budget as they go along.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: A laugh? In all seriousness, I hear laughing over there. You know, I hear laughing over there, but I'll bet you that at the cabinet table they didn't have a lot of input on what went into this budget. I'm sure they didn't have a lot of input. If they did, I know full well that the Minister of Agriculture would not have allowed that budget to go down. You're telling me that they had a lot of input. Absolutely not. If that's the case, then the Minister of Agriculture didn't defend the farmers of the province, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs didn't defend all the municipalities -- if they had some say. It couldn't have happened. I think it was made up from the outside and brought in, and they were told: "This is what's going to happen." We know that.

Does it mean it's okay if the forest-dependent communities are destroyed around the province while this government continues its smoke-and-mirror games? It's a sad day when you look around the province and see the struggle that is going on in the forest-dependent communities. The Finance minister gets up on her budget, and she says: "We don't care about the mining. There's not going to be any mining in any parks or anything there. We're not going to have any mining in this province." Well, they've driven it right out completely, and there is hardly anything left. In fact, I think they've driven it so far out that I don't know whether mining's going to come back.

Do you know how you make health care and education better in this province? Generate some wealth. Get the forest industry back working; get the mining industry back working; get the farmers back working.

[0055]

B. Barisoff: Yeah, now we've got to change the commodity prices. The Minister of Small Business and Tourism is

[ Page 11532 ]

I was up at the Peace River just last week. Those people up there want to invest in B.C. But this NDP government is driving them out; they're driving them out in droves.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: What? Are you telling me that the people of the Peace River don't want to invest in B.C.? That's exactly what he said: they don't want to invest in B.C. Well, I think the Minister of Tourism should get up and speak about that when I'm done, because the people of the Peace River do want to invest in B.C. The member for Peace River South took us all over the Peace River. Those are hard-working farmers, ranchers and miners up there. They're hard-working up there; they do an excellent job. But the minister says they don't want to invest in B.C. Well, they do want to invest in B.C. They want to make sure that they invest in B.C. along with a lot of other people. People don't want to leave this province. But with this NDP government, where are they going? They're heading for Alberta; they're heading east; they're heading south into Washington State.

You know, one good thing they did is that they lowered the taxes on small business. But, you know, they only lowered it on the profit part of it. There's hardly any small businesses making any profit anymore; you guys have destroyed that. You've destroyed every part of this province. I don't think there are many parts of this province that you haven't destroyed. It goes on and on.

An Hon. Member: Doom and gloom.

B. Barisoff: It's not doom and gloom; it's exactly what's taking place. It's okay, because they also believe that they have absolute power when they're breaking the Criminal Code. Robbing charities of gaming revenues -- ah, it's nothing to worry about. What the heck. Furthermore, it's okay to cut deals with SkyTrain expansion. Then it adds billions of dollars to the cost of the project. But they don't care. You see, when you believe that you have absolute power, in the words of the non-famous government minister: "Government can do anything it wants." They say it over there: "Government can do anything it wants." Whatever they want to do, they'll do it. They don't care.

They put B.C. in debt over $3 billion. The minister again says: "Well, that's democracy." That's democracy with 39 percent of the people of British Columbia. If you believe so strongly in what you believe, why don't you take it to the people of British Columbia? Why don't you take the Nisga'a agreement to the people of British Columbia?

Interjections.

B. Barisoff: We went all around. We heard it; we heard what was taking place. A lot of people were upset with that.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

B. Barisoff: It's not shame.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, members. I'm having a hard time hearing.

B. Barisoff: That's exactly right, hon. Speaker. They forgot; the member on the other side has forgotten that there was a minority report on that. But, hon. Speaker, don't. . . .

I think we, the people of British Columbia, deserve a say in what's happening. They deserve a say in what's happening. And, you know, they deserve a say on what took place with this budget.

An Hon. Member: You went around the Nass Valley.

B. Barisoff: Hon. Speaker, the member from the other side. . . . We went all over this province with the Aboriginal Affairs Committee. It's a great debate. Don't stop it now, hon. Speaker; it's going too well. He's coming from a direction where the. . . .

Interjection.

[0100]

This government seems to think that it's okay to allow surgical waiting lists to grow and the health care system to deteriorate, especially in the rural areas of this province.

I've got an issue in my own riding in Christina Lake, where an elderly doctor wants to continue practising. This government, for whatever reason, has seen fit to say no. The College of Physicians says it's all right, but this government says no. They say: "No, but we are going to support rural doctors. We're going to support the rural part of British Columbia."

