Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 30, 1992

Volume 1, Number 13

[ Page 245 ]

The House met at 6:41 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Second reading, interim supply.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1992

(continued)

The Speaker: The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove adjourned debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's good to be back after such a long break, all fired up and rejuvenated. I didn't quite make it to Switzerland or Hong Kong, but I feel good. I notice that the rest of the members of the government haven't managed to return from their dinner yet, but we're all here.

When I was interrupted and then adjourned the debate much earlier this evening, I was talking about the special warrants and particularly comparing the special warrants of this government to those of the previous government. I was making note of the sheer volume of special warrants that have come out by this government, and the fact that they do need significant debate -- more than we can possibly do in this House in a day and a half.

It is very interesting to look through these. After the last election and the campaign that this present government waged, I honestly never expected to see a special warrant with an NDP Minister of Finance's signature on it. Unfortunately, there is a whole stack of them here, and anybody can come and look at them if they want to.

It's very interesting to note the methods that this government has come to use in the short time that they have been in government, and particularly in this House. They expect the House to merely overlook the fact that they've spent on special warrants for five months. They expect this House not to pay attention to the fact that they have been worse perpetrators of special-warrant spending than the previous government -- which had to be the worst in all history.

H. Lali: So which one is worse?

G. Farrell-Collins: By far, the present government is the worst. It's amazing -- the blind loyalty of the backbenchers of this government, and how they just get right in there and cheer on their executive council.

An Hon. Member: There aren't many of them.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's true. You can't hear them very well now because there's maybe a tenth of the number that was here before. But they're starting to get fired up.

In all seriousness, these special warrants that have been put forth by this government are a disgrace and a supreme disappointment to the people of this province who thought they had voted for a different style of government. What they have now is exactly the same style of government. The names on the office doors have changed, the seating plan of the House has changed, but nothing has really changed. It's exactly the same system we had before. The members opposite should really take that to heart and think hard and long about it before they start to call, ridicule and make fun of the fact that their NDP government is the most profound perpetrator of special-warrant spending in the history of this province. That's a disgrace to the taxpayers of this province, who have been paying into government for the last year. They're going to pay into it for another four months, and we're still dealing on special warrants and interim supply, all because this government didn't have the foresight to call the House at a reasonable time like they did in Saskatchewan, like they did in Ontario, like NDP governments have done around this country. They refused to call the House. They waited five months. They waited two weeks, once the House was called, to get into this debate, and here we are at almost 7 o'clock in the evening, and we're debating special warrants and fiscal ineptitude of this government one day before the end of the fiscal year. That's an outrage.

[6:45]

This government has had five months. They have had days. Now we hear them talk about fair wages again. They would rather.... Instead of having the public look at these special warrants, they tried to hide them. They were ashamed of them. They tried to put them behind their back and shove them under the desk, and instead engage in a debate on fair wages, another piece of regulation they've had months to bring in. Their friends in the construction industry have been waiting months to hear from them. They put it off and they put it off, because they know it's the most unpopular, undefendable piece of regulation and legislation that this government will likely bring forth this year. They know that, and it's indefensible. There are no reports; there's no justification for that policy, and so they try and bring it in under the clutter of battle the day before the end of the fiscal year when we're trying to debate the special warrants of this province; we're trying to debate the interim supply of this government.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: If you'd like me to bring up Peat Marwick, I'd be glad to bring up Peat Marwick.

It's Amazing: there isn't a single member of the executive council in here. Maybe they're operating by remote control now or something, because they're not even here. They don't even need the strings.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Our members are here.

C. Evans: You haven't said anything yet that we didn't give you the idea for. You need us.

G. Farrell-Collins: You're right. Everything I've said here today you people -- I should say the hon. members of the NDP -- gave me the idea for. You gave me the idea of this charade and embarrassment of fiscal 

[ Page 246 ]

spending -- this special-warrant spending. You gave me the idea of this Peat Marwick charade that's built up this straw person and is trying to....

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, please. I'd just like to remind the member to address comments through the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will endeavour to do so, hon. Speaker.

And it's intriguing. The member brought up the Liberal Party finances, a topic I love to talk about, because this party elected 17 members with $93,000, probably the most cost-effective and efficient election campaign in the history of Canada. I would love to see the government party's campaign debt from the last election, or has it already been paid off by the construction unions in this province?

C. Evans: Please address the Chair.

G. Farrell-Collins: I am addressing the Chair. This is the hon. Speaker.

Hon. Speaker, it's amazing that no matter what topic the members of the government bring up, they cannot defend it. They cannot defend special warrants, because they themselves have spoken so strongly against them. They cannot defend Peat Marwick, because they know it's fundamentally flawed. They can't defend accusations of campaign contributions, because they know they exist. The only thing this government can do is holler and scream and play like children, and play fast and loose with the rules in this House.

It's time the people of this province cleaned the other half of this House, got rid of this NDP government and started over with a Liberal government.

H. De Jong: The member to my left just said that if I would use his speech of last year.... I can assure you that I would not use his speech, because I'm a much milder type of person than he is in his expressions. At the same time, I do want to get up today and speak on this interim supply bill. In fact, I am speaking against this interim supply bill.

I have been in the House now for nearly two weeks. I spoke last week on the throne speech and mentioned the fuzzy lines that were in the throne speech and what perhaps would be between those fuzzy lines. I've looked at the things that have happened over the last couple of weeks. In fact, the lines in the blueprint are so blurred that they run in opposite directions. The events that this government has gone through, and which it has proclaimed and stated over the last couple of weeks, run in exactly opposite directions.

What makes me very uneasy is to approve an almost $5 billion interim supply bill. The reason I'm saying that they run in opposite directions is that, on the one hand, the government wishes to implement measures under this so-called fair wage policy to bring up the cost of construction of facilities for government to the highest level of wages paid to construction workers through union agreements. On the other hand, this government is espousing to put a limit, a cap, on doctors' total earnings, which in reality says that.... When a doctor is practising and has practised for a number of years in a community, he attains a credibility among his patients and has an incentive to serve his patients to the best of his ability. If ten months of the year have gone by and this doctor, because he is a good doctor, has reached this "capped agreement" or this "capped amount" that the government will allow to be paid to any physician, he would then have to say to a patient: "I'm sorry. I cannot help you, dear patient."

I'm just thoroughly frustrated as to what this government is really up to, and I'm sure many of the people of British Columbia are thoroughly frustrated.

We talk about increased taxes. The Premier himself has on many occasions stated that there would be no new taxes. Hon. members, whether it is increased taxes to an existing tax or a new tax, they are additional taxes to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Surely an interim supply bill is to pay people. Surely -- I believe I can speak for all members in this House -- we wouldn't want anyone who is providing service or working for the government not to get paid for a period of time while we are debating the estimates. But surely to goodness, since this government has been in office for nearly six months, without any problem it could have opened this Legislature perhaps a week or two earlier so at least we could have had all of the debates on second reading of the budget, as was proposed last week. We've had no debate on the budget as such. There's been no dialogue between government and the opposition as to what is really in the budget. Now we are asked to approve a supply bill. Yes, we know the amount that is contemplated under this interim supply bill, but neither the people of this province nor we as legislators know what effect the taxation measures are going to have on British Columbians.

An. Hon. Member: They'll sure find out pretty quick.

H. De Jong: I agree, hon. member. The people will find out very quickly. Maybe the members on the government side know.

Many questions have been asked in regard to the tax implications, but no answers have been provided. The people of this province and we as legislators surely have the right to know what's in the budget document.

While there is little time left, we have no alternative but to let this bill go by, although I'm sure all my colleagues on this side of the House and I will be voting in opposition to it. I want to state again that we have no intention nor would we ever want to withhold payment to those who are providing a service for the people of British Columbia through government offices. At the same time, the people have the right to know before the money is spent how it is to be extracted from their pockets. From what I see in this budget, the extraction from the pockets of British Columbians is going to be very extreme. This is why I'm very sorry. In fact, I'm sure the people of British Columbia feel uneasy about not having had the complete debate on second reading 

[ Page 247 ]

of our budget before this interim supply bill is passed in this House.

I don't think I need to say much more. But by the sudden change in the course of action through various procedures that were introduced by this government today, the people of this province are losing confidence in the competence of this government at a fast rate.

C. Tanner: I rise today to talk on the bill that has been introduced this morning at such short notice, Bill 16 on supply. In some ways it's a bit like a situation that might happen if you went to cash your cheque on October 15, and $50 was deducted. And when you went to cash your cheque on November 1, there was another $100 taken out. When you ask why, they say: "Wait until March 31, and we'll tell you then." On January 1 there's another $100 taken out, and when you ask, "Why are you taking this money from us?" they say, "Wait until March 31, and perhaps we'll tell you then." I don't think the members would put up with that. The members would want some explanation as to why the deductions have been made, and I think it's reasonable that the people of British Columbia should know how the government is spending their money before it is spent.

Madam Speaker, I think it's a shame that this government, which is a green government, and this opposition, which is a green opposition, and those 51 members in this House who are green.... We're all new at this game. I think it started out in the most unfortunate manner from everybody's point of view, but particularly from the point of view of the public. I don't think there was any need for what's happened now. I don't think there's any need to abuse the rules to accomplish what you wanted to do. There was a very obvious need to call this assembly earlier so that we could sit and debate it. Even the new members could have participated, and we could have given you our approval to go ahead and spend money which is rightly the public's.

Madam Speaker, I was going to say earlier on -- I was slated to speak earlier -- that I didn't blame the members from the third party not being here, because unfortunately they might have been too ashamed to be here, because they taught those people over there how to play this game. It's unfortunate that they've learned so well.

[7:00]

I think the members on that side should remember that they now are government. Their responsibilities are different than when they sat on this side, and it's time they treated their responsibilities with the same respect that we in the opposition are trying to treat our responsibilities. That goes for all members, but particularly those who had experience in the Legislature prior to this sitting. There are about 25 or 30 of them on the government side who had experience. They're not setting a very good example for their new members, and they certainly aren't setting a very good example for the new members on this side.

It didn't have to be like that, Madam Speaker. It could have been like what we said we were going to do when we were in opposition, to try to offer reasonable alternatives and a different point of view. They haven't allowed us to do that, because of the stupidity and, in my view, the shortsightedness of those members who were on this side before.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, hon. Speaker. I certainly welcome a good and thoughtful debate in this House, but the use of the word "stupidity" -- he's sort of conveying that in a general sense to all hon. members on this side of the House -- is somewhat unparliamentary, and I think that this House would be better served if the member would be kind enough to withdraw that word.

The Speaker: In proceeding with his comments, the hon. member would like, I'm sure, to choose his words carefully, so as not to tread so close to the line.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, I guess I'm forceful in the words I use, because I'm struck, quite frankly -- as many new members must be -- by the waste of time and effort put into trying to one-up one another, when I came to this House to do the best I could for my constituents. I'm not sure that the constituents of either the members on that side or those on this side are being well served by what they've seen in the last week or so in this House. If the member opposite is offended by the word "stupid," I withdraw it. I would replace it with the word "foolish." Would that be acceptable?

Unlike some of my colleagues, I find in the Peat Marwick report things that we might be able to use. If I might draw the members' attention to the schedule of the special warrant, it says, if I might just read the front line: "Expenditures urgently and immediately required for the public good for which no appropriation has been made." The operative words in that sentence are: "no appropriation has been made." It is unfortunate that this government saw fit to spend $1 million on a report for information which they should have had as members of the opposition, and if they needed any expert advice, they had, within the facility of this Legislature, expertise which was available to them. But having spent the $1 million, maybe we can find items within the Peat Marwick report that might be of benefit to the government.

It is suggested in the executive summaries of the Peat Marwick report that greater use be made of more sophisticated techniques to manage the central aspects of the treasury function. I suggest that what Peat Marwick is saying there is that perhaps the idea floated from this part of the House that maybe we should be looking at an exchequer.

I address another recommendation:

"Consolidate all activities of government, including Crown agencies, into one principal set of financial statements, rather than the current practice of publishing three different sets of accounts. As part of this consolidation, adequately reflect the underlying value of investments in Crown corporations."

[ Page 248 ]

I point out to all members of the House that what I'm quoting from is the Peat Marwick report, which we're not very fond of. But since they've spent the money, we might as well make use of it. Another observation is that there is no coordinated policy-development planning and financial-control capacity serving the government as a whole. I suggest that that is exactly what we're talking about. If we had an exchequer-type finance, which they're happy to use in Australia and Great Britain -- we must admit that Great Britain has had a little more experience at this game than this House -- there might be merit and benefit to the members of the public.

Lastly, just in that particular vein, I would draw members' attention to another suggestion: to establish a central governmentwide plan for revenue activities. I would suggest that all those examples -- the government's own reports, the $1 million that they spent -- they might well take advantage of and use to the benefit of everybody in this House.

There are other points made in the executive summaries which I'd like to draw to the members' attention. In the report the "British Columbia Financial Review: The Issue of Personnel" it is suggested that in some cases the hiring procedures are being circumvented as a means of obtaining the necessary staff. That is a shocking report and one I hope the government will take to heart, because if the very employees of this government don't understand on what basis they're employed, you are setting a course where this government will find itself in extreme embarrassment within two or three years for the simple reason that the staff don't know to whom they report and they don't know why they were hired.

They're also suggesting in the financial control summary that insufficient qualified financial resources to properly monitor and control all financial activities are in place. I would suggest that the government again should look carefully at the Peat Marwick report, since we've paid the $1 million, and see how better the functioning of this parliament could operate.

They're also suggesting the adoption of policies recommended by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It astounds me that a government of this size would even be operating without the proper professional people to assist them and would increase the current year's deficit to $2.6 billion.

The final one that I would like to draw the members' attention to is "that the Financial Administration Act should be changed to provide a requirement that the government justify in writing all requests to spend money by special warrant." This is the government's own report. I want to read it again; I think this is very pertinent to this debate. They're suggesting "that the Financial Administration Act be changed to provide" -- now listen, fellow members -- "a requirement that the government justify in writing all requests to spend money by special warrant." That's what you're doing right now. Members on the opposite side are giving their government the authority to spend money without any checks; and they spent it already, and now they want us to approve it.

They want you to approve it, too, and you are doing that, fellow members of this House, apparently without any intention or any understanding of what you're up to. Madam Speaker, it astounds me that the members who were recently elected would be prepared, without any question, to spend $2 billion of the public's money. Do they not understand what they're doing? Are they not listening to the recommendations of their very own million-dollar report? Are they just believing the members of the cabinet because they're fellow political allies? Or do they take their responsibility of being members of this House so lightly that it doesn't matter to them, and just by rote they stick their hands up or stand in their places when they have to? I think it's time they took their responsibilities a little more seriously.

Madam Speaker, I am....

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker to you.

The Speaker: Order, please.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, I am the Liberal critic for Tourism. I'd like to quote the present Minister of Tourism from a debate last year, when she stood in her place on this side of the House and made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker...." We had a "Mr." then.

Interjection

C. Tanner: If I might quote from the debates of the last House without being interrupted:

"Mr. Speaker, building a budget is...like building a house. You assess the terrain, calculate the measurements of the foundation, find the best materials you can afford to invest in your foundation, and build with a plan that reflects the needs of your family now and in the future.... You have to be honest with yourself, your contractors and your bank about what you have and what you can borrow. You have to make provisions for future additions at the beginning so you can avoid costly mistakes down the way.

"Right now, our province is faced with a careful architectural plan for a new house, but with a costly list of erratic, last-minute renovations to an old haunted house."

"All the while you're telling the bank that you've got a rainy-day fund to cover the costs to reduce the loan. You've told the contractor that he'll be paid what you'd agreed on. You haven't told the bank that the rainy-day fund has never even puddled" -- whatever that means -- "and you haven't told the contractor that you'll pay only what you're able to pay depending on your mood."

"Nonetheless, you've built your foundation on the theme of caring. That's the theme the Social Credit architects want us to remember. I'm concerned about this house of caring. I'm concerned for Point Grey, for Vancouver and especially for the women of British Columbia, because the caring in this budget is not matched with political commitment to the priorities this government claims it wants to glue together -- most particularly environment and women."

[ Page 249 ]

Madam Speaker, I want to enforce the thought in this House and to my fellow new members -- green like I am -- that these are the thoughts of an experienced member in a budget debate just a few short months ago, when it was suggested by the member on this side, when they were in opposition, that the government was acting incorrectly.

She went on to say:

"I'm concerned because these born-again Care Bears don't back up their caring with the three other cornerstones that should be part of the foundation of this house they want to build. These cornerstones, along with caring, are accountability, integrity and honesty. Accountability, not just when it suits government, but as a principle of governing; accountability, not peekaboo accountability, the game we all played with our kids when they were little -- now you're here and now you're not.... I'm talking about a serious, steady, reliable legislated set of regulations and rules that enforce accountability and ensure that we, as politicians, truly do protect our heritage and truly do respond to the needs of people, that we can carry a message to people in British Columbia and be believed."

M. Farnworth: It sounded better when Darlene said it.

C. Tanner: I don't think it was quite as precise when she said it.

"I refer here to the Public Accounts Committee. I can't really talk about the accountability without talking about the public accounts, because that's where public accountability meets the bottom line. That's when you've got to match what you say you've got and what you say you did with what you actually did. If ever there was a game of peekaboo in this province, it's with the public accounts and the Public Accounts Committee. For the last three or four years since I've been Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, we have been playing peekaboo with those accounts. Every year this side of the House has asked for the public accounts to appear on the floor of the House. Generally, when we ask for those accounts, we are already 18 months away from when the public accounts began. Already we are looking into the far past. By the time we actually see the...accounts for the preceding fiscal year, we are looking at ancient history."

Madam Speaker, listen to this. This is the present Minister of Tourism speaking in this House in her position with the last government as to how they manage their finances. Doesn't the very fact that these words came from the mouth of one of your own make any impression on the members over there? You're guilty of the very things that you accused the government of last time.

[7:15]

She goes on:

"Last year the Public Accounts Committee actually managed to encourage government to do the following -- and this was announced only on July 25, 1990.... This was a speech by the deputy chair of Public Accounts -- a Social Credit member. The major change in policy is that, commencing with the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, the public accounts will be issued along with the auditor general's report immediately after preparation, notwithstanding that the Legislature may not be in session.

"This sounds like nothing. This sounds like something that should have been in situ since the beginning of time. The fact that this is one of the major accomplishments of the Public Accounts Committee" -- this is your member speaking; she's proud of what she's accomplished -- "is in itself a testimony to the fact that we have had to spend four to five years pressuring for the early release and preparation of the public accounts. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker -- not good enough at all. It's unforgivable when other jurisdictions can get their books together for public perusal within four months of the end of a fiscal year."

She goes on, but I think I've made the point. When the members on that side of the House were on this side of the House, they had a set of rules which they attempted to force the past government to abide by. In the transition of a few feet -- I believe it's two sword-lengths -- to the other side of the House, they've changed their tune. I think that's probably what's most disappointing to the new members. It certainly is to the new members on this side; it should be to the new members on that side. I don't think you should accept so lightly the fact of the change in what your government is doing today as compared to what they wanted to do six months ago.

There are 11 approved amounts of moneys being requested to be spent and approved, starting in November and going right through to February 28. The one I'm most concerned with is that of the Ministry of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture for $7,465,000. I don't think the members opposite should be treating the world and the situation they find themselves in quite so lightly.

During the campaign leading up to the election on October 17, 1991, we were treated to an advertisement put out by that party in which the present Premier was dropping pennies or nickels -- one of the two -- into a piggy bank. The point that the Premier was trying to make was that should they become government, they would be fiscally responsible and prudent with the public's money. If they wanted to be prudent, why didn't they call this House earlier and prove their prudence by asking us to recommend and endorse what they wanted to do? Why did they leave it to this late day to suddenly jump in the House and say, "Approve it"

An Hon. Member: We had to give you months to prepare your scintillating comments.

C. Tanner: Thank you. You don't realize what five months will do for a speech.

Madam Speaker, I am rapidly coming to a close. I would point out that the government has done little less than picked the pockets of the public. They've taken money out of their pockets, and then they've said: "Trust us; we'll look after you." Two billion dollars.

If they can't do anything about it this time, will the members give us the assurance that it will never happen again while this government is in power -- do I see the member nodding? -- and that those new members like myself will never allow their government to do it again?

[ Page 250 ]

Some Hon. Members: You've got it.

C. Tanner: Madam Speaker, could you take note of those people who have said: "You've got it"? Maybe they'd like to identify themselves, because it will be you that I will be quoting next time, not your Minister of Tourism.

C. Serwa: I am pleased to join the debate on second reading of Bill 16, the Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, and I am also very pleased to speak in opposition to that act.

Madam Speaker, I know it takes my colleagues opposite and adjacent by surprise to hear this, but before I go on, I would like to have a ruling if the work "turkey" is parliamentary or not.

The Speaker: I would ask the member to continue with his comments and recognize that the Chair does not give rulings on hypothetical situations.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The term "turkey" came to me because turkeys are rather foolish birds, as you might know. They don't know when to come out of the rain or when to do the right thing, and that is synonymous with the hon. members opposite. I'll refrain from calling them turkeys, because I think that would detract from the level of debate in this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, what we have here is obviously a government by default. Where is the government? Empty chairs represented by one minister, represented by a group of private members who can only heckle or, like peas in a pod, support whatever government does. Government does whatever the union echelons dictate that they do, and the union echelons, I suppose, only listen to the NDP provincial council.

This particular debate on the Supply Act probably points to the worst-case scenario for a new government which fought the election on the basis of open and honest government and a departure from what they believe is a perception of the former government -- and I was a private member in that government. This particular act, the Supply Act, brought to the debate in the Legislature at this time, is certainly a lapse in parliamentary democracy. This government could be well ashamed, knowing that they have been government for almost six months of the past fiscal year. They come to this Legislature with the imposition on the Legislature that this matter is pressing, urgent and very important. The fact is that virtually six months has elapsed since they became government. This could have been attended to if they had called in the House earlier, and everyone, including the members opposite and adjacent, has to concede that.

What are they doing without any notice as far as the people are concerned, hon. members? I'll tell you what they're doing. Under special warrants for the Attorney General, they're ratifying, without intensive debate, 36.4 percent of the entire vote for the previous year -- carte blanche, a blank cheque. What for? No debate, no critic opportunity to enter into a debate.

Madam Speaker, the other thing is that I feel sorry for you, because at times like this I feel your position is being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, but nevertheless I'm going to continue. [Applause.]

Madam Speaker, it's certainly nice to hear the members opposite occasionally become alive with remarks and some desk-clapping. It's nice to know that things are alive and well over there. I challenge the members opposite to stand up and speak, if they can speak in support of this Supply Act. I want to see each and every one of you stand up and tell your constituents out there that you're in favour of this type of a tactic. The people didn't get a government that they elected; they got a government by default and by tyranny. That's what's happening here in the Legislature tonight: legislation by exhaustion. My, what a remarkable first step to hang your collective hats on! I can see buttons popping with a burst of absolute pride.

Enter the debate, hon. member -- through you, Madam Speaker. I challenge all the members opposite to enter the debate. What do we do in the matter of the ombudsman? We ratify 35.1 percent in the ombudsman's office, without the opportunity of a critic entering into the debate, without any fair warning. Open and honest government. I think the citizens of British Columbia are indeed wondering what open and honest and fairness are. Who defines those words? Does a socialist opposite and adjacent define open and honest and responsible government? I think not, by their actions tonight.

B.C. Trade Corporation and the Premier's office, 32.2 percent that we're asked to ratify tonight in second reading debate on Bill 16 -- 32.2 percent without the opportunity of allowing the critic to question in detail where this money has gone. The splendid opportunity that the members opposite, the government, in the corner all absent and disinterested.... I think the people of British Columbia can see that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services is the only member here. The government is completely disinterested in the affairs and the business of the people of the province of British Columbia.

Aboriginal affairs -- an increase there of 27 percent under special warrant. Again: what for, why, how, where, when, for what purpose? Is that being explained to the people of the province of British Columbia? No. This government is asking us to endorse and sign a blank cheque. Well, we're not going to do that. It was said before in this House, in the years '72 to '75, "not a dime without debate," and for a very good reason.

A tyranny right off the bat that is arrogant.... How arrogant? Madam Speaker, I'll tell you how arrogant. This government has indulged in a series of patronage appointments to an extent never seen before in the province of British Columbia. The senior echelons of the civil service of the province are being overturned with political patronage appointments by individuals formally associated with the socialists in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba. They're being brought here at a great cost to the exclusion of the professional civil servants who serve this province so admirably. I'm trying make a point that the figures in the Supply Act that we're being asked to ratify here in this debate are based on a number of factors that this current government had an opportunity to control. The patronage appointments of 

[ Page 251 ]

people not familiar with the affairs of British Columbia is an example of why this government is completely out of control.

We go on, Madam Speaker. Advanced education -- 33.8 percent of that budget. It's a very complex, very large and very important ministry in the province of British Columbia. We are asked, blindly -- carte blanche -- to sign the blank cheque. "It's okay, trust us. We're the new government. We're honest. We're open. We have integrity and depth." I see none of that here -- none of it evidenced tonight. It goes on and on, ministry by ministry. Agriculture and fisheries: 65.6 percent. And we're being asked to ratify that tonight under special warrant.

[7:30]

For a government that has been in power for almost six months, this is unconscionable. I think that the people of the province of British Columbia are well aware of what's transpiring in here, and they're certainly getting an indication of what will transpire in debates on the budget estimates and in legislation. It's shameful. Indeed, it's most shameful. The government has also undertaken quietly to raise many taxes to justify the out-of-control manner in which they've attended to budget expenditures. What they have accomplished is a lack of credibility with the public out there by sneaking in a number of tax measures that affect every person in the province of British Columbia -- broad, wide-ranging and encompassing, not attacking the rich as they like to, but going on in the nature of a government angry against success....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: Well, it's certainly nice, Madam Speaker, to see another minister in the Legislature. This happens to be the Minister of Finance and the government House Leader, and we welcome you for your interest. But I see that now the other minister who took such an intense interest is vacating the premises. That's significant, because it shows how out of touch this government is with the reality in the province. They're out of touch absolutely and completely. It's an utter display of arrogance. None of the private members who support the present government, like peas in the pod, are standing up to defend the estimates on Bill 19.

Madam Speaker, if the government had paid attention to all of the recommendations of the Peat Marwick report, perhaps this wouldn't have come to this particular point.

An Hon. Member: Selective hearing, they have.

C. Serwa: Selective hearing and politically astute, perhaps, but certainly lamentably lacking in honesty and integrity.... Peat Marwick has confirmed that they must control public sector spending. But what did that hon. minister do when he newly became Minister of Finance in the province of British Columbia? Why, he immediately repealed regulations that put a cap on public sector wage increases. And what did that do? It induced a responsibility on the part of the government of the province to impose an obligation on the part of all the taxpayers of the province to pay $300 million over the next two years to satisfy those demands. They were capped, hon. Speaker, at about 4.5 percent -- bearing in mind the downturn in the economy and bearing in mind that most of the jurisdictions across Canada had gone and accepted a zero percent wage increase. On top of that, jurisdictions like Newfoundland had to cut public service staff in order to balance the budget.

The current minister, right in the early stages when he knew the reality and knew the deficit position that we'd be getting into, started dumping the money off the back of that pickup truck -- and did he ever dump it off -- as a political payoff. That's where we're running into the problem here; it's a government completely out of control by a young and enthusiastic but unproven Minister of Finance who has been careless with the taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker, item by item by item -- 45 percent, 32.8 percent, 44.2 percent, 29.1 percent; yes, indeed, up to as high as 82.2 percent of the ministries' estimates.... And we're being asked....

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Ah, 82.2 percent -- and the Minister of Finance admits his ignorance in not knowing which ministry that is. Well, thank you very much for that admission, Mr. Minister. Nice to know that he really has his hands firmly in control of his mandate as Minister of Finance for the province of British Columbia. I'll leave the minister to ask his specialists to determine which ministry is 82.2 percent.

Madam Speaker, the important thing here is that a government that has been in power for the past six months has not seen fit to call this Legislature back to attend to the most important parts of the business of this Legislature, which are debates and estimates. Special warrants could have been attended to with a two-day session, and I've indicated that.

The members opposite indicate their ignorance in not knowing what the difference is. The difference is very substantial indeed, but the percentage differences that you've authorized through your activities make the average British Columbian sit back and wonder at what they have in this government by default.

Ah, a second minister is here, and I'm very pleased to see that second minister. As your government would say, that's a 100 percent increase in support. I compliment you for coming up from your dinner to take part in this debate.

I'm absolutely appalled with a government that has pledged their word to the people that they would stand as open, honest and forthright. They are being anything but honest and forthright. They have been very devious in compiling the facts and figures.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: That's correct, hon. member, very devious indeed. Now they're asking us to pass the Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, on the basis of very limited debate.

Madam Speaker, as a member of this Legislature and as an elected member for the past five years, I am 

[ Page 252 ]

devastated by the activities of this government. The public -- even those who supported this government by default -- are equally surprised and horrified with the antics. Certainly the unwillingness to face this Legislature on a matter as important as the budget is clearly evident.

I'm proud to have been part of a government that left this province in very good financial health.

Interjections.

C. Serwa: Second reading debate is relatively wide-ranging, but I'm still talking on Bill 16, the Supply Act. I just want to confirm that if we had had the author of the budget economic outlook guidelines as our political writer, we would have perhaps been more successful in the election.

I note that the government has readily conceded that British Columbia's economy and export base has diversified since the last major recession. That's a compliment to good government, a government that worked very hard to achieve that and a government that had the best performance record of all jurisdictions in Canada. We're very proud of that, Madam Speaker.

The previous government left this new government well poised with the opportunity to do a good job for the people of British Columbia. They have failed to do that. This Supply Act is clearly evidence of that. If they continue to fail, as the hon. leader of the third party has indicated, indeed the entire province will become a non-profit society.

Madam Speaker, it has been a privilege to speak on Bill 16, the Supply Act, a most important act. I speak and register my strongest protest in opposition to the antics and activities of this government.

J. Tyabji: The reason I'm on my feet tonight and the reason I believe it's very important to extend this debate is the issue that we're dealing with here and the manner in which they brought this issue forward. As all the preceding speakers have mentioned, it has taken us over five months to get to this stage. I think that raises the question: why do we have a Legislature, why we are elected and what is the objective that brings us together?

The thing that strikes me most about this whole process is not that we are doing this again, as it has been done in the past, but that the hope and trust that the people of B.C. put forward on October 17 has once again been let down. On October 17 the people of B.C. voted for change. They trusted us to bring about a new form of government, a new style of government. They expected more from us than what they've had in the past. Instead, we've seen special warrants that have come forward to the tune of almost $3 billion. What we find, too, is that this represents almost 20 percent of the gross revenue generated by taxes. That's a significant amount. What it says to us is that the process of reform that we thought we brought about during the election hasn't happened yet. We can only hope that it will happen in the future.

Certainly I believe that the members on the government side of the House are not unable to comprehend the magnitude of what we face together with special warrants. It's not only within their ability, but as we've said before, we have numerous quotes with regard to the implication of the use of special warrants on the effectiveness of the House. If we are continuing to use special warrants and we understand the implications, are we doing it out of a sense of incompetence? Or is it corruption? If you're smart enough to understand the implications, you almost have to say what your motivation is for not following through. It's not a lack of understanding.

I would like to quote the Minister of Finance on special warrants, from May 30, saying that when the government is spending special warrants: "They hold the Legislature in contempt, and through that the people of the province." Those were the principles that the people of B.C. endorsed on October 17. It was the principle of debate through the House and that all the elected members must come together. Even though the government has a majority and obviously the bill will be passed, debate is extremely important in bringing to light all the different issues.

To continue the quote: "It is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy for the executive council, without any recourse to public debate, to spend...public money...." This is the issue that we're talking about here. We had an increase in taxes through the budget. When we look at our gross provincial product, 15 percent of it was spent in 1980 on taxes; it's up to a projected 21 percent today. With this increase in taxes there should be increased accountability, not a decreased accountability through the continuation of special warrants.

After the election of October 17 the people of B.C. wanted us to work to justify the faith that they had placed in us. Instead, we had a long period before the Legislature was convened and a continuation of spending with special warrants. This is something that is not going to gain the faith of the people, as they see a continuation of the kind of government that went before. We started off with a certain level of credibility, which was based on the principles we brought forward during the campaign. Unfortunately, we haven't seen a follow-through on most of those principles. I can only hope that it was out of a situation that will not arise again, and I can only add my voice to those of the preceding opposition members who said: "I hope this is the last time we see special warrants issued." There should always be debate, unless there is a real emergency. The emergency isn't that we don't have time to get together. The opposition was ready to come together for the Legislature at any moment -- with very little notice.

I must say that it's very unnerving to be standing here on an issue of such importance and to see the House empty. There are members on both sides, although I'd say at this point we outnumber the cabinet. When you come into public life, you come in with certain expectations and certain hopes. Some of those expectations are that you can make a difference and perhaps work for reform. Your hope is that you can contribute your perspective to the debate in the House; that when issues come forward from various parts of 

[ Page 253 ]

the province from various portfolios, they can then be put before the people elected by the public to represent them; and that through that debate a better understanding and implementation of the bill will come to pass. Without that debate you can't possibly have the most effective operation of government.

[7:45]

It's unnerving to me as Environment critic to see that over $130 million was spent through special warrants in the Environment portfolio. I don't know how that breaks down. Does that break down into cleanup? Is it air quality? At this stage it's after the fact, and it's already been spent. We don't know where it's gone. It's very difficult to get a sense of where we're going in the future.

The Legislature doesn't sit for very long. Unfortunately, in B.C. we have a shameful tradition of not sitting often enough, and I hope that that changes. However, during the short period of time when we come together, it would be very nice to have a sense of what the government has been doing in the past. We've had over five months of this government, and we can't make a judgment on the direction, the philosophy and the values that are being brought to bear on the spending of tax dollars -- and the tax dollars are being given by 100 percent of the population base. We have to remember that each of us here was voted in with percentages in our ridings, but when you look at the province as a whole, 60 percent of the public did not vote NDP but voted for the opposition. Our voices should be heard in the determination of what's being spent.

When we look at the international scene.... As Canadians, we're very proud of the system we have both federally and provincially as well as our municipal jurisdictions and regional districts. We have an excellent system. The strength of our system is the democracy, the participation of the people, and some would argue that the way things are set up right now, we don't have enough input from the people. We don't have enough travelling committees. We don't have enough direct input from the grass roots. But one thing we do have is representatives in this House who are elected within each riding to bring their voice forward. When we have special warrants, those people are not heard, and our democracy loses its strength. It loses strength because the voices of all the different people from around the province are not participating.

Obviously the bill would get passed. So if we were willing to come together, and if the government knows the bill would get passed, is it a fear of debate, or is it just a rush that they're trying to get through? Either excuse is not really justification enough, because part of government is to make sure that everybody is represented and to give the most effective form of legislation. You can't do that without debate. If it's a case of being afraid that the debate will expose something that the public would not endorse, well, that's part of having political will and showing leadership. If you really believe that what you're putting forward is the best decision for the people, then you will go forward in the face of controversy and do it. If it turns out that it's not in the best interests of the public, then all the more reason to have the debate ahead of time, so that it's exposed prior to becoming money that's already spent, prior to things already being passed.

We face a very dangerous situation when these precedents have been set by two separate parties. Here we have parties who are philosophically opposed on the political spectrum, and what have we seen? We've seen the people of B.C. flush one party out -- no regrets from me -- and put another party in. And what do we see in terms of the change of philosophy? We haven't seen any significant changes in the way in which we are governed. Special warrants are a continuation of a very bad way of doing government, and during the election campaign the provincial Liberal Party constantly said, "We want to change the way in which we govern," and we haven't done that yet. I can only hope that we will do it in the future, that we will bring forward that sense of hope and trust and reform, and perhaps regain some of the credibility on the government side by not using special warrants in the future.

You can't justify the change of principle that we've seen here, unless there's some hidden emergency that we weren't aware of. There was no justification for a change in philosophy that is so articulately stated in the opposition benches and then flagrantly ignored on the government side -- no justification for that at all. It's that kind of complete turnaround that can make people very cynical. The people of B.C. were extremely cynical, because they had had a lot of examples of very bad government and of someone saying one thing and implementing another. As a legislator, I'd like to be able to hold my head up and say: "I'm an MLA." At this point, we've done nothing to earn the trust of the people. There's been nothing done on the government side to earn the trust and the sense of hope that was put with us. And now we've got a case where, when a transcript can be read out and the exact opposite has been done, we have a real credibility gap, a real problem.

I also have to express an objection to the manner in which this debate is carried forward. Not only is there no one here, really, but there's very little time, and I think that when we look at the magnitude of the issue we're dealing with, which is the spending of money.... This is almost 20 percent of the revenue generated. We're talking about several days now where we're going to be debating the amount of money that we'll be spending, how we're spending it, how we're representing the people and how we're spending their tax dollars, which in this economy is extremely important, and we have very little time. Granted, it has been extended a couple of hours, because we're going beyond 6 o'clock, but a couple of hours isn't enough.

We're talking about $3 billion. Look how it breaks down. You've got all these different categories. We should have had a legislative session in the fall and debate prior to special warrants. If we must spend special warrants, let's do it with a sense of apology: "I'm really embarrassed that I had to do this." Let's have a sense of the integrity that we've had in the past and say: "I recognize what I said in the past. I recognize this to be the truth, and here's my justification for moving away from that."

[ Page 254 ]

The one thing that is very disturbing to me is the sense of non-accountability: being able to say one thing when you're on one side of the House and do another thing on the other side without accountability. That's where we lose our credibility. If there was some justification or sense expressed to the public as to why it was done.... "There was no legislative session because there was no time for debate." If there were tax dollar savings or something -- and I'm sure they would have no problem even making something up -- then we could debate whether or not it's a credible excuse.

It goes back to the old children's story of Animal Farm. I was talking about the international scene earlier. If we look at a lot of different countries, we can see how we get dictatorships that don't allow for representation or input from the people. You have that dictatorship acting more or less as a regime, making decisions independent of the public and not in their best interests. Then you get a movement coming forward, and from that grass-roots movement you see a swelling of support. Eventually the dictatorship loses the ability to enforce the regime, and it gets overturned, whether violently or non-violently.

What we saw on October 17 was our own local form of overturning a non-representative government. Unfortunately, our new government has not departed from the manner in which we were governed. That's a very dangerous precedent to set. Very soon we'll have little slogans on the wall that say: "Some pigs are more equal than others." That's very unfortunate. People were looking for change and trusting change, and unfortunately that trust has not been realized.

That may be reversed. The only way we can possibly win back the faith of the people is to depart radically from the way government has been done in the past, including the past five and a half months. We have to stop special warrants altogether. We have to get rid of that ability to just arbitrarily say: "We're not having a legislative session." We have to have fixed legislative sessions. We have to know, as MLAs, when we will be in the House. This is when we're accountable. I can't tell you how many times in the fall I heard people come up to me and say: "When are you going to sit?" I'd say: "I don't know. Maybe mid-March." For me, personally, that worked out fairly well, because I didn't have to buy a very big wardrobe that wasn't going to fit for very long. That probably wasn't a big concern for most of the other members. Even in the condition I was in, I would have liked to waddle up and down the halls and be able to present my voice here.

When we got elected, we got elected to bring our voices and viewpoints to the House. Seventy-five ridings, a unique province, far-flung regions, very different interests. Without the sitting of the House, the NDP backbenchers don't even get a voice, and look how many seats there are there. There are a lot of very valid viewpoints that have to be brought to the debate. Mind you, they are going to end up voting on the government side, but perhaps when they have their committees in the back rooms, they can have their scrums or whatever to come to some kind of compromise, and we will have a better form of representation in the House.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: The attitude of "what we're doing here doesn't matter" is a very unfortunate one. It's very easy to get carried away. It's a lot of fun to poke fun at each other and heckle and joke, but if I were somebody sitting at home watching us on television, I would be very disillusioned by what I saw, because I would say that it's taken five and a half months, they're talking about $3 billion, 20 percent of the gross revenue, and everybody's jeering and laughing and heckling. It's very easy to get carried away with that when we're here. It's very easy to participate in that, and it's very important that we not take ourselves too seriously except on issues that are very critical.

There are a couple of issues here. It's not just a case of why there is a total departure from the principles espoused for the whole term by the opposition. That's a very important issue. How do we believe anything that comes from the mouths of people who have said one thing for five years, and five months later are doing the opposite? How does the public perceive that? Even as opposition members here, our credibility goes down because we might end up on the government side and someone might say: "How do we know you won't do exactly the same thing?" As I said before, this is especially so when we've got political parties of opposite spectrums doing the same thing. Who's going to look at the Liberals and say: "They might be different"? All of us legislators must be very concerned with what the public thinks of us. This is not good. This is not something about which we can hold our heads up. We are all participating, whether it be through silence, participation, or being part of the executive council. Each one of us is responsible for this, and we should all be fighting for reform -- all of us.

When we get back to changing the way in which we govern, going toward reform and looking at the international scene, I can only hope that as we come toward future budgets and future terms, we start to look toward not just a fixed legislative session but a proper accountability mechanism that brings into account everybody's voice on the issue, because there are 75 of us. In theory, the cabinet is supposed to be dealing only with certain things within the debate of a legislative session; outside the legislative session, we should not be dealing with the kinds of things that special warrants were dealing with. If we, as a group, are to combat the political cynicism, we all have to work toward reform through the legislative process. We have to eliminate special warrants. We have to go to the budget. We have to debate every item of the budget and every item of the special warrants. We have to make sure that these are acceptable ways in which we spend money.

The money's already spent, and that is the unfortunate part. The money has already gone. Now we can only talk about, "Gee, I wish it hadn't been spent that way," or: "Could you please tell me what this is?" You look at all these numbers, and you say: "What does that tell me? I don't know if it's salaries. I don't know if it's cleanup. I don't know which part of the province it's gone into." It could take you months to analyze what's 

[ Page 255 ]

been done for five and a half months. In addition to this, we have the upcoming year's budget. Obviously that should be more pressing, because that's money we're going to spend. But we have no idea where the government has been going for the past five and a half months, because we don't know how this breaks down. That's very unsettling. As a taxpayer, I find it unsettling that I can be paying taxes and they're spent before there's even a debate. Someone in a riding might say: "I trust my MLA to make the right judgment." But what difference does it make if the MLA is not participating in the judgment? If they're not participating in the decision-making process, it doesn't matter who you elect.

I remember the Leader of the Opposition getting quite frustrated when the legislative session was getting further and further away. He was saying: "If we're going to have government like this, we can certainly eliminate a lot of the buildings that we see around us. We could manage with a much smaller space, and maybe that would be a lot more effective in terms of tax dollars. Maybe we can just have a bunch of television monitors and fax machines, and we can all stay in our ridings and be notified by mail of what the government's doing." I don't feel that's an effective way of doing things. That's not why we set up this democratic system. That's why we all have to stand up and make our voices heard about how incredibly important this is -- that not only do we debate it, but we should have extended the time for debate. We should have gone through it list by list.

I wish we had members of the cabinet participating in the debate. I would like to see the justification for the change in principle. I'd like to hear from our Finance minister why he changed his mind. I think it would be very important.

[8:00]

It's very important, as well, to know that when these principles are espoused, they're not espoused lightly. We have to take our roles very seriously. Every time we say something, we should realize that we're accountable for it. It's very frustrating that the manner in which they may be held accountable is that we might annoy them by dragging the debate on a little longer. Oh, isn't that an awful way of holding them accountable! Well, to me, there should be a better form of accountability than that. We can express our frustration and our anger as opposition members by taking up all the time that we're allotted. Great; that's going to irritate them. But they're not even here, so I don't know how irritating it can be. It might be a little bit annoying, but not very. And that to me is not an adequate way of redressing the fact that this is a very serious issue and that we should be able to have input. We should have a cross-panel debate.

Just on this reading, I would like to hear from them how we ended up getting to the point where almost $3 billion was spent in that five and a half months. The people of B.C. deserve an answer. They deserve an answer on a point-by-point breakdown. They deserve to know what decisions were made by the government that got only 40 percent of the popular support. The other 60 percent are probably wondering where their money has gone. And I'm sure the 40 percent that supported them would still like to see what direction things are going in.

There were a lot of election promises made. Those should all be itemized, and somehow we can correlate them to the special warrants that have gone out before. If we can get a commitment from the government that they will not be using special warrants in the future, then we can all rest much easier in terms of how we feel about dealing with the next budget. Because the thing that makes me a little upset is that if we can't rely on the things that were said while in opposition, and if we can pass a budget today and not have a legislative session in the fall, and if we can then run out of money in the fall and have more special warrants, then we'll be standing here a year from now in the same debate. This is the same debate that's been carrying on for how long? It's time for an end. If you really want to see an end to this debate -- and obviously they do -- let's stop the spending of special warrants. Let's end this debate once and for all; let's not allow it to happen.

I think it's an obscene travesty of democracy. If we can have 20 percent of our revenue just spent, and then afterwards get a few hours to talk about it, that's not democratic. That's somebody else making a decision. How representative is it when you get a small group of people in a closed room, and they're issuing orders about how to spend money?

I guess the last part I'd like to get to is how it affects people in our riding and how people feel about special warrants. As I said, the thing that struck me in the fall was the number of people who came up to me and said: "When is the legislative session? What's going on? Why aren't you sitting? Don't you have a fixed session?" In fact, our federal representative is constantly harassing me, because he's saying: "How come you guys only have to sit for a couple of months? We sit most of the year." And he's got a much further trip to make, and it's a lot more expensive for him to go back and forth. I don't have an answer for these people. I don't know why we don't have fixed legislative sessions. I don't know why we sit only for a few months out of the year, and I don't know why we can get away with special warrants. I don't have any answers for the people of my riding when they ask me about this, except to say that my intention, as a legislator and a member of the opposition, is to constantly talk about changing the way in which we govern.

I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, that if that message is what BCers want to hear, if they want to hear the opposition say that if we were government we would change the way in which we were governed.... We would have fixed sessions, we would stop special warrants and we would have an exchequer. That's the message we'll be carrying forward into the next election. If that message is not taken on by the government, and if we continue to have this debate on special warrants year after year, then I can guarantee that after the next election -- if that's the message BCers want to hear -- we'll be on that side of the House. I can also guarantee that they will not be reading from transcripts of Hansard about what we will be doing, because we'll be following through on what we've committed in principle.

[ Page 256 ]

An Hon. Member: Do we have a quorum?

The Speaker: Yes, the Chair has determined that there is a quorum.

L. Reid: Just on that point, what is the number of a quorum?

The Speaker: Ten.

L. Reid: We'll keep a close eye on future developments. Not so long ago this chamber echoed: "Not a dime without debate." It was echoed again this evening many times. We're now in the throes of millions of dollars without debate in this House, and somehow that seems to be justification for this government to proceed any which way they choose. Where is the process? Do we understand process? I find it alarming and somewhat sad that consultation is something that is not taken seriously in this House. We've been subjected to it since March 17. We understand that it's going to continue in this way. We truly hope it doesn't go forward. I believe, and I agree with my colleagues, that in fact we have the same process; we simply have different players. I would suggest this thought to you: all cats are grey in the dark. We haven't changed anything fundamentally in this House. What have we learned? We have learned helplessness regarding special warrants. We hear the refrain: "We had no choice." What happened to a government that said: "We're going to stand up. We're going to be forthright. We're going to be honest. We're going to deliver something to the people of this province." I'm not convinced that's happening. I have many items I wish to bring forward this evening.

How could this government sit in this House for five years as opposition and suggest that they do not know where the dollars went, that Peat Marwick was a surprise -- a revelation of some sort? I find it absolutely unacceptable that anyone could sit in this House as opposition, end up in government and suggest they didn't understand a single thing that transpired while they sat in this House for five long years. I find that absolutely unacceptable.

I have with me this evening the schedule of special warrants, and I have a question I'd like to pose: "Expenditures urgently and immediately required for the public good and for which no appropriation has been made." We seem to have two categories: we have the continuation of ongoing non-budgetary items and ongoing budgetary items. What is the distinction? Some we talk about and others we talk about even less? It seems to me that there's no consultation. This entire list: non-budgetary programs of the Ministry of Advanced Education; non-budgetary items in the Attorney General; non-budgetary items in the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. Who makes those decisions? It's not the taxpayers in this province, and I find it alarming.

Special warrant comments. Again, the thirty-fourth parliament of this House, the Minister of Finance:

"The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everybody should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here.... It was that side of the House that at one time said: 'Not a dime without debate.' They're now asking for" -- millions -- "of public money to be passed post-haste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of the House." Why is it the Minister of Finance can sit on that side of the House now and suggest that somehow the same actions don't deserve the same consequences?

We know they have a lot of reasons why they do not want this scrutiny placed before them. Again, the Minister of Finance, commenting on a previous government:

"...there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature has been their doing. It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the largest-taxing government we've seen for some time; they have regressively taxed and unfairly taxed working people, the poor and seniors in this province; and they want to avoid debate in this House."

"You cannot run a government and implement tax legislation with municipalities and school boards on major questions of public policy when those bills have not even been introduced in the House. You cannot run a government by spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, before the House is...."

Again, the same comments from the same individual:

"Our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle. It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government, because we are elected representatives -- all of us. We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money...."

[ Page 257 ]

Again, the minister, who somehow changes dramatically when he ends up on that side of the House:

"Any suggestion by your Minister of Finance that the conditions which allow for the use of special warrants have been satisfied by virtue of the fact that the Legislative Assembly is not now sitting is, in my opinion, unfounded. Your Honour's official opposition is ready, willing and able to convene immediately should you choose to recall the Legislature."

An Hon. Member: Double standards.

L. Reid: Absolutely.

Again, it is unfortunate that it would come to this. But when the government attempts to rule by decree and to rule without public debate, it undermines the very democracy that we are here to uphold. It is unacceptable and it's disgraceful.

Out of the mouth of the Minister of Finance, again it continues: "...special warrants are only awarded under very, very clear circumstances -- crystal-clear circumstances." And: "But they don't want the debate on the real priorities of British Columbians. They don't want debate on their fiscal incompetence. They don't want debate on spending without approval in the House." You're probably asking yourself who said this. It could be anyone. In fact, it's still the Minister of Finance, when he sat on this side of the House.

Giving advice now:

"Perhaps if members spend a lengthy time in opposition they'll learn to appreciate parliamentary democracy, they'll learn to have less contempt for our parliamentary traditions, they will understand that democratic parliamentary procedure is an important foundation upon which our government rests, and they will not abuse it."

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

L. Reid: Again, the minister. I can't imagine he could have forgotten that quickly.

I say again very strongly that you should not have waited five months, Mr. Minister, because obviously your memory has failed you over time. It has not warmed our hearts.

In terms of supply, Bill 16, in our view this NDP government has abrogated its responsibility to deal with health care delivery in creative and innovative ways. Instead, this government has selected a highly visible group to use as a scapegoat. Real savings in our health care system will not come by bashing any one aspect of the health care delivery system of this province; real savings will come by moving our focus of health care from institutions to the community. We haven't been given the opportunity to do that. We're not convinced that bashing doctors is ever going to create any real change. It didn't work with teachers, it did not work in terms of the overall health of the educational community in this province, and it will not work with doctors.

After reading this budget I can only assume that when the Premier said that British Columbia deserves a government that's as hard-working as the people who pay for it, what he really meant was: work as hard as you like, but don't expect to get paid for it.

I suggest that any group which has negotiated agreements with the province of British Columbia should hide those same agreements, lest the Premier and his cabinet seek to tear those up as well. Even the NDP friend, Ken Georgetti, is outraged that an agreement negotiated in good faith can be tossed out so easily by a new administration. This government has set a precedent of zero stability in the workplace, and what has it gained?

We have to have consultation in this province. The example I have just cited stresses strongly the lack of consultation in British Columbia. You cannot have a mandate....

[8:15]

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. Hon. Speaker, there is tremendous latitude in interim supply and we're delighted to hear the member's speech. We are particularly delighted to hear the member quoting speeches that I've made, and I'd be delighted to respond, of course. I will as we wrap up the debate. But matters before the House in the form of legislation will be debated at that time. The member has for about five minutes now talked about legislation which is before the House, which is clearly out of order.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak to the point of order briefly. It's clear that the members opposite don't appreciate hearing the truth. It's clear that they don't appreciate hearing the remarks of members on this side of the House during this interim supply debate. It's clear that they would like to avoid this debate entirely. The member was clearly relating her comments directly to this supply bill that's before the House. She's mentioning some specific aspects of government policy that are dealing with the supply bill and with the future spending provisions of this supply bill.

We are being asked to approve the spending of this government for the first three months of the fiscal year, which will begin at midnight tomorrow night. Clearly we cannot grant that supply before we have an opportunity to give full discussion and debate to the billions of dollars that we are being asked to approve in advance. I believe that the member's comments were specifically in order.

[ Page 258 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, both hon. members. I would ask the member who had the floor to continue with her comments, keeping in mind, of course, that we are discussing, as we have been for a few hours, second reading on the principles of Bill 16.

L. Reid: To reiterate very carefully, the issue here is process and consultation. The example I cited is an absolute abrogation of your government's responsibility to consult. I will continue with that example because I believe it is fully in order. What will we get as a result if this government fails to consult? I think we'll get more of this time-wasting process. I don't believe that this government truly has the interests of my constituents or British Columbians close to heart. I could and will cite many examples this evening of issues where I believe process has been brought into question, where serious legislators in this province have been denied opportunity to debate.

My colleague made the point over and over again that it's so interesting and so bizarre that you could come to us after dollars have been spent and try to push something through. Why does that make sense? It did not make sense to members of government when they sat in opposition. To reiterate, if need be, I could read that entire set of statements again, because obviously they were missed the first time.

I fail to see how two and a half sword-lengths can all of a sudden alter somebody's entire point of view. The flip-flop is absolutely incredible. I'm not impressed. I'm saddened and disappointed that this government takes so lightly the interests of my constituents and the interests of British Columbians.

Again -- to focus on British Columbia doctors -- to say that not to consult is the order of the day, that not to ask a serious question or sit down with one aspect of health care delivery in this province, to suggest that somehow their opinion is not valid or interesting, or that their opinion is not even going to be asked, sincerely offends me as a legislator.

I can take the case of small business. The government can sit here and say that economic development is important, process is important, discussion is important, and yet, 48 hours before this fiscal year terminates, we are asked to look at $3 billion worth of special spending warrants. I find it highly unacceptable. I find it appalling that this entire series of events, which was deplorable when the Social Credit government put the opposition through it, is all of a sudden acceptable. I am not able to accept that. I truly hoped.... I think what this government campaigned on was that they were going to provide something different to the province of British Columbia: they were going to provide consultation; they were going to ask and listen. We have not had that.

Special spending warrants -- all of them, the many pages that we have here -- show absolute, out-and-out contempt, in my view, for the voters in this province. To maintain service, a grant to tree-fruit-growers; to maintain service, financial settlement...more income assistance funding; MSP.... All of these things could have been brought forward if this government was truly serious about seeking their opinion and having constituents represented in this province. Five and a half months of this mandate has expired. Fully 10 percent of this government's mandate has been allowed to drift by while they continue to not be responsible, in my view, to the voters in this province.

Increase for independent schools. Variety of costs for the Attorney General. Imagine listing a special spending warrant as a "variety of costs." Variety of costs in Labour and Consumer Services. Grant to the B.C. Pavilion. Grant to tree-fruit-growers. All of these things deserved legitimate debate in this chamber following October 17. I cannot accept the fact that you can wait five and a half months, and then say: "Sorry, it's too late; the money's already been spent." No other business, no other entity would ever believe that you could just push something through without any kind of consultation.

We have an artificial situation in this province where something is fine for government and it's wrong for everyone else in this province. It's not appropriate for anyone in business to spend the dollars and then seek ratification. It's not appropriate for charities in this province to spend the dollars and then seek approval for the funds. Why, if it's not appropriate for anyone else, is it appropriate for government?

In my sense of what parliamentary democracy is all about, government sets the example; government leads; government behaves as some kind of model. This government has not done that. This government has let down what this parliament stands for and what British Columbians wanted to see. They asked for something that was different, something that was legitimate, something that had some honesty and accountability to the public. On October 17, British Columbians voted because they were looking for something that was going to be as honest and forthright as what these people profess to be. In my view, they've been sadly let down. That side of the House has no clear sense of what it is to be accountable. Otherwise, they would not have brought something as serious as special spending warrants to this House 48 hours before the end of the fiscal year. This House should have been sitting many months ago.

D. Mitchell: Open government.

L. Reid: Open government? Interesting topic. It should be very simple to understand. I'm not sure the folks on the other side of the House understand what it is in terms of a concept. We have paid lip-service to it for five and a half months: yes, yes, yes, no new taxes; yes, yes, yes, all of these things will come down the pike at some point.

I haven't been introduced to anything that's legitimate in terms of where this government wants to go. Process is a significant issue, and it will be an issue I will continue to discuss every single day that I sit as a legislator in this province. I believe that when you are duly elected and your party forms government -- you seek enough seats to form a government -- you have an incredible responsibility to process.

They will stand up on that side of the House and cite standing order after standing order, point of order after point of order. That's a process. That's an understanding 

[ Page 259 ]

of a structure, a framework to hang some kind of debate on. You can't have that kind of understanding when it suits you and no process for the people of British Columbia when it doesn't. That is completely wrong. I can tell you that every single Liberal member of this opposition will stand up and debate process in as much detail as we possibly can for as long as we sit in this House.

I find it fascinating that we can be presented with packages of some 20 and 30 pages outlining special spending warrants in this province. It's fascinating that, again, it's a disregard for process. It's not a sense of where we want to go. It's not a sense of understanding of how important it was for many people in the province of British Columbia to cast a ballot.

We have situations around this world where people are giving their lives to participate in their government. We have a democracy that is accountable. What we have today is contempt for that democracy. We have folks in eastern Europe and other parts of the world who would give their all to have something as reasonable as what we have in terms of parliamentary practice and parliamentary process -- what we should have. We simply have given it away. It should be possible to respect your government in the province of British Columbia. We have allowed this kind of latitude as a province.

I am not going to suggest that we would ever make the case that a special spending warrant is appropriate. To cite the case of Saskatchewan, which was given earlier, if that province, which had an election fully a week later than us, can be in their chamber debating their issues six weeks after an election call, there's absolutely no excuse for six months in our case. It's really important that people realize that this is just not six or seven hours of debate; this is a travesty of justice in my view. You do not ever go back to people after the dollars are spent and say: "We're sorry." I've been personally subjected to that adage through this government's process -- or lack of it -- over the last ten days that this House has sat: "Oh, sorry about that. Sorry we didn't get it to you in time."

You have to have a sense of process to be a serious legislator, to be legitimate in the eyes of the public and in the eyes of your peers and to understand truly what it is to be a part of a democracy. We've given that up. Eastern Europe has a clearer sense. Russia will have a clearer sense than this parliament at some point, unless we get a handle on process, on where we want to go and what it is exactly that we want to do for the people of this province.

Hon. Speaker, I'm not going to read to you every single special spending warrant. However, I think it's incumbent upon the other folks who speak tonight to ensure that every single British Columbian is aware of every single special spending warrant that has gone forward from that government in the last five and a half months.

I think what happens when something is not given reasonable debate in this chamber is that the public are not always made aware of it. It's criminal in my view that something that impacts on their tax dollar and on how much money they have for other things is not given a reasonable debating time in this House. I'm appalled, disappointed and saddened by the fact that we have to continually look at making folks accountable. From the words of John Diefenbaker: "If the role of opposition is to be a detergent, work is yet to be done." We have not scraped the surface of the hypocrisy that is evident in this chamber. You cannot have process when it suits you and a lack of process when it suits you; you have to be consistent.

I will stand here today before you, hon. Speaker, and suggest that the only reason this government can go forward and the only reason parliament is going to be valued in this province is that there is some consistency and some precedent. Anyone who has practised law will tell you that decisions are always reached on precedent. When you put down or denigrate the precedent, you certainly don't replicate it. In fact, when the minister was in opposition, he denigrated the precedent of the Social Credit Party in terms of special spending warrants, and then he has chosen to repeat it. It makes no sense, and the British Columbia voter has to appreciate that they have voted in someone who is repeating the behaviours of the previous administration. We learned -- and the Social Credit Party learned -- that their mistakes were not acceptable. If it wasn't acceptable for the Social Credit Party, why all of a sudden is it acceptable for the New Democratic Party in this province to behave in exactly the same way? I have significant difficulties with that, and I'm hoping and trusting that this House can rise to its parliamentary obligation to take itself seriously as a legislature and come back to this House with reasonable behaviour over the next term.

I do not wish to see this discussion become an annual event. I do not wish to see this come up for debate on an annual basis in this Legislature. It is really important that we get a handle on where we're going, and if that's not possible, that the public be aware that this government is treating them exactly the same way that they have been treated by previous governments in this province. It is completely wrong; it is completely unacceptable.

Hon. Speaker, there are many documents here that, in my view, cite many instances in which the New Democratic Party in this province received popular support for recognizing and denouncing activities and behaviours of the Social Credit Party. In fact, they traded on someone else's past behaviour only to replicate it. Why that makes sense is beyond the intellect of the average scholar, let alone the average Canadian voter. There is something fundamentally wrong when you come before a chamber of parliament and suggest that 12 hours of debate will somehow cleanse the record, that it's no longer something you have to be personally accountable for.

[8:30]

I will attest today, hon. Speaker, that this government will be accountable for the last five and a half months during their entire mandate of office. They will be hearing from us on this issue for the next five years. It's absolutely critical that we continue to hammer away at process. We've learned that in committees in this House. We've learned that in the public at large. It's time that this House was responsible to its voters. I 

[ Page 260 ]

can't tell you, hon. Speaker, how disappointed I am that we had to wait five and a half months to see this government abuse the voter in British Columbia to the extent that they have.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

There are many examples of a lack of process, a lack of consultation by the government in terms of all the portfolios that will come before this House. A lack of consultation. A lack of direction. A lack of listening. This government said to us: "We will listen." They said to the voters in this province: "We will listen. We will take forward your views. We will be constituent representatives." Some 75 people are together in this chamber. What is the purpose? As my colleague noted, should we stay home and send in a ballot when we might be told at some point in our career that our opinion is valued? Well, I can tell you that the constituents of the Liberal opposition who were voted in believed that their opinions were important. They wish to be heard on all these questions. They do not wish to continue to be sidestepped. This is a trade-off on behalf of the British Columbians who thought they were getting honest, forthright government. In fact, they're getting a balance sheet at the end of the day that says: "Sorry. We've spent the dollars. Thanks very much for your support during the election."

For five and a half months this government disregarded the wishes of these voters, these constituents and, absolutely, these legislators. That does not warm my heart, hon. Speaker, and I'm trusting it probably doesn't warm the hearts of the serious legislators found in this chamber today. We have to continually come back to the examples, and we have to continually educate the public as to what these examples are.

We had promises during the election. In my view, a promise is a process. It says that you're prepared to stand up and make a commitment to something you believe in. We had a promise of tuition fee freezes. That's a process. That means that somebody looked at both sides of the question and said: "Okay. This is what I fundamentally believe about that issue." That was disregarded.

If people have a clear understanding of process, when does the promise become a goal? Why is it all of a sudden appropriate to disregard things that were stated five and a half months ago? Selective amnesia, hon. Speaker. That is not a reasonable length of time for someone to say: "What I said with such fervour, such intensity, such tenacity, no longer applies."

D. Mitchell: They didn't mean it.

L. Reid: How can you not mean something you said only five and a half months ago? We had a government that promised no new taxes. In my view, a promise is a process. They said: "No new taxes." We have hidden taxes in this budget that are absolutely appalling to the average voter in this province. Knee-jerk supply. Knee-jerk government. Knee-jerk lack of process. If you truly understood process in this province, this parliament would be working in a reasonable fashion. We would have the voter in this province believing that somehow integrity and honesty had been returned to government. That's what this government campaigned on, and it is what this government needs to be accountable for. The opposition, in my view, will make them accountable every single day that we hold office.

D. Jarvis: I request leave to introduce a guest.

Leave granted.

D. Jarvis: Hon. Speaker, I would like to introduce a friend of mine who has travelled all the way from the eastern parts of this country -- from the town of Calgary. Please welcome Mr. Bob Swail to this lovely province of British Columbia.

D. Symons: I rise with a great deal of dissatisfaction with what I have seen happen in this House today. We have seen the degradation of our legislative process. The abuse of this House is disgraceful. This government has delayed the calling of this Legislature for five and a half months. This government has delayed bringing a budget before us, and this government has delayed bringing the special warrants before us that they are bringing today. Nothing but delay.

They use the excuse that they had to get a handle on the financial mess left by the previous government. In the process of justifying this, they squandered $1 million in an independent study that our auditor general could have done -- and, as matter of fact, did do as well, and was paid for. We paid double. As well, any high-school student who has taken commerce could have found out much of what the Peat Marwick study did with the aid of a calculator. We were able to do it soon after the Jansen budget came down by simply adding figures that appeared in that budget. If you added together the BS fund, Jansen's stated deficit and the moneys owed for the various Crown agencies and so forth, you came up with somewhere around $2 billion, which is not far off of the figure that you paid $1 million to get.

An Hon. Member: Why couldn't the NDP do that?

D. Symons: I wonder why. They had a resource department that we didn't have, and we were able to find that information out very quickly. So they've known this for about a year -- not the last few months, which they're claiming is the reason for all of this delay. They now come to us with this great rush of things. They could have called the House together a month ago. They could have called it together five months ago. But they delayed doing that, and I think they had a reason.

I noticed, though, that after this bill came up today and very quickly after we began our discussion and criticism of the government -- and, in particular, reading them their words that they had used before and the hypocrisy of the present government that was shown to this House -- they seemed to disappear quickly from the other side of the House. I assumed they were simply going to their offices to hide their heads in shame. 

[ Page 261 ]

Indeed, the growth rate of the debt really increased during the time when this government was waiting to call the House together.

In the present budget now before the House they claim that they're reducing the deficit. The reason they're reducing it is that they let it grow at a fast rate before they brought in this budget. So while they were spending under special warrants, the spending rates were going up, not down. Now they're reducing it, they say, by 50 percent of what they allowed it to increase to. I don't think that's very sound fiscal policy.

We're going to find in this process that we're getting a whitewashing and a glossing over of the spending that this government has done under special warrants. They want to rush it through very quickly, because they don't want that intensive scrutiny that should take place in the House. But that is why we were elected. The Minister of Finance, when he was in opposition, said: "The main purpose of the members of the Legislature -- everybody should agree -- is to scrutinize spending, to pass taxing and spending laws in this House." It seems that the government doesn't believe their words anymore.

One of the little things I noticed, in looking through what I was able to find out from these special warrants that we're asked to approve, was the spending in the office of the Premier. In the previous Jansen budget roughly $4 million was put aside for running the Premier's office. During the five months that the NDP have had charge of that office, they have run up a $4 million budget on their own in special warrants. It would seem that there may be things that this government does not want the public to look at too closely. It's unfortunate.

An Hon. Member: We're taking care of those in need.

D. Symons: The Premier's office is indeed taking care of those in need. Trips to the Orient, trips to Switzerland. Yes, indeed. Four million dollars' worth of the public's money.

Interjection.

D. Symons: Yes, that's where he should have been indeed: in Washington. He should be down there discussing the taxes the United States is insisting on putting on Canadian logs. That's where he was needed. Club Med was not the place to be.

The other quote from our current minister when he was in opposition: "...there are a lot of reasons why interim supply and the delay in the calling of the Legislature has been their doing." This time he's referring to the Social Credit government. "It is because they want to hide the fact that they are the largest-spending government we've seen for some time...." That precisely describes them now that they're on the government side of the House.

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

D. Symons: It was Mr. Clark who said that.

This rather reminds me of the final lines in George Orwell's book. You might remember it: Animal Farm. It tells the story of a group of animals who found that the humans who were governing them were behaving in a most poor manner, and gradually the animals drove the humans out and took over. One faction of those animals took charge of looking after the best interests of the animals. The very final lines are where the animals are looking through the window of the farmhouse into where the pigs have now gone and assumed the attire of the humans. It became evident to the other animals that they could not tell the difference between their previous oppressors and their current oppressors. That is precisely the situation that we're seeing in this House when we read their words from Hansards of a year ago.

An Hon. Member: Which ones are the pigs?

D. Symons: It's hard to tell anymore.

First we saw the government come before us in this House to try and sidetrack us. It was a beautiful bit of work, but it certainly reduced the legislative process. They were bringing forward a bill for approval at the beginning of the day knowing full well that we would not allow them to bring it in. Rather than having the fair wage legislation brought forth under bills, it was their way to bring it in as a minister's statement -- an insidious way of getting around discussing something in the House. Then they bring in the bill that we're now discussing. Their method of doing this, first trying to slip one through and then bringing Bill 16 in here, was simply unacceptable. I find it every bit as unacceptable and dishonest and deceitful as our current government did when they were in opposition just a short year ago -- and they will certainly be there again after the next election. With that, I will end my remarks.

V. Anderson: I'm of mixed feelings this evening about the bill that is now before us. We came into the context of hearing the people in this Legislature give their inaugural addresses, and I'm sure as we listened to those addresses, we were quite proud and pleased with the quality of the discussion and with the intent of all the members who have come to this House to serve the people of British Columbia. We were all very clear in trying to set that before them. And as I talked to the people in the community, I understood from them that they appreciated that not only had we heard the message that there would be a different kind of government, but we were actually going to do something about that different kind of government.

[8:45]

I think they were encouraged in the presentation at the beginning of the budget speech that it had been heard that the people had voted for a change of administration, a change of priorities and a change in the way government operates -- and that this means "the pursuing of policies that are fair to all British Columbians." Part of the problem of following through with that is that what often seems fair to ourselves does not seem fair to people who are outside our particular setting and are looking in upon us. I am particularly thinking of those on whose behalf I have been trying to 

[ Page 262 ]

read this bill. Many of the people that I represent here will try to read it like they do a household financial statement, but this is not anywhere like a household financial statement.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

In the final analysis, they want to know: "What is it going to cost me? What is it going to provide to me? And what am I getting for the money that I am spending in taxes or whatever else?" Unfortunately, I'm not sure that either they or I can follow this bill and discover what it does for the people of the province. I am sure that most of the people reading this will say: "It must be doing something for somebody, but it's certainly not me." I think of the single parents struggling to look after their finances and to care for their children, whether on minimum wage or as a working person caring for their family with GAIN payments. They will be saying of all these budget items: "There is nothing there for me. Indeed, it looks like there must be something being taken away from me, because there's so much money being spent here in areas that I have nothing to do with, and that are no part in my life or my daily living. This money must be used by somebody other than the people with whom I live and work." I'm sure the people who line up at the food bank, if they took the time to read this budget would say: "I don't understand. How could they be spending their time this way? It has nothing to say to my needs. When I have read it -- even if I was able to get the details of it -- I'm sure I'll continue to be just as poor after these are all passed and spent as I was before, and there will not be funds for my children." I'm sure they will discover again and ask the same question they've asked before: "How is it that I cannot get enough money to provide for my children's needs in their daily lives, but if those same children are put into foster homes, there will be more money provided for their needs and care than they can get if they stay in my own home?"

These are the kinds of questions that this bill needs to present an answer to. The answers may be in here, but they're not visible to the people of the province who need to understand it. After all, as legislators, in presenting a bill it seems to me that we need to present it in the same way we presented our speeches, saying that we were responding to the needs of the people within our community. This bill, as it's presented, does not provide that kind of information or insight. It may be valid -- I don't know. You can't tell by reading it whether it is or not.

I've worked in many community organizations in my life. One thing I'm very aware of is that the annual reports are very important, because people want accountability for what has been done on their behalf and what is being planned. In order for them to understand it, they have to have it in a form that is readable, in a way that they can read it, understand it and know what it means. This form does not provide that kind of information for them and, therefore, it is difficult. In annual meetings I have heard the people of the community say: "Take this back. We will not pass it until we can understand it, because we are not going to write a blank cheque."

As I read this bill, it sounded to me like a person came to me because we had a joint chequing account and said: "You sign one half of the cheque; I'll fill it out later, and I'll sign the other half of the cheque. It will be fine." Well, that's not what a joint chequing account is about. I have to be able to understand it before I can endorse it, sign it or recommend it.

I'm sure, if we look at this, that there are not many members in the House who understand what these figures mean, what has been or what will be accomplished by them and what the effect will be upon the people within our constituencies. So when they ask us if we'd had more detail, if we'd had more time to look at it, would we have had the opportunity to support it...? We have to think of those people in our communities. We need to present it in a way that they understand it.

One of the concerns that I also have with this is on the questions that people will come to me with. Does this mean that one of the best teenage alcohol treatment programs in all of Canada has been closed down by this government because they did not want to fund it? Is this what this document says? Is that the principle I would be endorsing if I endorsed this document? I can't say that that would be the principle I was endorsing, because I'm not sure -- with the kind of money we're talking here, in the kinds of ministries that should have covered the maintenance of that program and others like it -- why that took place.

There has to be a reason and a rationale for the figures. The figures by themselves do not give that reason and rationale. At least in the budget speech there was some attempt to give a reason and a rationale for the figures that were presented. In this report there is no preamble, no explanation, no appendix and no way to understand the meaning of the document and what it means for the people in the community.

We have to have the time to examine this in order that I can go tomorrow to the people in my community and say: "Yes, I voted for this because it means this, this and this, and it will do this and this for you in your lifestyle." What will it do to the people who are seniors, the people I mentioned before who are 50 to 65, who are not yet "official seniors," and who yet are not able to get the benefits that you get when you're privileged to become 65 years of age? Yet you're too old to work. At least, you're too old to be hired to work, because people want younger people in their place.

What does it mean to the teenager who reads this or the university student who can't get into college? Yes, there's been a large increase in money to Advanced Education, Training and Technology, but where did it go? It hasn't provided them a place to get into university. In my own riding, Langara Campus -- at least, if we go by the newspaper reports -- is in dire straits and may be closed down because there are not funds. How come this document says that more money has been put in? Where has it gone to?

Unfortunately, this kind of document, as it's presented, raises suspicions, uncertainties and anxieties. That's not the kind of document that I believe we should be putting forward. I'm not saying at this point 

[ Page 263 ]

that the figures are right or wrong. There's simply not enough information here to tell me whether they're right or wrong. Therefore I would be unable and unwise to endorse it until I have more information about it.

You can go down through each of the categories within this. Labour and Consumer Services.... I can't even read these big figures and figure them out. I wouldn't try, because the people in my community aren't used to dealing with these kinds of figures. Yet they're the people we should be reporting to, and our report should be in a way that they can understand.

We talk about acceptable language -- non-sexist language. We talk about language in a way that people can understand the English that we speak. How about an economic language so that we begin to report to our people not because they're in a corporate boardroom, not because they can read a major financial statement, but because they can read their family budget, their daily paycheque and know what's being deducted from them as they present their income tax returns?

This is the way that this budget needs to be presented, so that these people can hear it, understand it and appreciate it, and then they will be able to. Not us. It's not up to the opposition to be challenging. We are here to enable the people themselves to challenge and ask the questions. But unless the material is presented in a way that they can receive it and understand it, they cannot challenge it.

In our inaugural address, each one of us, in one way or another, said that we would provide the information to them in a way that they could understand. I say that this is a common challenge, not just to the government and not just to the NDP members, but to all the members of the Legislature, that we will present to the people a new style of information, a new style of response, a new style of their ability to understand so they know what this government is doing.

Let me use a simple illustration about this building. I'll start with a building which is not this, because it's part of what we're reporting here. For a time I taught in the Vancouver School of Theology on the university campus, and I was dean of residents. I went from there over to the university residence meetings, and they were surprised to find me come, because there was that castle building, and they wanted to know how I got across the moat. They were surprised that you could come out or that anybody could come in.

For a number of years I worked here in Victoria with Canadian Ecumenical Action. I had a press card for the press gallery here at one point and was able to look down upon you from the gallery. I was part of the group you talked about. One of the things I discovered in Victoria, to my surprise -- coming across from Vancouver -- was that when I talked to people about the Legislature in the government building, they said: "What's that?" The people in Victoria did not know what was going on in this building. They did not know what happened here, because it wasn't part of their life, their undertakings or their ability. The people in Vancouver knew more because most of the offices were in Vancouver, and they had more friends that interacted within it.

We need a report and a financial statement. Maybe we have to do the technical one in this way, but along with the technical report there needs to be a people's report of everything that we put out, including this. Then I and others could read the people's report, and we could say yes, we can endorse this, we can understand it, we can approve of it or we can improve it, whichever the case may be.

I would plead with all of us to rethink what we're doing here: we're not here to be opposition and government, to be NDP, Liberal or Social Credit. We're here to be the representatives of the people. This must be a people's document, not a government document. This must be a document of the Legislature -- of the people of British Columbia. I would urge and encourage us to move in that direction so the people can say, when they pick this up, that they understand it, they accept it, or they have suggestions for change."

[9:00]

Finally, I would say that we need to be very aware of the impression we convey to the community at large. Even as was mentioned earlier this evening, one of the attitudes in this debate that has shown up which will do all of us a discredit is that in this House, at one point today, there were only ten members here. The people elected us to do collective legislation, and for them to discover we're not here doing that together, it's their attitudes that we need to deal with, live with and respond to.

On this basis, I am not able to endorse this document.

R. Neufeld: Before I start, hon. Speaker, I would like to read a quote out of Hansard by Dale Lovick: "...we would be irresponsible in the extreme if we agreed to interim supply without considerable discussion. That's why we're going through this process and why I, for one, make no apologies for what we are doing." That was in 1990. Here we are tonight at the hour of 9 o'clock, discussing interim supply.

It's rather.... I was going to say "surprising," but it's not surprising to find that the government this morning tried to throw a bit of a red herring into what was happening by bringing forward the fair-wage policy at a moment's notice. We find that very unfair. And then we are to spend two days discussing interim supply for the first three months of government expenditures.

I find it rather surprising that after five and a half months this government finally decided to call the Legislature. Why was it not called quite a long time ago? I'm not going to specifically say how long, but if you go to the Saskatchewan government, which happens to be an NDP government, you will find that they did not take much more than a month to call the Legislature and to bring down budgets and start talking about interim supply and all the problems that they were supposedly facing, left by a previous administration.

What went on with this government over here that they could not call the Legislature long before five and a half months? Was it because it would take that long for them to instil in British Columbians' minds that the deficit was far greater than it really was, and to be able 

[ Page 264 ]

to inflate that deficit as much as they could? We know that spending went unchecked. It was "spend as much as you can to get the deficit up as high as you can," to what the Finance minister says is about $2.3 billion.

For a government that preached all through the election and long before the election that it was going to be open and honest to the people in British Columbia, they have really let them down. Hon. Speaker, if you go back in Hansard, you will find the members opposite who say now that the deficit we had proposed that was only about $400 million was really $1.2 billion. They knew that, because they all talked about it -- every one of them, and especially the Minister of Finance. Now he tends to tell the people we were misled; the budget deficit was only $400 million, according to Social Credit.

I can tell you that this open and honest government was not very open and honest, and had they been, maybe they would have put out a pamphlet that said exactly what they were doing. Maybe they would have put in their pamphlet that they were raising taxes this year by $800 million, but they're still going to have a record deficit of $1.8 billion. It's absolutely disgusting, as far as I'm concerned, that those figures weren't put out to British Columbians correctly.

I make no excuses for some of the things that happened, because I was not here, but when I read in this book Budget 1992 some of the expenditures that are added on to the deficit that we had proposed already of some $624 million.... I'll just read a few of them.

"Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations spending is $119 million above budget, mainly because of increased allowances for doubtful loans and investments and expenditures related to the Teachers' Investment and Housing Co-op." That's added to the deficit. That's what brings it up to the $2.3 billion.

Another one. "Expenditure of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade -- $96 million above budget mainly because of increased allowances for doubtful loans, guarantees and investments. Yet the government will not give us the information that says what they're writing off. We've been asking for it, yet it is still not coming.

An Hon. Member: Who made those bad loans?

R. Neufeld: Nobody made those bad loans.

Spending by the Ministry of the Attorney General -- $90 million above budget due to higher expenditures for flood relief, the October 1991 provincial election and increased program utilization.

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: Obviously, hon. Speaker, I'm getting under somebody's skin.

The Ministry of Social Services expenditure is $82 million above budget due to higher spending for income assistance. Why aren't these things in the small pamphlet that most British Columbians read?

Ministry of Health expenditures -- $55 million higher than budget because of higher spending in the Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare.

Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology is $55 million above budget mainly because of increased allowances for doubtful student loans. What are we doing -- writing off every student loan that we've had right to date? They will not tell us; we've asked for that information.

Expenditure and other valuation adjustments of $84 million include allowances for accounts receivable as recommended by the independent financial review. Peat Marwick all of a sudden sneaks in here. These include taxes, natural resource and fines revenue.

Another $84 million reduction in revenue from Crown corporations and from B.C. Hydro, but next year, I see in their proposed revenues, they want about $147 million from B.C. Hydro. It's strange, isn't it -- especially since B.C. Hydro is having its best year ever -- that they would reduce what the government should rightfully have. But it adds to the deficit.

The government, as I have said, has spent like wildfire. There has been absolutely no restraint taken since they took office. It's incredible that in this day and age, with the problems that Canada, British Columbia and every other province across Canada are facing, that we would go to this length to discredit an administration. I find that distasteful; it's not correct. That's not open, honest government, hon. Speaker. That's closed, not-so-honest government with no sense of priorities. It took five and a half months, and about three months for Peat Marwick to come through with their $1 million distasteful report.

Why did the minister also not make public at the same time that revenues were down approximately $600 million? It's filed in here that they're down $600 million, but they are.... Natural resources are down $108 million, but I see in the new budget for 1992-93 that they're expecting more money. It's amazing to me how that's going to happen.

Taxation was down $200 million. That wasn't mentioned anyplace, but that's added to the deficit. Government enterprises have not contributed to $102 million on the shortfall. As I stated before, the B.C. Hydro revenue of $85 million has been taken out because of the report from Peat Marwick and federal government contributions of $190 million that were expected but not received.

Those numbers should be put into a straight form so that British Columbians -- as the gentleman before me said -- can understand where the $2.3 billion deficit comes from. I'm not saying that we were, as a Social Credit government, not forthright with the people. Really, what's happening is that this government over here is not forthright with the people. They're not telling the people exactly what happened -- only what makes them look good. That's not correct.

Another thing, when I go through the budget documents -- and we really have not received all the information yet, and the question was asked of the Minister of Agriculture -- I see that the Okanagan tree-fruit industry received $30 million out of the clear blue. My goodness, isn't that nice? Was it a promise made by the Premier, or was it a promise made by one of the other members just recently that they were going to just give them $30 million?

[ Page 265 ]

When the government knew that the finances of British Columbia were in trouble, they still went ahead and gave them $30 million. If they wanted to give the agricultural industry $30 million, all right. The farming community has problems in all of British Columbia and in all of Canada. We know that. With the subsidies that are paid worldwide in the U.S. and Europe, our farmers are having a harder and harder time competing. That's not unknown to anyone. But why single out one sector of the farming industry? Why did the raspberry growers in southern British Columbia not get something also? This is ridiculous.

A Voice: They got a 12 percent increase in taxes.

R. Neufeld: Exactly. What most farmers got was the 12 percent increase in taxes. The budget for agriculture has been cut drastically, so we can bet that there won't be anything there next year. The minister can say all he wants about giving $12 million or $15 million. They were part of that program, but that wasn't the whole program. That was not everything from the budget.

I think that the farmers from Peace River North and Peace River South have been down in the capital lobbying the government on quite a few occasions. I have written at least three or four letters to the minister asking for help for our agricultural industry in north and south Peace. But they continually get told no because they haven't done a good enough job of lobbying. Well, my goodness, if that's what we're up to, that whoever does the best lobbying is going to get the money, it has nothing to do with need or anything like that. It's just lobbying that determines who's going to get the money. I find that distasteful also.

Highways is another budget that has been cut. I find this rather amusing, because we follow the Peat Marwick report only where it makes good sense for the government, not where it makes good sense for all of British Columbia, or not where it makes sense for the ordinary British Columbian who has to drive on these highways and who has to try to get back and forth to work. No, we don't use common sense there, because that's not going to make us look good.

But we have highways in the north that aren't fit to drive on, and I'm telling you that our previous administration was lax in keeping those highways up. I make no excuse for that. Understand?

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: I don't know whether it's a point of order or not, but Mr. Garden is sitting on that side of the House and heckling me. Should he not be in his own chair? I think he knows the rules of the House.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I would ask you to come back to the debate on second reading of Bill 16.

[9:15]

R. Neufeld: In Bill 16 we see expenditures for highways. Like I said, we have highways that are not fit to drive on in the north. We have the Pine Pass that needs a tremendous amount of working on. We have the Peat Marwick report, which obviously has something to do with this Bill 16. We need that highway fixed up. That has been on the agenda and been worked on steadily. Peat Marwick says the highways are deteriorating drastically. In fact, they are some of the lurking expenditures that we're going to face in time.

Then why are we cutting that budget so drastically? Why are we going to leave those roads in total disrepair? I have two specific hills -- one in Fort Nelson and one in Fort St. John, like I say -- which are almost not passable. Yet when I sent a letter to Mr. Gabelmann...

Interjections.

R. Neufeld: I know his name. Point of order, yes. ...about bringing 16-foot-wide house trailers into British Columbia, he told me that the main highway would not handle that wide a load. Yet he has no problem leaving a road that's hanging on the side of a hill, where large B-trains and loads of that width and weight traverse it steadily. We're waiting for the road to be completed. Almost all the bridges are in. They're going to go through with a commitment for $1 million on the bridges. We have no road. I tell you, hon. Speaker, we have to have that road.

We have other things. I see we're spending almost another 10 percent in education. That's part of Bill 16. I want to talk a bit about a problem in education in the north that I think the minister's been made aware of. There are a number of students who live about 30 miles from a school that has grade 10, 11 and 12. But to get there, they either have to ride a horse, walk or drive a tractor for five miles. So those students who finish grade 9 have to go to town and be boarded out so they can finish their high school. Here is something else for the Minister of Education. If we're going to spend some more money, along with Highways, why don't we put in those short road connectors so that we can do that.

Tourism is another problem that we have in the north and all over British Columbia. And yet we see the budget cut in Bill 16 for tourism. The only thing we haven't seen cut in Tourism is the ministers flying on the airplanes. Now we're going to see a cut, because they say they want to cut it because the nickels dropped in front of them. And that minister over there is the one who's going to have the nickel in front of her. Until then, she was the high flyer and the high driver in the aircraft.

Tourism is a ministry that has also been cut. In the north we've had lots of problems promoting tourism. We're a part of British Columbia that a lot of people don't recognize as being part of British Columbia, because we're over the mountains and east. We almost have more ties with Alberta than we do with the lower mainland, and that was evident even in the last administration. Now we have a government that is doing exactly the same thing. The open and honest government that was going to look after all the people in agriculture totally left them out. They just look after the people in the Okanagan. With Highways it's the same thing. If they're going to spend any money, it's 

[ Page 266 ]

going to be down here. Nothing in the north. Tourism, I'm not too sure. I know that before the nickel dropped in front of this administration, they spent as much as they could. I know that on the Alaska Highway they did a great sign program, and we appreciated it. It's good. Finally it came through, but obviously it was added to the deficit that we had.

Health is another part of this Bill 16. We've got an increase of approximately 7.4 percent. We just received the Seaton report that said there was enough money in the health care budget. It just had to be spent -- how did they put it? -- "a little wiser." And this government over here has said that they're going to spend wiser and better. Obviously they're not going to in Health, and they're not going to accept the Seaton report at all, because what they're doing is upping the budget. Why don't they spend a little wiser?

Madam Speaker, there are so many things coming up in this budget that don't ring true with honest, open government that people are really going to be upset with this government. And they are now. We had the Minister of Finance talk about taxes not going up very much because of the supplementary grant reduction, but I see -- it was just handed to me recently for the city of Vancouver -- that there are some really low ones. Pardon me, I'm not familiar with all of Vancouver, but the majority of them range anywhere from 11 to 24 percent. Now you're going to tell me that it's not going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia very much money.

Those municipalities out there grubbing for every dollar they have, trying to make it stretch as far as they possibly can, are now going to have to go to their tax base and say: "Look, the provincial government has cut revenue-sharing just a little bit, but it's still cut. They're going to take the supplementary homeowner's grant away. In some cases, it's a little bit, but it's been cut. So you're going to have to pay more taxes on the average -- maybe $300 or something -- but you're not going to receive any more services for it." That was to help with the school financing formula.

I'm afraid to look at my tax bill to see how much more I'm going to have to pay; and let me tell you, hon. Speaker, I do not live in an expensive home. I live in an average home in Fort St. John, not a really expensive one -- guaranteed. And I know that my tax bill is probably going to increase by about $500. People in another part of my constituency in Fort Nelson, where they have a very small, compressed residential tax base, are going to incur tremendous expenditures, because they don't have a large residential tax base to pick up those extra services for school financing.

What we need in this time, in this government, is more scrutiny of the services we provide, of how we provide them and of the cost. We have a government raising taxation by some $800 million, and it is still going to run a deficit of $1.8 billion. I'm afraid that the people of British Columbia are not very happy with that, and they will call this government to it when the time comes. When we talk about taking away the supplementary homeowner's grant, revenue sharing and those types of things on municipal governments, it's called off-loading. It's almost the same thing that they are talking about with the federal government. We all know those things. The federal government is off-loading onto the province; the province is going to off-load a whole bunch more onto the taxpayers. It's quite easy when you reduce the grants to ferry corporations but increase the ferry fares by 10 percent or something to make up for it. Obviously it's going back to the people. It's a continual increase in taxes, at a time when people are saying they've had enough government interference and enough taxes and they want to get down to the basic part of getting good services.

Hon. Speaker, I've had a sore throat for a number of days, and my voice is starting to go, so with that I'd like to thank you and the members for listening so intently over there. It was great to hear them listen.

D. Jarvis: As I stand here tonight to speak on this bill, I cannot help but think that as a new and challenging a job, as it is for myself and my colleagues who find ourselves sitting in the House with the many responsibilities of the official opposition, it is nothing to compare to the situation that the members of the government must find themselves in. I say that not just because they find themselves responsible for the continued well-being of this province and the people in it. There's more to it than that. This is a party which very much enjoyed playing the role of the official opposition. Considering who the government of the day was, who would not have enjoyed being the opposition at that time?

The NDP were very pleased indeed with the image they had of themselves: defenders of the people, champions of honesty and openness and protectors of the parliamentary principle. Yes, when the government of the day offended the spirit of the parliamentary system, as they sometimes did, and their sense of honesty and openness was offended, then they protested something really fierce. When the former government attempted to abuse the very clear mandate of special warrants for their own purposes to avoid having themselves exposed to the scrutiny of the House and the people of this province, they were outraged. They stood in this House and spoke long and hard about its abuses: the abuse of privilege, how special warrants were only to be used in emergency circumstances and how the government was being less than honest by hiding their actions from Parliament and the people of this province. So it must be very strange for the members opposite, who formerly sat on this side of the House, to once again hear those very same voices of protest and regret at the abuse of this institution but realize that now those voices are directed against them.

It must be very awkward indeed to hear one's own words turned back against you and realize that the words are no less right now than they were when you said them before. I have no doubt that the former opposition was in dead earnest when they said the same things that we say now: that running this province on special warrants for the past five months is wrong; that this is an abuse of the House; that the people of the province have a right to expect more from the government it elects. I have no doubt that beyond their meagre 

[ Page 267 ]

facade of confidence and self-righteousness they can hear their own words burning in their ears, and they must know that they were right then, and we are right right now. After all their promises of openness and honesty, it would appear that they are little more than a bunch of Socreds in sheep's clothing.

As the opposition critic for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources I must also express my dismay at the way this government has conducted its business since taking office. It has further damaged an already fragile mining industry. There are many factors in the mining industry which are largely beyond the control of this or any other government, those being the depressed world-market prices of metals, the consistently high Canadian dollar and tough competition from the international community. All of these have combined to make the last few years in the mining industry very difficult ones. In addition to that, there have been mixed messages, both from the last administration and from this current one, in their openness to new mining developments in this province. This has further shaken investors' confidence.

[9:30]

There are many potential mines in B.C. -- Stronsay, Windy Craggy, Polestar, to name a few -- which are waiting in limbo for a signal from this government that it is prepared to welcome them. This has not been forthcoming. This has been a large mistake, and I assure this House that they will hear more from this side of the opposition in the near future.

Worst of all, this government made a decision to wait five months -- almost half a year -- before calling together this Legislature to legitimize the business of this province. There has been no accounting, no scrutinizing, no openness and no honesty. This is the surest way to destroy an investor's confidence in this province.

Earlier this evening you heard our critic for finance, the member for Delta South, say that he was expecting a grandchild. I don't know whether it was his second, third or fourth. He's got a couple of girls; he was hoping it would be a young man. Anyway, he felt really guilty that 24 hours after the grandchild was born he would have to admit to him that he was now $7,800 in debt. Here's a child who, by the past administration and this government, has had his pockets picked before he was even born. All this has been done behind the closed scrutiny of this government.

I thought at first when I came here, being a new member, that this government would play by the rules. I found out that they play fast and free with the rules. This entire government appears to have been orchestrated by -- well, let's say it -- Bob Williams, hon. Speaker. It's quite obvious. I wonder why that is.

Hon. Speaker, we should not be faced with passing this interim supply bill with such limited time. I believe the people of this province will be ashamed of this government. Fortunately they can see how this holier-than-thou party is running this government. I hope they've all been watching tonight and this afternoon. Everything is in a shroud of secrecy. It will be distasteful to the people of this province to actually find out how this government is really run.

Hon. Speaker, I ran in this election because the Socreds had abused the privilege of running this government. I got over 50 percent of the vote in North Vancouver-Seymour. I can hardly wait for 36 months from now when I go back to the people in North Vancouver-Seymour and say that this government has again abused the privilege that they were given by less than 50 percent of the people of this province.

This government has said time and time again that B.C. was derailed by the former Socred administration and that at long last the NDP have put it on the track. In closing, I must admit that this is a case where I agree with the NDP. They have put B.C. back on the track. The only one problem is that the NDP are the only ones on the train, and the rest of the province is in front of it.

I find it hard to support this agenda. I wonder who wrote this agenda. If this budget was not prepared by Peat Marwick Mitchell, then how can we expect a valid document when no one on the government side has ever run a business before? They don't know what a balance sheet is.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: Well, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they had one of their spouses write it for them. I understand all their spouses work -- for a living, that is. In conclusion, I'd like to say that the people in the resource industry are getting ready to move out of this province. The people in the shops and stores are scared stiff about what's happening to them. This government thinks they're writing a good agenda, but 70 percent of the people do not think so. That's why I cannot support this bill.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, what a first step for this new government! As my colleague for Okanagan East said earlier tonight, on October 17, last fall, the people of my constituency expected more from this new parliament. They expected a New Democratic government to believe in democracy. Well, it has all been said tonight.

The opposition on this side has spoken eloquently about the abuse of process and about the lack of process. This government failed to call the House into session last fall like Saskatchewan's New Democratic government did last fall within 60 days of taking office and like Ontario's New Democratic government did in 1990 within 60 days of taking office -- like this government should have done. My colleague from Vancouver-Langara also spoke eloquently tonight about the manner in which these matters for spending are presented to the people and how we as the people's representatives really need more when we are asked to debate their spending.

Most of the speakers on this side of the House have spoken about the schedule to Bill 16 and the special warrants that have gone on before without public scrutiny. What I would like to address tonight at this late hour.... Shame on that government for legislation by exhaustion -- another broken promise. They and their NDP predecessors used to abhor this kind of 

[ Page 268 ]

parliamentary behavior. Shame on you for forcing this sort of process on the House.

Anyhow, back to the debate. What I want to address is the principle behind the blank cheque they're asking for tonight and tomorrow. Section 1: $4.425 billion. That's a pretty big blank cheque. A former member of the opposition got quite famous in the spring sitting of the 1975 legislature, crying out loud about not a dime without debate. All that fuss over a dime? Tonight and tomorrow we are talking in Bill 16 about 46 billion dimes. How famous do you think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale will become for the new rallying cry: "Not 46 billion dimes without debate?" Sound good?

Why should we be reluctant to give this government a blank cheque with all those dimes involved? Why should the public be worried about a blank cheque for this government? They might buy more taxi jets, for one reason. They might allow more personal trips for cabinet ministers on those taxi jets. They might order new government logos for all those signs with that nice B.C. flag on it. They might build more caucus rooms. They might buy more advertising. They might award more contracts for party hacks. They might find more jobs for friends and insiders. They might award more jobs to friendly consultants without tender or open public bids. They might paint everything brown and orange as the previous NDP government did. They might lease or build more underutilized office space for new employees. They might buy more companies like Panco Poultry. They might buy a telephone company like they once talked about doing. They might buy a forest company or two. They might buy a mining company or two. They might buy bigger desks for cabinet ministers. They might pay a bigger salary for that famous staff member on the Crown corporation secretariat.

Interjections.

K. Jones: We'll open our books if you open yours.

They might give it all away to legal fights with every hospital board in the province. They have already paid severance pay to just about everyone who used to work around here. They might give it all away for beads at Club Med in Tokyo, Switzerland, London -- or who knows where their Premier will travel next, instead of staying here in this House to do the people's business. Where is he today? Which club is he in today? They might use it to pay entry fees so their Premier can boogie when he goes to New York next time. They might drive the whole mining industry into the ground and end up bailing out every resource community in the province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

K. Jones: I could go on.

Some Hon. Members: Please do.

K. Jones: Shall I do a list on what they won't spend it on?

Some Hon. Members: Yes!

K. Jones: Or should I save something for tomorrow under the committee stage?

Some Hon. Members: No!

K. Jones: Under the committee stage of this Bill 16, this last-minute bill brought in by a last-minute minister, last-minute budget, special warrants.... No debate by the people's representatives -- forty-eight billion dimes.

[9:45]

Hon. Speaker, this is not a good night for British Columbians. Before I take my seat, I would like to dwell initially on at least two special warrants which particularly disturb me. The first is for a grant of $15.35 million to the tree-fruit growers, followed by a $10.25 million grant. As well, later I noted that the hon. Minister of Agriculture made this one of his pet projects. In the meantime, the wheat farmers of the Peace River came to this very chamber just a week ago. There is apparently no money for them, despite the fact that they are in straits equal to or worse than the tree-fruit growers. I guess you have to be in an NDP riding to get money out of this government.

That is the reason we have a budget and why we debate estimates. It allows for members of this House to stand in debate and argue passionately why the Peace River farmers deserve as much support as do the fruit growers in the Okanagan. Unfortunately, these two warrants went to one segment of the agricultural industry heavily dependent in the minister's own riding. That is the reason we say: "Not a dime without debate."

Unfortunately, these kinds of fundamental decisions on agriculture are made without any recourse to this House. I can tell you that the people of Peace River are angry. They feel their story has not been adequately addressed. They feel that their plea for assistance has not been heeded. There is a good reason for this. Instead of having their plight debated in this House, it goes instead to the Treasury Board. Instead of a fair debate, we have cabinet secrecy. It is the most cynical type of secrecy. It involves cabinet ministers huddling in a quiet room to decide why the tree-fruit growers get aid while the wheat farmers do not.

Let me speculate on what might be said. It would go something like this: "Who is the hon. member from Peace River? Is he a member of the government side of the House? If not, too bad. Our member is elected in the south Okanagan, so that is where the special warrant grant will be issued." These people travelled all the way to the Legislature from Peace River to ask these fundamental questions. Are we to believe that the government slogan is now "special warrants for some," my friend?

Another issue that I would like to address this evening is the special warrants to pay for the posh quarters for the government caucus, which are taking 

[ Page 269 ]

shape within a few meters of this chamber. How much did they cost? Who knows? It seems that a government which claims it can't afford to maintain basic budgets in key ministries can spend special warrants on new office quarters and for only four extra members from the previous caucus when it was government.

Unfortunately we have not had an adequate accounting of this expense. I suppose that the hon. Finance minister, now rapidly becoming known as the minister for special warrants, will incline in his chair comfortably in the knowledge that his own acumen with special warrants has paid for his palatial quarters. It is a sad day when such a cynical abuse of power is allowed to creep unchecked in the form of the desecration of a heritage building, merely a few meters from where we sit tonight, without even a fair accounting, I might add.

This government is drunk with the power of special warrant spending. It has saddled this province with a debt of $1.7 billion.

Some Hon. Members: It's 1.8.

K. Jones: Correct. It's $1.8 billion, the highest deficit in the province's history. At least half of it has come from special warrant spending during this fiscal year. Hon. Speaker, I used to believe that we could bring change to this House. I believed the government when it was in opposition and said that special warrant spending was inherently evil. How naive we all were, and so were the public very naive. We know now that this government is no better than the old one. They operate in the same underhanded manner. This is because they believe that nobody in the province cares, and that people will forget.

They are very wrong. Why? Because we in the opposition benches will be reminding the people of the province of their broken promises. We will remind them that we have a Premier who promised honest and open government, and who, when he had the chance, unleashed the minister of special warrants on us.

This minister, who may be running the government, for all we know, has had the temerity to offer weak excuses for his abuse of power. He has stood and refused to acknowledge that what he and his government have done is wrong. They have cynically had us sit through this night. It is legislation by exhaustion. I cast my mind back over the last five months: nothing this government has done is an accident. It is all orchestrated. It is deceit pure and simple.

This government had no intention of recalling the House. It had planned to spend on the basis of special warrants as part of its post-election strategy. This is what makes the deliberations tonight so cynical and disturbing. They knew that we would be sitting here tonight. They knew that we would be pressed up against the wall in a debate over interim supply, but they thought to themselves: "Who are these Liberals, anyway? They can easily be crushed. Nothing will disturb our agenda."

Well, hon. Speaker, how wrong they were. We are determined to hold this government accountable; we are determined that this type of travesty will never happen again. The House Leader ridiculed the suggestion from the opposition leader that we have fixed budget days, a chancellor of the exchequer to approve all government spending, and quarterly reports from the auditor general. He sneered at such suggestions, because he doesn't understand them. Indeed, he doesn't want to understand them. He is drunk with the power of special warrants. It is a sad chapter in the history of the House. He has determined that the best way to control the political agenda is to spend on the basis of special warrants. It is sad to contemplate that so many people went to the polls last October and elected a government they thought was different, a government that would bring dignity and decorum back into this House. What a shame!

As I once again take my seat....

Some Hon. Members: No, no!

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, I know it is getting late, but I ask you to come to order.

K. Jones: Hon. Speaker, I have been urged to continue.

While I am on my feet and on the important subject of special warrant spending, let me say that the legacy of this debate tonight will long be with us. When this House adjourns, it will be the opposition that will be able to go forth and hold its head high. When we meet the people of the province, we will be able to say that we did our best to hold this government accountable for its special-warrant spending, and that we did our best to shame this government into admitting that what it has done in this chamber tonight is wrong. It is wrong, and that is what we will tell the people of the province.

We will promise them that a Liberal government would never abuse the public trust. We would never accept that there are any circumstances where special-warrant spending can be justified. Indeed, we would outlaw the practice. It would ensure that the same kind of basic, spending under law, which is required by every other financial jurisdiction, should above all else apply to this chamber. It is about accountability. It is about public trust. It has thus far been abused in the chamber tonight.

And what of other special warrants? If you look down the list, you see billions of taxpayers' dollars spent over the past five and a half months. How can this government face this House tonight? Does the minister have no shame? As he gazes wryly at the ceiling, he doesn't even know what's going on in here.

[10:00]

I would like to speak of some of the special warrants in my own critic area of Government Services. I have counted many major special warrants, but I will put those off until tomorrow. We will be debating those thoroughly tomorrow.

Hon. Speaker, I take this opportunity to urge the government to find that famous better way -- not the way they're going right now.

J. Dalton: My scriptwriter got tired and went home, so I will be brief. It's certainly encouraging to see all the heightened interest in the debate. It's nice to see 

[ Page 270 ]

most of the cabinet sitting in their seats. I might inquire where the Premier is, but I'm sure he's listening intently elsewhere.

There are just one or two points I would like to make, hon. Speaker. Before we took our very brief, five-minute break and the great debate that led up to that useful momentary adjournment, the hon. Minister of Advanced Education made the statement across the floor that people could take shifts, referring to the fact that if we got tired, we could spell each other off. Well, I notice that the hon. minister is still out on his shift. I think he did come back.... Of course, he's not shiftless, obviously. So hopefully that hon. minister will be able to return before we adjourn for the evening.

Let me just quickly take you over the very sad state of affairs that has led us here to this moment. It's very unfortunate that this House was not convened for five months after the October 17 election. There's no excuse for that. I don't want to go over a lot of old ground and to open old wounds, of course, but one of the previous speakers made the comparison to Saskatchewan, whose government found its way to call the House for a very brief session after its election to go over the very point that we're taking five and a half months to cover. I would suggest that that is certainly a very sad comparison, that if we can't do things at least as well as Saskatchewan, if not better, then this province is in a sorry state.

We have before us two particularly interesting items. By the way, hon. Speaker, I see that the minister of advanced education and shifts has taken his seat. Nice to see him.

I just want to remind the House that we are debating special warrants of almost $3 billion for the fiscal period ending March 31, which, according to my watch, is tomorrow. When I say almost $3 billion, if I was to round it out, it would be $3 billion in my bank account, although I don't think I have quite that amount of money in my account.

An Hon. Member: Somebody give him a script.

J. Dalton: I've already made the reference: my scriptwriter has gone home. I see that the clock has now wandered past 10 o'clock. In other parts of the country, including Newfoundland, it is tomorrow and therefore.... I do have many other comments I would like to make, but given the lateness of the hour -- and I see I have people from the opposition handing me pieces of paper, but I think we'll ignore those -- I would suggest, and I will so move, that this House adjourn the debate on this motion until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[10:15]

The Speaker: The debate continues. I regret that the member who had the floor, having moved the motion to adjourn, cannot now resume his comments.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a very brief introduction.

Leave not granted.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, what we have here is a fiasco, a disgrace. It is complete contempt for parliamentary procedure. We have rules, but these have been disregarded and flaunted in our faces. Remember that book? We have a government forcing its own agenda, regardless of the consequences. Why would this government not call parliament back, as they did in Saskatchewan? Is there something to hide? Now we have one day left to debate the inadequacies of this government's handling of special warrants and interim supply. This government could have called us back earlier, and we could have debated this and come to the right conclusions.

I'll just quote from a couple of the warrants that this government has passed.

January 8, 1992: "$1,009,150,051, to maintain service" -- whatever that means. February 28: "$30,465,000, variety of costs." That tells our constituents a lot, doesn't it? February 28: "$455,000, variety of costs" -- again. The constituents must be really impressed with this government.

If we go back to the former government, they did quite well at this, too. April 1, 1991: "$2,863,983,000, to maintain service." Again no answer to the constituents.

We could talk about the Peat Marwick rent-a-budget. But what is the sense? We received the information too late to analyze or to utilize it. But what is the matter with using the auditor general's reports? After all, that's what we hired him for. What's happening here is an unconstructive waste of taxpayers' dollars. They deserve better than they are seeing here, and they 

[ Page 271 ]

definitely deserved a better accounting of $5 billion worth of warrants.

I wonder if the other side of the House remembers this document: "A Better Way." Remember "A Better Way" and all your little promises? Promise No. 4 is: "We'll balance the budget over the business cycle and keep taxes fair for everyone. A New Democratic government will control government spending openly and responsibly." Five billion dollars worth of warrants is open and responsible? I'm sure you wished you hadn't written that document. Are we now seeing the better way?

Now I'll quote from some more special warrants. September 20, 1991: "$716,155,000, to maintain service" -- again. What does that mean? Someone has to explain that to me. What does "variety of costs" and "maintain service" mean? Has anybody explained this to the constituents? Is this a proper accounting to the public and to your constituents?

Even the Peat Marwick rent-a-budget said: "...a requirement that the government justify in writing all requests to spend money by special warrant." You paid a million dollars for that, yet you can't utilize it. What could you have utilized that million dollars for, other than a wasted document that you haven't read yet?

Hon. Speaker, I certainly hope this debate accomplishes something, even if it only shows our constituents that their government has been, in the present and in the past, out of control. It has been operated by bureaucrats for the last year, and I hope this disgrace certainly ends here tonight and we go forward with constructive debate.

Now I will turn my attention to agriculture. I heard one of my colleagues quote $30 million to the tree-fruit-growers, and the grain-growers wanted $6.8million. The hon. minister went to the Treasury Board but couldn't get it for them, even though it is just as large an industry and in a lot harder straits than the tree-fruit-growers. This budget for agriculture decreased by 16.1 percent. I notice that farm income assurance is down by $7 million, but that the minister's office went up by $10,000. It's amazing. The ministry's operating costs went up by $1 million at the same time that the hands-on to the farmers went down. Maybe it's time to look at that.

Take a look at the forage seed bought for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. It was bought in Oregon. Whatever happened to the "Buy B.C." program -- or is it bye-bye B.C?

We've had people who were in the opposition here a year ago make statements to those who were in government a year previous, and now these same people are ministers in the present government. I quote them:

"Arrogant best describes it when they're prepared to spend $3 billion of public money without any public scrutiny or public debate from the people's representatives in this chamber. They hold the Legislature in contempt and, through that, the people of the province. It is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy for the executive council, without any recourse to public debate, to spend $3 billion of public money without coming to the House for approval, particularly when approval could have so easily been granted and debated when this House sat."

Does the hon. minister recognize his words? Now we're talking about $5 billion, not $3 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. It is a sham and it is a shame.

I certainly hope that this accomplishes something here tonight, and that this government will come to its senses and address the problem and the principle of warrants. They should not be used except in the proper context, when it's an emergency, and the past year has not been an emergency -- except for particular parties.

I will end my statement with this note. Hopefully, from this point forward it can be constructive instead of destructive, and hopefully our hon. opposition, the government, can see its way clear to address the problem of warrants once and for all.

L. Stephens: The main purpose of the members of this Legislature, everyone should agree, is to scrutinize spending and to pass taxing and spending laws in this House. That's why we're here. They're now asking for $4 billion of public money to be passed posthaste, today, immediately, under some phony guise of urgency. It is not acceptable to this side of the House.

That entire statement, with the sole exception of the word "four," is an exact word-for-word quote from the then opposition critic, now Minister of Finance, sitting there in the government benches. He went on to say: "It is no way to run a government, Mr. Speaker. It is dishonest, it is deceitful, it is avoiding public debate -- which is what we are here for -- and we won't accept it." Isn't it interesting how quickly their perspective changes once they become government? The former Finance critic also went on to say: "...the principal role of parliament is to scrutinize spending ability, to scrutinize the taxing authority of the government and their priorities for spending, and to scrutinize the government's agenda for the province. We have been denied that opportunity...."

Hon. Speaker, we too have been denied that opportunity. It was not very long ago that several other provinces across Canada were themselves engaged in provincial elections: Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In each case, the newly elected governments reconvened their legislatures within two months of taking office. In the case of Saskatchewan, the government there was not elected until after this one we now see before us, yet they managed to call together their House by the middle of December. Why did these governments -- not so very different in their ideology from this government -- put themselves to the challenge of calling together parliament? Because, fellow members, they recognized the importance of seeking approval for the spending of the people's money. Why did this government not consider itself similarly responsible? One can only wonder.

It has often been pointed out in this House over the past few days that the members of the official opposition are not nearly as experienced as some of their government counterparts. We recognize this to be true. There are members now in government who have spent the better part of the decade learning the ins and outs of this House, not to mention the locations of the wash-

[ Page 272 ]

rooms. Surely this government, ripe with its collective experience and sagacity, was not intimidated by the prospect of taking its agenda before such a new and inexperienced opposition. Indeed, one would have thought that a government that professes to have the best interests of the province so dear to its heart would have looked upon this as a sort of educational experience for the new opposition. However, this was not the case. One can only reflect on the possibility that this government is not as sure of its direction as it would like the rest of us to believe.

I repeat what the Minister of Finance said:

"Mr. Speaker, our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted the basic parliamentary principle. It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government because we are elected representatives -- all of us. We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money, and the government has to be held accountable...when the government and the executive council acts unilaterally, it undermines the very foundation of our democracy."

I would like to leave off the Minister of Finance for a while now, as I would not want the sound of his own words ringing in his ears to stop him from hearing the rest of what I have to say. I'm sure he'll appreciate that. Instead I will turn to a new source, one which I am convinced the government members will find every bit as credible as the words of their own Finance minister. I refer, of course, to none other than the recent and somewhat infamous report issued by the firm of Peat Marwick Thorne. I refer specifically to page 50 of the summary and recommendations, where it states: "The ease of access to special warrant provisions in the Legislative Assembly should be reduced by requiring stated reasons why a special warrant is urgently and immediately required."

Let's take this one step at a time, hon. Speaker, so as not to lose anyone at this late hour. First, ease of access should be reduced. The entire point, which we on the opposition benches have been making, is that this government has been tempered by its ability to abuse the intent of special warrants in order to cloud their fiscal policy behind a veil of secrecy. This is not acceptable to this opposition or to the people of this province, any more than it was when this government sat in opposition.

Stated reasons. These, of course, we will be attempting to get from the government in short order. However, how much more open and honest this government would have appeared over the last five months if, instead of spending vast amounts of money with no accounting to the people in this House, they had shared with us their decisions so that the people could decide for themselves. Better yet, if only they had had the faith in themselves and their leader to recall the Legislature earlier, we could have had an opportunity to pass an interim bill of supply and given this process real legitimacy.

Urgent and immediate. Hon. Speaker, if there is any urgency and immediacy to the situation we now face, it was deliberately created by this government. We have been consistent in our attempts to get them to recall the House as early as possible. They simply ignored us. But now, in a situation which is no one's fault but their own, we hear them cry, wail and, yes, even whine because we do not immediately acquiesce to their every demand. I wonder aloud what else they could have expected?

[10:30]

As the hours draw onward into the night, and as the hon. minister sits playing with his elastic bands, I believe that we have a sort of comic yet tragic scenario unfolding -- one which would play well in some of their hon. members' ridings. We might well ask: is the manner in which the hon. minister fiddles with his elastic band symbolic in some way of how he has played with the people of the province and the thirty-fifth Legislative Assembly? Does he believe, by introducing an interim supply bill with scarcely a day left in the fiscal year, that this House is something of an elastic band to be stretched and played with?

He has attempted to ramrod this offensive interim supply bill through this House. He said that it was a crisis, and that we required a special night sitting of this House to get through it. What unabashed gall! This very afternoon his own minister tried to introduce fair wage legislation under the same guise of emergency debate.

I find it interesting that the members of the House from the government side have sat silent as their colleagues on the executive council ramrod this bill through the House. They have sat on their hands and pretended that as hon. members of this House they have no role to play in this important debate. Why have they not risen in debate? Because I suspect the government House Leader has urged them to stand aside while this important principle is debated. To those hon. members of the government side, are any of you prepared to rise and defend the honour and integrity of this chamber? Are any of you prepared to stand and say that what your government House Leader is attempting to do is a sham and a farce, an attempt to frustrate the legislative process?

I have no doubt, hon. Speaker, that were I to take my seat now, no one would rise to speak. Yet there they appear in the pages of Hansard, just a few scant months ago, attacking the previous government with all the mock gusto and vigour they could muster. Earlier today, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale stated that he intended to send the Hansard of this debate back to his constituents. He felt sure that the people of his riding would be outraged at the waste of public money. Let me tell you that his constituents may surprise him. They may ask hard questions. Why has this government shown contempt for this House? Why has it broken its promise to change the way government is conducted in this province? Why have we seen from the government House Leader all the chicanery and grandstanding that he can muster?

This government House Leader shrugs off the comments attributed to him in Hansard about special-warrant spending. He cynically adjourns the House for five minutes amid the raucous desk-thumping of his 

[ Page 273 ]

minions on the government benches. But I digress. I hope the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale takes the message of special-warrant spending and interim supply to his constituents. And I hope they ask the member where he stands, since he hasn't stood once since this debate began. The answer becomes self-evident.

I entered political life because I believed we needed a change in B.C. I too viewed the special-warrant spending of the previous government with alarm and concern. Never did I dream that I would be standing before you tonight not only debating their special warrants but those of the new government as well. It is as if what they said while in opposition makes no difference to them. They have not once apologized to the people of this province for doing what they have done. Their explanations are weak and unconvincing.

Hon. Speaker, questioner after questioner has risen in this House today and asked this government House Leader: if Roy Romanow called his Legislature back to pass interim supply in the province of Saskatchewan, why not in B.C.? This minister refuses to answer. He feels, I suppose, that an explanation is not owed to the people of the province. He is saying: do not as I say but as I do.

How can he sit here tonight and not face this evening sitting in shame? How can he listen to his own comments from Hansard being thrown back at him and not offer the people of this province an apology? It was not so long ago that the present government sat here in these benches and yelled and cried when the government of the day rammed through special warrants without any consideration for parliamentary principle. I have no doubt that when they went home at night and vowed that they would remove what had become a sad and tired administration, they were sincere in their idealism. How soon they forget.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I agree with members of the opposition that special warrants are not an acceptable practice. I appreciate the words that I have said being used in the House, and I agree with them. I'd like to explain, if I could, the rationale for the House not sitting for five months. It is essentially this. We inherited not a....

An Hon. Member: Not a financial mess again!

Hon. G. Clark: No, I'm not going to deal with that, members opposite -- the financial situation -- except this way. There was no budget passed when we were elected, and we were three months behind preparing the budget for 1992-93. In addition to that, we learned very quickly that the budget that was introduced at the time was erroneous. It essentially had fiction in it; the numbers weren't accurate.

So we had a choice. We could have called the House back and passed the previous government's budget, which we knew was false. If we had done that, then we would not have been able to bring in a budget for 1992-93 on time. That is a fact. I know that the members opposite haven't been in the House.... The members on the Social Credit side who were in the House should know that we simply couldn't do that.

We could have brought the House back in for interim supply.

G. Farrell-Collins: They did it in Saskatchewan.

Hon. G. Clark: The government did do it in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, the budget that they brought in.... It was not the same situation as we were in. We had essentially no budget, and we were far behind.

I might mention to members opposite that the NDP government of Saskatchewan has not been able to bring in a budget on time for 1992-93. So they will be running now on special warrants for '92-93 for a few months, starting on Wednesday.

So our choice was really a very difficult one. The choice we made was to continue this unfortunate situation to try to get our house in order, try and bring in a budget on time for '92-93 -- which I'm very proud that we've been able to do -- and then get on a more reasonable footing, so hopefully we don't have to use special warrants over the years to come.

Let me just say one further thing. The members opposite have indicated that they offered to bring the House back, and they would pass it quickly, in a perfunctory way -- speedy passage, one or two days.

An Hon. Member: No.

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, one or two days was the offer by the opposition House Leader. The irony of that, of course, is: how would that accommodate a parliamentary democracy, when we would technically comply by doing that and, in fact, give no scrutiny of the debate, as the opposition suggested? I fail to see how that complies, except in a very technical sense.

For the record also, I want the House to know that I talked to the opposition House Leaders several weeks ago about the difficulty of interim supply because of the budget being so late in the fiscal year, and I offered as recently as Friday to bring in interim supply on Friday and have extended sitting hours on Monday and Tuesday, till ten, in order to provide more debate on interim supply than in any year since I've been here -- in five years. We would have had more hours of debate, by agreement. That's the kind of cooperation that we thought the members opposite might like; that's the kind of cooperation that we offered. Again, no government in the five years I was here would have made such an offer.

We made that offer in good faith, to have extended sittings on both Mondays and Tuesdays, and that offer was rejected. While rejecting extended sitting hours, the opposition then complained about having no time for debate. So we're quite pleased to extend the sitting hours today. We will certainly extend them tomorrow if it be so, and I hope there is full debate.

Unfortunately, the members opposite chose to filibuster on second reading. Where we should really be held accountable for the last five months is in each of 

[ Page 274 ]

the ministries. Because we have time constraints on interim supply, it's unfortunate that so much time has been used up on this rather ritualistic debate, when we could be getting a genuine exchange by ministry.

Nevertheless, we still have a significant amount of time left to do that and we will be as accommodating as possible. I say this now in the House for members opposite. If they desire, we will skip lunch tomorrow from noon to two. I would be quite prepared to do that, and to sit from ten in the morning -- or even nine in the morning, if they'd like -- right through until we finish, because we agree with the opposition that there should be full debate on these; we're not trying to shirk that. That's why we've had this extended sitting today, and I offer it again here before the House.

With that, I am delighted to move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

[10:45]

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1992

The House in committee on Bill 16; E. Barnes in the chair.

The Chair: Hon. members, this being a new experience for me, as I'm sure it is for a large number of you, I would like to have you be patient, and give me an opportunity to warm up to the job, as the Speaker has done in warming up to hers.

Before proceeding with the committee stage of Bill 16, I would like to outline the process we will consider in this bill. The bill consists of a title, a preamble, sections 1 through 3 and a schedule listing special warrants expended during the past fiscal year. I propose to allow the customary practice of this House and deal with these in parts in the following order. First of all, we will deal with sections 1 through 3, which will be considered in seriatim; that is, one at a time in order. Secondly, we will deal with the schedule, which will be considered on a ministry-by-ministry basis alphabetically. One question will be put on the schedule as a whole after consideration of the last ministry. Members will be expected to confine their remarks to the ministry under consideration. Third, the question on the preamble will be put. Finally, the question will be put on the title. My only way of determining whether or not the members will be prepared to pass any particular portion as we go along will be to ask if the schedule will pass.

D. Mitchell: I'm listening closely to your remarks, and I appreciate the clarification you're giving us for the operations in the committee. I'm not sure if I understand; I'm just seeking clarification. You said that we would be going alphabetically according to the ministries listed in the schedule. Is that correct? I just wanted to clarify that. So my understanding with ministries would be that we commence with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Is that correct? Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. It seems to me that it should be in alphabetical order, where possible, to accommodate the opposition members, critics, ministers and staff. Today the Aboriginal Affairs minister is here. We could debate it, but his staff is not here to give a more fruitful debate for members opposite, to make sure all their questions are answered. I would propose to start with Advanced Education. The minister is here, and the staff are here as well, and that would allow a more fruitful discussion.

G. Wilson: I find this incredible to say the least. This House has been kept in session until almost 11 o'clock tonight by virtue of this government's insistence that we get into a debate on this matter. We requested an adjournment so that we could have proper preparation and proper availability of staff. We have the minister in the House. By prior agreement we were to go by alphabetical order; Aboriginal Affairs is the way that it proceeds. The minister is available tonight, and we're ready to debate this at this time. I find it incredible that this government is ill-prepared to debate after putting all the members through what they've just put us through.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for the third party, I would just like to clarify for all members that the first item to be debated will be section 1, not the warrants as such. If the House Leaders can agree on a procedure, the Chair will operate accordingly, so that can be clarified. In the meantime, we could proceed to debate section 1.

[ Page 275 ]

J. Weisgerber: Dealing with the order in which we would debate the individual ministry estimates, we quite clearly had an understanding that we would start alphabetically at the top and work our way through. Clearly this should come as no surprise to the government at this hour that we are now deciding to debate the estimates. We're here solely at the wishes of the government. We were reminded only minutes ago by the government House Leader of his kind offer and consultation with the House Leaders. The core of that agreement was that the government would have ministers and senior ministry staff available alphabetically, that we wouldn't bounce around, that it was too complicated with three parties and two critics and ministry staff -- that we would go alphabetically. We're not asking for anything other than the agreement we had. Quite clearly, if it's too complex for the government to arrange, it is 11 o'clock at night and we'll be back here tomorrow at ten.

The Chair: If it's agreed with all members, then we could proceed with section 1 and address the other procedure as the time calls for.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On the schedule.

G. Wilson: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I find this to be offensive in the extreme. We have a situation where we have requested that there be full, open and accurate debate on these documents. And in virtually every case I am told that staff members who would have proper information with respect to expenditures will be here. It seems to me this government has forced this House to stay late, knowing full well Aboriginal Affairs was the first on the schedule and now finding themselves ill-prepared to do it. Mr. Chairman, I believe this House should stand adjourned until tomorrow morning, when the staff is here to deal with this matter.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is bizarre, at the least. The opposition leader has been asking us to do it in alphabetical order, even though we were fully prepared to go to Advanced Ed first. We immediately said that we would agree to go to Aboriginal Affairs. The minister has gone back to his office to get his briefing material so he can be here and be ready for the debate I thought you wanted.

G. Wilson: Will he have his staff?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: His staff are not available; his staff....

An Hon. Member: Bring the staff in.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Let's just calm down; everybody should calm down for a minute and relax. If the opposition leader would relax....

An Hon. Member: What's the matter, you don't pay overtime?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member should know that senior public servants do not get overtime for the dozens and dozens of extra hours they work every week.

Mr. Chairman, we have some options. We can go to Advanced Ed, where the minister and his staff are available. We can go to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, where the minister will be available in a few moments. It's really up to the members of the opposition. If the members of the opposition want to know why that's the case, it is simply because we expected earlier this evening -- fully expected -- there would be a brief debate on second reading, leaving ample time this evening to get on with the important element of scrutiny of these warrants through this committee stage process. At that time the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs was in a meeting. Therefore we prepared to have Advanced Education, because it was next alphabetically. But it's up to you; Mr. Chairman, it's up to the members of the opposition. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is here.

The Chair: I understand that the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is now in the House, and if it's agreed by the members, we should proceed.

[11:00]

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, could we get an assurance from the minister that he will be able to give full and complete explanations on all estimates and all documents in here without the presence of his staff?

The Chair: Hon. members, now that the minister is here we can begin debate, and it would be quite in order for these questions to be addressed directly to the minister. So I would assume that if we started the debate we could get some answers to some of those questions.

D. Mitchell: I believe the Attorney General raised a point of order, and I'd like to speak to that briefly. The Attorney General suggests that something unusual is going on here, and indeed something unusual is going on. Here we are in this chamber, in this committee, at 11 o'clock at night.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak to this point of order. He suggests that it's up to the opposition. Indeed it's not up to the opposition. He suggests that the debate on second reading earlier this evening when were in the House was a surprise to them. It was a surprise to them that members of this House -- members of the opposition and the third party -- wanted to debate in principle this bill that is now referred to our committee. He suggested that he should be surprised by that.

Speaking to this point of order, the issue here is not which ministry shall go first in the committee....

[ Page 276 ]

The Chair: Hon. member, the matter is out of order in that there is no disagreement with respect to proceeding. You're expressing an opinion that I'm having difficulty finding to be relevant to the fact that we could proceed with the business of debating the matter. Proceed, hon. member, but please stick to the point of order.

D. Mitchell: What I'd like to suggest is that this committee is out of order right now. I'd like to move that this committee do now adjourn, report progress to the House and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

On the schedule.

J. Weisgerber: As I understand it, we are now going to start with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to welcome him to this rather rude introduction to his first mini-estimates, at least. I've been impressed with his ability. Although I haven't always agreed with his approach, he has demonstrated a sincere desire to deal with the issues. I apologize for the rather rough start for him.

There are some questions we should ask now and some questions we'll want to ask when we get to estimates proper. Referring to the consolidated revenue fund in the budget manual, it indicates that over the last year the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs spent not only the $9.9 million that was allocated in the budgets that were tabled last year but an additional $1 million as well. Perhaps I could start off by asking the minister what kinds of issues made it necessary for him to overspend his budget by about 10 percent. Perhaps the minister could start off by giving us some sense of where that $1 million was spent.

Hon. A. Petter: I guess there are two items I would draw the member's attention to in that regard. Because I was named as Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and also responsible for the Provincial Capital Commission, I would ask members to take note that part of the allocation during the year was shifted over to me for the Provincial Capital Commission. That accounts for part of what may appear as an overexpenditure or discrepancy. It's really just a shifting.

There was an additional $1 million granted under the First Citizens' Fund, and that was granted because, at the time we assumed office and shortly after I became minister, we were faced with a situation in which the First Citizens' Fund allocation, towards the end of November, had a remaining surplus in the neighbourhood of $200. Had we not replenished that allocation to the tune of $1 million, it would have meant that a tremendous amount of economic initiative through the First Citizens' Fund would have been denied. Given that the fund had an operating surplus, we were able to draw down that surplus to the tune of $1 million to provide additional grants and loans -- I think the member is aware of how the fund operates -- in order to provide for a continuation of the fund throughout the remainder of the fiscal year, because the previous government had scheduled payments out of that fund in such a way that it was depleted at the time we came to office. In addition, there was need for some additional moneys from the fund to assist first-nations students to attend post-secondary education. That aspect of the fund was also depleted. Due to the success of the fund in encouraging students to attend university, we felt that it was appropriate to draw down from the surplus in the fund. We did not draw down in a way that in any way jeopardized the ongoing integrity of the fund to meet those particular needs.

J. Weisgerber: That answer raises a couple of questions in my mind. I was led to believe that the government had reallocated the allotment in spending. Table 4(b) would in fact demonstrate expenditures by the ministry as they are now aligned, so I find it confusing to suggest the Capital Commission somehow has come into the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure what table you're looking at. All I'm saying is that in some of the figures I have been given I have been comparing apples and oranges. I just draw that to your attention to make sure that what you are comparing is a readjusted figure for last year with a readjusted figure for the actual expenditures. If you're doing that, fine. The additional $1 million difference is accounted for in the way I've just described, through the First Citizens' Fund; it was a $1 million additional payment out of the First Citizens' Fund. If that's the only figure you're looking at, that's the First Citizens' Fund. I just wanted to draw to the attention of members opposite that there is this possibility of confusion if one isn't aware and isn't looking at 

[ Page 277 ]

charts with that adjustment already made. The chart you're looking at, I take it, has made that adjustment.

J. Weisgerber: Thank you. The second question would be to the notion that the additional $1 million was in fact money for the First Citizens' Fund. My recollection of First Citizens' is that it's funded not out of consolidated revenue but out of a $25 million perpetual fund, the interest of which automatically becomes part of the funding for First Citizens'. I'm sure, and I would like the minister to confirm for me, that the $1 million shown in these estimates was money transferred from the perpetual fund created back in the seventies and not money from consolidated revenue. Is that correct?

[11:15]

Hon. A. Petter: I'll give you my best understanding of it, and defer to the Minister of Finance for additional clarification. Even though the fund exists as a perpetual fund, my understanding is that it nevertheless is accounted in the same way as other funds -- out of consolidated revenues. So it is a fund on the books, but it still requires an accounting to be made. I had to go to Treasury Board to seek approval for the additional $1 million, but it didn't come through by a special warrant because of the fund. It does count as an additional $1 million expenditure and shows up as such, even though there is notionally a fund and even though this was drawn down notionally from the surplus of that fund. That's my understanding of how the situation works.

J. Weisgerber: Before I pause and let someone else speak -- and obviously reserve the opportunity to come back to some other issues -- I would just like the minister to confirm that the only expenditure by his ministry above and beyond that $9.9 million estimate tabled last April was for the First Citizens' Fund, that there were no other expenditures of funds in his ministry that exceeded the tabled amount during the current fiscal year.

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that that is correct, subject to two statutory payments made for cut-off land claims, which are also additional.

J. Weisgerber: That is, of course, quite a different answer. Could the minister perhaps advise us on the amount of those cut-off land claim settlements, and perhaps provide some details on whom the settlements were provided to?

Hon. A. Petter: The total amount was $100,000. I don't have the specifics of the claims here. To my knowledge, at least one of them was under the previous government. I'll be happy to seek and provide that information to the member in due course.

G. Wilson: A question to the minister. We recognize the amount of commitment that has been spent first under the Ministry of Native Affairs and then later under the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs. Could the minister tell us exactly how much of last year's budget had been committed and spent at the time he became minister?

Hon. A. Petter: I can provide monthly expenditure figures to the Leader of the Opposition, and if I had a calculator here, I could add them up for you. If you like, I'm happy to recite the monthly expenditure figures for the period. These are actual expenditure figures. They were as follows: April, $390,008; May, $604,754; June, $946,707; July, $386,625; August, $501,308; September, $476,012; October, $639,500; November, $500,969; December, $402,556; January, $581,752; February, $380,692. The estimated figure for March is $1,875,887. The total actual expenditure based on those calculations -- I'll spare the member opposite having to calculate the total figure -- is $7,686,770.

G. Wilson: Would the minister repeat the estimate for March? It was how much?

Hon. A. Petter: It was $1,875,887.

The Chair: Order, hon. members. It would assist the Chair if the members would hesitate just for a moment in order for me to recognize them.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might then want to talk a little bit about the moneys that have been committed in the establishment of this new Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs with respect to the amount of money that's actually been committed to administration and how much of the committed dollars have actually gone into the delivery of programs for first citizens. Could he tell us what the staff component of his ministry was when he took over and what the current staff component is today?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I would say that the function of my ministry is, in large part, to administer, in the sense that it is there to ensure that government, as a whole, is responsive to aboriginal people and that the programs of government serve the needs of aboriginal people. It is true that there is within my ministry some program component in the form of the First Citizens' Fund and the heritage language program, but those are relatively small components. The bulk of the ministry is dedicated to providing support services for other ministries, putting in place negotiating teams for treaty negotiations as well as ensuring that the programs of other ministries are suited to meet the needs of aboriginal people, and thereby to act as an advocacy ministry. The bulk of my ministry's work is advocacy, and hence administrative in focus.

G. Wilson: Having told us that the vast majority, $4.7 million, of his budget actually goes into the administration of programs and that roughly $1.3 million goes into the actual application of dollars to first citizens in this province, could the minister then tell us why the estimates from 1991-92 on the question of treaty negotiations have risen from $698,000 to $2,146,104? Could he be specific with respect to how 

[ Page 278 ]

that money will be applied, given the negotiation process that has been agreed to by his government?

Hon. G. Clark: A point of order. I believe the member is referring to estimates, and that debate is yet to happen. When he's dealing with specific questions of how much things have gone up with respect to the estimates, that's a process for which there will be plenty of time for debate.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. House Leader. Your point is well taken. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to confine his remarks strictly to the schedule as indicated.

G. Wilson: Let me phrase the point more clearly. The point that I am requesting of the minister is the commitment and expenditure of $698,404 in treaty negotiation for the year 1991 through 1992. Could the minister tell us how that has been expended and what kind of accounting there can be for that money, given that the estimate for next year is quite substantially different?

Hon. A. Petter: I can certainly provide an answer to the first part of the question. The money was expended in putting together a negotiating team and support for that team to engage in the Nisga'a negotiations, which have been ongoing, as the member opposite is aware. The province joined something like a year ago. That's what the expenditure in last year's budget was principally put toward. More recently, since we've taken office, we've been preparing for further treaty negotiations as we move toward the treaty commission process.

G. Wilson: A question to the minister with respect to the First Citizens' Fund. In terms of the application of dollars for the promotion of economic, social and cultural well-being, I refer to a document which shows $1,050,000 in deficit. Could the minister explain and account for how that has come about and specifically which programs that deficit question could be addressed to?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not clear, but I will answer based upon the assumption that the member is talking about the additional $1 million allocation out of the First Citizens' Fund. If that's the case, the reason for that expenditure is, as I indicated in my answer to the leader of the third party, that when we came to office we found that the allocated amount from that fund had been all but fully spent. Something like $200 was left over by the end of November. We were then faced with a choice: do we cut off that fund, which could provide economic development dollars to first citizen business ventures and initiatives; do we cut off the part of the fund that goes to students, which had also been fully allocated; or do we go back to the fund, which has an operating surplus, and draw down that surplus in order to ensure that the fund could be continued throughout the remainder of the fiscal year? We thought that despite the previous government's profligate expenditure of the fund, leaving it virtually in a nil situation when we came in, the responsible thing to do was to draw down the surplus by $1 million and continue the fund and the benefits that it provides to first nations citizens.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the minister has been joined by a member of his staff. I wonder if, for the benefit of the Committee of the Whole, he might introduce his staff member.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes. I'm pleased to introduce Scott Browning, who is the manager of finance and administration for my ministry. My deputy minister, regrettably, is not available at this time.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chairman, given that the First Citizens' Fund was frozen, I understand, for three months after the new Premier took office in that year, could the minister then tell us at what point the funds were committed and were expended, and through what programs they were expended? Could the minister also tell us what programs he added dollars in to create this additional $1 million expenditure?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm a little perplexed by the question because I think it demonstrates not a full understanding of how the fund operates, but I will do my best to answer. The great bulk of the fund doesn't go to specific programs. It is given over to All Nations Trust to, in turn, loan out and grant to various first nation business ventures. The great bulk of that $1 million went to that.

There was some additional amount, and I can give you the breakdown. I can hopefully get it here. Some additional amount was allocated for the student bursary part of the fund, but that was a relatively small amount. The majority of the additional $1 million that was sought was in order to provide loans to businesses through the All Nations Trust component of the fund.

J. Weisgerber: Just to seek some clarification from the minister on that, does the minister suggest that the ministry or the government actually put on deposit with All Nations Trust blocks of money, which are then, in fact, loaned out? That is what he would have clearly indicated in his statement. I know how it works. I just want to find out whether the minister does or not.

[11:30]

Hon. A. Petter: My understanding is that in past years there has been a practice of putting money on deposit. I think that was the situation with Delta Credit Union when the member opposite was minister, but in fact that is not the current practice, which is, as I understand it, to simply allocate the money, and then it gets drawn down as the loan guarantee decisions are made by All Nations Trust.

J. Weisgerber: Yes, and that clearly was the case with Delta Credit Union as well: no money was put on deposit. But maybe we can shift away from that for a minute and pursue some other questions.

[ Page 279 ]

I am wondering if the minister could tell us, in the $10 million or $11 million that he had in his budget last year and the $15 million in his budget in the upcoming year, how much of that is for legal services that the ministry will in fact use for the negotiation of native land claims.

Hon. A. Petter: Legal services are provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General, not by my ministry. I don't want to answer categorically, but certainly the great bulk of legal services that we will be utilizing and have used to support negotiations will be provided through the Ministry of the Attorney General.

J. Weisgerber: Given that answer, any penalties or any additional fees that would have resulted from the government's decision to replace Russell and DuMoulin on the appeal in the Delgam Uukw case would also flow to the Attorney General? Or would those costs be charged to your ministry?

Hon. A. Petter: The question is highly speculative, but that speculative question should probably be put to the Attorney General, not to me.

J. Weisgerber: I would question whether or not they're speculative. The newspaper reports indicate that Russell and Du Moulin prepared a 1,500-page factum for the appeal, which they never used. And if that doesn't generate some additional charges from a law firm, then I would certainly commend the government for its acumen in dealing with lawyers. But I doubt very much that that's the case, and I suspect you're going to be looking at several millions of dollars as a result of the decision to change firms. Was that decision to change firms also the decision of the Attorney General, or was it prompted by the minister?

Hon. A. Petter: The decision with respect to legal counsel was that of the Attorney General. I'll just leave it there.

J. Weisgerber: The minister is saying, then, that Russell and DuMoulin in their arguments in the original Delgam Uukw case argued against aboriginal title successfully. That appears to be contrary to the minister's own stated position. I believe his position was that there was a political recognition of aboriginal title, but that the legal determination of that aboriginal title was something yet to be determined. That being his position, the decision at the very last minute to replace the lawyers arguing on behalf of the government, you tell us, was simply and solely a decision of the Attorney General and not a decision that you influenced.

Hon. A. Petter: I think the Attorney General and I have both commented on that decision and indicated that that decision reflected a desire to take a fresh look at the issues in the litigation. But I stand by what I said earlier: it was a decision that was ultimately made, as it properly must be, by the Attorney General as chief law enforcement officer.

J. Weisgerber: Fair enough. We'll have an opportunity to discuss that with the Attorney General, as he says, not tonight but perhaps tomorrow or another day. The minister indicated in his comments earlier that a good deal of money -- and I would assume time and effort -- is being spent on the Nisga'a negotiations. Can he tell this House what progress has been made in the five and a half months that he has been minister? How much further along the road are you today than you were on November 5?

Hon. A. Petter: To answer that question, I guess I have to give my best assessment of where we were in those negotiations when we came to office. And I regret to say we were in a situation in which we had negotiators at the table who had received little in the way of instruction and less in the way of support and research in order to come up with any kind of definitive positions at that table. What we've been doing in the past five months is trying, in a very short timespan, to provide the kind of support to those negotiations that should, frankly, have been provided over the last year to year and a half -- and wasn't. We're desperately trying to play a catch-up game in order to move those negotiations ahead, but it's under difficult circumstances, because, I regret to say, the decision to send the negotiators to the table seems not to have been met with a commensurate commitment to provide those negotiators with the instruction, research and support they need in order to take the kinds of positions that are expected.

J. Weisgerber: Well, it's interesting, because the minister indicates that the only additional expenditures his ministry has undertaken in the five months have been to do with the Capital Commission, the First Citizens' Fund, and the settling of cut-off claims. Was this support that you gave to the negotiators moral support? It doesn't appear anywhere that you've taken any money and funnelled it into any support for the negotiating team -- who, I quite honestly think, were skilled and capable, understood the objectives of the government and were at the table trying to negotiate within that kind of framework. Can you tell us about this added support that you've been able to provide for the negotiating team?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm certainly not disagreeing with the characterization of the negotiating team. The kind of support that was required was, first of all, some political direction and, secondly, flowing from that direction, the kind of research that's required in order to carry through on that direction at the negotiating table.

J. Weisgerber: Does the minister suggest that his in-house staff had the capacity to provide that kind of research, and that all they needed, as I understand it, was simply some political direction? If that's the case, I would be interested in knowing what kind of new resources were directed toward that negotiating team in support of them.

[ Page 280 ]

Hon. A. Petter: The situation is such -- and the member opposite I'm sure can appreciate -- that it is not necessary to provide better instructions and to have a better result simply to.... Let me rephrase that. Spending money doesn't necessarily guarantee a better result, and one can achieve a better result without necessarily spending money. What was needed was some kind of political commitment to the negotiations that would, in turn, involve some kind of commitment to do the background work and research that's necessary. We have started on that path; I wouldn't pretend that we have finished.

J. Weisgerber: Perhaps we can get back to the question, then. What kind of progress has the negotiating team made with this new political direction and this beefed-up support over the last five months? That was the original question.

Hon. A. Petter: Given where we started, I think we're making very good progress.

J. Weisgerber: "Very good" is hard to quantify. I mean, is it kind of up here, or is this pretty good? Could the minister tell us in perhaps more concrete terms how this very good progress has been conveyed to third parties -- the people who are watching interestedly, the people for whom the previous government set up a consultation process to keep informed? I suspect, knowing the people who are on that group, that very good progress would be rather thin gruel for them. I would hope that you have been able to give them something a bit more substantive in terms of a progress report.

Hon. A. Petter: I have met on a regular basis with the third-party groups. They are well aware of the directions that we are taking at the Nisga'a table and elsewhere. I would say that there are certain limitations on how we can involve third parties at the Nisga'a table, because of the framework agreement that was reached with respect to that negotiation. Given that framework agreement, I have met a number of times with third-party groups. They are well aware and I think well satisfied that we are consulting with them on the initiatives that we are taking in those and in other negotiations.

J. Weisgerber: I am pleased to hear that there is some considerable attention being paid to those negotiations, because I think they're important. I was pleased to hear also that the minister had, through the ministry, managed to solve or settle a couple more cut-off claims -- or at least one since he's taken office. I wonder if the minister could perhaps tell us how discussions are going with the McLeod Lake band.

Hon. A. Petter: I can say that I met recently with the McLeod Lake band and representatives of that band. I'm very hopeful that we can get some discussions underway for negotiations. But that, at this stage, is all I can really say.

J. Weisgerber: A number of proposals have been put forward by the McLeod Lake band. Could you give us a bit more detail about the kinds of proposals that you're entertaining from them?

Hon. A. Petter: I think at this stage, given that the government has not made any decision with respect to negotiations with the McLeod Lake band, I would simply say what I said earlier. We have met with the band and heard their various suggestions, and the government will now have to consider those suggestions. I'm optimistic that we can move forward in settling some of the issues, but we do not have any firm position at this time as to exactly how that will manifest itself.

J. Weisgerber: I had hoped that the minister would perhaps give us some flavour of the government's position as it relates to Treaty 8 adherence and whether or not the government, in its abundance of policy direction that it's now providing to its negotiators, could perhaps give us a sense of the policy direction on the issue of treaty adherence as it relates to Treaty 8.

An Hon. Member: You're moving into next year's estimates.

J. Weisgerber: No, this is old stuff.

Hon. A. Petter: What I would say in response to the member's question is that we have made a commitment to negotiate on a range of different types of negotiations. A Treaty 8 adhesion is one kind of negotiation.

With the specific request for information on the McLeod Lake situation, I can honestly say at this time that the government has not developed any firm position on what kind of negotiations will take place and in what forum. However, I have met fairly recently with the McLeod Lake band and their representatives, and I'm optimistic that we will soon be in a position to move ahead with some negotiations.

G. Wilson: If we can just switch gears a little bit here. With respect to order-in-council 306 of February 28, 1992, it's noted that the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services has provided grants to aboriginal associations to support their participation in constitutional consultations. I wonder if this minister can tell us what moneys, if any, have been funded out of his ministry with respect to aboriginal education and participation in constitutional discussions and whether or not any of that money can be identified in the estimates tabled before us now.

Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps I could have the member repeat the question. It started with another fund, and then it moved back to my ministry. I'm not quite sure what the question was.

G. Wilson: Certainly. We note with interest that under order-in-council 306 moneys have been made 

[ Page 281 ]

available through the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services for grants to aboriginal associations to support their participation in constitutional consultations. My question is: within the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, how much money, if any, has been made through any granting agency here to assist aboriginal people with respect to any education or involvement with respect to aboriginal cultural advisory committees actively participating in discussion on the constitution?

[11:45]

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure the member opposite can appreciate that my understanding of the ministry's expenditures is not as detailed or as comprehensive with respect to the period prior to my taking office, so I'm hesitant to give a categorical answer. To my knowledge, if you're talking about funds in addition to the ones you referred to that were allocated, I don't know of any specific grants for that purpose. There may well have been grants that, in part, involve education and constitutional matters, but I'm not aware of any specific grants out of my ministry for that purpose.

The grants that were sought for constitutional consultations came out of this other request that you referred to, for the very specific purpose of funding various first nation groups to engage in their own consultation on constitutional issues.

G. Wilson: With respect to funding provisions for involvement in the discussions around the task force and the ultimate agreement on the points that were brought forward by the task force that his ministry has accepted and now says we'll live by, to what extent were moneys paid out of his ministry to assist in the participation and deliberations that generated those 19 points?

Hon. A. Petter: These expenditures were made prior to my becoming minister, so I will answer to the best of my knowledge, but with that proviso. My understanding is that one-third of the operating costs of the task force were paid for by the provincial government.

G. Wilson: That is also my understanding. I wonder if the minister could identify where that money comes from out of the data in front of us today.

Hon. A. Petter: It came out of the interim supply and the special warrants cumulative, I guess is the answer.

C. Serwa: It's been my understanding that the primary responsibility for status aboriginals has been with the federal government. I note in your opening remarks that you said that a substantial sum or a sum of the $1 million had been spent on post-secondary education. Would you please advise me of where and how that was spent and exactly what sum was spent.

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, I think I said -- and if I didn't, I intended to -- that a very small amount, $50,000 of the $1 million, was spent on post-secondary education. My understanding is that the great bulk of that went to off-reserve, non-status aboriginal people who have difficulty applying for federal funds. Although that's not exclusively the case, that's where the bulk of the funds were directed. But the answer is: only $50,000.

C. Serwa: Is the technical school in the Merritt area run through your ministry? Is it funded by your ministry through Advanced Education?

Hon. A. Petter: No.

C. Serwa: A question on the First Citizens' Fund. What is the outstanding surplus? I assume this is interest on that capital fund of $25 million.

Hon. A. Petter: This will be a guesstimate, and I'll be happy to check for a firmer figure, but it's somewhere in the vicinity of $6 million to $7 million.

C. Serwa: That $6 million to $7 million is the current sum after the $1 million had been allocated for distribution?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, that's my understanding.

C. Serwa: Would the minister advise me of the actual terms of loans that the All Nations Trust is responsible for? And what is the default rate on those loans?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't have the precise terms here, nor do I have in front of me the default rate, but I can tell you that the default rate is extraordinarily low. Again, I'll be happy to provide the details of that, should you wish.

C. Serwa: Again the concern is what the actual write-downs are. If the default rate is very low, what are the terms of those actual loans?

Hon. A. Petter: I can't give you the precise terms. I can tell you that it works as a loan-grant program. There is a forgiveness of up to 50 percent; when a loan is made, there's a 50 percent forgiveness on the payback. It's not strictly a loan program, and that may in part account for the low default rate. I'll be happy to get the statistics on the default rate for you, should you want more particulars on that.

C. Serwa: I have several questions on the treaty negotiations. I notice that the budget has increased by 300 percent over the previous '91-92 year. Could the minister inform me of the number of FTEs....

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. I just want to draw to the Chair's attention that the member is talking about estimates, about which there will be ample debate, and not the schedule for special warrants before us.

[ Page 282 ]

The Chair: Thank you, hon. House Leader. The point of order is well taken, and I would request that members keep their remarks strictly to the schedule.

J. Weisgerber: It's my understanding that today we are debating committee stage of Bill 16, and that that bill covers interim supply for three months' spending.

Hon. G. Clark: We passed that. We're on the schedule.

J. Weisgerber: The schedule. So you're saying now that you want to confine your debates to the special warrants.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: We've passed the schedule outlining the bulk amount, but clearly the focus of our debate on this bill was twofold. One was to provide interim spending and, second, to provide past.... Am I to understand that by passing section 1, the bulk amount -- with the assurance from the Chair that we would move to ministry-by-ministry consideration of these estimates -- we forfeited the right to ask each minister how they intend to spend the first quarter of the allocation; and that we have, by passing section 1, forfeited our right to debate the spending of about $5 billion worth of it? That certainly was not the understanding of the members on this side of the House.

The Chair: With all due respect, I don't think that the Chair can be precise in terms of how you interpret what can and cannot be debated. But clearly we are on interim supply, and we're on the schedule, as the hon. House Leader rightly states. But I'm at the discretion of the House with respect to your pleasure. The schedule is before us, the minister is here and we are debating spending. I will accept the criticisms with respect to whether questions are in order or not, and hope that members will try to be as precise as they can in sticking to the debate.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak to the leader of the third party's point of order, just very briefly. This is the first time that we are sitting in this committee, and there are many new members in the House. We've proceeded very quickly to this point where we are reviewing the estimates of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. The sense of the committee here is that we have moved very quickly to this point, but I wonder if perhaps the Chair might afford some leeway so that members of the committee might be able to ask a few questions relating to one aspect of this bill that we're being asked to approve here in this committee, which is the approval of the first quarter's spending in the year, which is under the first few clauses of the bill.

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We've already passed section 1 of this bill. This House has now approved three months' interim spending. The purpose of doing that is not to engage in estimates debates. We are going to have a full estimates debate for hours and hours and hours. That's what estimates are for. We are now on the schedule, the warrants, for '91-92 -- what has gone past to this date. What has gone forward we will debate in the estimates. All that is in order for discussion is what has gone in the past for '91-92. The schedule, the warrants, are up for debate now, and not for the next three months.

The Chair: I want to point out, as the House Leader has pointed out, that we did pass the sections dealing with the spending and we are now on warrants, which are not the same as estimates. When we get to estimates all of these questions can be canvassed again. I would just remind members that this doesn't mean you're waiving the ability to canvass ministry spending when we get into estimates.

I will now recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara on a point of order.

V. Anderson: From the technical point of view, when you took those votes on all three of these sections, I believe you will find it correct that you did not ask for the nay votes on any of those three sections. The nay votes were not asked for.

The Chair: The vote was taken in the customary way, and while I respect your questioning whether or not there were any opposed to the vote as taken, I heard no dissenting votes at the time, and that matter has passed as far as the Chair is concerned. I would rule that we proceed on the debate on the schedule.

G. Wilson: I'm a little bit distressed at the response from the minister when he suggested he really doesn't know where one-third of the cost of the task force is to be found in these spending summaries. I wonder if he might be more specific with respect to the number of people who have been hired by special contract and the number of people who are currently contracted out to or consulting to his ministry committed through last year's budget, what their roles are, and to what extent they are contributing to the ongoing negotiation process within the province today.

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the first part, I think I did answer the question. I would again point out that the task force had fully reported and reported out long before I became minister. If you want to find out where they were in the blue book estimates or something, you could perhaps check with the opposition leader from the third party. With respect to your other question, I understand there's a question on the order paper dealing with that question, and we'll be providing answers in due course.

G. Wilson: If we have to wait for some of that and he doesn't know where the balance is, I wonder whether there may be a more precise response with respect to the special warrant spending regarding the actual amount used to promote education among aboriginal people in post-secondary education, the actual amount spent on drug and alcohol rehabilitation 

[ Page 283 ]

programs for aboriginal people, and the actual amount spent on law enforcement programs on reserves.

[12:00]

Hon. A. Petter: My best information, if I understand the question, is that post-secondary was $100,000. The other two don't fall within my ministry.

G. Wilson: With all due respect, we're not asking for best information; we're asking for numbers here that have some validity. That's what this process is all about, which is perhaps why we wanted some staff members to be present with you who might know those numbers. If moneys have been committed through special programs to aboriginal people, I question whether or not all of the money that has been committed for matters relating to law enforcement, as well as matters relating to drug and alcohol...are funded exclusively from other programs, and whether or not there has been any money committed out of the expenditures that are in the $7.4 million that was committed to and the $9.9 million that was spent in your ministry.

Hon. A. Petter: There is no allocation within my ministry budget that I know of for law enforcement or drug and alcohol programs. As I said at the outset, my ministry's mandate is largely one that is coordinative. It is not a program-delivery ministry, subject to a few exceptions, such as the First Citizens' Fund and heritage language programs.

C. Serwa: A couple of questions on the negotiations that you're undertaking right now with some of the northern bands. Of fundamental concern to a lot of northerners is the allocation of fish and wildlife resources. Is your ministry the lead agency in negotiating that particular position? Are you doing so in your present negotiations?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm not sure what negotiations the member is referring to. By adopting the task force report we have committed ourselves to entering into future comprehensive treaty negotiations. We have also indicated, as a government, our commitment to bring forward joint-stewardship programs, which will look at the stewardship of resources. With respect to the latter, my ministry will be working in conjunction with the other ministries concerned to deliver those programs for all the people of British Columbia, but in a way that is more sensitive to the needs and rights of aboriginal peoples.

C. Serwa: Are you presently negotiating with the Nisga'a-Wet'suwet'en people on wildlife-resource allocation and a quota system?

Hon. A. Petter: The "Nisga'a-Wet'suwet'en" is a bit like the Liberal Credit Party. The Nisga'a negotiations are one thing, and the Gitksan-Wet'suwet'en is a court case right now that is not under active negotiation by the government. I'm not clear which group you're directing your question to.

C. Serwa: The area that I'm discussing is of primary concern to a lot of the northern people. Certainly a quota system has been discussed, and there is concern about the management of that particular resource. I understand there is a fiduciary responsibility on the part of the government to ensure that the resource is available for the native people. Both in fisheries and in wildlife it's obviously a very high-profile issue. Again, I would like to know if that is part of the negotiations that are taking place with the Nisga'a people at the present time.

Hon. A. Petter: The fiduciary obligation is a general obligation to all aboriginal peoples, and we intend to meet that obligation through our joint-stewardship policy, which has yet to be determined or negotiated with anyone.

V. Anderson: The minister mentioned the negotiating team a number of times. Of the funds for the negotiating team, are any of those funds from your ministry available to the aboriginal people who are part of that negotiation process? And if so, how much of that in proportion is available to them from your budget?

Hon. A. Petter: The funding of aboriginal negotiating costs has traditionally been borne by the federal government, and the position of this government is that it remains the responsibility of the federal government.

K. Jones: What is the number of status aboriginals and the number of non-status aboriginals, and what portion of special warrant funding has been attributed to each?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't have the facts with respect to the former at my fingertips. There is a lot of controversy about the numbers. I didn't hear the last part of the question.

K. Jones: I repeat: what are the numbers of status aboriginals? What are the numbers of non-status aboriginals? And what portion of special-warrant funding has been attributed to each? It's fairly clear -- a very simple question.

Hon. A. Petter: A simple question that is not simply answered. There's a lot of controversy about the number of non-status and status aboriginal peoples. I'd be prepared to undertake to get that information for the member, if you'd like.

I have done no prorated calculation of my ministry's budget. It seems completely beyond any reason I can understand to do a prorated calculation of my ministry's budget, which is principally there to deliver the programs of the larger government in a way that meets the needs of aboriginal peoples.

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, how is it that the minister is able to administer his ministry if he doesn't know how many people he's administering?

[ Page 284 ]

The Chair: Order, hon. member. I think the minister has expressed a desire to obtain the information you require, but he has explained that it will take some research. I think that should be acceptable at this time.

Hon. A. Petter: I just want to clarify. It's not my mandate nor my desire to administer aboriginal peoples. It's my mandate and desire to assist aboriginal peoples to become more self-sufficient.

G. Wilson: I wonder if you could clarify for me the question on the special account First Citizens' Fund description, where it suggests that the account promotes the economic, social and cultural well-being of persons of North American Indian race. It's my understanding -- and if I'm incorrect, I would appreciate you correcting me -- that in fact, of that money, fairly substantial amounts have been made available for the promotion of social programs, among which are drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and that in fact the implementation of new programs with respect to native law enforcement is part of that program. I wonder if you could either confirm or deny that. If you confirm it, could you tell me what portion of that fund goes toward those programs?

Hon. A. Petter: The First Citizens' Fund provides funds for three initiatives: the loan-grant program I referred to, student grants and some grants for native friendship centres. Those native friendship centres may provide some counselling services, but the grant is to provide a support service for native friendship centres. It's not earmarked for any law enforcement or drug programs per se.

V. Anderson: Of the funds of your ministry, I understand -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong -- that a portion is used for the operation of your ministry and the bureaucracy and the programs that go with it, and a portion is used for grants and contributions, presumably to native groups. Is this correct? And if so, what is the proportion of each of those? What are the projects to which those contributions are made? We've heard those they're not made to, and we'd be interested in hearing those they are made to.

Hon. A. Petter: A very small proportion of my ministry budget goes to programs. The mandate of this ministry is to ensure that all those other programs administered by all those other ministers are delivered to aboriginal people. The exceptions are the First Citizens' Fund and the heritage language programs. Those are the principal ones, in any event.

The Chair: The member for Saanich North and the Islands was seeking the floor earlier, so I'll recognize him now.

An Hon. Member: Do you want to make an introduction?

C. Tanner: Anybody with any sense has gone home, Mr. Chairman. There's nobody in the gallery, as far as I can see.

Mr. Minister, you've made the point that you aren't a program department. You did mention that you have the First Citizens' Fund, and you said that some of those are used for loan guarantees. Could the minister inform the House whether some of those loan guarantees are to aboriginal programs which promote tourism?

Hon. A. Petter: I will have to get that information, because the allocation is administered by the All Nations Trust, and I don't have the specific grants that are made to particular businesses at my fingertips here. I should specify, the way the fund works is that it's partly a loan and partly a grant, which is in a sense a deferred contribution, so it's not really a loan guarantee -- and if I used that terminology, I should correct it now.

C. Tanner: I appreciate what the minister says. I would like those figures. Specifically, I would like to know what controls you have on them; what is the rate of interest you're charging; how many of them there are; and who they were directed to.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll be happy to try to get that information for the member.

L. Fox: I rise to ask a question on order-in-council 1632, in which this government appointed, under section 8 of the Inquiry Act, Chief George Watts of Port Alberni and Garth L. Langford of West Vancouver, at a cost of $125 an hour per individual, to a maximum of $875 per day, plus out-of-pocket expenses.

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the question concerns an order-in-council signed by the Minister of Forests in his ministry jurisdiction. It would be appropriately asked under that ministry rather than under Aboriginal Affairs.

The Chair: The point of order is well taken. I would ask the member to confine his remarks to responsibilities under this minister's jurisdiction.

L. Fox: Mr. Chairman, I was just getting to that. My question was: given that the terms of reference were including, among other things, aboriginal issues, were any dollars spent out of the special warrants from your ministry to support this commission?

Hon. A. Petter: No.

D. Jarvis: A rather mundane question, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the minister, with regard to his office: has this special warrant paid for the same number of staff as the previous administration, or more?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

D. Jarvis: Yes to what, sir?

[ Page 285 ]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the same number.

D. Jarvis: Well, then, do the special warrants cover the cost of administration of the office staff?

Some Hon. Members: Yes.

D. Jarvis: I'm asking the minister. Do all of you listen?

[12:15]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. In order for the minister to respond, the questioner should resume his seat.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes.

D. Jarvis: If the answer is yes, how much are you paying each member of the staff?

Interjections.

The Chair: I should advise the members that we're not in estimates. When we get into estimates, we will be dealing more specifically with items. This is the schedule, and the question is the passing of the schedule on this bill.

J. Weisgerber: Mr. Chairman, I think we'll move on to the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, if everyone's agreeable, and hope that perhaps he'll bring in some staff, if he has some.

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: Austerity. I see.

The Chair: Hon. member, there is some difficulty for the Chair in that I can't ask the question on each ministry, as we move from one to the next. So with agreement of the committee, we're now on Advanced Education.

J. Weisgerber: That's my understanding.

Hon. T. Perry: I thought we'd never get here. I'm delighted that ministerial officials have had the patience to wait since about 4:30 this afternoon -- or yesterday afternoon to put it more accurately. I'm glad that hon. members have had the enthusiasm to persist this long with the debate. As we begin, let me introduce the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, Mr. Gary Mullins, known to many of the hon. members; and our executive director of administration, Mr. Jim Crone.

D. Mitchell: Perhaps I too could welcome the minister and his officials to the committee. I regret that we have to meet for the first time in the proceedings of this assembly in committee at 12:17 a.m. on March 31, the last day of the fiscal year, the last day that spending for the 1991-92 fiscal year can be approved. But here we are. I would like to say welcome to the minister's officials. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and, on behalf of all members of the committee, I would like to apologize to you that we've had to bring you here at this late hour. It certainly wasn't the intention of the opposition to do this.

I would like to say to the minister that in spite of the fact that we have had to meet across the floor of this chamber for the first time like this, I want to thank you for the cooperation that you have offered me up to this point, and the officials of your ministry, who have done an excellent job in providing me with the information that I require.

F. Gingell: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm not exactly sure of the right way of doing this, but I understand that people must be sitting in their seat for them to be able to speak. Is that correct?

The Chair: Yes.

F. Gingell: Then they should sit in their seats.

The Chair: Hon. members, technically that is the rule and the practice. However, members in committee are free to move as they wish. With respect, in deference to the member's concerns, unless members have some business that requires them to be out of their seat, it would be helpful if they would try and cooperate and take their seats.

D. Mitchell: Perhaps some members of the committee can be excused for behaving the way they are. Here we are after midnight; it's March 31. We are meeting under truly extraordinary circumstances. Perhaps some of the strange behaviour from members opposite can be excused under these circumstances. But if we can, we should direct our attention to the matter that we have before us, which is the special warrants spent by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology that are in the schedule attached to this supply bill, Bill 16, before us in this committee.

I wonder if I could commence by asking the minister if he could provide me with some information. Hon. minister, when you first assumed office on November 5, 1991, I would imagine that one of the first things that you might have done would have been to assess the state of the budget for your ministry at that point in time. I know that at that point in time we were approximately seven months into the fiscal year that is coming to a close today, March 31. I'm wondering if you can report to this committee: at the point when you became minister, how much of the total estimated expenditure for your ministry was spent -- up to that point, for approximately the first seven months prior to your assuming control on November 5, 1991? Can you report to the committee where your ministry stood at the time you assumed control of the ministry?

Hon. T. Perry: I think the right answer to that is, of course, naturally we did take stock, and we felt that approximately the right amount had been spent.

[ Page 286 ]

D. Mitchell: I take it that the minister is saying that when he assumed control of the ministry, the previous administration had spent exactly the right amount up until that point. That's quite an amazing statement, because up until now I have heard no minister in this assembly really provide such an endorsement of the previous administration. I thank the minister for that answer; it's quite interesting. He has told us that up until that point his ministry was right on target and they were doing a great job, and that the previous administration had done a great job. That is a compliment that I have not yet heard from any member of this executive council, directed to the previous administration. It's interesting.

I'll ask the question again, though, because it was a serious question. I was not asking this frivolously. I'm trying to determine how much of your ministry's budget was spent at the point when you assumed control. You have your officials here with you. I would assume it's a relatively easy question to answer -- even if you could make it approximate. At the point when you became minister.... On November 5, 1991, I believe, you were sworn in as Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. At that point, how much of the ministry's budget -- that was brought in by the previous administration, that was not approved by this Legislature, that was not approved through a process of estimates review because the House adjourned, prorogued and dissolved -- was spent? Can you give us even a ballpark number?

Hon. T. Perry: The ballpark number is about $730 million, as of October 31, 1991. If my answer seemed flippant, I might explain it. Naturally I took steps, as all ministers did, to ensure that no unnecessary expenditures were being undertaken, and I imposed what I'm told by staff is the most fiscally conservative regime that the ministry has seen in recent years. [Laughter.] Seriously. But there had been a slight overrun, and I regret the absence of the independent member for Matsqui, who was responsible for that overrun, because I'd like to take the opportunity to commend him. There was an overrun under the former government in order to accommodate 1,076 new student positions, which the former government recognized in late summer were necessary for the academic year that began in September 1991. The Minister of Advanced Education at that time, the member for Matsqui, staked his political reputation on it. According to newspaper clippings at the time, he threatened his resignation. I suppose it may have been an idle threat in that the election was imminent, but he did, to his credit, achieve that out of the cabinet. That accounted for an overrun. Some additional savings that were underway within the ministry counterbalanced that, and we came out with a slight overexpenditure. But as I said before, it was about the right amount.

D. Mitchell: I take it from what you're saying that when you assumed control of the ministry and became Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, you instituted what you referred to as some very conservative measures. The Minister of Finance laughed at that, because he doesn't like being referred to as the most conservative Minister of Finance in Canada. He takes exception to that, and he takes exception to the term.

Could you report to this committee specifically which measures you imposed at the time? What concerns did you have that the ministry was going to be in an overrun position as a result of instances such as the one that you referred to here in the committee? And what specific measures did you bring into your ministry to ensure that tight control on expenditures by your minister were going to be followed, so that we didn't simply run up the deficit during the period over the last five months? When you assumed control, what measures did you implement? The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair. The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: The motion is before you. Is that adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.? 

D. Mitchell: I wish to speak to this motion. 

The Speaker: It is not a debatable motion, hon. member. 

D. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, could I raise a point of order, then? Very briefly, we've witnessed over the course of today some unusual proceedings in this House.

Interjections. 

D. Mitchell: The members don't want to hear the point.

Interjections. 

The Speaker: Order, please. This is on a point of order, hon. member. 

D. Mitchell: I think we've seen today some abuses of the standing orders of this Legislative Assembly, and we've seen some abuses of the practices of this assembly. We've seen some abuses of process of government where officials and members have been kept on hold and kept waiting by a government that has no intention of debating thoroughly and fully in the committees of this House -- at which, of course, hon. Speaker, you were not in attendance.

I think the point here is that we shouldn't allow these kinds of abuses of the practices of this House, and we shouldn't tolerate a government that wants to have 

[ Page 287 ]

this House sit till 12:30 and yet not see the business of this assembly done. When the members here are willing to do the business of this assembly, why then should we allow these kinds of abuses of the rules and of the practices of this House?

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I would refer to the appropriate standing order, but officials are not to be referred to in the chamber. This is a chamber for members, so I'd just like to call that to the Speaker's attention. In addition, I just might say that all of the rules, of course, were adhered to. This is normal practice. We have agreed by I think extraordinary goodwill on our part to extend the debate to accommodate the members opposite, who have been demanding more debate.

The Speaker: Thank you both, hon. members. I will now put the question again. The motion on the floor is adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:31 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada