1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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 25, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3629 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3629

Budget Debate

Mr. Stupich –– 3629

Mr. Jansen –– 3635

Supply Act (No. 1), 1988 (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 3636

Second reading

Mr. Stupich –– 3636

Committee stage –– 3636

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Parker

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Miller –– 3637

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading –– 3643

Royal assent to bill –– 3644

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SERWA: This morning I have a good-news item for the

House. On behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan South

(Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I wish to extend congratulations to the

Kelowna junior girls' curling team, who last night, representing

Canada, won the world junior women's curling championship in Chamonix,

France. The members are Julie Sutton, Judy Wood, Susan Autey and Maria

Geiger. Would the House please join me in congratulating them.

MR. STUPICH: I ask the House to welcome my guests, my sister

Vi and her husband Richard Forster, Ald. and Mrs. Owen Kennedy, and, to

my surprise — it's the first time he's ever been here; I guess he

thinks it's going to be my last — my brother Roy.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for

Langley (Mrs. Gran) and myself, I would like to introduce to the House

36 students from the Credo Christian School, accompanied by one of

their teachers, Mr. De Jong, and, I believe, three other adults. Would

the House please join us in making them welcome.

HON. L. HANSON: In the gallery today are two very good

friends of mine, Mrs. Iris McLean and Mrs. Helen MacDonald from West

Vancouver. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled, on behalf of the Attorney-General, the current rules under the Court Rules Act for the Supreme Court.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Debate on the budget address, Mr. Speaker, on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.

Budget Debate

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in the 1986 election campaign the

Premier promised the voters of British Columbia a fresh start. A year

ago the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) rose in this House to

deliver his first budget: the first chance to give substance to the

Premier's claim. The Finance minister now tells us that the same

principles have guided his decision-making this year as last. What we

have, then, is a two-year package. What we find in this package is a

big tax-attack, one that hits not only working families but especially

those British Columbians who are least able to pay.

This year's budget takes $700 out of the pockets of the average B.C. family.

Adding that to the tax grab in last year's budget, working families in this

province are now out of pocket more than $1,400 in the 18 months since this

government took office. This year families will face an increase in health care

premiums of $192 a year and individuals an increase of $108. B.C. is now competing

with Ontario for the highest health care charges in Canada, at a time when only

three provinces out of ten charge any premiums. Premiums are widely recognized

as a regressive and unfair tax.

The budget yesterday showed that the Finance minister has looked in

every nook and cranny in B.C. households for ways to raise more

revenue. This is a budget which brings higher taxes on property, motor

fuels, vehicle insurance premiums, alcohol and cigarettes. And for a

Premier and government elected on the promise of cheaper bottled beer,

this is a budget which introduces a new, special 10 percent tax on

draft beer. Presumably the profit from that is going to pay for the

reduction in the bottled beer price, whenever that comes.

All this from a Premier and Minister of Finance who promised open

and fair government just one year ago. Can we really have fair

government without fair taxes? And what about the second part of that

promise? Do we have open government? I'm not talking about the promises

on freedom of information and conflict of interest, promises from the

Premier that he no longer seems interested in keeping. I'm asking a

simple question. Has the government been straightforward and honest in

explaining its finances to B.C. taxpayers?

In my response to the Speech from the Throne, I mentioned that the

new Finance minister seemed to be following an old Socred tradition:

underestimate your revenues and under spend your budget to make your

performance look good at the year's end. Now I see that he's drawn on

an even older Socred tradition with his new BS — or budget

stabilization — fund. Some might even see the ghost of Major Douglas

here.

Last year the government estimated a deficit of $850 million. That

justified, in the minister's mind, a continued squeeze on public

services and a tax grab of enormous proportions on B.C. families. Now

the minister tells us we actually had a deficit of $800 million. But

that is after dumping $450 million of revenue, which the minister

intends to put into a special budget stabilization fund. The budget

deficit was, in fact, $350 million — exactly $500 million less than

what the minister said last year, and exactly what I said the morning

after he delivered his budget speech. Either the minister was very bad

at forecasting revenue and expenditures, or he's been following that

first old Socred tradition I mentioned: underestimate revenue and

overestimate expenditures.

A little more about that fund: it really is a BS fund. It could just

as easily have been $4.5 billion as $450 million. Just add another

zero, and it would have increased the deficit accordingly. It means

nothing because there isn't one nickel to back up that fund. The

government doesn't have the money. It's $6 billion in debt right now,

and to say that we owe $450 million to a new fund means nothing, except

that it will be politically useful.

The government is proposing to add to that fund next year; they say

by $124 million. It doesn't matter what the figure is; they can make it

anything they want to produce the deficit that the minister is now

saying we are going to have next year. It can be any figure at all, and

it doesn't mean a thing, except that when they want to bring that money

back into revenue, all they have to do is take the funds. Funds?

There's no money there.

When they want to increase their surplus or reduce their deficit in

any year, they simply make a journal entry transferring from that fund

to the surplus or deficit, whatever it is,

[ Page 3630 ]

and they come up with any figure

they want. So in an election year they can produce any surplus they

want in the budget simply by making a journal entry and transferring,

as they are doing now. That's all it is. It doesn't mean a thing; there

isn't one nickel backing up that fund.

For 1988-89, the minister is estimating a deficit of $395 million,

and that's counting the $124 million that he's going to put into that

special fund. Without that, he would be estimating a deficit of $271

million. I'll say now, he's overestimating his deficit again — this

time by $300 million. We'll see what happens this time next year.

[10:15]

Put that $124 million into the special fund, and the shell game is

well underway. What the minister has done with the budget stabilization

fund proposal is establish a new special fund of $450 million — a phony

fund; not one nickel of real money in it. W.A.C. Bennett started this

practice of having special funds in B.C.; Dave Barrett, as Premier and

Minister of Finance, did the same thing. But whenever they set up a

special fund, there was money to back it up. That money was cash in the

bank or investments that were there and could be used for the purposes

of those funds. That isn't the case now.

The previous Socred government appropriated all the assets of the

existing rainy day funds. When the Socreds came into office in December

1975, the NDP administration had left $538.4 million in special rainy

day funds, and the cash and assets were there. Those cash and assets

were all taken into what they now call the combined accounts, and there

are no cash or assets of any kind to back up the fund balance today —

or at least on December 31, 1987 — of $150.8 million. They've run down

the funds and taken all the cash and assets out of it. Now they're

going to put $450 million more into the funds without putting one

nickel aside for any purpose in the future.

Not content with starting one fund with a deposit of Socred

deficits, the minister has created two. The second, called the

privatization benefits fund, we can assume will be opened with a

deficit of at least $68 million. They're going to start out with a

deficit — the cost of the early retirement package necessary to

facilitate privatization and the sell off of British Columbia's public

assets.

What does the budget tell us about Socred priorities? Some important

public issues, such as protecting B.C.'s environment, received not a

mention, and as in the throne speech, the budget makes no mention of

women. Nor is there any mention of youth. When I look at this budget I

find that funding for existing programs for women and youth has

actually been reduced. Parents and educators will welcome the 7.4

percent increase in funding for our public schools — the first real

increase in many years. However, more could and should have been done

for our public school system.

While this budget raises the government's share of funding to 63

percent of the total cost, regressive property taxes still account for

37 percent. While the non-residential property tax is being raised by

8.7 percent, it still remains $337 million before the level in 1982.

The funding shortfall is still being carried by residential property

owners and by tenants, whose rents rise with the property tax burden.

Our relief at seeing some redress for the distortions of chronic

underfunding is diminished by the spending priorities of government.

The intention is clearly to starve the public system while encouraging

the growth of independent schools. While public school funding rose by

7.4 percent, spending on independent schools jumped by over 18 percent.

The public school system obviously enjoys second-class status with this

government.

The increase in post-secondary student financial aid to $58 million

shows that the government is finally addressing the hardships caused by

years of neglect. That's good. While it's a welcome start, this

increase won't give B.C. the finest program in Canada, as the

government claims; rather it should move us from the very bottom of the

list to somewhere near the middle ranks. Additional aid should help

improve the distressingly low participation rate among 18- to

24-year-olds at our colleges, institutions and universities. B.C. was

seventh-lowest in Canada in 1984-85. Unfortunately, while this may fuel

the hopes of young people wishing to enroll in post-secondary studies,

how many are doomed to be turned away at the doors this year? The

government hasn't addressed this problem in the budget.

University operating grants have risen by 5 percent over last year,

which, with inflation, means no real increase. Colleges and

institutions fared worse, with only a slight increase — to quote the

budget — or in fact a reduction of about 3 percent when you count

inflation. What this does is heat up the demand among young British

Columbians for education, while starving the supply. That must be

Socred economics at work in education.

This policy of punishing our post-secondary institutions is a

regular feature of Socred governments. It's estimated that since

1981-82, the number of students attending our colleges, institutions

and universities has risen by about 29 percent. In the same period,

college operating budgets have increased by less than $4 million,

which, when adjusted for inflation, is really a reduction of 43 percent.

In the area of health care, the government has said that prevention

is an important part of lowering health care costs, yet this budget

provides no financial backup support to that philosophy. There's no

significant increase for preventive and community care services for

1988-89. Preventive services provide for the management and operation

of prevention programs; these include public health nursing, public

health inspection, health promotion and education, epidemiology,

medical health officers, and clinical services for sexually transmitted

diseases. Contributions from this program are provided to

municipalities for the delivery of health prevention programs and to

agencies providing health promotion programs. This lack of financial

commitment to prevention is also highlighted by the demise of the

health improvement fund, which had as one of its purposes the funding

of initiatives in preventive and community care.

AZT, a drug used by AIDS patients, biosynthetic growth hormone, used

for growth deficiencies, and cyclosporin, medication for use after

organ transplantations, are now listed under Pharmacare. This means

that patients will be footing part of the bill for these very expensive

drugs, all of which help prolong the lives of the people taking them.

For AZT and cyclosporin, patients will now pay the first $300 plus 20

percent of the drug's cost. This could cost some British Columbia

families as much as $2,000 a year.

Individual physicians, people working with AIDS patients, and the

British Columbia Medical Association have all condemned this move by

the government. Many patients will now have to decide whether to pay

for their medication or to pay for their rent.

The government's new spending for alcohol and drug awareness and

treatment is welcome; yet of the more than $90 million in new revenue

from taxes on alcohol, less than 25

[ Page

3631 ]

percent has been allocated to these new programs. The bulk of the new money

will go into general revenue, indicating that this government sees alcohol as

a cash cow rather than a serious social problem.

Agriculture is a vital and neglected resource industry in British

Columbia. Agriculture deserved and received two cents of every tax

dollar when I was Minister of Agriculture. Now it gets one-third of

that, just three-quarters of a cent. But the levels of debt and

financial stress remain unacceptably high in the agricultural community.

This is a particularly bleak budget for agriculture. Those sectors

adversely affected by the Mulroney free trade deal, particularly the

grape growers, who were promised an income replacement program, find

that they have been left to work it out on their own. The promise in

the throne speech of an international marketing strategy has attracted

no new funds, just the $1.75 million it had last year.

This lack of support for the agricultural community may be measured

by the loose-cannon Premier, who uses farmers as pawns in his ongoing

abuse of the federal government in Ottawa. One minute British Columbia,

despite the objections of farmers, is out of the national food

marketing arrangements; the next minute it's in. What will happen

tomorrow?

The lack of support for agriculture is also shown by the removal of

67 employees from an already decimated ministry. At the present rate of

decline there will be no Ministry of Agriculture left by 1992, just

four years away.

Thinking along the same lines, it seems obvious to me that the

Vancouver Island Highway will be a long time a building, with an

allocation of only $6 million. But then, as has been said many times

before, why use up a good promise by keeping it?

Just before this budget, the traveling public was hit with increased

ferry fares, an increase which will bring in $6 million to the B.C.

Ferry Corporation. By coincidence, in yesterday's budget $6 million was

cut from the ferry subsidy. This will add to the cost of living for

most people on the islands and in Powell River, but the Premier won't

notice. He'll be too busy flying on his new $12 million jet, paid for

with the tax dollars hidden in the budget estimates of the Provincial

Secretary.

Conspicuous by its absence in the budget is any provision for the

restoration of motor vehicle testing. If this is to be introduced, it

suggests that the motorists will be picking up all the startup costs.

Instead of the $5 inspection fee, British Columbians could be paying

$25 or more.

I've already pointed out the heavy tax burden imposed on average families

in British Columbia by this government over the past two years. In last year's

budget, the minister promised to make taxes simpler and more understandable.

He said his government would make the tax system more fair for British Columbians.

But when you look closely at the changes made last year, what do you find? Changes

to income tax rates meant that those British Columbians with taxable incomes

between $10,000 and $30,000 faced an increase of about 8 percent. As taxable

income rose, the rate of increase dropped. What we find is British Columbians

with a taxable income of $60,000 actually had an increase of 3 percent. Those

with taxable incomes over $180,000 actually paid less under his new "fair"

system. Does the minister really believe that's fair? Unfortunately for

many British Columbians, he must, for there's nothing in this year's

budget to give relief from last year's tax increases on middle- and low-income

families.

A basic principle which guided the introduction of income taxes in

Canada was that those with greater ability to pay should take a greater

share of the tax burden. In last year's budget, we find the minister

taking credit for changes that give high income earners the

second-lowest marginal tax rate in the whole of Canada. That was

supposed to be progress. Does making the wealthy pay less make the tax

system more fair? In the eyes of this Finance minister and his

government, it obviously does, since there is no change in this year's

budget.

Corporations as well as individuals pay income tax, and fairness

must apply to the balance between taxes paid by individuals and

families and those paid by corporations. In 1981 individuals carried 75

percent of the income tax burden, corporations 25 percent. Today, with

this budget, individuals must contribute 83 percent, leaving

corporations only 17 percent of the income tax burden.

Last year the government promised a reduction in the retail sales

tax, but then decided it couldn't afford it. After all, they'd given an

extra $20 million to the hospitals, so they had to keep on that extra

point that contributes about $220 million.

However, although they reneged on the promise to reduce sales tax,

they kept their promise to corporations, and they did indeed implement

the tax reduction on January I of this year for corporations. At 14

percent, apart from Prince Edward Island, it's the lowest rate in all

of Canada.

Small business gets a reduction in income tax in this year's budget,

but only from the high rate imposed last year. At 9 percent, it's still

I percent above the pre-Couvelier rate, and it is still the

second-highest tax rate on small business in the whole of Canada.

The 1987 budget made mention of the fact that the government

intended to recover more of the costs of government through fee

increases. Did anyone really expect 662 increases brought in since the

last budget? I had staff look them up. He said more fee increases.

Since he became minister,662 fee increases were imposed without benefit

of any discussion in the House — no legislation; simply using the

present legislation. Did anyone expect 662 fee increases when the

minister said there would be some fee increases? It's difficult to get

a clear picture of the amount of revenue raised through these fee

increases, since they're spread all through government. But this year

the government is promising an additional $40 million in new fee

increases.

Increases in fees are hidden taxes. Most people don't find out about

them until they go to pay them. They are taxes levied with no regard to

ability to pay. In a province with high unemployment and poor public

transit, many are finding the 150 percent increase in the fee for

drivers' licences hard to pay.

[10:30]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Not all of these fee increases are paid by individuals. Many

constitute a heavy charge for B.C.'s small business. Many employers

will be paying the hefty increase in health care premiums on behalf of

their employees. And businesses have to pay the fees, whether or not

they are making money. In the last year the fee for a liquor licence

for a restaurant jumped 233 percent from $150 to $500, while that for

cabarets, hotels and lounges doubled from $500 to $1,000 per year. Fee

increases hit every area imaginable, from mandatory safety inspections

to commercial vehicle licences.

[ Page 3632 ]

If the minister is truly concerned with fairness and efficiency in

the tax system, he should look closely at corporate tax breaks. Last

year's budget provided income tax breaks of over $58 million for

corporations. In this Legislature we give close scrutiny to government

spending, ministry by ministry, item by item; yet to my knowledge we

have never had a comprehensive study of tax expenditures through tax

breaks in this province.

In other western provinces which have studied these breaks, they

have found that these breaks equal as much as 14 percent of their

government's total expenditures. Federal auditor-general Kenneth Dye

called for close scrutiny of tax expenditures in his 1985-86 annual

report. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have both begun tabling detailed

breakdowns of tax breaks in their 1986 budgets.

In this province, we still give away millions of dollars without any

idea if we are getting good value for the revenues we forgo. In last

year's budget, the minister said his government believed that

taxpayers' money should be used carefully. If he's serious about this

commitment, he should have his ministry prepare a detailed study of tax

breaks and table it in the House. This budget doesn't even provide a

single piece of information on tax breaks.

Looking back at the two budgets this Finance minister has brought

down, I would ask the minister to show us a single important measure

introduced which has made the tax system more fair. From reducing the

tax on banks and trust companies, raising the minimum property tax paid

by seniors, to those unfair charges in income tax I've mentioned, the

direction of this government is actually towards greater tax unfairness

in British Columbia.

The Finance minister praises the government's record for the last

year, pointing to a lower deficit and renewed efforts to get rid of the

debt. But why do we have deficits? Why are British Columbians saddled

with a debt? The answer lies in the record of Social Credit governments

over the past 12 years. The Premier and many of his cabinet were

important members of past Socred governments. At times in this House

they like to forget that, preferring to divert the attention of British

Columbians to today's problems. But many of B.C.'s financial woes today

can be traced to the mistakes of yesterday.

B.C. is the last major Canadian province to come out of the

recession. By now it has become a clich to say that many of the

indicators for our economic future more closely resemble those of the

Atlantic provinces than our western neighbours. Any progress in

reducing our government's deficit budgets has not been through new

economic growth or fair taxes; it has come through higher taxes on

average families and a massive attack on public service spending, which

will restrain economic performance further down the road.

The Finance minister praises this government's record on job

creation, but the minister appears to be easily satisfied. Unemployment

for B.C. workers is 40 percent higher than in any other western

province, and more than double Ontario's 5.7 percent rate. When the

B.C. unemployment rate drops to the 7.5 percent rate that it stood at

when the New Democrats left office in this province, then the Finance

minister can crow. When the number of unemployed drops below 85,000, as

it was in December of 1975, then let's hear from the minister. The

minister says: "Good old days." Compared to today, exceptionally good

days.

We all hope sincerely that we are at the end of this long period of

stagnation in British Columbia. But we have only just exceeded the

employment levels of 1981, and this is 1988. Job creation and growth

figures spread over a single year may be impressive; spread over seven

years, they look much more modest. In fact, in constant dollars the

gross provincial product is still below the 1981 level. This means that

living standards in this province are still below even our 1981 level,

and the investment levels this government brags about in this budget

are still below 1981 in real dollar terms.

Not surprisingly, women have been treated as second-class citizens

by Socred governments. Women continue to earn only 63 percent of what

men earn. They have made only very small gains in the non-traditional

job market. Lack of affordable child care remains a major obstacle to

full and equal participation of women in our economy. A small increase

in child care funding in this budget is a very small and disappointing

step in this direction.

Under Social Credit governments, poverty has become a growth

industry in B.C. There are now more than twice as many people in the

province dependent on social assistance as in 1975. If you combine

welfare with unemployment insurance recipients, the number surely must

exceed half a million people. According to annual reports of the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing, the purpose of income

assistance programs is to provide a basic income for British Columbians

in need. Many of these are single-parent families who, through no fault

of their own, require help. This budget, however, indicates that there

will be no increase in income support for the 240,000 persons living on

income assistance across this province.

The government has chosen to ignore studies that show families

receiving their assistance in British Columbia are living 40 percent

below the poverty line. The Finance minister has said that income

assistance will only be given to those who are really in need. Is he

saying that money is now being given to people who are not in need?

Some members of the House may recall that in 1976 the Premier, then the

Minister of Human Resources, formed a "welfare fraud squad." It ended

in failure. Are we planning a repeat of this witch-hunt? Is this why

$42 million has been cut from the income assistance programs?

Personal prospects remain uncertain when unemployment remains high

for long periods. Many have become discouraged and have stopped looking

for work. Many British Columbians have had to pick up and move to other

provinces or even to the U.S. First we had recruiters from California

trying to pick off the best of our teachers — not only trying but doing

it. Now we have the same thing with respect to nurses. The brain drain

that was halted in the seventies has been resumed with full force.

Many communities remain afflicted with unacceptably high rates of

unemployment. The official figures for the West Kootenays and for

Kamloops still stand at over 20 percent. The editor of the local

newspaper in Kamloops advised me that the true figure is at least 27

percent, possibly higher.

When the youths of these communities are forced to move away to find

jobs, the community is impoverished far beyond the economic indicators.

This, too, is part of the legacy of 12 years of Social Credit

mismanagement. Twelve years of Social Credit mismanagement has left us

with a legacy of debt.

When the New Democrats left office, there had not been an operating deficit in the province of British Columbia

since the public accounts dated March 31, 1918. There was a deficit that year, and it was paid off the next year. There never

[ Page 3633 ]

was another deficit in the province of British

Columbia until the public accounts tabled by the Hon. Evan Wolfe in

1976. With this budget British Columbians have now faced nine

successive deficits for an accumulated deficit of over $6.5 billion.

What is worse is that for the period of 1980 to 1988 the government

predicted deficits amounting to $3.4 billion, but actually ran up a

total accumulated deficit of $6.5 billion, almost double their

prediction: $3.1 billion worth of incompetence costing the average B.C.

family $3,500. How did they manage this? Or, to be more precise, how

did they mismanage this?

MR. HARCOURT: How did they get away with it? That's the question.

MR. STUPICH: Yes. Two projects alone account for more than $1

billion of this in cost overruns — the Coquihalla Highway and SkyTrain.

This is mismanagement of public funds on a massive scale. The

Coquihalla Highway was budgeted first at $375 million and came in $500

million over budget. SkyTrain was budgeted at $289 million and came in

$700 million over budget. These two projects alone cost the average

family in British Columbia $1,500 more than it had to.

The government says the net provincial debt is now $4.2 billion, or

$5,400 for the average family, but that's realistic only if we intend

to sell off the public's assets, including our highways, our hospitals

and our parks. If we get rid of all those assets, then our debt is a

mere $4.2 billion. That's not realistic. Obviously that isn't the plan,

though the wild ideas the Premier sometimes espouses should make me

hesitate in saying that it may not be their plan.

When the Socreds took office in December 1975, the government had no direct debt. To be fair, there was....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You weren't here, Mr. Member. I'd love to take a

few minutes to talk about that, if you really want to. Would you like

to know more about that, Mr. Member? I'll see if I get more reaction.

There was no direct debt on December 22, 1975. There was on March

31, 1976. Some of you will remember the famous Clarkson Gordon report

when the Premier said: "I've asked Clarkson Gordon to do a complete

audit of all of the government accounts and all of the Crown

corporations and to bring the report in two weeks hence." If anybody

knows anything about accounting — let alone auditing — to do that kind

of a job in two weeks is totally ridiculous, although the Premier in

the opening statement said that he had asked Clarkson Gordon to do

this. It's there in the same booklet. I'm not sure if the minister has

had time to read it.

He said he'd asked for an audit. Clarkson Gordon, in their opening

words, said: "You have asked us to give you a nonaudited report." In

effect, they went on to say: "You have asked us to add up the column of

figures that you're going to supply us and to tell you what the deficit

will be on March 31, 1976, if we add up the figures you give us for

revenue and add up the figures you give us for expense." That's really

all they were asked to do, and it's all they could do.

The government said: "These are the items on which we are going to

spend money on March 31, 1976." Clarkson Gordon said: "If you do that,

then the deficit will be close to the $405 million that the government

did produce." That $405 million, along with the surplus of $144 million

that had been left there by the NDP administration, did leave a deficit

of $261 million. But how did they blow all that money? That's worth

looking at too. Non-budgetary expenditures in that year, leaving out

transfers to special funds — there were some — by this incoming Social

Credit government in December 1975, totalled $240 million, including

$181.5 million given to ICBC. I recall the minister, Pat McGeer,

standing over there and saying that ICBC needed it because they didn't

have money to pay wages. Do you know where the government borrowed the

$400 million? They borrowed it from ICBC who, on March 31, 1976, had

$700 million cash. They didn't need that $181 million from the

taxpayers, but the government needed it to create a deficit.

[10:45]

Apart from non-budgetary expenditures, what about the $248.7 million

of over expenditures, all happening in the last month, the last day of

March 1976? That totals $528.8 million, and they said there was a

deficit of $405 million. Without those things, most of the surplus that

we left March 31, 1975, would have been there March 31, 1976 –– 1

haven't heard anything from the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr.

Parker), so I'll leave that for now.

The real figure for B.C.'s debt today is now $19.2 billion — more

than $24,000 for the average family. I really feel it's necessary to

say a few words about the budget record of the NDP in government from

1972 to 1975, since we hear frequent references to the mythology

generated on the other side of the House, generally by people who were

not here and don't have the advantage of the information.

All the information I have came from public accounts and, Mr.

Speaker, you'll know that until the public accounts for the year ended

March 31, 1987, public accounts have always been the truth and the word

in British Columbia. There was never any suspicion in anybody's mind

that public accounts represented anything other than the total truth.

They were certified by the comptroller-general in earlier days — more

recently by the auditor-general — and everybody accepted them as gospel.

It's only when Commissioner MacKay inquired, heard testimony and saw

evidence that led him to the conclusion that the public accounts had

been tampered with by the Ministry of Finance and by others that we

start to wonder: can we ever in the future trust public accounts? But

in the period I'm dealing with there was never any question about it.

They were reliable; everybody knew that. We never had a deficit budget.

At the same time, B.C. had some of the lowest taxes in the country.

Only Alberta had a lower personal income tax rate. No province had a

lower income tax rate for small business; no province had a lower

retail sales tax; no province charged less to license vehicles. Our

government introduced a wide range of very necessary programs and

services. A farm income assistance plan was set up to ensure decent

incomes for B.C. farmers. The community services department was

established for the first time in B.C. Community resource boards were

established to give local residents a say in the delivery of health and

social services. That's what decentralization used to mean.

As well, our government built up assets for the people of British

Columbia. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation brought in nearly $1 billion

in resource revenues from B.C. natural gas, until it was wiped out by

this government.

[ Page 3634 ]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: A little louder, please. I'd love to respond, if I can hear it.

Canadian Cellulose at a cost to the people of British Columbia of $1.... That's all it cost.

HON. MR. PARKER: Plus an incredible debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which was paid off.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the member over there who likes to

speak from his seat said that there was an incredible debt. Indeed,

Canadian Cellulose did have a bonded indebtedness of some $70 million.

We guaranteed that Canadian Cellulose would make the payments on that

bonded debt, and they did make the payments every year on that bonded

debt and did pay dividends every year to the people of British Columbia.

Ocean Falls, a complete town along with a pulp mill, was purchased

for a cost of $789,582 — purchased at prices far below book value.

Under public ownership they became money-makers and were able to save

the jobs that were so important in those communities. That's why we

bought it. In the short time it remained in public hands under the

control of directors appointed by the NDP administration, it returned

over $60 million in profits to the treasury of British Columbia.

Then it was given away by the previous Socred Premier, who

established a new corporation to hold it, and if any of you have shares

that you bought at $6, you know now they're worth something like 90

cents. They're not worth that, but that's what the market is today.

When they were being run by directors appointed by the NDP

administration, they were returning profits to the people of British

Columbia every year. When they were turned over to directors appointed

by the Social Credit administration, they ran those assets into the

ground. It's a sorry record for the Social Credit.

Panco Poultry. The Premier talked about that one day — pinko Panco.

That's a terrible story, isn't it? In order to keep that employment and

to retain the production facilities — the farming, the processing and

all that — we paid $4.8 million for Panco Poultry. In their first burst

of privatization, the government decided to sell Panco. They sold it at

what it was worth, and it was worth over $14 million just a few years

later, after producing annual profits of $1.2 million for the taxpayers

of British Columbia. So in total we made over $10 million on that

purchase after holding it for three years. That's good business, Mr.

Speaker. We bought it at a good price.

During the three years we were there, we built and paid for three

new B.C. ferries. This government, again, in one of its bursts of

privatization, sold those ferries to eastern financial interests. We

made a deal with them. We said: you give less than we paid for them. We

paid $55 million; you give us $48 million, and we'll buy them back over

18 years and pay you a total of $96 million. We'll give you twice as

much as you give us, and at the end of that time, we'll negotiate with

you as to how much we're going to pay to get the ferries back into

ownership in British Columbia. We'll give you a better deal. It was a

tax loophole, and we had to hurry to get this legislation through the

House because the tax loophole might be closed by Ottawa. That's what

the minister responsible at the time told us. So we got it through.

Part of the deal was that, in the event that the federal government

ever closed this tax loophole within the 18-year life of the agreement,

the taxpayers of British Columbia would see that the people who bought

our ferries didn't lose a nickel by any action on the part of the

federal government to close that tax loophole. They couldn't lose, but

the taxpayers of British Columbia could. That's Social Credit.

We purchased over a million shares of Westcoast Transmission for

just over $25 million. In the market today, if we still had them those

shares would be worth $43 million, 60 percent more than we paid, and

they returned dividends to the people of British Columbia every year

that we had them. They were a good investment for the people of British

Columbia and an awfully poor investment for those who bought BCRIC

shares.

We put real cash money into rainy day funds, totalling $201.5

million in our three years, bringing the grand total of those funds

when we left office to $552 million. And as I said before, Mr. Speaker,

the cash and investments were there that could be used for the purposes

of those funds, so different from today. In the 1975 public accounts —

the last ones tabled by the NDP — our revenue surplus was $45.1 million

higher than when we assumed office in 1972, after having spent all the

money we spent on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

As mayor of Vancouver, the Leader of the Opposition turned in

balanced budgets every year. He balanced multimillion dollar budgets

during the worst recession since the 1930s and, Mr. Speaker, he did it

without any cutbacks in services and without layoffs. To this day,

Vancouver still has a triple-A credit rating, one that B.C. lost when

the Socred parade of deficits became the norm.

New Democrats have a sound program for their next term in

government. As our leader, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Harcourt), stated in his response to the throne speech, the fundamental

difference between New Democrats and this government is that we believe

governments can provide public leadership in the development of our

economy and our society. A New Democratic government would restore

equity to the tax system. Fairness in our tax system can help restore

the sense of common purpose and cooperation that is necessary to

economic growth in our province. New Democrats would make sure that the

wealthy and big business pay their fair share of taxes. Those who make

money should always make at least a minimum contribution to the public

treasury, and since Mulroney hasn't delivered on his promise for

effective minimum personal and corporate income taxes, British Columbia

should show leadership in this direction.

New Democrats would make sure that we get a fair return from our

natural resources. New Democrats would review tax breaks to make sure

we are getting good value for what is a tax expenditure. In particular,

we must make sure that tax breaks to corporations are tied to job

creation. New Democrats would press for changes to corporate tax laws

to encourage investment in new jobs, rather than mergers and takeovers,

which create no new economic activity.

New Democrats would eliminate unfair tax increases on small business. We would start by rolling back the

tax increase on B.C.'s small business all the way to where it was when these fellows came into office —

8 percent. That would once again give us the lowest small business tax rate in Canada.

[ Page 3635 ]

New Democrats would reform B.C.'s property tax system to make sure

the burden is more fairly shared by those who can afford to pay.

As I near my conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to recall two remarks

made recently by the Finance minister — remarks made in jest, but

revealing remarks all the same. When asked about the discrepancies in

budget proposals, the minister told reporters: "Remember, I lied to

them last year. You can't put too much credence on what a politician

says, you know." It's in the Times-Colonist on March 24, 1988.

When asked to explain why he was forcing the merger of two credit

unions here in Victoria, the minister replied it was,"because I am

autocratic, arrogant and uncooperative." That's from the Times-Colonist

of March 15, 1988.

The first quotation betrays a certain affinity with the first

Bennett government. The second sounds all too much like the second

Bennett government. Most of all, they certainly convince me that this

is just another Social Credit government. The one difference from the

previous Socred governments is that we now have an overriding concern

with personal moral issues and a worn-out personal agenda placed ahead

of the bread-and-butter issues that are so important to the future of

this province.

In a short time this government has managed to pile up quite a

record, and the Premier says he has only just begun. Unfortunately for

British Columbia, it's a record of increased confrontation and

uncertainty, beginning with Bill 19 and Bill 20 last year, and

continuing with privatizations, decentralization, and now a war of hot

air with the federal government.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Last fall this government suddenly invented eight states within B.C.

that have absolutely nothing to do with the traditional, economic,

geographic, transportation or cultural links among the different

regions and communities of our province. This government decided that

these new states would form the basis of a new system of government in

B.C. They appointed a minister of state for each of these new regions.

They announced impressive but vague plans for the future of these

states. The government mislabeled this new system of government

"decentralization." I say mislabeled, because it is really a

centralization of political and economic power right here in Victoria:

to be more specific, in the west wing of this building in the office of

the Premier.

Instead of a more democratic system of government, all that this

ill-conceived plan does is encourage discord among B.C.'s regions. It

nurtures unnecessary rivalry between communities for the money and the

favours dispensed by the Premier through his ministers of state.

[11:00]

In yesterday's budget the government benches revealed a further aspect

of their so-called decentralization plan. They told the people in the made-up

state of Nechako and the made-up Kootenay state and several of their other made-up

states around the province that not only were they now part of a new government

system that ignores their elected MLAs — a system that will see the most important

decisions about their new state made in secret in Victoria — but that their

new state was also worth less to the government than some other states. Hence

the rivalry. Yesterday the people in Fraser Lake were told that their newly

created Nechako region is worth 30 percent less to this government than the

Mainland-Southwest region.

Mr. Speaker, it's in the budget. Instead of a more open and

democratic government as promised to British Columbians, we find

evidence in this budget of the pork-barrel principles that guide this

power grab by the Premier and his made-up ministers of state.

Finally, Mr. Speaker. I note we have a new vote in this budget: vote

74. This vote was formerly under the Minister of Finance, but it

appears here that we have the Premier at work, undermining his

ministers once again. This time we have $90 million worth of new

programs under one vote — a group of programs that looks suspiciously

like the Premier's pet projects. This vote will provide funding for new

initiatives to strengthen the family, for science and technology and in

health care and social programs.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: No. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance asks: "Are we opposed?" What we are opposed to is to put them in one vote in

the Premier's office, rather than these totally unrelated projects,

goals and initiatives, which would be better served if undertaken by

the major and appropriate ministries. That's where we have — or, at

least, used to have — the talent and expertise to deal effectively and

efficiently with these important initiatives. We're losing that talent;

I'm not sure how much is left. But to the extent that it exists in the

government service today, it exists in the major ministries — not in

the Premier's office.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this use of public funds for the

Premier's ad hoc, back-door approach to policy development and

implementation. We cannot support measures which place an increasingly

unfair share of tax burden upon the average British Columbia family.

In short, we cannot support this budget. Our economic future is too

important. British Columbians deserve better from their government.

It's time the Premier and this government started listening to what

British Columbians are saying about the need for openness, honesty and

fairness from their government. It's time this government put its own

personal agenda on the back burner and got to work on the important

bread-and-butter issues which concern British Columbians. It's time

this government stopped taking British Columbia voters for granted.

MR. JANSEN: I'd like to compliment the members opposite for

their very good critique of the budget, and I look forward to debate in

the weeks that lie ahead. I*m sure that all of us took forward to that

discussion.

Mr. Jansen moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1988

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

a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1988.

[ Page 3636 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, this Supply Act is

introduced in order to provide supply for the continuation of

government programs until the government's estimates for 1988-89 have

been debated and voted upon in this assembly. This will provide interim

supply for the first three-month period of the 1988-89 fiscal year

which begins in a few days. This interim supply is urgently required in

order that a variety of essential payments, including the government's

payroll and payments to hospitals, school districts, universities, GAIN

recipients and social agencies may continue uninterrupted. Therefore,

in order to maintain the uninterrupted delivery of government programs,

it is essential that this supply be granted expeditiously.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I'll ask that the bill be distributed.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, 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 account required for the government's fully recoverable

ministry-related financing transactions which appear in

schedule D in

the estimates. The third

section requests an amount of $21 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, Mr. Speaker, 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 1988-89 fiscal year.

MR. STUPICH: We understand the importance of passing the

supply bill. While we have a lot of criticism of the budget — the

expenditures and the revenue measures — we appreciate that when it

comes to passing the supply bill, it has to be done now. We'll have the

rest of the discussion when we come back. I know some of my colleagues

want to make some points about some of the items in the schedule, but

my recommendation to them would be that we do it in committee stage.

With that,1 say the opposition will be supporting second reading.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move second reading of Bill 20.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With leave, I ask that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1988

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can let it pass

that the establishment of these ministries of state and the funding of

that was not done through legislation in this House. It was done

through warrants, which we are now asked to approve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, pardon me for interrupting, but I

thought we would deal with those when we deal with the schedule. Is

that satisfactory?

MR. G. HANSON: Just in general terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, please proceed.

MR. G. HANSON: The comment should be made that this

particular matter of such fundamental importance in the province of

British Columbia.... For a cabinet to rearrange the structure of

government of the province without recourse through this Legislature,

rather than by hindsight.... Here we are just up to the end of the

fiscal year in the following year, when on October 29, 1987, special

warrants were presented and $1 million allocated to eight regions of

the province to supersede local government, to supersede the duly

elected officials who sit in this House. I think the point has got to

be made that now we have that kind of travesty ruled into an interim

supply bill when you are asking for provision for the next three months

for a third of the budget and we have to deal with this kind of matter.

It's like the slot machines. Slot machines for B.C. Ferries was in the

interim supply bill, and this is of the same order. It's a slot machine

government, and I oppose it most vehemently.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Brummet

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Crandall

Rabbitt

Mercier

Veitch

Strachan

Couvelier

R. Fraser

Jansen

Gran

Chalmers

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Blencoe

Gabelmann

Boone

Skelly

Stupich

Rose

Marzari

G. Hanson

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

A. Hagen

Jones

Clark

Edwards

Miller

Messmer

Huberts

Peterson

Jacobsen

NAYS — 1

Kempf

[11:15]

section 3.

MR. STUPICH: In sections 1 and 2 we're dealing with one-quarter of the budget; in

section 3 I think we're dealing

[ Page 3637 ]

with the whole amount. I don't have my estimates

here, but I take it from the reading that that's the whole amount for

the year rather than a quarter.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member is correct: it applies to the whole year.

Section 3 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll deal, hon. members, with the

schedule by warrant, one at a time.

On warrant 1.

MR. STUPICH: Again, Mr. Chairman, just for verification, this

is money that was sent to us from the federal government. Is that

correct? And we're passing it on to Frank Behan Logging?

HON. MR. PARKER: No, these are funds that are shared with the

federal government. On a $31 million overall number, we are responsible

for $8 million of it. So about 25 percent of it is provincial; 75

percent will be federal. And we have yet to receive the federal funds.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like more specific information about what this money actually gives the loggers. This is money directed at...?

HON. MR. PARKER: Severance allowance that reflects their employment contract requirements and relocation assistance.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Has that money been provided to the workers? Have they been relocated? And how successful is the program?

HON. MR. PARKER: The money has been provided and we have a receipted payroll.

MR. MILLER: On the same matter, there was some contention in

terms of people who were direct contractors in that operation on Lyell

Island. There's one in particular, a scaler, who, in terms of the kind

of work, was equivalent to an employee, every bit as much as somebody

who was there as a faller or whatever. Yet those people find themselves

out in the cold in terms of any kind of compensation.

I wonder if the minister could advise us what's happening with

regard to those people who have been waiting a considerable amount of

time and are now feeling a bit up in the air, not knowing really what

the true picture is in terms of what's happening with regard to the

proposed agreement. They're getting one story from people on the

provincial side that the federal government is holding things up and

getting another story on the federal side that perhaps the province is

holding things up.

What can you say that I could carry back to people who are in that

position — who are an integral part of that operation, and yet find

themselves not knowing if they're going to even receive any

compensation? They haven't even been advised whether or not they're

eligible to receive any compensation.

HON. MR. PARKER: Those employees who were immediately

displaced by the cessation of operations were compensated for in

concurrence with their employment agreement. The contractors, including

the prime contractor, Frank Behan Logging Ltd., are yet to be settled

in their claims. Their claims are to be made directly to the Ministry

of Environment and Parks. because the agreement is between provincial

environment and federal environment ministries. All contractors,

everybody else having any claim.... Those employees who were under a

union agreement and were immediately displaced by the cessation of

operations on Lyell Island were compensated for their severance pay and

their costs of relocation. But all other contractors still have to

realize their claims.

MR. MILLER: Yes, I'm aware that the direct employees received

compensation. But getting back to what I think is a central point in

terms of this issue, there's been a suggestion, for example, that the

people I've described — who were scalers; who were an integral part;

who were there purely because that logging operation was taking place —

perhaps would not be entitled to compensation, and that they might be

in the same category, for example, as a laundry who may have done some

dry-cleaning for the company.

I think this is very fundamental to the issue of compensation. Is it

the minister's view that a person like I've described, a scaler

directly contracted...? Because, after all, the government sees

contracting as a legitimate means of transferring employees from being

direct employees but still doing the same service as a private company.

Would the minister agree that the person I've described, a scaler,

would be eligible for compensation?

HON. MR. PARKER: The contractors to the various licensees

have their claim against the licensee. That's where their contract

lies. Those licensees that are entitled to compensation for their

disposition in the South Moresby issue have yet to have their matters

settled so that they are in a position to settle with their

contractors. But the contracts are between two parties, the contractor

and the licensee, and they must settle any outstanding claims. The

licensees are entitled to compensation in part by the provincial

government and the federal government through the procedure I outlined

earlier.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, I have to pursue this, because

we're now at perhaps the first opportunity to have any kind of public

debate on the question. Again I have to refer back to the

particular.... I haven't named the individual, and I won't, but he was

a prime contractor in terms of the scaling operations or duties that he

performed on Lyell Island.

[11:30]

Are you saying, then, that that individual, that company, has to go

and fight it out with the licensee in terms of any kind of

compensation? Is the government not going to play a role? The

government was quite outspoken. I remember talking to the Minister of

Environment and Parks (Hon. Mr. Strachan) last year in terms of that

question of compensation — I believe it was during your estimates —

because this was a focal point of many of the discussions.

I recall the government getting up and expressing a lot of concern

about the people who were going to be displaced as a result of that

agreement and how they had to fight and make sure that there was going

to be compensation. Are you now

[ Page 3638 ]

saying that the contractor I've referred to — the

scaler — is simply going to have to fight it out with the licensee,

that the government is not going to be there acting in the best

interests of that individual? Is that the kind of setup you're

contemplating?

HON. MR. PARKER: If the contractor provided a service under

the terms of a contract with the licensee, then it's the licensee who's

liable. It's that simple.

MR. MILLER: I'll just confirm then: the minister is saying

that the government does not intend to do anything to assist the people

in that position of being a contractor to the licensee, despite the

statements they made across this province in terms of what they

intended to do to protect people who were displaced, and that they now

are not going to become involved in that process.

HON. MR. PARKER: If the contractor has a contract with the

licensee and provided service under that contract, then he should be

paid under the terms of that contract by the licensee. It's that

straightforward.

MR. MILLER: I would direct my question to the Minister of

Environment and Parks. It's really the same question: is that the

Minister of Environment and Parks' understanding of how these matters

are to be dealt with? Is there scope for some discussion in terms of

the people involved in that former logging operation, or is this a

cut-and-dried thing that you will take no

part in?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, we are taking a very active part. I'd

like to be more forthcoming at this point with respect to those further

discussions, but I can't be until the agreement is signed. I can advise

this committee that we are very close to signing that agreement with

the federal government, which will, in fact, put in place the

negotiations you're inquiring about.

What we have here, Mr. Chairman and members, is the payout to

employees in the special warrant, and that's what we're discussing now.

I realize that the member would like to discuss further items in the

whole South Moresby agreement, but regrettably at this point I don't

think we can.

However, let me finish my comments by saying that the member for

Prince Rupert has used the term that the contractor has to "fight it

out." I think that's putting it in a pejorative or at least a

misleading — and I don't say this in any unparliamentary sense — style

of language. We don't see this as a fighting-out process but, in fact,

a negotiation process.

As the Minister of Forests has indicated, where you have a contract,

you have a contract. Everyone knows what that contract says. That's

something that if the contractor has to take it to court, he can, but

we doubt it will come to that stage. The contract is simply there; it's

for everyone to see. And from that contract will be fair and

appropriate adjudication and settlement of the breaking of that

contract because of South Moresby going to a federal park.

I don't believe we can say much more about that at this time, but I

undertake to you, sit, and to members of this House, to make public all

the details we can, once the final agreement is reached with the

federal government — and that is to be done soon.

MR. MILLER: I don't want to take too much time of the House

in this, but one final question to the Minister of Environment and

Parks. It was from your office that I received the suggestion that the

contractor — in this case, the scaler — could be comparable to or put

into the same category as someone who may have provided dry-cleaning or

laundry facilities or services to some of the people on Lyell Island. I

reject that, but it came from your office. Why would that come from

your office if you're saying, in effect, that it's got nothing to do

with the government, that, it's a matter between contractor and

licensee?

I put that question to you, and I respect what you've said so far. I

would just finish it with one further question about whether people in

the position I've described would be able to come to you or the

Minister of Forests or both in terms of advice and assistance for

settling what they feel are legitimate claims with respect to what

happened on South Moresby.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: All I can respond at this point, Mr.

Chairman, is that that's a fair comment by the member for Prince

Rupert. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me to say much more

than I have said in the previous correspondence. I will admit to the

committee that I walked in here without hearing all of the debate, and

I was unaware of what contractor you were speaking of. I'm sorry, but

since I didn't hear all of your discussion with the Minister of

Forests, I wasn't aware which contract you were speaking about.

MR. ROSE: I'm concerned that we're taking a legalistic

approach to this, and I don't think that the member for Prince Rupert

is really seeking that. I think he's asking both ministers to use their

good offices to operate in such a way in the settlement so that there

is no impediment placed between that person — in this case, a

licence-holder who is settling with the province — and someone under

whose contract for scaling exists.... and that this person is really

left out in the cold in terms of the agreement, because he doesn't fall

under the terms of those

definitions. But he has a contract, which he

shouldn't have to fight for, and any settlement going to the

licence-holder should also include a very strong suggestion from both

ministries that they will receive this compensation only if they settle

their contractual obligations to the scalers or whomever else they

might have some legal indebtedness to.

Warrant 1 approved.

On warrant 2.

MR. BLENCOE: At long last the people of this province are

going to have an illegal act made legitimate in the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Chairman, we have waited close to six months for this

government to come clean and put before this Legislature legal

authority for the spending of taxpayers' moneys to the tune of $8

million. Close to six months later the law has finally caught up with

this govern ment. This government has continued to abuse the traditions

and the laws of the province, and there's no more blatant case than

this warrant we have before us today, legitimizing an illegal act that

took place nearly six months ago.

Mr. Chairman, we know why this government was prepared to violate

the principles and the traditions and the law regarding special

warrants and the appropriation of taxpayers' money for government

purposes. The reason was that

[ Page 3639 ]

they wanted to put in place a system that's alien

to the British parliamentary system that has governed this province

since Confederation. That's what they were up to, and they didn't have

the decency or the understanding or the respect for the traditions of

parliament to table that plan and that program before this Legislature.

They had contempt for the parliament and the traditions that we've

accepted in this province and this country since Confederation.

Now, Mr. Chairman, close to six months later, this government has

decided that it had better follow the law in the province of British

Columbia. We have already seen this government, in my estimation and I

think the estimation of most British Columbians, start to spend part of

the $8 million without the authority of this Legislature, for a system

that is basically a blatant, flagrant attempt to grab the power of

local government and to usurp the traditions of local government in

areas where they have made decisions for a long, long time. That's what

this $8 million is all about, and we have a continuation of that in

this budget that we'll be debating in the next few days. It is a power

grab; it was an $8 million operation to snoop on local government; and

it wasn't legitimate because it has not been before this House. The

first time we've had it is today.

I have to remind the minister — and I'm going to ask the minister

some questions in a minute — that a special warrant is only for

situations where expenditures are truly required, truly urgent and

truly immediate. Otherwise, such authorization circumvents the normal

process of this Legislature and the law.

Mr. Chairman, we've had the Premier admit some months ago, when I

questioned him in this House.... Where are the plans? Where are the

details? Where is the program that outlines that this $8 million is

required, urgent and immediate? And what did he say? "Well, my cabinet

colleagues forced it too quickly. My cabinet colleagues were at fault."

He also admitted that there were no details and that, indeed,"We are

groping to get this program in place." Yet on October 28 or 29, the

special warrant authorizing $8 million was passed by order-in-council

behind closed doors without the authority of the people of the province

of British Columbia.

We've had an admission of guilt by this Premier, and in the last

month we've had at least one minister of state, the minister for the

Vancouver Island state, admit that he has spent only $100,000 of his $1

million. Where was the urgency? Where was the immediate requirement for

$1 million, and what has happened to the other $900,000?

This government, I believe, in a cold, calculating way went around

the Financial Administration Act,

an act that was reviewed in 1981

specifically to deal with this kind of going around the Legislature and

the law. The task force said in 1981 that the people are entitled to a

proper and legal appropriation through this Legislature. That was the

reason for the 1981 task force and the review and the changes in the

Financial Administration Act. Yet in October of last year, only a

matter of days before this Legislature was to come back into session,

this government — by an order-in-council special warrant — authorized

$8 million of taxpayers' money to fund the united states of the

province of British Columbia. Ever since, loyal Canadians and British

Columbians have been offended not only by the process but by the fact

that we could have a state system, a system alien to our way of

governing ourselves in the province, a system that we have supported

and fought for since this country was founded.

Today, close to six months later, this government realizes the law

has caught up with them. Even this government has had to come to this

Legislature and say to the people of the province of British Columbia:

"Nearly five months ago we did an illegal act; we didn't get the proper

authorization." We know very well why the Premier and his advisers —

David Poole et al. — have decided that they have a different scheme and

a different way to govern. They have a different view of our

parliamentary system and our Confederation, and in my estimation they

have an offensive way of looking at how they are going to govern in the

next few years. Remember, it was this Premier — I don't know where he

is today — who said the British parliamentary system is antiquated.

That's why this $8 million, this glorious slush fund for Socred

objectives in the regions, was passed without authorization, without

legal authority, not before this Legislature, so that this government

and this Premier could start to control the agenda and direction of

local government in the regions and usurp the traditional role of local

government that we've accepted since Confederation.

[11:45]

It was an offence, an affront to parliament. And today it's being

compounded by putting it through at the last minute in this bill, to

legitimize what this minister, this government and this Premier said

they were prepared to do to the people of British Columbia: usurp the

laws of this province for their own political agenda. It's quite clear

that's their objective.

We've seen it in this budget. We've got another big slush fund, a

rainy day fund, another $450 million that's not there. We know their

objectives. We've got $90 million in the Premier's back pocket for his

own pet projects that there will be hardly any accountability for. The

Premier's centralization program continues. The laws of this province

and the rights and privileges of this Legislature continue to be

violated. We won't accept it. The people of this great province deserve

better, as my colleague for Nanaimo said in the conclusion of his

speech. They deserve respect for the law, they deserve respect for the legislature.

Never again should a special warrant.... It clearly was not an

emergency. The Premier has admitted there was no emergency. The

minister, the governor for Vancouver Island, has said he's only spent

$100,000. 1 even have the minister himself, in a memo to me of January

15 of this year, saying that only so much money has been spent. Then he

goes on to tell me in his memo that I'll be able to find out the

details in Public Accounts in a year or two from now. He even admitted

blatantly in his memo to me that we won't have the details of the

spending before this Legislature; we're going to have to wait for

Public Accounts in the years ahead. This government does not want us to

uncover what they are going to do with that $8 million — and now the

Premier's $90 million, and the other money that's going to go to

decentralization and slush funds. They want us to find out in a year or

two from now, either just prior to the election or after the election,

what they've been doing with taxpayers' money and political patronage

funds that are a gross offence to this Legislature.

The people of British Columbia are tired of that blatant political

abuse of our parliamentary system. They want decency, honesty and

integrity back in the province of British Columbia, and they are

demanding it from their government.

Yet we have in the budget a further admission that they are going to continue with this slush fund patronage system that

[ Page 3640 ]

has, I'm afraid, been in this province under Socred

administrations for so many years — smoke and mirrors, Coquihalla

coverups, abuse after abuse after abuse.

At long last, in this case, the people of British Columbia are going

to have the law obeyed today — five months later. That does not prove

your innocence in terms of what you did close to six months ago. What

this minister did and what this government did was blatantly wrong. And

now we know that money is being used out there by unelected committees

of the ministers of state, with no checks and balances on the use of

those funds by this Legislature for the people of British Columbia — no

watching. We have eight millionaires with a million dollars each in

their back pocket, running around in their regions — as it says:

"....some ministers of state to fund organizations that can't get money

through regular channels." What does that tell you, Mr. Minister? What

does that tell us you're up to?

I've got a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of

Finance confirm today that he has reviewed the procedures and practices

re special warrants?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That previous speaker was so outrageous

he even drove his own party members out of the Legislature, let alone

all of mine. I've never heard such unmitigated claptrap in all my life.

Let's talk about the principles of parliamentary tradition. Let's talk

about how special warrants have been utilized from this government, our

previous governments from the Social Credit ranks, and that glorious

institution that the province had the misfortune to be governed by

during the early seventies — the official opposition.

Let me put on the record, once more, for the edification of this

hon. member, the sad record of the abuse of the special warrant system

by this very party who sits across there holier than thou trying to

create the impression for those poor innocents here having to listen to

this garbage that somehow they have been pure and have not utilized

this system in a way that is ten times worse than the record of any

Social Credit government in the history of this province.

Listen closely, hon. members — two from Victoria, both of them off

on this subject this morning in an abundance of ignorance, not knowing

the history on this question of utilization of special warrants. I

invite both hon. members to listen closely.

In the first session of the thirtieth parliament, let me remind the

member that four special warrants were issued by the party in power at

the time — I'll leave them unnamed — the week prior to the opening of

the Legislature. Let me tell the hon. member that on the second session

of that same parliament this same group of bandits put in 19 special

warrants and, would you believe it, 18 of them were introduced one day

prior to the opening day. And he's got the unmitigated gall to stand up

here in some sanctimonious, holier-than-thou argument and try to make

us feel guilty about the fact that this session we've introduced 11

special warrants, all long before the House opened.

Let me remind the member that in the first sitting of the fourth

session, during that brief, heady period of glory that the members of

the opposition managed to embrace at the moment, they issued 40 special

warrants,17 of them approved on the day the sitting began, for crying

out loud. This member went on for 15 minutes telling us how terrible

the use of special warrants is. My goodness, the record of this Social

Credit government and previous Social Credit governments has been far

better in terms of the number of special warrants used and in the

timing in terms of their introduction and implementation.

I could go on — well, maybe I should, just to get it on the record.

I mentioned that in the first sitting 40 special warrants were called

by this group. In the third session 10 of them were introduced and in

the fourth session 19 of them introduced. That's now on the record. So

the next time you innocents choose to bring up this subject and try to

characterize us as abusing the system, just read Hansard , please.

The hon. member said that the Premier of the province said cabinet members were at fault in terms of the implementation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: If you read the record tomorrow, you'll

see that those are your words, hon. member. I tell you, I am reasonably

close to the Premier of this province and I've read his utterances on

this subject, and he certainly has not used that phrase. The fact of

the matter is that this government, having decided that the way to

economic recovery in this province was to do it at the grass roots

local level, decided we would put our money where our mouth is and make

sure it was able to get implemented as quickly as each region wanted to

get it implemented. It was because of that that we set aside $1 million

in each region — if, as and when it might be needed by those regional

ministers of state.

I can tell the hon. member it's far too soon yet — the year isn't

yet over — for us to know exactly how much of this $8 million will be

drawn down by the ministers of state. I can tell the hon. member that

that will vary by region depending on the needs of the region.

Obviously the minister of state in charge of Nechako and his

parliamentary secretary have a far greater burden of traveling and that

kind of expense to absorb. So there will be a varying degree of

drawdown of that $1 million fund. I am not able to advise the House

today how much that total will be, the year not yet being over. I can

tell the hon. member that as of this date, we estimate that about

$800,000 of the $8 million has been drawn down. But I suspect that by

the time all of the travel expenses are checked and verified and vetted

and approved, to verify accuracy and competency, the figure will be

substantially more than that. But at the moment, we have only consumed

10 percent of this $8 million, and I think that indicates two things:

(

a) we are not a spendthrift government, and (

b) we are doing our job

quietly, diligently, and with due attention to the proprieties of the

operations of this House.

MR. STUPICH: I had no intention of getting into this debate, but the minister provoked me successfully.

Special warrants are supposed to be used for urgent and unexpected

expenditures. The minister has admitted, in asking for special warrants

of $8 million for these purposes and using to date only 10 percent of

that amount, that they didn't have any idea at all what they were

asking the special warrants for, what they were going to cover. It was

a total misuse of the special warrant.

The minister gave figures as to the number of special warrants and

when the NDP administration brought some of these in. Mr. Chairman,

that's only part of the story. The minister well knows — he just didn't

bother mentioning it — that special warrants are used for many purposes

other than

[ Page 3641 ]

approving the spending of money. Even individuals

are appointed by special warrant in some instances. Changes in

categories are done by special warrants. If you wanted to close a road

or open a road or move a lane, it used to have to be done by special

warrants when we were there.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Why did you have to use them so much more than we do?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister asked why we used

them so much more than they did. Because we inherited a legal system

which required special warrants. We were working on it; we were

cleaning them up. But the laws of the day, when we arrived in office on

September 15, 1972, required special warrants to be used for so many

purposes, because the Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, had wanted to make sure

that he had his finger on every pulse in the province of British

Columbia, and he had wanted it all to come into cabinet. We were

changing that. To give the previous government some credit, they did

change the laws so that it wasn't necessary to clutter up cabinet

meetings with so many orders in-council.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister asked why we used them more, and

I'm telling him why: because we inherited that system. We were working

on it, and it took some time. They've had 12 years to do a better job

than we could do in three years, and they're working hard to try to

catch up.

Mr. Chairman, let's look at the figures. In the first period, the

period from September 15, 1972, to March 31, 1973, our special warrants

totalled $57 million. That's over a period of six months — $9 million a

month. I ask this government to put on the line its totals, its dollar

figures, and compare them with ours. In our first full year in office

our special warrants totalled $91 million, $7.5 million a month. In our

second full year in office, $135 million, for a total of about $13

million a month. In the last nine months during which we were in

office, our special warrants totalled $84 million. That's a pretty good

record. We were careful with the taxpayers' money. As I pointed out at

some length in my response to the budget, we looked after the

taxpayers. We invested the money in good assets. We didn't squander it

on such things as Coquihalla overruns or ALRT overruns or....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister responds from his

seat by saying: "What about Levi's overrun of $100 million on social

welfare?" Okay, what was it? We introduced new programs after the

budget had been prepared, and these programs were discussed in the

Legislature, but the funding for them was not part of the budget. It

had to be provided separately, and it was indeed, later on. But the

error came up before the funding was provided for. That's part of it.

[12:00]

1 ask the minister: what about the $250 million overrun that the Minister of

Social Services had in the 1983-84 fiscal year? What was it? A $250 million

overrun because they underestimated the cost of providing support for people

on welfare. They had wrecked the economy to such an extent that there were just

that many people receiving the social assistance allowances, and there was an

overrun of $250 million. When did you hear him talk about that? It was two and

a half times our overrun, and our overrun came from bringing in new programs

that were discussed in the Legislature; yours came from an attempt to fudge

the budget because you were going into an election campaign and you wanted to

come up with a balanced budget — and you did. The budget said it was balanced,

but the actual results when we got them showed a deficit that year of $1.6 billion.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It seems that the hon. members continue

to want to put their foot in it. So let me put more information on the

record, Mr. Chairman. I neglected to mention the number of warrants

passed by this group of sanctimonious white-garbed socialists. In 1972

the Social Credit government passed 53 warrants; in 1973 the government

led by these white-robed individuals passed 76 special warrants; the

next year,122; then the year after that, 116 special warrants, my

friends.

Sanity was returned to the province and Social Credit once more

reasserted its natural right and assumed leadership, and that year

there were 28 special warrants; in 1977,12; this year, my friends. 11 —

for all of the column inches we've got in Hansard on this subject, this

year 11 special warrants. You guys passed 122 of them in 1974.

MR. STUPICH: I ask the minister: how many of the 122 involved money?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's obvious that it's tens of millions

of dollars. If you want me to spend valuable staff time researching

that irrelevant piece of information, I'll be happy to do it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister: how much did the valuable staff time cost to produce the garbage that he's throwing out now?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Facts. Like that Detective Webb

says, "Just give me the facts," and that's what I'm providing. I can

defend every one of those statements I made. I'll be happy to go

outside and repeat them. After some of these outrageous comments I've

heard this morning, I defy the hon. members to do likewise.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I won't deny that. That's the truth, but not the whole truth.

MR. BLENCOE: Clearly the minister's not prepared to give us

the real facts. He has admitted that they didn't know what they were

spending the money for on this special warrant. He has admitted that

the details were not there. He's admitted today that only so much money

has been spent. And he has not given the evidence, when he attacks us

for special warrants, that the money we passed for special warrants was

immediate and the programs were in place and the money was to be spent.

This minister and this government have admitted that that $8 million

today still isn't required, and yet he hasn't given the evidence to

show that the warrants that he numbers — without the facts behind it —

that we passed when we were in government.... I wasn't there, I have to

say, but where's the evidence to show that it's the same as we got

today — $8 million, and you've only spent one-eighth of it, six months

later, just about.

[ Page 3642 ]

We don't have the details, and you know it's different — through

you, Mr. Chairman. You know that in 1981, because the former Social

Credit administration, as my good colleague from Nanaimo indicated, had

used this system and had got all sorts of ways to use special warrants

— funny ways — the task force came in, supported by all sides of this

Legislature and by the New Democratic Party, and that we supported a

decent Financial Administration Act. We supported that, but yet this

government continues to abuse what that task force recommended and what

the act says today — legitimate spending of money, an emergency. We

haven't had that evidence.

I ask the minister again: did he secure a legal opinion with respect to special warrants?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to inform the

hon. member that we are blessed in the public service of this province

with thousands of dedicated individuals who are competent, know what

they are doing and are valuable advisers to whoever happens to be in

government for the moment. It's true — it is an unfortunate truth —

that the Social Credit Party have held government in this province for

33 out of the last 37 years, and as a consequence of that, we have

acquired some competency ourselves among our own ranks. Notwithstanding

that, we put great value upon the contribution and counsel and guidance

supplied by our excellent staff. Let me introduce the hon. member to

one of those today who is beside me on the floor of the House, Mr. Jim

Crone, who is a very valuable member of our Treasury Board staff.

I can assure the hon. member that the procedures used and the

practices followed are thoroughly within the proprieties of the system,

and the last thing this government would countenance doing would be to

violate that long-held tradition.

MR. BLENCOE: I repeat my question to the Minister of Finance:

did he secure, specifically for special warrants, a legal opinion?

Answer yes or no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the

opportunity to once again inform the member that we have many capable

members on staff. Not a few of them have legal training, so we are

benefiting from this valuable advice. We have done so in the past; we

will continue doing so in the future. I am very comfortable with the

fact that, as I said earlier, the process used here was entirely

appropriate. I am very comfortable with what we've done and what we

will do.

The initiative surrounding this regional funding issue which we're

dealing with now will, in the fullness of time, be evident to all

British Columbians as to its merit. For the hon. member to suggest — to

even hint — that there is anything to be concerned about in a

legalistic sense is the most outrageous red herring among many red

herrings that have been dragged across this beautiful red carpet this

morning.

MR. BLENCOE: A specific question: has the minister in his

hands a specific legal document giving him advice on the status of

special warrants? Does he have that document?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Unlike the hon. member, I have many typed

documents here. One of them deals with the use of special warrants by

our predecessors. In case anyone didn't hear me, I could go through

that again.

I can assure the hon. member that there are all kinds of factual

data surrounding this issue. We have followed the proprieties in every

case, and I have no hesitancy whatsoever in informing this House that

there is nothing inappropriate, improper or devious about the special

warrant used to ensure that the regional initiative got off to a good

jumpstart and allowed the ministers of state access to any funding they

might need to get started quickly.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister confirm that he sought legal

opinion about the status of special warrants and, if he did not, could

he tell us why the wording of special warrants has changed since the $8

million warrant was passed in October?

Whereas, for instance, the

warrant that passed the $8 million stated, "...of the Financial

Administration Act", now we have warrants that go.... For instance, I

have a February 11, 1987 warrant. It says:

"Whereas vote 71, ministry operations in the estimates

for the fiscal year...provided the sum of $17 million; and

whereas there is

insufficient money available in vote 71...and

whereas the additional expenditures

were insufficiently provided for by the Legislature; and

whereas the Minister

of Tourism, Recreation and Culture reports that the appropriation for the expenditure

is insufficient and the necessity for the expenditure is urgently and immediately

required for the public good; and

whereas the Treasury Board" — Treasury

Board; that doesn't appear — "has recommended a special warrant under

section 21(

l) of the Financial Administration Act;

now therefore it is ordered

that a special warrant be prepared for the signature...."

Can the minister, in light of my questions about a legal opinion,

tell us why the wording for special warrants has dramatically changed

since October of last year, if they don't know that they broke the law

in terms of special warrants and the Financial Administration Act?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The paranoia exhibited by the tenor of

the hon. member's questions is rampant. I have some trouble

understanding why he is so exercised by such a relatively simple

matter. Had the hon. member arrived to work a little earlier this

morning, he might have picked up the phone and got the answer to his

question by phoning any one of the excellent people we have in the

public service in Victoria.

The answer clearly and simply is, hon. member, that each special

warrant has about it unique characteristics and, as a consequence,

requires different wording in order to fit within the various

parameters of the act.

May I also remind the hon. member that these special warrants are

signed by legislative counsel. Legislative counsel are normally

barristers or solicitors. So to your myopic attention to the question

of legality, may I just remind the hon. member that the signatures of

loyal public servants are appended to these documents.

The hon. member referred to a February order-in-council, and as

usual he has tripped forward into issue No. 11. We'll get there, Mr.

Chairman. At the moment we're dealing with issue No. 2, which has to do

with special warrants dated October 29.

[ Page 3643 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Can the minister share with this House the

advice he received ... ? I believe he does have a legal opinion, even

if he won't answer yes or no to this House, which again is part of the

devious nature of this government. Will he share with us the advice he

got from either lawyers or staff about special warrants and their

utilization?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I repeat again, the civil servant whose

signature is on the bottom of the special warrant is a member of the

legislative counsel staff. He or she is a lawyer and trained in the

legal sense, so as I said earlier, that issue has been addressed. I

don't know how many times I have to stand to repeat it before the wax

falls out of the hon. member's ears so that he can hear it. The fact

that there are different wordings and different presentation styles on

the special warrants is, as I said earlier, a consequence of what is

perceived to be a legal requirement in the minds of these thousands of

dedicated, loyal public servants who happen to be advising this

government here in Victoria.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister saying that the change in

wording on the special warrants currently before us is not the result

of either the legal opinion or the staff input he has had subsequent to

the October 28 special warrant?

[12:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I dozed off; I didn't catch all of the question.

The member seems to be suspicious about the different form of the

various orders-in-council. For the third time this morning, I think,

I'll repeat that this is necessary, in the opinion of our legal

department, in order to ensure that the legalities are followed

appropriately for every different type of special warrant. The hon.

member, if he was listening to the finance critic for the opposition

earlier, would have heard — and would understand — that there are

different reasons for special warrants. Each different reason often

requires a different form. That's the answer, and if you had cared to

look through the records a little more diligently, you would have

determined that for yourself.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is admitting that there have been

some changes, but he's trying to say that it's because there may be

some minor variations ministry to ministry when they use a special

warrant. Yet the evidence is contrary. When they pass a special

warrant.... Regular language is the language required in the warrant

for these ministers of state, and now when they pass a special warrant

for ministry operations, the wording is quite different. I contend that

this minister has had a legal opinion and does know that the way they

authorized that $8 million in October violated the Financial

Administration Act, but he's not prepared to come clean in this

Legislature and tell the people that they abused the Financial

Administration Act.

I ask again: will he table in this House the legal opinion he

acquired that led to changes in wording of the special warrants and, I

hope, changes in the way this government uses special warrants?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is agony, Mr. Chairman. Can we call the question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the second member for Victoria

speaks this time, I would like to suggest to him that he's usually

very, very careful in these matters, but he's skating very close to the

edge of being unparliamentary in some of his comments.

MR. BLENCOE: The government wants to get off this as quickly

as possible because this has been a real embarrassment to them, and it

continues to be an embarrassment. We're obviously not going to get the

answers. This government knows that it abused the Financial

Administration Act. The minister has admitted that there was no need

for the $8 million. The Premier has admitted that. He's tried to use

numbers from a former administration about the number of special

warrants granted. We happen to feel that $8 million, or any amount of

money, should be passed through this Legislature and done through the

financial administration laws of this Legislature. We will always

contend that, and we will continue to speak up for that.

Warrant 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Brummet

Rogers

L. Hanson

Dueck

Richmond

Parker

Michael

Rabbitt

Mercier

Veitch

Strachan

Couvelier

R. Fraser

Jansen

Gran

Chalmers

Ree

Bruce

Serwa

Vant

Campbell

Peterson

Huberts

Messmer

Jacobsen

NAYS — 13

G. Hanson

Marzari

Rose

Stupich

Skelly

Boone

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Guno

Lovick

Miller

Clark

Kempf

Warrants 3 to 11 inclusive approved.

Schedule I approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Supply Act (No. 1), 1988, 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-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1988.

[ Page 3644 ]

DEPUTY CLERK: 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. STRACHAN: We are going to be adjourning for a week

now for the spring break, and I'd like to take this opportunity to wish

all members of the assembly a very good spring break. It's nice to have

a House Leader with school age kids.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Me.

I therefore move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m., April 5.

MR. ROSE: I return the compliment. The House Leader mentioned

that he has school-age children. I have school-age grandchildren, but

that happened because I got married while I was in elementary school. I

wish him and his — I was going to say "henchmen" — brethren, his

colleagues, his co-conspirators, a jolly spring break as well.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:42 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly

Home Page ]

Copyright 1988,2001,2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British

Columbia, Canada