They forgot about rural British Columbia. They don't know what it is like in rural British Columbia. I wonder sometimes, with the members that are from rural British Columbia, why they don't take an active role in making sure that they are supporting what's taking place out there. They seem to go along with the idea that they can just spend it all, spend it wherever. They don't worry about the consequences. But on this side of the House we think that the future of British Columbia is important now, and we think that what takes place now is extremely important for the future. You can't spend your way to prosperity, but the people on that side of the House think that you can.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

When you have absolute power, you can also interfere with the collective bargaining process over the rule of locally elected school boards. This government interfered with the negotiations of locally elected school boards. And this government thinks that we should grant it interim supply? Something is wrong with the integrity of the members on that side of the House if they think that we should grant them that kind of money when they've taken another elected body and said:

[ Page 11533 ]

It's okay if the Ministry for Children and Families can't do the job of protecting children and families. I've got a serious case in my own riding, taking place right now. A member brought some of it forward in her private member's statement, and I'd like to read into the record book every letter that she read. I've got to wonder what's happening on that side of the House, in the Ministry for Children and Families.

The government thinks that economic mismanagement is okay. Hon. Speaker, it is not okay. Economic mismanagement in this province is not okay. It's wrong. It's wrong now; it was wrong yesterday; it's wrong tomorrow. I think today, April Fools' Day. . . . I bring that up again, because it's like an April Fools' joke that's being played on the citizens of British Columbia. It's okay if this province moves from first place in economic growth to last place. It's okay if investors, companies, jobs and people continue the mass exodus.

We can't allow this to happen. Hon. Speaker, if you wonder why the opposition is debating the interim supply bill -- and will debate it all night, well into the next morning. . . . Do you think that we're doing this because we want to stand here? We want to do this for the people of British Columbia. We see too many people leaving this province, too many people heading to Washington State, too many people heading to Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba -- too many people just leaving. Why are they leaving? Because our economic climate in British Columbia is disastrous.

[0105]

You've got to wonder. I really question what takes place. You see, hon. Speaker, in the mind of this government, where absolute power and sleight of hand are rampant, government creates jobs not in the private sector, and revenues come from taxing the people until they break. On that side of the House, they believe that you can tax and spend, tax and spend. You know what they're doing? They are literally breaking the people of British Columbia.

There won't be many people left. I remember hearing a comment made by one of my colleagues earlier on that the only people that will be left will be the New Democrats, and the only New Democrats who will be left will probably be the ones sitting there. Everybody else will leave. There will be nothing left at the rate they're going. You can't spend your way to prosperity. You can't be paying $7 million a day in interest.

The members on that side of the House say: "The Liberals -- all they're for are the big banks." I tell you, the best friend of the big banks is the New Democrats. They keep borrowing and borrowing more money, and they keep paying more and more interest. We're in one of the lowest cycles in interest rates that we've ever seen -- probably in the last 30 years. Can you imagine what the debt will rise to if that starts to climb? We'll be paying $10 million a day. You think that's not going to hurt education and health care in this province? You bet it is. The people on that side of the House had better realize that's exactly what's going to take place. They sat there. They smiled; they laughed. It was a joke; it was simply a joke.

When I left here that day, I said to myself. . . . It just seemed unbelievable to think that they could sit over there. . . . That's why I must say that the members of cabinet could not have had any part in making that budget -- because the people on that side of the House could not be that incompetent to make a budget like that.

An Hon. Member: Oh yes, they could.

B. Barisoff: I can't believe it. The members on my side say that they are. I believe that it had to come from a few outsiders to put a budget like that. . . . The sad part is that when this is all said and done, every one of those members will stand, raise their hand and vote for it. That's wrong; that is truly wrong. I hope that somewhere some of them will say to themselves: "I'm not going to do that. I will not allow that to happen. I will not mortgage my children's future." I hope that will happen, and I hope that some of them are listening -- if they're not sleeping by now, seeing as it's 1:10 a.m. But maybe they will. I'm sure a lot of them are probably sleeping.

The government says it's okay to bind the people to the Nisga'a treaty forever. The Chairman of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee left.

An Hon. Member: Your green light is on.

B. Barisoff: Well, I'm definitely going to carry on as long as I can.

The government thinks it's okay. . .

Deputy Speaker: Member, you've run out of time.

B. Barisoff: . . .if the people of British Columbia are treated to a scandal a day.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you've run out of time.

B. Barisoff: I know, and I'd just like to close by saying that I'd like this government to call an election as soon as possible for all the people of British Columbia.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada