[ Page 5777 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mr. Clark –– 5777

Supply Act (No. 1), 1989 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 5784

Second reading –– 5784

Committee stage –– 5784

Mr. Rose

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Guno

Mr. Miller

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Hon. Mr. Reid

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Kempf

Third reading –– 5796

Royal assent –– 5796

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DUECK: I rise to inform the House that Jim McDonald, Victoria's 1989 citizen of the year, passed away on Wednesday afternoon. Jim established Victoria's Heart House, a home away from home for people to stay while a family member is in the hospital. It is a reality today because Jim and his wife Dorothy never said that it could be done, but that it would be done. I was privileged to meet with Jim on a number of occasions and attended the opening of the Heart House with Jim and Dorothy. His tenacious spirit and commitment to his community will be sadly missed, and my sympathies are extended to Dorothy, his stepchildren Paris and June, and his three grandchildren and two great-grand children.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like, on behalf of our caucus, to reiterate the words of the Minister of Health. Mr. Jim McDonald was indeed a great British Columbian who set up a very remarkable home — in my neighbourhood, actually; I know it well. He worked diligently for those who suffered from heart disease and provided a home for families whose members were suffering from this horrible disease. He and his supporters have brought a very remarkable idea to Victoria, and we certainly join with the government in sending our condolences and sympathies to the family.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I take this opportunity, on behalf of all of us here, I am sure, to congratulate Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin on her appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. This appointment, as you are aware, results from the recent resignation from the court of the Hon. William McIntyre, a long-time B.C. lawyer and subsequent justice. It is reassuring that with the many important issues before the court, several of special significance to B.C., Justice McLachlin, a resident of B.C. for many years, has been appointed to Canada's most distinguished court.

I also commend the Prime Minister for continuing the practice of appointing highly qualified persons to the court. Justice McLachlin will bring a wealth of background of the west and Pacific Canada to the Supreme Court of Canada.

MR. GUNO: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House, I also want to add congratulations on the appointment of Ms. McLachlin. I know that it's a unanimous acceptance by the bar and that she's going to be a great addition to this august court. I want to commend such an excellent choice.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of my colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) and myself, I would like to ask the House to welcome Chuck and Jo Reed, constituents of ours who have been resident in the Kelowna area for over 40 years.

Chuck is a retired orchardist and a grape-grower; Jo is a well-known potter in the Okanagan area. They are visiting Victoria because they have a daughter who is the manager of public relations with the Ministry of Regional Development. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Would the House welcome today Harvey and Betty Gee from Vernon. Mr. and Mrs. Gee are the mother- and father-in-law of Robb Gibbs, who works in our communications department. Robb is responsible for writing other views of government policy in our communications department. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Gee this morning.

MR. MILLER: In the gallery today is a woman, Kay Lackner, who has worked for many years for the New Democratic Party. We politicians all know that they are the real people behind the power. I'm sure they're here to listen to the finest opposition response to a budget speech they are likely to hear.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker and members of the House, almost 200 years ago an illiterate sailor whose name was Sampson Rose arrived from Dorset to join his brother Pete. He took up land in the northeast end of Prince Edward Island. In 1805 Sampson married Elizabeth Baker and ultimately had 12 children, which was not a particularly remarkable feat of fecundity for those days. But in no time, in the last 200 years, the seed of Sampson spread all over North America. It's even been rumoured that baseball hall-of-famer Pete Rose might be a distant relative — but don't bet on it.

One Rose who stayed home was Lloyd Rose of North Lake, P.E.I. Lloyd and I share the same great great-grandfather — the founder Sampson. Lloyd is in the gallery today with his daughter Alice and her friend Randy Rolston. Welcome to the B.C. Legislature, Lloyd.

MR. BRUCE: This evening is a very important event for the many Beavers of the province of British Columbia. I'm sure you will all be interested to know that this evening at B.C. Place, where many great events are held, 10,000 Beavers from throughout the province of British Columbia will be sleeping on the floor for an evening of camp-out. It will be the largest Beaveree in the history of the province of British Columbia. I will be there doing my bit with my boys as a Beaver father. I'm sure this House would love to extend congratulations and best wishes to all the Beavers in the province.

Orders Of the Day

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CLARK: I'd like to begin by paying tribute to Dave Stupich. For the last 15 years Mr. Stupich, who is now the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo, has made the New Democrats' response to the budget

[ Page 5778 ]

speech. He was the longest-serving member of the assembly, and he did an outstanding job on our behalf.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the budget on behalf of New Democrats. As I indicated in my comments yesterday, this budget must be seen in the larger context of the government's overall record. Within this context, the budget represents a cynical attempt by an unpopular government to regain support. It will, I am sure, be viewed by British Columbians as just that.

[10:15]

First, the government has repeated dozens of times during the last 24 hours that this is a balanced budget. It is clear that it is not a balanced budget. Very simply, a balanced budget occurs when you collect as much revenue as you spend; but this year the government will be spending $500 million more than it takes in. No matter what paper transactions the government makes with its BS fund, they cannot hide the fact that it is a deficit budget.

Secondly, the government has the audacity to suggest that this so-called balanced budget was achieved by good management, when during the past few years it imposed tax increases of $500 million on the backs of middle-income and working people. The people who were subjected to those tax increases know better. This is a government that gutted our education programs and now boasts that education is one of its priorities.

I've had meetings with some education officials, students and teachers, and I can tell you that they know that Social Credit governments have no commitment to education. This government gutted the Ministry of Environment and has an abysmal record of enforcement. It now boasts about its commitment to a sustainable environment. This government over the years has gutted housing programs and now boasts about its commitment to housing. The people that I have talked to in the housing industry know better.

British Columbians know this government has no commitment to quality education, the environment, housing or any of the principal goals held by British Columbians. Credibility and trust are built on years of consistent and effective policies. This government's record as represented by its budgets is inconsistent and ineffective.

It is a government which practises yo-yo economics. One day it eliminates a university in the interior, and another day it vows to create one. One day it cuts education spending; the next day it increases it. One day it cuts environmental programs; the next day it vows to expand them. Nowhere is this erratic inconsistency better represented than in the Premier himself, who visits Alaska to view an oil spill but refuses to visit Long Beach on Vancouver Island.

In my response today, I will highlight these inconsistencies and these erratic and unstable policies. I will show that this government has no vision, no plan and no consistency. Let me begin by reviewing briefly the state of our provincial economy as we enter the 1990S.

British Columbia is a province that is blessed with a rich supply of natural assets second to none. It is not surprising, therefore, that when we look at our economic record during the 1970s, we see that we out performed almost every other province in Canada, During the 1980s, however, we have had one of the worst performances in Canada. Let me cite some examples.

At the height of the last economic boom in British Columbia, 1981, the province's overall unemployment rate of 6.7 percent was below the Canada average. By 1988, at the height of this economic cycle, the unemployment rate was 10.2 percent, well above the Canadian average. In 1978 our gross domestic product per capita was 10 percent higher than for Canada as a whole. In 1987 it was 2 percent lower. Average personal income shows a similar pattern.

In 1978 our level of business investment on a per capita basis was 10 percent higher than the Canadian average. A decade later, in 1988, it was significantly lower. Housing investment in 1978 was 23 percent higher than the Canadian average. A decade later it was lower. Investment in social capital in 1978 was 16 percent higher than the Canadian average. A decade later it was lower. Ten years of Social Credit, ten years of neglect.

I am pleased that the B.C. economy has finally improved. However, we still have a long way to go to achieve acceptable levels of employment, income and investment— both business investment and investment in social capital. To meet the challenges of the future, British Columbians need a government with a vision and a clear sense of direction. A budget should reflect this vision. It should represent part of a cumulative series of changes designed to give direction to our economic and social development. This government acknowledged that in yesterday's budget and in the 1988 budget, when the minister stated: "...this budget creates the structures which help remove the uncertainties of the future We are building a long-term economic plan for the province and a strategic plan for government.... "

It is appropriate then to view the current budget not as an isolated document pertaining only to the coming fiscal year but as part of a longer-range economic strategy. We must assess it in light of both the budgets which have proceeded it and the future challenges that it seeks to meet.

I have met with a number of British Columbians over the past couple of weeks to ask what they would like to see in the budget. These British Columbians, who represented a broad spectrum of society, from business leaders to ordinary working people, told me that a budget should be judged on the basis of three basic goals or values: first, its fairness to individuals, groups and regions; second, its response to the basic economic and social priorities facing British Columbians in the 1990s; and third, its contribution to the basic economic and social stability.

Let me deal with the question of fairness. Fairness has a number of dimensions. The first is tax fairness. The government must raise the revenues necessary to pay for essential public services on an equitable

[ Page 5779 ]

basis. To do otherwise is simply unethical. It's also bad economics. The continuation of sustained, broadly based economic growth in British Columbia depends on a wide distribution of purchasing power.

A second dimension is regional fairness. All regions must share in British Columbia's prosperity. This is not only ethical but essential to smooth economic development. It prevents the emergence of bottlenecks in high-growth areas such as Vancouver and of self -reinforcing stagnation in slow-growth areas.

A third dimension is fairness among and between individuals. It is ethically unacceptable to have the existence of grinding poverty in the midst of general affluence. A society that avoids wide extremes between rich and poor also avoids the social conflict that such differences produce and maintains a higher overall quality of life.

How does the Social Credit record measure up on the grounds of fairness? I am sorry to say that the record of this government on fairness is abysmal. Successive Social Credit budgets have taken us down the road to an unprecedented level of tax unfairness. The present budget does absolutely nothing to rectify the situation.

The four budgets preceding this one represent a two-staged attack on ordinary taxpayers: first, a huge $500 million annual tax break for corporations; next, a $500 million annual tax increase on individuals— a blatant and dramatic shift of the tax burden away from corporations and onto the backs of ordinary people.

The corporate tax breaks were contained in the 1985, 1986 and 1987 budgets. In the 1985 budget the corporation capital tax was phased out with an ultimate revenue impact of some $100 million per year. Non-residential property taxes were reduced at a cost of approximately $250 million a year. Water taxes were frozen at a cost of some $60 million per year. Over the following two years, income taxes for large corporations were cut by two percentage points, at a cost of well over $60 million per year. This trend continued through 1987, with further tax breaks to banks and mining companies worth $18 million a year.

Secondly, the '87 and '88 budgets imposed a dramatic $500 million increase in the taxes and other charges paid by individual British Columbians. The 1987 budget contained a much-heralded reduction in the sales tax totalling some $260 million, but it was far more than offset by the over $450 million worth of increases, including: higher personal income taxes, $195 million; higher taxes on goods and services such as fuel and insurance, $58 million; a new property purchase tax, $150 million; large increases in licences and user fees, $30 million.

The changes to the personal income tax made the system much less progressive. The removal of the high-income surtax, which cost British Columbians some $30 million while at the same time increasing the basic tax rate, had the effect of raising taxes for low- to middle-income earners and of lowering them for the richest British Columbians. The 1988 provincial budget pushed this assault on average British Columbians even further with: $150 million in increased medical services premiums; $40 million worth of other new licences and user-fee increases; $45 million in increased fuel taxes; $100 million in new taxes on liquor and tobacco, including a new tax on draught beer.

The overall results of this longer-term strategy the government brags about should surprise nobody. The burden of financing government services has fallen increasingly on individuals, while the contributions of corporations have fallen. In the 1984-85 fiscal year, personal income tax provided approximately 30 percent of all non-natural resource revenue collected by the provincial government. In 1988-89 this share was 34 percent. In '84-85, user fees and charges accounted for under 11 percent of all non-natural resource revenues. In 1988-89 they were 13 percent. In '84-85, businesses contributed almost 18 percent of non-resource revenues in the form of corporate income taxes, capital taxes and non-residential school taxes. In '88-89 they contributed only 13 percent.

Another area of concern is school taxes. In 1982 the Social Credit government eliminated the right of school districts to tax commercial-industrial property. The result has been a dramatic increase in the burden of many homeowners. For Vancouver homeowners, for example, from 1982 to 1988, their share of the Vancouver School Board budget increased from 19 percent to 30 percent. The government's centralization of the commercialization of industrial property tax base has resulted in a windfall of $250 million given to the corporations from 1985 to 1987 at the expense of homeowners.

The government had a chance to rectify these inequities in this budget; the government has chosen to maintain them. Let me illustrate what this means for ordinary British Columbia families.

If the government provided $500 million in tax cuts for families instead of corporations, this would be sufficient to cut personal income taxes by 20 percent, cut the sales tax by one-third or eliminate medical premiums. The average family would have benefited by approximately $500 — that's $500 in the pockets of every family in British Columbia. The government had a choice between working people and large corporations, and it chose the corporations. This clearly shows where their priorities lie. And to salt the wounds of ordinary taxpayers, they impose tax increases of $500 per family to fund the tax cuts that the corporations took. As a result we have a tax system which is unfair, unjustifiable and unsustainable.

The Social Credit government's policies have also been unfair to British Columbia's regions. While the lower mainland has experienced boom conditions and rapid growth, many other regions have been left behind. Almost 80 percent of the new jobs created between 1983 and 1988 were created in the lower mainland and Victoria. The result has been the emergence of two British Columbias, a dual economy: one experiencing rapid growth, which is threatening the quality of life; and the other, outside the lower main-

[ Page 5780 ]

land, experiencing stagnation, population outflows and high unemployment.

[10:30]

In 1988 official unemployment levels for British Columbia's regions were as follows: lower mainland, 9.5 percent; northern B.C., 9.9 percent; Okanagan, 10.7 percent; Cariboo, 11 percent; Vancouver Island, 11.4 percent; Lillooet-Thompson, 14.1 percent; central Kootenay, 14.7 percent. These figures seriously underestimate the true extent of unemployment because they don't count the individuals who have given up looking for work, they don't count involuntary part-time workers and they don't count women who have withdrawn from the workforce.

A rational government would pursue a strategy to manage growth pressures in Vancouver and encourage growth in other regions in British Columbia that need jobs. This would require a government with vision and a commitment to fairness and sound management. Instead, we have a government which has no strategy, no vision and no commitment to regional fairness.

With respect to individual fairness, the gap between the richest and poorest British Columbians continues to grow. It is exacerbated by the policies of Social Credit. The National Council of Welfare reported last April that family poverty grew faster in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada in the 1980s. The latest statistics from the council reveal that 105,500 families were living in poverty in British Columbia, and 461,600 individuals in total are living below the poverty line in this province.

The pain of this government's unfairness is all too real for thousands of low-income earners. There is no sign in this budget that the government cares in the least. Any government which can continue with tax break schemes for corporations and the wealthy and come up with a new program in this budget that provides interest rate subsidies for developers while food bank lineups wind around our streets is a callous government.

Any governing party which can come up with a budget in 1989 that does not provide any funding at all for food programs for hungry children — for the hundreds of young people who go to school with empty stomachs every day — is a party that does not deserve to govern a day longer.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: You can laugh, Mr. Premier, about hungry kids in Vancouver. Do you know that just before Thanksgiving the Vancouver Food Bank issued an emergency appeal for donations for its more than 12,000 clients? At that time, they announced they might have to halve supplies of infant formula to the 60 babies in Vancouver who were dependent on them for this food because the formula is so expensive. What has happened in a province as wealthy as this one that we have babies dependent on charity for basic nutrition?

The Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. had one answer last year when they said: "Long lines at food banks and the presence of hungry school kids are testimony to the failure of our income security program." It's long past the time that a budget was presented in this House which attempted to provide some meaningful fairness for individuals in British Columbia.

Let me now turn to the second goal: meeting economic and social priorities. During the last few months, I had meetings with a large number of British Columbians right across this province of ours. I've asked them what priorities they would like to see in the budget. They consistently emphasize two priorities.

The first is achieving sustainable development. If our economy is to continue to fulfill the economic aspirations of British Columbians we must begin to recognize the fundamental role played by our natural resource endowment, and promote economic growth which enhances rather than depletes this endowment. In the words of the Brundtland commission, "sustainable development" means "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Clearly our long-term economic future depends on the investment we are prepared to make today in our natural resource base.

Our second major priority for the 1990s is investing in the human resources and social capital, which are the essential underpinnings of our future growth and quality of life. Sustainable development presents a series of challenges which affect almost every area of the economy. New Democrats are putting forward concrete solutions in the form of 22 private members' bills during this session of the Legislature.

The Leader of the Opposition announced now initiatives in the area of research in value-added manufacturing in his reply to the throne speech. Today I want to focus on this government's budget record in two specific areas: forest management and environmental protection. The forests represent our single most important resource industry. A large part of our current economic boom can be attributed to high prices for forestry products and record production levels. Our annual cut in 1987 and 1988 was approximately 90 million cubic metres, well above the yearly average levels of approximately 75 million cubic metres which prevailed between 1979 and 1986.

In 1987-88, the forest industry contributed $745 million to the provincial treasury in direct revenue alone. In 1988-89, it contributed $639 million. However, serious questions have been raised concerning the sustainability of the current harvest levels. Without sustained yield, it will be impossible to achieve balanced budgets or to increase economic opportunities in British Columbia's regions.

However, the record of this government on forest management has been poor. Over the last three decades, successive Social Credit governments have increasingly turned over harvesting and management responsibilities to large corporations. As a result, we have a highly concentrated industry, particularly on the coast, where the four largest forestry companies now control 68 percent of the annual cut. The trend

[ Page 5781 ]

toward privatization and lax management of our forests accelerated during the mid-1980s. Between 1983 and 1987, overall staffing levels allocated to the Ministry of Forests were cut by 24 percent, from approximately 4,900 to approximately 3,700 full-time equivalents.

The Social Credit government's failure to recognize the need for reforestation and silviculture has resulted in a large backlog of insufficiently restocked forest lands. In 1988, silviculture expenditures were 17 percent lower in real dollar terms than they were in 1983.

During the last fiscal year the government underspent its forestry budget by $40.8 million. The budget does not propose any new initiatives in forestry. Spending is projected to increase by only 4.3 percent, lower than the rate of inflation. In real terms, spending is declining at the very time the pressure on our forestry resource is increasing.

In the area of environmental protection, the Social Credit government's record has been equally bad. Not only have existing standards for major polluters such as pulp mills been inadequate, but the government has neglected to monitor pollution levels and has lacked the political will to enforce existing standards. Staff levels at the Ministry of Environment declined by about 25 percent between 1983-84 and 1988-89. As a result, environmental monitoring has become so ineffective that British Columbians have had to rely on the efforts of federal government agencies to bring important problems to light.

In 1988, this government compounded the situation by privatizing the Environment Lab. This important component of our environmental protection system was sold for a mere $850,000, only a third of its real market value as estimated by Price Waterhouse, chartered accountants. In the process of privatization, staff levels have been cut, valuable expertise has been lost and the level of service has declined.

In the area of enforcement, independent studies, one by the University of Victoria and the other by the federal Department of the Environment, have shown that existing standards for major industries are routinely unenforced. In the area of municipal sewage disposal, the level of provincial support was cut in 1983 despite growing water pollution problems. It is estimated, for example, that $1.5 billion is required to correct problems in the Greater Vancouver Regional District alone. Correcting these problems will be beyond the fiscal capacity of the region alone if current cost-sharing formulas are not revised.

All of a sudden, the Social Credit government is throwing money at the environment. A closer look however, tells us that little of it is landing in the right; place. Of the $200 million announced for the environment, only a little more than half is going to the Ministry of Environment. The rest is smoke and mirrors, amounting to funding programs that have been given an environmental label. For example, the minister stated in his budget speech that building the Vancouver Island pipeline and burning wood and coal were environmental programs. Only a Social Credit government would describe building a pipeline and burning coal as part of a sound environmental policy.

An additional $28 million of projects has been announced. If this was a serious commitment, it would not be funded in an ad hoc manner out of lottery funds. This is yet another example of the Social Credit government making grandiose statements without foundation and without commitment.

A youth program has also been once again announced. We are still wondering about the JobTrac program which was announced in 1987 and which quickly disappeared, leaving no youth funding available for assistance when the oil spill was upon our coastline. Despite the announced increase in funding for the environment, staff levels are still down 25 percent from the 1983 levels.

At best, this newfound interest in the environment is an inadequate attempt to bring us back from a decade of neglect, and certainly does not address a long-term future commitment to the environment. One of the strongest indictments of this government's commitment to the environment is that the Ministry of Environment did not even spend all of last year's budget.

Despite increased spending for water and sewer systems from $20 million to $35 million, and last week's promises to assist the city of Vancouver with its sewage treatment system, this budget does not appear to contain any of the $1.5 billion that Vancouver needs for that sewage treatment project.

Adequate levels of investment in human resources and social capital are as important as investment in our natural resources. Both are essential for our longer-term economic and social development. However, the record of the Social Credit government in developing our human resources is just as bad as it is in protecting our natural resources. We have lagged behind in all the key social areas: education, health, housing, transportation and social services. In place of a careful, well-thought-out plan for the province, we have had a decade of neglect.

Education has been neglected at all levels by Social Credit during the 1980s, from the primary to the university level. Direct provincial expenditures on education, in constant dollars, decreased from $726 per capita in 1982-83 to $679 per capita in 1987-88. Capital budgets for the public school system were particularly hard hit. Between 1979 and 1984 approved capital budgets averaged $206 million per year in constant dollars. Between 1984 and 1988 they averaged only $66 million per year.

The result has been a public school system which has been unable to prepare our children adequately to become productive members of society. The Sullivan commission report noted recently that for every 100 students who begin grade 9. between 35 and 40 fail to complete high school, The commission noted that this ratio was disturbingly high relative to other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, and it concluded that, "this rate represents a loss which an economy which is increasingly based on knowledge and expertise can ill afford."

[ Page 5782 ]

A great deal of the approximately $3 billion of new operating capital funding recommended by the Sullivan commission is required simply to reverse the neglect of the past decade. The results of systematic underfunding have been even more disastrous at the university and college levels. At a time when most other advanced industrial economies are recognizing that advanced education is a key ingredient of future economic progress, our universities have been underfunded.

To take just one example: the University of Victoria taught 45 percent more students last year than it did in 1978 with 5 percent less funding. In British Columbia as a whole, last year 8,000 to 10,000 students were turned away from post-secondary institutions due to lack of space. Many others were discouraged from attending by sharply increased tuition fees. British Columbians now have the worst record in Canada for both university participation and the number of degrees awarded. It is estimated that the province needs 15,000 to 20,000 new post-secondary spaces just to bring it up to the current national average.

[10:45]

The recently announced "Access for All" policy, which aims to create 15,000 new university spaces, one new interior university and new regional degree programs, will only remedy some of the problems created by past underfunding and the closure of the interior university. An ironic contradiction of the "Access for All" initiative is that student assistance in this budget is to be cut by $7.5 million. Some of the education officials I talked to suggested we should rename the program "access for the few."

Equally distressing is that senior officials at the universities, who I've met with recently, have told me that the $35 million increase will do little to alleviate their underfunding problems because too much of the money is tied to specific initiatives controlled by the province. The post-secondary institutions do not have discretionary access to the funds necessary to meet their priorities.

In health care, the major preoccupation of government appears to be with controlling usage and costs associated with increasing premiums and user fees. For example, there have been user-fee increases in all long-term-care facilities. In 1987 the elderly began to pay 75 percent of dispensing fees for prescription drugs. As I have already outlined, MSP premiums were boosted dramatically last year, this budget imposes further increases of $37.5 million. At the same time, key areas of the health care system have been neglected. Poor planning and insufficient investment in long-term care and community care have increased pressures in acute care hospitals and have led to long waiting-lists for surgery.

Between 1983-84 and 1988-89, real spending on long-term care and home care dropped from $155 to $147 per capita. In 1988 Statistics Canada data shows that B.C. has the second-lowest level of operating expenditures per patient-day in Canada. In May 1988, it was estimated that almost 21,000 British Columbians were on waiting-lists for elective surgery at 20 major hospitals; about 80 percent were facing a wait of at least two months. In June 1988, there was a waiting list of 300 cancer patients seeking radiation therapy at the Maxwell Evans Clinic in Vancouver. In March 1989, there were 225 people on waiting-lists for cardiac surgery at three major hospitals.

Preventive care, which has the potential to reduce the demand for high-cost hospital and physician services, has remained a very small part of the health care budget — under 2 percent in this budget. Recent studies by the Toronto city department of health show that a key component of preventive health care is adequate social programs to reduce poverty. Families below the poverty line have double the infant mortality rate and 1.3 times the rate of cancer. Under this government, the number of families in British Columbia below the poverty line has increased from 64,100 in 1981 to 105,500 in 1986. As studies show, this dramatically increases the rates of infant mortality and cancer.

In housing, neglect, poor planning and underfunding have created a crisis. The problems are well known. In greater Vancouver the average price of a small family dwelling has increased by 65 percent since 1987, putting the dream of home ownership well beyond the reach of the average buyer. Townhouse and condominium prices have increased by 47 percent during the same period. Vacancy rates for rental housing are virtually zero, and there are long waiting-lists for non-market housing.

Direct provincial funding for this type of housing has been erratic and has shown a serious decline in real terms. Between 1987 and 1988, for example, direct provincial financing for housing programs was more than cut in half under this administration — from $56 million to $22 million. Only 1, 683 units of non-profit housing were funded in 1987, compared to a waiting-list of over 17,000 people. This budget proposes an equally inadequate commitment of 1,800 units for 1989-90. The Crown land special account which provides funding for residential land development was reduced under this government from $228 million in 1988, leaving a balance of just $50 million.

With the abolition of rent review and the rentalsman as part of the Social Credit government's so-called restraint package, British Columbia tenants now have no real protection against arbitrary evictions and excessive rent increases. Vacancy rates are so low that tenants do not have the realistic choice to move and are too poor to get into the home-buyer market. The budget measures for housing will do little to resolve a crisis created by years of neglect by successive Social Credit administrations. The proposals are misguided and counterproductive.

The property purchase tax relief promises support for housing that costs less than $150,000. First of all, there is virtually no family housing available at prices under $150,000 in areas such as Vancouver which are experiencing the housing shortage. Even if there were, this program requires people to go further into debt to be able to take advantage of the property tax relief. Encouraging family debt is hardly the basis of a sound housing strategy.

[ Page 5783 ]

The budget also proposes increases in the SAFER grant and a temporary new renters' tax reduction. Virtually every study has shown that this type of assistance provided to renters will simply increase rents and line the pockets of landlords in a tight housing market, without adequate rent review measures. The budget proposes interest subsidies for developers. Again, almost all the studies have shown that programs to subsidize developers will increase developers' profits, not the supply of affordable housing. In short, the budget proposes a series of ad hoc measures which will do little to solve the housing crisis in the lower mainland,

The provision of adequate levels of social assistance and social services is an investment in our future. With the increase in the number of single-parent families, the health and productivity of our next generation depends on the level of such services. Again, the Social Credit government's record in this area is poor.

In 1980 a family of four received $734 a month from Guaranteed Available Income for Need support payments. In 1989 a family would require $1,160 to maintain an equivalent standard of living. However, GAIN rates in 1989 were only $973 per month. This budget provides a miserly increase of only $26 a month. This represents a decline of approximately 15 percent in the real standards of living of our poorest citizens relative to 1980. In 1980 a family of four on GAIN assistance had an income 40 percent below the poverty line. In 1989 the same family’s income is 50 percent below the poverty line.

The situation is no better for the working poor. In 1980 the minimum wage in B.C. was 6 percent above the poverty line. In 1988, despite an increase to $4.50 an hour, the minimum wage was 19 percent below the poverty line. The budget contains no proposed increase or even mention of the inadequacy of the minimum wage. As is well known, this government tried to add insult to injury last year by cutting GAIN support payments for single-parent families by $50 a month.

The third criterion for evaluating the budget is stability, the achievement of a stable and consistent fiscal environment. In order to invest in and plan their economic future, individuals, groups and corporations need some assurance that there will not be dramatic or capricious changes in government policies. Any review of the record represented by the last five provincial budgets shows that the Social Credit government has failed to provide a stable economic environment. If there is any clear tendency which stands out in this record, it is the failure to set a consistent or coherent direction.

The government, Mr. Speaker, is erratic and unstable. In the area of taxation we've experienced sharp and unexpected shifts in direction. Nonresidential property taxes were slashed by $275 million in 1985, only to be boosted by $46 million in 1988. Small business received a temporary two-year employment tax credit worth $75 million in 1985 followed by large taxes increases of $37 million in 1987 and then a cut of $30 million in 1988. Rather than increasing user fees, premiums and other charges gradually, to keep pace with the cost of living, dramatic increases are introduced in a single year after years of neglect: for example, almost $200 million in fee increases in 1988 alone.

In the area of spending and investment priorities, this government's record is equally erratic. In forest management, years of insufficient funding for silviculture are followed by dramatic increases, resulting in bottlenecks, inefficiencies and wasted resources. In the environment, years of indifference are followed by newfound expressions of concern and promises to mend past errors. In education, a systematic and deliberate policy of underfunding is followed by a crash program which attempts to correct an accumulation of past problems. In advanced education, the closure of an interior university is followed by the promise to build a new university in the interior. In the area of women's issues, the government has shown nothing but contempt for women's rights; now it claims it wants to create a ministry of women, but there's not a penny in the budget for new programs for women. In housing, programs are slashed, and then the government attempts to resolve a housing crisis overnight by misguided housing programs. This sort of instability, Mr. Speaker, is bad policy. It's bad economics. And it's bad government.

Yesterday's speech launched the first provincial budget of the new decade of the 1990s. As we move into the nineties, what sort of vision has the government presented, and what sort of vision are British Columbians seeking? Regrettably, this Social Credit government has offered us a reinforcement of unfairness, a perpetuation of the dual economy — of two British Columbias — a continuation of the policies of neglect, and a failure to do anything real or meaningful about sustainable development.

British Columbians have a right to expect a good deal better than that, for — even with a Social Credit government — British Columbia remains one of the most beautiful and most fortunate communities on this planet. British Columbia is a rich province with a tremendous amount of potential. Our future can be tremendously bright, and our citizens know it; that's why they've been looking to this assembly and to this government here for some leadership and some vision. As we move into the 1990s, I believe British Columbians are looking for policies which will restore fairness to our society, policies which will ensure a healthy future for our children and a stable, diversified and sustainable economy. British Columbians are looking for policies which could lead the world in protection and enhancement of the environment.

For all these reasons and many more, I believe British Columbians are extremely disappointed with yesterday's smoke-and -mirrors effort. For those British Columbians, I'm happy to bring some good and hopeful news. There is a group that is working as hard as humanly possible to bring forward the kinds of policies this province so urgently needs and deserves. That group, of course, is the New Democrats and the caucus right here in Victoria. There is an alternative

[ Page 5784 ]

to the erratic and unfair approach of this Social Credit government. British Columbians deserve better, and in the days ahead, as the debate on this proceeds, it will be our privilege to outline some of the ways we can realize the aspirations that British Columbians rightfully hold.

[11:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move we adjourn debate on the budget until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1989-90 have been debated and voted upon in this Assembly. This supply will provide interim supply for the first three-month period of the 1989-90 fiscal year which begins tomorrow.

This interim supply is urgently required in order that a variety of essential payments, including GAIN, payments to hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies and the government's payroll may continue uninterrupted. Therefore, in moving introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced, through all stages this day. Mr. Speaker, I move first reading.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has asked that the bill be put forth under the emergency proceeding. In past situations, we have approved it. I would agree, and we will listen to the comments from the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: We agree that it should proceed today and welcome the debate at committee stage of a number of the items outlined in the warrants.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, if you would just remain in your seats for a few minutes, the bill will be circulated right now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Speaking to second reading, this supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. The first section requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests one-quarter of the disbursement amount required for the government's fully recoverable ministry-related financing transactions which appear in schedule D of the estimates. The third section requests an amount of $20 million for the Purchasing Commission working capital account. This increase in the statutory authority reflects an increase in the delivery of goods and services provided through this account.

Finally, I point out the requirement for early passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government for the 1989-90 fiscal year.

I move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1989

The House in committee on Bill 14; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. ROSE: just a matter of clarification. When we get to the schedule, will we be permitted to direct our questions to the Minister of Finance only or will the line ministers be prepared to respond to these various items?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand the line ministers will be able to respond to the various items.

MR. ROSE: Some are absent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll deal with each one separately, hon. member.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We have enough strength over here....

MR. ROSE: I won't comment on your strength — one way or the other.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We'll deal with the schedule now, hon. members, and take each warrant separately.

Warrant 1 approved.

On warrant 2.

MR. SIHOTA: I don't see the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) here, so I'll put my question to the Minister of Finance. I note that under the schedule here there is an allocation of $7 million, some of which is appropriated for "native title trials." I'm wondering if I can get some clarification as to what that consists of.

[ Page 5785 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This refers to an item of $800,000 in the legal services branch to handle the issues of native titles.

MR. SIHOTA: Is the minister saying that $800,000 relates towards ongoing litigation on native trials?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This refers to continuation of the Delgam Uukw trial and preparation of the Pasco trial.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I didn't hear the last one.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The Pasco trial.

MR. SIHOTA: The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) is back. I'm wondering if the minister could outline those two trials again so the member for Atlin can hear those as well. He may be more familiar with them than I am.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: He can't repeat everything he said. He wasn't even in the House.

HON. MR. REE: It's in Hansard.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Out of a total request of $2,450,000 for that branch, $800,000 applies to the issues of native title. That represents the sums for the continuation of the Delgam Uukw trial and the preparation of the Pasco trial.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to know if those trials are currently before the courts.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I understand the issue, it deals with continuation of the Delgam Uukw trial and preparation of the Pasco trial, so I assume that Pasco is not yet before the courts but the other one is.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm just trying to understand the immediate and urgent requirement for these funds. These trials are ongoing. We've got counsel involved on them in one case, and in the other case we're not even before the courts. I don't understand why it is that that expenditure is immediate and urgent. Apart from the philosophical reason, which we'll get into later on this is why we've got some concerns about it, I don't understand why that expenditure is immediate and urgent. I would like some clarification from the minister, because — as we've gone through this before — the way in which these warrants ought to be approved is if the expenditure is both immediate and urgent. I am trying to understand what is pressing with respect to these cases.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't know quite what the hon. member would suggest as an alternative. Surely you are not suggesting that the Crown should enter preparatory work for a trial ill-prepared or unprepared. The fact of the matter is that sums are required to perform that function. I am a bit surprised at the implications behind the question.

In the judgment of the government, there is a need to spend further sums as a consequence of the ongoing Delgam Uukw trial, and there is an equally urgent need to do additional preparatory work beyond the sums anticipated originally, getting ready for the Pasco trial. It seems to me that that's self-evident. I don't know what more I can add to help the hon. member,

MR. SIHOTA: I don't want to belabour the point, but we are talking about $800,000, and I am trying to understand how one needs $800,000 immediately and urgently in order to prepare either for a trial that is before the courts or for one that is about to come up before the courts. It is an enormous amount of money, and I don't know when we will get through to completing the estimates for the Ministry of Attorney-General, but what I am getting at is that it's an inordinately large pool of money for litigation.

Quite frankly, to someone who has been involved in litigation, it boggles the mind to try to understand why one would need $800,000 to proceed with or prepare for litigation. I can certainly see disbursements and expenses, and if this is contracted out to a private firm — which may or may not be the case, but let's assume that it is — there may be a requirement for fees to be paid to that firm on an ongoing basis, all of which I can understand.

[11:15]

But I don't understand why such an inordinately large amount of $800,000 is required, and that's what I am trying to determine from the minister, because the rule is that it must be immediate and urgent.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member seems concerned that these trials are costly; I also am concerned that they are costly. I suppose that's a function of the technicalities of the issue. It certainly is a function of the gravity of the issue. I think that we take the issue surrounding these native matters very seriously, because we are extremely sensitive to the need to treat our native population fairly and equitably.

In the interests of all British Columbians, including the natives, it's appropriate that the government expend sufficient financial resources to do that. The hon. member, I gather, hasn't had much experience in the issue of native trials, but it's my understanding that historically they are very expensive. The federal government handles a large part of that expenditure on behalf of the natives, which is right and appropriate, and we also — representing all citizens, including natives — have to expend similar sums.

The fact of the matter is that the Delgam trial is anticipated to exceed the allocation previously provided for it, and that the trial preparation on the Pasco matter is now projected also to exceed the original allocations, The House should be aware that when the Attorney-General makes requests for funding of specific trials, Treasury Board examines very closely the provisions they require and frequently gives them advice about how much the government can be prepared to expend on a particular issue.

[ Page 5786 ]

In this case, obviously the Treasury Board was extremely frugal with the request of the Attorney-General, and upon subsequent review and explanation as to the legalities and technicalities involved, the government agreed that we had to provide the funding, if only in the interests of protecting the people of British Columbia.

So we are very pleased to provide this extra funding and are satisfied that it is well spent and indeed urgent.

MR. GUNO: The minister talks about treating the native people fairly and equitably. Perhaps you ought to try negotiating instead of spending all this money in court.

You also talked about the gravity of the issue, and I am just wondering whether it might be helpful for us to assess the urgency and immediacy of this problem if you would just relate to us exactly what is the grave issue at stake.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I take it the minister is not going to answer the question. Could he tell us what the gravity of the issue here is?

MR. WILLIAMS: He's in trouble; he's asking the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree) for advice.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's in more trouble now.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, I'm a little bit surprised, Mr. Chairman, that the members of the opposition should try to make so light of the issues and the plight of the native people in our province. I'm a little bit surprised that you're trying to take advantage of these delicate matters in this forum. I repeat again: it is the opinion of the government that the need to provide this extra funding for these important court cases is urgent and has top priority, and therefore I request the approval of this House.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not satisfied at all with the minister's explanations. It seems to me that if the minister wants to come before the House and ask for an expenditure of $800,000 for litigation, he ought to be able to explain just why it's immediate and urgent.

I would grant the minister this: he's not the minister responsible, and he's only got briefing notes provided by the Ministry of Attorney-General. But there has to be some basis for being able to put forward a case as to why that expenditure is necessary, in keeping with the rules. That hasn't been provided, and I'm not prepared to vote in favour of allowing this to go through. It's an incredible amount of money.

The second point — and I'll reinforce what my friend from Atlin had to say — is that the fact of the matter is that this government's approach toward the native issue is totally misguided. It is an approach of harassment. It is an approach of confrontation. And it doesn't begin to deal with the vital need of proceeding with settlement and negotiation with the natives. This type of confrontational approach, Mr. Minister, you know doesn't work. You saw a court decision that came down yesterday in Saanich, and the day before out of Vancouver, on a taxation measure. The courts are giving this government an indication that it ought....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we're talking about the funding to pay the bills for this, or whether that member is trying to argue in here the case that is to be before the courts?

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, during committee stage it's usually pretty open, and you can make statements and ask questions, as long as you don't exceed 15 minutes. I know that the Minister of Education has been around here a long time, but I'm sure he must have a look at the little rule book and clear up all this confusion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no question, hon. members, that in committee stage, as in other times during our debate, we should be particularly relevant. I would ask that if the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew wishes to continue, he be relevant to the case in point, which is warrant 2.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, you said it very well. The opposition member and the opposition House Leader know very well that when you're in committee the comments and questions must be pertinent to the particular section of the bill being debated. The member has strayed far from the intent or purpose of the warrant, and is clearly just not satisfied with the answer given to him by the Minister of Finance.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, one would not have to wander at all if the minister was prepared to explain why this is immediate and urgent, in keeping with his requirement under the statute.

I have another question that relates to another matter. We'll let the minister off the hook for the time being on this stuff.

"Volume increases under the Young Offenders Act" is another explanation that's attached to the warrant. I'm wondering if the minister could just elaborate on that. What are the volume increases which are referred to?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the allocation under this category amounts to $300,000, dealing with family law. Cases under the Young Offenders Act have increased significantly, as everyone predicted when the legislation was brought forward by the federal government, and it does require and did require an additional $200,000 to cover the cost of those cases. I think, also, the regular ad hoc work needed an extra budget allocation of $100,000. That's a combined amount of $300,000, under the Young Offenders Act.

Warrant 2 approved on division.

Warrant 3 approved.

[ Page 5787 ]

On warrant 4.

MR. MILLER: I tried to trace a little history in determining why this warrant was required, and I did some research late last night, in terms of the previous setting-up, I believe in 1986, of the forest stand management fund, which at that time was set up as a fund that would receive contributions from outside sources. I can't recall the exact total the government hoped to achieve in that fund. They never did achieve it. Generally they were trying to set up a fund to enhance forest management, particularly silviculture work and intensive silviculture work.

I believe last year that fund was folded into general accounts under the Special Accounts Appropriation and Control Act. During debate on that the minister said that the government would be establishing two new special funds: "To achieve this separation, this bill, effective March 31, 1988, will convert all existing special funds into special accounts, which will now be part of the general fund. It is not intended that this change will affect the operation of the special funds in any way or lessen the government's commitment to the programs they support."

I will try to put all of my remarks in my initial comments. If we move from that, clearly that was not the case. If the government now has to pass a special warrant of $600,000 "to provide funding for the implementation of the forestry enhancement program," all of a sudden we have a third program to conduct intensive silviculture treatments on Crown and private lands, providing job training and experience to unemployed social assistance recipients. The word "erratic" keeps popping in here.

Then I turn to the JobTrac program. I debated fairly extensively in estimates last year with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker), who regrettably is not here. The fact that the $20 million JobTrac program and the provision particularly citing the Vancouver Island mayors' program, which received a contribution of $5.5 million.... According to a Sterling Wood study done of the effectiveness of that $5.5 million, it in fact produced a benefit of some $20 million to the forest lands and to those young people who were taken off social assistance. That was scrapped last year as well.

Quoting from the debate on that, I asked the Minister of Forests — pleaded with him — to continue some type of activity to assist these young people, particularly those on social assistance. The Minister of Forests responded on June 2: "1 am responsible for Crown lands. I am not responsible for any job training programs. We don't have funding for social services and job training." So despite the pleas of me and others at that time ' the minister said: "Forget it." Now we find this special warrant.

Perhaps the minister could advise the committee when the forestry enhancement program was established and what kind of budget allocation was foreseen. I will leave it at that and then continue with a few more questions.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The forestry enhancement program is a retitled and redefined consequence of amending the silviculture enhancement program. I believe the view was that the title "forestry enhancement program" more properly captures all of the activities. The initiative received that retitling during the year.

[11:30]

MR. MILLER: Could you advise us briefly when it was announced and who announced it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It didn't require an announcement. All we did, as I understand it, was.... The line ministry decided to redefine the title of the program. It didn't require a press release. We try to limit the amount of money we spend on those pufferies. All we did was change the title of the initiative.

MR. MILLER: Would the minister advise which minister announced the program? Surely, Mr. Minister of Finance, you're the person who controls the purse-strings. Presumably this proposal came before you in some respects. Some minister brought it before you and said: "I want some money to do a specific thing." Could you advise us who that was?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I don't know whether the difficulty here is my explanation or the hon. member's perception of what I am saying. I am saying to the hon. member that there is no new program here. We are dealing with a retitling of an existing program. I can't give you the date and time the staff in the line ministry decided they needed to retitle it. It might have been an exercise in staring at the coiling at 3 a.m. in the morning, for all I know. I fail to see the relevance or import of the question.

The issue here is: do we need extra money urgently? Did we have to spend extra money urgently in order to fund this very popular employment program? The answer is yes, and we've asked the House to provide moneys for that purpose with this special warrant. As to the title of the program, I repeat: it's not a new program; it's a retitling of the old silviculture enhancement program.

MR. MILLER: I don't know why the minister doesn't want to advise that the program was announced by the Minister of State for Vancouver Island-Coast and North Coast and Minister Responsible for Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts), but nonetheless it's a warrant under the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker).

All right, I accept the fact.... Perhaps the minister could advise in terms of the emergent reason for that, what particular areas.... I'll just go through a list of questions. Perhaps you could jot them down. What work was done with the money? How many people from social assistance were assisted or were employed in the program? Where was the work done? On what Crown land? Where in the province was it done? What Crown land was worked on? What private land was worked on?

[ Page 5788 ]

Secondly, with respect to the private land, who gets the benefit of the work done on the private land? Obviously this was an important item that went past the minister. He got all the details about the program. Could the minister answer those questions?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It's always a delight to stand up and further elucidate so that the hon. members of the opposition might better understand the spoken and written word.

The program, as the hon. member well knows, was intended to provide job training and experience to unemployed social assistance recipients and to conduct....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I understand it, hon. member, one of the questions was: what is the program intended to do? I'm attempting to answer that question, if you don't mind.

The program was designed to provide job training and experience and also to conduct intensive silviculture treatments on Crown and private lands. The specific questions the hon. member asked will obviously have to be taken as notice. We didn't come burdened with all of that detailed information to this discussion this morning. We'd be happy to provide it in the fullness of time and in the interests of frank and open government.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, you see my dilemma — or my difficulty. I've gone through three separate programs that the government has announced in two years with a great deal of fanfare and then scrapped with little notice. In terms of the kind of erratic behaviour that my colleague for Vancouver East talked about in his response to the budget speech.... Then it's an emergent program that somehow requires a special warrant of $600, 000. When we ask some basic questions about it, we don't get any answers.

I think it's unfortunate. It's a goofy way to do business.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am truly surprised that the opposition would attempt to speak against a program to employ the unemployed. I just find it astounding. The fact of the matter is that the program was very popular; it was very successful. We were able to place many unemployed under its funding. Because it was so popular, they needed more money in order to continue to employ those people.

The money is spent. We're here, as a matter of formality, to inform the House we spent the money and how we spent it. I gather from the hon. member's comments that he seems to be suggesting that the money was somehow misspent. I'm truly astounded.

We just heard the reply to the budget speech from the official critic of the opposition, and he seemed to be saying that we weren't doing enough in the area of job creation. Here's a program that did exactly that, was very popular and needed another $600,000 to fund the overexpenditure, and the opposition is attempting — I gather — to speak against it, which is very surprising.

MR. MILLER: Not only does this government not listen to the people of British Columbia; the Minister of Finance didn't listen to me. I find it somewhat strange to be castigated by the Minister of Finance for not supporting a measly $600,000 when I argued strenuously for $20 million last year and was turned down by this government. It was some meaningful money — $20 million — to do some meaningful work with young people in this province, not $600,000 snuck in through a special warrant where the minister can't even advise where the work took place and how many people benefited.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The issue under discussion is whether the government appropriately spent $600,000 in the public interest on the basis of urgency and need — not what the hon. member might have said a year ago during debates.

Warrants 4 and 5 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver-Point Grey has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: May I ask the House to welcome to the House my youngest children and our family friend: my son Robert, who is nine; my son Daniel, who is six; and our family friend, Lisa Duprey, who turned 47 yesterday.

On warrant 6.

MS. A. HAGEN: Warrant 6 deals with matters in the continuing care area of the Ministry of Health budget. I would first like to ask the Minister of Health to please explain the rather unusual wording in this particular warrant. It talks about funding a delay in income testing, and I need to understand what that particular wording means. I have never known of a delay being funded. What does that particular phrasing and wording mean?

HON. MR. DUECK: The income testing was not implemented. Therefore, having been in the budget last year, we need that extra money because we did not get that revenue. It's not delayed; it just has not been implemented,

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like the minister to confirm that the policy decision to income-test the revenues of people in long-term-care facilities and people who are receiving homemaker care services, a policy decision that we discussed extensively during the last session of this House during his estimates, is also rescinded; that it is no longer the policy of this government. The minister has said we didn't implement the proposed policy; it's not just a question of

[ Page 5789 ]

delay. I want to confirm that it is something we did not implement. Will he confirm that it is no longer the policy of this government to impose user fees based on income testing for facility care and homemaker services?

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe we're speaking of last year's budget, not of what may happen in the future, although I have no intention of bringing it back. We're speaking about funding in the past, about moneys we did not collect because we did not implement income testing. Therefore there's a shortfall, and that money is required.

MS. A. HAGEN: I thank the minister for his response, and I hope that in that response is a policy intention of this government. We will be very pleased if that is indeed the intent of his remarks.

A further part of this warrant speaks of negotiated wage and benefit increases for grant-funded agencies, which I know means those non-profit organizations in the long-term-care field that negotiate with their employers for wages and benefits. Does this warrant provide for full coverage of the cost of wages and benefits negotiated by these grant agencies for home support workers and long-term care facility staffs? If it does not, why not? If the answer is yes, the second part of the question doesn't pertain, but if indeed it does not cover the full cost, could the minister explain why not?

HON. MR. DUECK: As the member mentioned, this is a wage increase for grant-funded agencies, and I assume it covers the total increase of those negotiations.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would presume with that answer that when he's able to check with his staff, the minister would be prepared to confirm that. Perhaps the minister would be prepared to do that.

Finally, I would like to ask what amount of the $14 million in this particular warrant is actually committed to the income-testing portion of the budget and to the fact that that was not implemented. There are three items in this particular warrant: can either the Minister of Health or the Minister of Finance say what portion was expended for care facilities and homemaker services in lieu of the actual user fees that were proposed in last year's session?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes. The delay you mentioned was not the proper wording. We did not implement, and that was at a cost of $7,722,000.

Warrant 6 approved.

On warrant 7.

MR. ROSE: I am intrigued by the item here about expanding transit services in Abbotsford, Matsqui and Chilliwack, and wondered if there were similar programs for Coquitlam and Dewdney. I know this would appeal to your heart, Mr. Chairman. We desperately need it there. Were there no purchases of buses at all between '82 and '88? How much was spent on buses? What does "implementing other capital programs" really mean?

HON. MR. REID: In response to that, as the alternate for the Minister of Municipal Affairs on transit issues, warrant 7 is to do with custom transit service, which is the handyDART improvements plus the increased allocation and requirement for some buses to replace some worn out because of the service out to Coquitlam and to the South Surrey-White Rock area and the long distances those buses travel every day. I would suggest that some of these buses are to be allocated to the Coquitlam division, which services Maple Ridge; and the Langley addition to the Vancouver regional transit system is all a part of this vote.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his response. I wonder if he could give us any numbers in terms of what we can look for in expansion in the Maple Ridge-Port Moody-Coquitlam area.

[11:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am sorry, but that does not fall within the perimeters of standing order 61 on relevancy.

MR. ROSE: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I would want to ask you for clarification on why, since it says "replace diesel buses, " the number of diesel buses is not relevant. That's all I am asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suppose that the big problem, hon. member, is that this would appear to me to involve some future expenditures.

MR. ROSE: Could I point out to you, sir — not questioning your great wisdom in this matter —  that this is money that has been spent. That's why it is called a supplementary estimate. I wonder if perhaps it would be possible to reconsider, if the minister does have the response ready.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary wish to respond?

HON. MR. REID: In response to the member's question, the description on the supplementary or the warrant request does not indicate the numbers of buses involved. It does cover the amounts for the custom transit expansion, but it doesn't indicate the numbers of diesel buses. Without reading the warrant request, Mr. Member, I do not have specifics about the numbers of buses involved.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be prepared to take my question as notice for another time, because the people in my community are poorly served and are most anxious for any kind of daylight in the traffic gridlock we have in our area.

HON. MR. REID: I will take the question on the number of vehicles as notice and will respond.

[ Page 5790 ]

Warrant 7 approved.

On warrant 8.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This special warrant I find very perplexing, and I am glad the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is here to shed some light on it, particularly in light of some of the comments of the government in the throne speech.

This warrant asks for additional spending last year of $46,800,000 for greater than anticipated income assistance caseloads. I am confused by that, and I am hoping the minister can shed some light, given the fact that this government in the budget speech bragged about the fact that the caseload for this year is lower than last year, and last year was in turn lower than the previous year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman. We anticipated a greater drop in the caseload than happened. We anticipated it for several reasons: (1) because of the improving economy, but (2) because we had introduced programs that we had thought would be up and running a little more quickly than expected to get people off income assistance. The caseloads did go down, and they went down significantly, but I guess we were a little over-optimistic and therefore required a special warrant.

The GAIN budget is a best-guess case at best every year. We take an estimate between the highs and the lows of what are projected, and it is virtually impossible to meet it head on. So we've had to ask for a special warrant, bearing in mind that we are there to meet the needs of British Columbians, whatever those needs happen to be. If it requires more money, then we go back for a warrant for some extra money. That is exactly what has happened here.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I find it interesting the minister indicating that they were a little overoptimistic. We are looking at a $46 million overrun. I find that very difficult to understand.

The minister talked about the other issues in this warrant and I will go on to question them. First of all, I re-emphasize that the warrant asks for this increased money because of an increase in caseloads — not that they underestimated but that there was an increase in the caseloads. That was specifically in the category of single-parent families. The minister is saying that he did not anticipate those additional single-parent families. We have not seen — and this warrant does not indicate — additional services to those families or that those families are particularly more expensive to service. It is the very fact that this ministry is out of touch; it does not know who is out there to begin with.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, it appears that the opposition wishes to politic here instead of stick to standing order 61 and be relevant to the purpose for the warrant. Madam Member, there was no overrun as you insinuated. Never did I use the term overrun. We were a little optimistic and thought we might reduce the caseloads a little more than we did.

We ran into some problems of recruitment in hiring new financial aid workers. We couldn't get them up as quickly as possible. We ran into a work stoppage that we hadn't anticipated, which put us back a little further. The caseloads were down. I didn't say there was an increase in caseloads; the caseloads were down, but not as far as we had anticipated.

We went back thinking that we would need an extra $54.8 million, but some of it had been picked up in efficiencies elsewhere. Therefore we asked for a warrant for $46 million. But now we find that we will require $50.8 million for the increase in the GAIN budget rather than $54.8 million. As I said, you make the best estimate you can. If you are within three or four million dollars - as we were when we asked for this warrant — that's pretty close.

I didn't make light of the fact at all that it's not a large amount. You must bear in mind, however, that the total GAIN budget is in the area of $900 million. When we can come in this close, I think it's a reasonably good estimate. I want to re-emphasize the fact that we are there to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia no matter what they are and no matter what increase in budget is required.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister says that this $46 million overrun is an underestimation. For further clarification the minister says that $46.8 million is not itself the amount needed but is instead $50.8 million. Could the minister clarify: are we talking about an overrun, a special warrant for $46.8 million or $50.8 million?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For some reason the member has difficulty in hearing. I said specifically that this is not an overrun, and it is not. We anticipated our GAIN budget, then we went to Treasury Board and said to them: "We think that we can cut that budget by a certain amount." We were a little optimistic in the amount we thought we could cut the budget by. We had to go back to Treasury Board and say: "We are not going to meet the objectives we thought we would. We thought we could reduce the caseloads further than we did. However, we didn't quite make it.

The reduction in caseloads has been less than originally estimated, with the basic income assistance category — single men, couples and two-parent family caseloads — being down. But single women and one-parent family caseloads were up, which means that the more costly caseloads have remained as ministry clients.

The mix of clients has changed. As I said, we thought we would have our new financial assistance workers in place sooner than we did. We ran into some recruitment problems.

MR. WILLIAMS: What difference would it make?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It would have made a tremendous difference.

MR. WILLIAMS: In what way?

[ Page 5791 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because we would have had more people back into the workforce. The program is now up and running and working well, and every month we are getting more people back into the workforce than ever before. The new employment-plus job creation program did not begin until June '88, which meant that the most advantageous time of year — spring and summer — was lost to us. Then we ran into the recruitment problem and the labour dispute, and because of that we didn't get up and running as quick as we could. But in this coming year, I can assure the member that the program is up and running, the financial assistance workers are in place, and you will see a dramatic reduction in the caseload.

I should add that we also extended the $50 a month for employable single parents to all single parents. When we reinstated it, we spread the net to catch all single parents, no matter what the age of their children. So that cost the ministry some extra, but it was well received and needed by British Columbians. We went far beyond what was in place before.

As I said, we were a little overoptimistic, but I don't see that as a sin. We make the best guess we can, and whatever is required, that's what we spend.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So the minister has admitted that due to the fact the ministry is unable to estimate who needs income assistance, and due to poor planning and poor implementation of programs, the employment programs were not on line to alleviate poverty in this province, The ministry has a $46.8 million overrun.

Perhaps the minister can indicate to us how many people actually obtained jobs with these so-called employment programs. Are they working now, or are we facing an additional overrun for the coming year? Can the minister indicate how much money was saved by taking $50 a month out of the mouths of women and children in this province for two consecutive months and not retroactively replacing that $50 cutback?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It appears that the member wishes to do my ministry estimates now, instead of waiting until the appropriate time.

The member insists on calling it an overrun when it was nothing of the sort. It's virtually impossible at the beginning of a year to estimate exactly how much you're going to need for the GAIN budget. It's in the area of $900 million, and if we can come within 4 percent or 5 percent, I think that estimate is reasonably accurate.

Would the member have us not spend that money and take it out of programs? Perhaps she could tell me which program we could take it out of.

We sought a special warrant in the amount of $46.8 million to cover an anticipated net overexpenditure of vote 62 — ministry programs contained within the 1988-89 estimates. The $46.8 million is required to fund what we projected at the time we asked for the warrant for an overexpenditure of our estimates in the GAIN subvote totalling; our estimates were not exactly accurate. We expected $54.8 million less projected net underexpenditures, but because of $8 million in other sub votes, including $3.1 million in frozen funds, the requested amount does not include the net salary increase necessitated by the recent salary awards to BCGEU and excluded personnel; this is under separate review. But it did affect us in getting our program up and running.

[12:00]

An overexpenditure of $56.3 million is projected for the income assistance program, partly offset by a forecast under expenditure of $1.5 million in other votes. We could go on ad nauseam debating whether you would call it an overrun or an overexpenditure or whatever you want to call it, but it was part of the best guess we could give the Minister of Finance at the beginning of the year on a $900 million budget. I'm the first to admit that we were a little over-optimistic in the amount we would reduce the caseload by. However, whatever is required, that is what we spend. As you might be aware, our ministry budget is demand-driven, and we don't have total control over that portion of our budget under the GAIN Act.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm disappointed that the minister seems incapable of answering my questions. I have repeatedly asked the minister for information: the number of people who got jobs in this so-called program to alleviate poverty; the number of people....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, the member is clearly asking questions that would pertain to my estimates and not to the necessity of warrant 7. 1 would refer her to standing order 61 (2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Relevancy, of course, is very important in debate such as this. Also, standing order 61 (2), for the benefit of hon. members, was changed when we revamped the standing orders of this House. The change was that the decision of the Chair could not be challenged in these matters.

It was agreed in the case of relevancy, and particularly in items that refer to estimates — and I would suggest that warrants are similar in many ways to the estimates — that the Chair would normally give the benefit of doubt to the member asking the question. Having said that, I do think we must try and remain constantly within the bounds of relevancy in order that we might carry out our duties within this House in the most efficient manner. Would the member continue, please.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The point of the questioning is to account for taxpayers' money, to account for effectiveness and efficiency in the spending of $46.8 million of taxpayers' money. What we are talking about is the effectiveness of this ministry's programs to alleviate poverty — its mandate. I have repeatedly asked questions about the specifics of this warrant and will again ask the minister to provide information

[ Page 5792 ]

about the amount of money saved by taking that $50 for two months out of the mouths of children and women in this province.

The minister indicates that because of the pressure and shame that was brought to bear on the ministry as a result of its action, you only partially rescinded your policy to cut that $50. I would emphasize that the ministry saved a considerable amount of money by cutting $50 off of the income assistance for unemployed single people. That was never reinstated. The ministry made money on that cut.

I am confused by the need for an additional $46.8 million. The ministry, I would suggest, has an overrun of $46.8 million because of two reasons. The reorganization of the ministry has added a significant number of supervisory staff, which is an increase in cost that is not directly put into the pockets of the poor in this province. I further suggest, in my closing statement, that this overrun is an indication of years of neglect which have cost this ministry a significant amount of money because of crisis intervention and crisis management.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member insists on politicking on this — and, yes, always at the expense of those less fortunate. It wouldn't be that party if it didn't do that.

The $50, 1 think, Madam Member — rather than being partially rescinded as you suggest — was expanded far wider than it ever had been before. We expanded it to cover all single parents. Any single parent receives the extra $50 because of being classified as unemployable. I think you are confused in your mind between unemployed and unemployable. There's quite a difference, and I suggest you check it out before we get into my estimates. Obviously, listening to you, you do not understand the difference between unemployed and unemployable.

The extra money put into my ministry was put in to increase the number of FTEs on the financial assistance side and the rehabilitation side. I suppose I am to read into the member's comments that she doesn't believe we should put financial aid workers and rehabilitation officers into the ministry to assist the unemployed back into the workforce.

I suggest that we have strayed far from warrant 8 and that in the future, when we are in Committee of the Whole on a specific section, we should be relevant.

MR. WILLIAMS: Finally he's moving along. He kept insisting that it was an underestimate. This was no overrun. You don't seem to understand this complex world of numbers and figures. You don't really understand high finance. This is an underestimate. How could you possibly use the term "overrun"? When does it become an overrun? One million, $10 million, $30 million, $50 million is not an overrun? What's this budget process about? You come in with the big document: here it is. The number here, the $46.8 million, wasn't in last year's budget; it was an overrun. It was an overrun. It was an overrun.

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm repeating it because you're the people who have used the term in the past. You're the ones who have talked about shovelling money off the back of a truck. You're the ones who talk about fiscal responsibility. But in the end, it's just like the other member from Vancouver East said; it's pure yo-yo economics. You fired the staff in your ministry a couple of years ago under restraint, and you can't even get it together to handle your program in this particular budget item. That's the reality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I do believe we're being irrelevant now.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ah! Maybe the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that it's too relevant. Throughout this whole exercise we've seen how frail the government front benches are. This Minister of Finance could barely answer a question about any of the over expenditures. This one has trouble recognizing a $50 million overrun when it's hitting him like a speeding train. That's the reality. You've gone through this whole process of the golden handshake last year; all of your ministries got it, in terms of talent. No wonder you weren't able to undertake the programs you wanted to undertake to deal with the poor. You didn't have the talent in your ministries. The untold story of British Columbia is the gutting of the civil service, and this too is part of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must insist that this debate be relevant.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, you have raised the point of order that I was going to. The member isn't even close to debating the special warrants. I should remind that member that when they were government, the lists of special warrants that they came in with....

I'm going to tell you why this is not an overrun, Mr. Member. I specifically, with my deputy, when to Treasury Board and asked him to reduce our budget by a given amount, because I was optimistic that we could reduce the numbers on GAIN by more than we did. So I asked him to reduce our budget because I was convinced I could meet a certain target. When we didn't meet that target, through some fault of our own, then I preferred to call it an underestimate. I guess you would prefer to call it an overrun. We were perhaps a little overoptimistic. I thought we could save the taxpayers of the province in the area of $65 million, and we didn't meet our target. We made a good start at meeting the target, but we didn't quite make it. But we'll make it in the coming year. So if the member from Vancouver East and the other member, the critic, wish to continue calling it an overrun — if it makes them feel good — then by all means call it an overrun. But whatever the amount, it's meeting the needs of the people of British Columbia, which the GAIN Act must do.

[ Page 5793 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I need some clarification, Mr. Chairman. With the amount of increasing poverty in this province, with the number of children in schools who are hungry, with the number of services that do not deliver the needs to families in this province, did the minister say that he asked for a reduction....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I hate to keep reminding that member, but she is totally irrelevant.

MR. ROSE: I think that what the minister didn't anticipate was a question relating to something the minister said in the previous exchange. If the minister claims that he was irrelevant, then so be it. But I think the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley is entitled to ask her question regarding what the minister said in the last exchange.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, I submit that the opposition House Leader is also totally irrelevant.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would ask the Chairman to allow me to finish my question to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Provided it's relevant.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Did the minister say that he went to Treasury Board and asked for a reduction in the amount of money that his ministry had allocated to it last year?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we asked them to adjust the estimate of what we would need for the GAIN budget. When the GAIN budget was set, we took our best look at it, as we always do, worst-case and best-case scenarios, and decided that the addition of — I forget the exact number — in the area of 150 additional financial aid workers and rehab officers.... We decided that we would be able to bring that amount down by some number. We said that our best guess, being as honest as we could possibly be and with the economy going the way it was, was that the caseload should do this. We said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member says shame on me. She doesn't believe that we should estimate according to what we think the economy will do and what the caseload will be. We tried to be as honest with Treasury Board as we could possibly be. Whenever we make our estimates for GAIN, we try to give it our best guess according to what the economy is doing, where the caseloads are and the programs that we put into place. We put an additional $26 million into employment-generating programs and into assisting unemployed people back into the workforce. Having said that to Treasury Board, we said: we believe that we can reduce the GAIN budget by this amount. If we don't make it, then we go back for a special warrant— which we did — to meet the needs of the people of British Columbia. I don't understand why the member has such great difficulty understanding that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall warrant 8 pass?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not finished yet, Mr. Chairman. I'm quite prepared to stay here as long as necessary to clear this up.

If we didn't make our target by some 4 or 5 percent of our budget, we don't feel any shame in that, because the GAIN budget will always be adjusted to meet the need. It's a demand-driven budget, and it will always be adjusted to meet the need.

[12:15]

Warrant 8 approved on division.

On warrant 9.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'm still trying to get over the last debate. I wish I could go home and tell my spouse that I was only $46 million off in my calculations.

I have a question that I think we can address fairly quickly on this item. The ministry is requiring some money with respect to planning studies for capital projects. Of course, there was reference to this in the throne speech. Would either the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) or the Solicitor-General be kind enough to tell me what capital planning projects are anticipated with this warrant request?

HON. MR. REE: I believe the member is talking about the $145,000 which I require to pay lease costs for computerized software used to support the ministry operations.

MR. SIHOTA: What about the capital planning studies?

HON. MR. REE: The $125,000 was for a building feasibility study for the Justice Institute which was carried out during the year.

Warrant 9 approved.

On warrant 10.

MR. SIHOTA: Yesterday in the budget speech the Minister of Finance outlined that there would be construction of a new facility to replace Oakalla. I believe the Solicitor-General has indicated that there would be a new facility for the young offender. Does that vote then envision studies for a Willingdon Road replacement as well as the facility to replace Oakalla?

HON. MR. REE: The moneys that the minister mentioned in the budget speech yesterday did not include Willingdon; they did include Oakalla. I hope sometime during the year we might be able to look at Willingdon for replacement. I know the hon. member is eventually going to visit Willingdon.

[ Page 5794 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. REE: When is it?

MR. SIHOTA: The fifteenth.

HON. MR. REE: It's about time. I'm sure you'll find it quite informative. I know you've made reports on Willingdon without ever having seen it. I will be anxious to hear your report when you come back.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister should know that it's my fourth visit. If the other members want to provoke, we can be here for quite a while. If the former Minister of Highways responsible for the Coquihalla and Powder Mountain wishes to stand up and talk, we can talk about those.

My question to the minister is: am I correct in assuming that Willingdon may or may not be in your plans for this year?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is future policy. There is no requirement to answer that question.

Warrant 10 approved.

On warrant 11.

MR. JONES: After so many years of neglect of post-secondary education funding, I am very happy to support this special warrant. But I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask.

I realize the purpose of the warrant is for urgently and immediately required funds for the public good. I understand that some aspects of this warrant occurred after the approval of the estimates last year. The kaon preconstruction feasibility study was a partnership agreement with the federal government; it was completed last June. I'm wondering about other expenditures, ones that I consider to be routine, ongoing, normal and predictable, like the one for college enrolment pressures. Every September we see lineups of hundreds and thousands of students who were turned away from post-secondary education— roughly 10,000 in the lower mainland, to be specific. Those college enrolment pressures were clearly predictable, as was the aspect of equipment renewal. Clearly the government hasn't just suddenly figured out that equipment wears out and that our postsecondary institutions are replete with a good deal of outdated equipment. I'm wondering, given the purpose of these special warrants — urgent and immediately required expenditures — why routine items such as enrolment pressures and equipment renewal would be included here.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), I can answer the questions in whatever detail, I guess, the member wants. The $51.92 million was approved. I gather from the member's comments that he feels that when these issues came up, they should have been held for a year to satisfy what he feels is necessary, although the ministry, I guess, felt that they should be dealt with, that they should be done and got on with. If the member's main point is that everything should have been anticipated, that would be wonderful — the ideal world.

The amounts included $10.15 million for the revised mandate of the British Columbia Institute of Technology, and that mandate was revised after last year's budget was put in. The college enrolment pressures: you say anybody should have anticipated that. The ministry, when the pressures were on and they were trying to accommodate those students as best they could, decided to apply $8.32 million to that.

The University of Victoria's mechanical engineering school and the Simon Fraser University Centre for System Science — they've spent $1.45 million on those. The university matching program — $10 million for that. The kaon preconstruction feasibility study... I think the agreement with the federal government to provide up to $11 million for that worthwhile project in engineering studies was not signed until July, after the House adjourned last year. There was $2 million for that. Equipment renewal for post-secondary institutions — $20 million was allotted to that.

The only one of these that had any possibility of being approved in advance was the matching program, but it was announced, I think, just a few days before the budget was presented, too late to get into the budget. So the commitment has been met. That's the $10 million. All the other initiatives were agreed to, negotiated or arranged after the budget was put in. The $51.92 million was needed in order to pay the bills so that we didn't have to delay unnecessarily on these items.

MR. JONES: I see the communication gap between my old friend the Education minister and me still exists. I did not say that these expenditures should have been held; I said that they should have been predictable. Is the Minister of Education saying that enrolment pressures in colleges in this province and equipment wearing out were not predictable expenditures?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose you can always say that someone should be clairvoyant enough to predict anything that happens in the future: the exact amounts, the exact numbers, all of those sort of things. I am saying it's a matter of point of view as to whether everything that ever happens in the next year should be absolutely predictable. We know there are enrolment pressures; we know there is equipment to replace. But until you nail it down.... I think they would consider the government and the ministry — mine or the post-secondary ministry — absolutely irresponsible if we just said: "We don't know what the items will be. We can't put a number on it, but for the sake of pleasing them later in the House, what we should do is just throw in a big amount." I think we would like to operate with a little better economics than that and wait until they're pinned

[ Page 5795 ]

down, until the amounts are available, before they are provided.

MR. JONES: The minister is suggesting you have to be clairvoyant to predict some kind of replacement program for equipment. If a piece of equipment lasts 20 years and you have $100 million worth of equipment, then you should replace 5 percent of that equipment every year. That's predictable. That's the kind of planning and organization you would expect from a government that had its feet on the ground and that wasn't trying to postpone expenditures in the first part of its mandate and increase them in the second part. That's what we see here.

I would like to ask the minister or the Minister of Finance: given that this warrant was approved only a couple of weeks ago, I am wondering if the money was spent on this program prior to the approval of the warrant.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't know whether we can answer that until all the final bookkeeping is done. I think before you can say, "Buy the machine, " the money has to be there.

MR- JONES: If the minister is saying the money was spent after the warrant was approved — after March 10 — I'm wondering what was of such an urgent nature that we couldn't wait to include it in this year's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall warrant 11 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

The member for Burnaby North has another question.

MR. JONES: Maybe the minister didn't understand the question. It seems to me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it's appropriate at this time to remind all hon. members, since we are just starting off a new session, that when questions are asked of a minister there is no compulsion that they be answered. So I called the question on that particular warrant.

Does the member have another question?

MR. JONES: I just want to clarify whether the minister understood the question and whether that was the reason for his lack of response. If he has no answer, I accept that. It seems to me that perhaps the question could be rephrased so he would clearly understand it. Then he could indicate that there was no answer, as a matter of courtesy.

Given the fact that the warrant was approved on March 10, and the minister indicated that it was a requirement that this money be spent after the approval of the special warrant, the question is: if it was approved only three weeks ago and has been spent in the last three weeks, what was the compelling, urgent nature of any of these things in the last three weeks that prevented the government from including it in this year's budget?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I tried to indicate to the member in the previous answer — which he didn't understand — that I don't know the exact date the cheques were written. I'm suggesting that the amount had to be approved and that we need to pay the bills.

I suppose you could say, "You should have waited for another six months to pay the bill, " because technically — if I take the member's argument — we can't pay the bill until after the total budget and estimates process has gone through. I don't know at what point the cheques are written; I'm not the bookkeeper. I know that I don't like — in my ministry or in my own life — to say: "Go ahead, buy the piece of equipment. I don't know if the money is going to be available or not." I think the money has to be available. I think that's just common sense.

[12:30]

MR. JONES: I seems to me that on the $8.3 million the minister mentioned for enrolment pressures.... Those enrolment pressures were in the September 1988 enrolment term, and if that was to accommodate increased enrolment of students at that time, then that money would have to have been spent in this school year and would, I assume, have already been spent. If that's the case, which is a little different than what the minister is suggesting, then this is retroactively approving on March 10 expenditures that were made last September. Either we're approving something a long period after — and cabinet approved it a long time after — it was expended, or we could have waited another couple of weeks and included it in this year's budget. Either one of the two is true.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is all very interesting, but I'm sure the hon. member appreciates that in the year an expense is incurred there is a requirement to record that obligation in the books of that particular period.

Furthermore, as the Minister of Education pointed out earlier, these bills have to be paid when they're due. I'm quite sure the hon. member from the opposite side isn't suggesting that we not proceed with meeting the enrolment pressures. We did that.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, far be it from me to prolong debate on this particular warrant at this late date this week. But knowing how urgent it is to build a university in Prince George, I wish to know, seeing that some of this money was spent on preconstruction feasibility studies, how much of that money was spent on the preconstruction feasibility study for a university in Prince George.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Unless I'm misreading the statement, Mr. Chairman, it's for the preconstruction feasibility study for the kaon facility and equipment renewal for post-secondary institutions. So the preconstruction feasibility study, as I read it, is for the kaon facility.

[ Page 5796 ]

MR. KEMPF: It's been clarified then that no money has been spent on a preconstruction study for a university in Prince George.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, in this special warrant the member is absolutely right. Since he wants to politick on that issue, he might look at some other issues.

Warrant 11 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Supply Act (No. 1), 1989, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Supply Act (No. 1), 1989. In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourn I would wish all the members a very pleasant and happy weekend and remind them that as of Monday next we will sit according to the schedule as outlined in standing order 2.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:40 p.m.