1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5777 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Clark –– 5777

Supply Act (No. 1), 1989 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 5784

Second reading –– 5784

Committee stage –– 5784

Mr. Rose

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Guno

Mr. Miller

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. Mr. Reid

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Kempf

Third reading –– 5796

Royal assent –– 5796

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I rise to inform the House that Jim McDonald, Victoria's 1989 citizen

of the year, passed away on Wednesday afternoon. Jim established

Victoria's Heart House, a home away from home for people to stay while

a family member is in the hospital. It is a reality today because Jim

and his wife Dorothy never said that it could be done, but that it

would be done. I was privileged to meet with Jim on a number of

occasions and attended the opening of the Heart House with Jim and

Dorothy. His tenacious spirit and commitment to his community will be

sadly missed, and my sympathies are extended to Dorothy, his

stepchildren Paris and June, and his three grandchildren and two

great-grand children.

MR. BLENCOE : I would like, on

behalf of our caucus, to reiterate the words of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Jim McDonald was indeed a great British Columbian who set up a very

remarkable home — in my neighbourhood, actually; I know it well. He

worked diligently for those who suffered from heart disease and

provided a home for families whose members were suffering from this

horrible disease. He and his supporters have brought a very remarkable

idea to Victoria, and we certainly join with the government in sending

our condolences and sympathies to the family.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I take this opportunity, on behalf of all of us here, I am sure, to

congratulate Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on her appointment to the

Supreme Court of Canada. This appointment, as you are aware, results

from the recent resignation from the court of the Hon. William

McIntyre, a long-time B.C. lawyer and subsequent justice. It is

reassuring that with the many important issues before the court,

several of special significance to B.C., Justice McLachlin, a resident

of B.C. for many years, has been appointed to Canada's most

distinguished court.

I also commend the Prime Minister for

continuing the practice of appointing highly qualified persons to the

court. Justice McLachlin will bring a wealth of background of the west

and Pacific Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada.

MR. GUNO :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I also want to add

congratulations on the appointment of Ms. McLachlin. I know that it's a

unanimous acceptance by the bar and that she's going to be a great

addition to this august court. I want to commend such an excellent

choice.

MR. SERWA : On behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan

South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I would like to ask the House to welcome Chuck

and Jo Reed, constituents of ours who have been resident in the Kelowna area

for over 40 years.

Chuck

is a retired orchardist and a grape-grower; Jo is a well-known potter

in the Okanagan area. They are visiting Victoria because they have a

daughter who is the manager of public relations with the Ministry of

Regional Development. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE :

Would the House welcome today Harvey and Betty Gee from Vernon. Mr. and

Mrs. Gee are the mother- and father-in-law of Robb Gibbs, who works in

our communications department. Robb is responsible for writing other

views of government policy in our communications department. Would the

House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Gee this morning.

MR. MILLER :

In the gallery today is a woman, Kay Lackner, who has worked for many

years for the New Democratic Party. We politicians all know that they

are the real people behind the power. I'm sure they're here to listen

to the finest opposition response to a budget speech they are likely to

hear.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker and members of the

House, almost 200 years ago an illiterate sailor whose name was Sampson

Rose arrived from Dorset to join his brother Pete. He took up land in

the northeast end of Prince Edward Island. In 1805 Sampson married

Elizabeth Baker and ultimately had 12 children, which was not a

particularly remarkable feat of fecundity for those days. But in no

time, in the last 200 years, the seed of Sampson spread all over North

America. It's even been rumoured that baseball hall-of-famer Pete Rose

might be a distant relative — but don't bet on it.

One Rose who stayed home was Lloyd Rose of North Lake, P.E.I. Lloyd and I share the same great great-grandfather —

the founder Sampson. Lloyd is in the gallery today with his daughter

Alice and her friend Randy Rolston. Welcome to the B.C. Legislature,

Lloyd.

MR. BRUCE : This evening is a very important

event for the many Beavers of the province of British Columbia. I'm

sure you will all be interested to know that this evening at B.C.

Place, where many great events are held, 10,000 Beavers from throughout

the province of British Columbia will be sleeping on the floor for an

evening of camp-out. It will be the largest Beaveree in the history of

the province of British Columbia. I will be there doing my bit with my

boys as a Beaver father. I'm sure this House would love to extend

congratulations and best wishes to all the Beavers in the province.

Orders Of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CLARK :

I'd like to begin by paying tribute to Dave Stupich. For the last 15

years Mr. Stupich, who is now the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo, has

made the New Democrats' response to the budget

[ Page 5778 ]

speech. He was the longest-serving member of the assembly, and he did an outstanding job on our behalf.

welcome the opportunity to respond to the budget on behalf of New

Democrats. As I indicated in my comments yesterday, this budget must be

seen in the larger context of the government's overall record. Within

this context, the budget represents a cynical attempt by an unpopular

government to regain support. It will, I am sure, be viewed by British

Columbians as just that.

[10:15]

First, the government has repeated dozens of times during the last

24 hours that this is a balanced budget. It is clear that it is not a

balanced budget. Very simply, a balanced budget occurs when you collect

as much revenue as you spend; but this year the government will be

spending $500 million more than it takes in. No matter what paper

transactions the government makes with its BS fund, they cannot hide

the fact that it is a deficit budget.

Secondly, the

government has the audacity to suggest that this so-called balanced

budget was achieved by good management, when during the past few years

it imposed tax increases of $500 million on the backs of middle-income

and working people. The people who were subjected to those tax

increases know better. This is a government that gutted our education

programs and now boasts that education is one of its priorities.

I've

had meetings with some education officials, students and teachers, and

I can tell you that they know that Social Credit governments have no

commitment to education. This government gutted the Ministry of

Environment and has an abysmal record of enforcement. It now boasts

about its commitment to a sustainable environment. This government over

the years has gutted housing programs and now boasts about its

commitment to housing. The people that I have talked to in the housing

industry know better.

British Columbians know this

government has no commitment to quality education, the environment,

housing or any of the principal goals held by British Columbians.

Credibility and trust are built on years of consistent and effective

policies. This government's record as represented by its budgets is

inconsistent and ineffective.

It is a government which

practises yo-yo economics. One day it eliminates a university in the

interior, and another day it vows to create one. One day it cuts

education spending; the next day it increases it. One day it cuts

environmental programs; the next day it vows to expand them. Nowhere is

this erratic inconsistency better represented than in the Premier

himself, who visits Alaska to view an oil spill but refuses to visit

Long Beach on Vancouver Island.

In my response today, I

will highlight these inconsistencies and these erratic and unstable

policies. I will show that this government has no vision, no plan and

no consistency. Let me begin by reviewing briefly the state of our

provincial economy as we enter the 1990S.

British Columbia

is a province that is blessed with a rich supply of natural assets

second to none. It is not surprising, therefore, that when we look at

our economic record during the 1970s, we see that we out performed

almost every other province in Canada, During the 1980s, however, we

have had one of the worst performances in Canada. Let me cite some

examples.

At the height of the last economic boom in

British Columbia, 1981, the province's overall unemployment rate of 6.7

percent was below the Canada average. By 1988, at the height of this

economic cycle, the unemployment rate was 10.2 percent, well above the

Canadian average. In 1978 our gross domestic product per capita was 10

percent higher than for Canada as a whole. In 1987 it was 2 percent

lower. Average personal income shows a similar pattern.

1978 our level of business investment on a per capita basis was 10

percent higher than the Canadian average. A decade later, in 1988, it

was significantly lower. Housing investment in 1978 was 23 percent

higher than the Canadian average. A decade later it was lower.

Investment in social capital in 1978 was 16 percent higher than the

Canadian average. A decade later it was lower. Ten years of Social

Credit, ten years of neglect.

I am pleased that the B.C.

economy has finally improved. However, we still have a long way to go

to achieve acceptable levels of employment, income and investment—

both business investment and investment in social capital. To meet the

challenges of the future, British Columbians need a government with a

vision and a clear sense of direction. A budget should reflect this

vision. It should represent part of a cumulative series of changes

designed to give direction to our economic and social development. This

government acknowledged that in yesterday's budget and in the 1988

budget, when the minister stated: "...this budget creates the

structures which help remove the uncertainties of the future We are

building a long-term economic plan for the province and a strategic

plan for government.... "

It is appropriate then to view

the current budget not as an isolated document pertaining only to the

coming fiscal year but as part of a longer-range economic strategy. We

must assess it in light of both the budgets which have proceeded it and

the future challenges that it seeks to meet.

I have met

with a number of British Columbians over the past couple of weeks to

ask what they would like to see in the budget. These British

Columbians, who represented a broad spectrum of society, from business

leaders to ordinary working people, told me that a budget should be

judged on the basis of three basic goals or values: first, its fairness

to individuals, groups and regions; second, its response to the basic

economic and social priorities facing British Columbians in the 1990s;

and third, its contribution to the basic economic and social stability.

Let

me deal with the question of fairness. Fairness has a number of

dimensions. The first is tax fairness. The government must raise the

revenues necessary to pay for essential public services on an equitable

[ Page

5779 ]

basis. To do otherwise is simply unethical. It's

also bad economics. The continuation of sustained, broadly based

economic growth in British Columbia depends on a wide distribution of

purchasing power.

A second dimension is regional fairness.

All regions must share in British Columbia's prosperity. This is not

only ethical but essential to smooth economic development. It prevents

the emergence of bottlenecks in high-growth areas such as Vancouver and

of self -reinforcing stagnation in slow-growth areas.

third dimension is fairness among and between individuals. It is

ethically unacceptable to have the existence of grinding poverty in the

midst of general affluence. A society that avoids wide extremes between

rich and poor also avoids the social conflict that such differences

produce and maintains a higher overall quality of life.

How

does the Social Credit record measure up on the grounds of fairness? I

am sorry to say that the record of this government on fairness is

abysmal. Successive Social Credit budgets have taken us down the road

to an unprecedented level of tax unfairness. The present budget does

absolutely nothing to rectify the situation.

The four

budgets preceding this one represent a two-staged attack on ordinary

taxpayers: first, a huge $500 million annual tax break for

corporations; next, a $500 million annual tax increase on individuals— a blatant and dramatic shift of the tax burden away from corporations and onto the backs of ordinary people.

The

corporate tax breaks were contained in the 1985, 1986 and 1987 budgets.

In the 1985 budget the corporation capital tax was phased out with an

ultimate revenue impact of some $100 million per year. Non-residential

property taxes were reduced at a cost of approximately $250 million a

year. Water taxes were frozen at a cost of some $60 million per year.

Over the following two years, income taxes for large corporations were

cut by two percentage points, at a cost of well over $60 million per

year. This trend continued through 1987, with further tax breaks to

banks and mining companies worth $18 million a year.

Secondly,

the '87 and '88 budgets imposed a dramatic $500 million increase in the

taxes and other charges paid by individual British Columbians. The 1987

budget contained a much-heralded reduction in the sales tax totalling

some $260 million, but it was far more than offset by the over $450

million worth of increases, including: higher personal income taxes,

$195 million; higher taxes on goods and services such as fuel and

insurance, $58 million; a new property purchase tax, $150 million;

large increases in licences and user fees, $30 million.

The changes to the personal income tax made the system much less progressive.

The removal of the high-income surtax, which cost British Columbians some $30

million while at the same time increasing the basic tax rate, had the effect

of raising taxes for low- to middle-income earners and of lowering them for

the richest British Columbians. The 1988 provincial budget pushed this assault

on average British Columbians even further with: $150 million in increased medical

services premiums; $40 million worth of other new licences and user-fee increases;

$45 million in increased fuel taxes; $100 million in new taxes on liquor and

tobacco, including a new tax on draught beer.

The

overall results of this longer-term strategy the government brags about

should surprise nobody. The burden of financing government services has

fallen increasingly on individuals, while the contributions of

corporations have fallen. In the 1984-85 fiscal year, personal income

tax provided approximately 30 percent of all non-natural resource

revenue collected by the provincial government. In 1988-89 this share

was 34 percent. In '84-85, user fees and charges accounted for under 11

percent of all non-natural resource revenues. In 1988-89 they were 13

percent. In '84-85, businesses contributed almost 18 percent of

non-resource revenues in the form of corporate income taxes, capital

taxes and non-residential school taxes. In '88-89 they contributed only

13 percent.

Another area of concern is school taxes. In

1982 the Social Credit government eliminated the right of school

districts to tax commercial-industrial property. The result has been a

dramatic increase in the burden of many homeowners. For Vancouver

homeowners, for example, from 1982 to 1988, their share of the

Vancouver School Board budget increased from 19 percent to 30 percent.

The government's centralization of the commercialization of industrial

property tax base has resulted in a windfall of $250 million given to

the corporations from 1985 to 1987 at the expense of homeowners.

The

government had a chance to rectify these inequities in this budget; the

government has chosen to maintain them. Let me illustrate what this

means for ordinary British Columbia families.

If the

government provided $500 million in tax cuts for families instead of

corporations, this would be sufficient to cut personal income taxes by

20 percent, cut the sales tax by one-third or eliminate medical

premiums. The average family would have benefited by approximately

$500 — that's $500 in the pockets of every family in British

Columbia. The government had a choice between working people and large

corporations, and it chose the corporations. This clearly shows where

their priorities lie. And to salt the wounds of ordinary taxpayers,

they impose tax increases of $500 per family to fund the tax cuts that

the corporations took. As a result we have a tax system which is

unfair, unjustifiable and unsustainable.

The Social Credit

government's policies have also been unfair to British Columbia's

regions. While the lower mainland has experienced boom conditions and

rapid growth, many other regions have been left behind. Almost 80

percent of the new jobs created between 1983 and 1988 were created in

the lower mainland and Victoria. The result has been the emergence of

two British Columbias, a dual economy: one experiencing rapid growth,

which is threatening the quality of life; and the other, outside the

lower main-

[ Page 5780 ]

land, experiencing stagnation, population outflows and high unemployment.

[10:30]

In 1988 official unemployment levels for British Columbia's regions

were as follows: lower mainland, 9.5 percent; northern B.C., 9.9

percent; Okanagan, 10.7 percent; Cariboo, 11 percent; Vancouver Island,

11.4 percent; Lillooet-Thompson, 14.1 percent; central Kootenay, 14.7

percent. These figures seriously underestimate the true extent of

unemployment because they don't count the individuals who have given up

looking for work, they don't count involuntary part-time workers and

they don't count women who have withdrawn from the workforce.

rational government would pursue a strategy to manage growth pressures

in Vancouver and encourage growth in other regions in British Columbia

that need jobs. This would require a government with vision and a

commitment to fairness and sound management. Instead, we have a

government which has no strategy, no vision and no commitment to

regional fairness.

With respect to individual fairness, the

gap between the richest and poorest British Columbians continues to

grow. It is exacerbated by the policies of Social Credit. The National

Council of Welfare reported last April that family poverty grew faster

in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s. The

latest statistics from the council reveal that 105,500 families were

living in poverty in British Columbia, and 461,600 individuals in total

are living below the poverty line in this province.

The

pain of this government's unfairness is all too real for thousands of

cares in the least. Any government which can continue with tax break

schemes for corporations and the wealthy and come up with a new program

in this budget that provides interest rate subsidies for developers

while food bank lineups wind around our streets is a callous government.

Any

governing party which can come up with a budget in 1989 that does not

provide any funding at all for food programs for hungry children — for the hundreds of young people who go to school with empty stomachs every day — is a party that does not deserve to govern a day longer.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

You can laugh, Mr. Premier, about hungry kids in Vancouver. Do you know

that just before Thanksgiving the Vancouver Food Bank issued an

emergency appeal for donations for its more than 12,000 clients? At

that time, they announced they might have to halve supplies of infant

formula to the 60 babies in Vancouver who were dependent on them for

this food because the formula is so expensive. What has happened in a

province as wealthy as this one that we have babies dependent on

charity for basic nutrition?

The Social Planning and

Research Council of B.C. had one answer last year when they said: "Long

lines at food banks and the presence of hungry school kids are

testimony to the failure of our income security program." It's long

past the time that a budget was presented in this House which attempted

to provide some meaningful fairness for individuals in British Columbia.

Let

me now turn to the second goal: meeting economic and social priorities.

During the last few months, I had meetings with a large number of

British Columbians right across this province of ours. I've asked them

what priorities they would like to see in the budget. They consistently

emphasize two priorities.

The first is achieving

sustainable development. If our economy is to continue to fulfill the

economic aspirations of British Columbians we must begin to recognize

the fundamental role played by our natural resource endowment, and

promote economic growth which enhances rather than depletes this

endowment. In the words of the Brundtland commission, "sustainable

development" means "meeting the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs." Clearly our long-term economic future depends on the investment

we are prepared to make today in our natural resource base.

Our

second major priority for the 1990s is investing in the human resources

and social capital, which are the essential underpinnings of our future

growth and quality of life. Sustainable development presents a series

of challenges which affect almost every area of the economy. New

Democrats are putting forward concrete solutions in the form of 22

private members' bills during this session of the Legislature.

The

Leader of the Opposition announced now initiatives in the area of

research in value-added manufacturing in his reply to the throne

speech. Today I want to focus on this government's budget record in two

specific areas: forest management and environmental protection. The

forests represent our single most important resource industry. A large

part of our current economic boom can be attributed to high prices for

forestry products and record production levels. Our annual cut in 1987

and 1988 was approximately 90 million cubic metres, well above the

yearly average levels of approximately 75 million cubic metres which

prevailed between 1979 and 1986.

In 1987-88, the forest

industry contributed $745 million to the provincial treasury in direct

revenue alone. In 1988-89, it contributed $639 million. However,

serious questions have been raised concerning the sustainability of the

current harvest levels. Without sustained yield, it will be impossible

to achieve balanced budgets or to increase economic opportunities in

British Columbia's regions.

However, the record of this

government on forest management has been poor. Over the last three

decades, successive Social Credit governments have increasingly turned

over harvesting and management responsibilities to large corporations.

As a result, we have a highly concentrated industry, particularly on

the coast, where the four largest forestry companies now control 68

percent of the annual cut. The trend

[ Page 5781 ]

toward

privatization and lax management of our forests accelerated during the

mid-1980s. Between 1983 and 1987, overall staffing levels allocated to

the Ministry of Forests were cut by 24 percent, from approximately

4,900 to approximately 3,700 full-time equivalents.

The

Social Credit government's failure to recognize the need for

reforestation and silviculture has resulted in a large backlog of

insufficiently restocked forest lands. In 1988, silviculture

expenditures were 17 percent lower in real dollar terms than they were

in 1983.

During the last fiscal year the government

underspent its forestry budget by $40.8 million. The budget does not

propose any new initiatives in forestry. Spending is projected to

increase by only 4.3 percent, lower than the rate of inflation. In real

terms, spending is declining at the very time the pressure on our

forestry resource is increasing.

In the area of

environmental protection, the Social Credit government's record has

been equally bad. Not only have existing standards for major polluters

such as pulp mills been inadequate, but the government has neglected to

monitor pollution levels and has lacked the political will to enforce

existing standards. Staff levels at the Ministry of Environment

declined by about 25 percent between 1983-84 and 1988-89. As a result,

environmental monitoring has become so ineffective that British

Columbians have had to rely on the efforts of federal government

agencies to bring important problems to light.

In 1988,

this government compounded the situation by privatizing the Environment

Lab. This important component of our environmental protection system

was sold for a mere $850,000, only a third of its real market value as

estimated by Price Waterhouse, chartered accountants. In the process of

privatization, staff levels have been cut, valuable expertise has been

lost and the level of service has declined.

In the area of

enforcement, independent studies, one by the University of Victoria and

the other by the federal Department of the Environment, have shown that

existing standards for major industries are routinely unenforced. In

the area of municipal sewage disposal, the level of provincial support

was cut in 1983 despite growing water pollution problems. It is

estimated, for example, that $1.5 billion is required to correct

problems in the Greater Vancouver Regional District alone. Correcting

these problems will be beyond the fiscal capacity of the region alone

if current cost-sharing formulas are not revised.

All of a

sudden, the Social Credit government is throwing money at the

environment. A closer look however, tells us that little of it is

landing in the right; place. Of the $200 million announced for the

environment, only a little more than half is going to the Ministry of

Environment. The rest is smoke and mirrors, amounting to funding

programs that have been given an environmental label. For example, the

minister stated in his budget speech that building the Vancouver Island

pipeline and burning wood and coal were environmental programs. Only a

Social Credit government would describe building a pipeline and burning

coal as part of a sound environmental policy.

An additional

$28 million of projects has been announced. If this was a serious

commitment, it would not be funded in an ad hoc manner out of lottery

funds. This is yet another example of the Social Credit government

making grandiose statements without foundation and without commitment.

youth program has also been once again announced. We are still

wondering about the JobTrac program which was announced in 1987 and

which quickly disappeared, leaving no youth funding available for

assistance when the oil spill was upon our coastline. Despite the

announced increase in funding for the environment, staff levels are

still down 25 percent from the 1983 levels.

At best, this

newfound interest in the environment is an inadequate attempt to bring

us back from a decade of neglect, and certainly does not address a

long-term future commitment to the environment. One of the strongest

indictments of this government's commitment to the environment is that

the Ministry of Environment did not even spend all of last year's

budget.

Despite increased spending for water and sewer

systems from $20 million to $35 million, and last week's promises to

assist the city of Vancouver with its sewage treatment system, this

budget does not appear to contain any of the $1.5 billion that

Vancouver needs for that sewage treatment project.

Adequate

levels of investment in human resources and social capital are as

important as investment in our natural resources. Both are essential

for our longer-term economic and social development. However, the

record of the Social Credit government in developing our human

resources is just as bad as it is in protecting our natural resources.

We have lagged behind in all the key social areas: education, health,

housing, transportation and social services. In place of a careful,

well-thought-out plan for the province, we have had a decade of neglect.

Education

has been neglected at all levels by Social Credit during the 1980s,

from the primary to the university level. Direct provincial

expenditures on education, in constant dollars, decreased from $726 per

capita in 1982-83 to $679 per capita in 1987-88. Capital budgets for

the public school system were particularly hard hit. Between 1979 and

1984 approved capital budgets averaged $206 million per year in

constant dollars. Between 1984 and 1988 they averaged only $66 million

per year.

The result has been a public school system which

has been unable to prepare our children adequately to become productive

members of society. The Sullivan commission report noted recently that

for every 100 students who begin grade 9. between 35 and 40 fail to

complete high school, The commission noted that this ratio was

disturbingly high relative to other jurisdictions in Canada and the

United States, and it concluded that, "this rate represents a loss

which an economy which is increasingly based on knowledge and expertise

can ill afford."

[ Page 5782 ]

great deal of the approximately $3 billion of new operating capital

funding recommended by the Sullivan commission is required simply to

reverse the neglect of the past decade. The results of systematic

underfunding have been even more disastrous at the university and

college levels. At a time when most other advanced industrial economies

are recognizing that advanced education is a key ingredient of future

economic progress, our universities have been underfunded.

take just one example: the University of Victoria taught 45 percent

more students last year than it did in 1978 with 5 percent less

funding. In British Columbia as a whole, last year 8,000 to 10,000

students were turned away from post-secondary institutions due to lack

of space. Many others were discouraged from attending by sharply

increased tuition fees. British Columbians now have the worst record in

Canada for both university participation and the number of degrees

awarded. It is estimated that the province needs 15,000 to 20,000 new

post-secondary spaces just to bring it up to the current national

average.

[10:45]

The recently

announced "Access for All" policy, which aims to create 15,000 new

university spaces, one new interior university and new regional degree

programs, will only remedy some of the problems created by past

underfunding and the closure of the interior university. An ironic

contradiction of the "Access for All" initiative is that student

assistance in this budget is to be cut by $7.5 million. Some of the

education officials I talked to suggested we should rename the program

"access for the few."

Equally distressing is that senior

officials at the universities, who I've met with recently, have told me

that the $35 million increase will do little to alleviate their

underfunding problems because too much of the money is tied to specific

initiatives controlled by the province. The post-secondary institutions

do not have discretionary access to the funds necessary to meet their

priorities.

In health care, the major preoccupation of

government appears to be with controlling usage and costs associated

with increasing premiums and user fees. For example, there have been

user-fee increases in all long-term-care facilities. In 1987 the

elderly began to pay 75 percent of dispensing fees for prescription

drugs. As I have already outlined, MSP premiums were boosted

dramatically last year, this budget imposes further increases of $37.5

million. At the same time, key areas of the health care system have

been neglected. Poor planning and insufficient investment in long-term

care and community care have increased pressures in acute care

hospitals and have led to long waiting-lists for surgery.

Between

1983-84 and 1988-89, real spending on long-term care and home care

dropped from $155 to $147 per capita. In 1988 Statistics Canada data

shows that B.C. has the second-lowest level of operating expenditures

per patient-day in Canada. In May 1988, it was estimated that almost

21,000 British Columbians were on waiting-lists for elective surgery at

20 major hospitals; about 80 percent were facing a wait of at least two

months. In June 1988, there was a waiting list of 300 cancer patients

seeking radiation therapy at the Maxwell Evans Clinic in Vancouver. In

March 1989, there were 225 people on waiting-lists for cardiac surgery

at three major hospitals.

Preventive care, which has the

potential to reduce the demand for high-cost hospital and physician

services, has remained a very small part of the health care budget —

under 2 percent in this budget. Recent studies by the Toronto city

department of health show that a key component of preventive health

care is adequate social programs to reduce poverty. Families below the

poverty line have double the infant mortality rate and 1.3 times the

rate of cancer. Under this government, the number of families in

British Columbia below the poverty line has increased from 64,100 in

1981 to 105,500 in 1986. As studies show, this dramatically increases

the rates of infant mortality and cancer.

In housing,

neglect, poor planning and underfunding have created a crisis. The

problems are well known. In greater Vancouver the average price of a

small family dwelling has increased by 65 percent since 1987, putting

the dream of home ownership well beyond the reach of the average buyer.

Townhouse and condominium prices have increased by 47 percent during

the same period. Vacancy rates for rental housing are virtually zero,

and there are long waiting-lists for non-market housing.

Direct

provincial funding for this type of housing has been erratic and has

shown a serious decline in real terms. Between 1987 and 1988, for

example, direct provincial financing for housing programs was more than

cut in half under this administration — from $56 million to $22

million. Only 1, 683 units of non-profit housing were funded in 1987,

compared to a waiting-list of over 17,000 people. This budget proposes

an equally inadequate commitment of 1,800 units for 1989-90. The Crown

land special account which provides funding for residential land

development was reduced under this government from $228 million in

1988, leaving a balance of just $50 million.

With the

abolition of rent review and the rentalsman as part of the Social

Credit government's so-called restraint package, British Columbia

tenants now have no real protection against arbitrary evictions and

excessive rent increases. Vacancy rates are so low that tenants do not

have the realistic choice to move and are too poor to get into the

home-buyer market. The budget measures for housing will do little to

resolve a crisis created by years of neglect by successive Social

Credit administrations. The proposals are misguided and

counterproductive.

The property purchase tax relief

promises support for housing that costs less than $150,000. First of

all, there is virtually no family housing available at prices under

$150,000 in areas such as Vancouver which are experiencing the housing

shortage. Even if there were, this program requires people to go

further into debt to be able to take advantage of the property tax

relief. Encouraging family debt is hardly the basis of a sound housing

strategy.

[ Page 5783 ]

The

budget also proposes increases in the SAFER grant and a temporary new

renters' tax reduction. Virtually every study has shown that this type

of assistance provided to renters will simply increase rents and line

the pockets of landlords in a tight housing market, without adequate

rent review measures. The budget proposes interest subsidies for

developers. Again, almost all the studies have shown that programs to

subsidize developers will increase developers' profits, not the supply

of affordable housing. In short, the budget proposes a series of ad hoc

measures which will do little to solve the housing crisis in the lower

mainland,

The provision of adequate levels of social

assistance and social services is an investment in our future. With the

increase in the number of single-parent families, the health and

productivity of our next generation depends on the level of such

services. Again, the Social Credit government's record in this area is

poor.

In 1980 a family of four received $734 a month

from Guaranteed Available Income for Need support payments. In 1989 a

family would require $1,160 to maintain an equivalent standard of

living. However, GAIN rates in 1989 were only $973 per month. This

budget provides a miserly increase of only $26 a month. This represents

a decline of approximately 15 percent in the real standards of living

of our poorest citizens relative to 1980. In 1980 a family of four on

GAIN assistance had an income 40 percent below the poverty line. In

1989 the same family’s income is 50 percent below the poverty line.

The

situation is no better for the working poor. In 1980 the minimum wage

in B.C. was 6 percent above the poverty line. In 1988, despite an

increase to $4.50 an hour, the minimum wage was 19 percent below the

poverty line. The budget contains no proposed increase or even mention

of the inadequacy of the minimum wage. As is well known, this

government tried to add insult to injury last year by cutting GAIN

support payments for single-parent families by $50 a month.

The

third criterion for evaluating the budget is stability, the achievement

of a stable and consistent fiscal environment. In order to invest in

and plan their economic future, individuals, groups and corporations

need some assurance that there will not be dramatic or capricious

changes in government policies. Any review of the record represented by

the last five provincial budgets shows that the Social Credit

government has failed to provide a stable economic environment. If

there is any clear tendency which stands out in this record, it is the

failure to set a consistent or coherent direction.

The

government, Mr. Speaker, is erratic and unstable. In the area of

taxation we've experienced sharp and unexpected shifts in direction.

Nonresidential property taxes were slashed by $275 million in 1985,

only to be boosted by $46 million in 1988. Small business received a

temporary two-year employment tax credit worth $75 million in 1985

followed by large taxes increases of $37 million in 1987 and then a cut

of $30 million in 1988. Rather than increasing user fees, premiums and

other charges gradually, to keep pace with the cost of living, dramatic

increases are introduced in a single year after years of neglect: for

example, almost $200 million in fee increases in 1988 alone.

the area of spending and investment priorities, this government's

record is equally erratic. In forest management, years of insufficient

funding for silviculture are followed by dramatic increases, resulting

in bottlenecks, inefficiencies and wasted resources. In the

environment, years of indifference are followed by newfound expressions

of concern and promises to mend past errors. In education, a systematic

and deliberate policy of underfunding is followed by a crash program

which attempts to correct an accumulation of past problems. In advanced

education, the closure of an interior university is followed by the

promise to build a new university in the interior. In the area of

women's issues, the government has shown nothing but contempt for

women's rights; now it claims it wants to create a ministry of women,

but there's not a penny in the budget for new programs for women. In

housing, programs are slashed, and then the government attempts to

resolve a housing crisis overnight by misguided housing programs. This

sort of instability, Mr. Speaker, is bad policy. It's bad economics.

And it's bad government.

Yesterday's speech launched the

first provincial budget of the new decade of the 1990s. As we move into

the nineties, what sort of vision has the government presented, and

what sort of vision are British Columbians seeking? Regrettably, this

Social Credit government has offered us a reinforcement of unfairness,

a perpetuation of the dual economy — of two British Columbias — a continuation of the policies of neglect, and a failure to do anything real or meaningful about sustainable development.

British Columbians have a right to expect a good deal better than that, for — even with a Social Credit government —

British Columbia remains one of the most beautiful and most fortunate

communities on this planet. British Columbia is a rich province with a

tremendous amount of potential. Our future can be tremendously bright,

and our citizens know it; that's why they've been looking to this

assembly and to this government here for some leadership and some

vision. As we move into the 1990s, I believe British Columbians are

looking for policies which will restore fairness to our society,

policies which will ensure a healthy future for our children and a

stable, diversified and sustainable economy. British Columbians are

looking for policies which could lead the world in protection and

enhancement of the environment.

For all these reasons and

many more, I believe British Columbians are extremely disappointed with

yesterday's smoke-and -mirrors effort. For those British Columbians,

I'm happy to bring some good and hopeful news. There is a group that is

working as hard as humanly possible to bring forward the kinds of

policies this province so urgently needs and deserves. That group, of

course, is the New Democrats and the caucus right here in Victoria.

There is an alternative

[ Page 5784 ]

the erratic and unfair approach of this Social Credit government.

British Columbians deserve better, and in the days ahead, as the debate

on this proceeds, it will be our privilege to outline some of the ways

we can realize the aspirations that British Columbians rightfully hold.

[11:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I move we adjourn debate on the budget until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1989

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

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation

of government programs until the government's estimates for 1989-90

have been debated and voted upon in this Assembly. This supply will

provide interim supply for the first three-month period of the 1989-90

fiscal year which begins tomorrow.

This interim supply is

urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments,

including GAIN, payments to hospitals, school districts, universities

and social agencies and the government's payroll may continue

uninterrupted. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of

this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order

81 and be permitted to be advanced, through all stages this day. Mr.

Speaker, I move first reading.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER :

The minister has asked that the bill be put forth under the emergency

proceeding. In past situations, we have approved it. I would agree, and

we will listen to the comments from the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE :

We agree that it should proceed today and welcome the debate at

committee stage of a number of the items outlined in the warrants.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER : Members, if you would just remain in your seats for a few minutes, the bill will be circulated right now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Speaking to second reading, this supply bill is

in the general form of previous supply bills. The first

section requests one-quarter

of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government.

The second

section requests one-quarter of the disbursement amount required

for the government's fully recoverable ministry-related financing transactions

which appear in

schedule D of the estimates. The third

section requests an amount

of $20 million for the Purchasing Commission working capital account. This increase

in the statutory authority reflects an increase in the delivery of goods and

services provided through this account.

Finally,

I point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill in

order to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the

1989-90 fiscal year.

I move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. ROSE :

just a matter of clarification. When we get to the schedule, will we be

permitted to direct our questions to the Minister of Finance only or

will the line ministers be prepared to respond to these various items?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I understand the line ministers will be able to respond to the various items.

MR. ROSE : Some are absent.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We'll deal with each one separately, hon. member.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We have enough strength over here....

MR. ROSE : I won't comment on your strength — one way or the other.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We'll deal with the

schedule now, hon. members, and take each warrant separately.

Warrant 1 approved.

On warrant 2.

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't see the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) here, so I'll put my

question to the Minister of Finance. I note that under the

schedule

here there is an allocation of $7 million, some of which is

appropriated for "native title trials." I'm wondering if I can get some

clarification as to what that consists of.

[ Page 5785 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER : This refers to an item of $800,000 in the legal services branch to handle the issues of native titles.

MR. SIHOTA : Is the minister saying that $800,000 relates towards ongoing litigation on native trials?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : This refers to continuation of the Delgam Uukw trial and preparation of the Pasco trial.

MR. SIHOTA : Sorry, I didn't hear the last one.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The Pasco trial.

MR. SIHOTA :

The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) is back. I'm wondering if the minister

could outline those two trials again so the member for Atlin can hear

those as well. He may be more familiar with them than I am.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : He can't repeat everything he said. He wasn't even in the House.

HON. MR. REE : It's in Hansard .

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Out of a total request of $2,450,000 for that branch, $800,000 applies

to the issues of native title. That represents the sums for the

continuation of the Delgam Uukw trial and the preparation of the Pasco

trial.

MR. SIHOTA : I'd like to know if those trials are currently before the courts.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I understand the issue, it deals with continuation of the Delgam

Uukw trial and preparation of the Pasco trial, so I assume that Pasco

is not yet before the courts but the other one is.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm just trying to understand the immediate and urgent requirement for

these funds. These trials are ongoing. We've got counsel involved on

them in one case, and in the other case we're not even before the

courts. I don't understand why it is that that expenditure is immediate

and urgent. Apart from the philosophical reason, which we'll get into

later on this is why we've got some concerns about it, I don't

understand why that expenditure is immediate and urgent. I would like

some clarification from the minister, because — as we've gone through this before —

the way in which these warrants ought to be approved is if the

expenditure is both immediate and urgent. I am trying to understand

what is pressing with respect to these cases.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I don't know quite what the hon. member would suggest as an

alternative. Surely you are not suggesting that the Crown should enter

preparatory work for a trial ill-prepared or unprepared. The fact of

the matter is that sums are required to perform that function. I am a

bit surprised at the implications behind the question.

the judgment of the government, there is a need to spend further sums

as a consequence of the ongoing Delgam Uukw trial, and there is an

equally urgent need to do additional preparatory work beyond the sums

anticipated originally, getting ready for the Pasco trial. It seems to

me that that's self-evident. I don't know what more I can add to help

the hon. member,

MR. SIHOTA : I don't want to

belabour the point, but we are talking about $800,000, and I am trying

to understand how one needs $800,000 immediately and urgently in order

to prepare either for a trial that is before the courts or for one that

is about to come up before the courts. It is an enormous amount of

money, and I don't know when we will get through to completing the

estimates for the Ministry of Attorney-General, but what I am getting

at is that it's an inordinately large pool of money for litigation.

Quite

frankly, to someone who has been involved in litigation, it boggles the

mind to try to understand why one would need $800,000 to proceed with

or prepare for litigation. I can certainly see disbursements and

expenses, and if this is contracted out to a private firm — which may or may not be the case, but let's assume that it is — there may be a requirement for fees to be paid to that firm on an ongoing basis, all of which I can understand.

[11:15]

But I don't understand why such an inordinately large amount of

$800,000 is required, and that's what I am trying to determine from the

minister, because the rule is that it must be immediate and urgent.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The hon. member seems concerned that these trials are costly; I also am

concerned that they are costly. I suppose that's a function of the

technicalities of the issue. It certainly is a function of the gravity

of the issue. I think that we take the issue surrounding these native

matters very seriously, because we are extremely sensitive to the need

to treat our native population fairly and equitably.

In the

interests of all British Columbians, including the natives, it's

appropriate that the government expend sufficient financial resources

to do that. The hon. member, I gather, hasn't had much experience in

the issue of native trials, but it's my understanding that historically

they are very expensive. The federal government handles a large part of

that expenditure on behalf of the natives, which is right and

appropriate, and we also — representing all citizens, including natives — have to expend similar sums.

The

fact of the matter is that the Delgam trial is anticipated to exceed

the allocation previously provided for it, and that the trial

preparation on the Pasco matter is now projected also to exceed the

original allocations, The House should be aware that when the

Attorney-General makes requests for funding of specific trials,

Treasury Board examines very closely the provisions they require and

frequently gives them advice about how much the government can be

prepared to expend on a particular issue.

[ Page 5786 ]

this case, obviously the Treasury Board was extremely frugal with the

request of the Attorney-General, and upon subsequent review and

explanation as to the legalities and technicalities involved, the

government agreed that we had to provide the funding, if only in the

interests of protecting the people of British Columbia.

So we are very pleased to provide this extra funding and are satisfied that it is well spent and indeed urgent.

MR. GUNO :

The minister talks about treating the native people fairly and

equitably. Perhaps you ought to try negotiating instead of spending all

this money in court.

You also talked about the gravity of

the issue, and I am just wondering whether it might be helpful for us

to assess the urgency and immediacy of this problem if you would just

relate to us exactly what is the grave issue at stake.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, I take it the minister is not going to answer the question. Could he tell us what the gravity of the issue here is?

MR. WILLIAMS : He's in trouble; he's asking the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) for advice.

AN HON. MEMBER : He's in more trouble now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Well, I'm a little bit surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the

opposition should try to make so light of the issues and the plight of

the native people in our province. I'm a little bit surprised that

you're trying to take advantage of these delicate matters in this

forum. I repeat again: it is the opinion of the government that the

need to provide this extra funding for these important court cases is

urgent and has top priority, and therefore I request the approval of

this House.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm not satisfied at all

with the minister's explanations. It seems to me that if the minister

wants to come before the House and ask for an expenditure of $800,000

for litigation, he ought to be able to explain just why it's immediate

and urgent.

I would grant the minister this: he's not the

minister responsible, and he's only got briefing notes provided by the

Ministry of Attorney-General. But there has to be some basis for being

able to put forward a case as to why that expenditure is necessary, in

keeping with the rules. That hasn't been provided, and I'm not prepared

to vote in favour of allowing this to go through. It's an incredible

amount of money.

The second point — and I'll reinforce what my friend from Atlin had to say —

is that the fact of the matter is that this government's approach

toward the native issue is totally misguided. It is an approach of

harassment. It is an approach of confrontation. And it doesn't begin to

deal with the vital need of proceeding with settlement and negotiation

with the natives. This type of confrontational approach, Mr. Minister,

you know doesn't work. You saw a court decision that came down

yesterday in Saanich, and the day before out of Vancouver, on a

taxation measure. The courts are giving this government an indication

that it ought....

HON. MR. BRUMMET : On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we're talking about the funding to pay

the bills for this, or whether that member is trying to argue in here

the case that is to be before the courts?

MR. ROSE :

On the same point of order, during committee stage it's usually pretty

open, and you can make statements and ask questions, as long as you

don't exceed 15 minutes. I know that the Minister of Education has been

around here a long time, but I'm sure he must have a look at the little

rule book and clear up all this confusion.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

There is no question, hon. members, that in committee stage, as in

other times during our debate, we should be particularly relevant. I

would ask that if the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew wishes to

continue, he be relevant to the case in point, which is warrant 2.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Point of order. Mr. Chairman, you said it very well. The opposition

member and the opposition House Leader know very well that when you're

in committee the comments and questions must be pertinent to the

particular

section of the bill being debated. The member has strayed

far from the intent or purpose of the warrant, and is clearly just not

satisfied with the answer given to him by the Minister of Finance.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, one would not have to wander at all if the minister was

prepared to explain why this is immediate and urgent, in keeping with

his requirement under the statute.

I have another question that relates to another matter. We'll let the minister off the hook for the time being on this stuff.

"Volume increases under the Young Offenders Act" is another explanation

that's attached to the warrant. I'm wondering if the minister could

just elaborate on that. What are the volume increases which are referred to?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, the allocation under this category amounts to $300,000,

dealing with family law. Cases under the Young Offenders Act have

increased significantly, as everyone predicted when the legislation was

brought forward by the federal government, and it does require and did

require an additional $200,000 to cover the cost of those cases. I

think, also, the regular ad hoc work needed an extra budget allocation

of $100,000. That's a combined amount of $300,000, under the Young

Offenders Act.

Warrant 2 approved on division.

Warrant 3 approved.

[ Page 5787 ]

On warrant 4.

MR. MILLER :

I tried to trace a little history in determining why this warrant was

required, and I did some research late last night, in terms of the

previous setting-up, I believe in 1986, of the forest stand management

fund, which at that time was set up as a fund that would receive

contributions from outside sources. I can't recall the exact total the

government hoped to achieve in that fund. They never did achieve it.

Generally they were trying to set up a fund to enhance forest

management, particularly silviculture work and intensive silviculture

work.

I believe last year that fund was folded into general

accounts under the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act.

During debate on that the minister said that the government would be

establishing two new special funds: "To achieve this separation, this

bill, effective March 31, 1988, will convert all existing special funds

into special accounts, which will now be part of the general fund. It

is not intended that this change will affect the operation of the

special funds in any way or lessen the government's commitment to the

programs they support."

I will try to put all of my remarks

in my initial comments. If we move from that, clearly that was not the

case. If the government now has to pass a special warrant of $600,000

"to provide funding for the implementation of the forestry enhancement

program," all of a sudden we have a third program to conduct intensive

silviculture treatments on Crown and private lands, providing job

training and experience to unemployed social assistance recipients. The

word "erratic" keeps popping in here.

Then I turn to the

JobTrac program. I debated fairly extensively in estimates last year

with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), who regrettably is not

here. The fact that the $20 million JobTrac program and the provision

particularly citing the Vancouver Island mayors' program, which

received a contribution of $5.5 million.... According to a Sterling

Wood study done of the effectiveness of that $5.5 million, it in fact

produced a benefit of some $20 million to the forest lands and to those

young people who were taken off social assistance. That was scrapped

last year as well.

Quoting from the debate on that, I asked the Minister of Forests — pleaded with him —

to continue some type of activity to assist these young people,

particularly those on social assistance. The Minister of Forests

responded on June 2: "1 am responsible for Crown lands. I am not

responsible for any job training programs. We don't have funding for

social services and job training." So despite the pleas of me and

others at that time ' the minister said: "Forget it." Now we find this

special warrant.

Perhaps the minister could advise the

committee when the forestry enhancement program was established and

what kind of budget allocation was foreseen. I will leave it at that

and then continue with a few more questions.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The forestry enhancement program is a retitled and redefined

consequence of amending the silviculture enhancement program. I believe

the view was that the title "forestry enhancement program" more

properly captures all of the activities. The initiative received that

retitling during the year.

[11:30]

MR. MILLER : Could you advise us briefly when it was announced and who announced it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It didn't require an announcement. All we did, as I understand it,

was.... The line ministry decided to redefine the title of the program.

It didn't require a press release. We try to limit the amount of money

we spend on those pufferies. All we did was change the title of the

initiative.

MR. MILLER : Would the minister advise

which minister announced the program? Surely, Mr. Minister of Finance,

you're the person who controls the purse-strings. Presumably this

proposal came before you in some respects. Some minister brought it

before you and said: "I want some money to do a specific thing." Could

you advise us who that was?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I

don't know whether the difficulty here is my explanation or the hon.

member's perception of what I am saying. I am saying to the hon. member

that there is no new program here. We are dealing with a retitling of

an existing program. I can't give you the date and time the staff in

the line ministry decided they needed to retitle it. It might have been

an exercise in staring at the coiling at 3 a.m. in the morning, for all

I know. I fail to see the relevance or import of the question.

The

issue here is: do we need extra money urgently? Did we have to spend

extra money urgently in order to fund this very popular employment

program? The answer is yes, and we've asked the House to provide moneys

for that purpose with this special warrant. As to the title of the

program, I repeat: it's not a new program; it's a retitling of the old

silviculture enhancement program.

MR. MILLER : I

don't know why the minister doesn't want to advise that the program was

announced by the Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North

Coast and Minister Responsible for Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts), but

nonetheless it's a warrant under the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Parker).

All right, I accept the fact.... Perhaps the

minister could advise in terms of the emergent reason for that, what

particular areas.... I'll just go through a list of questions. Perhaps

you could jot them down. What work was done with the money? How many

people from social assistance were assisted or were employed in the

program? Where was the work done? On what Crown land? Where in the

province was it done? What Crown land was worked on? What private land

was worked on?

[ Page 5788 ]

Secondly,

with respect to the private land, who gets the benefit of the work done

on the private land? Obviously this was an important item that went

past the minister. He got all the details about the program. Could the

minister answer those questions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

It's always a delight to stand up and further elucidate so that the

hon. members of the opposition might better understand the spoken and

written word.

The program, as the hon. member well knows,

was intended to provide job training and experience to unemployed

social assistance recipients and to conduct....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I understand it, hon. member, one of the questions was: what is the

program intended to do? I'm attempting to answer that question, if you

don't mind.

The program was designed to provide job

training and experience and also to conduct intensive silviculture

treatments on Crown and private lands. The specific questions the hon.

member asked will obviously have to be taken as notice. We didn't come

burdened with all of that detailed information to this discussion this

morning. We'd be happy to provide it in the fullness of time and in the

interests of frank and open government.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Chairman, you see my dilemma —

or my difficulty. I've gone through three separate programs that the

government has announced in two years with a great deal of fanfare and

then scrapped with little notice. In terms of the kind of erratic

behaviour that my colleague for Vancouver East talked about in his

response to the budget speech.... Then it's an emergent program that

somehow requires a special warrant of $600, 000. When we ask some basic

questions about it, we don't get any answers.

I think it's unfortunate. It's a goofy way to do business.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I am truly surprised that the opposition would attempt to speak against

a program to employ the unemployed. I just find it astounding. The fact

of the matter is that the program was very popular; it was very

successful. We were able to place many unemployed under its funding.

Because it was so popular, they needed more money in order to continue

to employ those people.

The money is spent. We're here, as

a matter of formality, to inform the House we spent the money and how

we spent it. I gather from the hon. member's comments that he seems to

be suggesting that the money was somehow misspent. I'm truly astounded.

just heard the reply to the budget speech from the official critic of

the opposition, and he seemed to be saying that we weren't doing enough

in the area of job creation. Here's a program that did exactly that,

was very popular and needed another $600,000 to fund the

overexpenditure, and the opposition is attempting — I gather — to speak against it, which is very surprising.

MR. MILLER :

Not only does this government not listen to the people of British

Columbia; the Minister of Finance didn't listen to me. I find it

somewhat strange to be castigated by the Minister of Finance for not

supporting a measly $600,000 when I argued strenuously for $20 million

last year and was turned down by this government. It was some

meaningful money — $20 million — to do some meaningful work

with young people in this province, not $600,000 snuck in through a

special warrant where the minister can't even advise where the work

took place and how many people benefited.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The issue under discussion is

whether the government appropriately spent $600,000 in the public

interest on the basis of urgency and need — not what the hon. member might have said a year ago during debates.

Warrants 4 and 5 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI :

May I ask the House to welcome to the House my youngest children and

our family friend: my son Robert, who is nine; my son Daniel, who is

six; and our family friend, Lisa Duprey, who turned 47 yesterday.

On warrant 6.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Warrant 6 deals with matters in the continuing care area of the

Ministry of Health budget. I would first like to ask the Minister of

Health to please explain the rather unusual wording in this particular

warrant. It talks about funding a delay in income testing, and I need

to understand what that particular wording means. I have never known of

a delay being funded. What does that particular phrasing and wording

mean?

HON. MR. DUECK : The income testing was not

implemented. Therefore, having been in the budget last year, we need

that extra money because we did not get that revenue. It's not delayed;

it just has not been implemented,

MS. A. HAGEN : I

would like the minister to confirm that the policy decision to

income-test the revenues of people in long-term-care facilities and

people who are receiving homemaker care services, a policy decision

that we discussed extensively during the last session of this House

during his estimates, is also rescinded; that it is no longer the

policy of this government. The minister has said we didn't implement

the proposed policy; it's not just a question of

[ Page 5789 ]

delay.

I want to confirm that it is something we did not implement. Will he

confirm that it is no longer the policy of this government to impose

user fees based on income testing for facility care and homemaker

services?

HON. MR. DUECK : I believe we're speaking

of last year's budget, not of what may happen in the future, although I

have no intention of bringing it back. We're speaking about funding in

the past, about moneys we did not collect because we did not implement

income testing. Therefore there's a shortfall, and that money is

required.

MS. A. HAGEN : I thank the minister for his

response, and I hope that in that response is a policy intention of

this government. We will be very pleased if that is indeed the intent

of his remarks.

A further part of this warrant speaks of

negotiated wage and benefit increases for grant-funded agencies, which

I know means those non-profit organizations in the long-term-care field

that negotiate with their employers for wages and benefits. Does this

warrant provide for full coverage of the cost of wages and benefits

negotiated by these grant agencies for home support workers and

long-term care facility staffs? If it does not, why not? If the answer

is yes, the second part of the question doesn't pertain, but if indeed

it does not cover the full cost, could the minister explain why not?

HON. MR. DUECK :

As the member mentioned, this is a wage increase for grant-funded

agencies, and I assume it covers the total increase of those

negotiations.

MS. A. HAGEN : I would presume with

that answer that when he's able to check with his staff, the minister

would be prepared to confirm that. Perhaps the minister would be

prepared to do that.

Finally, I would like to ask what

amount of the $14 million in this particular warrant is actually

committed to the income-testing portion of the budget and to the fact

that that was not implemented. There are three items in this particular

warrant: can either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Finance

say what portion was expended for care facilities and homemaker

services in lieu of the actual user fees that were proposed in last

year's session?

HON. MR. DUECK : Yes. The delay you mentioned was not the proper wording. We did not implement, and that was at a cost of $7,722,000.

Warrant 6 approved.

On warrant 7.

MR. ROSE :

I am intrigued by the item here about expanding transit services in

Abbotsford, Matsqui and Chilliwack, and wondered if there were similar

programs for Coquitlam and Dewdney. I know this would appeal to your

heart, Mr. Chairman. We desperately need it there. Were there no

purchases of buses at all between '82 and '88? How much was spent on

buses? What does "implementing other capital programs" really mean?

HON. MR. REID :

In response to that, as the alternate for the Minister of Municipal

Affairs on transit issues, warrant 7 is to do with custom transit

service, which is the handyDART improvements plus the increased

allocation and requirement for some buses to replace some worn out

because of the service out to Coquitlam and to the South Surrey-White

Rock area and the long distances those buses travel every day. I would

suggest that some of these buses are to be allocated to the Coquitlam

division, which services Maple Ridge; and the Langley addition to the

Vancouver regional transit system is all a part of this vote.

MR. ROSE :

I thank the minister for his response. I wonder if he could give us any

numbers in terms of what we can look for in expansion in the Maple

Ridge-Port Moody-Coquitlam area.

[11:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I am sorry, but that does not fall within the perimeters of standing order 61 on relevancy.

MR. ROSE :

Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I would want to ask you for clarification

on why, since it says "replace diesel buses, " the number of diesel

buses is not relevant. That's all I am asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I suppose that the big problem, hon. member, is that this would appear to me to involve some future expenditures.

MR. ROSE : Could I point out to you, sir — not questioning your great wisdom in this matter —

that this is money that has been spent. That's why it is called a

supplementary estimate. I wonder if perhaps it would be possible to

reconsider, if the minister does have the response ready.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Does the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary wish to respond?

HON. MR. REID :

In response to the member's question, the description on the

supplementary or the warrant request does not indicate the numbers of

buses involved. It does cover the amounts for the custom transit

expansion, but it doesn't indicate the numbers of diesel buses. Without

reading the warrant request, Mr. Member, I do not have specifics about

the numbers of buses involved.

MR. ROSE : I wonder if

the minister would be prepared to take my question as notice for

another time, because the people in my community are poorly served and

are most anxious for any kind of daylight in the traffic gridlock we

have in our area.

HON. MR. REID : I will take the question on the number of vehicles as notice and will respond.

[ Page 5790 ]

Warrant 7 approved.

On warrant 8.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

This special warrant I find very perplexing, and I am glad the Minister

of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is here to shed some light on

it, particularly in light of some of the comments of the government in

the throne speech.

This warrant asks for additional

spending last year of $46,800,000 for greater than anticipated income

assistance caseloads. I am confused by that, and I am hoping the

minister can shed some light, given the fact that this government in

the budget speech bragged about the fact that the caseload for this

year is lower than last year, and last year was in turn lower than the

previous year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'd be happy to,

Mr. Chairman. We anticipated a greater drop in the caseload than

happened. We anticipated it for several reasons: (1) because of the

improving economy, but (2) because we had introduced programs that we

had thought would be up and running a little more quickly than expected

to get people off income assistance. The caseloads did go down, and

they went down significantly, but I guess we were a little

over-optimistic and therefore required a special warrant.

The

GAIN budget is a best-guess case at best every year. We take an

estimate between the highs and the lows of what are projected, and it

is virtually impossible to meet it head on. So we've had to ask for a

special warrant, bearing in mind that we are there to meet the needs of

British Columbians, whatever those needs happen to be. If it requires

more money, then we go back for a warrant for some extra money. That is

exactly what has happened here.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I

find it interesting the minister indicating that they were a little

overoptimistic. We are looking at a $46 million overrun. I find that

very difficult to understand.

The minister talked about the

other issues in this warrant and I will go on to question them. First

of all, I re-emphasize that the warrant asks for this increased money

because of an increase in caseloads — not that they underestimated

but that there was an increase in the caseloads. That was specifically

in the category of single-parent families. The minister is saying that

he did not anticipate those additional single-parent families. We have

not seen — and this warrant does not indicate — additional

services to those families or that those families are particularly more

expensive to service. It is the very fact that this ministry is out of

touch; it does not know who is out there to begin with.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, it appears that the opposition wishes to politic here

instead of stick to standing order 61 and be relevant to the purpose

for the warrant. Madam Member, there was no overrun as you insinuated.

Never did I use the term overrun. We were a little optimistic and

thought we might reduce the caseloads a little more than we did.

ran into some problems of recruitment in hiring new financial aid

workers. We couldn't get them up as quickly as possible. We ran into a

work stoppage that we hadn't anticipated, which put us back a little

further. The caseloads were down. I didn't say there was an increase in

caseloads; the caseloads were down, but not as far as we had

anticipated.

We went back thinking that we would need an

extra $54.8 million, but some of it had been picked up in efficiencies

elsewhere. Therefore we asked for a warrant for $46 million. But now we

find that we will require $50.8 million for the increase in the GAIN

budget rather than $54.8 million. As I said, you make the best estimate

you can. If you are within three or four million dollars - as we were

when we asked for this warrant — that's pretty close.

didn't make light of the fact at all that it's not a large amount. You

must bear in mind, however, that the total GAIN budget is in the area

of $900 million. When we can come in this close, I think it's a

reasonably good estimate. I want to re-emphasize the fact that we are

there to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia no matter

what they are and no matter what increase in budget is required.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The minister says that this $46 million overrun is an underestimation.

For further clarification the minister says that $46.8 million is not

itself the amount needed but is instead $50.8 million. Could the

minister clarify: are we talking about an overrun, a special warrant

for $46.8 million or $50.8 million?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

For some reason the member has difficulty in hearing. I said

specifically that this is not an overrun, and it is not. We anticipated

our GAIN budget, then we went to Treasury Board and said to them: "We

think that we can cut that budget by a certain amount." We were a

little optimistic in the amount we thought we could cut the budget by.

We had to go back to Treasury Board and say: "We are not going to meet

the objectives we thought we would. We thought we could reduce the

caseloads further than we did. However, we didn't quite make it.

The reduction in caseloads has been less than originally estimated, with the basic income assistance category — single men, couples and two-parent family caseloads —

being down. But single women and one-parent family caseloads were up,

which means that the more costly caseloads have remained as ministry

clients.

The mix of clients has changed. As I said, we

thought we would have our new financial assistance workers in place

sooner than we did. We ran into some recruitment problems.

MR. WILLIAMS : What difference would it make?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It would have made a tremendous difference.

MR. WILLIAMS : In what way?

[ Page 5791 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Because we would have had more people back into the workforce. The

program is now up and running and working well, and every month we are

getting more people back into the workforce than ever before. The new

employment-plus job creation program did not begin until June '88,

which meant that the most advantageous time of year — spring and summer —

was lost to us. Then we ran into the recruitment problem and the labour

dispute, and because of that we didn't get up and running as quick as

we could. But in this coming year, I can assure the member that the

program is up and running, the financial assistance workers are in

place, and you will see a dramatic reduction in the caseload.

should add that we also extended the $50 a month for employable single

parents to all single parents. When we reinstated it, we spread the net

to catch all single parents, no matter what the age of their children.

So that cost the ministry some extra, but it was well received and

needed by British Columbians. We went far beyond what was in place

before.

As I said, we were a little overoptimistic, but I

don't see that as a sin. We make the best guess we can, and whatever is

required, that's what we spend.

MS. SMALLWOOD : So

the minister has admitted that due to the fact the ministry is unable

to estimate who needs income assistance, and due to poor planning and

poor implementation of programs, the employment programs were not on

line to alleviate poverty in this province, The ministry has a $46.8

million overrun.

Perhaps the minister can indicate to us

how many people actually obtained jobs with these so-called employment

programs. Are they working now, or are we facing an additional overrun

for the coming year? Can the minister indicate how much money was saved

by taking $50 a month out of the mouths of women and children in this

province for two consecutive months and not retroactively replacing

that $50 cutback?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It appears that the member wishes to do my ministry estimates now, instead of waiting until the appropriate time.

The

member insists on calling it an overrun when it was nothing of the

sort. It's virtually impossible at the beginning of a year to estimate

exactly how much you're going to need for the GAIN budget. It's in the

area of $900 million, and if we can come within 4 percent or 5 percent,

I think that estimate is reasonably accurate.

Would the

member have us not spend that money and take it out of programs?

Perhaps she could tell me which program we could take it out of.

We sought a special warrant in the amount of $46.8 million to cover an anticipated net overexpenditure of vote 62 —

ministry programs contained within the 1988-89 estimates. The $46.8

million is required to fund what we projected at the time we asked for

the warrant for an overexpenditure of our estimates in the GAIN subvote

totalling; our estimates were not exactly accurate. We expected $54.8

million less projected net underexpenditures, but because of $8 million

in other sub votes, including $3.1 million in frozen funds, the

requested amount does not include the net salary increase necessitated

by the recent salary awards to BCGEU and excluded personnel; this is

under separate review. But it did affect us in getting our program up

and running.

[12:00]

An overexpenditure of $56.3 million is projected for the income

assistance program, partly offset by a forecast under expenditure of

$1.5 million in other votes. We could go on ad nauseam debating whether

you would call it an overrun or an overexpenditure or whatever you want

to call it, but it was part of the best guess we could give the

Minister of Finance at the beginning of the year on a $900 million

budget. I'm the first to admit that we were a little over-optimistic in

the amount we would reduce the caseload by. However, whatever is

required, that is what we spend. As you might be aware, our ministry

budget is demand-driven, and we don't have total control over that

portion of our budget under the GAIN Act.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm disappointed that the minister seems incapable of answering my

questions. I have repeatedly asked the minister for information: the

number of people who got jobs in this so-called program to alleviate

poverty; the number of people....

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

On a point of order, the member is clearly asking questions that would

pertain to my estimates and not to the necessity of warrant 7. 1 would

refer her to standing order 61 (2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole

must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Relevancy, of course, is very important in debate such as this. Also,

standing order 61 (2), for the benefit of hon. members, was changed

when we revamped the standing orders of this House. The change was that

the decision of the Chair could not be challenged in these matters.

It was agreed in the case of relevancy, and particularly in items that refer to estimates — and I would suggest that warrants are similar in many ways to the estimates —

that the Chair would normally give the benefit of doubt to the member

asking the question. Having said that, I do think we must try and

remain constantly within the bounds of relevancy in order that we might

carry out our duties within this House in the most efficient manner.

Would the member continue, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The point of the questioning is to account for taxpayers' money, to

account for effectiveness and efficiency in the spending of $46.8

million of taxpayers' money. What we are talking about is the

effectiveness of this ministry's programs to alleviate poverty —

its mandate. I have repeatedly asked questions about the specifics of

this warrant and will again ask the minister to provide information

[ Page 5792 ]

about the amount of money saved by taking that $50 for two months out of the mouths of children and women in this province.

The

minister indicates that because of the pressure and shame that was

brought to bear on the ministry as a result of its action, you only

partially rescinded your policy to cut that $50. I would emphasize that

the ministry saved a considerable amount of money by cutting $50 off of

the income assistance for unemployed single people. That was never

reinstated. The ministry made money on that cut.

I am

confused by the need for an additional $46.8 million. The ministry, I

would suggest, has an overrun of $46.8 million because of two reasons.

The reorganization of the ministry has added a significant number of

supervisory staff, which is an increase in cost that is not directly

put into the pockets of the poor in this province. I further suggest,

in my closing statement, that this overrun is an indication of years of

neglect which have cost this ministry a significant amount of money

because of crisis intervention and crisis management.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The member insists on politicking on this — and, yes, always at the expense of those less fortunate. It wouldn't be that party if it didn't do that.

The $50, 1 think, Madam Member — rather than being partially rescinded as you suggest —

was expanded far wider than it ever had been before. We expanded it to

cover all single parents. Any single parent receives the extra $50

because of being classified as unemployable. I think you are confused

in your mind between unemployed and unemployable. There's quite a

difference, and I suggest you check it out before we get into my

estimates. Obviously, listening to you, you do not understand the

difference between unemployed and unemployable.

The extra

money put into my ministry was put in to increase the number of FTEs on

the financial assistance side and the rehabilitation side. I suppose I

am to read into the member's comments that she doesn't believe we

should put financial aid workers and rehabilitation officers into the

ministry to assist the unemployed back into the workforce.

suggest that we have strayed far from warrant 8 and that in the future,

when we are in Committee of the Whole on a specific section, we should

be relevant.

MR. WILLIAMS : Finally he's moving

along. He kept insisting that it was an underestimate. This was no

overrun. You don't seem to understand this complex world of numbers and

figures. You don't really understand high finance. This is an

underestimate. How could you possibly use the term "overrun"? When does

it become an overrun? One million, $10 million, $30 million, $50

million is not an overrun? What's this budget process about? You come

in with the big document: here it is. The number here, the $46.8

million, wasn't in last year's budget; it was an overrun. It was an

overrun. It was an overrun.

AN HON. MEMBER : Say it again.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'm repeating it because you're the people who have used the term in

the past. You're the ones who have talked about shovelling money off

the back of a truck. You're the ones who talk about fiscal

responsibility. But in the end, it's just like the other member from

Vancouver East said; it's pure yo-yo economics. You fired the staff in

your ministry a couple of years ago under restraint, and you can't even

get it together to handle your program in this particular budget item.

That's the reality.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I do believe we're being irrelevant now.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Ah! Maybe the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that it's too relevant.

Throughout this whole exercise we've seen how frail the government

front benches are. This Minister of Finance could barely answer a

question about any of the over expenditures. This one has trouble

recognizing a $50 million overrun when it's hitting him like a speeding

train. That's the reality. You've gone through this whole process of

the golden handshake last year; all of your ministries got it, in terms

of talent. No wonder you weren't able to undertake the programs you

wanted to undertake to deal with the poor. You didn't have the talent

in your ministries. The untold story of British Columbia is the gutting

of the civil service, and this too is part of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I must insist that this debate be relevant.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, you have raised the point of order that I was going to.

The member isn't even close to debating the special warrants. I should

remind that member that when they were government, the lists of special

warrants that they came in with....

I'm going to tell you

why this is not an overrun, Mr. Member. I specifically, with my deputy,

when to Treasury Board and asked him to reduce our budget by a given

amount, because I was optimistic that we could reduce the numbers on

GAIN by more than we did. So I asked him to reduce our budget because I

was convinced I could meet a certain target. When we didn't meet that

target, through some fault of our own, then I preferred to call it an

underestimate. I guess you would prefer to call it an overrun. We were

perhaps a little overoptimistic. I thought we could save the taxpayers

of the province in the area of $65 million, and we didn't meet our

target. We made a good start at meeting the target, but we didn't quite

make it. But we'll make it in the coming year. So if the member from

Vancouver East and the other member, the critic, wish to continue

calling it an overrun — if it makes them feel good — then by

all means call it an overrun. But whatever the amount, it's meeting the

needs of the people of British Columbia, which the GAIN Act must do.

[ Page 5793 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I need some clarification, Mr. Chairman. With the amount of increasing

poverty in this province, with the number of children in schools who

are hungry, with the number of services that do not deliver the needs

to families in this province, did the minister say that he asked for a

reduction....

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hate to keep reminding that member, but she is totally irrelevant.

MR. ROSE :

I think that what the minister didn't anticipate was a question

relating to something the minister said in the previous exchange. If

the minister claims that he was irrelevant, then so be it. But I think

the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is entitled to ask her question

regarding what the minister said in the last exchange.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : On a point of order, I submit that the opposition House Leader is also totally irrelevant.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would ask the Chairman to allow me to finish my question to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Provided it's relevant.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Did the minister say that he went to Treasury Board and asked for a

reduction in the amount of money that his ministry had allocated to it

last year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Yes, we asked them to

adjust the estimate of what we would need for the GAIN budget. When the

GAIN budget was set, we took our best look at it, as we always do,

worst-case and best-case scenarios, and decided that the addition

of — I forget the exact number — in the area of 150 additional

financial aid workers and rehab officers.... We decided that we would

be able to bring that amount down by some number. We said that our best

guess, being as honest as we could possibly be and with the economy

going the way it was, was that the caseload should do this. We said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member says shame on me. She doesn't believe that we should

estimate according to what we think the economy will do and what the

caseload will be. We tried to be as honest with Treasury Board as we

could possibly be. Whenever we make our estimates for GAIN, we try to

give it our best guess according to what the economy is doing, where

the caseloads are and the programs that we put into place. We put an

additional $26 million into employment-generating programs and into

assisting unemployed people back into the workforce. Having said that

to Treasury Board, we said: we believe that we can reduce the GAIN

budget by this amount. If we don't make it, then we go back for a

special warrant— which we did — to meet the needs of the people of

British Columbia. I don't understand why the member has such great

difficulty understanding that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall warrant 8 pass?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'm not finished yet, Mr. Chairman. I'm quite prepared to stay here as long as necessary to clear this up.

we didn't make our target by some 4 or 5 percent of our budget, we

don't feel any shame in that, because the GAIN budget will always be

adjusted to meet the need. It's a demand-driven budget, and it will

always be adjusted to meet the need.

[12:15]

Warrant 8 approved on division.

On warrant 9.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, I'm still trying to get over the last debate. I wish I

could go home and tell my spouse that I was only $46 million off in my

calculations.

I have a question that I think we can address

fairly quickly on this item. The ministry is requiring some money with

respect to planning studies for capital projects. Of course, there was

reference to this in the throne speech. Would either the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) or the Solicitor-General be kind enough to

tell me what capital planning projects are anticipated with this

warrant request?

HON. MR. REE : I believe the member

is talking about the $145,000 which I require to pay lease costs for

computerized software used to support the ministry operations.

MR. SIHOTA : What about the capital planning studies?

HON. MR. REE : The $125,000 was for a building feasibility study for the Justice Institute which was carried out during the year.

Warrant 9 approved.

On warrant 10.

MR. SIHOTA :

Yesterday in the budget speech the Minister of Finance outlined that

there would be construction of a new facility to replace Oakalla. I

believe the Solicitor-General has indicated that there would be a new

facility for the young offender. Does that vote then envision studies

for a Willingdon Road replacement as well as the facility to replace

Oakalla?

HON. MR. REE : The moneys that the minister

mentioned in the budget speech yesterday did not include Willingdon;

they did include Oakalla. I hope sometime during the year we might be

able to look at Willingdon for replacement. I know the hon. member is

eventually going to visit Willingdon.

[ Page 5794 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE : When is it?

MR. SIHOTA : The fifteenth.

HON. MR. REE :

It's about time. I'm sure you'll find it quite informative. I know

you've made reports on Willingdon without ever having seen it. I will

be anxious to hear your report when you come back.

MR. SIHOTA :

The minister should know that it's my fourth visit. If the other

members want to provoke, we can be here for quite a while. If the

former Minister of Highways responsible for the Coquihalla and Powder

Mountain wishes to stand up and talk, we can talk about those.

My question to the minister is: am I correct in assuming that Willingdon may or may not be in your plans for this year?

MR. CHAIRMAN : That is future policy. There is no requirement to answer that question.

Warrant 10 approved.

On warrant 11.

MR. JONES :

After so many years of neglect of post-secondary education funding, I

am very happy to support this special warrant. But I do have a couple

of questions I would like to ask.

I realize the purpose of

the warrant is for urgently and immediately required funds for the

public good. I understand that some aspects of this warrant occurred

after the approval of the estimates last year. The kaon preconstruction

feasibility study was a partnership agreement with the federal

government; it was completed last June. I'm wondering about other

expenditures, ones that I consider to be routine, ongoing, normal and

predictable, like the one for college enrolment pressures. Every

September we see lineups of hundreds and thousands of students who were

turned away from post-secondary education— roughly 10,000 in the lower

mainland, to be specific. Those college enrolment pressures were

clearly predictable, as was the aspect of equipment renewal. Clearly

the government hasn't just suddenly figured out that equipment wears

out and that our postsecondary institutions are replete with a good

deal of outdated equipment. I'm wondering, given the purpose of these

special warrants — urgent and immediately required expenditures — why routine items such as enrolment pressures and equipment renewal would be included here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon.

S. Hagen), I can answer the questions in whatever detail, I guess, the

member wants. The $51.92 million was approved. I gather from the

member's comments that he feels that when these issues came up, they

should have been held for a year to satisfy what he feels is necessary,

although the ministry, I guess, felt that they should be dealt with,

that they should be done and got on with. If the member's main point is

that everything should have been anticipated, that would be

wonderful — the ideal world.

The amounts included

$10.15 million for the revised mandate of the British Columbia

Institute of Technology, and that mandate was revised after last year's

budget was put in. The college enrolment pressures: you say anybody

should have anticipated that. The ministry, when the pressures were on

and they were trying to accommodate those students as best they could,

decided to apply $8.32 million to that.

The University of Victoria's mechanical engineering school and the Simon Fraser University Centre for System Science — they've spent $1.45 million on those. The university matching program —

$10 million for that. The kaon preconstruction feasibility study... I

think the agreement with the federal government to provide up to $11

million for that worthwhile project in engineering studies was not

signed until July, after the House adjourned last year. There was $2

million for that. Equipment renewal for post-secondary

institutions — $20 million was allotted to that.

The

only one of these that had any possibility of being approved in advance

was the matching program, but it was announced, I think, just a few

days before the budget was presented, too late to get into the budget.

So the commitment has been met. That's the $10 million. All the other

initiatives were agreed to, negotiated or arranged after the budget was

put in. The $51.92 million was needed in order to pay the bills so that

we didn't have to delay unnecessarily on these items.

MR. JONES :

I see the communication gap between my old friend the Education

minister and me still exists. I did not say that these expenditures

should have been held; I said that they should have been predictable.

Is the Minister of Education saying that enrolment pressures in

colleges in this province and equipment wearing out were not

predictable expenditures?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I

suppose you can always say that someone should be clairvoyant enough to

predict anything that happens in the future: the exact amounts, the

exact numbers, all of those sort of things. I am saying it's a matter

of point of view as to whether everything that ever happens in the next

year should be absolutely predictable. We know there are enrolment

pressures; we know there is equipment to replace. But until you nail it

down.... I think they would consider the government and the

ministry — mine or the post-secondary ministry — absolutely

irresponsible if we just said: "We don't know what the items will be.

We can't put a number on it, but for the sake of pleasing them later in

the House, what we should do is just throw in a big amount." I think we

would like to operate with a little better economics than that and wait

until they're pinned

[ Page 5795 ]

down, until the amounts are available, before they are provided.

MR. JONES :

The minister is suggesting you have to be clairvoyant to predict some

kind of replacement program for equipment. If a piece of equipment

lasts 20 years and you have $100 million worth of equipment, then you

should replace 5 percent of that equipment every year. That's

predictable. That's the kind of planning and organization you would

expect from a government that had its feet on the ground and that

wasn't trying to postpone expenditures in the first part of its mandate

and increase them in the second part. That's what we see here.

would like to ask the minister or the Minister of Finance: given that

this warrant was approved only a couple of weeks ago, I am wondering if

the money was spent on this program prior to the approval of the

warrant.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I don't know whether we

can answer that until all the final bookkeeping is done. I think before

you can say, "Buy the machine, " the money has to be there.

MR- JONES : If the minister is saying the money was spent after the warrant was approved — after March 10 — I'm wondering what was of such an urgent nature that we couldn't wait to include it in this year's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall warrant 11 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Ave.

MR. CHAIRMAN : So ordered.

The member for Burnaby North has another question.

MR. JONES : Maybe the minister didn't understand the question. It seems to me....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Perhaps it's appropriate at this time to remind all hon. members, since

we are just starting off a new session, that when questions are asked

of a minister there is no compulsion that they be answered. So I called

the question on that particular warrant.

Does the member have another question?

MR. JONES :

I just want to clarify whether the minister understood the question and

whether that was the reason for his lack of response. If he has no

answer, I accept that. It seems to me that perhaps the question could

be rephrased so he would clearly understand it. Then he could indicate

that there was no answer, as a matter of courtesy.

Given

the fact that the warrant was approved on March 10, and the minister

indicated that it was a requirement that this money be spent after the

approval of the special warrant, the question is: if it was approved

only three weeks ago and has been spent in the last three weeks, what

was the compelling, urgent nature of any of these things in the last

three weeks that prevented the government from including it in this

year's budget?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I tried to indicate to the member in the previous answer — which he didn't understand —

that I don't know the exact date the cheques were written. I'm

suggesting that the amount had to be approved and that we need to pay

the bills.

I suppose you could say, "You should have waited for another six months to pay the bill, " because technically — if I take the member's argument — we

can't pay the bill until after the total budget and estimates process

has gone through. I don't know at what point the cheques are written;

I'm not the bookkeeper. I know that I don't like — in my ministry or in my own life —

to say: "Go ahead, buy the piece of equipment. I don't know if the

money is going to be available or not." I think the money has to be

available. I think that's just common sense.

[12:30]

MR. JONES :

I seems to me that on the $8.3 million the minister mentioned for

enrolment pressures.... Those enrolment pressures were in the September

1988 enrolment term, and if that was to accommodate increased enrolment

of students at that time, then that money would have to have been spent

in this school year and would, I assume, have already been spent. If

that's the case, which is a little different than what the minister is

suggesting, then this is retroactively approving on March 10

expenditures that were made last September. Either we're approving

something a long period after — and cabinet approved it a long time after —

it was expended, or we could have waited another couple of weeks and

included it in this year's budget. Either one of the two is true.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This is all very interesting, but I'm sure the hon. member appreciates

that in the year an expense is incurred there is a requirement to

record that obligation in the books of that particular period.

Furthermore,

as the Minister of Education pointed out earlier, these bills have to

be paid when they're due. I'm quite sure the hon. member from the

opposite side isn't suggesting that we not proceed with meeting the

enrolment pressures. We did that.

MR. KEMPF : Mr.

Chairman, far be it from me to prolong debate on this particular

warrant at this late date this week. But knowing how urgent it is to

build a university in Prince George, I wish to know, seeing that some

of this money was spent on preconstruction feasibility studies, how

much of that money was spent on the preconstruction feasibility study

for a university in Prince George.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Unless I'm misreading the statement, Mr. Chairman, it's for the

preconstruction feasibility study for the kaon facility and equipment

renewal for post-secondary institutions. So the preconstruction

feasibility study, as I read it, is for the kaon facility.

[ Page 5796 ]

MR. KEMPF : It's been clarified then that no money has been spent on a preconstruction study for a university in Prince George.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Chairman, in this special warrant the member is absolutely right.

Since he wants to politick on that issue, he might look at some other

issues.

Warrant 11 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE :

Supply Act (No. 1), 1989. In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourn I would wish all the members a very

pleasant and happy weekend and remind them that as of Monday next we

will sit according to the

schedule as outlined in standing order 2.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:40 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada