1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 13). Hon. Mrs. Gran

Introduction and first reading –– 9150

Oral Questions

REAL Women. Ms. Pullinger –– 9150

Women's programs. Ms. Pullinger –– 9150

Rental discrimination. Ms. Cull –– 9151

High-income tenants in subsidized housing. Mr. Mowat –– 9152

Ministerial Statements

Professional Secretaries' Day. Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 9152

Ms. Marzari

Urgency of interim supply. Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 9153

Mr. Rose

Supply Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) ––

Mr. Rose

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Loenen

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. J. Jansen

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Mercier

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Pullinger

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Jones

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask the House to give a warm

welcome to two very fine individuals who happen to be constituents of

mine in the sunny and beautiful riding of Richmond.

Mrs.

Sheila Page is the vice-president of the Richmond Chinese School, the

largest heritage-language school in the province. She also serves as

president of the Richmond Chinese Cultural Society.

Alderman

Kiichi Kumagai has served on council continuously since 1972 and

currently serves as chairman of the planning committee of council. Of

course, he's doing a wonderful job on council. That's why he's been

there so long, and we expect he'll be there a lot longer. We ask the

House to welcome these fine members.

Mr. Speaker, it is a

great pleasure, and also an honour, to introduce to the House today Mr.

Anand P. Jaiswal and Mrs. Gayatri Jaiswal. They're visiting our

beautiful province from London, England.

Anand Jaiswal is

the son of Mr. L.P. Jaiswa, president of Jagatvit Industries Ltd. of

New Delhi, India. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Mr. Jaiswal

Sr. this year and last year during my participation at the World

Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland.

Mr. Anand

Jaiswal is a director-representative of Jagatvit Industries, which is

positioned in London to arrange exports, find technology and arrange

joint ventures. He is visiting British Columbia at the request of his

father to determine the potential for Investment here. Jagatvit

Industries was founded In 1944 and now consists of a group of companies

with a turnover of $200 million U.S. per year.

I would ask the House to welcome these fine visitors from India via London, England, to British Columbia.

MR. JONES :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make two introductions today. First, it's a

rare and special occasion when my family joins me in Victoria, so I

would like to introduce my anchor and my inspiration, my wife Jennifer,

and my three-and-a-half-year old son Emery. I know members will want to

make these people very welcome today.

Secondly, I would

like to introduce a group of student leaders who are here today to

represent some 1,500 of the 11,000 students who are caught in the labor

dispute in Vancouver and are going to suffer severe financial hardship

as of Friday.

Joining us today in the Speaker's gallery is Pam Frache, who is the B.C.

chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, as well as Brad Garner and

Jana Vartanis from the King Edward campus. With Jana is her son Peter. There

is also Fred Gray, who is the chairperson of the Vancouver City Centre Student

Society, as well as Lorie Fuller, who is the deputy chairperson at City Centre.

Would the House please make these student leaders welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK :

It is my honour and privilege, on behalf of the second member for

Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, to introduce to the

House 50 grade 11 students from the Central Fraser Valley, namely the

Mennonite Educational Institute. They are joined today by their

teachers, Mr. Ken Bartsch and Stan Coutu. Would the House please make

them welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery this afternoon is Mr. Scott McCaffrey. He's a constituent of

mine and a student in business administration at Simon Fraser

University. Would all hon. members please make him welcome.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome in the Speaker's gallery today

a good friend, a key and active player in IWA Local 180 and

vice-president of the Cowichan-Ladysmith NDP constituency association:

John Little. Would the House please help me welcome John.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It was my pleasure today, along with the Minister of Health (Hon. J.

Jansen) and the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs.

McCarthy), to participate in "McHappy Days" in McDonald's downtown

store. I just want the House to acknowledge the fine work they do on

behalf of Ronald McDonald House. This year they intend to raise $1

million.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Speaker, I would ask

that the House join the government side in paying tribute to a former

member of the House who passed away this morning in Vancouver, Hunter

Vogel. Hunter Vogel was the first mayor of Langley city. He was first

elected to the B.C. Legislature by the constituents of Delta to a

dual-member riding encompassing Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Langley in

the general election of 1963. He was re-elected in 1966 and 1969 by the

constituents of Langley.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, I

join with the first member for Langley in expressing our regrets at the

passing of Hunter Vogel. We shared a riding at one time — I was

the federal member; he was the provincial member — and we got

along exceedingly well. I remember one time when I was distressed about

something — the pressures of the job —

and I was at a banquet or dinner with Hunter. There were many

supporters of my side there and also many of the other side, yet he was

the only one who really understood what I was going through, because he

was another politician, I guess. I think he made a tremendous

contribution. He raised the level of debate and certainly the level of

refinement in terms of people dealing with other people. He was a great

gentleman. I used to kid him and call him the "great white hunter."

[ Page 9150 ]

MR. SPEAKER :

If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will take the appropriate

action and send a message to the family on behalf of all members. Is

that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye!

MR. BRUCE :

I would like the House to welcome a number of guests that I have here

today: my father, Preston Bruce, the patriarch of Bruce's of Canada;

another good friend, Dr. Bob Wilson; and Ken Brown, his sister Edna and

her husband, Clifford Tomlinson, of Saskatchewan, who are here visiting

with us in the beautiful province of British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

PURCHASING COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mrs. Gran presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, this bill permits electronic requisitioning in the

Purchasing Commission. It adds environmental considerations to the

Purchasing Commission's mandate, gives the commission powers to sell

software and other technologies developed at the taxpayers' expense,

and removes outdated references.

I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

REAL WOMEN

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. A national mailing, paid

for by British Columbia's Tourism ministry, identifies and promotes an

event which, in part, will occur at Fantasy Gardens this weekend. Does

the Premier think that this is appropriate?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

First of all, I'm not familiar with the event. I don't really get

involved with private business or the business of other people. So I

frankly don't intend to comment on the business of other people,

because we enjoy in our province a climate where I think people can

operate their businesses freely without the government having to

interfere in each and every activity.

MS. PULLINGER : The event I'm referring to is a free tea party for

a national convention of r-e-a-1 women, commonly known as REAL Women. This national

mailing, funded by British Columbia taxpayers, attacks homosexuals and characterizes

AIDS patients as "simply reaping what they have sown." This is a question

that the Premier can answer: does he think it's appropriate for his government

to send this message across this country?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I don't intend to comment on your dislike for REAL Women; that's your

prerogative. I suppose it's their prerogative as an organization as to

where their activities. As far as Fantasy Gardens is concerned, I'm sure

they'll appreciate you giving them a plug. But that's a private

business, and I don't intend to get involved with private business.

[2:15]

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. I have here a 12-page

letter mailed by your ministry to members of REAL Women across this

country. Can the minister explain the objective of this mailing, and

can he tell us the cost to B.C. taxpayers of this mailing?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

It's certainly a pleasure and refreshing to see the members of the

opposition interested in tourism. This is the first sign we've had in

the current session.

I wonder where the members from

Victoria — the two MLAs, the federal MP and the local mayor — were on the

welcoming of the Stena vessel to Victoria a week ago last Friday. It is

a $30 million bump for this province and particularly the Victoria

area, and not one single member of the opposition was present, Mr.

Speaker.

Regarding mail-out....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. In the question, I never heard any reference to the

Stena Line. There was no reference to these matters; there was just a

question put to the minister. If the scope of the answer could follow

the scope of the question, question period would remain more or less in

order.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Regarding the question of

the provincial Tourism ministry providing free mail-out for

organizations dealing with tourism in the great province of British

Columbia, the answer is yes. We do provide free mail-out service for

conferences and conventions held in the province by all interest

groups. The Minister of Tourism does not define or proofread every

single mail-out, but I can assure you many of the cohorts and close

friends of members opposite have also enjoyed that mailing privilege.

It's

a great service to those involved in tourism throughout the province —

indeed nationally and internationally — and we have received a great

number of compliments on that service.

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a new question to the Minister of Tourism that he can answer

without seeing this document. Does the minister think it helps to

promote tourism in British Columbia by mailing material that describes

Vancouver as — and I quote, "Sodom North"?

[ Page

9151 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL : As I say, I do not proofread all of the

background data that goes into all the mailers. Perhaps the NDP

opposite would like the Minister of Tourism to build up a bureaucracy

such as they have in other provinces — such as the massive bureaucracy

they built up in Manitoba before their defeat in 1988.

can say this. The Minister of Tourism in B.C. must be doing something

right. We were the only province in all of Canada to have growth in

1989 over 1988.

Further to that....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Again, I must ask the minister.... The scope of the

answer has to remain within the scope of the question. There was

nothing in the question dealing with the responsibility of the minister

and the expansion of the ministry's activities.

WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

MS. PULLINGER :

I have a question for the minister responsible for women's programs.

This tourism mailing mentions the minister several times, including an

invitation for her to address the national convention of REAL Women

this weekend in Richmond.

Does the minister not think it an

insult for her government to refuse to fund women's centres on the one

hand while paying for literature that describes these centres as

"nothing more than drop-in centres disseminating a lot of

anti-government feminist literature"?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I know nothing of the mail out that the member speaks of. I was

invited, as I have been invited by many groups around this province, to

speak at their convention on Saturday. I don't discriminate among

women's groups or anyone else. I think it is important, particularly

when you're dealing with sensitive Issues surrounding the women of

British Columbia, that you act in a very fair and reasonable manner and

that you not discriminate. I have not discriminated, and I don't intend

to start now.

MS. PULLINGER : Clearly the minister

doesn't have a position on anything. Is the minister prepared to

apologize to all British Columbia women for her government's support

for this offensive national mailing which suggests the Montreal

massacre may have been carried out by "a man whose child had been

aborted by a feminist"? Is the minister prepared to apologize to the

women of Canada?

MR. SPEAKER : That question is out of order.

RENTAL DISCRIMINATION

MS. CULL : My question is to the Premier. B.C. families with children

face rental discrimination. What specific steps has the Premier decided to take to demonstrate his commitment to the family?

MR. SPEAKER :

The members asking the questions should be cautioned again by the

Chair. If you ask a question that's wide open, we could take hours on

these answers, and question period won't be very productive. I'll ask

the Premier to keep it brief.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I appreciate that very much, Mr. Speaker, because I realize that the clock is moving on us.

is a very broad scope. The question might leave one with the impression

that perhaps we have not, in all of our activities over the last number

of years, given primary consideration to the promotion of the family

unit. I certainly wouldn't want to leave the populace of the province

with the impression that there's any truth to that, as the question

might suggest.

Therefore I would like to elaborate some on

the many programs we've introduced to promote strengthening the family.

I can assure the member that we have, through our various ministries,

taken a great many actions to promote the strengthening of the family,

because to us on this side strong family units throughout the province

are what really provides us the strength in the future. Anything that

really moves towards removing that strength or opportunity from the

family is destructive and would, in the final analysis, not only harm

that particular unit or community but the whole of the province and all

people living in the province.

We take great pride in the

fact that we have, through the various ministries, taken initiatives to

strengthen the family unit. We've not only done so through

announcements or pronouncements, but we have provided the money and

resources to make it happen, and we intend to continue doing so.

With

respect to the specific question which was at the tail-end of the long

introduction, and which I perhaps would need more time to answer, I

would suggest the member address her question to the minister directly

responsible.

Certainly when we talk about housing or what

it is we're doing with respect to the provision of adequate housing and

helping to assist the private sector in that regard, the question

should be appropriately addressed to the minister responsible for

housing.

I realize the member is relatively new to the

Legislature, so perhaps she's not aware of that, but I would like to

advise or recommend to her that she redirect that part of the question.

MS. CULL :

Again to the Premier. Children need protection now, I ask again: who

does your government speak for — families with children, or landlords?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I think the member and the House — or certainly the

members opposite — should be aware that we take great

[ Page 9152 ]

pride as a party in being representative of all of the people in the province.

It's

because we are representative of the people throughout the whole of the

province, regardless of whether they're landlords or tenants,

individuals, groups, families or communities Because we're

representative of all the people — certainly they've re-elected us time

and time again, and I expect it'll continue to be so.... But if....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I can't really speak when....

MR. SPEAKER :

I appreciate it. The time of question period's passing, but if members

wish to interject, it's impossible for us to hear the speaker. Maybe

they wish to be recognized only through interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Again, children — as I already explained a little earlier — as a part of

the family unit receive a great deal of attention from government. If

there is a particular problem with respect to accommodation being

available to family units especially, that's of concern to me as well.

If,

during all the debates that will follow from here on in, during

estimates and so forth, there are certain recommendations or

suggestions from the members opposite, I'm sure that the minister, as

well as all members on this side, would be pleased to receive

constructive suggestions. We would certainly consider any and all. You

may want to also question the minister about this further.

HIGH-INCOME TENANTS

IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

MR. MOWAT :

My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Will the

minister, if he has not already done so, investigate the problem of

high-income tenants who have refused to move out of subsidized housing

in Greater Vancouver in order that those in need can access that

housing?

HON. MR. DUECK : I believe the member is

referring to an

article in the paper this morning. This does not

involve provincial funding; it's federal funding. We have no control

whatsoever over that. We have provided funding in cooperation with the

federal government since 1986, and anything over 30 percent of the

income of that individual will be subsidized. There is no cap on that,

and it goes up as the earnings go up. It is automatic.

this particular case, it would cost roughly $24,000 in rent if they

followed our procedure, and that would automatically eliminate someone

staying in a residence where they are taking advantage of that

particular unit and where someone not able to pay that rent could take

advantage of it.

I am very disturbed about it. We wrote a

letter some years ago to the Minister of Housing. Again I have written

a letter and voiced my concern and asked them to take some action.

There's a critical point in British Columbia where people, especially

with children — as mentioned by the member — haven’t got housing, and this

situation does not correct it and doesn't help us at all. I have a

concern, but I can do nothing about it.

Ministerial Statement

PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES' DAY

HON. MRS. GRAN :

In honour of Professional Secretaries' Day, and to recognize the office

support staff within the B.C. public service, I wish to make this

announcement.

My ministry recognizes that the present shift

from a resource-intensive economy to a knowledge-intensive

technological economy will necessitate workers obtaining more skills in

order to continue contributing effectively to their organizations.

Employment

growth is occurring in the technical specialist ranks which requires

skills beyond those of traditional clerical workers. This increase in

information technology has the most significant impact on women, who

constitute the majority of clerical workers — 93 percent — in the B.C.

public service.

It Is also recognized that women are

underrepresented in most technological occupations. This is at least

partially due to a lack of role models, stereotypical attitudes and

systemic barriers which inhibit women from choosing or advancing

careers in technology.

[2:30]

The office of information technology within the Ministry of

Government Management Services, headed by Jerry Woytack, has created a

position to address women's issues in the professional technology

field, including the effects of technology on office workers. The

objectives of this position include developing education and retraining

programs which address the effects of technology and resulting changes

in the office environment; developing education and training programs

to assist women in entering and advancing their information technology

careers; liaising with post-secondary institutions to encourage women

to enter information systems programs; and analyzing the implications

of policy alternatives, such as mentoring programs, bridging programs

and the revision of the clerical classification system to recognize

increased technical skills.

Today, on Professional

Secretaries' Day, through the office of information technology, our

government pays tribute to these dedicated women working in the public

service as office support staff. This position and its objectives

support the goals of Women's Programs, which are to provide equal

opportunities for employment and advancement of women, and to improve

the representation of women in management, professional, technical and

non-traditional positions in the public service and private sector, by

action and leadership.

[ Page 9153 ]

MS. MARZARI :

The opposition would praise the government for coming up with a

statement that basically lauds the future of the secretary and the

office worker. Yes, we want the future to be bright for those women who

very often remain suspended in a job ghetto with no way out.

More

important perhaps today, on Secretaries' Day, is that we should be

appreciating and recognizing the value of the work that these women are

doing right now in our offices, listening to the box, wondering how we

are behaving.

I did not see the words "affirmative action."

I did not see the words "pay equity." I did not see the words "equal

pay for work of equal value" here. I did see a lot of good bridging

stuff and good mentoring programs. But then perhaps a plea from this

House to all male employers everywhere. Please, as a gift to our

secretaries and our legislative assistants, may we for a year resist

calling people who work in highly skilled jobs with years of education

and experience at rates of pay that are 60 percent of what they should

be, and who are frequently asked to perform the tasks of friend or

family member — let us resist calling them "girls."

MR. SPEAKER :

Perhaps all members' secretaries would be so kind as to copy from page

50 in MacMinn's book and underline the pertinent part about ministerial

statements, and then we will all be better served. I know members have

difficulty finding it on their own.

Ministerial Statement

URGENCY OF INTERIM SUPPLY

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Despite the best efforts of this side of the House, including our House

Leader, to determine how soon this charade regarding the filibustering

of the interim supply debate might end, I feel compelled to set out

clearly the consequences, insofar as we have been advised — albeit

unofficially — that this debate might well be extended into future

weeks. Our best efforts to determine otherwise have so far failed.

Therefore,

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain to you the situation this

government faces with regard to financial obligations in the current

fiscal year. As you know, the government's authority to pay its bills

is limited to what is approved by the Lieutenant-Governor under special

warrants, which can only be approved when the House is not sitting; or

by this House, except for certain statutory payments.

The

Financial Administration Act,

part 4,

section 18, states that: "No

money shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without the

authority of an appropriation." Further,

section 28(1) states: "No money

shall be paid out of an appropriation or trust funds without (

a) a

requisition, " and in

section 28(3) "No requisition shall be made or

given for a payment that (

a) would not be a lawful charge against an

appropriation or trust fund, (

b) would result in an expenditure in

excess of an appropriation or trust fund; or (

c) would reduce the

balance available in an appropriation or trust fund so that it would

not be sufficient to meet the commitments chargeable against it."

The

act goes on to say in

section 30(2): "The Comptroller-General may

reject a requisition for a payment if he considers that the

requirements of this or any other act have not been complied with." The

comptroller-general has a legal duty to maintain the integrity....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have complained again and again

about the abuse of ministerial statements, and here we have another

example of it. A ministerial statement has to do with policy and

administration. It is not debate; it isn't an opportunity to take cheap

shots at the opposition. If this is to be the debate, then let's move

into Committee of the Whole stage, and you can debate all afternoon.

don't think the minister should be allowed to proceed on this line. If

he has a policy or some administrative matter to talk about, that's

wonderful. But this kind of stuff has gone on too long and too often.

We've heard enough of it, and he should be sat down.

MR. SPEAKER :

Members, the Chair is bound to enforce the rules that the members have

made. If the members wish to change the rules, the Chair will be happy

to enforce the changed rules. However, I am bound to enforce the rules

that we have, and I would refer to the rules of debate on this

particular subject. It is in MacMinn's book on page 50, and it's from

page 84 of Beauchesne. It says:

"When a minister makes a statement on government policy or ministerial

administration, either under routine proceedings, between two orders of the

day or shortly before the adjournment of the House, it is now firmly established

that the Leader of the Opposition or the chiefs of recognized groups are entitled

to ask explanations and make a few remarks, but no debate is then allowed under

any standing order."

We're

discussing an issue here that went through the House yesterday during

second reading. I don't recall an extensive debate from the minister in

either the introduction or closing of the second reading of that

particular bill, yet it would appear to the Chair now that we are

having that very debate at this time.

I haven't been

advised by the House Leaders, but I presume that the government's

intention is to deal with this bill in committee this afternoon, and

therefore there will be an opportunity to speak on that matter. I must

ask the minister to restrict his comments in ministerial statements to

the rules that the House has given me to enforce.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, if it gives you more comfort for me to make the statement

when we're into committee, I'm delighted to do that. But with respect

to the opposition's claim that this is

[ Page 9154 ]

somehow

an attack on them, not once have I talked about the opposition. I was

interrupted when I quoted the statutes. I was interrupted at that

point, and somehow this is improper? Is it inappropriate somehow to

remind the members of their legal obligations?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : All right. If I may continue, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER :

Please do, but please bear in mind that caution was given to you by the

Chair that the scope of the debate has to be, in this case, either on

government policy, which I gather it isn't, or on ministerial

administration, which I gather it is.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Yes.

MR. SPEAKER : Please continue then.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The act goes on to say in

section 30(2): "The Comptroller General may

reject a requisition for a payment if he considers that the

requirements of this or any other act have not been complied with." The

comptroller-general has a legal duty to maintain the integrity of the

government system of payment, and he cannot legally process payments

when an appropriation is exhausted.

Therefore I must serve

notice that money authorized under the special warrant will run out in

certain areas of government within a few business hours. It is

impossible to forecast, at this time, exactly when the money will run

out, particularly for programs such as medical services and emergency

GAIN payments, which are demand-driven, and where costs are incurred

and payment issued on a day-by-day basis.

However, over the

next two days, officials will be providing me with information on which

government payments — and which government commitments — must be halted,

as funding for individual ministries is exhausted. I would like to say

that it isn't just cash out the door; it is ongoing daily transactions

for goods and services, which we have no official knowledge of until

the invoice is received. Future commitments must therefore be

constrained. I wish to make it abundantly clear that no contracts can

be entered into, no commitments for goods and services can be made, no

further grants can be paid to hospitals and other such organizations,

and no payroll obligations can be undertaken unless an appropriation or

special warrant fund exists.

I am therefore asking that all

recipients of government grants, such as hospitals, universities and

colleges, begin to think about alternative financing arrangements —

possibly bridge financing arrangements — which may be required in order

for them to continue to meet their contractual obligations in the month

of May.

This also means that we will, very shortly, be

forced to advise our public servants that when our ability to pay their

regular paycheques runs out, they may have to decide whether they wish

to provide their services on a gratuitous basis until we are able to

guarantee payment for those services.

We value those

employees highly, and we value the service they provide to the public.

Therefore we will be prepared to consider that eventuality if that is

the employees' desire.

I must point out here that where

statutory authority exists, some bills will be paid. For example, I

find it ironic in the extreme that we will continue to pay the amount

owing on the public debt, and, hon. members, you will continue to be

paid because your salaries and allowances are authorized by statute.

This unfortunate event is beyond government's ability to influence.

MR. ROSE : I have never, in my long history in parliament, been the victim of such a bag of fetid wind!

Disguised as a ministerial statement, what we have here is a screed.

[2:45]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : Look it up sometime and you'll find out what it is.

have a litany of fearmongering as an excuse for four months' delay

when you could have brought the House in here. Where were you in

January? Where were you in February? Where were you In March, when you

could have brought this in and paid those bills?

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

On a point of order, it seems to me — and I just want clarification —

that the House Leader for the opposition spoke a little earlier on a

point of order suggesting that in a statement by the minister he could

not be political. I'm just wondering if there are any limits to a

response.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

The

Chair is bound by the rules that the Chair has to operate under. The

minister spoke about administrative responsibility. I'm quoting directly

from Beauchesne: "Ministerial Administration." It says: "When that is

the essence of his points, those are points which might not be able to

be made in committee, depending on which

section of committee the

discussion takes place in." So that part of the minister's statement

that dealt with the administrative functions we're going to have was

quite in order. I would ask the opposition House Leader, in his

response, to bear in mind the same criterion we enforced on the

Minister of Finance.

MR. ROSE : I didn't see much change, Mr. Speaker; I think he stuck to his guns. He tried to carry on

[ Page 9155 ]

pretty well as he planned to, in spite of your admonition, which I think is an abuse of the Chair.

What

I'm saying here is that we are not going to be pushed into this corner

over GAIN recipients, hospitals or universities because the minister

happened to screw up. You put the House into a corner, and now you want

to blame the opposition. You asked us to pass a $5 billion supply bill

in five minutes. That's a billion dollars a minute — a thousand million

per minute. We're just not going to accept that. Why should we? The

role of the opposition is to protect the people from excesses of the

Crown, and this is an excess.

I'll make you a deal: cut it in half....

AN HON. MEMBER : No deal.

MR. ROSE : What do you mean? You make deals all the time.

Cut it in half, and you can have it today.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 22.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

The House in committee on Bill 22; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before we proceed, I would remind members that, as we have done in

the past, when we get down to the schedules that follow at the end of

the bill, we will deal with each part of each

schedule individually.

AN HON. MEMBER : Two schedules.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That's right. We'll vote on each

schedule separately but deal with each item within the schedules piece by piece.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I hear what the hon. member is saying. We must remember that in order

to keep some kind of efficiency when we do this work, we're going to be

tying up a lot of people in this House this afternoon unless we deal

with these in some semblance of order. I'd suggest it may be more

appropriate if we decide to deal with, say, the Ministry of Health

before we move on to anything else. Would that be satisfactory?

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure has always been that we deal with

the schedules —

schedule 1 first and then

schedule 2 — and that's

perfectly fine with us. The question might come up about how, within

each schedule, debate might proceed. From our side at least, we can

make it clear that we will deal with them one at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN : In the most efficient manner.

MR. GABELMANN : Yes.

section 1.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Chairman, I think I've already given the best parts of my speech. I don't know if the government really appreciated it.

Let

me proceed by saying that we intend to call your bluff on this. You

don't need four months. There's no reason that you need four months,

unless it's some sort of bridging assistance to get you over some rough

times when you probably want to adjourn the House. But even if you do

adjourn the House, you still can get warrants within seven days. So you

don't need this money. It's just irresponsible. You've got spending

until May 6. We're not going to stay until May 6.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Through the Chair, please, hon. members.

MR. ROSE :

We on this side don't intend to bail you out by our silence over your

incompetence. We don't intend to do that. Somehow you think you've got

us. You're going to bring up the GAIN recipients. You gloated a bit

yesterday, and you gave us that sly, serpentine smile as If you knew

everything. What we didn't get yesterday was your forked tongue.

AN HON. MEMBER : Unparliamentary.

MR. ROSE :

No, we didn't get it. If we'd said we'd got it, that would be

unparliamentary. But I don't want to be unparliamentary with the hon.

gentleman; I want to be honest with him. You don't want us here now.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

You don't have us anywhere. Have you seen any polls lately? Look, Mr.

Chairman, how can we proceed — and be fair and protective of the people

who elected us — to pass, as the minister requested, $5 billion in 15

minutes? What are you asking us to do? This is lunacy. We're not going

to do that. Why should we?

You come up with all kinds of

gimmicky little things to do, like school referenda. "Oh, it's a

democracy. We've got to have school referenda because it's the ultimate

in democracy." Nonsense!

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Yes? Do you have any referenda on grants to business? Do you have any

referenda on how much you spend on highways or how much you lose on

highways? Do you have any on lotteries or land sales? No, you pick out

one segment of society

[ Page 9156 ]

and pick on them. You teacher-bash like you've always done.

Mr.

Chairman, we weren't given any details; we weren't even given any

warning of this. We weren't given one iota of warning when this supply

bill came in. We thought it might come in when we came back here. Three

weeks later, on a sleepy Monday afternoon, without any warning, here it

comes, and we get it right between the eyes. Well, you can't get away

with it.

You say: 'Well, people don't care." Of course they

care. We know the reputation of this government in terms of being

upfront, honest and open with the people — and you haven't got It. All

you're doing is digging your own grave with your teeth every day around

here.

Since you quoted something that was unofficial, I

don't think that I would be disloyal to the hon. government House

Leader across the aisle. I said to him last night at about 4 o'clock:

"If you want the bill, cut it in half and you can have it." Once you

justify what's in the bill and what you need the money for — and you

haven't done it in this bill — you can trot back in here with another one

if you need it in a month, if the estimates aren't done. But we don't

think we're ever going to see the estimates We think this is going to

be bridging through to the estimates. Well, we're going to have our

estimates' debates now, if we need to.

I would like to propose an amendment to this bill. My amendment says, Mr. Chairman — and I'll give you a copy of it:

"Under voted expenditures appropriation,

section 1, line

3, following the words 'may determine the sum of,' delete '$4 billion,

934 million' and substitute '2 billion, 467 million'; and following

the words in line 5, 'being substantially, ' delete '1/3' and substitute

'1/6.'"

Now

for the benefit of those who are not very good in math over there — like

the Minister of Finance — what this does is limit this appropriation to

50 percent. You're still getting $2.5 billion. God almighty. Even

gluttons like you.... Five billion dollars can buy a lot of pork, and

we think that's what you're going to spend it on. It pains me to do it,

but I'll give you $2.5 billion worth of pork, and we'll pass it today.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I just heard the hon. members talk about their paranoia, about the fact

that there appears to be four months in this bill rather than three.

The hon. member very conveniently forgets that one month has already

expired.

This bill does nothing more or less than the traditional, which is three months

in advance of the spending. That's all it does. All of your hyperbole, all

of your exaggeration, all of your claptrap doesn't hide the fact that this

is no more than what we've done every year, and, furthermore, no more than

has been done in every other jurisdiction in this country. Do you know that

the province of Ontario, the largest province in Canada, only brought their

budget forward just one or two days ago? Quebec still hasn't brought its

budget forward until a little later this week, nor has Nova Scotia. It's

traditional, right across this country, that you only bring forward the amount

of money you need in interim supply to ensure that the continuity of government

and essential services are provided. We sit here and listen ad nauseam to the

opposition always claim it's never enough. The ultimate irony! They repeatedly

plead that there is never enough money; now they want to cut it off so there

is no money. Unbelievable!

When

the hon. member opposite says, "Cut it in half and we'll give it to you

now, " let me respond to him by saying: "Cut the crap now, and we can

pay the people tomorrow." What's wrong with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. minister, the Chair will have to insist that you withdraw the four-letter word.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Which one was that? I used two. Is "pork" a four-letter word? Oh, the hon. member used "pork."

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister knows the word, I'm sure.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

All right. I'll use a three-syllable word. It will be difficult for

them to understand it, but the word I'll substitute for "crap," Mr.

Chairman — under your advice — is the word "foolishness." Cut the

foolishness and we can begin paying the people of this province

tomorrow.

MR. SIHOTA : The word "sleazy" gets thrown around here a number of times.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : No!

MR. SIHOTA : And I'm not going to use that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Sit down then.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to say — if the Premier can control himself — that in the three

and a half years that I have been in this House, I have never seen

anything as unethical and repulsive in my mind as the statement the

Minister of Finance made earlier on, prior to us getting into this

debate — nothing so offensive. It seems to me that he is now continuing

on the same line.

Yesterday, during the course of debate in

this House, he started that type of unethical argument. He started to

make a number of comments about the government running out of money. He

used the words "in a matter of business hours."

[3:00]

I'm going to wait for him to turn around. I've watched him do this

before. Every time we get to speak in the House, the minister turns his

back. You talk about arrogance. I can't believe the minister would sit

there and exhibit that type of arrogance. He just turns his chair — along

with the Premier — and they start reading the news clippings from earlier

[ Page 9157 ]

in the day or their mail. They decide they are just going to plug their ears and not listen to the words of the opposition.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

On a point of order, parliamentary rules advise that during committee

stage of a bill — which is where we are — a debate must be strictly

relevant to the

section or clause under discussion.

believe we are now on an amendment proposed by the opposition, and I

really can't find any relevancy with the amendment as proposed by the

opposition with respect to the debate that is coming forward from the

opposition. Where a minister sits or how he sits has nothing to do with

the amendment before us. I would ask you, sir, if you could bring those

members to order and have them debate the amendment under consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The minister's point is well made. We'll proceed with debating

section 1.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, we've put forward an amendment that solves the

government's problem — which, by the way, they created themselves.

They're the authors of their own misfortune. As the House Leader said,

we could have been here in February or March to deal with this issue

and to make sure there was enough money to deal with the needs of

government.

The minister says he needs the money for health

services, welfare recipients and so on. If he really cares about them,

and if those words are indeed sincere, then the obvious thing for him

to do is to accept the amendment we have put forward in good faith,

which quite simply says to the government: "Look, if you need some

money to pay those bills, here's the amendment that allows you to do

that." It calls their bluff. If there is another agenda, then the

government will reject this amendment. But if their words are true — if

they're sincere in their concerns about those people affected by the

Health and Social Services budgets — then they will accept this

amendment.

The Minister of Finance, in the course of his

comments to the House Leader on this side, chose not to deal with the

amendment on the floor. I want to ask the minister just what objection

he has to an amendment that allows his government to meet all of its

financial expenditures for the next month or so, provides them with

$2.5 billion and maintains a tradition we've had in this House. It is

my understanding that the tradition is that the government receives

approval automatically for one month's worth of payments. We have

publicly given our assurance in this House that if, near the end of

that month, it looks as though we're not going to be through this

process and we're still on this bill, we'll give them another month to

meet those requirements

It seems to me that what we're

doing here is eminently fair and appropriate, and it calls the

government's bluff. I think there's a lot of cheap politics going on

here. I read what the Times-Colonist

had to say: "Big-Money Ministries

Soon Broke"; it quotes the Minister of Finance. That type of

fearmongering, endeavouring to strike fear in the hearts of seniors,

the

handicapped and people on welfare, is inappropriate, unethical and

wrong for any government to do.

This minister, of course,

doesn't know the parameters of politics. He'll go way beyond the bounds

to strike fear in the hearts of those who are least protected in this

society in order to achieve his political goal, which is to get

approval of $5 billion in a matter of minutes. He's not going to get

that; nor should he, because he and I know it is wrong in our

democratic society to allow a government to get that type of

appropriation without debate, scrutiny or question.

We want

to make it clear to the government that we're going to fulfil our

obligation to ask questions, raise issues and make sure the funding

priorities of this government and this Legislature are in touch with

the views of British Columbians. At the same time, we're going to make

sure that no one suffers. This amendment makes sure that there will be

none of that suffering.

My question to the Minister of

Finance, if he now wishes to turn around and show some respect for the

way this House is supposed to work, is very simple: "What, sir, is your

objection to this amendment?"

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, I'm able to do two or three things at once, and I did

catch one or two words that excited my curiosity. The members opposite

seem to suggest that they're prepared to cut a deal to "cut it in half"

now. We've determined what they are; we're only questioning the price,

I assume. In any event, the recent speaker surprised me even more when

he suggested: "Give us what we want, and we'll approve a month at a

time into the future."

Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you: in all sanity, what on earth is the difference

between giving us a three-month bill in advance of expenditure now and a one-month

bill, approving each month as we go? Is there some sort of reluctance for the

members opposite to face an election? What are they so paranoid about — the

prospects of an election? Do they wish to keep us in this House forever, debating

whether the people of this province are entitled to receive services provided

by government? What is their objective? What is their paranoia all about? I

find it unbelievable that we should have had, in the space of five short minutes,

two deals offered. I have to wonder how many more deals we're going to be

provided with before the afternoon is out. It's most stimulating.

However,

the traditional practice, Mr. Chairman, has always been that the

government of the day is allowed three months' spending in advance by

what is called interim supply. That's all we have asked for. We have

presented to this House that proposal, as we have done every previous

year and as every other government in Canada does as a matter of

natural course. But for some strange reason, this year, the fourth year

in our electoral mandate, the members

[ Page 9158 ]

opposite,

all of a sudden, get some kind of belief that it's election material.

"So we'd better make sure we capitalize on this, because if we don't

get the opportunity to pontificate and emote, we won't be able to send

Hansard to our citizens back home to show them what we've been doing to

earn our salary all year" — as opposed to the hard-working,

conscientious government members who spend 16 to 20 hours a day, seven

days a week, providing the excellent government we're renowned for all

across this country.

Mr. Chairman, the question really is: what is the hang-up, and what is the

final price? We've said that we want three months in advance, as is normal.

Now we've heard: "Cut it in half, and we'll do it right away."

I don't need to do things right away. We can take a little bit of time,

possibly. There's a little bit of time here — not a whole lot; a window of

time. The question then is: how much is each minute worth? Maybe we should get

down and discuss that. If there are deals.... We've had two speakers and

two deals. I see that there are six members opposite, so I suppose that will

be six deals offered before the day is out. That sounds most promising, and

I look forward to further discussion. What other possible deals are out there?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for North Island on

section 1.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN : I don't think the Premier wants to ask too loudly where the finance critic is.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Tell us. Don't be ashamed of it. It's good.

MR. GABELMANN : It's good news. It's happy news for those of us who believe in family.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : His wife had a baby.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, that's news to me. I didn't know it had happened already.

It's just a good illustration that sometimes the cheap shots that fly

across the floor are inappropriate. The Premier might well take a

lesson from that little incident.

What

we are elected to do

in this Legislature -what we are required by law to do — is to

scrutinize government expenditure and to determine whether or not it

shall be approved. That's our job. That's our constitutional, legal

requirement. When governments choose, as increasingly they do in

Canada, to bring in budgets after the financial year has started —

unlike, may I say, the Saskatchewan NDP government, which for years

brought in a budget in December for the following fiscal year that

began April 1.... Increasingly, governments are delaying the

introduction of a budget until well into or partly into the fiscal year.

We're

not here to debate that issue today, but at some point I think we

should debate that, because that is entirely inappropriate. This

Legislature is required to approve spending, and occasionally we get

ourselves into this position for whatever reason. This year it was for

political reasons, but we're in that position,

MR. LOENEN : Your needle is stuck. I've heard the same story for three days.

MR. GABELMANN : This is the first time I've spoken in this debate.

MR. LOENEN : Your people are repeating the same line.

MR. GABELMANN : If he's so anxious, Mr. Chairman, I would give up my time to the member.

Let

me say this: the Minister of Finance is concerned about our proposal

that we, this Legislature, grant two months' supply. The Minister of

Finance says that, for some reason, two months' supply is not enough.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : One month in the future. One month has passed.

MR. GABELMANN : One month has not passed.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : It has so.

MR. GABELMANN :

One month will have passed by next Monday. That leaves another 31 days,

throughout the month of May, for supply to be applied to all of the

bills that government has. That two months' supply could be approved

within a few minutes.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Not the way you're filibustering.

MR. GABELMANN : If you want two months' supply, you can have it by 3:20 p.m. That will pay every bill for the next four and a half weeks.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : And keep us in the House forever.

MR. GABELMANN :

"Keep us in the House forever." We are elected to be here to represent

the people. It's this government that doesn't want this Legislature to

sit. It's this government that hasn't had this House sit since last

summer. It's this government that let month after month go by, when

these kinds of appropriations could have been approved, without calling

this Legislature into session, because it doesn't like the House

sitting, because it doesn't like public scrutiny of its spending. It

wants four months. I'm surprised the minister didn't ask for 12 months.

Why didn't he ask for 12 months?

Let's

deal with the

question of normal. I have sat in this House longer than the Minister

of Finance. Normal for me in this House — on both sides of this

House — doesn't exist, because it has been different most years.

But the

traditional motion is one month. That has been the tradition over the

years.

[ Page 9159 ]

have participated in supply debates that took five or ten minutes year

after year, when the former member for Nanaimo representing our caucus

would stand up to say that we gave consent to the approval of a supply

bill which provided a month's supply. We did that many times over the

last number of years. That is what the tradition has been.

Because

the House was called together so late, we're prepared to provide two

months — double that tradition. If the minister is concerned about

paying bills, why won't he accept that two months and get on with it by

3:20 — no later.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : We'd be back here next month doing the same thing.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, I trust we'll be back here next month in any event — and the month after that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : What about that election you're all so scared of?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, here's a piece of paper. The Premier can sign it and take it over to the L-G right now.

[3:15]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The member for North Island has the floor at the moment.

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to deal with that issue. The Premier a few

minutes ago said: "Where's your finance critic?" So we tell the Premier

and the House — I don't like to do it in here — that he's at home with

his wife because she is in the late stages of pregnancy.

Then

the Premier says: "Well, where's your leader?" Mr. Chairman, our leader

is at a funeral this afternoon of a member of a very distinguished

British Columbia family. That's where our leader is.

think it's shameful that that kind of interjection is introduced into

this House when you don't know the answer. If you know what the answer

is, and if you know that the....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

On a point of order Mr. Speaker, I ask that question almost every day,

and frankly today is the first time that we've had a response. It's not

anything unusual. This question is asked every day — "Where's your

leader?" — because he's never here. It's necessary we ask that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The point of order was not in order, and the member for North Island has the floor

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Chairman, it was not a point of order. It was not even possibly out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER : Where's your leader?

MR. GABELMANN : At least on this side of the House we have a leader.

want to say again to the Minister of Finance, who is so concerned about

this issue that he's not even in the Legislature.... He thinks he's got

his newspaper headline now, and he's gone.

I want to say to

him again that we are quite prepared to ensure that the daily and

weekly business of government can continue — daily and weekly business

that has been put In jeopardy by the late calling of this session.

We're prepared to do that.

I just want to say again quietly

and clearly that if you don't like our amendment, and if you don't like

it to be our initiative, you put the amendment into your own bill. You

can have the credit for it; two months supply is all you'll need. If in

late May we get to a situation where estimates haven't yet passed, and

the House is still sitting and you need another month, it will take a

few minutes. That's all it would take; that's all it ever took for

monthly supply bills.

The only supply bills that ever take

any time in this House are when they're money-grabs, and when they're

for these three- or four-month sessions. That's the only time they ever

take any time. If you want to go back through Hansard to look at the

record, you will discover... From memory I don't believe any of the

one-month supply bills ever took longer than an hour to pass this

House, and most of them took a few minutes. And that would be the case

here again.

So don't give us this phony, political rhetoric

which seems to indicate to people out there that somehow they won't get

their money because of some action of the opposition.

The

action that causes that is the inaction on the part of the government

to follow proper democratic procedures and to ensure that the people's

representatives scrutinize the spending of government. That's all we

ask for.

MR. LOENEN : I understand that the second

member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) wishes to make an introduction. Perhaps that can have priority.

MR. MOWAT :

It is my pleasure today to welcome to the assembly the Maimonides

private school from Vancouver-Little Mountain. They are students from

grades 8 to 11. Their class president, Adrian Howitt, is with us, with

a number of teachers. Would the House please make this group welcome.

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for the third day now, and I've heard the

same argument time and again. I listened very carefully to what the

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) had to say. He said what is

troubling the opposition is the fact that this is a money-grab; that

somehow we are going to make use of public funds without public

scrutiny and without the opportunity for cross-examination of the

ministers, etc. I've heard it said that under this device, because of

the four months, somehow we're going 12 months without public scrutiny

of the

[ Page 9160 ]

expenditures of public funds. It simply is not true, and I cannot say that often enough.

In the first place, right until the first....

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order — this was just brought to my

attention by the member for Prince George — I don't think the member

understands we're on an amendment. It would seem to me that he ought to

be talking to the amendment that's before the House right now.

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Chairman, I'll try to be just as relevant as the members opposite.

The

fact is that all of the supply moneys, up until April 1, were fully

scrutinized by us last year. In addition, it simply is not true that

somehow if this supply bill was passed, there would be no opportunity

for further debate. It is a central principle of British parliamentary

democracy that there be accountability. What that refers to — unlike the

jurisdiction south of the border — is that ministers of the Crown must

stand up in the House and be accountable not only for the moneys they

intend to spend in the year ahead but for any of the moneys that were

spent beforehand under their jurisdictions. So the question of

accountability and the question of public scrutiny of funds — it simply

is not true, what the opposition stands up time and again and tells us.

We ought to say that loud and clear to the people of this province.

just cannot believe that time and again, speaker after speaker will

repeat this and then somehow turn it around as though we are made to be

sneaky, dishonest and not trustworthy. I cannot believe that they will

abuse the traditions of British parliamentary democracy in such an open

way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Chairman, obviously

the amendment on

section 1 is an attempt to reduce the amount of money

available for all of the various programs in the province by 50

percent, to provide sufficient moneys for one month as opposed to two.

I don't know just what the hidden agenda of the opposition is, but

obviously they're causing some concern for a lot of people in the

province.

I should point this out again, as the Minister of

Finance did so well. There are many people who contract services to

government, and very necessary services, in the area of health care or

providing various social programs. As the minister stated, we cannot

enter into these contracts without the full knowledge that the funds

will be available, because we are, after all, a fiscally responsible

government. As a matter of fact, we have the reputation in all of

Canada of being the best money-managers, on behalf of the people, of

any place in the country. We would certainly not tarnish that

reputation by pursuing the course that the NDP seems to want set for

the province. We'll not buy that; we'll not accept it. We must know

that there are sufficient moneys available to continue our programs.

It's not fair to our employees either. There are a lot of employees

involved in the various programs, and they want to know that their

paycheque is coming.

Members opposite know full well that

this is done in every legislature across the land each and every year,

as it has been done here. The reason that they're now delaying and

filibustering and repeating the same thing over and over again — none

of it makes a whole lot of sense — is that they're afraid the Premier

might call an election and the socialists will go down to defeat.

That's the only reason.

It has come to my attention that

the NDP has done a poll, and it shows that they're losing. They're

going down the drain, as is understandable, because the people in this

country don't want socialism. The message is out there for all of the

people. The opposition is afraid the Premier might call an election —

heaven forbid! They'll be wiped out again, as they have been in each

and every election for as long as we can remember — with the exception

of one, and we're still paying the price for when they served us for

that disastrous 1,200 days.

I would like to point out....

Perhaps this will help to resolve their dilemma. If they're so afraid

the Premier will call an election, and therefore they don't want to

approve this interim funding, then let me remind you that the Premier

can call an election and we can then issue special warrants to continue

the expenses of governments. Now that I've made you aware of this,

perhaps you can consider again that if your only fear is that the

Premier might call an election, and this will cause the socialists to

go down to defeat again, then please, I plead with you, put politics

aside for one moment if you can and think about people, the services to

people and the needs for services to people. If you'll consider what

you're doing through all of your filibustering, through all of your

delaying, through all of your repetitiveness — if you'll just consider

the tremendous anxiety you're causing to those who provide services to

people in this province in the area of social programs and health

care.... Just consider that. Consider the many employees too who

certainly are dependent on interim funding, as they are each and every

year — not only here but in every provincial legislature — for their

paycheque. For once, if you'd put people ahead of your politics as you

enter this debate, and if you'd just think about this, that the Premier

could call an election in any event — and you'd still lose — because

there is that provision for special warrants, then perhaps you would do

away with this silly amendment and support this bill.

should be said again, as well, that if you now say you could, in

minutes, approve $2.5 billion, but you can't approve $4.5 billion, and

all you'll do for the next number of days, weeks.... I don't know how

long it will take, and it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to

you, because you know already that your paycheques will come through

anyway. All you're doing and all you're accomplishing, you think, is to

make political points or prevent an election. It won't happen; it can't

be done. If the Premier wants an election, he can call it in any event.

You can't stop that process. So why, for the sake of politics, are you

[ Page 9161 ]

putting

people through all of this? Why don't you think of what you're

responsible for in this House? Why don't you, for once, put the people

ahead of all of this?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The member for Prince George will have an opportunity to stand and be heard in due course.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not too worried about the interjections

from the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). Her days In this

Legislature are very limited, from the reading of the latest polls. If

she wants to interject a few times, I'm prepared to accept it, because

I realize it will all be over for her very soon, so the NDP polls tell

us.

[3:30]

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : These are NDP polls.

short, to recap, they say they're prepared to approve $2.5 billion in

minutes but they're not prepared to approve $4.9 billion, unless they

have the opportunity to talk for days, maybe weeks, as we've heard over

the last number of days -repetition, filibustering, really nothing of

any substance. That's what they tell us.

I would advise the

members opposite again.... I would prefer to confer with your leader on

this, but I can't ever catch up with him; he's seldom, if ever, in this

House. I would urge you again. You are really creating a lot of

hardship and anxiety for a lot of people out there who provide services

to government and all of those who are in need of their paycheque

because they work in the government service.

I would tell

the NDP socialist opposition again: if you're worried about an

election, what you're doing will not prevent an election from being

called. This is a misconception you have. You are somehow of the view

that you can delay an election being called by holding up this bill,

and that's totally wrong. I realize that you're worried you'd be wiped

out if an election were called now. From all the information I've seen,

you're going to be wiped out no matter when it's called. So let's act

for the people.

MR. SIHOTA : Again the Premier, in

his usual way, turns his chair and puts his back to us. I'm telling

you, Mr. Chairman, I find that highly offensive. He does that every

time, so I'm just going to pause here until he ceases talking with the

Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : I'm going to wait until those two gentlemen stop talking so they can listen to what we've got to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew continue on

section of Bill 22. If he does not wish to do that, he may wish to

yield his position and allow someone else to debate and be in order.

MR. SIHOTA : No, Mr. Chairman. I'll deal with the issues.

want the Premier to understand that if he wants to call an election,

then call an election. I want him to understand that the only people

who are afraid the Premier might call an election are members of his

own party. That's who's afraid of an election. They're concerned that

he just might do It.

Mr. Premier, if you want to call an

election, call an election. You're right, you don't need this bill to

call an election; you're right, you can fund the operations of

government without this bill and have an election. The election is not

the issue. If you want an election, leave right now and call one.

the bill, the issue is not the election. The issues here are trust,

responsibility and honesty. The real agenda of this government — as

highlighted by the words of the Minister of Finance — is to get out of

this House as soon as possible to avoid scrutiny, examination and

debate in this House. That's the real agenda of the government. It's

got nothing to do with paying the bills of our hospitals, looking after

the needs of those who are on welfare or our handicapped. If that was

true, they would support this motion which effectively calls their

bluff.

Their real agenda was inadvertently blurted out by

the Minister of Finance when he was in the House and said: "You'll keep

us in this House forever." That's the real fear of this government. As

I said, the issues here are trust, responsibility and honesty. The

people of this province do not trust this government. They think this

government has been dishonest, and they have every right to believe

that.

They have every right to say that the government

should be cross-examined on its financial priorities. They think it is

wrong that we send people to Seattle for health care services because

we don't have enough money here to have heart surgery; yet, on the

other hand, we spend $7 million on a jet for the Premier, $8 million on

a decentralization program that doesn't work or $11 million on

government advertising every night.

The amendment solves

all the problems save one. The amendment says to the government: "Okay,

if you legitimately and honestly have a problem in meeting your

contractual obligations and making those payments for health services

or those contracts to business or welfare, then here it is. You've got

the money." The amendment gives you the money, and it gives it in

keeping with the traditions of this House. It calls your bluff, Mr.

Premier.

If you're really concerned about those people on

GAIN, on health care, and if you're really honest, sincere and moral,

if you really think, when you look at the mirror on the wall every day

and ask it, "Who's the prettiest of us all, " it says you, if you think

you're Mr. Perfect, then I'll tell you something. It's very simple.

[ Page 9162 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. Possibly the member could come to order, deal with

section 1 and show some parliamentary decorum in this debate.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's a matter of morality, honesty and bluffs. If you're really honest,

serious and sincere, if you really are ethical when you stand up and

say you're concerned about those people in hospital and on welfare and

about meeting their needs, the amendment ought to be embraced by your

government in a second. You know you can get it passed in a minute.

The

issue here is honesty or dishonesty and whether or not it is

appropriate for a minister of the Crown to stand up in this House — as

he did yesterday and today — and say: "Look, we need this money to look

after all of those people in our society who can't fend for themselves.

We need to look after our government employees who need to be paid. We

need to look after our hospitals." If that is, indeed, your truest and

most sincere intention and wish, that wish can be fulfilled in a second

by you saying that you will embrace this motion.

If the intention of government, as I said earlier on in my opening comments, is to be unethical....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

On a point of order, I think what's being said by the member opposite

is not only away from what it is we're discussing and irrelevant, but

also suggesting that if the members on this side simply gave in to what

the amendment calls for, then all could be resolved in a second. That

would be honest; anything else would be dishonest He is, in fact,

questioning the honesty of those who proposed the initial bill — the

resolution — and the integrity of those who are putting forth the bill to

provide for the services of government as it has historically been done

and as is the custom of the House.

He is a newcomer to the

House; he's been here only a relatively short time. He hardly — if at all

knows the rules that apply here, and certainly was off the point. And

he is now suggesting that the measure is a matter of a second....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The Premier does raise a valid point of order with

respect to the allegation that any member of this House is dishonest. I

don't believe the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew intended that about

any individual or minister of this House.

MR. SIHOTA :

My intentions were very clear, and the remarks are recorded in Hansard .

My intentions were simply to set aside the fears in the public that

were generated by the Minister of Finance. We're saying that all those

fears can be alleviated very simply by their embracing this motion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Will you withdraw?

MR. SIHOTA : I have nothing to withdraw. You can't stand to face the truth and you can't stand scrutiny, Mr. Premier. That's your flaw.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will make his

comments to the Chair and not to any individual member of the chamber.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's a very, very simple proposition. It's not a deal. It's no

different than a number of options that are put forward by the

opposition to help the government get around a situation they have

created for themselves. A very simple amendment that says: "If you've

got some bills to meet, here's the blank cheque that allows you to meet

those urgent and pressing needs, and we will debate the rest. And, in

the appropriateness of time, we will resolve all the other issues."

That's the way things ought to be done in this House.

want to end on this note: that is how we can resolve this issue. The

one issue that we can't resolve — and we won't resolve, and which we

will continue to talk about — is the issue of scrutiny. If it is the

real agenda, as the Minister of Finance said, that his worry is that

the government will be kept in this House.... If that's his real

concern, then I'm sorry. We're not going to accommodate that, because

we have an obligation to ask the government questions about its

policies.

So I say again to the Minister of Finance — and

he can answer the question again with that explanation in mind: why is

his government not prepared to accept this amendment which solves this

problem, which pays the bills, which looks after the next month or two,

and then deal with the issue later on?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. J. JANSEN :

Listening to some of the comments from the opposition, my first

reaction is one of embarrassment that we have to account to the people

of this province for the proceedings in this House. I can only say that

it is unfortunate that so little regard is given to reality in this

debate.

This House has seen the traditions broken most

recently when we had guests assembled here to deal with the throne

speech, and unfortunately the NDP socialists saw fit to introduce

politics during that ceremony. We saw it also through the budget

speech, when again a number of very pointless questions were introduced

into the House. That has not been done for a long time in this House.

The

real question remains: what is the sense of the amendment? I have had

the fortune to serve as an accountant in a number of capacities, and

certainly part of that has been in fund accounting and government

accounting. This is the first time I have seen a $2.5 billion amendment

with little regard to reality. How was the amendment arrived at? How

did they research this matter? How was the amount that the opposition

House Leader jumped to his feet and talked about...? It is indeed

unfortunate that that

[ Page 9163 ]

side of the House treats these bills with so little seriousness.

[3:45]

This House has always had a supply act to enable the government to

operate for three months of expenditure. Suddenly, we now have a

situation where this is no longer appropriate. It should now be a bill

that is always sliced in half. We should — presumably, I think — also

proceed with slicing the budget. Is that the intent of the opposite

side, that we also slash the budget appropriately to conform to their

thinking?

It is important that we get into the debates on

the estimates as soon as possible. We can talk about the various

ministries. We can talk about the good government that is put in place

in terms of the expenditures of the various ministries. I certainly

look forward to the debates on the Ministry of Health, to dealing with

the various programs that are under the Ministry of Health.

This

type of discussion, with little point, with little concern, with little

interest on that side.... They simply don't wish to proceed with the

informed debate. They don't wish to proceed with debate concerning the

people of British Columbia. They are concerned with sheer politics.

They have absolutely no reason, no logic for their amendment, Mr.

Chairman. It is an embarrassment to the people of British Columbia, and

I speak against it.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Chairman, I was,

as usual, fascinated by this self-righteous twaddle I heard just across

the hall a second ago. What nonsense, that somehow we had done a

disservice to the province because we happened to ask to move an

amendment on opening day! What's the matter? Did we spoil your show or

something?

After all, we've had them ever time since 1980,

with the exception, I think, of '84, when the government accepted our

amendments. If you'd accepted our amendments on the GST, ethics in

government, housing and the status of women, then you could have had

your committee, and it would have been out in no time.

I've

had a look at Hansard for that day. Guess who ate the clock? The

government members are clock-eaters over there. It wasn't this side of

the House. To somehow suggest that we're being unparliamentary because

we want to know what we're going to spend $5 billion on is another pack

of twaddle.

AN HON. MEMBER : We want to get into estimates.

MR. ROSE :

Actually, we're a little concerned that we'll never get to estimates,

that somehow you'll adjourn the House and off you'll go, riding off

into the sunset. The Minister of Finance just said it over there a

moment ago. You want us out of here. When we're here, we've got a

platform; otherwise, we're buried in the wilds of Chilliwack — and, my

God, that's a fate worse than death.

The Minister of Health

asked rhetorically how the amendment was arrived at, as he looked

upward, he put his hand over his brow and gazed upward, for relief,

divine guidance or some miracle to happen which would endow him with

some insight, which is probably not going to happen. How was it arrived

at? I'll tell you. It was arrived at because we took the one month that

you didn't call the House and ran the place under warrants, and we

added to it the month you need right now to pay your bills. That's how

we arrived at it. It's just as simple as that. We wanted to help you

out. But we didn't think that we were helping the citizens of the

province out by giving you a blank cheque. That's exactly why we did it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Help like that we don't need.

MR. ROSE :

I'm quite certain that.... You know, you remind me a little bit of the

dictator Juan Pern. Do you remember him? You probably remember....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

You remember his wife. I remember Juan Pern. He was interviewed by an

American reporter. He was asked about democracy, and he said that no,

he had no intention of having democracy in Argentina. He said: "What's

the point?"

HON. MR. COUVELIER : On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman, what on earth has Mr. Pern of Argentina got to do with

the question before us, which is an amendment to the spending estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN : It's probably a good question, hon. member, but I'm sure the opposition House Leader will make the relationship known.

MR. ROSE :

The point that I was endeavouring to make.... I was, Mr. Chairman, I

admit, a bit circuitous. Some people have a sort of straight-line,

logical thinking, and some of us are more branching in our approach to

logic. In any event, the point I was attempting to make is that when

Pern was asked by an interviewer from the States if he intended to

establish a democracy in Argentina, he gave a flat no. But what about

an opposition? He said: "Look, why pay six men to dig a ditch, and pay

six more to prevent them from doing it?"

That's what this

government wants. It doesn't want an opposition. That's why we have a

$5 billion supply act, unprecedented in its size and its scope.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE : You can argue that if you like, but I think I'm on reasonably firm ground. What we're trying to do here....

HON. J. JANSEN : Let's debate the budget.

MR. ROSE :

The Minister of Health is being a bit provocative. Why don't you get on

the bus, go down to Seattle and see if you can make arrangements for

[ Page 9164 ]

more

heart patients or something like that? The health system is in such

rotten shape that we have to have a royal commission. We've got the

best health system in the world, the minister says; then he says we

have to have a royal commission to see what's wrong with it. I don't

understand that. You're just trying to get out of the heat, that's all.

The

ritualism of the throne speech and the budget I have been interrupted

because we have seized the initiative. That's what has happened, and

you don't like it. It was going to be your own show throughout, and we

spoiled your plans. That's the reason. The I thing we've seen here

today — spreading terror among people who are handicapped or unable to

fend for themselves, by saying that they won't get their money — is just

a pack of twaddle. We're not going to buy it, and we're not going to be

culpable. We'll give you the money for those cheques. All you have to

do is stand up and say you'll take it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I'm pleased to take a brief

part in this debate. I rise and advise the

committee that I'm opposed, of course, to the amendment. What has been

put forward by the government is substantially one-third of the budget,

as we know. I question the opposition's reluctance to enter into budget

debate, and I wonder what they're afraid of. Clearly they don't want to

undergo the scrutiny of budget debate, so obviously their plan is to

use this song-and-dance device to refrain from entering into debate.

did want to comment on one thing. The opposition House Leader mentioned

that it is unprecedented in size. It's a large budget; it's a budget

we're very proud of — $1.1 billion for the first time in advanced

education. When you take one-third of a large budget, you're bound to

have a large number — one-third, or one-sixth, or whatever. It's not

without precedent, Mr. Member; you are misinformed. Evan Wolfe, in

1977, brought in an interim supply bill that was one-third of the

budget — in other words, four months in length. So it is not without

precedent; it was done before. The opposition of the day — and I presume

that...

MR. ROSE : What year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In 1977.

...

Dave Stupich would have been the finance critic — saw no problem with

that, and the interim supply bill was passed in a pro forma, normal

manner. Don't lead us around by saying that this has never been done

before, because it has been done, and some elementary research on your

part would have shown that.

MR. ROSE : The point I

was attempting to make was that we've never seen one as large. We've

never seen a $5 billion supply bill in advance.... That's the point I'm

making. If some previous parliament made a particular decision, it is

not binding on us if we want to debate this particular bill. We don't

know what's in this bill, and we may never get to the estimates. You

guys could go through an adjournment at any moment, once you get this

money.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr. Chairman, I would like to

get back to committee stage and the amendment we're dealing with, to

try to get to the very straightforwardness of the request we're making

and to put it into the context of some of the comments that have come

from the other side of the House. The comments from the other side of

the House have been obfuscating Indeed, to take us off the track of the

real issue we're debating here this afternoon.

I would

remind you that we got into this amendment after an unprecedented

comment by the Minister of Finance, who, after three weeks in this

House, informed us of the government's inability to manage the affairs

of the House. On Monday afternoon he came to the House asking for

enough money to carry the government's operations through, if I am to

go by months, to the end of July or the end of August. Two days later,

after bringing in that bill, after our sitting in this House for three

weeks — it's three weeks tomorrow since we got back here — he comes

forward with a story of such horror that I wonder how we can possibly

imagine that one of this government's proudest claims to fame is that

it has been managing the affairs of this province in the interests of

all those people whom the Minister of Finance listed as being at risk.

The

purpose of the amendment is straightforward. We want to get on with

debating the issues that come to this House, and at the same time we

want to ensure that the government has the money it needs to operate

while we go about that business. That particular amendment allows the

government to go forward, and we have indeed said that if the precise

amount of the amendment doesn't happen to meet with a reasonable agenda

to carry the financial affairs forward to the end of May, we would be

happy to entertain a further amendment that rectifies that.

But

I want to make clear that the Minister of Finance himself has put the

real context into our discussion. It's not an election, because the

government can call an election, as governments have been wont to do

yea these many years in this House, whenever it chooses to. Indeed the

laws of our parliament have ensured that the affairs of government will

go on during an election. And should an election be called, this

government, like all governments before it, has the opportunity to

issue warrants that carry it through the period of the election. That's

not an issue. This government has all the powers it requires should it

wish to go to an election at this stage of the game to ensure that the

affairs of government can be carried on.

[4:00]

But the real issue — and it's the issue that we debated in the

second reading, the principle at issue here — is, in the words of the

Finance minister: "You would like us to stay here forever." Well, I've

never seen any parliament In the last three and a half years want to

stay here forever, in spite of the fact that we are devoted to doing

the people's business. But we, do

[ Page 9165 ]

want

to stay here until one of two agendas is achieved. The first agenda is

entirely in the hands of government, and that is that they decide, as

it is their prerogative, that they're going to an election. That is

their decision alone, and it has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with

the debate here this afternoon.

The second agenda....

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Let me go back to that first agenda. Much as we would like it to be

different, much as we might like to know exactly when an election is

going to be, the first decision is, in fact, hon. gentlemen on the

other side of the House, by all the traditions of parliamentary

democracy in Canada, yours. And I'm not going to stand here today and

speculate whether the election is going to be called, whether it's not,

whether your Premier is ready to go, whether he isn't, whether the

polls are good for you or good for us. That really is not the issue

that we're debating in this amendment.

What we are

debating, Mr. Chairman, and to the Minister of Health on the opposite

side, is the Minister of Finance's statement that he is really wanting

to foreclose our achieving of the second agenda. The second agenda is

that this House indeed have the opportunity to debate the budget and

the estimates without this government having been given a carte blanche

to decide that it will adjourn the House to a later date — that it will

give this government the opportunity to simply get rid of the people

doing the people's business here.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance two questions.

The

first question I want to ask him is to explain the comment that he made

a moment ago, "You want us to sit here forever, " and put it in the

context of the normal sitting of this House when we will be here to

pass interim supply when he needs it in the future. In fact, we would

have been happier to supply it earlier if he had brought it in at the

appropriate time and we could have had an appropriate amount.

The

second question I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance — because in

spite of all of the discussion here on the amendment, I don't know that

anyone has asked him the specific question — is this: why do you find

it not possible to accept a friendly amendment, a supportive amendment

from this side of the House, which we promised you at 3:20 if you had

been prepared to accept it?

I would be prepared to say that

we can now promise it to you.... Shall we give you another few moments?

You do tend to need a few minutes to provide an answer. I would suggest

4:20, which gives you an opportunity to provide us first of all with an

explanation of your very, very insightful and very significant comment

that you don't want us here.

The second question is: can

you explain, remembering that the amount that we would be approving is

$2.5 billion for one-sixth of a budget year rather than one-third, why

you are not prepared to accept that friendly amendment from this side

of the House that would in fact enable us to deal with your need for

interim supply and get on with other business that all of us hope will

go on in this House for as long as it needs to as we do the people's

business, or until you decide on that side of the House that you're

going to call an election?

MR. MERCIER : Speaking

against the amendment, I'd like it recorded that the government wants

to proceed with the interim supply bill, and that the delay on the

amendment.... The opposition are even filibustering their own amendment

now. If the opposition wants us to deal with the amendment, why don't

they just get to the vote on the amendment? We can deal with it and get

on to the main bill. Why do they insist on rising if they'd like to

deal with the amendment and want it dealt with expeditiously?

The

government wants to proceed. The government has no guarantee as to how

long the debate on the estimates will take. If we go by the last three

years, the debates on estimates take considerable time. When you talk

about the size of the interim supply bill and what it's needed for,

straight logic tells you that the government has to get this amount

passed at this time to ensure that there are funds to operate while the

estimates debate goes on.

The government has the

responsibility to pay the bills as they arise, and they are arising

quickly, as the Minister of Finance has already pointed out to this

House. The government has that responsibility, but they can be thwarted

in their responsibility by the delaying tactics of the opposition. So

far, since this legislative session commenced, the opposition has set

the tone: it has been delay, delay, delay. This is one more delay that

they're causing, Yet they don't want to shoulder the responsibility if

payments aren't made to welfare recipients, if payrolls aren't met.

recall better days in this House, looking back in: 1983, $6 billion for

interim supply was passed within a few days; in 1985, $2.2 billion was

passed — and on it goes. I recall in this most recent legislative

parliament when we had a very dignified gentleman here as the financial

critic for the opposition, and he was a chartered accountant. He was a

kind, thoughtful person and a considerate gentleman. He understood the

purpose of the interim supply bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : And he didn't argue.

MR. MERCIER :

And he didn't argue with the proposition that interim supply be passed

with dispatch. It's a really sorry state for the opposition when they

don't have somebody like that who understands. Unfortunately for us

today, on the debate of this amendment, the very competent financial

critic for the opposition isn't here. What we're listening to is a

bunch of people criticizing something they don't seem to understand and

which they don't have the background to understand.

summary, let's say that it's a free-fall from when.... When the former

financial critic for the opposition was speaking, the government did

listen. When the former financial critic for the opposition wanted to

have the interim supply passed, it got

[ Page 9166 ]

passed.

I don't know if the current financial critic — a very competent

individual — had a hand in splitting this bill with this amendment

today. But I don't think he would really be happy with the delays,

because he understands the purpose of interim supply. He knows the

bills have to be paid, and he knows that the parliaments across this

country generally accept interim supply, not as a point to be debated

with the government but for the purpose of paying the bills.

you want to change the whole parliamentary system, that debate should

be for another day. If you want to stick to some of the traditions of

this country, we should get on with this matter today. You should be

calling for the vote on this if you're serious about speeding things

up. Let's get rid of this amendment and get the question called on the

main vote. Then we'll be acting in the true traditions of parliament.

MR. REE :

I am quite amazed at the holdup of this legislation by the opposition.

Historically we have always passed interim supply in a very short

period, as my colleague from Burnaby just mentioned. It was done even

when the NDP — so help us, God — were government in 1972-75.

have four members who were in the government at that time still sitting

in this House. We have the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes). I think the members over there should talk to that member and

find out what happened in November 1975. We also have the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I think the members over there should

speak to him to find out what happened in this province in November

1975. We have the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. Darcy). You should

also speak to him to find out what happened in this province and in

this Legislature in November 1975.

Likewise, we have one of

the supposed powers in that government. He will remember exactly what

happened in November 1975 with the NDP government at that time. The NDP

knows what happens if the finances of this province are not debated.

The government of the time was so far in debt and had expended so much

in excess of their estimates for the year that they were scared stiff

to present the accounts for the year. That's why they called an

election.

The NDP know only too well what to do if the

finances are out of order. They don't want them debated. They are

accusing this government of the same thing. Well, we have presented our

estimates, We are anxious to have them debated. We are anxious to get

into and finalize the budget, and to debate the estimates. The NDP will

not let us do that. They are holding it up because they know this

government has run a good financial shop, not only this year and in the

year before, but in all of the years it has been government since 1952.

The

culprits in this chamber are the opposition. They are the holdup

artists. They know what to do to hide finances, and that's why they're

scared of what we've got to show. They are the culprits; they really

are. They will not let us debate the estimates, to show what a good

government we've got. Back then they called an election to hide their

finances. We are not scared to present our estimates, our spending, or

to have our ministers open to scrutiny and to answering questions.

They

don't want the answers we are going to give. They are going to hold up

the process of government. Next week, when people do not get paid, they

are going to have to wear that around their own neck, their own collar,

because they will be responsible for it. Until we get interim supply

through, cheques will not be going out, and people should look to them

as the holdup artists of this Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA :

I will be very honest with the members. I cannot recall ever being in

this House, being engaged in a debate and being as angry as I am today

about what's going on. There's a big lie out there. I took the

opportunity earlier today to call my constituency office and find out

what kinds of calls were coming in. We've had three calls — not a lot,

but three — today to our constituency office from people who are

concerned that they will not be getting their welfare cheques towards

the end of this month. There's a big lie going around.

have put forward a motion that allows this government to make sure that

those payments are met. Why is the government not prepared to accept a

motion that ensures that those payments are met? Why does the

government want to gain political cheap points by being dishonest and

spreading the lie that these bills aren't going to be paid?

MR. MERCIER : Did I hear the speaker say that this government is dishonest? If so, could he clarify which reference...?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member please clarify that.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'd be very happy to. I think what's going on here is dishonest. This

government has within its means — certainly in the amendment we have

proposed — the ability to make those payments. They've gone around and

said that they will not have the funds, due to the opposition's

behaviour in this House.

[4:15]

MR. MERCIER : I'm not widely experienced in point-of-order matters,

but when the government.... I'm assuming that government members are collectively

being called "dishonest." I think that should be withdrawn, because

they made their best efforts to do the estimates for the interim supply bill

on what they needed for the coming time. The estimates were clearly disclosed

in the document that was put before this House, so I really think it's inappropriate

to use that expression in connection with that presentation.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I must ask the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew the standard

question: is he impugning the reputation or good character of any of

the members of this House in what he is saying?

[ Page 9167 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

Not of any of the members. I'm saying there is fear out there that was

put into the hearts and minds of people yesterday by statements made in

this House that are out there in the press. We are putting forward a

motion that (

a) serves to put an end to those fears; and (

b) allows for

this supply bill to be passed within a matter of minutes.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

ask why this government is not prepared to accept that amendment, which

solves the problem that was created by calling this House back so late.

I tell you, it seems to me that their bluff has been called. It's clear

to me that they made all kinds of cheap political arguments — which

really ought not to be made, for the people who can least fend for

themselves — got away with them, and are not....

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MR. MERCIER :

I don't think it was adequately clarified, because referring to a

matter as dishonest, when full disclosure was made by the government in

their bills, in considerable detail.... The amendment to the motion....

I don't recall that any details of any of the allocations or the parts

of the interim supply bill that would be cut were described in any

detail whatsoever. So if we're talking about a dishonest representation

to this House, I would ask the member to consider whether he should

withdraw the comment on the government having a dishonest presentation.

I want a withdrawal.

MR. ROSE : The hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds is engaging in debate. It's not a point of order; it's

a point of debate. If he doesn't agree with what my hon. friend says,

he can, as he's done before, advance the filibuster by getting up and

arguing his point in the normal way anyone else does.

You

could get into debate any number of times during the committee stage

and you could do it as often as you want and speak for 15 minutes, but

you don't need a phony point of order to do it.

MR. MERCIER :

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem when the word "dishonest" is used. I

think it's unparliamentary and I feel offended by it, even if it was

used collectively, referring to the government. I think the word

"dishonest" has to be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The

point of order, as the Chair understands it, is whether the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is imputing dishonesty to a member of this House.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It's not to a member? You're not imputing dishonesty to a member, is that correct?

MR. ROSE : The practice is dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It's the practice, but not to any member.

MR. SIHOTA : That's right. It's the practice; it's the behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member may continue.

MR. SIHOTA :

The member says he's not familiar with the rules of order, and that's

true. Perhaps he should become more familiar before he stands up and

tries to interrupt those speaking on this matter. It's very, very

simple.

MR. MERCIER : Continuing on the point of

order, I believe I can ask the Chair to determine whether "dishonest"

applies. If it is used collectively, it would also be individually. I

don't need to know at this moment, but I'd like to know more on that

later.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, I'm glad to see the member

is now willing to go and educate himself. I'm pleased to see that, and

I think that is perhaps most appropriate with that member.

The

amendment here solves the problem that the government refers to. We've

called their bluff. And as hot-headed and arrogant as anyone may want

to be about this issue - and I would describe, if I may, the actions of

the Minister of Finance earlier on as being arrogant - the point is

that this solves your problem.

The real point here is that

this government does not (

a) want to be cross-examined as to its

financial priorities, and (

b) does not want to be here. The Minister of

Finance has said — and he hasn't answered the question that my colleague

for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has raised — that he does not want to

be in this House forever.

This government doesn't want to

be asked questions about its funding priorities. Why would you spend $7

million on a jet and not have enough money for health care, for

example? Those questions should legitimately be asked. This government

wants to avoid scrutiny; it does not want to be accountable.

want to end by saying to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that there is a very easy way out for this government. If it

is not right now prepared to accept this amendment, which solves its

problems, if it is concerned that the debate on this bill may go on for

a long, long time, as the minister says is his fear....

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Keep it up.

MR. SIHOTA :

Well, now the minister says that he is quite happy to allow this debate

to go on. Does that diminish, then, from his rhetoric of earlier on

when he says that he has these bills and obligations to meet?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Fill your boots, my friend.

MR. SIHOTA : What's the truth, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 9168 ]

HON. MR. PARKER : We won't ever see it coming from over there, will we?

MR. SIHOTA : I won't respond to the minister who has woodpeckers floating around in his head.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : On a point of order, I was troubled by the trend exhibited by some members opposite, in particular the most recent speaker...

MR. CHAIRMAN : Your point of order, please, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

... re the reference to the characteristics of the air surrounding

certain sitting members of this House. I thought it was offensive, and

I wonder if the hon. member would withdraw that particular reference.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The wording may not have been exactly out of order to the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, but it may not have been parliamentary language

in essence. It might be appreciated if you would withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA : Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize the word "woodpecker" was an unparliamentary word, but I withdraw.

I was saying, the amendment that we put forward gives the government an

out. If it's not satisfied with that, let me suggest to the Minister of

Finance — who's concerned that this debate may go on for a long time and is worried that he may not be able to make these payments — that

there's another way out.

I want to bring to the minister's.... Since I'm speaking to the minister, I would expect him to listen, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, you will speak to the Chair, not to the minister.

MR. SIHOTA : I would think that....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : If you want to enter the debate, get up and enter the debate.

There's

a rule in

section 16(4) of the standing orders that says: "Divisions

on debatable motions in the House or Committee of the Whole may be

deferred to a time fixed by a motion, without notice. The motion shall

be a government motion and decided without amendment or debate."

There is nothing that prevents the government, if it doesn't want to deal

with our amendment now, from agreeing to stand it down and bringing it

forward later, if it feels that time has expired. If it is true that

they have these concerns about people who aren't going to get their

paycheques or welfare payments and who aren't going to get coverage in

hospital, and if it doesn't want to vote today on the motion, it can

exercise rule 16(4) and allow for a vote at some other time. It has

our assurance on this side of the House that it would get immediate

passage.

AN HON. MEMBER : Another deal.

MR. SIHOTA : It's not another deal. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, because the Minister of Finance has great difficulty....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

There's a good reason, as someone once said, that we've got two ears

and one mouth. If the minister would just seal his lips and listen....

It's not a deal; it's options that are available to the government.

There's a procedural option that is easily available to the government:

if you don't like the amendment today, under 16(4) you can bring it

forward later.

It means that never will you have to be concerned about not meeting your bills.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's not a sticky wicket. It says that never, ever will you have to

worry about not being able to meet your obligations. There's the option

for the government. If they can't accept it now, they can accept this

tomorrow, and that's their procedural out.

MR. ROSE : Will the minister, on behalf of the government, accept the amendment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is ludicrous. It really is encouraging,

however, to see the NDP talking finally about cutting something in

half. We all know that if they were the elected government of this

province they'd be doubling all the expenditures, and rather than

needing $5 billion for four months, they'd probably need $10 billion

for four months.

I'm going to try to deal, one more time,

with the facts. I realize it's a downer and sometimes a restriction on

the fun in the House, but it is the people's business that we're

talking about here, and there is some obligation on the part of

government to see that people services are maintained. I can see that

there is no similar obligation on the part of the opposition, and

therefore I can understand why — in a very simplistic, logical process —

they might think the government's inability to provide or to continue

providing people services would be a reflection on the government.

Therefore,

by their narrow-minded, posturing approach, they assume that the

politics around this issue work in their favour. We will see, my

friends, whether the people who are placed at risk by your continued

failure to do for us what has been traditionally done in this House in

all prior years.... Indeed, we're reminded that in 1977 there was a

similar four-month interim supply bill that went through without this

kind of ridiculous posturing by the members of the opposition.

[ Page 9169 ]

will go back once more. I do not promise to do this with every speaker,

because I don't want to consume undue time. I would be appreciative of

getting on to the issue because I want to start dealing with the

people's business, and the sooner we can get into the estimates and do

that, the better.

Speaker after speaker has made reference

to the delayed start. As I've mentioned, four provincial governments in

Canada had to delay the presentation of their budgets until the month

of April as a consequence of the federal budget that kneecapped

provincial governments, without any prior notice, in February.

I told the House and everybody — and we issued a press statement at that

time — we were going to have to delay the presentation of the budget.

That was a matter of public statement and public record. The members

opposite had notice way back in February that this delay would occur.

For them to express astonishment that that's the situation they find

themselves in today, I find astonishing in itself.

You were

told, my friends. You were told in February that we were not able to

proceed with the House opening in March. And to your suggestion that we

are politicking, tell me why it is that four provincial governments

found themselves in the same position. You can't, of course.

[4:30]

First point: the delay. You had notice. Four provincial governments

in Canada were forced to do the same thing. We are not unique.

The

second point that I heard.... Mind you, there were many speakers, but

few of them made points. But the second point I picked up that merited a

response dealt with this four-month interim supply issue.

the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) advised the

House an hour or two ago, diligent research on our part.... One has to

wonder why it wasn't available to research staff of the members

opposite, but that may be a commentary on the quality of the staff, or

it may be a commentary on the quality of the leadership. I'm not sure

which. But in any event, whatever the cause of the failure, we have

determined by research that a similar four-month interim supply bill

was presented way back in 1977, and it was found acceptable at that

time.

I suspect the difference now is — as I said an hour

or so ago when I spoke last — that these narrow-minded, little,

suspicious, brittle personalities feel that this is an election year.

Therefore they're going to have to make sure they get their

pontifications into Hansard so they can run back home and show their

constituents how they earn their pay. And if they fail to do it now,

they will have forfeited the opportunity for 1990. Horrors! Wouldn't

that be something!

The references to an election, I would

remind the House, have consistently come from the members opposite —

every speaker, including the Leader of the Opposition — who referred to

that likelihood and indicated quite clearly to this side of the House

the paranoia that they have around this unique aspect of what makes

1990 different from 1989, 1988 or 1987

What is clearly

different is that you're afraid we're going to go to an election, and

you're afraid you're not going to have a chance to get all of this

puffery on the record. That would be a tragic outcome, of course.

Nevertheless,

I referred previously to the fact that you have repeatedly made it your

issue. But one of the recent speakers said: "Oh, it's not an election.

We're not afraid of an election. It's the principle." That provides me

with a glorious opportunity to use similar work done by our excellent

research staff, who reminded me an NDP socialist — a very famous one and

a well-respected Canadian, I might add — named Tommy Douglas was once

purported to have said: "When someone says it's not the money but the

principle of the matter, you can be sure it's the money."

I'd

like to know what is hanging everybody up. You have said that it's the

delayed presentation. All right, four Canadian provinces have similarly

delayed. You have said that it's the four-month aspect. All right, four

months occurred in 1977. You have said that it's the election threat,

yet other speakers apparently are contradicting that.

The

fact of the matter is that the amendment is unnecessary. The bill is

necessary to continue the provision of essential services. Many of

those services cannot be quantified in advance; many of those services

are demand driven.

The principle that I suspect will excite

your interest is the one that relates to emergency GAIN payments. They

are unpredictable, my friends. And by virtue of the current GAIN

cheques that are in the mail, already being included in the numbers, I

have a grave concern that the nonsense being exhibited across the floor

of this House will place those demand-driven programs at great risk

within a matter of a few business hours. If you wish that on your

conscience, my friends, fill your boots.

If you like the

idea, my friends, of the agencies of government who depend on

government grants being forced to go to their bankers to arrange some

bridge financing, because we will be unable to give them their regular

transfer payments.... If you like that idea, my friends, fill your

boots.

If as a consequence of that a special warrant is

required so that we might assist those agencies to cover their interest

payments while they pay the moneylenders their interest due for this

bridge financing.... If you like the idea of a special warrant for that

purpose, my friends, fill your boots.

If you like the idea

of our employees — whose paycheques, by the way, are in the system and

at the end of this week will be transmitted to them. ... That is not at

risk, but because the comptroller-general may not allow an employee to

work when the comptroller-general is fearful that on payday the funds

for that day's work, a week or two in advance, are not payable because

the law doesn't allow it.... If you like the idea, my friends, of our

employees being forced to decide whether they're going to serve the

citizens of this province gratuitously until this gov-

[ Page 9170 ]

ernment is legally empowered to pay them, fill your boots.

friends, to this ridiculous suggestion that you'll give us two months

Instead of the four months, to this ridiculous suggestion that all

we'll have is one month's spending.... Let me ask you, In response to

your suggestion that a deal....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm talking about the first deal you offered, not the second deal, Mr.

Member. Let me ask you, my friends opposite: would that imply that we

would be finished estimates by the end of that month, or do you see the

possibility that we would go through and put the citizens of this

province and the recipients of our provincial grants and paycheques

through this agony monthly? Is that your objective? Would you like to

see this become a monthly event while we waste three, four, five or six

days arguing about whether the government is legally empowered to pay

its public servants and the agencies that depend on government

pay-outs? No, my friends, I suspect you really will eventually decide,

when the penny drops, that you prefer not to fill your boots, and I

suspect you will come to understand that there is more to governing

this province than the gamesmanship I have seen you exhibit over the

last four days.

Mr. Chairman, if you were in any doubt, I was speaking against the amendment.

MR. ROSE :

What we've heard, Mr. Chairman, was a regurgitation of that ministerial

statement the minister smuggled in right after question period That's

all he said; he said the same thing. He carries on with the

fearmongering. I know he's loquacious and good on his feet; he springs

and down on the balls of his feet and thinks he's got everybody trapped

and scared over here. What "fill your boots" means escapes me, but then

I haven't had very much education on boot-filling. At least we can say

this: like the mule being hit over the head with the fencepost, at

least we got his attention.

What we've tried to do here is

accomplish two things. We've tried to see that the people in the public

service who depend upon government money are paid. That's what this

amendment would do. They would be paid, and all the money you've spent

while you weren't back here would be accounted for as well. That's what

the amendment does, and that's all it does. There's no reason why it

couldn't be accepted.

This is the first time that I've ever

heard accountability described as paranoia. It's absolute nonsense It's

loquacity gone mad.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

He's stubbornly refused to do so. He's walked out — I think offensively

and contemptuously. He may need a cigarette or he may need to fill his

boots — or maybe he needs to empty them. Who knows? But he's obviously

pleased as punch with what he thinks he's got sprung — some sort of

trap, the leghold trap.

If it's obvious that he's not going to accept it, then, Mr. Chairman, I call the question on the amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[4:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Gabelmann

Boone

Darcy

Edwards

Pullinger

Barlee

Smallwood

Lovick

Sihota

A. Hagen

Miller

Cull

Jones

Zirnhelt

NAYS - 31

Brummet

Savage

Strachan

Reynolds

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

Hanson, L.

Messmer

Ree

Vant

Huberts

Dirks

Hagen, S.

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Couvelier

Fraser

Davis

Jansen, J.

Jacobsen

Rabbitt

Loenen

McCarthy

Mowat

Bruce

Long

Mercier

Crandall

Davidson

Kempf

Section 1 approved on division.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4,

schedule 1.

MR. SIHOTA :

I was just wondering if we could get an explanation from the Minister

of Finance. Can he provide a greater breakdown for the sums involved

here, more than just what's listed there? Could the minister explain

exactly what's involved with this appropriation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Schedule 1 deals with the special warrants required by the Ministry of Health to supplement vote 36.

MR. SIHOTA :

Will the minister explain just what else in involved? Could he itemize?

He wants approval of $50 million here in a matter of seconds. Could he

explain to the House exactly what is involved with respect to this

matter?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I heard the hon. member refer to 20 seconds. I tried to keep within that time-frame.

The

special warrant was issued on March 15, 1990, and deals with vote 36

and vote 37. Vote 36 has to do