1986 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7553 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

ALRT Mr. Williams –– 7553

Math program. ML Rose –– 7553

Saferway Driver Training School. Mr. Lockstead –– 7554

Aids testing facility. Mrs. Dailly –– 7554

Foster care cheques. Ms. Grown –– 7554

Sparwood Library Board. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7554

Casino gambling. ML Hanson –– 7555

Agricultural land reserve. Ms. Sanford –– 7555

Mr. Lauk

Budget Debate

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7556

Supply Act (No. 1), 1986 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7556

Second reading –– 7557

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Barnes

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Committee stage –– 7564

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Sanford

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. D'Arcy

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. MacWilliam

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Barnes

Third reading –– 7569

Mr. Lauk

Budget Debate

Mr. Macdonald –– 7570

Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 7572

Mr. Lauk –– 7574

Tabling Documents –– 7577

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I never knew that Dr. Scott Wallace had grown a

mustache. [Laughter.] I would indeed like to welcome the member to the

House in his new position, which I'm sure he will find, if nothing

else, will prove to be very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I

think all members very proudly remember little Samantha Smith, the

little girl from Maine, in the United States, and her peace mission to

Russia in 1983. We very sadly recall her tragic death in a plane crash

last year. I'm sure all members have seen on television and read about

the very delightful Katerina Lycheva, the 11-year-old Russian who is

now on a U.S. two-week, five-city tour pleading the cause of world

peace. I saw a quotation from a newspaper in New York; it was very

touching. She lit a candle, and she said: "I light this candle because

if we don't have peace in the world we will have no world." How simply,

how beautifully and, indeed, how truly stated.

So I

thought, Mr. Speaker, it would be very nice and most appropriate that

this little girl could see something of our country and our province. I

know that all members will be very happy to hear that I have had

officials reach Russian embassy officials and the people who are

responsible for her tour to see if it would be possible for her to

spend a few days with us at some time.

MRS. DAILLY:

I would like the House to join with me today in welcoming Mr. Charles

Hou, who is the social studies department head at Burnaby North high

school. Accompanying him is Mr. Lynds, also a teacher from Burnaby

North. I would like to say to the House that with them today they have

Mr. Hou's social studies class. They have been upstairs in the Ned

DeBeck Lounge all morning debating. They've been debating the topic of

whether B.C. should have gone to the United States or Canada during

that famous debate. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I wish all the members

of this House could have been with me upstairs to watch them. We could

have learned much from these young students. May I ask you to welcome

them.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to join my colleague the member for Burnaby North in welcoming my old friend Charlie Hou.

well, I'd like to welcome nine very fine British Columbians who are the

prime movers in the Insurance Agents' Association of British Columbia:

their president, Mr. Harry Geddes; first vice-president, Mr. Gordon

Chambers; second vice-president, Bill Brown; past president, Barry

Amics; from Nanaimo, David Bakes; from Victoria, John Penner; from

Vancouver, John Toomer; the general manager of the association, Jack

Robertson; and the member emeritus from Skeena, Cyril Shelford, who is

their consultant and adviser. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming

to the Legislature today Peter Pollen and his wife, Mary Ann. Peter informed

me this morning that he's in a holding pattern, waiting for a place to land.

I'd also like to ask the members to join with mein welcoming Bill Smith,

the president of the provincial Conservative Party.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of residents and staff visiting the

precinct today from Victory House, a residence for ex-psychiatric

patients operated by the St. James services agency in Vancouver. They

are Mr. Tom Pater, community worker; Marcie Brown, social services

staff person; and residents Paul Mowbray, Donna Walters, Bruce Pollard

and Fred Wesley. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE:

I'd like the members to join me in a welcome to some good friends here

with us today. I see the chief officer of the UBCM, Mr. Richard Taylor,

and some of his colleagues. I also see a real old friend here with a

terrific Scottish name. He's Mr. Dunc McDougall, chairman of the South

Okanagan regional district, and Mrs. McDougall. Please welcome these

folks.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to

welcome in the members' gallery today the youngest alderman, I think,

in the province, from the little city of White Rock one of our famous

aldermen, Mr. Jim Coleridge.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, in our gallery this afternoon is the former administrator of

our Surrey Memorial Hospital. I would ask the House to please welcome

Mrs. Margaret Woodward.

Oral Questions

ALRT

MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The SkyTrain

problems that have impacted on the neighbourhood throughout Burnaby and

the east side have now been measured by the city health department.

Decibel levels are now up at 87.7 in some of the most severe locations

along that line, and the health staff indicate that it represents

impairment of health for the people who live along the line in those

locations. Could the minister advise the House whether he would be

prepared to meet with the city of Vancouver and adjacent municipalities

to discuss methods of alleviating the situation and mitigating the

impact on the people living by the line?

[2:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, the question should be more appropriately addressed to the

minister responsible for the SkyTrain, the hon. Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Even with the fact that it is a health matter and

that the Vancouver health board performs a number of the duties of the

Ministry of Health in Vancouver on behalf of the ministry on contract,

I still think it is superseded by the fact that this matter should be

taken up with the minister responsible for ALRT.

MATH PROGRAM

MR. ROSE:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the acting Minister of

Education. Can the minister confirm that his failure to allocate $5.3

million requested by his ministry means that children in grades 3, 4, 5

and 6 and 8, 9

[ Page 7554 ]

and

10 are condemned to an outdated math program for another year; that his

ministry is put in an embarrassing position with major publishers who

have rushed to meet the ministry's deadlines?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and relay it to the

Minister of Education when he returns to the Legislative Assembly.

SAFERWAY DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

of April 1, 1986 the government has awarded Saferway Driver Training

School the right to conduct testing and issue of drivers' licences for

a six-month period. Will the minister advise whether Saferway is being

given access to confidential government information which they might

use to determine eligibility for driving licences? In other words, have

they got use of the government computers?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, not that I am aware of.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

My information has it that they do in fact have that access. However, a

supplementary. Will the minister explain what type of insurance and

bonding arrangement is in place with respect to any liability for

damage caused by persons licensed by Saferway Driver Training School?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to get the information and bring it back to the House.

AIDS TESTING FACILITY

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. This morning the minister met

with the Vancouver Persons with AIDS Coalition. Has the government

decided to fund a type-D viral testing lab in British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

This morning I met with this delegation, and I am sympathetic to their

position. They have agreed with me, and I have told them that I am

going to consult with the Science Council, the BCMA and the St. Paul's

team to find out if in their opinion this particular facility would be

worthwhile and beneficial to British Columbia. I have undertaken to get

an answer back in relatively short order, and then I will discuss it

with my cabinet colleagues.

No, the government has not made

a decision, but in view of the relative urgency of this matter, we will

be discussing it very shortly.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that, and I hope the minister also appreciates the urgency of this very serious problem in our province today.

further question. When you are meeting with the ones you've said you

are going to meet with, could you perhaps at the same time liaison with

the federal government? I understand there is no such testing taking

place in Canada at all. I think the federal government has a

responsibility here, but I hope the minister will show that B.C. has

that concern and will take the lead in it.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I can certainly take the rest of question period to answer this, but

I'll try to be brief. The process that these gentlemen would like to

have is a process in which we would construct a lab for creating the

virus so that testing could be done here. But pharmaceuticals that are

manufactured either in Europe or in the United States or in Canada must

first be approved by the federal food and drug people. Once they have

approved it — where such a viral lab takes place and where some doctors

who are qualified to be able to do this kind of testing exist — limited

tests can take place.

The Burroughs Wellcome corporation

are doing tests in the United States on a number of drugs, as are

American firms. There are drugs available in Latin America which are

not approved in Canada or in the United States, and I don't

particularly feel like pressuring the federal government to bring some

of them in, many of which have proved to be perpetrated largely by

charlatans and quacks and which have offered false hopes. I would

remind you of laetrile.

I also would remind you that I

don't wish to.... If you consider that our federal government food and

drug people were the ones who ensured that thalidomide did not come to

Canada, because of their very, very thorough testing, and the Americans

to their regret suffered the tragedy of not testing it, then bringing

drugs into this country, pressuring the federal government to allow us

to bring drugs into the country just for testing purposes, also opens

up the other side of the coin: very dangerous side-effects which we

have in the past avoided. I will discuss the matter with Mr. Epp, but

while there is urgency about it, there still is the greater public

health to concern ourselves with.

FOSTER CARE CHEQUES

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Some operators of

special homes for children and some foster parents have been in touch

to say that they have been told that their cheques, which were

scheduled for April 12, would not be ready on that date because the

government has no money. My office contacted the MHR accounting office,

and they said we should phone back tomorrow because they really didn't

know when the cheques would be ready. Can the minister tell me: has

there been some kind of mistake or mixup? Or what's happening over

there?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, it's no more than that

the ministry cannot presume what the Legislative Assembly may approve,

and since interim finance is to be considered today, it just depends on

that. They're trying to be, I think, quite technical with respect to

that, but there should be no difficulty at all.

MS. BROWN: Just to clarify in a supplemental, then, these people will get their cheques by April 12 if interim supply goes through?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Hopefully if everything is very normal and if there is no foul-up in

the post office, they should be able to get them on schedule.

SPARWOOD LIBRARY BOARD

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty). I refer the minister to minutes,

[ Page 7555 ]

which

I have in my hand, of the Sparwood Library Board meeting dated February

7, 1986 — minutes which, I believe, the member mentioned last week did

not exist. Last week the Premier denied the statement by the member for

Kootenay in which he told the Sparwood library he would not recommend

who gets Expo legacy funds until after the election, and then only in

the areas where he was elected. This is a denial which has not been

repudiated by the member for Kootenay.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

My question to the member — if members would care to listen — is: what

basis does the member have for leaving the distinct impression that the

members of the Sparwood Library Board are liars?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. I'll also remind the member for Okanagan North, and the

House, that the Minister of Labour is not responsible for that

particular action.

CASINO GAMBLING

MR. HANSON:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Recently the government

placed the former ministerial assistant to the former Provincial

Secretary, Mr. Claire Eraut, as director of gaming operations in

British Columbia — without a competition, I might add. Since that time

there appears to have been an explosion of casino-type gambling

operations in downtown Vancouver hotels, conducted by organizations

established for gambling for profit. Will the Attorney-General advise

the House why the government has invited the organized gambling sector

into the province at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: I

don't recall issuing any such invitation. I think the member's question

about Mr. Eraut should be directed to another minister in charge of

lotteries. I'll take the question on casino gambling as notice and

respond later.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr.

Speaker. The Vancouver police have indicated a concern that there

aren't sufficient controls to protect either charities or gamblers in

this casino-type gambling.

Will the Attorney-General advise

why concerns of the Vancouver city police have not been taken into

account in issuing the new gambling licences?

HON. MR. SMITH:

I don't know that that's a fact at all. If the member has information

and evidence concerning those patrols or concerns about organized

gambling, then he should bring those to me and I will certainly act on

them. But I am unable to evaluate his assumption.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't sure whether to address my question to the

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) or to the member

for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who seems to be the person giving the

government's policy on the issue of agricultural land reserves. But I

have decided that I should address my question to the minister

responsible for this particular area.

Has the minister decided to end political interference in the removal of agricultural land from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Well, Mr. Speaker, the premise upon which the question is based is

totally incorrect. There has never been political interference. We as a

government believe that citizens should have a right of appealing to

their elected representatives.

MS. SANFORD: If the

government is going to continue to use the ELUC for removal of land

from the agricultural land reserve, I'm wondering if the minister has

decided that all of the hearings with respect to these applications for

removal of land from the ALR will be held in public in the future so

that everyone will know what is going on with respect to agricultural

land in this province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member told me what she was wondering. I didn't detect a question among her wonderings, though.

MS. SANFORD:

The question is very clear. Will those hearings be held in public so

that everyone can know what is going on with respect to these decisions

as far as agricultural land is concerned?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The Environment and Land Use Committee is an extension of cabinet, and

the hearings and the work of that committee will no more be held in

public than the workings of cabinet will be held in public.

MR. LAUK:

A supplementary to the minister. Cabinet appeals are always held in

public — motor carrier and other statutory appeals. Why are these not

held in public? Does the cabinet have something to hide?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of motor carrier appeals being held in

public. The appeals being heard by the Environment and Land Use

Committee are in compliance with the agricultural land reserve

statutes, and we are complying with the law completely. People who have

appeals, wish to be heard and have approval to be heard by the

Environment and Land Use Committee have a right to have those appeals

heard without a bunch of grandstanding by people who like to interfere

in the workings of that committee.

MR. HOWARD: The

point of order I want to raise with Your Honour deals with what should

be the orderly and intelligent proceedings in the House during question

period. It's founded on an order-in-council dated February 20, 1986 —

not so long ago that members shouldn't know what it contains. During

question period my colleague from Coquitlam asked a question of the

acting Minister of Education. According to that order-in-council, the

acting Minister of Education is the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith);

the backup acting minister, in case the Attorney-General is not here,

is the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr.

McGeer); and, in case they're not here, the third

[ Page 7556 ]

backup

is the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Why didn't any

of those fit into the gap and take the question on notice...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...and not the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: Don't you guys know what's going on over there?

[2:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The member will take his place. That is not a point of

order, and I will not recognize anyone at this point — except to tell

the House that the House is not responsible for which minister will

answer a question, either in question period or in estimates.

MR. HOWARD: Somebody better take it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. A. FRASER: I was almost finished this morning when I was abruptly shut off by the lunch hour.

guess there have been some changes made in the political scene during

this morning. I would like to just comment on that a moment. I

understand the leader of the United Party, the MLA for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea), has put on his running shoes again and gone from the NDP to

the United Party and now to the Conservative Party. I would just say

that I'm not going to congratulate him for that. But, you know, he's

been a member of this House for a long time. I just wonder what the

voters of Prince Rupert think about an MLA that does things like that,

when they originally face the electorate and get elected under a party

and, then change parties twice during one parliament.

MR. MACDONALD: Once is okay, but twice is too much?

HON. A. FRASER:

No, but I think they're sure taking advantage of the people that elect

them to office, when they pull those kinds of...in the midst of...not

once but twice. I guess what he's trying to do is.... The leader of the

Conservative Party has done that three times, and now the member for

Prince Rupert is trying to keep up with him. I understand that he has

belonged to the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party and now the

Conservative Party, so they're equal in that activity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. minister, we're on the budget debate.

HON. A. FRASER:

Oh, thanks for reminding me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to

that. I'm glad you got me back on the rails. We'll talk about that

great budget that I talked about this morning. The job creation that is

in that budget that I related to this morning, and the position of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition on that budget in general and on everything

in particular.... I'd like to spell out just where they stand on items

that are involved in that budget.

They're opposed to Expo;

they have been since 1980. It's been a job generator for a while, and

will be for quite a while. They're opposed to SkyTrain, even today

saying that they wanted a health investigation of SkyTrain. They're

opposed to the Annacis bridge, which is being built and will continue

to generate jobs for about two more years. They're opposed to the

Coquihalla, which is going to open this year but will be under

construction in different phases for the next two years, providing a

lot of jobs. Then they're opposed to all the highway work, other than —

as they call them — megaprojects. There's lots of highway work going

on. Mr. Speaker, I've got a complaint in my office today because we're

going to pave the Pat Bay highway. I've gotten an objection to it from

people in the area: they don't want it paved until after Expo. Well,

I've got news for them: we're going to pave it right away and have it

done long before Expo, and of course create jobs as well.

They're

opposed to northeast coal. My colleague the minister of international

relations and so on this morning talked about northeast coal, and did a

great job. But the loyal opposition have always been against northeast

coal. A lot of money has been spent there by the private sector and the

public sector. Probably 5,000 people are gainfully employed on that

now. I assume, Mr. Speaker, with their attitude, that they think it

should be locked up and those people put out of work. Well, our

government doesn't go along with that. Not only that, out of northeast

coal we've got a whole new transportation system, all the way to Prince

Rupert, and we've got a new port in Prince Rupert out of it. As a

lifelong resident of British Columbia.... They've been waiting 100

years for a decent port out of Rupert, and we've finally got it because

of this. They're opposed to mining and make big speeches about all the

mines that close, and never say anything about the mines that are

presently opening and creating jobs.

So that's their

record, and I'm glad it's their record. We will be telling the people

at the right time and place about their negativism about all the

projects that create jobs. Not only creating jobs, but hopefully a

better economic climate is showing up that way in our province so that

the private sector will invest further and create further jobs. One of

those items that I am aware of is a more economical transportation

system, and that has been developing for some time. That should help

all people making investments, wherever they are.

I haven't

too much more to say, other than that I wish the opposition would get

off their negativism and go along with what I consider the majority of

the people of British Columbia, who want to be — and are — optimistic,

and go on and build a better province for all of us. I guess I'm being

optimistic to expect that; I've been around here awhile, and they

really haven't changed, I guess they never will. So when it comes time

to vote on this great budget, I'll be voting in support of it.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1986

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1986.

[ Page 7557 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, this supply bill — interim supply, if you will — is

introduced in order to provide supply for the continuation of

government programs until the government's estimates for the fiscal

year 1986-87 have been debated and voted upon in this Legislative

Assembly.

This interim supply is urgently required in order

that a variety of payments, including social program benefits, may

reach the recipients — those to whom they are directed — in time for

them to meet their April commitments. I think Hansard

will record that in 1985 this bill was presented and debated on March

26. The payments are traditionally mailed at least four banking days

before the end of each month so that they are received by the first day

of the following month.

Mr. Speaker, in moving that the

bill be introduced and read, I ask that it be considered as urgent

under standing order 81, and be permitted to advance through all stages

this day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, with respect

to standing order 81, I am convinced by the argument and presentation

by the Minister of Finance that standing order 81 is applicable in this

case, and the bill will proceed through all three stages.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Has the bill been circulated to all members of the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, that is next. I would ask you to remain in your seats for

a few moments while the bill is circulated, and would declare a short

recess for distribution.

[1:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. I

appreciate that there will be debate by some members with respect to

the bill in second reading. May I explain that the first two sections

of the supply bill are in the general form of previous years' supply

bills, documents which have been presented here. The first section, in

this case, requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to provide for

the general programs and continuations of the economic renewal program

of the government. The second requests one-quarter of the disbursement

amount required for the government's fully recoverable ministry-related

financing transactions, which are shown in

Schedule D of the estimates.

A new third

section requests an amount of $15 million to fund the

Purchasing Commission working capital account. This account, members

will recall, was established last year under the authority of the

Purchasing Commission Act; now, due to the success of the public sector

purchasing policy and increased activity through the account, the upper

limit of the advance needs to be increased.

Mr. Speaker,

could I point out that included in the voted expenditures appropriation

of this bill is $2.142 billion for general programs, and $158 million

for continuation of the economic renewal program.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, I again point out the requirement for early passage, if

the House so determines, of the supply bill in order to provide for the

ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1986-87 fiscal year.

Again, I move second reading of Bill 13.

MR. STUPICH:

I don't doubt for one moment that the bill is going to go through all

stages today, but several of my colleagues would like to make some

points during the discussion. For myself, we're talking simply about

the expenditures here, and most of my concern in discussing the budget

was with respect to revenue.

I do have some concerns about

expenditures, but I don't think I can talk about them at this point.

For example, I disagree with taking amounts out of what have formerly

been ministerial budgets and setting them up in special funds, and then

providing in legislation that all of this money may be spent in one

week once the new year starts. If it's important from a political point

of view — if an election is coming, or something like that — and they

want to blow $110 million on special education, they can do it in one

week. We're not voting on that at all at this time. We're dealing

simply with the Supply Act. So I don't think I can talk about that

Excellence in Education, any more than I can talk about the health

improvement fund, which does the same thing — $120 million, which by

legislation the government may spend right away. But in the Supply Act

we're not even talking about it. We don't provide for it in this Supply

Act, so we're talking simply about other things that I don't

particularly want to mention because some of my colleagues do want to

get into some of the programs that the government is currently spending

money on at a very rapid rate.

We just don't like this way

of doing business. The estimates should have been presented earlier.

The budget should have been presented earlier. That was the normal way

of doing business in this province, until gradually in the course of

the last ten years we've moved away from that. But we're really talking

about spending one-quarter of the total amount of the budget

expenditures. We're not saying how that will be allocated among

ministries. We're dealing with a sum of $2.3 billion, and the

government, with the passage of this Supply Act, may spend that money

in any way at all up to that total. Of course, if we go beyond that

total, they'll spend it anyway. We really have no control over the

spending of the government when we deal with spending by bringing in

supply acts such as the one before us now.

We don't agree

with the procedure. We recognize that the money has to be voted, and we

will support Bill 13. But we do complain about what formerly was an

option on the part of members of the Legislature to examine in detail

departmental spending, and then to have a Supply Act asking us to vote

in favour of spending $2.3 billion during the course of the next three

months in any way at all that the cabinet ministers choose to spend it.

MR. LEA:

As I'm sure probably many people in British Columbia are not aware, a

supply act is basically something all members of the House have to vote

for, because if we don't, it stops government. Pensioners wouldn't get

their cheques. Civil servants wouldn't get their paycheques. So

basically, as members of the opposition, we're put into a position of

having to vote for this bill, even though we may not agree on many

areas of this bill and the money that is going to be spent. But we will

go down on record in this House as having voted for it, even though we

may not be in favour of what the money is going to be spent on. I think

it's necessary that people in this province know that that's the sort

of technical bind we in the opposition are in. In voting for this bill,

we're not approving the way the money is going to be

[ Page 7558 ]

spent. All we're doing is approving a bill so that the business of government can carry on.

After

having said that.... This bill gives us a wide range of debate. During

discussion of whether this bill should pass or not, we can lay out our

the economics of our province — and I intend to do just that. Mr.

Speaker, we have a government that has its head in the sand. We have a

government that, if you listen to them, are talking about going out and

getting new investment for this province, which is good. However, every

time we hear the government talking about new investment, we hear the

government saying that it's new investment in our forest industry, our

mining industry and our fishing industry, and new investment in the

infrastructure that our old industries rely on. They are saying that

new wealth is going to be created and, with it, a host of new jobs.

was true in the forties, fifties, sixties and going into the seventies

that new investment in our old industries did mean not only the

creation of new wealth but also the creation of new jobs. That is no

longer the case today. New investment to bring our mills and our

industry into higher productivity mean more unemployment. We can see

instance after instance of that happening in this province, I would

like to use some examples — examples I have used before, but you can't

stress them too much.

In Prince Rupert, in my community, we

have a new grain elevator costing about $500 million to replace an old

grain elevator. We need the new grain elevator because we have to move

our grain more economically to tidewater and to the markets of the

world. There is no doubt we needed the new grain elevator with all its

new, advanced technology. However, the old grain elevator that wasn't

as efficient employed 125 people; the new grain elevator, 25.

Every

time there is a new machine put in the woods called a grapple machine,

three to four people are put out of work. Every time there is an

investment in our old economy, we are creating unemployment. That is

what we're not facing up to. The government ignores it. They put their

heads in the sand and say: "Oh, it's going to mean new jobs to bring in

new investment for higher productivity." What about the sawmill at

Chemainus? Did that provide more jobs? It provided fewer jobs. It

provided a higher volume of output, but fewer jobs per capita on the

productivity scale. So everywhere we look that is happening.

One

of the other things happening with new sawmills in this province — and

the one in Port Alberni is a perfect example, where new technology was

put in all right, but that new technology was to take the place of

people, not to better utilize the logs that were going through the

sawmill.... If we're going to have good resource management, we not

only have to have new, modern, efficient plants, we also have to have

plants that better utilize our goods and add more wealth before

shipping them to the world.

That is not being addressed by

this government. You cannot use slogans to get the economy going. The

government took their polls. They found out that people out there are

tired of confrontation; they found that people in British Columbia want

to have the ethic of cooperation, a cooperative approach to solving our

problems. The government said: "If that's what they want, let's give

them a slogan. Let's call it Partners in Enterprise, let's call it

Partners in Tourism, let's call it partners in something. It doesn't

really matter, because maybe they'll think we've changed our ways and

are now a cooperative as opposed to a confrontational government."

That

is just not true. Let's take a look at the way the government is

handling collective bargaining with the civil servants in this province

to see whether we've found a new day.

[3:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, your debate is quite intriguing, but we are on Bill 13,

the Supply Act. The principle of this bill is interim supply, and

reflecting on other matters within the government could not apply to

the principle of this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with you. However....

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, this is his maiden speech. He should be given some leeway.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about passing a legislative act in this

Legislature that will allow the government to spend some $2.5 billion,

and it seems to me that every member in this Legislature has the right

to discuss how they're going to spend the money and why they're going

to spend the money. It's a wide-ranging debate. They're asking to spend

$2.5 billion of taxpayers' money, and we have to discuss how the

government is going to manage that money. That's part of our job. Part

of this money is going to pay wages for the public service. Therefore

that's open to discussion.

Now let's get back to the

confrontational attitude that this government is taking with the civil

service. You know why? They want a fight. They want confrontation. They

want people in this province who are not civil servants to hate civil

servants. They want to build up in people's minds that civil servants

are all slackers, not making their money properly, not earning their

money; and they want their employees to become the kicking-dogs of

everybody else in this province. You know, Mr. Speaker, the civil

servants in this province would be satisfied with no raise. But that's

not good enough for this government. They want to cut into what they

already have. There isn't anything that the BCGEU can put on the table

that this government will accept, because if they do it means no fight,

and no fight means that they can't have the confrontation issue they

want.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're not serious.

MR. LEA:

I am serious. And everybody over there knows it. Everybody knows it

including the members of government, and they're trying to live with it

in their conscience, but hopefully somebody's conscience over there

will see the light of day.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

More sense? I'll tell you, all you have to do is take a look at what's

happening and you can find that the government is spoiling for a fight

with the civil service so that they can have an election issue to go

on. Everybody knows it.

Interjection.

[ Page 7559 ]

MR. LEA:

Well, what is the Pollen influence? The Minister of Finance says: "He's

getting the Pollen influence." Is the Pollen influence speaking your

mind regardless of the political consequence? I think it is. I'll tell

you, people in this province are getting awfully tired of hearing

politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths and never

'fessing up as to what they're actually up to. That's what we're

hearing.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, he was telling me that about you.

MR. PARKS: Let's be relevant.

MR. LEA: Look, he's your Minister of Finance, not mine.

MR. PARKS: You.

MR. LEA: Oh, me!

Mr.

Speaker, everybody in the province knows that that's what the

government is doing. We're going to be voting in this House to give the

government money to carry out their plans, and part of their plan is to

make scapegoats out of civil servants in this province. That's what

they're doing.

MR. PARKS: More fear-mongering. And you believe you're a Tory.

MR. LEA:

I'll tell you one thing: being a Tory doesn't mean you have to hate

civil servants. Being a Tory doesn't mean you have to hate trade

unions. That's why I didn't walk right across the floor: because I

believe that you can be a Conservative without being a bigot; I believe

you can be a Conservative without being a racist; I believe you can be

a Tory without having to go out into this province and turn one

neighbour against the other. That's what you can be. But not the party

in power. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they cling to it. They

cling to it, because they don't believe that any other citizen can do

the job that they're doing. And you know something? They're right,

because nobody else would have the stomach for it.

Mr.

Speaker, we have a government that either isn't aware of the

technological change that's going on around us in our economy and in

our social life, or they are aware of it and they chose to ignore it.

In the first place, if they're not aware of it, we can't forgive them;

and if they are aware of it and won't admit it, then we cannot pardon

them. But they are ignoring the changes that are going on around us.

They're hoping that they can lull the people with 30-second ads.

When

we vote for this bill, you know what we're voting for? We're voting for

a government that's going to up by 27 percent the money spent on

government ads, and we're going to vote to knock down the spending for

technology and science research by 30 percent. Now would any thinking

British Columbian want to vote for a budget like that, or an interim

supply that allows them to spend money like that? No.

want to stress it: all we are doing is voting on a technicality so the

business of government doesn't stop. That does not mean we approve of

the budget, and it doesn't mean we approve of the way this money is

going to be spent.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's going

to be very interesting. I probably shouldn't say this, because I don't

trust the government. We're going to be able to tell very soon how

Partners in Enterprise is working, because the new assessment rolls are

going to be out, and we will be able to take a look at those assessment

rolls and definitively decide whether any of their plans have worked.

Last

year I voted for this government's bill. I voted for other bills

because I said: "Let's give them a chance. Let's give them a chance to

prove whether their theories are correct." I voted for their venture

capital bill, an absolute failure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not correct.

MR. LEA:

You don't call raising a lousy $13 million for new investment in

British Columbia a failure when the government promised hundreds of

million dollars of new investment? Thirteen million dollars — do they

think we don't remember what they said last year and what they're

saying this year? We remember. Are you going to finally put the cards

on the table, as a government, and say that you just have run out of

ideas?

Basically that's what it's all about. They've run

out of ideas. You know, if this were 1948 I'd vote for them myself, but

do you know what it's like when you're dealing with this government and

you're dealing with the economy? It's like taking a 1986 Ford into the

garage to be fixed and the mechanic keeps insisting that it's a 1948

Ford, and they keep going back to the garage and they say: "Can't you

fix this 1986 Ford?" And the guy says: "It's a 1986 Ford; we can't

apply the same rules to fixing this car." But they keep insisting.

You

know, the only difference between the official opposition and that side

of the House is that at least the official opposition says what they're

going to do. I don't agree with it, but at least you know. I know many

members over there who don't agree with it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Quiet, because I don't want to bring up the past, Gary. But the fact of

the matter is that what this government is doing is still practising

the Keynesian economics that have gone down the tube in every thinking

person's mind.

MR. LAUK: No, they're not. That's not Keynesian.

MR. LEA: Oh, can you tell me the difference between what that side's doing and this side would do?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. LEA:

Yes, that's right: only the projects are different. On this side of the

House they say: "We'll go out and we'll borrow money so we can build

water and sewer systems throughout this province." They say on that

side of the House: "How dumb can you get? Let's go out and borrow money

and build a stadium. Let's go out and borrow money and build the

Coquihalla." Both of them have decided that they're going to go out and

borrow us into debt for years and years to come, The only thing is,

they have their own pet public works projects that they're going to

spend the money on.

[ Page 7560 ]

had a person come up to me not long ago and say: "Boy, I'm really

afraid of Mr. Skelly." I said: "Why is that?" He said: "Well, look, his

only plan is to borrow all this money to provide jobs to get the

economy going." I said: "Well, you're right. There's only one person I

know in this province who even does it better than that, and that's the

Premier." When have you ever seen more government intervention in the

economy than we have had in the past ten years? The only difference

between that side and this side is.... They don't want to change the

system; they both insist they can run the same old system better than

the other one. That's the only difference.

People are

really catching on. Did you see that bubble of enthusiasm over the

budget debate when it first came into the House? It lasted about 22

seconds. The rhetoric leading into the meat was good. I mean, every

British Columbian should have had a glow and, you know, they couldn't

have had a better person read the budget script. He's trained. It

doesn't mean he wrote the script; it doesn't mean he understood the

script; but it does mean he read it well.

MR. LAUK: That's his job.

MR. LEA: I know that's his job. We were hoping for more — the clean desk and the speech.

MR. LAUK: From Pretty Polly to the budget speech.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, this is no joking matter. What we are doing is we're going

to be passing the okay for $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money to be spent

as the government says it's going to spend it in the budget. I want to

go on record as saying that I'm not voting for the budget. I voted for

it last year; I feel I gave them a chance and they let me down. They

put $23 million into education that they didn't spend. How much money

is in this budget for education they're not going to spend?

trusted them last year, and I found out that they weren't levelling

with me. So why should I believe they are this year? Whatever is in

this budget may or may not be what the money is spent on, so my warning

to the people of this province is that you won't know what this

government is doing till after they have done it. The budget is no

indication of how they're going to spend the money behind cabinet doors.

Now

when we get to the estimates of the Minister of Finance, for once I

would like to have the Minister of Finance stand up, not read from a

script, and tell us where he as the Minister of Finance is taking this

province. From 1976 till now, about $13 billion of new debt. To do

what? Restraint. Was it restraint?

MR. REID: It created a lot of jobs.

MR. LEA: Ah, creating jobs. So you agree with the NDP that we should borrow money to create jobs.

MR. REID: Don't ever accuse me of being in favour of what the NDP want to do.

MR. LEA: You're just in favour of what they say they're going to do.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Ah, I see: it's okay when your government borrows the money to create

jobs; it's bad when they want to borrow money to create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ours are permanent jobs.

MR. LEA:

Oh, permanent jobs. I see. How long is it going to take to build the

Coquihalla? It's a permanent job. Boy, that's a long highway, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It's

funny, they never heckled me before I was a Conservative. They used to

listen intently, and clap. It was really fine there for a few months.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Last year you weren't here for interim supply.

MR. LEA: Ah, last year I wasn't here for interim supply.

MR. LAUK: This the first speech you've given in two years.

MR. LEA: Thank you. Is that why you backed me for the leadership?

Mr.

Speaker, this government has no idea of the changing economy. On the

one hand, they say they're all for free trade, with the exceptions of

agriculture, lumber — you name it; it's not in the package. I don't

know how this government can feel so good about free trade when you've

got that old Liberal down there negotiating it on behalf of Canada with

the United States.

Here's a government that says they're

for free enterprise. They say it, but they prove they're not. They have

regulated, licensed, more monopolies in this province than any

government in Canada.

[3:15]

MR. LAUK: Jobs for the boys.

MR. LEA:

Well, I don't think it's not jobs for the boys. I hope it isn't,

because you're in favour of the same thing. It's the Motor Carrier

Commission; it's the liquor control board — all of those nice little

agencies that set up monopolies.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: All the things they were going to do away with when they came in in 1976. Can you name one?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, at this point I'll remind the House again that we are

debating interim supply. I think the latitude has extended far too

wide. Please, back to the bill.

MR. LEA: Thank you very much for protecting me, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7561 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, can you give me a moment? I'm thinking about that.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd just like to point out again, because I think it's

worthwhile pointing out, that I would just hate to see the Minister of

Finance going on television tonight and saying that opposition members

voted for this bill because they were in favour of it. I hope, if he's

on television tonight, that he at least says it was a technical thing

that was needed, and that the opposition were not voting in favour of

the budget by voting for this bill. As I said, when we get to the

minister's estimates, I intend to spend considerable time speaking with

the minister, asking him questions and looking for answers as to how he

and his government are going to deal with the very real economic

problems we have in this province. That's when we get past the rhetoric

of the budget. I look forward to taking my place in debate on the

minister's estimates, when we get there.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Was that the former minister? I'll have a few things to say about

agriculture, too, when we get there — like about the former Minister of

Agriculture selling us out on industrial milk to central Canada.

MR. SCHROEDER: I hope you do your research before you talk.

MR. LEA: Oh, I've done my research.

Mr.

Speaker, when we get to estimates, I hope that this year we're going to

find out from this government the truth of the direction they're going

in. Last year I took them at their word and voted for their budget. And

I found out that I was not told the truth. This year I'm not going to

fall for that. This year we're going to make this minister tell us

exactly what he's up to.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'll

be very brief on the Supply Act. I just want to re-emphasize what has

already been said on this side of the House with respect to it. Both

the standing order quoted by Mr. Speaker and the conventional reasons

for bringing in interim supply have been breached practically every

year this government has been in power. The previous administration,

the NDP administration, once brought in interim supply, as I recall,

because of a late session.

It is the whole underpinning of

the British parliamentary system; 600 years of history has been that

the Commons decides supply, not the Crown. It has become a farce that

we are forced to keep the machinery of government going because the

government has deliberately chosen to delay the calling of the spring

session — it should be the early winter session — to bring in the

budget.

It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance

and the government he represents to bring the budget in on time, If he

fails in one year, with good excuse, because of the exigencies of

government and the vicissitudes of the economy, then it seems to me

that the House is obligated, on a reasonable basis, to grant interim

supply. But to do so year after year reveals why nobody in this

province believes this government anymore.

To artificially

create urgent situations is a cynicism that is within the classic

definition of that term. Quite often people use the word "cynic" or

"cynicism" without having regard for its ancient origins. In republican

Rome there grew up a group of philosophers who described themselves as

cynics. It doesn't mean they were skeptical. Cynics were people who did

not believe in the basic good will of men and women in the community

and did not believe in the institutions and structures of government or

society — believed that they were always being manipulated, that there

was always the hidden agenda. In fundamental philosophical terms the

cynics arrived at the conclusion that they themselves did not exist,

that nothing was truthful, that there was nothing to believe in. I

hadn't believed that a government in modern times could arrive at the

quintessential example of the classical definition of cynicism. They

themselves don't believe they exist. They are walking in a cloud, in a

hallucination.

They actually think that what they've

created, this massive hallucination of government from the Social

Credit Party, is the only reality, when in fact no one in this province

trusts the government or believes anything its spokesmen have to say.

Time and time again they've been betrayed. This is an example of

creating an artificial urgency to create pressure on this chamber,

whose solemn and historical duty is to examine the estimates before

granting supply to the Crown. Once again we're faced with this cynical

government and this cynical supply act.

I wish I were in a

position to vote against the interim supply act, but I am a responsible

member of the opposition and must vote for it. If I were acting on my

own and I could, I would delay supply, to the extent of having the

machinery of government stopped. It's only through that shock treatment

that the people of this province, and particularly this government, can

face the kind of dissembling attitude that they've had towards their

role and responsibility. It is only through that kind of confrontation

with the cynics over there that we can bring them out of their

cynicism, or hurl them out of office.

I was opposed to any

settlement of the Solidarity dispute a couple of years ago. This

government created the revolutionary act. This government were the

insurrectionists. They were the people who were challenging the very

structure and viability of society by the bills they brought in in

those previous sessions. The people reacted in a natural and democratic

way, and it should have been allowed to continue. I was opposed to the

settlement, because the government should reap what they sow — likewise

with these phoney delaying tactics to bring in a phoney urgency

requirement for an interim supply bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

It's a reflection on the Chair, hon. members. The representation by the

Minister of Finance was made quite correctly, and standing order 81

applied. Reflections on the Chair are unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, the Chair is not required to decide what standing order 81

is supposed to mean. In fact, if there was any reflection at all, which

I don't think there was, there was a reflection on a nullity.

The

question is: does the House feel it is urgent and will the House apply

the standing order? Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret indeed that we

must again support an interim supply bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief too. The Chair rules — and quite properly, I suppose, today —

[ Page 7562 ]

and

the minister says that this is an urgent bill. But the government

creates this urgency year after year of the Social Credit years. Well,

I should correct that, because in the time of Premier W.A.C. Bennett,

the Legislature met about January 20 of each year and the estimates and

the detailed votes were debated and passed prior to the end of the

fiscal year. We are standing by, the opposition and other members,

willing to do our work and denied the chance by a government that has

consistently downgraded the legislative process in this province.

here we have to vote blind, three months out of the 12 months of

government appropriations, without having the opportunity which they

insisted upon years ago in the time of Charles I: to debate the

estimates before the money was spent. We are denied the opportunity

which the present Premier expounded at great length throughout the

province: not a dime without a debate.

I'm being forced to

grant appropriations without debate or examination. Let me give one

instance of the kind of appropriations that I am asked to vote for

today, so that our good public servants can be paid, and the progress

of government proceed.

I am being asked to give a blind

sanction for the next three months to certain estimates, mostly under

the Provincial Secretary, for the government information services. I

don't think we'll ever get an explanation of the amount that is being

spent on services and the amount that is being spent on political

propaganda. I remember last January 25, I was up in Duncan — one member

here remembers that I was there — and I was going over to Crofton. I

was putting on my kilt because it was Burns night. I turned on the

television and bucked myself up in some manner or other, and I saw,

three or four minutes, I think it was, of vaunting of government

programs, and then there's the Minister of Finance appearing on the TV.

I've

been around long enough, Mr. Speaker, to know a political ad when I see

one and also to recognize the quality of this kind of a political ad —

the sophistication, the subliminal message. Whether it was by Kinsella,

who is out in the party, or Lampert, who is coming into the part, it

doesn't matter. The whole thing has been confused by this government,

and the government is spending taxpayers' money for party political

propaganda.

You come here today and you say it's urgent

that you approve it. I say that you're destroying the public ethics of

this province. All I can do when I'm going out and not running again in

the next election is to tell people: for goodness' sake, remember that

you are being saturated at taxpayers' expense with political

propaganda. For heaven's sake, think about it. Take it with a grain of

salt and try somehow to bring back the kind of public ethics without

which democracy itself falls into disrepute.

So I vote, Mr.

Speaker, very reluctantly for this bill, and I vote blind for

expenditures which violate the parliamentary tradition.

[3:30]

MR. GABELMANN:

I spend a fair amount of time in my job as an MLA talking to school

kids about what it is members of the Legislature do. What I tell them

is that we essentially have two responsibilities. One is to consider

and approve the making of new laws, and the other is to consider ways

and means of raising money and spending that money.

That's

what I tell school kids in my constituency that MLAs do. Mr. Speaker, I

am on the verge of lying to those kids, because for the most part we no

longer have those responsibilities here in this House.

Increasingly

— and I'll be very brief on this point — laws are made in cabinet by

regulation. To a point, fundamental principles are being determined in

secrecy and not under the scrutiny of public debate in this chamber.

That's an issue for another time. Not just increasingly, but almost

totally now, we in this House are expected to approve particular and

specific spending estimates after they've been spent, after they've

been allocated. What the hell use is it being an MLA in that situation?

Isn't our job to scrutinize the method by which money will be raised,

to propose solutions to the collection of that revenue, and to talk

about how that revenue will be spent, before it's spent?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, the only reason one runs to be a member of the Legislature any

longer is to hope to win the majority of seats so that you can be in

the cabinet. Only the cabinet now has the authority of making the

fundamental decisions which traditionally and historically have

belonged to Parliament. I too am on the verge of saying no and voting

against this kind of legislation. I won't, because I don't think the

public yet understands what's happening, and that's partly our fault

for not talking to them about the subversion of Parliament by this

government. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker: the subversion of this

Parliament, the subversion of everything that the British parliamentary

system was supposed to mean, and that bothers me.

Quite

often in debate we may raise our voices or get angry, and then be

relaxed about it after, because it's part of a parliamentary game of

debate. That's not how I feel about this particular bill. I'm angry

about it. I've been angry about this for some years now. Why is it

impossible for the government to bring in the budget in enough time so

that we can consider all of the spending estimates by March 31? If for

some reason we're delayed a week or two and we need interim supply,

then so be it; but there is no longer any effort or any attempt on the

part of the government to recognize that this is a responsibility that

belongs to the elected representatives of the people, not to a secret

group in cabinet. Is it any wonder that all kinds of people, when asked

if they're going to run for Parliament, for whatever party, say: "No,

I'm not interested."

The value of being an elected

representative in this province has been diminished to a point below

that which I care to accept. I hope this is the very last time we in

this House ever have to consider interim supply within less than a week

of the budget being introduced. We can have the throne speech in early

January or mid-January, the budget by the end of January, and hopefully

in February and March we can deal with the estimates. That's how a

civilized institution, one that respects the traditions of British

parliamentary government, would operate; but we don't here, and it

angers me, Mr. Speaker, beyond words.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments to make about this bill.

First, I'd like to completely support the remarks made by the member

for North Island with respect to the government's disregard for

parliamentary procedures and the rights of members to have a

[ Page 7563 ]

opportunity to debate seriously the spending of taxpayers' money.

When

the Premier was in the opposition — when the Dave Barrett government

was in power — he would stand on this side of the House and state time

and time again: "Not a dime without debate." What he meant was that

unless his opposition members had an opportunity to fully scrutinize

every cent at all times, in the proper time allotted within the rules

of this House by the Constitution, they simply would not cooperate, as

a matter of duty. They insisted and we capitulated, because we knew

that was the right thing to do. In other words, we respected the

democratic procedures. When an opposition starts to complain that their

democratic rights are being denied, that they're not getting an

opportunity to do their job, any responsible government would respect

that and, as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has pointed

out, would realize that we've gone far beyond what was meant to be a

measure of expediency — an emergency measure. Interim supply has become

a modus operandi. It has become an accepted fact, and it's wrong. It

was wrong when I heard about it the very first time I was elected; I

couldn't believe it. The budget was introduced and I was all settled

down and getting ready to debate the estimates of the different

ministries and someone said: "Oh, don't worry, because if we don't get

through, we'll probably end up having to have interim supply." I said:

"What's that?" "Well, that means that if we don't get finished debating

things, you'll get the money anyway and you'll just carry on."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARNES:

Over the years it's become a way of doing business. There's no excuse.

The Legislature has not sat the amount of time that it should have sat

over the past fiscal year. Certainly it hasn't sat early enough in 1986

to seriously expect to be able to have a budget ready by the end of the

fiscal year. That's the sham of it all. So I would just say that this

form of blackmail, which is what it is....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. BARNES:

The Minister of Finance may question whether what I'm saying is in

order, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask that minister

what his remarks would be if we refused to pass this legislation, he

would accuse us of obstructing the government's ability to carry out

its business and claiming that the public servants would not be able to

get their cheques and that programs would be held up. In other words,

the opposition would be accused of not doing its job and being

responsible, when it's just the reverse: the government has not given

us an opportunity to do our job in this Legislature.

That's

about all I have to say. I didn't intend to extend my remarks. I just

wanted to agree with what the member for North Island had to say, and

what the member for Vancouver Centre said before him, and what other

members on this side of the House are saying about this sham: this

interim supply idea, which was only meant as a temporary measure and

has become a way of doing business in this province, and it's wrong.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, considerable latitude was granted in second reading

debate. I trust that I might have similar latitude for a few moments. I

note with interest, and let Hansard

show, that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made a stirring

speech and immediately left the chamber, indicating his continuing

concern for the parliamentary process, in terms of interim supply at

least.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Premier?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The Premier has been ill, Mr. Member. The Premier has been ill. We hope

that he's back on his feet this afternoon, but he's been ill. That's

where the Premier has been, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker,

interim supply is something that one speaker on the other side

indicated has been used — was used during the brief NDP time in power —

and I've realized that it could be an interesting topic for

parliamentary debate as to whether interim supply is or is not entirely

appropriate. It is not foreign to the parliamentary process, Mr.

Speaker. I cannot table this, sir, but over time much of it will be

tabled, and for those few members of the public who are watching today

and for hon. members, I remind them that contained in here are about 78

to 80 votes, each of which will be debated as members choose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us your accordion.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

This accordion pouch is a fairly historic piece of parliamentary

procedure in British Columbia, having been used by Evan Wolfe during

his time as Minister of Finance, by a number of House Leaders, by the

former Premier of the province, David Barrett, by the former Premier,

the late W.A.C. Bennett, and indeed possibly before that. Mr. Speaker,

I've had the honour to be in this House for 14 years, and I am

distressed....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

"How many parties?" the member says. That's got nothing to do with it.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I'm distressed when people suggest that

I have something less than the greatest of respect for the

parliamentary process, including this chamber in Victoria, the capital

city of British Columbia. There is not a day when this House is sitting

that I don't come in first of all thankful that we have a democracy

where members can be elected to represent their constituents, and come

here and present arguments for and against, and a day also when I'm

proud — and I mean proud in the usual and I hope reasonable sense of

the word — that constituents have sent me to speak on their behalf

here. So please, Mr. Members opposite, the members who spoke, it is not

correct to suggest that I or other members of the government side of

this House have disrespect for the parliamentary process or for this

Legislature.

MR. BARNES: Why do we have this emergency bill today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly while you spoke; perhaps you could do the same.

Mr.

Speaker, I indicate the votes which will be presented to the Committee

of Supply. Whether it takes a week or a month or three months or

whatever, the fact is that we have interim supply today, and we then

have the opportunity to debate every single issue of government. I will

not transcend

[ Page 7564 ]

the

rules with respect to bills — the fund bills — which are before the

House, but they, as members know, also will be debated in second

reading and in committee, and at great length.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Well, the member suggests what he might do if he had the authority, but

that is not the intention of this government, I assure you.

are asking for three months' interim supply. Each minister in turn will

be required to stand in Committee of Supply in this chamber and answer

not only to members opposite, or members of the government, but also to

the people of the province, who will through their elected members want

to question certain spending proposals.

MRS. WALLACE: When — the end of June?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member knows that's not correct. She knows as she asks the question that that is not correct. At the conclusion of the....

[3:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member's been here long enough, Mr. Speaker. The member knows that

at the conclusion of the budget debate we shall then quickly move into

the discussion of the estimates. She knows that. She has watched it

year after year. I can't give the precise date, but this House will

very soon move into Committee of Supply and will start the debate of

estimates and the discussion of the bills. The member knows that. For

purposes today she may have interjected on another area with another

view, but I look at pages 5452 of Hansard last year — 5453, 5456 — the same argument was advanced.

say to the official opposition and to the leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party of British Columbia today: if they choose to vote

against interim supply based on the earnest statements made today, if

they believe that they must in order to be true to their basic

understanding of democracy, then let the majority rule.

Interim

supply for three months; nine months of interim supply under this

Supply Act yet to be decided, yet to be voted by the members of this

Legislature. If this House chooses at some time in the future to do

away with interim supply, then let the House decide. I move second

reading of this bill.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Ree in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair would suggest that in debating the

schedule — and this is not

as a precedent for the committee but a suggestion — each portion of the

schedule per

section be taken individually, and that nobody rising

after debating, say, the auditor-general's portion, the Chair would

then call the ombudsman so that somebody might rise on that. This might

facilitate orderly debate of the schedule.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved.

On the

schedule — auditor-general.

MR. LAUK:

Even though I am not certain the Minister of Finance is directly,

administratively responsible for this vote — I am rather certain that

he isn't — can he, as Minister of Finance, reply to this question? With

respect to the additional funds acquired by special warrant in the last

fiscal year, has the minister any advice to the committee as to

generally how that money was expended?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

For clarification — in order to assist the member — could he indicate

whether he is referring to the auditor-general special warrant? Yes?

That supplementary was in connection with additional staffing which was

agreed to — I'm subject to correction — in the summer of 1985, when the

auditor-general indicated the need for more staff. Treasury Board

considered the request, and it was granted at that time, with the staff

coming on a little later. It was August 7 when I indicated that the

authorized staffing level of the office of the auditor-general had been

increased from 82 to 88.5 full-time-equivalent positions, and the

auditor-general later engaged the additional staff.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the surcharge that was placed on the sale of wine in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on the wrong one.

MS. SANFORD: Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman; I wasn't aware of that. I'll wait then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No further questions under the auditor-general? Under the ombudsman.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, the same question to the Minister of Finance. I have seen

a remarkable deceleration in activity on the part of the ombudsman,

which I am sure serves the government interests very well. The

ombudsman or acting ombudsman has gone into hiding. No government

department, bureaucrat, minister, authority or agency has done any

wrong since the ombudsman has retired and the acting ombudsman has

taken his place. There's been a remarkable and miraculous

transformation in the province of British Columbia. All of those

horrendous errors made on the part of the Crown have disappeared with

the appointment of Mr. Bazowski. They've cleaned it up completely.

Surely if there was any wrongdoing, any errors or any mistakes on the

part of the Crown, the acting ombudsman would have found it.

Now

seeing that there's been such a decrease in the workload of the

ombudsman, what are we doing giving him a special warrant of $281,110?

What on earth does he need extra staff for?

[ Page 7565 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: To recover his files.

MR. LAUK:

What for? Does he want to hide the files? Is that what he wants, Mr.

Chairman? We haven't heard a peep out of the ombudsman. Why does he

need extra staff? It's $281,000 for silence. That is not what the hon.

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs fought so long and hard for, to

have an ombudsman appointed by this Legislature and have him silenced

by the government. He was silenced. It was a great indignity.

The new cover-up acting ombudsman needs extra staff. What for, if the workload is down?

[4:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, one might agree with part of the point advanced by the

second member for Vancouver Centre. The ombudsman has been quieter. I

draw a slightly different conclusion. It may be simply that we have

returned to normalcy in that office.

The additional amount,

Mr. Chairman.... There is some additional staff here, in a manner

similar to the auditor-general, the

schedule 1tem which we just dealt

with a few moments ago. But in addition, the ombudsman, the previous

ombudsman — or his office, I suppose; as officers they almost take

responsibility.... The previous ombudsman allocated an insufficient

amount for telecommunications to the extent of some $38,000, and there

will be probably as well the publishing of a second report. But it's a

staff and telecommunications underestimation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to the minister under this

particular section. It seems to me that the application forms for those

people who had suffered as a result of drought last summer in order to

obtain additional assistance for beef cattle and sheep breeding stock

had to have their applications in by November of last year. Could you

tell me why it takes so long to process those applications, and why it

isn't until now that we are actually seeing moneys allocated for that

particular purpose? There was a great need.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sorry. I apologize, but I was not listening when the member began her remarks. I wonder if she could do that again?

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, when I was up in the constituency of Omineca and meeting

with the district agriculturist up there, he showed me the forms that

were required for the beef producers up there to apply for drought

assistance. As I recall it, those application forms had to be in either

by the first of November or the end of November; I can't remember

exactly which one. Could you advise why it takes so long to process

those applications, in that we're not seeing an expenditure of funds

until this time, until April? It will be April before they get any

funding for that purpose. As you know, Mr. Minister, I hope, those beef

producers were in deep financial trouble. As a matter of fact, the

district agriculturalist informed me that some 30 to 50 cattle growers

up in that area were expected to go into receivership in this year, and

yet we're getting the funding for that program approved only now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, it's rather strange to me that if there was such a lot of

distress caused by the time taken to approve these support payments,

I've not heard from any ranchers in the original areas to be covered.

In the short time that I've been Minister of Agriculture, I have not

received any comment at all from any of the ranchers who have made

claims under this program.

I think probably the payments

have long since been made. I know we did approve some small

supplementary payment only recently, because the total fund was not

quite enough. Perhaps the couple that would be paid under that

supplementary amount were the ones he heard from, but I haven't heard a

complaint. I can't help the member. I'm sorry.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure what the minister is saying here. Is he saying that $2,250,000 is a supplement to what had already been approved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, we're not approving the special warrant here today.

Special warrant number I was approved September 11, 1985. We're not

approving that warrant here; we're just authorizing the fact that it

was approved.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think

I'll try another question on another issue. I know a surcharge was

placed on the sale of wine in this province, which was supposed to

cover the costs of the particular program that we see here in

section 2

of this particular section. How much money has been collected under

that program, and when can we see an end to that surcharge in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, it is

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) who

applies the surcharge. It is not the responsibility of the Ministry of

Agriculture. We just approve the program to assist the grape growers,

and this agreement did involve the wineries.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the program is term specific.

MR. D'ARCY:

Mr. Chairman, this item, special warrant 2.... Ministry of

Agriculture and Food: $2.8 million to provide for the purchase of red

wine and red wine grapes from producers of those products in British

Columbia. It seems to me that in business — and I believe that

government likes to think of themselves as businesslike — when there is

an oversupply of a product, particularly if the oversupply is

purchased, as it would appear here, with borrowed money, there is a

necessity to get a cash flow from that purchase as soon as possible,

and the procedure is to lower the price to speed sales. Can the

Minister of Finance indicate to us if it is his intention to use

whatever good offices he has to request that the Liquor Distribution

Branch lower the price of red wine and red wine grapes to B.C.

consumers in order to regenerate this cash of $2.8 million, which, as I

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, must be borrowed money?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to assist the committee, yes, I will

certainly participate in discussion with respect to the wine industry

in British Columbia. I don't think the member suggested I could direct

that

[ Page 7566 ]

that

would occur — indeed I would not — but certainly I will participate in

that discussion. What the liquor distribution branch does is something

I cannot forecast.

This $2.8 million, incidentally, the

provincial contribution, will be recovered by December 31 of this year.

It is borrowed money, if you will, but it is a relatively short-term

program in terms of the provincial participation.

MR. D'ARCY:

I'm not asking the question on behalf of the wine industry, although

that's a good topic for discussion. I'm asking the question on behalf

of the consumers of British Columbia because the government, not the

wine industry, is now the owner of this $2.8 million worth of red wine.

Can the minister tell us.... . or is that what he's trying to tell us?

That one way or another his ministry will be recovering this $2.8

million from the liquor distribution branch by December 31 of this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated to the committee a moment ago that the amount would be recovered.

MR. D'ARCY: From who?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, obviously from those who receive it. I don't think we could recover it from someone who didn't receive it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ministry of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the Agriculture and Food special warrants have been approved by the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the

schedule will be approved in total. Not each one is....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on warrant No. 8, is the Attorney-General available to explain the detailed expenditures of that?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, regrettably the Attorney-General is not available. He

would be here if it were possible, but I will attempt to assist the

committee to the extent that I am able.

MR. LAUK: Could you just generally outline what that's for?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, special warrant No. 8 is required to fund

overexpenditures in some sub-votes. Firstly, administration and

support, $800,000, higher than budgeted telecommunications charges due

to an increase in the ministry's share of new equipment; this was not

anticipated when the 1985-86 budget was put in final form. The second

item, court services, $1.335 million, higher than budgeted building

occupancy expenditures. And thirdly, criminal justice, $1.45 million,

attributed in large part to an unanticipated larger number of major

criminal trials. Obviously, as the member, a member of the bar, would

know, this results in higher legal and witness expenses. Fourthly and

finally, coroner's office, $700,000; pathology and toxicology costs

above budget contributed to that expenditure.

Unforeseen costs in the four subcategories of special warrant No. 8 in the amount of $4.285 million.

MR. LAUK:

I'll have more to say in the Attorney-General's estimates with respect

to the amount for criminal justice that was underestimated last year.

It's little wonder. You'd have to be a wizard to predict that the Crown

would spend the kind of time it has, and the kind of expense, to

prosecute some of these cases, when in the view of the bar, generally

speaking, it is completely and totally unnecessary.

I wish

to go on record as having questioned seriously the overexpenditure. The

Crown is going far beyond what is required for the public need and for

the administration of justice, both in the number of witnesses and in

the number of days it's taking to prosecute these cases. It's usually

an admission that the Crown is either unsure of its case or lacks the

confidence necessary to prosecute these cases in superior courts.

seems to me that these expenditures are continuing because of the

zealousness of some Crown prosecutors in presenting an overcomplete

case. I recognize the reticence of some inexperienced Crown counsel,

who feel that they must have a conviction or they'll be highly

criticized. Indeed, in some cases they will be. But $1.45 million and

more to come.... The Attorney-General knows the cases I'm talking

about.

No one wants more than I do to see criminals brought

to justice — except my clients, of course, and when they're acquitted

they are brought to justice. But I shouldn't have made a facetious

remark, because I'm deadly serious. I do think that these expenditures

are way and beyond what is required for the prosecutions of some of

these individual cases.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, I would not presume, as one not trained in the law, to

answer. The member has made a point to the committee, and I undertake

to draw those comments to the attention of the Attorney-General.

[4:15]

MRS. WALLACE:

On the same warrant, I have been concerned about the costs that have

apparently been incurred by ministries in litigation with Crown

corporations and similar types of things that have been going on. The

one that I refer to specifically is Highways and ICBC. I'm wondering,

is this type of thing reflected in these excessive amounts that are

required by special warrants?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I

share the member's general view that doesn't happen very often — with

respect to one arm of government suing another. There is nothing in

this special warrant which deals with that. The instances to which the

member has referred are simply not a factor in this special warrant —

not one dollar.

MRS. WALLACE: I notice here that we

have $750,000 for additional funds for forest work activity programs

and for increased planning. I understood from the minister during his

budget speech that the additional costs in forestry were incurred

basically as a result of the forest fires. I'm wondering if this

represents those additional costs in forest fires, or does it represent

something else? If they're not covered here, where are they covered?

[ Page 7567 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, the amount involved, $750,000, was the result of the

decision that cabinet had made to plant something in the order of 200

million seedlings by 1987-88. The required funding over the 1985-86

silviculture budget program was $1.1 million. As a result of direction

given by Treasury Board, the first portion of the $1.1 million.... The

direction was to expend the remaining balance of $340,321 in the forest

and range resource fund, and the balance of $750,000 was secured

pursuant to

section 21 of the Financial Administration Act. And that

special warrant is what is before us today. It was related, by the way,

to that program involving a number of unemployed people who were

recruited for the purpose of planting seedlings. The name of the

program...it has an acronym, and I believe it's FWAR. Why they create

these names is beyond me. I think we're just going to call it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't dare, in case I slip. That's what the money was for.

MR. LAUK: Who's the director? Elmer Fudd?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I haven't been around long enough to find out yet, Mr. Member.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm probably out of order, but if it's not in here, how are you going to pay for those forest fires?

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Chairman, you'll note in the budget that was filed that there is

something in excess of $50 million, as I recall. Something like $50

million-plus is for the forest fire suppression. Admittedly, last

summer the expenditures incurred were very significant. If you look at

the average over a long period of time, you will find that the

reservation for that particular amount, $50 million, hopefully would be

more than adequate. As far as the other moneys which were required, I

would defer that to the Minister of Finance, with respect to a

difference in the actual expenditures, because I'm not exactly sure.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, it could be dealt with on another occasion, I suggest,

because it is not dealt with in this special warrant. The special

warrant is simply for three-quarters of a million dollars, the purpose

of which the minister has described, and which the bill describes. As

my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has indicated,

I dealt with the other matter in the budget speech; and we can deal

with it again. But forest fire suppression is not dealt with in this

special warrant.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Through

schedule 1,

I see that the Ministry of Tourism is asking for an extra $2 million to

supplement vote 66. This $2 million does suggest a fairly significant

increase in expenditures under vote 66. I think a few questions come to

my mind, looking at the rationale for the supplement. Specifically,

what tourism initiatives are provided for through the special warrant

of $2 million? Secondly, how does this funding provide for the

incorporation of Expo 86 into the provincial tourism strategy, which is

indicated in the rationale for the vote, and how does this vote cover

specific Expo advertising? In that regard I would like to ask whether

that includes specific ads that have been placed in the fall regarding

Expo 86.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, this

special warrant was specifically for enhancing our InfoCentre network

throughout the province. Because of the tremendous influx of tourists,

especially those travelling on rubber tires, we determined that we had

to upgrade the Infocentres throughout the province to give them a

common look and logo — for some training for people, uniforms, signs,

community information centres etc. so that we could take full advantage

of all the extra visitors coming in this Expo year.

It is

going to, and already is, straining our resources to the utmost, and we

want to be able to take full advantage. Also, in conjunction with my

colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), we have come up

with a new signage policy for uniform signs throughout the province —

regional signs to start with — so that the tourists again shall be

fully informed. The signs will be easily recognizable, and each region

will have about four or five of these regional signs, which will be in

highway pullouts to look after the safety aspect of it.... They will

all be in pullouts built or already existing by the Department of

Highways.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

The information centre network — I don't have the exact breakdown of

figures in front of me; I apologize for that. But in the information

centre network program we're talking about $1.3 million, I think, if

memory serves me correctly.

