[ Page 12351 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Election Day Fairness Amendment Act (Bill M203). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 12351

Private Members' Statements

Access for the physically challenged. Ms. Pullinger –– 12351

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Privatization. Mr. Reid –– 12353

Mr. Blencoe

Privatization of court reporters. Mr. Sihota –– 12356

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Teacher bargaining. Mr. Michael –– 12358

Ms. A. Hagen

Supply Act (No. 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Second reading

Mr. Blencoe –– 12360

Hon. J. Jansen –– 12361

Supply Act (No. 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. J. Jansen) –– 12363

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Rose

Mr. Perry

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Today I would like to welcome to the Legislative Assembly 32 grade 7 students from Gray Elementary School in North Delta, along with their teacher Mrs. Donna Gatley. Would this assembly please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I wish to ask the second member for Nanaimo to correct the record in yesterday's Hansard. I think a quote from the Speaker of the California House says it best: "In this crazy business, at least in our times, a lie unanswered becomes the truth within 24 hours." Yesterday the second member for Nanaimo said that my ministry spent $500 million touring the province last year, — that's $497.5 million more than my budget. I would ask for an apology and to have the record corrected.

MS. PULLINGER: That certainly wasn't the figure I intended to give, and if that was the one I gave, I apologize. What I meant to say was that $500,000 was the original budget for the provincial tour that came up with three medals and a logo contest for the women of British Columbia. But the minister has confirmed that her budget is $2.5 million. If I offended the minister, I certainly apologize, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there's no debate allowed on a motion of privilege. Does anyone else want to speak to this motion of privilege?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a motion of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's what it was called.

MR. ROSE: This business about a motion of privilege is a rather interesting device to get up on a point of order and ask for a correction. There are certain procedures on points of privilege, and I'm sure the minister is well aware of what those are. She is obligated, as you know, Mr. Speaker, to provide a statement and also to be prepared to provide a motion. It was clearly not a question of privilege. It was a request for a correction, and it could have been done in other ways. It definitely wasn't a question of privilege, because there is no motion. I don't see how anyone's privilege — impeding their ability to do their job — was in any way affected by what is obviously an error.

HON. J. JANSEN: That's an interesting comment from the opposition House Leader. I recall that just a few days ago the "Finance critic" made a motion of privilege underlying his lack of understanding respecting the deficit position of British Columbia. He made a big show of the fact that he didn't understand the difference between $395 million and $1.2 billion. And here we are with the opposition House Leader indicating, when we want to make a correction for the record, that he takes offence at it. I find that regrettable. They don't understand the rules of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the opposition House Leader please take his seat.

Hon. members, the Minister of Women's Programs rose on a point of privilege — she felt it was a point of privilege. She made a statement, as is required. The second member for Nanaimo got up and responded to the statement. I am prepared to accept that as being the end of the whole affair, and I would suggest that it's certainly not something we should make a federal case of.

Introduction of Bills

ELECTION DAY FAIRNESS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled Election Day Fairness Amendment Act.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill would ensure that all eligible citizens have the right to register and vote on election day in the area in which they reside. In the 1986 election 157,000 citizens voted under section 80. These votes comprised 8 percent of the total vote of the province and 56 percent of the special vote. The chief electoral officer has advised us that 250,000 households in the province are not currently on the list. Thirty percent of the population moves each year, and with the recession this has been exacerbated. This right is provided in the municipal elections, and we see no reason why this provision can't be restored so that every citizen will have the opportunity to give a report card on this provincial government.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON. You're afraid of the voters.

Bill M203 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.

Private Members' Statements

ACCESS FOR THE
PHYSICALLY CHALLENGED

MS. PULLINGER: Mr. Speaker, this is National Access Awareness Week, and I think it's appropriate for this Legislature to acknowledge the efforts of the many British Columbians who have worked to make all of us more aware of the special and often very difficult challenges that some of us face in this province.

[10:15]

Through the efforts of these people, I think all of us are beginning to understand a little better the barriers that 10 percent of British Columbians face in their everyday lives. The figure of 10 percent is the number

[ Page 12352 ]

of people who are currently disabled or have some kind of functional disability, but that figure is projected to grow to about 14 or 15 percent over the next decade.

The issue of access awareness on all of our parts, especially as we stand in this Legislature.... The work we do here is very important. It's a fair comment to say that everyone in this Legislature would agree that freedom and independence of the individual are very worthwhile goals and ones that all of us here strive for; in fact, they're fundamental rights of the kind that we not so long ago enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our 1982 constitution. Yet in spite of those enshrined rights and in spite of the right to access and freedom from discrimination in our society entrenched in the constitution, there are still many people, because of differing abilities, who have a great deal of difficulty functioning in a free and independent way in our society, and to a large degree they're excluded from the mainstream of our society. Not just here in the Legislature but in this society, it's important we take care to design everything we do, from legislation to buildings, in such a way as to include as many people as we possibly can; otherwise, people with physical and other disabilities will continue to be marginalized in our society.

Sometimes the disabilities people are dealing with are obvious, sometimes they're less visible. For instance, last week my colleague the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey articulated very clearly for this Legislature the kinds of problems that people who have hearing impairments face in their everyday lives. Without a translator they are virtually excluded from participation in many parts of our society, and in fact, they can't come to this Legislature and listen to the debates as most British Columbians can. Obviously too, as my colleague pointed out, people with hearing disabilities are very vulnerable in some situations, such as when they require medical care. There's obviously great difficulty with people that don't have their full hearing capabilities in communicating with a doctor who doesn't understand sign language. I doubt there are a huge number who do. Costs of hiring translators are obviously prohibitive. The unemployment rate among people with disabilities is extremely high.

Visual disabilities are another area that are not always so obvious. Obviously, if someone is totally blind we can be very clearly aware of that. But two members of my family have had visual disabilities of the kind where they couldn't read street signs, signs on buses, menus in restaurants and that type of thing. Obviously that creates an awful lot of problems. I think that hearing, visual and many other kinds of disabilities are more or less invisible to the rest of us. They present their own set of barriers and obstacles to full participation in our society. We are just beginning to deal fairly well with the more visible and obvious disabilities.

In terms of building codes, we have a good one in this province, but there are also some subtle difficulties for people with mobility problems. For instance, my father had Lou Gehrig's disease, ALS, and became progressively more disabled. As he found walking more difficult, he found that he couldn't enter a drugstore to get a newspaper, because with the way they're designed now, you have to walk all the way down one end, in the entrance door, through a turnstile, back to the cashier and out the exit door. That's simply too difficult for someone who can't get around very well, although that's not an obvious problem.

Similarly, when my parents chose, because of this disability, to move to Nanaimo, a city of over 50,000 people and a buyer's market, there were lots of houses on the market, and precisely one home in the entire city that they could use. I think that that speaks very loudly of where we are. I think it's worth noting that my parents were very fortunate in that they could afford to buy a home and make some modifications. Those with less means are left to the rental market, and housing of any kind is very difficult to get — much less housing accessible to those with disabilities.

As I mentioned a few moments ago, in British Columbia we have one of the best building codes in Canada, and we see evidence of the results of that. But sadly, it's not enforceable; it's not enforced, particularly outside the lower mainland. It applies mainly to public buildings and not to private homes. I can't help but wonder how difficult it would be to change the building codes and enforce them to make all public buildings and most private homes accessible, by doing something as simple as widening door-frames just a little.

Similarly, on another level of awareness, I think many of us in this Legislature were educated a couple of years ago when the access awareness committees around the province challenged us to spend the morning in a wheelchair. My colleague the first member for Nanaimo and I responded to the challenge thrown out by a wonderful woman in our riding, Pauline Courtney, who is in a wheelchair herself, and she chairs the access awareness committee. We spent half a day in a wheelchair. In spite of the fact that I dealt with a family member in a wheelchair, we still discovered what it was like to deal with heavy doors, thresholds, etc.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. member, your time has expired.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's my pleasure to respond to the statement by the member. May I begin by saying that I certainly appreciate the subject, because it's something that is of concern and of interest to all people. I'm sure everyone in this House shares a concern for the necessity of providing proper accommodations and access for people with disabilities. I also appreciate the fair and non-political way that the subject was approached, because truly it's something that transcends all political boundaries. It's a very human need, and we all strive to do the best we can for the people involved.

I think that we have to recognize that we're talking about people with various kinds of disabilities. So one particular program does not necessarily meet the needs of all, but they all have to be looked at.

[ Page 12353 ]

It was mentioned that there was a tendency to exclude these people from society. I think that one of the great prides that we can take as a society in British Columbia is simply to look at places like Woodlands and Riverview. There was a time not very long ago when those places were bursting at the seams from the number of people in them who were confined to institutional life. We have since taken nearly all of the people out of those facilities. They are now living in communities, being part of communities, having the opportunity to share and participate with the rest of society. Certainly we have come a long way in dealing more fairly and more humanely with the people who unfortunately suffer from disabilities.

We certainly are very cognizant of the need to continue to make improvements in this direction. Any time you go to an opening at a subsidized housing project today, you'll notice that there are always some units dedicated to disabled people within the project, so that they too will have an opportunity to take advantage of the housing that is being provided.

All in all, I think we can take a great deal of pride in what we have accomplished. That's not to say that we should stop. We need to continue to strive towards making life better and better for those people who face disadvantages within our society. We are committed to doing exactly that.

MS. PULLINGER: I left off saying that my colleague and I had spent a morning in a wheelchair in Ladysmith, which is a vertical town. What we discovered throughout the day was one thing that stood out more powerfully for us than anything else, and that was the fact that the struggle for access in many ways is the struggle for self-esteem. When you're in a wheelchair and you're slow because the sidewalks are too steep, or clumsy because things are too high, the doors are too heavy or the sills are obstructive, or you're in the way because corridors are too narrow, you soon begin to feel very self-conscious, and it's very difficult on one's self-esteem. That's a hidden problem that most of us don't recognize.

As a result of the powerful and growing lobby from individuals and groups around the province, B.C. is, as I said earlier, one of the best places in Canada in terms of access for disabled persons. We still have a tremendous way to go. We discovered that persons with disabilities weren't able to use the washrooms on B.C.'s ferries, and I believe that is beginning to be addressed. Similarly, people with disabilities are unable to use washrooms on airplanes. There are a lot of enormous problems that people deal with.

Obviously we need to have a more enforceable building code in British Columbia, and one that extends farther. We also need a national building code as they have south of the border, which means that the standards across the country will be better. We need to expand those building codes to transportation to ensure that people with disabilities are employed and have education, training and access to everything they need to be rehabilitated and re-employed.

We need to look at our community services to ensure that they're adequate for people — things like translators for persons with hearing disabilities and proper signage for people with visual disabilities, and so on. We need to look carefully at all of the things we do in this House if we're going to include all British Columbians in the mainstream of our society. As people with disabilities struggle to gain access to services in buildings and opportunities, they are simply asking that we extend to them the same rights that all of us as citizens enjoy.

I want to just close my comments by once again commending and congratulating all of those around the province who have worked so hard and who are making a special effort this week to make all of us aware of the difficulties those with disabilities face in the province. I'm sure that they will no doubt continue their efforts to ensure that British Columbia is a good place for persons with disabilities to live and therefore a better place for all of us.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr, Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of yourself and myself, I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome a teacher, Mr. Lewis, and 15 students from Bell Road Elementary School in Stave Falls just outside Mission. Stave Falls is a great little community and is the home of the Stave Falls Scottish dancers who are known all over the world. These students are here this morning to witness the Legislature in action, and I'd like you to join with myself and the Speaker to give them a very warm welcome.

PRIVATIZATION

MR. REID: I take my place this morning to raise a specific issue about privatization in British Columbia: the privatization of the census. It has been brought to my attention that in your constituency of Dewdney, Mr. Speaker, the NDP — at the direction of Joy Langan, the NDP Member of Parliament — has hired the provincial NDP candidate, Mr. Bill Hartley, as a paid census-taker. He is now seen to be running the census with people from the NDP campaign headquarters.

People should not trust a census being done by an NDP candidate. It's a conflict, and it offends the integrity of the census. It's using political friends and insiders, and it is sleazy patronage of the worst kind. It stinks. I call on the federal minister responsible for the census to institute a full public inquiry into this scandalous NDP activity. Talk about privatization!

[10:30]

We've heard criticism about privatization from the NDP in the past. I want to equate some successes In 28 of the 54 business opportunities which were purchased by employee groups in the province, over 450 new employees were hired by those new, privatized companies.

[ Page 12354 ]

Interjections.

MR. REID: I take exception to the harassment that's going on in the background here by the NDP. They don't like to hear the success stories about privatization in British Columbia.

I'm sorry to see that the Leader of the Opposition isn't here, because he's the strongest opponent of privatization who has ever existed. He's never here. He was against the privatization of Expo and B.C. Place. He was against SkyTrain and the Coquihalla Highway. Do you know what's interesting about the rhetoric that comes from the NDP about the Coquihalla Highway? They never want to mention the fact that it now generates in excess of $24 million in income annually to pay back the government and taxpayers for that construction project. They don't want to mention the success stories, but I don't mind talking about them; there are some tremendous ones.

Talking about successes, the SkyTrain leads me into another issue, and that's the mayor of the city of Vancouver who, for whatever reasons, has decided he wants no further improvements in transit. I want to tell him that, as a member from Surrey, I'd be happy to have the SkyTrain extensions into further areas of Surrey. I know that the mayor of Coquitlam would be anxious to have the SkyTrain extend into the Coquitlam area, and I'm sure you, Mr. Speaker, out your way, would welcome SkyTrain. So if the mayor of the city of Vancouver is not interested in having any further expenditures by this government on transit in the city of Vancouver, I'd be happy to pursue that.

One other subject I'd like to pursue is the privatization of solid waste and garbage. It's interesting to note that the mayor of the city of Vancouver, who is opposed to transit and to having transit riders see garbage dumps and tire piles in my constituency.... Lo and behold, the garbage dumps in my constituency, in the Richmond constituency and in the Delta constituency contain garbage from the city of Vancouver. Isn't that interesting! It's the city of Vancouver's garbage.

I would hope that these three ridings close — at midnight tonight — all the entrances into Richmond, Delta and Surrey for all the garbage emanating from the city of Vancouver and store it for a while until they find some place to put it. And I hope that they stop shipping out that dirty soil they've got in downtown False Creek on the old Expo site — a site which has been improved tremendously since this government took over funding the cleanup of that area, initially to turn it into the best world's fair site in the world.

Secondly, with the cleaning up now, the soil is not going into the city of Vancouver; it's going out into Richmond. So if the mayor is excited about how they can correct their own problem, they can keep their own dirty soil at home and look after their own problems. But I tell the mayor of the city of Vancouver: quit charging people $60 a tonne to dump your garbage out in our communities when we only charge you $10 to dump it. You're gaining $50 million plus on the backs of other constituencies with garbage, and then you turn around and cite us as constituencies who have garbage dumps — when it's all your garbage. So, Mr. Mayor, at midnight tonight I challenge all those communities: don't send any more garbage our way. We don't want it.

And don't send any more transit. We'll keep our people at home. We'll put up a roadblock. Let's put up a roadblock and stop his garbage coming into our constituencies. Look after your own garbage, and we'll worry about transit. If you don't want any further transit improvements, that's great for us. We've put over $100 million into transit funding in the lower mainland, and that's fine. The province should distribute the money where they want it. If transit improvements are wanted in other areas, let's do them there. Let's back off from doing anything in the city of Vancouver.

The improvements to the communities in British Columbia as a result of privatization have been tremendous — and the economic spinoffs to the communities. Here's a sample of success stories. The Langford sign shop was probably the most effective example of a success story. It's doubled....

MR. SIHOTA: Oh yeah?

MR. REID: Now the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who hollered in the background.... It happens to be in his riding. But it also happens to be one of the most successful stories of privatization, because now they not only do signs for the province, they also do signs for outside interests and businesses. They've doubled the employment in that sign shop since it went private.

Interjection.

MR. REID: Another word came from a member from Victoria, who said: "How are they competing?" Well, I'll tell you something. They're competing very well, and that's the success of privatization. It encourages competition. One thing this government's encouraging in British Columbia is competition.

It's strange that the BCGEU and Mr. John Shields and all of his henchmen are not interested in competition. He's interested in controlling.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more time.

MR. BLENCOE: The member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound are competing for the best gutter speeches of this entire session. They're in competition for the best gutter speeches we've ever seen. I want you to know that the member for Surrey just gave the best Eco-Clean speech we've ever heard in this Legislature.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I don't want to talk about and respond to that member there this morning. I want to talk about privatization. I want to talk about Stena Line. Do you remember — was it two years ago? — the member for Saanich and the Islands, the twice-former Minister of Finance, said that was the highlight of privatization? It

[ Page 12355 ]

was the jewel of privatization. It was the ultimate in privatization.

Well, yesterday we saw the last saga, the last component of the worst privatization deal we've ever seen in the province of British Columbia. Stena announced severance pay to over 200 employees. We've lost the run. We've lost B.C. Steamship Company. This community has lost $75 million to $100 million in tourism, and the taxpayers of British Columbia are out $15 million. One of the best companies this province ever saw, the B.C. Steamship Company, and they squandered it, threw it away. Now we have nothing left.

There was a legal contract signed by this government and Stena that that company would continue to operate until November 1991, and they ripped it up and threw it away. There is a question we'll get to later on in the day: why did they let Stena off the hook? We should still be having a run from Victoria to Seattle. When this side of the Legislature makes deals and contracts, we will make sure that the people of British Columbia will.... Those contracts will be honoured.

Let me outline the $15 million that we've lost, that the people of the province this morning are having to pay out because of the financial incompetence of this administration — this government that refuses to bring a budget in on time and runs the biggest deficit in the history of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, $600,000 was taken off the Princess Marguerite, put on a Stena ship and disappeared south without telling the people of the province — $600,000 stolen from the people of British Columbia.

The Princess Marguerite, the flagship of the B.C. Steamship Company, brought millions of people to Victoria. Listed as a $1.5 million asset, this government sold it for $1 to Stena. Smart business sense. The Vancouver Island Princess had an estimated value of $11.9 million. What did this government sell it to Stena for? Three million dollars, another loss of $8.9 million.

The people of British Columbia will be paying over $1.5 million for severance to the workers, because we haven't been able to restore that line. We've lost jobs. We've lost a run. We don't have Stena running or kept to their commitment. And this community, the small business people, the chamber of commerce, the downtown business association, the hundreds — literally thousands — of small businesses in this community that relied on that line to bring in millions of dollars to this community every year won't see that here because of the financial incompetence and mismanagement of this administration.

Total incompetence. I have suggested as an interim: why not use the B.C. ferries for this summer as an interim and continue to try to sell that company, if they so desire? Not a peep out of the government, not a word. This administration has abandoned the people of the capital of British Columbia. I can tell you: this side of the House believes in the people of Victoria. We will ensure that business flourishes here, Mr. Speaker, and we would never have signed a deal like this that has cost the taxpayers $15 million.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time, hon. member.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, what an interesting followup I have for that particular discussion. Isn't it interesting that that member for Victoria, who's been around with his nose in the trough in this area for such a long time, never mentioned for one minute the losses to the B.C. Steamship....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I would ask you to withdraw the word "trough."

MR. REID: I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that when the B.C. Steamship lines was sold to one of the most effective steamship companies in the world, which tried to take on and run a losing proposition, we were losing in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $8 million a year. When we as government tried to run it, that member never wanted to mention that we were losing $7 million to $8 million....

AN HON. MEMBER: Incompetence, that's all.

MR. REID: It wasn't incompetence. That member said it was the most effective company...

AN HON. MEMBER: It lost money. How much more incompetent can you get?

MR. REID: It wasn't effective. We were losing $8 million a year. So along comes the private sector. They throw millions of dollars into our coffers, which we still have. They throw in millions of dollars and buy this facility. They try to operate it. But do you know what? The squeaky community of Victoria, the recipient of most of the funds spent by British Columbia for all the facilities, including the museum, the trade and convention centre, the harbour, the ferry system, gives us no thanks for all that. They want to worry about why government doesn't buy back a ferry system. If that member has a community group of NDPers or whatever, who don't know how to invest in anything — maybe he has some secret people who know about privatization — maybe they want to buy it if it's such a great deal. The fact is that nobody wants it, because it's a losing cause. This government gets out of losing causes. If we continue to lose money, let's get out of them.

Tourists are coming to Victoria in record numbers. Isn't that interesting? They're coming in record numbers, with or without Stena Line. If the thing doesn't work, if it's broken, leave it broken. Don't go to the taxpayers for another $7 million to $8 million a year.

This member never made mention of another problem we've got in relation to his tiny community of Victoria. They're dumping their raw sewage into Juan de Fuca Strait out here, and it's going south, trying to discourage tourists to come into this area. If he'd spend his time and effort correcting that problem for his constituents, instead of trying to worry about my constituency of Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale.... In fact, I wish he'd come out and run in my constituency. I'd like to put him to bed once and for all.

[ Page 12356 ]

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, last but not least, is that I want to raise the question again of the Dewdney census-taker. I was just given a note, and I understand that as a result of the comments made, there's an organized effort right now to hide this scandal. They are being aided and covered up by the media, unfortunately, because there's a disgraceful act on behalf of the NDP which they don't want to have to repeat. Isn't that strange? When the NDP, any of those cohorts on the other side, do anything scandalous, nobody wants to talk about it — put it to bed. Well, I'll tell you what: they've got more scandals, more problems.... They're going to be ten times worse. If you think Ontario's bad, they're green.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Time. The Minister of Finance wishes leave to make an introduction.

[10:45]

Leave granted.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'd like this House to make welcome some grade 9 students and their teachers Mr. Kattenberg and Miss Van Reeuwyk from Timothy Christian School in the beautiful community of Chilliwack.

PRIVATIZATION OF COURT REPORTERS

MR. SIHOTA: Just before I get started with my statement, let me say that I listened with interest to the statement about the disabled. With both the minister responsible and the Provincial Secretary here, we are hoping to hear from them that the lottery application for $35,000 submitted in February 1991 for National Access Awareness Week would have been approved by now. It hasn't been, and I hope the two ministers will get together soon to make that announcement, given the importance of today.

Mr. Speaker, in the early eighties the provincial government privatized court reporting services. A few senior reporters were kept on staff by government because of a policy decision, but the balance of the service was privatized. Reporters who had been privatized would then be called in on an on-call basis to deal with requirements in court. The government reporters were given space within government facilities and were also allowed to bid on the more lucrative private work such as the examinations for discovery.

It has been some time since that privatization experiment was conducted. It is now evident, as we stand here today, that this experiment in privatization has significantly cost the taxpayers of British Columbia. The changes proposed from here on in by this administration will further reduce the quality of work.

I want to deal first with the cost issue. Under the agreement signed at the time, the court reporters on staff were required to work eight days in court and have 14 days to produce the required transcripts. That was the provision in the agreement. Statistics in my possession and now before the Ministry of Attorney-General demonstrate that between January 1985 and April 1991, the staff reporters worked an average of 2.82 days in court. This meant that they spent the balance of their time working on more profitable examinations for discovery.

Because of this, privatized reporters with all of their overhead, their offices and so on have had to come into the courts on an on-call basis and charge fees of about $200 per day to fill the gap caused by the privatization decision. The report, which I have here in my possession, demonstrates that the additional cost to the taxpayers of this experiment in privatization has been $1.489 million or $238,240 per year.

Mr. Speaker, to make matters worse, in 1988 the province contracted out transcription services for court reporters. There appears to be an irregularity in the way in which one of the contracts, with respect to the Vancouver and Fraser Valley area, was awarded. The contract was awarded to a company called Omni-Script Services. That company is owned by a person who at the time was a manager of court services with the Ministry of Attorney-General. It appears that someone in that position obviously would have had information and statistics as to the intentions of the ministry.

A few days ago I put a question to the Attorney-General and to the Minister of Government Services. The latter minister took the question on notice and has yet to respond.

As a result of the awarding of that contract, it seems to me that a number of questions remain outstanding. They are as follows. With respect to the Minister of Government Services, the question I would put to her again today is that her recent information booklet with respect to superannuation indicated that Omni-Script Services was added as a rollover pension firm. The minister has yet to advise the House why that occurred and whether or not it was in pursuance of this privatized contract with the company.

Most recently the Ministry of Attorney-General, with respect to a decision that I will comment on later, undertook to record judgments in chambers in court. Omni-Script received the contract to do that work for the Vancouver and Fraser Valley area. That contract, based on the information provided to me in the report that I have in my possession, would suggest that the normal tendering process was not complied with. The government needs to indicate why. The ministry most recently let a contract with the same firm for a software program for jury management services. Again, the government needs to indicate whether or not that contract was awarded by way of tender.

As all members know, provincial guidelines forbid ministry employees from bidding on contracts dealing with their former ministries; that is found in the Premier's conflict-of-interest guidelines. With respect to the original contract given to Omni-Script at the time of privatization in 1988, the minister needs to clear the air and advise the House whether or not the provisions of those guidelines were violated or on what basis they were excused, given the relationship of the manager.

Mr. Speaker, Omni-Script is now in the process of training new individuals to implement a proposed taping program, which I will talk about in a second. Since they were doing this prior to the announcement

[ Page 12357 ]

of moving towards the tape system, the question arises: were they given any advance information by the ministry?

Recently, as I have indicated, the ministry conducted a report into this entire matter of court reporting and the way in which court reporting should be handled. The report was known as the Interact report. Despite promises, the government has not made that report public. The government needs to explain why the ministry has not made that report, in its final phase, public.

On April 30, 1991, the province announced that further changes would be forthcoming. It indicated that reporters would now be doing criminal trials in the fashion that we have always had, as reporters; Supreme Court civil trials will now be audio-recorded, in keeping with the new government decision. This has been opposed and objected to by members of the bar, the bench and the judiciary.

In light of the previous irregularities, which I've referred to, and with respect to the Omni-Script situation, and in light of the additional costs associated with privatization, which I've alluded to, and the non-release of the Interact report, the entire matter has now been referred — it has just come to my attention — to the ombudsman for an investigation. The ministry, through the Attorney-General, needs to confirm with this House whether it will agree not to proceed with the changes announced on April 30, 1991, in light of the fact that the ombudsman is investigating. I think fairness alone would require the ministry not to make those changes, given the ombudsman's investigation.

HON. MR. MESSMER: To the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, some of the questions that you posed in your private member's statement this morning, I think, would be best served by either asking them in question period or referring them to the Attorney-General. However, I'd like to respond to the privatization that you spoke about.

It is true that the Attorney-General's ministry is consulting with the bar and the judiciary to find the best vehicle for the recording of Supreme Court civil trials. Our government is working together with them on the proposed consideration of the audio on some civil trials, and no changes are proposed for recording Supreme Court criminal trials, or for examination for discovery.

You're quite right: this is a true case of where privatization works. It was back in 1984 when most government employees who were the official recorders were privatized and a three-year contract was let. That contract was renewed in 1987, as I'm sure you're aware, and re-signed with these individuals for a further four years. Most of these contracts come up in October 1991.

The current model of service and delivery is that all Supreme Court trials are reported by an official reporter under contract with the ministry and that all official reporters are designated as such by the Attorney-General. However, there were some problems with the current model: that is, there were insufficient official reporters in the northern and interior communities, and that required that staff had to be flown to those areas at significant cost to the government and in some cases with an unwillingness on the part of some contract official reporters to perform the work when they had to go to those extreme cases.

The ministry is considering the use of audio tape-recording equipment in some Supreme Court civil trials after the expiration of the current contract in October. We all know that audio tape technology has been used in British Columbia in the courts since 1960 and has been very successful. Audio tape equipment is also used in the appeal court and the chamber courts in British Columbia. Audio tape technology is used in all courts in Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and is widely used in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, New York, Alaska and Washington State. We are not cutting new ground.

The official reporters will continue to be used exclusively in criminal trials, where they will continue to be entitled to receive between $200 and $250 per day or per part-day for their attendance. They will also continue to be entitled to charge transcript fees where a transcript is ordered. Official reporters will continue to be used in some civil trials and will be entitled to the same fees as the above.

All of that, Mr. Speaker, comes down to one question: why? It's the reliability of quality, when we're talking about the oral accuracy, the verbatim record, the timelessness of the transcript, the appropriate format and the appearance of the transcript. The judiciary have the opportunity to make changes to a transcript before it's finalized, and one of the most important features is the cost-saving without jeopardizing the service or quality.

MR. SIHOTA: We usually give notice, I believe, of two or possibly three days with respect to these statements. In light of the importance of this situation, I'm somewhat astonished that the government sent in a pinch-hitter in the Solicitor-General, not the Attorney-General, to deal with this issue. I appreciate the statement that was prepared by the Solicitor-General. Therefore I just want to deal with some of the issues he raised.

He assured the House that the audio tape-recording system was such that the quality would be assured and that the work would be done. He made reference to the fact that the system has been in place since the sixties here in British Columbia, which is indeed true.

I'm going to suggest to the minister that that quality cannot be assured, and I'm going to suggest to the minister that the evidence is in fact quite to the contrary. To find that evidence, one only has to walk through the courtrooms and the court proceedings of the past few weeks; this is just a sample of what I picked out from the last few weeks. Let me just give the minister an example of how, and how many times, this should tell him that the system fails in the way in which the government is handling these cases. Remember that this will affect an appeal, in terms of what would happen in the courts.

On April 26, 1991, the case of Regina v. Alcaraz was heard here in the Victoria court. The Crown at that point pointed out: "It's too bad that the tape machine

[ Page 12358 ]

in Colwood wasn't operating properly, and as a consequence a number of the materials that are required for cross-examination could not be produced, and as a consequence it may affect the disposition of that type of matter."

On March 6, 1991, the case of Regina v. Hartman — again, another fine example of court reporting. Prior to the morning recess a court clerk notified the court that the tape recorder wasn't working. The morning recess was called to remedy the situation. After the morning recess, court resumed and it was discovered that the replacement recorder wasn't working either. Another recorder was called for. Upon installation it didn't work either. A fourth machine subsequently arrived, which did not function either. Meanwhile we're paying for prosecutors, judges, witnesses and police to sit in court at a significant cost.

On May 13, 1991 — these are all very recent cases — in the case of Rock v. Rock, the tape recorder was not working. There was no court reporter available for the day's proceeding. Viva voce evidence was taken without the benefit of being either reported or recorded. What happens often in those cases is that it goes through a judge. Interestingly, that very day in chambers in the case of Counsel Trust v. Colliers Macaulay and others, before Mr. Justice Hutchison, a request for a transcript from the master, Mr. McCallum, was requested but was not available because of problems associated with privatization.

The matter of tape recordings has been studied in other jurisdictions, as the minister correctly noted. One of those is New Jersey, and let me quote from the first paragraph of their report: "Inaudible, indiscernible, unintelligible. These were the buzzwords used last week as lawyers with the state bar of the American Trial Lawyers' Association in New Jersey attacked the shortcomings of taped transcripts...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Time is up.

HON. MR. MESSMER: Point of order. The member who just spoke inferred that the Attorney-General ducked this very important private member's statement today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Solicitor General.

TEACHER BARGAINING

MR. MICHAEL: Just for the record, my understanding is that today the Attorney-General is at the funeral of a very close and dear friend.

My subject today is teacher bargaining, and I will be advocating during my address the concept of bargaining with the B.C. Teachers' Federation on a provincial basis as compared to the 75 separate sets of negotiations that currently take place.

[11:00]

In my past eight years in politics in this Legislative Assembly, I have been very pleased and proud with the progress and actions taken by this government in a number of areas. I am particularly proud of the fact that in 1983, when I entered politics, we were planting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 90 million seedlings a year. This year the government will be planting, through the Forest Service and the private sector, some 287 million seedlings. That's great progress.

I look at the privatization initiatives: 119 out of 123 success stories. I look at decentralization and regionalization improvements which have taken place in the commercial sector in all regions of the province. I look at the number of natural gas line extension programs and underground propane programs that have taken place, and I'm proud of the record.

I'm proud of the downtown revitalization projects. I'm proud of the fact that this government in British Columbia has the lowest debt per capita of any province in Canada. I'm proud of the fact that our student aid program in B.C. is among the very best in all of Canada. I'm proud of the fact that we have the highest literacy rate of any province in Canada.

I'm proud of our great environmental initiatives, laws and regulations, and of the fact that we probably give more money on a per capita basis to our municipalities and regional districts than any other province in Canada. I'm proud of the growth we've seen in tourism, job creation and economic activity. Even though the current Leader of the Opposition was against Expo, we proceeded with Expo and it has led to great things.

However, I am not happy with the number of presentations that I have made through the proper channels and the fact that our government and our Minister of Education have not seen fit to bring about provincewide bargaining with teachers. It's my submission that this is an outmoded system. We do not see it in other areas. We don't see it in the private sector to any degree in large bargaining units, and we don't see it in the government. We don't bargain with the legal aid lawyers on an individual region basis. They are bargained with provincially. When we bargain with our doctors, nurses or hospital workers, it is done on a provincewide basis. When we bargain with the BCGEU, probably the biggest bargaining unit in the entire province of British Columbia, with many divisions, ministries and units and a wide diversity of interests and professions, they are bargained with on a provincewide basis.

When we bargain with the B.C. Buildings Corporation employees, some 2,500 spread all across the province with all kinds of units and divisions, they bargain on a provincewide basis. When we bargain with the ferry workers, we don't take the Tsawwassen run and bargain with them differently than we bargain with the units in Nanaimo or up north in Campbell River. No, they bargain on a provincewide basis.

If you look at the private sector — the IWA, the pulp workers, the teamsters, the shipyard workers and the fishermen — you will find they are being bargained with on a provincewide basis.

I suppose the one argument that I have been continually faced with is the question of: "Well, the school districts have autonomy." Yes, they have autonomy, but let's not forget that 90 percent of all the

[ Page 12359 ]

dollars, on average, spent by school districts comes from provincial coffers. I submit that all we're doing by establishing 75 different bargaining units throughout this province in education is creating conflict and friction among those various units, because when there's individual bargaining one particular unit will always have a better contract than the others in one particular area. Perhaps one district will have paid lunch hours and the others won't have paid lunch hours. Perhaps one will have seven days' maternity leave and the one next door will only have four days. So there are those areas of conflicts that would not be there if we had provincewide bargaining.

I would submit to you that it takes tens of thousands of hours of time of teachers, administrators, superintendents, trustees and highly paid consultants to put together those 75 separate contracts. And, I submit, there would be tremendous savings from provincewide bargaining, in dollars and in time. With provincewide bargaining we could envisage, as we've seen in other jurisdictions in this country, conflicts and work stoppages, but I submit that they would be shorter stoppages; they would have focus throughout the entire province, and the resolution would come about much more quickly than in the current situation.

I am not happy when I observe small units, small school boards — whether they be in Grand Forks, up north or in the Fraser Valley — where work stoppages take place for several weeks at a time. I don't think that's fair. The teachers and the school boards should get together. The province should insist that they have bargaining on a provincewide basis. This would not mean that local differences could not be addressed.

MS. A. HAGEN: First of all, because the member for Shuswap ranged a little broadly at the start of his comments, I'd like to just indulge in the same latitude and comment on his pride in the Forests ministry and the planting of seedlings, and just remind the people of British Columbia that the Minister of Forests acknowledged in this House not more than a few days ago that there were no seedlings to plant and that the Forests budget would be significantly underexpended.

However, to the topic which is the subject of the member's statement, I would first of all just like to comment that the process of any fundamental system of bargaining is, in fact, very much influenced by government's labour legislation. It's important to call to the attention of the House, as we begin to address this very important topic, this government's history in respect to the bargaining regulations that govern the 30,000 teachers and the 15,000 support workers who work in the schools of British Columbia.

First of all, in the very early days of this administration, Bills 19 and 20 granted full collective bargaining rights to school districts and to teachers. That was a decision taken by this administration, and in fact the system is working under the rules laid down by this administration's labour legislation.

I think it's important to note, too, that in the last session prior to this, in March, the government threw a lob into fair and free collective bargaining with a piece of legislation that has been condemned throughout the province, not only by people who work within the education system and the parents and children affected, but by the community broadly. The Compensation Fairness Act has been condemned because it intrudes on a free collective bargaining process, and right in the midst of that process. If we're going to have workable labour legislation, we have to have rules by which people know those processes proceed. We can't have the kind of ad hoc and destructive legislation exemplified by this administration not two months ago.

Let me now turn to the substance of the issue: the state of collective bargaining in the schools at this time. It is a subject that has certainly been receiving a good deal of attention. I believe very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that when issues like this arise, it behooves the people involved in such negotiations, if it is their wish and will, to address them. These are matters that concern school districts, teachers and the provincial government.

Recently I attended the convention of the school trustees of the province, where the issue of provincial bargaining was on their agenda. I was very interested in the way in which they addressed the matter on the floor of their assembly. They discussed this year's experiences and some of their concerns. They did not come to a unilateral conclusion about what they might do to improve teacher and board bargaining within the province; however, they did say there were some matters they wanted to discuss. I believe they took a constructive, positive and enlightened initiative, which was to say: "It's important for us to discuss this with the parties that will be affected by our concerns, namely the teachers and the provincial government."

Mr. Speaker, they have issued an open public invitation to teachers and school trustees to be involved in discussions, to consider collective bargaining and to see if there are any issues that need to be joined by those parties. I believe that is a constructive and useful trilogue — if you like — that I hope will take place. From what I hear, I'm encouraged that it may in fact be on the drawing-board.

On the basis of that collaborative and consultative process, if there are some changes that the parties want to bring forward that should be proposed and might be considered, that is the means by which we should be looking at this issue.

MR. MICHAEL: In response to the member for New Westminster regarding tree-planting, there is one thing I know for sure: during 1991 we will see approximately four times as many trees planted in British Columbia as we saw in 1982, and three trees will be planted for every tree cut down. I would compare that with what happened in 1972 to 1975, when the NDP were in power, and I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it's something in the vicinity of ten times more than in those years.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you once again that there are tens of thousands of hours put in by administra-

[ Page 12360 ]

tors, trustees and teachers that could be much better spent in other areas. Administrators and school superintendents should be out looking at how to improve teaching methods, how to improve the facilities and how to bring about greater efficiencies. And the teachers, in the interests of the children — which education is all about — should be teaching in the classrooms, not sitting at a bargaining table.

Collective bargaining and industrial relations is a very professional field, and it should be handled by professionals at the provincial level. I submit that when we see these small units, whether it be Abbotsford, Grand Forks, Southern Okanagan or some little unit up in the north, it's the children who suffer, because the industrial dispute takes much longer to resolve when it's a single unit — one of 75 — as compared to when bargaining takes place across the province.

I submit that if you look at the amount of time put forward and the dollars spent, the B.C. Teachers' Federation spends well in excess of a million dollars a year on collective bargaining. The individual school districts.... What is spent on that process must be into seven figures. I submit that it would be much better for all of us in this province if we brought about provincewide bargaining. I would appeal to all concerned — the members of cabinet, the B.C. Teachers' Federation and the B.C. School Trustees' Association — to please give this matter serious consideration.

[11:15]

HON. MR. RABBITT: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 8.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: It's been said consistently by this side of the House that this supply bill really is symbolic of where this government is in British Columbia. We have seen all sorts of problems, scandals and conflicts. This government cannot even get the budget process correct. It can't do the people's financial business in the democratic and orderly way that's been accepted tradition for hundreds of years.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have the dying days of a government in desperation, back for more money, a government that is clearly showing that it has been in government far too long. It's a government in total political chaos, erratic and unpredictable. This government is bad for business in British Columbia. They cannot meet the basic requirements of a budget process. They do not respect the basic tenets of our democratic system. There have been months and months of delay in budgets, special warrants.... Five billion dollars, one-sixth of the total budget, is going to be organized and spent on priorities determined in the back rooms, in the Social Credit bunkers. One-sixth of their budget, $5 billion, is not going to be subjected to the scrutiny of the people's chamber of the Legislature of British Columbia.

We were promised a balanced budget and a proper process, and this government continues to abuse the basic tenets of what we have accepted for hundreds of years of running the people's business.

This government in its dying days and its desperation is ruling by decree. People should know that. They should know that this government is about to cut and run, and that they're not going to subject the details of their budget to the people of the province. By doing that — by allowing themselves a minimum of $5 billion to spend as they will — they will continue to buy the people's votes.

It's a disgrace. Never before in the history of this province have we seen billions of dollars about to be allowed without this Legislature scrutinizing it in a proper and democratic fashion. They have no intention of submitting their $1.2 billion operating deficit or the last four years of $9 billion direct debt to the security of this democratic chamber. They have no intention of allowing us to scrutinize why, in the last 16 years, the direct and indirect provincial debt has risen since 1975, when the direct and indirect debt, after 104 years of government since Confederation, stood at less than $4 billion to $20 billion.

Mr. Speaker, do you know how much that is for every man, woman and child in the province? That's $6,667 that this government has put on the backs of every man, woman and child in the province. That's Socred financial management. That's fiscal incompetence by this administration, and it has to end. It's time for change in the province of British Columbia.

This side of the House takes seriously the principles and the values of democracy and the tenets of properly debating the finances of the province. We will keep this government accountable in the best way we can. Unfortunately, they're about to cut and run. The people of the province will hold them accountable for their mismanagement of the assets of the province, and that's when the election day will finally come. The people will hold them accountable on the day of reckoning, as my colleague the Finance critic says. I recall vividly the cry of that party: "Not a dime without debate." Well, they are about to cut and run with millions and billions of dollars in their back pockets that we will not be able to scrutinize properly on behalf of the people of the province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know what our leader believes, in terms of finances, public access and running the public business. The Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver for six years and ran the third-largest city in this great country in one of the most difficult economic times, and for six years in a row he balanced the books. This government hasn't balanced the books in years. Today we have a global deficit of $20 billion, of which $16 billion has been added by this administration. When the Leader of the Opposition was mayor of Vancouver, it had a triple-A credit rating, far more than this government has.

When the Leader of the Opposition was mayor, he was one of the finest money managers in this province. He founded the property endowment fund which increased from $70 million to half a billion dollars in nine years — while this government squandered the people's money. That's good management, and that's

[ Page 12361 ]

handling the people's money in a fair, open and responsible way.

The three capital spending budgets for '82, '84 and '86 in Vancouver — approximately $100 million — were all on budget. When has this government ever been on budget? He and his council built the Cambie Bridge — one of the best bridges in the province — 25 percent under budget and seven months ahead of schedule. That's a record of good fiscal management.

When the Leader of the Opposition was mayor, he consistently reduced citizens' wish lists, from approximately $500 million to $100 million. That was responsible. He consistently took their issues, put them down in a fair way and made sure that the people of Vancouver had the ability to pay for their budget.

He introduced effective cost-cutting measures on behalf of the people of Vancouver. Garbage collection was efficient. He ran a successful housing business that built 400 affordable starter homes while he was in charge of that business.

We believe in sound fiscal management; we don't believe in running deficit after deficit and raising the global deficit on the backs of British Columbians to $6,667 per man, woman and child. It's time this government came clean and was up front regarding the books of the province. It's time we knew what is going on. What we have we seen in the last two days is the government's attempt to pass billions of dollars so the people won't be able to scrutinize the books. It's the height of deception. The people of the province, quite frankly, are fed up with this administration. They want honesty, they want integrity, and they want a government that is prepared to do the people's business in an open and forthright way.

It's time to end the sham. It's time for change in the province of British Columbia, and it's time to do the financial business of the people in an open and upfront way

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. J. JANSEN: We've listened to the debate a little bit in the last few days, much of it very difficult to bear because it is so much empty rhetoric — really shameful. The last hours of debate have focused on what is customary for that party: process, absolutely no substance.

I can't recall one program put forward by that ragtag bunch of socialists that really said: "This is what we want to do. This is what we want to cut. Here we want to save tax dollars." Not one. They have no substance. No amendments, no suggestions for change. What's the saying? When you walk like a duck and you talk like a duck and you look like a duck.... They squawk like ducks, but they walk around aimlessly.

This bill, members of this House, is not to stop debate; this bill enables debate. We want to get into our estimates. We want to tell you the good story we're doing for the people of British Columbia, because we have a good story to tell: a caring, compassionate and fiscally responsible government, maintaining and delivering to the people of this province responsible programs in health, education, social services and forestry.

This debate really fluctuated wildly. At one point we had the second member for Cariboo — probably also third and fourth — putting forward his problem with not having a bed to sleep in in Victoria. That is really pertinent to the debate: not having a bed to sleep in in Victoria. That was part of his statement to this House. What a winning comment that is!

[11:30]

What was really interesting, though, is that the members opposite gauged how fiscally responsible they were, and how well the managers of departments were doing, in terms of their spending. What they said was: "They underspent, so therefore they're not doing their job." Can you stop to think about that for a moment? If you're more efficient and you save taxpayer dollars, you're not doing your job. The way they measure efficiency over there in that ragtag bunch of socialists is by how much money they spend. The more you spend, the better the job you're doing. Isn't that interesting! I guess that experiment in the people's republic of Ontario shows what happens when you get this kind of people with that kind of philosophy in power. The more you spend, the better you do your job. It's only dollars, members.

It's shown in the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. She was in here the other day very proud that she had sent 70,000 pieces of mail to her constituents. How many months has she been here? That's $28,000 for that member alone to send mail to her constituents on the backs of our taxpayers in British Columbia. Shame on you, member!

Where is the Leader of the Opposition? He hasn't even bothered commenting on this. He hasn't even come out and really said anything at all, because it's his nature not to say anything. His nature is to sit on the fence very squarely. He doesn't want to take a side. He doesn't want to do this; he doesn't want to do that. Every time he speaks it's embarrassing to all of them. The Leader of the Opposition spends more time putting makeup on than preparing himself for question period. That's clearly evident in the questions that he asks this House. I'm astonished at his lack of understanding. We talked about spending. He asked whether it was going to be fair for the taxpayers of British Columbia. Is that a question you have to ask? If you're getting orders from Audrey McLaughlin or Bob Rae or NDP friends or NDP special interest groups, I guess you have to ask that question once in a while, because you serve a different need. You don't serve the people of British Columbia; you serve special interest groups. Shame on you that you people think that way!

The member for Victoria was talking about the great Leader of the Opposition when he was mayor for Vancouver. Let me tell you what his vision was of Cambie Street bridge. Who paid for that? It was this government. That was his vision. Great stuff. And tell me what his vision was about Expo. What was his vision about B.C. Place and the convention centre? What was his vision about B.C. Transit? What was his vision for the gas-line extension to Vancouver Island? Tell us.

[ Page 12362 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. J. JANSEN: The member says he was against them all. Isn't that correct? He was against every single initiative that makes this province proud.

Let's move to our distinguished Finance critic — the discredited Finance critic, who used confidential tax information to advance his own political position. It really is a joke. His only exposure to finance is when he passes the bean counter in the vegetable display at the supermarket. He is desperate in his debate. He maligned the role of the office of Her Majesty's loyal representative. He actually read out a letter that his leader sent in shame to the Lieutenant-Governor. He read it out in this House. That is a pretty desperate act by a pretty desperate party to malign.... He had staff go through hours of research. He quoted history. Isn't that interesting. He quoted history. I'll tell you what history is. In Ontario, 123 years of accumulated debt will be doubled in four — count them — short years under the socialists. That's history. Mr. Speaker, 123 years of debt accumulation will be doubled in four years by the socialists. Talk about fiscal mismanagement!

Let me tell you something else about fiscal management. The people's republic of Ontario now has more debt than the entire country of India. Let me tell you what the population of India is. It's only 800 million people. I guess that's a little concerning. I guess that's a pretty significant display of fiscal management by a socialist government, and that is why these people want to move so craftily into this government: they would like to show they could do the same thing to the people of British Columbia. But it isn't going to happen.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. Now there's a real gem. The justice critic. He's the only NDP member to have a foremost legal authority in this country recommend that criminal charges be put to him. Here's a gentleman talking about fiscal management. One would like to think that this gentleman too has significant....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, I must stop you there. You can only criticize a member on a substantive motion, and you're closing debate of second reading on this bill.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that admonition. What I'm trying to do is show the fiscal irresponsibility on that side of the House, and I can tell you that if they draw from their own experience and their litany of fiscal mismanagement, this is indeed a denunciation.

I could stand here for hours and talk about all the things that are happening, about all the problems that the NDP are putting forward that are, in a word, fabrication. I can tell you about the situation in Ontario where there is truly a fiscal disaster in process and in place — and a fiscal disaster it is.

What we'd like to do, instead, is move on to the debate of the estimates, because that way we can show the people of the province why this government exercises good fiscal management and tell the people of the province the great things we're doing in terms of our ministries. We provide an environment that attracts industry. We provide an environment that protects jobs. We provide an environment that has attracted national attention in terms of our having the lowest debt rating and ratio in the country, which is much different from Ontario. We had a fourth rating agency drop Ontario's rating, and the treasurer of that province says: "Well, it's not the end of the world." It's only going to cost $200 million this year for that little rating drop, but it's not the end of the world. That's what Pink Floyd said.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to move now to do our estimates. As I said before, we'll show you and the people of British Columbia that we have been honest, that we have a caring budget and that British Columbia remains the best-managed province in all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 8.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 20

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

[11:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

[ Page 12363 ]

NAYS — 20

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOVICK: I will pause for just a moment to allow those who have less staying power to depart the chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would some other member like to rise on section 1?

MR. LOVICK: All right, Mr. Chairman. I have heard you give the same instruction in the past, therefore I thought I'd do the same — but that's all right.

We all know that too often it is the case in this chamber, when we discuss measures before us, that we function as two parallel streams or two solitudes. In other words, one side will embark on one line of questioning and one set of statements, and the other side will respond in such a way that it doesn't engage what the first side raised. Sadly, that has happened in second reading debate.

It also happened, I am sorry to say, when we listened to the alleged rebuttal from the Minister of Finance. Indeed, for that reason my question will essentially be on what the Minister of Finance had to say pursuant to this entire matter of Bill 8, Supply Act, specifically section 1.

The central contention that we on this side have been posing throughout, and the question we have tried to put in a number of different ways and with a number of different variations, is why this government, which prides itself on being fiscally competent, should be put in this invidious situation of having to come to us at literally the eleventh hour to ask for supply. Why did they have to do that? We have said in a number of ways and on a number of occasions: please explain to us why you're apparently not capable of presenting a budget and why you've had to invoke the provision of special warrants, which, as we know, by statute are supposed to be for unforeseen circumstances. It is evident to all that the circumstances here were not unforeseen. We have therefore posed the question again and again: why is the government in this particular predicament? I'm sorry to say that we haven't had any answers, and my fundamental question surrounding section 1 is going to be just that.

To make it even clearer and to expedite matters somewhat, I'm going to elaborate on what the question is so the Minister of Finance will at long last have an opportunity to actually respond to what we on this side of the House have been saying for the last five or six hours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Hon. member, I don't believe you're being relevant to section 1, if you would look at that. Your debate is more related to second reading. In committee, debate should be extremely relevant to the particular section under debate.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that admonition, and I shall endeavour to demonstrate that my remarks are clearly relevant to section 1.

Section 1 of the debate, for the edification of all present, has to do with the sum of $5,406,000,000, the amount the government is now asking this House to approve so that it can go on doing its business.

The point, though, is that this is an interim supply bill that is also asking us to approve some special warrants. It's a supply bill that has come, as I have said, at the eleventh hour. My question to the Finance minister is going to be to ask him to explain why that has happened.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, that is second reading debate, and that question has already been answered by a vote of this House. Now if you would wish to be relevant to section 1....

MR. LOVICK: Are you acknowledging that I now have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you, I appreciate that.

I will put the question directly to the minister. Will he please answer all the questions and all the allegations that have been made by us on this side of the House about why indeed we are now getting this supply bill and why we are waiting until the eleventh hour? Can he explain to us why we have not had a budget before this time? What happened with the promises that we would indeed get a budget? I think he owes us that in the name of parliamentary tradition.

HON. J. JANSEN: Isn't it interesting that we spend time talking about what has been rather than what should be and what will be in terms of the estimates.

The fact that you're here today to talk about Committee of Supply is because the clock respecting the budget.... We drew up the budget documents a little while ago, and the normal budget debate has happened over the last seven calendar days. We're now into whether we wish to enable the estimates discussion process to start.

Frankly, as I said before, I would love to have the estimates debate start. The way they can start is for us to first of all allow two months of expenditure, to allow that debate to continue. If the members opposite want to — if that's their wish — then we don't do that; it's simple: we don't do that. We stop the discussion of the Supply Act and cut off all expenditures and payments

[ Page 12364 ]

— because after today they will well and truly be cut off. That's the situation; there's where we stand.

What we want to do is start the debate on the estimates as soon as possible. We're asking that this supply bill be passed so that we can at least have expenditures continue uninterrupted for the fine women and men who serve this government and the people of the province of British Columbia. We're going to provide that opportunity. That's what we're saying, and that's what we will continue to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's the opinion of the Chair that the minister's reply, like the question, was out of order. Relevancy of debate should be on section 1, which deals with the appropriation of $5,406,000,000. That should be the item of debate under section 1.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that all of us on both sides of the House have strayed from the tried and true and straight path of supply bill debate — and you're quite correct to point that out — is, of course, that we aren't sure that what the minister has just said will in fact be the case. The government continues to tell us that it wants this measure so that it can then get on to the estimates debate. That is normally the case; that's what interim supply is about. The problem we have, however, given this government's recent history of violating promises, of not living up to commitments given, of not doing what it said it would do.... We are understandably suspicious.

My question, then, to the minister is: will you give us the assurance — can you give us the assurance — that if we give you this $5,406,000,000 towards underwriting and providing that ability for government to meet its obligations, we will have a full estimates debate, that we won't perhaps pull the plug and adjourn this House, and therefore not have an opportunity to debate estimates? Would the minister like to allay our fears and answer that question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I still go back to the relevancy of debate. On this, you might debate the question of why it's only one-third or why the quantum, but not the subject matter. The question that was asked would be more appropriate in question period.

[12:00]

MR. BRUMMET: I'd like to ask the Finance minister if this is an opportunity to discuss what the money is going to be used for and why certain amounts are spent for certain activities — in other words, why that money is needed, where it is going, in what way it is going to be used, why it is spent here and why this amount has been spent. I know that all day yesterday and this morning none of that debate took place, and I'd be very interested to know if it is possible to look at the details. All we have heard is partisan political claptrap from the opposition. I'd like to know if we could discuss the amount that can and should be spent, or whether it should be spent — in other words, the facts of the issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the questions you're suggesting that could be asked would be under the schedule of the bill when it is brought forth in committee. In the meantime, as stated under section 1, you deal with the quantum or the proportion; that is the proper subject matter of debate.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to the debate for the last day or so, and I agree that much of it goes a little bit beyond the bounds. I think that I'll be in order. The point that we've tried to make is that we're extending our opportunity to examine the various schedules and the bill in general because we're not convinced on this side of the House that we'll ever reach estimates — that the cut-and-run will again prevail.

The minister has refused to confirm for my hon. friend from Nanaimo that we will in fact have an opportunity to examine estimates in the near future. That kind of assurance, a confirmation from the minister, might make a difference to what we do here today.

However, I would like to ask the minister: if we're going to have an estimates debate, as he implied, then why does he need two months' interim supply, when if we're having estimates, one month would be sufficient? First of all, it's not an emergency; it's only an emergency because you let it go this far. Why is it that we have to have two months when one month would get you through into estimates, when you could come back to us again and get another month if you needed it because we were not finished estimates?

Interim supply is to cover the period during estimates before the estimates are finally passed. We can all understand that; it's been done a hundred times in this Legislature. But when you say two months, it reminds us of last March, when we had two months and that's the last we saw of you. Then we come in with this emergency that's suddenly today.

One month would be fine, if you would amend it to the point of one month — the amendment could stand in your name — or at least assure us that we will have an opportunity to debate the details of estimates. Obviously we're not going to get many answers here today, the way things have been proceeding so far.

HON. J. JANSEN: Last year we had four months for estimates debate. If that side of the House feels that they only need one month, I suggest they aren't doing their job. I tell you, this budget is good enough to have debate for another six months. This budget should have two months of debate. These estimates in this budget require that the ministers responsible stand up and tell the story. For him to suggest that only one month is suitable, Mr. Chairman, is totally inappropriate. We want to get into the estimates; we want to deal with those, and we need two months to deal with those.

MR. ROSE: From what the minister has told me, it sounds as if you need the time for the ministers to get briefed; in other words, to bone up on their new ministries. Is that what you're suggesting — that one month wouldn't be enough for them, and that you don't want them to have to face the questions and the

[ Page 12365 ]

probing until they've had a chance to be briefed and develop a sharper learning curve? One month, I think, would assure us an estimates debate, but I don't believe that we can be confident that we won't be just kissing one another goodbye here — after you get your money, you'll take it and run.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, let's be very clear. The Lord willing, next week we will be doing budget estimates. Is it any clearer than that? Do I have to draw a picture? Next week we will start debate on estimates. Is that clear to you, members opposite? I hope that you're going to spend two months on intensive debate of these estimates, because we're going to tell you why this government deserves to be re-elected, because of its good fiscal management and responsible, caring government. That's the story we're going to tell.

MR. PERRY: Before I make my substantive point, I wonder if I could invite the minister to do hon. members, and the public servant who has just joined us, the courtesy of introducing the public servant to those of us who are not familiar with her.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm surprised that this member has been here four and a half years and does not yet know our secretary to the Treasury Board, Thea Vakil.

MR. PERRY: That was uncommonly gracious of the minister. I've actually only been here two years. But this is the first time I've had the pleasure, and I'm delighted.

MR. HARCOURT: It seems like 45.

MR. PERRY: The Leader of the Opposition says: "It seems like 45 years." Sometimes it seems like 45 centuries.

I think the minister could clarify that question slightly more. I have concerns, as does the opposition House Leader and the first member for Nanaimo, about the whopping amount of money we're being asked to approve. Only a few years ago this would have been the entire budget. In the field I'm responsible for, this amounts to approximately the same as the total Health budget for the entire year for British Columbia. We're being asked to approve it in a matter of hours.

The Minister of Finance said a moment ago that the Lord willing, we would debate estimates beginning next week. The Lord has power over many things, but this is one of those matters in which the power rests with the government. I wonder if the minister would reassure us that he is speaking of government policy when he tells us we will begin estimates debate next Monday.

Mr. Chairman, the relevance of the question, of course, is to how much detail we will have to pursue in subsequent sections. If this is in fact our only opportunity to debate the details of government financing for the remainder of this parliament, then the obligation on us is to stick it out and to cover as much detail as we have the physical capacity to cover. I've been standing by since January 1 of this year waiting for this opportunity. Like all other hon. members of the House, we've put our own personal lives and professional careers on hold in order to be available for the call of government, and the government hasn't called us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if you would be relevant to the section, then your goal could be accomplished much quicker. You have not been relevant to the section.

MR. CLARK: I'll be brief on this, Mr. Chairman. I want to be clear. This section of the bill asks us to approve $5.4 billion of public spending, of which $2.8 billion has already been spent through one of the largest special warrants in the history of British Columbia. It was done when the House was sitting. No budget was brought in, and no interim supply was brought in. The government adjourned the House, ruled by decree and spent $2.8 billion, which it is now asking us to retroactively approve in this chamber — just so everybody knows exactly what the government is trying to do.

It's important that members of the opposition debate that point. It's important that we highlight for the people that it is the latest budget in the history of British Columbia, barring the 1940s, when they changed the fiscal year, and barring 1983, when the government had the courage to call an election after spending on special warrants for about two or three weeks. In this case, the government didn't do that. The government was afraid to call an election. They brought in the largest special warrant in history and are now asking us to retroactively approve it in a few hours. It's important that we point that out.

I want to ask the minister a very simple question which is germane to this section. Why was there no interim supply bill? It's germane because this section asks us to retroactively approve $2.8 billion worth of warrants. The House was sitting. You don't need a mail-order degree to know that the government ran out of money on March 31. We were sitting here at the end of March, and the Finance minister of the day said they had a supply bill. I'm simply asking the minister, for the record, to inform the House, and through the House the people of British Columbia, why they chose this extraordinary action to bring in the largest warrants in history.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair might point out that the Chair can act only in accordance with the rules provided by the members. That deals with relevancy of debate. Section 1 deals with the quantum, one-third of the total budget: $5,406,000,000. The question of warrants comes under debate within the preamble — not under section 1. If all members would read the bill, we will have relevancy of debate in the proper process, which would be dealing with the sections, the schedules and then the preamble. Appropriate debate, which I gather the opposition is looking for, would be accomplished in an expeditious manner.

[ Page 12366 ]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I think these are simple questions, and we can debate them in a variety of ways. I appreciate the guidance from the Chair. Of course, we will have lots of debate when we get into the special warrants. It's not my intention to belabour this point.

It seems to me that the minister can answer these questions here, or we can ask them again when we get to the next section. As you know, in this chamber over the last four and a half years, it's important to be in order. It's important that we ask the questions, but it's also important that we have some flexibility so these questions are answered. In order to expedite matters, the minister may answer these very simple questions I'm putting under this section, or we can get to them in another section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister wishes to.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Supply Act has a provision for one-third of expenditures that covers four months. It covers the special warrant of two months when the House was not sitting. That's why there isn't a supply bill for those two months. Those two months were put through when the House was not in session.

What we're saying is — and I beg to differ with the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — that it is the Lord who determines whether we'll be here next week. We will start the debate on the estimates next week, and we will ensure that there is sufficient money to enable us to debate those estimates in a democratic and extensive way. That is why we have two months of expenditure and two months for what has already gone in terms of the time-frame at this point in time.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, the minister is refusing to answer a very simple question. He wants to stick to the same answer every time. For the record, I just want to say again that this warrant was unnecessary The House was sitting at the end of March. We have had a budget before we ran out of money in British Columbia every year for 50 years, with the exception of an election in 1983. Prior to that, except for a very short period when the fiscal year changed, for 50 years we had a budget before we ran out of money. So for some 100 years we have had a budget before the government runs out of money. This warrant was unnecessary because the House was sitting. They were afraid to bring in an interim supply bill for debate at that time. It's only because they're forced to — they couldn't call an election because their Premier was in disgrace — that we're here today debating this extraordinary retroactive approval for this extraordinary....

[12:15]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out already, the substantive portion of this section deals with the special warrant. I'd ask the minister: was there a technical reason why this matter could not have been brought in in an interim supply bill while the House was sitting in March?

HON. J. JANSEN: What I said, and I'll continue to say, is that we're looking to ensure that the budget debate continues and the estimates debate continues. We want to ensure there's appropriate time to do that. The special warrant covered two months of expenditure. I should make a correction on what I said earlier: last year's warrant was for three months instead of the four months that I said. We had a one-month special warrant last year, and this year we have a two-months special warrant, given the circumstances in terms of the time-frame.

MR. MILLER: In trying to understand the process whereby we get to this point of the bill coming into the House, my question really is: was there a technical reason why you could not have brought in a request for supply while the House was sitting, as it did for that period in March? Was there some technical reason that prevented you from doing that?

HON. J. JANSEN: The technical reason was simply that the House wasn't sitting when the special warrant....

Interjections,

HON. J. JANSEN: Listen to the chattering over there. The special warrant was signed when the House was not in session. Members opposite, read the statistics.

MRS. BOONE: You are so full of it.

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps that member could withdraw that comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the member for Prince George North withdraw anything that was....

MRS. BOONE: If it offends the minister, certainly, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you kindly.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's not a question of if it offends. Mr. Chairman, I would like an unqualified withdrawal of that comment, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What comment?

HON. J. JANSEN: An unqualified withdrawal of the comment would be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair understood and believes he heard a withdrawal of the comment. Would the Minister of Finance please proceed on section 1.

Shall section 1 pass?

MR. MILLER: The House was sitting in March. We sat from March 11 to March 22. The fiscal year ends on March 31. Was there some technical reason that prevented the government requesting supply at that time? Clearly, we're talking about a significant amount of

[ Page 12367 ]

money. Was there some technical reason that prevented it? Why couldn't the Minister of Finance at that time ask the House for supply? It's a very simple question.

HON. J. JANSEN: On March 22, when the House prorogued, that was a time when a special warrant or supply bill wasn't necessary. Subsequent to March 31, there was a need. That is why we put a special warrant in place. What we're suggesting is that we would like to move very quickly into the discussion of the estimates. I'm surprised that we have spent this much time debating what has been, instead of something that will be.

MR. MILLER: We've heard the Minister of Finance stand and talk about financial management, and he seems to have some pride in his government's ability in terms of financial management. I would hope that if the House was sitting in March — the House sat from March 11 to March 22 — the Minister of Finance would have realized or understood that the fiscal year ends on March 31. I am sure that officials in the Ministry of Finance must have said at some point to the minister: "You know that in another nine days we're going to run out of money. Would it not be prudent to obtain supply in terms of the orderly, stable management of government?" I've asked probably the simplest question I can think of about this issue, and the minister does not answer. He either doesn't want to answer, or maybe he doesn't know the answer. But if that is so, maybe he could advise the House that that is the case.

MR. PERRY: Have you read Major Douglas on Social Credit?

MR. MILLER: Well, I don't know if Major Douglas has anything to do with it. Maybe if the minister wants to talk about that, he can. But the essential point is that we as legislators were responsible, were in session, were prepared, had the government brought a bill forward. We realize that supply is needed. There are provisions, as we spoke of yesterday, and various ways, that that can be accomplished. But was there a technical reason? Was there a hitch or foul-up somewhere internally that prevented bringing forward a supply bill while the House was sitting in March?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is an important question, because I think the people of British Columbia do believe that there are appropriate traditions, values and principles of democracy and budgeting This government was sitting for a brief period in March. It had every opportunity to bring in a budget or at least interim supply, yet this government — well, he wasn't the minister at the time — decided to leave the chamber, to cut and run and then proceed with special warrants in the amount of $2.6 billion. I'd like to ask the minister what the urgency was. What was the emergency? Why was this government prepared to flout 50 years of tradition and principles of proper budgeting and procedure? Tell us. I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to those answers. And here we are now having to deal retroactively with something that should have been done ages ago. Why?

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

You know, Mr. Minister, that special warrants are for urgent matters. You were sitting. You had every opportunity to do the people's business properly, by the letter of the law, by the principles of democratic debate that we uphold in this Legislature. The people have a right to know why you are managing their affairs in such a way.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the intention of the Supply Act is to deal retroactively and to provide into the future funds for the government to operate while the estimates are being debated. As I said before, we hope that we start into our estimates debate next week and complete it, and in our opinion, two months of funding is necessary for us to do that.

MR. MILLER: The minister was posed a series of questions. One question which the minister didn't answer was whether there was a technical reason why the government couldn't have brought in supply in March. It's pretty clear that there was no technical reason. There was absolutely no reason at all that the government could not have brought in a supply bill in March while this House was in session. I submit that they probably wouldn't have had very much difficulty getting approval for that supply bill, because we realize that the operations of government need to be funded. We realized that the end of the fiscal year was a little more than a week away. The only conclusion we can draw from the fact that they're now bringing a supply bill in — that they want the opposition to approve special warrants and to retroactively approve this significant sum of money — is that the government was in disarray. They were in complete and utter chaos. And yet they stand and talk about fiscal management.

If the Minister of Finance thinks that it's preferable and if this is his idea of fiscal management — that we retroactively debate special warrants passed in the back room — then I don't know what kind of a message he intends to take out to the people of British Columbia. If that's the message, it will be rejected.

I'll just try one more time and give the minister one last opportunity. Refusal to answer the question means that what I've just said is right. Was there a technical reason why you couldn't have brought that supply bill before this House in March?

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to serve notice to the minister, while we're debating this $5.4 billion item, that I and other members of the opposition will pose during debate some rather detailed questions on later sections and schedules. I wish I could take absolutely on faith the minister's indication that a full estimates debate will follow, but I note he has covered himself twice now with the phrase that this may depend on the Lord's will. I'm not sure if he's again equating Social Credit cabinet decisions with those of the Lord, but we've seen enough of that in the past. Therefore I

[ Page 12368 ]

intend to ask some rather specific questions today. I'd just like to serve notice on that and alert the minister that he might wish to call in the Deputy Minister of Health, for example, in this field. Or perhaps he'd like to rely on his own experiences as the recent minister — in which case I assume he'll be totally competent to answer some rather detailed questions.

[12:30]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 22

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain the purpose of this section.

I know the minister is getting prepared. This section deals with the financing transactions appropriation. The request here is for us to approve the sum of $238,996,000 for recoverable disbursements. My simple question is to ask the minister first of all what the purpose of this section is — why it's required in the interim supply bill.

HON. J. JANSEN: It relates to the requirements for the various ministries respecting their financing. Those ministries are outlined in schedule D of the estimates. I can go over each one of them: the Ministry of Advanced Education is $13 million; farm income insurance is $5.6 million; in the Attorney-General's department, the interest on trusts and deposits is $10.5 million; Vancouver Island pipeline stabilization is $26 million; British Columbia Transit is $48.25 million; land tax deferment is $7 million; rural area property taxes is $96 million. Those are all the disbursements. Revenues are different figures. The Ministry of Health is $5 million for the hospital innovation incentive program; the Ministry of Social Services and Housing is $27,575,000. The total is $238,996,000.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, let me have the minister confirm that this is the total amount required for the '91-92 fiscal year for recoverable disbursements in Schedule D of the estimates book. Is this the total amount?

HON. J. JANSEN: It has to be, because it incurs a liability in that amount of money.

MR. CLARK: I'm just curious as to why the entire amount would be required in the interim supply bill. Is it because that's the amount required for the next couple of months? You're asking for essentially the annual amount that's required, and I'm just curious as to why that would be in the interim supply bill, not in another venue.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's a legal requirement. In order to expend $1 on one of those loan accounts, you have to have the authority to have the entire amount. That's the normal process.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps it's the same answer that the minister gave a minute ago, but I'd appreciate it if he could.... This section asks for $24 million for the Purchasing Commission's working capital account. Again, is this the total amount that the Purchasing Commission's working capital account requires for the fiscal year ending...? If so, could he explain the purpose of that? Is it a revolving fund or something like that?

HON. J. JANSEN: This is the working capital account for the Purchasing Commission. It enables the Purchasing Commission to purchase vehicles to do the business of the various ministries. It is necessary to have the entire amount, because the ordering of vehicles depends a lot on the manufacturers' ordering dates, and I believe those order dates close in June. So the $24 million, the entire amount — which, again, is normal practice — gives flexibility to the Purchasing Commission to ensure that they get the best deal.

MR. CLARK: Is the total amount for vehicles only?

HON. J. JANSEN: It's primarily vehicles. I can get the information, if you want, of what else is in there.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. CLARK: Just for the sake of all members of the House and for the Chair, as is normally the course — since I've been here, anyway — I propose to you that we deal with schedule 1, and we could do that seriatim for the two warrants and then move to schedule 2. Is that the Chair's wish? I just want to clarify how to assist members in answering questions, particularly on the

[ Page 12369 ]

executive council. I'm suggesting a course of action which I leave to the Chair to determine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We would still have to deal with section 4 first. Then we can deal with schedule 1 and then schedule 2 in a seriatim manner, if the House so desires. There is no vote on each warrant. We will just vote on the whole of schedule 1 and then on schedule 2.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we vote on section 4. Then if you go to schedule 1, you may discuss the whole of schedule 1. But then we will vote on schedule 1 as a whole. That's w-h-o-l-e.

Section 4 approved.

On schedule 1.

MR. PERRY: There will be some fairly detailed questions under this section, and not seeing any recognizable officials from the Ministry of Health, I will rely on the Finance minister's expertise as the recent-former Minister of Health. I'm confident he will be able to answer these questions concerning the overruns under schedule 1.

The first question relates to increased costs related to....

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, on a brief and gentle point of order, I think it's fair to say we're very disappointed if not outraged that we're asked to pass a third of the budget here today, both post and pre. At the same time, three ministers of the most important portfolios, in terms of spending in the whole government service, are not here. If the ministers are not here or can't be here or won't be here, it seems to me it should be up to the government Whip....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This is possibly something that should be discussed between House Leaders. It's not a valid point of order within the chamber, hon. member.

MR. ROSE: I was almost finished my remarks. I will go out and discuss this matter in greater detail. But I wanted the House to know, on a point of order. It's a legitimate point of order, because how can we do our business here and ask the kinds of questions we need to ask and the public wants us to ask if we do not have the appropriate minister here? Surely, if we don't have the minister here, we could at least have a high official from the ministry here to give us the answers we need I think this kind of procedure is a contempt of this House.

[12:45]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Certainly we are prepared, if there are ministers unavoidably away today, to have a minister responsible answer the questions There are some 15 ministries' interim spending in this bill. If you want us to have the 15 deputy ministers assembled in the hallway, we will do that. If you wish to give me a list of those ministries on which you want to ask some specific questions, I will do my utmost to ensure that we have senior ministry officials and the minister — or ministers to fill in, in place of the absent ministers, on those issues.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order. I'm very grateful for that response. When we asked the question about seriatim treatment of these various schedules and the sections within the schedules, that's exactly what we're trying to do, so we wouldn't have 15 deputy ministers lined up in the hall like schoolboys waiting to see the principal.

But we believe in this principle that we will deal with the schedules seriatim, and then when it comes near to the time — one minister ahead or something like that — I think that will be the trigger that we may have some questions for that minister or his substitute deputy minister who could provide us the answers we need.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with the point made so forcefully by the opposition House Leader. I think it's contempt of the Legislature that the ministers aren't here. The government knew full well that schedule 1 deals with Health and Social Services. It's nothing short of contempt for those ministers not to be here and not to have their deputies here. That's why I served notice a few minutes ago.

However, I feel delighted personally, because I think the neglect is going to make it impossible for the Minister of Finance to hide from a question that he has hidden from for a long time. I intend to make it very uncomfortable for that minister; I see him shaking now, but wait until he hears what I have to say. I think I'm going to make it very uncomfortable for him not to reply to this question, which is a question of fact that relates to the approval of warrant No. 1 under schedule 1 — the overexpenditures under Pharmacare, Medical Services Plan, the cost of salaried and sessional positions and supplementary benefits.

Mr. Chairman, in the presence of the member for New Westminster on February 11, the then Minister of Health, presently Minister of Finance, who is sitting across from me, stated upon opening the new cardiovascular surgery unit at the Royal Columbian Hospital that the waiting time for cardiovascular surgery had been reduced in the previous year from an average of 20 days to an average of 11 days.

I raised this previously in this Legislature. That was reported in the Vancouver Sun on February 12, 1991, and the same words were heard by the member for New Westminster, who was an independent witness. Anyone with a right mind would have known that those figures were absurd. I imagine that the surgeons, cardiologists, patient representatives and hospital administrators must have been embarrassed to hear the then Minister of Health announce that.

As if that were not enough, the former Minister of Health repeated the error in a letter published in the Vancouver Province on February 15, 1991, on page 46, in which he stated: "Average waiting times for patients

[ Page 12370 ]

who have had heart surgery were cut in half over the past year from 20 days to 10.5 days." That was an outright fabrication stated twice. It was patently absurd, and anyone involved in that field would have known so, and did. How the former minister allowed himself to sign a letter like that I can't imagine. It reveals his ignorance of the true state of cardiovascular services in the province at that time.

The former Minister of Health later attempted to wiggle out of that, and a column in the Vancouver Province of February 17 by Mr. Bob Stall pointed out that he attributed this to a typographical error made by one of his officials. Certainly I would be prepared to forgive a typographical error, even of such import. I'm not quite so certain of my judgment of the minister's competence in being willing to sign a letter like that, but the fact that he said it twice, once verbally in public and once in writing, raised questions in my mind of how well that minister — or his ministry, for that matter — understood the real situation in cardiovascular surgery.

However, the point of fact is this. The minister at the time suggested in the February 17 Province article on page 14 that the typographical mistake was the following: the real waiting time for cardiovascular surgery — the average waiting time — had been reduced from 20 weeks to 10.5 weeks, not days. That in itself would have been an admirable achievement. I think British Columbians might rightly have taken pride in that achievement. The question I'd like to ask the minister is whether it was true.

Mr. Chairman, I have in my hands the waiting-list compiled by the Vancouver General Hospital admitting information services dated Friday, February 1, 1991. According to that waiting-list for the hospital which performs half of the cardiovascular surgery in British Columbia, the average waiting time as of February 1, 1991, was 20 weeks. It's labelled "mean" on this document.

That would mean that were the minister's facts correct as stated in the press, the mean or average waiting time at the other two hospitals performing cardiovascular surgery would, arithmetically by definition, have had to have been zero. In order to average 20 weeks in a hospital doing half the surgery, down to 10 weeks for the whole province, the other two hospitals would have had to have a zero waiting time.

Most hon. members can follow that arithmetic fairly simply, and the Minister of Finance — the former Minister of Health — is an accountant by training. Can he tell us the truth: what is the real average waiting time for cardiovascular surgery in British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: At the outset I should introduce the other staff member who is here: Mr. Vic Skaarup, director of accounting. If you have any questions you want to put to him, you can do that as well.

The member for Vancouver–Point Grey has difficulty understanding a lot of facts. I'm a little disappointed. I know he was shaking quite badly when he was asking the question, and I can understand why he was shaking. First of all, he's using an example from one hospital. Mr. Chairman, let it be known that we have indeed four hospitals doing cardiac care surgery, as you know.

Furthermore, he outlined that the facts compiled by the cardiac care committee, which is comprised of cardiac care physicians and surgeons in British Columbia, were incorrect. Is he suggesting that his colleagues are trying to put forward a case that is incorrect? He indicates that perhaps they are not producing information that is reliable. What we should concentrate on is that we were able to put forward a plan of action that put 700 additional open-heart surgeries in this province.

The member should compare what his colleagues in Ontario are doing. I should tell you what they're doing, because you keep on comparing and showing.... They produced a document which is a supplementary to managing health care funding. They weren't honest enough to put it in the budget, — they put it in a separate document. Do you know what they said about cardiac care surgery? "Ontario's cardiovascular capacity has increased by approximately 20 percent since 1989." Twenty percent in three years. Do you know how much we did in one year? Divide it. Use his calculator — it works. Seven hundred. Then it says: "This has greatly reduced the need to seek cardiac care outside in the United States."

The member knows about the number of improvements that we have made and the planning process that we put in place to ensure the capacity is there. But some of the problems stem from his own colleagues who have excessive wait-lists, which he has not talked about. When there is a referral to one of his colleagues who has a long wait-list, which in some cases is in the order of 160 patients.... As the member also knows — or perhaps he doesn't — surgeons can probably do about two cases a week. I would think that when you're referred to someone with 160 on their wait-list — when some of their colleagues are running wait-lists of two — you would have to wait a little while.

But I haven't heard him talk about that or about the fact that we need a different system of registration for surgery in British Columbia. We've started to network all the surgery capacities of 20 hospitals throughout the system in British Columbia. We've done it with cardiac care, the leading-edge type of surgery registration which is now being followed in the rest of the country. We are doing all that.

He talks about a statement that was made and the correction that was effected, and I'm not sure what else he wants to talk about. Does he want us to keep on talking about the good things we're doing in terms of cardiac care? We'd be pleased to do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the first member for Victoria who wishes leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON: Seated on the floor of the House today is a former member of this House, a former leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition who now sits

[ Page 12371 ]

in Ottawa in the seat of Comox-Alberni. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, can you advise me — the minister disappeared — is there another minister filling in on his behalf? He seems to have cut and run a moment ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Point Grey on schedule 1.

MR. PERRY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no other alternative but to move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[1:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 30

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this afternoon we have a large number of grade 5 students visiting us from Surrey from Panorama Park School, and I would ask the House to please them welcome.

MR. PERRY: I'm delighted to see the Minister of Finance back in his place, so we can pursue this line of questioning. He did not answer the question, of course, that I posed him a moment ago. What are the actual facts on the cardiac surgery waiting-list now? Is the average waiting time for cardiac surgery ten weeks as the minister has claimed publicly, or is it closer to 20 weeks? I'd like to have that information, because he's asking for money that's relevant for the retroactive approval for spending that was clearly relevant to that issue.

MR. SIHOTA: I listened with great interest to my learned colleague for Vancouver–Point Grey talk about this matter of cardiac surgery and the waiting-lists. It is true that this government quite some time ago learned of the fact that there were long waiting-lists for cardiac surgery in this province. I believe that at the time some 800 or 900 people were on this list, and I'm sure it has grown. But the government at the time indicated that it was trying to reduce the time to wait for this very vital surgery, and that it was going to commit financial resources to shorten the length of the wait. Could the minister advise the House how much of these funds has been allocated for that purpose?

HON. J. JANSEN: Isn't that an interesting question: how much of these funds have been allocated for that purpose? The estimates which we're going to be talking about outline the enhancements in terms of cardiac care surgery and the enhancements in terms of our entire health care system. It outlines, in fact, that we opened up an additional operating capacity at the Royal Columbian Hospital just recently; it outlines that we have funding for 700 additional cases in a year.

What a ridiculous question! I just finished covering it, and I outlined the initiatives and what we're still forward — planning in terms of cardiac care surgery, and that we expect to expand even further beyond Royal Columbian. We are making significant strides and will continue to do so.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. PERRY: I continue to lament the absence of any Health ministry staff here. I know it's only about 15 minutes walking time; I suppose it takes longer than that in the government jet to get from the ministry to parliament, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: If they moved as fast as your lips, they'd have been here ten minutes ago.

MR. PERRY: If they moved as fast as my lips, they'd have been here ten minutes ago, says the member for Yale-Lillooet. Well, that would have been very satisfactory as well.

The problem is that we're not getting an answer from the minister. I asked him a very straightforward question: was he telling the truth when he said that the average waiting time for cardiovascular surgery corrected from 10.5 days to 10.5 weeks, or was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance.

HON. J. JANSEN: I ask him to make an immediate withdrawal of that comment, please.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's a point of order, with what the minister had to say. There is no point of order.

[ Page 12372 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the minister would take his seat, please. If the member for Vancouver–Point Grey was impugning the honesty of the minister, I am sure he will apologize.

MR. PERRY: I was asking for clarification of the fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's proceed.

MR. PERRY: Let me phrase it a different way. Were it true, as stated in ministry press releases and by the minister at the opening of the Royal Columbian Hospital cardiovascular unit, that the average waiting time for cardiovascular surgery for patients operated on in 1990 was 10.5 weeks, then it would follow that if the average waiting time for surgery on the same date at the Vancouver General Hospital — which does half of the surgery — was 20 weeks, which we know from their admitting department statistics is accurate, it would follow that the average waiting time at the other two hospitals then operating — Royal Columbian was not open at that time; you opened Royal Columbian but it wasn't yet up and running, and as far as I know it still has a ways to go — would have to have been zero waiting time.

That doesn't make any sense; it defies common sense. Therefore I, as a member of this Legislature, find it difficult to accept that the information dispensed by the ministry and the then Minister of Health was accurate. I'm not impugning his integrity in the least. I would just like to know the facts, and he hasn't answered me on that yet. No, I'm not finished yet, if he's going to sit.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, there's some difficulty here in terms of the opposition's.... We are trying to ascertain some very serious answers to some very serious questions about this special warrant of $232 million, and my colleague the Health critic for our side is asking some good questions. The difficulty and the frustration we have is that this government clearly hasn't prepared itself for this debate, hasn't got the answers, hasn't got the staff, hasn't organized the ministers — and, quite frankly, we think it's important that we have those answers. If the government can prepare itself and get organized, we can perhaps avoid some of the frustrations and feelings that are starting to arise in this chamber and get to the answers on behalf of all the people in British Columbia. That's all we want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the member for Vancouver East.... I can understand the frustrations. I do believe, though, that I did hear an undertaking on the part of a minister of the Crown that people would be here if they were required from these various staffs to help resolve some of these frustrations and answer these questions. So perhaps it's a matter of timing. I note that we do have people here from the Finance ministry, so perhaps we could proceed along a different line of questioning until somebody comes along. Would that be acceptable?

MR. CLARK: We're prepared to stand down the first section, if you like, and move on, given that the staff is not here. Mr. Chairman, it's quite simple. If we want to expedite matters and go through the different ministries, the House Leader for the government side has indicated that appropriate staff could be available, and we're quite prepared to cooperate on the timing. We're prepared to go through seriatim or any other way the government would like to debate any of these estimates at any time. We're quite prepared on this side of the House for whatever is convenient for the minister or the staff.

At the moment we're moving seriatim, and we're on health care. There's no Minister of Health here. We've asked for the government to provide the appropriate Health ministry staff so that they could answer the question fully, and if that's the case, we could move through much more quickly. I note that we did have an undertaking from the government House Leader, and I would hope that it is fulfilled.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, my refusal to stand up last time was because the member asked the question once before, and I did respond to his question. I don't intend to stand up every time when the question is repeated. We're prepared to go through schedule 1. I'll deal with warrant 1 of schedule 1, and we can vote independently on each of these warrants. If the members opposite wish to vote against the vote 40 supplement of $142,600,000, they can do so.

I've explained in detail the cardiac care surgery question that the member opposite asked. He has referred to one example in one hospital. I corrected him that, in fact, there are four hospitals doing open-heart surgery in the province. I also told him that the information supplied to me at the time came from his colleagues in the profession, the physicians who sit on our cardiac-care committee. I find it offensive that he would think that they gave me incorrect information, particularly such as to underline the important nature of our program. I think it has been answered, so I'm not going to spend more time answering the same question put in different ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The record should be set straight here. Dealing with these items seriatim is fine and is acceptable, but I seem to recall that it was stipulated right at the outset that the voting per se would be on the schedule as a whole. Is that correct? That was the way I understood the rules to be laid out when we started. A schedule is a schedule is a schedule and has to be voted on as a package.

MR. PERRY: I think the member for Vancouver East was trying to make the point that we'd be happy, if we could under the rules, to defer a few of these questions for a moment until the appropriate officials arrive. But we can't. We must debate this point under schedule 1. Without adjourning the entire sitting, we have no alternative but to pursue this now.

[ Page 12373 ]

I don't mean to be difficult, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think I am being difficult. I'm actually making a very modest request of the Minister of Finance, who after all was the Minister of Health until only a few weeks ago. I had a standing motion on the order paper all of last year asking for the waiting-lists for every hospital in the province. I'm not asking for that. I'm just asking for one relatively simple piece of information for which the former Minister of Health was accountable for a period of over a year. He ought to have this knowledge at his fingertips.

Was the average waiting time for cardiac surgery in British Columbia, as of February 1991, in the period that we're debating... ? Was the average waiting time for a patient requiring elective cardiac surgery — that means non-emergency surgery — 20 weeks, 30 weeks, 15 weeks, or 10.5 as stated by the Ministry of Health through the lips of the then Minister of Health? He's trying to pawn that off onto a committee of doctors, but it was in fact his lips that spoke the figures. He was the responsible, accountable official responsible for a third of the provincial budget at that time. I don't think he can slip away from it quite that easily, with all respect, Mr. Chairman. I think he owes us a factual answer. That's all I'm asking for on this question.

HON. J. JANSEN: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, we're discussing schedule 1, warrant 1. Is that correct?

Let me clarify for the member what that means. It does not mean open-heart surgery. I'll tell you what it means. It means the payment of his salary as a physician and surgeon. The contract under BCMA which he is part of — in conflict of interest, I know, and as the people of the province know — is what the $140 million is for. It is for the additional contract settlement of BCMA. I can outline the breakdown of what it is....

MR. PERRY: On a point of order, I wonder if the minister would care to explain the conflict of interest, or withdraw his allegation.

HON. J. JANSEN: I certainly can't withdraw it, because in fact it's true, Mr. Chairman. The member is a Health critic and is criticizing or attempting to criticize a ministry which in turn pays him. I guess I have a little problem and the people of the province have a little problem, in understanding how one can criticize....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Island on a point of order.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the Finance ministry pays that member. Is he therefore in a conflict of interest? Of course not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the tack of the whole discussion going on here is becoming somewhat difficult, if I can put it in maybe a mild way. Let me try once more to reconcile what we're doing here and see if there isn't another way.

We do have in our standing orders a rule whereby we can stand an item down. What we can do here if we can reach agreement is, pending the arrival of some experts who would be of assistance in resolving some of these problems, stand down schedule 1 and go to work on schedule 2. Is that acceptable to the minister?

HON. J. JANSEN: I would think, Mr. Chairman, that the lack of thinking that has gone into some of the questions to date certainly wouldn't warrant staff to come here. I have answered the question respecting cardiac care surgery. I outlined to the member opposite that warrant No. 1 of schedule 1 does not cover that issue. It covers the BCMA settlement, the negotiated salary and fee increases for physicians paid on salary or sessionally, and the utilization of supplementary benefit practitioners. That's what warrant No. 1 does. In fairness, I did answer the question respecting cardiac care surgery, and I intend to continue with the debate.

MR. GABELMANN: A couple of points, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on the suggestion by the minister that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has a conflict of interest, many Ministers of Health in this country have been, and in some cases are, medical doctors. I would suggest that no one would suggest that those Ministers of Health are in a conflict-of-interest situation.

Secondly, because the member has a high concern for those kinds of questions, he checked it out with the conflict-of-interest commissioner. He asked the question: "Is it a conflict of interest?" The answer was clear and unequivocal from Mr. Hughes that there is no conflict. I think that matter should now be put to rest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Apologize.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't intend to ask that member to apologize. I know him too well to even make that request.

Thirdly, the minister is refusing to allow this House to conduct its business in an appropriate fashion, which is to have informed staff people present when we discuss particular issues. Given that the minister has on two or three occasions now indicated to the Chair that he will not accede to that request, I find no other alternative, Mr. Chairman, but to draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My attention having been drawn to the clock without the question being put, I will rise and report to the House.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I move that the House stand adjourned for five minutes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may take the liberty of correcting the government House Leader, the motion should read: "... That the House at its rising do stand adjourned for five minutes."

[ Page 12374 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 24

The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.