1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5451 ]

CONTENTS

Supply Act (No. 1), 1985 (Bill 29). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 5451

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5451

Mr. Stupich –– 5451

Mr. Howard –– 5451

Mr. Hanson –– 5452

Mr. Passarell –– 5452

Mr. Lockstead –– 5452

Mr. Davis –– 5452

Mr. Blencoe –– 5453

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5453

Committee stage –– 5454

Mr. Howard

Mr. Passarell

Mr. Lauk

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Davis

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1985

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1985

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

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1985.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill is introduced

in order to provide supply for the continuation of government programs

until the government's estimates for 1985-86 have been debated and

voted upon in this assembly. This interim supply is urgently required

in order that a host of programs, including a number of social program

benefits such as those under GAIN and SAFER, may reach the recipients

in time for them to meet their April commitments.

These payments are traditionally mailed at least four banking days

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

of the following month. Therefore, in moving introduction and first

reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, I ask that it be considered as

urgent under our standing order 81 and be permitted to advance through

all stages this day.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the appropriate bill having now been circulated, I would call upon the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be read a

second time now. My remarks will be brief. This supply bill — Supply

Act (No. 1), 1985 — is in the general form of previous years' supply

bills. It requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to provide for

the general programs and the renewal program of the government. It also

requests one-quarter of the disbursement amount required for the

government's fully recoverable ministry-related financing transactions,

which appear in

schedule C in the main estimates.

Mr. Speaker, I might point out that included in the voted

expenditures appropriation of this bill is $2,097,000,000 for general

programs and $135 million for the economic renewal program mentioned a

moment ago.

Finally, as I said upon introducing the bill, early passage of the

supply bill is required in order to provide for the ongoing

expenditures of the government for the 1985-86 fiscal year, without

interruption or inconvenience to the people we serve.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the opposition will cooperate in

passage of this legislation, but one or two of us may want to offer a

few comments.

Yesterday the minister spoke for 10 or 15 minutes in concluding the budget

debate. We've had a six-day debate, and we lost that vote, but there will

be opportunity during discussion of his estimates to discuss with the minister

the statements that he made yesterday. Certainly there will be opportunity to

discuss with all ministers the estimates for the various departments. And that

will suffice for that.

In addition, there were some 14 pieces of legislation introduced on

budget day by the Minister of Finance. Once again, we'll have plenty of

opportunity to discuss those when the time comes.

[10:15]

With respect to the bill before us, there is something I would like

to draw attention to:

schedule 1 –– I don't think the minister

mentioned it, but perhaps he did.

Schedule 1 totals approximately

$428,885,461 by way of overruns in the year ending March 31, 1985.

There are some particular examples, most especially the Ministry of

Human Resources. Certainly the money was needed. An overrun of $154

million was approved by special warrant on January 31. When we

recognize that there have been no increases in allowances for some

years — in fact, in some areas decreases — and that an extra $154

million was required to meet the very minimum payments that are being

paid to people on social assistance, that in itself is recognition of

the failure of the Social Credit government to administer properly the

economics in the province of British Columbia. That is a terrible

admission of failure — an overrun of $154 million in that one

department.

The overrun in the Ministry of Highways is also large, but at least

that is going into doing something for the community. It is providing

something that the community is going to make use of. It is providing

highways, and they are going to be useful. We have something to show

for that. We'll have nothing positive to show for the extra $154

million that had to be pumped into social assistance payments as

recognition of the failure of this government to do the job that it was

elected to do.

The opposition will support the legislation before us. We will

discuss at some length the ministerial plans in the various ministries

when we come to estimates, and of course we will discuss the

legislation. But as the minister pointed out to me a couple of days ago

while talking about bringing this bill in, it's important that we get

it out so that we can get the GAIN cheques out. And when I recognize

that the GAIN cheques in the province of British Columbia are the

lowest in the whole country, with the exception of one province, then

it's important that we get the pitifully small amounts out just as

quickly as we possibly can. We will cooperate in that endeavour.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments,

if I could, with respect to the bill. It seeks to expend a proportion

of the total budget, which is $9.56 billion. The comments that I have

to make will relate that $9.56 billion in an historic sense.

Looking back to the time when this Minister of Finance became the

Minister of Finance, we have seen the cost of government increase over

that short period by 60 percent over what it was when this minister

took office. This year we have seen the budget increase 7.9 percent

over what the budget was that was presented to the House last year. We

were told that the cost of government was going to come down. But the

cost of government has gone up, consistently, steadily, regularly,

every single year except one, since this minister has been the Minister

of Finance.

In his first year as Minister of Finance, the budget increased 17.36

percent over the previous year. In his second year it increased 16.9

percent over his first year, for a total 34

[ Page 5452 ]

percent increase in the two years. In his third

year it increased 6 percent, for a total of 40 percent in that period.

In 1983-84 — this was restraint year — it increased by 11.9 percent

over the previous year, for a total of 52 percent over that period of

time. In 1984-85 it was down $200,000, a reduction of .23 percent, and

that's the exception. This year it's 7.9 percent, virtually an 8

percent increase over last year, indicating that under this government

there has been complete and absolute fiscal mismanagement and

irresponsibility, and a completely different line with respect to

government's activities with the taxpayers' money than what the

actualities are. Taxes have not come down, they've gone up, except this

year for a select few.

The cost of government, contrary to all the blarney about restraint,

has not come down; it has increased. I think the general public and

this House are entitled to know what went wrong. Where have you

squandered all of this money? The cost of government was going to come

down if you could just get hold of the reins of things. Well, the

government got hold of the reins, the costs have gone up, and the

general public is the loser in all of that.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to register my

objections to the pattern this government has developed. First of all,

this House did not sit from May 1984 right through until February —

nine months that the doors of this Legislature were boarded up to the

people. Then we have this constant pattern, where the debate in this

Legislature is subordinated and we're always debating money that has

already been spent. That is contrary to the democratic principle that

we're supposed to be serving the public of this province.

I can recall — it wasn't all that long ago — when the Premier, then

Leader of the Opposition, was traveling this province saying: "Not a

dime without debate." Does anyone recall that, Mr. Speaker? We now have

bills on a regular basis asking for $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion. This

House is asked to pass them, and we are asked to support them. And at

the same time the government spends that money, so the debate in this

House on individual ministry estimates is always after the fact.

In other words, the people of this province are never able to have

their say in this House. The government decides. So we now have $2.23

billion to be approved. We will support it, because that's the only

option we have to pay the bills of this province, but at the same time

I find it objectionable. If this House were to sit on a regular basis

and debate estimates and the expenditure of the public prior to the

expenditure, which is the way this Legislature is supposed to

function.... This is an arrogant approach, a "we'll spend it and and

then we'll talk about what we did later" approach. It is objectionable.

It is not the way this House is supposed to function.

As I look at this thing, I find that we're probably going to be

sitting after the three-month period. There's going to be another one.

We'll be debating estimates and there will be another approval sought

for another $2 billion or $3 billion. We'll spend it, and we'll talk

about it later.

It's not like cassette tapes. People have a right to debate in this

House how their tax dollars are spent. The interim supply bill is a

travesty. Sure, I know it's used from time to time, but now it's a

regular fiscal instrument. It's a regular part of this functioning

House. Oh, the House doesn't sit.... We'll end up sitting on March 30

each year for a day, having interim supply for three months. It's the

normal course to just approve a quarter of the budget without

discussion.

We have school financing; we have universities starved; we have

hospital operating budgets cut-back; we have debt in this province; we

have unemployment; and we have people asking for some commitment from

this government to function properly. Yet we get interim supply on a

constant basis, like clockwork, every time we sit. This House should be

open in the fall and open in the spring so that there's a pattern, a

regular process of discussion of estimates and bills, so people know

how this House is going to function. The citizens of this province,

when they know that the House will open on such and such a date and

there will be discussion of education financing, can make

representation through their MLAs and function properly. This is a

disgrace.

MR. PASSARELL: A concern I have is the special warrant from

November 28, 1984 for this $435,000 overrun — almost half a million

this? I want to know why we are giving half a million dollars to a mine

in British Columbia that's closed down; there's no one working there.

Are we setting a pattern to give money to companies that are not in

existence? This must be an overrun of some sort if we have a special

warrant to give almost half a million dollars for a mine that's now

closed. I see this as a very bad pattern for the use of our tax

dollars. I have no beef with the mines in British Columbia that are in

operation and gainfully employing individuals, but here we are giving

$435,000 to a mine that's not in existence. I think the minister owes

the taxpayers of this province an explanation of why at this stage of

the game they're giving them half a million dollars.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Along the same vein, I too would ask the

minister, in closing debate on this bill, to explain why the taxpayers

of this province are so-called lending this mine, which has shut down

and thrown a lot of people out of work, nearly half a million dollars.

What are the terms of that loan, and how is that loan going to be

repaid? Obviously that mine is shut down. So I would ask the minister

for an explanation. I'm sure the matter will come up again in estimates.

I also want to comment briefly on the special warrant for the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways. How much of this $428,885,461

is going into the Coquihalla highway project? This party and this

caucus have not opposed the construction of that particular highway. We

have said that perhaps at this time, when education funding is being

cut, if you take the inflationary factor.... We're spending a great

deal of money on that project at a time when education funding, health

programs and universities are being cut back. I understand that much of

the workforce involved in that project is non-union and people from

outside this province. So I would like the minister to explain to this

House how much of the funding in this budget, when highway construction

work in other parts of the province is being totally neglected,

particularly in my riding.... Would the minister be good enough to

explain that to this House?

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in voting for

one-quarter of the estimate for the coming year. The government needs a

supply of funds to carry on the functions of government.

However, I would like to ask a question about

Schedule 1, totalling

some $423 million: is that a sum in addition to the total expenditure

of $9.056 billion which the Minister of Finance outlined in his recent

budget address, or is it within

[ Page

5453 ]

the figure that we debated recently as the estimate of expenditure for the

year just concluding? In other words, is it a new amount? Are these new items

as far as this House is concerned, or was that contained in the official estimates

of total expenditure for this year, as the House understood it a few days ago?

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments about

what I think this bill indicates to the people of British Columbia. My

colleague from Victoria said quite clearly that this is indeed a sad

day in British Columbia; it continues to build upon a history of this

current government not utilizing the democratic institution. In the

last nine months we have seen a government totally turn away from this

House, this institution and this Legislature and do its business behind

closed doors, utilizing the order-in-council routine and special

cabinet orders to do critical business on behalf of the people of

British Columbia. All of us who get elected to this House get elected

because the people of British Columbia trust us to do their business

properly, in the open, and to be totally accountable for the

decision-making process that goes on here. Over and over again people

in my riding and in other areas I travel to in the province of British

Columbia have begun to question the whole methodology of this

government in terms of the democratic institutions that we all love and

wish to uphold.

This is a government that would not call the Legislature to deal

with the people's problems during some of the worst times that this

province has ever faced, but instead refused to deal with those

problems in the open and dealt with them in cabinet behind closed

doors. When you show total disregard for the democratic principles that

we all supposedly uphold and believe in, you entrench the cynicism of

the citizens of British Columbia. The people of British Columbia want

to have faith in this institution, want to believe in government, and

want to believe that government wishes to do the people's business in

an upfront, candid and honest fashion. What we've had in the last nine

months, while this government did not call this Legislature together,

is total disregard for the basic, fundamental principles of a

democratic institution. Mr. Speaker, all of us, particularly the

government side, must think long and hard about that process that we

have just gone through in the last nine months. And here we are today

passing in one morning expenditures which we are not going to get an

opportunity to discuss beforehand. That is not doing the people's

business in a proper and democratic fashion.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, when a government breaks the basic

principles of democracy, when it has total disregard for the

long-standing rules and obligations of a government, and when they

break that trust, one has to wonder whether they still deserve to

retain the reins of power.

There is in the province of British Columbia a deep cynicism about

the parliamentary system, about what government and particularly this

government.... It has abused this fine institution, this House that

many people have served in. The people of British Columbia want the act

cleaned up. They want the people's business debated beforehand, before

we pass millions and millions of dollars. They want integrity and

honesty in government.

This, Mr. Speaker, is an abuse of that fundamental principle of integrity in

government, and I say shame to this government when they break some of those

long-standing traditions and rules of the democratic system. Unfortunately we

in the opposition are put in the position of having to ensure that interim supply

gets to essential services, and we are being asked to rubber-stamp something.

It cannot go on, and it's time this government recognized that the people

of British Columbia want this Legislature to do the people's business regularly

and on time. Mr. Speaker, once again we have a government that is showing its

contempt for this House and for the people of British Columbia. It's a shameful

day.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will answer a couple of the

specific questions that were posed. The member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) raised a matter and.... Perhaps I could deal with those in

committee rather than in closing second reading debate. I have the

specifics on the two or three which were mentioned.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), the NDP's designated critic

for the Ministry of Finance, said a couple of important things, I

think, at the outset of his remarks on second reading. That is that

while this is interim supply for one-quarter of the money required by

the government and government programs for 1985-86, there would be an

opportunity — and I'm paraphrasing his remarks, but they're there in Hansard

— in this chamber to discuss ministerial estimates one by one and at

length, if that is the members' wish. Yesterday I, as one member, heard

that it is intended that one minister's estimates will be presented at

some point later today. There will be an opportunity to debate

legislation which is associated with the budget as well as other

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm somewhat at a loss as a result of the comments by

the two members for Victoria suggesting that there will be no

opportunity for debate. The decision that I took with regard to how

much interim supply to seek today was really based on what I as one

member of the assembly perceived to be the general wishes of the

assembly. I did consult with the member for Nanaimo as to whether it

should be two months or three months. He didn't indicate opposition to

whether it is indeed two or three. I would remind the two members for

Victoria that I am not here asking for six months' interim supply. I am

asking for one-quarter, with the bulk, three-quarters, of the total

expenditure for the fiscal year about to start to be debated not after

the fact but before the fact — indeed, obviously starting, as I say,

sometime later today and to be debated through the course of the week.

Given passage of Bill 29, it will not be necessary for me to return

to this chamber until some time approaching the end of June — I would

assume that the House will still be debating. One member laughs. But

the House decides when it quits, the Minister of Finance does not

decide when it quits; Therefore a great deal of the expenditure

proposals placed before the assembly by the government for fiscal

1985-86 will be debated before the fact.

I simply want those who are observing this debate today, as well as

the members, to be quite clearly aware of the fact that we are not

seeking a full year's approval with no debate to come. There will

probably be strenuous and incisive debate and questioning of individual

ministers, and incisive and detailed review of legislation. That is the

parliamentary process; that is the process which is being followed

today.

For the one member for Victoria to suggest that interim supply is

something new and strange and non-democratic really stretches my

patience a little, because we can examine....

[12:15]

[ Page 5454 ]

MR. LAUK: Aye.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I didn't hear the member for Vancouver Centre saying "Aye" when his colleagues were indulging in some hyperbole, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: You're hearing it now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member is just a little late.

Mr. Speaker, the opposite party was in government and presented

bills called "interim supply," with the same form and the same

procedure that is being presented to this assembly today. Interim

supply is not some recent invention. It is not something brought in a

state of crisis to this House. It is for the orderly conduct of

government and service to the people of the province of British

Columbia. I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 29, Supply Act (No. 1), 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, with respect to the committee

stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, there is some question about how, in

committee stage, we are to debate the

schedule 1 of interim supply.

There is some argument that the special warrants can be debated in the

estimates of each ministry, but that's the new.... Special warrants are

expenditures in the last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, would this point of order not be

better addressed in Committee of Supply with the Chairman, as opposed

to at this time?

MR. LAUK:

Well, I could raise the issue with the Chairman in committee of this

bill. But if committee stage passes, then the Chairman of Committee of

Supply will say I should have debated it in committee of this bill. Do

you see our conundrum?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I do. Do you see mine, hon. member? Hon.

member, I would suggest that this is a matter for the Chairman to

resolve on this bill.

At this time I will call Mr. Chairman.

SUPPLY ACT (No . 1), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LAUK: I ask whether or not we should be able to ask

questions of the various ministers and/or the Minister of Finance with

respect to schedule1 of the bill in this committee. It seems to me the

argument can be raised either way. Can special warrants be debated in

estimates? If they can, could the Chair rule on that now and perhaps

avoid a lengthy debate in committee? If the Chairman will rule that we

can debate special warrants in the committee now, then of course we'll

take what little time is necessary to do so.

I'm not requesting a ruling of the Chair but an opinion of the Chair.

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I might suggest

that the

schedule would be debatable in committee under the

preamble,

since this bill does carry a

preamble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. That's an interesting opinion.

Hon. members, the Chair thanks you sincerely for your indulgence. In

committee stage we will debate the bill, as we normally do with any

bill, dealing with sections as they appear chronologically, and then we

will debate the

schedule in its entirety, because the items contained

in this

schedule are not contained in any other estimates. So this

would be the appropriate place, hon. members, and that is my opinion.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On the schedule.

MR. HOWARD: Starting at the first item, the date of the

warrant is January 1, 1985 — just a short while ago. It is warrant 10,

supplementing vote 2 of the auditor-general in the amount of $32,000.

This, I think, Mr. Chairman, is what the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) was talking about: money having already been expended, and this

Legislature having no convenient mechanism for examining money that has

already been spent, except through the mechanism of the Public Accounts

committee, if and when that subject matter, say, of this particular

item in the

schedule is referred to that committee. But that committee

is not the Legislature. It is simply an extension of it. It is still

taxpayers' money in the amount of $32,000 that has been expended for

some purpose, and this is the matter that was being raised: what was

that purpose? Why was it not foreseen in the presentation of the budget

a year ago as being an expected expenditure?

I raise that not entirely or exclusively, I should say, with respect

to the $32,000 here, because that $32,000 is a portion of the $428

million overrun in the total activities of this government. The

question is important because of its larger context, as well as being

important with respect to the $32,000 itself. What was it for? Perhaps

the minister could make available — whoever the minister in charge of

this matter is — warrant No. 10, which deals with this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to assist the committee, I

have copies of the special warrants. The second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk) inquired about that earlier. It takes a little bit of

time to sort through the material to identify a particular warrant.

Warrant No. 10, carrying the date of January 1, 1985, is a

supplementing vote for the office of the auditor-general, and while I

can locate it, I cannot do it whilst on my feet.

MR. HOWARD: While you what?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Whilst on my feet — while standing.

MR. HOWARD: Maybe I'll stand and give the minister a chance

to do what he more appropriately does while he's sitting down — I mean

think, of course.

[ Page 5455 ]

Mr. Chairman, this is a very cumbersome and awkward way of

proceeding. I think that's evident right at this very moment. We are

talking about some $428 million of taxpayers' money that was expended

in the last fiscal year without examination by this Legislature —

without any examination in public of what it is that goes on. The only

examination — and there is some question about its being an appropriate

examination in any given circumstances — was within the confines of the

cabinet room or Treasury Board or whoever it was — the small group of

cabinet, the entire cabinet or a committee of cabinet that made the

decision to spend the $428 million. That was the only examination that

was made, but it was not an examination that involved the public, that

involved the media being able to pay attention to it or report upon it;

it was not an examination of a public, elected body like the

Legislature. Don't we need to find some other process than this one

whereby these matters can be dealt with?

The minister has, as I can see from here, a sheaf of papers that he is leafing

through trying to find something. I assume it's warrant No. 10, which was

the one that I had referred to when I obtained the floor. But if we're going

to go through this kind of mechanism, we won't do very much business in

this chamber. And we won't do very much business because the government

has mismanaged its responsibilities. That's the simplicity of it, Mr. Chairman:

$428 million worth of cheques have been written out — public money, taxpayers'

money — for some purposes, and no opportunity has yet been discovered as to

whether those expenditures were justified in the first instance. And that's

where the examination should take place, not in the secrecy of the cabinet room.

Apparently now there is no convenient mechanism that seems to make sense, in

any event, in this chamber whereby we can examine, in retrospect, what the money

was for and thus maybe come to some conclusion as to whether or not it was justified.

The minister looks at me now, and maybe that indicates that he's

found whatever it is he was looking for in that sheaf of documents he

has before him. But wouldn't we be better advised at this point to have

the Chair declare a short recess, because we do have, Mr. Chairman —

and I draw your attention to the

schedule before us — three, four,

five, six, seven.... I don't know — we've got 15 or 20 special

warrants, eight or ten separate ministries, and a total of $428 million

involved, and surely the committee, in looking at

schedule 1, should

have before it all the documentation the government has in its

possession which it wants to use to justify these expenditures. We

can't go through the

schedule this way, because all it will mean is

exactly what I am doing now: somebody on the floor at the request of

the minister taking the time up so the minister can find the

appropriate piece of paper in that sheaf that he has there. But nobody

else has that sheaf of paper; nobody else has that document, which is

not tabled or distributed.

I am suggesting a recess, Mr. Chairman, in order that the full sheaf

of paper that the Minister of Finance has can be distributed to members

of the committee so it can, to the extent desired, look at whether or

not these expenditures are justified. Do you think that would be a

reasonable request to make and to accede to, Mr. Chairman — the request

for a recess in order that we don't go through this awkward process of

not having all the information?

[11:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pursuant to the member's comment, the Chair will consider further opinion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the member for Skeena for filling in time, as is usual when he is on his feet.

Interjection,

HON. MR. CURTIS: All right. No doubt he will therefore fill in more time.

Mr. Chairman, it is easy to refer to a sheaf of papers, but the bulk

of the material which I have in front of me.... I would not presume

to take this committee for granted by not having this material

available for debate and for questioning by members in the committee.

The sheaf, however, comprises largely — again using the member for

Skeena's words — special warrants, orders-in-council, which were made

public at the time they were signed. Therefore this is not some bulk of

documents which has just surfaced. The member will know, I'm sure, as

other members of the committee would know, that as special warrants are

issued they are reviewed by those who wish to see them, and almost

regularly are reported in the press. Then they are brought to the

committee in the form of

schedule 1.

The member for Skeena asked about warrant 10, which deals with the

office of the auditor-general, and the supplementing vote is $32,000 on

an appropriated amount for fiscal 1984-85 of $3,488,068. I would

refer members of the committee to order-in-council 84, which was

approved and ordered on January 1, 1985, and which I assume was made

public and available for all to examine, probably on February 1 or

February 2; I'm not just certain as to which day was a weekday or a

weekend.

MR. LAUK: What was the money for? How was it spent?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I hear interjections: what was

the money for and bow was it spent? In the question of vote 2 and

therefore warrant 10, the government was told that there is

insufficient money available in vote 2, and therefore additional

expenditures of $32,000 are required for the office of the

auditor-general. Then one can look at supporting information. The

indication from the office of the auditor-general was that the office

anticipates an overexpenditure in the amount of $32,000 due to salary

increases to staff who constitute over 90 percent of the staff of this

office. Therefore the answer to the member's question is that the

$32,000, was a relatively minor shortfall on the voted amount for the

office of the auditor-general for fiscal 1984-85, which needed to be

exceeded by $32,000.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I did not offend the committee. The member for

Skeena suggested that a recess would be in order. Certainly it is not,

as far as I am concerned.

MR. HOWARD: I think it's quite obvious that the minister is

not in favour of a recess. Here's a government, Mr. Chairman, that

through mismanagement and inability to predict things properly has

overspent $428 million of the taxpayers' money in the last fiscal year

— an overrun of $428, 885, 461. Obviously the minister does not want to

provide the committee with anything other than what he himself

determines is appropriately selected out of that sheaf of papers which

he has in front of him and none of the other committee members have in

front of them. That was what the request for a recess was all about.

Mr. Speaker, I think you

[ Page 5456 ]

will find that point a very valid one and the request a very

reasonable one. The minister distributed the bill — he's required to do

that — but the distribution of the other information is equally

important. Otherwise what is this Legislature going to be looked upon

as — simply a rubber stamp to do what the minister thinks is the

correct thing to do, regardless of what the general public or anybody

else thinks is the correct thing to do? It doesn't surprise me that the

minister thinks a recess is not in order, because that is in keeping

with the operations that this government wants to continue — namely, to

conduct everything that it can in secret and out of full public view.

With this particular vote some communication came from somebody —

the minister didn't say who it was — that simply said to the

government: "There's insufficient money. Invoke No. 2. We need $32,000

more." Then there's one from somebody — and he doesn't say who that was

— that there were overexpenditures of vote 2 because of salary

increases. How do salary increases on January 31, 1985, come into all

this? Were there some increases in salaries that were not contemplated

by the government? Was there some special deal made whereby somebody

got an increase and somebody else didn't? Was the employment of

additional people involved? What were the factors involved with this

unknown person — at least, unknown as far as the information that the

minister has given to this committee is concerned — telling the

government that there was insufficient money and that $32,000 was

necessary because of an overexpenditure relating to salary increases

and other things? Who told him that? Couldn't that be predicted? Was it

an emergency that arose, or what?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell) inquired in second reading debate — and I indicated that I

would answer in committee stage — about the special warrant for Scottie

Gold Mines Ltd. That shows, as he indicated, under the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It is warrant No. 3, in the

amount of $435,000, and it was issued, approved and ordered on November

28, 1984. The loan was conditional upon the mine continuing to operate.

The loan was not exercised. The member is correct: the mine is closed

and therefore the money was not spent. However, the appropriation was

by the recipient mine. It was for snow removal. The order having been

passed, the appropriation having been made, it cannot suddenly

disappear from the group of special warrants which were made public.

But the money, I tell the member for Atlin, was in fact not spent,

MR. PASSARELL: It is my understanding that if we pass this bill, that

$435,000 to Scottie.... Even if they haven't met the conditions, it's

still in. I'm wondering if the minister will accept an amendment concerning

Scottie Gold — to simply delete line 13, for warrant No. 3, so that we don't

even have to vote it. Why don't we just delete it from the bill, since they

haven't met the conditions and are not going to use the $435,000? Why can't

we accept that? It's a very simple.... If we do go through with this and

vote on this bill, $435,000 is still going to be listed in

schedule 1 even

if they're not using it. Why go through it? Why don't we just have an

amendment to Bill 29 and delete the line about Scottie Gold? I think that's

a reasonable request to the minister. If it's not going to be used and they're

not in operation, they haven't met the conditions. Why even have it in the

bill? Then when we vote on it after we come out of committee.... I'll

pass it up to the Chairman to see if it's in order or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, this is a very interesting

morning, as you can appreciate. The Financial Administration Act,

section 21(5), dealing with special warrants, says: "The amount

appropriated by a special warrant shall be submitted to the Legislative

Assembly as part of the next ensuing Supply Bill." Therefore your

amendment, hon. member, would fail because it is statutory that the

minister submit in the next ensuing supply bill — the one before us now

— all appropriations.

MR. HOWARD: Before the minister tried to divert the interest

of the committee off in another direction, I asked him about warrant

No. 10 for $32,000 for the auditor-general. He said it had to do with

salary increases. Who told him that? Where did this information of

salary increases come from?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I wasn't trying

to divert the committee's attention. I am somewhat.... It was just

an expression on the part of the member for Skeena. Okay?

Before the member for Skeena suddenly became obsessed with $32,000

in the office of the auditor-general, I was answering a much earlier

question from the member for Atlin. I was trying to deal with them in

sequence. Obviously the request for an additional appropriation under

special warrant in the office of the auditor-general came from the

auditor-general. Surprise!

MR. HOWARD: The minister said the question about Scottie

Mines arose much earlier and he wanted to deal with it in some

sequential way. The question about increasing the expenditures and the

cost of government — 60 percent since this minister has been in office

— also was dealt with much earlier, and he ignored that completely

because he's vulnerable on that point.

I understand that the request for moneys came from the Provincial

Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Chabot). The

order-in-council — and I don't have the special warrant; I don't know

where that is — simply says: "Whereas there is insufficient money

available in vote 2 and additional expenditures of $32,000 are required

for the auditor-general, and

whereas the additional expenditures were

insufficiently provided for in the Legislature.... Therefore

there's a report from the Provincial Secretary that the appropriation

for the expenditure is insufficient, and it's necessary and urgently

and immediately required for the public good. There's nothing about

salaries. It isn't as the minister stated.

I want to emphasize this: if I have an obsession with $32,000, then

that's an obsession with the taxpayers' money, and I'm damn proud of

it. I wish the minister would have a similar kind of obsession with the

taxpayers' money, instead of approving through the Treasury Board last

year, without public debate and without public examination, and on the

flimsiest kind of thing like a report from the Provincial Secretary

that the money is needed.... I wish the minister would be obsessed

with the public money as well as I am, and

[ Page 5457 ]

it doesn't matter whether it's $32,000 or $428 million. We're

concerned, in this committee, with the expenditure of public funds in a

sensible way and responsibility to the general public for the

expenditure of those funds.

[11:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena is very

interested in that particular $32,000. I will try to go at it in a

slightly different way, to assist my good friend the member for Skeena.

First of all, he has picked up the thread of the special warrant in the

middle. He indicates also that he doesn't know where the special

warrant is. Well, if the House Leader for the NDP is to be an effective

critic of government policy, then I suggest he should come into the

House armed with his copies of the special warrants, which were issued

through the latter part of the fiscal year that is about to come to a

close.

As I told the committee earlier, the initial request for an

additional $32,000 did not originate with the Provincial Secretary but

was conveyed to the cabinet by the Provincial Secretary. The request

for the overexpenditure initiated with the officer of this Legislature

— namely the auditor-general — indicating that the amount allocated to

her office for fiscal 1984-85 was insufficient by approximately

$32,000. I think the member can understand that thread. A particular

officer, minister or deputy minister makes a request. Ultimately it

leads to a special warrant and an accompanying order-in-council. Mr.

Chairman, I trust that assists the member. The auditor-general made the

request. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who is responsible

for vote 2 and other similar votes under the general heading of

legislation, presented the order-in-council. Indeed, on the special

warrant request — special warrant request, I emphasize — dated January

18 is the signature of the auditor-general.

MR. HOWARD: Getting information from the minister is like pulling....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the schedule, please.

MR. HOWARD: That's what I'm talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've had enough second reading style

of debate. We are now in committee, and we must be strictly relevant to

the information before us. To the schedule, please.

MR. HOWARD: That's what I was doing, Mr. Chairman, but

getting information from this minister about the

schedule is like

pulling teeth. If the minister would have had the responsible and

decent and respectful approach that Ministers of Finance should have to

the people of B.C., through the Legislature, he would have had that

material all available beforehand and said: "Sure, here it is. You all

know now why we had to spend that money." It's a tortuous process. I'm

sure the minister came into the House thinking that this would just

slip through, that it would be $428 million spent, and that he wouldn't

have to account for it. But it's been shown otherwise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please, to the specific details of the schedule.

MR. LAUK: I've got some specific questions. I wonder if the

minister knows who got the salary increases? And could he explain why

that amount for anticipated salary increases was not included in

estimates? I think I know the answers, but I'm not sure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the office of

the auditor-general, the bulk of the employees are excluded; the second

member for Vancouver Centre will realize that. Some 90 percent, I

think, are excluded, by the very nature of the office of the

auditor-general, from any trade union. Therefore the member will know —

if not

from matters discussed in this House, certainly from matters which have

been made public over the course of the fiscal year just ending — that

the government took the decision in 1984 to allocate small salary

increases to managerial employees across government, occurring

retroactively July 1, 1984, and then occurring again on April I next,

which would be into the new fiscal year.

Therefore, clearly, Mr. Chairman, the auditor-general when

submitting her full budget for 1984-85 fiscal year could not have

foreseen a government decision taken with respect to managerial

salaries, government-wide, in the course of 1984-85 and therefore

reflecting, in her particular instance, to the extent of $32,000 for

her office.

MR. LAUK: With respect to that warrant, just one point. The

minister referred to the date of the warrant as being January 1. In the

schedule it's dated January 31, 1985. Does the minister wish to amend

the

schedule now, so that we don't pass on a warrant that's improperly

described?

While he's looking for the answer, I've got questions with respect to the Ministry of Attorney-General warrant.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) for drawing my attention to it. The request

came in on January 18. It was signed by myself, as chairman of Treasury

Board, on January 25. That's not the warrant; that is the request to

draw a special warrant. I think the

schedule is correct in terms of the

date that is printed.

MR. LAUK: As long as the minister is satisfied.

The question of warrant No. 12. I wonder if the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Smith) can advise, generally, why these substantial increases.

Just to preface my remarks, I want to point out that it was in, I

think, 1966-1967 that the entire provincial budget was less than half a

billion dollars; it was around the amount that we're dealing with on

special warrants alone. The opposition wants to take the view that the

ordinary debate on expenditures of funds should take place at this time.

I would ask the Attorney-General: with respect to warrant No. 12,

could he explain why there was an excess amount of $400,000, and why it

wasn't foreseen in estimates? Likewise, court services. I understand

that in the course of time, when the Attorney-General retrenched the

activities of the sheriff's office and the services of the

court.... Why is there a $2.5 million overrun? What, specifically,

is the $3.5 million for in statutory services, boards and commissions?

Is that legal aid, or does it apply to other matters? Perhaps the

Attorney-General can elucidate.

[ Page 5458 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo. Are you on a point of order?

MR. STUPICH: I'm not on a point of order; I want to speak about the process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There were questions to the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: Is the member agreeable that I respond now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He has deferred, hon. member. Please continue.

HON. MR. SMITH: On warrant 12, firstly, $400,000 to police

services. That is for the expenses of the keep of provincial prisoners.

This is probably the classic matter that the ministry is unable to

exercise any spending discretion over. There is a requirement in the

act for the province to reimburse municipalities — that's under the

Municipal Act — for the cost of prisoners who are the responsibility of

the province. These prisoners are individuals who are held in police

lockups after their first appearance before a Justice of the Peace or

judge. So at the end of the year when those bills come in, even though

there's an amount budgeted for them, it may be too much or too little,

and I guess the best estimates are never going to be bang-on. This time

there was an amount of $400,000.

1 should tell the member that individuals are held in municipal

police cells after their first appearance for a number of reasons,

including where the individual has been remanded for appearance on the

following day, or where transporting a prisoner to a provincial

facility with possible return on the next day represents a higher cost,

so that in order to save the direct provincial cost, we keep them maybe

an extra day in the local jail and then we end up at the end of the

year having to reimburse the municipality for that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am advised that there have been fairly

hefty amounts up and down before, but I'd be quite happy if he wants to

canvass it further in estimates.

The matter of $2.5 million for court services has to do with both

the sheriff's services and the court reporter services. It was

originally planned that all court reporters were to go on contract

effective April 1, 1984. We altered that date as you know, and we

negotiated with them for a lengthy period of time and changed the

timetable considerably to try to work the matter out in an ameliorative

fashion. We didn't complete that negotiation until later in 1984, and

that meant that additional funds had to come from the administrative and

support service budget for that item.

It was the same with the budgeting for sheriff's service and the

services rendered in relation to escorting prisoners and our

privatization of serving documents. We simply did not go as far as we

had originally thought we were going to go, and the result was that we

underbudgeted.

The Legal Services Society amount of $3.5 million simply had to do

with the Mountain decision; that is, the decision that held that the

Legal Services Society had to provide legal aid in some reconviction

matters where there was a likelihood or a probability of imprisonment.

Originally the Legal Services Society had decided they weren't going to

provide legal aid in any

summary conviction matters at all, and that

was reflected in their budget and our budget. Then when the Mountain

decision came on, we funded the change in their policy in accordance

with the Court of Appeal decision.

You may also recall that I introduced a bill into the House in the

last session which would have had the effect of correcting the Mountain

decision, but as a result of negotiations that we've held with all

elements of the bar this year, the bill was not proceeded with. It was

decided not to alter the policy laid down in Mountain but indeed to

continue to provide legal aid in cases where imprisonment is a

likelihood, even if they are

summary conviction matters. So the whole

extent of that is an original underbudgeting of $3.5 million.

MR. MOWAT: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: I know this introduction will be of particular

interest to you. This morning we have visiting the House four members

from Sir Charles Tupper Senior Secondary School, but with them they

have a number of students from Eastdale Secondary School in Oshawa,

Ontario. They are visiting the Legislature today, and they will be

performing a musical concert in the rotunda at 12 noon. I would like

the House to make them welcome.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about the

process. In this list of special warrants we're dealing with nine

ministries and some 15 special warrants, apart from the one covering

the auditor-general and the ombudsman. It would seem to me that the way

we're going we could have nine ministers with their appropriate staffs

in the Legislature, and be popping around from one to the other with no

pattern of any kind. The discussion that has just taken place recently

between the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and the second member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would be in context, it would seem to me,

if it were a discussion of the A-G's estimates, rather than taking this

part of it now, and then sometime later today or this month or next

year dealing with the rest of the estimates.

I would invite the Chairman to give us his assurance that when we do

come to deal with the ministerial estimates, although we're dealing

with next year's spending, we will also be able to deal with special

warrants that are considered expenditures of the year just ending. I'd

like the assurance from the Chairman that we can do that. It seems to

me it would be a more reasonable way of dealing with what we're dealing with.

[11:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Just to run through

everything that's happened this morning, we do have the Financial

Administration Act, which was amended and has supplied this process to

us, and which in essence is an omnibus bill, when we look at the

schedule and the way it's supplied to us. Therefore debate is

appropriate. If we examine our standing orders and practice under

estimate debates, we are advised that the administrative actions of the

ministry are open for debate during estimates. As a matter of fact,

that's primarily what they're for.

[ Page 5459 ]

My opinion is that I have no problem with the member for Nanaimo's

opinion and that these could be handled either now or in estimates. I

guess the overriding rule would be that we wouldn't do it twice,

because that would be repetitive. That is my opinion, and I hope it's

accepted by the committee.

MR. LAUK: With great respect, I disagree with both the

Chairman and my learned colleague from Nanaimo. The principle involved,

quite simply, is that we're asked under the Financial Administration

Act to approve the warrants. If we approve them today we're open to

criticism, are we not, for having approved moneys we didn't know

anything about or for the opposition not assuring itself that the

government was well aware of what it was doing when it was making these

expenditures by warrant? So on a question of principle I disagree with

my colleague from Nanaimo and on a question of practicality, of course,

I agree with the Chair and the member for Nanaimo.

But carrying on with a question of principle, then, I find it rather

amusing that the Attorney-General will suggest to the chamber — which

he's entitled to do within the protection of these four walls — that he

would purport to Her Majesty's government to correct a decision of

Their Lordships. I think that they would be amused to hear that.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I take it that the Attorney-General doesn't

mean any insult to the superior courts of the province of British

Columbia. I recognize his vast legal background — his immense

comprehension, intellectual and pragmatic, of the law — in that he

purports to correct people who are dealing as judges every day in these

matters, and I certainly defer to his superiority in questions of legal

interpretation. I would think the Mountain decision is a tremendous

step forward; but then again, I don't have the Olympian qualities of

the Attorney-General in that regard.

With respect to the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, it's

the minister's office that has had an increase of $12,000. The minister

is not in his seat, and I wonder if the Minister of Finance can shed

some light on that. The order-in-council is not as detailed as we would

like to see it. We're not convinced that we know what the $12,000 is

for.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There were some increases in two or three

ministers' offices relative essentially to chargebacks to recover costs

from the communications

section of the Ministry of Universities,

Science and Communications for telecommunications costs. The member

looks puzzled, but then he usually looks puzzled around 25 minutes

before the lunch hour.

It was said in kindness, Mr. Chairman, not unkindly.

MR. LAUK: You can't possibly insult me. Carry on.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To answer the member's question as directly

as possible: Consumer and Corporate Affairs, minister's office, $12,000

supplementing vote 13, relates almost entirely to telecommunications

chargebacks which were not sufficiently provided for in the vote when

the estimates for 1984-85 were put together. That will be found in a

couple of other ministers' offices as well.

It means that rather than the Ministry of Universities, Science and

Communications paying for the telecommunication costs in a minister's

office, the policy has changed. It is now directly attributable to the

minister's office.

The member behind you does not seem to.... She probably wants to get into the debate.

It therefore leads to more accountability, Mr. Chairman, and

cautions ministers to watch their expenditures in the

telecommunications area rather than simply utilize the entire system

without accountability for it.

MR. LAUK: Does the $12,000 represent the total costs to the office of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for telecommunications?

HON. MR. CURTIS: To answer the second member for Vancouver

Centre: virtually the entire cost, yes. I can give him the very

specific detail if he wants, but that's the largest bulk of it.

MR. LAUK: What is he doing sending $12,000 worth of telegrams? Is that what it is? Is that for the telephone in his office?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I understand

telecommunications in the general sense to be the broadest form of

communications. It's telephone, telephone charges, telexes which the

minister's office initiates and dispatches over the name of the

minister. Not too much semaphore work these days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to comment further on the comment made by

the member for Nanaimo, I'm not precluding the member from continuing

on this special warrant, but we are entering the type of debate that

would be most appropriate in estimates with the appropriate minister.

MR. LAUK: I would like to question the minister with respect

to what phone calls he's been making. Does he call his riding? I mean,

$12,000 a year is a lot of money for the minister's office; it's not a

department. How does that compare with the other ministerial

expenditures from ministers' offices?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer for the

committee the kind of telephone calls that the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs may be making in the course of discharging his

duties. I'm sure that that opportunity will present itself when the

minister's estimates are presented to the Committee of Supply.

This is the first year of such chargebacks — that is, 1984-85. The

original allocation was done out of necessity on a best estimates

basis, without, obviously, prior years' experience. That process will

be refined in the years to come. But I feel very satisfied with respect

to making ministers' offices more accountable for the

telecommunications charges which they incur. I think that is a

reasonable and responsible approach.

MR. LAUK: I take it then that no amount was chargeable to the

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in either his votes or

anybody else's votes for telecommunications. Otherwise, can the

Minister of Finance account for where...? If it was budgeted in

last year's estimates,

[ Page 5460 ]

where is that $12,000? Why do we have to special warrant an

additional expenditure, and have we accounted for the money saved

elsewhere?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the last part of

the question is yes, it will clearly reflect in reduced

telecommunications charges or a slowing of growth in telecommunications

charges shown in the sub-vote of the Ministry of Universities, Science

and Communications.

But some telecommunications charges were allocated prior to 1984-85

by Treasury Board staff. That was less than perfect, in that it was an

estimate of the amount of money that would be spent in

telecommunications charges in each minister's office. It bore no direct

relationship to the precise amount expended by that office. Under the

introduction of the chargeback system, all ministers will now have

wrapped into their minister's office vote the full amount, no more and

no less, of the telecommunications costs incurred by that office.

I indicated that this is the first year of it, further refinement occurring in 1985-86.

MRS. WALLACE: Just a bit further on this, the minister went

into some detail to explain how this thing operated. I'm sure we were

all aware of that, and I'm sure that the ministers must have been aware

of that. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance who actually made

the estimates. He referred to Treasury Board making it at some point in

time. But I think last year the ministers themselves were consulted. If

that is the case, can the minister...? I'm sorry the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) isn't here, but how

does it happen that this minister is so far out?

You have indicated, Mr. Minister of Finance, that this is

practically all of the communications costs. You have indicated that

there are some other ministers who had a major portion of their

telecommunications costs overexpended. Why is it that we are so far

out? I realize that it would be a rough estimate, but I am concerned

that any minister would be that far out that his telecommunications

costs almost in entirety would be incorrect.

It speaks to me of some excesses in the use of that service, if in

fact he was so far overexpended. Am I wrong in repeating, as I thought

you said, that this represented almost the entirety of his

telecommunication costs in his ministry?

Just before I sit down, I would assume that there are

telecommunications costs charged out to ministry operations. They are

not all charged to the minister's office. Can the Minister of Finance

clear that matter up: are they all charged to ministers' offices, or

are they allocated over the operation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the member for

Cowichan-Malahat was in the chamber when we were discussing this at the

outset — perhaps she was. I said that the very large percentage of the

special warrant relative to the office of the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs was attributable to telecommunications charges. I

think the member has it turned around — accidentally, I'm sure — and

what she said is not the case.

Secondly, in a typical minister's office a number of telexes, as an

example, will be initiated at the minister's request, perhaps in

ministry operations. They will be sent to the minister for signature

and dispatched from the minister's office over the signature of the

minister, and they are therefore chargeable to the minister's office.

They may reflect a matter relating to the ministry itself, or it may be

an area of responsibility which the minister carries. Clearly, in the

case of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the 1984-85

fiscal year he had responsibilities in addition to Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. He was identified as being the minister responsible

for other agencies and commissions. In the case of my office — if I may

assist the member by way of example — if a telex is to be dispatched

over my signature, it comes to my office. I review it, amend it as

appropriate, and it is sent from my office. It is not sub-signed by

someone elsewhere in the Ministry of Finance.

[11:45]

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, this is the third time that I've

got up on this issue concerning Scottie Gold. We're talking about

$435,000 for the removal of snow by a company that is not in operation.

But it's still included in the supply bill. I would like to know why

we're talking about including $435,000 for the removal of snow. It

isn't going to be used, because the company hasn't asked for it. If you

look in the

preamble to this bill that we're facing right now, it says:

"Special Warrants of $428,885,461...." I have an amendment to line

6 of this bill, to delete the special warrants of $428,885,461 and

come in with a figure, after the reduction of Scottie Gold's $435,000,

of $428,450,461. I'm not adding anything to the bill, which would be

out of order. I'm just asking that the Crown take away the money for

Scottie Gold, because it's not needed and it's not going to be used.

Why should we be voting on a figure...? I think the fifty-ninth

edition of Beauchesne says that you can't vote on something that's not

there. We're voting on a figure of almost half a million dollars that

doesn't exist. Mind you, up in Atlin I have about four feet of snow on

my driveway and I could use it ploughed this winter. But we should take

the figure out of the

preamble and include the correct financial

figure, because we can't be throwing away $435,000.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member has touched on this a couple of

times. We are not throwing away $435,000. Mr. Chairman, I know you

ruled earlier on this. I've not heard your ruling on the amendment that

was passed up to you in the last few moments by the member for Atlin.

Under the Financial Administration Act the Minister of Finance is

required to report, and that really is what is occurring. He's

reporting on allocations and appropriations made over and above those

which were voted on in completing the budget process and estimates for

'84-85 fiscal.

MR. LAUK: Where is the $435,000?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The authority that is carried with the

special warrant for $435,000 expires at midnight on March 31 of this

year. Therefore the money will remain in consolidated revenue.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is not in Switzerland. It is not in Vancouver Centre, I earnestly trust. It is not on file in your basement, Mr. Member.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that it is appropriated from consolidated revenue. It was not spent for the purpose for

[ Page 5461 ]

which it was intended, as I indicated earlier, because the terms of

the loan were not met. Therefore the money simply rests in consolidated

revenue in the hands of the treasury, to be allocated in some other way

which this assembly decides upon in the course of '85-86.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, I've moved an amendment. Aren't you supposed to rule on it before we go on to further debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm still considering opinion, but I think....

MR. PASSARELL: Can I give my opinion on it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with the greatest respect I think

I can advise you that my opinion will be the same as it was earlier: by

statute, the amount appropriated by a special warrant shall be

submitted to the Legislature as part of the next ensuing supply bill.

That has been satisfied; therefore the amendment to not submit it or to

delete it would offend the Financial Administration Act.

MR. HOWARD: Under a point of order, it's true that the

Financial Administration Act says that. I was just reading it as you

were reading it, and that has been complied with: the minister has

submitted an amount appropriated by special warrant in the next ensuing

supply bill. That's what's before us. But by doing that, he is asking

the Legislature to approve and to sanctify by a statute that particular

expenditure. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't follow that because the

cabinet makes a decision to spend money the Legislature has no

opportunity to approve or disapprove of that. Isn't it fundamental to

the relationship of the treasury benches to the people? Isn't it

crucial and central to the whole issue of spending money that there be

a responsibility to the Legislature? If the Legislature wants to delete

$1 from an expenditure under special warrant and thus indicate a lack

of confidence in the government, which is really what we're talking

about, I would think in this sense surely the Legislature should have

that right. The Financial Administration Act, as another piece of

legislation, should not override what the Legislature may or may not

want to do at this given point.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Clearly there is a great difference between

an appropriation and an expenditure. I have told the member for Atlin,

who first raised it, and in my view quite properly, that the money was

appropriated for a particular purpose. The fact that the terms and

conditions that were set down have not been met by the other party to

the agreement means that the money has not been expended, and the

order-in-council and accompanying special warrant expire on March 31,

the end of the fiscal year.

With respect, I think the committee would be walking into dangerous

ground if it started altering appropriations rather than altering — as

is its right — expenditures as it sees fit, whether it wishes to reduce

a particular vote by $1 or $100,000. This money was appropriated

because it appeared that it would be required. As events have proven,

it is not required. The money is not in jeopardy. Therefore as of March

31 the money rests unappropriated to be utilized elsewhere as this

assembly decides.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that if we

pass this bill in this total amount of nearly half a billion dollars,

the amount in effect becomes part of the 1984-85 budget allotment. So

if that happens, what we are doing here is decreasing your operating

deficit by $435,000. We are approving this here and it will be offset

against your deficit. I don't think that's open, honest bookkeeping. If

this is required because of some rule in the Financial Administration

Act, surely orders-in-council can be rescinded. If you're not going to

need that money, can't you rescind that order-in-council, take that

amount out of here and come up with a dollar figure that actually

represents what you needed — not something that you don't need?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that members of the committee will

know that the final expenditure accounting process for a province such

as British Columbia dealing with several billions of dollars is not

complete for a number of months after the end of the fiscal year. I

have reported on, to the very best of my ability and under statutory

requirement, those expenditures which have been made and those

appropriations which appeared to have been required. But as we debated

today, Mr. Chairman, some other expenditure from 1984-85 fiscal may

well be exceeding that which was voted on and would be dealt with by

this assembly and also reviewed by the Public Accounts committee later.

The fact remains that this is a reporting and it is, with respect,

Mr. Chairman, no more than that on the special warrants side. It's a

reporting of an appropriation that was made under the statutes approved

by this assembly. To do other than report on the appropriation surely

would put me in contempt of the legislation.

MRS. WALLACE: You are then telling us, in effect, that any or all of these appropriations may not be expended in total or in part?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am saying to the committee and to the

member for Cowichan-Malahat that most of them will have been expended

by the end of this fiscal year as reported on today. But the member

surely understands.... Let us hope that nothing does occur, but

between now and the end of the fiscal year, a few days from now, the

Ministry of Highways may have to move in emergency crews and a Bailey

bridge with respect to a highway washout. The member surely understands

that. I am giving the most accurate, up-to date, complete reporting

that I can at this moment. The final accounting occurs in the

publication of the Financial and Economic Review in the summer of each

year.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like the minister to explain the

overrun here in the ombudsman's office. On a budget of $1.9 million

the ombudsman's warrant is $66,000. We hear questions from the other

side about the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; it's only

over $12,000 on an $18 million budget. I'm wondering if the minister

could tell me exactly what the $66,000 is for and how much of it was

used for the ombudsman's travel account, which is one of the highest

accounts anywhere in government.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I have to move through the

sheaf of papers, as it has been dubbed. It is special warrant No. 11,

dated January 31; it is $66,000.

[ Page 5462 ]

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to locate that one, to answer the member's question,

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to an interjection from the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I'd refer him to

section

18 of the Financial Administration Act. I think that may help him in

that regard —

section 37 and

section 18.

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to take another moment to locate the

ombudsman's special warrant request for the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While we're waiting for that, the Chair recognizes the member for North Seymour–Seymour.

MR. DAVIS: Earlier in these proceedings I asked whether the items included

in

schedule 1 were included in the revised forecast for the current year. I

believe the answer is yes. Certainly the overrun in the Ministry of Human Resources

of $154 million — roughly 12 percent — can be accounted for in that way. Highways

is over by about a third: $227 million above the estimate approved for Transportation

and Highways a year ago.

The difficulty I have in the presentation of the Minister of Finance

a few weeks ago.... In his budget he showed the likely expenditures

of Highways being up by a lesser amount — up from $569 million to $758

million. Now we find it's higher again by another $73 million. So if we

look at the

schedule and see Transportation and Highways up by $428

million, there is a lesser figure shown on table 5 of his budget —

lesser by some $73 million. Does that represent a likely unexpended

carry-over in Transportation and Highways, or is there some other

reason why the scheduled amount for Transportation and Highways, namely

$227 million total, is not fully covered in table 5 of the last budget

submission?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada