[ Page 4119 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Workplace safety. Hon. L. Hanson –– 4119

Mr. Gabelmann

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

On vote 37: minister's office –– 4119

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Michael

Ms. A. Hagen

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

WORKPLACE SAFETY

HON. L. HANSON: I would like to bring to the attention of the House that today has been proclaimed as a day of mourning for workers injured or killed on the job. It is a most regrettable fact of life that, despite everyone's best efforts, tragic accidents do occasionally occur in the workplace. However, my ministry and the Workers' Compensation Board remain committed to working with all concerned to promote and improve workplace safety.

I realize that nothing we can say today will alleviate the suffering of those British Columbians affected by accidents and injuries, not just the workers themselves but their families, friends and co-workers. I ask hon. members to join me in a moment of silence as a sign of our respect.

MR. GABELMANN: I want first of all to thank the minister for a couple of things. One is the courtesy of providing me with notice about this statement, but more importantly to thank him and members of the government for acknowledging that today is declared by trade unionists across Canada and by others as a day of mourning in recognition of literally hundreds, and over time thousands, of workers who have been killed at their workplace.

I commend the government for making this an important occasion, recognizing it, and for the symbolic and very important gesture of running the flag at half mast today. I think that's an entirely appropriate gesture on behalf of many, many unfortunate men and women who have been killed in the line of their work.

I just want to say in closing that I trust all of us working together will put priority and emphasis on reducing the numbers of injuries and deaths in the workplace in a concerted and more energetic way than we might have in the past, and that in the future numbers such as 190 people being killed in one year, as were killed here in B.C. last year, will not happen again. I thank the minister and I thank members of this House for joining us all in one minute's silence.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, would you please rise for a moment?

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
(continued)

On vote 37: minister's office, $293,411.

MS. EDWARDS: Before I go any further, Mr. Minister, I would like to address a question to you. In the last session, the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services was instructed to examine the question of a single industrial tax rate. That is not in the terms of reference for the committee for this session, and I'm curious to know the state of consideration for that particular proposal. Is the minister still considering it? Is there some probability of it being brought in? My interest arises, of course, from the particular interest of some communities in my riding, so I'll leave the question for now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The issue is a perennial one, and for that reason, I felt last year that it would be appropriate to have an all-party committee give the matter some consideration. It has arisen, to my knowledge, at every UBCM convention that I've attended in the last dozen or so years; it's an issue raised by the industrial sector frequently, around which many points of view are heard. As a consequence of the committee being assigned the task last year, there was considerable further public input on the issue. The feeling currently is that there is no merit in revisiting the issue in a formal way. It has the appearance of being one of those imponderables that defies resolution in a way that would receive the necessary support from any one sector to make a change. It's another illustration of no tax system being perfect, and every time one tries to make it better, the opponents are just as vociferous as the proponents.

MS. EDWARDS: The question, of course, is not whether or not we shall tax, but how to tax. I don't know if the minister reflects some particular view on this. I understand the UBCM opposes this method of taxation basically, because it would mean a loss of autonomy for municipal government, and partly because it would create a situation which would encourage competition between communities. I am curious to know what the minister's feelings are on this because, as I said before, both the communities of Sparwood and Elkford have extremely high industrial tax bases. That tax revenue is shared by the three Elk Valley communities. I have another community in my riding which has a 2 percent industrial tax rate, so I have almost the whole range. Does the minister have any particular views on it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I have no particular bias on the issue, other than an earnest desire to put the matter to bed once and for all. I am aware of the powerful arguments on both sides of the issue. On balance, it would appear to me — in the political sense — to be an issue that isn't worth the time and effort to examine the prospects of change. Each side seems to be accustomed to the status quo, and to move the goalposts in order to merely retain a fifty-fifty balance of attitudes and biases seems to serve no useful purpose.

[10:15]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to pick up our discussion on Principal Trust. However, I do want to open by making a comment with respect to a comment that I made yesterday. In closing on this matter yesterday, in the minister's absence I took what I think can legitimately be described as a parting shot which really flowed from my frustration that the minister was leaving at 5:30. I'd like to withdraw that comment; I don't think it was appropriate under the circumstances. It's

[ Page 4120 ]

now come to my attention that our caucus had been advised that the minister was not going to be here from 5:30 to 6, and I had not been aware of that. I think the comment I made at the end was inappropriate, and I think in all fairness I should put that on the record.

I want to continue with the discussions we were having. I have had an opportunity to review the Blues from yesterday, and I note in particular that the Minister of Finance, in response to one of my questions, said:

"It will not matter a whit to this government what the ombudsman may finally decide in terms of influencing our ability or willingness to make restitution. It will be a useful public service, and we're happy to participate, because our view is that we are not responsible. In any event, the degree of responsibility and the amount of restitution that may be required in the unlikely event that we are found responsible will be settled by a court of law. "

The comment came in the context of a discussion that the minister was referring to about the fact that the ombudsman was investigating the government's involvement in regulation of the Principal Group. The minister pointed out that the ombudsman had been involved in a review of the work of the government in relation to the Principal Group.

I did not actually catch the comment at the time, but it caused me great concern this morning to have gone through the Blues and arrived at that, because what the minister is effectively saying is that the ombudsman may come to a conclusion relating to restitution and responsibility, but the government may not be prepared to accept that. Is that a proper reading of what the minister said yesterday in the Legislature?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I stand by my comments given in answer to that question, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member should be aware of the fact that the ombudsman has entirely different latitudes and entirely different issues to address than would a court of law. Therefore, in my judgment, it would be totally inappropriate for this government to make any prior commitment to take action as a consequence of the ombudsman's examination. Obviously, the ombudsman is an independent employee of this House, and as such, it's probably improper for any of us to attempt to predict or anticipate what he might or might not do in terms of his examination or his findings. I think the point needs to be clarified that the ombudsman's examination could result in a variety of consequences. From the point of view of the Principal investors, the best consequence that the ombudsman might be able to make in their interest would probably be some recommendations on the subject — but the key word is "recommendations." No government is bound to accept the recommendations. That's not to say that they wouldn't, but it certainly is not to say that they would.

In any event, the matter that concerns the failed investors in the Principal group of companies is surely simple restitution. While some of them may take some glee in pointing fingers and fixing guilt, nevertheless the objective and the bottom-line consideration is quite clearly restitution. No government is going to make restitution whether an ombudsman, with his rather wide-ranging latitudes, recommends it or not. That's an issue that would have to be dealt with by the courts, as I've said before.

The issue is not only restitution. Were the government to be found liable — and I repeat again, I do not find that likely — the issue is not only restitution per se but also the amount of any restitution that may be required. Once again, that's a question of legal interpretation and something that would not normally be within the purview of ombudsman-type recommendations. For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, the government does not believe it appropriate to give any indication that it's prepared to embrace or enact the ombudsman's findings or recommendations, whatever they may be.

MR. SIHOTA: Just to make this clear: the ombudsman is doing an inquiry. The ombudsman will be making recommendations as a consequence of that inquiry. The ombudsman may or may not recommend that restitution be paid to the individuals. Is the minister saying that the government is not prepared to accept the ombudsman's recommendations on restitution?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how much plainer I can make it. I'm not saying we will not, but I certainly do not want to create the impression we will. As I said earlier, I think the question is irrelevant in any event, because the substance of the question is going to have to be answered by the courts.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, first of all, it seems to me that the Minister of Finance is really undercutting what the ombudsman is there to do. Effectively, the point the minister is making is that this matter is going to be resolved by the courts and not by the ombudsman. It makes you wonder why we're getting into this inquiry by the ombudsman if the government is reluctant — I think that's the appropriate word — to pay heed to his recommendations, as they relate to the Principal inquiry.

The minister says that no government in its right mind would be prepared to accept the report of the ombudsman. I just want to indicate—- and invite the minister's comment on this — that in Alberta, Premier Getty has said: "If there is an indication of negligence or fault on behalf of the government, then the government will have to make up that negligence and fault. I'm sticking by that." He was talking in relation to the findings of the Code inquiry — not a decision of the courts but the findings of an inquiry.

Again, to the minister, it seems that the Alberta government is taking that type of position. Is he saying that he will not take the same position on responsibility as the Alberta government is taking?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm having some trouble following the consistency of the opposition's arguments. Yesterday they were trying to make the claim that we should have two inquiries doing the same thing for the same kind of mandate; now he seems to be questioning the role of even one.

MR. SIHOTA: That doesn't answer the question. The obvious reason we're dealing with the one is that the minister said yesterday he wasn't prepared to trigger the other. So I want to focus on the role of the ombudsman, because I think it is important for the investors. The minister said yesterday that the investors need some answers. The investors deserve some action. The investors don't want any further delays; things have to move on this. We don't need another study. He hung his hat on the fact that the ombudsman is doing a study.

Now, on a review of what the minister said yesterday and in light of what he said today, it appears that he's not even

[ Page 4121 ]

prepared to do what Alberta has agreed to do, which is to accept the findings of the inquiry. The minister's position at the end of the day can be best summed up as: "Take us to court. We don't care what the ombudsman says; we don't care to trigger any further inquiry; take us to court." Is that not the best summary of the government's position?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member is using words that I have never used and would not want to endorse this morning. What we've said is, the primary issue that interests the aggrieved parties here is restitution, and that restitution, in terms of its validity and its substance, can only be settled by a court of law; and the sooner the issue is brought to a court of law, the better for all parties.

MR. SIHOTA: It's clear from the minister's point that the only way this matter is ever going to be resolved in his eyes is if the matter is taken to court. Would the minister confirm for us whether the province of British Columbia has been made aware of settlement discussions between other provinces, particularly Alberta and Saskatchewan, and whether or not it has participated in any settlement discussions with the other provinces?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Maybe we could have the question repeated.

MR. SIHOTA: It's my understanding that some settlement discussions have been going on with various provinces in anticipation of the outcome of the Code inquiry, particularly between Alberta and Saskatchewan. Could the minister tell the House whether or not British Columbia has been privy to those discussions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member seems to be using information he's received from his own sources. Those sources are not our sources. We have no information about anybody talking about settlements.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to pursue another matter which relates to the presence of British Columbia regulators at the Code inquiry. Could the minister tell this House whether or not B.C. regulators have been invited to attend to give evidence at the Code inquiry?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: To the best of our knowledge, no B.C. individuals have been invited, although I think the hon. member is aware that the results and findings of the Lyman Robinson inquiry were offered and made available in their totality to the investigators in Alberta. So we have provided and are willing to provide all information and all who are willing to participate; but to the best of our knowledge, we have not been invited to do so.

MR. SIHOTA: At the time of the minister's departure yesterday I had raised a question as to whether or not B.C. had received a letter from the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation dated June 19, 1984. Will the minister tell this House whether or not his officials have had the opportunity to supply an answer to that question?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We have received no such communication from CDIC.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister tell the House whether at any time the province of British Columbia engaged in appraisal of the assets of the real estate holdings of Principal Group prior to the issuance of its licence? Under the Investment Contract Act there is a provision whereby if there is a dispute as to the value stated in the financial statements filed by the company, there is an appraisal mechanism triggered to allow for an appraisal of assets. Could the minister tell the House whether that has occurred in the past in relation to Principal Group?

[10:30]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I do not intend to answer such a question, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned yesterday, these issues will be resolved in the courts — I hope, soon. I do not intend to participate in any fishing expedition by the hon. member which might have the affect of subverting justice on the matter.

MR. SIHOTA: The matter of whether or not appraisals were done is one thing, and the content of those appraisals is another. If I ask questions about the content of the appraisals, then clearly the minister can use the shield he just used — not that I agree with him doing that, but he could. I'm just asking whether or not appraisals were conducted. I don't think that's a question that places the government at risk with respect to any lawsuits. Again, a question to the minister as to whether or not appraisals were conducted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member continues.

MR. SIHOTA: I guess we're seeing the cone of silence again, in terms of the minister's unwillingness to answer any questions that we're posing to him on a matter as simple as determining whether or not any appraisals were done by government regulators. It's my understanding that it had been done in Alberta, and the information has come out through the auspices of the Code inquiry.

The Code inquiry, as I understand it, is now in receipt of evidence that shows the value of the various properties was inflated by 60 to 70 percent, and at the end of the day, there was a dispute as to the value of those properties. As a consequence, there were some changes made with respect to the financial statements and with respect to government's commitment to doing future appraisals. It would have been of some interest to have that information, at least as far as it relates to the matter of appraisals. I'll move away from matters that the minister doesn't appear to want to talk about.

One of the matters that was of concern to me was this whole issue of Principal Group being able to place on their contracts representations that repeated various provisions of the Investment Contract Act. They said, for example, that the assets of the company must be equal to all liabilities, and that licences are granted by the government to FIC, AIC and the other Principal group in keeping with the provisions of the Investment Contract Act.

Those representations contained on the documents that investors saw gave a level of legitimacy to the contract that was used in part as a sales mechanism to encourage investors to sign the contracts. It also, of course, created the expectation in the minds of investors that government had somehow investigated and sanctioned the operation of these companies.

On a retrospective basis, does the minister now agree, by renewing the licences of these FIC, AIC and the Principal group of companies, that the government actually gave them

[ Page 4122 ]

an air of legitimacy in that it seems inappropriate now to allow those types of representations to be used (a) as a sales mechanism, and (b) to be actually repeated on the contract itself as a means of inducement? I'm wondering if the minister agrees with that. More importantly, what steps would you contemplate with respect to the elimination of those types of representations from contracts?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The rambling commentary contained at least two questions that I could identify. I'm not sure which one the hon. member is referring to.

In any event, some of his comments dealt with the question of fraud. By the appointment of Lyman Robinson and his investigative process, we were able to bring forward all of the evidence so that anyone who wishes to pursue that course of action in civil courts has the evidence to do so. Dealing with the question of misrepresentation and the fraud matter, Mr. Robinson had some specific recommendations in his report, which we have acted on. When we lacked the jurisdiction to act on them, we embarked on dialogue with the federal government on the matter. We have acted on all of the Robinson recommendations that we were capable of acting on.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to repeat the question, because perhaps the minister didn't appreciate the comment I was making. The question was not whether the minister has embraced all the recommendations of the Robinson commission. The question relates to whether the government intends to bring in any legislation to provide additional assistance to the consumer. These companies utilize the fact that they are regulated and they utilize the provisions of the Investment Contract Act specifically. They use the general application of the statute to their companies as a way to comfort innocent investors into believing that there is nothing untoward about these companies.

It seems to me that (a) that ought not to be used as a sales mechanism, and (b) it should not be on the contract to allow one to use it as a sales mechanism, because the investor who may be somewhat wary is then assured by the salesman that the company has been regulated and given a green light by government, and all of its assets are equal to its liabilities. I'm just wondering what steps the government intends to take with respect to the removal of those types of representations on contracts.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'll repeat, Mr. Chairman: we've acted on all of the Lyman Robinson recommendations that we are empowered to act upon, and I think that answers the questions the hon. member asked. For example, we are repealing the Investment Contract Act, we're making changes to a variety of other financial acts, and we've made representations to the federal government about the use of the words "guarantee" and "deposits." I'm telling the hon. member what he already. knows. He was quoting from the Robinson report himself yesterday. I don't know why I should have to repeat it this morning.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not too sure if that was one of the recommendations of the report. If it is, then of course my question is redundant. I don't see it in here, but I may have gone over it quickly. If the minister could point it out to me, I would appreciate that.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Recommendation 12 in the report, the news release issued with the report, all of which was made available to the member at the time.

MR. SIHOTA: Recommendation 12 says:

"Consideration should be given to repealing the Investment Contract Act and making such amendments to the Securities Act as may be necessary to bring investment contract companies under the jurisdiction of those parts of the Securities Act that would be applicable to investment contract companies. If this recommendation is accepted, it may be necessary to consider enacting transition provisions which will apply to the one remaining company which is currently registered under the Investment Contract Act, and thereby enable the company sufficient time to comply with the provisions of the Securities Act."

Nothing prevents a company in a similar situation to Principal Trust from saying at the bottom of its contract, "This company is sanctioned by the provisions of the Securities Act," if I can use that example, then repeating all sorts of provisions in the Securities Act to give comfort to the investor, and then use that as a sales tool to induce people to enter into those contracts. I'm not convinced that's a legitimate use of the regulatory process, as a sales mechanism. Recommendation number 12 doesn't deal with that matter; it deals with the repeal of the Investment Contract Act. I'm wondering if the government has any intentions of outlawing such representations.

It's no different, Mr. Minister, from the other issue I raised some time ago — not during the course of these estimates. It seemed somewhat misleading for the Principal group of companies to list its companies and at the bottom of the list have the words "Insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation." That insuring provision applied, of course, not to companies like FIC and AIC, but when you walk in through the door, the first thing you see is "Insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation." They're using the comfort one gets from that statement as a way to sell contracts in companies not so covered. It seems to me that that's not an appropriate sales technique. I don't know — I haven't looked at the Trade Practice Act this morning — if it's banned in that act. I don't think it is. I wonder whether the minister has expressed some concerns or intends to take any action with respect to representations of that kind on the actual contract document.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member largely is giving the speech that Lyman Robinson gave at the time and that I gave when his report was released. He hasn't said anything new or different; he's just said the same thing we've said: it's not a perfect world.

To the suggestion that someone could put the Securities Act underneath and make reference to it and therefore wrap themselves in some misleading, deceiving flag, if that's the legislation they're going to use, then they're going to have to file a prospectus and comply with the Securities Act. We're satisfied that there are more protections in that act for these kinds of abuses than in others; we've just made some changes there.

We can wander around and ask all sorts of airy-fairy questions, Mr. Chairman, but the issue is being addressed and has been addressed by the Lyman Robinson report, and as I said, we've implemented every recommendation of his that we could legally implement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, it might be appropriate at this time to remind all hon.

[ Page 4123 ]

members of one of the very learned rulings by Sir Erskine May when dealing with matters discussed in Committee of Supply. That is — and it seems to me that we're getting into this area — that we should not discuss the need for legislation in any way, shape or form, insofar as it relates to the matters that the Committee of Supply is dealing with. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has the faculty of phrasing his questions in such a way that he can avoid any problem in this regard, but I point it out as a matter of procedure and I think it's becoming to us that we all learn these matters as we proceed with dealing with the Committee of Supply. I just bring that to your attention.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move on to another topic, but before I do that, I'd just like to comment to the minister that I'm raising this issue from a public policy perspective. It's obvious that the minister doesn't have an understanding of what seduces people to sign these contracts. Certain representations have a greater seduction value than others — representations along the lines that government is regulating these companies, that these funds are insured, that all the assets equal all the liabilities of the company — and provide comfort to those people, particularly seniors, who enter into these agreements. It seems to me that there ought to be some limitation to prevent the misuse of statutory authorities in the fashion that happened in the Principal situation. Point made.

I want to ask the minister another question. It has now come out, not through the Code inquiry but through the minister's own regulators, that there was a delay between April 1, 1986, and August 26, 1986, in renewing the licences of these companies. That's an inordinate amount of time to wait to approve the licences of these companies. Could the minister advise this House as to why there was such an inordinate delay at that time in approving the licences of the companies?

[10:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to respond to fishing-expedition questions. The issues that the hon. member is fishing to develop and embellish will be the subject of a court case. The sooner that court case proceeds, the better for all interested parties, including the appellants who the hon. member is professing to be protecting here.

MR. SIHOTA: I have one other question, if the minister is not prepared to answer that. One of the things that struck me in terms of reviewing this whole matter is the fact that the Ontario regulators were far more stringent in their review of these companies.

For example, when the Principal group of companies endeavoured to establish themselves in that jurisdiction, they ran into considerable difficulty and actually backed away from involvement in those jurisdictions. I wonder if the ministry has examined the regulatory process in Ontario as it relates to these companies. Could the minister advise what steps the government has taken to provide the same level of comfort and protection from these companies that was afforded to the citizens of Ontario and which was lacking, of course, in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The allegation the hon. member made just now is one that I've heard before. It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that the timing of the application to the province of Ontario was the determinant in Ontario's reaction to the presentation. In other words, as they say in every other circle, timing is everything. The timing of the firm's application to Ontario, as I understand it, was the reason that Ontario couldn't proceed.

At that time the firm was in somewhat different straits than it might have been at other times. The implication that Ontario was imbued with a greater degree of circumspection than ourselves or Alberta is misplaced and unfortunate, and it is merely a reflection of the state the companies were in at the time they made the particular application to Ontario.

MR. SIHOTA: The application in Ontario was in 1983, and at that time the Ontario deputy superintendent of insurance wrote: "I am unable to recommend to the superintendent that registration be granted." The minister says that timing is everything. That was back in 1983; these companies collapsed in 1987. If you want to talk about timing, it would be one thing if the application in Ontario had been made in 1987, but the application was made in 1983.

Presumably all the information that went to Ontario was information that was available in British Columbia. Presumably the regulators in British Columbia could have come to the same conclusion as they did in Ontario. Therefore a lot of the hardship that has flowed since then could easily have been prevented. I don't think that one can dismiss the argument simply on a matter of timing. Is the minister aware that the information that went to Ontario was analogous to the type of information that British Columbia requires in order to grant its licence? Was the minister aware when he made his comment that the Ontario application happened in 1983?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member is once again fishing for material which might well find its way into a court of law as evidence. I don't wish to subvert justice in that respect, so I am not going to get involved in any lengthy discussion about it. The hon. member should remember that at that time, the province of Ontario and its regulatory authorities were having their own problems with native Ontario firms. Once again my reflection on the question of timing being everything should be remembered.

In any event, I don't wish to participate in or further answer questions going down this road, for the same reason I refused to answer the other ones. I think it's important that the issue be dealt with in a court of law and equally important that the court of law and the process of justice not be subverted by conjecture and comments which would be taken out of context in this House and used as evidence in that larger, more appropriate legal arena.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the House will forgive me for a moment, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds wishes leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MERCIER: I notice in the gallery a number of students from Edmonds Junior Secondary, and I would request the House make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a pleasure to see the students for Edmonds Junior Secondary. I had the opportunity to be there at the multicultural function and meet some of the students,

[ Page 4124 ]

so it's a pleasure to see some of them in the precinct and the gallery today. Hopefully, they're enjoying what's transpiring in the House.

I guess the minister's comment comes as somewhat of a surprise. First of all, I asked a question about Ontario. One other purpose of asking the question, apart from what the minister would suggest, was simply to point out that there was little validity in the minister's argument that timing made the difference. The application was made some time ago. I think it's in keeping with the effort on the part of the minister to not really deal with: the issue at hand.

I want to remind the minister again that he's quite prepared to put all his: comments in context. Should any of this information be available to court — and it's highly unlikely that comments in Hansard would be made available in court — he's quite capable of representing himself in explaining the context, because undoubtedly there'll be government lawyers in court.

I think we'll end it there in terms of the comments I wish to make on Principal Trust. Suffice it to say that there is a great level of concern on this matter. It is worrisome to investors and myself that the whole tenor of the government's reaction to date has been to say: "Look, we can't guarantee all these investments for these so-called risk-takers and gamblers." These people have never asked the government to guarantee their investments; that isn't why they are so perplexed at the actions of government. They only asked the government to do what it ought to do: regulate, not guarantee. There are some serious questions as to whether or not that regulatory process was doing its job properly. No one expects the investments to be 100 percent guaranteed by government, but they want to be assured that the government regulators did their job in keeping with the provisions of the act. It's my own view that that hasn't occurred.

Secondly, it's of concern to me that the minister has chosen to take the position that he will not pay heed to the report of the ombudsman and that the matter should go to the courts at the end of the day. Investors are looking forward to the report of the ombudsman, and it's astonishing to hear the minister say now that all these matters are going to be resolved in court.

Thirdly, it is of concern that this government is not prepared to extend the terms of reference for a further inquiry by Mr. Robinson. We've discussed that in depth and there's no need for me to make further comment on that.

Next, there is, of course, an obligation on the government to provide some type of assistance to these people other than the words of sympathy we get from the minister, particularly assistance if the matter goes to court and in light of the costs that are building up from the accounting and the other end.

We will undoubtedly be revisiting this issue when the ombudsman's report is made available to the House and, inevitably, when the matter goes to court. I guess at that time we can ask the minister additional questions on the issue of Principal Trust.

In conclusion, I want to thank the minister and, more particularly, his staff for being available in the House to address this issue. That concludes my comments on Principal Trust.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to turn now to new programs, specifically new initiatives of $85 million, with the total vote being $90 million. First, I would like to ask the minister to give a general comment on this new initiatives program. Under the heading it points out that this includes Initiatives for Strengthening the Family and social programs, science and technology and health care initiatives. I'm particularly interested in how these moneys are allocated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to oblige questions, but the hon. member prefaced his remark by dealing with vote 74; I thought we were talking about vote 37. I'm quite happy to deal with this pot-pourri approach, if that's the wish of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does vote 74 come under another ministry?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, vote 74 is my ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I might bring to the attention of hon. members that it has been the habit of this committee, over the past few years, that rather than restricting debate to the particular vote before us at any given moment, we allow the latitude of dealing with matters in other votes within the ministry, on the basis that when we come to the point where the first vote is being called and is approved, the other votes will follow automatically behind. Is that satisfactory to the minister?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory to me as well.

I would like to ask the minister to comment on this new program. In my critic area, of course, I am most interested in the headings "Initiatives for Strengthening the Family" and "Social Programs." I would like to ask the minister the general purpose of this fund. What are the criteria, what is the total amount allocated to those four different headings, and what is the interaction between the Minister of Finance and other ministries in deciding how these funds will be allocated? I would also be interested in knowing just how the total amount put in for this fund was arrived at.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member has, I think appropriately, initiated a discussion about a new vote, vote 74, which the government introduced this year for the first time in an effort to restore some integrity — to use my words — into the use of contingencies and unquantified government expenditures. It's a matter, I gather, of philosophical debate over the years, as to the appropriate way for government to deal with these issues.

[11:00]

This government has decided, to the maximum extent possible, that when we know we will have an expenditure to make during a coming fiscal year, the numbers of which can't be quantified with exactitude, then it's appropriate for us to put them into a new vote account so that (a) we have provided for the money and we have a certainty of availability; and then (b) that the contingency account itself would therefore be more available for totally unexpected eventualities. It's a small move by this government towards providing full and complete funding so that we might minimize the use of special warrants or any other fiscal device which so often prompts debate in this Legislature. It's our attempt to continue providing responsible fiscal management to government's affairs.

[ Page 4125 ]

Dealing with the specific question the hon. member raised of the program for strengthening the family, I believe my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), together with the Premier, has already held public meetings on the subject and disclosed the contents of the material. I don't have that with me here because I believe it's already been the subject of public disclosure. We can quickly get the hon. member a copy if by some remote chance he happened to miss it. I think it's a matter of public record.

MR. CASHORE: The minister's response really makes the point that I am seeking to make with regard to social programs as far as this fund is concerned: that the minister really cannot be and should not be expected to have within his area of expertise the various headings that come under this vote. The minister referred me to the announcement that the Premier made, flanked by the Minister of Social Services and Housing and the Minister of Health with regard to his Initiatives for Strengthening the Family program, but the fact remains that apparently some of these moneys come under this fund. Since this fund is under the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, it therefore becomes the responsibility of that minister.

One of the things I'm really concerned about is that we have a situation developing which — to use a term that is not the most pleasant term — has the appearance of being a slush fund that enables some direction to take place outside the purview of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, for instance. This is incredibly inappropriate, and it reflects a basic mistrust of the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. Both that minister and the deputy minister must have some very serious moments of private reflection with regard to why this fund was set up in this way.

One of the questions I asked the minister was: what are the criteria for making decisions about how these funds will be spent? That is an appropriate question, and while I do not expect this minister to have expertise in all the various ministries of government — I don't think that's appropriate to expect of any minister at any given time — the fact is that since this has been launched with this minister, that expectation is de facto there. The people who should be expected to have expertise in the area of the delivery of social services are in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. The fact remains that this fund has not been lodged there.

I would still like the minister to tell this House what criteria he will be applying in deciding how these funds should be spent and how fairness will be assured. I would like him to tell this House specifically what the role of the Premier's office will be in deciding how these funds are spent. I would like him to give a rationale that goes beyond what he said in his remarks a few moments ago for these funds for social programs being outside the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

Apropos of that, the minister said: "This should restore integrity into the use of contingencies and unquantified government expenditures." That is an incredible statement. The very thought that this minister is having to take steps to rectify what he admits to be unquantified government expenditures that must have existed. Surely if there is a problem with unquantified government expenditures, the way to address that problem is to go to the ministry that is delinquent in those matters and get them to clean up their act.

What this brings forth is a scenario that eventually could see vote 74, vote 75, vote 76 and on going into little funds dealing with little pockets of concern every time the Premier of this province has a brush fire to put out, so that he can stand up and publicly state.... For instance, with regard to single mothers who were having their money taken away, he said that if he knew of anybody for whom this was inappropriate, he would personally intervene. That's an expression that the Premier is somehow going to take into his office the ability to comment on those kinds of things. But that is routed through this ministry if, in announcing programs such as the plan to save the family, this is where some of the funding is going to come from.

I would like the minister to explain to this House in considerable detail exactly how much of this money is going to be spent under each of the four headings; what criteria this minister will be applying; what role his staff will have; and what is the interface between his ministry and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing in the administration of these funds. Upon sober reflection, would the minister not agree that it would be far more appropriate to trust the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to have responsibility for these funds, whether or not there had been previous evidence of unquantified expenditure in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds seeks permission to make another introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interrupt the debate, but I omitted to mention in my former introduction of the Edmonds Junior Secondary students that they have with them as their guests a group of students from Thetford Mines, Quebec. If they promise not to laugh, I'll welcome them en francais. Je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue aux etudiants du Quebec qui sont les invites de l'Ecole secondaire Edmonds. Will the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The new programs vote was designated for those issues we knew we had an obligation to complete during the fiscal year but were not yet comfortable with the sums of money required to do so. The hon. member can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. In the old days, what would have happened is that that program would have been funded presumably out of contingencies or special warrant. I've sat in this House hour after hour listening to the hon. members opposite complaining about the special-warrant approach to government. In an honest attempt to play the game in a straightforward, upfront manner, this government decided that when we knew we were going to have those sort of commitments and didn't yet know the exact sums, we would alert the opposition and the world that we had that intention.

I'm sorry if this approach, which is more open and one which, I think, is preferable from the point of view of the citizens of this province, offends the hon. member. I have some trouble agreeing with him that the process is flawed; I think this is an improvement on the process. I can certainly tell you, as someone who is responsible for presenting the financial affairs of the province, that I think it's a considerable improvement.

All the issues in the special vote are priority issues of government. I trust the member isn't serious when he asks

[ Page 4126 ]

me to state the sums in the account for purposes of wage negotiations and settlements. Is that his desire? Is he suggesting that we should send our negotiators to the bargaining table with both hands tied behind their backs, Mr. Chairman? Surely not.

The issues of strengthening the family and all other issues connected with the special vote will require the approval of Treasury Board; so the review process and ability to influence or change any recommendations will come from the Treasury Board side, as they properly should. That's the way government is managed from the financial side.

The programs for strengthening the family provide for public information through various media activities — counselling, referral services and prevention information relating to unexpected pregnancies. The program includes funding for supportive living environments, education, rehabilitation, infant and in-school day care and adoption services in support of those experiencing unexpected pregnancies. It's a pretty comprehensive program, as I think the hon. member is aware, having many, many facets to it.

In any event, I don't think the hon. member is serious in wanting to get into an in-depth discussion of that issue today. To the point the hon. member tries to make — that this is a less responsible way of presenting the financial affairs of the province — I categorically disagree. Had the ministry been prepared to include this initiative in their estimates, then the member's comments would have been valid; but they were not. At the time we went to press — adjudicating and closing down these figures — the issues were not settled. There was not, at least from my point of view as Minister of Finance, an adequate level of information to have any confidence about what the total global sums required might be. Indeed, as the member knows, some aspects of the program are open-ended and will depend on drawdown rates anyway.

Back to the point being made. When you're faced with this sort of issue, where you know you have a commitment to make and you're not yet ready to quantify it, how do you deal with it in a financial sense? I say to the House and the member opposite that the way the government chose is far more responsible and open than to allow matters to unfold and to introduce a special warrant some time after the House has risen, where you'd have no opportunity even to be alerted to the fact that we are considering initiating such a program. It seems to me that this is a far more responsible way to deal with matters.

[11:15]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has not really attempted to deal with the questions I have been asking. I feel some empathy for my colleague from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I have asked the minister three times now: what are the criteria that the minister will be applying to make decisions about how these funds should be spent?

When the minister says that this fund was here because it's a better way of going about it and it was needed, he has admitted that something I've been saying for quite some time now is correct. That is that the Premier discovered the existence of the family at a particular point in time, which necessitated some money being made available to help bail him out. Surely the minister is not going to suggest that this type of fund should be set up within his ministry to cover contingencies for virtually every other ministry of government.

He's standing there telling this House that this is appropriate and a better way of going about it. I'm not standing here arguing that the government should increase its abuse of special warrants, and I'm not suggesting that the government needs to get into setting up more contingencies. We all know that there need to be contingencies. I'm suggesting that there is here, in fact, a statement of a colossal mistrust by this ministry and by the government in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to be able to administer its responsibility under the GAIN act, the Family and Child Service Act, the Adoption Act and other acts for which it is responsible.

If there were that confidence, the minister would be able to respond to one of the questions I'm asking, which he is evading: why would this fund not be set up, if it is so necessary, within the Ministry of Social Services and Housing? In connection with that question, does the minister plan to be taking some people into his office, who have expertise in the social services, to advise him on how these moneys should be spent?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The lead ministry on the Initiatives for Strengthening the Family is the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, and I believe that my colleague the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has some interest in participation in the program. I don't intend to speak on their behalf. It would be arrogant of me to attempt to do so, and unlike other members of the House, that's not a characteristic of my personality.

The question of expertise on my staff.... I don't know whether the hon. member is aware, but I am fortunate to have a dedicated staff member reporting to me who deals with a ministry of government. All ministries of government have a liaison person on my staff who helps to advise Treasury Board on their progress during the fiscal year. There is that connection. But you should not leap to the conclusion that that gives me any ability to interfere in the line ministries' operation, because it does not; it merely keeps us informed.

I don't know how else I can explain it. The hon. member seems bent on fulfilling his own preconceptions in consuming his allotted time to tell the world about them, and I'm quite happy to listen to that as it unfolds, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the Initiatives for Strengthening the Family, would the minister tell the House, in reference to a comment he made a few moments ago about hiring.... The minister has acknowledged that there would be hiring. He said that you couldn't disclose sums because that would mean that when you had to be negotiating with regard to hiring of staff, it would be giving them the benefit of information that management wouldn't want them to have. Would the minister tell the House what the hiring policy will be under those moneys that this ministry administers; and will there be a policy of hiring people who come from the public service?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am afraid my remarks might have misled the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. My remarks on one portion of the allotment in the new vote.... It didn't deal with hiring; it dealt with the question of wage negotiations. We have provided some dollars in this account to cover the effect of salary increases for direct employees.

Dealing with the general question of hiring, I think the hon. member has heard different line ministries say that we

[ Page 4127 ]

have the comfort of knowing we have vacancies in the system in place so that we can adequately fill, in house, vacancies which may arise as a consequence of privatization or any other government initiative. Maybe with some exceptions, I rather doubt that there would be any mass hiring by government from the outside private sector. We've got all kinds of flexibility in house, I think, to handle those sorts of circumstances.

MR. CASHORE: I take it, then, that the minister is saying his ministry will not be doing any hiring or wage negotiations, but that they will simply be handing the money over to the ministries of Health and Social Services to do that and handle it as they wish. Is that correct, or will the Ministry of Finance be doing some hiring in connection with the funds for Strengthening the Family, for instance?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, we would not anticipate doing any hiring in my ministry as a consequence of this Strengthening the Family program.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister, with regard to the funds for Strengthening the Family: the media campaign that has been involved in very expensive TV ads.... I've heard figures quoted in the millions of dollars for the cost of the ads. Would the minister tell me if the ads are being paid for out of this fund under Initiatives for Strengthening the Family?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that they would be.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister tell us the amount?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, I'm not in a position to provide that. I think the line ministry could. I'm only interested in global figures, Mr. Chairman. Getting down to that level of specifics, the line ministry will have to provide them.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's very unfortunate that this information is not available to the House at this time. I would think that the very least the minister could do would be to take the question on notice and give his undertaking to inform the House with regard to the amount of money being spent on advertising for this program. It would be interesting, for instance, to know what percentage of the $20 million of new money is actually going into the ads. I don't think that's an unreasonable question to ask the minister.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I did not catch it being a question. If you wish to put the question to me, I'm happy to oblige. The question was: did I have it? I didn't, but you didn't ask me to provide it. If you ask me, I'm happy to provide it. So let's not dance on the head of a pin. If that's what you wish, we will provide it. Certainly we're pleased to do that. But ask the questions before you take the cheap shot about us denying you the information.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows full well that there isn't room for me on the head of a pin. I am sorry if I offended him. The point is that I asked him for information; he didn't have the information. I was just saying that it would have been a worthwhile and friendly gesture if he had volunteered to make that information available. That's fine. I certainly wouldn't want to see the minister get as upset over that question as I've seen him get over some other questions.

Mr. Chairman, I think the point has to be made — and it has been confirmed by the answers we've been getting — that this fund is an embarrassment to this government; that this minister has done his very best to try to bafflegab his way through the questions about this fund. But the fact remains — the minister knows it: the people sitting with the minister know it — that this is a slush fund, pure and simple. This fund has been set up to enable the Premier to appropriate the people's money for his own political purposes. which have nothing to do with long-range, comprehensive planning of the delivery of social programs in this province, something which is desperately needed. That's the fact of the matter. I think anyone who is involved in this process would have to hang his head in shame.

The people of British Columbia are being treated and manipulated in this way simply because the Premier of this province got himself into a political jam following January 20 and the intemperate remarks that he made with regard to the Supreme Court decision on abortion. How does he deal with that? He ends up getting the victims, the people of this province who have to endure his silliness, to pay for this unnecessary fund, which is set here as a slush fund. Who knows how these funds are really going to be used? Are they going to be used for hiring people who are part of the public service, are they going to be used for various kinds of privatization where the bottom line is turning a profit, or how are they really going to serve?

We've had the fiasco, in terms of this so-called new money, of reading articles soon after this program was announced saying there would be a $3 million home for unwed mothers. Then we found out that it wasn't even necessary. Then we heard it said in the House by the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) that that money was not for capital cost. Then we turned to the document which had been put out by this government where it pointed out that the $3 million for supportive residential accommodation includes $1,675,000 in operating costs and $1,325,000 in capital costs.

The government's been backtracking all the way because they didn't have a plan. When the government set up this fund so that it could dip into it, it was done without any effective research whatsoever, including research that could have involved talking to the people who run the Salvation Army home for unwed mothers and discovering there isn't even a need for that type of program.

There is a need and there has existed a need, an increasing need since 1983 when the Social Credit government went into its ill-conceived restraint program — a program that has done severe damage to the people of British Columbia. It's impacted families in an unfortunate way, and by having this fund under the Ministry of Finance, it has enabled me and others to stand during this ministry's estimates and comment on the appalling condition of the delivery of social services in this province. Now a piece of Social Services has become a piece of the action of the Ministry of Finance, simply because there's no trust that that ministry can fulfil its mandate. So it's being done this way.

Now we have — this is in the context of these estimates in general; it's not only in the context of these funds — this

[ Page 4128 ]

minister, who stands up in this House at the time of presenting the budget and talks about how prosperity has been visiting and blessing the people of British Columbia. He stands up in this House and talks about how the benefits that have been given to corporations and the very rich will trickle down and benefit the other people of B.C. Then we find a statistical report from the National Council of Welfare that says that family poverty grew faster in B.C. than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s. There were 105,500 families living in poverty in the province in 1986, up 53 percent from the 69,100 in 1981.

[11:30]

The question that poor and middle-income people in this province have to ask when we hear the trickle-down theory being expressed by the Minister of Finance is: "Have you been trickled on yet?" The fact is that it just isn't trickling down. The prosperity that this minister speaks about is not being shared. It's not being experienced by other people in this province who have every right as taxpayers, citizens and participants to participate in what this minister is referring to.

This statistical report is an indictment of the policies of this government. In the Province on April 21, we had an article with the headline: "We're Poorer Than in 1980. " It said: "The 1980s haven't been good to British Columbians, new census figures show. Taking inflation into account, average B.C. family incomes plunged 9.7 percent to $37, 665 in the first half of the decade."

The Minister of Finance of this province has been co-opted into the Premier's interference, in which he would use the poor and the disadvantaged, unwed mothers and single-parent families for his own political aggrandizement. The minister has been co-opted into this by becoming the person who must watch over the slush fund which has so inappropriately been created. This government must hang its head in shame, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite made a number of rather aggressive statements in his rambling dissertation. The last one dealt with the question of average family incomes, which was discussed at some length with the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). Had the attention span of the member opposite been greater, he might have saved himself the wind, because that issue was dealt with adequately yesterday.

I've noted, in previous comments that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has expressed in this House, that his basic economic premise seems to be a compulsion to focus almost exclusively on the question of income redistribution. I've noticed it throughout his remarks, and that's a basic socialist tenet, of course, which is held, I suspect, in varying degrees by all members opposite, but most aggressively by the hon. member from that particular constituency. Many of his comments just made deal with that whole philosophical issue of government's responsibility and the responsibility of all citizens in that area. That's a heavy subject, and I suspect we are not going to deal with it adequately in the time remaining this morning.

I categorically refute the allegation by the hon. member opposite that this treatment of new votes for unquantified amounts is inappropriate or a device indicating lack of confidence in a line ministry. As a matter of fact, the very reverse is true. If the member had a more generous heart, he might be prepared to concede that in an abundance of fairness the Ministry of Finance has agreed to provide funds for a program that isn't yet quantified or developed by a line ministry. So to the allegation that it exhibits lack of faith, I say that the reverse is true: it exhibits more faith than previous governments have had in this whole process of budgeting and providing funding for programs which we feel a moral compulsion to deal with but are not yet — by virtue of the preparation work — ready to quantify. The hon. members can't have it both ways; pontificate and breastbeat as they might, they can't. We did our best with this new program to recognize some of the complaints made about special warrants. By this device, we avoid that occurrence.

If we want to get into a question of abuse of special warrants, I'd be happy to give you some history, in the event you've missed some of the historical lessons that we've brought forward on that subject in the past. I think this is a responsible way for the financial affairs of the province to be presented. Members can't have it both ways: they either have special warrants or they have this. I take it they want neither. That's amusing, given their own record of abuse of the special warrant process in years past.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to ask the minister to answer yes or no to this question. In view of what he has just said, is he saying that he is moving away from using special warrants and into this process as policy? Has the minister announced to this House that we'll be seeing more of this kind of fund and less of special warrants? Yes or no?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I wish I had the rather simplistic view of life exhibited by the hon. member's question and its level of understanding and appreciation of how life works. Obviously, this is a device — vote 74 — to minimize the use of special warrants. That's not to say that it will eliminate special warrants. I'm afraid, unlike some of the members opposite, that I don't have the confidence to predict with accuracy the events that may unfold in the next ten or 11 months. Therefore special warrants might well be necessary. I can't say today that we will never again use special warrants, but surely to goodness any sane person would appreciate that the provision of moneys in this vote has the effect of minimizing the use of special warrants. It's self-evident, surely.

MR. CASHORE: Just to reiterate, the question was not whether he would ever use special warrants again. Has the minister announced a policy shift that would diminish the use of special warrants and increase the use of this kind of fund — yes or no?

MR. JONES: Will we see fewer special warrants?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: My earlier answer indicated that this device — vote 74 — will have the effect of reducing special warrants. You would take more comfort if I said it had the effect of reducing special warrants. I will use those words, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would prefer me to use them. They have the same meaning. Talk about dancing on the head of a pin! This is a little bit strange and unusual for me. I am sort of used to dealing with the real world of numbers, facts and figures, and I find this difficult to comprehend.

MR. MICHAEL: Not having been able to speak to the minister on this particular point during the budget debate, I

[ Page 4129 ]

would like to make it now under his estimates. There was no mention in this year's budget of any money being set aside for a natural gas line extension program for rural communities. I would like to make a sincere plea now, Mr. Minister, that you give this serious consideration in the preparation of your estimates and budget for next year.

It's very important in my constituency, and in other rural communities, to extend the natural gas lines into such communities as Sicamous, Sunnybrae and Kault Hill — small pockets of people ranging from 25 or 50 to 200, and certain areas of more significant size, of course. The city of Revelstoke still does not have natural gas, nor does Golden. Hopefully we'll be able to put a proposal before cabinet at some point in the future on extending a line to Revelstoke on the basis of a major economic initiative currently under study in that area. But for the small communities, the small pockets of people — I think of Sunnybrae, Sicamous and Kault Hill as examples — it is a very important program and something that I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to for next year's estimates. We used to have a program — two, three, four, five years ago — that was very well received in my constituency.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: How pleased I am to get a positive suggestion out of this useful exercise. What a pleasant change! I want to applaud the hon. member for the suggestion. Indeed, when I visited his noble constituency a week or two ago, I was made abundantly knowledgeable of the benefit of his almost sole driving force in bringing natural gas to the members of his constituency. I saw evidence of that in Chase, and there is just no doubt that such a program has great benefit to rural British Columbians. I can assure the hon. member that his representations have not gone unheard.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to pick up on the comment the minister made a few moments ago that he appreciates the world of hard facts and solid figures. I want to try to draw him back to that. I also want to do that in the context, first of all, of the special projects vote.

On the day that the minister made his budget speech, literally within an hour of that speech the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) was making some announcements about a special project that I really felt should have been within his ministry if it was so specifically designed, as it appeared to be in his attempt to explain it. However, as we got the report of that particular project in Victoria — one-stop shops for seniors and a continuing care program — it became clear that the line ministry had very little knowledge of where the project had come from and what it was to encompass. The minister seemed to be in the very unenviable position of having to make some informed statements about a project that seemed to have come not from his ministry but from the Ministry of Finance or some other part of government.

