[ Page 7553 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

ALRT Mr. Williams –– 7553

Math program. ML Rose –– 7553

Saferway Driver Training School. Mr. Lockstead –– 7554

Aids testing facility. Mrs. Dailly –– 7554

Foster care cheques. Ms. Grown –– 7554

Sparwood Library Board. Mr. MacWilliam –– 7554

Casino gambling. ML Hanson –– 7555

Agricultural land reserve. Ms. Sanford –– 7555

Mr. Lauk

Budget Debate

Hon. A. Fraser –– 7556

Supply Act (No. 1), 1986 (Bill 13). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7556

Second reading –– 7557

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Barnes

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Committee stage –– 7564

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Sanford

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. D'Arcy

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. MacWilliam

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Lockstead

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Barnes

Third reading –– 7569

Mr. Lauk

Budget Debate

Mr. Macdonald –– 7570

Hon. Mr. Pelton –– 7572

Mr. Lauk –– 7574

Tabling Documents –– 7577

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I never knew that Dr. Scott Wallace had grown a mustache. [Laughter.] I would indeed like to welcome the member to the House in his new position, which I'm sure he will find, if nothing else, will prove to be very interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I think all members very proudly remember little Samantha Smith, the little girl from Maine, in the United States, and her peace mission to Russia in 1983. We very sadly recall her tragic death in a plane crash last year. I'm sure all members have seen on television and read about the very delightful Katerina Lycheva, the 11-year-old Russian who is now on a U.S. two-week, five-city tour pleading the cause of world peace. I saw a quotation from a newspaper in New York; it was very touching. She lit a candle, and she said: "I light this candle because if we don't have peace in the world we will have no world." How simply, how beautifully and, indeed, how truly stated.

So I thought, Mr. Speaker, it would be very nice and most appropriate that this little girl could see something of our country and our province. I know that all members will be very happy to hear that I have had officials reach Russian embassy officials and the people who are responsible for her tour to see if it would be possible for her to spend a few days with us at some time.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like the House to join with me today in welcoming Mr. Charles Hou, who is the social studies department head at Burnaby North high school. Accompanying him is Mr. Lynds, also a teacher from Burnaby North. I would like to say to the House that with them today they have Mr. Hou's social studies class. They have been upstairs in the Ned DeBeck Lounge all morning debating. They've been debating the topic of whether B.C. should have gone to the United States or Canada during that famous debate. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I wish all the members of this House could have been with me upstairs to watch them. We could have learned much from these young students. May I ask you to welcome them.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to join my colleague the member for Burnaby North in welcoming my old friend Charlie Hou.

As well, I'd like to welcome nine very fine British Columbians who are the prime movers in the Insurance Agents' Association of British Columbia: their president, Mr. Harry Geddes; first vice-president, Mr. Gordon Chambers; second vice-president, Bill Brown; past president, Barry Amics; from Nanaimo, David Bakes; from Victoria, John Penner; from Vancouver, John Toomer; the general manager of the association, Jack Robertson; and the member emeritus from Skeena, Cyril Shelford, who is their consultant and adviser. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Legislature to join me in welcoming to the Legislature today Peter Pollen and his wife, Mary Ann. Peter informed me this morning that he's in a holding pattern, waiting for a place to land. I'd also like to ask the members to join with mein welcoming Bill Smith, the president of the provincial Conservative Party.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of residents and staff visiting the precinct today from Victory House, a residence for ex-psychiatric patients operated by the St. James services agency in Vancouver. They are Mr. Tom Pater, community worker; Marcie Brown, social services staff person; and residents Paul Mowbray, Donna Walters, Bruce Pollard and Fred Wesley. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'd like the members to join me in a welcome to some good friends here with us today. I see the chief officer of the UBCM, Mr. Richard Taylor, and some of his colleagues. I also see a real old friend here with a terrific Scottish name. He's Mr. Dunc McDougall, chairman of the South Okanagan regional district, and Mrs. McDougall. Please welcome these folks.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome in the members' gallery today the youngest alderman, I think, in the province, from the little city of White Rock one of our famous aldermen, Mr. Jim Coleridge.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in our gallery this afternoon is the former administrator of our Surrey Memorial Hospital. I would ask the House to please welcome Mrs. Margaret Woodward.

Oral Questions

ALRT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The SkyTrain problems that have impacted on the neighbourhood throughout Burnaby and the east side have now been measured by the city health department. Decibel levels are now up at 87.7 in some of the most severe locations along that line, and the health staff indicate that it represents impairment of health for the people who live along the line in those locations. Could the minister advise the House whether he would be prepared to meet with the city of Vancouver and adjacent municipalities to discuss methods of alleviating the situation and mitigating the impact on the people living by the line?

[2:15]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the question should be more appropriately addressed to the minister responsible for the SkyTrain, the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Even with the fact that it is a health matter and that the Vancouver health board performs a number of the duties of the Ministry of Health in Vancouver on behalf of the ministry on contract, I still think it is superseded by the fact that this matter should be taken up with the minister responsible for ALRT.

MATH PROGRAM

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Education. Can the minister confirm that his failure to allocate $5.3 million requested by his ministry means that children in grades 3, 4, 5 and 6 and 8, 9

[ Page 7554 ]

and 10 are condemned to an outdated math program for another year; that his ministry is put in an embarrassing position with major publishers who have rushed to meet the ministry's deadlines?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and relay it to the Minister of Education when he returns to the Legislative Assembly.

SAFERWAY DRIVER TRAINING SCHOOL

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

As of April 1, 1986 the government has awarded Saferway Driver Training School the right to conduct testing and issue of drivers' licences for a six-month period. Will the minister advise whether Saferway is being given access to confidential government information which they might use to determine eligibility for driving licences? In other words, have they got use of the government computers?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, not that I am aware of.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My information has it that they do in fact have that access. However, a supplementary. Will the minister explain what type of insurance and bonding arrangement is in place with respect to any liability for damage caused by persons licensed by Saferway Driver Training School?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to get the information and bring it back to the House.

AIDS TESTING FACILITY

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. This morning the minister met with the Vancouver Persons with AIDS Coalition. Has the government decided to fund a type-D viral testing lab in British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: This morning I met with this delegation, and I am sympathetic to their position. They have agreed with me, and I have told them that I am going to consult with the Science Council, the BCMA and the St. Paul's team to find out if in their opinion this particular facility would be worthwhile and beneficial to British Columbia. I have undertaken to get an answer back in relatively short order, and then I will discuss it with my cabinet colleagues.

No, the government has not made a decision, but in view of the relative urgency of this matter, we will be discussing it very shortly.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate that, and I hope the minister also appreciates the urgency of this very serious problem in our province today.

A further question. When you are meeting with the ones you've said you are going to meet with, could you perhaps at the same time liaison with the federal government? I understand there is no such testing taking place in Canada at all. I think the federal government has a responsibility here, but I hope the minister will show that B.C. has that concern and will take the lead in it.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I can certainly take the rest of question period to answer this, but I'll try to be brief. The process that these gentlemen would like to have is a process in which we would construct a lab for creating the virus so that testing could be done here. But pharmaceuticals that are manufactured either in Europe or in the United States or in Canada must first be approved by the federal food and drug people. Once they have approved it — where such a viral lab takes place and where some doctors who are qualified to be able to do this kind of testing exist — limited tests can take place.

The Burroughs Wellcome corporation are doing tests in the United States on a number of drugs, as are American firms. There are drugs available in Latin America which are not approved in Canada or in the United States, and I don't particularly feel like pressuring the federal government to bring some of them in, many of which have proved to be perpetrated largely by charlatans and quacks and which have offered false hopes. I would remind you of laetrile.

I also would remind you that I don't wish to.... If you consider that our federal government food and drug people were the ones who ensured that thalidomide did not come to Canada, because of their very, very thorough testing, and the Americans to their regret suffered the tragedy of not testing it, then bringing drugs into this country, pressuring the federal government to allow us to bring drugs into the country just for testing purposes, also opens up the other side of the coin: very dangerous side-effects which we have in the past avoided. I will discuss the matter with Mr. Epp, but while there is urgency about it, there still is the greater public health to concern ourselves with.

FOSTER CARE CHEQUES

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Some operators of special homes for children and some foster parents have been in touch to say that they have been told that their cheques, which were scheduled for April 12, would not be ready on that date because the government has no money. My office contacted the MHR accounting office, and they said we should phone back tomorrow because they really didn't know when the cheques would be ready. Can the minister tell me: has there been some kind of mistake or mixup? Or what's happening over there?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, it's no more than that the ministry cannot presume what the Legislative Assembly may approve, and since interim finance is to be considered today, it just depends on that. They're trying to be, I think, quite technical with respect to that, but there should be no difficulty at all.

MS. BROWN: Just to clarify in a supplemental, then, these people will get their cheques by April 12 if interim supply goes through?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Hopefully if everything is very normal and if there is no foul-up in the post office, they should be able to get them on schedule.

SPARWOOD LIBRARY BOARD

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty). I refer the minister to minutes,

[ Page 7555 ]

which I have in my hand, of the Sparwood Library Board meeting dated February 7, 1986 — minutes which, I believe, the member mentioned last week did not exist. Last week the Premier denied the statement by the member for Kootenay in which he told the Sparwood library he would not recommend who gets Expo legacy funds until after the election, and then only in the areas where he was elected. This is a denial which has not been repudiated by the member for Kootenay.

Interjections.

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question to the member — if members would care to listen — is: what basis does the member have for leaving the distinct impression that the members of the Sparwood Library Board are liars?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'll also remind the member for Okanagan North, and the House, that the Minister of Labour is not responsible for that particular action.

CASINO GAMBLING

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Recently the government placed the former ministerial assistant to the former Provincial Secretary, Mr. Claire Eraut, as director of gaming operations in British Columbia — without a competition, I might add. Since that time there appears to have been an explosion of casino-type gambling operations in downtown Vancouver hotels, conducted by organizations established for gambling for profit. Will the Attorney-General advise the House why the government has invited the organized gambling sector into the province at this time?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't recall issuing any such invitation. I think the member's question about Mr. Eraut should be directed to another minister in charge of lotteries. I'll take the question on casino gambling as notice and respond later.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. The Vancouver police have indicated a concern that there aren't sufficient controls to protect either charities or gamblers in this casino-type gambling.

Will the Attorney-General advise why concerns of the Vancouver city police have not been taken into account in issuing the new gambling licences?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know that that's a fact at all. If the member has information and evidence concerning those patrols or concerns about organized gambling, then he should bring those to me and I will certainly act on them. But I am unable to evaluate his assumption.

AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't sure whether to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland) or to the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who seems to be the person giving the government's policy on the issue of agricultural land reserves. But I have decided that I should address my question to the minister responsible for this particular area.

Has the minister decided to end political interference in the removal of agricultural land from the agricultural land reserve?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, the premise upon which the question is based is totally incorrect. There has never been political interference. We as a government believe that citizens should have a right of appealing to their elected representatives.

MS. SANFORD: If the government is going to continue to use the ELUC for removal of land from the agricultural land reserve, I'm wondering if the minister has decided that all of the hearings with respect to these applications for removal of land from the ALR will be held in public in the future so that everyone will know what is going on with respect to agricultural land in this province.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the member told me what she was wondering. I didn't detect a question among her wonderings, though.

MS. SANFORD: The question is very clear. Will those hearings be held in public so that everyone can know what is going on with respect to these decisions as far as agricultural land is concerned?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The Environment and Land Use Committee is an extension of cabinet, and the hearings and the work of that committee will no more be held in public than the workings of cabinet will be held in public.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary to the minister. Cabinet appeals are always held in public — motor carrier and other statutory appeals. Why are these not held in public? Does the cabinet have something to hide?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of motor carrier appeals being held in public. The appeals being heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee are in compliance with the agricultural land reserve statutes, and we are complying with the law completely. People who have appeals, wish to be heard and have approval to be heard by the Environment and Land Use Committee have a right to have those appeals heard without a bunch of grandstanding by people who like to interfere in the workings of that committee.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise with Your Honour deals with what should be the orderly and intelligent proceedings in the House during question period. It's founded on an order-in-council dated February 20, 1986 — not so long ago that members shouldn't know what it contains. During question period my colleague from Coquitlam asked a question of the acting Minister of Education. According to that order-in-council, the acting Minister of Education is the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith); the backup acting minister, in case the Attorney-General is not here, is the Minister of International Trade and Investment (Hon. Mr. McGeer); and, in case they're not here, the third

[ Page 7556 ]

backup is the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). Why didn't any of those fit into the gap and take the question on notice...

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...and not the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. HOWARD: Don't you guys know what's going on over there?

[2:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will take his place. That is not a point of order, and I will not recognize anyone at this point — except to tell the House that the House is not responsible for which minister will answer a question, either in question period or in estimates.

MR. HOWARD: Somebody better take it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. A. FRASER: I was almost finished this morning when I was abruptly shut off by the lunch hour.

I guess there have been some changes made in the political scene during this morning. I would like to just comment on that a moment. I understand the leader of the United Party, the MLA for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), has put on his running shoes again and gone from the NDP to the United Party and now to the Conservative Party. I would just say that I'm not going to congratulate him for that. But, you know, he's been a member of this House for a long time. I just wonder what the voters of Prince Rupert think about an MLA that does things like that, when they originally face the electorate and get elected under a party and, then change parties twice during one parliament.

MR. MACDONALD: Once is okay, but twice is too much?

HON. A. FRASER: No, but I think they're sure taking advantage of the people that elect them to office, when they pull those kinds of...in the midst of...not once but twice. I guess what he's trying to do is.... The leader of the Conservative Party has done that three times, and now the member for Prince Rupert is trying to keep up with him. I understand that he has belonged to the Social Credit Party, the Liberal Party and now the Conservative Party, so they're equal in that activity.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. minister, we're on the budget debate.

HON. A. FRASER: Oh, thanks for reminding me. Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back to that. I'm glad you got me back on the rails. We'll talk about that great budget that I talked about this morning. The job creation that is in that budget that I related to this morning, and the position of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on that budget in general and on everything in particular.... I'd like to spell out just where they stand on items that are involved in that budget.

They're opposed to Expo; they have been since 1980. It's been a job generator for a while, and will be for quite a while. They're opposed to SkyTrain, even today saying that they wanted a health investigation of SkyTrain. They're opposed to the Annacis bridge, which is being built and will continue to generate jobs for about two more years. They're opposed to the Coquihalla, which is going to open this year but will be under construction in different phases for the next two years, providing a lot of jobs. Then they're opposed to all the highway work, other than — as they call them — megaprojects. There's lots of highway work going on. Mr. Speaker, I've got a complaint in my office today because we're going to pave the Pat Bay highway. I've gotten an objection to it from people in the area: they don't want it paved until after Expo. Well, I've got news for them: we're going to pave it right away and have it done long before Expo, and of course create jobs as well.

They're opposed to northeast coal. My colleague the minister of international relations and so on this morning talked about northeast coal, and did a great job. But the loyal opposition have always been against northeast coal. A lot of money has been spent there by the private sector and the public sector. Probably 5,000 people are gainfully employed on that now. I assume, Mr. Speaker, with their attitude, that they think it should be locked up and those people put out of work. Well, our government doesn't go along with that. Not only that, out of northeast coal we've got a whole new transportation system, all the way to Prince Rupert, and we've got a new port in Prince Rupert out of it. As a lifelong resident of British Columbia.... They've been waiting 100 years for a decent port out of Rupert, and we've finally got it because of this. They're opposed to mining and make big speeches about all the mines that close, and never say anything about the mines that are presently opening and creating jobs.

So that's their record, and I'm glad it's their record. We will be telling the people at the right time and place about their negativism about all the projects that create jobs. Not only creating jobs, but hopefully a better economic climate is showing up that way in our province so that the private sector will invest further and create further jobs. One of those items that I am aware of is a more economical transportation system, and that has been developing for some time. That should help all people making investments, wherever they are.

I haven't too much more to say, other than that I wish the opposition would get off their negativism and go along with what I consider the majority of the people of British Columbia, who want to be — and are — optimistic, and go on and build a better province for all of us. I guess I'm being optimistic to expect that; I've been around here awhile, and they really haven't changed, I guess they never will. So when it comes time to vote on this great budget, I'll be voting in support of it.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1986

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1986.

[ Page 7557 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, this supply bill — interim supply, if you will — is introduced in order to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for the fiscal year 1986-87 have been debated and voted upon in this Legislative Assembly.

This interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of payments, including social program benefits, may reach the recipients — those to whom they are directed — in time for them to meet their April commitments. I think Hansard will record that in 1985 this bill was presented and debated on March 26. The payments are traditionally mailed at least four banking days before the end of each month so that they are received by the first day of the following month.

Mr. Speaker, in moving that the bill be introduced and read, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81, and be permitted to advance through all stages this day.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Members, with respect to standing order 81, I am convinced by the argument and presentation by the Minister of Finance that standing order 81 is applicable in this case, and the bill will proceed through all three stages.

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Has the bill been circulated to all members of the House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, that is next. I would ask you to remain in your seats for a few moments while the bill is circulated, and would declare a short recess for distribution.

[1:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. I appreciate that there will be debate by some members with respect to the bill in second reading. May I explain that the first two sections of the supply bill are in the general form of previous years' supply bills, documents which have been presented here. The first section, in this case, requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs and continuations of the economic renewal program of the government. The second requests one-quarter of the disbursement amount required for the government's fully recoverable ministry-related financing transactions, which are shown in Schedule D of the estimates. A new third section requests an amount of $15 million to fund the Purchasing Commission working capital account. This account, members will recall, was established last year under the authority of the Purchasing Commission Act; now, due to the success of the public sector purchasing policy and increased activity through the account, the upper limit of the advance needs to be increased.

Mr. Speaker, could I point out that included in the voted expenditures appropriation of this bill is $2.142 billion for general programs, and $158 million for continuation of the economic renewal program.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I again point out the requirement for early passage, if the House so determines, of the supply bill in order to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1986-87 fiscal year. Again, I move second reading of Bill 13.

MR. STUPICH: I don't doubt for one moment that the bill is going to go through all stages today, but several of my colleagues would like to make some points during the discussion. For myself, we're talking simply about the expenditures here, and most of my concern in discussing the budget was with respect to revenue.

I do have some concerns about expenditures, but I don't think I can talk about them at this point. For example, I disagree with taking amounts out of what have formerly been ministerial budgets and setting them up in special funds, and then providing in legislation that all of this money may be spent in one week once the new year starts. If it's important from a political point of view — if an election is coming, or something like that — and they want to blow $110 million on special education, they can do it in one week. We're not voting on that at all at this time. We're dealing simply with the Supply Act. So I don't think I can talk about that Excellence in Education, any more than I can talk about the health improvement fund, which does the same thing — $120 million, which by legislation the government may spend right away. But in the Supply Act we're not even talking about it. We don't provide for it in this Supply Act, so we're talking simply about other things that I don't particularly want to mention because some of my colleagues do want to get into some of the programs that the government is currently spending money on at a very rapid rate.

We just don't like this way of doing business. The estimates should have been presented earlier. The budget should have been presented earlier. That was the normal way of doing business in this province, until gradually in the course of the last ten years we've moved away from that. But we're really talking about spending one-quarter of the total amount of the budget expenditures. We're not saying how that will be allocated among ministries. We're dealing with a sum of $2.3 billion, and the government, with the passage of this Supply Act, may spend that money in any way at all up to that total. Of course, if we go beyond that total, they'll spend it anyway. We really have no control over the spending of the government when we deal with spending by bringing in supply acts such as the one before us now.

We don't agree with the procedure. We recognize that the money has to be voted, and we will support Bill 13. But we do complain about what formerly was an option on the part of members of the Legislature to examine in detail departmental spending, and then to have a Supply Act asking us to vote in favour of spending $2.3 billion during the course of the next three months in any way at all that the cabinet ministers choose to spend it.

MR. LEA: As I'm sure probably many people in British Columbia are not aware, a supply act is basically something all members of the House have to vote for, because if we don't, it stops government. Pensioners wouldn't get their cheques. Civil servants wouldn't get their paycheques. So basically, as members of the opposition, we're put into a position of having to vote for this bill, even though we may not agree on many areas of this bill and the money that is going to be spent. But we will go down on record in this House as having voted for it, even though we may not be in favour of what the money is going to be spent on. I think it's necessary that people in this province know that that's the sort of technical bind we in the opposition are in. In voting for this bill, we're not approving the way the money is going to be

[ Page 7558 ]

spent. All we're doing is approving a bill so that the business of government can carry on.

After having said that.... This bill gives us a wide range of debate. During discussion of whether this bill should pass or not, we can lay out our concerns about government spending — the way the government is handling the economics of our province — and I intend to do just that. Mr. Speaker, we have a government that has its head in the sand. We have a government that, if you listen to them, are talking about going out and getting new investment for this province, which is good. However, every time we hear the government talking about new investment, we hear the government saying that it's new investment in our forest industry, our mining industry and our fishing industry, and new investment in the infrastructure that our old industries rely on. They are saying that new wealth is going to be created and, with it, a host of new jobs.

It was true in the forties, fifties, sixties and going into the seventies that new investment in our old industries did mean not only the creation of new wealth but also the creation of new jobs. That is no longer the case today. New investment to bring our mills and our industry into higher productivity mean more unemployment. We can see instance after instance of that happening in this province, I would like to use some examples — examples I have used before, but you can't stress them too much.

In Prince Rupert, in my community, we have a new grain elevator costing about $500 million to replace an old grain elevator. We need the new grain elevator because we have to move our grain more economically to tidewater and to the markets of the world. There is no doubt we needed the new grain elevator with all its new, advanced technology. However, the old grain elevator that wasn't as efficient employed 125 people; the new grain elevator, 25.

Every time there is a new machine put in the woods called a grapple machine, three to four people are put out of work. Every time there is an investment in our old economy, we are creating unemployment. That is what we're not facing up to. The government ignores it. They put their heads in the sand and say: "Oh, it's going to mean new jobs to bring in new investment for higher productivity." What about the sawmill at Chemainus? Did that provide more jobs? It provided fewer jobs. It provided a higher volume of output, but fewer jobs per capita on the productivity scale. So everywhere we look that is happening.

One of the other things happening with new sawmills in this province — and the one in Port Alberni is a perfect example, where new technology was put in all right, but that new technology was to take the place of people, not to better utilize the logs that were going through the sawmill.... If we're going to have good resource management, we not only have to have new, modern, efficient plants, we also have to have plants that better utilize our goods and add more wealth before shipping them to the world.

That is not being addressed by this government. You cannot use slogans to get the economy going. The government took their polls. They found out that people out there are tired of confrontation; they found that people in British Columbia want to have the ethic of cooperation, a cooperative approach to solving our problems. The government said: "If that's what they want, let's give them a slogan. Let's call it Partners in Enterprise, let's call it Partners in Tourism, let's call it partners in something. It doesn't really matter, because maybe they'll think we've changed our ways and are now a cooperative as opposed to a confrontational government."

That is just not true. Let's take a look at the way the government is handling collective bargaining with the civil servants in this province to see whether we've found a new day.

[3:00]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your debate is quite intriguing, but we are on Bill 13, the Supply Act. The principle of this bill is interim supply, and reflecting on other matters within the government could not apply to the principle of this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with you. However....

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order, this is his maiden speech. He should be given some leeway.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about passing a legislative act in this Legislature that will allow the government to spend some $2.5 billion, and it seems to me that every member in this Legislature has the right to discuss how they're going to spend the money and why they're going to spend the money. It's a wide-ranging debate. They're asking to spend $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money, and we have to discuss how the government is going to manage that money. That's part of our job. Part of this money is going to pay wages for the public service. Therefore that's open to discussion.

Now let's get back to the confrontational attitude that this government is taking with the civil service. You know why? They want a fight. They want confrontation. They want people in this province who are not civil servants to hate civil servants. They want to build up in people's minds that civil servants are all slackers, not making their money properly, not earning their money; and they want their employees to become the kicking-dogs of everybody else in this province. You know, Mr. Speaker, the civil servants in this province would be satisfied with no raise. But that's not good enough for this government. They want to cut into what they already have. There isn't anything that the BCGEU can put on the table that this government will accept, because if they do it means no fight, and no fight means that they can't have the confrontation issue they want.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You're not serious.

MR. LEA: I am serious. And everybody over there knows it. Everybody knows it including the members of government, and they're trying to live with it in their conscience, but hopefully somebody's conscience over there will see the light of day.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: More sense? I'll tell you, all you have to do is take a look at what's happening and you can find that the government is spoiling for a fight with the civil service so that they can have an election issue to go on. Everybody knows it.

Interjection.

[ Page 7559 ]

MR. LEA: Well, what is the Pollen influence? The Minister of Finance says: "He's getting the Pollen influence." Is the Pollen influence speaking your mind regardless of the political consequence? I think it is. I'll tell you, people in this province are getting awfully tired of hearing politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths and never 'fessing up as to what they're actually up to. That's what we're hearing.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, he was telling me that about you.

MR. PARKS: Let's be relevant.

MR. LEA: Look, he's your Minister of Finance, not mine.

MR. PARKS: You.

MR. LEA: Oh, me!

Mr. Speaker, everybody in the province knows that that's what the government is doing. We're going to be voting in this House to give the government money to carry out their plans, and part of their plan is to make scapegoats out of civil servants in this province. That's what they're doing.

MR. PARKS: More fear-mongering. And you believe you're a Tory.

MR. LEA: I'll tell you one thing: being a Tory doesn't mean you have to hate civil servants. Being a Tory doesn't mean you have to hate trade unions. That's why I didn't walk right across the floor: because I believe that you can be a Conservative without being a bigot; I believe you can be a Conservative without being a racist; I believe you can be a Tory without having to go out into this province and turn one neighbour against the other. That's what you can be. But not the party in power. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because they cling to it. They cling to it, because they don't believe that any other citizen can do the job that they're doing. And you know something? They're right, because nobody else would have the stomach for it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a government that either isn't aware of the technological change that's going on around us in our economy and in our social life, or they are aware of it and they chose to ignore it. In the first place, if they're not aware of it, we can't forgive them; and if they are aware of it and won't admit it, then we cannot pardon them. But they are ignoring the changes that are going on around us. They're hoping that they can lull the people with 30-second ads.

When we vote for this bill, you know what we're voting for? We're voting for a government that's going to up by 27 percent the money spent on government ads, and we're going to vote to knock down the spending for technology and science research by 30 percent. Now would any thinking British Columbian want to vote for a budget like that, or an interim supply that allows them to spend money like that? No.

I want to stress it: all we are doing is voting on a technicality so the business of government doesn't stop. That does not mean we approve of the budget, and it doesn't mean we approve of the way this money is going to be spent.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's going to be very interesting. I probably shouldn't say this, because I don't trust the government. We're going to be able to tell very soon how Partners in Enterprise is working, because the new assessment rolls are going to be out, and we will be able to take a look at those assessment rolls and definitively decide whether any of their plans have worked.

Last year I voted for this government's bill. I voted for other bills because I said: "Let's give them a chance. Let's give them a chance to prove whether their theories are correct." I voted for their venture capital bill, an absolute failure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not correct.

MR. LEA: You don't call raising a lousy $13 million for new investment in British Columbia a failure when the government promised hundreds of million dollars of new investment? Thirteen million dollars — do they think we don't remember what they said last year and what they're saying this year? We remember. Are you going to finally put the cards on the table, as a government, and say that you just have run out of ideas?

Basically that's what it's all about. They've run out of ideas. You know, if this were 1948 I'd vote for them myself, but do you know what it's like when you're dealing with this government and you're dealing with the economy? It's like taking a 1986 Ford into the garage to be fixed and the mechanic keeps insisting that it's a 1948 Ford, and they keep going back to the garage and they say: "Can't you fix this 1986 Ford?" And the guy says: "It's a 1986 Ford; we can't apply the same rules to fixing this car." But they keep insisting.

You know, the only difference between the official opposition and that side of the House is that at least the official opposition says what they're going to do. I don't agree with it, but at least you know. I know many members over there who don't agree with it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Quiet, because I don't want to bring up the past, Gary. But the fact of the matter is that what this government is doing is still practising the Keynesian economics that have gone down the tube in every thinking person's mind.

MR. LAUK: No, they're not. That's not Keynesian.

MR. LEA: Oh, can you tell me the difference between what that side's doing and this side would do?

MR. LAUK: Yes.

MR. LEA: Yes, that's right: only the projects are different. On this side of the House they say: "We'll go out and we'll borrow money so we can build water and sewer systems throughout this province." They say on that side of the House: "How dumb can you get? Let's go out and borrow money and build a stadium. Let's go out and borrow money and build the Coquihalla." Both of them have decided that they're going to go out and borrow us into debt for years and years to come, The only thing is, they have their own pet public works projects that they're going to spend the money on.

[ Page 7560 ]

I had a person come up to me not long ago and say: "Boy, I'm really afraid of Mr. Skelly." I said: "Why is that?" He said: "Well, look, his only plan is to borrow all this money to provide jobs to get the economy going." I said: "Well, you're right. There's only one person I know in this province who even does it better than that, and that's the Premier." When have you ever seen more government intervention in the economy than we have had in the past ten years? The only difference between that side and this side is.... They don't want to change the system; they both insist they can run the same old system better than the other one. That's the only difference.

People are really catching on. Did you see that bubble of enthusiasm over the budget debate when it first came into the House? It lasted about 22 seconds. The rhetoric leading into the meat was good. I mean, every British Columbian should have had a glow and, you know, they couldn't have had a better person read the budget script. He's trained. It doesn't mean he wrote the script; it doesn't mean he understood the script; but it does mean he read it well.

MR. LAUK: That's his job.

MR. LEA: I know that's his job. We were hoping for more — the clean desk and the speech.

MR. LAUK: From Pretty Polly to the budget speech.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, this is no joking matter. What we are doing is we're going to be passing the okay for $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money to be spent as the government says it's going to spend it in the budget. I want to go on record as saying that I'm not voting for the budget. I voted for it last year; I feel I gave them a chance and they let me down. They put $23 million into education that they didn't spend. How much money is in this budget for education they're not going to spend?

I trusted them last year, and I found out that they weren't levelling with me. So why should I believe they are this year? Whatever is in this budget may or may not be what the money is spent on, so my warning to the people of this province is that you won't know what this government is doing till after they have done it. The budget is no indication of how they're going to spend the money behind cabinet doors.

Now when we get to the estimates of the Minister of Finance, for once I would like to have the Minister of Finance stand up, not read from a script, and tell us where he as the Minister of Finance is taking this province. From 1976 till now, about $13 billion of new debt. To do what? Restraint. Was it restraint?

MR. REID: It created a lot of jobs.

MR. LEA: Ah, creating jobs. So you agree with the NDP that we should borrow money to create jobs.

MR. REID: Don't ever accuse me of being in favour of what the NDP want to do.

MR. LEA: You're just in favour of what they say they're going to do.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Ah, I see: it's okay when your government borrows the money to create jobs; it's bad when they want to borrow money to create jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ours are permanent jobs.

MR. LEA: Oh, permanent jobs. I see. How long is it going to take to build the Coquihalla? It's a permanent job. Boy, that's a long highway, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It's funny, they never heckled me before I was a Conservative. They used to listen intently, and clap. It was really fine there for a few months.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Last year you weren't here for interim supply.

MR. LEA: Ah, last year I wasn't here for interim supply.

MR. LAUK: This the first speech you've given in two years.

MR. LEA: Thank you. Is that why you backed me for the leadership?

Mr. Speaker, this government has no idea of the changing economy. On the one hand, they say they're all for free trade, with the exceptions of agriculture, lumber — you name it; it's not in the package. I don't know how this government can feel so good about free trade when you've got that old Liberal down there negotiating it on behalf of Canada with the United States.

Here's a government that says they're for free enterprise. They say it, but they prove they're not. They have regulated, licensed, more monopolies in this province than any government in Canada.

[3:15]

MR. LAUK: Jobs for the boys.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't think it's not jobs for the boys. I hope it isn't, because you're in favour of the same thing. It's the Motor Carrier Commission; it's the liquor control board — all of those nice little agencies that set up monopolies.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: All the things they were going to do away with when they came in in 1976. Can you name one?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point I'll remind the House again that we are debating interim supply. I think the latitude has extended far too wide. Please, back to the bill.

MR. LEA: Thank you very much for protecting me, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7561 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, can you give me a moment? I'm thinking about that.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out again, because I think it's worthwhile pointing out, that I would just hate to see the Minister of Finance going on television tonight and saying that opposition members voted for this bill because they were in favour of it. I hope, if he's on television tonight, that he at least says it was a technical thing that was needed, and that the opposition were not voting in favour of the budget by voting for this bill. As I said, when we get to the minister's estimates, I intend to spend considerable time speaking with the minister, asking him questions and looking for answers as to how he and his government are going to deal with the very real economic problems we have in this province. That's when we get past the rhetoric of the budget. I look forward to taking my place in debate on the minister's estimates, when we get there.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Was that the former minister? I'll have a few things to say about agriculture, too, when we get there — like about the former Minister of Agriculture selling us out on industrial milk to central Canada.

MR. SCHROEDER: I hope you do your research before you talk.

MR. LEA: Oh, I've done my research.

Mr. Speaker, when we get to estimates, I hope that this year we're going to find out from this government the truth of the direction they're going in. Last year I took them at their word and voted for their budget. And I found out that I was not told the truth. This year I'm not going to fall for that. This year we're going to make this minister tell us exactly what he's up to.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief on the Supply Act. I just want to re-emphasize what has already been said on this side of the House with respect to it. Both the standing order quoted by Mr. Speaker and the conventional reasons for bringing in interim supply have been breached practically every year this government has been in power. The previous administration, the NDP administration, once brought in interim supply, as I recall, because of a late session.

It is the whole underpinning of the British parliamentary system; 600 years of history has been that the Commons decides supply, not the Crown. It has become a farce that we are forced to keep the machinery of government going because the government has deliberately chosen to delay the calling of the spring session — it should be the early winter session — to bring in the budget.

It is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance and the government he represents to bring the budget in on time, If he fails in one year, with good excuse, because of the exigencies of government and the vicissitudes of the economy, then it seems to me that the House is obligated, on a reasonable basis, to grant interim supply. But to do so year after year reveals why nobody in this province believes this government anymore.

To artificially create urgent situations is a cynicism that is within the classic definition of that term. Quite often people use the word "cynic" or "cynicism" without having regard for its ancient origins. In republican Rome there grew up a group of philosophers who described themselves as cynics. It doesn't mean they were skeptical. Cynics were people who did not believe in the basic good will of men and women in the community and did not believe in the institutions and structures of government or society — believed that they were always being manipulated, that there was always the hidden agenda. In fundamental philosophical terms the cynics arrived at the conclusion that they themselves did not exist, that nothing was truthful, that there was nothing to believe in. I hadn't believed that a government in modern times could arrive at the quintessential example of the classical definition of cynicism. They themselves don't believe they exist. They are walking in a cloud, in a hallucination.

They actually think that what they've created, this massive hallucination of government from the Social Credit Party, is the only reality, when in fact no one in this province trusts the government or believes anything its spokesmen have to say. Time and time again they've been betrayed. This is an example of creating an artificial urgency to create pressure on this chamber, whose solemn and historical duty is to examine the estimates before granting supply to the Crown. Once again we're faced with this cynical government and this cynical supply act.

I wish I were in a position to vote against the interim supply act, but I am a responsible member of the opposition and must vote for it. If I were acting on my own and I could, I would delay supply, to the extent of having the machinery of government stopped. It's only through that shock treatment that the people of this province, and particularly this government, can face the kind of dissembling attitude that they've had towards their role and responsibility. It is only through that kind of confrontation with the cynics over there that we can bring them out of their cynicism, or hurl them out of office.

I was opposed to any settlement of the Solidarity dispute a couple of years ago. This government created the revolutionary act. This government were the insurrectionists. They were the people who were challenging the very structure and viability of society by the bills they brought in in those previous sessions. The people reacted in a natural and democratic way, and it should have been allowed to continue. I was opposed to the settlement, because the government should reap what they sow — likewise with these phoney delaying tactics to bring in a phoney urgency requirement for an interim supply bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's a reflection on the Chair, hon. members. The representation by the Minister of Finance was made quite correctly, and standing order 81 applied. Reflections on the Chair are unparliamentary.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Chair is not required to decide what standing order 81 is supposed to mean. In fact, if there was any reflection at all, which I don't think there was, there was a reflection on a nullity.

The question is: does the House feel it is urgent and will the House apply the standing order? Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret indeed that we must again support an interim supply bill.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief too. The Chair rules — and quite properly, I suppose, today —

[ Page 7562 ]

and the minister says that this is an urgent bill. But the government creates this urgency year after year of the Social Credit years. Well, I should correct that, because in the time of Premier W.A.C. Bennett, the Legislature met about January 20 of each year and the estimates and the detailed votes were debated and passed prior to the end of the fiscal year. We are standing by, the opposition and other members, willing to do our work and denied the chance by a government that has consistently downgraded the legislative process in this province.

So here we have to vote blind, three months out of the 12 months of government appropriations, without having the opportunity which they insisted upon years ago in the time of Charles I: to debate the estimates before the money was spent. We are denied the opportunity which the present Premier expounded at great length throughout the province: not a dime without a debate.

I'm being forced to grant appropriations without debate or examination. Let me give one instance of the kind of appropriations that I am asked to vote for today, so that our good public servants can be paid, and the progress of government proceed.

I am being asked to give a blind sanction for the next three months to certain estimates, mostly under the Provincial Secretary, for the government information services. I don't think we'll ever get an explanation of the amount that is being spent on services and the amount that is being spent on political propaganda. I remember last January 25, I was up in Duncan — one member here remembers that I was there — and I was going over to Crofton. I was putting on my kilt because it was Burns night. I turned on the television and bucked myself up in some manner or other, and I saw, three or four minutes, I think it was, of vaunting of government programs, and then there's the Minister of Finance appearing on the TV.

I've been around long enough, Mr. Speaker, to know a political ad when I see one and also to recognize the quality of this kind of a political ad — the sophistication, the subliminal message. Whether it was by Kinsella, who is out in the party, or Lampert, who is coming into the part, it doesn't matter. The whole thing has been confused by this government, and the government is spending taxpayers' money for party political propaganda.

You come here today and you say it's urgent that you approve it. I say that you're destroying the public ethics of this province. All I can do when I'm going out and not running again in the next election is to tell people: for goodness' sake, remember that you are being saturated at taxpayers' expense with political propaganda. For heaven's sake, think about it. Take it with a grain of salt and try somehow to bring back the kind of public ethics without which democracy itself falls into disrepute.

So I vote, Mr. Speaker, very reluctantly for this bill, and I vote blind for expenditures which violate the parliamentary tradition.

[3:30]

MR. GABELMANN: I spend a fair amount of time in my job as an MLA talking to school kids about what it is members of the Legislature do. What I tell them is that we essentially have two responsibilities. One is to consider and approve the making of new laws, and the other is to consider ways and means of raising money and spending that money.

That's what I tell school kids in my constituency that MLAs do. Mr. Speaker, I am on the verge of lying to those kids, because for the most part we no longer have those responsibilities here in this House.

Increasingly — and I'll be very brief on this point — laws are made in cabinet by regulation. To a point, fundamental principles are being determined in secrecy and not under the scrutiny of public debate in this chamber. That's an issue for another time. Not just increasingly, but almost totally now, we in this House are expected to approve particular and specific spending estimates after they've been spent, after they've been allocated. What the hell use is it being an MLA in that situation? Isn't our job to scrutinize the method by which money will be raised, to propose solutions to the collection of that revenue, and to talk about how that revenue will be spent, before it's spent?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the only reason one runs to be a member of the Legislature any longer is to hope to win the majority of seats so that you can be in the cabinet. Only the cabinet now has the authority of making the fundamental decisions which traditionally and historically have belonged to Parliament. I too am on the verge of saying no and voting against this kind of legislation. I won't, because I don't think the public yet understands what's happening, and that's partly our fault for not talking to them about the subversion of Parliament by this government. That's what it is, Mr. Speaker: the subversion of this Parliament, the subversion of everything that the British parliamentary system was supposed to mean, and that bothers me.

Quite often in debate we may raise our voices or get angry, and then be relaxed about it after, because it's part of a parliamentary game of debate. That's not how I feel about this particular bill. I'm angry about it. I've been angry about this for some years now. Why is it impossible for the government to bring in the budget in enough time so that we can consider all of the spending estimates by March 31? If for some reason we're delayed a week or two and we need interim supply, then so be it; but there is no longer any effort or any attempt on the part of the government to recognize that this is a responsibility that belongs to the elected representatives of the people, not to a secret group in cabinet. Is it any wonder that all kinds of people, when asked if they're going to run for Parliament, for whatever party, say: "No, I'm not interested."

The value of being an elected representative in this province has been diminished to a point below that which I care to accept. I hope this is the very last time we in this House ever have to consider interim supply within less than a week of the budget being introduced. We can have the throne speech in early January or mid-January, the budget by the end of January, and hopefully in February and March we can deal with the estimates. That's how a civilized institution, one that respects the traditions of British parliamentary government, would operate; but we don't here, and it angers me, Mr. Speaker, beyond words.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments to make about this bill. First, I'd like to completely support the remarks made by the member for North Island with respect to the government's disregard for parliamentary procedures and the rights of members to have a

[ Page 7563 ]

opportunity to debate seriously the spending of taxpayers' money.

When the Premier was in the opposition — when the Dave Barrett government was in power — he would stand on this side of the House and state time and time again: "Not a dime without debate." What he meant was that unless his opposition members had an opportunity to fully scrutinize every cent at all times, in the proper time allotted within the rules of this House by the Constitution, they simply would not cooperate, as a matter of duty. They insisted and we capitulated, because we knew that was the right thing to do. In other words, we respected the democratic procedures. When an opposition starts to complain that their democratic rights are being denied, that they're not getting an opportunity to do their job, any responsible government would respect that and, as the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has pointed out, would realize that we've gone far beyond what was meant to be a measure of expediency — an emergency measure. Interim supply has become a modus operandi. It has become an accepted fact, and it's wrong. It was wrong when I heard about it the very first time I was elected; I couldn't believe it. The budget was introduced and I was all settled down and getting ready to debate the estimates of the different ministries and someone said: "Oh, don't worry, because if we don't get through, we'll probably end up having to have interim supply." I said: "What's that?" "Well, that means that if we don't get finished debating things, you'll get the money anyway and you'll just carry on."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: Over the years it's become a way of doing business. There's no excuse. The Legislature has not sat the amount of time that it should have sat over the past fiscal year. Certainly it hasn't sat early enough in 1986 to seriously expect to be able to have a budget ready by the end of the fiscal year. That's the sham of it all. So I would just say that this form of blackmail, which is what it is....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. BARNES: The Minister of Finance may question whether what I'm saying is in order, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that if you were to ask that minister what his remarks would be if we refused to pass this legislation, he would accuse us of obstructing the government's ability to carry out its business and claiming that the public servants would not be able to get their cheques and that programs would be held up. In other words, the opposition would be accused of not doing its job and being responsible, when it's just the reverse: the government has not given us an opportunity to do our job in this Legislature.

That's about all I have to say. I didn't intend to extend my remarks. I just wanted to agree with what the member for North Island had to say, and what the member for Vancouver Centre said before him, and what other members on this side of the House are saying about this sham: this interim supply idea, which was only meant as a temporary measure and has become a way of doing business in this province, and it's wrong.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, considerable latitude was granted in second reading debate. I trust that I might have similar latitude for a few moments. I note with interest, and let Hansard show, that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) made a stirring speech and immediately left the chamber, indicating his continuing concern for the parliamentary process, in terms of interim supply at least.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Premier?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Premier has been ill, Mr. Member. The Premier has been ill. We hope that he's back on his feet this afternoon, but he's been ill. That's where the Premier has been, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, interim supply is something that one speaker on the other side indicated has been used — was used during the brief NDP time in power — and I've realized that it could be an interesting topic for parliamentary debate as to whether interim supply is or is not entirely appropriate. It is not foreign to the parliamentary process, Mr. Speaker. I cannot table this, sir, but over time much of it will be tabled, and for those few members of the public who are watching today and for hon. members, I remind them that contained in here are about 78 to 80 votes, each of which will be debated as members choose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us your accordion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This accordion pouch is a fairly historic piece of parliamentary procedure in British Columbia, having been used by Evan Wolfe during his time as Minister of Finance, by a number of House Leaders, by the former Premier of the province, David Barrett, by the former Premier, the late W.A.C. Bennett, and indeed possibly before that. Mr. Speaker, I've had the honour to be in this House for 14 years, and I am distressed....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "How many parties?" the member says. That's got nothing to do with it. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I'm distressed when people suggest that I have something less than the greatest of respect for the parliamentary process, including this chamber in Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia. There is not a day when this House is sitting that I don't come in first of all thankful that we have a democracy where members can be elected to represent their constituents, and come here and present arguments for and against, and a day also when I'm proud — and I mean proud in the usual and I hope reasonable sense of the word — that constituents have sent me to speak on their behalf here. So please, Mr. Members opposite, the members who spoke, it is not correct to suggest that I or other members of the government side of this House have disrespect for the parliamentary process or for this Legislature.

MR. BARNES: Why do we have this emergency bill today?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I listened quietly while you spoke; perhaps you could do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I indicate the votes which will be presented to the Committee of Supply. Whether it takes a week or a month or three months or whatever, the fact is that we have interim supply today, and we then have the opportunity to debate every single issue of government. I will not transcend

[ Page 7564 ]

the rules with respect to bills — the fund bills — which are before the House, but they, as members know, also will be debated in second reading and in committee, and at great length.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, the member suggests what he might do if he had the authority, but that is not the intention of this government, I assure you.

We are asking for three months' interim supply. Each minister in turn will be required to stand in Committee of Supply in this chamber and answer not only to members opposite, or members of the government, but also to the people of the province, who will through their elected members want to question certain spending proposals.

MRS. WALLACE: When — the end of June?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member knows that's not correct. She knows as she asks the question that that is not correct. At the conclusion of the....

[3:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member's been here long enough, Mr. Speaker. The member knows that at the conclusion of the budget debate we shall then quickly move into the discussion of the estimates. She knows that. She has watched it year after year. I can't give the precise date, but this House will very soon move into Committee of Supply and will start the debate of estimates and the discussion of the bills. The member knows that. For purposes today she may have interjected on another area with another view, but I look at pages 5452 of Hansard last year — 5453, 5456 — the same argument was advanced.

I say to the official opposition and to the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of British Columbia today: if they choose to vote against interim supply based on the earnest statements made today, if they believe that they must in order to be true to their basic understanding of democracy, then let the majority rule.

Interim supply for three months; nine months of interim supply under this Supply Act yet to be decided, yet to be voted by the members of this Legislature. If this House chooses at some time in the future to do away with interim supply, then let the House decide. I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (NO. 1), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Ree in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would suggest that in debating the schedule — and this is not as a precedent for the committee but a suggestion — each portion of the schedule per section be taken individually, and that nobody rising after debating, say, the auditor-general's portion, the Chair would then call the ombudsman so that somebody might rise on that. This might facilitate orderly debate of the schedule.

Sections I to 3 inclusive approved.

On the schedule — auditor-general.

MR. LAUK: Even though I am not certain the Minister of Finance is directly, administratively responsible for this vote — I am rather certain that he isn't — can he, as Minister of Finance, reply to this question? With respect to the additional funds acquired by special warrant in the last fiscal year, has the minister any advice to the committee as to generally how that money was expended?

HON. MR. CURTIS: For clarification — in order to assist the member — could he indicate whether he is referring to the auditor-general special warrant? Yes? That supplementary was in connection with additional staffing which was agreed to — I'm subject to correction — in the summer of 1985, when the auditor-general indicated the need for more staff. Treasury Board considered the request, and it was granted at that time, with the staff coming on a little later. It was August 7 when I indicated that the authorized staffing level of the office of the auditor-general had been increased from 82 to 88.5 full-time-equivalent positions, and the auditor-general later engaged the additional staff.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the surcharge that was placed on the sale of wine in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're on the wrong one.

MS. SANFORD: Sorry about that, Mr. Chairman; I wasn't aware of that. I'll wait then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No further questions under the auditor-general? Under the ombudsman.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the same question to the Minister of Finance. I have seen a remarkable deceleration in activity on the part of the ombudsman, which I am sure serves the government interests very well. The ombudsman or acting ombudsman has gone into hiding. No government department, bureaucrat, minister, authority or agency has done any wrong since the ombudsman has retired and the acting ombudsman has taken his place. There's been a remarkable and miraculous transformation in the province of British Columbia. All of those horrendous errors made on the part of the Crown have disappeared with the appointment of Mr. Bazowski. They've cleaned it up completely. Surely if there was any wrongdoing, any errors or any mistakes on the part of the Crown, the acting ombudsman would have found it.

Now seeing that there's been such a decrease in the workload of the ombudsman, what are we doing giving him a special warrant of $281,110? What on earth does he need extra staff for?

[ Page 7565 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: To recover his files.

MR. LAUK: What for? Does he want to hide the files? Is that what he wants, Mr. Chairman? We haven't heard a peep out of the ombudsman. Why does he need extra staff? It's $281,000 for silence. That is not what the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs fought so long and hard for, to have an ombudsman appointed by this Legislature and have him silenced by the government. He was silenced. It was a great indignity.

The new cover-up acting ombudsman needs extra staff. What for, if the workload is down?

[4:00]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, one might agree with part of the point advanced by the second member for Vancouver Centre. The ombudsman has been quieter. I draw a slightly different conclusion. It may be simply that we have returned to normalcy in that office.

The additional amount, Mr. Chairman.... There is some additional staff here, in a manner similar to the auditor-general, the schedule 1tem which we just dealt with a few moments ago. But in addition, the ombudsman, the previous ombudsman — or his office, I suppose; as officers they almost take responsibility.... The previous ombudsman allocated an insufficient amount for telecommunications to the extent of some $38,000, and there will be probably as well the publishing of a second report. But it's a staff and telecommunications underestimation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions to the minister under this particular section. It seems to me that the application forms for those people who had suffered as a result of drought last summer in order to obtain additional assistance for beef cattle and sheep breeding stock had to have their applications in by November of last year. Could you tell me why it takes so long to process those applications, and why it isn't until now that we are actually seeing moneys allocated for that particular purpose? There was a great need.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sorry. I apologize, but I was not listening when the member began her remarks. I wonder if she could do that again?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, when I was up in the constituency of Omineca and meeting with the district agriculturist up there, he showed me the forms that were required for the beef producers up there to apply for drought assistance. As I recall it, those application forms had to be in either by the first of November or the end of November; I can't remember exactly which one. Could you advise why it takes so long to process those applications, in that we're not seeing an expenditure of funds until this time, until April? It will be April before they get any funding for that purpose. As you know, Mr. Minister, I hope, those beef producers were in deep financial trouble. As a matter of fact, the district agriculturalist informed me that some 30 to 50 cattle growers up in that area were expected to go into receivership in this year, and yet we're getting the funding for that program approved only now.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, it's rather strange to me that if there was such a lot of distress caused by the time taken to approve these support payments, I've not heard from any ranchers in the original areas to be covered. In the short time that I've been Minister of Agriculture, I have not received any comment at all from any of the ranchers who have made claims under this program.

I think probably the payments have long since been made. I know we did approve some small supplementary payment only recently, because the total fund was not quite enough. Perhaps the couple that would be paid under that supplementary amount were the ones he heard from, but I haven't heard a complaint. I can't help the member. I'm sorry.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not sure what the minister is saying here. Is he saying that $2,250,000 is a supplement to what had already been approved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we're not approving the special warrant here today. Special warrant number I was approved September 11, 1985. We're not approving that warrant here; we're just authorizing the fact that it was approved.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I think I'll try another question on another issue. I know a surcharge was placed on the sale of wine in this province, which was supposed to cover the costs of the particular program that we see here in section 2 of this particular section. How much money has been collected under that program, and when can we see an end to that surcharge in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, it is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch) who applies the surcharge. It is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture. We just approve the program to assist the grape growers, and this agreement did involve the wineries.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the program is term specific.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, this item, special warrant 2.... Ministry of Agriculture and Food: $2.8 million to provide for the purchase of red wine and red wine grapes from producers of those products in British Columbia. It seems to me that in business — and I believe that government likes to think of themselves as businesslike — when there is an oversupply of a product, particularly if the oversupply is purchased, as it would appear here, with borrowed money, there is a necessity to get a cash flow from that purchase as soon as possible, and the procedure is to lower the price to speed sales. Can the Minister of Finance indicate to us if it is his intention to use whatever good offices he has to request that the Liquor Distribution Branch lower the price of red wine and red wine grapes to B.C. consumers in order to regenerate this cash of $2.8 million, which, as I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, must be borrowed money?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to assist the committee, yes, I will certainly participate in discussion with respect to the wine industry in British Columbia. I don't think the member suggested I could direct that

[ Page 7566 ]

that would occur — indeed I would not — but certainly I will participate in that discussion. What the liquor distribution branch does is something I cannot forecast.

This $2.8 million, incidentally, the provincial contribution, will be recovered by December 31 of this year. It is borrowed money, if you will, but it is a relatively short-term program in terms of the provincial participation.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not asking the question on behalf of the wine industry, although that's a good topic for discussion. I'm asking the question on behalf of the consumers of British Columbia because the government, not the wine industry, is now the owner of this $2.8 million worth of red wine. Can the minister tell us.... . or is that what he's trying to tell us? That one way or another his ministry will be recovering this $2.8 million from the liquor distribution branch by December 31 of this year?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated to the committee a moment ago that the amount would be recovered.

MR. D'ARCY: From who?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, obviously from those who receive it. I don't think we could recover it from someone who didn't receive it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ministry of the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the Agriculture and Food special warrants have been approved by the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the schedule will be approved in total. Not each one is....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, on warrant No. 8, is the Attorney-General available to explain the detailed expenditures of that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, regrettably the Attorney-General is not available. He would be here if it were possible, but I will attempt to assist the committee to the extent that I am able.

MR. LAUK: Could you just generally outline what that's for?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, special warrant No. 8 is required to fund overexpenditures in some sub-votes. Firstly, administration and support, $800,000, higher than budgeted telecommunications charges due to an increase in the ministry's share of new equipment; this was not anticipated when the 1985-86 budget was put in final form. The second item, court services, $1.335 million, higher than budgeted building occupancy expenditures. And thirdly, criminal justice, $1.45 million, attributed in large part to an unanticipated larger number of major criminal trials. Obviously, as the member, a member of the bar, would know, this results in higher legal and witness expenses. Fourthly and finally, coroner's office, $700,000; pathology and toxicology costs above budget contributed to that expenditure.

Unforeseen costs in the four subcategories of special warrant No. 8 in the amount of $4.285 million.

MR. LAUK: I'll have more to say in the Attorney-General's estimates with respect to the amount for criminal justice that was underestimated last year. It's little wonder. You'd have to be a wizard to predict that the Crown would spend the kind of time it has, and the kind of expense, to prosecute some of these cases, when in the view of the bar, generally speaking, it is completely and totally unnecessary.

I wish to go on record as having questioned seriously the overexpenditure. The Crown is going far beyond what is required for the public need and for the administration of justice, both in the number of witnesses and in the number of days it's taking to prosecute these cases. It's usually an admission that the Crown is either unsure of its case or lacks the confidence necessary to prosecute these cases in superior courts.

It seems to me that these expenditures are continuing because of the zealousness of some Crown prosecutors in presenting an overcomplete case. I recognize the reticence of some inexperienced Crown counsel, who feel that they must have a conviction or they'll be highly criticized. Indeed, in some cases they will be. But $1.45 million and more to come.... The Attorney-General knows the cases I'm talking about.

No one wants more than I do to see criminals brought to justice — except my clients, of course, and when they're acquitted they are brought to justice. But I shouldn't have made a facetious remark, because I'm deadly serious. I do think that these expenditures are way and beyond what is required for the prosecutions of some of these individual cases.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would not presume, as one not trained in the law, to answer. The member has made a point to the committee, and I undertake to draw those comments to the attention of the Attorney-General.

[4:15]

MRS. WALLACE: On the same warrant, I have been concerned about the costs that have apparently been incurred by ministries in litigation with Crown corporations and similar types of things that have been going on. The one that I refer to specifically is Highways and ICBC. I'm wondering, is this type of thing reflected in these excessive amounts that are required by special warrants?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I share the member's general view that doesn't happen very often — with respect to one arm of government suing another. There is nothing in this special warrant which deals with that. The instances to which the member has referred are simply not a factor in this special warrant — not one dollar.

MRS. WALLACE: I notice here that we have $750,000 for additional funds for forest work activity programs and for increased planning. I understood from the minister during his budget speech that the additional costs in forestry were incurred basically as a result of the forest fires. I'm wondering if this represents those additional costs in forest fires, or does it represent something else? If they're not covered here, where are they covered?

[ Page 7567 ]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the amount involved, $750,000, was the result of the decision that cabinet had made to plant something in the order of 200 million seedlings by 1987-88. The required funding over the 1985-86 silviculture budget program was $1.1 million. As a result of direction given by Treasury Board, the first portion of the $1.1 million.... The direction was to expend the remaining balance of $340,321 in the forest and range resource fund, and the balance of $750,000 was secured pursuant to section 21 of the Financial Administration Act. And that special warrant is what is before us today. It was related, by the way, to that program involving a number of unemployed people who were recruited for the purpose of planting seedlings. The name of the program...it has an acronym, and I believe it's FWAR. Why they create these names is beyond me. I think we're just going to call it....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't dare, in case I slip. That's what the money was for.

MR. LAUK: Who's the director? Elmer Fudd?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I haven't been around long enough to find out yet, Mr. Member.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm probably out of order, but if it's not in here, how are you going to pay for those forest fires?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, you'll note in the budget that was filed that there is something in excess of $50 million, as I recall. Something like $50 million-plus is for the forest fire suppression. Admittedly, last summer the expenditures incurred were very significant. If you look at the average over a long period of time, you will find that the reservation for that particular amount, $50 million, hopefully would be more than adequate. As far as the other moneys which were required, I would defer that to the Minister of Finance, with respect to a difference in the actual expenditures, because I'm not exactly sure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it could be dealt with on another occasion, I suggest, because it is not dealt with in this special warrant. The special warrant is simply for three-quarters of a million dollars, the purpose of which the minister has described, and which the bill describes. As my colleague the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) has indicated, I dealt with the other matter in the budget speech; and we can deal with it again. But forest fire suppression is not dealt with in this special warrant.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Through schedule 1, I see that the Ministry of Tourism is asking for an extra $2 million to supplement vote 66. This $2 million does suggest a fairly significant increase in expenditures under vote 66. I think a few questions come to my mind, looking at the rationale for the supplement. Specifically, what tourism initiatives are provided for through the special warrant of $2 million? Secondly, how does this funding provide for the incorporation of Expo 86 into the provincial tourism strategy, which is indicated in the rationale for the vote, and how does this vote cover specific Expo advertising? In that regard I would like to ask whether that includes specific ads that have been placed in the fall regarding Expo 86.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, this special warrant was specifically for enhancing our InfoCentre network throughout the province. Because of the tremendous influx of tourists, especially those travelling on rubber tires, we determined that we had to upgrade the Infocentres throughout the province to give them a common look and logo — for some training for people, uniforms, signs, community information centres etc. so that we could take full advantage of all the extra visitors coming in this Expo year.

It is going to, and already is, straining our resources to the utmost, and we want to be able to take full advantage. Also, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), we have come up with a new signage policy for uniform signs throughout the province — regional signs to start with — so that the tourists again shall be fully informed. The signs will be easily recognizable, and each region will have about four or five of these regional signs, which will be in highway pullouts to look after the safety aspect of it.... They will all be in pullouts built or already existing by the Department of Highways.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The information centre network — I don't have the exact breakdown of figures in front of me; I apologize for that. But in the information centre network program we're talking about $1.3 million, I think, if memory serves me correctly.

MR. LAUK: That's got to mean more staff.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, there's no more staff in the ministry. The only staff that we are assisting with in training are those that will be employed in the centres under a contract arrangement we have with the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, as the comment has been made, that does seem to be an awful lot of money for the program that the minister has just indicated. I also would like to know why it was necessary to borrow this money through special warrant, why the money was not available through the normal processes of financing of Expo 86. Mr. Pattison has indicated that the total expenditure for Expo 86 has not yet reached the $802 million which was essentially initially projected. Why were funds not available through those channels? Why do we have to come back through special warrant on this?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the budgets that we're talking about have nothing to do with the Expo 86 Corporation. They are programs that are being initiated and expanded by my ministry, including the Partners in Tourism program and, as I have said, the travel InfoCentre network, the new signs, a sophisticated computerized information centre for the B.C. Pavilion to enable us to move tourists throughout the province, and certain advertising expenditures necessary because of Expo 86. The one that comes to mind is on the Host Home program. We have incurred expenses there; in fact we have stepped up that program to encourage more homeowners to come on to it.

[ Page 7568 ]

But this budget is not to be confused with the budget of the Crown corporation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I think this gets us to a critical point. If I may read directly from schedule one, it says, "the supplement is to provide for tourism promotion initiatives related to Expo 86."

Now the minister has just said that this warrant does not come under Expo, that it comes under the Ministry of Tourism, and yet the warrant itself specifically identifies that it is for special expenditures for Expo 86. Now the question that comes to my mind is: how much more money directly related to Expo is being hidden through expenditures through the Ministry of Tourism? Because here we have $2 million expenditures that will not show up in the books for Expo, that will not be accounted for through Expo 86 corporation, and yet it is a direct expenditure required for the marketing of Expo. How much else of this has gone on?

When we look at the final tally, at the cost-benefit analysis of Expo 86, these figures will be hidden. Is there a specific reason for you laundering these figures through consolidated revenue rather than through Expo? Because I think that that's where the accountability should be.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I think the words such as hidden and secret and laundering money are totally inappropriate. Everything is totally above board. As I said, Expo impacts on my ministry rather severely. We will have an influx of tourists into this province far greater than any we've ever had in the past and are likely to have for at least two or three years after Expo. So the impact on my ministry, and other ministries, is significant, but especially in tourism. As I've said, the computerized information centre for the B.C. Pavilion alone is very costly, and the upgrading of our tourist facilities. They're not a responsibility of Expo; they're a responsibility of this government and of my ministry.

Just to reiterate: they're not being hidden or laundered. It's just an impact that's being felt on my ministry. Some of the advertising, as I've said, is not directly to bring people to Expo; it's as a result of people coming to Expo.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The specific question that the minister has not answered regarding this expenditure is whether these expenditures specifically cover any of the ads that were placed in the fall showing government members on film advertising on behalf of Expo. Do these expenditures cover any of those advertisements?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.

[4:30]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, without unduly extending this, I think the minister has still not adequately answered, or supplied an adequate explanation for why expenditures directly pertaining to the Expo budget are being handled through consolidated revenue rather than going right on the balance sheet for Expo 86. Until the minister does explain that, I don't think that we ever will get a true accounting of the cost of this fair. We have long been calling for a complete opening of the books on Expo. We have requested this a number of times from the minister. He in turn has apparently requested, by way of letter, an opening of the accounts of the fair. We still haven't seen that come down. I want to repeat that until we do have a full and open accounting of the fair, nobody is going to know what the true cost of this exposition is.

