1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6945 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No –– 1), 1982 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 6948

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6948

Mr. Stupich –– 6949

Mr. Barrett –– 6950

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6952

Mr. King –– 6952

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6954

Mr. Hall –– 6954

Ms. Brown –– 6955

Mr. Lea –– 6956

Mrs. Wallace –– 6959

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6959

Third reading –– 6961

Tabling documents

Public Service Commission annual report, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6961

B.C. Milk Board annual report, December 31, 1981,

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 6961

Supply Act (No. 1), 1982 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Royal assent –– 6961

THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I

have two introductions to make today, and I feel very honoured to make

them. First of all, I'd like the House to welcome Lorna Kirkham,

representing 30 students who are here in the precinct and in the House.

They are here from Douglas College and are all on a career path which

will help them in serving the people of British Columbia in social

services. I'll ask the House to welcome each and every one of them.

am really happy to welcome a well-known resident and citizen of the

city of Vancouver, Mrs. Betsy McDonald, who is in the gallery today.

Betsy served our Vancouver School Board for some years, but she is best

known for the tremendous work she has done over the years in British

Columbia in her initiating of career opportunities for women. She has

lived a life of service for our community and our province. I'd like

the House to welcome Mrs. Betsy McDonald, her son and daughter-in-law,

Mr. and Mrs. Davison, and her grandchildren, Galen and Karen.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have the pleasure of introducing this morning from the Sunshine

Coast area of my riding, Pender Harbour, the president of our New

Democratic Party Constituency Association, Mr. Joe Harrison, and

family, who are visiting with us today.

MS. SANFORD:

I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move

adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite

matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member briefly state the matter.

MS. SANFORD:

In view of the latest unemployment figures released today showing the

unemployment rate in British Columbia at 10.6 percent — the highest in

over 20 years; in view of the fact that the region of Prince George

reports the highest rate of unemployment west of the province of Quebec

— a rate of 18.1 percent; in view of the fact that the city of Victoria

now has the unhappy distinction of having the highest rate of

unemployment of any city west of St. Catharines, Ontario, at 11.7

percent; in view of the fact that the hardest-hit unemployed group are

those within the 15- to 24-year-old group, whose unemployment rate is a

staggering 19.4 percent; and in view of the fact that this situation is

of the gravest possible direct concern to over 200,000 unemployed

citizens in British Columbia, I move that this House do now adjourn to

debate the record number of unemployed in British Columbia, as

announced by Statistics Canada this morning, and the failure of this

government to stem the tide of rising unemployment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I will review the matter submitted by the

hon. member. Having given it some deliberation, and without any prejudice to

the member, I will bring a decision as quickly as possible. I would just caution

the member, though, that in order for a matter to succeed under standing order

35, we must be certain that it is urgent enough to set aside all other business

of the House and that there is not an opportunity at hand in which it can be

debated. I would suggest that perhaps previous decisions on similar submissions

have not been successful, particularly when we have been in a budget debate,

which provides an opportunity. But I will review it and be absolutely certain

on that.

MS. SANFORD:

In view of the grave emergency that exists, I am wondering if we could

have a brief recess for you to consider this so that we can come back

and have an immediate debate on this serious problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Consideration can continue even while business is continuing in the House. It will be without prejudice to the hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, the urgency matter has been put very clearly to

the House. Your Honour knows, I think, that any delay in dealing with

this just aggravates the situation. If we later embark upon a debate on

the next item — whatever that might be — then how is Your Honour going

to come and interrupt a debate already in progress in order to put this

motion? Let's have a ruling right now.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the member knows the procedures of the House.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, under what standing order is the House permitted to delay

the hearing of a decision on an emergency debate? Either it's accepted

or it's not accepted. But the nature of an emergency debate includes an

immediate decision by the Chair. Otherwise the intent of standing

orders is frustrated. In my opinion, the Chair should advise the House

on a motion of this nature immediately. If it takes 5 minutes or 10

minutes or 15 minutes, the members should not be frustrated in their

attempts to legitimately use the House as a basis for discussion. I

would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to make the decision now or take a recess

and make it.

MR. SPEAKER: What needs to be understood

is that the urgency in question here is not the urgency of the matter,

which may or may not in the opinion of the House or in the opinion of

the members be a most urgent matter. That's not what's under

discussion. What is under discussion is whether or not the urgency of

debate at this time is to be determined. Hon. members, I think that the

House would be better served if a well-considered decision were brought

to the House. Therefore the Chair will exercise its prerogative and

reserve decision until such time as a well-considered decision can be

brought.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, I'm not asking the Chair to use a prerogative; I'm making a

request on behalf of the official opposition that a decision be made

now. If that request is refused, I'd like to know why. But it seems to

me — in terms of the motion from the member — that the intent is to

have a ruling from the Chair without any interference of prerogative.

you so rule, that is something else again. But I think that the member

deserves an immediate ruling on the validity of the motion itself. Any

delay detracts from the historic intent of bringing emergency motions

to the House.

[ Page 6946 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, matters under standing order 35 have been submitted to

this House, in my memory, every session without exception. In every

event the urgency that is purported may well be extremely urgent in the

mind of the member submitting the matter. Nonetheless, if the ordinary

business of the House is set aside and that very order of business of

the House provides an opportunity to discuss the matter, then even to

discuss whether or not an immediate decision should come from the Chair

is to delay an opportunity to discuss the matter which the member

considers as urgent.

So, hon. members, I think I will follow

the precedent which has been established over the years in the House

that a well-considered decision, written in proper form, will be

delivered to the House as soon as it can be prepared.

MR. HOWARD:

On a new point of order, which is a very simple one to follow. Your

Honour has just indicated that he thinks he will take a certain course

of action. I would ask Your Honour to put to the House the request for

leave that the House now recess while you are able to examine this

matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I do not see any necessity for

the House…. In recessing the House it may well be that the opportunity

to discuss the urgent matter is being delayed.

MR. HOWARD:

I fail to see how Your Honour can consider this matter while the House

is in progress, when Your Honour may be required to be in the chair

during that period of time. The proper course, I think, would be to

declare a recess, and I ask that you put that question to the House.

With leave, I would move that the House go into recess.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I think that the Chair will follow the precedents well established in the House.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think it is incumbent on the

Chair to consider the fact that the House was not called back until

after the end of the fiscal year, and that this matter could have been

dealt with if the House had been normally brought back earlier. Thus

the emergency value of the motion is heightened by the fact that the

House was not called back until the fiscal year was over.

The

member is seeking, in her sincere belief, relief by government action

for the taxpayers and citizens in this province. Further delay by the

Chair only supports a government decision not to call the House back

until the end of the fiscal year, and it may be misinterpreted by the

public and by certain members of this House that the Chair is delaying

as well. Far be it from me to interpret that, Mr. Speaker, but I think

that a clear-cut decision could be made in five or ten minutes by the

Chair to satisfy the emergency nature of this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the opinion of the member.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, a member has risen and asked for

the opinion of the House to be expressed; that is, he has asked for leave. I

cannot recall the Chair's refusing to put the question of leave to the House

in order that the will of the House be known. If it is the unanimous will of

the House — it must be unanimous, Mr. Speaker — then the Chair would comply

with that request. But I have never, in my experience, experienced the Chair's

refusing to ask for leave.

MR. SPEAKER:

It is, after all, the decision of the Chair that is being sought in

this matter. It is not the decision of the House that is being sought.

Provisions are made under standing order 35.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I am obliged, regretfully, to challenge your decision not to put that request for leave to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The member rose on a point of order. On the same point, the House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The procedure that you have indicated....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I have issued a challenge to the Chair's ruling. I don't see how we can proceed on further points of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have recognized the House Leader on the same point of order.

MR. HOWARD: But I have challenged the ruling of the Chair, period. I don't see how he can have a point of order about my challenge.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The Chair has sought to follow the procedures which are

long standing in this House and have been subscribed to by all of the

members by virtue of their very membership in this House. Hon. members,

to try to impose upon the Chair a measure which in itself is

time-consuming, and to suggest that the House could not at the same

time be conducting other, perhaps urgent, business — and the reason why

we are assembled today is to discuss urgent business — is a real

departure in the procedure of this House.

MR. HOWARD: Are you refusing to accept my challenge, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In order for there to be a challenge, there must be a ruling.

MR. HOWARD: You ruled that you would not put my request for leave to the House. I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The honourable member stood on a point of order, and I

have decided to accept another opinion on that point of order. If there

is indeed a challenge, I will put that challenge to the House after a

ruling has been made.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I had

asked leave of the House to move a motion for the House to recess while

Your Honour consider the request of my colleague about an emergency

debate. Your Honour failed to put that request for leave to the House.

You ruled that I could not do that. I 'challenge your ruling. That's

the challenge I'm making. I don't see how you can now deny that

opportunity, Mr. Speaker. The Chair cannot continue to deny the desire

of the House to express an opinion.

[ Page

6947 ]

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. On a point of order, the House Leader.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the procedures that you have

indicated to the House are the procedures and customs of this House

ever since I've been in it and before. You are following the precise

terminology in standing order 35(3), which says: "He then hands a

written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr.

Speaker, who, if he thinks it is in order and of urgent public

importance, reads it out…."

You have indicated, Mr. Speaker,

that you wish time to deliberate. As far as I know, that has been the

custom of every Speaker in this House since it was established.

would draw to the attention of the official opposition that they well

know today is the day for interim supply. They wanted to know two days

ago when interim supply would be held, and I suppose they want to

create fewer jobs in the province by not making dollars available for

the public servants to be properly paid. Without getting into debate, I

would say that if they'd pass the budget, we'd have rosy times in B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will accept a further opinion.

MR. NICOLSON:

Standing order 9 says: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum

and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal to the House

without debate." The

interpretation is that when leave is asked, the

question is then put to the House whether the House's normal proceeding

shall be put aside, and it must be unanimous.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a request has been made by an hon. member of this House to ask leave that we move into a recess.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER:

Therefore I will return to the House as quickly as is possible, with a

proper, written decision on the matter under standing order 35. I trust

that satisfies the House.

MR. KING: Yesterday evening

I moved a motion of privilege respecting comments made by the member

for North Okanagan (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). In light of the fact that the

nature of that statement issued a slander against unnamed people in my

riding, and that cloud of slander still hangs unspecified over unnamed

people, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you have a ruling on that motion of

privilege so that cloud of slanderous allegation can be dealt with

immediately, without undue delay and embarrassment to residents of my

constituency.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the concern of the member, and a decision will be brought just as quickly as it is prepared.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I'd like it to be known

that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said to the House that he

had moved a motion of privilege. That has not been done at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is well taken.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine the sum of $2,143,337,786 towards defraying

the charges and expenses of the public service of the province not

otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 and

being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the

main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, as laid

before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and secondly,

the sum of $26,975,000, being substantially one-quarter of the total

amount required for the purposes referred to in

section B of

schedule B

of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of

Supply on April 8, 1982, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine the sum of $2,143,337,786 towards defraying

the charges and expenses of the public service of the province not

otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, and

being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the

main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, as laid

before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and secondly,

the sum of $26,975,000, being substantially one-quarter of the total

amount required for the purposes referred to in

section B of

schedule B

of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

[ Page 6948 ]

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in the manner and at the times the

government may determine the sum of $2,143,337,786 towards defraying

the charges and expenses of the public service of the province not

otherwise provided for for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, and

being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the votes of the

main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, as laid

before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and secondly,

the sum of $26,975,000, being substantially one-quarter of the total

amount required for the purposes referred to in

section B of

schedule B

of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the resolution from the

Committee of Ways and Means on April 8, 1982, be now taken as read and

received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and

applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine the

sum of $2,143,337,786 towards defraying the charges and expenses of the

public service of the province, not otherwise provided for for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1983, and being substantially one-quarter

of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1983, as laid before the Legislative Assembly at

the present session; and (

b) the sum of $26,975,000, being

substantially one-quarter of the total amount required for the purposes

referred to in

section B of

schedule B of the main estimates for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1983.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee meet again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: I present Bill 37, intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1982.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be a short recess while the bill is distributed so that all members might have it in hand.

The House took recess at 10:41 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:45 a.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 37 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

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

would be appropriate at this point, Mr. Speaker, to observe to the

Speaker and all honourable members that the passage of the new

Financial Administration Act by the Legislative Assembly last year has

resulted in a number of consequential changes to the wording of the

supply bill which is presently before us in second reading.

particular, the Financial Administration Act contains a number of

sections which strengthen the financial accountability of the

government to the Legislative Assembly. Among these is a

section which

now requires that all special warrants approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-In-Council be submitted to the Legislature as part

of the next supply bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I can

speak for all members of the government in saying that this is a degree

of accountability which is certainly the best we have had in British

Columbia and, indeed, is probably now the best in Canada. Therefore the

bill contains schedules which list those special warrants approved in

the 1981-82 fiscal year as well as the special warrants approved by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on April 1, 1982, to meet those urgent

and immediate expenditures of the government between April 1, 1982, and

the passage of this bill. These changes resulting from the passage of

the Financial Administration Act are, again, part of the overall desire

of the government and the Ministry of Finance to improve the disclosure

of financial information to the Legislative Assembly and to the

taxpayers of the province.

It would not be inappropriate, I think, to observe that in the auditor-general's report which was tabled in this House

[ Page 6949 ]

late

yesterday afternoon, there is in fact reference to the degree of

accountability and reporting which now exists in this province of

British Columbia and which I trust will remain in place for a long time

to come. Similarly, the public accounts which were tabled at the

beginning of this week also reflect the government's greatly expanded

and improved financial reporting policies.

Mr. Speaker,

other than incorporating the requirements of the new Financial

Administration Act, this supply bill is in the general form of previous

years' supply bills. Moreover, the proportion of the tabled estimates

required in the bill — i. e. one-quarter of the full supply — is I

think consistent with the most usual practice in past years. It has

been as little as one-sixth, and I think on occasion it has been

one-third. But we have opted for one-quarter of full supply.

This

year the supply bill also requests one-fourth of the funding planned

for the government's ongoing employment development programs, which

members have in

section B of

schedule B of the estimates. Full supply

for these programs, Mr. Speaker, will be requested through the

employment development bill which is now at first-reading stage,

Interim supply for these ongoing employment programs is required to

provide for essential training and employment-creation programs, such

as training grants to educational institutions.

Mr. Speaker,

I trust those remarks are of some use to the members, with what is a

slightly new procedure in the province of British Columbia, but one

which affords far greater accountability, not only to this House, but

to those who pay the bills.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker,

we certainly have no intention of holding up unduly interim supply, but

it is different this year, and there will perhaps be more discussion

than is normal.

Perhaps it was rather a sick joke on the

part of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

when he said that we should proceed with the passing of the interim

supply bill because this would supply jobs. Surely that's part of the

budget debate itself.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said. You just didn't hear him,

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I've been reminded that I didn't hear

what he said. What he was urging us was not to hold up the business of the House

today, which is the interim supply bill, because if we proceeded with the business

of the House we could get on with the provision of jobs. There will be no jobs

provided for in the interim supply bill. I spoke at some length on Tuesday to

say that there will be no jobs provided for in the budget itself. The passing

of the budget will not provide new jobs in the province of British Columbia.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, daily we read reports in the paper of the effects of this

budget, and the effects are to reduce the number of jobs available in the province

of British Columbia.

There

isn't a day that goes by but we read of one more school district

closing more schools and losing teacher positions, and of

municipalities cutting back on their payrolls, laying off staff and not

hiring people to replace them. Every day we read stories where the

effect of this budget with its cutbacks is to eliminate jobs rather

than provide new jobs. For the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to

say, "Let's hurry up and pass the budget to provide new jobs," when he

knows that the opposite will be the case, I think is rather a sick joke

following on the heels of the motion that the member for Comox (Mrs.

Sanford) wants to move.

I was also amused at that same

minister's comment to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) that

"this has happened the same way every year since you've been here,

Dave." Well, Mr. Speaker, most of the time that the first member for

Vancouver East has been in this House it has not been necessary to

bring in an interim supply bill. This in itself is a departure. I was

amused at the Premier, when he said the House would meet on April 5,

saying that he was anxious that the members come together as quickly as

possible, as though somebody else were holding it up. He's the one who

delayed the opening of the House — he and the Minister of Finance, I

expect, were changing the budget. I rather suspect they changed it some

three times before we finally saw it on April 5. That's what delayed

the opening of the House; they just couldn't make up their minds what

kind of a budget they were going to bring in.

They say that

we are delaying a budget that will provide new jobs, when the budget

itself shows that it's going to cut back on jobs. They suggest that

someone else has been delaying the opening of the House. It's perhaps

not the latest time in history that it's ever opened, but I can't

recall there ever being the necessity to pass special warrants in the

month of April before the budget was even introduced in the House. This

in itself is a departure. Why has the government been so late in

calling the House together? Why was it necessary to pass those special

warrants on April 1, knowing that the House would be meeting on April

5? What payments really had to be made as part of the 1982-83 fiscal

periods? I know they're listed, but are they really 1982-83

fiscal-period expenditures, or are they more overruns from 1981-82?

The

budget, as late as it was, did not then have the detail in it that was

normally a part of the budget speeches that used to be presented in

this Legislature in February, not in April, when the governments of the

day knew what they were doing. For the first time we did not get the

details on budget day. We had to wait two more days to get the kind of

details that finally were made available to us. It was supposed to be

more information, the same detail as has been available to members

previously, and generally in February, not in April.

This

government doesn't have any plans for jobs; this government has plans

only on cutting back, for trying to save government funds in the

province, hoping that something is going to happen that will help the

economy of British Columbia from abroad, hoping that somebody else is

going to do something to help us. Mr. Speaker, this is a debate that

properly belongs, as far as I'm concerned, in the budget debate — and I

did take

part in that at great length. I know other of my colleagues

will want to speak in the interim supply itself.

As I said,

we're not going to hold it up, but we are distressed at the lateness of

calling the House together in face of the dire need of the citizens of

this province; we're distressed at the lateness of bringing in a

budget; we're distressed at the change in format which we still suspect

is a way of covering up expenditures that properly belong in a previous

year and would have created a deficit that year; and we're distressed

that the government is further trying to hide things, hoping and

planning that they will get a further mandate from the people before

the truth of this budget is known to the people of the province.

[ Page 6950 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is very polite and

has a reputation in this House for being polite and giving the benefit

of the doubt to the government, even if the benefit of the doubt isn't

warranted. In my opinion the politeness of the member for Nanaimo, has

also pointed out that we are being asked today in this bill through

special warrant to cover up the deficit of at least $134 million of

last year's budget.

Mr. Speaker, this government has run up

dead-weight debt, even though they have capitalized anything that could

move, including selling off every ferry that we have already paid for;

even though they have put huge debt on corporations, doubling the debt

on Crown corporations in five years, and found a magic way of making

$45 million become the pea under the five-shell game — not three

shells, but five shells.

Mr. Speaker, I point out to you

that last year the House debated an appropriation of some $22.5 million

for northeast coal. We were told that that would be all that was spent.

We were promised by the Minister himself as quoted in Hansard

that that would be the limit and he would not be asking for any more

money that year. On March 25, Mr. Speaker, an order-in-council was

passed that gave that minister another $45 million to throw up against

the wall for helicopters and a few other things. He was given $45

million with no debate, contrary to the promise given by that minister

in this House about the cost of northeast coal.

Then the

budget was brought in, and I refer you to the estimates book, on page

156. Did we see the $45 million pea under the shell? No, Mr. Speaker,

all we have in the estimates is a figure of $22,930,000 for last year,

not an honest statement about the $45 million that appeared

mysteriously for a week and then disappeared and has arrived again

today under another shell. In the estimates we see no mention of that

$45 million. We see a modest $12 million projected for this year for

northeast coal.

But if you look at the

schedule on this

bill, lo and behold, we find the magic pea again, and it's under the

shell of this bill. We look on the

schedule on page 3 and an innocuous

little line here that says: March 25, number of the warrant, number 11,

supplement to vote number 132, northeast coal, $45 million. Mr.

Speaker, $45 million overrun in northeast coal last year buried in a

warrant becomes a deficit in last year's budget approved by a hurry-up

warrant. A week before the House opens it disappears in this year's

estimates as if it magically wasn't spent at all. But the day of

reckoning comes within hours here in a supplementary bill, proving that

there have been massive overruns in that project and massive debt piled

on the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, you can do a

lot things in creative bookkeeping. You can move the pea through

various shells. But sooner or later there has to be an accounting to

this House. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have irrefutable proof that

northeast coal sucked up $45 million last year in a warrant. It is not

presented in this year's budget as an expenditure on northeast coal. It

is a deliberate overrun against the very promise of the minister

himself; against the very words of the minister himself. This is even

more reason than Lord Carrington had to resign.

The Minister

of Finance has been forced into a position of fudging the books. The

Minister of Finance, whose reputation is always on the line, has been

forced to reveal the fact that spending is out of control in northeast

coal; that spending warranted another $45 million; that the $45 million

was not put in the last fiscal year or in this fiscal year, but was

intended to slip between the slide of March 31 and April Fool's Day.

April Fool's Day was to be the day that this $45 million was to be a

cruel joke on the people of British Columbia. The proof is right here

in this bill we are debating now.

Mr. Speaker, where is this

going to end? As I stand here, what this bill proves is that there will

be an election before another Social Credit budget is presented to this

House. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of political

irresponsibility in terms of accounting indicates that the government

of British Columbia is broke. It has run a deficit into this year's

budget. If you total up the quarterly amounts presented in here — a

little over $2 billion — four times two is $8 billion and that's a lot

more than the total figure presented by the minister for the budget.

Why is that figure larger? Because it scoops up all the deficits and

overruns of this year as of March 31, including the $45 million from

northeast coal, and dumps it into this year's budget, with the

anticipated overruns of this year already close to $8 billion.

The

Minister of Finance is embarrassed. He's been told that the Premier's

favorite cabinet minister, the man from the north who is threatened by

the Western Separatists, can spend as much money as he wants on that

dream of northeast coal and come up with this kind of creative

financing. That's $45 million that we have been lied to about. This

House was lied to. This House was told by that minister that there

would never be another penny that year. This House was told by the

minister in answer to a question in the House that the $22 million

would be all for northeast coal this year. The House believed the

minister, only to find that another $45 million is being attempted to

be shoved through that midnight crack between March 31 and April 1, to

show up as a deficit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member is not suggesting that an hon. member of the House lied. If he is, I must ask him to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, no one else raised the point. There was no objection from the government or the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the phrase that the minister lied.

MR. BARRETT: It is the documents that are lying.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. BARRETT: Hansard is lying.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No!

MR. BARRETT: That's not good enough, huh? Well, have the courage to stand up and say so. That's $45 million down the tubes.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Sit down; let me tell you the facts.

MR. BARRETT: Are you on a point of order? No, I'm not going to give up my place. Is the minister rising on a point of order?

[ Page 6951 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're all excited, my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the debate.

MR. BARRETT: I notice that the minister did not rise on a point of order and ask me to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Would the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the

Minister of Industry and Small Business (Hon. Mr. Phillips) come to

order.

MR. BARRETT: That minister solemnly stated in

this House that the $22.9 million would be all that he would request

for northeast coal. A warrant was passed on March 25, giving another

$45 million to northeast coal. It does not show up on page 156 of this

year's estimates. It does not show up as a last-year estimate. It does

not show up as a this-year estimate. The only conclusion is that $45

million was an overrun that they're attempting to bury as a deficit in

the last year.

It's taxpayers' money. It is this Social

Credit government that ran around saying: "Not a dime without a debate.

We want full accountability, and we'll never run a deficit." The very

presence of this document says that there is a $134 million deficit

from last year, and in that they're trying to bury the $45 million from

northeast coal.

MR. HOWARD: There are ten more times to come.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, my friend the member for Skeena says it correctly. If we had any

reason to doubt last year's figure of $22.9 million that mysteriously

got another $45 million, then I must say that, in my opinion, the $12

million estimate for northeast coal this year is a fraudulent estimate,

and the minister knows it. Don't kid us.

MR. MACDONALD: Four times two equals seven.

MR. BARRETT:

It's new Social Credit mathematics: four times two equals seven and a

bit. If there's any left over we can always announce another lottery.

We can have a sweepstakes game and a lottery to figure out what the

deficit will be this year. The closest figure to the deficit will not

necessarily win, because we won't get that exact figure until another

provincial election is well over and away.

As I stand here,

if the NDP wins the next provincial election we will have a royal

commission investigating every single one of the funds that have been

expended in that northeast coal project. We will have a royal

commission to lay bare all of the maneuvering and political mishandling

of public funds in that project that allowed a $45 million warrant to

be passed with no reference to this House and no explanation in this

year's budget. You know what's going on, and I know what's going on.

It's a little bit of politics, isn't it? We have a lot of little

chit-chat about it. Sure, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed that he didn't

jump on his feet and ask for the withdrawal of my reference to his

statement.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of

order, the Leader of the Opposition is chastising me for not standing

on a point of order because he made certain references. I just have to

take it where it comes from. I've heard statements like that from theLeader of the Opposition before. They just have to run off my back like water off a duck.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Was there a point of order that I missed? If we are

using the forms of the House to gain the floor of the House in order to

interrupt the person who has the floor, that is out of order.

MR. BARRETT:

Some point, some water, some duck! That minister came to this House and

said that he would not ask for another penny for northeast coal in the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1981. He said $22,900,000 would be all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't ask for it. He just took it.

MR. BARRETT:

That is correct. He didn't ask for it, He just took it through a

warrant. Forty-five million dollars was taken out of possible

expenditures for schools, hospitals and highways, scooped up without

any reference to this House and dumped into there. I wonder if they

didn't think of pouring the money out of the helicopters while they

were flying over. Just kick it out of the door of the helicopter and

let it sprinkle down. I'll tell you, the people of British Columbia

would have had a better chance of getting some of that money if they'd

kicked it out of the helicopter doors. At least it would have stopped

the contracts from going to Korea, to Belgium for the ships, the

railcar contracts going to Quebec and Ontario and the stacker reclaimer

going to the Japanese. Jobs for everybody in the world out of B.C.

taxpayers' money but none for here in British Columbia.

repeat, this bill admits $134 million of dead-weight debt out of

general revenue; $45 million of it is northeast coal debt. I repeat,

Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia are being flim-flammed

by this government in this attempt today with this bill. I repeat that

the people of British Columbia will have a royal commission

investigating every single step of the way. You can play funny games,

Mr. member for wherever you are. You are never in your riding anyway. I

am up there more than you are. They want to know who you are up there.

Social

Credit today is admitting a deficit last year. Social Credit today is

admitting that there will be no accounting in this year's debate of

that $45 million overrun in northeast coal. More than anything else we

need a royal commission to check every bit of accounting, creative and

otherwise, that this government is now involved in through this bill.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I had not wished to interrupt this debate with another matter, but

unfortunately it is a matter of importance, not related directly to

this debate. The time is limited, so I seek the opportunity to make a

short statement and introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: If it is an introduction, leave will be required.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Members of the House will recall that for the last two or three years

British Columbia tourism has entered floats in the Rose Bowl Parade in

Pasadena. The purpose of this is to bring British Columbia more to the

attention of the people of the United States as a tourism destination.

[ Page 6952 ]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

The reason we want tourists here, Mr. Member, is to create jobs,

capital investment and to give our citizens the benefits for hospitals

and schools. Of course, that wouldn't interest you.

The

purpose of the entry into the parade is part of a marketing strategy

and the entry itself gives us a type of publicity throughout North

America at a minimum cost which could not be bought in any other way.

Winning a prize in the contest is incidental. This year we were anxious

to see that the parade entry had more significance to the people of

British Columbia than ever before. The theme was "Children of a Common

Mother." In that context we had, with the help of the Vancouver Sun and the Pasadena Star ,

a contest with students in Pasadena and students in British Columbia to

write an essay depicting what, in Canada, the United States meant to

them and, in the United States, what Canada and British Columbia meant

to them.

The winners of these contests rode on the float in

the parade. The winners — four students from Pasadena, U.S.A., and four

students from around British Columbia — were the guests of Tourism

British Columbia and the Pasadena Rose Bowl committee for the parade.

They all worked on the British Columbia float and they all took

part in

it.

Part of the reward was to have the American students

visit British Columbia during their spring break. Those four American

students from Pasadena, winners of their contest with the Pasadena Star in conjunction with the Vancouver Sun ,

are here today in this Legislature and are the guests of the people of

British Columbia for their short holiday. They are ambassadors of

tourism not only for their own great state, but for our province as

well. They are accompanied by our assistant deputy minister, Mr. John

Plul, and I would ask all members in this House to join with me in

extending a very warm welcome to these clever young people who won an

essay and who contributed to British Columbia, winning a prize, as well

as meeting our other objectives. Would you please stand and would the

House give them a warm welcome. Their names are Richard Karpinski, Bob

Rose, Yolanda Tate and Cynthia Fedors.

MR. SPEAKER: Now back to the debate on Bill 37.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in this debate, and I wish the Leader of

the Opposition, who just stood in his place on the floor of the House

and laughed and made some wild charges, were here to hear the facts.

They

talk about job creation, and they've tried to knock northeast coal

every way possible. Now they're making these ridiculous statements.

Again, I'm going to have to make the Leader of the Opposition eat his

words, because there have been no overruns on northeast coal. As a

matter of fact, to date the estimated cost of northeast coal is coming

within one-and-a-half percent, and I think that's pretty fantastic. It

shows that the project was well-engineered and well-planned — not like

the opposition, who were going to bring on northeast coal in 1975 and

didn't even have a study done.

For the record, the $45

million warrant, which has been the subject of some pretty severe

charges by the Leader of the Opposition, was passed through my ministry

and through the northeast coal vote to the British Columbia Railway.

It's as simple as that. It was a pass-through vote. When the Leader of

the Opposition stands in his place and starts talking about tremendous

overruns, I want to tell you that most of the estimates — as a matter

of fact, even the large tunnel contracts, which I was afraid of, came

in right in the ballpark of what we had estimated on that $150 million

contract....

This shows that we had our engineering worked

out, that we had prepared ourselves well, that our estimates were right

on target, and that northeast coal with the majority of the contracts

let today will be well within budget. So they're ridiculous charges

again. He makes them and they're printed, and I don't know how you

counteract that. But everything he has said about northeast coal I've

been able to prove wrong.

He talks about jobs. Mr. Speaker,

I don't wish to get into a full-fledged debate on northeast coal, but

they're over there screaming about jobs. There will be 5,800 people

employed this summer on northeast coal. That's over 10 percent of the

construction workforce in British Columbia. And yet they scream about

jobs. We are creating jobs. There is no government or jurisdiction in

North America that has done as much to stimulate its economy in its own

jurisdiction as this government has.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not

going to take up the House's time to debate them, but when my estimates

arise I will certainly debate them. I'm proud of what this government

has done, and if it hadn't been for the planning we have taken in the

last six years, the province of British Columbia would be like most

other provinces in Canada today — bankrupt.

When the Leader

of the Opposition stands up here and talks and makes wild statements,

I.... As I say, I've proven him wrong on everything he's said. Mr.

Speaker, the truth is that the Leader of the Opposition stated

unequivocally that if he were elected Premier of this province, the

first thing he would do is close down northeast coal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: He said he would close down northeast coal. Are you saying he denies it?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre is being disruptive and disorderly. This is the second notice.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm happy to tell the House that there are no great overruns on

northeast coal. It's the best planned project in the history of this

province: on target, on date and within budget. I suppose that bothers

the opposition. I don't want to get into a great debate on northeast

coal — there will be lots of time for that — but I do want to explain

to the House and to the members of the great press, who might

misinterpret me and print some facts that are not really true.... I

just want to say, unequivocally, that the $45 million warrant was

passed through my vote. The money was given to the British Columbia

Railway, and the railway construction is on

schedule and on target.

MR. KING: The issue here is very clear. We have a special warrant issued in the amount of $45 million over and

[ Page 6953 ]

above

that which was approved by the Legislature last year. Some $22 million

was debated and approved for northeast coal last year by the

Legislative Assembly. The minister did give the Legislature his word

that that would be the total amount of expenditures last year for

northeast coal. We now find, by the government's own documents, which

are before the House and the public, for anyone to check, that indeed a

special warrant was issued for $45 million before the end of the fiscal

year on the last day of March, five days before the legislature

convened this year. That $45 million calls into question the commitment

that the minister gave to the House. The rules of this House preclude

me categorizing it as it should be categorized, but certainly it was a

broken commitment.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think the

public of British Columbia is becoming increasingly concerned with

large sums of public money being authorized in the secrecy of the

cabinet room without reference or debate in this Legislature. There was

no debate and no scrutiny, and then we had the pathetic attempt of the

government coming forward and trying to hide that expenditure by simply

carrying it forward into this year's budget.

Their shallow

attempt also reveals that they don't even show that amount in this

year's budget. It is money totally unaccounted for. It is the

expenditure of $45 million without debate in the Legislature,

commissioned in the secrecy of a cabinet room, with deliberate attempts

being made by the government to hide that expenditure. That is

unprecedented in the legislative history of British Columbia — that

kind of patent duplicity in attempting to hide public expenditures.

This is a major issue, Mr. Speaker. It is not some frivolous matter of

accounting procedure; this is a deliberate attempt by the government to

hide the expenditure, without debate, of $45 million of public funds in

this province.

What makes the matter more serious is that

the minister asks the Legislature and the people of the province of

British Columbia to accept on faith, without scrutiny, his

administration of northeast coal; he asks for an additional $45

million, sight unseen and unapproved by the Legislature. Yet, despite

continued requests by the opposition, that minister has consistently

refused to reveal the details of the northeast coal deal. The

Legislature doesn't know whether there are in fact any signed contracts

between the two mining companies involved, Teck and Denison, and the

Japanese steel interests.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against it? Would you close it down?

MR. KING:

The minister asks if I'm against it. I'm against this kind of

irresponsible expenditure of public funds without debate. Certainly I

am. In order for anyone to make an intelligent appraisal as to whether

northeast coal is a good, bad or indifferent deal, facts must be laid

on the table. When it appears that over one billion dollars of public

funds are committed to that project, certainly the least that the

Legislature or any self-respecting government or any government that

respects the people can be prepared to do would be to put forward the

subsidies that are inherent in that program with respect to the

transportation of that coal.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is bent on heckling me. He seems to dislike

me, for some reason or other. I want you to know that I wouldn't harm a

hair on that minister's head; I don't want to interfere with his rights

in this House.

If the members over there who are so vocal

would put facts on the table so the Legislature can function properly,

then we would be able to debate on behalf of the people of British

Columbia in a responsible way and there'd be no need for this

surreptitious style of attempting to hide the expenditure of $45

million. This is a scandal of the first order and, quite frankly, under

British parliamentary tradition, if a Minister of Finance was found to

be hiding expenditures which have taken place and failing to account

for them properly, as in the estimates of 1981-82 was also in the

estimates of 1982-83, he would be obliged by British parliamentary

tradition to resign the cabinet position he holds.

Talk about irresponsibility. Talk about shovelling money out of helicopters. The minister goes up there in M*A*S*H -like

fashion, descends on northeast coal with seven helicopters at public

expense, sets off a charge of dynamite and then expects the House, on

the basis of that excursion into northeast coal, to entrust to him the

expenditure of $45 million without debate or access to any of the

details pertaining to that northeast coal development. Quite frankly, I

have never encountered anything quite so irresponsible by this

government or any other. I can just imagine the howls of indignation

emanating from that side of the House by them and their supporters,

their fellow travelers in the Conservative Party, if the federal

government tried to do this kind of trip in the House of Commons. We

have here not only contempt for the Legislature and the taxpayers who

put up this $45 million and had it extracted painfully from their land

taxes and school taxes by cuts in the human services that the people

have a right to expect; we have here a classic example of tampering

with the traditional and honest bookkeeping and accounting that this

legislature should expect.

This is a deficit, pure and

simple. The government has run a deficit in last year's spending, and

now they attempt to hide that by passing special warrants without

debate and then slipping those special warrants into this bill that's

before the Legislature now and asking that it be approved without

debate because interim supply is contained in the same bill.

The

opposition is obliged — and it is our duty — to scrutinize and alert

the public regarding every expenditure, certainly one of this

magnitude. It's disgraceful for the Legislature of British Columbia.

I'm sure the Minister of Finance is embarrassed. I note that both the

Premier and the minister who is responsible for the taking of this $45

million without debate and accountability have left this House. This is

complete disdain for the Legislature.

It would have been a

different thing had $45 million been earmarked to generate employment

for British Columbians, but as my colleague the Leader of the

Opposition pointed out, it seems that the government is committed not

to British Columbia employment, but to creating employment for foreign

interests with respect to the contracts that have been let for the

development of northeast coal. It is a shoddy day. It's an embarrassing

day for a government that always tried to peddle the line that you pay

as you go. They've been caught with their deficit down today. It's

revealed for all to see, and they can't hide it by the most creative or

imaginative bookkeeping that this province has ever seen. The facts are

clear. The issue is beyond debate. What we have here is an attempt to

hide a major deficit in the financing of this province's affairs.

[ Page 6954 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I did want to enter into this debate. There were statements made by the

Leader of the Opposition concerning interim supply. I had the

opportunity to look at an interim supply bill dated April 9, 1974, when

they were government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: When was the budget introduced?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The Leader of the Opposition talked about interim supply. He didn't

talk about when the budget was introduced. He talked about interim

supply: 1975, interim supply, March 26 — and June 9 was the second

interim supply bill.

They talk about this administration,

and I have to tell you that from 1952 to 1972 this province was

administered very well, thank you, and left a sizeable balance in the

accounts in 1972 when this party was defeated as government — then only

to find that between that infamous day in 1972 and that great day of

December 11, 1975, that party as government took this province to the

verge of bankruptcy. From December 11, 1975, to date we have maintained

balanced budgets in this province. Between those years when the Social

Credit Party has been the government in this province, life has been

pretty good. But in the years 1972 to 1975 it was pretty sad.

The

Leader of the Opposition goes on to comment about giving away contracts

and projects to Japanese and European companies. I don't think he's

read the list of companies in British Columbia that have benefited by

that northeast coal project. I mentioned in my budget speech the other

day that two companies in my home town of Penticton received contracts

from northeast coal. I went on to mention that companies from Prince

George, Aldergrove, Kitimat and various other communities around this

province have obtained contracts from northeast coal, contracts which

benefited the economy of those small communities.

When you

attack the interim supply bill that lists the special warrants, and you

zero in on northeast coal, do you want to take a good run at the

Ministry of Health? Do you want to say that because we shouldn't have

put through interim supply or special warrants we should have denied

$42 million for health services or we should deny direct community care

services of $42 million? Would you want to deny those services to the

people of the province? You're very selective in your attack. You go

after northeast coal's $45 million, which is really funds going out to

create the activity in northeast coal and to keep a project ongoing,

without delays and the heavy costs that are incurred because of delays.

The

attack that I have heard so far through the budget speech, and now in

interim supply, is indicative, I guess, of the shortsightedness of the

opposition. I would like to know one thing, because they've never

really said it: is the opposition going to stand up someday in this

House and say whether they're for or against northeast coal? You

haven't got the intestinal fortitude to take a stand on that. You

waffle, waffle, waffle. Let's hear from those on the opposition side of

the House as to whether or not they're for or against northeast coal

when they attack the $45 million expenditure.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is attempting to draw your attention to the

fact that during the second reading debate on interim supply, for the

first time in modern history in British Columbia, we're faced with a

demand for supply from a government that idly twiddled its thumbs for

three months before calling the House together after the new fiscal

year commenced. That is the first point I wish to draw to your

attention.

Quoting from the record books way back to the

1800s is really of no significance, What is happening here is that the

government was not ready with its budget. I told you when I spoke in

the budget debate that the budget was ready on Friday. I have been

advised that I was incorrect; the budget was not ready last Friday. The

Minister of Finance looks over to me in a puzzled way. The budget was

not ready for distribution last Friday and, in fact, the Queen's

Printer had to work overtime all weekend, at double time, printing that

budget. That is the kind of planning we can expect from that government

over there. Instead of being able to produce its documents on time,

instead of planning its work properly, it is always in a rush, always

at the last minute, always make-do and mend, putting things together,

government by crisis, government by reaction, government by chaos.

That

is the kind of thing we are drawing to your attention when, for the

first time, we've now got in print the real value of the budget — not

the $7.2 billion that the member for Saanich (Hon. Mr. Curtis) would

have us believe but, in effect, $8.5 billion of expenditure. The whole

tenor and thrust of his and of the Premier's remarks that they've been

able to control expenditures to the predetermined level by the wit and

wisdom of their cabinet colleagues and that therefore they are smart

and brilliant all crumbles to ashes when we realize that we're not

comparing last year's $6.6 billion with this year's $7.2 billion, and

therefore they are smart; we are comparing last year's $6.6 billion

with this year's $8.5 billion, so they're not so smart. I am very

pleased to have this interim supply bill before us because we've now

got, on a piece of paper produced by the Hon. Minister of Finance, that

figure totalled up. Nowhere in any of the documents he presented on

Monday in that beautifully modulated, articulated, enunciated speech

did I ever hear "$8.5 billion."

I've been looking at the

books. I notice, for instance, that when we looked at $6.6 billion last

year we had rent to pay, we had Systems Corporation to pay. All of that

was in the $6.6 billion. Mr. Speaker, would you expect to find the rent

and computer charges to be paid this year out of the $7.2 billion? I

would, but I don't think they are. I think they are in a separate

schedule and not part of the total of $7.2 billion. It's another bit of

creative camouflage, a little bit of magic by the member for Saanich.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the ways you do it is to keep on changing the rules.

Let's take tourism, which is, of course, part of the estimate that

we're looking at. Last year the magazine Beautiful British Columbia

had, let's say, rounding the figures out, $2 million of revenue and,

let's say, $2.5 million expenditure attached to it. That is what it

costs to get the magazine out. This year we have things called

recoveries, net, so we do away with the $2 million on the lefthand side

of the page, the income, we do away with the $2 million on the

righthand side of the page and we net it out at, let's say, $500,000.

That has an effect of reducing the total expenditure budget of the

Minister of Tourism by $2 million. In real life it doesn't alter the

budget at all, but she and he are able to go around saying, "Ah, I

conformed to the Premier's request to control myself." I don't think

the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) has ever controlled herself

at all, She has braced herself but never controlled herself. That kind

of camouflage, that kind of creative bookkeeping, serves this minister

ill, not well, because he's really more of a decent chap than that.

[ Page 6955 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. HALL: You've got one supporter anyway, Mr. Member for Saanich.

When

you realize that for the first time we've seen the figure.... I hope

everybody in British Columbia realizes now that we're no longer

debating $7.2 billion, we're debating $8.5 billion, and that these

estimates are really a juggler's delight. This should appear on

television along with all of those other people who make jet planes

disappear and Bengal tigers and other weird and wonderful beings,

because this minister would like to make deficits disappear. But he

cannot make deficits disappear. As the first member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Barrett), my leader, has pointed out, that's been the purpose of

the exercise.

Lastly, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that some good

has come out of the debate so far this week — namely, we now have proof

positive that we're talking about $8.5 billion. After two days of

debate and two — I want to be respectful — abortive motions of

privilege, we forced the Minister of Finance to reduce the real

document in terms of standard objects of expenditure. So I think we've

had a good week. I wish you well for the weekend, and we'll be

supporting the general thrust of providing money to provide services

for the people of British Columbia.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave of the House to introduce some guests?

Leave, granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a group of British Columbians, many

of whom were disappointed that they didn't catch the budget debate on

television at home. However, I'm really delighted and honoured to

welcome this group, to the House, and I would ask the members to extend

a warm welcome to approximately 40 members of the Clearbrook Golden Age

Society under the leadership of Mr. Peter Wiens.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to participate in this debate

on the creative cookery of the Minister of Finance. I'm not going to attack

the $52 million overrun in Human Resources, because I think the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) missed the point: it's not the overruns

that we're attacking, it's the dishonest reporting. That's what

I'm going to talk about, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER:

I must caution the hon. member to be certain that she's not attributing

that kind of characteristic to any hon. member of this House.

MS. BROWN:

No, not to any hon member, just to the process. It's the process, Mr.

Speaker, that I use the word "dishonest" in relationship to, not the

hon. member at all.

I don't know if you remember, Mr.

Speaker, but certainly in August of last year, when the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) launched her assault on the

infants of this province, I pointed out at that time that it had been

brought to my attention that the Ministry of Human Resources was facing

something in the neighbourhood of a $38 million overrun. Of course, the

minister denied this and said that, no, the decision the minister made

to force the single parents of infants over the age of six months to go

to work had nothing to do with the fact that the mismanagement of her

ministry and herself would indeed result in an overrun in that

ministry. However, earlier this year we got from the Minister of

Finance a statement saying that he was anticipating massive overruns,

or "overruns of some consequence" from the Ministry of Human Resources.

The deputy minister then said that, on the contrary, they would

probably be around $25 million, but certainly no more than that.

MR. BARBER: Who said that?

MS. BROWN:

The Deputy Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Noble, in the Province of

February 10, anticipated a very minor overrun, something in the

neighbourhood of $25 million — nothing more than that. However, lo and

behold, Mr. Speaker, no overrun appeared, no overrun surfaced. In March

there was a special warrant for something in the vicinity of $3,000,800

to cover the cost of some increases in Pharmacare, and that was all

that we heard about.

On April 1, April Fool's Day, exactly

four days before the opening of the House, Thursday, to be exact....

The House was going to be opening on Monday, so there would apparently

be no business going on on Saturday or Sunday. Approximately three days

before the opening of the House a special warrant in the amount of

$48,400,000 went through to cover what we are told were the continuing

activities of the Ministry of Human Resources. So, curious about this

decision to have a special warrant three days before the opening of the

House, which presumably would be passing interim supply, one of the

members of the opposition research department telephoned the Ministry

of Human Resources and spoke to someone in financial services. It was a

very interesting conversation. What the gentleman said, Mr. Speaker,

was indeed that $48,400,000 would have been an overrun were it not for

the fact that the Ministry had changed its reporting procedure. That

was his statement. "It would have been an overrun," he said, "if we

were reporting the same way we used to report before."

was asked to explain what the new accounting procedures were and he

said only the minister would be able to give that kind of information.

I'm going to ask the Minister to give some explanation of the new

accounting procedures when the time comes for her estimates. In the

meantime, what the Minister of Finance has done in tabling this interim

supply is to reveal that the new accounting procedure is really just

the old accounting procedure under a new name, and that's what we are

opposed to, Mr. Speaker.

Rather than admitting that the

Ministry, despite the violent attacks on the infants and other people

of this province, has indeed experienced a $52 million overrun.... In

fact, the real increase in the budget of the Minister of Human

Resources is not the 18 percent that the minister bragged about, but is

in fact only 11 percent. The truth is supposed to set us free and that

truth would have set us free, Mr. Speaker.

Instead of giving

us an honest reporting on what is going on in the Ministry of Human

Resources, we were told first of all that there was no overrun, and

secondly, that there was an 18 percent increase. When this interim

supply bill was tabled we found that there was a $52 million overrun,

and that the real increase is only 11 percent, not the 18 percent.

Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say that the real people in this province who

should be having interim supply are the day-care operators. I don't

know whether you know, but the Ministry of Human Resources has, in

terms of its creative

[ Page 6956 ]

bookkeeping,

also been consistently running six weeks late in paying the cheques to

the day-care centres, thus forcing them to go to the banks and borrow

money at whatever the going interest rate is. That interest rate is not

covered by the moneys which they get from the Ministry of Human

Resources. They have to dip into their allotment to pay that interest

rate.

The Minister received a letter from the day-care

centre in Port Coquitlam about the fact that their cheques are

consistently six weeks late. The Lower Mainland Association of Private

Day-care Centres sent a letter to the minister on behalf of 18 of their

members saying: "Please, we cannot afford these consistent overdrafts

because the cheques are six weeks late."

My colleague has

just pointed out to me that the Minister of Finance has brought in a

new procedure which permits businesses to deduct the interest rates

which they have to pay when their cheques are not in on time. However,

we find that the Burquitlam, the Coquitlam and the Lower Mainland

Association of Day-care Centres and the other private daycare centres

are having to meet those interest rates themselves. They are not

covered. The Minister of Human Resources has not extended the courtesy

to them that the Minister of Finance has extended to business.

Mr.

Speaker, in closing I just want to say that it is not the overrun that

we are attacking. It's the dishonest reporting in the budget. It's the

creative bookkeeping. It's the fact that we are being told that it's a

$7 billion budget, when in fact it's an $8.5 billion budget.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance must have some sympathy

with the opposition at this point because of all of the new methods of

accounting that have been put to us in the new Financial Administration

Act and in other ways. It is disconcerting, and I think that the

minister, if he had been doing his job properly, would have described a

number of things — or maybe it was a false impression that I had. It

seemed to me that over the years, since I've been in the House, one of

the criteria that we had in bringing in interim supply was that the

government could not get the necessary funds to pay for the ongoing

services of government while waiting for the main budget to be passed.

Now when I look at this, I look at

Schedule 2 of Bill 37, and I notice

that the government has passed a number of special warrants totalling

almost $103 million, on this year's money, that has yet to be approved

by the Legislature. I don't quite understand that. If, indeed, these

nearly $103 million could have been approved by special warrant on

funds that have yet to be approved by the Legislature in this year's

budget, then why do we need interim supply? Why couldn't the government

just have figured out what they would need to get themselves through a

quarter of the year and pass special warrants to total that amount, as

opposed to coming in here with this bill?

You know, something is really wrong. It is laid out in the

preamble:

"And

whereas in accordance with the Financial Administration Act

expenditures by special warrants of $134,788,358 in respect to the

fiscal year ending March 3, 1982...." Now I don't see any particular

problem with that. Before coming into the session, where they can't

pass special warrants, the government decided that they were going to

pass those special warrants on last year's money, which has already

been approved by the Legislature. That's under

Schedule 1. Under

Schedule 2 the $102,978,415 was special warrants passed by cabinet on

money that is yet to be approved by the Legislature. I wonder how the

minister can explain to us how that can be done? I'd like to hear,

because if indeed it's legal, I think we have to take a look at the act

itself. To allow the government, by order-in-council in cabinet, to

pass special warrants, spending money that has not been approved by the

Legislature of British Columbia, seems to me to be a departure from all

precedents for the government purse in handling the people's money.

I am not for one

minute saying that this is comparable to some of the atrocities that

Hitler performed, but everything that Hitler did was legal. It doesn't

necessarily make it right.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

I said I am not comparing what the government's done, but it's true:

governments that are dictatorial can do things that are legal but not

necessarily morally correct.

You know, the Minister of

Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) must feel really worried about

his own constituency and whether he is going to win. I have never seen

him so exercised in a legislative session. He is almost to the point

where he is acting silly.

Mr. Speaker, obviously something

is really wrong here. If indeed it is legal now for the cabinet of

British Columbia to pass special warrants for the expenditure of funds

on money that has yet to be approved by the Legislature, then I suggest

to you that there is something morally wrong with legislation that

would allow that — if indeed there is legislation to allow that. I

would hope that the minister would explain to us where he gained his

legal sanction to go ahead and expend, by special warrant, money yet to

be approved by the Legislature. I think there is something you can do

constitutionally if an election is called. But constitutionally I would

like to see the legalities that would allow the minister to do that.

And if those provisions are there legally, then, Mr. Speaker, interim

supply is a sham. We have no need for interim supply, because it could

all have been done by special warrant previous to us coming into this

budget debate.

I'd like to hear the minister's explanation

of that, and I would also like to see the government go out to the

people of this province and explain to them the morality of government

being allowed by special warrant to expend funds that the Legislature

has yet to approve. That's what's happened to almost $103 million of

special warrants that the government's passed.

One other

point that I'd like to bring up is the question that was put to us by

the Minister of Agriculture on northeast coal. What the government

would like us to do is to say whether we're for it or against it. I

don't think we can be any more clear than we have been in the past, but

if it's necessary to say it again, I guess we should. We are for....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've been clear in the past, have you?

MR. LEA: Yes, very clear.

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

They don't want to hear it, Mr. Speaker.... When we make our position

clear on northeast coal they don't like it, because then they can't go

out, and say we're against it. We are for....

[ Page 6957 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member just take his chair momentarily until we have order in the House.

MR. LEA:

I don't know how many times we have to say it. We cannot say it any

more clearly. The opposition believes that we have an abundance of both

thermal coal and metallurgical coal. We believe that it would be wise

for British Columbia to sell some of that coal in the export market.

What we would like to do, though, is to sell it at a rate of return

that is beneficial to the people of this province. I think that's clear.

Because

the government has not made known the details of the transaction on

northeast coal, through Teck and Denison to the Japanese market, we

don't know whether we're for the deal or against the deal, in detail.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is disruptive. Please come to order.

Interjections.

MR. LEA:

What could be clearer than that? We are for the export of coal. We have

an abundance of coal, and we believe that it would be to the benefit of

British Columbians to sell that coal on the export market at a profit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at a loss.

MR. LEA: As my colleague says, not at a loss.

one said that we close the deal down. We said that if we were to assume

government through the election process, we would review the northeast

coal details and see whether, in our opinion, it is a good deal for the

people of this province. That's all we've said. We have always said

that we are for northeast coal. As a matter of fact, as the minister

himself admitted in the House earlier today, we were the ones that were

the impetus in moving this coal out of this province while we were in

government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What a laugh! You get funnier every day.

MR. LEA:

So the minister withdraws his statement. It was the minister who stood

in the House earlier today, as a matter of fact not more than an hour

ago, and said: "They were going ahead with northeast coal without the

benefit of a cost-benefit analysis." The minister said that when we

were the government we were going ahead with the export of coal. He

admits that it was our government that first started to put this deal

together.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Without any sales contracts.

MR. LEA: That's right, without any sales contracts. We were very cautiously....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development please come to order. This is a second notice.

MR. LEA:

He's very embarrassed. We were very cautiously taking a look at the

exploitation of coal for the export market. We had made no deals. We

admit that. We had no contracts signed. We were looking at the

exportation of northeast coal.

I know that the government would like to put the NDP on record as being absolutely opposed to northeast coal. They can't do it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Do you see that, Mr. Speaker? We clearly state what our policy is, and

the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) says:

"You are." That's why the minister went broke in three businesses that

he started up. It's true. He put more trucks over the bank coming down

through the Fraser Canyon than any other trucking contractor in the

history of the province. That's why the Premier made him the Minister

of Transportation and Highways. He knows what it's like to run off the

road. He ran more International Harvesters off the road — he admitted

it to me one day himself. He couldn't stop going broke for running off

the road. So it's not impossible to believe that he doesn't understand

what we're saying now.

I don't know how many times it's been

said, but I think it's worth repeating again: the official opposition,

the New Democratic Party, is in favour of selling coal into the

international marketplace at a profit for the people of this province.

I think it should be clearly stated, once again, that there is no way

any citizen of this province knows whether the northeast coal deal is a

good or a bad one. We don't have any of the figures in front of us. And

the government grasps those figures in the cabinet room and peeks its

head out and says: "Are you for it or against it? We're not going to

give you any figures for you to make up your mind. We just want to know

whether you're for it or against it."

I guess that's the way

the Social Credit operates. It's the way the Minister of Highways ran

his trucks off the road. He single-handedly in his own company kept

International Harvester going for a four-year period. Most of the sales

were going right into the Fraser River. I don't know whether the

minister was driving them or not, but obviously he kept the same old

drivers on year after year — those that managed to climb back up on the

road and make another run at it.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) asked the question. We are stating on

record in this Legislature again, as the Leader of the Opposition has

done publicly outside of this Legislature, that we are in favour of

northeast coal if it is a good deal for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, forgive them, for they are hearing something that they

don't like to hear. They would like to go out into the province and

categorically say that the NDP is against exporting coal. That's what

they'd like to say. But when we won't say it, because it isn't our

policy, it drives them almost frantic. There's an election issue

slipping through their fingers, and they hate that. That's what they

like to do.

[ Page 6958 ]

we indeed have now, or are about to have — and I hope it's "about to

have," because if we already have 6,000 people working in the Peace

River on northeast coal and we still have an unemployed figure of 13.6

percent, then we're in real trouble.... I hope that the jobs to which

the minister was referring are jobs that are coming on stream, not jobs

that already are. If they're jobs that already are, we still have 13.6

percent of the people unemployed in the minister's own area.

What

we're seeing is a political party, not a government, that is desperate.

During the last major recession that we had in 1974-75 — not as deep as

the international one we're having now — as we were sitting in

government, the Minister of Finance, who was then a Conservative — and

an honourable man, sitting over there as a Conservative — not only

challenged what we were doing, but also challenged what Social Credit

were doing and saying. You'll remember, Mr. Speaker, that at that time

you were still partisan and you were sitting over here as a Social

Credit member, and the Minister of Finance took exception to everything

you said. Now he takes exception to us when we say: "We don't quite

believe you sometimes." Funny how times change. As a matter of fact, I

should have taken the time to look back in Hansard to find the

Minister of Finance's comments about the kind of budget he just brought

in. In those days the Minister of Finance was absolutely opposed to the

kind of budget he just brought in and that he's so proud of. And the

Minister of Finance knows it.

So was the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). He was against this kind

of budget when he was sitting over here as a Liberal. As a matter of

fact, every year the Liberals used to come in with their own budget

decrying the Social Credit method of overestimating the revenues and

underestimating the expenditures. So did the Minister of Finance. But

how times change.

I believe the Minister of Finance owes the

people of this province an explanation as to why they are spending

money through special warrant in the cabinet room before that money has

been approved by the Legislature. And the document says that that was

done. If that's true, then what's the urgency for interim supply? To

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture will come to order.

MR. LEA:

You know, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to everyone's attention —

including those in the gallery the Minister of Agriculture. Take a look

at the man. We say we're for coal, and it's a good deal.

MR. SPEAKER: The member will continue to address the Chair.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Chair; I'm just not looking at you.

I want everyone within the sound of my voice to look at the Minister of Agriculture

and Food and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, because

I want you to take a look at what they actually look like. That is the kind

of look that puts forward the argument: "Are you for it or against it? We're

not going to tell you, the people of British Columbia, what the terms of the

deal are. We're not going to tell you how many subsidized dollars are going

to go into northeast coal. What we want you to do is to approve it or not approve

it, period." That is what they look like.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development and the second member for Vancouver Centre are

continuing in a disruptive way. I think the House would be better

served if both of them would withdraw from the chamber at this time.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the second

member for Vancouver Centre, please withdraw from the chamber at this

time.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Sergeant-at-Arms.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, this comes as a surprise to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Sergeant-at-Arms, there are two members to be removed.

MR. BARNES: I just got in. I don't know what the reason is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order, which I couldn't raise earlier because Your Honour

was insisting upon a certain course of action, with due respect to Your

Honour, you may have chosen, with respect to the second member for

Vancouver Centre, the wrong person. That is what I am advised, and that

is, what I noticed myself. I draw that to Your Honour's attention. I

believe an error has been made, not with respect to the minister but

with respect to the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the opinion, sir.

MR. HOWARD: It's more than on opinion, Mr. Speaker. I believe you have chosen the wrong member and I would ask you to inquire into that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena stands on his feet and makes a point of order under which standing order?

MR. HOWARD: The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that according to my

knowledge of what took place in the chamber a while ago, hearing the cross-conversation

of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and Your Honour's

response to that across-the-floor conversation, the second member for Vancouver

Centre was not involved in that. Your Honour, I believe, has chosen incorrectly

to expel the second member for Vancouver Centre. I would ask Your Honour to

examine that, if you would. I am sure Your Honour would not want to be in the

position of having made an error.

[ Page 6959 ]

MR. SPEAKER:

Under standing orders 19 and 20, provision is made for the Speaker,

after having repeatedly drawn members' attention to disorderly conduct

to, if he deems it necessary, have those members withdraw from the

chamber for the remainder of the sitting. It is under those standing

orders that both members, having been duly warned on three occasions,

were asked to withdraw.

MR. LEA: The events that have

just happened point out, more than in any way that I could, that the

NDP position on the export of coal.... That we'd like to see the facts

before we sanction the specific northeast coal development speaks for

itself, because our position so exercised the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development that he couldn't contain himself. The truth

of our position was more than the minister could stand, and through

that he exercised himself to the point where he had to be removed from

the House. I think those facts should stand on their own.

MRS. WALLACE:

I want to deal with one aspect of this bill that I think would be

unwise to let go unmentioned during this debate on interim supply. You

will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the last session of the

Legislature, when we were discussing estimates, the New Democratic

opposition moved a series of amendments which pointed to excessive

increases in ministers' expenses, In fact, we identified through those

amendments $82 million of excessive expenditures — padding — some

increases in ministerial travel, furniture and those types of things,

amounting anywhere from a 200 to a 400 percent increase over the

previous year. All of those amendments were turned down, and those

padded budgets were accepted by this Legislature, over the protests of

the opposition.

It's very interesting to note that now, as

we discuss interim supply — and we have listed in this Bill 37 a series

of special warrants issued during the past year for overruns in various

government expenditures — we find that some $300,000 of those overruns

are related to ministerial offices, related to estimates that were

already, in the opinion of the opposition and certainly by any

statistical yardstick, well and even excessively endowed with funds.

Yet we have in this list a series of overruns in ministerial offices,

leading off, of course, with the Premier of the province with an

overrun of $150,000. The Premier is now telling the people of this

province that they must restrain themselves, that they must hold their

increases to 8 percent, but he himself pays no attention to that

guideline, as evidenced by this particular increase.

We go

on to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), with a

$30,000 overrun in his office, at the same time that the funds he was

administering for the agricultural community in this province were

reduced in actual fact. Yet he is prepared to come to this Legislature,

or at least to sneak in behind the doors with a special warrant, to ask

for another $30,000 for his office. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), $8,500; the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hyndman), $22,000; the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), $10,000; the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), an overexpenditure of $11,000, and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), an

overexpenditure of $25,000 — all overruns in government ministerial

offices at a time when the general public are being asked to curtail

and restrain themselves. That's just one small part of this entire

budget, this interim supply with special warrants for last year,

special warrants for the first three months of this year, thrown in

over and above anything included in the estimates.

We heard

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) yesterday talking about their being a socially conscious party.

They are not socially conscious, Mr. Speaker. This budget proves that

if they are anything they are sly and conniving, because that's what

this budget is: it's sly and conniving. And that's what this interim

supply is, Mr. Speaker: it's sly and conniving. That's the whole thrust

of this government: to attempt to juggle the books, cook the books, use

the figures in any way they can to try to avoid telling the public of

this province that they're in a deficit position. That's where they

are, Mr. Speaker; that's what's happened as a result of their

mismanagement of the affairs of this province.

While we must

move on and pass this interim supply, we just cannot let it go by

without indicating the general direction of the government that puts

more and more dollars into the pockets of ministers and their offices,

and fewer dollars into the pockets of the people of this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, we've had, I suppose, a foretaste of some points which

will be made in the continuation of the budget debate and in individual

estimates.

Interim supply is a curious activity which has

occurred in this province, regardless of government, over a number of

years, I don't think the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is not

in the House at this moment, intended to leave an incorrect impression.

But as my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food observed, if a

suggestion was left with hon. members that interim supply did not occur

during the years of the NDP administration, then I think it would be

useful simply to be reminded of the fact that we had an interim supply

bill dated April 9, 1974. That's one day later than today in the

calendar.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, may I seek your assistance. I've sat quietly and listened

to the debate today. I would like to carry on and make a few points in

a quiet and rational manner.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about truthful.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I hope the member is not suggesting that these remarks are not truthful.

1975 we had two interim supply bills, the first occurring on March 26

and the second one occurring on June 9. So interim supply, regardless

of the party in power, has been necessary for a number of years.

The

second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who is here, spoke about the

hurried completion of the budget. I want to assure the member, and all

members, that the essential elements of the budget were in fact

completed some days in advance of the delivery of the budget speech in

this House. What occurred in the period of last Friday and I believe

into Saturday, but not — if I recall the member observing — through the

entire weekend was the actual printing of the budget speech. I think,

again, that is not an unprecedented circumstance. I read with interest

recently of the fluster of activity which occurred when the now Leader

of the Opposi-

[ Page 6960 ]

tion

and the then Premier and Minister of Finance was working at a

last-minute and frenzied pace to change, I believe, not only the budget

but also the budget speech during his short term, So our budget

documents were essentially complete. The budget speech delivered to

this House on Monday was in fact not in final proof form until the

early evening of Friday last, and then it went to the printers for

final printing.

Mr. Speaker, there has been reference to the

schedules which are attached to the bill we are discussing in principle

now, and

schedule 1 has been discussed at length.

Schedule 2, I will

point out to the members, as they well know, and to those who are

interested.... I wonder if you could bring the House to order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the member who has the floor.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Schedule 2 is the early allocation of $102,978,415 for the fiscal year 1982-83.

The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has questioned not only the legality

but the legality and morality of that particular decision, and I will

leave that to others to judge. I'm not in a position to give a legal

opinion, but I am satisfied by my advisers that it is, in fact, a

completely legal step under the Financial Administration Act. Now

before the member interjects, Mr. Speaker, I will observe that I think

he said we should perhaps take a look at the act. Well, I would like to

speak about the Financial Administration Act in just a moment.

any one of us, $102 million is a very large amount of money. However,

we had no guarantee that interim supply would be passed today. When you

are faced with the ongoing costs of government, you have no guarantee

that interim supply will be passed on any particular day. It was

reasonable to expect, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the

Opposition, that it would, in fact, be passed not later than Tuesday or

Wednesday of next week. But if you look at $102 million in terms of one

week or more, perhaps ten days of government operation on a budget of

several billion dollars, you would know that it was necessary and

appropriate, in the absence of the House not convening until April 5,

to ensure that certain activities of government were ongoing. They are

listed clearly in

schedule 2.

I think it was three years ago

that my colleague, the present Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe),

then Minister of Finance, was under considerable criticism because it

appeared that the government was not in a position to pay its bills and

that emergency funds to recipients through the Ministry of Human

Resources, emergency payments to hospitals and a variety of other

necessary payments could not be made until interim supply occurred.

That is the reason for the second schedule, 1982-83 special warrant,

which was passed on the first day of this new fiscal year.

Again

I want to say that I am very proud to have been a part of the

development of the Financial Administration Act which permitted the

debate we've had today in interim supply. I'm very proud because I hope

it is going to be in place for many years to come in British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'll return to the topic, if some members opposite are concerned. In

order that there must be, with interim supply, the reporting of special

warrants and that the debate may occur at the earliest possible moment

rather than wait for estimates.... One member opposite said perhaps

there is no need for interim supply, that the special warrant passed on

April 1, the first day of this fiscal year, could have covered a month

or two months of activity. This government would not do that. The

members have difficulty understanding what occurred. I've explained

carefully, but the members opposite apparently are not able to

understand that we have bills to pay.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is being disorderly. Second asking.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That was about the fourth warning, Mr. Speaker, but I won't argue with you.

fact, one has to examine the very large sum of over $102 million in the

context of the 52 weeks covered by this fiscal year. If there had been

any suggestion that we seek for ministries other than those listed in

schedule 2 on the back of Bill 37, or incorporate additional funds into

that

schedule therefore passed by special warrant on the first day of

this fiscal year, I would have rejected such a request as Minister of

Finance and chairman of Treasury Board. And so we selected the key

essential ministries for the. ongoing operation: Attorney-General,

Education, Health, Human Resources, Transportation and Highways, and

Universities, Science and Communications.

Mr. Speaker, I was

answering specifically the criticism directed with regard to a special

warrant on the first day of this fiscal year, and I think that

objective observers of the scene in British Columbia will recognize

that that which was done was prudent and yet showed the restraint which

I've spoken of before this week.

Back to the Financial

Administration Act, which has certainly injected itself into the debate

today. I stand by the Financial Administration Act. It is

an act which

will stand the test of time over a number of years to come. With

governments changing 5, 15 and 25 years from now, I believe that that

which has been required today is in the best interests not of the

government, but the people in this province. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

37, Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

[ Page 6961 ]

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 1), 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the sixty-third annual report of the Public Service Commission for the year 1981.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the annual report of the B.C. Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1981.

MR. SPEAKER:

I am advised, hon. members, that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is

preparing to enter the chamber. Perhaps we could all remain in our

seats until he arrives.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1982.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: 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.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, before we proceed this morning, the hon. member for Comox

(Ms. Sanford) sought to move, pursuant to standing order 35, that the

House be adjourned to discuss a definite matter of urgent public

importance, namely the release of high unemployment figures by

Statistics Canada. Standing order 35 provides a method by which the

ordinary business slated for consideration by the House may be set

aside so that an opportunity will be afforded to debate a matter where

such opportunity would not otherwise arise. The orders of the day

indicate that priority has been given at this time to the consideration

of the debate on the budget speech. The scope of debate on the budget

speech, particularly in regard to economic matters, is broad, thereby

affording an immediate opportunity to discuss the matter complained of.

As the opportunity is immediate, there is no necessity for setting

aside the ordinary business of the House, and accordingly the matter

would not come within standing order 35.

It should be noted

that numerous Speakers of this House have ruled that consideration of

the rate of unemployment involves an ongoing matter, thereby taking the

question outside the scope of standing order 35. I would refer to the

decision of Mr. Speaker Dowding on a similar application, to be found

at page 285 of the Journals of this House, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:43 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada