[ Page 9149 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 9150

Oral Questions

REAL Women. Ms. Pullinger –– 9150

Women's programs. Ms. Pullinger –– 9150

Rental discrimination. Ms. Cull –– 9151

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

Ministerial Statements

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

Ms. Marzari

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

Mr. Rose

Supply Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 22). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 9155

Mr. Rose

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Loenen

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. J. Jansen

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Mercier

Hon. Mr. Ree

Mr. Lovick

Ms. Pullinger

Hon. Mr. Michael

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Jones

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask the House to give a warm welcome to two very fine individuals who happen to be constituents of mine in the sunny and beautiful riding of Richmond.

Mrs. Sheila Page is the vice-president of the Richmond Chinese School, the largest heritage-language school in the province. She also serves as president of the Richmond Chinese Cultural Society.

Alderman Kiichi Kumagai has served on council continuously since 1972 and currently serves as chairman of the planning committee of council. Of course, he's doing a wonderful job on council. That's why he's been there so long, and we expect he'll be there a lot longer. We ask the House to welcome these fine members.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure, and also an honour, to introduce to the House today Mr. Anand P. Jaiswal and Mrs. Gayatri Jaiswal. They're visiting our beautiful province from London, England.

Anand Jaiswal is the son of Mr. L.P. Jaiswa, president of Jagatvit Industries Ltd. of New Delhi, India. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting Mr. Jaiswal Sr. this year and last year during my participation at the World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland.

Mr. Anand Jaiswal is a director-representative of Jagatvit Industries, which is positioned in London to arrange exports, find technology and arrange joint ventures. He is visiting British Columbia at the request of his father to determine the potential for Investment here. Jagatvit Industries was founded In 1944 and now consists of a group of companies with a turnover of $200 million U.S. per year.

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

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make two introductions today. First, it's a rare and special occasion when my family joins me in Victoria, so I would like to introduce my anchor and my inspiration, my wife Jennifer, and my three-and-a-half-year old son Emery. I know members will want to make these people very welcome today.

Secondly, I would like to introduce a group of student leaders who are here today to represent some 1,500 of the 11,000 students who are caught in the labor dispute in Vancouver and are going to suffer severe financial hardship as of Friday.

Joining us today in the Speaker's gallery is Pam Frache, who is the B.C. chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students, as well as Brad Garner and Jana Vartanis from the King Edward campus. With Jana is her son Peter. There is also Fred Gray, who is the chairperson of the Vancouver City Centre Student Society, as well as Lorie Fuller, who is the deputy chairperson at City Centre. Would the House please make these student leaders welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: It is my honour and privilege, on behalf of the second member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. De Jong) and myself, to introduce to the House 50 grade 11 students from the Central Fraser Valley, namely the Mennonite Educational Institute. They are joined today by their teachers, Mr. Ken Bartsch and Stan Coutu. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Mr. Scott McCaffrey. He's a constituent of mine and a student in business administration at Simon Fraser University. Would all hon. members please make him welcome.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to welcome in the Speaker's gallery today a good friend, a key and active player in IWA Local 180 and vice-president of the Cowichan-Ladysmith NDP constituency association: John Little. Would the House please help me welcome John.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It was my pleasure today, along with the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen) and the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), to participate in "McHappy Days" in McDonald's downtown store. I just want the House to acknowledge the fine work they do on behalf of Ronald McDonald House. This year they intend to raise $1 million.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the House join the government side in paying tribute to a former member of the House who passed away this morning in Vancouver, Hunter Vogel. Hunter Vogel was the first mayor of Langley city. He was first elected to the B.C. Legislature by the constituents of Delta to a dual-member riding encompassing Richmond, Delta, Surrey and Langley in the general election of 1963. He was re-elected in 1966 and 1969 by the constituents of Langley.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I join with the first member for Langley in expressing our regrets at the passing of Hunter Vogel. We shared a riding at one time — I was the federal member; he was the provincial member — and we got along exceedingly well. I remember one time when I was distressed about something — the pressures of the job — and I was at a banquet or dinner with Hunter. There were many supporters of my side there and also many of the other side, yet he was the only one who really understood what I was going through, because he was another politician, I guess. I think he made a tremendous contribution. He raised the level of debate and certainly the level of refinement in terms of people dealing with other people. He was a great gentleman. I used to kid him and call him the "great white hunter."

[ Page 9150 ]

MR. SPEAKER: If it is the wish of the House, the Chair will take the appropriate action and send a message to the family on behalf of all members. Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. BRUCE: I would like the House to welcome a number of guests that I have here today: my father, Preston Bruce, the patriarch of Bruce's of Canada; another good friend, Dr. Bob Wilson; and Ken Brown, his sister Edna and her husband, Clifford Tomlinson, of Saskatchewan, who are here visiting with us in the beautiful province of British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

PURCHASING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mrs. Gran presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill permits electronic requisitioning in the Purchasing Commission. It adds environmental considerations to the Purchasing Commission's mandate, gives the commission powers to sell software and other technologies developed at the taxpayers' expense, and removes outdated references.

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

Bill 13 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

REAL WOMEN

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. A national mailing, paid for by British Columbia's Tourism ministry, identifies and promotes an event which, in part, will occur at Fantasy Gardens this weekend. Does the Premier think that this is appropriate?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I'm not familiar with the event. I don't really get involved with private business or the business of other people. So I frankly don't intend to comment on the business of other people, because we enjoy in our province a climate where I think people can operate their businesses freely without the government having to interfere in each and every activity.

MS. PULLINGER: The event I'm referring to is a free tea party for a national convention of r-e-a-1 women, commonly known as REAL Women. This national mailing, funded by British Columbia taxpayers, attacks homosexuals and characterizes AIDS patients as "simply reaping what they have sown." This is a question that the Premier can answer: does he think it's appropriate for his government to send this message across this country?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't intend to comment on your dislike for REAL Women; that's your prerogative. I suppose it's their prerogative as an organization as to where their activities. As far as Fantasy Gardens is concerned, I'm sure they'll appreciate you giving them a plug. But that's a private business, and I don't intend to get involved with private business.

[2:15]

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. I have here a 12-page letter mailed by your ministry to members of REAL Women across this country. Can the minister explain the objective of this mailing, and can he tell us the cost to B.C. taxpayers of this mailing?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's certainly a pleasure and refreshing to see the members of the opposition interested in tourism. This is the first sign we've had in the current session.

I wonder where the members from Victoria — the two MLAs, the federal MP and the local mayor — were on the welcoming of the Stena vessel to Victoria a week ago last Friday. It is a $30 million bump for this province and particularly the Victoria area, and not one single member of the opposition was present, Mr. Speaker.

Regarding mail-out....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In the question, I never heard any reference to the Stena Line. There was no reference to these matters; there was just a question put to the minister. If the scope of the answer could follow the scope of the question, question period would remain more or less in order.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Regarding the question of the provincial Tourism ministry providing free mail-out for organizations dealing with tourism in the great province of British Columbia, the answer is yes. We do provide free mail-out service for conferences and conventions held in the province by all interest groups. The Minister of Tourism does not define or proofread every single mail-out, but I can assure you many of the cohorts and close friends of members opposite have also enjoyed that mailing privilege.

It's a great service to those involved in tourism throughout the province — indeed nationally and internationally — and we have received a great number of compliments on that service.

MS. PULLINGER: I have a new question to the Minister of Tourism that he can answer without seeing this document. Does the minister think it helps to promote tourism in British Columbia by mailing material that describes Vancouver as — and I quote, "Sodom North"?

[ Page 9151 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As I say, I do not proofread all of the background data that goes into all the mailers. Perhaps the NDP opposite would like the Minister of Tourism to build up a bureaucracy such as they have in other provinces — such as the massive bureaucracy they built up in Manitoba before their defeat in 1988.

I can say this. The Minister of Tourism in B.C. must be doing something right. We were the only province in all of Canada to have growth in 1989 over 1988.

Further to that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again, I must ask the minister.... The scope of the answer has to remain within the scope of the question. There was nothing in the question dealing with the responsibility of the minister and the expansion of the ministry's activities.

WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question for the minister responsible for women's programs. This tourism mailing mentions the minister several times, including an invitation for her to address the national convention of REAL Women this weekend in Richmond.

Does the minister not think it an insult for her government to refuse to fund women's centres on the one hand while paying for literature that describes these centres as "nothing more than drop-in centres disseminating a lot of anti-government feminist literature"?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I know nothing of the mail out that the member speaks of. I was invited, as I have been invited by many groups around this province, to speak at their convention on Saturday. I don't discriminate among women's groups or anyone else. I think it is important, particularly when you're dealing with sensitive Issues surrounding the women of British Columbia, that you act in a very fair and reasonable manner and that you not discriminate. I have not discriminated, and I don't intend to start now.

MS. PULLINGER: Clearly the minister doesn't have a position on anything. Is the minister prepared to apologize to all British Columbia women for her government's support for this offensive national mailing which suggests the Montreal massacre may have been carried out by "a man whose child had been aborted by a feminist"? Is the minister prepared to apologize to the women of Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: That question is out of order.

RENTAL DISCRIMINATION

MS. CULL: My question is to the Premier. B.C. families with children face rental discrimination. What specific steps has the Premier decided to take to demonstrate his commitment to the family?

MR. SPEAKER: The members asking the questions should be cautioned again by the Chair. If you ask a question that's wide open, we could take hours on these answers, and question period won't be very productive. I'll ask the Premier to keep it brief.

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

It is a very broad scope. The question might leave one with the impression that perhaps we have not, in all of our activities over the last number of years, given primary consideration to the promotion of the family unit. I certainly wouldn't want to leave the populace of the province with the impression that there's any truth to that, as the question might suggest.

Therefore I would like to elaborate some on the many programs we've introduced to promote strengthening the family. I can assure the member that we have, through our various ministries, taken a great many actions to promote the strengthening of the family, because to us on this side strong family units throughout the province are what really provides us the strength in the future. Anything that really moves towards removing that strength or opportunity from the family is destructive and would, in the final analysis, not only harm that particular unit or community but the whole of the province and all people living in the province.

We take great pride in the fact that we have, through the various ministries, taken initiatives to strengthen the family unit. We've not only done so through announcements or pronouncements, but we have provided the money and resources to make it happen, and we intend to continue doing so.

With respect to the specific question which was at the tail-end of the long introduction, and which I perhaps would need more time to answer, I would suggest the member address her question to the minister directly responsible.

Certainly when we talk about housing or what it is we're doing with respect to the provision of adequate housing and helping to assist the private sector in that regard, the question should be appropriately addressed to the minister responsible for housing.

I realize the member is relatively new to the Legislature, so perhaps she's not aware of that, but I would like to advise or recommend to her that she redirect that part of the question.

MS. CULL: Again to the Premier. Children need protection now, I ask again: who does your government speak for — families with children, or landlords?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think the member and the House — or certainly the members opposite — should be aware that we take great

[ Page 9152 ]

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

It's because we are representative of the people throughout the whole of the province, regardless of whether they're landlords or tenants, individuals, groups, families or communities Because we're representative of all the people — certainly they've re-elected us time and time again, and I expect it'll continue to be so.... But if....

Interjections.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate it. The time of question period's passing, but if members wish to interject, it's impossible for us to hear the speaker. Maybe they wish to be recognized only through interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, children — as I already explained a little earlier — as a part of the family unit receive a great deal of attention from government. If there is a particular problem with respect to accommodation being available to family units especially, that's of concern to me as well.

If, during all the debates that will follow from here on in, during estimates and so forth, there are certain recommendations or suggestions from the members opposite, I'm sure that the minister, as well as all members on this side, would be pleased to receive constructive suggestions. We would certainly consider any and all. You may want to also question the minister about this further.

HIGH-INCOME TENANTS
IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING

MR. MOWAT: My question is to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Will the minister, if he has not already done so, investigate the problem of high-income tenants who have refused to move out of subsidized housing in Greater Vancouver in order that those in need can access that housing?

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe the member is referring to an article in the paper this morning. This does not involve provincial funding; it's federal funding. We have no control whatsoever over that. We have provided funding in cooperation with the federal government since 1986, and anything over 30 percent of the income of that individual will be subsidized. There is no cap on that, and it goes up as the earnings go up. It is automatic.

In this particular case, it would cost roughly $24,000 in rent if they followed our procedure, and that would automatically eliminate someone staying in a residence where they are taking advantage of that particular unit and where someone not able to pay that rent could take advantage of it.

I am very disturbed about it. We wrote a letter some years ago to the Minister of Housing. Again I have written a letter and voiced my concern and asked them to take some action. There's a critical point in British Columbia where people, especially with children — as mentioned by the member — haven’t got housing, and this situation does not correct it and doesn't help us at all. I have a concern, but I can do nothing about it.

Ministerial Statement

PROFESSIONAL SECRETARIES' DAY

HON. MRS. GRAN: In honour of Professional Secretaries' Day, and to recognize the office support staff within the B.C. public service, I wish to make this announcement.

My ministry recognizes that the present shift from a resource-intensive economy to a knowledge-intensive technological economy will necessitate workers obtaining more skills in order to continue contributing effectively to their organizations.

Employment growth is occurring in the technical specialist ranks which requires skills beyond those of traditional clerical workers. This increase in information technology has the most significant impact on women, who constitute the majority of clerical workers — 93 percent — in the B.C. public service.

It Is also recognized that women are underrepresented in most technological occupations. This is at least partially due to a lack of role models, stereotypical attitudes and systemic barriers which inhibit women from choosing or advancing careers in technology.

[2:30]

The office of information technology within the Ministry of Government Management Services, headed by Jerry Woytack, has created a position to address women's issues in the professional technology field, including the effects of technology on office workers. The objectives of this position include developing education and retraining programs which address the effects of technology and resulting changes in the office environment; developing education and training programs to assist women in entering and advancing their information technology careers; liaising with post-secondary institutions to encourage women to enter information systems programs; and analyzing the implications of policy alternatives, such as mentoring programs, bridging programs and the revision of the clerical classification system to recognize increased technical skills.

Today, on Professional Secretaries' Day, through the office of information technology, our government pays tribute to these dedicated women working in the public service as office support staff. This position and its objectives support the goals of Women's Programs, which are to provide equal opportunities for employment and advancement of women, and to improve the representation of women in management, professional, technical and non-traditional positions in the public service and private sector, by action and leadership.

[ Page 9153 ]

MS. MARZARI: The opposition would praise the government for coming up with a statement that basically lauds the future of the secretary and the office worker. Yes, we want the future to be bright for those women who very often remain suspended in a job ghetto with no way out.

More important perhaps today, on Secretaries' Day, is that we should be appreciating and recognizing the value of the work that these women are doing right now in our offices, listening to the box, wondering how we are behaving.

I did not see the words "affirmative action." I did not see the words "pay equity." I did not see the words "equal pay for work of equal value" here. I did see a lot of good bridging stuff and good mentoring programs. But then perhaps a plea from this House to all male employers everywhere. Please, as a gift to our secretaries and our legislative assistants, may we for a year resist calling people who work in highly skilled jobs with years of education and experience at rates of pay that are 60 percent of what they should be, and who are frequently asked to perform the tasks of friend or family member — let us resist calling them "girls."

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps all members' secretaries would be so kind as to copy from page 50 in MacMinn's book and underline the pertinent part about ministerial statements, and then we will all be better served. I know members have difficulty finding it on their own.

Ministerial Statement

URGENCY OF INTERIM SUPPLY

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Despite the best efforts of this side of the House, including our House Leader, to determine how soon this charade regarding the filibustering of the interim supply debate might end, I feel compelled to set out clearly the consequences, insofar as we have been advised — albeit unofficially — that this debate might well be extended into future weeks. Our best efforts to determine otherwise have so far failed.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain to you the situation this government faces with regard to financial obligations in the current fiscal year. As you know, the government's authority to pay its bills is limited to what is approved by the Lieutenant-Governor under special warrants, which can only be approved when the House is not sitting; or by this House, except for certain statutory payments.

The Financial Administration Act, part 4, section 18, states that: "No money shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of an appropriation." Further, section 28(1) states: "No money shall be paid out of an appropriation or trust funds without (a) a requisition, " and in section 28(3) "No requisition shall be made or given for a payment that (a) would not be a lawful charge against an appropriation or trust fund, (b) would result in an expenditure in excess of an appropriation or trust fund; or (c) would reduce the balance available in an appropriation or trust fund so that it would not be sufficient to meet the commitments chargeable against it."

The act goes on to say in section 30(2): "The Comptroller-General may reject a requisition for a payment if he considers that the requirements of this or any other act have not been complied with." The comptroller-general has a legal duty to maintain the integrity....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have complained again and again about the abuse of ministerial statements, and here we have another example of it. A ministerial statement has to do with policy and administration. It is not debate; it isn't an opportunity to take cheap shots at the opposition. If this is to be the debate, then let's move into Committee of the Whole stage, and you can debate all afternoon.

I don't think the minister should be allowed to proceed on this line. If he has a policy or some administrative matter to talk about, that's wonderful. But this kind of stuff has gone on too long and too often. We've heard enough of it, and he should be sat down.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, the Chair is bound to enforce the rules that the members have made. If the members wish to change the rules, the Chair will be happy to enforce the changed rules. However, I am bound to enforce the rules that we have, and I would refer to the rules of debate on this particular subject. It is in MacMinn's book on page 50, and it's from page 84 of Beauchesne. It says:

"When a minister makes a statement on government policy or ministerial administration, either under routine proceedings, between two orders of the day or shortly before the adjournment of the House, it is now firmly established that the Leader of the Opposition or the chiefs of recognized groups are entitled to ask explanations and make a few remarks, but no debate is then allowed under any standing order."

We're discussing an issue here that went through the House yesterday during second reading. I don't recall an extensive debate from the minister in either the introduction or closing of the second reading of that particular bill, yet it would appear to the Chair now that we are having that very debate at this time.

I haven't been advised by the House Leaders, but I presume that the government's intention is to deal with this bill in committee this afternoon, and therefore there will be an opportunity to speak on that matter. I must ask the minister to restrict his comments in ministerial statements to the rules that the House has given me to enforce.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, if it gives you more comfort for me to make the statement when we're into committee, I'm delighted to do that. But with respect to the opposition's claim that this is

[ Page 9154 ]

somehow an attack on them, not once have I talked about the opposition. I was interrupted when I quoted the statutes. I was interrupted at that point, and somehow this is improper? Is it inappropriate somehow to remind the members of their legal obligations?

Interjections.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Please do, but please bear in mind that caution was given to you by the Chair that the scope of the debate has to be, in this case, either on government policy, which I gather it isn't, or on ministerial administration, which I gather it is.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Please continue then.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The act goes on to say in section 30(2): "The Comptroller General may reject a requisition for a payment if he considers that the requirements of this or any other act have not been complied with." The comptroller-general has a legal duty to maintain the integrity of the government system of payment, and he cannot legally process payments when an appropriation is exhausted.

Therefore I must serve notice that money authorized under the special warrant will run out in certain areas of government within a few business hours. It is impossible to forecast, at this time, exactly when the money will run out, particularly for programs such as medical services and emergency GAIN payments, which are demand-driven, and where costs are incurred and payment issued on a day-by-day basis.

However, over the next two days, officials will be providing me with information on which government payments — and which government commitments — must be halted, as funding for individual ministries is exhausted. I would like to say that it isn't just cash out the door; it is ongoing daily transactions for goods and services, which we have no official knowledge of until the invoice is received. Future commitments must therefore be constrained. I wish to make it abundantly clear that no contracts can be entered into, no commitments for goods and services can be made, no further grants can be paid to hospitals and other such organizations, and no payroll obligations can be undertaken unless an appropriation or special warrant fund exists.

I am therefore asking that all recipients of government grants, such as hospitals, universities and colleges, begin to think about alternative financing arrangements — possibly bridge financing arrangements — which may be required in order for them to continue to meet their contractual obligations in the month of May.

This also means that we will, very shortly, be forced to advise our public servants that when our ability to pay their regular paycheques runs out, they may have to decide whether they wish to provide their services on a gratuitous basis until we are able to guarantee payment for those services.

We value those employees highly, and we value the service they provide to the public. Therefore we will be prepared to consider that eventuality if that is the employees' desire.

I must point out here that where statutory authority exists, some bills will be paid. For example, I find it ironic in the extreme that we will continue to pay the amount owing on the public debt, and, hon. members, you will continue to be paid because your salaries and allowances are authorized by statute. This unfortunate event is beyond government's ability to influence.

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

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

[2:45]

Interjection.

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

We have a litany of fearmongering as an excuse for four months' delay when you could have brought the House in here. Where were you in January? Where were you in February? Where were you In March, when you could have brought this in and paid those bills?

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, it seems to me — and I just want clarification — that the House Leader for the opposition spoke a little earlier on a point of order suggesting that in a statement by the minister he could not be political. I'm just wondering if there are any limits to a response.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Chair is bound by the rules that the Chair has to operate under. The minister spoke about administrative responsibility. I'm quoting directly from Beauchesne: "Ministerial Administration." It says: "When that is the essence of his points, those are points which might not be able to be made in committee, depending on which section of committee the discussion takes place in." So that part of the minister's statement that dealt with the administrative functions we're going to have was quite in order. I would ask the opposition House Leader, in his response, to bear in mind the same criterion we enforced on the Minister of Finance.

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

[ Page 9155 ]

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

What I'm saying here is that we are not going to be pushed into this corner over GAIN recipients, hospitals or universities because the minister happened to screw up. You put the House into a corner, and now you want to blame the opposition. You asked us to pass a $5 billion supply bill in five minutes. That's a billion dollars a minute — a thousand million per minute. We're just not going to accept that. Why should we? The role of the opposition is to protect the people from excesses of the Crown, and this is an excess.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No deal.

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1990

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I would remind members that, as we have done in the past, when we get down to the schedules that follow at the end of the bill, we will deal with each part of each schedule individually.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two schedules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. We'll vote on each schedule separately but deal with each item within the schedules piece by piece.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hear what the hon. member is saying. We must remember that in order to keep some kind of efficiency when we do this work, we're going to be tying up a lot of people in this House this afternoon unless we deal with these in some semblance of order. I'd suggest it may be more appropriate if we decide to deal with, say, the Ministry of Health before we move on to anything else. Would that be satisfactory?

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure has always been that we deal with the schedules — schedule 1 first and then schedule 2 — and that's perfectly fine with us. The question might come up about how, within each schedule, debate might proceed. From our side at least, we can make it clear that we will deal with them one at a time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the most efficient manner.

MR. GABELMANN: Yes.

On section 1.

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

Let me proceed by saying that we intend to call your bluff on this. You don't need four months. There's no reason that you need four months, unless it's some sort of bridging assistance to get you over some rough times when you probably want to adjourn the House. But even if you do adjourn the House, you still can get warrants within seven days. So you don't need this money. It's just irresponsible. You've got spending until May 6. We're not going to stay until May 6.

Interjection.

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

MR. ROSE: We on this side don't intend to bail you out by our silence over your incompetence. We don't intend to do that. Somehow you think you've got us. You're going to bring up the GAIN recipients. You gloated a bit yesterday, and you gave us that sly, serpentine smile as If you knew everything. What we didn't get yesterday was your forked tongue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unparliamentary.

MR. ROSE: No, we didn't get it. If we'd said we'd got it, that would be unparliamentary. But I don't want to be unparliamentary with the hon. gentleman; I want to be honest with him. You don't want us here now.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You don't have us anywhere. Have you seen any polls lately? Look, Mr. Chairman, how can we proceed — and be fair and protective of the people who elected us — to pass, as the minister requested, $5 billion in 15 minutes? What are you asking us to do? This is lunacy. We're not going to do that. Why should we?

You come up with all kinds of gimmicky little things to do, like school referenda. "Oh, it's a democracy. We've got to have school referenda because it's the ultimate in democracy." Nonsense!

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes? Do you have any referenda on grants to business? Do you have any referenda on how much you spend on highways or how much you lose on highways? Do you have any on lotteries or land sales? No, you pick out one segment of society

[ Page 9156 ]

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

Mr. Chairman, we weren't given any details; we weren't even given any warning of this. We weren't given one iota of warning when this supply bill came in. We thought it might come in when we came back here. Three weeks later, on a sleepy Monday afternoon, without any warning, here it comes, and we get it right between the eyes. Well, you can't get away with it.

You say: 'Well, people don't care." Of course they care. We know the reputation of this government in terms of being upfront, honest and open with the people — and you haven't got It. All you're doing is digging your own grave with your teeth every day around here.

Since you quoted something that was unofficial, I don't think that I would be disloyal to the hon. government House Leader across the aisle. I said to him last night at about 4 o'clock: "If you want the bill, cut it in half and you can have it." Once you justify what's in the bill and what you need the money for — and you haven't done it in this bill — you can trot back in here with another one if you need it in a month, if the estimates aren't done. But we don't think we're ever going to see the estimates We think this is going to be bridging through to the estimates. Well, we're going to have our estimates' debates now, if we need to.

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

"Under voted expenditures appropriation, section 1, line 3, following the words 'may determine the sum of,' delete '$4 billion, 934 million' and substitute '2 billion, 467 million'; and following the words in line 5, 'being substantially, ' delete '1/3' and substitute '1/6.'"

Now for the benefit of those who are not very good in math over there — like the Minister of Finance — what this does is limit this appropriation to 50 percent. You're still getting $2.5 billion. God almighty. Even gluttons like you.... Five billion dollars can buy a lot of pork, and we think that's what you're going to spend it on. It pains me to do it, but I'll give you $2.5 billion worth of pork, and we'll pass it today.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I just heard the hon. members talk about their paranoia, about the fact that there appears to be four months in this bill rather than three. The hon. member very conveniently forgets that one month has already expired.

This bill does nothing more or less than the traditional, which is three months in advance of the spending. That's all it does. All of your hyperbole, all of your exaggeration, all of your claptrap doesn't hide the fact that this is no more than what we've done every year, and, furthermore, no more than has been done in every other jurisdiction in this country. Do you know that the province of Ontario, the largest province in Canada, only brought their budget forward just one or two days ago? Quebec still hasn't brought its budget forward until a little later this week, nor has Nova Scotia. It's traditional, right across this country, that you only bring forward the amount of money you need in interim supply to ensure that the continuity of government and essential services are provided. We sit here and listen ad nauseam to the opposition always claim it's never enough. The ultimate irony! They repeatedly plead that there is never enough money; now they want to cut it off so there is no money. Unbelievable!

When the hon. member opposite says, "Cut it in half and we'll give it to you now, " let me respond to him by saying: "Cut the crap now, and we can pay the people tomorrow." What's wrong with that?

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

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

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: All right. I'll use a three-syllable word. It will be difficult for them to understand it, but the word I'll substitute for "crap," Mr. Chairman — under your advice — is the word "foolishness." Cut the foolishness and we can begin paying the people of this province tomorrow.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Sit down then.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to say — if the Premier can control himself — that in the three and a half years that I have been in this House, I have never seen anything as unethical and repulsive in my mind as the statement the Minister of Finance made earlier on, prior to us getting into this debate — nothing so offensive. It seems to me that he is now continuing on the same line.

Yesterday, during the course of debate in this House, he started that type of unethical argument. He started to make a number of comments about the government running out of money. He used the words "in a matter of business hours."

[3:00]

I'm going to wait for him to turn around. I've watched him do this before. Every time we get to speak in the House, the minister turns his back. You talk about arrogance. I can't believe the minister would sit there and exhibit that type of arrogance. He just turns his chair — along with the Premier — and they start reading the news clippings from earlier on

[ Page 9157 ]

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, parliamentary rules advise that during committee stage of a bill — which is where we are — a debate must be strictly relevant to the section or clause under discussion.

I believe we are now on an amendment proposed by the opposition, and I really can't find any relevancy with the amendment as proposed by the opposition with respect to the debate that is coming forward from the opposition. Where a minister sits or how he sits has nothing to do with the amendment before us. I would ask you, sir, if you could bring those members to order and have them debate the amendment under consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's point is well made. We'll proceed with debating section 1.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, we've put forward an amendment that solves the government's problem — which, by the way, they created themselves. They're the authors of their own misfortune. As the House Leader said, we could have been here in February or March to deal with this issue and to make sure there was enough money to deal with the needs of government.

The minister says he needs the money for health services, welfare recipients and so on. If he really cares about them, and if those words are indeed sincere, then the obvious thing for him to do is to accept the amendment we have put forward in good faith, which quite simply says to the government: "Look, if you need some money to pay those bills, here's the amendment that allows you to do that." It calls their bluff. If there is another agenda, then the government will reject this amendment. But if their words are true — if they're sincere in their concerns about those people affected by the Health and Social Services budgets — then they will accept this amendment.

The Minister of Finance, in the course of his comments to the House Leader on this side, chose not to deal with the amendment on the floor. I want to ask the minister just what objection he has to an amendment that allows his government to meet all of its financial expenditures for the next month or so, provides them with $2.5 billion and maintains a tradition we've had in this House. It is my understanding that the tradition is that the government receives approval automatically for one month's worth of payments. We have publicly given our assurance in this House that if, near the end of that month, it looks as though we're not going to be through this process and we're still on this bill, we'll give them another month to meet those requirements

It seems to me that what we're doing here is eminently fair and appropriate, and it calls the government's bluff. I think there's a lot of cheap politics going on here. I read what the Times-Colonist had to say: "Big-Money Ministries Soon Broke"; it quotes the Minister of Finance. That type of fearmongering, endeavouring to strike fear in the hearts of seniors, the handicapped and people on welfare, is inappropriate, unethical and wrong for any government to do.

This minister, of course, doesn't know the parameters of politics. He'll go way beyond the bounds to strike fear in the hearts of those who are least protected in this society in order to achieve his political goal, which is to get approval of $5 billion in a matter of minutes. He's not going to get that; nor should he, because he and I know it is wrong in our democratic society to allow a government to get that type of appropriation without debate, scrutiny or question.

We want to make it clear to the government that we're going to fulfil our obligation to ask questions, raise issues and make sure the funding priorities of this government and this Legislature are in touch with the views of British Columbians. At the same time, we're going to make sure that no one suffers. This amendment makes sure that there will be none of that suffering.

My question to the Minister of Finance, if he now wishes to turn around and show some respect for the way this House is supposed to work, is very simple: "What, sir, is your objection to this amendment?"

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm able to do two or three things at once, and I did catch one or two words that excited my curiosity. The members opposite seem to suggest that they're prepared to cut a deal to "cut it in half" now. We've determined what they are; we're only questioning the price, I assume. In any event, the recent speaker surprised me even more when he suggested: "Give us what we want, and we'll approve a month at a time into the future."

Mr. Chairman, I have to ask you: in all sanity, what on earth is the difference between giving us a three-month bill in advance of expenditure now and a one-month bill, approving each month as we go? Is there some sort of reluctance for the members opposite to face an election? What are they so paranoid about — the prospects of an election? Do they wish to keep us in this House forever, debating whether the people of this province are entitled to receive services provided by government? What is their objective? What is their paranoia all about? I find it unbelievable that we should have had, in the space of five short minutes, two deals offered. I have to wonder how many more deals we're going to be provided with before the afternoon is out. It's most stimulating.

However, the traditional practice, Mr. Chairman, has always been that the government of the day is allowed three months' spending in advance by what is called interim supply. That's all we have asked for. We have presented to this House that proposal, as we have done every previous year and as every other government in Canada does as a matter of natural course. But for some strange reason, this year, the fourth year in our electoral mandate, the members

[ Page 9158 ]

opposite, all of a sudden, get some kind of belief that it's election material. "So we'd better make sure we capitalize on this, because if we don't get the opportunity to pontificate and emote, we won't be able to send Hansard to our citizens back home to show them what we've been doing to earn our salary all year" — as opposed to the hard-working, conscientious government members who spend 16 to 20 hours a day, seven days a week, providing the excellent government we're renowned for all across this country.

Mr. Chairman, the question really is: what is the hang-up, and what is the final price? We've said that we want three months in advance, as is normal. Now we've heard: "Cut it in half, and we'll do it right away." I don't need to do things right away. We can take a little bit of time, possibly. There's a little bit of time here — not a whole lot; a window of time. The question then is: how much is each minute worth? Maybe we should get down and discuss that. If there are deals.... We've had two speakers and two deals. I see that there are six members opposite, so I suppose that will be six deals offered before the day is out. That sounds most promising, and I look forward to further discussion. What other possible deals are out there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for North Island on section 1.

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, that's news to me. I didn't know it had happened already. It's just a good illustration that sometimes the cheap shots that fly across the floor are inappropriate. The Premier might well take a lesson from that little incident.

What we are elected to do in this Legislature -what we are required by law to do — is to scrutinize government expenditure and to determine whether or not it shall be approved. That's our job. That's our constitutional, legal requirement. When governments choose, as increasingly they do in Canada, to bring in budgets after the financial year has started — unlike, may I say, the Saskatchewan NDP government, which for years brought in a budget in December for the following fiscal year that began April 1.... Increasingly, governments are delaying the introduction of a budget until well into or partly into the fiscal year.

We're not here to debate that issue today, but at some point I think we should debate that, because that is entirely inappropriate. This Legislature is required to approve spending, and occasionally we get ourselves into this position for whatever reason. This year it was for political reasons, but we're in that position,

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

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

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

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

Let me say this: the Minister of Finance is concerned about our proposal that we, this Legislature, grant two months' supply. The Minister of Finance says that, for some reason, two months' supply is not enough.

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

MR. GABELMANN: One month has not passed.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It has so.

MR. GABELMANN: One month will have passed by next Monday. That leaves another 31 days, throughout the month of May, for supply to be applied to all of the bills that government has. That two months' supply could be approved within a few minutes.

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

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: "Keep us in the House forever." We are elected to be here to represent the people. It's this government that doesn't want this Legislature to sit. It's this government that hasn't had this House sit since last summer. It's this government that let month after month go by, when these kinds of appropriations could have been approved, without calling this Legislature into session, because it doesn't like the House sitting, because it doesn't like public scrutiny of its spending. It wants four months. I'm surprised the minister didn't ask for 12 months. Why didn't he ask for 12 months?

Let's deal with the question of normal. I have sat in this House longer than the Minister of Finance. Normal for me in this House — on both sides of this House — doesn't exist, because it has been different most years. But the traditional motion is one month. That has been the tradition over the years.

[ Page 9159 ]

I have participated in supply debates that took five or ten minutes year after year, when the former member for Nanaimo representing our caucus would stand up to say that we gave consent to the approval of a supply bill which provided a month's supply. We did that many times over the last number of years. That is what the tradition has been.

Because the House was called together so late, we're prepared to provide two months — double that tradition. If the minister is concerned about paying bills, why won't he accept that two months and get on with it by 3:20 — no later.

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

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

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

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

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

[3:15]

Interjections.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to deal with that issue. The Premier a few minutes ago said: "Where's your finance critic?" So we tell the Premier and the House — I don't like to do it in here — that he's at home with his wife because she is in the late stages of pregnancy.

Then the Premier says: "Well, where's your leader?" Mr. Chairman, our leader is at a funeral this afternoon of a member of a very distinguished British Columbia family. That's where our leader is.

I think it's shameful that that kind of interjection is introduced into this House when you don't know the answer. If you know what the answer is, and if you know that the....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, I ask that question almost every day, and frankly today is the first time that we've had a response. It's not anything unusual. This question is asked every day — "Where's your leader?" — because he's never here. It's necessary we ask that.

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

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

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

I want to say again to the Minister of Finance, who is so concerned about this issue that he's not even in the Legislature.... He thinks he's got his newspaper headline now, and he's gone.

I want to say to him again that we are quite prepared to ensure that the daily and weekly business of government can continue — daily and weekly business that has been put In jeopardy by the late calling of this session. We're prepared to do that.

I just want to say again quietly and clearly that if you don't like our amendment, and if you don't like it to be our initiative, you put the amendment into your own bill. You can have the credit for it; two months supply is all you'll need. If in late May we get to a situation where estimates haven't yet passed, and the House is still sitting and you need another month, it will take a few minutes. That's all it would take; that's all it ever took for monthly supply bills.

The only supply bills that ever take any time in this House are when they're money-grabs, and when they're for these three- or four-month sessions. That's the only time they ever take any time. If you want to go back through Hansard to look at the record, you will discover... From memory I don't believe any of the one-month supply bills ever took longer than an hour to pass this House, and most of them took a few minutes. And that would be the case here again.

So don't give us this phony, political rhetoric which seems to indicate to people out there that somehow they won't get their money because of some action of the opposition.

The action that causes that is the inaction on the part of the government to follow proper democratic procedures and to ensure that the people's representatives scrutinize the spending of government. That's all we ask for.

MR. LOENEN: I understand that the second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) wishes to make an introduction. Perhaps that can have priority.

MR. MOWAT: It is my pleasure today to welcome to the assembly the Maimonides private school from Vancouver-Little Mountain. They are students from grades 8 to 11. Their class president, Adrian Howitt, is with us, with a number of teachers. Would the House please make this group welcome.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Chairman, I have sat here for the third day now, and I've heard the same argument time and again. I listened very carefully to what the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) had to say. He said what is troubling the opposition is the fact that this is a money-grab; that somehow we are going to make use of public funds without public scrutiny and without the opportunity for cross-examination of the ministers, etc. I've heard it said that under this device, because of the four months, somehow we're going 12 months without public scrutiny of the

[ Page 9160 ]

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

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

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order — this was just brought to my attention by the member for Prince George — I don't think the member understands we're on an amendment. It would seem to me that he ought to be talking to the amendment that's before the House right now.

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

The fact is that all of the supply moneys, up until April 1, were fully scrutinized by us last year. In addition, it simply is not true that somehow if this supply bill was passed, there would be no opportunity for further debate. It is a central principle of British parliamentary democracy that there be accountability. What that refers to — unlike the jurisdiction south of the border — is that ministers of the Crown must stand up in the House and be accountable not only for the moneys they intend to spend in the year ahead but for any of the moneys that were spent beforehand under their jurisdictions. So the question of accountability and the question of public scrutiny of funds — it simply is not true, what the opposition stands up time and again and tells us. We ought to say that loud and clear to the people of this province.

I just cannot believe that time and again, speaker after speaker will repeat this and then somehow turn it around as though we are made to be sneaky, dishonest and not trustworthy. I cannot believe that they will abuse the traditions of British parliamentary democracy in such an open way.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, obviously the amendment on section 1 is an attempt to reduce the amount of money available for all of the various programs in the province by 50 percent, to provide sufficient moneys for one month as opposed to two. I don't know just what the hidden agenda of the opposition is, but obviously they're causing some concern for a lot of people in the province.

I should point this out again, as the Minister of Finance did so well. There are many people who contract services to government, and very necessary services, in the area of health care or providing various social programs. As the minister stated, we cannot enter into these contracts without the full knowledge that the funds will be available, because we are, after all, a fiscally responsible government. As a matter of fact, we have the reputation in all of Canada of being the best money-managers, on behalf of the people, of any place in the country. We would certainly not tarnish that reputation by pursuing the course that the NDP seems to want set for the province. We'll not buy that; we'll not accept it. We must know that there are sufficient moneys available to continue our programs. It's not fair to our employees either. There are a lot of employees involved in the various programs, and they want to know that their paycheque is coming.

Members opposite know full well that this is done in every legislature across the land each and every year, as it has been done here. The reason that they're now delaying and filibustering and repeating the same thing over and over again — none of it makes a whole lot of sense — is that they're afraid the Premier might call an election and the socialists will go down to defeat. That's the only reason.

It has come to my attention that the NDP has done a poll, and it shows that they're losing. They're going down the drain, as is understandable, because the people in this country don't want socialism. The message is out there for all of the people. The opposition is afraid the Premier might call an election — heaven forbid! They'll be wiped out again, as they have been in each and every election for as long as we can remember — with the exception of one, and we're still paying the price for when they served us for that disastrous 1,200 days.

I would like to point out.... Perhaps this will help to resolve their dilemma. If they're so afraid the Premier will call an election, and therefore they don't want to approve this interim funding, then let me remind you that the Premier can call an election and we can then issue special warrants to continue the expenses of governments. Now that I've made you aware of this, perhaps you can consider again that if your only fear is that the Premier might call an election, and this will cause the socialists to go down to defeat again, then please, I plead with you, put politics aside for one moment if you can and think about people, the services to people and the needs for services to people. If you'll consider what you're doing through all of your filibustering, through all of your delaying, through all of your repetitiveness — if you'll just consider the tremendous anxiety you're causing to those who provide services to people in this province in the area of social programs and health care.... Just consider that. Consider the many employees too who certainly are dependent on interim funding, as they are each and every year — not only here but in every provincial legislature — for their paycheque. For once, if you'd put people ahead of your politics as you enter this debate, and if you'd just think about this, that the Premier could call an election in any event — and you'd still lose — because there is that provision for special warrants, then perhaps you would do away with this silly amendment and support this bill.

It should be said again, as well, that if you now say you could, in minutes, approve $2.5 billion, but you can't approve $4.5 billion, and all you'll do for the next number of days, weeks.... I don't know how long it will take, and it really doesn't matter. It doesn't matter to you, because you know already that your paycheques will come through anyway. All you're doing and all you're accomplishing, you think, is to make political points or prevent an election. It won't happen; it can't be done. If the Premier wants an election, he can call it in any event. You can't stop that process. So why, for the sake of politics, are you

[ Page 9161 ]

putting people through all of this? Why don't you think of what you're responsible for in this House? Why don't you, for once, put the people ahead of all of this?

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not too worried about the interjections from the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). Her days In this Legislature are very limited, from the reading of the latest polls. If she wants to interject a few times, I'm prepared to accept it, because I realize it will all be over for her very soon, so the NDP polls tell us.

[3:30]

Interjections.

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

In short, to recap, they say they're prepared to approve $2.5 billion in minutes but they're not prepared to approve $4.9 billion, unless they have the opportunity to talk for days, maybe weeks, as we've heard over the last number of days -repetition, filibustering, really nothing of any substance. That's what they tell us.

I would advise the members opposite again.... I would prefer to confer with your leader on this, but I can't ever catch up with him; he's seldom, if ever, in this House. I would urge you again. You are really creating a lot of hardship and anxiety for a lot of people out there who provide services to government and all of those who are in need of their paycheque because they work in the government service.

I would tell the NDP socialist opposition again: if you're worried about an election, what you're doing will not prevent an election from being called. This is a misconception you have. You are somehow of the view that you can delay an election being called by holding up this bill, and that's totally wrong. I realize that you're worried you'd be wiped out if an election were called now. From all the information I've seen, you're going to be wiped out no matter when it's called. So let's act for the people.

MR. SIHOTA: Again the Premier, in his usual way, turns his chair and puts his back to us. I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, I find that highly offensive. He does that every time, so I'm just going to pause here until he ceases talking with the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew continue on section of Bill 22. If he does not wish to do that, he may wish to yield his position and allow someone else to debate and be in order.

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

I want the Premier to understand that if he wants to call an election, then call an election. I want him to understand that the only people who are afraid the Premier might call an election are members of his own party. That's who's afraid of an election. They're concerned that he just might do It.

Mr. Premier, if you want to call an election, call an election. You're right, you don't need this bill to call an election; you're right, you can fund the operations of government without this bill and have an election. The election is not the issue. If you want an election, leave right now and call one.

On the bill, the issue is not the election. The issues here are trust, responsibility and honesty. The real agenda of this government — as highlighted by the words of the Minister of Finance — is to get out of this House as soon as possible to avoid scrutiny, examination and debate in this House. That's the real agenda of the government. It's got nothing to do with paying the bills of our hospitals, looking after the needs of those who are on welfare or our handicapped. If that was true, they would support this motion which effectively calls their bluff.

Their real agenda was inadvertently blurted out by the Minister of Finance when he was in the House and said: "You'll keep us in this House forever." That's the real fear of this government. As I said, the issues here are trust, responsibility and honesty. The people of this province do not trust this government. They think this government has been dishonest, and they have every right to believe that.

They have every right to say that the government should be cross-examined on its financial priorities. They think it is wrong that we send people to Seattle for health care services because we don't have enough money here to have heart surgery; yet, on the other hand, we spend $7 million on a jet for the Premier, $8 million on a decentralization program that doesn't work or $11 million on government advertising every night.

The amendment solves all the problems save one. The amendment says to the government: "Okay, if you legitimately and honestly have a problem in meeting your contractual obligations and making those payments for health services or those contracts to business or welfare, then here it is. You've got the money." The amendment gives you the money, and it gives it in keeping with the traditions of this House. It calls your bluff, Mr. Premier.

If you're really concerned about those people on GAIN, on health care, and if you're really honest, sincere and moral, if you really think, when you look at the mirror on the wall every day and ask it, "Who's the prettiest of us all, " it says you, if you think you're Mr. Perfect, then I'll tell you something. It's very simple.

[ Page 9162 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Possibly the member could come to order, deal with section 1 and show some parliamentary decorum in this debate.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a matter of morality, honesty and bluffs. If you're really honest, serious and sincere, if you really are ethical when you stand up and say you're concerned about those people in hospital and on welfare and about meeting their needs, the amendment ought to be embraced by your government in a second. You know you can get it passed in a minute.

The issue here is honesty or dishonesty and whether or not it is appropriate for a minister of the Crown to stand up in this House — as he did yesterday and today — and say: "Look, we need this money to look after all of those people in our society who can't fend for themselves. We need to look after our government employees who need to be paid. We need to look after our hospitals." If that is, indeed, your truest and most sincere intention and wish, that wish can be fulfilled in a second by you saying that you will embrace this motion.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, I think what's being said by the member opposite is not only away from what it is we're discussing and irrelevant, but also suggesting that if the members on this side simply gave in to what the amendment calls for, then all could be resolved in a second. That would be honest; anything else would be dishonest He is, in fact, questioning the honesty of those who proposed the initial bill — the resolution — and the integrity of those who are putting forth the bill to provide for the services of government as it has historically been done and as is the custom of the House.

He is a newcomer to the House; he's been here only a relatively short time. He hardly — if at all knows the rules that apply here, and certainly was off the point. And he is now suggesting that the measure is a matter of a second....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier does raise a valid point of order with respect to the allegation that any member of this House is dishonest. I don't believe the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew intended that about any individual or minister of this House.

MR. SIHOTA: My intentions were very clear, and the remarks are recorded in Hansard. My intentions were simply to set aside the fears in the public that were generated by the Minister of Finance. We're saying that all those fears can be alleviated very simply by their embracing this motion.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Will you withdraw?

MR. SIHOTA: I have nothing to withdraw. You can't stand to face the truth and you can't stand scrutiny, Mr. Premier. That's your flaw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will make his comments to the Chair and not to any individual member of the chamber.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a very, very simple proposition. It's not a deal. It's no different than a number of options that are put forward by the opposition to help the government get around a situation they have created for themselves. A very simple amendment that says: "If you've got some bills to meet, here's the blank cheque that allows you to meet those urgent and pressing needs, and we will debate the rest. And, in the appropriateness of time, we will resolve all the other issues." That's the way things ought to be done in this House.

I want to end on this note: that is how we can resolve this issue. The one issue that we can't resolve — and we won't resolve, and which we will continue to talk about — is the issue of scrutiny. If it is the real agenda, as the Minister of Finance said, that his worry is that the government will be kept in this House.... If that's his real concern, then I'm sorry. We're not going to accommodate that, because we have an obligation to ask the government questions about its policies.

So I say again to the Minister of Finance — and he can answer the question again with that explanation in mind: why is his government not prepared to accept this amendment which solves this problem, which pays the bills, which looks after the next month or two, and then deal with the issue later on?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. J. JANSEN: Listening to some of the comments from the opposition, my first reaction is one of embarrassment that we have to account to the people of this province for the proceedings in this House. I can only say that it is unfortunate that so little regard is given to reality in this debate.

This House has seen the traditions broken most recently when we had guests assembled here to deal with the throne speech, and unfortunately the NDP socialists saw fit to introduce politics during that ceremony. We saw it also through the budget speech, when again a number of very pointless questions were introduced into the House. That has not been done for a long time in this House.

The real question remains: what is the sense of the amendment? I have had the fortune to serve as an accountant in a number of capacities, and certainly part of that has been in fund accounting and government accounting. This is the first time I have seen a $2.5 billion amendment with little regard to reality. How was the amendment arrived at? How did they research this matter? How was the amount that the opposition House Leader jumped to his feet and talked about...? It is indeed unfortunate that that

[ Page 9163 ]

side of the House treats these bills with so little seriousness.

[3:45]

This House has always had a supply act to enable the government to operate for three months of expenditure. Suddenly, we now have a situation where this is no longer appropriate. It should now be a bill that is always sliced in half. We should — presumably, I think — also proceed with slicing the budget. Is that the intent of the opposite side, that we also slash the budget appropriately to conform to their thinking?

It is important that we get into the debates on the estimates as soon as possible. We can talk about the various ministries. We can talk about the good government that is put in place in terms of the expenditures of the various ministries. I certainly look forward to the debates on the Ministry of Health, to dealing with the various programs that are under the Ministry of Health.

This type of discussion, with little point, with little concern, with little interest on that side.... They simply don't wish to proceed with the informed debate. They don't wish to proceed with debate concerning the people of British Columbia. They are concerned with sheer politics. They have absolutely no reason, no logic for their amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is an embarrassment to the people of British Columbia, and I speak against it.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I was, as usual, fascinated by this self-righteous twaddle I heard just across the hall a second ago. What nonsense, that somehow we had done a disservice to the province because we happened to ask to move an amendment on opening day! What's the matter? Did we spoil your show or something?

After all, we've had them ever time since 1980, with the exception, I think, of '84, when the government accepted our amendments. If you'd accepted our amendments on the GST, ethics in government, housing and the status of women, then you could have had your committee, and it would have been out in no time.

I've had a look at Hansard for that day. Guess who ate the clock? The government members are clock-eaters over there. It wasn't this side of the House. To somehow suggest that we're being unparliamentary because we want to know what we're going to spend $5 billion on is another pack of twaddle.

AN HON. MEMBER: We want to get into estimates.

MR. ROSE: Actually, we're a little concerned that we'll never get to estimates, that somehow you'll adjourn the House and off you'll go, riding off into the sunset. The Minister of Finance just said it over there a moment ago. You want us out of here. When we're here, we've got a platform; otherwise, we're buried in the wilds of Chilliwack — and, my God, that's a fate worse than death.

The Minister of Health asked rhetorically how the amendment was arrived at, as he looked upward, he put his hand over his brow and gazed upward, for relief, divine guidance or some miracle to happen which would endow him with some insight, which is probably not going to happen. How was it arrived at? I'll tell you. It was arrived at because we took the one month that you didn't call the House and ran the place under warrants, and we added to it the month you need right now to pay your bills. That's how we arrived at it. It's just as simple as that. We wanted to help you out. But we didn't think that we were helping the citizens of the province out by giving you a blank cheque. That's exactly why we did it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Help like that we don't need.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite certain that.... You know, you remind me a little bit of the dictator Juan Perón. Do you remember him? You probably remember....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You remember his wife. I remember Juan Perón. He was interviewed by an American reporter. He was asked about democracy, and he said that no, he had no intention of having democracy in Argentina. He said: "What's the point?"

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what on earth has Mr. Perón of Argentina got to do with the question before us, which is an amendment to the spending estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's probably a good question, hon. member, but I'm sure the opposition House Leader will make the relationship known.

MR. ROSE: The point that I was endeavouring to make.... I was, Mr. Chairman, I admit, a bit circuitous. Some people have a sort of straight-line, logical thinking, and some of us are more branching in our approach to logic. In any event, the point I was attempting to make is that when Perón was asked by an interviewer from the States if he intended to establish a democracy in Argentina, he gave a flat no. But what about an opposition? He said: "Look, why pay six men to dig a ditch, and pay six more to prevent them from doing it?"

That's what this government wants. It doesn't want an opposition. That's why we have a $5 billion supply act, unprecedented in its size and its scope.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: You can argue that if you like, but I think I'm on reasonably firm ground. What we're trying to do here....

HON. J. JANSEN: Let's debate the budget.

MR. ROSE: The Minister of Health is being a bit provocative. Why don't you get on the bus, go down to Seattle and see if you can make arrangements for

[ Page 9164 ]

more heart patients or something like that? The health system is in such rotten shape that we have to have a royal commission. We've got the best health system in the world, the minister says; then he says we have to have a royal commission to see what's wrong with it. I don't understand that. You're just trying to get out of the heat, that's all.

The ritualism of the throne speech and the budget I have been interrupted because we have seized the initiative. That's what has happened, and you don't like it. It was going to be your own show throughout, and we spoiled your plans. That's the reason. The I thing we've seen here today — spreading terror among people who are handicapped or unable to fend for themselves, by saying that they won't get their money — is just a pack of twaddle. We're not going to buy it, and we're not going to be culpable. We'll give you the money for those cheques. All you have to do is stand up and say you'll take it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pleased to take a brief part in this debate. I rise and advise the committee that I'm opposed, of course, to the amendment. What has been put forward by the government is substantially one-third of the budget, as we know. I question the opposition's reluctance to enter into budget debate, and I wonder what they're afraid of. Clearly they don't want to undergo the scrutiny of budget debate, so obviously their plan is to use this song-and-dance device to refrain from entering into debate.

I did want to comment on one thing. The opposition House Leader mentioned that it is unprecedented in size. It's a large budget; it's a budget we're very proud of — $1.1 billion for the first time in advanced education. When you take one-third of a large budget, you're bound to have a large number — one-third, or one-sixth, or whatever. It's not without precedent, Mr. Member; you are misinformed. Evan Wolfe, in 1977, brought in an interim supply bill that was one-third of the budget — in other words, four months in length. So it is not without precedent; it was done before. The opposition of the day — and I presume that...

MR. ROSE: What year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In 1977.

... Dave Stupich would have been the finance critic — saw no problem with that, and the interim supply bill was passed in a pro forma, normal manner. Don't lead us around by saying that this has never been done before, because it has been done, and some elementary research on your part would have shown that.

MR. ROSE: The point I was attempting to make was that we've never seen one as large. We've never seen a $5 billion supply bill in advance.... That's the point I'm making. If some previous parliament made a particular decision, it is not binding on us if we want to debate this particular bill. We don't know what's in this bill, and we may never get to the estimates. You guys could go through an adjournment at any moment, once you get this money.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to committee stage and the amendment we're dealing with, to try to get to the very straightforwardness of the request we're making and to put it into the context of some of the comments that have come from the other side of the House. The comments from the other side of the House have been obfuscating Indeed, to take us off the track of the real issue we're debating here this afternoon.

I would remind you that we got into this amendment after an unprecedented comment by the Minister of Finance, who, after three weeks in this House, informed us of the government's inability to manage the affairs of the House. On Monday afternoon he came to the House asking for enough money to carry the government's operations through, if I am to go by months, to the end of July or the end of August. Two days later, after bringing in that bill, after our sitting in this House for three weeks — it's three weeks tomorrow since we got back here — he comes forward with a story of such horror that I wonder how we can possibly imagine that one of this government's proudest claims to fame is that it has been managing the affairs of this province in the interests of all those people whom the Minister of Finance listed as being at risk.

The purpose of the amendment is straightforward. We want to get on with debating the issues that come to this House, and at the same time we want to ensure that the government has the money it needs to operate while we go about that business. That particular amendment allows the government to go forward, and we have indeed said that if the precise amount of the amendment doesn't happen to meet with a reasonable agenda to carry the financial affairs forward to the end of May, we would be happy to entertain a further amendment that rectifies that.

But I want to make clear that the Minister of Finance himself has put the real context into our discussion. It's not an election, because the government can call an election, as governments have been wont to do yea these many years in this House, whenever it chooses to. Indeed the laws of our parliament have ensured that the affairs of government will go on during an election. And should an election be called, this government, like all governments before it, has the opportunity to issue warrants that carry it through the period of the election. That's not an issue. This government has all the powers it requires should it wish to go to an election at this stage of the game to ensure that the affairs of government can be carried on.

[4:00]

But the real issue — and it's the issue that we debated in the second reading, the principle at issue here — is, in the words of the Finance minister: "You would like us to stay here forever." Well, I've never seen any parliament In the last three and a half years want to stay here forever, in spite of the fact that we are devoted to doing the people's business. But we, do

[ Page 9165 ]

want to stay here until one of two agendas is achieved. The first agenda is entirely in the hands of government, and that is that they decide, as it is their prerogative, that they're going to an election. That is their decision alone, and it has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with the debate here this afternoon.

The second agenda....

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me go back to that first agenda. Much as we would like it to be different, much as we might like to know exactly when an election is going to be, the first decision is, in fact, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, by all the traditions of parliamentary democracy in Canada, yours. And I'm not going to stand here today and speculate whether the election is going to be called, whether it's not, whether your Premier is ready to go, whether he isn't, whether the polls are good for you or good for us. That really is not the issue that we're debating in this amendment.

What we are debating, Mr. Chairman, and to the Minister of Health on the opposite side, is the Minister of Finance's statement that he is really wanting to foreclose our achieving of the second agenda. The second agenda is that this House indeed have the opportunity to debate the budget and the estimates without this government having been given a carte blanche to decide that it will adjourn the House to a later date — that it will give this government the opportunity to simply get rid of the people doing the people's business here.

Let me ask the Minister of Finance two questions.

The first question I want to ask him is to explain the comment that he made a moment ago, "You want us to sit here forever, " and put it in the context of the normal sitting of this House when we will be here to pass interim supply when he needs it in the future. In fact, we would have been happier to supply it earlier if he had brought it in at the appropriate time and we could have had an appropriate amount.

The second question I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance — because in spite of all of the discussion here on the amendment, I don't know that anyone has asked him the specific question — is this: why do you find it not possible to accept a friendly amendment, a supportive amendment from this side of the House, which we promised you at 3:20 if you had been prepared to accept it?

I would be prepared to say that we can now promise it to you.... Shall we give you another few moments? You do tend to need a few minutes to provide an answer. I would suggest 4:20, which gives you an opportunity to provide us first of all with an explanation of your very, very insightful and very significant comment that you don't want us here.

The second question is: can you explain, remembering that the amount that we would be approving is $2.5 billion for one-sixth of a budget year rather than one-third, why you are not prepared to accept that friendly amendment from this side of the House that would in fact enable us to deal with your need for interim supply and get on with other business that all of us hope will go on in this House for as long as it needs to as we do the people's business, or until you decide on that side of the House that you're going to call an election?

MR. MERCIER: Speaking against the amendment, I'd like it recorded that the government wants to proceed with the interim supply bill, and that the delay on the amendment.... The opposition are even filibustering their own amendment now. If the opposition wants us to deal with the amendment, why don't they just get to the vote on the amendment? We can deal with it and get on to the main bill. Why do they insist on rising if they'd like to deal with the amendment and want it dealt with expeditiously?

The government wants to proceed. The government has no guarantee as to how long the debate on the estimates will take. If we go by the last three years, the debates on estimates take considerable time. When you talk about the size of the interim supply bill and what it's needed for, straight logic tells you that the government has to get this amount passed at this time to ensure that there are funds to operate while the estimates debate goes on.

The government has the responsibility to pay the bills as they arise, and they are arising quickly, as the Minister of Finance has already pointed out to this House. The government has that responsibility, but they can be thwarted in their responsibility by the delaying tactics of the opposition. So far, since this legislative session commenced, the opposition has set the tone: it has been delay, delay, delay. This is one more delay that they're causing, Yet they don't want to shoulder the responsibility if payments aren't made to welfare recipients, if payrolls aren't met.

I recall better days in this House, looking back in: 1983, $6 billion for interim supply was passed within a few days; in 1985, $2.2 billion was passed — and on it goes. I recall in this most recent legislative parliament when we had a very dignified gentleman here as the financial critic for the opposition, and he was a chartered accountant. He was a kind, thoughtful person and a considerate gentleman. He understood the purpose of the interim supply bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: And he didn't argue.

MR. MERCIER: And he didn't argue with the proposition that interim supply be passed with dispatch. It's a really sorry state for the opposition when they don't have somebody like that who understands. Unfortunately for us today, on the debate of this amendment, the very competent financial critic for the opposition isn't here. What we're listening to is a bunch of people criticizing something they don't seem to understand and which they don't have the background to understand.

In summary, let's say that it's a free-fall from when.... When the former financial critic for the opposition was speaking, the government did listen. When the former financial critic for the opposition wanted to have the interim supply passed, it got

[ Page 9166 ]

passed. I don't know if the current financial critic — a very competent individual — had a hand in splitting this bill with this amendment today. But I don't think he would really be happy with the delays, because he understands the purpose of interim supply. He knows the bills have to be paid, and he knows that the parliaments across this country generally accept interim supply, not as a point to be debated with the government but for the purpose of paying the bills.

If you want to change the whole parliamentary system, that debate should be for another day. If you want to stick to some of the traditions of this country, we should get on with this matter today. You should be calling for the vote on this if you're serious about speeding things up. Let's get rid of this amendment and get the question called on the main vote. Then we'll be acting in the true traditions of parliament.

MR. REE: I am quite amazed at the holdup of this legislation by the opposition. Historically we have always passed interim supply in a very short period, as my colleague from Burnaby just mentioned. It was done even when the NDP — so help us, God — were government in 1972-75.

We have four members who were in the government at that time still sitting in this House. We have the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). I think the members over there should talk to that member and find out what happened in November 1975. We also have the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I think the members over there should speak to him to find out what happened in this province in November 1975. We have the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. Darcy). You should also speak to him to find out what happened in this province and in this Legislature in November 1975.

Likewise, we have one of the supposed powers in that government. He will remember exactly what happened in November 1975 with the NDP government at that time. The NDP knows what happens if the finances of this province are not debated. The government of the time was so far in debt and had expended so much in excess of their estimates for the year that they were scared stiff to present the accounts for the year. That's why they called an election.

The NDP know only too well what to do if the finances are out of order. They don't want them debated. They are accusing this government of the same thing. Well, we have presented our estimates, We are anxious to have them debated. We are anxious to get into and finalize the budget, and to debate the estimates. The NDP will not let us do that. They are holding it up because they know this government has run a good financial shop, not only this year and in the year before, but in all of the years it has been government since 1952.

The culprits in this chamber are the opposition. They are the holdup artists. They know what to do to hide finances, and that's why they're scared of what we've got to show. They are the culprits; they really are. They will not let us debate the estimates, to show what a good government we've got. Back then they called an election to hide their finances. We are not scared to present our estimates, our spending, or to have our ministers open to scrutiny and to answering questions.

They don't want the answers we are going to give. They are going to hold up the process of government. Next week, when people do not get paid, they are going to have to wear that around their own neck, their own collar, because they will be responsible for it. Until we get interim supply through, cheques will not be going out, and people should look to them as the holdup artists of this Legislature.

MR. SIHOTA: I will be very honest with the members. I cannot recall ever being in this House, being engaged in a debate and being as angry as I am today about what's going on. There's a big lie out there. I took the opportunity earlier today to call my constituency office and find out what kinds of calls were coming in. We've had three calls — not a lot, but three — today to our constituency office from people who are concerned that they will not be getting their welfare cheques towards the end of this month. There's a big lie going around.

We have put forward a motion that allows this government to make sure that those payments are met. Why is the government not prepared to accept a motion that ensures that those payments are met? Why does the government want to gain political cheap points by being dishonest and spreading the lie that these bills aren't going to be paid?

MR. MERCIER: Did I hear the speaker say that this government is dishonest? If so, could he clarify which reference...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please clarify that.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd be very happy to. I think what's going on here is dishonest. This government has within its means — certainly in the amendment we have proposed — the ability to make those payments. They've gone around and said that they will not have the funds, due to the opposition's behaviour in this House.

[4:15]

MR. MERCIER: I'm not widely experienced in point-of-order matters, but when the government.... I'm assuming that government members are collectively being called "dishonest." I think that should be withdrawn, because they made their best efforts to do the estimates for the interim supply bill on what they needed for the coming time. The estimates were clearly disclosed in the document that was put before this House, so I really think it's inappropriate to use that expression in connection with that presentation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew the standard question: is he impugning the reputation or good character of any of the members of this House in what he is saying?

[ Page 9167 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Not of any of the members. I'm saying there is fear out there that was put into the hearts and minds of people yesterday by statements made in this House that are out there in the press. We are putting forward a motion that (a) serves to put an end to those fears; and (b) allows for this supply bill to be passed within a matter of minutes.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I ask why this government is not prepared to accept that amendment, which solves the problem that was created by calling this House back so late. I tell you, it seems to me that their bluff has been called. It's clear to me that they made all kinds of cheap political arguments — which really ought not to be made, for the people who can least fend for themselves — got away with them, and are not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds on a point of order.

MR. MERCIER: I don't think it was adequately clarified, because referring to a matter as dishonest, when full disclosure was made by the government in their bills, in considerable detail.... The amendment to the motion.... I don't recall that any details of any of the allocations or the parts of the interim supply bill that would be cut were described in any detail whatsoever. So if we're talking about a dishonest representation to this House, I would ask the member to consider whether he should withdraw the comment on the government having a dishonest presentation. I want a withdrawal.

MR. ROSE: The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds is engaging in debate. It's not a point of order; it's a point of debate. If he doesn't agree with what my hon. friend says, he can, as he's done before, advance the filibuster by getting up and arguing his point in the normal way anyone else does.

You could get into debate any number of times during the committee stage and you could do it as often as you want and speak for 15 minutes, but you don't need a phony point of order to do it.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem when the word "dishonest" is used. I think it's unparliamentary and I feel offended by it, even if it was used collectively, referring to the government. I think the word "dishonest" has to be withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order, as the Chair understands it, is whether the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew is imputing dishonesty to a member of this House.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not to a member? You're not imputing dishonesty to a member, is that correct?

MR. ROSE: The practice is dishonest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the practice, but not to any member.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. It's the practice; it's the behaviour.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member may continue.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says he's not familiar with the rules of order, and that's true. Perhaps he should become more familiar before he stands up and tries to interrupt those speaking on this matter. It's very, very simple.

MR. MERCIER: Continuing on the point of order, I believe I can ask the Chair to determine whether "dishonest" applies. If it is used collectively, it would also be individually. I don't need to know at this moment, but I'd like to know more on that later.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'm glad to see the member is now willing to go and educate himself. I'm pleased to see that, and I think that is perhaps most appropriate with that member.

The amendment here solves the problem that the government refers to. We've called their bluff. And as hot-headed and arrogant as anyone may want to be about this issue - and I would describe, if I may, the actions of the Minister of Finance earlier on as being arrogant - the point is that this solves your problem.

The real point here is that this government does not (a) want to be cross-examined as to its financial priorities, and (b) does not want to be here. The Minister of Finance has said — and he hasn't answered the question that my colleague for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) has raised — that he does not want to be in this House forever.

This government doesn't want to be asked questions about its funding priorities. Why would you spend $7 million on a jet and not have enough money for health care, for example? Those questions should legitimately be asked. This government wants to avoid scrutiny; it does not want to be accountable.

I want to end by saying to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a very easy way out for this government. If it is not right now prepared to accept this amendment, which solves its problems, if it is concerned that the debate on this bill may go on for a long, long time, as the minister says is his fear....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Keep it up.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, now the minister says that he is quite happy to allow this debate to go on. Does that diminish, then, from his rhetoric of earlier on when he says that he has these bills and obligations to meet?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Fill your boots, my friend.

MR. SIHOTA: What's the truth, Mr. Minister?

[ Page 9168 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: We won't ever see it coming from over there, will we?

MR. SIHOTA: I won't respond to the minister who has woodpeckers floating around in his head.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order, I was troubled by the trend exhibited by some members opposite, in particular the most recent speaker...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order, please, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: ... re the reference to the characteristics of the air surrounding certain sitting members of this House. I thought it was offensive, and I wonder if the hon. member would withdraw that particular reference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The wording may not have been exactly out of order to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, but it may not have been parliamentary language in essence. It might be appreciated if you would withdraw.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize the word "woodpecker" was an unparliamentary word, but I withdraw.

As I was saying, the amendment that we put forward gives the government an out. If it's not satisfied with that, let me suggest to the Minister of Finance — who's concerned that this debate may go on for a long time and is worried that he may not be able to make these payments — that there's another way out.

I want to bring to the minister's.... Since I'm speaking to the minister, I would expect him to listen, but....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you will speak to the Chair, not to the minister.

MR. SIHOTA: I would think that....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: If you want to enter the debate, get up and enter the debate.

There's a rule in section 16(4) of the standing orders that says: "Divisions on debatable motions in the House or Committee of the Whole may be deferred to a time fixed by a motion, without notice. The motion shall be a government motion and decided without amendment or debate."

There is nothing that prevents the government, if it doesn't want to deal with our amendment now, from agreeing to stand it down and bringing it forward later, if it feels that time has expired. If it is true that they have these concerns about people who aren't going to get their paycheques or welfare payments and who aren't going to get coverage in hospital, and if it doesn't want to vote today on the motion, it can exercise rule 16(4) and allow for a vote at some other time. It has our assurance on this side of the House that it would get immediate passage.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another deal.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not another deal. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, because the Minister of Finance has great difficulty....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: There's a good reason, as someone once said, that we've got two ears and one mouth. If the minister would just seal his lips and listen.... It's not a deal; it's options that are available to the government. There's a procedural option that is easily available to the government: if you don't like the amendment today, under 16(4) you can bring it forward later.

It means that never will you have to be concerned about not meeting your bills.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It's not a sticky wicket. It says that never, ever will you have to worry about not being able to meet your obligations. There's the option for the government. If they can't accept it now, they can accept this tomorrow, and that's their procedural out.

MR. ROSE: Will the minister, on behalf of the government, accept the amendment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is ludicrous. It really is encouraging, however, to see the NDP talking finally about cutting something in half. We all know that if they were the elected government of this province they'd be doubling all the expenditures, and rather than needing $5 billion for four months, they'd probably need $10 billion for four months.

I'm going to try to deal, one more time, with the facts. I realize it's a downer and sometimes a restriction on the fun in the House, but it is the people's business that we're talking about here, and there is some obligation on the part of government to see that people services are maintained. I can see that there is no similar obligation on the part of the opposition, and therefore I can understand why — in a very simplistic, logical process — they might think the government's inability to provide or to continue providing people services would be a reflection on the government.

Therefore, by their narrow-minded, posturing approach, they assume that the politics around this issue work in their favour. We will see, my friends, whether the people who are placed at risk by your continued failure to do for us what has been traditionally done in this House in all prior years.... Indeed, we're reminded that in 1977 there was a similar four-month interim supply bill that went through without this kind of ridiculous posturing by the members of the opposition.

[ Page 9169 ]

I will go back once more. I do not promise to do this with every speaker, because I don't want to consume undue time. I would be appreciative of getting on to the issue because I want to start dealing with the people's business, and the sooner we can get into the estimates and do that, the better.

Speaker after speaker has made reference to the delayed start. As I've mentioned, four provincial governments in Canada had to delay the presentation of their budgets until the month of April as a consequence of the federal budget that kneecapped provincial governments, without any prior notice, in February.

As I told the House and everybody — and we issued a press statement at that time — we were going to have to delay the presentation of the budget. That was a matter of public statement and public record. The members opposite had notice way back in February that this delay would occur. For them to express astonishment that that's the situation they find themselves in today, I find astonishing in itself.

You were told, my friends. You were told in February that we were not able to proceed with the House opening in March. And to your suggestion that we are politicking, tell me why it is that four provincial governments found themselves in the same position. You can't, of course.

[4:30]

First point: the delay. You had notice. Four provincial governments in Canada were forced to do the same thing. We are not unique.

The second point that I heard.... Mind you, there were many speakers, but few of them made points. But the second point I picked up that merited a response dealt with this four-month interim supply issue.

As the Minister of Advanced Education (Hon. Mr. Strachan) advised the House an hour or two ago, diligent research on our part.... One has to wonder why it wasn't available to research staff of the members opposite, but that may be a commentary on the quality of the staff, or it may be a commentary on the quality of the leadership. I'm not sure which. But in any event, whatever the cause of the failure, we have determined by research that a similar four-month interim supply bill was presented way back in 1977, and it was found acceptable at that time.

I suspect the difference now is — as I said an hour or so ago when I spoke last — that these narrow-minded, little, suspicious, brittle personalities feel that this is an election year. Therefore they're going to have to make sure they get their pontifications into Hansard so they can run back home and show their constituents how they earn their pay. And if they fail to do it now, they will have forfeited the opportunity for 1990. Horrors! Wouldn't that be something!

The references to an election, I would remind the House, have consistently come from the members opposite — every speaker, including the Leader of the Opposition — who referred to that likelihood and indicated quite clearly to this side of the House the paranoia that they have around this unique aspect of what makes 1990 different from 1989, 1988 or 1987

What is clearly different is that you're afraid we're going to go to an election, and you're afraid you're not going to have a chance to get all of this puffery on the record. That would be a tragic outcome, of course.

Nevertheless, I referred previously to the fact that you have repeatedly made it your issue. But one of the recent speakers said: "Oh, it's not an election. We're not afraid of an election. It's the principle." That provides me with a glorious opportunity to use similar work done by our excellent research staff, who reminded me an NDP socialist — a very famous one and a well-respected Canadian, I might add — named Tommy Douglas was once purported to have said: "When someone says it's not the money but the principle of the matter, you can be sure it's the money."

I'd like to know what is hanging everybody up. You have said that it's the delayed presentation. All right, four Canadian provinces have similarly delayed. You have said that it's the four-month aspect. All right, four months occurred in 1977. You have said that it's the election threat, yet other speakers apparently are contradicting that.

The fact of the matter is that the amendment is unnecessary. The bill is necessary to continue the provision of essential services. Many of those services cannot be quantified in advance; many of those services are demand driven.

The principle that I suspect will excite your interest is the one that relates to emergency GAIN payments. They are unpredictable, my friends. And by virtue of the current GAIN cheques that are in the mail, already being included in the numbers, I have a grave concern that the nonsense being exhibited across the floor of this House will place those demand-driven programs at great risk within a matter of a few business hours. If you wish that on your conscience, my friends, fill your boots.

If you like the idea, my friends, of the agencies of government who depend on government grants being forced to go to their bankers to arrange some bridge financing, because we will be unable to give them their regular transfer payments.... If you like that idea, my friends, fill your boots.

If as a consequence of that a special warrant is required so that we might assist those agencies to cover their interest payments while they pay the moneylenders their interest due for this bridge financing.... If you like the idea of a special warrant for that purpose, my friends, fill your boots.

If you like the idea of our employees — whose paycheques, by the way, are in the system and at the end of this week will be transmitted to them. ... That is not at risk, but because the comptroller-general may not allow an employee to work when the comptroller-general is fearful that on payday the funds for that day's work, a week or two in advance, are not payable because the law doesn't allow it.... If you like the idea, my friends, of our employees being forced to decide whether they're going to serve the citizens of this province gratuitously until this gov-

[ Page 9170 ]

ernment is legally empowered to pay them, fill your boots.

My friends, to this ridiculous suggestion that you'll give us two months Instead of the four months, to this ridiculous suggestion that all we'll have is one month's spending.... Let me ask you, In response to your suggestion that a deal....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm talking about the first deal you offered, not the second deal, Mr. Member. Let me ask you, my friends opposite: would that imply that we would be finished estimates by the end of that month, or do you see the possibility that we would go through and put the citizens of this province and the recipients of our provincial grants and paycheques through this agony monthly? Is that your objective? Would you like to see this become a monthly event while we waste three, four, five or six days arguing about whether the government is legally empowered to pay its public servants and the agencies that depend on government pay-outs? No, my friends, I suspect you really will eventually decide, when the penny drops, that you prefer not to fill your boots, and I suspect you will come to understand that there is more to governing this province than the gamesmanship I have seen you exhibit over the last four days.

Mr. Chairman, if you were in any doubt, I was speaking against the amendment.

MR. ROSE: What we've heard, Mr. Chairman, was a regurgitation of that ministerial statement the minister smuggled in right after question period That's all he said; he said the same thing. He carries on with the fearmongering. I know he's loquacious and good on his feet; he springs up and down on the balls of his feet and thinks he's got everybody trapped and scared over here. What "fill your boots" means escapes me, but then I haven't had very much education on boot-filling. At least we can say this: like the mule being hit over the head with the fencepost, at least we got his attention.

What we've tried to do here is accomplish two things. We've tried to see that the people in the public service who depend upon government money are paid. That's what this amendment would do. They would be paid, and all the money you've spent while you weren't back here would be accounted for as well. That's what the amendment does, and that's all it does. There's no reason why it couldn't be accepted.

This is the first time that I've ever heard accountability described as paranoia. It's absolute nonsense It's loquacity gone mad.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He's stubbornly refused to do so. He's walked out — I think offensively and contemptuously. He may need a cigarette or he may need to fill his boots — or maybe he needs to empty them. Who knows? But he's obviously pleased as punch with what he thinks he's got sprung — some sort of trap, the leghold trap.

If it's obvious that he's not going to accept it, then, Mr. Chairman, I call the question on the amendment.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[4:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 17

NAYS - 31

Section 1 approved on division.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4, schedule 1.

MR. SIHOTA: I was just wondering if we could get an explanation from the Minister of Finance. Can he provide a greater breakdown for the sums involved here, more than just what's listed there? Could the minister explain exactly what's involved with this appropriation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Schedule 1 deals with the special warrants required by the Ministry of Health to supplement vote 36.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the minister explain just what else in involved? Could he itemize? He wants approval of $50 million here in a matter of seconds. Could he explain to the House exactly what is involved with respect to this matter?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I heard the hon. member refer to 20 seconds. I tried to keep within that time-frame.

The special warrant was issued on March 15, 1990, and deals with vote 36 and vote 37. Vote 36 has to do with ministry operations. Vote 37 has to do with the

[ Page 9171 ]

Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare. This is, of course, the program that provides funding for increased drug costs for seniors, licensed care facilities and universal plans.

I have exceeded 20 seconds, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for that.

MR. SIHOTA: In terms of special warrants that were issued in March, were any other special warrants issued in March pertaining to the Ministry of Health or other ministries?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, these are the only two special warrants issued for the last fiscal year.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would like to ask a couple of questions, either of the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Health, whoever is prepared to answer them.

I would like to look at the second warrant, which is related to vote 37, and ask for information regarding the Pharmacare costs. What proportion of these costs are for Pharmacare and how do they sit in relation to the original budget?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Getting into further detail, I am happy to defer to my colleague the Minister of Health.

HON. J. JANSEN: The $18 some-odd million special warrant is related to an overrun of year-end due to increased premium costs for plan A, which is the seniors; plan B, which is licensed care facilities; and plan E, which is a universal plan; and increased utilization of plan A and the home oxygen program. We can get into more details, but that's essentially how the $18 million was arrived at — simply an extra drawdown on the system in terms of Pharmacare.

MS. A. HAGEN: I wonder if the minister can put that extra drawdown into the context of the Pharmacare program, because I understand that one of the initiatives of the past year has been to try to rationalize the use of drugs by seniors in an attempt to limit in some ways the service they would require. I wonder if he has any comment about the relationship between an increased utilization and the government program which has been intended to limit the use of drugs by older people, to limit their Pharmacare, not at the expense of their health but for the enhancement of their health.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, we certainly don't have in mind any procedure to limit the access of seniors to the Pharmacare program. But we are concerned, and through our brown-bag clinics have tried to assist seniors in terms of preventing misuse of drugs. I think that was really the question the member had in regard to that program. That's certainly a focus we've had, and we work together with the pharmacists to achieve that type of advice for seniors. We've encouraged them to come in with their drugs and prescriptions, and we would then give advice in terms of misuse and in terms of mixing drugs, which has caused a lot of concern. So that program is underway.

For plan A, which relates to seniors, we have spent $122 million. That was the projected expenditure for last year, and additional costs of some $17 million resulted.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, I am reading from the fact that the total warrant for vote 37 is about $18.75 million that most of it is plan A.

Let me just ask a question about the home oxygen program. Could the minister please confirm that the program is fully covered under the Pharmacare program?

HON. J. JANSEN: When we're doing the estimates, we can go into that program in more detail. Pharmacare did cover the home oxygen program. That was a new program that we put in place. It was a $7 million expenditure. The additional warrant required as a result of that program was $1 million. That's incorporated in the $18 million figure.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have one last question on this warrant, and it goes back to vote 36. Could the minister please inform the House what amount of the $50 million is for air ambulance services and what increase that amount is over what was projected in the budget and estimates that we dealt with last year?

HON. J. JANSEN: The $50 million figure, which is in warrant No. 1, comprises two elements; first is the hospital wage settlements of about $48 million; the other is the ambulance utilization, to which the member is referring, and that's $2,420,000. The increase is largely due to increased use of jet aircraft and helicopters in lieu of propeller-powered aircraft to ensure quicker response times.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not sure whether the minister would have this information available, but if he has I would appreciate it. On the air ambulance service, does he have the figure that was proposed? I noted on the Pharmacare matter he did know last year's budget figure. I am just wondering if he can tell us what proportion of that $2,420,000 is of the budget that was proposed last year.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, I don't have those figures available to me. I hope that we'd have the opportunity to discuss that more during estimates. The $2,420,000 comprises three things: the wage and benefit pressures due to increased utilization, the air evacuation utilization increase, and some BCGEU benefits that were occasioned during the year that were not funded.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, a question regarding warrant No. 2, the reference to the increased drug costs. I wonder if the minister could be more specific in terms of what percentage of particular kinds. Or is

[ Page 9172 ]

that across the board? Does he have a more detailed breakdown?

HON. J. JANSEN: Again, I'd be pleased to discuss that in more detail during estimates. I can give you the actual figures in each category. There are four categories within Pharmacare, if that's what the member wishes to have. The extra requirements on the $18 million: $17,048,000 on plan A; $590,000 on plan B; a surplus of $723,000 in plan C; an additional requirement on plan E, which is the universal plan, of $837,000; and the home oxygen program we talked about before was $1 million extra.

Schedule 1 approved.

On schedule 2.

MS. PULLINGER: I'd like to ask the Minister of Tourism a few questions about the amounts under tourism.

I wonder if the minister can tell me how much is spent on mailings such as the one I brought up today What kind of budget do you provide for mailing services for special groups?

[5:00]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The staff are not available right now. They're attending one of the most important tourism conferences ever held in British Columbia, the Pacific Asia Travel Association. I don't feel that it's timely, Mr. Chairman, to call the staff back from a very important conference such as that to provide a lot of details that we all know will be dealt with during estimates.

However, on this particular question I have had an opportunity to talk to one of my staff members as a result of the questions asked earlier. The mailing costs for this program in its entirety, and this would include the 9-by-12 brown envelopes that are a part of the mailing...that we would probably touch 350,000 potential people and their families coming to British Columbia as a result of this program. The budget is approximately $150,000 in the cost of materials and stamps — mailing costs. That doesn't include the cost of staff time.

But the procedure, just for clarification, is very simple. Interested parties holding a conference or convention in British Columbia qualify by having 50 percent or more of potential visitors from outside British Columbia. The procedure is very simple. You simply approach the marketing office in Vancouver. You are given a number of 9-by-12 brown envelopes containing a lot of B.C. tourism information. The interested parties then take the envelopes, do their own stuffing and bring the envelopes back to the assistant deputy minister's office in Vancouver. They are mailed from there and paid for by the Tourism ministry.

MS. PULLINGER: You are saying that anyone, any interested party who's having a convention, can in fact use the government's budget with no screening whatsoever as to what that material is, and can simply take government literature and government envelopes home or wherever, stuff them with whatever they like, and bring them back — and the government will pay for that and use government employees to process that. Is that correct? Am I hearing that correctly?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, that has been the practice. Rightly or wrongly, that has been the practice up to now. I intend to review that practice to determine with my staff whether that is the type of program we should be continuing.

Apparently we have had the program in effect for some 15 years. There have not been a lot of complaints. The only recent complaint we received, I find from talking to my staff, had to do with the Gay Games that took place in Vancouver. The ministry apparently did a similar service for them, and there were some complaints. I don't recollect receiving those complaints in my office, but my staff tells me that they did have some complaints. Apparently there was some type of a socialist convention some time in the last couple of years, and they made an application and were treated very similarly.

The other types of organizations have qualified. We've had a lawn bowlers conference; they qualified. At no time up to now has our staff felt it necessary to proofread or act as a censoring clearing agency for these types of mail-out. I have asked my staff to hold up on any future mailers for the time being at least, until such time as the PATA Conference — the most important tourism conference ever held in North America — is over this coming Friday.

I will sit down with my senior staff next week and analyze whether the provincial Tourism ministry should enter into the censorship business and whether we should assign a staff person to read these reams of papers to find whether there is some particular clause or word in there that is not perhaps offensive to some particular constituent. And it would also be important, if we get into this field, to analyze all of the brochures and all of the words that are mentioned in all of the articles and all of the government brochures to see whether there is any relative or friend of any government member who might own a part of or have interest in any particular enterprise, to make sure that there is not the slightest suggestion of any conflict in making these types of decisions.

But as I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, tourism is alive and well in British Columbia. I think back to the days of the great seven years of exposure that Manitoba had to the NDP government between '81 and '88. I look at the dismal failures in every way as a result of that regime in poor old Manitoba. I look back at the years '72 to '75, and I think about good old "Pothole" Lea, who told the Americans to go home. And I look at the results of what we have accomplished in British Columbia with a great deal of satisfaction. It is the only province in Canada with a growth in tourism in 1989 over 1988. I tell you, we're going to have an even better year in 1990, and with the Year of

[ Page 9173 ]

Music coming on in 1991, starting in May and running right through until October, we're going to turn this province inside out. We're going to have hundreds of thousands of additional visitors coming into the province of British Columbia.

The great Stena Line vessel that appeared in Victoria a week ago Friday — I am still so ashamed that the local MLAs from Victoria, the mayor and the MP weren't welcoming that vessel. I am very sad.

MS. PULLINGER: I find It amazing, Mr. Chairman, that the minister admits to feeling shame. However, he's feeling shame about a boat; I think he should be feeling some shame about the kind of information, the kind of advocacy, the kind of documentation that this government is inherently condoning and actively sending out across this country at taxpayers' expense. That's what he should feel shame about.

I would like to ask the minister how he's advertising this nice little program he has for REAL Women — and other issues. This is a highly political document advocating an anti-choice position. It talks about lobbying the federal government. It talks about lobbying the provincial government. It talks about dealing with people and organizing to support the Premier in his well-known views. The document is all about anti-choice; It's all about opposing child care. It's all about those kinds of things, and this government has sent it out. I want to know — and I would like the minister to explain it to me — how he advertises this program. For instance, may I phone, right now, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women or the Voice of Women or pro-choice support groups? Can we also get these kinds of mailings, or any other political mailings, mailed out through the Ministry of Tourism?

Clearly this is a political document. Clearly this is right in line with your political views. It talks about the Premier. It talks about Fantasy Gardens. It talks about all sorts of things in here that are in line with this government's political views, which are anti-women.

I would like to know if, in fact, this same option is open to those groups which are pro-women and advocate equality and change. Would you answer me that, Mr. Minister? Is this also available to them? Can I phone them tonight and say that this service is available for those political action groups?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I ask the minister to respond, could the hon. member please relate to the Chair the connection between her question and the schedule 2 special warrant for tourism?

MS. PULLINGER: I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. What we've seen today is the Minister of Tourism and the Ministry of Tourism....

Interjections.

MS. PULLINGER: If the Premier would have a little courtesy and listen, and if the government House Leader would listen for a moment, it would be appreciated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MS. PULLINGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MS. PULLINGER: When the government House Leader is finished, I'd be happy to proceed.

The connection is that the Ministry of Tourism has an undefined budget here. Today we've seen that under that budget, somewhere, they're sending out literature that is highly offensive, inappropriate, highly political and available, seemingly, only to certain groups.

I would like to know how much money is being allocated for that purpose. What are the rules, and can anyone do it? How are they advertising this program? It seems to me that is a highly relevant question under this budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind all members that even though there is a relationship here between what we are dealing with in estimates.... We are really dealing here with a special warrant as opposed to the estimates, and that's why I brought that up.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Chairman, I think you made a valid point. We're wandering. Nevertheless, I don't think the statement posed by the member should go unchallenged.

It seems to me, in listening to her pontificating, that she gets to the very heart of the difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House. This side of the House happens to believe that the politicians and the policymakers write rules and regulations. Then you leave it to staff to apply those rules and regulations without fear or favour, without censorship. The hon. member had earlier been advised by the minister that he was reviewing the rules under which this program applied. So the answer had been provided. However, the member opposite was also told that in the past this policy had been applied without fear or favour, without political interference, and that's the crux of the difference here. What we're talking about is a policy administered by the staff, without political interference. We now learn from the members opposite that they would choose, if given the opportunity, to apply political interference and make value judgments about which ones should be mailed and which ones should not.

That is the very essence of what is different about the sides of this House — that visible line that separates us. You would presume to be godlike and to interfere, for political purposes, with how impartial rules are applied. You would make those arbitrary matters of discretion. That's the difference.

[ Page 9174 ]

Insofar as the minister had advised the House that he was revisiting those rules as a consequence of the information that's just been provided to him, the question has been answered. However, you were told earlier that there was a convention of socialists that received similar concessions. The minister and the government did not interfere with that. The minister and the government allowed that to proceed, even though some in this House might find that offensive. To suggest that all of a sudden, because some group wished to take advantage of a mailing and because, in the application of fair and impartial treatment to all, the staff applied the policy that had been set down by the government.... To criticize the staff for the implementation of that policy, I think, is grossly unfair. They're not here to defend themselves.

The fact is that the minister said that he will revisit that policy. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the question has been answered by the minister.

MS. PULLINGER: I find it absolutely astounding and incredible that the Minister of Finance is standing up and defending this outrageous document and the fact that his government sent it out. That is outrageous.

The minister keeps pointing out the difference between the two sides. I would like to say that yes, indeed, there is a major difference. The people on the other side of the House are actively advocating these things, against women; we are actively advocating for women's equality.

I am not criticizing the staff; I am criticizing this government. I am criticizing the Minister of Tourism. I am criticizing the Premier. I am criticizing the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, if there are any. I am criticizing the Minister of Finance for this irresponsible action and for sending out this literature, which is disgusting.

My immediate question to the Minister of Tourism — if the Premier would like to answer, I'd be quite happy — is: what are the rules? How are you advocating this? How do you make this program available? Have you also let the National Action Committee on the Status of Women know that this program is available for them? They are also a political action group. Have you contacted that group and said that it is available for them? Do you have any regulations? Are you taking any responsibility for what the government is sending out? I would like to know what your rules are and whether you have contacted those groups.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think the Minister of Finance said it so well. I would like to reiterate what he said. The difference between the socialists and this side of the House is that you would have rules for everything. You would rule people into the ground; we know that. You would censor. You would rule. You would divide one group against another. You would take positions — this group, okay; that group, no. The member, when she spoke, said: "If it had been for the gays or some other group, it might have been all right." But because it's this group, which she obviously disagrees with, it's not all right.

[5:15]

We are not about to start writing rules for every action of all people working in government. As the minister said, we have legislation, we have regulations and we have policies; that's a sufficient guide. We have great staff working in every ministry, and they carry out these programs effectively. They do not need a lot of partisan politicians somehow interfering in every move. That's one of the reasons why the people of British Columbia have voted against the socialists time and time again, and why they will do so again and again. The socialists would rule them into the ground. They'd have rules for everything. They would censor all things. They would be the gods and the judges of whatever was done in every ministry, with respect to every program.

I am proud of the ministry for its program, for its effectiveness. It's done very well. It's for those who are sponsoring conventions and conferences in our province. It's people who travel from other parts of the country or other parts of the world to participate in the fine facilities we provide for them in places like Victoria, Vancouver, Penticton, Kamloops, Kelowna, etc., and that's good for business. The programs have worked very, very effectively.

I realize your approach to tourism would be very different. Maybe that's why the economy fell to the ground so quickly during the NDP years. We have been very successful economically. Whether it's tourism or any other ministry, it's worked well, and we don't intend to start applying rules and regulations and interference by politicians in each and every one of our programs. We're proud of our record and we're going to carry on with it. We're proud of what the ministry is doing, and I can assure you we're not about to follow the advice that you're attempting to give— setting up a set of rules so that someone might censor over and above the administrative responsibilities in the ministry.

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed and appalled to say that the Premier is proud of his ministry for this program. I hope that all the women of British Columbia are listening carefully to the Premier and the Minister of Finance defend the sending of this kind of literature not just around the province but around this country.

MR. LOVICK: In the name of politics.

MS. PULLINGER: Yes, this is a highly political document. It is lobbying for a specific group to support the Premier. It also says: "We have included tea at Fantasy Gardens." Yes, we would have rules on this side of the House. We would have conflict-of-interest rules.

This document also points out that this group is concerned that the B.C. government will pick up the tab for women's centres that are being closed, and it advocates that people lobby this government and

[ Page 9175 ]

keep in touch with their friends on the other side of the House, Mr. Chairman, to make sure.... It says that the minister seems to be backing off on her original position, and they had better work to make sure she holds to her original position not to fund these centres. That's what this document is advocating.

It's talking very specifically about the heroes of this group who have been blocking the abortion clinic in Vancouver, the Everywoman's Health Centre. It's talking about how terrible that is and how they'd better get behind those people politically, and they're advertising it through this document.

They're also suggesting that these people write to the Speaker and advocate for this group and attack people who would advocate on behalf of women for reproductive choice.

It's a document that attacks women. It attacks women's centres. It attacks other political parties. It attacks homosexuals. It blames homosexuals for AIDS. It blames people with AIDS for their illness. It advocates against child care and against equal pay for work of equal value. I might point out that at least three government members I know have also said they're philosophically opposed to equal pay for work of equal value. It advocates all of those things that are anti-women and it's definitely the agenda of this government. It's a highly political document This government has advocated it. It has implicitly endorsed it by providing government funds and government staff to send it out.

That is abominable, and the Premier is standing up and telling me he's proud of this. He's probably proud of a lot of the other actions in the same vein that we've seen from the members opposite in the last year, and that I've sat here and listened to.

It also advocates Dr. Walter Block of the Fraser Institute, the Socred think-tank. Isn't that interesting. It would condemn those who would sneer at the Premier's stand on the traditional values they espouse — the traditional values of women being at home and being paid unequally and being denied reproductive choice. Those are the traditional values they're talking about, and the Premier's telling us he's proud of that.

It is absolutely disgusting that the government would advocate this kind of thing, and I ask the Premier.... He hasn't answered my question. Has he made this available to all women's groups? Can you answer my question this time? How do you disseminate the information that this is available, Mr. Premier, and are you willing to provide this side of the House with a list of groups that have used this service? We would be most interested in that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, first of all...

MR. SIHOTA: Tell us about Fantasy Gardens.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member opposite, who apparently has a law degree — though I don't believe he has practised it, but that's immaterial, I suppose — is suggesting that I should tell him about Fantasy Gardens.

Mr. Chairman, I commend people who go into business, and I commend people who run businesses, be they women or men. I am very proud of a woman I'm very close to who very successfully runs a business, only through working most of seven days a week from early morning to late at night. I know that woman well, and she's not going to be discouraged by a bunch of socialists who would deny her or other women that opportunity.

The suggestion was made by the member for Nanaimo that somehow there should be a process — that's what I believe the question to me was all about, Mr. Chairman — whereby all of the material that a ministry might somehow be involved with, because it's mailed out in conjunction with other things, should be vetted. I would remind the members opposite that even one of them — she's not in the House today — owns a number of pubs and a hotel. I am sure that, like any other person in business, from time to time it may well be that someone in passing or in correspondence mentions such a business.... The word "business" — or anything to do with business — appears to be a filthy term to socialists; therefore they would be opposed to that.

I would also remind the member for Nanaimo that when the socialists, at their national conference in Vancouver — which, incidentally, I went to, to help welcome the group, because they were a conference in Vancouver, a large delegation from all over the place, and I thought it was respectful that we should give them the appropriate welcome.... I did, and I was pleased to do so,

AN HON. MEMBER: Without fear or favour.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Without fear or favour or discrimination.

We, too, were party to including with our material a letter from the socialist conference to their delegates which made reference to and commended all sorts of socialist theory. Do the members opposite suggest that that was wrong, or any more right or wrong than REAL Women writing their membership and perhaps expressing an opinion? We can disagree with what people say. That doesn't mean we go out and censor it just because we disagree. You would have expected us to censor the letter that went out to the socialists. That offends me.

The member for Nanaimo obviously feels very strongly about this, and she has the right, if she so feels, to express her opinion on the matter. I don't argue with that. She makes reference to what is in the letter, to everything being an attack. I guess others who have read the letter may not react quite the same way. That's not to say we agree or disagree.

I would suggest, hon. member, that the topic we're discussing and the emphasis you're placing on it certainly take away from the urgency that has been expressed about the need to debate the interim financing in the bill — the provisional funding. It

[ Page 9176 ]

seems to me that you're attempting to make a lot of politics.

I would remind you again that we still live in a province where people have the right to express their views. Even if we in government or those in the opposition disagree with those views, it doesn't mean we immediately have to censor all things and say they're all wrong, or that they shouldn't do such, or that they don't have the right to do such. We live in a province with great freedoms, and I would hope that we will respect and continue those freedoms.

MS. PULLINGER: I see that the Premier is afraid to answer my question and that he also still doesn't understand conflict of interest when his government sends out something that invites people to Fantasy Gardens. However, I would like to ask him a very simple question — I'll direct it to the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) first: would the minister accept a mailing from the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Brotherhood under this program? If not, why not?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The New Democratic Party in British Columbia and in all of Canada has just received the endorsation of the Communist Party of Canada in the next election. I would like to know if one of those members opposite would stand up to refute that support and ask the Communist Party not to give their support to the NDP in the next election. That announcement was made here a few days ago. I haven't seen one single member opposite — provincially or federally — make a statement of that support. I would make objection to that support. That regime has put Europe under the wheel, destroyed their environment, suppressed their people, taken away democracy, and they are now throwing their support to the members opposite. I have not heard one single member make any suggestion about refuting that support.

MRS. BOONE: Point of order. The minister is not answering any of the questions at all. He's totally out of order. I ask the Chair to call him back to the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be appreciated if the Minister of Tourism.... We are on schedule 2 of Bill 22, and would the minister conduct himself accordingly.

[5:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have a couple of points to make regarding the member's question. The member mentioned that we were sending the literature. I have explained several times, and I'll say it one more time. We stuff the envelope with our material and then offer the 9-by-12 brown envelope to the organization to put in their material, and out it goes. If the member opposite would like some organization....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, excuse me a moment. Order, please. I would remind hon. members that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language, Particularly the first member for Nanaimo when he speaks, if he would do so standing in his chair or in his place and also show some temperance to the minister answering questions from the second member for Nanaimo....

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could I ask for clarification of the point you just made? You said two things. You asked if I would stand in my chair, and second, if I would show some temperance. Would you explain both of those to me, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. member ss aware that he was jumping around behind his chair a few moments ago, and it's not for the Chair to mention that. I would ask that we continue debate on schedule 2.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm simply trying to find out some information from the government, specifically the Minister of Tourism. They seem to be very difficult....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Point of order. With the greatest of respect, I would remind the Chair that the minister still had the floor when the first member for Nanaimo rose on a very specious point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is in order. The minister continues.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I know it's very difficult for the socialists to do and for the socialists to understand, but if you want some service from the provincial Ministry of Tourism, the first thing you have to do is pick up the phone and make some inquiries, ask some questions, get out of bed in the morning, put both feet on the ground and get on with the job. I know the socialists find that very difficult.

I do want to say one more time that the program is under review. It has been under review for some 30 days now. We discussed target marketing and the effective delivery of tourism service. This program is being looked at and has been looked at; it will continue to be reviewed as it has been reviewed for the past 30 days. There have not been any mailers done, I find now, for some three to four weeks. We're looking at the new budget the minister has brought in and the cost-effective delivery of target marketing on behalf of Tourism to make the province even stronger than it is today and to turn more of those tourist dollars into tax revenue for the Minister of Finance to make his budget even more attractive than what has been delivered up to now.

MS. PULLINGER: The government member appears to be having a problem responding to a very simple question about how this program is advertised. He talks about target marketing. I would like to

[ Page 9177 ]

know what market he's targeting when he talks about Canada as "Sodom North." I would really be interested to know what market he is targeting when he includes information that says: "Most decent people do not know the disgusting, filthy activities indulged in by these people, homos and lesbians." What is the target market of the Ministry of Tourism for this kind of disgusting literature? Also, I would really like an answer on how the minister lets people know how this is available. Can he answer those two simple, straightforward questions, please?

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I have a very quick question to the Minister of Tourism. I guess his mind was elsewhere — as is so often the case — and therefore he didn't hear the question. Perhaps I could restate it in a slightly different way. Would the minister explain to us what the criteria for selection are?

For example, I understand that the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood are planning to visit Nanaimo and have an interest in getting a mailer sent out to advertise this as a major tourist attraction. Could they simply call the minister? Would you explain to us what criteria you use for these judgments?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Was that the Communist Party you mentioned coming to Nanaimo, Mr. Member? I missed that.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, the minister demonstrated rather clearly in his answer that he doesn't see any distinction between a legally constituted political party — registered with every legal right to exist — and another organization dedicated to the promotion of hate and violence towards minority groups in this country. The minister wants to suggest that those two are the same. Mr. Chairman, with all due deference, that is the worst kind of Red-baiting; it would make even Senator McCarthy cringe, I suspect.

Rather than being cute, would the minister try to answer the question about the criteria that are invoked and in place in his ministry?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member seems to be drawing a comparison of similarity between the KKK and the British Columbia women's group. I find that somewhat offensive.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many times we have to explain this. Perhaps we need to supply hearing aids to the members opposite. The criterion is extremely simple, up to now; 9-by-12 envelopes are stuffed with B.C. Tourism brochures and turned over to the qualifying associations who are holding conferences or conventions. To qualify you must have 50 percent or more of your delegates from outside the province of British Columbia. You stuff the envelopes with your own material and we mail it out.

I've said that the entire program has been under review for 30 days. There has not been a single mailer put out in the province of British Columbia in three or four weeks. We're going to continue to review this program, and I hope we'll have some more positive answers on the future of this program sometime next week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Nanaimo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you understand the answer?

MR. LOVICK: My misfortune is to be sophisticated enough to understand what puffery means, and I just heard some.

Let me try to make two small points, and then the question.

When I am accused of suggesting that there is perhaps a similarity between the Ku Klux Klan and this group of people called REAL Women, I must answer that based on the evidence we have before us in the document, yes indeed there is. I would submit, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have their opportunity to stand in debate.

MR. LOVICK: I would submit that anybody who looked at the document that has been read into the record today would draw the same conclusion. We are talking about hatred. We are talking about a vicious attack on certain identifiable minorities. I suggest that that is racist; it is deceitful, dishonest and despicable. It is precisely those things we associate with the KKK. Based on hard evidence, therefore, I draw that conclusion. I make no apology for doing so.

I would suggest that if the minister wants to be gutsy — and the rest of his colleagues — they might consider giving that document to the B.C. Human Rights Commission or what's left of it. They might like to pass it on. They might like to try some other jurisdictions in this country who have experience with hate literature, because that document qualifies. It is hate literature.

Now to the very simple question. Mr. Minister: tell us how a group qualifies. Don't hide behind the fact that "we just stuff the envelopes." The envelopes with tourist information are sent to particular organizations, obviously. Do you draw the line at what group can receive them, or would you give the same privilege and the same opportunity to the Aryan Brotherhood or the KKK? Tell me that, Mr. Minister, please.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would ask the member to read the Blues tomorrow morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: I just wanted to ask a simple....

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Point of order. I find it continually offensive when women on that side of the

[ Page 9178 ]

House stand up for recognition and that member pushes them down. I would say the Chairman should watch who's standing up first. It's the third time....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. We are on schedule 2 of Bill 22.

MS. MARZARI: The minister in question had just been interrogated by the first member for Nanaimo. The minister chose not to stand up. I was checking the minister's ability to stand up to answer a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Madam Member. We are on schedule 2 of Bill 22.

MS. MARZARI: I'm interested in clarifying this particular issue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will be out of order, Madam Member. We are on schedule 2 of Bill 22, and your debate should be pertinent to Bill 22.

MS. MARZARI: His point of order is not well taken, because we are reasonably coordinated on this side of the House; in fact, so coordinated that I really want to ask a question of the Minister of Tourism that has to do with this section of the supply bill. It has nothing to do with what the criteria are. I think that's going to be a difficult question. He's tried to answer that. The criteria obviously don't exist. He's also been asked who screens the material. He said nobody screens the material. He's also suggested that there is a target marketing policy of the Ministry of Tourism that targets constituencies and people that they want to come to B.C. I'm talking business here; I'm not talking rights. When we're talking about targeting populations we want to come to B.C., I would assume that we would cast the net far and wide to ensure that everybody could come and enjoy the wonderful scenery and the beautiful sunshine of British Columbia.

[Mr. Pelton In the chair.]

This document in effect tells a number of groups not to come to B.C. It basically says that Justices Bertha Wilson and Beverley McLachlin really aren't welcome, because they have personal opinions that they express by virtue of being Supreme Court justices.

It suggests that Lois Wilson, former moderator of the United Church of Canada, is not particularly welcome in B.C., because she happens to have a pro-choice, pro-women stand.

[5:45]

It suggests, without stating it explicitly, in a paragraph here which has obviously been carefully edited to have just the right feel to it: "Glenda Simms, a Jamaican lady, was recently appointed to the post of president of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women at $70,000 a year, filling the post left vacant by Sylvia Gold...." It suggests that perhaps "a Jamaican lady," Glenda Simms, and perhaps Sylvia Gold, might also not be welcome here in B.C.

I would suggest....

MR. MERCIER: A point of order.This is my day for points of order. We're debating a bill over financial matters, and we're on the main bill of interim supply. We have a member quoting at length from what article I can't recall. The least I'd like to know is: what is the article the member is quoting from?

Also, I'd like to know what the relevance is. The debate, I understand, has to be relevant to the matter of the interim supply bill. Somehow we seem to have gotten into this diatribe on censorship. I want to know the relevance of that to the matter of the minister managing the costs of his department and to the interim supply bill. Can we come back to the interim supply bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the member continues, I might point out to all hon. members — and I think this has application on both sides of the House — that relevancy is of prime importance when we're dealing with matters such as this. It would seem to me — and I would suggest to members that they might agree — that we've canvassed this particular item fairly thoroughly this afternoon. However, the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey has one or two more points she'd like to make. She might proceed, staying relevant to schedule 2 and the article we're discussing under tourism.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding, from discussions held just now, that the issue to which the member for Vancouver-Point Grey is referring deals with an expenditure made last year. It's my belief that we're now in section 2, which deals with a special warrant during the current year, some of which might not have been expended. By virtue of that, I give you a new piece of information to consider when we're talking about the relevancy of this irrelevancy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does appreciate what you've said, minister. I note that on the schedule, it states under "Tourism" that the moneys were for "the continuation and ongoing budgetary programs of the Ministry of Tourism."

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Chairman, that's quite correct; we are dealing with a supply bill that covers both fiscal years, 1989-90 and 1990-91.

I am commenting on the tourism section this year, in which the minister has suggested that $150, 000 Is going to be spent or has been spent. Certainly, a part of that $2.3 million going into tourism is going to be spent on this mailing program. My question has to do with who this mailing program targets and, more important to the question, who it excludes. Because, as I was stating, this particular document, sent without any reference to any screening, without anybody looking over, in effect, the ten pages that it takes to read through this, excludes a vast number of

[ Page 9179 ]

groups that I think we should expect to be included and welcomed to British Columbia.

This document offends. In fact, it does more than offend, and I think we should be taking this to the B.C. Council of Human Rights to see if it can be categorized as hate literature.

I ask the ministers: who does the department target as desirable tourists to B.C.?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: There has not been a single mailer done on this program in the current fiscal year. We target-market tourism promotion in those areas where we get the biggest bang for the buck. We have a very strong tourism component in the province of Alberta, and a very strong tourism component in the state of Washington. Those are our two greatest suppliers of tourism into the province.

I would take offence, Mr. Chairman, at remarks made by the member about any feeling or suggestion that people of all stripes, political beliefs, or whatever, are not welcome to British Columbia. We are saying that people all across this country, national and international, are indeed welcome to British Columbia. If some people take particular offence to certain articles, I can't do anything about that. That's nature. I'm sure many tourists take offence that we have a socialist opposition in this province. That may offend a lot of people, but the tourists keep on coming to British Columbia nonetheless.

I look forward to discussing this at great length when our estimates come up and we have our staff support to explain in detail all these great programs of the Ministry of Tourism

MS. PULLINGER: I just have one more quick question to the Minister of Tourism. In this program funded by the Ministry of Tourism, what exactly is it that people are allowed to send? Is it just invitations to conferences? Is that what your program encompasses?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Read the Blues tomorrow morning. I hate to be repetitious on this matter. I've explained at least five times now the process for getting conference information into the brown envelopes.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister seems to have a hearing or interpretation problem. I'm not asking about the process or about how things get into the envelopes. I'm asking what people or groups are allowed to send out under this program. Is it just invitations to conventions that people are allowed to send out? Is that what this program is about?

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister of Finance under the section called "Government Management Services and Ministry Responsible for Women's Programs." I'm looking at section (b), for $21 million, which I would imagine is one-third of the budget for the payment of the working capital account under section 23.1 of the Purchasing Commission Act.

HON. MR, RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when we started this debate this afternoon, you quite clearly laid out the way we would go through the schedule, and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) clearly stated: "We have no problem with going through the schedule in order." We are at the Ministry of Tourism, and we are one section away from the end of schedule 2. I would remind the member that it's inappropriate to jump around from one section to another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. minister, but there's only one vote here; we're only voting on the schedule. There was a stipulation that we'd go through it one part at a time, but I don't think it was stated that we would do it "chronologically" or anything like that,

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, on the hon. House Leader's point of order, I'd just like to clarify it for him and give him the same answer the Minister of Tourism gave to our hon. friend from Nanaimo a moment ago: "Read the Blues." It wasn't said at all that we were going to take these things in order. As a matter of fact, we couldn't even proceed through them seriatim if we wanted to, because your ministers aren't here. Many of the ministers we want to question aren't here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You didn't even attempt to go through them seriatim.

MR. ROSE: We didn't intend to.

MR. JONES: I want to ask a question of the Premier. The Premier of this province — the leader of the government party — clearly indicated that he had read this letter that had been distributed to women across this country. He had read this letter, he condoned and defended it, and he defended that process. I would like to read into the record exactly what the Premier of this province is defending.

HON. MR, VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, the Premier made no such comments as are being suggested by the member. I would like to suggest that he read the Blues and perhaps make his comments tomorrow. He's obviously starting from a premise which suits his political agenda; but it's not, in fact, what was said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair can see absolutely no relevance in the line of discussion that's taking place at the moment. I would have to ask the member for Burnaby North to either be relevant to this schedule that we're dealing with or yield his place to somebody else.

MR. JONES: The question is very relevant, Mr. Chairman.

We've clearly seen the kind of policy that the government allows certain individual groups to mail across this country, with particular kinds of what I

[ Page 9180 ]

describe as hate literature, and we have this process condoned and defended in this last hour by the Premier of this province. I can't believe that the Premier has read this document, but I was sure that I heard him say he had read it. Just in case he hasn't read it, I would like to read into the record exactly what the Premier of this province is defending. The document says....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair ruled that this was not relevant to schedule 2. How you can proceed to read, I don't know. It's not relevant. If you can't be relevant to schedule 2, you'll have to yield your place to somebody else, hon. member.

MR. JONES: It's certainly relevant to the debate we've had all afternoon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have something else to say?

MR. JONES: We've been debating this particular process. The Premier of this province has defended this process. I would like the record to show exactly what the Premier is defending.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. JONES: It's been in order all afternoon, Mr. Chairman. All of a sudden it's out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The subject has been discussed to a great extent all afternoon, but I wasn't talking about the subject. I was talking about reading a document into the record.

MR. JONES: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I feel at this point in time that my freedom of speech as a member in this House is being abridged.

We have debated this subject for several hours now. I would like the record to show exactly the kind of hate literature the Premier of this province is condoning being transmitted across this country.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, hon. member. The rules of this House are quite plain and straightforward: when the Chair makes a ruling, it will be followed.

MR. JONES: You're ruling on my motion of privilege.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm not ruling on a motion of privilege. I'm just telling you, hon. member, that standing orders of this House do not permit any questioning of a ruling made by the Chair. These rules were brought forward in 1985 by a committee made up of members of both sides of this House. The Chair has ruled that that document is not relevant to the debate on schedule 2. That's the ruling, and I'm not about to change it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In light of the time, I move the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.