We're not criticizing the fair, but what we are saying is that we are expending taxpayers' money. This is public money, and there should be full accountability for the expenditures of those funds.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know how much more plainly I can put it. I do want to go on record as saying that if this were a direct expenditure of Expo it would come out of the Crown corporation's budget — about $802 million. But it is not an expenditure that should be met by the Crown corporation; it's an expenditure that has to be met by government. We cannot bring all of these extra millions of people to British Columbia without it having some impact. If we're going to reap the net benefits of an economic activity in the area of $3.5 billion to $4 billion, there is going to be some impact on other ministries. It's minimal compared with the budget of Expo 86, but there is going to be an impact. There will be an impact on my colleague's budget in Highways just for the running of extra ferries. But it's all bringing revenue to this Island, the Gulf Islands and other areas, and we just can't get away from it. If we're going to bring that many people here, we have to face up to the fact that there's going to be an impact on other ministries. I don't think you can expect the Crown corporation of Expo 86 to pick up those kinds of extra costs.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It would be remiss of me, of course.... This is by far the largest amount of money under special warrant No. 5: $20,300,000 for highways capital maintenance; highway capital construction amounts to $98,500,000 for a total of $149, 197, 210. I would like to ask the minister about this very unusual and large amount of money. After last year we voted in excess of $1 billion for highway construction and maintenance, $375 million for the construction of the Coquihalla. My first question in this regard would be: how much of this $149 million is going toward the cost overruns on the Coquihalla and the Annacis bridge? Where is this money going and how is it being spent, and why the large amount?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member, I agree with you: it's a lot of money, $118,800,000, and it's for varying projects to continue them on when we ran out of money in this fiscal year. None of it applies to the Annacis or the Coquihalla. I have a list of the projects, three or four pages long, and with permission of the House, I'll read them all out. It will take me about an hour and a half.

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You can't table in committee.

HON. A. FRASER: I don't know what the wish of the Chairman is, but they're all broken down in minute detail.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, if the minister undertakes to table in the House, we'll pass along on this, after my friend's other questions. Does the minister undertake to do that?

[ Page 7569 ]

HON. A. FRASER: I'll undertake to table the detailed list when the debate concludes.

I'd like to make a comment. We could have closed them all down. We decided to keep going, and it created 1,400 man-years of work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the minister has undertaken to table those records in the House, and I'm sure they'll be very valuable to us when we debate the spending estimates.

However, a colleague of mine did pass along a piece of information also relating to Expo, and it is as follows:

"The Highways ministry recently decided that the Expo '86 display on the Pat Bay Highway was chargeable to Highways maintenance at a cost of $50,000. On this principle, since Expo '86 will enable people to learn about other countries, Expo promotional brochures could be charged to this fund as well."

These Expo display whatever-they're-called are now appearing all over the province — there are three or four up on the Island Highway, I notice — two or three of them not completed.

But once again this is a hidden fund — hidden moneys for the promotion of Expo, when $800 million plus has already been allocated to Expo, being charged off to the side under a ministry, which should properly be charged to the cost of Expo.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Transportation and Highways permits me, I'm informed that no Expo-related expenditures are in this special warrant. That's my information, and I'm subject to correction. But I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are debating interim supply. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond) indicated that other ministries, such as my colleague's, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, have Expo-related expenditures, but in his case they're not in this schedule.

HON. A. FRASER: He's absolutely correct. There are no Expo-related expenditures in this special warrant.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, for the present I'll accept the minister's explanation.

Schedule approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the preamble.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, no, not on the preamble. I just noticed the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) just came back and, with the leave of the House, I'm sure he would be more than willing....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I was out at the time.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I know the situation. I'm just thinking that the minister is being so cooperative that he would be delighted to give me an opportunity to ask him a couple of questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at the commencement of committee on the bill it was suggested that we debate each section in order.

MR. BARNES: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And each section has had an opportunity to be debated in order.

MR. BARNES: That's quite correct, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered if, with leave of the House....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The schedule has been approved.

MR. BARNES: I see.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, reported complete without amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On third reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I wanted to protest. The title of this act is Supply Act. This is a breach from tradition, although I don't think technically illegal. It should be called Interim Supply Act, should it not? On third reading, I rise to protest that, because it's exactly what I was talking about before. Governments are getting into the habit of breaching the traditional way in which estimates are approved; and even describing an interim supply act as a supply act is incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point might have been better raised during committee stage when the title was debated and the question called.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, you permitted debate on third reading?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would simply respond by pointing out that which I overlooked in second reading: that is, this is the first provincial budget to be presented this year and we are dealing with interim supply. All other provinces will be

[ Page 7570 ]

later with their budgets than the province of British Columbia in 1986.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned budget debate.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. MACDONALD: I was going to reply to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), who rasped at the opposition, but it's so long ago that I've forgotten much of what he said in his diatribe. Flashes of it come back to me — flushes — and he said something about an election in 1988. That worries me, because I find it's a lot harder to get out of this place than it was to get into it. Nineteen eighty-eight. I checked with the Clerks at the table and the rules require that the election be held before world war three, but the way Ronnie and Casper are behaving, I don't know whether I can base any confidence in that.

Another thing that comes back to me is that this minister took to task the new leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia.

AN. HON. MEMBER: In his maiden speech.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and said that he had changed parties twice. It's not true? Well, the second wasn't really; the second was just a case of cross- "Pollen" -ization, I guess. When you think of some of the political jerjibbercytes who were sitting around when the minister was speaking...he was a little hard on the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) when he's got all those.... I don't know whether there has ever been any government of British Columbia with so much tired blood and mixed blood as we see on the other side of the house.

[4:45]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mixed blood, like the mule. A government with no pride of ancestry and no hope of posterity.

I'm going to be brief. I'm going to make a modest proposal and sit down. I'll hurry along; after all, we took quite a bit of time on interim supply and I know other members want to speak on the budget debate.

I've been asking myself the question: how well looked after are the victims of injury who suffer disability or are sometimes diseased by accidental means in the province of British Columbia? At what cost do we look after the victims of accidental injury or disease, and with what fairness have we been addressing that particular subject? I see the headlines today which made the topic seem topical to me. We hear about the great rise in liability insurance premiums for municipalities and school boards and doctors, and all the rest. We hear the Attorney-General getting up to talk about his list of lawyers acting for ICBC, and the tremendous costs involved in that. I suppose I'm expressing my own opinion — I think it's just a matter of time, in any case, before all members of this House and other houses will adopt that opinion, but in my opinion, king tort must die. I think liability for negligence is a capricious and unsatisfactory way of compensating victims of accidental injury, death or disease. It protects some but not all, and it is performing its task these days at enormous legal and administrative costs, which necessarily do not pass on to those who suffer the injury. Some of them, for example — and maybe you'd look in the field of auto, or any of the other accidents that take place — simply can't prove a case in court of legal liability. So they go without compensation.

There are some accidents where there is no third party — say, in the case of auto accidents where, through a momentary lapse of attention or a mechanical fault of which you really had no foreseeable chance to avoid the consequences, you go into a ditch or go off the road. So while we talk about our patchwork of protection for the victims of accident, don't forget that a great many fall through the safety net of those protections.

Only New Zealand — and I suppose I bring this up because I had the privilege of meeting not too long ago and talking with the Hon. Geoffrey Palmer, who is the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and we exchanged books; he has written a very capable book called Compensation for Incapacity - alone among common-law countries, has had the sense and the courage to abolish tort liability. It has brought in a comprehensive scheme that provides basic compensation, without proof of fault, to everyone incapacitated by misadventure. Those desiring higher levels of compensation beyond the comprehensive social cushion thereby provided insure themselves, which can happen very easily and does happen. In New Zealand, strangely enough — and we skirt away from examining these questions — while the initial impetus for this reform was the Labour Party of New Zealand, the scheme is equally supported by the conservatives, who were in government and are now again in opposition in New Zealand.

I'll go quickly over this. What is the present patchwork coverage that we have today? I'm talking about accidental injuries and accidental disease or illness which excludes the normal onset of disease or illness caused by age or some congenital defect. But we have to protect.... We've got ICBC, which has a minor — but a very low floor level of it — no-fault component, and ICBC is chewing up vast sums of money in legal disputes over fault and quantum at the present time. I'll come back to that.

We have the Workers' Compensation Board, which, of course, is a no-fault plan of compensation which has been in effect in this province and all other common-law jurisdictions for many years. The present standing of the Workers' Compensation Board in the public eye is relatively low. But I wonder how many members would rise in their place and seriously say that we should go back in the case of industrial accidents to tort liability? Of course, the lawsuit against the employer or a fellow employee in the same worksite has been eliminated under the Workers Compensation Act. Of course, there is room for improvement within that structure. But nobody would think of going back to the bad old days of tort liability. We have criminal injuries compensation for accidents of a different kind, and that's administered in the same way as workers' compensation.

We have other tort lawsuits. We're not talking only of automobiles. We have medical malpractice; we have occupier's liability, where a tenant is hurt or somebody comes into a building and suffers an injury. We have veterans' pensions. We have private self-insurance. Down lower in the

[ Page 7571 ]

scale of things, but subject to a means test, of course, we have handicapped pensions and simply social assistance for those without means and no other safety net is available.

This whole patchwork, as I say, protects very well and protects some not at all. So I come to some examples of what is happening at the present time in the province of British Columbia. Take the municipal insurance which we've heard quite a bit about. There has been an explosion.... I should say I am not discussing the auto insurance of municipalities — their fleet insurance. I am discussing the insurance premiums that they buy to protect themselves against different other kinds of injuries.

There has been an unbelievable explosion in the last year in the premiums that are chargeable to municipalities. It began, I suppose, with the city of Brampton case, which is still under appeal, where a young teenager took his motorcycle into the gravel pit of the city of Brampton, which was being held by the city to become, at a later stage, a park. There were "No Trespassing" signs up there, but the young fellow rode the road on his motorcycle; and the damages when he became a quadraplegic were, I believe, $6 million. Cases like that are said to be the cause of the rise in insurance premiums.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you believe that?

MR. MACDONALD: I believe it's half true. Let me give the figures first. I believe it is half true, because the other half of the situation is that the insurance companies are using awards, which admittedly are going up, and legal expenses, which are obviously going up, as an excuse to jack up their rates; and the government has participated, and made it easier for them to do so in this province, by selling off the general insurance sector of ICBC.

But the other half of the problem remains. The municipal insurance premiums in 1985-86 in White Rock, for example.... I could give you a whole list of cities, but I won't. In one year their insurance went up 647 percent.

HON. MR. KEMPF: Are you their lawyer?

MR. MACDONALD: It might be nice work, if you could get it.

In Chetwynd the insurance costs went up 869 percent in a single year; in Penticton, 590 percent; in Burnaby, to give it in dollar figures, it went from $35,600, in a single year, up to $315,000. Don't forget, this is not the fleet — vehicular insurance, which ICBC still writes in competition with the private insurers, and where, to the credit of the public institution, those rates have been held level or have actually gone down in the last couple of years. We're talking about the other kind of liability. At the same time, the municipalities are faced with greater deductibilities. For example, White Rock has gone up 500 percent. Richmond has gone up from $5,000 to $50,000 deductible, an increase in the deductible of 900 percent. At the same time, the rules about deductible — I don't want to get too technical about this — have changed, so that the deductible applies from one accident to every claim arising out of the same accident. So you have less coverage and much greater expenses.

The school district situation is very much the same. They place their insurance, at the direction of the Ministry of Education, through two major underwriters. But their premiums have shown the same escalation. And they have been escalating ever since the Thornton case in Prince George. This shows the kind of thing that a school district can be up against. A student in a school was exercising in the gym, doing somersaults on the bars, unsupervised by a teacher, and somersaulted onto a mat and became a quadraplegic, or a paraplegic — I'm not sure which it was. Extensive injuries. I believe the final award was $800,000. So there you see the same trend.

You turn to the medical profession, which is rightly exercised about this escalation. In the case of the medical profession, their premiums are also rising in the high-risk medical areas very dramatically. In the last year they've gone up in category 6, which includes obstetrics, from $2,900 to $4,900 a year for each doctor who participates in obstetrics. The other high-risk fields, like neurosurgery and plastic surgery, sustained similar increases in that magnitude.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm hearing a little trouble from the second-oldest profession in the course of my remarks, but I press on.

The question arises, Mr. Speaker, and it's a legitimate question: how else can you ensure that your doctor is competent and not careless with your health or your life if you don't have the ability to sue him in court — if you had a basic compensation for that injury, subject to any other policy you might want to take out, but couldn't sue him in court? The answer surely has to be that there has to be a strong body in the College of Physicians and Surgeons which polices competency and negligence. As long as the doctor doesn't pay — and he doesn't pay in the case of tort liability, but his insurance company pays — for the loss, you no longer in any case have that deterrence of carelessness, which is very important, I must agree.

What about ICBC, which is the biggest because motor travelling is the biggest item? They have a litigation department with 15 lawyers. Their employment of outside counsel is estimated — and it's hard to get the exact breakdown — at costing ICBC $90 million a year to defend liability cases brought by third parties. When you look at the costs of the tort system, you add to that the costs to the injured person of employing his own lawyer — usually today on a contingency fee which ranges from 25 percent up to 40 percent. Then you consider the court administrative costs, because there are cases, and so many of them, simple and tragic cases, which take four, five and six days in court.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

If I were taking more time, I might describe one or two of the cases. There's a case down here that took four days, where a woman was claiming $100,000 after a minor accident. She got about $20,000. The judge finally derided her as someone who was exaggerating her injuries and twisting her testimony and called her — and I don't think the judge should have done that — a shallow, vain and self-pitying woman. A terrible experience, nevertheless, for the woman, and a costly lesson, and too common in terms of the cases that are taken into court.

[5:00]

There is a lot of lottery about the award of damages in the court system. The negligence that you seek to prove in the agony of a momentary lapse of care depends so much on

[ Page 7572 ]

recollection. The tendency inevitably becomes for witnesses to bend their testimony to suit the best possible purposes in their case. There is a tremendous amount of uncertainty, even though in some cases the awards are munificent even after you deduct the fees — for some people. But for people generally, for the costs to the province of looking after injured people, that cost is enormous.

We have had, Mr. Speaker, eminent authorities in the province of British Columbia, led by the late Mr. Justice Wootton, who made his royal commission report in 1968. After very careful consideration, and he was in the field of automobile insurance alone, he came to the conclusion that we were not well served by the tort liability system. That Wootton report said:

"...originally, with few motor vehicles, the business of claims for damages were reasonably encompassed by the tort law. It was a choice of fault or no fault then, and the former prevailed only to embarrass the situation when traffic conditions caused by the proliferation of the motor vehicle outdistanced the effectiveness of tort law with the duty imposed by it of determining, in all cases, the question of fault."

I could go on with other comments, but the commissioners concluded that tort law does not effectively serve the public injured by motor vehicles. Speaking personally, I agree with that observation. They go on in their conclusion:

"In considering the matter of no fault, the commissioners have comprehended that the milieu of motor vehicle traffic is now similar, by reason of the proliferation of vehicular traffic upon the highway, to that of a great game played by many players when rules may be constantly broken, without any wicked intent, and that consequently it must rest with the player to protect himself and those with him."

There was another accident commission that was set up under Mr. McCarthy of ICBC in 1983. But it only went into a portion of that problem. But to the extent that it delved into the problem — and I think Jake Brouwer was a member of that commission, too — it came to the conclusion that those injured in accidents could receive more money with the same payout that ICBC is making at the present time with the no-fault system, although the court, legal and administrative costs would receive much less.

So what I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that we have in this Legislature a committee system that is not used, and it could have the ability to look into this kind of thing. In New Zealand the process of arriving at this reform was twofold: a royal commission, a committee of the legislature examining the proposals in detail, a bill before the New Zealand parliament, and at the present time, unanimity in support of their plan.

We could, in this Legislature, examine this question, which costs, if what I am saying is correct, the victims of injury in accidents of all kinds a great deal of the money that should be going toward their relief, which leaves far too many people without any relief at all. We could be examining this matter either through a royal commission or a royal commission and a committee of this Legislature, which would hear from the people affected and give close attention to what is a major social problem and is becoming more of a major social problem as time goes on.

The New Zealand plan is something of which they boast. I remember asking Geoffrey Palmer: "Under your plan do you have complaints that people are beating the system, cheating?" He said: "No, we have an appeal system which is satisfactorily working. We are not afraid of those who are malingering with back injuries and that kind of thing, or who are alleged to be doing so. The appeal procedure is fair. Those wanting additional compensation above the level of cushion that the community decides upon can easily get it through their own insurance company." And, he said, it is something of which they can be proud.

They have comprehensive entitlement to care, treatment, rehabilitation and compensation at the rate, by the way, of 80 percent of earnings, which is good, on the basis of the simple principle that the well-being of each is the concern of all. I think British Columbia should examine this kind of a problem.

HON. MR. PELTON: It's always a pleasure to stand and make my little contribution to our annual budget. I must say as I start that I am really delighted this time with the announcement of the very major funding increases for health, education and reforestation in our 1986 budget.

I can't tell you how happy I am to see those priorities. I believe that I am very much speaking with the backing of my constituents, regardless of their political affiliation, when I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the $600 million additional education funding, on the $720 million in additional health care funding — both of these over three years — and also on the 24 percent increase in this year's forestry budget, and the $20 million provincial donation to the new $70 million joint fund on intensive forest management.

Congratulations also on the continuing downward trend in both taxes and the deficit level. Creating jobs, stimulating investment in small businesses, tourism, high tech and new secondary industry is a must for our people, especially for those of our people who are unemployed.

That is my first and my strongest reaction. We are listening to the public and we are providing the clear priorities for the future which makes sense and which have a broad consensus of public support.

I must say, however, that I am rather disappointed by the skeptical, even cynical, reaction which some of these announcements have produced. When we do not spend money on these things, we are the Blue Meanies or the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. But when we do, the headlines next day read: "Pork Barrel."

We have many alternatives in allocating new funds within these general fields, and it seems to me most unfair to deride the government at a time of rapid change for adopting a relatively flexible format for allocating those funds.

There seems to be a mindset at work here, which is very hard to deal with. First of all, it is a mindset which said no to restraint in the growth of the public sector, even when it was obvious that the private sector could no longer sustain boomyear growth rates in public sector expansion and rates of compensation expense and increase.

Beyond that, it is a mindset which objects to the people's elected representatives interfering in the spending priorities for major components of public spending. Failing to recognize the very grave permanent changes in the world economy, those who share this mindset have established a sort of demonology, in which the government was depicted with cloven hooves and horns for the unpardonable sin of questioning the priorities of those institutions which spend the greater part of the public's tax money. Yes, that's true, and for suggesting that they needed to become more efficient, less

[ Page 7573 ]

insular and more innovative to meet the changing needs of changing times.

Mr. Speaker, if we learned anything from the great inflation, it should be this: simply pouring money into existing institutions — that's more money into existing institutions — is not a responsible approach to governing in the latter half of the twentieth century. We have, instead, by looking forward, to learn to be twenty-first century forces, to spend our money wisely and effectively with an appreciation of how much our traditional management, particularly, is already out of date.

If you are going to challenge people to rise to their intellectual potential in providing imaginative new programs in education and health care, what better way than to offer funding for new and additional programs on a merit basis? We have seen something similar in operation in our colleges and universities this past year with the adjustment funds, and the results have been very encouraging. We actually have academics and businessmen working together at every post-secondary campus in the province on innovative and imaginative projects in order to ensure the future of our young people. People who call that a pork-barrel are, in my opinion, full of applesauce.

Malaspina College, which is in the Finance critic's own riding, received $150,000 for a Pacific Rim languages program. Camosun College in Victoria received $200,000 to train unemployed young people in furniture manufacturing. Kwantlen College in the Fraser Valley received $125,000 for a business and industry development centre, and similar centres were funded at New Caledonia College in Prince George and East Kootenay College in Cranbrook.

Surely no one is going to try to stand here with a straight face and deny these very worthy projects as pork-barrel. In fact, I am told that 63 projects have been funded across the province and that a terrific spirit of cooperation between businesspeople and educators has been developed on the community level, and I say bravo to that.

[5:15]

Mr. Speaker, in the U.S. today there is an interesting group who call themselves the neo-liberals. They are Democrats, without having lost any of their idealism, who have come to recognize that the Hubert Humphrey and LBJ school of social policy, which says that more programs are always better than less and that with enough funding every government program will be a success.... They simply understand that that doesn't work, that human nature and society are so infinitely complex that these direct and obvious solutions may be in some cases no solution at all.

So again, without abandoning their ideals, they are rethinking and urging a new pragmatism in their party and its approach to society. The critical industries commission, which was inspired by Lee Iacocca, is a very interesting and very successful example of creative and cooperative thinking, thinking which in my view is a good model for the future. Whether it is neo-liberal or neo-conservative or simply common sense doesn't matter at all. It doesn't matter at all to the millworker's family that gets off UIC or welfare and back to work, with a few more groceries on the table and new clothes for the kids. That's the bottom line that we should be concerned about, Mr. Speaker.

I think we've all got to recognize that we're not going to get there by assuming that existing programs and structures in any facet of our society are perfect or even adequate. Even if they are apparently adequate for our immediate needs, when we see that those needs are changing rapidly, surely it is the height of irresponsibility to do nothing to anticipate those changes. When the government reacted very swiftly and decisively to the drastic onset of the world recession, we were criticized for not consulting more widely in advance of the changes which were introduced. I can certainly understand that concern, and it is precisely for that reason that we are taking every effort to consult with all interested British Columbians in developing our future directions and priorities in the new health and education funds. Mission, in my riding, isn't going to have the same needs or the same priorities as Nelson or Campbell River or Prince Rupert or Revelstoke. Good new ideas come from anywhere, and should be encouraged to come from everywhere: 2.9 million heads are better than one, Mr. Speaker, particularly when they're communicating and learning from one another. A very good example of that is the mentorship program, one of the innovative approaches that our government is taking to encourage young women to become successful professionals and entrepreneurs by networking with women who have been successful and have valuable experience to share, and who in some cases are pioneers in their roles.

Time and time again when I hear criticism of our government's approach, the criticism is based on very limiting assumptions about our future. The worst restraint of all is the restraint of imagination. It's not that we don't want to fix up the cave. It's that we wonder whether there's a better place to live. Maybe we don't have to live in a cave. Maybe we could learn to build a house. Maybe we could even have electric lights. Maybe there are better ways to teach our children. Maybe the classroom as we know it is obsolete. I'm not saying that it is or that it isn't. I'm just saying: let's think about what we're doing before we commit all of those hard-earned dollars. Let's make sure we're getting the best education and the best health care, not just the highest price-tags. Let's talk about our future decisions with those who will be involved.

A lot of people are saying that this isn't an election budget. But it could be, because it does provide a sense of purpose, of vision and of leadership in a realistic way. I'm pleased also by the direction being taken to allow more earnings by those on social assistance. It's a very difficult thing to be fair to the needy while maintaining a sufficiently strong incentive to escape the treadmill of welfare, and any move in this direction is, in my opinion, a very positive one.

We have been leaders in high tech — and, indeed, Moli Energy in Maple Ridge is tangible evidence of that. But it's interesting to me to see the publicity surrounding the fiasco which resulted from Marc Lalonde's research tax credit. It underscores the failure of the old philosophy I was discussing earlier: the idea that all the government has to do is throw in enough cash and all will be well. Our government doesn't believe in blank cheques, and what I just mentioned is a billion-dollar example of why we don't.

Government can be made smaller and more equitable at the same time. Where it has become bloated — and surely the federal government of Canada is a very good example of what not to do in that regard.... I'm pleased to see that our emphasis continues to be on more for less, rather than less for more.

I'm heartened, too, Mr. Speaker, by the allocation of $10 million to fund new programs specifically designed to help unemployed British Columbians retrain and otherwise become more employable, as well as the additional $5 million for students and other young people whose lack of work

[ Page 7574 ]

experience is proving to be a barrier to their efforts to find permanent jobs. All this is in addition to $10 million for summer youth employment programs through Challenge '86, and $600,000 more for the Youth Advisory Council and the youth grants program. Today the unemployed, Mr. Speaker, include the young in large numbers, and also — tragically — the technologically or market-redundant middle-aged workers whose firms have either laid them off or gone out of business, particularly in the resource sectors. We must show our faith in these individuals. We must never abandon them to hopelessness.

I'm intrigued by the forest stand management fund. It sounds a lot like the kind of creative, cooperative approach Graham Bruce and others have been promoting for some time. I certainly hope that our federal government, our forest industry and our trade unions sign on to become active participants in the evergreening of British Columbia. If there is a single resource issue which is more critical to our future than any other, it is the renewal of our forests. Indeed, the more and the faster we can move in this area the happier I will be, and the more secure our long-term prospects. We are committed to the wise management of our forests, both as an economic resource and as a key element in British Columbia's natural environment.

I'm very pro-technology, make no mistake of that, and I am very much a proponent of economic growth, particularly when growth includes quality and not merely quantity of production. So I have to ask myself: is there an alternative? If we can imagine a society which is prosperous, free and in some sense at the same point of balance or equilibrium with nature, can we get there from here? If so, is now not the time to begin discussing a roadmap to reach that goal?

Our people have top priority, and quite rightly so, on new jobs and on new investment to create those jobs, and we're dedicated to that end absolutely. As environment minister, I feel very acutely that issues are beginning to come forward for which we have absolutely no precedents. The application of new genetic technologies is an extremely exciting field, and yet I am sure that many of us are a little apprehensive concerning the unknown dimensions of that rapidly advancing research. It is not enough to say that the experts know best and to avoid discussing the subject because we are not scientists and it makes us feel uneasy. The experts knew all about nuclear energy, too, as I recall. So what am I saying, Mr. Speaker? I am saying that we should ask questions. Yes, we should question even our most basic assumptions to make sure that we understand what they are and why they are, and whether or not they continue to make any sense. Some members may have seen a recent article on labour relations in Great Britain which appeared in the Times-Colonist. The article said something to the effect that many workers and newer trade union leaders there are now moving away from outdated models of class conflict and are beginning to seek alternatives. So when we are consulting about education and hospital priorities, I hope we are questioning, and I hope we are going to open up a very wide-ranging dialogue on the goals and future of our province. I hope we are going to dare to challenge even our most deeply rooted assumptions as we face the future.

Above all, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we must look to a new revolution in our thinking. We've had the Industrial Revolution. We are well into the information revolution, and it is time now to prepare for the quality revolution — the pursuit of excellence in every dimension of individual and social life. The 1986 budget is a positive step in that direction. It recognizes the need to be innovative in new fields of endeavour, even in fields such as health care, where we are already doing very well.

With regard to health care programs, I am convinced that wellness and preventive medicine should have a greater emphasis in our system, because preventive medicine works and because in the long run it is probably the only way to keep our universal-access health care system affordable.

In education, I cannot help but think that some very major breakthroughs are possible in teaching methods. I was delighted to hear of the B.C. Teachers' Federation recent initiative to address more advanced teacher training, and I congratulate them on that.

This is a budget of hope and of promise, Mr. Speaker, a budget for today and a budget for tomorrow. The Royal Canadian Air Force had a motto: per ardua ad astra, which literally translated means "through adversity to the stars." There is a road between the stars which beckons, and there is an invitation which must not be refused.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the very eloquent remarks of the Minister of Environment, I closed my eyes, and listening to his words, I began to realize that on their own it was a very beautiful speech. But the speech had no bearing or relevance to the budget speech that he was praising.

[5:30]

The minister's speech was of the highest possible character. He was looking for a loftier race, as Tommy Douglas would say, and unfortunately he was really trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The speech that the hon. minister gave would have been a very appropriate speech for the budget, but for a different budget, not the budget he was defending.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) made some remarks about liability insurance that I don't think should go unanswered. The hon. member is a distinguished and learned member of the bar and one of the finest legal minds of the nineteenth century. It was my learned colleague's own statement during his speech that he was only giving half the truth, and indeed his entire speech was full of half-truths.

The hon. member for Vancouver East argues that liability insurance is causing a lot of problems. I am afraid that he — quite innocently, I am sure — has fallen into a manipulative trap on the part of insurance companies throughout North America. This trap, this public relations exercise, has frightened doctors and has frightened people generally and municipalities and others who are obtaining liability insurance. It is a public relations exercise that is completely false. It is based on lies and the most blatant misrepresentations that I've ever heard a major industry represent.

What's the Speaker doing — getting more comfortable? I don't see anywhere in the standing orders, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot attack the insurance industry. It's my right and duty as a member of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has had some difficulty with the member for Vancouver East and, in your honourable comments, relating it to the budget.

MR. LAUK: Well, you just be patient, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7575 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I've been listening quite attentively to the member for Vancouver Centre, and I don't recall him calling the member for Vancouver East a liar. He was suggesting there are half-truths, lies about the insurance industry. He never referred to his...that his friend from Vancouver East was a liar.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, that is not a valid point of order.

MR. LAUK: I am being silenced.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm better off without your help.

[Laughter.]

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't be so harsh on the member for Vancouver East, except that over the last few years I've presented him with the facts. I have told him about the injustice of a no-fault system which includes a system of so-called compensation such as the Workers' Compensation Board, but again the hon. member stands up and makes a speech calling for a no-fault system along those lines. I can only conclude that the hon. member listens with his mouth.

My friend suggests that the costs of insurance rates are because of the cost of litigation before the courts. This cannot be supported by the evidence. The cost of quantum assessment he also included. He says that the dispute before the courts is very....

AN HON. MEMBER: Forty percent is too much for a contingency fee.

MR. LAUK: The cost of civil litigation with respect to car accident cases is the only example we have, and malpractice cases are fractional compared to the costs of the administrative tribunals for compensation schemes elsewhere. It's fractional, including the tremendous and costly expansion of other administrative tribunals which this budget is expending vast sums of money on. I have seen before the labour board, Mr. Speaker, a 25-day hearing on a simple picket crossing. If there aren't 16 lawyers before the panel, they think they're deprived. No one can tell me that an administrative tribunal....

What is an insurance scheme? An insurance scheme is to compensate. The clearest evidence of an insurance scheme that doesn't compensate is the Workers' Compensation Board; not only in this province, in most provinces. It is not an insurance scheme if it does not compensate. It's a fraud.

Now I will concede that there may be an argument for the idea of eliminating the liability question. I personally would not like to concede that. I don't think it's particularly egalitarian to argue that a drunk who runs into an innocent victim and who may, for the sake of this statement, suffer the same injuries, should receive the same kind of high-quality compensation. I just can't accept that in my philosophy of life. I am not so draconian or cruel in terms of social order to say that the drunk should not be compensated. There is a no-fault insurance scheme for compensation, and there are standards of care. There is a support system in society for the person at fault. But the innocent victims, through absolutely no fault — or very little fault — of their own, are paralysed or made brain-damaged for the rest of their lives, and to say they should be compensated on the same basis is to me a travesty of justice and should not be supported.

I have seen assessments where liability is admitted, in car accident cases where people have been seriously injured, take one or two days. Mr. Speaker, most of us as MLAs have seen how long the WCB takes to assess, counter-assess: doctors' reports, doctors' appeals, medical panels. Who is paying for that? And you argue that the court system is the expensive avenue to go? It's nonsense! It's not supportable by the evidence.

Liability insurance premiums are going up across this country because of a deliberate scheme to rip off people paying premiums in North America. It's simply not supportable. The insurance industry has frightened doctors. You see programs on television which only try to find a couple of flakes in the legal profession who will support the insurance industry's position on the matter. Only the highest possible awards in the United States are shown in the headlines. The everyday assessments for people who are injured, the assessments by judges of the courts, once inflation is taken into consideration, are less than the average award that was given in 1960 for injuries — less, in the province of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There is no Supreme Court of Canada cap. There's $100,000.... It's a very complicated area, Mr. Speaker, that my friend argues over. The Supreme Court of Canada cap is reasonable because courts have interpreted that to be a cap in 1979....

AN HON. MEMBER: Adjusted for inflation.

MR. LAUK: Adjusted for inflation — that's reasonable. And it only applies to pain and suffering, the non-tangible aspect of injury.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you agree with that?

MR. LAUK: I don't see any reason to disagree with it. But the economic loss to people, the health care, the future health care, the special housing that they will need, the special education and medical care they will need, must be compensated for by an insurance scheme. To argue that we relegate that to a system like workers' compensation, I say with the greatest respect to my friend, who I have great affection for, is irresponsible.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Are you still on the ICBC board?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My friend has asked a question, and it's a fair question. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) asks about future income loss. I have not seen a judge award a massive amount for future income loss without substantial evidence to show it. Of the ten cases that I have reviewed recently before the Supreme Court of British Columbia where large amounts for future income have been awarded, the evidence upon which it was based is sound, and in some cases tested by a very conservative court of appeal. Most of

[ Page 7576 ]

those cases that ask for future income loss have been reduced and discounted to the point where it is a modest and perhaps reasonable judgment in favour of the party.

The flexibility and the wide experience of supreme court judges, sitting alone or with a jury, is the way to decide assessments, and it's cheaper than the administrative tribunal system. Don't be, I plead with you, sucked in by the insurance industry. They are taking us all for a ride.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My friend, you are living in the past. Really!

The insurance industry is arguing that the United States case applies to Canada. Nothing is further from the truth. As my friend the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has pointed out, the Supreme Court of Canada has capped judgments for pain and suffering. There is a reasonable award system in the courts of Canada, and we do not have to apologize for it. It is reasonable as far as the cost to society and the gross national product are concerned, There are problems in the United States. Let them deal with it. Don't let the insurance industry treat Canada and the United States as one problem. It's not. The awards here are much less. You cannot succeed in a judgment on malpractice in Canada without the strongest possible evidence. The law of Canada is different than it is in the United States. So don't be confused by that. Defend the system, because if you defend the system in Canada you're defending yourself, and you're defending your own family and your neighbours. If there is an insurance system that doesn't compensate, it's not an insurance system but a fraud.

I was going to talk about the budget, Mr. Speaker, and I'll get on with that.

I was reading in the Times-Colonist, in the last paragraphs in a comment about the budget: "University of Victoria economics professor Leonard Laudadio gave Curtis a C for the budget. 'It's not a bad budget, ' he said, 'it doesn't make any enemies....' He said: 'It takes positive steps for business, but it will not solve any problems. I didn't expect very much."' Now that wasn't very much of a comment, but the name Laudadio rang a bell, so I want back to my files — the ones I have in my basement — and I checked my files.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: They're in the archives now, for posterity. I checked. In 1979 this little member gave a speech in which he predicted that in the 1980s a major recession leading to a possible depression was facing Canada and the United States. I gave the reasons for my prediction, and the press ran to the then head of the Economics department at the University of Victoria, who was Prof. Laudadio. He said: "Politicians should stick to politics, and economists should stick to economy." He says: "Lauk doesn't understand what he's talking about. Everything's going to be fine."

[5:45]

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure told him.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'd have been a lot happier if he was right.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said it all several years ago. He said: "Mr. Speaker, if all of the economists in the world could be laid end to end, that would be a good thing." Do you remember that? And it certainly would be. I've never met an economist who has been able to give any concrete advice to government, and any politician in a position of responsibility that accepts their advice in terms of making political economic decisions has got to be out of his tree. You just don't do it. I don't think anybody in this room does it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, they're worse, and we'll get to that soon.

One day, Mr. Speaker, when I shuck off this mortal coil and the spectre — the real one — is rowing me across to the other shore of the Styx, there are going to be some trembling economists and political scientists that I want to have a word with, who have misinterpreted, miscalculated and misadvised throughout the last two generations.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, they were disguised by different labels before.

I want to take you back to a time when government, as well as listening to their minds and to their experts, listened to their hearts. Do you remember the budget of 1975-76? Look at the front cover. There are young people running. Those are the days when there was laughter in the streets, when people were working, when things were going well, when youngsters going to school and university had not only a hope but a certainty of a glorious future. Things were good in this province. But all the Chicken Littles and the Social Credit Party were running around the province saying: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling."

Do you remember those days? My very good friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo, was the most distinguished Minister of Finance and, I will say, with the greatest respect for previous Finance ministers, the best Finance minister this province has ever seen — and I'm including former Premier Barrett. The member for Nanaimo was the best Finance minister this province ever had because he used his mind and his skill, and his heart as well. You cannot govern without using those three things. Let me remind you of his budget of 1975-76. One could glance over that budget and calculate the difference in percentage between tax paid by ordinary people and tax paid by the corporate sector, or business. If you roughly reckon the figures, the business sector of the province in 1975-76 were paying over 30 percent of the tax — 36.7 percent of the revenue to government was being paid by corporations and by businesses. The balance, the bulk, was paid by personal tax payers.

In this budget, even if we accept the misrepresentations of revenue and expenditure, ordinary people in this province will be paying 89 percent of the revenue to government. I have not even included in that figure consideration for federal contributions to our revenue, which are also paid for substantially by ordinary taxpayers. Eighty-nine percent of the tax burden is on ordinary people; 11 percent, and falling, is on corporations and big business.

This idea of from the top down has never worked; it only gets worse. The greedy corporate welfare burns will squawk like angry little robins, and you can't feed them enough. They are a black hole, a rat hole. You pour more and more

[ Page 7577 ]

taxpayers' incentives down their throats and they want more and more, They can never, ever be satisfied. But there are two governments, in Ottawa and Victoria, that are bent upon trying to satisfy the insatiable.

It is an unfair budget, Mr. Speaker. Looking at it from its broadest view, the difference is almost 40 percent. The revenues going for services and other great programs in 1975-76 were on the backs where in fairness they should have been: big business and corporations. In 1986 only 11 percent is on business and corporations. Yet the Social Credit members stand up and defend this budget as being far-reaching, futuristic, a vision of the future. That's why I found it difficult to connect the words and eloquence of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Pelton) to the words and lack of eloquence and actual misrepresentation of the budget speech,

Ordinary people in this province have been asked, through conservative right-wing clichés, to tighten their belts. There's no such thing as a free lunch, cut through the red tape — all the rest of the slogans of the right wing ' excuses for greed. A government that since they came to power in 1975 have consistently placed greed on a pedestal, and fall on their knees before it every day of the week. It is a budget of greed.

What is a government for? A government is supposed to supply the services to people. They're not supposed to get involved in huge megaprojects. They're supposed to get involved in the services to people, but the services to people....

MRS. JOHNSTON: It's called jobs.

MR. LAUK: It's called a million dollars a job. That's not getting a bang for your buck, Madam Member. If you relieved the ordinary taxpayer, you'd create a hundred times more jobs than you would with these silly megaprojects that are total failures. They are monuments to the ego and greed of the government, Mr. Speaker. They are a failure. That's the kind of mentality that we get.

As I say, one day we're going to return to the kind of Minister of Finance who's got more skill and intelligence than the Minister of Finance on the other side, but, more importantly, has that kind of heart and understanding for ordinary people that will make it a just and egalitarian budget, the kind of budget that ordinary British Columbians deserve and have not had for ten years.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled documents referred to in committee by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser).

Hon. Mr. Hewitt tabled the 114th annual report of the Ministry of Education, covering the period from July 1, 1984, to June 30, 1985.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.