I would like to ask the minister where the project for Victoria to deal specifically with seniors' health needs did come from, and what dollars are specifically allocated for it in the special projects funding.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The program for the Victoria pilot project was one that was developed in concert with senior staff from my ministry and the Ministry of Health. I'm not aware of the difficulty the hon. member refers to, but in any event that was a joint initiative in the sense that it did require much investigation and research work in order to determine how we might most effectively deal with this very contentious and emotional issue of health care costs.

The member asks how much money has been allocated to that particular initiative. I regret that I cannot embark on that exercise for the obvious reason that included in this envelope are moneys for negotiated settlements, not only with employees but also with some contractors. I can't, by virtue of elimination, allow the hon. members to bare the government's negotiating position before the negotiations take place.

The question is how much money is provided for this pilot project in greater Victoria. The simple answer is: enough, Madam Member.

[11:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: Two questions to the minister. Could the minister clarify the involvement of his ministry in this project rather than the Health ministry exclusively — because clearly it is a line ministry task. Could the minister also explain why, if he has no figures for the amounts available for this particular project, amounts have been announced at various times over the last month since the project was first unveiled by the minister? I have heard amounts of $2 million and $4 million. Initially it was four, two for each project: the one-stop shop and the continuing care project. I have also heard reports that the one-stop shop has in fact been shelved and that there will be $4 million for the continuing care project. Why are these figures extant if the minister has no amount that he's prepared to discuss in this House? Those amounts were part of the Minister of Health's releases when the matter was first discussed the day the budget was on the table of this province for the first time in March.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. members opposite seem to be focusing on the same issue dealing with this vote 74: the propriety of putting sums of money into this account versus putting them in the line ministry accounts. The answer, as I've said repeatedly and as I said in the throne speech, was: at the time we prepared the budget we did not have the numbers quantified with sufficient comfort to allow them to be included in the line ministry's figures. It will take, I suspect, many months before the specifics of some of these programs can be quantified so that Treasury Board would have comfort in terms of approving them.

Unlike previous governments, this government considers itself fiscally responsible. We don't just throw money at line ministries and say: "Here it is. Go and do this." What we say is: "We are interested in seeing a program develop. Will you tell us how you will develop it, so we can decide whether we think it's worth funding or not?"

As I've said earlier, we could have reverted to the traditional role and used special warrants when we had the comfort we needed to bring forward special programs. Or we can use this approach, which is to preordain at the beginning of the year that we will have X number of dollars to do these worthwhile projects if, as and when they finally get approved by Treasury Board, so that they are quantified properly and the cost benefit is determined, and we can make some rational judgment about how public money is spent.

The last two speakers have dealt with the philosophical question about the propriety of using this account. I have to give the same answer: if you don't like it this way, then the only alternative the government, has is to go back to special warrants. Is that better! You can't have it both ways. We

[ Page 4130 ]

believe this is more responsible, and that this is the fair way of funding these programs if we are committed to them. But the exact sums that they may require aren't known.

If the Ministry of Health has, since last month, quantified this particular pilot project, I'm unaware of it. Certainly the matter has not yet come to Treasury Board. So it may well be that different figures are being bandied about. I've not heard them and wouldn't want to feed the rumour mill. The issues will come to Treasury Board and be dealt with there, which I think is the appropriate vehicle and structure for these kinds of issues.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, when I learned sums, I learned that if I had to get $85 million, I had to have some parts to make up the $85 million, and that it didn't come out of the air. I find it passing strange that the Minister of Finance is not prepared to acknowledge that there had to be some sums that were a part of this.

I want to repeat that the Minister of Health has not quantified these figures in the last month. Those figures were in the public domain within an hour of the budget speech being delivered in this chamber in March, and I will simply make that as a statement of fact.

I want to move to another set of figures on which I hope the minister will be able to provide some enlightenment. We have, as part of the revenues and expenditures of ministries, fees that are received, and I want to deal specifically with fees received in the Health ministry. For example, we have Medical Services Plan premiums, which are reported in revenues, but there are a number of other fees which, quite honestly, I have not been able to find in my review of the budget statements. I hope the Minister of Finance will be able to find them for me and give me that information.

People who use services in this province in health and home support areas, and people who live in long-term care facilities, pay fees. We know that this year, as a result of the presentation of the Minister of Finance, they are going to pay considerably more. Every senior, for example, in a long-term facility is going to pay $900 a year more in fees. That will be indexed quarterly as their basic income goes up, as the old age pension and guaranteed income supplement increases.

We know too that there is going to be a sliding scale of fees for people in long-term care which will cause up to a doubling of the fees they are presently paying. Some of the people who are presently paying $15.70 a day may be paying up to $32 a day. I cannot find in the statement of revenues in the blue book, the estimates book, information that tells us what the total fees have been for such services in the past, and I cannot find any estimate of what those fees are going to be in the future.

That information, Mr. Chairman, is very important for us to have and understand if we are to look at the costs of these programs that this minister, quite inaccurately and quite irresponsibly, has been touting as the out-of-control costs of health care. We know that particular perspective is false and not borne out by research, but neither is he able to give us an accounting of income and outgo. We know what the outgo is, but we have no information about the income, and I would invite the minister to give us information about where in his statements we have figures of the fees paid for services in health, particularly in the continuing care area, for facility care and for other home support programs, what they have been in the past, and where I can find that projection for the coming year.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I believe the hon. member is referring to the per them fees. I believe those fees are paid directly to the operators of the extended-care institutions.

MS. A. HAGEN: Does the ministry have any accounting of those fees as a part of their total budgeting for long-term care and home support facilities? Is there any means by which the public can know, therefore, what proportion of the total costs of those facilities are being paid by fees, as distinct from the contributions that are made from the taxpayers of this province?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if that isn't a question that the Minister of Health can be asked to respond to. However, before the hon. member leaps to the same outrageous criticism I heard from the previous speaker, I would be happy to have the information provided, if that's the hon. member's wish.

MS. A. HAGEN: Yes, I would request that information, because it is not clear to me, nor to others, how much we have seen an increase in fees that are paid in proportion to the costs that are prepared by government. I would ask that the minister have that information available to us at the earliest possible time.

It seems to me that if we are going to look at what I consider to be an absolutely outrageous taking of additional funds from the pockets of seniors, we need to put that in proportion to the amount that government is paying. If government is going to be accountable for its handling of the health care dollars of the province, that information should be made available. I would be interested in seeing how that is accounted for at the earliest possible time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE: I would like to point out that in the members' gallery is Louise Rolston. Louise is the wife of Rev. Peter Rolston, who was a member of this House from 1972 to 1975. She is an educator and a consultant in education, which is what brings her to Victoria at this time. I ask the House to join me in welcoming Louise Rolston.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.