[ Page 12375 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Supply Act (No. 1), 1991 (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. J. Jansen) –– 12375

Mr. Perry

Mr. Clark

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Barlee

Ms. Cull

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Mr. Miller

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Mr. G. Janssen

Hon. Mr. Chalmers

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Zirnhelt

Hon. Mr. Parker

Mr. Smith

Ms. Edwards

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. S. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Mercier

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mrs. Boone

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Ms. Pullinger

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt

Hon. Mr. Bruce

Hon. Mr. Savage

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Hon. Mr. Messmer

Third reading

Royal assent to bill –– 12450

FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1991

The House met at 1:44 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I call committee on Bill 8.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1991

(continued)

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

On schedule 1.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the Minister of Finance is feeling a little more comfortable now; he looked rather wriggly before we adjourned. I hope all members have had a chance to relax during the break.

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question, I see an official from the Ministry of Health manoeuvring into position. Id like to welcome the assistant deputy minister to the chamber and again pose the question for which we are still seeking an answer. What is the average waiting time for non-emergent cardiac surgery in British Columbia?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, we're debating warrant No. 1 of schedule 1, which is the cost of the BCMA settlement and the additional cost of Pharmacare. If the member would like, I can explain how he benefited from the new BCMA contract, in terms of the cost of the overall package and how that additional warrant was generated in terms of that expenditure. That is what warrant No.1 of $142,600,000 is.

MR. PERRY: The wording on page 2 of Bill 8, schedule 1, warrant No. 1 is fairly clear. "To supplement vote 40, Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare, to provide funding for costs arising from increased service utilization and increases in the cost of drugs under the Pharmacare plans...."

Of course, most members will know that cardiac surgery is paid for under the Medical Services Plan; also some cardiac surgery patients would receive benefits under Pharmacare. So clearly the questions of fact that I'm trying to determine are relevant to this expenditure. I'm simply trying to determine a matter of fact, which has been out in the public domain as a question of fact since February 17 at least — that's three and a half months now — in which the former Minister of Health, who was at that time responsible for that portfolio and now is Minister of Finance, and his staff have had a chance to examine the facts of the issue. He has tried to pass off on some committee the responsibility for figures which he attributed as fact in public and signed in a letter to the Vancouver Province. I can draw no other conclusion than that he is avoiding the scrutiny of this Legislature over the fulfilment of the mandate he is now asking us to pay for. He is asking the taxpayer to pay for it, of course, but he is asking us to vote for that expenditure retroactively.

This concerns matters of efficiency. You will recall, Mr. Chair, that in my response to the budget I spoke of the irony of that headline in the budget speech about efficient government. This is what we're getting at, in part. While the minister is considering that question, maybe I can put to him a couple of follow-up questions. Will the Minister of Finance tell us what the cost of export of patients to the state of Washington for heart surgery was? How many patients have been done? Is the program still continuing at this moment? What was the cost per patient to perform that surgery, and how did it compare with the average cost in British Columbia?

When he has provided us with those answers, perhaps we'll be in a position to know how much that contributed to the present budget overrun. Perhaps we'll be in a position to judge in a more enlightened way as members of the Legislature whether those services could have been provided more efficiently by running operating rooms at higher capacity during evenings — nights, if necessary — or weekends in British Columbia, instead of exporting patients to Washington.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, schedule 1 of warrant 1 is a reflection of an increased cost for a service already provided. The $142 million is to pay for the practitioners — the fine physicians and surgeons in British Columbia — who have already performed the services. This particular amount is retroactive to the contract settlement effected. He, too, received a cheque under this warrant 1, as part of his billings. It has nothing to do with the capacity of open-heart surgery. It was a service already performed.

In terms of the open-heart surgeries performed in the United States, we made agreements with a number of hospitals. The costs for each hospital varied, because there was, as you know, an open-negotiating, competitive position with the hospitals in the United States. The proviso also was that we keep those figures confidential because of that competitive nature. However, on a number of occasions when this matter came up, I did indicate that the costs signed with the last hospital were equal to, or lower than, those in Canada. That was compiled by our own staff member, Dr. Neil Fatin, who gave me those figures.

I should also say that the program was for 200 patients. The compliments we got from those patients who took advantage of that opportunity were very significant. They were very pleased with the outstanding service and follow-up done by each hospital. It was an opportunity for us to deal with the problem very quickly. Those in British Columbia who needed the service were certainly appreciative. I think that the entire 200 cases have been utilized. Maybe one or two cases are left over, but essentially the program is complete.

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a bit of a problem with the member from Point Grey taking this line of questioning. I have no problem with the fact that he is a doctor and might ask questions in the House. But as he is a practising doctor, I find there may be a conflict. The

[ Page 12376 ]

other side are the first to stand up if they think any members on this side of the House are in conflict. It's a nice cover-up you try and make for a member who was president of a company and director of a company. That's another issue and the public can't see that, so we can talk about that some other time.

I'm being very serious. You people over there love to talk about conflicts. The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey says on his public disclosure statement, which is a public statement....

MR. CLARK: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the member knows he has to be in order. This is completely out of order. He would know if he was in the House earlier that this had been canvassed by the Minister of Finance. He would also know that this matter was brought before the attention of Mr. Hughes, the conflict of interest commissioner. He would know that there is no conflict-of-interest. That has been ruled upon by the conflict-of-interest commissioner, so for him to make the point here is, first of all, irrelevant and out of order, and secondly, patently incorrect.

MR. REYNOLDS: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, it's amazing how the other side gets so itchy every time we want to talk about their side of the House. The fact of the matter is that I wish that second member for Vancouver East.... If it was anyone else who wanted to talk about ethics and where they get documentation and facts from, I might accept it, but on that side of the House — and I'll make my point — you just take your time. You've got lots of voices over there. You want to keep us sitting Friday afternoon until 2 p.m. when we usually quit at 1 p.m. You want to hold up the public's pay cheques. Just listen to this side of the House every once in a while.

Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that the member on that side has said that Mr. Hughes has said that this is all right. Mr. Hughes has said that it's all right to be a doctor and serve in the House. He hasn't said that it's all right to be an advocate for the doctors while you're sitting in this House, and you're a doctor receiving a salary. I have every right to ask my question of the Minister of Finance because this member receives money from that vote, and I want to be able to talk about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no doubt that we're all concerned about irrelevancy as it pertains to the debate in the House and the matter before us, and I would urge every member to be relevant to the item and the discussion.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance I would say again, I find the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey no different than a teacher who can't be elected to a school board and vote for his/her salary in the same district. It's no different in this House if you're a doctor and, as I said, his form says he is substantially inactive in practice. But I notice his form says he made $31,869 last year. Well, I don't think that's being inactive. Certainly a single mother on welfare wouldn't think that's inactive, and I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if his department has looked at the fact as to whether somebody in this House should be debating an issue when they receive a salary from the government. Again, I have no objection to that, but you shouldn't be an advocate for your business when you're in this House. If you NDPers don't know the difference between right and wrong over there, that's your problem. You want to talk about this side of the House. You and your leader don't know the difference between right and wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. REYNOLDS: You want to talk about what this side does all the time, but it sure hurts when.... You all squeal like pigs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. First of all I would like to ask the member to withdraw his last comment.

MR. REYNOLDS: I'll withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let's be relevant to the bill that's before us. I believe that it's not only important for debate in this House; it's also important, as we serve the taxpayers of this province, that we be relevant in the debate that is before us — Bill 8, schedule 1.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would just like to suggest to the minister that he not answer any questions from the member for Vancouver–Point Grey until Mr. Hughes rules on whether we can be advocates in this House if we're receiving money from the Crown. This member is receiving money from the Crown for practising medicine; he shouldn't be an advocate.

HON. J. JANSEN: Perhaps we can focus on warrant 1, which is $142,600,000. It covers the cost of the contract won by the BCMA, the additional costs of that contract and the additional costs associated with the utilization included in that contract. I would urge the member for Vancouver–Point Grey to consider the advice that he received in terms of any conflict, and I will be pleased to continue the debate.

MR. PERRY: I was under the illusion we were discussing Ministry of Health funding, not doctors' incomes. I thought we were discussing funding which is intended to provide services to people, to sick British Columbians — hopefully to improve their health.

Perhaps I should say in passing that the conflict commissioner has ruled on all members' disclosure statements and has approved, to the best of my knowledge, all of them. So I think the previous discussion was largely irrelevant.

I have one further question relevant to the line I pursued earlier: whether the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Health, will tell us what, if any, proportion of this expenditure relates to the export of patients for cancer radiotherapy services. The former Minister of Health, the present Minister of Finance,

[ Page 12377 ]

will, of course, remember that I encouraged him to undertake that policy, there having been no alternative for providing timely therapy at the time in British Columbia. I would like to know at some point how much the failure to plan in the past has cost the taxpayer. If it's more appropriate to ask that question under schedule 2, if the minister will indicate that, I'll be happy to defer that question until later.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll say it one more time. The Medical Services Commission's additional costs were related to the new BCMA contract. They were not related to any services in the province or out of the province; they were for past service provisions. If he billed fee-for-service, he would have got a cheque under this amount as well. That's simply an explanation of warrant 1 - $142,600,000.

[2:00]

MR. PERRY: I'll just clarify that point. Is the Minister of Finance saying that when patients have travelled to the state of Washington or outside of British Columbia for the receipt of medical services such as — I'll give two specific examples — a surgeon's fee for cardiac surgery in Washington State, or a radiotherapist's fee and any consulting fees of physicians who deliver radiotherapy to cancer patients from British Columbia who are now exported to Washington State ? Are those fees not paid out of the Medical Services Plan budget? Therefore is he correct in saying that they had no impact during the last fiscal year on the requirement for an additional $142,600,000, which is explained in this schedule as being partly related to increased service utilization?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the cost in this particular vote was to do with the BCMA settlement, of which he is a member. It has nothing to do with out-of-province claims, which are a separate part of the budget and are not included in the special warrant.

MR. PERRY: I'd just like to pin down this issue so that there will be no question of it in the future. In general, fees for medical treatment are higher in the United States than they are in British Columbia. Normally the Medical Services Plan pays, as a matter of policy, for British Columbians who fall ill — for example, while vacationing — in emergency conditions. To my understanding, British Columbia pays through the Medical Services Plan the equivalent amount of money that the service would have cost had it been rendered in British Columbia.

The minister's answer implies that there were no additional costs due to the export of patients, either for heart surgery or for cancer treatment, to Washington State under the Medical Services Plan. Since those costs, by definition, virtually had to have been higher than the equivalent cost would have been were the service rendered in British Columbia, under what budget were those additional costs absorbed? They obviously were not foreseen by the ministry at the time of the estimates last year. Was there enough surplus in the estimates elsewhere in the Ministry of Health budget to cover them, or have the figures been fudged so they come somewhere in this schedule, which the minister is not disclosing? Or are they hidden somewhere else in the budget? If he will give us the answer to that question, then we'll know where we can pursue it under schedule 2.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'll say it again: the BCMA would probably find it offensive if I started to take out of their settlement the cost of out-of-province care. The component in the BCMA settlement is the component referring to out-of-province hospitals and so on; that's included in a separate part of the budget. We can debate that later on if you wish. We won't be able to give you the exact amount, but we can certainly answer more of your questions at that point in time.

MR. PERRY: I'll change to a slightly different line of questioning, which is the Pharmacare component of this vote. The review of Pharmacare estimates versus Pharmacare expenditures for the last several years suggests that Pharmacare expenditures have been regularly underestimated. It has been intimated to me that this was a standard practice within the Ministry of Health budgeting process. In submissions to Treasury Board, Pharmacare estimates were knowingly underestimated, presumably in the preparation of election budgets, in what were then thought to be election years — perhaps 1989-90 and 1990-91.

When I look back at the comparison of Pharmacare estimates with actual expenditures for the year 1987-88, the Pharmacare estimate was $155,990,000. That includes administrative costs, as do all the figures. The $155,990,000, the actual expenditure for that fiscal year, was remarkably close at $157,473,941 as published. For the next year, '88-89, the Pharmacare estimate was $176,320,000 and the actual expenditure was $183,393,320.

For the following fiscal year of 1989-90 a different pattern began to emerge. In the '88-89 fiscal year we saw a budget underestimate of $7 million compared to the real expenditure. For 1989-90 the estimate was $191,831,000, and the true expenditure was $212,106,273. That's a discrepancy of over $20 million. In the 1990-91 fiscal year just concluded the Pharmacare estimate — of course the ingredient cost is the significant part; these figures are the totals including administration costs — was $223,996,653. The actual expenditure — if it's been published — I've been unable to find.

I'd like to begin by asking the Minister of Finance for the true total Pharmacare expenditure for the fiscal year just concluded on March 31, 1991.

HON. J. JANSEN: The purpose of warrant 1 was to deal with the additional costs — not the total costs — required by Pharmacare. They relate to two things: existing products and their usage and price increase, and new products. I can go through, or I can give the member a copy of all the drugs and outline their additional costs. In some areas there are 1,004, 1,015 and 1,583 percent increases. I can give you a breakdown, but I would say that rather than me going

[ Page 12378 ]

through that, I can give these notes to him at later date and he can have a look at them.

The component breakdown of Pharmacare is: $29,500,000 additional costs, of which $22 million is related to higher than anticipated drug costs. Vasotec, for example, at $1,299,900, was a 69.41 percent increase. Mevacor at $1,316,508 was a 66.26 percent increase.

I can go through them all. The other one is a $5.7 million increase in higher than anticipated utilization. The balance is $1.4 million related to the plan E deductible increase not happening. That is the breakdown of the $29,500,000 which relates to Pharmacare.

MR. PERRY: I thank the Minister of Finance for his candour. I am so eager to possess this knowledge that I request that he table the documents now or perhaps send them over to me with one of the messengers now rather than later. I appreciate the generosity of his offer to perhaps spare me the weekend studying them, but I'd be delighted to have them right now so we could pursue some intelligent questioning during the schedule 2 debate. I've been trying to get that kind of information for months, and the Minister of Health has previously stonewalled me on that. If I can assume the Minister would be happy to either table or I see him shaking his head, but he just offered me the information and I'd be delighted if he'd send it over by courier.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the reason I was shaking my head was the intimation that we were stonewalling. That's the reason I was shaking my head. You don't read body sign language very well, Mr. Member.

What I will do, because I don't have any copies of this if I give it to the member opposite.... We can make arrangements for him to get it at a later time of the day.

MR. PERRY: I apologize to the minister for misreading his body language, and I thank him for the information. Perhaps when I sit down I'll pop over and borrow the documents, photocopy them and return them to him in the House, if that's agreeable.

The question then arises, Mr. Chair.... If I heard accurately, there was a dramatic $29 million increase in Pharmacare funding in one year over the budgeted amount. That means something like a $40 million or $45 million increase over the previous year; that's roughly a 20 percent increase in the budget for drugs. I had previously heard an estimate of 27 percent in the actual ingredient cost, which I found very alarming, particularly because it would be very difficult to argue that the medical benefit to elderly people served by Pharmacare has increased 27 percent in one year. If anyone could work that kind of improvement in health status in one year, I don't think they would be sitting in this chamber. We'd have gone on to much greater things.

This leads me to a question that refers to the estimates debates from last year, when the present Minister of Finance, then the Minister of Health, told me I quote from page 11503 of Hansard for July 25, 1990 — 1 am quoting the Minister of Finance, at the time Minister of Health, in response to questions of mine about the rapidly increasing cost of Pharmacare — for example, concern over a drug, Lovastatin, which had jumped from zero to $2.5 million in one fiscal year. In the calendar year 1990 it had reached $3.5 million, according to Pharmacare figures. It is a drug for which there is no proven benefit in the population of people over 65, for whom it was being used under Pharmacare plan A.

[2:15]

The minister, in response to my question, said: "I recently requested our Pharmacare advisory committee to carry out a detailed review of the Pharmacare program, and they are now in the midst of doing that. They have hired a consultant, and I have asked for the review of the program to be completed, with recommendations within the next eight months." That was July 25, 1990. By my quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, eight months would have brought us to March 25, 1991, so presumably he had in mind the end of the fiscal year.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

To the best of my knowledge, that Pharmacare advisory committee report has not been published, so I would like to ask the minister: what fraction of the $29 million increase in cost for Pharmacare that we're being asked to support — what dollar amount — was for the Pharmacare advisory committee? What were the per them fees for people who attended meetings of the committee? Were the people who were paid per them fees also salaried at the time, or in receipt of additional salaries from government or government sources? Where is the report of the Pharmacare advisory committee, which might have helped the province to curtail those costs?

HON. J. JANSEN: The report that the member refers to — and I can understand his interest in it — has not yet gone to the minister, as I understand it. When it does go to the minister it will become public. I'm sure the minister will release it.

Also, what I said earlier is that the people on that committee will be paid the normal per diems. All of that information can be made available during the estimates debate, which hopefully can happen next week. We could start with Health, if you wish, Mr. Member, because I know the staff are eager and willing to go. But we're going to work on each and every item like that — it's going to take a long time.

I explained the $29 million; I hope that's sufficient.

MR. PERRY: Again, I am reassured to know that we shall have the estimates debate beginning next week. In the meantime, could the minister just clarify one remark in his last answer. Having been Minister of Health up until April 2, 1991, can he clarify whether the Pharmacare advisory report has been submitted to the Ministry of Health?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't know if the report has been submitted. It could be in the mail. I don't know.

[ Page 12379 ]

I'm just telling you that the report is not yet in the hands of the minister. Once the report is in the hands of the minister, the appropriate thing to do is to put the questions to him during estimates. He will be here in estimates, and you can talk about that report in detail. Let's not drag out this voting on warrant No. 1.

MR. CLARK: Just for the record, my colleague from Point Grey has made an interesting point that drug costs for the government of British Columbia have increased by, crudely, it sounds like $45 to $50 million, which is really a staggering increase. I'm reassured that the ministry is reviewing that increase to see whether there's any efficiencies that can be gained. It clearly is one of the largest increases in any section of the health care budget, which is one which is increasing significantly.

I know the minister's asked me to keep talking, and I'm quite keen to accommodate him. I just want to draw the people's attention, although I understand the television's not on right now.... It's really unfortunate, but I'll trust Hansard to record the remarks anyway. I want to draw the attention of the House to what this warrant is all about: $232,600,000 of overspending. Remember, there was a time many years ago, a long time ago when I was a young child, when members in that party used to complain about an overrun in the NDP administration — a $232 million overrun. That's not chicken feed. That's a significant overrun in two areas: Health and Social Services and Housing.

We'll get to Social Services and Housing in a minute, but in health care the minister has taken great pains to say that the reason for the increase — $142 million over budget in health care — is the settlement with the doctors. So let me ask my first question and that is: was there a budget increase for the BCMA settlement? You knew there would be a settlement. Was there a budgeted increase, and how much of this are you over budget? Because this deals with only how much you're over budget. Did you budget for any increase in B.C. Medical Association fees in the fiscal year in question?

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, we obviously had a budget for a utilization increase. That was put in the budget. As you recall, the settlement with the doctors spanned three years, and it was a retroactive payment relating to the previous year. So that was the reason we had this significant overrun. It's very difficult to budget for something when you don't know what the costs will be. We expected that the negotiations would be complete earlier. Unfortunately, they weren't. But that's the reason there's a three-year contract. The settlement was in '90-91, and resulted in the additional cost I mentioned earlier.

MR. CLARK: I'm glad the minister is being frank with the House and has admitted that it's a significant overrun as a result of this administration's not budgeting for increases — as a result, I might add, of the Premier getting involved in the negotiations. You know, every time the former Premier was involved in negotiations, there seemed to be fairly large settlements. That's interesting for a government that pretends to be fiscally competent. We saw these large settlements every time the Premier got involved. I might say that this minister was the Minister of Health who was a party to that agreement.

Which brings me to the next subject which I'd like to discuss at some length and that is the section of this overrun that's attributable to the doctors' pension plan, which was part of the settlement. Members on that side, it's kind of interesting. It's $25 million cash for a 100-percent-taxpayer-funded pension for doctors.

The federal government has thrown out the tax loophole they tried to use. I thought that would have been a life raft for this administration, to finally be able to say to doctors: "We're sorry, but it's not acceptable to the people of British Columbia that you get special treatment and something that no one else can have." But the government didn't say, now that it's thrown out and there's a tax ruling from the federal government, that they could get out of the deal, which is bad for taxpayers; instead, the government and this minister is meeting with the doctors to see if they can concoct a way to get around the tax ruling and continue to give the doctors their 100-percent-taxpayer-funded pension.

Mr. Chairman, an interesting point. We had a lot of discussion in this House, and the minister was very proud of the wage control legislation which has a little section in it saying "ability to pay." They won't sign contracts where they have the inability to pay. The government has signed a doctors' contract for which they didn't have the ability to pay, and they had to come in with a special warrant for some $100 million to cover a doctors' settlement, including a juicy pension deal, simply because they signed an agreement which they knew they didn't have a budget for.

If anybody else did that, they would be up screaming about the law and that there are wage controls, because they don't have the ability to pay. If Ed Lien saw this, I think he'd reject it; he'd clearly throw it out. They didn't have the budget for it. There's a $142 million overrun in the health care budget, of which some $100 million is because of a sweetheart deal with the doctors made by the former Premier just before an election to try to buy their votes,

Let's talk about the doctors' pension. I can begin by asking the minister if he will table the planned text for the doctors' pension, because no one has yet seen the details of this lucrative deal except, I suppose, the federal Department of National Revenue. No one in the public has really been privy to this sweetheart deal. Would he undertake to table in the House, or to at least mail to the members of the opposite side, the planned text so that we can see the details of the doctors' pension?

HON, J. JANSEN: Sometimes you really want a question asked in this House, and I'm really pleased that I got the opportunity to have it asked. First of all, let me say that the doctors' pension or deferred income benefit plan, which the member referred to, is part of the next schedule for debate, but he has offered to talk about it now. I would be pleased to carry on that debate

[ Page 12380 ]

if he wishes to do that, or he can indeed bring it up later on.

I did meet as early as last night with the BCMA, not to concoct another deal but to talk about the implications of the ruling. At that time, it was again pointed out very clearly that the Leader of the Opposition in fact supported it.

I note that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey has left the House. It is somewhat hypocritical that he too supported it but has now left the House because he doesn't want to be red-faced. But supporting it as a doctor and then standing up as the Health critic and defending this whole opportunity for expenditure is really a terrible injustice. I have not yet heard him say that for his fee-for-service entitlement, he will not take advantage of this agreement. He supported it very strongly, and again he's standing up in the House and talking about the BCMA settlement. It's a total conflict of interest.

The request was whether or not we would table a copy of the document in the House. Perhaps you should ask your leader, because he already has a copy of the document. The BCMA gave him a copy of the document, and all you have to do — four desks over, and he's actually there for a change — is ask him. He can just send it over to you. You can have a look at it, and then you can ask me as many questions as you have. In fact you have it, Mr. Member. It's not part of this schedule. You supported it in this House, flip-flopped around and now criticize it.

The ruling of the Department of Finance is that the benefit of the deferred income plan has been changed so that the offset respecting RRSPs is taken into consideration. It's entirely up to BCMA. You can ask the member behind you whether BCMA and the membership wish to continue with that plan. It is a lump sum payment of $25 million, and it comes into effect on the very last day of the next fiscal year. So that's the answer to your question.

MR. CLARK: The document I have seen with respect to the plan has an old date on it. So I would simply like the minister to rise in the House and say that the document that's been circulated, which was drafted some years ago, is exactly the same document that the government and the B.C. Medical Association agreed to this past year. Could he say that?

HON. J. JANSEN: If the Leader of the Opposition showed some interest and wanted an updated copy, he could have got it at any time. Now you've registered the request. By all means, we'll get you a new copy.

MR. CLARK: Is there a substantive difference between the updated copy and the copy that's been circulated?

HON. J. JANSEN: There is some change in the wording, but exactly the same principles apply. And I should say that it may be that the entire plan is in jeopardy at this time. I'm not sure what BCMA will do with it. The BCMA are going to Ottawa next week to talk to the Department of Finance to get further clarification on their ruling.

MR. CLARK: We've been told that the deal for doctors' pensions won't result in future compounding. In other words, we've been told that it's "only" $25 million a year — forever that is — and that it's a flat, fixed fee. Can the minister tell us at what interest rate his actuaries assumed the $25 million would be invested when the government made this promise?

[2:30]

HON. J. JANSEN: We have to back up. You determine what kind of a plan is available on the basis of a $25 million contribution. The plan administrators will be in a position to determine the benefit predicated on a $25 million lump sum payment each year — as I earlier indicated.

MR. CLARK: The document in front of me now is dated June '87. The minister has agreed it is the same document that has been signed, presumably with a new date on it. This document does not contemplate a fixed payment of $25 million in perpetuity — in fact, something different from that.

I would like to ask some questions about that, because it's quite critical. In terms of the deferred income that's to be paid, is it a percentage of their billings or is it a fixed amount?

HON. J. JANSEN: As I said earlier, actuaries do the calculations. They do it on the basis of a lump sum payment put into the fund. The benefit accrual is related to the net earnings of physicians and surgeons up to a maximum of $128,000 adjusted actual.

MR. CLARK: There's something missing here in the analysis. It's obvious that if you're saying that if you receive a deferred income as a doctor, it's based on your salary, it's capped and there's been an actuarial analysis done. Let me ask the first question: has an actuarial analysis been completed?

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The minister has said yes. Was it on the basis of the actuarial analysis that you determined that $25 million was required to accomplish in year one what was set out to be accomplished?

HON. J. JANSEN: The plan is not yet in operation. Although the accrual started April 1 of this year, the actual first payment is not made until March 31, 1992. Also, I would ask that the member perhaps bring this up during estimates, because at that time perhaps the plan will have had some more indication of whether it will survive the ruling.

MR. CLARK: Maybe the minister would agree that there's a bit of a fib — I'm not going to accuse him of anything nefarious, but it's impossible to say that it's a $25 million a year fixed fee. It's impossible, unless there's some dramatic changes to this document. If we

[ Page 12381 ]

have 20 percent more doctors in the year 2000, does it result in doctors' pensions being reduced by 20 percent, or does the government have to pay more into the fund?

HON. J. JANSEN: When you do an actuarial calculation, you ensure that the plan is funded in terms of normal growth and revenue enhancement. Currently, we are getting our pension plans in the range of 18 to 20 percent. That's our actuarial earnings, which are pretty high, and the reason we have about $21 billion in pension funds outstanding in investments. The reason they're so high is that we are into an equity position on some of the pension funds. We were achieving a return of 18 percent last year on our pensions funds, so it's pretty significant. They're allowing for normal growth, actuarial earnings...and a lump sum payment of $25 million is how the plan is developed.

MR. CLARK: There's some doubletalk here. Since the unfunded liability for the doctors' pension plan will depend on the number of doctors, the amount of benefit promised and the rate of investment return — that's what an actuary looks at — how can the government be sure that the cost is going to be $25 million in perpetuity, and not $26 million or $30 million?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member opposite apparently doesn't have an understanding of how actuarial earnings are calculated and how progressions are done in terms of earnings into the future. Present values of that fund are outlined. There is a $25 million payment to be made and you do a calculation to ensure full funding for a period as long as you can, normally around 15 years. You look at what the benefit will be, and you backdate everything.

I don't understand this question, and frankly, it seems to me he doesn't understand what he's asking.

MR. CLARK: The minister can confirm for the House, in looking at and reviewing this, that section 12.03 of the plan text anticipates a deficit for the doctors' pension plan.

HON. J. JANSEN: If the actuarial earnings projections are incorrect, the benefit is reduced. That's how it works. There are two ways: you can show it as a deficit on the basis of your actual earnings, or you can actually do a benefit reduction. The agreement, as I recall, has a provision whereby there will be a reduction of benefit.

MR. CLARK: All I'm saying is that if it is $25 million a year in perpetuity, then it contemplates an ever-reducing level of benefits to doctors. If there are more doctors.... The minister is saying that's not the case. Maybe the minister could table in the House the actuarial plan that's been devised.

HON. J. JANSEN: We can get that information to him. I think we should say as a proviso that the plan remains intact. But 20 percent actuarial earnings, if that's what the actuaries use, takes into consideration the rate of growth among the medical profession, the rate of growth in their earnings, the rate of growth of investment return and the projected earnings at retirement. Those are all things they look at. I'm not an actuarial expert, but if the actuarial earnings calculations are incorrect, there is a corresponding reduction of benefit.

MR. CLARK: I just want to confirm that the minister said he would provide for me the actuarial opinion.

HON. J. JANSEN: The plan is a public document. I have no problem giving him the plan. I can't speak for the Minister of Health, but I would suppose he would do that. I'm prepared to give him that.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I'll probably have more questions when I see it.

There's no question in my mind, when I contemplate this June '87 document, that it's linked to billings. There are a number of things in here that make it theoretically impossible to have a fixed cap on the payment over time, unless you're contemplating a decline in benefits over time for deferred income for doctors. That seems to be clear, unless there are some changes — unless it's contemplated that there will be some increased payment from the Crown, from the government of the day, to cover those unfunded liabilities, which I suspect is the case. I suspect that it doesn't matter to this administration, because they're not looking that far ahead.

It's clearly $25 million in year one, but what it will be five or ten years from now.... It is simply impossible to believe that five or ten years from now the payment for that lucrative doctors' pension plan as contemplated in this deal will still be $25 million. It's theoretically impossible with respect to the formulas in here, unless it contemplates a decline in income and a decline in pensions paid to those doctors.

I would like to ask one other question. If the deal was thrown out.... Let's say that the current ruling stands and the $25 million is saved by the government, because the BCMA chooses not to follow up on it, because they are disallowed the double tax benefit that they were seeking. Will the minister, as Finance minister and as minister debating this today, commit in the House to a reduction in MSP premiums? He has said on many occasions that the increase in MSP premiums is directly related in part to payments to doctors for their increased fees and to the pension plan. If the government saves $25 million as a result of this not going through, has he decided to reduce the medical premiums accordingly?

HON. J. JANSEN: That question is out of order. The commitment made with the BCMA was for a $25 million payment to a pension plan, effective March 31, 1992. I think it's very unfair to the physicians and surgeons of this province to suggest that we're going to break the contract without having discussions with them. I'm surprised that he would mention that.

MR. CLARK: I want to make it clear for the record that I have absolutely no problem — nor do other

[ Page 12382 ]

members on this side of the House — with the doctors of this province receiving a pension plan, provided it is a pension plan with the same rules as every other citizen in British Columbia has to abide by. That means, for example, that they cannot contribute to their RSP and get maximum deductions and get a pension at the end in the guise of a deferred income plan, as the doctors tried to do. If it was exactly the same as for every other citizen in British Columbia, who pays a part of his own pension plan and whose employers pays a part, and who gets no special tax treatment, then I'd be quite happy to stand in the House and support a pension plan for doctors. In fact, that's not what's contemplated by the government or the BCMA.

I don't blame the BCMA for taking the former Premier to the cleaners. I do not blame the BCMA at all for getting a lucrative deal. It's a lucrative deal that only this administration would negotiate.

With that, I would like for the benefit of the House — and I see the minister here — to move to the second part. It's not a different vote, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman!

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to the member opposite respecting the plan. The ruling that has come from the Department of Finance contemplates that there will be an offset for RSPs. The new ruling does take that into consideration.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to get up on a point of order to tell the House that I apologize for the behaviour of my hon. colleague for Vancouver East, that he would cast reflections on the Chair. It certainly wasn't our intention today to cause the Chairman a lot of sleepless afternoons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the member's comments. The Chair will retire for the moment and go put his neck brace on and relax on that.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. MARZARI: Now that we're all awake, Mr. Chair, the second section of schedule 1 refers to a $90 million overrun. It is described as a supplement to vote 60 in last year's budget for the ministry operations of Social Services and Housing, to provide funding for unpredicted increases in the number of eligible families under the day care program. I read this with some surprise; $90 million injected into a day care program at the last minute because there was an overrun is unprecedented in this province.

[2:45]

When I first came to this House in '87 and through '90, the child care expenditures of this province amounted to somewhere between almost $50 million and the $64 million that child care cost last year in B.C. The estimates for 1990-91 record a $64,167,000 expenditure. The estimates projected for this budget year, '91-92, suggest that there will be $71,484,000 spent on child care — a modest increase reflecting a modest program which is slowly increasing through the years. If we were to chart this on a bar graph, we would see a gradual increase in the expenditures on child care between '87 — probably between '83 — and now. Modest increases, certainly very few new spaces being built, certainly very few new people eligible to get their children into child care and certainly not a great increase in the number of child care workers trained and licensed to provide child care. But on this last day of the government's attempt to get $5 billion through, we have in this schedule — to top up last year's budget — an overrun of $90 million for child care, which is more than the total amount to be spent on child care for 1991-92. That would show on a bar graph as an outstanding sum.

I think the House needs to be given some explanation of how these unpredicted increases came about; how many new, previously undiscovered parents suddenly became eligible for child care and day care; what the existing budget for child care services actually is — and I would like the minister to separate that from special-needs care, which is incorporated in his budget and which has not been separated out for the benefit of the public or the opposition; and how many parents are going to be served in the upcoming year with the $71.5 million allocated for child care and special needs.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I didn't want to interrupt the member, because I was sure she wanted to finish making all the good points that she had.

I want to start by explaining that the amount of $90 million is correct, but the body of the motion is not correct. It's correct as far as it goes. It says, "eligible families under the day care program," and it stops there. It should have said "and additional costs within the GAIN program." I guess mistakes are made in different places.

Interjection.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: And it's a substantial difference. For the record, the overrun in the day care program was $6 million, and the overrun in the GAIN program was $84 million. I'll talk about each one a little bit, because I know that members opposite will want to know what accounted for these increases.

First of all, there was $42 million as a result of increased demand on our system due to the slowdown in the economy and an increase in unemployment. Unemployment changed from 8.6 percent to 9.6 percent, and that had the effect of bringing in a cost increase of about $42 million to this ministry. I want to emphasize that none of the costs are really as a result of program changes but simply an increase in usage. We have the responsibility — and rightfully so — of making sure that we provide for all people who are in need, so that's what we do.

In addition to that $42 million — that's half of the GAIN cost — there was another $42 million in GAIN, which I think all members opposite and members on this side of the House would be interested in knowing about. Fourteen million dollars of that was directly attributable, as best we could estimate, to changes in the federal government UIC program. That amounted to a $14 million cost to the province.

[ Page 12383 ]

In addition, and also to do with the unemployment insurance program, we experienced an additional cost of $28 million that had to do primarily with a backup of claims at the UIC offices. There was a flood of claims for UIC benefits that the federal government was not able to meet. We complained vigorously to them, because those people had to go somewhere for help and they came to Social Services. As I said, the cost of that to us was $28 million. There was an increase of 55 percent in the number of people asking for social assistance while they were waiting for UIC claims. This, of course, relates to the expenditures of just a few months back. We complained about it, and remedies have been taken, but at that point they were unable to provide the service to operate their offices.

1 have to say that the $6 million overrun on the day care program is a number that we're not entirely unhappy about. It's hard to estimate what the usage will be, but the fact is that the people that used this day care subsidy were, for the most part, single parents. Most of them were women. They were people who had taken advantage of the employment training and opportunities that we provide through the ministry to make it possible for those people to get into the workforce and become independent.

As a result of moving into employment from social assistance, we assist them with providing day care in the transition period. Otherwise they could not make the transition. Many more people took it up than we had anticipated at the beginning of the year, and I'm pleased that that's happened because many of these people are no longer dependent on government services.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman?

Leave granted.

MR. ZIRNHELT: In the gallery today is a resident of the Chilcotin in the western part of my riding, Mr. Birchwater, who is a journalist and a writer from that area. Please make him welcome.

MS. MARZARI: It's difficult to know whether to feel angry or relieved. Even the Reader's Digest, which is a condensed version of long stories — as you may know, Mr. Minister — at least finishes its stories and in the space of a few pages manages to tell the whole story.

Here we have an expenditure of $90 million — last year's dollars. We have a massive overrun. I seem to remember that some years ago, when the NDP was in power, there was an overrun, and it received front page attention for weeks, if not months. You're probably going to be talking about it throughout this election — something that happened 20 years ago. Here we have a real overrun that you claim was unexpected and unanticipated, and you make all this a typographical error. Maybe it happened in the printer's shop, but you haven't accounted for it here in schedule 2 of Bill 8. You have four pieces of paper spending $5 billion, and you haven't properly accounted for $90 million here on page 2 of that bill. It's unacceptable for this House to have received Bill 8 in this form. It's unacceptable that this had to come to the House for questions to be put. To stand up and smile and say, "Oh well, we just didn't complete the description of how that money was spent," is simply not good enough — if we take accountability at all seriously in this House, which this process shows we don't.

We have to do better than that. This government should be very careful about claiming that $90 million is being spent on day care when in fact it's being spent on unemployment insurance overruns passed on from the federal government to the provincial government, which is an issue in and of itself.

Coming back to the child care and day care provisions, I would ask the minister then, with this $6 million overrun on child care, exactly how much of this overrun and how much in his budget is actually allocated to the provision of child care services separate and distinct from special-needs care.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Just so the record is very clear on it.... I guess it would be nice if no one ever made a mistake, but mistakes do happen, and it appears that the mistake took place in the printing. I have a copy of the special warrant under the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, which says: "To supplement vote 60, ministry operations, to provide funding for unpredicted increases in income assistance programs, caseloads and an unanticipated increase in the number of eligible families under the day care program." So there was one line left out. I've tried to explain that. I can apologize for it, but I did not print the bill, and it was certainly not the intent that it be left out.

The member spoke about the overruns and insinuated, if she didn't actually say it, that it was poor management that we would have those overruns. I think she would not criticize the $6 million for day care, because she, along with many others, has been an advocate of more day care. We are simply meeting a need and providing whatever money is required to do so.

On the other $84 million that involved the GAIN program, I think I've explained quite carefully that $42 million of that is a result of changes in the federal UIC system or has to do with the way the unemployment insurance program has been handled by the federal government. I suppose that under those circumstances we would have the option of either meeting the needs of these people or saying, "No, go to the federal government, " which couldn't at that time meet their needs. I think we had no choice but to care for these people.

There is $42 million in addition to that, above what we forecast. That had to do with the downturn in the economy and increase in unemployment, but again, it did not have anything to do with a change in programs. I don't want to say that it's not nice to be absolutely accurate if we can, but other jurisdictions across the country — I hate to make the comparison again, but f 11 do it just so it's clear — seem to be having similar problems. We have a $90 million overrun here, when you take all things into consideration.

[ Page 12384 ]

I'm told that in Ontario it's expected that the overrun will be $1 billion. Just to help put that into perspective, they have about three times the population that we have. So three times the population in Ontario will generate approximately 11 times the overrun of British Columbia.

I don't know that you can really say, member, that we're doing a bad job. We put the money into the day care program to assist people who wish to go into the workforce. It's a subsidy for those families. I don't know that I have the information that you're asking for — a breakdown between special-needs and other children — but the reason for the overrun in day care was simply an extended usage.

[3:00]

MS. MARZARI: The minister is quite right. I am and we are strong advocates for child care on this side of the House. In fact, one might even ask why the overrun wasn't greater than $6 million for child care, given the unprecedented need that we experience in this province.

I'm going to save for later in the schedule my more substantive questions on child care, such as the true budget, number of licensed versus unlicensed facilities, the average wage of a child care worker in the home and the average wage of a child care worker in a group centre. Those are all questions which need to be asked in the purview of the warrant which is about to come, but I have to comment before I take my seat again that the minister has just come up with the very arguments that I have been using against Social Credit when they have accused the NDP in Ontario of having a deficit.

The federal government cutbacks in the Canada Assistance Plan and equalization payment funds have created a situation for every province across this land in which the provinces are having to pick up the tab for social services, for housing and for poverty, whether it be unemployment insurance or the Canada Assistance Plan. So, when you're telling me that Ontario is paying $1 billion that the feds would have paid last year, and we are paying $90 million in social services and in GAIN that the feds would have paid last year, and when I consider the number of jobs that Ontario has lost through the free trade agreement, I must say that B.C. is not looking too dissimilar from Ontario vis-i-vis the cutbacks here and the deficit that's being run up. So just let me put that on the record for a brief moment there, Mr. Minister, because I think for the first time your side of the House is willing to recognize how the provinces have had to swallow federal incompetence and federal cutbacks.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Just for the record too, I want to again reiterate that the overrun in Ontario as compared to British Columbia is not three times as much, what it is in population, but 11 times, so there's a huge difference in that. I agree there are problems with the federal government picking up its share of the cost of programs. I agree that that happens, but the other point that I was careful to make.... You see, I suppose I'm much more gentle than some of the members on my side. I made reference twice to the fact that our cost increases were not as a result of changes in programs, but I didn't elaborate. Ontario's problem is that they have very substantially changed their programs, and that's what accounts for it, much more so than even the failure of the federal government to put up its rightful share.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, Id just like to notify you that while I have a lot of questions for the minister, I'll reserve them to the other section of the bill where it talks about future action.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Schedule I approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 23

On schedule 2.

MR, CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we've agreed to do the health care section of this warrant to accommodate, I assume, the staff the minister has requested. So if we can wait for the staff to come in, I'm sure my colleague from Point Grey has a few more questions germane to this particular warrant in this schedule.

MR. PERRY: Before I begin I would like to welcome Mr. Foster and Dr. Henderson back to the chamber. It's a pleasure to have people with us who may actually have some answers to some of the questions I intend to ask. I'm very pleased by the reassurances from the Minister of Finance that we can expect to begin a more detailed debate on the Health estimates, presumably next week. So I may curtail some of my remarks and save some of the material. I'll try to bring up some of the relatively urgent problems today, just on the small off chance that we don't actually arrive at an estimates debate next week.

I'll begin with one which is relatively simple, and I hope that the Minister of Finance, recent former

[ Page 12385 ]

Minister of Health, may be able to reassure me that an answer is rapidly at hand. This concerns the expansion of postgraduate training programs for physicians in British Columbia. Some members may know, those who attended hearings of the Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs in the interior of the province, that a major issue identified before the royal commission was maintaining the supply of family physicians and some specialized positions — such as surgeons — to the more remote rural communities of British Columbia and even to some of the less remote ones like Quesnel or Williams Lake. The Minister of Finance will know from his former life that there have been some innovative proposals from the UBC faculty of medicine, and that there is a constraint that, beginning in 1993, there will be a requirement for two years of mandatory postgraduate training for doctors after their MD before they may practise medicine in this province and across the country.

On May 27 I received a letter bearing the same date from the present Minister of Health reassuring me that the ministry is undergoing discussions with the faculty of medicine at UBC to "... recognize the urgent need to complete the planning and implementation process." The letter states that further consultations are scheduled, but the letter is in response to a letter from myself to the former Minister of Health, who is now sitting here with us expressing concern that there really — was some urgency to providing the initial stages of funding for the expansion of postgraduate training programs.

[3:15]

Therefore, on receipt of this letter from the current Minister of Health, I took the liberty of verifying the situation as of yesterday with the faculty of medicine. I have before me a letter from the head of the depart ment of family practice at UBC, Dr. Carol Herbert, pointing out that: "We need a reply immediately in order to implement the two-year pre-licensure program effectively to meet the needs of the province." I hasten to add that the word "immediately" is very deliberate in this letter. I continue to quote:

"Start-up funds must be available July 1, 1991, or we will be delayed a year, compared to other provinces, as UBC cannot responsibly start programs without funding. Moreover, we still have no budget for rural and remote training. In spite of success and seven of the eight trainees in the family practice program remaining in small towns, all this year's group intends to stay rural. The Chilliwack program started last year with ministry one-year funding, but no funding for 1991-92.

"I have a congratulatory letter from" — she mentions the name; I can't here, but it's from the present Minister of Finance — "with respect to Chilliwack being a model program after he read our external reviewer's report, a program which meets community needs."

But there's no'funding for it for the next fiscal year.

"Funding is urgently needed in 1991-92 to begin an exciting residency site at St. Paul's Hospital which will address the disadvantaged in the inner city, Chilliwack, rural and remote [programs]" — that would be Prince George and other sites, potentially HazeIton, for example, specializing in native health issues — "...and to initiate further faculty recruitment and development in a timely fashion. We need start-up funds immediately, with discussion over the larger budget and plan for postgraduate training as a whole understandably continuing over the next months."

That's in effect a request for a rather modest commitment from the Ministry of Health, so that this important health manpower issue can be addressed. I wonder if I could request from the Minister of Finance the information as to whether the interim supply that we're about to vote on will cover that modest amount f funding so that the UBC family practice and other raining programs can get on their feet on time for the 993 two-year pre-licensure.

HON. J. JANSEN: I had hoped that the discussion respecting the special warrant and supply bill for the next two months, schedule 2, would deal with the urgent matters that are necessary for us to deal with.

This question the member for Vancouver–Point Grey is putting forward is an appropriate question and I don't mind responding to it, but I really urge that member to think about asking that type of question during debate of the estimates, when we can give him as much time as he needs to deal with those questions.

I want you to know that my focus in terms of health are expenditures is related to the patients and to the people of British Columbia. To have him at the outset ask a question that relates to his colleagues and the raining of physicians and surgeons, of which we already have the highest number per capita in the country, is probably a little bit inappropriate.

I can't speak for the minister, obviously, but I can tell you that a decision has not yet been made. Perhaps during the estimates that decision will be made. If you put that question forward when the minister is here, and we have the extensive estimate debates, maybe he can provide you with an answer at that point in time.

MR. PERRY: I think we can consider that notice is served for when and if we do arrive at the estimates debate. I'm not quite sure that the chair of the royal commission, justice Seaton, or members from constituencies like Prince Rupert or Prince George would agree that the question is so irrelevant as the minister seems to think.

Let's move to a question where there was, and remains, considerable urgency. The government has moved with remarkable sluggishness, in my view. Let's see whether in a matter of genuine urgency we can see any commitment from the Minister of Finance, representing today the Minister of Health, to actually accomplish something.

Last October I wrote to the then Minister of Health, now with us today as Minister of Finance, urging him to consider the implementation of immunization against hepatitis B for ultra-high-risk individuals, namely intravenous drug users in the province. At that time it became clear that the medical officers of health in British Columbia had argued for such a program for at least four years previously, probably as early as 1986. The ombudsman conducted, at my request, an investigation into the question of whether administrative bias had been exercised against intravenous drug

[ Page 12386 ]

users to discriminate against them in the provision of immunization against a potentially fatal and often fatal disease. The ombudsman was not able to establish that bias. Mr. Chair, the ombudsman did not put witnesses under oath, and my information was at the time, and still is, that had the ombudsman put witnesses under oath he might have obtained a somewhat different story. In fact, I'm convinced there was evidence that an explicit bias was exercised against intravenous drug users in the ministry sometime in 1986 or'87.

However, that point was secondary. The key point was that in British Columbia, as of 1990 if not earlier, we had an innovative needle-exchange program which allowed public health officials the potential to immunize ultra-high-risk street people against hepatitis B infection. When that point was made by my letter of October 5, 1990, to the minister, I encouraged him to act with alacrity, to commence an immunization program for those people and to consider the merits of a comprehensive, universal immunization program for neonates — something which has become increasingly standard in the rest of the world and which will almost certainly become a recognized world standard within the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to focus my question on the program for immunization of ultra-high-risk street people. Approximately three months after my letter of October 5, 1990, the Ministry of Health announced funding of roughly $75,000 for the remainder of the fiscal year for a program of immunization, as suggested. A contract was let for a very modest amount of vaccine, and vaccine was purchased at a price very close to the prevailing Canadian price. I had suggested to the minister that it might well be possible to purchase at a much lower price a larger volume sufficient to allow a broader program of immunization. The minister chose to tender in a relatively modest amount — in the range of a 3,000 doses initially, or perhaps 9,000 doses for the current fiscal year. If I recall correctly, the price per dose was in the range of $25. The difference in price between the Merck bid and the Smith Kline and French bid was in the range of 27 or 37 cents per dose — a very modest difference in the order of 1 percent or less.

The last time I tried to ascertain whether the vaccine had been delivered, after the burst of publicity last January, was a week or two ago. I was told that no vaccine has yet been delivered to the street needle-exchange program and that no immunizations have been undertaken through that program. So, Mr. Chairman, we're now some eight months after the initial notice to the ministry that it had been derelict in its public health function and that it was missing a golden opportunity to engage in one of the most cost-effective preventive measures available in the world. So far there has been a lot of fanfare, but we seem to have achieved virtually nothing. Can the minister assure us when the vaccine will be delivered and whether the target of approximately a thousand people immunized in the present fiscal year can realistically be achieved?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, again I hope that the member puts that question forward during budget debates. I announced when I was Minister of Health the AIDS strategy program; one part was the centre of excellence for viral diseases at St. Paul's Hospital. I want to tell you that the AIDS strategy has received international acclaim. We had Dr. Robin Hutchinson in Europe just recently, at the World Health Organization conference. He was told that our AIDS strategy is one that can be used as a model for all countries to follow. That's pretty significant. We can thank our staff and our dedicated field staff for all their work to put this plan into effect. Part of that program, as I said earlier, was the centre of excellence. As well, I have announced earlier the creation of the program of $300,000 additional money for hepatitis B infection immunization. The cost of the series for that particular immunization is $75. If there are problems in terms of the mechanics of the program, I hope that the member will follow that up and present it as a question to the Minister of Health — I know the staff have taken note of it — when he is here and does his actual estimates preparation.

Again, I would urge the member to deal with some of the urgent matters respecting the special warrant.

MR. PERRY: The former Minister of Health made it quite clear when he was the Minister of Health that he did not regard the protection of street kids from hepatitis as an urgent matter, and it still shows. I don't think he's learned anything from that experience.

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order, I find that comment very offensive. That's incorrect and I would ask the member to withdraw that.

MR. PERRY: If the minister finds it offensive I'll certainly withdraw it. I was simply making an observation.

I remember from last year's debate.... Some of this may seem like déjà vu to you. The Minister of Finance did not enjoy my questions when he was Minister of Health, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what are matters of urgency to the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to raise another one which is representative of some of the regional problems that we face. I've raised it before in this session without hearing any discernible response from the Minister of Health. There is a difficult situation affecting the people of Kaslo, where much of the local population are elderly people who pioneered that district. For example, I think of two people I visited in their home last fall who are very severely disabled by cardiovascular disease. One of them used to be the chief B.C. Tel operator in Kaslo, and the other was a mining pioneer in that region.

[3:30]

These people have formed a society of hundreds of people attempting to secure an intermediate-care facility in Kaslo. They have argued that a facility is necessary for them because the geography of the West Kootenays effectively isolates them from communities which may look to Victoria bureaucrats to be very close on a map — communities like Kaslo and Nakusp, Kaslo and New Denver, Kaslo and Nelson even, which geographically are relatively close. If they were in

[ Page 12387 ]

Europe they might be half an hour or an hour apart on a train, but in the geography of interior British Columbia they are sometimes two, three or more hours apart and even more than that in a snowy winter.

One of the reasons that an intermediate-care facility appears necessary is that home care support has been relatively inadequate in that area. My information is that between the 1981-82 and 1988-89 fiscal years, the number of clients that would be in the Kaslo district home support service area increased by 29 percent, while the overall funding declined by 6 percent and the average hours of home care allowed per client decreased by 47 percent. I have those statistics from the Regional District of Central Kootenay, and those are the last years for which figures were available for Kaslo home support.

I quote from a letter received from an individual involved in that program in Kaslo, who writes on May 6 of this year: "The effect of this situation is that only those persons who are eligible to receive the subsidized service and accept the limited hours can be reached." He also refers also to an increase in the price of home support which makes it, at $19.81 per hour at the end of 1991, one of the most expensive in the province. I continue to quote: "As home support moves to a more paramedical role, the irony is that the service moves further away from the needs of an increasingly aging population."

Mr. Chair, I went to Kaslo to investigate that situation and popped into the local hospital, where I found evidence that the average bed occupancy of a ten-bed hospital was about 2.5 — perhaps 2.7. Effectively the hospital was very underutilized and potentially a place where a few beds might be converted into intermediate care so that these people could be looked after in their own home community.

I'm rather convinced, although I don't have the benefit of the enormous staff that the minister enjoys that there's a real problem which has not been met, and I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is representing the Minister of Health today: is there any plan, in the $5 billion we're being asked to approve today, for at least some planning study to meet the real needs of people in that aging community? Maybe you can give us some even better news. Is there a plan to increase the home support hours or to provide a conversion to a small intermediate-care facility, or in some way to respond to the desperate pleas that have been coming from the community of Kaslo to the Ministry of Health?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'd like to thank the member for his interest. It's the first time I've noticed his interest in Kaslo intermediate care, and I'm very pleased. While I was Minister of Health I did have significant representation from the member representing the area, but this is my first opportunity to respond to his interest, and I thank him for it.

First of all, let me say at the outset that the Minister of Health is extremely committed to at-home care. I fundamentally feel — and I'm sure the members opposite do — that at-home care is the most humane and most compassionate type of care that can be given.

What we've accomplished in this budget.... I'm sure that during the estimates, when the Minister of Health is here, he'll be talking at length about the increase in available funding for home support services. I should tell you, though, that the budget increase for home support services increased this year alone by 16.1 percent. As well, group homes for the handicapped, 32.2 percent; long-term-care assessments, almost a 19 percent increase; residential care, a 15 percent increase. These are very substantial increases to reflect our philosophy of providing at-home care.

I should also tell you the home nursing care hours that have increased. The number of direct service hours being provided in '88-89 was 651,000. This year's projected actual is 845,000. The number of clients has grown by 50 percent during that period of time — a very significant growth that reflects our attitude. If there is sufficient demand in a community for an intermediate-care home, the minister and the staff of the area will sit down and provide that, because there are situations, I agree, where we should have an institutional environment. But as much as possible we should ensure that at-home care is provided to enable people to stay in their own homes.

MR. BARLEE: The minister just mentioned sufficient demand, and that prompted me to address this subject as well.

In the south Similkameen region of British Columbia, there is a small town like Kaslo. It is essentially a ranching community. It has been hard hit in the recession; it has been hard hit for about 20 years. There is more than sufficient demand in that area for an intermediate-care centre. This facility is really needed. Letters were written by 1,100 people to the government. These were not form letters; they were individual letters written by the people of that area — a small town of just over 2,000 people.

The people of Keremeos require an intermediate care centre for several reasons. It is kind of a separate enclave in that dry belt of British Columbia. A lot of old families have been there for a century or longer, and some of them are familiar names to this House. Frank Richter's family came from there. The Williams family, the Lawrence family, the Clifton family and the Barker family, and all sorts of families, have been there for generations. They don't want to leave this area, but there is no facility in this town. This particular town has an unemployment rate of around 20 percent. The great things this government has done for unemployment have not hit Keremeos. It has no small industries, and the orchardists in that area are in dire straits.

They do need a facility like this. I feel that the government has ignored their pleas — and I do say pleas — over the last two or three years. Word keeps on coming back from the ministry that its criteria are not being met. This government states that they're keen on decentralization. The people in the Keremeos area who are now of the age when they have to go into an intermediate-care centre have to go all the way to Summerland. That's a round trip of about 90 miles. I don't think the criteria of the Ministry of Health are the

[ Page 12388 ]

same as the criteria of these local areas such as Keremeos or Kaslo.

This ministry evidently was $50 million over budget on drugs last year. They left $7 million on the table and yet they could not see fit to provide an intermediate care facility for a town that really needs it. It needs it on several fronts: economically, socially and for health reasons. I wonder why that is not high on your list of priorities. I think it should be.

HON. J. JANSEN: Those figures are not correct. Perhaps the member would avail himself of Hansard in terms of the discussion on drug overruns. The figure is much less than that. I don't think we want to repeat that debate at this point in time.

Again, I want to welcome his newfound interest on this particular issue. I know the Solicitor-General has been talking to me, again when I was Health minister. Perhaps this minister has dealt with the current Minister of Health. I don't know.

I want to again put on the record that I don't believe in warehousing people. I believe that is a totally inappropriate way of care. We believe very strongly in a compassionate at-home care program and, as much as possible, that is encouraged and supported. I told you that the increased funding is in the order an additional $20 million. It's money well spent. The people who have the advantage of that program thank us for that assistance and support, because without it they would have to become warehoused.

I said earlier in my response to the member for Vancouver-Point Grey that there are situations where there is a need for an intermediate-care home. I would encourage the member to bring that issue forward during the estimates which will come up next week, and the Minister of Health will comment in more detail.

I'm here to talk about the general need for a continuation of expenditures for the next two months to enable us to debate the estimates. I would hope that you would ask the questions that deal with the urgency of the matter in terms of expenditure.

MR. BARLEE: I question the use of the term "warehousing." I don't think that really applies to people in the health system or about to go into it Secondly, I question the minister's response. The letters I have written to the ministry have been returned with the usual reply, which looks like a form letter, which says that this particular project does not meet the criteria of the ministry. I think the ministry's criteria are far different from the criteria of the people in the area. I think much more consideration should be given to small towns like Keremeos and Kaslo. Not much doubt about it, they are not getting that consideration.

MR. PERRY: My colleague is eager to participate as well, but I felt I ought to interject apropos the minister's comments about warehousing of people. I felt I ought to interject a note of reality. Id like to go back, simply for the record, to that situation in Kaslo and read one further paragraph from the letter I received, dated May 6, 1991. I'm not going to identify the two individuals because they're rather vulnerable people. I'll simply substitute as I read this quotation. It says:

"You remember the people whom you visited last October? Well, the man has spent the winter in both Nelson and Kaslo Hospitals. On one occasion his wife, who struggles on alone, blacked out in the Kaslo Hospital parking-lot. On another, one of my neighbours found her at home crying because her husband wanted to come home" — that would be from Nelson or Kaslo Hospitals — "and she knew she could neither have the help nor had the capability to look after him. He was a mining pioneer and she, the chief B.C. Tel operator in Kaslo. What a way to end their days."

What he's talking about is not warehousing. It's providing a sensitive service which attributes to those two individuals the same rights to live out a fulfilling life in comfort and dignity that all of us take for granted. The member for Boundary-Similkameen and I are arguing that the Health ministry has not been sufficiently sensitive to the needs of those people who are the backbone of this province. They're not like the Minister of Finance and I, people who came relatively recently to this country. These are people who were actually born in the Kootenay country and who built the country. They end up unable to access services equivalent to what many of us in an urban setting take for granted.

That's why we were asking the minister, in the absence of the Minister of Health — who could have been here today; he knew we would be debating these spending figures and chose not to be here today That's why we're asking the Minister of Finance, who has recently been Minister of Health, to indicate whether we can expect any increased sensitivity. I don't suppose we can, but we're encouraging him to make that commitment now.

[3:45]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. J. JANSEN: On behalf of all immigrants who have come to this country, I want the member to understand that I find his comments extremely offensive, suggesting there are two levels of citizens in this country: immigrants and those born here. Shame on you, Mr. Member! That's really offensive. I want him to know that I take those matters personally, as well. My parents came here 35 years ago.

In terms of the debate, however, I indicated earlier that the matter of at-home care is an issue we give particular priority to. I also said that as for the concept of institutionalized care, while I don't like it, there are situations where it is necessary. We will continue to meet those situations because, in my opinion — and it was reflected in the budget document — seniors are a very important cornerstone in the province. We intend to ensure that the budget reflects that priority.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Oak Bay.

MS. CULL: Oak Bay–Gordon Head. My constituents in Gordon Head like to be remembered from time to time, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to ask about a health project that is of great concern to people in Victoria, and that's the

[ Page 12389 ]

Victoria Health Project. As the Minister of Finance — the former Minister of Health — knows, the funding for this project was due to end on March 31. There was some uncertainty from January until some time in February, when additional funding was found to continue the project beyond the end of the fiscal year.

However, I've looked carefully through the estimates, and I can't find anything in the estimates book to show whether there is in fact money allocated to the Victoria Health Project to keep it in operation. Right now the various subprojects have advised me that they have a tentative budget for this year. They have funding until the end of June, but they are not certain of — their fate beyond that. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us how much has been budgeted for the Victoria Health Project for this fiscal year.

HON. J. JANSEN: When this project was put into existence, Mr. Chairman, we did it on the basis of a pilot project to see how effective it was. Part of that experience was to measure output. We were really concerned to ensure that we were indeed getting value for money, how much value and whether we should be incorporating this throughout the province.

When we announced that we were going to start measuring results, and we hired a number of people to assist us with that objective in mind, that caused a lot of consternation. There was some feeling that perhaps we were abandoning the project. That was not the case at all. We said that we're concerned about the project to ensure that we follow through with the analysis in detail, which we've done with the assistance of the consultant from Simon Fraser University, who I'm sure the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head is familiar with.

In the interim we announced that we were leaving the funding in place, although we didn't have the results of any analysis. We have ensured the stakeholders that we are prepared to continue with that program. Again, it's a question that you should put forward when the Minister of Health is here. I don't intend to commit him, but I can tell you that when we prepared the budget, that was certainly the intention. I don't expect that to change.

MS. CULL: I'm not sure whether the minister did not answer my question because he doesn't have the answer, or whether he doesn't wish to answer it, but I want to repeat it. I want to know if he can tell us how much money has been allocated for this year for the Victoria Health Project.

HON. J. JANSEN: The amount of money necessary for the Victoria Health Project to continue is included in the special warrant outlined.... I don't know which one it is. That's where the funding is. If you want to — debate the global estimate for that particular program, I suggest you hold off until next week when the Minister of Health is here, and he can answer in detail what the total funding is.

MS. CULL: I take from the answer that there has been money included in the special warrant for the Victoria Health Project, and I'm pleased to hear that. During the estimates debate I will, be more than happy to pursue questions about the entire funding for the rest of the year.

The budget speech made reference to the fact that there was going to be more emphasis put on preventive health care. There was also a lot of talk about expanding services to seniors. I would like to know whether there is money in the budget to extend the Victoria Health Project in two ways: (1) beyond seniors to others in the community who might benefit from this community-based preventive health care; and (2) from Victoria to other parts of the province where, again, it would be of great value to people throughout B.C., as it has been here in Victoria.

HON. J. JANSEN: The model that the Victoria Health Project contemplates has a lot of advantages, and through the B.C. Health Research Foundation, we are looking at a number of different studies, including native health, which incorporate the basic elements of the Victoria Health Project. Again, it's a good question that you can put to the minister when he's here debating his estimates.

MR. BARLEE: There seems to be a vast difference of opinion between criteria at the local level and at the government level, specifically in the Ministry of Health. I don't know how many more letters. you need — 1,100 may not be enough. That is virtually everyone in that district — in Keremeos, Cawston, Olalla and all around. I could probably come up with 1,500 letters. I want to know if there's allocation in the 1991-92 budget to provide intermediate-care homes for places like Keremeos and Kaslo, in spite of the criteria that the ministry lays down.

HON. J. JANSEN: Again let me express my appreciation to the member for his newfound interest in this particular project. I cannot recall him ever asking the question before. But let me say, Mr. Member, that the question is a good one to put to the Minister of Health during estimates. The funding in this particular budget — this particular discussion — is to enable the Ministry of Health to continue funding its operations. As for new programs such as you mention, in Kaslo, Keremeos or wherever, you should save those things for the estimates debate next week, when the Minister of Health will be here.

MR. BARLEE: That was an uncalled-for remark; it was gratuitous. First of all, I have written the ministry, and the response has always been the same. I indicated that previously: that it did not meet the criteria. And you are continually asking for apologies from the floor. Evidently you were not aware of those letters, and I think you should be careful before you make a remark like that. It's insulting to members on this side as well.

MR. G. HANSON: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Leave granted.

[ Page 12390 ]

MR. G. HANSON: I'd like to invite the House to welcome a number of elderly people from the Begbie Guest Home, who are here today witnessing the debate. Would everyone please extend a welcome to them.

MR. PERRY: On the same theme, I note that there's still a young gentleman from the state of Washington observing the debates in the gallery, and I trust that we can rely on him to act as ambassador and take back to his fellow citizens our appreciation for the assistance that Washington has rendered us. I'm afraid I haven't got his name, but he can hear us from here.

To pursue the Victoria Health Project briefly, it's a rare opportunity to satisfy my curiosity from the former Minister of Health, since he's here, in effect, filling that role today. Could he explain why the evaluation of the Victoria Health Project began only after the two years were completed, and why we saw advertisements from Simon Fraser University placed in the newspapers in the last month or two, attempting to hire staff to begin that evaluation process at the end of the pilot project rather than somewhere closer to the beginning?

HON. J. JANSEN: Could I ask the member to continue the debate on schedule 2. We're talking about the Victoria Health Project and the analysis of the Victoria Health Project, and I would ask that he defer those questions, in fairness, until the Minister of Health is here and can go into more detailed debate.

MR. PERRY: I know it's an embarrassing question. Evaluation studies aren't done free of charge. They're paid for by the taxpayers, and they will be paid for out of the money in this warrant. That's why the question arises.

However, there are many other members on this side wanting to raise questions. I'm just going to serve notice of one, perhaps for the estimates debate, unless the Minister of Finance cares to answer it now. I wonder whether he would take the question on notice for the Minister of Health, or perhaps answer it now if he can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the question is not appropriate to schedule 2, then possibly it's appropriate to question period in the House. If it's appropriate to schedule 2, then fine.

MR. PERRY: It is, Mr. Chair, I'm sure it's quite appropriate to schedule 2. It's just going to be rather embarrassing for the minister.

Could he provide us with a list of the travel allowances of chief executive officers and other senior administrators for B.C. hospitals? It is said that some of them have exceeded in their travels even the high-flying former Minister of Advanced Education, who was the leading cabinet minister in travel costs. It would be interesting to have those figures, since the current fiscal year's expenditures will be coming out of the schedule 2 vote, at least for the next four months. If he can't answer that right now from memory, I'd certainly be pleased if he would take that on notice for the estimates debate next week.

HON. J. JANSEN: If I understand his question, he would like me to quote from memory, for the 130 hospitals in British Columbia, a listing by employee of all the travel allowances that they have taken. I'm sorry, I have difficulty doing that. I don't know how many years you want, but I have a little difficulty doing that.

The appropriate procedure would be, Mr. Chairman, for the member to provide the name of the hospital that he is particularly interested in. If it's the hospital that he's working at, then we'd be pleased to make that available to him. If he wants to do it himself, there is a very appropriate way: write the hospital board chairman. Each hospital has a society, and they can provide him with that information. Or he can write the Minister of Health and the Minister of Health can make it available to him. You should outline which hospital you have some concern about or, even better, which man or woman who is serving in that particular hospital environment you wish to have a look at in terms of their expenditure. If you can do that, we would be pleased to give you the information.

MR. PERRY: A couple of other short snappers for the minister, Mr. Chair.

MR. LOVICK: It's okay. He missed the reference. It's called "Reach for the Top."

MR. PERRY: The first member for Nanaimo suggests that the minister might not understand the reference to "Reach for the Top." He was on "Reach for the Bottom," though.

The hospital community partnership fund, in the last fiscal year, funded a grant of $179,000 to the B.C. Children's Hospital, which allowed for an innovative program of delivery to blind children in collaboration with the CNIB. The evaluation report has been very positive on that program, and the CNIB and the B.C. Children's Hospital wrote to the ministry in February requesting a renewal of funding for the year which began last April 1, but have heard nothing. Can the minister advise us whether there is any funding in this warrant of $905,060,000 that will address that very modest request from blind people in the lower mainland?

[4:00]

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm sorry. That $905,000,000 I have not yet memorized, so I can't remember if we have put that money specifically in the budget. But if he would like to put the question to the Minister of Health when he is here and has all of his statements and information.... If he specifically has an interest in that, we can take that question on notice now and have that information made available to him.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister has stated many times that he would rather leave to the estimates which he is promising the matters dealing with new programs, but my question has to do with a

[ Page 12391 ]

program that presumably has been ongoing, and that is the mental health plan. Since my constituency contains Riverview Hospital, I would like to ask the minister if he would comment on the progress of the mental health plan, especially with regard to plans to deal with the five mental health districts that it refers to and plans for dealing with Riverview Hospital and the patients there now.

HON. J. JANSEN: Again I give the assurance that the mental health plan funding is included in the supply bill. The mental health plan, as I announced when I first became minister, is on track and on time. I don't have the specific details in terms of the number of bed units created, but I'm sure that can be asked again during the process.

I also wish to remind the member that when we did the budget, I announced we would make available a legacy fund to deal with housing for people with mental illness. That is a matter of very serious concern. I have met with a number of groups and they've outlined that concern to me. As a result, we did include that in the budget and I expect it will provide significant additional housing for people with mental illness. We will continue with that initiative.

But please, if you would, put the question to the Minister of Health when he is here. I could try to find the information, but why not wait until next week when you have the opportunity to ask him?

MR. CASHORE: Contrary to what the minister says, it certainly is my reading of the mental health plan that it is not on track, that it is, in fact, on hold, and the progress written into that plan the way it was presented has simply not materialized. We have not seen movement toward the establishment of the centres around the province that it refers to.

On another point, I'm glad that the minister mentioned the legacy fund with a view to the Riverview lands. I would like the minister to advise the House what the plans for that fund are vis-à-vis Coquitlam. Does the fund refer specifically to the creation of housing and also to the costs of running the programs for ex-mental patients within that housing? Or is it a fund that would be simply oriented towards enabling developers to erect housing but that would not be tied to maintaining appropriate standards?

HON. J. JANSEN: I had an opportunity to visit a number of housing units and different housing models. I became aware, particularly when visiting downtown Vancouver, of some of the significant needs for people with mental illness. What I said in the speech is that we agree that there's a need and want to do something about it. We think the model we put forward is a good model to address it in terms of funding. We will meet with the stakeholder groups that have an interest in this particular issue. There are quite a few — Friends of Schizophrenics is one. I have a lot of interest in it because I feel very strongly that this is a need that must be addressed. We will keep it on track.

The actual elimination of Riverview — the downsizing and the regionalization — is, as I understand it, on track. But it is slated for much later than this year — for 1993-94, I think. Again, put the question forward for the Minister of Health.

MR. CASHORE: It's my recollection that when this minister was the Minister of Health, he announced that there would be a centre of excellence relating to schizophrenics. I would like him to update the House with regard to that initiative, which he has announced on a previous date.

I would also like to ask the minister, vis-à-vis the legacy fund, in order to deal with the numbers of ex-mental patients on the streets, does this mean that to find appropriate housing for these people we must wait for the results of this legacy fund? Or are there funds within this budget that will address the urgent needs of people who are now homeless as a result of the deinstitutionalization process of the mental health system and as a result of requiring decent, safe, affordable housing? Is there money in the budget that will address this pressing need?

HON. J. JANSEN: Let me be very clear. We have committed to stay with the mental health initiative. It was a ten-year program. We are on track. When I was still Minister of Health, I met with some of the interested groups respecting this. They feel, however, that we have to accelerate the provision of housing for people with mental illness. I recognize that, so we are doing this as a supplement to the program.

If you recall, when we announced the mental health initiative, it received international acclaim. Even the World Health Organization sent a telegram indicating that this should be used as a model for other countries to follow. It was a very good response. We intend to stay with that. The Minister of Health can talk more about that later on. His intention is to stay with that program. All we're doing with this is enhancing that significantly with the provision of a legacy fund.

MR. CASHORE: Notwithstanding the point the minister made about a world perspective on this program in British Columbia, I would just point out that the Registered Nurses' Association of B.C.'s magazine, Nursing B.C., May 1991, in reference to the downsizing, says:

"A wrench was thrown into the plan when the downsizing occurred before all the necessary resources were in place and without adequate preparation for nurses in many hospital settings. 'The people who have really borne the brunt of it are nurses in the emergency department ... there has been a big increase in the number of psychiatric patients coming through, and the emergency departments are having a great deal of difficulty coping with that." Moreover, not all hospitals in the province have acquired psychiatric wards, which means that patients who have psychiatric labels are placed on medical-surgical wards."

I would like the minister to at least acknowledge that that is a more clear reflection of the situation with regard to ex-mental patients in this province.

HON. J. JANSEN: The need for additional facilities in hospitals is very clear. Is there any doubt that the

[ Page 12392 ]

load on psychiatric beds is very heavy? Let's not just relate it to downsizing; let's relate it to growth as well. The statistics concerning mental illness are very alarming. One in three in the population have some form of mental illness. So we're very concerned about that.

The replacement, though, bed for bed for Riverview, is accurate and on track. The growth requirement beyond that is, however, something that we have to address. I'm sure the Minister of Health will talk to you about that when he does his estimates.

MR. ROSE: I guess it's along the same lines that I wish to address one or two brief questions to the minister. He seems a bit preoccupied at the moment, so I don't know whether just to proceed. You're not trying to chew gum at the same time, I hope.

Anyway, there's an interesting little paragraph in the throne speech, and I know we passed the throne speech debate — I'm aware of that. But it says here: "There are a group of people who are having particular difficulty in finding adequate accommodation." I don't think there's any question about that, and that's been touched on here. The concern for the shelter of the mentally ill is expressed — "... and we intend to create a legacy fund from the proceeds of the sale...." This is the crucial part — not that the other parts about care of patients and out-patients that results in perhaps premature deinstitutionalization aren't important, but that's for another debate. The proceeds from the sale of properties at Riverview and Woodlands sites in the lower mainland will help develop community-based housing. What I'm interested to know is: will the community-based housing be on those sites? And if so, what part of the sites? And does the sale of Woodlands and Riverview properties include certain buildings?

Of great interest to the people where I live, since the government sold all the land above this particular piece of excellent property in 1984 or 1985, Colony Farm, does this include the sale of Colony Farm? Because the people in my neighbourhood or the people I represent will be fascinated, certainly riveted and extremely interested by the answer of the minister if it includes any change in the status that involves property, urbanization or some other plan for that, at least the Riverview-Colony Farm area. I wonder if the minister could enlighten us on that one.

If he can't, then perhaps he could agree, before he springs to the balls of his feet, to take it at least on notice, and when his ministry comes up next week he can give a more adequate reply.

HON. J. JANSEN: The intention was that the mental health housing initiative be in communities throughout British Columbia. That was the underpinnings of the entire mental health initiative, that people would live in their own communities, supported by their own communities — and that is indeed the wish of all the agencies that have given input into the mental health plan. It was not the intent to build housing on the site but to build housing throughout the communities in the....

I should also say in reference to some of the other comments that the number of Riverview beds has declined by about 156 from '87 to '91. About 156 beds have been taken out of service. During that same period we have increased the number of beds throughout the province by 457, so there's been a fairly significant increase, and it's outstripping the population growth. But again I want to tell you that I believe that we can do much more here, and that is why we have put that plan in place.

The intention is to deal with the Woodland site and the Riverview site proper, because the site is too large for a new facility if it were to be created at Riverview.

[4:15]

MR. ROSE: I'm interested in and agree with the fact that with the number of patients, the Riverview site is perhaps too large. But there are buildings and a lot of property there, as well as the Colony Farm property. I want to know if there are any definite plans for the sale of those properties, because that's what it says here: "The proceeds from the sale of the properties at Riverview and Woodlands...." I want to know what properties you plan to sell. You must have to sell some in order to get proceeds, so therefore what are they?

HON. J. JANSEN: I am reluctant to answer that question until the Minister of Health is here, and if you could do it during estimates.... It was my intention at the time to deal with the Riverview site per se and the Woodlands site, not Colony Farm. That was not part of it at all. I think the new Riverview, once it's built — and I forget the exact number of beds — would have in the order of 350 or 400 beds, or something of that magnitude. I'm sorry I can't remember the figure. That would be the new Riverview development, which is substantially smaller than the 5,000 that the Riverview site was initially designed for.

MR. PERRY: So many of us are bursting with questions. It's been such a long time since we've had a chance to ask any in this House. I'm going to content myself with one last one until next week, because it's particularly relevant to the tenure of this minister as former Minister of Health, and I suppose he has the ultimate authority now as Minister of Finance to answer this question.

The assistive devices task force was formed two or three years ago to advise the Ministry of Health on an interdisciplinary basis about the communications needs of British Columbians who have severe communication disorders. For example, I think of a young man who appeared before the Royal Commission on Health Care in January of this year and who is a student at Douglas College. I believe he is about 30 years old and he has severe cerebral palsy, which makes it extremely difficult for him to communicate verbally. He had been able to communicate by designing a handmade board plywood with symbols on it which serves a rough communication function. He can type very rapidly into a computer, so he can pursue his university or college studies with a computer. But his great disability is communicating with ordinary people in the same way that you and I take for granted.

[ Page 12393 ]

He attended the royal commission and pointed out that a device costing about $1,000 — maybe a maximum of $3,000 — connected to his computer could allow him to speak with a human voice — not a strange voice but actually a normal human voice. He demonstrated that with a rather inexpensive model — I think a $1,000 model — to the astonishment of the royal commissioners.

The assistive devices task force had been studying that problem for two or three years. I believe they t produced a report in 1989 which received the endorsement of 14 assistant deputy ministers in the relevant government departments. They proposed a solution to the communication needs of somewhere around 3,000 such people in B.C., which was essentially to establish a non-profit society. It might have been an extension of the Kinsmen society or the creation of a new society which would purchase, maintain and recycle communication devices so that people with this kind of disability could communicate effectively with their fellow British Columbians.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The cost of this program was modest. I can't remember off the top of my head, but it's in the range of $1 million per year, or perhaps $2 million or $3 million maximum. This government actually appointed the task force and selected good people to be on it. They did their job well. The assistant deputy ministers responded appropriately to the task force, but nothing happened. Those people were obliged to take their case in desperation to the Royal Commission on Health Care because they were cut adrift, as the member for Boundary-Similkameen puts it. They were essentially cut adrift and abandoned by government. These are people who, by the nature of their disability, do not have the resources to purchase these devices,

I was pretty hard-nosed, Mr. Chairman. I asked them: "If it's so good, why don't you buy it yourselves, or why don't your family or friends buy it for you?" Their answer is that people with that kind of disability are often subsisting on GAIN and have marginal employment. They literally do not have the resources, and had they the resources, they would buy such devices as one of their first investments because the utility is so great.

It baffled me to understand why a government would put so much money into some extravagant, rather glitzy programs — jet travel and advertising — and be so incredibly hard-hearted about these people, who already have such difficulty to face in their daily lives.

I'm asking this question specifically of this minister because he was minister throughout that period, and he's now got the purse-strings in his hand. He is the man with whom the buck stops now. He has the power to tell us that in this appropriation on which we're about to vote, there will be the funds to proceed with an integrated program to provide modern communication devices for those British Columbians who really need them.

Mr. Chairman, I would be absolutely delighted — and I suspect you and other hon. members would be pleased — if the minister would just stand up and say yes. That is what I'm hoping to hear from him.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's an excellent question. I hope he saves it for the Minister of Health, who will announce new programs either during or subsequent to his estimates. That's really not germane o the discussion we are having today.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I have to advise the House that to expedite debate, since we're moving along very quickly here, we will leave until next week the hundreds of questions we have about health care underfunding, lineups for heart surgery and cancer treatment and sending our British Columbians to the United States, when we can have a full debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

However, I'm glad our critic for health care has managed to raise some of the important questions about the incompetence and inadequacy of health care n this province under this administration.

I would inform the House, with the government House Leader's approval, that the first item on the next page of schedule 2 is the office of the auditor-general, which we will refrain from debating as well until the estimates arise.

We will move rapidly to the next section of this warrant, which is the office of the ombudsman, for some questions. Then I hope we can move to the office of the Premier. I advise the members, the staff and the Premier as to the direction we're moving.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Chairman, just for the information of the many staff members who are waiting in various locations around the buildings, I think it would be worthwhile to point out that we will now go through schedule 2 as they appear. For those who don't have a copy of Bill 8, the ministries basically are listed as the ombudsman, the Premier's office and then the ministries in alphabetical order.

I'm sure members on this side and perhaps some of the senior staff who have weekend plans would appreciate some indication of how long you intend to take. But that's something we will leave with you and let you respond to in any way you see fit. Those in Transportation and Highways, Tourism, etc. anticipate that some of these will move along a little quicker than we were able to do with Health. But, Mr. Chairman, you should be advised that in those few instances where the minister responsible is not available, the Minister of Finance, assisted by staff from the appropriate ministry, will be answering questions on those two or three ministries where the minister is not present.

MR. GABELMANN: I just want to acknowledge to the acting government House Leader our thanks for his cooperation in respect to the way this is going. It will unquestionably speed up the process if we continue in this very good-spirited debate.

[ Page 12394 ]

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that there is absolute unanimous agreement on both sides of the House that the ombudsman in this province does an excellent job. However the number of complaints coming before an ombudsman is an indication of the state of the province; it's one of the indicators that can be used, just as we have indicators of weather or levels of ozone in terms of air quality. One of the indicators of the quality of the long-term direction of a government can be in the number of complaints about the carrying out of public policy by a government and its agencies.

We have, for instance, in the most recent annual report of the ombudsman a record 14,580 complaints. That was a 12.7 percent increase in the number of complaints. Since 1986 the number of complaints coming before the ombudsman has increased by one third. Given this marked increase in the number of complaints coming before the ombudsman, which indicates some of the problems we're having with regard to the ship of state in this province, and recognizing that during the time that we've had the significant increase in the number of complaints there has been no increase in the number of full-time employees to deal with these complaints, has the minister decided to increase the number of full-time employees in the ombudsman's office to be able to deal with this incrementally increasing workload?

[4:30]

HON. J. JANSEN: It's quite correct that the number of complaints has risen substantially; in fact, we have 14,460. I'm not sure what the difference is — 20 cases. There are two components to that: cases that are within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman and cases that fall outside the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. It's interesting to note that the biggest increase has happened from last year to this year. The number of cases within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman is in the order of roughly 400 additional cases — still significant, and it still puts a strain on their FTE complement. I can't give you the information, because we're not here to debate estimates. I don't know what the actual requested staffing was; I can tell you that the staffing level remains constant.

I hope, though, that this question comes up when we do estimates and that we can go into the ombudsman's office in more detail, because I think it is important that we talk about that. It's very important that the public has access to the office of the ombudsman. If their resources are too strained and his role is frustrated, then I think we're not accomplishing what we set out to do and denying the public a public service. So the FTE complement remains at 38. The additional staffing required relating to the new responsibilities for children and youth will be staffed through a secondment from the Ministries of Social Services and Housing, Solicitor-General and Health. Again, we can give you more detail on that when we're dealing with the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, I would just like to advise all members that arrangements have been made with the dining-room to remain open until the House adjourns.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I understood the last remarks of the Minister of Finance. The minister has said on many occasions during this, debate that he looks forward to us asking these wise and intelligent questions a little later on when we are able to ask them during estimates. Since the minister is advising us to hold these questions until estimates, what minister will be fielding the questions?

HON. J. JANSEN: I think traditionally it's the Provincial Secretary that handles the ombudsman; if not, it will be me, and I don't have any problem with that. Again, let me be prepared for the questioning, and I now have your question on notice. If it is me, I'll respond with the intelligence that the question demands.

MR. CASHORE: I can assure the minister that I've been the critic for the ombudsman since I came here. These estimates have always been the second-last estimates to be dealt with, and it has always been the Minister of Finance. I know in some Legislatures it has dealt with committees such as the BOIE in terms of a place of reporting. We might want to address sometime just how to have the ombudsman report to the Legislature in a manner where there can be an all-party discussion with regard to our supportive service. My point is that this legitimately isn't one of the questions where we can say we will wait until we get to estimates, because it is the same minister.

With regard to the fact that the minister has acknowledged in his comments that an increasing number of the complaints fall out of the ombudsman's jurisdiction, what has the minister decided to do with regard to putting in place an infrastructure to deal with those complaints that now fall out of the ombudsman's jurisdiction but nevertheless represent a felt need on the part of British Columbians to have their complaints dealt with? What is the minister going to do about that? Along. the same vein, has the minister decided to implement the sections of the act that are not now in force?

HON. J. JANSEN: The budget request of the ombudsman is based on the status quo mandate. If the sections 3 to 11 of the Ombudsman Act were proclaimed, that would expand his jurisdiction substantially and would require a significantly different budget profile. The budget request is on the basis of what it is today.

I said that during estimate discussions I would intend to have some staff here and get myself brought up to date in terms of some of their problems. That's what I referred to when I said that during the budget debate, I'll give you more significant information in terms of your questions. All we're here for really is to carry on with the expenditure, and within the next week or two you'll have an opportunity to debate it in more detail.

[ Page 12395 ]

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is not in the chamber, so I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 30

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: By agreement with the folks across the way, we're going to do Advanced Education, Training and Technology, the office of the Premier and then carry on as listed.

MR. JONES: Let me begin by congratulating the new minister on his appointment. Those are certainly sincere congratulations felt on both sides of this House, and I'm sure the minister has been fully briefed on his portfolio and is ready to answer some important questions about advanced education in British Columbia.

Let me start with a concern that I have in the Prince George area affecting students of northern British Columbia. We've seen a 30 percent increase in the number of applications for the university transfer program in the College of New Caledonia. At the same time, we had a reduction of 30 positions at the College of New Caledonia — 30 fewer positions available to those students. So there are roughly 100 students who are being denied a post-secondary opportunity at the College of New Caledonia.

That has a specific impact for this government and this province in the sense that that was the first group of students who were expected to be enrolled in the University of Northern British Columbia in 1994. Those students, after having taken two years of a university transfer program, would be able to enrol in the brand-spanking-new university in this province, the University of Northern British Columbia. That university, quite frankly, seriously needs those students for it to be viable.

So I'm sure both sides of this House want to see students trained and educated in the region in which they live. They live in the north; they should be able to be trained, get a degree and carry on with their future employment, their prosperity and the prosperity of this province in the region in which they grew up. That is an important principle that both sides of this House subscribe to.

I have a question to the new minister. Is the new minister willing to sit idly by or is he willing to make, as one of his first actions as Minister of Advanced Education, a commitment in this House right now to ensure that roughly 100 students will have the opportunity to enrol in university transfer programs at the College of New Caledonia?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, unaccustomed as I am in this portfolio, some of these detailed questions I think would be better asked in estimates. However, the principle that you're speaking of is certainly one I agree with. Anytime we're denying anyone a post-secondary education is of concern to me. But I cannot at this time answer those questions in detail until we get to the estimates, and they will be coming to you at that time.

[4:45]

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's response in the sense that he cares. Does he care enough? That is the question. Perhaps the minister is unaware that the budget for Advanced Education, Training and Technology has some $123 million earmarked under the heading Access and Enrolment.

Does that minister not believe that use of those funds for students who are being denied access and enrolment at the College of New Caledonia is a totally appropriate use? Does that minister not agree that those funds should be used to help Prince George northern students achieve access to the College of New Caledonia now and the University of Northern British Columbia in 1994?

HON. MR. DUECK: The nearly $123 million access program in enrolment will be used in the following way: to fund in excess of 10,200 full-time-equivalent student spaces in the universities, colleges and institutes in the province as part of the third year of the Access for All initiative — the increase for '91-92 is 2,682 full- time-equivalent student spaces; to move forward with the planning and operating of the University of Northern British Columbia in Prince George; to begin a purchasing program for equipment and library books; to initiate programs to increase advanced education opportunities for native learners; to continue an equipment-replacement plan for the universities, colleges and institutes that was instituted by the government in 1989; and to provide funding for distance education programming and a variety of access-related activities, such as the electronic library and council on admissions and transfers. I know I'm reading that, but I think it's fair to say that, having been in this ministry

[ Page 12396 ]

for only so many hours, I have to have a little coaching and have to get some of the information in this way.

MR. JONES: I don't wish to take advantage of the minister's newness in the role. However, it's very clear to me and to the people of northern British Columbia that there are fewer university transfer places at the College of New Caledonia this year than there were last year. That's not improving access; that's not improving enrolment. Due to the underfunding from that minister's ministry, we have fewer places. The minister is saying that there are 2,000 new places in the province. That's appreciated, and it's needed; it's particularly needed in this region. We do have $123 million sitting there. Is that not an appropriate use of those funds? Are the approximately 100 who are qualified and being turned away from the College of New Caledonia going to be part of that 2,000? Are you going to do anything to help those 100 students?

HON. MR. DUECK: I outlined what we were going to use the $123 million for, but the question being asked is whether these 100 students that haven't got access to the university... Furthermore, the question was why there are fewer students being admitted this year at that particular college than last year? I would take that on notice and bring the information forward at the next opportunity, perhaps at estimates time.

MR. JONES: Perhaps the minister would like to take another question on notice as well. At Camosun College, what I was told a few weeks ago.... When the college was struggling with total lack of budget information from this government, they had planned for a 4 percent increase. That increase resulted in a reduction of some 250 spaces, some 16 program cuts, service cuts, the elimination of five instructional positions and six support staff. We do have $123 million sitting in the budget for access and enrolment that was a special fund set up, hopefully, to assist the operating budgets of universities, colleges and institutes, to attract students, not turn them away. I'm told now that perhaps it is not as high as 250 spaces, but there are 50 fewer spaces at Camosun College. Does this minister not believe that that $123 million and the portion of it in this vote that we're dealing with today should go to Camosun College to restore those 50 spaces that have been cut from the operation of that college?

HON. MR. DUECK: Some of these questions are not easily answered by me at this time, but we will provide information as to allocation to the various universities. The individual who has that information is not here today. We are speaking about interim supply. I'm sorry I can't give you those details. However, the question is certainly noted. There is nearly $123 million, and perhaps that can be adjusted for that purpose. But I would like to get the information myself before I could answer it in any intelligent way.

MR. JONES: Let me add just one more, then, that has to do with the B.C. Institute of Technology, which as a result of underfunding from this government also experienced cutbacks, though not as serious as they had originally intended. We have seen the elimination of the natural resources management and landscape/ horticulture programs and the reduction in a whole host of other programs, resulting in the reduction of 20 full-time positions, and affecting some 300 students.

Perhaps, again, the minister could bring back responses as to how that $123 million is being used and the portion in this vote which is to assist access enrolment. We're losing enrolment at Camosun, BCIT, the College of New Caledonia — and those are just three that I happen to have information on. I don't know about the other 13 colleges, four universities and other institutes in this province, but it seems very clear that we are losing enrolment, in a year in which the government has $123 million in the budget and is promising to increase enrolment. The information I'm receiving is that we're not increasing enrolment; in fact, we're reducing it. Perhaps the minister would like to respond, and hopefully what we will see before this session adjourns is an accounting for the $123 million.

HON. MR. DUECK: As far as BCIT is concerned, I understand that there has been some realignment of programs. Some of them have not been eliminated from the curriculum as far as the college and the province are concerned, but they have been changed or substituted by another college or university. I can't give you the exact programs or courses that have been changed or realigned, but there has been some change in their mandate, so that accounts for some of that.

I would like to give you a much more concise answer, and I will do that later on when the estimates come up and I have some other staff here who can brief me on it. As you can imagine — Mr. Chairman, I would like to just state this — I've spent the last two days getting furniture into my office and getting staff. I've borrowed one person to answer phones who doesn't even belong to my staff. So it's been a rather ad hoc situation, and to be here defending my estimates under those circumstances is not easy. At the same time, that's not the opposition's fault; that's perhaps our fault. Therefore I stand here with no excuses except to say that I will try and bring those answers at the earliest possible time.

MR. MILLER: I know that the minister — possibly because he's going through the process at this time — might be able to enlighten the House on the subject he just mentioned, the frequent movement that we find taking place in and out of cabinet offices. Surely there must be some cost attached to that. I wonder if the minister could advise us if he knows what it actually costs to empty out a cabinet office and then move all the furniture back in with a new minister.

HON. MR. DUECK: The answer is no, I don't know.

MS. CULL: I appreciate the minister's reply that he will come back with information that he doesn't have at this point, and I'm thankful that he's agreed to do that. I have a similar concern about the University of Victoria.

[ Page 12397 ]

At Camosun College we hear now that we are going to lose about 50 spaces. It looks as if in the University of Victoria a maximum of 50 new spaces will be created for undergraduates this year. Part of the information that's come out is that while there has been additional funding provided by your ministry this year, I believe under the access program, the money isn't actually translated into additional enrolment, because last year the University of Victoria had 450 students that it wasn't receiving funding for. The money it's getting this year is just funding for students who were already there.

So in our post-secondary institutions in the Victoria area we actually have no increase that I can see, in terms of spaces available for students. The net effect of a loss of spaces at Camosun and the 50 to 60 undergraduate spaces at the University of Victoria comes down to virtually no increase. I find it very difficult to believe that the capital region isn't going to have any of the benefit of this Access for All program. Could the minister comment on that?

HON. MR. DUECK: It's rather unfortunate that I can't have some of the staff here that can enlighten me on some of these very important questions. However, I must say that there is an adjustment for enrolment, of course. The precise figures that you're quoting I can't really defend or deny, because I haven't got that information at this time. Again, we're dealing with estimates in detail at this time, when perhaps we should be dealing with the larger picture of just interim supply. I promise you, when we come to the estimates I will defend them and try to get you answers for every question that you have. At this time, I'm afraid I cannot answer that precisely.

MS. CULL: The information I have comes from the vice-president of finance at the University of Victoria and one of the senior financial people at Camosun. I think these are pretty reliable figures.

What I would like to see is a commitment that the minister will look into providing some of that budget from the access program to the University of Victoria to increase their space allocation so that they can accept additional enrolment. I understand that right now their main problem is the lack of physical space; they can't actually take more students. Camosun College does have a building program but simply doesn't have the operating funds to be able to increase its spaces to students in this region.

[5:00]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. DUECK: The universities just recently received their budgets, as you well know, after budget day here in the House. They will all be getting some money from this particular fund. Again, I can't tell you precisely when you're talking about UVic or Camosun College or some other college, I haven't got that information today. Let's talk in general terms about the interim supply that we need to cover until we go into estimates.

I'm not trying to find excuses, except to myself. I haven't got that information, because it is new to me. You're entitled to that, and we will get it to you.

MS. CULL: One final comment. I think part of the reason that I and other members on this side of the House are concerned about this is that it is June 1 tomorrow, and the colleges and universities are having a difficult time preparing for September without having information now. Even weeks at this point are going to make it very difficult for the college and university in this region to provide those additional spaces. They're having to secure faculty and make allocations of space now. I think this is a matter of urgency. If some of these access funds can be available to the institutions in this community, they need to know that soon so they can get on with their planning.

HON. MR. DUECK: The universities were, in fact, informed of the approximate dollars they would be dealing with, so it isn't as though they are working completely in the dark.

I mentioned earlier the number of spaces in the universities and colleges, and will give you that information at this time. Total new spaces in colleges and universities will be roughly 2,700; 1,000 of those will be in universities alone. I can go through the other list: 1,000 in colleges, 600 new seats in university colleges and 100 in nursing. That gives you an idea of the increase.... Pardon me?

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK: I would think some of them would be in Victoria. I haven't got the exact figures for each university, and I will get you that information. I haven't got that today, but I've got it in round figures. I've got the global figures; they are here and they are correct. I understand they are accurate, and that's what I am trying to give you today. I hope that suffices at this time.

MR. JONES: I appreciate the difficulty of the minister, but there are questions that have to be asked. If they have to be taken on notice and brought back, then so be it. But I think the questions have to be asked.

I'd like to ask one with respect to Vancouver Community College, and in particular the King Edward campus. The minister may be up to speed on this one because it was highlighted in the news this week. That is the situation where when immigrants come to this country, they come with the purpose of enhancing their lives and the lives of this province and country. Yet on so many occasions they are denied the tools to do just that. They are denied the tools to enhance their prosperity and the prosperity of the province. They are denied their fundamental right to English language training.

We saw the outrageous scene last year of fights breaking out on that campus while students were trying to line up for spaces. We have a waiting-list of some 2,000 students in that institution which has a 20-year record of providing quality English-as-a-sec-

[ Page 12398 ]

ond-language training to those in need in this province. We have qualified instructors and support service. Due to a difficult situation in which Vancouver Community College lost $2 million of federal funding which was transferred to the private sector, we now see at that institution a waiting-list of over 2,000. We see possibly 70 instructors being laid off. That institution has the space, instructors and support services all in place, and that's going to be lost from that institution.

I'd like to ask the minister if his ministry, during that time of negotiation with the federal government, did anything to assist in ensuring that those programs continue to be offered at Vancouver Community College. Also I'd like to ask, in light of the fact that we're losing some 70 instructors from that institution, if the minister is willing to intervene and ensure that those programs will be restored to the institution.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that there hasn't been a reduction in the English-language courses at all for the immigrants; rather it's a realignment. The federal government has in fact asked that this be distributed among community groups. It's my understanding that there is no reduction, except it is now realigned with other groups, and minor layoffs have been the result in some particular colleges. I am told, and I can check this out more carefully... I am of the understanding that it has not been reduced. But perhaps it is not enough. Maybe, as you said, there is a waiting-list of 2,000; I am not aware of that at this time.

I was just handed a note which says increased federal funding is needed to address the backlog of immigration increases. There are more people coming into the province, so there are more people wanting this assistance. The Ministry of Provincial Secretary is negotiating increased federal funding for ESL in immigration agreement negotiations. I think that's the question you asked. That negotiation is continuing. Perhaps in estimates we can get you a clearer answer on that.

MR. JONES: I think the minister is aware that all levels of government, be they municipal, school board or provincial, have been after the federal government for years and years for increased funding for English-as-a-second-language classes, and it has not really been forthcoming at the levels that are demanded to meet the needs of immigrants to this country There's a vacuum of need that's left unfilled. I appreciate that negotiations are ongoing, and I wish you all the very best with those negotiations. But the point is, there's a need there, and it has been shifted to the private sector — not, as you say, Mr. Minister, and in my understanding, at the instigation of the federal government but at the instigation of the provincial government. The federal government, Mr. Minister, would prefer to deal with one institution — King Edward campus of Vancouver Community College — rather than 16 different institutions, some of which I'm sure will deliver high-quality service, some of which may not.

The point is that the vacuum is there. It's not being filled by the federal government; it's not being filled by this government. We see people waiting a year, a year and a half or two years on a waiting-list to get basic, fundamental tools that they have a right to, as immigrants in this country, that are being denied by the federal and provincial governments. Whose responsibility is it? The school boards are doing some and the provincial government is doing some, but it's not enough. That need has to be met.

What should we do then? Should we take programs out of an institution that has a long, successful record of delivering those programs, at King Edward campus, lay off 70 instructors...? The building is there; the classrooms are there; the instructors are there; the support services are there; the library is there. Why are we cutting back in an institution that doesn't want to lose those programs? The community doesn't want those programs moved out. They are very happy with the kind of service they've had from Vancouver Community College.

What we're doing in this province is privatizing that initiative. Even though the demand is greater than what is being supplied, we're reducing our capacity to meet that demand by these cutbacks. It seems to me that it's the responsibility of your government to try and do something about addressing that backlog, addressing that waiting-list. We now have space, capacity and instructors at King Edward campus to be able to do that, and I would like you to not suggest that you're waiting for negotiations to take place, but that you would share the concern that I have and that the community and the entire lower mainland have and begin to fill that vacuum, rather than foisting it off to the private sector and leaving unused capacity at Vancouver College. Would you make that commitment at this time to do what you can to restore those programs to meet that tremendous need at Vancouver Community College?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly my desire, to make that a priority. Of course, some of these things are coming to light with me for the first time in this ministry.

I understand also that the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology and Education and the Provincial Secretary are proposing an initiative to address this challenge in the next three months. All I can tell you is that I will make it a priority. I think it's very important that these immigrants have that training in the English language as soon as possible so that they can cope in our society better than they can when they first arrive. I can't argue with the statement and with the remarks you're making. I will certainly get more information on this and pursue it, because I think it is a priority. I think we all will agree to that.

MR. JONES: I'd like to raise with the minister the question of literacy training in this province. I appreciate that the minister is new to the portfolio, so I would like to provide some background of responses of previous ministers. On March 20, 1989, the member for Comox, who was Minister of Advanced Education at

[ Page 12399 ]

the time, made a statement that he indicated was the most important announcement in post-secondary education in the last 20 years. He said: "On the issue of literacy and adult basic education, last September I formed a literacy advisory committee chaired by Dr. Paul Gallagher, and I have set aside funds to respond to its recommendations." That was on March 20, 1989.

On May 11, 1990, in a rare moment of unanimity in this chamber, on a motion that I had presented, this Legislature unanimously adopted the 34 recommendations of that Provincial Literacy Advisory Committee. Subsequent to that, in estimates debates with the past Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, the member for Prince George South said: "I have a considerably good amount of money in my budget for this, and I can assure the member that the money will be spent wisely and will be forthcoming."

[5:15]

He went on to say that the results will speak for themselves. The predecessor before your predecessor said in this Legislature last May 15 that the results will speak for themselves, that there is money in the budget and it will be forthcoming. I remind the new minister that 1990 was the International Year of Literacy, and September 8, in fact, was International Literacy Day, established by the United Nations.

Prior to that the minister also said that it was the minister's intent to have literacy programs up and running by September. So two ministers in a row said that the money was there, was forthcoming and the programs would be there by September. That September, International Literacy Day 1990, the minister informed literacy groups around this province that there would be no funding in that budget year for literacy programs. He did indicate at that time that there would be money in the new budget. What we have seen in the last budget-year were promises by the member from Comox, who's sitting behind you, and the member from Prince George, who is in Prince George, that there would be funding available to increase spaces for literacy.

What we had in that entire year of the International Year of Literacy was an increase in the number of spaces. The number of new literacy spaces in the province of British Columbia in the International Year of Literacy totalled 22.

As I said, your predecessor from Prince George indicated on September 8, last year, that there would be money in this budget to address the promises of the previous minister from Comox. What I'd like to know, Mr. Minister, and from your staff if that's possible: is there money in this warrant to set up literacy programs that have been so long promised by your government?

HON. MR. DUECK: My predecessor's predecessor is right behind me. If he got all that money, I wonder what he did with it. No.

There is money in this year's budget. There was money in the budget for that purpose at the time. I understand some of that money was spent. You say 22 new spaces. I can't answer that. That will come up in estimates. I hope to have a clearer answer at that time for you. However, I have to say that they did make some improvement, and there is some money this year, I understand. How much, at this point in time, I don't know. We're talking again about the interim supply and not the detailed amounts that will be forthcoming during the estimates. I assure you I will get that information for you.

MR. JONES: The question, and I thought I heard a positive response from the minister, is that there is money and part of it would be in this warrant for new literacy programs in the 1991-92 budget, and I assume those programs can get underway fairly shortly.

I would remind the minister, when he seemed to take pride in the fact that there were 22 new spaces created in the International Year of Literacy, that the Southam report indicated there were some 360,000 British Columbians that could benefit from literacy training. Did I hear correctly? Is there money in the budget for new literacy programs in this year as promised by your predecessor? That was a yes?

HON. MR. DUECK: I believe I said there was money in the budget but not necessarily in the warrant. The warrant is to see us through a certain period of time, but there is money in the budget for the literacy program.

MR. JONES: New programs?

HON. MR. DUECK: Yes, there is money in the budget for literacy programs.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Chairman, it's a real pleasure to have this opportunity to address a couple of questions to the new minister. But while standing, I can't help but address one of the comments that the opposition critic has made in his question with respect to funding of literacy programs, which we all agree is exceedingly important. About 20 percent of our adults are functionally illiterate, but I might add that British Columbia has the best record right across Canada.

The question I would ask all members of the House is why this transpires with the quality education we have in the system. I think the answer is not simply money. Money will help those who are in that position at the present time. But the question that has to be answered is why.

To the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, the question I would like to ask with respect to this is.... The ministry has an exceedingly good program for student summer employment, which has several components to it. It allows students to be partially funded through government assistance in the public sector, in tourist information booths and in universities and colleges. It has a private sector component whereby students can get jobs throughout the province with the Crown funding a portion of those students' wages and the private sector funding the rest.

Because it's exceedingly important for the thousands of students who are going into the advanced education facilities, will this filibuster that the unconscionable opposition are carrying on at the present

[ Page 12400 ]

time jeopardize the jobs of thousands of students throughout the province?

MR. JONES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to wrap up, but because I do appreciate that the minister is new in this portfolio and that there is much to discuss, we need to come back and more thoroughly canvass these and many other areas. There is one further question for the minister and more particularly his staff; I believe they would know the answer to this question.

This is with respect to the kaon project, and I want to preface my comments with a reiteration of our support for that project and for the federal funding coming to British Columbia to create those jobs. Our only caveat....

MR. PETERSON: You've changed your tune.

MR. JONES: No, we haven't changed our tune. The only caveat we've placed on that is that we don't want to see research money drained from all over Canada in order to come into British Columbia. I don't think that would serve the interests.

Our support is there for the project, but it's our information that kaon has secured the services of some very expensive professional lobbyists to lobby the federal government with respect to fulfilling their financial commitment to this project. I'm wondering if the new minister responsible for this area can confirm that the services of those lobbyists have been secured for lobbying the federal government.

HON. MR. DUECK: I must tell the member who asked the question that the responsibility remains with the former, former minister.

MR. JONES: There's another question in itself, but very clearly it is under the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, so the funding, no matter who answers the question.... I don't mind if he whispers the answer to you. I don't think it's in the nature of the new minister to want to avoid questions that he or his staff can answer. It's a sincere question. It's an important question. Can the minister confirm that those lobbying services have been hired and paid for from the project or from the province?

HON. MR. DUECK: I'm told there have been no expenditures out of the warrant for this year. I can't go further than that, because I know it's funded by the Ministry of Advanced Education, but the responsibility still remains with the Minister of Education. Perhaps again, during estimate time, we can give you an accurate figure on that. I agree with you and I've always agreed with that. We have to admit that other than trying to get this program on track and keeping it on track and getting the federal government to agree that it is a good program and we must go ahead with it, other than draining all kinds of other research that may hurt us in the long run.... It's a balancing act between getting that kaon project going, and at the same time not pouring all our money into that particular project, which would hurt some of the others that we need so badly. It will come under estimates more clearly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The subject matter, not being within the warrant, would be out of order.

MR. JONES: The funding would certainly fall under the minister responsible, who I understand is the Minister of Education, and that would be covered under this warrant as well. However, I'm quite happy to wait until that minister takes his proper place and is willing to answer questions. I appreciate the new minister. He certainly has a challenging new portfolio, and we wish him well with that. We've given him some work to do today, and we look forward to those answers.

MR. CLARK: I just want to advise the House and the government House Leader that we've completed our preliminary remarks on Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and we'll turn to the Premier's office.

MR. LOVICK: This is a very friendly point of order, and I raise it now before we get started. The Chair has continued to refer to the member for Vancouver East as the second member for Vancouver East. I would remind the Chair that he is the only member for Vancouver East; ergo he is not the second member. I just ask the Chair to acknowledge that from this point forward. Thank you.

MR. CLARK: I want to inform the Premier and her staff that we will not be engaging in a lengthy debate on the Premier's office. We will reserve that for the Leader of the Opposition debate during the estimates. I'm sure that there will be other members here joining us shortly.

However, we have a few questions which we think appropriately could be asked at this time. I will begin to do that. I wonder if the Premier could begin by advising the House home many people she has terminated in her office since she became Premier?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: None.

MR. CLARK: The Premier says she has terminated no people. How many people have left the employ of the office of the Premier since she became Premier?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Two.

MR. CLARK: Can she advise the House who those two people are?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bernie Smith and Iris Gilchrist.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Buchan, for example, left prior to your taking office? The Premier nods her head.

How about Eli Sopow. Did you fire Eli Sopow, that august former television reporter, Madam Premier?

[ Page 12401 ]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Sopow was not employed under the Premier's office.

MR. CLARK: The termination of Mr. Sopow was directed, however, by the Premier. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm only prepared to discuss personnel issues that I feel free to discuss and those that apply to the Premier's office.

[5:30]

MR. CLARK: Are you not prepared to discuss the terminations made through you of Mr. Dalon or the other deputy ministers as they pertain to your office?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding we were here to discuss the estimates of the warrant as it applies to the Premier's office.

MR. CLARK: I just thought that Mr. Sopow essentially worked for the Premier's office. I know that may have been a technicality, but we'll deal with that later.

I want to move to another personnel question. On April 2, 1991, the Social Credit caucus sought legal and constitutional advice from former Attorney-General Allan Williams. Can you advise the House how Mr. Williams was paid in that context?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The question does not relate in any way, shape or form to the Premier's office.

MR. CLARK: Did Mr. Williams not advise the Premier in the Premier's office?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes.

MR. CLARK: So the April 2 employment of Mr. Williams was by the Social Credit caucus and not by the Premier's office. Is that a fair characterization?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That's correct.

MR. CLARK: The former Attorney-General Mr. Williams is the general counsel to B.C. Transit. If not him personally, his company has received, I think, in excess of $100,000 in business from the provincial government. I'm not suggesting there's a conflict of interest, but it seems to me a bit untoward that Mr. Williams, a former Attorney-General under a former Social Credit administration, would be working in the Premier's office at the same time that he's general counsel to a Crown corporation. I wonder if the Premier has any concern about that or whether in fact he's still employed or working in any other capacity for a Crown corporation or for a ministry of government.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: We should make it clear that Mr. Williams has been retained under contract to assist with the transition. He has been giving the Premier's office administrative advice. I have no concern at all with the fact that he does work with B.C. Transit.

MR. CLARK: Is there not a distinction? Essentially Mr. Williams is hired to give administrative and political advice to the Premier's office. I don't have any problem with Mr. Williams doing that; he's a well-known Social Credit Party member and a former Attorney-General, and a fine individual, I'm sure — I don't know the man. I don't have any problem with that. He has a long history.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: The member for West Vancouver points out that he's a Liberal. I'm sure there are a few of those left in that party, but I'm sure that will change over time as well.

I wonder if the Premier sees any conflict between Mr. Williams giving political advice in the Premier's office and at the same time acting in a professional capacity for a Crown corporation.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's get this very clear: Mr. Williams does not work through the Premier's office to give political advice.

MR. CLARK: I would like to ask the Premier then precisely what kind of advice Mr. Williams is giving. As I said, I don't have any problem with him giving political advice. I have a concern if he's doing that in conjunction with other work that should be non-partisan. I would like you to advise the House what his duties are in the Premier's office.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, maybe we should go back a few days to April 2. If you recall, when I left home in the morning headed for this building I was Minister of Transportation and Highways. Before the day was out I was sworn in as the Premier. It was important to me — and I believe it should be important to every member in this House — that the office of the Premier function in the best possible way. I required assistance. It was important, in my mind, that I have the best possible counsel available to assist in the restructuring or the review of the administration of the office. That is precisely what Mr. Williams was brought in to do.

MR. CLARK: You can understand that this is a former political member of this House, for the Social Credit Party. He's not exactly an independent individual. He's active in the political party; he was presumably hired by the Social Credit caucus — again, not a non-partisan organization — to give advice to the caucus with respect to a very difficult political question. I don't diminish that; obviously it was a difficult political and constitutional question that he was giving advice on. You subsequently took him into your office, and now you stand up in the House and say he's not giving political advice.

It's an interesting question how the Premier chooses to characterize the word "political." I would suggest that Mr. Williams is undoubtedly a political individual, having held office in here and having been the Attorney-General. He was hired by the Social Credit caucus

[ Page 12402 ]

to give advice on this very difficult political problem and then hired by the Premier. The Premier then says that he's not political. Maybe you could give me a little more. Are you saying that the former Attorney-General, Allan Williams, does not give any political advice to you or to the Premier's office — and hasn't since you became Premier?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I imagine that the member for Vancouver East is looking back over the years at some of the examples of the three years when the NDP was in power. And I think of Mr. Cass-Beggs, who was brought in to manage B.C. Hydro. I can tell you without any question that Mr. Williams was brought into the Premier's office to assist with the transition and with the review of the administrative structure within that office.

MR. CLARK: How long is the contract that Mr. Williams is operating under?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I do expect and hope that Mr. Williams will be involved with government operations for 20 or 25 years, but the agreement will run out in July.

MR. CLARK: I don't know the staff people that you have here, but I assume that perhaps one of them might be Mr. McPhee.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: It's not. I'm sorry. I don't know that.

I notice that Roberta Kelly was appointed by order-in-council by the former Premier to be principal secretary, and yet your appointment as principal secretary is a Mr. McPhee. Yet Mr. McPhee is not appointed by order-in-council but rather by contract. I wonder if you could tell me the distinction and why you would choose to do that. In other words, the previous principal secretary was appointed by order-in-council, but your principal secretary is hired by contract. Is there a distinction? And could you tell the House what that contract is?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As I understand it, Mr. McPhee was appointed by order-in-council, but he does have a contract.

MR. CLARK: Can you tell us how much Mr. McPhee is getting paid?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, management level 12.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ted Hughes was requested to conduct a review of the former Premier's dealings under the Premier's guidelines. Is Mr. Hughes paid in that capacity through the office of the Premier?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, no.

MR. CLARK: Because he was fulfilling duties assigned to him under the Premier's guidelines — and I certainly respect the answer given by the Premier — could the Premier advise the House how Mr. Hughes was paid and how the Hughes inquiry and all the costs associated with that were paid?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I don't have it clear in my mind how that was dealt with because it was not dealt with through the Premier's office.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to abuse the rules, but I wonder if I could ask....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why have you changed now?

MR. CLARK: I know I invited that.

Can the Premier inform the House how Mr. Hughes was paid and all the costs around that? I understand that the Premier has said it's not stated by the Premier's office. Could you advise the House at some time in the future how all of those costs were paid?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Yes, I'd be pleased to do that.

MR. CLARK: I notice Mr. Emerson sitting next to you. I'd like to ask a few questions surrounding Mr. Emerson's role.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, in terms of protocol of the House, I do apologize if I singled out a member of the staff. I didn't mean to do that, but I would like to ask some questions around the role of your deputy minister.

As I understand it, cabinet has meetings, and the cabinet meetings are always political in a public policy sense. I think everybody understands that. Clearly the deputy minister to the Premier is an integral part of fulfilling the duties of public policy decisions of cabinet. But I'm of the view — and I'd ask the Premier to clarify this before the House — that cabinet also has political discussions, and they're called that as such. Can you advise the House whether your deputy minister attends the political meetings of cabinet?

[5:45]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, he doesn't.

MR. CLARK: Since you've taken office, can you assure the House that Mr. Emerson has not attended overtly political meetings of cabinet that are called political meetings of cabinet?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Where there is an overlap between political and cabinet operations, it's not uncommon for the deputy to be asked to remain in the room.

[ Page 12403 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I have a question to the Premier. On May 1 the Premier assigned two members, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to go to Alberni and investigate the closure of the M&B Alply mill there. She instructed the two cabinet ministers.... I believe only one cabinet minister actually went; Mr. Hagen did not attend.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm trying to remember his present title. The Minister of Education; Advanced Education is gone. It's difficult sometimes, because you need a program to remember who the minister of the moment happens to be. They have become known as MOMs — ministers of the moment — out in the public arena.

They were instructed to meet with interested groups. The Premier indicated, at least to the press, that the request was on behalf of Mayor Gillian Trumper. Did she phone, or did the mayor write a letter? What was the scenario?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm wondering if the member for Alberni has something against moms. Does that bother you?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Well, you should hear his expression.

The communication to our office — in addition to communication from the mayor — came from a number of people living in the area who I suspect were unable to get satisfaction from the local MLA, so we jumped in to help.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed further, I would just like to say that we're dealing with the office of the Premier, and specifically for the continuation of ongoing budgetary programs of the office of the Premier.

MR. G. JANSSEN: In fact, Mr. Chairman, the people that contacted the Premier were out here on these lawns on April 19 asking for any kind of minister, any kind of government official, to come outside and talk with them, and nobody came. Now the Premier is saying: "Oh yes, I was out there talking to those people." They were ignored by this government, and now the Premier says that somebody phoned her from Alberni and asked for help. She sent up a junior cabinet minister after the horse had left the barn, after the mill was closed. As a matter of fact, the executive of the IWA was not invited to that meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member please take his seat.

Just before the member rose I read the specific item that we're dealing with. I believe the member speaking, as he has done in the last few minutes, is irrelevant to the motion before us. I would ask him to be relevant in his discussion regarding this matter.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Now that the mill is closed and the meetings have taken place, the Premier has asked for a report on what she could expect and received one. What was in the report, and what can the people from that plywood mill expect in aid from this government?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I suspect that we are going way off the topic that is on the agenda here for discussion, but I would like to tell the MLA that there are a lot of very progressive actions taking place as a result of the minister's visiting the area and working with the council and some of the citizens in the area, in spite of the lack of effort made by the local MLA.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Let me just explain what the local MLA and the Leader of the Opposition have done for Alberni.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please proceed, hon. member.

MR. G. JANSSEN: When the company announced its plan to close that mill, the Leader of the Opposition, at my invitation, came to Port Alberni in January, met with the union, toured both the....

MR. SERWA: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. This member has been consistently and persistently reminded that he has to maintain relevancy. He has been consistent in ignoring your advice. There may be no other option than to eject that member from the chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to the point of order, I would just like to read standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I do not believe that the member for Alberni is proceeding in that manner. I trust that in his further comments he will be relevant to the point that's under discussion at the present time.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Thank you for the advice, Mr. Chairman, and I'll take it because I believe that the Premier's office is refusing to share the details of the actions that the people of Alberni so desperately need.

In these initiatives, which are paid for, the report was done under the auspices of the Premier's office. Therefore obviously the dollars that we're talking about will be involved. What initiatives has she got planned as a result of this report that she received from these two ministers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass? The second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman....

MR. LOVICK: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, we established just a few minutes ago that this is the

[ Page 12404 ]

only member for Vancouver East. If the Chair claims to be in charge of the debate and aware of relevance, he ought to know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CLARK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I guess. I want to advise the Premier that this gentle line of questioning is over for this evening, and we would be happy to debate your estimates at great length when they come up for debate in this House.

I advise the government House Leader that we're prepared at this time to move to the next item on the warrant, which is Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

MR. BARLEE: We have a number of pages of questions, but I believe that these can wait until estimates are debated. So we will debate these and carry on our questions through to estimates when they come up next week.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we're not voting on each individual item on the warrant, so it's quite appropriate. We're only by virtue of decorum trying to go through it seriatim, so there's no actual vote required. We will be moving to the Attorney-General shortly.

I would like to ask a couple of questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Minister of Agriculture was a real estate agent in his past life. He's now the minister responsible for the agricultural land reserves. On the face of it, that doesn't mean anything. I don't want to malign the minister, but I would like to ask him his views on the agricultural land reserve, just very briefly, to see whether it's consistent, given that the agricultural land reserve is part of the budget of the ministry, given that we have it before us. I'm interested briefly in the views of the minister with respect to that institution.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: I'm having a little difficulty understanding how this fits into the agenda we're dealing with today, so I'll seek your guidance, Mr. Chairman, if you feel it's appropriate that this question be asked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No one is compelled to answer questions.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, the agricultural land reserve and the Agricultural Land Commission are within the ministry this minister is responsible for. This warrant is for a third of the budget of the ministry, and so it seems appropriate that we have at least some brief questions to the minister in his capacity as Minister of Agriculture with respect to his views on the agricultural land reserve. I think there is some concern. It's a concern by virtue of appearance, and I'd like the minister to allay this concern that he has a commitment to the agricultural land reserve, particularly in the area of the Okanagan, where there's a lot of pressure on the agricultural land reserve.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Chairman, I guess if this is the way we're going to spend the rest of the day, talking about questions like this that could take a while, it's all right by me. In 1974 or whenever the Agricultural Land Commission first came about — the land act was passed — I fought it because I considered it to be a land control bill and not a bill to protect agricultural land. To this day I still believe that was what the intention was, given the minister of the day and the fact that the previous first member for Vancouver East was behind the scenes writing the text for that. I still believe that to be the case, but it's always very difficult to unscramble an egg. Over the years there has been concern over the whole political spectrum about the preservation of farmland. People were concerned for a couple of reasons: One, in the early seventies there was fear all over the western world that there may well indeed become a shortage of food. I believe that to have been a genuine concern on the part of many people; two, there were those who simply wanted to protect green space, so they saw this as a vehicle to create green space.

[6:00]

That has worked very well as far as protecting green space, but where I still have difficulty with that is in the fact that we have asked one segment of society to protect that land and to be the stewards of that land. We have to be prepared as a society to ensure that they can make a living while they are doing that. That was my position before I became an MLA, and it is still my position. It certainly was my position prior to becoming cabinet minister responsible.

The fact that we have an ALR in place and that this has to be followed.... In fact, I have done all that I could do just prior to becoming a minister to ensure that some increased funding was in the budget this year to try to get the support of staff and equipment in that office to assist them to do their work properly People have been waiting as long as eight and ten months, and longer, to get an answer. Even a "no" was taking that long, and to me that is not the proper way to do it. We should see that that office is properly staffed and equipped so that they can do their business. I'm not in any way suggesting what those decisions should be, but simply that they have the tools to work with to get on with doing it. We have many farmers — many people in the agricultural community, for example — who have been simply attempting to get a home-site severance. In many cases it has taken far too long. So those areas have all got to be looked after to ensure that we can preserve the farmland and ensure that we can preserve the farmers in British Columbia. In that way we will protect the farmland forever.

MR. ROSE: I think most of us were quite relieved at the minister's responses on that score. I think many of us over here share the concern that we ask one segment of society to bear the complete responsibility and often heavy economic penalties for the preservation of green space and farmland.

But the minister may or may not be aware that we've had cuts in the farm income assurance program

[ Page 12405 ]

year after year, and one reason that there isn't enough income — besides the lack of sales and the competition from abroad, namely the United States — is because of those cuts. It doesn't restore the income; there is no assured income.

So the first question is: what has the minister decided to do about increasing the farm income assurance program as it applies to the fruit industry and other industries — because it's been dwindling all the time — and what is the minister's position on the proposal of the B.C. tree-fruits industry for a national apple marketing agency?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: On the first count, prior to my swearing-in as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I too expressed concerns to the previous ministers on a number of occasions about the level of support not only for the tree-fruit industry, but other agricultural commodities.

Naturally, coming from the Okanagan, I am very concerned about all of the people involved in the tree-fruit industry, and I have on many occasions told them that I will do all I can to ensure that they get the support they need.

The day I was sworn in as minister, the Premier also announced that I had been instructed to ensure that we complete a review of all the financial programs relating to agriculture across Canada, in every other jurisdiction — how we relate to those other jurisdictions and whether we were getting the type of support from the federal government that we deserve for the sectors of agriculture in British Columbia.

That work is underway right now. Originally we had hoped for it to be completed by June 1, but it looks as though it's going to be more like the middle of June before that work is completed. Once that has been completed, we will have an opportunity to sit down with ministry people, and I will be able to discuss that with my colleagues in cabinet to ensure that, first of all, we are giving the support that we should be giving to the agricultural community in British Columbia. If we're not, Mr. Member, you and all of the people in the agricultural community who might be watching this evening can rest assured that I will do all I can to make sure that they get the support they need.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CHALMERS: The marketing board. I have on a number of occasions met with representatives of the tree-fruit industry, and Mr. David Taylor and Mr. Gerald Geen were in my office just about a week ago to talk to me about the national marketing agency. They have told me about the meetings they have had. They have told me about the good work that their national committee has been doing to pursue the dream that some of them have.

But unfortunately, at this particular time it's a concept; it's a vision of those in the industry because they see it as their salvation. They see it as an opportunity to get from the marketplace what they feel is needed to cover their cost of production, and enough in excess to live in dignity. They're entitled to that, as far as I'm concerned. So they're exploring that possibility now.

Unfortunately, they asked me if I would give my public support to the work they're doing, and I told them that at this time I'm not able to that, the reason being that there are a number of questions that have not been answered. A number of questions have been put to me by people in the tree-fruit industry in my own community and other areas in the valley. They've asked hard questions that up till now there have been no answers for. My staff met with them and prepared a few pages of questions which they have gone off now to try and develop the answers for. I've given them a commitment that the staff and resources of this ministry will be made available to them to help them develop that so that all of those answers are going to be positive, and to make sure that the model that they develop is not GATT-able, and all of those things that we need to concern ourselves with. Then I think they could look forward to support, but until that time I'm not able to answer that question.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I distinctly heard a member of the Socred back bench call me a farmer, and I want to tell him he's wrong. I would also remind the member — and the minister, I'm sure, is quite aware — that the title of the ministry is Agriculture and Fisheries, and it's fisheries that I wish to talk about.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Oh, Food too. Well, we can talk about that over dinner. I'm talking about fish right now.

There is a serious problem currently in the fishing industry. It involves this ministry — and also another ministry, the Ministry of Lands — to the extent that there is a growing sport-fishing industry in this province. We have a dispute over resource between various sectors, people who traditionally have laid claim to that resource, and we see those elements clashing.

There was a meeting the other day....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I hear the Minister of Lands, who wants to talk about the tidal sport fishery. In Kitimat it's quite amusing. The Minister of Crown Lands, who I hope to be talking to a couple of ministries from now.... We'll be asking him to justify how they dreamed up spending $400,000 to study a port. So if the minister would settle down.... Relax, you'll get your turn. We'll try to deal with the Minister of Agriculture, who appears willing to answer questions.

There are these conflicts between the various user groups. Clearly the only way to resolve some of those conflicts is for the agencies responsible — principally your ministry and the DFO — to engage in planning. In my constituency in the Queen Charlotte Islands there has been severe conflict on the north end of the islands — Langara Island — which appears to have been resolved. There is another severe controversy in the Skidegate Inlet area, where a company called Banksland is bringing in a floating ship to bring in

[ Page 12406 ]

sports fishermen. This has caused severe problems with local people — local charter operators, small operators, this really small business group — who find themselves more or less being forced out of traditional areas. It's resulted in some very unfortunate and very hard feelings.

I just don't think that the kind of planning that is necessary has been undertaken. We're now into the season when this activity is going to increase, when the sports fishermen from other parts of the world are going to be coming into British Columbia and when we're going to have all of these competing user groups on the water at the same time, fighting for these choice areas.

We're also faced with some very severe statistics. For example, today's newspaper reported that the Coho stocks appear to be in severe decline. Coho, of course, is a very good sports fish. I don't want a super-lengthy explanation, but what steps are you and your ministry taking in terms of trying to come to grips with this conflict between the various user groups, either separately or in conjunction with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: I assure the member that we are working diligently on that problem. We certainly appreciate the severity of it and the implications there will be. I'm sure you'll appreciate that in the short time I've been in the ministry I've spent a considerable amount of time meeting with the various sectors. I'm sure that my good friend and critic from Boundary Similkameen would agree that there are a number of commodity groups under agriculture alone, and I have been working day and night to meet with them. I just recently started to meet with the various people involved in the fisheries sector. In fact, just this morning at 7:30 I was speaking to a number of people in the fisheries industry in Vancouver.

I'm very much aware of the problem. Shortly after I became minister, I requested a meeting with the Hon. John Crosbie, the federal minister responsible, so that I could discuss those and a number of other issues. I also asked for a meeting with Mr. McKnight, the federal Minister of Agriculture. Yesterday at lunchtime I had the opportunity of meeting with Mr. Crosbie while he was visiting in British Columbia. His senior officials had had meetings in Dunsmuir Lodge this last weekend with a number of people from the various sectors, trying to sort out the differences related to the allotment of salmon.

It's a very difficult issue to try to resolve. We have native people who have traditionally been using a good amount of the salmon stocks. We have the commercial fishermen, and we have, of course, the sports fishermen. I'm certainly very much aware of and concerned about some of the conflicts resulting from the sports fishermen and other players,

For whatever reason, the federal minister did not see fit to include the provincial government in the meetings that were held on the weekend. So although I didn't wish to disagree with the federal minister on my very first meeting, I made it very clear that I felt that the people of British Columbia are entitled to have representation at the table when any future discussions are taking place. The minister has assured me that that will happen.

Although it is primarily a federal jurisdiction — and I'm sure you understand that well, coming from Prince Rupert — whatever the fallout is going to be, those of us in this House and the people of British Columbia are going to have to live with the economic difficulties that might result from shifting the emphasis within the industry.

[6:15]

We have a very serious role to play. The minister understands that. I'm looking forward to future meetings with him in trying to resolve it. The sports fishing industry is something that is fairly new, and it is growing very rapidly. I feel it must be regulated in some form, but it's a matter of sorting that out between the provincial ministry and the federal ministry.

MR. MILLER: Of course, the provincial government is involved to the extent that they see the sports fishing industry as a desirable industry, and through various means can encourage its development — for example, through Crown lands the allocation of areas where sports fishing lodges can be built. Clearly the province is a player in the game, even though the ultimate regulatory responsibility for allotment for the resource falls to the federal government. In examining any resource conflict, I would think that one of the primary considerations would be some kind of economic analysis.

I'm disturbed at what I think is an oversimplification of the benefits of commercial sports fishing. I should also add that when you spoke of the different competing interests, you mentioned native people and commercial fishermen. I would point out to you that at least in my area, many of the commercial fishermen are native Indian people. In that sense, there's no distinction there. They're very good fishermen. For example, we saw last year in the Charlottes that the traditional commercial sector and the Haida people were hand in hand, in terms of trying to bring some regulation to the commercial sports sector on Langara Island.

I think there's an oversimplification which generally goes like this: one looks at the cost per fish in the commercial sport sector and draws the conclusion that there's an immense benefit. In other words, whatever that amount might be — $2,000 per fish or whatever it averages out to be — people draw the conclusion that it's a desirable industry and we should promote it.

Perhaps I'm more keenly aware of this because living in Prince Rupert, as we go through the various cycles in the industry every year — first with the herring in March and then the salmon in the summer — I see the tremendous employment that it generates in my community, and it does as well in other communities that have those processing plants. Those are by and large very well paid jobs. They fall to people who simply would not have any other opportunity to earn that kind of income because of their skill level, their tradition, their culture and their heritage. These are north coast people. They wouldn't have the opportunity, so if you take fish away from those

[ Page 12407 ]

processing plants, you're really creating a severe impact on those people.

If you examine the economic gain from the traditional commercial sector, it's my belief that it's significantly more because the benefit flows out to the people. Whereas in the commercial sports sector, the benefit might flow to an airline which employs people, but it doesn't have the same immediate impact, and it doesn't reach the same people.

Are you capable? Is that kind of analysis being done within your ministry or within the government collectively — perhaps with other ministries — to make that economic analysis that's so vital in terms of any other planning?

HON. MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the capacity is there to do that, but we have to remember that the sports fishing sector has started in very recent years and has grown a great deal. It's somewhat difficult to get the numbers that are as accurate as some people would like them to be.

This allocation, of course, is going to have to be made by the federal minister who is dealing with that situation. I'm very much aware of the employment. I think there are something like 25,000 people employed in the fishery side both part-time and full-time. There are over 220 processing plants that employ over 5,000 people. I'm very much aware of that.

In the forest industry, for example, some people use the trees to make lumber, some people use it to make plywood and other people become cabinet-makers or whatever. There are all sorts of things done with the resource. There is room in the fishing sector for the sports industry as well as the commercial fishermen. It is a matter of being managed properly, and that's why we have to impress upon the federal minister and his people to ensure that the resource is managed properly and in the best interests of all- people — native and non-native, commercial fishermen, sports fishermen and everybody involved.

MR. MILLER: The point is that that management has not existed to date. In fact, there's a vacuum. People are filling it themselves, which is why the Haida had their own very good process — public hearings throughout the Charlottes, with some very good submissions — to try and come to grips with the issue and provide some management. Your government has not been doing that, and I should say that the federal government hasn't either.

My questions are aimed at trying to get you to agree that some speedy action is needed to fill that vacuum, because people are out on those grounds, and there is potential for them to get hurt as they scrap over that resource. I'll leave that, and by the time we get to a fuller debate on estimates, perhaps we can revisit the topic. The minister might have some more information at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we are moving on to the Ministry of Attorney-General in this debate.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Attorney-General is unavoidably away from the chamber, as is my colleague our critic for the Attorney-General. Do I understand, however, that there will be some staff available?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member understands that the Attorney-General is away because of a close friend's demise.

HON. J. JANSEN: Unfortunately, we couldn't get staff in here. I'll have to take most of the questions on behalf of the Attorney-General. I'm sure he'll deal with them during his estimates. I would be pleased to respond as best I can in terms of the financial figures.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the Finance minister's offer. I'm certainly not going to try and develop a whole long list of questions, but there are a couple of things that I think have some real currency and, indeed, perhaps urgency. If I might, I would very briefly canvass those.

One is the whole issue of legal aid. I'm sure the Finance minister knows that lawyers who perform legal aid services on behalf of the government have rejected the government's recent offer of an additional $6 million annually to the existing legal aid tariff. In fact, the lawyers are threatening to expand their current strike and their case is that an additional $40 million is required. Clearly there's a tremendous discrepancy between $6 million and $40 million. We're not talking about negotiations being close to being resolved.

I would just point out that in 1984 a task force on public legal services in British Columbia, chaired by conflict-of-interest commissioner Ted Hughes, delivered to the Attorney-General some very firm recommendations for increasing the legal aid tariff to what most of us consider more realistic levels. He noted that. I quote the report: "Otherwise, in the medium to long term, the legal aid delivery system will suffer a major crisis." The first question to the minister is: why is the government apparently ignoring the advice of its own task force? The now-commissioner Ted Hughes, formerly just the author of that report, stated in very strong terms that we had to do something or the whole system was going to fall down. The response from government, however, is demonstrably not enough to address the problem in any way. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could answer that.

HON. J. JANSEN: The funding for legal assistance services has increased by 14 percent over last year, and the majority of this is the $6 million the member referred to. He makes reference to the fact that there's a $40 million need in terms of the position that the legal assistance lawyers have put forward. I guess that's a matter of negotiation. The Attorney-General, I know, has some thoughts on that, and I would take that question for him to address when he does his budget estimates.

[ Page 12408 ]

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer, and I know that the Finance minister can't really answer much more than that. But I'm sure he would understand what we on this side perceive to be something of a contradiction. The government can apparently come up with $3.5 million out of nowhere to hire a bunch of welfare cops to go out and make sure that we're not giving too much money to people on the lowest end and to make sure that there isn't an abuse of the system....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe you're discussing the Attorney-General's appropriations under the supply bill.

MR. LOVICK: Precisely, Mr. Chairman, and I'm asking how we can reconcile this appropriation to the Attorney-General's ministry — demonstrably not enough money — when we apparently can find money for some purpose that quite frankly doesn't appear to have much validity. I wonder if the Finance minister would like to respond.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm having a little difficulty connecting it to.... If you're suggesting that 14 percent pay raises for lawyers associated with legal aid isn't sufficient, that's a point that I indicated to you the Attorney-General would deal with. But I fail to see the connection with the $3.5 million initiative that you referred to. A 14 percent increase is not bad by today's standards. I know that that's far less than what legal aid lawyers have sought. In fact, we met with them a little while ago.

Given all the other constraints on the budget and the pressures on the budget in other areas, I guess you have to ask yourself how much money is the upper limit that you can give the legal profession in terms of legal assistance. But again, I'll allow the Attorney-General to comment.

MR. LOVICK: I would note that 14 percent, on the face of it, is a significant increase, to be sure. It depends, however, what we're starting from. If it is demonstrably, remarkably underfunded, then a 14 percent increase doesn't mean a great deal. But as you say, we can canvass that when the Attorney is back.

I have a couple of other specific questions. Can the minister confirm whether the Attorney-General's ministry has contracted directly with any law firm or lawyer to provide services that would ordinarily be provided through legal services, while the strike has been going on? Has anything like that happened? The question is whether the Attorney-General's ministry has contracted with any law firm or any other agency body to provide legal services, rather than the Legal Services Society, while the strike is going on.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm not aware of that. That's a question that the Attorney-General will have to answer.

[6:30]

MS. MARZARI: I'm standing to talk to the Attorney General's allotment here in schedule 2. I'm rather pleased that I'm speaking to the Minister of Finance rather than the Attorney-General himself, because if I ask these questions to the Minister of Finance now and then put them to the Attorney-General later, perhaps the message will come across twofold and we can compare the answers and see what we can come up with. It's all part of my detective work to piece together a program around women and the law, and women's access to the law. There's not a more important issue in our community today, Mr. Chairman. It's becoming endemic. Violence against women is now visible in the community.

One of the ways we can break the cycle of violence towards women is by adjusting our legal programs and our legal services — all the way from police intervention through to the judiciary. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General play a major part in how we deal with the cycle of violence. The questions may seem disjointed, but they fit into a much larger whole as I try to get from each minister their particular role as we try to piece together an overall anti-violence program.

So my first question then has to do with the fact that a few weeks ago I was talking about restraining orders. Women in this province, when they are being hurt by abusive husbands, used to be able to get restraining orders from legal aid. There was a special contract that the Attorney-General handed out to lawyers in communities so that women could get fast restraining orders. I don't know what paper they signed or what phone number they called, but they knew that their lawyer in their own community could get them a fast restraining order.

In the House a few weeks ago, I asked the Minister of Finance why this program was cancelled. And it was cancelled; lawyers in communities are no longer able to get this special contract so that women can get fast restraining orders. The Attorney-General did say in the House a few days ago: "Oh, it's no problem at all. We can do that through legal aid." They can't. It's been cancelled. My question to the Minister of Finance is: under this schedule, will the Minister of Finance make an effort to ensure the program that enables women to get fast restraining orders comes back into place as quickly as possible?

HON. J. JANSEN: Again, that's difficult for me to comment on. I read in the note on legal assistance and services that there is additional money available for the family maintenance enforcement program, but that's not what you were talking about. That's the only item I see under legal assistance that gets close to what you were talking about. I don't know what changes he's made, but I'll be pleased to talk to him at a later time.

MS. MARZARI: You see, I don't mind that you don't know the answers. I'm just pleased that you're sitting here listening to my questions and understanding them in a way that the Attorney-General didn't even seem to understand, so that you and he are going to be able to talk about these issues and programs, because these are not big money items. When a woman is having her door pounded down and she doesn't know where to

[ Page 12409 ]

call for the police or a fast restraining order, you've got to be there. We've got to be there to let those women know that we're there.

The Family Maintenance Enforcement Act was introduced by this government a couple of years ago in order to make recalcitrant spouses pay up the money due to their wives — usually — and to make sure that the families got the bucks that were coming to them through court order or through agreements, The idea was that the women would go fill out the forms and get their family maintenance; that it would come through the office itself and be sent to the women from the office if there was any difficulty, and it would be the enforcement office that would go out and make sure that the spouses paid up.

Great idea. We voted for it. The whole House felt good about it. But in fact what's happened is that everybody on this side of the House, and I'm sure everybody on your side of the House, has received phone calls and letters and anguished cries from women who have not only not received the cheques from their errant husbands or ex-husbands but have not even received a response from the family maintenance agency or an assurance that their husbands would in fact be forced to pay up.

So this wonderful little idea which was actually going to be a nice little profit centre, if you think of it that way... It was going to put a few bucks into women's pockets and perhaps relieve the welfare system of having to pay so many bucks to poor women who had to go on welfare. What we've found over the last few years is that this program, rather then taking in the $60 million a year it should.... That's a conservative estimate. I've just figured it through that there are probably something like 50,000 women in this province who would probably want to avail themselves of this program, and that's conservative, in my mind, because I'm thinking that there are 35,000 single mothers on welfare. I'm not advocating that we force those women to apply for the program; I'm just saying there are 35,000 single mothers on welfare who could probably benefit by getting some cheques in the mail. On top of that, there are undoubtedly at least another 35,000 women who are working poor, working in the community at minimum-wage jobs, losing them every day or going into lower-wage jobs. If you can just take a very conservative estimate that their ex-spouses might owe them $100 a month — that's low — you can just multiply 12 months of a year times 70,000 women and begin to guess how much money we should be pulling in with that program.

I would like to ask the minister how much money that program is actually pushing through right now.

HON. J. JANSEN: The additional funding to system enforcement is $650,000; that's additional money provided in the budget to enhance the program of enforcement. I don't know whether staff have the amount of money that we put through the.... No, we don't have the amount of money actually put through the system in terms of processing. We'll take that question on notice and have it ready for you.

MS. MARZARI: Thank you, Mr. Minister, I want the minister to look at this, not the Attorney-General particularly. I would like the Minister of Finance to look at this. In fact, I think the auditor-general should be requested by the House to look at the functioning of this particular agency, because by all accounts there are serious deficiencies in administrative expertise inside that agency.

I said it in year two, and I've heard back how hard they're trying, and reorganization here and reorganization there. Yet still, I don't think anybody in this House can be assured that the amount of money invested in the administration of this agency to retrieve dollars for women is in fact pulling in the millions of bucks it should be pulling in for these women, Once again, it's another cog in that complex group of problems that surround the nature of women when they approach the law and when they approach regulatory regimes that are there to help them.

I think anybody in this House who's bothered to see Thelina and Louise in the last few days — its just opened in Victoria — can understand, as they watch the women in the film go through their fear of confrontation with the law, where it takes them and what kind of a road it takes them on. It's an interesting film because you start to understand how women, in their fear of the law, develop a whole new way for themselves of dealing with society and the structures that society sets up for them.

Nonetheless, when you have a Family Maintenance Act that isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing, a legal aid service that isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing and a judiciary that often doesn't appear to be doing what it's supposed to be doing, you can understand that women feel alienated from the whole business of law and the community.

There's $4 million in the budget speech set aside for violence again women. Can the minister find this $4 million for me? I can't find it. I've been looking through the estimates, in the books, and I've been looking for special programs. There's nothing in there that says violence at all. Is this the federal money that's been promised by Ottawa — $136 million over four years divided by ten provinces? Is this where that money is, and where do I find it in the estimates? Where do I find it in the schedule? Is it under retrievals from federal agencies? Does the minister know about that $4 million? It's doesn't readily jump off any of the pages I've read.

HON. J. JANSEN: Let me respond first to the comment respecting the efficiency of collection of family maintenance. I think the comment that the program is not very efficient is a good comment. It's one that we can seriously have a look at, in terms of our own value-for-money audit program, to determine whether or not we're being effective in the management of that particular program.

The other question respecting the $4 million. It'll be in a number of different areas. One is victim assistance and the other one is criminal justice. The Attorney General will, I'm sure, be able to specifically identify those for you. Unfortunately, I can't do that right now.

[ Page 12410 ]

MS. MARZARI: One more question — and I don't expect the minister to be able to answer this one either, but I'm glad I have his attention. This one has to do with the training of judges. This one has to do with finding the bucks, not later but sooner, to set up, both provincially and in coordination with federal court judges, mandatory training programs to ensure that our judges and indeed all workers in the court and policing systems are properly trained, properly aware, properly sensitized to women's relationship to the law and their sense that they get a raw deal whenever they approach the law and justice.

Too often women feel.... We can just read the newspapers for the last few weeks, whether it be the Clark case — Dr. Clark in Prince George — or the Letendre case tried here in Vancouver. Women have sensed that they are not being properly heard. No matter what they say and what they do, no matter how they're victimized, they feel further victimized by the court procedure itself and by being ignored. We feel that one of the many ways to deal with this is to train people involved in enforcement and the judiciary to be properly sensitized to women's reality and what they face when they are victimized. Can the minister find me the money for that?

HON. J. JANSEN: As you know, the judiciary operates outside the Attorney-General, and rightly so that it is independent of the Attorney-General. But I know that the Canadian Judicial Council has programs in place, is looking at this issue and, I understand, is sensitizing the federal judiciary to women's issues. But again, I am sure the minister will elaborate when he is here.

[6:45]

MR. JONES: The warrant we are dealing with for the Attorney-General is some $52,100,000, and I have a similar question to my colleague about a very small part of that.

I assume that the legislation on freedom of information will be coming through the Attorney-General's ministry. Other provinces in Canada that have such legislation find that the support for those programs amounts to something like 50 cents per citizen per year, so that would be about $1.5 million a year. Were there funding for that bureaucracy support for freedom of information, that would amount to $1.5 million per year in British Columbia, and a third of that would be $500,000.

My question to the minister is: is there provision in this warrant for the support for freedom-of-information legislation?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question is probably out of order, in that it's future policy. Until we've got the legislation, I don't think it's very fair to comment in terms of what the expenditure is.

MR. JONES: The point of the question is quite simple. It is that this government has avoided freedom of information that has been brought in by this side of the House from all parties, year after year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. If there is no provision for such an expenditure...

MR. JONES: This is a question about an expenditure for support for freedom of information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ... in law, it would not be within the one-third of the budget. There being no provision in law on freedom of information.... The Minister of Finance.

MR. JONES: He's got a better answer.

HON. J. JANSEN: The expenditure requirement for the next two months does not have that in there — that's correct — because the legislation is not in place. This is for urgent, ongoing business expenditures of the Attorney-General's department. Once the legislation is brought forward, we can debate that in terms of the bigger estimate when the Attorney-General is here.

MR. JONES: I thank the Minister of Finance for the answer to that very good question from the opposition.

I just want to clarify the answer that the Finance minister gave, and that is that following legislation, after these warrants run out, which is July 31.... There is no provision for implementation of that legislation within these warrants, so should that legislation pass the House, it would be post-July 31 that there would be any implementation of that legislation.

HON. J. JANSEN: That's normally the case. This is for urgent ongoing expenditures and would not anticipate legislation that has not yet been seen in this House.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Since the Minister of Lands and Parks is here, I have some questions. The first question deals with the fact that a month ago the Forest Resources Commission reported and stated that the land and resource inventories are woefully inadequate, that they're inconsistent and at best.... "Woefully inadequate at worst," it said. But there's been a cut in the government budget for surveys and resource mapping, and we've been advised by an expensive commission that this is necessary. Can he explain why there's been a cut in that part of his budget?

HON. MR. PARKER: The issue before us tonight is schedule 2 of Bill 8, and it deals with the $6,752,000 for our ministry to conduct its affairs for the next couple of months. In conducting those affairs, it includes substantial mapping and surveys in the province and tying into all sorts of things, including land inventories and certainly the native land claims issue.

The reductions, if any, that the member opposite is alluding to can be addressed as they have been in the past by offering the opportunity for participation by the private sector in such things as the TRIM program. This is a world leader in computer applications in mapping, using remote sensing techniques that have been developed and fine-tuned by British Columbia entrepreneurs, and which are now offered all over the

[ Page 12411 ]

world as a result of the leadership of this ministry and the staff in this ministry.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Do I take it from your answer that you're, in effect, contracting out inventory work and therefore reducing the budget of the department?

HON. MR. PARKER:. What we're doing is conducting the affairs of the ministry in a businesslike manner and making sure that the public's money is being used to the best advantage, and at the same time keeping the door open for anybody from the private sector or other agencies who wants to participate in the program.

As a matter of fact, we've managed to acquire substantial sums from the federal government so that additional areas can be dealt with. So we're going far beyond our program and doing that with other people's money, and the service and the benefits accrue to the people of British Columbia. I think that's good management.

MR. ZIRNHELT: On the same subject, recently you produced a commercial back-country recreation paper, and it recommended that there's a need for completing inventories on Crown land. Can you specify what moneys are going to be expended in the next few months with respect to developing an inventory of back-country recreation opportunities?

HON. MR. PARKER: As we enter the field season the expenditures start to pick up in certain categories, and the amounts expended depend on day-to-day operations. What we need is expeditious passing of schedule 2 to Bill 8 so that we can get on with the people's business and deal with such issues that concern the member opposite tonight. The back-country recreation discussion paper is a paper that we put forth to the people of British Columbia to gather their input on lands policy for back-country recreation purposes. There is quite a demand for back-country experiences in British Columbia, especially by visitors. There are a number of enterprising British Columbians who would like to get on with providing a number of facilities for our tourists and also for British Columbians. As a matter of fact, British Columbians probably contribute more than anybody else to the tourism dollars in B.C., because you couldn't find a better place to visit anywhere in the world than British Columbia. So it's important that we make sure that the issues addressing back-country recreation are dealt with in a public forum. That's why we put forth a discussion paper.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I can't resist the comment that, had a budget been brought in in March, you would have had a year's supply of money passed by now, and we would have carried on and completed the inventory.

The next question deals with the cut in the ministry's programs with respect to the line item that details local economic and social programs. By a cut in the ministry's field programs, would that indicate a reduction in your commitment to some of these local programs?

MR. SMITH: I just thought it might be appropriate to bring the attention of the Chair and the House to the fact that, as we're dealing with Crown lands, all over the Crown lands of British Columbia, and even some Crown lands that aren't Crown lands any longer but used to be, there are citizens who are no doubt glued to the television set watching all that is going on here. There are 18 more items to get to on those Crown lands and those that used to be Crown lands. I know that, even as we speak, in my mother's home there are people rushing over from next door whose television doesn't work, because they want to get to Transportation and Social Services. With only five more minutes to go, it might be useful to bring the House's attention to that, since some of the questioners over here might want to get down to some of the other questions and raise those issues before the TV goes off. There are a lot of people out there sitting at the edge of their table on those Crown lands, waiting to get the answers to social services, education and forestry issues.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Since the minister didn't want to answer that or would rather put it off until the estimates debate, let me ask a question about Western Canada Water, where there's been a lease by his department for 42,000 acre-feet of water per year. As he's ultimately the holder of this contract, I wonder if the minister would tell this House how much additional revenue this contract will provide his ministry.

HON. MR. PARKER: We have a number of contracts throughout the province. As a matter of fact, the member opposite is one of our contractors. He has an agricultural lease. Just off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you how many acres it is, how productive it is or whether it's been meeting the requirements of the lease.

We'll look up this Western Canada Water issue and get back to the House. Oh, I have a flying piece of paper here. It's a fine record, but it doesn't have the bottom-line amount. If the member is genuinely interested, I'll be happy to make sure that he gets this in written form.

MR. ZIRNHELT: This question has to do with the commercial back-country paper that was developed. It has stimulated quite a bit of discussion, which they say has been the purpose of the paper. Can he tell us a bit about the groups consulted in developing the paper? What I'm getting at is that this paper was generated in-house and probably created a lot of misunderstanding and backlash that perhaps could have been avoided. Could you tell us the cost of developing this paper and the groups consulted in the process?

HON. MR. PARKER: The document was produced in-house as a result of consultation with the other provincial government agencies, and the only external cost was the printing cost, which was done in Canada.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'm glad to see the government is indicating that it's going to change its policy and do more of its printing in Canada.

[ Page 12412 ]

With respect to the public consultation on this now, a lot of the concern comes from the very small rural communities, not the medium-sized ones where there have been some hearings. Is there going to be an opportunity for some kind of hearings in the really small rural communities like Takla Lake? And when will they be held?

HON. MR. PARKER: I haven't been out to Takla Lake in a few years. It should be looking pretty good about this time of year. The discussions have been held. We have received a substantial number of submissions, which they're presently collating. Those who participated will receive summations, and then we'll be looking to meeting with the various interest groups in some central locations. So there won't be any further community meetings.

[7:00]

MR. ZIRNHELT: In 1984 this government commissioned a report on the safety and possible regulation on heli-skiing. To my knowledge this report has not been available to the public, but since you recommended that the industries should seek to be self-regulating and since this public discussion is going on, are you prepared to make available this report on heli-skiing so the advantages of public information can be maximized?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the report is rather stale-dated. Something like seven companies were involved in 1984. Five, I believe, are out of business now. What we see now in the helicopter skiing industry are very responsible participants. The repeat business that each of those companies enjoys is a significant indicator of the comfort customers have with their safety and well-being while in the care of these enterprises.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I thought that releasing this report would be a wonderful opportunity to make good on the promise and the intent in the throne speech for more open and honest government. Even though you may decide that it's stale-dated, perhaps the people involved in developing the regulations could make that judgment on their own. Will you make that report available?

HON, MR. PARKER: We can take that under advisement, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Crown lands still responsible for the Kitimat port development?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, I am responsible, it seems, for a great deal that happens in the northwest, as a number of MLAs in that area seem to have abrogated their responsibility. One of the things that I had the opportunity of presenting to this government was the proposal from the municipality of Kitimat to have a public marine dock facility established in their community. It's something that they've been trying to achieve since 1975, but it appeared that in 1973 the NDP Premier of the province of the day had signed a sweetheart deal with Ottawa. They had agreed that for 15 years there would be no port development in northwestern British Columbia, apart from Prince Rupert. So Prince Rupert has had an exclusive port facility there now for more than 15 years.

By 1988 the community of Kitimat had certainly done its homework, and under the advice of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Prince Rupert office had identified a spot at the head of Douglas Channel — which is locally referred to as Harbour East and lies between the Eurocan Pulp and Paper dock and the mouth of the Kitimat River — for a public dock facility. They made their presentation, to the government. The government directed the MLA, namely myself, to expedite the matter on their behalf. I've been proud to do that and to serve the community of Kitimat, as an MLA should.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is having some difficulty relating the question and the answer to schedule 2. Possibly both the member and the minister could relate their comments to schedule 2.

MR. MILLER: I gather from the answer that the minister is the minister responsible for the Kitimat port proposal. Could the minister advise on what basis the cabinet decided to spend $400,000 of the public's money to undertake a study as to whether or not constructing a port in Kitimat was a logical move?

HON. MR. PARKER: One of the main thrusts of this government has been diversification of local economies. What's important in the community of Kitimat is diversification away from several primary industries, namely pulp and paper and aluminum ingot production. One of the ways that can be achieved, of course, is by providing such a facility as a public port.

The thrust of this government has been to endorse and assist those communities that, through their own initiative, have identified superb economic development opportunities. We work with them in a proactive manner to make sure that the initiative is properly reviewed and given full consideration. That is what has taken place with the Kitimat port opportunity using the major project review process — which, by the way, is founded upon the mine development review process set up by this province. That process was mentioned in the Brundtland report as being one of the foremost review processes in the world. I think we've been doing very well looking after the interests of the people of British Columbia and working hard to diversify the economy of the province.

MR. MILLER: I'm getting booster speeches from the minister, not answers. On what basis did you decide? Normally when a request comes into cabinet for a significant amount of money — the Minister of Finance might want to pay attention here.... When people ask for close to half a million dollars, I assume that some modest process is followed. Or do you just write the cheque out? Is that how this government does it: if the

[ Page 12413 ]

right friend shows up, you write the cheque out? Or do you actually go through some kind of process and send it, for example, to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, which actually has a transportation policy analysis branch? Did you not do that, Mr. Minister? Did you not send that request into some kind of... ? Do you do some basic analysis, or do you just write out the cheque?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister responsible for Crown lands. The Chair refers you to the comments on schedule 2, which your debate is on: the continuation of ongoing budgetary programs for the ministry of Crown lands.

HON. MR. PARKER: I don't have signing authority for any cheques.

MR. MILLER: The minister confirms that there was no analysis done within the government of the request; they simply wrote out the cheque. Could the minister explain... ?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: There was no analysis. The minister said he just wrote out the cheque.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out a few moments ago, we're talking about schedule 2 of Bill 8. We're talking about the estimates of the Ministry of Lands, not the Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism, where these things are dealt with, and it's more appropriate that it be dealt with under those estimates. I would suggest that the member is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the minister bringing it to the Chair's attention.

MR. MILLER: Isn't this revealing! As soon as the questions get tough and the minister can't answer them, he says: "We should debate it somewhere else. I don't want to talk about it anymore."

The fact is, there was no analysis done whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PARKER: We're dealing with the issue of Crown Lands. When we get to the issue of Development, Trade and Tourism, this House can respond to that type of questioning. But following your direction, Mr. Chairman, we're sticking with the matter at hand, which is the warrant for Crown Lands, namely $6,752,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair appreciates the minister's assistance in maintaining order and following relevant debate on schedule 2.

MR. MILLER: The minister, who is now deep in hot water and knows he's going to sink a little deeper, wants to get out of the debate. He doesn't want to talk about it. He stood in this House for ten minutes and talked about it, but as soon as the questions got tough that minister took off. He wanted to bail out.

Could the minister explain, as the minister responsible for this debacle, the public policy....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Debacle, fiasco — call it what you will, it's a mess.

Could the minister explain the public policy thinking that would allow this government to think it was a wise move to spend up to $50 million of the public's money to duplicate facilities that already exist in Prince Rupert, when the only result of spending that money would be to transfer some 40 to 50 jobs from one community to another community about 120 miles away? Would the minister care to explain and justify on the part of his government that kind of public policy foolishness?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Chairman, clearly you're prepared to allow a great deal of leeway in this House, so I'm going to reply to the aspersions cast by the member for Prince Rupert.

I'd like you to know, member, that the initiative for the Kitimat port emanated from the people of Kitimat. That's something you should get between your ears before you leave this place.

The other thing is that Prince Rupert has had an opportunity for 15 years — literally a carte blanche — to seize on all kinds of commerce from the lakehead to the west coast. Instead we've seen closures and vacancies in Prince Rupert. There's regressive leadership at the provincial level and at the municipal level in that town, and that's why we see that substantial setback in that community. Prince Rupert has had the opportunity and has dropped the ball substantially.

The community of Kitimat, however, has seen fit to expend its own funds and provide the leadership in getting the provincial government to consider a port facility. In doing so it has gone through a major project review process.

Prince Rupert runs under Ports Canada. It doesn't have to go through an environmental assessment or a major project review process. They're exempt. Whatever they do in that harbour in Prince Rupert, they are exempt from public review. They are exempt from local input. The board of that port corporation is appointed by a federal minister in Ottawa.

What Kitimat has proposed is a port authority that shows representation of the community for the betterment of the community. It's an initiative by the community They are very concerned about the wellbeing of their community and the environment they live in. As a matter of fact, they invited the native leader in that community to be part of that steering committee. They invited other native leaders to be part of it. They were part of it. They set the agenda. They set the specifications. They selected the consultants,

[ Page 12414 ]

they reviewed the interim reports and they reviewed the establishment of the prospectus. That includes the chief counsellor for the Haisla, a Mr. Amos.

They all had a hand in it, and the purpose of this provincial government, as it is in every case, is to listen to the communities. For example, the Minister of Transportation and Highways was listening to the communities on the way to Swartz Bay, as far as the highway upgrade is concerned. This government listens to the local communities when it comes to considering matters under the agricultural land reserve. It's input from local communities. Whenever there's something to be done in the forests licensing programs, every one of those steps requires public input. It's advertised and put out. This government goes to great lengths to make sure the concerns of the people in the community are heard.

Now when you do an initial study on such an enterprise as proposed by the community of Kitimat, one of the things you do is generally look for experts, and Price Waterhouse is one of those experts in this province. They did an assessment, and they said that if we were to take business from Prince Rupert, the impact would probably be some 40 jobs. Subsequent to that, when we got into the major project review process, which is something this government has put forth to make sure public concerns are heard by the proponents of any such projects, such as a port.... When we got into the public arena with this, we learned there were a number of enterprises in the interior of British Columbia, and we hadn't even got out of B.C., because we'll be serving right to the lakehead. We learned there were several enterprises in the interior of British Columbia that could fill up the capacity of that port and never touch Prince Rupert.

Prince Rupert didn't know about that. That's because Prince Rupert Port Corporation has not been doing its job. It's been sitting back taking orders instead of being out marketing a tremendous service. Prince Rupert port is a tremendous port; it's a tremendous facility. It should be marketed for the benefit of all Canada. It hasn't been done. But they can take a page out of the leadership from the municipal council in Kitimat, who set this whole port before us, this opportunity, before the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the members do not wish to be directly relevant to schedule 2, there's little that the Chair can do, but possibly there's nobody here but us chickens at the moment.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I have never heard so much garbage in my entire life. This is flimflam Social Credit, flimflam scam. They're going to burn up $40 million to $50 million of the taxpayers' money, and they are going to be subsidizing this turkey while that minister is in his grave. This is the biggest scam that we have seen in this province.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

The minister made a couple of speeches not long ago about how he represents all of these other areas.

He then proceeded to attack the Prince Rupert city council. I don't suppose he's read the letter in this document from the Social Credit candidate in Prince Rupert opposing the port in Kitimat. Has he read the letters in this document from the Kitimat village council opposing this project? Kitimat in his riding, Hartley Bay council in his riding, opposing this project.

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order. I'm hanging on to every word the members are putting into this House — pushing into this House — and in fairness, this is irrelevant to Bill 8, and I would appreciate it we could get back to relevant issues in terms of dealing with the urgent expenditures necessary to keep the government in operation.

[7:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the point of order, and I would urge the member to act accordingly.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, we're debating a supply bill, and as we have pointed out in second reading yesterday, this government had an opportunity to bring a budget before this House. They didn't take it. We had an opportunity to debate these issues. They didn't allow that to happen because of their own confusion. They're now wanting this supply bill passed, and it contains the issues I'm trying to get out. I'll pursue it further with other ministers, perhaps ministers who are a little more literate and can defend the project. I'll pursue it. But the fact is that we're looking at a major scandal. We're looking at a government that's proposing to spend millions and millions of the taxpayers' dollars to prop up that weak minister from Skeena, who is going to lose his seat whenever they get the guts to call an election.

It is a sad and sorry day when they're trying to hide this kind of a scam. They don't want to deal with it in this House, but we'll pursue it in estimates next week, Mr. Chairman. We're going to spend a lot of time. We're going to ask a lot of questions. We're going to wonder why the cabinet did certain things. We'll be bringing out the documents. But in the meantime I know that there are other issues that need to be canvassed, and there may be some questions for this minister, who also happens to be, I believe, the Minister of Lands and Parks.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to welcome the minister to his role as Minister of Lands and Parks. I notice in Bill 8 that it's not listed as part of the ministry, but separately. So I guess we have something there to do with the sequence in which documents were put together.

I notice, in going through the budget documents and trying to understand the demarcation between Lands and Parks, that it would appear the Ministry of Lands and Parks has lost one full-time employee. Perhaps I'll stand corrected, and I would be glad if that were the case.

The former Minister of Parks, who is now the Solicitor-General.... When he was the minister, Parks Plan '90 got underway. That was a process that involved, I believe, some 105 hearings around the

[ Page 12415 ]

province in the space of about six weeks. I've said on many occasions that I was pleased the process was taking place and that I thought it was a tribute to the people who worked within the Ministry of Parks at that time that they were successful in encouraging the former minister — the present Solicitor-General — to actually bring forward that program and enable the public to participate in stating its views on parks issues throughout the province.

However, I did have some concerns. One was that the process was taking place at the end of a mandate, It's a process that should take place at the beginning of a mandate, not at the end, so that the voters can have a sense of what decisions are coming out of that process. Be that as it may, a lot of people throughout the province put a great deal of energy into giving the benefit of their comments to the process during that time.

Given the amount of effort, energy and expense that went into conducting those Parks Plan '90 hearings, I want the minister to stand up and explain to the House how, in a portion of a ministry that has received virtually no increase in budgeted funding and which has lost one full-time employee, that ministry expects from both an organizational and operational point of view to deal with the administrative aspects of following up on Parks Plan '90.

Secondly, how does it plan to follow up in the area of park acquisition, given that in this budget that whole issue appears to have been put on hold? It would appear that Parks Plan '90 is in effect on hold. So would the minister stand up and explain to the House how the noble public relations exercise of Parks Plan '90 is going to take effect, given the fact that the budget speech says nothing about parks and in the budget documents there's no increase for parks, as far we can make out. How is this ministry going to fulfil its noble words about Parks Plan'90?

HON. MR. PARKER: If the member opposite actually knows anything about the Parks Plan '90 process, he knows that it has been very well received and very well responded to, and in this fiscal year we're going to have our hands full in doing the analysis of the returns and in plotting the policy and plans for future fiscal years. The fact that there isn't anything in his mind in place for parks in the current fiscal year is really not germane.

We have, as a matter of fact, in the last few weeks, acquired a park on the north end of Galiano Island — Dionisio Point, I believe, is the name of the park site, and it is a real gem and an addition to the parks inventory for the province. We'll continue through the Crown land account, actually, to seize other opportunities for park land base accumulations where necessary, in fee simple or in other tenure. Of course, whatever Crown lands are deemed, through proper process of close analysis by very capable staff...we will expand park systems even further.

As far as responding to Parks '90 is concerned, our hands will be full for the next year in determining the course of park development in the province as a result of public input. I'm really pleased that the member saw fit to pay tribute to this government and to my predecessor for again putting before the public an opportunity for input in forming government policy.

MR. CASHORE: To the minister, the minister you are referring to was your predecessor twice removed. I might just point that out. It's amazing what's happened in a short period of time. The Parks ministry went from that minister to the minister who signed the OIC allowing golf courses to be considered a form of agriculture. Now it's gone to this minister, who I think would find himself disoriented if he found himself in an old-growth forest and was told it was his job to protect it.

This minister has not answered my question. This government made Parks Plan '90 a major PR thrust. Hopefully, it was more than PR and amounted to substance. There were 106 hearings throughout the province in a matter of six weeks. Mr. Chairman, if this minister is not able to explain to this House and to the people of British Columbia what resources have been added to his infrastructure in order to follow up on Parks Plan '90, and also in the area of acquisition, if he is not able to explain how that's going to happen, then it's a tacit recognition that Parks Plan '90 has been used in the most inappropriate of ways — as simply a PR exercise. I think it is a violation not only of the fine people who work within the Ministry of Parks but also of all those people who made input into that process throughout the province. If this minister cannot answer that question, then I say shame on you, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. PARKER: Aw shucks, Mr. Chairman. The Parks '90 process is a review process, which is determined by the parks staff to be an initiative of the ministry handled by the staff for the ministry People opposite figure that every time you try to take on a task, you have to expand your FTEs by some exorbitant amount. We happen to have the in-house expertise and capability to deal with the issue of the day which he has raised in this House, Parks '90, and where we're going with it. I told you, Mr. Chairman, and I told the member opposite. The responses are being collated, and the direction is being charted. We'll do that during this fiscal year, and we'll make recommendations to future administrations on the direction that should be taken as a result of having listened to the people of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: I was hoping for a response on the land inventory that was clearer and related largely to the Parks Plan'90 hearings, Mr. Chairman. But I would like the minister to tell us if this whole consultation process that began with such activity and such intense input and broad interest is to be let go down the drain. By the time this particular interim supply ends, this Parks ministry — under different ministers, I believe — had planned to get back to the public again. Having assembled the information that they gathered in the first public hearings, they would then put that information together and get back to the public. Can the minister tell us if that is going to go ahead as it was originally planned so that the process becomes a

[ Page 12416 ]

process of continuation instead of a process of interruption?

HON. MR. PARKER: Yes.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I see that Crown Lands and Parks has been accomplished, so we can move to the next item on the warrants, which is education. I hope we will be equally as tight in our debate on education as we've been over the last few hours.

MS. A. HAGEN: I intend to oblige, Mr. Chairman, and I have a few questions to my namesake, the Minister of Education, across the way. I want to be very specific with my questions if I can, Mr. Minister, just to get some sense of priorities within your very important ministry. Last year's estimates provided $140,000 for informational advertising and publications for the ministry, and this year the ministry intends to spend just under $3 million — $2,939,800. I wonder if the minister, who has accorded 3.75 percent to the school districts of the province, could explain why his ministry needs a 2,000 percent increase in its advertising budget for the coming year.

HON. S. HAGEN: I believe that we're discussing the special warrant, and none of the expenditures that the member opposite is talking about are included in the special warrant amounts.

MS. A. HAGEN: Could I clarify then that the minister is at this stage saying that all of that $3 million for information and advertising will be spent after these warrants finish, which I know is the end of July, and that none of those expenditures will take place until after the warrants expire?

[7:30]

HON. S. HAGEN: What I am saying is that none of the amounts that you were speaking of are included in the amounts in the warrants that we're discussing this evening.

MS. A. HAGEN: I take it that the minister has answered yes, that these expenditures are later in the school year. It would be appropriate then for me to canvass those expenditures during estimates. I'm sure people would be very interested in that change.

In last year's budget, which goes to March 31, 1991, there was a specific line item under ministry operations for the costs of implementing the Royal Commission on Education. Last year the amount was $140 million. It noted in the description of that vote that this amount was to provide for second-year costs of a ten-year strategy to implement the recommendations made by the royal commission. The year before, too, there was a line item in the budget for that particular endeavour.

This year there's no specific indication at all of dollars for the Royal Commission on Education implementation. Could the minister please advise if there are specific dollars for that implementation and where we might find them in terms of his ministry and these warrants that we're dealing with?

HON. S. HAGEN: I am looking forward to discussing that issue in the estimates, because I know there are questions out there as to whether or not that commitment is in the budget for this year. However, I am unable to discuss that tonight because none of the amount is included in the amounts in the warrants. I want you to know that I am looking forward to that discussion in my estimates so I can answer the questions that have been asked.

MS. A. HAGEN: The people in the school districts of the province are looking forward, as well, to some information from this ministry It's quite interesting to me that this is one opportunity the minister has to give some information to those districts about whether there is some support from his ministry for the royal commission, and it's an assurance that he's not prepared to give tonight.

I would presume there is some money for dual entry in these warrants, although the program is now cancelled by the minister. It still involves quite a number of children in the district. Could the minister please advise what amount of money is in his budget for dual entry and what remains of it?

MRS. McCARTHY: I'm really rising on a point of information. I see we have television technician coverage in the House tonight. I understand it is not being broadcast. I would like to have the information from you on whether or not it is being broadcast. If it is, of course, it is quite suitable to have the staff here. However, we are all very concerned about savings in government administration, and I would really like to suggest that we have Hansard, and if we are not being broadcast to the people of British Columbia, then perhaps it would be a good idea if the television technicians would be able to leave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I believe that this is a matter that should be directed to the Speaker's office directly, since I do not have the information on the particular question you've asked.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if we are not being broadcast from this assembly at this time, and given the importance of the estimates that are being debated and so on here this evening, perhaps it would be in order to invite in the cameras that are out in the hallways waiting to do scrums, and let them record what's going on and record who is involved in the debate that's happening. If in fact the television cameras that were put here for that purpose are not being used for that purpose and are not able to convey these proceedings to the people of British Columbia, as had been their expectation, I would ask that the Chair consider inviting in BCTV and CBC and CKVU to record these very important proceedings, so that all British Columbians can know what's going on.

[ Page 12417 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, hon. members, I would advise you that we are strictly dealing with bills here. As I said earlier, this is a matter to be dealt with with the Speaker's office. I would advise you to seek advice from the Speaker's office at this point in time.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure all members would agree. We know the cost of these cameras is about $800 an hour, and it seems rather strange to have them running after 7 o'clock when we lost our satellite time. I would ask you maybe to ask the acting Speaker.... I'm sure all sides would agree. We're talking here about money and saving the taxpayers' money. We do have a regular Hansard that will record what we're saying tonight. It does seem rather strange to have these five cameras operating at $800 an hour when nobody is seeing it except the people in this room. I would ask you if the acting Speaker.... This House is still run by the members, and if the members of this House feel — and we would like to hear from the House Leader on the other side — that it's costing too much, certainly the acting Speaker has the power to advise the cameras that they should shut down. We'll use the regular Hansard for the rest of the evening.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I get up reluctantly, because like the previous three members I'm out of order. The matter is not for the committee to discuss; it would be for the Speaker and the House.

However, I must say that before the earlier session began there was an agreement that the debate in this Legislature would be recorded on film as well as broadcast. There are two issues involved here. One is the broadcasting, and it's picked up by some cable stations and not by others. At the moment none of them are picking it up. But the agreement was not simply a question of broadcasting out to the community. It was also a question of capturing what happens in this House on videotape as well as on audio tape and in print. Therefore when the Speaker, who doesn't know what goes on in committee, might hear of this little discussion, he may want to consider that issue as well when he makes his decision about what to do for the rest of this discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If any member wishes to contact the Speaker's office privately, he or she is welcome to do so. I would suggest that we get on with the committee's business.

HON. S. HAGEN: I am pleased now to respond to the member for New Westminster's question — my namesake's question. The answer is indeed that the amount allocated for dual entry for the January kindergarten students this year is included as part of the amount in the special warrant. This was debated in the estimates for 1991.

MS. A. HAGEN: I have one more question to the minister, which is my penultimate question. Then I will have the ultimate question.

It's quite clear that we shouldn't have had any warrants for this minister and this ministry, given the fact that he is saying nothing is in this particular amount of $621,934,000.

Mr. Minister, the budget of your deputy minister's office will double in the coming year. Given the responses you've given me, I'm not quite sure when that is going to happen or if it has already begun to happen. However, there are going to be significant decreases in the full-time equivalents in your ministry. I would like to ask you to comment on the fact that in spite of those decreases, there is an increase of 26.9 percent in professional services for your ministry. Can you confirm that you have decided to contract out almost 10 percent of the jobs in the ministry — starting whenever?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I cannot.

MS. A. HAGEN: I take it that the minister is not saying that that may not be so, but that he is not able to confirm my question tonight.

Given that the minister will not acknowledge that there is any funding for the royal commission — it was $140 million last year — and given that school districts across the province are looking at budgets that have increases of 1 percent, 2 percent and 3 percent over the last year in spite of very much increased costs, can the minister therefore explain why in this special warrant he happens to need one-sixth of his budget?

It would seem to me that if his budget is going to start — as his answers to my questions seem to indicate — in September, he doesn't need all of the money that's allotted in these special warrants today. Perhaps he could tell us what is in those warrants that requires him to have one-sixth of the budget in the two months of warrants at this particular time. That might be my ultimate question, depending on the minister's response.

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Chairman, Id like a clarification as to whether it is her penultimate question or her ultimate question.

MS. A. HAGEN: I hope it's the ultimate question, but I do reserve the right to ask one more. It might be penultimate, depending on the minister's answer.

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to indicate exactly what is in the special warrant. The largest amount of the $621.9 million is $546.8 million, which is for contributions and grants to schools for the April and May portion of the 1990-91 school year. That amount was debated in last year's estimates. The second-largest amount is for contributions and grants for debt servicing for that same period, and it's $33.6 million. The third-largest amount is for contributions and grants to independent schools for the same period as the other two, and it totals $17.6 million. The rest, which I think is about $18 million or $19 million, is for one-sixth of the '91-92 base request, which I will be dealing with in my estimates, to cover: the minister's office; the deputy minister's office; policy, standards and communication; finance and administration; inde-

[ Page 12418 ]

pendent, national and international systems; and educational programs.

[7:45]

MS. A. HAGEN: That was my penultimate question, and this is one more: could I ask the minister why the cost of his deputy minister's office is doubling in the coming year?

HON. S. HAGEN: I would be pleased to answer that question. The reason is that the communications branch has been moved into the deputy minister's office.

MS. A. HAGEN: And what is the cost of that particular portion of the deputy minister's operation?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'm prepared to provide the amount included in the special warrant, because that's what we're talking about tonight. That amount is $230,000.

MS. EDWARDS: I understood that we were going at this seriatim, and I know that the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is next on our list in the schedule. Therefore I am hoping that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and perhaps some assistants from his ministry will be here so that I can ask my most succinct and direct questions. I would hate to have to go into a long-winded and somewhat useless waste of time at this time of the evening — or we could move to another ministry, if that's agreed.

I'm not sure whether some staff are going to join the minister or not, but I do have some questions. I'll start with one that the minister may have reviewed recently, and we'll see if he has some answers on it. I would like the minister to answer me on the question of power- and gas-line extension projects. I questioned him in the House the other day, but I want to clarify it right now. Is there any part of this amount in the interim supply bill that will go toward the power- and gas-line extension projects?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The money in this bill will be contributions toward gas extension programs on Vancouver Island only.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if I could clarify this with the minister. As I understand it, the power- and gas-line extension projects are for areas that the gas companies themselves cannot afford by the requests given to them; that is, the consumers cannot afford the gas line. That really is the basis for the program. That is not the basis, as I understand it, for any of the gas installations on Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There is a major program, as the member must surely be aware, of several hundred million dollars to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island, to bring it to the Sunshine Coast, to bring it to Powell River, to bring it to Courtenay, Campbell River, Nanaimo, Victoria and communities in between.

And there are, I'm sure, rural programs as well. The kinds of extensions that the member is talking about — that have been funded under the gas and power extension program — are not funded through this funding this year for Vancouver Island. There is no funding in the ministry's budget this year for the gas and power extension, if that is what the question was.

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could clarify for me whether the ministry is putting the same kind of money into gas connections on Vancouver Island that it did put last year into the gas-line extension program.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I suspect that the amount of money involved in bringing natural gas to Vancouver Island is considerably more than the $4 million that was spent last year in the interior, and particularly the northern part of British Columbia, with gas-line extensions.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure the minister understood my question, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to clarify, in case what he said is not quite what he meant. Under the power- and gas-line extension project, the government provides a subsidy to the consumer and the gas company for lines that are not economic. I have asked the minister if that's the kind of funding that is going into the installations on Vancouver Island, and he says there is more going into Vancouver Island than into the interior. I'm curious to know whether it's the same sort of program, and whether in fact natural gas users on Vancouver Island are getting the same subsidy that the people under the gas-line extension program got in the interior last year.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The program on Vancouver Island, first of all, provides hookups for major industrial customers to get them off of crude oil and other less friendly products and onto natural gas. It also provides assistance for home hookups as well.

MS. EDWARDS: Is the subsidy for residential customers on Vancouver Island the same as it would be under the gas-line extension project that was in place in the interior during last year?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Chairman, the amount available for hookup on the Island is about $750. The member will know that there are both programs that have been funded and programs that are proposed in the interior that run anywhere from a couple of hundred dollars per hookup to several thousand dollars per hookup. So a wide range of programs have been proposed by various utility companies for hookups in the interior. The one on Vancouver Island tends to be more of a flat rate to make the hookups more economic.

MS. EDWARDS: Are the criteria for getting a subsidy from the government for a gas-line hookup the same for customers on Vancouver Island as they are for

[ Page 12419 ]

the people who get a subsidy, or did last year, under the gas-line extension project?

Mr. Chairman, I need the answer to know whether the criteria for awarding the subsidy are the same for the people who are hooking up on Vancouver Island as they are for the people who got assistance from this government in the interior and the north of British Columbia last year when the gas-line extension project program was in place.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: On Vancouver Island the $750 is a contribution toward furnace conversion and for bringing the natural gas from the street into the house itself. In many areas in the interior there is a required subsidy for the line that would feed a group of customers. The people in the interior themselves are responsible for bringing the gas from the street or the road or the main line into the home and for the conversion costs. So there are different criteria.

In many cases the people in the interior get a substantially larger contribution. But there are different criteria with this program than the other program.

MS. EDWARDS: Yes, they may well get a larger subsidy, because the whole basis for the program is totally different, as I understand it. If it's not totally different, I would like the minister to respond, because the program that we're talking about, the gas-line extension program, is for people who could not economically afford the installation of gas at all.

On Vancouver Island I assumed it was supposed to be, since it was a private company thing as we were told, such a marvellous benefit. I would like the minister to clarify whether he's giving the same sort of assistance to all of the residences, the businesses and the industry hooking up for natural gas on Vancouver Island on the same basis as it was given out under the gas-line extension projects last year, the one year that it was in effect, in the interior and northern British Columbia.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No, hon. member, there are two separate and distinct programs: one for the extension of rural, natural gas and natural gas extension lines in the interior. It's based on the need as identified by the utility company. As I said before, it can be as high as $3,000 or $4,000 per customer,

The program on Vancouver Island is different. It is a contribution toward the cost of bringing natural gas from the street into the home and for the cost of conversion. So they are two separate and distinct programs with different kinds of parameters and different qualifications.

MS. EDWARDS: In fact, what the minister is saying is that the people on Vancouver Island are getting a lot of money out of this bit of the budget. But the people in the interior and in the north are getting nothing.

I'm just somewhat curious too about him saying that the people in the interior last year got up to $2,000 or $3,000. If the figures that I've seen are anywhere near accurate for the applications for this year — of course, that won't be able to take place because there's nothing in the budget — there weren't very many of them anywhere near that amount.

However, let me ask the minister, because he told me the other day that the ministry is looking at ways to work with the Utilities Commission and the gas companies to offer the program again — in other words, to offer gas-lines, to give some subsidies so that gas can go into areas where it is otherwise uneconomic, or it's uneconomic for the company itself to put it in or for the prospective consumers to pay for it....

I would like to know if any of this particular budget is going toward looking at ways, and if the ministry is looking at ways, what are those ways, and what's the time-frame on that?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: First of all, let's be clear that the contributions for the rural customers last year were larger than those being offered to people connecting on Vancouver Island.

What you didn't mention when you repeated the answer that I gave you the other day in question period was that I said I was working with the Utilities Commission, the gas utilities and the Minister of Finance to identify some ways that we could again offer extension programs into the interior and northern parts of British Columbia. That is a true statement. It's something that I haven't as yet resolved. It's something that we're having discussions on. I can't tell you how we're going to be able to resolve it, but I can tell you that every day I get ten questions from my own members on this issue. It's an issue that's near and dear to the hearts of the people in the interior and in the north, in my own constituency and in the North Peace River constituency. We're seriously looking at ways that we can hook up more, if not all, of the people in British Columbia who don't have natural gas now.

[8:00]

MS. EDWARDS: I'm pleased to hear the minister's under such pressure. I trust that it would have been a better idea to put in some money and put this program into the budget rather than drop it.

Anyway, let's move on to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline and ask some questions more specific to that. I wonder if the minister could tell me how much of this special warrant will go toward facilitating the construction of the natural gas pipeline.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: We anticipate that between April 1 and July 31 we will be disbursing about $15 million. Most of that will be designed for the industrial hookup program.

MS. EDWARDS: Is this allocation on budget or more than had been originally budgeted?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Hon, member, it's in the special account on page 102 of the budget — the Vancouver Island gas pipeline assistance account. The $15 million is part of that account. I can't tell you pro rata whether we're going to be spending 25 percent or 30 percent of our anticipated amount. We anticipate $15 million in disbursements in that period of time.

[ Page 12420 ]

MS. EDWARDS: I wonder if the minister could tell me how much of the money voted in this bill will go toward the rate stabilization fund.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: None, Mr. Chairman.

MS. EDWARDS: Is that because it's too early, or...?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The fact of the matter is that while we and the people of Vancouver Island and the industry on Vancouver Island are anxiously awaiting natural gas service, in fact it hasn't started to flow yet, so there's no way there would be a call on the rate stabilization fund.

MS. EDWARDS: I just know that there is an amount in the budget that is to go towards rate stabilization, and my question was whether any of it will go out of this warrant. I gather that what you say is no, not that part.

The estimates note that the pipeline is administered under this budget — that the pipeline budget is here under energy resources. How much of this allocation is for administration of the natural gas pipeline, and could you tell me what functions are performed as part of that administration?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: There are no specially allocated funds for administration. The ministry, out of existing and ongoing.... There are no staff specifically assigned to the administration of the program.

MS. EDWARDS: Is one of the functions that the ministry carries out consulting with local communities about where the gas line goes through those communities? I mean the corporations of the municipalities, and perhaps even consulting with communities that are not incorporated. There's some indication that there's some dissatisfaction with where it's gone at the consultation level with local communities.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The utility companies themselves take the lead in putting on those public meetings — organizing them and the costs directly associated with them. We quite often have staff members who attend the meetings, but again, they are staff who as part of their normal responsibilities take on this responsibility.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the ministry take part in those consultations? You said that the utilities sort of direct them. Is the ministry there? Do they have people there?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The ministry at times has staff there when we feel it's appropriate. For the most part, I'm led to believe, it's the utility which organizes the meetings, pays all the costs and facilitates the meetings.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the gas pipeline, given the budget for the construction of the pipeline, do I understand that the minister said that there is at this point no overrun in the budget in terms of the cost of the pipeline? Would the minister respond to that?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Chairman, I have not said, nor have I been asked.

MR. CASHORE: That's my question, Mr. Chairman. Given the budget, how much over budget is the construction at this point?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It would appear that at this point the project is about $70 million over budget. The budget was $275 million; the costs at the moment appear to be forecast at $345 million.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate that answer. I believe that's the first time I've heard that figure of $70 million stated publicly.

I'd like to ask the minister if he could advise the House with regard to the watershed section of the pipeline. Given the special concerns over maintaining quality and care for the protection of the watershed, were there greater than anticipated costs in constructing that section? I realize it's not completed, but....

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: One of the reasons it's probably the first time you've heard the number is that it's the first time anybody's asked. With regard to the question of expenditures as a result of the concerns raised about the watershed, it has contributed substantially to the additional cost in a couple of ways. First of all, there was mitigation that was undertaken as a result of the recommendations that were made; but most significantly the delays put the construction off sync, if you like. First of all, it put in into a time of year when it's wet and construction costs are considerably higher. It also occurred that at the time the bids were originally let, there was very little activity in the pipeline business. The delays that were caused by the concerns over the watershed brought the project into a time when more pipeline activity was coming on stream, and bids were not nearly as attractive at that later time. So the good mayors contributed a lot to that $70 million.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, we've been discussing the fact that there's a $70 million overrun at this point in time. Therefore my next question is: what is the projected overrun for the time of the completion of the project?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: It's unfortunate that members ask the question, then duck over to consult rather than listen to the answer. I suggested that the projected total cost of the project would be $345 million. The projected overrun is $70 million.

MR. CASHORE: I appreciate the correction. We've been discussing the factors contributing to the overrun resulting from the special conditions in the watershed. I understand that special conditions have also been encountered in crossing the strait. As a matter of fact, I believe that the problems are such that it could still go

[ Page 12421 ]

higher. I wonder if the minister would advise the House as to the state of the crossing through the strait and if those problems, which I think are fairly well-known, have been resolved.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The member should know that the crossing is now complete. The additional costs appear to have been in the area of about $20 million. So about $20 million of the $70 million overrun was a result of difficulties in the crossing.

MR. CASHORE: My last question. I understand that as the pipeline winds its way north and south on the Island, some concerns are being encountered with regard to stream crossings, especially salmon-bearing streams, and that's another area where costs are going to be higher than had been anticipated. Could the minister advise the House if that is correct?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I expect that it is. Again, I think that the delays resulting from the actions of some municipalities in the greater Vancouver area delayed the time schedule as such, and perhaps some of the crossings are at a less appropriate time than might have originally been envisioned.

I think it's important also to understand that one of the reasons — and there are many, as you can imagine — for the additional cost has been the enthusiasm with which the natural gas system has been received on the Island. Upgradings of pipe size and dimension in many locations have added considerably to the costs as well.

MR. CASHORE: I promise this is my last question. Given the $70 million overrun, what impact will that have on the economics of this project which have been....

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's going to cost more.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to thank that member for the help. What's it going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia in terms of the economics of this project?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The long-range effect will be on the cost to consumers of natural gas. First of all, the overruns are being reviewed to ensure that the costs were all appropriate, and those costs that are found to be reasonable will then become part of the calculation. Then there is another calculation by the utility and the Utilities Commission as to whether or not those allowed overruns become part of the capital or part of the debt as the Utilities Commission do their calculations. The result, regardless, will be that there is a rise in the need for the rate stabilization account, and rates will stay higher over a period of time as that account is retired.

The result will be that natural gas will be more expensive over a relatively short period of time on the Island. I think, though, that all members surely realize that the benefits of this program are so significant that these overruns, while serious, shouldn't be considered to have been something that would have made the project not go ahead.

MS. EDWARDS: The minister must know that there is a limited amount of impact on the consumers for this, but that there is an unlimited amount of impact that can come to the taxpayers of this province. So my question to you as minister is: what do you now consider will be the impact on the rate stabilization fund? What is the ultimate amount that the province is going to be stuck for this particular fund, which the Utilities Commission said put the province at unusually high risk?

[8:15]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The result is that there will be a rate increase. But as I mentioned before — and I know it's a bit complex — the $70 million additional cost will be analyzed by an independent group to find out how much of it goes into the rate base, whether it goes into the rate base as equity or debt, and those calculations will all determine how high the rates will be. Consumers should know that rates will be capped at 85 percent of the cost of fuel oil. So there will be significant environmental benefits, and there will be reduced cost for natural gas on Vancouver Island. But those costs for natural gas probably will be higher than in other parts of British Columbia until this whole rate stabilization thing has worked its way through. I think it's a fair system and a reasonable way to approach a rather difficult problem.

MS. EDWARDS: Because the rates are capped at 85 percent of the oil price, the rate stabilization fund could have a significant impact. My question, which I repeat to the minister, is: what does the minister see as the impact on the rate stabilization fund?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: The rates will be capped at 85 percent of the oil. Until we know the total costs, until those costs have been confirmed and examined and until we know how much is acceptable and how much can be calculated into the rate base, I can't answer your question. It undoubtedly will be higher than was anticipated, obviously.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister anticipate that the rate stabilization fund — the liability that the province has to that — will be as high as the highest estimate of the Utilities Commission?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: No.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister anticipate it might be at about the middle level of the Utilities Commission's projection?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Well, by the time we get finished with this we may know, because the pipeline will probably be finished and the costs will have all been calculated.

[ Page 12422 ]

MR. CLARK: I knew that we'd get some news if we stayed long enough. That $70 million overrun was so large that I thought I'd test the House and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I would just like to read standing order 44:

"If Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House shall be of the opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate or of the House during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair or he may decline to propose the question to the House."

I would suggest that I decline the question to be put to the House.

MR. CLARK: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, there are four members of the executive council here. We have much to debate, and we have not had an adjournment motion for some time. It's quarter after eight in the evening, well beyond the normal time of passage. It seems to me that we should test the chamber to see whether we have members here to debate these questions that go on beyond this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this is not a point of order. There is a quorum in the House at the present time.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to welcome the Minister of Environment to his first time of being involved in estimates. Whether this is chapter one to be continued next week remains to be seen.

It's been difficult to track what's going on in the Ministry of the Environment since we've had six ministers in, this portfolio during the life of this government. One thing that's been very difficult to track is what was announced a little over a year ago as a flagship process, which I took to be the answer to the federal government's Green Plan. It was Vision 2001.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There's no mention of it in the budget. I understand that people in the Ministry of the Environment have been working on this program. Indeed the previous Minister of Environment, the first member for Okanagan South, was interviewed in March, and he was quoted as stating that Vision 2001 was still on track, that the people in the ministry were still working on it and that it would still be forthcoming.

As there was no mention of it in the budget or in the throne speech, although there was a great deal of fanfare at the time that it was first announced, I'd like this minister to please update the House with regard to Vision 2001.

HON. MR. MERCIER: The program has virtually been completed except for having the document printed. So we are just working on the summarizations. Within the next little while we should be able to print the document that you are referring to that outlines the visionary program for the future.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, would the minister agree that Vision 2001 is the same genre as the federal Green Plan — a provincial plan but of the same concept?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The way that I wanted to finish it off, even though I've just been in the position for a short time, was to have a particular B.C. flavour to it and to use it as a way to establish benchmarks. The environmental process, as you're well aware, is speeding along at quite a rapid pace. We wouldn't want to have a document that would be obsolete the day it was printed, so the treatment we're giving it probably fits within the federal plan. But it will be a benchmark at a point in time and show the indication of the trends and where we intend to go.

MR. CASHORE: I think that the answer to my question was yes. If we think of the federal Green Plan and of Vision 2001, these two plans — one at the federal level and one at the provincial level — spell out the vision of the government with regard to how it's going to approach the pressing environmental concerns. From what the minister has said, I would take it that he was agreeing with that. In other words, he agreed that having a provincial stamp on Vision 2001 is B.C.'s version of the Green Plan.

The Green Plan has a cost factor attached to it of several million dollars. I have not found within the budget any reference to the cost factors relating to Vision 2001. Therefore, if this plan is anything beyond cosmetics, would the minister please explain where the money is that has been budgeted to go into carrying out this plan?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I would like to supply you with exact numbers at some future point in time. I can guarantee you that we're going to finish it off more efficiently and at considerably less cost than the federal government ever would.

MR. CASHORE: Is it correct that there is no mention of Vision 2001 and its costs in the budget or in the documents supporting the budget?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the point is that the costs are in the budget. They have not been segregated into a title, which is what you are probably looking for. In other words, the staff time and so on put into it would obviously be reflected in last year's budget, and since the project is in the final stages, there won't be a large cost item in this year's projections. We're dealing tonight with the spending in the first quarter, in effect.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question now about an initiative that was taken by the former Minister of Environment. He agreed, under considerable pressure, to put a freeze on bulk water licences being applied for. He agreed to hold a review,

[ Page 12423 ]

which is being conducted by Mr. Jim Carter. It's my understanding that the review should be going to cabinet in June, which is upon us. I would like to ask the minister to update us with regard to the progress of the timetable for that study.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I had a meeting just a few days ago with Mr. Carter, and we're trying to determine whether or not he can finish the work he's doing within the time-limit set. It's my wish that he finish it and report out. So the answer to your question should be there fairly soon.

MR. CASHORE: Could the minister advise the House whether or not this review, within its terms of reference, provides for public hearings to enable the people of British Columbia to make their concerns known in a public way with regard to the issue of bulk water exports?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I would have to check the terms of reference. The member might wish to have public hearings. I'm not sure that the terms of reference require that for determining the matters that have to be determined under that issue.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would undertake to determine that. We don't have people from his ministry present to be able to update him on that. It's my understanding that that is not within the terms of reference. Given the potential environmental impacts that can be involved in bulk water exports, with regard to water being taken out of a resource, the installations that are required to enable bulk tanker traffic to come into pristine inlets and the momentous the trade aspect, what is the minister's opinion regarding the appropriateness or inappropriateness — whatever the case may be — of public hearings? Does he think it's appropriate to hold public hearings with regard to the environmental aspects and the trade aspects of bulk water exports?

HON. MR. MERCIER: That's a policy matter that will be considered in the near future, and I'll take your comments under consideration.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister advise the House with regard to the amount of money that has been budgeted for this review?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I will endeavour to do so.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, the minister explained earlier this week that his ministry is currently reviewing the Water Act. He recognized in the House that changes are being proposed that will allow many users of water to undertake projects without any public notice or inspection by the ministry. I'm not saying that that will happen in every case, but I'm saying that the changes that are being proposed enable that to happen. In other words, given the discussion document that is being used by the ministry, the checks and balances would be removed. How much will this review and redrafting of the act and regulations cost the ministry?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I don't recall saying anything specific about the Water Act; I do recall talking about the regulations that were under review. The impact of that won't be known until the review is finished.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister advise the House how much is budgeted for public input into these changes before they are brought forward for final approval?

[8:30]

HON. MR. MERCIER: I will in due course.

MR. CASHORE: How much will be cut from the minister's budget due to the fact that staff will no longer be needed to visit and review some of these projects prior to approval?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I think the member is referring to a policy change that is not a fact at this time, so that question will have to wait until those decisions are made.

MR. CASHORE: Getting on to soils now, the environmental protection budget has been increased from $14.9 million to $23.9 million. The description of the use of this in the budget documents includes "funds provided for costs related to soil remediation projects," and I would assume that this refers to Expo. How much of the environmental protection budget is dedicated to soil remediation at the Expo site?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The number that I've been advised is applicable is in the neighbourhood of $11.9 million for this coming fiscal year — not the period under review at tonight's session, which is only the first quarter.

MR. CASHORE: Could the minister advise the House if this amount represents a significant increase, an amount remaining static or a decrease from the amount allocated for the same period last year?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The amount the member is referring to.... The budget last year was underspent, and some of that provision is carried forward to this year. The amount shown for this year is not in addition to the total amount shown last year. A large part is carried forward.

MR. CASHORE: Would the minister kindly advise the House what the projected cost of the soil remediation will be in total, given that he's obviously looking at this as something that's going to be taking place over a period of years? What is the actual projected cost of soil remediation for the Expo soils? When the study was first done following the soil-classification process back in 1989, I think it was, the estimates ranged between

[ Page 12424 ]

$20 million and over $500 million. What is the ministry's projection with regard to the total cost?

HON. MR. MERCIER: That question really is not applicable to the subject of the debate here tonight. We're discussing the preliminary provisions for the first quarter of this year, approximately. Secondly, that question also applies to future policy, which will to a large extent depend on the research that's being conducted at the site during this year.

MR. CASHORE: If this House should be about anything, it should be about making sense of what's going on. It is relevant to ask that question, to be able to make sense of the amount that's being applied to this year. The minister is being asked an appropriate question. He says it's future policy. It should be past policy to have reviewed this situation and have a figure in place. Otherwise it's a tacit admission on the part of the minister that this work has not been done, that it is yet to be done; and if it is yet to be done this means that the cost of Expo cleanup, given the bad deal with Concord Pacific, could be a great deal more than has been stated to the taxpayers so far.

How much is the cost of that total project to which this year's portion of the budget is going?

HON. MR. MERCIER: All the foregoing could be the remarks of an incompetent critic, because to ask questions on the item a critic should also have researched the magnitude of the project and would know from the documents that have been publicly available what those ballpark figures were. My position is that in tonight's debate we're talking about the first quarter's spending, in which we included the mention of the $11.9 million provided for the spending in the current fiscal year. In that money are funds for the research necessary to provide the estimates that the member refers to. I said that before, and that's the answer to the question. I'm sorry he didn't understand it.

MR. CASHORE: I would point out to the minister that it is he who has raised the issue of competency with regard to this debate. I had decided to be generous with him and not raise that issue; but I would point out to him that if he is going to raise that issue, I think the record of this debate will certainly indicate where the competency lies as far as this debate is concerned.

MS. CULL: Last year the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was funded to the tune of about $3.7 million. Could you tell us what the budget is for this year?

HON. MR. MERCIER: As the member knows, my staff are not present with me tonight. I don't have that figure immediately at hand, but I can get it for you.

MS. CULL: Last year, as I said, $3.7 million was allocated to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, and to date we've seen very little of that. Can the minister advise us what major projects the corporation is working on this year? Are they in fact working on the plan that the former Minister of Environment promised us ten or 11 months ago?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member should be aware that depot sites are being operated in the major urban areas of this province for the collection of hazardous wastes. The program for collecting hazardous waste in non-urban areas is ready to be launched and should be within the coming couple of months. I think that answers the question.

MS. CULL: I am aware that some of the depots have in fact started to open. The Victoria depot is open this Sunday and Monday, and I called them to confirm that. I also asked them whether they had done any advertising to let the public know about this, so that it wouldn't just be people like myself calling because they're aware of it. They said they haven't advertised, because if they advertise, they might get too many people bringing in their hazardous products. The person on the phone told me I was one of the lucky elite who happened to know about this service and therefore could dispose of my products.

If that's all that this Hazardous Waste Management Corporation has to show for $3.7 million and almost 12 months of operation.... I remind the minister that the act that created the corporation has a sunset clause of five years. So it spent one year opening a depot which can't advertise because it doesn't have the capacity to receive the kind of material that we get here in Victoria.

The minister promised us, a plan. Can the minister advise us whether there is going to be a plan presented to the public on the management of hazardous waste before these pieces of the plan are put into effect in a piecemeal fashion, as appears to be happening right now?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I actually found the number you were looking for earlier. The estimate is $4 million, and that would have allowed for the expansion of the pickup program. Considerable planning goes into such a program, so if the costs were greater than expected, it is because no one had done it before. The matter of the forward plan is on the top of my priority list of things to do.

MS. CULL: Now that the minister has found the figures on it, could he advise us what portion of that $4 million is for opening the depots?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I'll check with my staff and get the information for those details.

MS. CULL: I'd just like to remind the new Minister of Environment that the former Minister of Environment, who introduced this, promised the people of this province that the total plan for the management of hazardous waste would be put before them before pieces started to be implemented — and we're still waiting, almost a year later.

[ Page 12425 ]

I'd like to switch, though, to another initiative of the government, one of the few new initiatives brought out in the throne speech, and that's the Georgia basin initiative. Could the minister tell us how much has been allocated in this budget for the Georgia basin initiative?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I do not have the number available at the moment.

MS. CULL: The last time I asked a question about costs, a few minutes went by and the figures were found. Does the minister have any information on what this initiative is going to cost? What is budgeted for it? If we are dealing with one-third of the budget tonight, surely there must be some portion of that allocated to start this significant new initiative.

HON. MR. MERCIER: The member is probably aware that in environmental matters such as this, developing an initiative is basically an involvement of staff time. The staff time will be taken from the resources in the budget. The program will involve mapping and allocating priorities to projects in the region that we discussed. That information will be forthcoming within the next few weeks.

MS. CULL: One final question to the minister. Given that the current ministry staff is already burdened with trying to carry on the many activities that this important ministry has, can the minister advise us if additional FTEs are going to be allocated to the Georgia basin? Will there be new hiring? How is it going to be carried out by a staff that barely has the time to carry on the duties that they now have, without taking on new duties?

HON. MR. MERCIER: I can't speak for the operations before I became minister, but I can tell you that we're going to be doing it through cost savings and efficiency and hard work.

MS. EDWARDS: The ministry's budget for regional operations enforcement has increased by $2,000 this year, Mr. Chairman, but there are supposed to be 14 new FTEs in the ministry. Could the minister tell us how many of this new staff will be assigned to regional enforcement and management duties?

HON. MR. MERCIER: That's in the detailed information that I'll have to obtain from my staff when they are available.

MS. EDWARDS: Does the minister happen to know how many of those might be conservation officers?

HON. MR. MERCIER: That's another question that's in the details that I'll obtain from the staff.

[8:45]

MS. EDWARDS: Is the minister able to tell any of us in the regions, as we're called, what's going to happen? If we've only got a $2, 000 increase, and if in fact there is some staff assigned — as we have some expectation that there would be — is there going to be a cut in programs?

HON. MR. MERCIER: Which particular staff was the question about?

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Minister, regional operations and enforcement.

HON. MR. MERCIER: Are you specifically talking about conservation officers? I didn't hear that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member like to repeat her question?

MS. EDWARDS: I asked the minister about regional operations and enforcement in general. I then asked him if he would speak specifically about conservation officers. My question now is: would he try and relate those two things and try and give me some information on programs?

HON. MR. MERCIER: There are 1,273 FTEs in the ministry. I've been in the position now for five weeks, and if you would be more specific in your question, I might even surprise you with the answer. But if you're talking generally, the number of conservation officers will be approximately the same as the previous year. But for the specifics in your particular region, I would defer to an answer from the staff so that you'd have the precise answer.

MS. EDWARDS: Is the minister going to give the promised conservation officers to the regions?

HON. MR. MERCIER: The question that I heard is: is the minister going to give the promise of conservation officers to the regions? What was the promised number, and I'll tell you.

MS. MARZARI: We're moving to the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services. I would like to address myself to the minister on the aspect of this schedule designated to women. It's not broken down by vote or by number, and I would like the minister to explain how much of the money that's going forward in schedule 2 is actually being allocated to women's services.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The part of this particular bill to the Ministry of Women's Programs will be approximately $500,000. There is also $2 million for child care, and I think that the full amount for the violence program is also included.

MS. MARZARI: The violence program has become a point of contention, since $4 million was promised in the budget speech and nowhere in anyone's budget — Attorney-General, Solicitor-General or the Women's Programs ministry — can I see a total amount of $4 million with a designation to programs for violence

[ Page 12426 ]

against women. Could the minister show me where in the budget I can find that?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The $4 million is included in the Women's Programs budget.

MS. MARZARI: I think that I'd better pursue this when we get to our estimates, Madam Minister, because what has happened here is that child care services amounting to $12.1 million have landed in your ministry and have supplemented your ministerial budget to $18, 998,534, bringing it up from last year's $2 million figure. So you're telling me that the total of $4 million plus the $12.1 million coming up to $16 million is the bulk of the estimate that's coming down in your ministry?

HON. MRS. GRAN: That's just for Women's Programs.

MS. MARZARI: Well, that solves something of a problem.

Of course, the business of dealing with violence against women is an important one, and we've discussed it and canvassed it before this evening. I think it's important to ask the question of the minister.

Yesterday all the members of the House were invited to view a film called "One Hit Leads to Another." The minister came to that showing of the film. Everyone who came was very impressed by the 14-minute film developed and produced by the Victoria Women's Transition House. It's a very important film that I believe everyone in the House should see. Would the minister be good enough to contribute further to the Victoria Women's Transition House by contracting for 69 additional copies, so that all members of this House may have one in their possession to take to their constituencies?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey for bringing to the floor the subject of violence in that film. The film was paid for by two ministries in government: primarily, I think, the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General. Women's Programs have obtained and paid for 200 copies of the film and will be sending it out. I think that many of them have been sent out already to different women's groups.

I agree wholeheartedly with the member that it would be a good idea for all constituency offices on both sides of the House. So we agree to undertake to do that and have them sent out.

MS. MARZARI: Moving to the child care budget itself and the fact that $2 million of the allotment in this schedule is going to be moved into child care, can this side of the House know what exactly the government has in mind for child care? It's interesting to note that Social Services and Housing has traditionally held the child care budget, and that the women's ministry should now take over $12 million for supplementation of subsidy levels to parents. It would seem from an infrastructure point of view that it's logical to keep this in Social Services and Housing. Is the women's ministry moving towards taking over the whole function of child care?

HON. MRS. GRAN: It might be a good idea for me to expand a bit on the child care issue, because I think it is a little confusing. The child care task force put out several recommendations. One of those recommendations was that one ministry take a lead role, especially for the next few years, so that we have one-stop shopping for people, and that the ministry then be charged with looking at all of the existing regulations, all of the subsidy rates and everything. That is why the money that our government announced as additional to the subsidies is currently in the Ministry of Social Services budget. That money will include — and it will be announced in the next few weeks — extra money for subsidies that will then go to the Ministry of Social Services. The recommendations will be made by a team of people put together in government, which was another recommendation of the task force. We have a team of people from every ministry who are looking at all of the recommendations of that task force and will be reporting back to my ministry. Those recommendations will then go to cabinet. That money includes a lot of different things, including some capital funding for communities to put child care in place and to get more spaces.

MS. MARZARI: Does it include, as well, regional coordinators for women's programs throughout the province, Madam Minister, as is suggested in the community development program advertised in three stages throughout the regions of the province?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The budget in Women's Programs breaks down approximately this way: $2.5 million for administration and grants, $4 million for family violence and $12 million for child care. The regional coordinators fall within the $2.5 million, not the child care budget.

MS. MARZARI: There are two more questions on women. I'm going to ask one, and my colleague will ask the other on pensions.

Dealing with women simply as victims is not good enough. We've got to deal with women and income security, and the Ministry of Women's Programs has to take a careful look at some of the programs that it is developing for income security.

Most notably, I'm thinking through the pay equity program announced last year, which promised $40 million over four years for 13,000 women within the provincial government employ. The throne speech promised to maintain that amount of money — not to increase it, but to red-circle and set it aside so that the program for the 13,000 women will continue. I want to ask the minister now if anywhere in her budget or in this schedule there is any promise or intent to expand that pay equity program so that we may start taking a look at women who are working, for example, in the Hospital Employees' Union — women in the health professions. I am told the lowest-paying male job in the

[ Page 12427 ]

Hospital Employees' Union is a maintenance worker 1, which is an unskilled, untrained, grade-10-graduated labourer now making $14.22 an hour. Compare that with the highest female worker category, which is an LPN, who, with two years of training and an immense amount of skill and development, is making, at the highest she is capable of making, $14.17 an hour.

There's 5 cents difference between the lowest male and the highest female. When you consider the years of training, the years of experience, the years of skill development, it's not acceptable. Has the minister incorporated anywhere within her budget something other than child care and the woman-as-victim role? Is the minister prepared to start looking towards women as financially independent partners in society?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the issue of pay equity is being handled a bit differently by this government than I think an NDP government would handle it — and that's fair, because there's a difference in philosophy between the two parties, especially when it comes to an issue like pay equity. We decided as a government that, philosophy....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I could be.

We decided that we would take a leadership role and implement pay equity in our own public service, which we are doing and which, by the way, has been extremely successful and is being lauded by major unions as one of the best pay equity initiatives in the country, if not North America. I think it bodes well for both the government and the BCGEU that we were able to put aside our political differences and work together for the good of the people who work for government.

The first member for Vancouver–Point Grey asked if there is money in my budget for this initiative. The answer is no. Pay equity for all other public service bodies will have to be negotiated between those employers and their unions and with the personnel services. I've had lots of meetings with those union members and representatives, including the nurses' union, and it is really up to the unions and those employers to negotiate pay equity in their own work place. It becomes a little more difficult when there is less money, but I guess it has to be addressed some where along the line. As a government, we have no intention of involving ourselves in the business of the employers involved, but we are there to help them.

The team of people who have headed up our pay equity initiative have offered their services to assist, and anyone interested can get all the information they need.

[9:00]

MR. ROSE: The reply of the hon. minister is really interesting. I congratulate her on her military outfit; it's part of this new law-and-order stance perhaps.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. Debate should not be on one's personal appearance. As you know, we all have some problems. Possibly we should do our debate under schedule 2 of Bill 8.

MR. ROSE: I agree that the hon. Chairman has certain personal problems, but I didn't think he would discuss them with us on the floor of the House.

Anyway, I was interested in the response of the hon. member, and I won't mention her very attractive appearance, because I know she wouldn't like that. But I would like to respond a bit to her response that it was up to the individual members and their union to push for pay equity. I have a couple of examples.

For the Ministry of Highways in Prince George, the employer is the government here, but one is not always dealing with government employees. Two individuals were hired to do keypunch data entry in Prince George. The BCGEU got $13 per hour. An agency contracting out to hire another employee got $15.75 per hour. Individual No. 1, male, after the agency and everything else had taken its cut, got $9.25 per hour; individual No. 2, got $7.50 per hour.

I admire the minister's glib answer, but the answer isn't simply a negotiated answer; it has to do with all kinds of other things, such as contracting out and contracting in, and various other ways in which the government has seen fit to cut down the number of public employees and yet at the same time increase the cost of those employees to the general public — on the one hand appearing to look responsible and on the other hand actually increasing the costs.

I'm not interrupting any of you, I hope.

I'd like a little response on that one from the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. There is a fairly high decibel level of noise in here, and it's not coming from those who are recognized to speak.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I thought I might like to comment on the tie of the member opposite. It's very attractive; I like it. But I thank you for the compliment about being attractive.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Would I like to try it on? Well, I'm not really there yet that I want to wear men's clothes. I think probably I can do the job without wearing their clothes.

We're talking about changing clothing, but we really should be talking about women's programs.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes. The Minister of Labour says "changing attitudes."

To answer the member's question about pay equity and the difference between contracting out and union wages, that's a very difficult question for me to answer. To say that my first answer was glib, I think, was incorrect. I don't believe that I've ever given a glib

[ Page 12428 ]

answer about a matter as serious to most women as equality in the workplace — or fairness in the workplace, which is what we prefer to say.

This government has no intention of legislating pay equity. I recognize that on that side of the House, as they have done in Ontario — under the Liberal govern- ment, not under the NDP government — that's the route you would prefer to take. We on this side of the House prefer to let the collective bargaining process with the employer work — and I believe that it can.

MR. ROSE: The problem we have is that for people hired by agencies there is no collective bargaining. Its a the clout of the agency that determines the pay scale, and how hungry somebody is for a job. That's why these differences exist. The government must take the lead in these matters, because if it doesn't then the things that need to be addressed will never be addressed. I can be corrected if I am wrong, but I think the proportion of male to female pay scales has actually dropped in the last three or four years rather than risen. So as with a lot of these things, you can't leave it to the market to sort it out, because the market doesn't do that. That's why we have governments.

I know that the members on the opposite side believe that we shouldn't be intruding into the ongoing affairs of the marketplace. Well, we have had this kind of Reaganomics for years and years, but we have found over the years — and not just this side, that side; that compassionate and fair-minded side over there — that there are areas in which the government must take an active role. I won't say any more about that.

Spending on consultants, for instance, has gone from $120 million in 1984 to $538 million in 1991-92.

That's an increase of 338 percent. It's down a little bit from last year; it was $561 million. What that indicates to me is that while we have perhaps been spending less proportionately on the public service, we've been spending far more on consultants. Now I could be wrong about that, but Id like the minister to answer because she is responsible for the public service. How much of the bill is for the purpose of consultants? It's a huge bill — $538.5 million, which is a half a billion or half a thousand million. How much of this is for consultants and how much is for the payments to temporary office help such as Drake Office Overload or Kelly Temporary Services, which are really contractors? Can the minister help us with that?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Government personnel services is not in my ministry. It is in the Ministry of Finance. I believe the Ministry of Finance is next, so you might want to ask that question when it comes up.

What I can tell you, though, is that there has been a lot of work done between GPSD and the union. The contracting out provisions have been tightened up.

There is a lot less of it happening now, and I believe that through the negotiations between GPSD and the unions there will probably be less still.

MR. ROSE: Would the minister agree that if there's less contracting out, that would mean there will be more in-house opportunities through the public service?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, I think that's a fair conclusion for you to draw.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to push the minister any further into the corner, but I will anyway. If that means that there's a greater involvement in the public service, does it also mean there will be less privatization, contracting out and consulting services and a greater umber of public employees because, in effect, despite all the rhetoric between '83 and '86, it's actually cheaper to have a stable public workforce?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think that the member is drawing some conclusions that he shouldn't — you can if you want to — and that aren't fair to draw. They're not ones that I would agree with. I don't agree that privatization is the same as contracting out. Privatization is quite a different issue.

Yes, I do believe that we need to have a stable workforce whether it's in the private or the public sector.

MR. ROSE: The minister has suggested that I am wrong in terms of a number of assumptions, and I agree that contracting out.... Well, I'm inadequately briefed on a number of these things. I wonder if the minister would explain to me, since my assumption is that there's going to be greater involvement in the public service and less contracting out, where I am in error in terms of my assumptions. In what way?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think what I said is that your assumptions aren't fair. What I meant is the comparison between contracting out and privatization. But I really invite the member to ask the Minister of Finance, because it really is his jurisdiction.

MR. ROSE: Id like to turn to another subject for a moment. I received in my mail the other day a beautiful brochure talking about pensions for homemakers. I was really very attracted to it — I wasn't, but my wife was. I want to know how much it cost to print and distribute to every British Columbian household this leaflet called "The British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan."

HON. MRS. GRAN: You know, I'm almost tempted to be political.

MR. ROSE: Don't be political.

MR. MILLER: I don't think you'd be very good at it.

HON. MRS. GRAN: That's true; I probably wouldn't. But I might just try anyway because I have to practise it if I'm going to stay in this job, and I intend to.

The brochure that the member speaks of — and I know he speaks of it kindly because I know that he agrees with the initiative — cost the taxpayers of this

[ Page 12429 ]

province $50,000 less than the NDP spent in mailing out whatever they mail out to their constituents in this province. It was $100,000.

MR. ROSE: The leaflet paints a very beautiful picture about the establishment of a B.C. retirement savings plan. Nowhere in the brochure — which, in addition to outlining certain options invites suggestions about how it might be improved — does it say that the bill died on the order paper last year.

HON. MRS. GRAN: It was introduced, hon. member, with the intention that it would die on the order paper and come back in the fall after there had been consultation with the public. When we come back after the next election, that bill will be introduced in the House.

I also want to tell the members opposite that we have received hundreds and hundreds of very positive replies to that brochure.

MR. ROSE: I think the government is misleading the public again. That legislation....

HON. MR. RABBITT: Ah, shame!

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry, Thumper, I've got the floor, so go down your hole and lick your cottontail and just stop heckling me. You know how nervous I get when anybody such as the member opposite starts to heckle me. What are you standing up for? Have you got a point of order? I thought those were your ears.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Those are two points of-order you have.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Minister of Labour rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. RABBITT: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite in jest has impugned the reputation of this member. I would suggest that the member should offer an apology.

[9:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be delighted to hop to it.

I'm sorry that the government has seen fit... I think, really, that this misleads the public a bit. As a matter of fact, Id like to correct that: it misleads the public a lot. You might have gotten a lot of letters from suckers who think that the bill is part of legislation. It is not legislation. The other thing is that you haven't even introduced it in this session. Why don't you introduce it in this session, if you're really serious? Because you're not serious, and it's part of an election ploy that will fail; and you'll be gone forever, along with our friend over here who has disappeared down his burrow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, for the moment. The Chair wishes to admonish members that, in reference to other members, you refer to them by their, title and the constituency which they represent. I'm confident the opposition House Leader would appreciate learning that this evening.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm having difficulty understanding the learned member's feeling that we've somehow misled anybody. It says right in the brochure, and it asks the question: "When does the B.C. retirement savings plan begin?" It says: "The British Columbia retirement savings plan is scheduled to commence operations in early 1992. Before it is operational, legislation must be passed." It says very clearly that it is yet to happen.

Hon. member, to bring it in in this session would have precluded the consultation that we so badly need in this province to bring about democracy. That's what we're all here for, because we believe in democracy and we believe in people having an opportunity.

MR. ROSE: I find the response intriguing. Last March and even before this legislation was introduced on the order paper, there was no suggestion of consultation. It was discussed in the adjournment debate by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor as if it were one of the accomplishments of this government. Again, we put out a brochure indicating that this is imminent, and it's not. I wonder if the minister could tell us: how much is in this budget for that program?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think the opposition House Leader was probably absent the day that it was tabled in the House, because I very clearly outlined how the plan would be financed, and that the interest from the privatization fund would finance it. Maybe we've forgotten in this House about the government's privatization initiative and how it has half a billion dollars sitting in an account for future generations, and part of the interest will be used for that retirement savings plan. You didn't hear it.

HON. J. JANSEN: Let me clarify. The request was whether there was funding in the budget for the pension plan that was introduced in the House. What we indicated in the budget document was that the funding for it would come from the privatization benefits fund. That requires a separate statement. It won't be reflected in the estimates in terms of estimated expenditures, because the privatization benefits fund is a separate fund. I'm not going to go into a description of how that works, but for clarification, that will require a separate order and a separate statement, and that will be brought back to this House when it is done. There is both the disbursement from that fund.... The amount of money that we're going to take for the housing programs will also come from this privatization fund.

[ Page 12430 ]

MR. CLARK: To the Minister of Women's Programs, just to follow up. I can do this in Finance as well, if you'd like.

The Minister of Finance has indicated here, as the budget document shows, that two programs are now to be financed by the profit on the privatization benefits fund. This is probably too crude, but I think there's about $500 million in the privatization benefits funds, with $50 million interest. Two programs are now to be funded out of that $50 million. I wonder if the Minister of Women's Programs or the Minister of Finance could give an undertaking that the pension plan will not exceed those moneys available — in other words, a commitment that a pension plan for homemakers will not exceed the cost to the taxpayer beyond that which is afforded by the interest on the privatization benefits fund.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, by the calculations of the professional people who work in the superannuation division, it would be impossible for that to happen, given the amount of money that comes in in interest from that account. Nevertheless, if we put a pension plan into place, then this government has to be responsible enough to say that it would be funded.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister would agree that in fact it's really a money purchase plan. It's not a defined benefit plan. Individuals pay into it, and the government's obligation really lies with matching contributions to a certain amount, fairly modest but significant for people with modest incomes. All I'm saying is that because it is a money purchase plan, with a certain amount of money that goes in from the provincial government, therefore it is impossible, I would think, for the government not to have very good estimates as to how much would be required. The liability down the road isn't there, because it's fully funded from the beginning. Is that a correct interpretation?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why you've got actuaries.

MR. CLARK: Yes, but this isn't actuarial.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would say that is.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to advise the House that we have exhausted for the moment our brief questions to the Minister of Women's Programs and Government Services. I know we'll have a lengthy and exhaustive debate when we get to the'estimates.

I defer to the government side, but I see staff here for the Minister of Finance. Would you like to go there first? Mr. Chairman, we're in the hands of the government.

We will start with Forests and then move to Finance.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, the government announced in January a significant reforestation program called the forest renewal program. As part of that announcement, they claimed that $500 million in new money would be spent over the life of this program on new reforestation and forest renewal initiatives. I wonder if the minister could advise what portion of that $500 million is represented in this warrant?

HON. J. JANSEN: The Minister of Forests is in a different community, and he wasn't able to be here. I will take some of these questions on notice.

The forest renewal plan which he is asking about is funded out of a number of areas: the forest renewal vote, the sustainable environment fund and the ministry operations vote. I don't have those figures compiled here, so it's difficult for me to bring them together. Perhaps rather than give incorrect information, I can give that question to the minister when he's here doing his estimates.

MR. MILLER: With respect to that program and the portion represented in this bill, could the minister confirm that the ministry will under spend their silviculture budget this year?

HON. J. JANSEN: We don't know at this point whether we will under spend the silviculture budget.

MR. MILLER: The Minister of Forests alluded in the House the other day to not having enough seedlings. His exact words in Hansard were: "We don't think it would be very wise to try to spend money that's impossible to spend in this year, because we might not have the required seedlings to put in the ground, or perhaps the site preparation hasn't been done." I assume that when the Minister of Forests stands and says that, he's in fact saying there is some difficulty with the number of seedlings. There appears to be some difficulty with the site preparation. Therefore I conclude that they'll be underspending.

HON. J. JANSEN: Was the question related to this year's program?

This year's program may be underspent because of the lateness of the start. The silviculture support budget — I'm not sure if that includes everything — is up 142 percent over last year. Again, I can't tell you what that includes at this point.

[9:30]

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. MILLER: I have a memo from the ministry detailing some aspects of this forest renewal plan, and I'll read from page 2: "For 1991-92 the difference between the announced spending and the budgeted amount is $16 million." In fact, the ministry is saying they are going to spend $16 million less than they anticipated, and the memo calls it a planned underexpenditure and names a number of factors that contributed to that: the lag in recruiting staff and the lost opportunity for field programs due to the lateness of this year's budget.

[ Page 12431 ]

HON. J. JANSEN: What you have to understand is that although this year's silviculture appropriation may be underspent because of the planning process, over the five-year period we will be caught up and the entire commitment will in fact be achieved.

MR. MILLER: Of course, that's one of the problems with silviculture and always has been: it's been so easy to defer expenditures because there's no immediate impact. You can't compare it, for example, to cuts to services to people, which have an immediate impact on people. That's one of the reasons we're in trouble in silviculture and why we're trying to do such massive catch-up.

The minister who's answering these questions is also the Minister of Finance, and it seems to me a pretty telling comment, because what the government is admitting is that their own internal difficulties, the problems they've had in terms of their leadership question and those other issues, are a direct cause of this government underspending its silviculture budget this year.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I quote from the Ministry of Forests' own memo, Madam Premier, which says: "...lost opportunity for field programs due to the lateness of this year's budget." It's proof positive that your own internal problems have prevented you from spending money in our forests — from putting seedlings in the ground and starting new forests this year. It's $16 million that we could have had people out in British Columbia at a very difficult time economically.... When people in resource-dependent communities are out of work, we could have been employing people. That $16 million could have been used to good effect, not only in employing people but in getting those trees in the ground.

I'd like the minister to confirm that it's the government's own internal difficulties that caused this money not to be spent.

HON. J. JANSEN: As the member for Prince Rupert knows, silviculture has a lot to do with the local conditions in terms of planting, spacing and all the other activity that goes on in the field. I've had opportunities to spend some time personally in some of the forest camps and have a bit of an idea of the planting program that happens.

This is the highest FTE appropriation of any ministry in government. We have put in place almost 500 additional employees with the Ministry of Forests. Almost 400 of those are related to the silviculture and forest renewal program — silviculture included.

We also today approved purchase of vehicles to enable the program to start as quickly as possible. The planting program, as you know, carries on into the summer and fall, and I would hope that by the end the of the year we'll have achieved as much silviculture as is possible, despite the late start and normal ground conditions that would inhibit any planting program.

MR. MILLER: I don't accept that for a moment — not a moment. It doesn't make any sense at all. We're at a time when we could be employing people in silvicultural activities, whether that's planting or the other range of activities that falls under silviculture. That's the feeblest excuse I've ever heard. You're saying that the weather has something to do with it? People could be out there at work tomorrow if you'd had your act together and had presented a budget to this House. You have to take that responsibility and that blame. I don't know why you don't just accept the fact. Mr. Chairman, if the minister would like to advise that this memo from the Ministry of Forests is incorrect....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Well, I'd be happy to listen to him, but the memo says that we have lost an opportunity for field programs because of the lateness of the budget. As the Minister of Finance, you have to take some of the responsibility for that. I don't want to load it all on you, but it appears to me that you have to take a portion of it.

The former Minister of Finance can maybe take a little larger share of the blame, because he had the opportunity when he was the Minister of Finance in March. He was sitting in this House opposite us, and he could have presented a budget. We could have had people out there working. Instead, we find ourselves today with the ministry admitting that they're underspending by $16 million.

I think there's a bit of a game — smoke and mirrors — quite frankly, with respect to silviculture funding in this province. I know it was a cornerstone of the former Premier's announcement in January He went on television and said: "Here's the glossy brochure; we're going to spend $1.4 billion." In my view, they tried to mislead the public by saying there was $500 million in new money, which there is not. They put out these graphs in that report, which I think are entirely misleading. They show a little tiny tree; then they show a little bigger tree, and then they show a great big massive tree. They want people to come to the conclusion that those big trees are going to be there as a result of this program. In fact, the funding for intensive silviculture appears to be cut by 73 percent in this budget.

I don't know why the first member for Cariboo is not joining in this debate, because it sure affects his constituency I'm sure that he would like to have some of those unemployed people up in the Cariboo out at work and spending some of that $16 million that we now cannot spend because of the incompetence of his own government.

I see the member for Omineca, who is usually fairly vocal when it comes to forestry issues, sitting back quietly. He's silent now that he has rejoined the team.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's muzzled.

MR. MILLER: Muzzled.

[ Page 12432 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't speak for his riding anymore.

MR. MILLER: No. There's a conspiracy of silence over there.

Would the minister simply confirm the fact that, because of your own incompetence and the lateness in bringing a budget into this House.... It's a simple admission; the documents are here. Would the minister admit that their own incompetence has caused them to under spend their budget by $16 million?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I just went through outlining the extensive hiring program and equipment purchase program to enable our silviculture program to come to full standard. The number of contracts that are to be issued is in the hundreds. The staffing complement that we talked about, 390 staff members, will be those associated with supervising, surveying, planning and monitoring those contracts. I expect, and the Forests minister will give you more details during budget estimates, that we can do as much of the silviculture program as possible. For me to say that we're going to do all of the work and spend the money, but without planting the trees, is ridiculous.

What we're saying is that we're going to do it and spend the taxpayers dollars as efficiently and as appropriately as possible without spending money for spending money's sake.

I talked about that earlier. It seems to me that too many times on that side of the House you focus on spending funds rather than looking at outputs. I'm more concerned about ensuring that we can justify the output as value for money for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Plain and simple, this government blew an opportunity to plant more trees and to employ more people planting those trees. They blew it.

I have some very simple questions to the minister. I realize he's not the Minister of Forests, and I don't want to try to get technical answers out of him. But does he have any idea what the Minister of Forests meant when he stood in this House two weeks ago and said: "We might not have the required seedlings to put in the ground"? Do you know what he might possibly have meant when he said: "Or perhaps the site preparation hasn't been done"? Could he possibly delve into the Minister of Forests' mind and given an explanation as to what he meant by that? Could he explain why the government has been negotiating with the federal government now for at least two years? This Ministry of Forests was winched through this process of developing a FRDA II wish list, which told the public of British Columbia that they wanted a $700 million program to start in 1990. Were they misleading us back then? Clearly they weren't ready. If they're not ready in 1991, they weren't ready in 1990 at all.

Did that have something to do with the failure of the government to vigorously pursue that FRDA agreement? Is that why we only got $200 million instead of $700 million? Really, you weren't ready. If the minister wants to respond to that, I just have a couple more issues to pursue.

HON. J. JANSEN: I think I've explained it well enough. It disturbs me a little bit that the inference over there is that we should spend funds regardless of the output: "We don't concern ourselves with output. If we're spending money, then we're doing the right thing." It's far more important to measure output in performance. What we said is that we have committed as many resources as are physically possible to ensure that the silviculture program proceeds. I don't know how that member finds that offensive. We've hired 390 staff just for silviculture in the renewal program. We've put in place hundreds of contracts. We're still working on them. We're putting the trees into the ground as quickly as possible. If the trees aren't available because they haven't been grown in nurseries.... I had a nursery, and I know it takes a little while when you do your planting to get those little roots coming out of the bottom and to get the green shoots coming out of the top. Then what you have to do is plant them — green side up. You stick them into the ground. It takes a little while to put in process.

MR. CLARK: How long does it take for germination?

HON. J. JANSEN: If it's a graft or a seed or propagation from a cutting.... The chief forester would tell you that the varieties are probably all seeded. I used to do propagation, and propagation takes about six to eight weeks with proper moisture. This is seeding, and it's going to take a little while longer. All of this is taken into consideration. Let me tell you that the commitment of government is that we spend the funds as efficiently and as quickly as possible, and we've committed the necessary framework to ensure that that happens.

[9:45]

MR. MILLER: The minister says that he used to do propagation; I think this government simply does propaganda. I think this booklet is propaganda.

The minister misses the point. If you're saying that you can't spend the money, Mr. Minister, you're confirming the fact that you didn't plan. If the seedlings aren't ready and available now, Mr. Minister, that's your fault. You knew this year was coming up. You had announced with great fanfare that you were going to do it. The point is that you said you would do it, you said what you were going to do, and you didn't do it. Whose fault is it? You have to take the blame.

As I stated last week in my response to the budget speech, a number of forest companies have put a lot of their assets on the block. Fletcher Challenge says that they would like to get out of solid-wood processing. Westar Timber, which has had a very difficult history financially, is offering a number of their operations for sale. All of that calls into question the issue of transfer of licence, which is the responsibility of the Crown. So if those companies do strike a deal with someone to purchase their mills and presumably the timber alloca-

[ Page 12433 ]

tions that go with them, it will require the Crown to approve those transfers.

The Forest Resources Commission, in examining that topic, came to the conclusion that a significant part of the value of our forest asset is being transferred to private hands. In fact, the direct statement they make in their report.... First of all, just to set the stage a bit, they did an evaluation of our forest resource, the standing timber. They used a couple of different calculations. One is the stumpage system that we have in place — in other words, the revenue received — and they came up with a value of $1.14 billion. Second, they used some private transactions that take place in the marketplace, one of which was the sale of forest-licence firms and the transfer of those licences. This is all in theory, but they came to a significantly higher value, in the neighbourhood of $8 billion. I was careful not to accept those numbers as absolutes last week but to point out that there is a significant spread between the two calculations.

It calls into question, of course, the statement made by the Forest Resources Commission, which reads: "The difference between these two values is presently being captured by private industry upon the sale of tenures and not by the Crown." The reason I ask that question now is that those assets have been put up for sale. Presumably there may be some deals pending; there may be some deals that they've received some agreement on. And I think the Crown will be asked shortly to transfer those licences.

Has any work been done by the ministry to try to validate the work done by the Forest Resources Commission in terms of the numbers? Secondly, has any consideration been given by the ministry to capturing value? If there is value that's escaping into private hands, has any consideration been given by the ministry to capture some of that value, particularly in terms of the forest-dependent communities?

There are a number of regions in this province that, in my view, will be suffering — not just in my view but in the view of respected people in the industry. I think the minister acknowledged in his announcement yesterday that we have an overcapacity problem. The member for Omineca might want to talk about his area. Along the north line in the Smithers, Hazelton and Kitwanga area there is a severe problem with respect to supply.

We've seen a number of mills shut down. We have some expectation that that pattern will continue. I have a list of mills here that I could spend ten minutes reading, mills that have been shut down and people who've been thrown out of work right around the province.

Getting back to my question, if there is uncaptured value, has any consideration been given to taking some of that money — maybe not exclusively through the ministry but maybe in combination with industry — and putting it back into those communities to deal with the severe problems that they're going to be facing with respect to unemployment? There's the need for retraining, the need to perhaps assist older workers to get out of the industry; and the need, quite frankly, when you go back to silviculture, to perhaps target silviculture expenditures in areas of critical need where it can do the most good to move into more intensive silviculture, which affords the opportunity of an upward adjustment of annual cuts.

This is a critical area in my view. I would like to know that the ministry is doing some work in this regard.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm a little hesitant about commenting. Again, it's a question that the Minister of Forests should respond to. There are three elements to it, I guess. Firstly, the job protection commissioner has some purview in terms of that issue. Secondly, the Forest Resources Commission has addressed it, as you indicate. Also, I understand the Minister of Forests is studying this issue, so it's a question you can perhaps put to him when you do the estimates next week.

MR. MILLER: I won't proceed in terms of that question. I think it's critical and I would particularly counsel the Minister of Finance that I think there's some overlapping jurisdiction in responsibility. We're talking about the people's assets here, the standing timber. In fact, if the commission is right and a portion of that value is flowing into private hands and we don't have any check on whether or not that's really being used to the benefit of British Columbians, then in my view that's criminal. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. I think we have to verify some numbers, and I think we have to do this intelligently and not in an alarmist way.

I just make one final point. The job protection commissioner cannot substantially help a forest products firm that is faced with a supply problem. It would be cruel in my view, and it would be foolish to keep an industry going in the face of that. We have to balance our forest industry, the processing capacity that we have with the available supply, and use that supply in the manner that we extract the most value and provide the most benefit for the people of this province. So if it's a propping-up exercise, then the job protection commissioner will really not be doing anybody any favours.

I thank the minister for the answers he has given, and I look forward to more complete answers from the Forests minister.

MR. LOVICK: I'm glad we got that in one try.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address some questions to the Minister of Finance, in that capacity, which I think ought to make for a more interesting response than some we've listened to thus far. Interestingly enough, I've been reading an interesting book while waiting for this opportunity, called Women and Labour Market Poverty. As I say, the area I'm now about to canvass with the minister is very relevant to women and the condition of poverty that they frequently encounter in the labour market.

I want to canvass with the Minister of Finance particularly the issue of contracting out. As we know, Bill 8 seeks approval for some $5,406,000,000, this being approximately one-third of the total amount of the vote of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992. I think it's important to raise some

[ Page 12434 ]

questions regarding the Ministry of Finance estimates. There won't be that many, but it's my hope that in the particular questions I want to pose now we can get some rather more precise answers than we've had thus far — certainly some answers that reveal more precision than the debate between $395 million and $1.2 billion, say.

The first question I want to pose to the minister concerns the whole issue of FTEs versus employees hired for service on a contracting-out basis. We understand that since 1985 the number of government full-time-equivalent employees has in fact declined by some 22 percent. I believe it was pointed out by a colleague of mine earlier, in questioning the Minister of Government Services, that there is nevertheless an increase in spending of some 367 percent on professional fees and personal service contracts. I think it's, worth noting — to give it some context, Mr. Chairman, for the minister — that over the same period the consumer price index has increased by 30.2 percent.

The first specific question that I want to pose to the Minister of Finance is as follows. The total full-time equivalent employment of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations is being increased from 895 FTEs to 919 FTEs. This represents a modest increase of some 2.7 percent, by our calculations. The ministry, however, intends to spend $4,656,951 on professional services. The question to the minister is just this: can he tell us how many FTEs in his ministry have been contracted out over the last five years?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member knows full well that that information is not readily available at this time.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Why not? Because we're actually dealing with Bill 8, the supply bill, to enable the continuation of our programs until such time as we debate the estimates in more detail over the next few weeks. But I can certainly take the question on notice, and at that time give-the answer correctly, rather than conjecturing or trying to provide an estimate.

[10:00]

MR. LOVICK:: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I'm a little surprised by that answer. We are talking about roughly one-third of the ministry estimates. We're rather well along into the budget cycle, and I'm asking a question that is directly related to the minister's estimates, a rather direct question. How many FTEs have been lost over the last five years, given this initiative of government to contract out? It's not a trick question. It's pretty straightforward. I'm sure the minister can answer that. Is there some reason why that information isn't readily available? One-third of the total estimates coming here to be voted on to be approved tonight, $5 billion, and we're being told he can't answer. It doesn't make sense to me.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I've been advised by my staff, because I certainly wasn't minister for the last five years, that we have not taken an FTE and converted it to a contractual situation. We do not count the B.C. Securities Commission and the treasury operations, which are special accounts — statutory accounts — so the employees are not included in those accounts.

MR. LOVICK: Fair enough. I accept the answer. I wonder if I might go beyond the scope of that question just a little bit and tell the minister that, according to our information, last year there was a workshop held for government managers teaching them the skills and the trials and tribulations of contracting out. A representative of an outfit called Three E Training Inc. gave an estimate that the total contracting-out budget for the government, as the company understood it, was going to be some $3 billion. I'm wondering if the Minister of Finance can confirm that. Is that the magnitude of contracting out in this government — $3 billion?

HON. J. JANSEN: I hope contracting out is far more than that, Mr. Member. The contracting out we're talking about are contracts in Transportation and Highways, contracts in forestry and in a number of ministries. The course was on how to manage those contracts effectively. When the manager is assigned responsibility for a contract to be tendered and to subsequently supervise it — that was what the course was about. It's not respecting contracting out of FTEs, if that was what you thought it meant. That is incorrect.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I'm dismayed to hear the minister say that he hopes it's more than that, because contracting out doesn't mean all the cases with the privatization of highway maintenance, where those people become full-time employees. We're talking about short-term contracts. In some cases we're talking about wages, benefits and working conditions that are significantly less than what those same employees would get if they stayed working for government.

I'm wondering then if the minister can confirm the $3 billion annually that was offered by that consulting firm — another consulting firm talking about what it's costing the government in contracted-out services. Given that this supply item we're looking at accounts for approximately one-third of the total budget, is the arithmetic such that we can fairly estimate that $1 billion of this supply bill will in fact go to contracting out?

HON. J. JANSEN: The member doesn't understand what contracting out means. Contracting out is to issue a contract respecting a capital project, a software or computer hardware project.... A contract, if it's indeed highway maintenance, is a contract. It is not taking existing services and converting them into a contract. It is the contract administration that we're talking about. No, you can't do a straight line projection, because the contracts happen at different times of the year. So the contracts that would be included in the $5 billion are those envisioned to take place during the next two months.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, is the minister here differentiating between what in the terminology is

[ Page 12435 ]

normally called contracting out versus contracting in? Is that your point?

Let's see who knows.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, Mr. Chairman. What I was saying was the administration of contracts, which is distinct from what I think the member feels is implied by contracting out, where we take services that are currently performed by our civil service and put those out to public tender. That's different. None of that is happening. What we're talking about is the contract administration, the issuance of contracts respecting capital purchases, maintenance purchases, service agreements, software acquisition, hardware acquisition, capital infrastructure. Those are contract administration.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the answer. Let's then focus on personal service contracts. Will the minister agree that somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 personal service contractors will be paid by the moneys authorized in this bill? Is that a fair extrapolation? That's our arithmetic.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, I don't know how many personal service contracts there are. Obviously when you hire a consulting engineer or a consultant — the Victoria Health Project, for example — those would be personal service contracts. They would be difficult to extrapolate, because they are through all the ministries.

MR. LOVICK: The minister puts his finger on precisely the problem we have. We want to know how you find out answers to the question. Let me give a very specific question and see if we can nail this down somewhat, Mr. Chairman.

Which of the standard objects of expenditure — which STOB, that is — would the personal service contract appear under in the supplement to the estimates? Would it be No. 20, professional services? Or would some of it be in STOB 30, business expenses?

HON. J. JANSEN: Who is going to answer the question — you or me? It's STOB 20.

MR. LOVICK: We may take it then that there are no moneys allocated for personal service contracts in STOB 30 or in, say, 68, data-word processing systems? How about that? Sixty-nine? Sixty-eight.

HON. J. JANSEN: Some of the asset acquisitions would, under STOB 68 and 69, have some personal service contracts in them. It's difficult to say They are time-duration-specific assignments that deal with specific acquisitions. STOB 30 is most of the office and business expense, and there would be pencils, paper and all that kind of stuff. But STOB 20 is the one that deals with some professional services, which includes a host of things.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the minister's sincerity and his honest effort to answer the question accurately and in detail. But I am sure he would agree with me that we on this side are somewhat disconcerted by the fact that apparently it isn't just STOB 30; there's also maybe something in STOB 68. I'm wondering if the minister would give this House some assurance that we will get some more detailed answers. The phenomenon of contracting-out and personal service contracts is (a) a larger and larger one all the time, and (b) causing considerable concern to full-time employees right now in the public service. I'm wondering if the minister would be willing to give us that assurance.

HON. J. JANSEN: I can certainly talk to the OCG and see if we can get some more information respecting STOB 20. I can undertake to do that during estimates.

MR. CLARK: I'll just summarize some of the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo. He's doing such a good job that maybe he might want to take this job, I don't know. He can have it, I was going to say.

I was looking at the numbers. It's quite interesting. I would like to make an observation and see if the minister would like to remark. If you look at the spending for employee salaries, one of the things this government said, particularly with the former Premier, was how great they were doing at keeping the number of employees down. If you look at how much was spent on employee salaries last year, you see $1,053 million. It will be higher this year. Then if you look at STOB 20, you now see just in the last four and a half years an explosion in contractors and professional service fees. You see $561 million in last year's STOB 20. It would be higher now.

What it means is that we have roughly 50 percent, again, of the number of employees who really work for the government, because you have 50 percent of the actual cost for employee salaries paid out by way of contracts now. Instead of actually shrinking government payroll, there's been a dramatic increase under this administration. But it hasn't been for salaried employees; it's been by way of personal service contracts.

I would like the minister, if he's followed me on that observation.... It clearly appears to be a deliberate government policy, when you look at the dramatic explosion of the number of contracts versus a relatively stable amount of money paid by way of employee salaries. What's happened is very few new employees on the public payroll, so to speak, but a dramatic number of people working for government by way of contract.

HON. J. JANSEN: There's a very good explanation for that. The explanation is the highway maintenance contract, which has an impact, and also the Forests ministry contracts for silviculture and tree planting.

MR. CLARK: Just for the purpose of the House, we have completed the Finance and Forests portions of these warrants, so we're prepared to move, with the government's direction, to the Minister of Trade, Development and Tourism. I would say to Mr. Chairman that there are three sections of this warrant, because they were done before the current Premier changed the

[ Page 12436 ]

configuration of the cabinet, so we could do those three in conjunction if it's all right.

MRS. BOONE: This is quite complicated. Since I was the critic of Regional and Economic Development two years ago there have been so many changes in this whole ministry that it's been difficult to track — as it has been difficult to track the ministers who leave very rapidly as well. About three years ago we had brand new ministers established and all these states established, and then they sort of dwindled from eight down to six and then they dwindled down from there to no ministers of state and one superminister. Now we don't even have a ministry. We've got it all combined into three things. So it seems that the commitment to regional development by this government has slowly dwindled from several ministers — an overabundance of ministers — to a small section of one ministry, Development, Trade and Tourism.

[10:15]

Within the bill that we are discussing there are three separate amounts for each of these different areas: one for Regional Development, one for International Trade, and one for Tourism. When the Premier announced that they were combining all these ministries together, she stated that there was going to be concentration and dollar savings and all of these things.

My question is to the minister of today, who is now filling the boots of numerous people in the past — eight different ministers of state and the superminister and all these things. Are all of these funds still required in your ministry, even though it is now concentrated into one ministry instead of having the three separate ministries? Surely there must have been some dollars saved when that concentration took place — as the Premier suggested when she made that announcement.

HON. MR. DIRKS: My answer to that is a very short one: the figures that you see reflect the ministry the way it is structured today.

MRS. BOONE: That's interesting. Then why did you bother to break it down into these old ministries if they reflect what you need today? But it's common for this government to put in that sort of thing.

I just want to focus on one small section with regard to the small business loan program. As you know, a moratorium was put on that program by the Premier, and numerous small businesses were literally caught in limbo. I've heard from some of them who had their applications in the works. They were in the ministry offices and were being considered and they had actually spent some money working to get together their proposals, put out some money for the banks and all of these things to be investigated, and then suddenly they had the rug pulled out from under them by the Premier's announcement of the moratorium.

The question I have to you is: how many of these businesses were stuck in the in-between stage, were already in the hoppers, already had some work being done on them and were on their way to being approved? In fact, I know of one case where it was just a matter of days away, and they had those approvals pulled back and the rug literally pulled out from under them. How many of those businesses were affected by the decision to put on the moratorium?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, my answer is that basically I don't agree with the terminology that the rug was pulled out from underneath them. We are processing all the applications received prior to the announcement that we were going to review the program.

MRS. BOONE: Will you not admit that there were some that had those applications turned back? Or were there some in the process, and it looked like they were going to get approval within a very short time, and then a moratorium was put on them and these businesses were left in limbo? Are you now saying that all these are being processed and that none have a moratorium put on them right now? Are you saying that all those funds have been freed up and that the loan process is proceeding as it was in the past? Are you saying that the women's business advocate, a position established by the previous minister, now has access to some of those funds that were to be made available to assist women in starting in business?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, generally I appreciate it when the member opposite asks a number of questions at once, rather than getting up and down like a yo-yo. But I think she's mixing up a number of questions in one wrap-up there. Maybe it's the time of the evening or whatever, but let me clarify. We are indeed processing all applications received prior to that cutoff date when the announcement was made that we were indeed going to review the programs. So that takes care of all the applications that were in process. That's really where we are today.

MRS. BOONE: Okay. Can the minister clarify for me, then: were there no businesses denied access to those loans? Were there no businesses caught when that moratorium came in, when the cutdown came down and said that there were not going to be any more loans or loan guarantees made out to small businesses? Are you saying to me that no businesses were caught in that?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I really don't know how I can answer more clearly than to repeat what I said earlier: all applications received prior to the date of the announcement that we were going to review our loans program are being processed.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MS. PULLINGER: I have a few questions for the Minister of Tourism. I'm going to take the opportunity to expand a bit on the questions I brought to you the other day.

As Music '91 is about to burst forth on the lawns of he Legislature — and the way we're going, we'll prob-

[ Page 12437 ]

ably be here to hear the opening strains — I would like to reiterate, just for the sake of caution and so there's no confusion over there, that we think it's a good program, and we support it. However, will the minister confirm for this Legislature that Treasury Board has approved an extra $5 million for Music '91, at least $3 million of which has already been received by the Year of Music society?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really appreciate that the member opposite has twice got up in this House and stated the great support for Music '91, because it is a great program. I'm here for the big opening tomorrow, but I didn't realize that we were going to sit through and wait until the opening. I hope that we do adjourn, so that we can all get out there and attend the opening at 12 noon tomorrow.

Indeed, I am the minister responsible for Music '91 and for seeing that it will go off as planned, that it is the great tourism draw and promoter that we really think it is and know it will be. The finances of it, I'm sorry, hon. member, are handled by another ministry.

MS. PULLINGER: Which ministry is responsible for Music '91? A simple question.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Let me put it this way: very succinctly, there is nothing for Music '91 in my estimates or the estimates that you see here.

MS. PULLINGER: To the Minister of Finance. I assume that the Minister of Finance sits on the Treasury Board. Will the Minister of Finance confirm for the Legislature that Music '91 society has approached Treasury Board, received approval for $5 million and had at least $3 million of it allocated to the society?

MR. CLARK: To the minister. Does the money for Music '91 come from lottery funds?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the subject matter is not part of the allocation within schedule 2, it would be out of order to discuss it.

MS. PULLINGER: The Minister of Tourism is telling me that his ministry is not responsible for Music '91. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yes, we are indeed responsible for Music '91, but these are the estimates that we're debating, I believe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The responsibility of the ministry is not under debate at the moment; schedule 2 of Bill 8 is under debate.

MS. PULLINGER: I am simply trying to clarify. There has been an allocation of at least $5 million extra — probably $7 million at this point — to Music '91. I am simply trying to confirm where that money is coming from. This minister is telling me he's responsible, ergo it must be hidden in his money somewhere. Would the minister tell this House, as the minister responsible for Music '91, whether this money here is part of that $5 million overrun?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are debating the Supply Act, and this is not part of our estimates.

MR. CLARK: For the purposes of helping the minister and perhaps the Chair as well, the minister is responsible for Music '91. His deputy is responsible for assisting in the administration of Music '91. His deputy is funded in part by this warrant, for example, so part of the administration around Music '91 — because this minister is responsible for it — comes under this particular spending warrant. Therefore I submit that all these questions are in order. Some of the money is not covered here, but a lot of the responsibility and some of the spending on Music '91 is, by virtue of the fact that shared overhead and responsibility and the funds that pay for this minister's salary and senior service salaries come under this ministry budget. Therefore policy questions around Music '91 clearly are in order. They are clearly covered in part by this vote. It would really help expedite matters — we've been doing so well here — if we could get some very simple questions answered regarding areas in which the minister is responsible and areas for which some of this money is being spent to help administer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would comment on the intelligent comments made by the member: he is quite right. But the actual funding for Music '91 is apparently not within this vote; it appears to be within the vote of the minister responsible for lotteries. With respect to the funding of Music '91, questions might properly be put to the minister responsible for lotteries, although the administration of the same falls within the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism.

MS. PULLINGER: The minister is confirming that there is no money whatsoever for Music '91 coming out of the Tourism ministry. Is that correct?

HON. MR. DIRKS: That is correct.

MS. PULLINGER: Can the minister confirm that the board of directors of Music '91, for which he is responsible, has requested to be and has recently been indemnified, and why?

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing the Supply Act and the schedules to the Supply Act. We are not discussing anything that is not in this particular piece of legislation. I'd say the member is completely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

MS. PULLINGER: If the Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism has no money whatsoever, no funding, to do with Music '91, why is the ministry on all the promotional literature for that particular program?

[ Page 12438 ]

HON. MR. DIRKS: The short answer is that you do have to have a minister responsible.

[10:30]

MS. PULLINGER: The minister says he is responsible, yet he won't answer any questions about the overruns in Music '91, although they are significant: $7 million on a $12 million budget.

Last year's Minister of Tourism said that the budget would be fifty-fifty: $12 million from lotteries, $12 million from the public sector. We know that you have identified a number of private corporations as being sponsors. Can the minister tell us which new ones that he indicated the other day are coming on board and how much the total sponsorship is from the private sector — the corporations? Have they reached the $12 million, and what is the number?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I believe this question is basically out of order on previous advice that has been given to the member.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'll just briefly go back to the canvassing that the member for Prince George North was doing. The minister indicated that all the business incentive programs that were "swept from the table" — in the words of the interim Premier — are now being processed. I think that's what he said. I wonder if he could give us an indication of how many of those being processed have been given approval, what the dollar value is and when he expects the businesses that were given approval to have their start-ups.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I think the member would realize that the applications received prior to the cutoff date were in various stages of review and so on. Consequently, they are being processed. As they are being processed, they are being notified of the results.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I understand that they will probably take some time to be processed. I promised to be brief if the answers were brief. However, they were frozen on March 31; it is now May 31 — 60 days later. The question is very simple: how many have been approved in that two-month period?

HON. MR. DIRKS: I am not sure that your dates are correct. I believe the cutoff date was April 15. Nonetheless we do not have an up-to-date figure on how many we have completed since we started reprocessing those applications.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I realize the minister is new in his position, and he may take some time to get up to speed as to which are being approved and how much money he's actually spending. We're not getting far with him on that issue.

However, there is a review process also taking place. Perhaps he could give us the status of the review process and what criteria is being used in it to develop a new policy.

HON. MR. DIRKS: That whole review is taking place now between my ministry and the Ministry of Finance. In due course the House and the public will be advised of that review.

MR. G. JANSSEN: When will the process be completed?

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the fullness of time.

MR. MILLER: I have a quick question to the minister having to do with how the ministry determines the eligibility criteria for grants and loans to support business. I had one in my constituency in the Charlottes.

In analyzing the request, the ministry essentially looks at a broad range of issues and does a cost-benefit analysis. The example that I was involved with was a company moving from one location to another. Initially the request for assistance was turned down. A ministry official explained to me that if it was simply a move from one location to another, they didn't necessarily see that as a benefit, because you're going to put employees out of work in one area and create the same number of jobs in another area. Is that still the criterion used?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Id like to correct one thing: we're not in the granting business. At the present time we are reviewing the loans, so whatever criteria come out at the end may well be different than what we're using at the present time. But certainly what you're referring to is one of the criteria used in the past.

MR. MILLER: Given the criteria that you use within your ministry to evaluate requests — and I recognize that things are pending now — did you do that before you granted $400,000 to the Terrace-Kitimat port society, which, by the study's own admission, is simply going to transfer jobs from one community to another?

Answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Vancouver East defers to the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: The minister doesn't appear to want to answer the question. I'm asking if the criteria that they use in every other instance were used before they forked over 400 grand on a foolish study on this Kitimat issue.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We don't dismiss possibilities out of hand like that and say that's a foolish deal. We believe that any economic opportunity in the north should be looked at very carefully. We want all parts of this province to grow economically, and we want to investigate them carefully before we do something.

MR. MILLER: Based on that kind of answer from the minister, I'm pretty sure we're going to see ports developed in Nelson, maybe Castlegar and who knows — Prince George. Keep it up and you'll have ports all over.

[ Page 12439 ]

MR. CLARK: This is a very simple question. Can the minister advise the House what the operating loss was for the last fiscal year for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation? It's not in the estimates.

HON. MR. DIRKS: We will try to find that information, but I don't believe that's really in these estimates today.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a question for the estimates.

MR. CLARK: I thank the Minister of Education for his guidance, and we will canvass it in estimates.

I'd like to make this point, though, and it refers to this particular warrant. Of course the head of that Pavilion Corporation was just fired or stepped down — today I think was his last day. When I looked in the estimates book, you don't find the loss. It's sort of buried in there and is part of a bigger number. I just put you on notice; you don't have to answer this today.

I would like to know exactly how much the B.C. Pavilion Corporation lost in the last fiscal year. I'll canvass it again in estimates.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I will certainly have that for you in estimates. I'll look forward to estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to cover with this minister an issue that's very important to this community, and that is the demise of the Stena corporation and the demise of the Princess Marguerite. It has had a number of ministers responsible: the former Minister of Finance and the former Minister of Tourism were part of the fiasco, and now unfortunately this minister has inherited the disaster.

We used to have a very viable and highly respected steamship company that served this community for many years. It brought thousands of tourists to this community. It's estimated by the business community, the tourist bureau and others that it brings to Victoria about $75 million to $100 million. And yet this govern- ment, in its wisdom, sold that corporation to Stena. I'm not going to go through all of the millions of dollars we've lost with that sale, but I'd like to ask a simple question to the minister. Can he tell us why the government allowed the Stena corporation to end its performance before November 1991? That was part of the original contract.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you have been in this House many years, and you will understand we are dealing with interim supply for the period up until
July 1991 of the estimates of 1991-92. From your comments, I presume what you're talking about is matters that preceded the date, and accordingly would be out of order. If the member has questions dealing with the interim supply, I'm sure they'd be welcome. 5

MR. BLENCOE: Let me ask a direct question. How much in this interim supply bill is for the disbursement s of severance to the former employees of the Stena corporation?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Nothing in this bill, member.

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday Stena announced severance. Will the minister confirm to this House that in excess of 85 percent of the severance bill to Stena will be paid for by the province?

HON. MR. DIRKS: Just to clarify again, there is no money in this supply bill for the settlement. That money is in the steamship corporation.

MR. BLENCOE: The budget was prepared some weeks ago. I presume supply was thought of maybe a few days ago. Did the government have advance notice...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hour is late, and a certain amount of hilarity is good, but the second member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll try to rephrase the question to the minister. Did the government have advance notice of Stena's intention to terminate the employees?

[10:45]

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really hate to say this, because the member has been here a lot longer than I have, but I really have a problem relating that question to the supply bill.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to move onto the next item on the warrant, which is Labour and Consumer Services. But for personal reasons our Labour critic is not here, so we have just a couple of questions on Consumer Services for that member — probably from our House leader, but maybe not. I'm just kidding. From the member for Prince George North.

MRS. BOONE: I have a lot of questions I'm going to ask the minister when we get into his estimates, but there's something of real concern to me right now. It has to do with the section of your budget that deals with prevention and the fact that this government, in previous years, has made a great deal of noise about the TRY program, about prevention and trying to focus on the preventive aspects. But as I'm speaking, I know there are groups out there having to make some very real choices as to which programs they're going to cut, because this ministry has cut the money for the preventive programs that is going out to the associations and the many societies that are currently doing what were previously ministry jobs.

I guess my question to the minister is: why have you cut the prevention programs, and what are you going to do to make up for those areas that need to be... ? Everybody acknowledges that alcohol and substance abuse is a problem, and that we have to deal with that problem through prevention and dealing with it before it actually becomes a problem. Yet, we see this minister cutting that program and cutting back on the dollars for it. Can you advise me as to why that action was taken?

[ Page 12440 ]

HON. MR. RABBITT: Being that this is my first effort in this role, my critic certainly has an advantage. The drug and alcohol program that was developed by the Social Credit government has certainly been a successful one; and it's been more than just a token effort. Over the past three years, $137 million has been dedicated to drug and alcohol programs.

You know, there's a misconception being spread, because the commitment from this government this year is to see that there is funding for these programs. There may be some changes, but the overall average for the programs and the agencies that are out there will be at 100 percent.

MRS. BOONE: It's a lot of money, but you know that money's only a drop in the bucket compared to the tax that you take out of the people of British Columbia for that very substance. Don't talk about that being a large amount of money, because you get a large amount of money from the abuse of some of this alcohol.

I'd like to ask the minister: if you're saying that there is no cut, why is there in fact in the budget a cut in prevention? There is a cut in the dollars that are there for prevention — it's there in black and white. Why is it that those hospital programs, those teams that were in the hospitals to deal with substance abuse and alcoholism, have been cut? They are no longer there. They are no longer in the hospitals in Prince George. They are not in the Jubilee Hospital here. They are not in the Smithers hospital. All of those people are gone.

Why are societies currently looking to eliminate positions that they've been funding, such as alcohol and drug counsellors in schools and in jails? Why are they having to do those things, if in fact the government has had full funding for them? You can't say that you're funding things fully, when in fact the societies out there that are currently offering these programs haven't got the dollars to provide those services. Where did the dollars go, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RABBITT: The reference made to the chemical dependency resource teams is old news. The new news is that the ministry is out there working with the hospitals at this time to establish a new model — not the old model, but a new model — and hopefully we are going to be able to do it in more than the 13 hospitals that have already been identified and funded in the five regions throughout British Columbia.

I also think that the misconception being spread by the member with regard to the prevention program is erroneous. The awareness program has been reduced, because we believe that we have gained the goals that we were looking for in the program. We are focusing on our prevention programs. The TRY program was exactly that. It was a three-year program that had $137 million committed to it. We are now in a year where we are re-evaluating. We will not be expanding; we will be holding in place the programs that are out there. But that doesn't mean that there aren't going to be changes. The changes will be positive ones; they will be changes for the better and they'll be changes for people.

MRS. BOONE: I don't know what is erroneous about the remarks that I'm making. The facts speak for themselves. The dollars have been reduced, the services aren't there and societies are having to cut these things. You have eliminated a program that, in my estimation, and from all the information I've had, was good, and you're looking to replace it. You know, Mr. Minister, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's working. It was something that was there. We now don't have anything there at all. The TRY program was there for three years.

One of the constant problems I hear from people out there in the field is that there is no constancy and that they don't know from one year to the next what programs are going to be around. They don't hear from one month to the next, sometimes, if there are going to be dollars there to carry on. You can't say that prevention ends and that you've achieved your goal. You have to keep on with prevention. Prevention isn't something that you can do for three years and then suddenly say: "We've achieved our goal. The public knows all there is to know about alcohol and drug abuse. Therefore we're not going to do it anymore." If I have heard one statement in this House that is stupid, this is it — to think that you can end a prevention program and state that you have achieved your goal. Prevention is an ongoing thing, and we must ensure that it is kept up. I'm going to end my comments on this, get on with this and deal with you more later.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we are going to go to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Just a couple of questions for the minister. This year the ministry has been reduced quite dramatically in terms of its budget allocation, which is obviously reflected in part of what we're debating today. I am wondering why this new minister, when Municipal Affairs and the issues facing municipalities are more important today than they have ever been, has allowed such a dramatic decrease in the operating budget for the ministry. It's $10 million less. Perhaps the minister could explain that to the House.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I thought we were actually dealing with the $86.5 million that's here before us tonight. I would love to expound upon the efficiencies and the cost-effectiveness of this particular ministry, but I'm sure we would rather deal with that when we get to my estimates later on. I don't think it actually pertains specifically to the $86.5 million.

MR. BLENCOE: I wonder if the minister can inform the House, in those budget cuts to the ministry — it's a very important ministry serving municipalities — what important operational areas he is chopping and hacking in terms of service to local government.

HON. MR. BRUCE: I am really looking forward to dealing with our estimates in their entirety at the appropriate time, but none of what you are mentioning here tonight actually pertains to the $86.5 million. If you could be more specific, related to the $86.5 million, maybe I could be a little bit more specific in my answer. In respect to the larger question, I am looking

[ Page 12441 ]

forward to dealing with that later on in our regular estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: One of the problems we've had is that this government basically indicates to us today: trust us, we'll be doing all the estimates. Unfortunately, we have not come to trust this government particularly, and we have to try to canvass some of the issues that are important under this particular supply bill, because there is some apprehension that we may not see many estimates in this session.

Maybe the minister won't answer tonight, but he should also know that last year this ministry — again, a very important ministry in terms of serving this province — underspent its budget by $55 million in important services to local government. Obviously this minister did not fight for a proper budget and saw it dramatically reduced by millions of dollars, in a very important ministry.

MR. CLARK: And you want to be leader!

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague mentions that this member has aspirations. He comes and talks to local government.... Recently, he has gone around the province telling local government how important a ministry it is. We're seeing dramatic changes and cuts in a very important ministry.

I have one more question to the minister, if I may. He may not wish to answer.

HON. MR. RABBITT: One more? You haven't come up with one yet.

MR. BLENCOE: He may not wish to answer, but we'll put the question to the minister.

Last year — again, a very important issue for local government that I always canvass and wish to canvass this evening — the government put aside approximately $338 million in the revenue-sharing fund. The minister is aware of that fund and its importance to local government. This year that amount has been cut. Again we see this ministry cut and slashed. This important revenue-sharing fund is being cut to $326 million. It has actually decreased by $12.5 million in revenue-sharing to local government.

[11:00]

Given that local government wants to rebuild its infrastructure — its roads and highways — can I ask this minister, who has great aspirations, when he is going to fight for revenue-sharing? When is he going to fight for his Ministry of Municipal Affairs and for local government? He has been there for only a few weeks, but the first few weeks....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The poor member for Victoria is having to strain his voice in order to be heard over all the other conversations in the chamber. Would the members please go outside, if they wish to have other conversations.

The second member for Victoria on a quiet strain.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by asking the new minister.... The two issues I've raised tonight basically relate to the fundamental budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which is a critical ministry in this province. I also asked questions about revenue-sharing. Both issues I've raised have been dramatically cut under this minister's jurisdiction, and he wants to tell us that he wants to do so much for local government.

Are you going to go to bat for local government? So far what we've seen from you, Mr. Minister, are major cuts to a very important ministry. The revenue-sharing fund is $12 million less this year for important infrastructure. The minister may not want to plead ignorance this time and may want to give us some answers.

HON. MR. BRUCE: Mr. Chairman, to my critic the first member for Victoria, I want you to know first of all that just because nobody else was listening to you, I was listening to you. I would really like to wax eloquent about all that's wonderful about this particular ministry, about all the municipalities and local government and all that sort of stuff, but the clock is ticking on. I will be more than happy to deal with each and every one of these concerns, because it will all be well explained when we deal with the estimates.

I was shocked and hurt that you would suggest that you had no confidence that we would be back here to deal with estimates. I just want to emphasize to you one more time that local government in the province of British Columbia is in good hands with this government — the Social Credit Party. We know and understand the importance of local government and how effective and efficient it is.

I would just like to conclude.... I sat quietly listening to you while nobody else did, and I would expect that in deference to me you would do likewise.

If you have a question that applies to the $86.5 million that's before me, I have the facts and figures and would love to deal with that.

MR. BLENCOE: On Monday I shall be able to tell local governments, when they call to find out how they're doing: "Lots of love from this minister, but no money." We have a new minister who has a very important portfolio, and the two major items in his budget have seen dramatic cuts. That's a great start to your term.

MR. MILLER: I see that we're moving to the Minister of Native Affairs. While I'm on my feet, it's a shame that the.... I should have asked the new Minister of Municipal Affairs whether he's explained to his colleagues that it's preferable to bring a budget before the people on time, rather than what we're seeing here.

If the Minister of Native Affairs is prepared to take his chair, the question relates to the First Citizens' Fund. It's a very obvious question. The fund was established many years ago. It was a perpetual fund and was established to provide assistance to native Indian people in British Columbia. For many years it was used primarily to advance funds for relatively

[ Page 12442 ]

modest travel arrangements and that kind of thing. This administration made an amendment to the act, I believe in 1987, and converted that to a fund to provide development capital for native Indian people seeking to get into business and to become entrepreneurs. It's had some success in that regard.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

We were dismayed when the fund was frozen. In fact, I really question the legality of being able to freeze that fund. It was set up and administered by a board of directors of native Indian people. By freezing the fund the new Premier, when she came to power, froze all of the programs that were in place because there had been some criticism from many quarters that one of the people I see before me, who is not the minister anymore, was wandering around the province using taxpayers' money for electoral purposes. I guess that's the reason the Premier froze those funds. We've just had that confirmed by previous discussions with the Minister of Development, Trade and Tourism. I saw no justification whatsoever for freezing First Citizens' Fund. You have left many native people in this province who don't have the ordinary access to capital that other people do, in particular if they're on reserve — property can't be used to raise capital.... They simply don't have the means.

There are many programs. I brought to the attention of the minister one in my constituency — a young woman trying to get into a modest little business. I received an answer from the minister today that was completely unsatisfactory: "Sorry, we can't help you."

I just don't think there's any legitimate reason to have the First Citizens' Fund frozen. I would ask the minister whether he's been able to, persuade the Premier and the rest of his cabinet colleagues to unfreeze these funds and make them available to do the job that they rightfully should be doing.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: We have discussed this privately, and I have sent a letter to the member for Prince Rupert to the effect that I was taking it under review with cabinet and that I expect that we will have some decision within the coming week on the issue of the fund. As you know, those that were in the process have been carried out and are being carried out. It may seem a small inconvenience, but in no way do I believe that we will be jeopardizing the program that was put in place to help the natives get involved in the business community or in business themselves. So, hon. member, you can be guaranteed that my commitment is to get that fund reinstituted.

MR. MILLER: There is absolutely no rationale, no justification, for freezing those funds in the first place. It simply should not have been done.

What explanation can the minister offer as to why the First Citizens' Fund...? Do I have to go back and repeat the history of the establishment and purpose of the fund? It's not discretionary. The moneys in that fund are simply interest. It's administered by native Indians. What possible justification...?

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: The bellowing from the member for Skeena.... He's not in his seat either, Mr. Chairman, if you wanted to rule him out of order. Mr. Chairman, you'd be doing us all a favour if you would shut that minister up.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to this go on and on. What he's talking about is a fund, and we're talking about an item that's shown here in this particular bill. The member is completely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, hon. member. I would suggest that the member for Prince Rupert also recognize that.

MR. MILLER: The minister did respond to my question, Mr. Chairman, and he's the minister responsible. It's a reasonable question. There are many native Indian people throughout this province who.... The minister administers the fund, and Id simply like him to indicate, since his ministry administers it, what possible justification has been provided for freezing it in the first instance.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: Let me tell you that it's not in the warrants we're dealing with in the House now. I can tell you that anybody who practises good management of government should review any types of programs time and again to see how effective and efficient they are. Anything less is certainly being less than responsible.

MS. PULLINGER: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary. The government has been anything but direct in responding to questions about the budget of Music '91. It seems to me that the overrun for Music '91 has become somewhat of a hot potato on the other side of the House. We'll see if this minister will catch it for a moment.

First of all, will this minister confirm that the $12 million for Music '91 came from lottery funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's been a long day's night, hasn't it? I have no intention whatsoever of commenting on something that's within another minister's purview. It would be completely out of order, and I wouldn't want to do it.

MS. PULLINGER: Are you not responsible for lottery funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I've perused this act. I've gone over it from top to bottom, and I don't see anywhere in this warrant or in the items that are mentioned in this act anything to do with any fund. I'm looking at the ongoing budgetary programs of the Ministry of Provincial Secretary. I can tell you that in the overall ministry budget of the Provincial Secretary, there have been no public programs reduced, even though the budget itself has been decreased by $12,000.

[ Page 12443 ]

MS. PULLINGER: It seems that this minister also is afraid to deal with this issue. They're $7 million over on a $12 million budget, and no one in this government is prepared to deal with it in any way, shape or form. Will the minister simply confirm that there is no money allocated under his responsibility for Music '91?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I will confirm that there's nothing under voted expenditures — and that's what we're discussing here tonight — covered by my ministry. That's what we're talking about. I wouldn't want you to be out of order.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, I'm astonished that we finally made it.

AN HON. MEMBER: To what?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Social Services.

Mr. Chairman, First of all I want to acknowledge the fact that the Minister of Social Services has been, as I have been, in this House just about most of the day waiting to deal with this important matter. I don't think anybody wants to be here at 11:15.

[11:15]

HON. MR. RABBITT: Oh yes we do.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Well, I'm really sad to hear you say that you want to be here, because I think this is an abysmal way to deal with the people's business. I think that you should be ashamed of yourselves for dealing with the people's business....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, when I think about the business that we have to deal with here that is represented in this particular vote — almost a third of a billion dollars that relates directly to the health and safety of children in the care of this government at 11:15 at night....

What I want to ask you about, first of all, is this vote. Is this vote accurate, knowing... ?

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Chairman, some of the members find that amusing. I too would have found that amusing, if the previous warrant had not been inaccurate. If the three cabinet ministers who just laughed would refer to the earlier vote on money spent on day care — the overruns — they will see that 90....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would just like to remind you that we're dealing with Bill 8, which is an interim supply bill. It does not deal with the past; it only deals with the future.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister would answer my question. Is this vote correct?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: To the best of my knowledge, this vote is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to try and keep the members in order so we can deal with the questions that are here. The worst offenders are on my side, unfortunately, but try to keep them in order, please. Let's deal with the questions and get out of here this evening some time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I appreciate the minister's sentiment. The thing I want to deal with in this money bill particularly is that I want some assurances from your ministry that the children in your care are safe and that you are doing what is necessary to address some of the major concerns that have been brought to your attention in the last number of months through the ombudsman's report.

I'm sure I don't have to remind you that there are some 18,000 children in care in this province — not all under your ministry, but from time to time a number of those children either have been or will be under the care of your ministry. The ombudsman's report here indicates that there are serious questions about the safety of those children, about licensing and about standards. I'd like to know what the status of the children's secretariat is and whether you have moved on some of those recommendations.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Certainly I agree with the member that caring for the needs of children who are in this unfortunate situation, as many of these children are, is a very serious responsibility and something that I certainly do not take lightly. I know it's a big job. It's a difficult job, and it's hard to be sure that each one of these children is always properly cared for, and that they don't come into other unfortunate circumstances. We work very hard at that.

The secretariat — to do with the ombudsman's report — that was set up is made up of assistant deputy ministers from a number of ministries, and the head of the secretariat is the assistant deputy minister from my ministry. They are dealing with the ombudsman's report. There were a number of recommendations, as you know, in the ombudsman's report. They are going through them, dealing with them systematically to find the solution that best meets the concerns that the ombudsman had.

I would say that I appreciate the ombudsman's report on children. It was a valuable document. It's always beneficial when you have an independent third party looking at the operation and the needs of the community. The ombudsman has the advantage of having many people contacting his office expressing concerns for these children and the situation, so he's in a good position to know what the problem is.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Because we're dealing with a financial document, I am going to try to talk not only about the result of the money that your ministry is spending, but whether we are getting good value for our money. Is the money that is going out for care of children being spent in a way that we can be assured that those children are safe and that they have good

[ Page 12444 ]

homes? Id like to ask the minister in particular whether he agrees that every child in this province deserves a stable and nurturing environment to grow in. If that is the case, can you indicate what you are doing to ensure that children who are in the care of your ministry have that stability?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: These children are in foster homes, and we go to a great deal of care to make sure that the foster homes the children are placed in provide good-quality service for them. We spend time trying to assist foster parents to become better foster parents. We monitor to see that the foster homes provide the proper environment for children. It is taken very seriously by the ministry. That's not to say that in an operation that involves several thousand children, we do not have some difficulties from time to time. When difficulties, appear, we try to address them as quickly as we can and get the child back into a proper, reasonable situation.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister indicate, out of this two-month allotment, how much of this bill goes to the provision of supervision for children so that they don't have to be apprehended and can be supported in their own homes?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The only way I can answer that one.... I'm not sure that this is the information the member asked for, but for services to families and children, we spend $26.5 million in this portion. You're asking what we can do to keep children from needing our assistance or our care. That's a difficult one. If we know that there's a problem within a family, we try to assist them. But we don't know what's happening in our families all the time, except the ones that come into contact with the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would hope that you would agree that the best way to help children is to keep them with their families. The best way to do that is to support families when they are in crisis. The minister has already acknowledged, through the ombudsman's report, that there are very serious problems with the system of care once children come under his responsibility. In reality, through this budget that we have in front of us — and I expect that it is also reflected in the one-third of a billion dollars in this money bill — you have actually cut those community support programs that helped keep children in their homes. Can you justify that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty at all in justifying the efforts the ministry is making to keep children in their homes. You are not telling me something new when you tell me that children are best off with their parents, if that's possible. We spend a great deal of effort in trying to keep children with their parents.

As a matter of fact, the statistics are interesting. For instance, we get calls for 30,000 or more investigations a year to do with potential child abuse. Out of those, in approximately 10 percent of the cases, it's necessary for the ministry to intervene. In the rest of those cases, we manage to deal with the situation in another way What often happens is that there is support, assistance, counselling or whatever done with the family to make it possible for the child to stay with its parents.

Believe me, the very last resort is to take a child away from its parents. That's something we do with a great deal of reluctance. Unfortunately, in today's society that is sometimes necessary in order to protect the safety of that child.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm not going to pursue this now, but I want it on the record. I want you to understand that we are concerned about the kids in this province, and quite frankly, Mr. Minister, your answers don't justify a billion-dollar cut in services — the very services that help support families to stay together.

Mr. Minister, Id like to ask another question: what new standards for health and safety for kids in care have been developed to date? You've had a number of months to work on that.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We have done quite a lot with standards for children in care. The development of standards governing residential care is of fundamental interest to the ministry, to foster parents and to other ministry caregivers. A standard project initiated in 1988 will improve service and affirm the safety and well-being of children in care. The standards are being developed under the direction of a task force representing the private and public sectors. The standards will address health, safety and planning issues and will ensure quality care for children. I think that the standards will be implemented gradually over the next 18 months.

I think that all can agree that we are doing a great deal to make sure that the standards are proper, and I certainly disagree completely.... I look forward to discussing the details of the ministry and the work we're doing. I'm very proud of what we do as a ministry. I think we provide some of the finest service that you would find anywhere in the country for children.

I look forward to talking to you more about that in detail at a future date. For now, I want it to be clearly on record that I certainly do not accept the principle or the theory that we are in some way reducing care or not providing adequate care for the children of this province. We are making a great effort to make sure that the children of B.C. get the best possible care and protection available.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Can the minister tell the House what form those standards will take?

[11:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know just how to answer that question. The standards will apply to those providing care for children.

Interjection.

[ Page 12445 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: People who care for children will be required to meet those standards.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps the minister didn't hear my interjection. I'm asking if there will be formal licensing standards. Will he be asking the people who are caring for the children under his responsibility to be formally licensed?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: This is not a licensing requirement. They will be standards that will apply in the contracts we have with people who provide care to children. In order to be a contractor caring for children in the province, the caregivers will be required to comply to the standards set.

MS. SMALLWOOD: How will these contract standards be enforced?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: They will be enforced as all standards are. They will be enforced by social workers reviewing the care provided for children in the different facilities. If there is any reason to be concerned that there is anything lacking, anything not up to standard in the care of a child from any particular caregiver, then certainly there will be an investigation done immediately. But there will be monitoring to make sure that the standards are complied with.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Minister, have we learned nothing? These two reports from the ombudsman have said that the system that is in place is failing children in this province. These two reports from the ombudsman say that the enforcement even of standards that exist now is not adequate. Mr. Minister, your answer is not reassuring to me, to the children of this province or to the taxpayers, who are paying a sizeable sum to have those children taken care of. Mr. Minister, is that the only apparatus that you have thought through in enforcing the contract standards? I would have hoped that you already had contract standards, but I'm glad that you're reviewing and beefing them up. But, Mr. Minister, it's very clear from the record and from these two very well documented reports that the enforcement of standards that exist today is not good enough What are you going to do that's different?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, the member asks a very leading question: has nothing been learned? I don't know how to answer that. I think we've learned a great deal from the ombudsman's reports, past cases and our experience. I'm not sure how much the member opposite has learned, because you don't seem to understand that what we're proposing here is in response to some of the requirements that the ombudsman presented when he handed down his report. So these standards that we're applying are to provide better service than we have provided in the past to deal with some of the areas we may have had problems in and to make it so the children will be better protected and more secure, and will have even better foster homes — not that they haven't had good foster homes in the past; there are very many good establishments. But our purpose is to guarantee that every child in the province will be well cared for, in a good, proper environment. And that's what we are doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all respect to the questioning over the last little while of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, they are very general questions and perhaps would deserve more detailed answers from the minister. I'm sure that opportunity will be given when the estimates are debated more fully. Perhaps the members could direct their questions more specifically to the interim supply bill.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your opinion on this, but when there are 18,000 children in care in the province, and the ombudsman says they are at risk, then I think, not only for those kids but for the taxpayers who are paying good money — in this particular money bill, a third of a billion dollars — that they need some assurances that we're getting value for our money in this province and that those kids who are in care are safe. I will continue to ask those questions, even if it is 11:30 at night. When the minister says that there is good care in his ministry, what I'd like to ask him is whether he thinks putting children in hotel rooms with a homemaker is good care. I don't think even you can go along with that, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe some of the comments that were made without rising do have some merit, because I've noticed tonight on several occasions that the minister has been referred to as "him" and "you," which is inappropriate in the debate. He should always be referred to as the minister responsible for the ministry.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Let me move on and ask some other questions. I'd like to know what progress the ministry is making towards feeding hungry schoolchildren in this province.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The comment that the member made just a moment or two ago concerning children in motels is referring to an issue that took place some months ago. That was dealt with by me. I went and saw the particular facilities. You have to understand that these children are picked up under very difficult circumstances, and there has to be a place to care for them for the short term so they can then be moved to proper accommodations.

I grant that, again, it's a large ministry. We cannot be sure that every instance is handled as well as it might be. If it isn't, we do our best to intervene and correct the situation. That situation has been corrected.

As far as meals in schools and feeding children, that's an issue that was referred to another ministry. That ministry should be asked concerning that particular project.

[ Page 12446 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: In the last couple of days, the minister has been reported as saying that he's keeping a report card on recipients of GAIN in this province — that he's keeping a record. Let me tell you that when we're keeping records on you as a parent in this province, for all of the children in your care, quite frankly, if there was someone out there that could relieve those children, you would be considered a negligent parent. We have children in this province who are going hungry, who are your responsibility. There are children in this province whose health and safety are risk, and they are your responsibility. If it was any other parent, your ministry would take those children away.

Let me go on to the at-home program. Again, this ministry has talked about the value of having children with their families. They've talked about deinstitutionalizing those children and bringing them back to their community. That is a goal we all would like to support. Once we have those kids back in the community, what is going to happen to them? In this budget, and reflected in this money bill, in your particular vote of a third of a billion dollars, you have cut back the at-home care program for severely handicapped children. Can you explain that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The member is now talking about the at-home program, and about a cut in the program. It's not at all a cut in the program. There was a budget from last year that was higher than the budget shown this year, but the actual take-up of the budget last year was much lower than what the budget is this year. The budget this year, based on last year's take-up of the program, is more than ample to cover the cost.

Can I also comment on a statement that the member made that I thought was very interesting? A few moments ago the member was talking about keeping children with their families, but just another couple of moments ago you were talking about the children who needed care, and you were saying that they were our responsibility and that we should pick up those children that we should take them away from their families. Is that what you're saying?

MS. SMALLWOOD: To clarify for the minister, I was pointing out to you your statutory responsibility for children in your care. I was suggesting to you that by the evidence that is presented, you are a negligent parent.

Let me move on, Mr. Minister. You say that in the in-home care program you have not had the take-up that was budgeted for last year. Can you explain that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It's an enrolment process. The program is there. It's available for people to make use of. They used the program to the extent of $1.25 million, and the budget for the program this year is $4.6 million.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We'll canvass this area more fully, too, but I suspect that one of the reasons there wasn't a better take-up is that you didn't ask the parents first to help you design the program. If the program was designed by the parents, they would have accessed it much more easily. I'd like to know from the minister again why he's cutting community projects now, when these projects are designed to help youth and low income people, while at the same time he can find money to hire people to pressure income assistance recipients off income assistance.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: I don't know what the question was. I couldn't quite get the question on that one, so maybe the member could ask me again. Just so you understand, member — obviously you have a lot of questions, but you don't have very good information.

The program that you're criticizing, that you're saying would have had better take-up if it had been better designed and if people had had input into it, is based upon the advice that came from parents' advisory groups. They're the ones that. decided what should be in the program.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Actually, Mr. Minister, I have had fairly close contact with the associations of parents of handicapped children. While they have been lobbying the ministry for a number of years leading up to the development of that program, those same parents were never consulted as to the design of the program. But as I said, we'll have more time in the estimates to canvass that.

I'm asking you about the cutbacks to community projects, Mr. Minister. This is a time when your government — and I assume you support the throne and budget speeches — is talking about violence against women and children. Community projects in your ministry are projects that fund crisis lines, sexual assault centres — a number of services that relate directly to family violence through counselling or mediation. Again, this section in your budget — and I expect it is reflected in this bill — has been cut back a sizeable amount. How can you rationalize that?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, the programs that the member talks about are programs that we are reviewing. Some of them are programs that have been duplicated by other ministries, but the rest of them we are reviewing and just deciding what we will do with them. As far as this budget shows, there is a reduction. But how we will treat them is still under consideration, because we were not quite comfortable with the way they were financed before.

[11:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I was unable to hear or understand your response — and not only because of some of the talking in the House.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The response is that those programs you talk about are being looked at. It's $1.3 million or something of that nature. With some of the programs, there may have been a duplication in funding between us and other ministries and other programs. But we are looking at those programs to see what we might do with them. You're right that they're

[ Page 12447 ]

not included. There is a reduction shown in the budget, but they are still under consideration.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I can only assume that if they're not included in the budget, they won't be picked up this year.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: It will be a very, very small amount.

MS. SMALLWOOD: So $1.3 million is just a small amount?

One further area that I'd like to canvass very quickly with the minister is another cutback in his budget. This is a budget that reflects this government, which says it is compassionate and caring. I want to remind people of that. This is under the area of dental and health benefits for GAIN recipients. In that section you have cut back another sizeable amount, and I want to understand from the minister what the rationale is there, whether there will be a reclassification for benefits, or whether the minister feels that poor children don't need dental care anymore?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The advice that I received is that we have not cut dental care to children. Where you see a reduction in the budget, it's based on the usage that we have experienced in the past, and the budget is trying to accurately reflect the demand that will be there for this particular year.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Are you suggesting that in previous budgets $1.4 million worth of health and dental services were not picked up?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Yes, I guess that's correct.

MS. SMALLWOOD: One final question. There is an increase in the amount allotted to GAIN. Can GAIN recipients expect to see an increase in their allotment, either in support or for housing?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Well, I guess we'll have to deal with that when we see the estimates. We're talking about something in the future. We will deal with it at the appropriate time.

MR. BLENCOE: I just have one question for the minister. I wonder how much in this warrant is for the 4,000 units that were missing from the housing program. The Minister of Finance announced that 6,500 units were either built or under construction. We've now got the minister's own numbers, and we're 4,000 short. I wonder if this warrant will give us the money we need to build the 4,000 units you've already announced.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: We are not short the thousands of units the member talks about. The rental supply program was an $80 million program. The member talked about that in question period a few days ago. It was my intention to come back and respond to him in question period, but perhaps he'd like the answer at this time. It's very clear, Mr. Chairman, that we've fulfilled our obligation in the rental supply program. We have committed all of the money we said we would commit. A total of 2,659 units are either completed or under construction and will be completed at various times.

AN HON. MEMBER: You said 6,500.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Okay, in addition to that there are 3,948 units. We have agreed to fund 1,151 of those. They've been approved, but they're waiting for their mortgages to be completed. Another 2,797 are waiting for their zoning approvals; they have to have zoning approvals before they can apply for mortgage approvals. If you look at the total number of units there, it would come to 6,607. But because this program is dependent upon interest rates, we suspect that there will be more than that. It could end up at something like 6,800 units.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it is late, and the minister has been given the bafflegab and the stuff he's supposed to say. But his own statistics from his own ministry show that in two years, instead of the 6,500 units this budget said they'd built or had under construction, they've only built 1,247 units, not 6,500. Those are the minister's own figures. They can talk about approvals, but people want housing; they don't want promises of what might be. You've only got 1,200 units going.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's not 1,247 units at all. The member picks up a statistic that's a couple of months old, and he has it in his hand. Why don't you have the new one? The new one shows that 1,286 units were completed and 1,373 are under construction. Some of those may be completed this week; some may be completed next week or next month. But they are under construction, they are completed and they will be on the market. The majority of the others are in socialist NDP municipalities that talk about housing but don't want to provide a space for it; that's where the problem is.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to move on from Social Services and Housing to the Solicitor-General. I know the staff have been waiting patiently since noon today, so we're compelled to ask questions. We only have a few minutes left in this debate. I wouldn't want the staff, who have been waiting patiently since noon, to not have.... Well, maybe more than a few minutes, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to talk briefly about the Solicitor-General ministry. The Premier, who is in the chamber, has said a great deal about law and order; that's an important topic in British Columbia. We saw the crime statistics recently, and we're certainly supportive of that on this side of the House.

It seems to me that there are three aspects to dealing with crime: enforcement, prosecution and prevention. In enforcement, there's been some improvement in Vancouver in terms of areas that I know — youth

[ Page 12448 ]

gangs, for example. There are now school liaison officers, for example. Starting with the former Attorney-General, Brian Smith, I think there was a real move towards looking after prosecution, particularly when it came to youth gangs, and there's been some success in that regard. So I think that the government, to give them credit, has moved on prosecution and a little bit — not enough, I think — on enforcement.

But where there's a great deal of weakness, in my view, is in prevention. Particularly when we deal with multicultural groups, English as a second language and other problems that have to be dealt with, that's where we can have the biggest impact. That's where it makes the most sense, and that's where I think the government's been the weakest — and I say that seriously.

I would like at this time to bring to the attention of the Solicitor-General.... We have met on this privately, and I discussed the Victoria model with him, which I'm very sympathetic to in terms of crime prevention and community police stations. I know that the new Vancouver city police chief, who is very committed to crime prevention and to community involvement, has a proposal that Id like to put on the table, because I think it's worthwhile.

In Vancouver, where we have serious crime problems and where crime prevention really needs assistance, the city, along with its crime prevention committee, is suggesting a mobile unit, which could give visibility to the police. It's kind of a compromise between the Victoria model, which is very progressive, in my view, and very expensive and difficult in an area like Vancouver, which has real problems and demands on the police system.... Frankly, you could spend a lot more money on policing. It's one of those public policy issues where you could spend a tremendous amount of money. You have to be really careful about being effective with it, because you could literally throw it away and not have big improvements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please Hon. member, I'm having a great deal of difficulty trying to relate the question that you might be asking to schedule 2 of Bill 8, under the Solicitor-General. I know we are getting close to the bewitching hour; let's not bewitch.

MR. CLARK: I'm getting to the point here. I've got some staff from the Solicitor-General's ministry who have been waiting here since noon. I want them to feel like they've participated in the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, they would like questions under schedule 2 of Bill 8.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, Vancouver city, an area which obviously concerns me but also concerns all of us because it's the largest urban area, has a proposal for a mobile unit which can move to areas of high crime and set up a crime prevention operation that would have high visibility. You take a park in my riding — or something like that — where there's a particular problem and move in there and set up to do the community crime prevention work. People could come and the police would be visible in the neighbourhood. They would stay there maybe for two weeks or a month and then move on to another area of high crime in the city.

I think it's a very worthwhile endeavour. In light of the Premier's comments and in light of this budget — and this is one-third of the budget for the Solicitor General's ministry — I wonder if the minister could tell us whether any money in this vote has been earmarked for crime prevention in Vancouver: first of all, in a broad sense; and secondly, whether it has been earmarked for this specific proposal, which is just getting off the ground. I think this mobile crime prevention could really improve the crime statistics in Vancouver.

[12:00]

HON. MR. MESSMER: I agree with the member opposite. Certainly policing in the province is a difficult situation — deciding how many police are enough in order to handle the situation that we have. But I think both sides of the House probably agree that it's the neighbourhood and the community that has to be involved.

We're very fortunate in British Columbia because of the participation that we do have — for example, Block Watch, Neighbourhood Watch, Seniors Watch. We have the Victoria situation which I've talked to the member about. But to answer the question that you've asked specifically, we have not had a request from Vancouver to incorporate any new ideas or to work with them on this. However, having said that, we're going out to the communities in British Columbia. We're asking for any imaginative ideas that they may have that will assist us in law and order in British Columbia.

MR. CLARK: In light of the Premier's campaign commitment to law and order, I wonder if the minister could inform the House what the increase in his budget is in percentage terms for crime prevention — given that it's a priority, particularly for the Premier. Id really like to see the evidence of that in this budget.

HON. MR. MESSMER: This year we have an increase of $520,447, a 13.8 percent increase. This represents a $500,000 increase, which is going to strengthen our enforcement measures for CLEU. This gets back to the gangs we've been talking about, especially in the Vancouver area. So half a million dollars will be spent directly trying to do something about it.

Many have said that we are saying the federal government should do something. We, in turn, have put half a million dollars into this budget to help that situation.

MS. MARZARI: That half a million dollars is circulated. There are some people on this side of the House that are concerned about tripling the number of police to deal with youth gangs without taking a clear and comprehensive look at what can really prevent crime and what can really assist youth.

My question has to do with the area that I've raised and canvassed before today, Mr. Solicitor-General. It has to do with the amount of attention and time that must be spent by police, courtworkers and by your

[ Page 12449 ]

ministry around the area of domestic violence — how police charge, how they approach the community, how they approach the woman, how they approach the household and deal with a family crisis, and then proceed to carry it through the court procedures. Id be interested to know how much in this warrant and in your budget is being spent on training police and courtworkers, on increasing the number of police and community workers or courtworkers, to deal with domestic violence, which is, in the opinion of many in our community, at least as substantial, at least as serious and at least as endemic as far as the way our communities survive is concerned as youth gangs are.

HON. MR. MESSMER: First, I'm sure that you didn't mean that gangs are not a problem in Vancouver, because it certainly is a real problem that we're facing and one that we're trying to address. As for the police in the province of British Columbia being trained, they are well trained; they're well trained to handle any type of incident that we may have. We have a great program at the Justice Institute that police within the municipalities go to. I think we all know that the RCMP are well trained in Canada and are able to deal with any type of situation that may arise.

MS. MARZARI: I have numerous reports. One that just happens to be on my desk today is a brief written by the Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres to the federal government which describes in detail how police are not trained, how they do not charge, how the police very often take the side of the abuser when they go into a home, because they simply haven't been trained to properly deal with domestic violence. They don't want to touch it. They fear that it won't lead anywhere anyway, so they just don't touch it — and women's lives are in danger.

I think we should move on to the next question, my last one. Just today I had a phone call come in to the office. A concern was expressed about a juvenile detention centre which you are presently in the process of planning, which I gather is going to be built soon, I believe, in the Saanich area. I gather that this new juvenile detention centre is going to be a co-ed centre in which the young men and the young women will have their own separate quarters, but there will be a common area which is co-ed. I would ask you, Mr. Solicitor-General, in this new age of sensitivity: why would you put young females, very often victims of sexual abuse, into co-ed common areas with young male sexual offenders?

HON. MR. MESSMER: I am told that we run a co-ed program in a youth detention centre in Prince George and have for many years. It's been very successful, both by our standards and by those of the people who live in Prince George. However, I will take what you've had to say into consideration and talk to our staff to ensure that the same situation is being built into the one that we are proposing here on the lower Island.

MR. LOVICK: I want to begin by allaying the fears of members opposite. My questions to the Minister of Transportation and Highways will take no more than 40 minutes. I understand that we are without either minister or ministry staff this evening. Is that the case? And I assume further that there is good reason for that.

HON. J. JANSEN: On a point of order, I am a minister, Mr. Chairman. But he's quite correct, we don't have any staff here from Transportation and Highways. We'll handle the questions as best we can in the same manner as previously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that that was not an appropriate point of order.

MR. LOVICK: In the name of civility and decency and kindness and understanding for all the members opposite and the lateness of the hour, I shall defer my questions, at least, until estimates. But I do want to say that it seems passing strange, given that we have known now for the last ten hours that this bill was coming before us and that we're looking at a sum of $250 million, that we haven't anybody here from that ministry. That seems a shame to me.

We have a number of important questions, but as I say, we'll defer those. I understand my colleague from Vancouver East would like to wrap up matters from our side, so I'll defer to him.

MR. CLARK: It's late. I'll just briefly wrap up debate on this section of the schedule, Mr. Chairman.

For something like 100 years governments have brought in a budget before we ran out of money, with one previous exception and that was when there was an election in 1983 — except this one. The government has been so consumed by internal dissent, so racked by internal division it couldn't even bring in a budget before we ran out of money That's why we have an interim supply bill here today after — the latest budget in the history of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We are on schedule 2. We are not in second reading of Bill 8. Do you have some questions on schedule 2 to ask the minister?

MR. CLARK: I thought that members would be so happy to know that this was the last speaker that we could take a little liberty, and I would afford the same opportunity to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am subject to the rules you have laid down. If you have questions on schedule 2, I am sure the House would be happy to entertain them.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, this entire schedule — not seriatim, the entire schedule — is for $2.8 billion of public money which the government has asked us to retroactively approve.

We'll be voting against this bill. We'll be voting against this section because it is the final proof that you can't run a government this way. You cannot come in at the last minute and try to get $5 billion worth of spending in one day. They can't bring in a budget on

[ Page 12450 ]

time. It's simply proof to all British Columbia that the government has simply run out of gas; they have run out of steam. They should have brought in a budget on time. We should have had a full debate of estimates by now instead of this late in the evening just going through a brief debate on each of the spending estimates.

MR. SMITH: There are a couple of items that have been left out in terms of dealing with some of estimates that we've been doing here today. I wouldn't want those people who have been left out to feel offended by it, particularly Transportation and Highways, because it's of concern to a lot of people.

Mr. Chairman, my question to the minister with respect to the Transportation allocation is with regard to transit to the municipality of Richmond, and the concern that a large number of people have on the south side of the Fraser River. A very important concern that they have is that the mayor of Vancouver, acting either as the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District or as the mayor of Vancouver, or both, has indicated that he is inclined to do whatever he can to prevent the rapid transit SkyTrain facility from proceeding to the south side of the Fraser River in a way that would be cost-effective to all the citizens of British Columbia. As this facility will be paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia, it is therefore important for all taxpayers to know the answer.

Maybe I could begin the process this way. It will likely be one of the single largest expenditure allocations impacting on the Transportation budget for some time to come. Therefore I would ask the minister if he could advise the House whether or not the position of the chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District will be determinative of the ministry's position and the government's position with respect to advancing that very important transportation facility, or whether the government, as it has always done in the past, will act in the best interests of all British Columbians and not simply the mayor of Vancouver.

[12:15]

HON. J. JANSEN: The question respecting transit that the member asked was relating to the citizens' input in terms of the transit configuration and routing. I should let the members of this House know that there is a citizens' committee, to which the city of Vancouver has appointed two members, comprising citizens of Delta, Richmond and Vancouver. That input and that recommendation will form the final determinants in terms of the route it is to take.

MR. SMITH: Another area of considerable concern to all citizens that has been missed in dealing with the estimates this year is the office of the auditor-general. I'm sure the auditor-general would not want us to pass him by as we're examining these materials. The allocation under the warrant is for $1,024,000. My question to the Minister of Finance is pretty straightforward: will the Minister of Finance ensure that when the auditor-general's budget is dealt with, there will be an opportunity to have as a separate line item in that budget the amount of money proposed to be allocated for value-for-money audits as they apply not to specific programs, as the Minister of Finance is doing, but to policy issues in the broad ministerial sense? I would appreciate hearing the answer to that.

HON. J. JANSEN: The response to that question is that I think it is appropriate that we identify the cost of value-for-money auditing and compare it to the savings achieved by the auditor-general. It's a valid question, and something we'll take under advisement.

Schedule 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 21

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. J. JANSEN: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 8, Interim Supply Act (No. 1), 1991, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I understand that His Honour is approaching the chamber, so we might all keep our seats for just a moment.

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

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act (No. 1), 1991

[ Page 12451 ]

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all the members of our assembly, Id like to thank the staff who've been here today at the table and around the buildings: the TV people, the security staff, the dining room staff, the people from the Speaker's office, the Hansard people, ministerial staff, particularly, and all who've been around today. We've strayed well beyond the ambit of the material in the warrants of the Supply Act, so I guess in that sense it has been even more helpful than we had thought, because undoubtedly we can now say with a straight face that essentially we've completed the estimates for the 1990-91 year. I think we can thank them all for that.

MR. REID: And the cheque's in the mail.

MR., ROSE: I'd like to join the member for Kamloops in congratulating everybody who helped make this day a lengthy success. I'm really pleased that after we've passed this bill, even though I voted against it, my cheque is in the mail.

I would like to say that only one thing worried me about what the hon. member for Kamloops had to say. He said that essentially the estimates are completed. That's what worried us all day. We had all kinds of assurances that they weren't completed. I don't know who speaks for the government — whether it's the Minister of Finance, the Premier or the member for Kamloops. If it's the member for Kamloops, that would really worry me.

Anyway, as Tiny Tim said, bless us all and good evening.

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.