MR. LAUK: That's got to mean more staff.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

No, there's no more staff in the ministry. The only staff that we are

assisting with in training are those that will be employed in the

centres under a contract arrangement we have with the British Columbia

Chamber of Commerce.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, as

the comment has been made, that does seem to be an awful lot of money

for the program that the minister has just indicated. I also would like

to know why it was necessary to borrow this money through special

warrant, why the money was not available through the normal processes

of financing of Expo 86. Mr. Pattison has indicated that the total

expenditure for Expo 86 has not yet reached the $802 million which was

essentially initially projected. Why were funds not available through

those channels? Why do we have to come back through special warrant on

this?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the budgets

that we're talking about have nothing to do with the Expo 86

Corporation. They are programs that are being initiated and expanded by

my ministry, including the Partners in Tourism program and, as I have

said, the travel InfoCentre network, the new signs, a sophisticated

computerized information centre for the B.C. Pavilion to enable us to

move tourists throughout the province, and certain advertising

expenditures necessary because of Expo 86. The one that comes to mind

is on the Host Home program. We have incurred expenses there; in fact

we have stepped up that program to encourage more homeowners to come on

to it.

[ Page 7568 ]

But this budget is not to be confused with the budget of the Crown corporation.

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Mr. Chairman, I think this gets us to a critical point. If I may read

directly from

schedule one, it says, "the supplement is to provide for

tourism promotion initiatives related to Expo 86."

Now the

minister has just said that this warrant does not come under Expo, that

it comes under the Ministry of Tourism, and yet the warrant itself

specifically identifies that it is for special expenditures for Expo

86. Now the question that comes to my mind is: how much more money

directly related to Expo is being hidden through expenditures through

the Ministry of Tourism? Because here we have $2 million expenditures

that will not show up in the books for Expo, that will not be accounted

for through Expo 86 corporation, and yet it is a direct expenditure

required for the marketing of Expo. How much else of this has gone on?

When

we look at the final tally, at the cost-benefit analysis of Expo 86,

these figures will be hidden. Is there a specific reason for you

laundering these figures through consolidated revenue rather than

through Expo? Because I think that that's where the accountability

should be.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I think

the words such as hidden and secret and laundering money are totally

inappropriate. Everything is totally above board. As I said, Expo

impacts on my ministry rather severely. We will have an influx of

tourists into this province far greater than any we've ever had in the

past and are likely to have for at least two or three years after Expo.

So the impact on my ministry, and other ministries, is significant, but

especially in tourism. As I've said, the computerized information

centre for the B.C. Pavilion alone is very costly, and the upgrading of

our tourist facilities. They're not a responsibility of Expo; they're a

responsibility of this government and of my ministry.

Just

to reiterate: they're not being hidden or laundered. It's just an

impact that's being felt on my ministry. Some of the advertising, as

I've said, is not directly to bring people to Expo; it's as a result of

people coming to Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The specific

question that the minister has not answered regarding this expenditure

is whether these expenditures specifically cover any of the ads that

were placed in the fall showing government members on film advertising

on behalf of Expo. Do these expenditures cover any of those

advertisements?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

[4:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM:

Mr. Chairman, without unduly extending this, I think the minister has

still not adequately answered, or supplied an adequate explanation for

why expenditures directly pertaining to the Expo budget are being

handled through consolidated revenue rather than going right on the

balance sheet for Expo 86. Until the minister does explain that, I

don't think that we ever will get a true accounting of the cost of this

fair. We have long been calling for a complete opening of the books on

Expo. We have requested this a number of times from the minister. He in

turn has apparently requested, by way of letter, an opening of the

accounts of the fair. We still haven't seen that come down. I want to

repeat that until we do have a full and open accounting of the fair,

nobody is going to know what the true cost of this exposition is.

We're

not criticizing the fair, but what we are saying is that we are

expending taxpayers' money. This is public money, and there should be

full accountability for the expenditures of those funds.

HON. MR. RICHMOND:

I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. I do want to go on

record as saying that if this were a direct expenditure of Expo it

would come out of the Crown corporation's budget — about $802 million.

But it is not an expenditure that should be met by the Crown

corporation; it's an expenditure that has to be met by government. We

cannot bring all of these extra millions of people to British Columbia

without it having some impact. If we're going to reap the net benefits

of an economic activity in the area of $3.5 billion to $4 billion,

there is going to be some impact on other ministries. It's minimal

compared with the budget of Expo 86, but there is going to be an

impact. There will be an impact on my colleague's budget in Highways

just for the running of extra ferries. But it's all bringing revenue to

this Island, the Gulf Islands and other areas, and we just can't get

away from it. If we're going to bring that many people here, we have to

face up to the fact that there's going to be an impact on other

ministries. I don't think you can expect the Crown corporation of Expo

86 to pick up those kinds of extra costs.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

It would be remiss of me, of course.... This is by far the largest

amount of money under special warrant No. 5: $20,300,000 for highways

capital maintenance; highway capital construction amounts to

$98,500,000 for a total of $149, 197, 210. I would like to ask the

minister about this very unusual and large amount of money. After last

year we voted in excess of $1 billion for highway construction and

maintenance, $375 million for the construction of the Coquihalla. My

first question in this regard would be: how much of this $149 million

is going toward the cost overruns on the Coquihalla and the Annacis

bridge? Where is this money going and how is it being spent, and why

the large amount?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in

reply to the member, I agree with you: it's a lot of money,

$118,800,000, and it's for varying projects to continue them on when we

ran out of money in this fiscal year. None of it applies to the Annacis

or the Coquihalla. I have a list of the projects, three or four pages

long, and with permission of the House, I'll read them all out. It will

take me about an hour and a half.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You can't table in committee.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't know what the wish of the Chairman is, but they're all broken down in minute detail.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman, if the minister undertakes to table in the House, we'll

pass along on this, after my friend's other questions. Does the

minister undertake to do that?

[ Page 7569 ]

HON. A. FRASER: I'll undertake to table the detailed list when the debate concludes.

I'd

like to make a comment. We could have closed them all down. We decided

to keep going, and it created 1,400 man-years of work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the minister has undertaken to

table those records in the House, and I'm sure they'll be very valuable

to us when we debate the spending estimates.

However, a colleague of mine did pass along a piece of information also relating to Expo, and it is as follows:

"The Highways ministry recently decided that the Expo '86

display on the Pat Bay Highway was chargeable to Highways maintenance at a cost

of $50,000. On this principle, since Expo '86 will enable people to learn

about other countries, Expo promotional brochures could be charged to this fund

as well."

These Expo display whatever-they're-called are now appearing all over the

province — there are three or four up on the Island Highway, I notice — two

or three of them not completed.

But

once again this is a hidden fund — hidden moneys for the promotion of

Expo, when $800 million plus has already been allocated to Expo, being

charged off to the side under a ministry, which should properly be

charged to the cost of Expo.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister of Transportation and Highways permits me,

I'm informed that no Expo-related expenditures are in this special

warrant. That's my information, and I'm subject to correction. But I

think, Mr. Chairman, that we are debating interim supply. The Minister

of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) indicated that other ministries, such as

my colleague's, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, have

Expo-related expenditures, but in his case they're not in this schedule.

HON. A. FRASER: He's absolutely correct. There are no Expo-related expenditures in this special warrant.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, for the present I'll accept the minister's explanation.

Schedule approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the

preamble.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Chairman, no, not on the

preamble. I just noticed the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) just came back and, with the leave

of the House, I'm sure he would be more than willing....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I was out at the time.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES:

I know the situation. I'm just thinking that the minister is being so

cooperative that he would be delighted to give me an opportunity to ask

him a couple of questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at the commencement of committee on the bill it was suggested that we debate each

section in order.

MR. BARNES: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And each

section has had an opportunity to be debated in order.

MR. BARNES: That's quite correct, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered if, with leave of the House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The

schedule has been approved.

MR. BARNES: I see.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, reported complete without amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On third reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LAUK:

I wanted to protest. The title of this act is Supply Act. This is a

breach from tradition, although I don't think technically illegal. It

should be called Interim Supply Act, should it not? On third reading, I

rise to protest that, because it's exactly what I was talking about

before. Governments are getting into the habit of breaching the

traditional way in which estimates are approved; and even describing an

interim supply act as a supply act is incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point might have been better raised during committee stage when the title was debated and the question called.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you permitted debate on third reading?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would simply respond by pointing out that which I overlooked in

second reading: that is, this is the first provincial budget to be

presented this year and we are dealing with interim supply. All other

provinces will be

[ Page 7570 ]

later with their budgets than the province of British Columbia in 1986.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned budget debate.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MACDONALD: I was going to

reply to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser),

who rasped at the opposition, but it's so long ago that I've forgotten

much of what he said in his diatribe. Flashes of it come back to me —

flushes — and he said something about an election in 1988. That worries

me, because I find it's a lot harder to get out of this place than it

was to get into it. Nineteen eighty-eight. I checked with the Clerks at

the table and the rules require that the election be held before world

war three, but the way Ronnie and Casper are behaving, I don't know

whether I can base any confidence in that.

Another thing

that comes back to me is that this minister took to task the new leader

of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

AN. HON. MEMBER: In his maiden speech.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, and said that he had changed parties twice. It's not true? Well,

the second wasn't really; the second was just a case of cross- "Pollen"

-ization, I guess. When you think of some of the political

jerjibbercytes who were sitting around when the minister was

speaking...he was a little hard on the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea) when he's got all those.... I don't know whether there has ever

been any government of British Columbia with so much tired blood and

mixed blood as we see on the other side of the house.

[4:45]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mixed blood, like the mule. A government with no pride of ancestry and no hope of posterity.

I'm

going to be brief. I'm going to make a modest proposal and sit down.

I'll hurry along; after all, we took quite a bit of time on interim

supply and I know other members want to speak on the budget debate.

I've

been asking myself the question: how well looked after are the victims

of injury who suffer disability or are sometimes diseased by accidental

means in the province of British Columbia? At what cost do we look

after the victims of accidental injury or disease, and with what

fairness have we been addressing that particular subject? I see the

headlines today which made the topic seem topical to me. We hear about

the great rise in liability insurance premiums for municipalities and

school boards and doctors, and all the rest. We hear the

Attorney-General getting up to talk about his list of lawyers acting

for ICBC, and the tremendous costs involved in that. I suppose I'm

expressing my own opinion — I think it's just a matter of time, in any

case, before all members of this House and other houses will adopt that

opinion, but in my opinion, king tort must die. I think liability for

negligence is a capricious and unsatisfactory way of compensating

victims of accidental injury, death or disease. It protects some but

not all, and it is performing its task these days at enormous legal and

administrative costs, which necessarily do not pass on to those who

suffer the injury. Some of them, for example — and maybe you'd look in

the field of auto, or any of the other accidents that take place —

simply can't prove a case in court of legal liability. So they go

without compensation.

There are some accidents where there

is no third party — say, in the case of auto accidents where, through a

momentary lapse of attention or a mechanical fault of which you really

had no foreseeable chance to avoid the consequences, you go into a

ditch or go off the road. So while we talk about our patchwork of

protection for the victims of accident, don't forget that a great many

fall through the safety net of those protections.

Only New

Zealand — and I suppose I bring this up because I had the privilege of

meeting not too long ago and talking with the Hon. Geoffrey Palmer, who

is the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and we exchanged books; he

has written a very capable book called Compensation for Incapacity

- alone among common-law countries, has had the sense and the courage

to abolish tort liability. It has brought in a comprehensive scheme

that provides basic compensation, without proof of fault, to everyone

incapacitated by misadventure. Those desiring higher levels of

compensation beyond the comprehensive social cushion thereby provided

insure themselves, which can happen very easily and does happen. In New

Zealand, strangely enough — and we skirt away from examining these

questions — while the initial impetus for this reform was the Labour

Party of New Zealand, the scheme is equally supported by the

conservatives, who were in government and are now again in opposition

in New Zealand.

I'll go quickly over this. What is the

present patchwork coverage that we have today? I'm talking about

accidental injuries and accidental disease or illness which excludes

the normal onset of disease or illness caused by age or some congenital

defect. But we have to protect.... We've got ICBC, which has a minor —

but a very low floor level of it — no-fault component, and ICBC is

chewing up vast sums of money in legal disputes over fault and quantum

at the present time. I'll come back to that.

We have the

Workers' Compensation Board, which, of course, is a no-fault plan of

compensation which has been in effect in this province and all other

common-law jurisdictions for many years. The present standing of the

Workers' Compensation Board in the public eye is relatively low. But I

wonder how many members would rise in their place and seriously say

that we should go back in the case of industrial accidents to tort

liability? Of course, the lawsuit against the employer or a fellow

employee in the same worksite has been eliminated under the Workers

Compensation Act. Of course, there is room for improvement within that

structure. But nobody would think of going back to the bad old days of

tort liability. We have criminal injuries compensation for accidents of

a different kind, and that's administered in the same way as workers'

compensation.

We have other tort lawsuits. We're not

talking only of automobiles. We have medical malpractice; we have

occupier's liability, where a tenant is hurt or somebody comes into a

building and suffers an injury. We have veterans' pensions. We have

private self-insurance. Down lower in the

[ Page 7571 ]

scale

of things, but subject to a means test, of course, we have handicapped

pensions and simply social assistance for those without means and no

other safety net is available.

This whole patchwork, as I

say, protects very well and protects some not at all. So I come to some

examples of what is happening at the present time in the province of

British Columbia. Take the municipal insurance which we've heard quite

a bit about. There has been an explosion.... I should say I am not

discussing the auto insurance of municipalities — their fleet

insurance. I am discussing the insurance premiums that they buy to

protect themselves against different other kinds of injuries.

There

has been an unbelievable explosion in the last year in the premiums

that are chargeable to municipalities. It began, I suppose, with the

city of Brampton case, which is still under appeal, where a young

teenager took his motorcycle into the gravel pit of the city of

Brampton, which was being held by the city to become, at a later stage,

a park. There were "No Trespassing" signs up there, but the young

fellow rode the road on his motorcycle; and the damages when he became

a quadraplegic were, I believe, $6 million. Cases like that are said to

be the cause of the rise in insurance premiums.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe that?

MR. MACDONALD:

I believe it's half true. Let me give the figures first. I believe it

is half true, because the other half of the situation is that the

insurance companies are using awards, which admittedly are going up,

and legal expenses, which are obviously going up, as an excuse to jack

up their rates; and the government has participated, and made it easier

for them to do so in this province, by selling off the general

insurance sector of ICBC.

But the other half of the problem

remains. The municipal insurance premiums in 1985-86 in White Rock, for

example.... I could give you a whole list of cities, but I won't. In

one year their insurance went up 647 percent.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Are you their lawyer?

MR. MACDONALD: It might be nice work, if you could get it.

Chetwynd the insurance costs went up 869 percent in a single year; in

Penticton, 590 percent; in Burnaby, to give it in dollar figures, it

went from $35,600, in a single year, up to $315,000. Don't forget, this

is not the fleet — vehicular insurance, which ICBC still writes in

competition with the private insurers, and where, to the credit of the

public institution, those rates have been held level or have actually

gone down in the last couple of years. We're talking about the other

kind of liability. At the same time, the municipalities are faced with

greater deductibilities. For example, White Rock has gone up 500

percent. Richmond has gone up from $5,000 to $50,000 deductible, an

increase in the deductible of 900 percent. At the same time, the rules

about deductible — I don't want to get too technical about this — have

changed, so that the deductible applies from one accident to every

claim arising out of the same accident. So you have less coverage and

much greater expenses.

The school district situation is

very much the same. They place their insurance, at the direction of the

Ministry of Education, through two major underwriters. But their

premiums have shown the same escalation. And they have been escalating

ever since the Thornton case in Prince George. This shows the kind of

thing that a school district can be up against. A student in a school

was exercising in the gym, doing somersaults on the bars, unsupervised

by a teacher, and somersaulted onto a mat and became a quadraplegic, or

a paraplegic — I'm not sure which it was. Extensive injuries. I believe

the final award was $800,000. So there you see the same trend.

You

turn to the medical profession, which is rightly exercised about this

escalation. In the case of the medical profession, their premiums are

also rising in the high-risk medical areas very dramatically. In the

last year they've gone up in category 6, which includes obstetrics,

from $2,900 to $4,900 a year for each doctor who participates in

obstetrics. The other high-risk fields, like neurosurgery and plastic

surgery, sustained similar increases in that magnitude.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm hearing a little trouble from the second-oldest profession in the course of my remarks, but I press on.

The

question arises, Mr. Speaker, and it's a legitimate question: how else

can you ensure that your doctor is competent and not careless with your

health or your life if you don't have the ability to sue him in court —

if you had a basic compensation for that injury, subject to any other

policy you might want to take out, but couldn't sue him in court? The

answer surely has to be that there has to be a strong body in the

College of Physicians and Surgeons which polices competency and

negligence. As long as the doctor doesn't pay — and he doesn't pay in

the case of tort liability, but his insurance company pays — for the

loss, you no longer in any case have that deterrence of carelessness,

which is very important, I must agree.

What about ICBC,

which is the biggest because motor travelling is the biggest item? They

have a litigation department with 15 lawyers. Their employment of

outside counsel is estimated — and it's hard to get the exact breakdown

— at costing ICBC $90 million a year to defend liability cases brought

by third parties. When you look at the costs of the tort system, you

add to that the costs to the injured person of employing his own lawyer

— usually today on a contingency fee which ranges from 25 percent up to

40 percent. Then you consider the court administrative costs, because

there are cases, and so many of them, simple and tragic cases, which

take four, five and six days in court.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I were taking more time, I might describe one or two of the cases.

There's a case down here that took four days, where a woman was

claiming $100,000 after a minor accident. She got about $20,000. The

judge finally derided her as someone who was exaggerating her injuries

and twisting her testimony and called her — and I don't think the judge

should have done that — a shallow, vain and self-pitying woman. A

terrible experience, nevertheless, for the woman, and a costly lesson,

and too common in terms of the cases that are taken into court.

[5:00]

There

is a lot of lottery about the award of damages in the court system. The

negligence that you seek to prove in the agony of a momentary lapse of

care depends so much on

[ Page 7572 ]

recollection.

The tendency inevitably becomes for witnesses to bend their testimony

to suit the best possible purposes in their case. There is a tremendous

amount of uncertainty, even though in some cases the awards are

munificent even after you deduct the fees — for some people. But for

people generally, for the costs to the province of looking after

injured people, that cost is enormous.

We have had, Mr.

Speaker, eminent authorities in the province of British Columbia, led

by the late Mr. Justice Wootton, who made his royal commission report

in 1968. After very careful consideration, and he was in the field of

automobile insurance alone, he came to the conclusion that we were not

well served by the tort liability system. That Wootton report said:

"...originally,

with few motor vehicles, the business of claims for damages were

reasonably encompassed by the tort law. It was a choice of fault or no

fault then, and the former prevailed only to embarrass the situation

when traffic conditions caused by the proliferation of the motor

vehicle outdistanced the effectiveness of tort law with the duty

imposed by it of determining, in all cases, the question of fault."

could go on with other comments, but the commissioners concluded that

tort law does not effectively serve the public injured by motor

vehicles. Speaking personally, I agree with that observation. They go

on in their conclusion:

"In considering the

matter of no fault, the commissioners have comprehended that the milieu

of motor vehicle traffic is now similar, by reason of the proliferation

of vehicular traffic upon the highway, to that of a great game played

by many players when rules may be constantly broken, without any wicked

intent, and that consequently it must rest with the player to protect

himself and those with him."

There was another accident

commission that was set up under Mr. McCarthy of ICBC in 1983. But it

only went into a portion of that problem. But to the extent that it

delved into the problem — and I think Jake Brouwer was a member of that

commission, too — it came to the conclusion that those injured in

accidents could receive more money with the same payout that ICBC is

making at the present time with the no-fault system, although the

court, legal and administrative costs would receive much less.

what I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that we have in this Legislature a

committee system that is not used, and it could have the ability to

look into this kind of thing. In New Zealand the process of arriving at

this reform was twofold: a royal commission, a committee of the

legislature examining the proposals in detail, a bill before the New

Zealand parliament, and at the present time, unanimity in support of

their plan.

We could, in this Legislature, examine this

question, which costs, if what I am saying is correct, the victims of

injury in accidents of all kinds a great deal of the money that should

be going toward their relief, which leaves far too many people without

any relief at all. We could be examining this matter either through a

royal commission or a royal commission and a committee of this

Legislature, which would hear from the people affected and give close

attention to what is a major social problem and is becoming more of a

major social problem as time goes on.

The New Zealand plan

is something of which they boast. I remember asking Geoffrey Palmer:

"Under your plan do you have complaints that people are beating the

system, cheating?" He said: "No, we have an appeal system which is

satisfactorily working. We are not afraid of those who are malingering

with back injuries and that kind of thing, or who are alleged to be

doing so. The appeal procedure is fair. Those wanting additional

compensation above the level of cushion that the community decides upon

can easily get it through their own insurance company." And, he said,

it is something of which they can be proud.

They have

comprehensive entitlement to care, treatment, rehabilitation and

compensation at the rate, by the way, of 80 percent of earnings, which

is good, on the basis of the simple principle that the well-being of

each is the concern of all. I think British Columbia should exa