Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1992

Volume 1, Number 16

[ Page 333 ]

The House met at 6:14 p.m.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Committee on Bill 16.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1992
(continued)

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

On the schedule.

A. Warnke: I have perhaps one more question and then a comment. In particular, looking at where we left off, warrant No. 9 of February 28, 1992, I'd like the Attorney General to elaborate briefly on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the amount of funds that we allocate to that. In particular, I notice the retroactive salary increases for the RCMP. I would like the minister to elaborate on that and also on the general costs of RCMP services throughout this province. To speed it up -- a little matter, too -- I'm wondering about whether RCMP involvement in some sort of special forces, such as what we've seen in the Penticton riot and so forth, appeared in some of the special warrants as well.

[6:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: First of all, on the Penticton consequences, there was a small amount of overtime rolled into the special warrant as a result of the Peach Festival activities of last year and the requirement for some overtime -- although, to be fair, I think the RCMP themselves would say they ate most of the costs internally in terms of having to squeeze elsewhere.

In respect of the $1 million increase, this was on a $100.7 million total and was for a pay increase that the RCMP got during the course of the year, which wasn't predicted in the budget last year.

G. Wilson: Just to go back to the line of questioning that I was on prior to the adjournment, I take it that with respect to Coordinated Law Enforcement, the response was that there is no regional bias in the expenditure of that money. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, the major activity that CLEU deals with is in the major urban centres -- there's no question about that -- but they will chase crime wherever it happens in British Columbia. There's no bias in the southeast corner as a result of some particular policy. As I said earlier, they will go to Sechelt if they have to.

G. Wilson: If I could turn to legal services, what portion of the moneys committed in 1991-92 actually went to fund the Legal Services Society and what amount went into legal fees and costs? Can that portion of your budget be outlined and broken down in some detail? If you have covered this, I will defer to the record and go back; I was unable to be here in the first part of this debate.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The way this works is that money is allocated to Legal Services Society, and they in turn pay fees that are billed to them. Overwhelmingly, the money is accounted for in respect of the tariff.

G. Wilson: Then any accounting for the internal disbursement of that money would come from the Legal Services Society themselves and would not be reflected in any ministerial budget. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Yes, that's absolutely right.

G. Wilson: Having determined that, I notice that the probation, family and community services provision in the budget.... I realize we can't be debating this year's estimates, but I notice that a substantial amount of money is going to be committed in this new budget with the provisions to victims' assistance and violence against women. In terms of last year's allocation, has it been determined how much of that money actually went into victims' assistance programs, or indeed is that the appropriate place for that to be seen? With respect to family services, was any money committed last year for programs that addressed violence among men and were essentially directed to counselling and family service programs for men prone to violence?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: There are a number of victims' assistance programs, as the member is aware; the total money expended was in the order of $5 million. The corrections branch has a program dealing with men who are violent.

G. Wilson: Do we have a dollar figure on that corrections program?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We don't have that here. I would undertake to provide that information to the Leader of the Opposition later.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister. I would be anxious to get it, because I think it would help the official opposition in its review of how we might deal with this pressing and very difficult societal problem, to see how we might put some greater allocation of funds into those kinds of programs.

My final set of questions to the minister has to do with liquor control and licensing. I recognize that this year the government is boasting a $50 million tax gain in this year's budget through the sale of alcohol. Out of the money that is put in place in terms of liquor control, I wonder how much money was committed from the Ministry of the Attorney General last year for education with respect to substance abuse and education programs that were directed towards maintenance of the appropriate use of alcohol, and to what extent those control programs actually addressed juvenile offenders, with respect to under-age drinkers.

[ Page 334 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's a curious mix of ministry responsibilities. Alcohol and drugs used to be in Labour and Consumer Services; they're now in Health. Alcohol also used to be in Labour and Consumer Services; it's now in the Attorney General's. Through the Attorney General, we don't actually spend any of the money that we take in through liquor sales to deal with programs. The Ministry of Health does that in a coordinated fashion.

G. Wilson: That explains a lot of things, and I thank the minister for that explanation.

My final question comes from one that I put to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, and it had to do with programs that were directly related to violent crime against aboriginal people and also programs that involved the question of substance abuse among aboriginal people. He suggested that that would be more appropriately put to the Attorney General's office. I put it to you now: what was in last year's expenditure with respect to dollars committed for aboriginal people, both on reserve and off reserve, with respect to the matters of policing and violence against aboriginal people, as well as alcohol and substance abuse?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: In 1991-92 about $900,000 was provided for 12 aboriginal justice projects. In addition, the corrections branch is spending about a total of $728,000 on a number of different native programs that had been identified through a native justice consultation process that we have in place. Those are just some numbers.

I think the important thing is that we see native justice issues as a priority, and we are intending to attempt to coordinate programs more than we have in the past and give them a higher emphasis than we have in the past as well. We have the South Island project underway now, which we think is leading us in some good directions. We're determined to try to do a lot more with native justice issues.

A. Warnke: Actually, I would prefer to conclude the questions; I see it is getting a little late. However, I want to make this comment. I want to thank the Attorney General for being forthright in his answers to my questions and to questions from my colleagues.

L. Fox: I will ask clarification from the minister on whether or not this is the appropriate ministry for this question. Recently the Stellaquo band in the Fraser Lake area negotiated a settlement through the Highways ministry and will be gaining some remuneration. Was that remuneration paid out of your ministry, or would that have been paid out of Highways?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Transportation and Highways.

The Chair: That concludes the Attorney General, and by agreement we now will be moving to the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.

L. Stephens: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Economic Development on his appointment. I would like to say that the minister and his staff have been very willing to assist me and my research people in our inquiries, and we thank them for that. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of the new Deputy Minister of Economic Development. I've not had the chance to meet him, but I look forward to doing that soon.

Economic Development is really a very important ministry, and its mandate has been to promote development in the regions and economic development generally. The ministry promotes trade in British Columbia as a destination for international investment.

[6:30]

The ministry has run a number of programs which have been quite important to the economic diversification of the province. I'm glad that we have the opportunity in committee today to examine some of the spending through special warrants in the ministry over the past year. There have been three reorganizations of this ministry in the last year, and as a critic for Economic Development I've had to bring myself up to speed on the current incarnation of the ministry, but have also had to trace the evolution or devolution of the ministry and the programs and divisions attached to it over the past year. So I'm glad we have this opportunity to go through some of these.

To turn to the question of special warrants, the reorganizations have made it somewhat difficult to track spending over time through these special warrants. The fiscal year started with this ministry being called Regional and Economic Development, and a special warrant of $14 million was authorized to maintain the programs of that ministry on April 1, 1991. Of course, this amount was then included in the first Supply Act passed on May 31, 1991.

After we had a change of Social Credit Premiers, the ministry was reorganized and picked up responsibility for tourism. It was renamed the Ministry of Development, Trade and Tourism, and under this name money was authorized through two special warrants allocated to the ministry: September 20, 199,1 of $25,982,000 and October 29, 1991, of $4,138,000, for a total of $30,120,000.

Under the present government, the ministry was reorganized once again and renamed Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Under this reorganization the ministry lost its responsibility for tourism. The ministry also lost responsibility for the Trade Development Corporation, which was transferred to the Premier's office. Money authorized through three special warrants has been allocated to the ministry since November 5, 1991: November 13, 1991 -- $14,885,000; January 8, 1992 -- $24,276,000; and February 28 -- an extraordinary grant to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation for a total of $39,161,000.

Because of the reorganization and switches in program responsibility, it's somewhat difficult to track the spending authorized through special warrants and the two supply bills over the last fiscal year. If you add up the amounts authorized in the schedule to the first supply bill, and the amounts authorized in the special warrants passed both by Social Credit and this NDP 

[ Page 335 ]

government to maintain programs in the ministry, excluding the grant to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, you get a total of $83,281,000. On top of that is the spending of $8,400,000 for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, and if you add that to spending, the amount authorized which can be directly tracked is $91,681,000.

The first question I would like to ask the minister is: what was the total amount spent, including the special warrants and the budget, for the ministry in 1991-92?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I was waiting for my officials to arrive before I introduced them, and I'd like to do that at this point. On my left is the assistant deputy minister for the business development division, who's acting for the new deputy, Ian McKinnon. His name is Chris Nelson. He has been the acting deputy until the appointment of the new deputy. On my right are Colin Smith, ADM for the management services division, and Brian Dolsen, senior financial officer. We will be attempting to answer your questions.

We realize it's difficult tracking, with the reorganizations. I should say that we aren't entirely finished, because we have to tune the organization to meet the needs of the new government and the economy that's in transition. We're trying to do that, and it will take time, as you can appreciate.

Your first question, then, is what is or will be the total amount spent in this fiscal year, 1991-92. You appreciate that March is projected, although it will be close to this. The figure will be $93,804,764. The total that was budgeted, corrected for the different changes in the organization, is $95,389,000. If you subtract those two, you'll find that there's approximately $400,000.... I'm sorry, the first figure I gave you was next year's budget. We will come under budget by approximately $400,000, and that's the difference between the budgeted amount of $95,389,000.... We will spend $95 million.

L. Stephens: On page 49 of Budget 1992, "Expenditure by Ministry, Consolidated Revenue Fund, Economic Development, Small Business and Trade," the estimate you have for 1991-92 is $95.4 million, and the revised forecast 1991-92 is $191 million. Could you explain that for me, please?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The difference is made up by a Treasury Board submission for $8.4 million to fund the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. There's a statutory expenditure, basically a provision for bad debt, of $86.8 million, and there's recoveries of $1 million.

C. Serwa: I'll let the opposition critic continue with the questioning. I just didn't want to lose this opportunity.

On the $86.8 million debt write-off, I think that is something we will be exploring, and we would like an explanation of what you have written off and why you have written it off, and what time-period that debt write-off encompasses.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On the write-offs, these are questions that will be answered and debated when we discuss Finance, because these were ones booked by the independent financial review. We have taken the advice of the auditors and we can debate those. If you want to question the Minister of Finance on those, that will be appropriate, but I suggest that we should do it under his estimates.

L. Stephens: Other than the obvious loss of program responsibilities for tourism and the Trade Development Corporation, have there been any other major changes to the responsibilities of the ministry of which the members of this House should be aware?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The previous government, not us, suspended business finance programs, so when you adjust for the other organizations and programs, the only program not in there is business finance. But I'd like to add for clarification that while we are no longer running the business finance program, we were moving a lot of activity to the job-saving area, and we seconded a lot of people to work on projects with the Job Protection Commission, basically supplying information. So with the staff that ordinarily was evaluating business start-up loans and that sort of thing, those programs were directed towards some of the activities around job-saving.

L. Stephens: On the $8.4 million allocated to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation on February 28 to compensate the corporation for its capital expenditures and accumulated operating deficit, I'm wondering if the minister can inform the House what the capital expenditures were and why there was an accumulated operating deficit.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll give you the breakdown first. The breakdown was $1.5 million for capital funding, $2.4 million in accumulated operating deficit, and $4.5 million to pay for the Fraser Valley Trade and Exhibition Centre.

I'm going to specifically answer on the $1.5 million for capital funding. In B.C. Place Stadium there was an upgrade on corporate signage; there was the Hussey seat and Kayson seat repair, furniture, fixtures and equipment. That totalled $655,000. The Robson Square Conference Centre: there was a proportionate share to develop the food and beverage area as per the lease, plus furniture, fixtures and equipment, for a total of $360,000. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre: there was furniture, fixtures, equipment, leasehold improvements and others, for a total of $215,000. The corporate office of the Pavilion Corporation: computer system upgrades were $150,000. At Bridge Studios there were building improvements and repair, furniture, fixtures and equipment, for a total of $120,000. Those items total $1.5 million. They were the capital expenditures necessary for them to carry on business in a suitable environment.

The Chair: Hon. member, I can't recognize you unless you're in your seat, but I can wait until you get there.

[ Page 336 ]

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the indulgence.

I wonder if the minister can tell us with respect to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation.... If we're reading the special warrants for addition correctly, we're looking at an $8.4 million debt, and that's essentially a deficit expenditure. Could you tell us whether or not that expenditure occurred prior to or after November 5?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The expenditure occurred prior, although it was approved after. You realize that we're talking about a Crown corporation that is running. When they come with a shortfall, they come for an appropriation as necessary, and we saw fit to grant it.

G. Wilson: Essentially that $8.4 million was something that was committed after November 5 to accommodate overruns in the Crown corp that had happened prior to that. I think that's what the minister said. I see that he's acknowledging that.

My second question would be: could the minister tell us to what extent the expenditure of the approved budget in 1991-92 had in fact been met by November 5? What amounts had actually been expended, and of amounts incurred since that time, what are the reasons for those expenditures?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Was your question about the whole ministry budget or this particular...?

The Chair: Opposition House Leader.

G. Wilson: With due respect....

The Chair: Pardon me. We're even now.

The Leader of the Opposition.

G. Wilson: Touché, Mr. Chairman. We are indeed even.

We would obviously like to know the ministerial one. I think there are some more questions that the critic may want to address with regard to that, but I'm specifically talking about the B.C. Pavilion Corporation.

[6:45]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me go back over the makeup. The $4.5 million was to pay for the Fraser Valley Trade and Exhibition Centre. That was a capital expenditure that was on the books, and we basically decided to write that off. We covered the cost of that. The $2.4 million was an accumulated operating deficit, which we again allowed them to write off, and the $1.5 million was for capital funding. I'm saying that those expenditures all occurred prior to November 5, but they came for retroactive approval.

This illustrates the problem of Crown corporations operating out on their own. We are taking steps to ensure that they operate in a businesslike fashion. This was part of cleaning up the bad business practices of the past.

G. Wilson: Would the minister indulge me just for a moment here, because I'm having difficulty with this. It may be that I'm reading the wrong figures. What the minister has just indicated to me adds up to -- if I'm not mistaken -- $5.5 million, and what we're looking at here is $8.4 million. Am I incorrect, and, if so, could you...?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. I'll give you the figures again. These add up to $8.4 million, and they're made up of: $4.5 million to pay for the Fraser Valley Trade and Exhibition Centre -- otherwise known as Tradex -- capital cost; $2.4 million in accumulated operating deficit -- a business debt from '91-92; $1.5 million for capital funding. Those are the ones I itemized in some detail, and they total $8.4 million.

G. Wilson: Of that total, then, essentially the amount that the ministry had decided to simply write off on the basis of the advice of Peat Marwick would be roughly $3.9 million.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Peat Marwick really didn't have anything to do with that. This was done on application from the corporation and on the advice of Treasury Board staff. The Treasury Board did that.

L. Stephens: Could the minister indicate what pressing reasons there were to pay down the accumulated operating deficit on February 28 with the use of a special warrant?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The basic reason for the accumulated deficit was that the previous administration did not adequately fund the province's money-losing facilities. Basically, it wasn't adequately funded, and you either continue to accumulate interest or you bite the bullet on it. We decided to do that.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, you can appreciate that we have problems following all the accounts and working out exactly where all the disbursements come. Under the control of your ministry are two particular funds -- one called the industrial incentive fund and one called the small business incentive program -- and they're both classified as special accounts. For the year 1991-92, there were proposed to be gross disbursements made under the industrial incentive fund amounting to $90 million. First of all, believe it to be true that this is called a financing transaction. When you pay it out, instead of it being owed to you by the bank, it's owed to you by someone else and is therefore not included in your ministry estimates. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's basically correct. You will also appreciate that I may not have the depth of accounting experience and may have to consult from time to time to get the right technical terms. I'm advised that that's basically correct.

F. Gingell: Can you advise me, Mr. Minister, of the amount of money that was actually paid out during 1991-92 against this account as loans and investments made under the industrial incentive fund that have not been included in special warrants?

[ Page 337 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have it to February 29, 1992. We don't have it until the end of March. Do you want the running total? Under the fund, there's an accumulated approved spending of $146,211,974. That's for what we call ad hoc projects -- that's a one-of-a-kind type. Then there's Job Protection Commission with $1,130,000. The industrial development agreement total is $39,890,477. Under the business expansion program we have $11,882,889. Then there's a solid waste enterprise incentive program, which is basically no longer in operation, at $279,500. The total for the entire industrial incentive fund is $199,394,843. The total that's been disbursed is $168,936,002. So there has been committed approved funding, but it hasn't all been disbursed, because some of them don't meet all their conditions of their loans.

F. Gingell: I really am confused now. There was an amount anticipated to be disbursed in the year, from April 1 to March 31, of $90 million. Are you telling me that the amount that has been disbursed in that period, April 1 to March 31, is $199 million? Or is the $199 million the total of all the loans that have been made from the beginning?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I may have misunderstood you, but I'll answer two questions then. I thought you were asking about the whole fund, which has been accumulated since 1985. We don't have the figure from April 1. We'd be happy to provide that figure to you, but we'd have to do some computation on that particular fund.

Let me just give you a general answer. When we took over, the previous government had, running up to the election, frozen these funds. So the disbursements have been under the Job Protection Commission. The only programs that weren't frozen were anything recommended under the Job Protection Act. So anything that's been approved has been approved under the act.

F. Gingell: Can you give me the same numbers for the small business incentive program, for which $17 million had been proposed in the year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm just trying to get the timing on it. Basically, in this fiscal year that program has been suspended, so you won't find any under that. Again, the only ones that were approved were under the Job Protection Act.

F. Gingell: Can you tell us if any portion of the $86.8 million that's recommended as a bad-debt provision against what I presume are these accounts results from loans that were made in this fiscal year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm going to give you a general answer to that, and I was suggesting.... I talked to the Minister of Finance before he left, and as you know, the administration and legalities surrounding some of these bad debts.... The decisions are taken with legal counsel and with financial counsel. Any of them that are booked in this way I would really defer to the Minister of Finance.

C. Serwa: I'm confident that the minister knows full well that in the Legislature what he's expressing as a concern is in fact not a concern. The minister has been asked questions, and I will continue on that particular tack. I believe he is Minister of Economic Development, and he must come forth with the answers. That is the purpose of this whole exercise. The Minister of Finance is not the minister of everything, to the best of my knowledge.

L. Stephens: I would like you to turn to page 73 of the estimates of March 31, 1992, for vote 17. It's the minister's office. Would the minister be able to tell me how much was spent in the minister's office after November 5, 1991?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can give you the figure for November to February, because we don't have this month's figures. The amount is $97,236.

L. Stephens: I know that you did not have much control over all the reorganizations in the past year. Is there any estimate on how many extra costs were incurred in the minister's office as a result of the coming and going of minister's assistants, staff changes and letterhead and so on and so forth?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There certainly weren't any for our administration. Technically, as you know, we're not really accountable for what the previous administration did, but I would be trying to imagine things. I certainly didn't redecorate when I came in, and I'm not aware that any of the other ministers did. But as to whether or not there's an inefficiency created with reorganization and moving pieces, I doubt it. Ministers' offices are just busy all the time, and how many pieces you have isn't really relevant.

When Tourism was added it really increased the load, and there probably was a lot of pressure because of the size of that ministry. During our administration I don't think whatever we did to reorganize was inconsequential, but the movement of Tourism did not have an effect on the minister's office.

[7:00]

L. Stephens: What you're saying is that there were no really significant changes in the costs to the minister's office with these reallocation changes.

I would like to move on to ministry operations, vote 18 under Economic Development. Part of the money was to go to administering the major project review process. Does the minister have any figures on the costs since November 5 of the administration of the major project review process?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't break it out by all the processes. It's possible to do that, but what I'm pulling from here is the cost to the primary industries section of that ministry. We think approximately half of that is committed to that, because we know how many staff are involved. It's a figure of $207 million, so we think approximately half -- approximately $100 million -- is 

[ Page 338 ]

spent by this ministry on that. That was during our term of office.

L. Stephens: Moving down to business development, the money under this category in part went to the running of the office of the job protection commissioner. Does the minister have any figures on the amount of money that went to the Job Protection Commission since November 5, and in what capacity?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The figure we have for the four months from November 1 to the end of February is $220,334, and that went to the cost of the commissioner and his staff. Some of that is for special commissioners who may be needed to go into a particular community.

L. Stephens: This was simply administrative costs is what you're saying?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, the cost of operating the Job Protection Commission, so it's really staff and associated travel costs and so on. But there are some contractors, because there are special projects where you need somebody right away. They go on contract, and then when they finish the job, they come off.

L. Stephens: As you are aware, the loan and loan guarantee programs administered by this ministry were suspended about April 15 of last year, and evaluating these potential loans is a large part of the work of the ministry. If this work was no longer being performed as a result of the freeze on loans, was there any reassessment of staff resources or any cost savings that resulted in personnel terms as a result of this loan freeze?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When I first took over, I asked this very question because it's a good question and I think it's one that deserves an answer. We reassigned people to do assessment of business under the Job Protection Commission. In the case of Pemberton, there was a number of businesses, and we diverted those same people into business counselling activities and project assessment. There was a huge load on the job protection commissioner, and it was increasing; we took over, and it had increased since summer. So it was quite a load, and we had to juggle a few resources in order to make sure. So I think we can stand here and say quite honestly that the money was well spent and is certainly accounted for.

L. Stephens: We'll turn now to the subvote under regional development. Money expended under this category in the last year was to maintain the government agent service and run what remained of the regionalization initiatives. Can the minister provide a breakdown of how much money went into the government agents, and how much money went to support operation of the regionalization initiatives?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This shifted to management services around September. It has shifted since the blue book. The government agents branch now is under management services, and the amount spent since November is $7,500,266. During our term, under regional development, for services to the regions, it's $1,779,940.

L. Stephens: I would like to discuss some spending issues that relate to trade. Was any work performed by the ministry under this heading reassigned to the Trade Development Corporation, and were there any cost savings as a result?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, nothing was reassigned to the Trade Corporation, and therefore there were no savings. I think, by way of explanation, that there is a certain amount of complementarity between the Trade Corporation.... We inherited a Crown corporation set up to do business, and I think they were in the process of revising their business plan -- they are doing that for this year. There will be a certain amount of complementarity of activities because the ministry runs the international offices used by the Trade Corporation when they are travelling. We don't charge between government agencies. You could argue that maybe we should. But we try to identify costs, and when somebody does something for somebody else, there's a record of that; we know what those activities are. Members of the ministry staff who work in trade will be providing advice to private sector people, information to other governments, and the Trade Corporation. They don't always keep track of their hours, but we didn't assign any portions of the ministry to the Trade Development Corporation.

The Chair: Before the member continues, I'd just like to request that members hesitate just briefly to permit their being recognized in order to assist with the recording of debate. I know that you get anxious to have your dialogue, but it's helpful if we can record properly. So just give me a chance to recognize you.

L. Stephens: Were the trips of the minister and Premier to Japan, and the trips of the Premier to Switzerland and New York, funded through this vote or through the Trade Development Corporation, or through some other division of government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The international travel portion is for all ministers, so definitely for the Premier and me it came out of this ministry's vote.

L. Stephens: Out of the Trade Development Corporation or out of your ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Out of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.

L. Fox: I'm particularly interested in this $86 million of bad debts identified by the minister. Would the minister tell this committee what criteria were used to determine which debts were in the classification of bad debts?

[ Page 339 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm deferring partly on this, but I'll answer what I can. We hired outside independent financial advice to decide where this should be apportioned in the government's books. We used, as you know, generally accepted principles of accounting. The apportionment was decided finally by the agency responsible, which is the loans administration branch of the Ministry of Finance. A package was assigned, and we had it booked against ours. The Minister of Finance is more apprised of a number of things around some of these bad debts because he, through his branch, made the decision on the apportionment. That's why I deferred to him.

L. Fox: I'm rather confused; perhaps it's because I don't understand the mechanism. It would appear to me that if these bad debts were the responsibility of the Finance ministry, then they would have shown up in his budget rather than in your budget. If you can't give me the criteria that your ministry used to determine which debts within your budget were in fact bad debts, you could at the very least identify the category, the programs and so on in which these bad debts occurred.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd like nothing better than to stand up here and tell you how bad some of these business deals were that the previous government made. You weren't there, but you might have made a bad decision on which horses you hooked your wagon to. I think you want to be careful on this one, because there are some things there that wouldn't be very comfortable.

This is not a write-off. We're not writing them off; we're just booking a provision. The previous government did some things that the accountants didn't think were particularly wise. As a result, their advice was that we'd better book a provision for them in case we didn't collect them. We've decided to take the advice of the accountants, and we have provided for this much. They're booked for potential write-offs, but they are not written off at this point, as I understand it.

L. Fox: I appreciate what you say, and obviously I'm not concerned. Well, I certainly am concerned on behalf of the people of this province with respect to these bad debts. This Legislature, as well as the people of the province, have the right to know which programs have failed, and on what basis they failed.

I have one further clarification to ask of the minister so that I and the province might understand. What is the total loan portfolio of his ministry, and what percentage of that total portfolio is this $86 million?

[7:15]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll try to get the portion of these loans as compared with the rest, but I think we may be making more out of it than we have to. The total for the ministry is $313,778,214. That includes the figures that we're talking about.

I would like to say that there is some of that that we may collect, and we don't know until we have to collect it. We were advised to place this in this particular place in the government's books as a provision. It's considered a good business practice that there be a certain percentage of high-risk loans that you aren't going to collect. But the process would be -- and I was seeking some clarification -- that if these are written off, they will be accounted in the accounts of the province and the exact amounts will be there. But as you know, collection sometimes goes on for a long time. For example, if one of these loans happened to.... If we decided we had to collect on it because they weren't meeting the conditions of the loan or the business went down or whatever and we were trying to protect the province's position, then we would be in a position to take certain actions which might involve court actions. The actual final amounts that we finally write off would be a matter of having all the information in, the legal actions completed, the accounting done on it, and then we would have a figure and the government would decide how much is being written off. This is a provision for debt that may or may not be collected.

L. Fox: I appreciate your comments. It bothers me somewhat, though, when I see something over 25 percent of a total loan portfolio being placed into doubtful loans. I would suggest that an overview of how we give these loans would certainly be in order.

One other factor about them concerns me and that is: what security do we have with respect to this $86 million? What kind of security does this province have to offset these loans?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The short answer is: there's as much security as the government can get when they're making these. I want you to know that most of these pre-dated our government. With respect to what the terms of the loans are and so on, members will press for details, but the previous administration did not disclose all the terms of the debts. As a matter of fact, these are often publicly-traded companies and disclosure might have been inappropriate in terms of commercial confidentiality, which I'm sure you understand.

L. Fox: I do understand. I have been fortunate enough to come from a business background. I do understand, as well, that the security held with respect to a loan often determines whether or not that goes in a doubtful category. I guess my concern here is that there has been a very convenient shift, and I'm not at this point suggesting that you're incorrect in making that shift. But there has been a very convenient shift within your ministry to this current year's warrants of $86 million, of which you do not appear to have the details, yet it's on your budget. I believe that we in this House deserve the answers that would better allow us to evaluate the programs and therefore be more careful about how we enter into your estimates in the next year. We cannot enter into those estimates with any kind of accuracy or credibility without knowing the facts from this past year.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's the responsibility of government to make some judgments about what amounts are necessary to book for provision. There's a judgment call. We did it upon advice from an independent group, 

[ Page 340 ]

and we have taken their advice. I would suggest to you that if you want the detailed answers, the loans administration branch was the one that adjudicated the advice and did the paperwork to do it. I'm giving you the details, and I'm standing here saying we have booked this much provision, which we think a good business case can be made for. These are ones for which there probably isn't a lot of security; otherwise we wouldn't have it. If they were secure loans, we wouldn't try to book them off.

I'm not going to disclose details, because in some cases it would prejudice in some cases job protection action where we're trying to be involved in financial restructures, and it would be totally inappropriate. To announce some of these details at the level which you seem to want would jeopardize some of the saves we're trying to make with business. There's no magic here. We have clearly taken recommendations to make a provision of $86 million of statutory appropriation for this item.

I can give you some more details at how we arrived at $86 million, but it is comprised of a number of portfolios, if you will. There's really nothing to hide. This is our guess about what we should provide on the books. Some of this will have accumulated over a number of years of b.s. accounting. I hope you're not sensitive about that, but other members might be. We've said that we want to clean up the books, and maybe this year's going to see some of this stuff booked here so that we can start with a fresh start. We're being up front.

We're saying to you -- this Legislature -- that we need to add $86 million extra. I'll give you the way we calculate that figure. Based on loans administration branch analysis as of December 31, 1991, the reserve needed for loans and investments was $118.5 million. The reserve that was established at the start of fiscal 1991-92 was $36.2 million. Therefore we needed an increase of $82.3 million, plus the provisions for projects not yet included in the loans administration branch of $7 million. The increase needed for loans and investments therefore totalled $89.3 million. That's $82.3 million plus $7 million equals $89.3 million. The increase needed for loan guarantees was $9.1 million, and the total required for the entire portfolio therefore was $98.4 million.

The amount that the previous government had set aside for these debts was $11.6 million. So they only provided for $11.6 million last year. Okay? This is the year we're talking about: last year, 1991-92. So the difference between that $11.6 million, which the government said we would set aside as provision -- we needed $98 million, so the difference is $86.8 million. That's the figure in additional reserves for potential bad debt that we set aside.

L. Fox: I won't belabour the point, but there are a couple of points I feel I have to make after that last little charge. I find that creative accounting and playing with numbers -- usually any body or any jurisdiction can do it; they find more inventive ways to find it justifiable. I suggest to you that this is not a whole lot different than the so-called BS fund, especially when you gave me the formula by which you determined your doubtful debts.

I guess I have one further question of you. If you will not identify specifically those debts and the security you hold, then perhaps you could identify the categories into which they fall within your ministry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The categories are: ad hoc assistance, aquaculture....

L. Fox: Can you do the amounts in that category?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No, not accurately. We'd be happy to try to provide that. It's just not computed that way. The categories are: aquaculture; business expansion program; industrial development agreement, a federal-provincial agreement which has expired; industrial development assistance program; and small business incentive program. Both of those last two are 50 percent provincial.

L. Fox: I didn't intend to ask another question, but this precipitates one. Are you suggesting that in two of these areas of write-off, we're in partnership with the federal government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. There are quite a number of federal-provincial agreements dealing with regional economic development, tourism and industry in a number of sectors. On those the programs are jointly funded. We administer the programs and do the due diligence on the loans. We do the homework. But the terms and conditions of the federal-provincial agreement really require that we do the due diligence on it so that there's proper assessment.

L. Fox: To follow that up, am I to understand that the federal government is following your lead with respect to their allowance for doubtful loans? Or does our allowance that you project include any that might be recovered from the federal government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: No.

C. Serwa: The minister obviously has very competent staff in the ministry. That staff was responsible for drawing up the parameters and assuring the province that the reserves were all in place when the province put money into these loans. If you won't divulge the specific loans -- which seems to indicate that they tend to be fictitious and that the b.s. that's floating across this room has nothing to do with the budget stabilization fund -- the question is: what is the total amount of security on the $86 million of loans that you have written off? What is your security on that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I sort of warned the member that when he got into some of the decisions that his party made when they were government, if we decided to throw the whole book at him, he wouldn't be able to take it. I'm sure you weren't around the cabinet table when some of these were made. You mention the good staff work. As you know, some of these things were 

[ Page 341 ]

probably or possibly made against the recommendations of some of the staff. Because I wasn't in cabinet then, I don't know, but it often is the case that cabinet may overrule officials and make decisions.

We are making decisions based on what we think is probable -- in other words, a best guess -- about what we need to book to have there in case we have to write them off. We would be absolute fools not to leave adequate provision in case some of these loans went bad and we weren't able to collect. Then we would wear it on our deficit.

It's clear that your government is going to be held responsible for anything they can be held responsible for. It's a simple political fact. I don't mind stating that.

[7:30]

C. Serwa: I have asked the minister, and presumably he has the resources at his fingertips, for some specific answers with respect to the interim supply act. That is the matter that we're debating -- not politics but some specific answers to the supply act, the interim amount and the amount that you have grossly exceeded your budget by. You have been government for the past six months. You could have taken necessary actions. Your budget has gone wild in the extreme. You're responsible for your budget, not the Minister of Finance. You approve all of the decisions with respect to loans, Mr. Minister. I want to know the security you hold that the companies have put in.

The Chair: I would just like to request again that members please address their remarks through the chair.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm quite happy to defend decisions that I'm responsible for, and that's what I will do. As you know, in the process a decision is taken by the government, which is the cabinet, and they are collectively responsible. The fact that it's booked in here means that I have to stand up and defend that figure.

You are asking for information about specific loans and the amount of security on them. You have to treat each one as a separate entity. With this group here we're saying that we have to book a provision for bad debt of this amount of money based on our best guess of all the loans that have been made. That's why we've done it.

C. Serwa: The minister is presumed to be unable to give any.... I'm not asking for specific loans, Mr. Minister; I'm asking for the global security on the amount that you have written off.

The advice that you seem to have received from Peat Marwick has not, in my estimation, been objective or accurate. When we listened to the Minister of Advanced Education this afternoon, the minister indicated that if so much as one payment had been missed by a student, that student loan was written off. That doesn't happen in business. I've been in business for most of my life. That just doesn't happen in the real world. You don't have to make any provision for the write-off of those loans because of income tax purposes. Mr. Minister, if your security is there in double or triple the amount of loan, you risk no exposure. Now come clean. Tell me on what basis you made this write-off. I have heard nothing yet that supports any of this write-off.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your questioning has to do with whether or not we're making a good business decision to provide for bad loans, and I say that when you've got a recession in the economy, you'd better be careful. If a lot of these were such good business propositions to start with, they wouldn't have come before the government for financing. We're doing the prudent thing, which is to provide for it, but we're not going to assume that it isn't all going to be collected.

The question of security varies from loan to loan. There are different types of securities, you know. Some of them are second positions on a loan. I don't know all the technical definitions for the types of securities, but there are many types, and some of them require judgment calls. If you're in a second position, what is that worth to you? So we have had the accountants go through that, and they said: "This doesn't look like you're protected by about that much." So there's no question that we're saying approximately what the figure is: 86. That's where we're booking that figure. We're saying that these figures are the figures that can be justified using accounting principles. If you want more specifics, I would be happy to take that under advisement. I gave you advice with respect to why we arrive at that and the methodology. I'm suggesting that you would get more out of the Minister of Finance.

The Chair: I would suggest to the hon. member that the question being asked is becoming repetitive. The minister has attempted to give an answer, which appears to me to be a repeat of a previous answer, so I would hope that we can move to canvass some other aspect. I think the point has been well made by the member.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you that the minister's answer has been repetitive rhetoric. We're talking finances and figures and budgets, and I expect to be answered in dollars and cents -- in figures, not in political rhetoric. The minister has not in one answer talked dollars and cents.

I have asked the minister a specific question with respect to the security on the write-off. Either the minister has that information, or the minister has to concede that he has simply picked a figure out of the air based on nothing except political gain and has attached it to his budget. The minister must either confirm or deny that. And if he denies that, then I expect to see figures that support the minister's position.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, there was a lot of political rhetoric in the BS fund too. If we hadn't had the BS fund and some of the inappropriate accounting practices, we wouldn't be here with my ministry with a large....

C. Serwa: On a point of order. On behalf of the people of British Columbia, it's my responsibility to hold this current government accountable for their actions. I have asked specific and concise questions to that minister, and the minister continues to wander all 

[ Page 342 ]

over the block. You're not on your stump farm, Mr. Minister. You're in the real world here in the Legislature of British Columbia, and you've got to answer to the people of British Columbia.

The Chair: Hon. member, please take your seat. Before the minister rises, I would just like to point out that we are debating Supply Act (No. 1), Bill 16, and we are on the schedule of warrants that were passed prior to the fiscal period that we are just beginning to enter. With all due respect to the canvassing by the member for Okanagan West around this specific question, I believe that our standing orders are quite clear on canvassing that becomes repetitious. Nonetheless, we have to recognize that answers can only be given and accepted, whether or not they are satisfactory to the person who is doing the questioning.

C. Tanner: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is merely asking the minister to identify the type of security that he is using to secure his loans, whether it be property, second mortgages, bank loans or bars of gold. Surely that's not an impossible question for him to answer. It is not being repetitious. The minister hasn't answered the question.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member, for your point of order. I would just advise the members to keep in mind the constraints of the matter before the committee.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When the government decides to write off a bad loan, there is an order-in-council that will become public. There is nothing in here on written-off loans. It's a provision for that; it's a reserve for doubtful accounts. You're asking about the type of security. I'm saying it varies from loan to loan. I'm also saying that the majority of that, this government didn't make. Therefore I'm not in a position to tell you why they took certain types of security. I wasn't privy to the cabinet discussions.

An Hon. Member: He's not asking why; he just wants to know what it is.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's what I'm saying. I'm not in a position to give details. Some of them are preferred shares, some are first and second mortgages, some are promissory notes, some are real property and some are chattels. There are some answers. It varies from loan to loan.

We have taken the advice of an accounting firm as to what those total and, therefore, what we should put in a provision. We have put that in a provision and booked that amount, and that is the amount under discussion.

L. Stephens: I would just like to ask you one question about the doubtful accounts reserves. How is your ministry going to arrive at a figure? What kind of actuarial tables will you use to calculate the amount of doubtful reserves that you will be incorporating into your ministry over the course of the year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just have to remind you that what the Minister of Finance has said, and what we have all said, is that they're generally accepted principles, and those were accounting principles. Previously, the government was not always using generally accepted principles. As to actuarial tables, I haven't got that detail. If we are using a table, I'll be happy to get that for you. But it varies from deal to deal.

L. Stephens: I'd like to go back a few minutes to the Trade Development Corporation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you said that the trips of the minister and the Premier came under your ministry.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes.

L. Stephens: Would you be able to tell me the names of ministers who have travelled since November 5, where, the staff or family who accompanied them and the costs incurred; also if there were any contracts, deals or some kind of economic benefit to the province as a result of that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Some of this we don't have immediately because of the time it takes for them to come in. The ones that I know of who have travelled internationally, under my budget, are: myself to Japan, the Premier to Davos, Switzerland, via New York and London; Hon. B. Barlee to Geneva during the GATT negotiations; Hon. D. Miller, Minister of Forests, to Japan with a forestry trade mission; and both the Minister of Forests and I went to Oregon last week. I can get all the details for you. Accounts haven't come in for all of those trips, so we don't have them. But we will be providing most of those figures by way of accounts.

The details on the Japanese trade mission -- that's the one we've got the most information on. That was the largest trade mission. Some of the benefits from the B.C. Week there are that we targeted more than 3,000 clients who seriously visited the centre and talked to people. There was extensive and favourable coverage in Japan about British Columbia, and the basic message was that we're here, we're a new government, up and running, and we're interested in doing business. We targeted a lot of the magazines, both in Japan and British Columbia, and went to quite a bit of effort to get Japanese-language publications to write about British Columbia and doing business here.

Eighty-five percent of the participants in the trade show found new clients, and 90 percent of the participants were successful in meeting influential clients and decision-makers. There have been over 335 new business leads reported to date, with up to 800 anticipated. This is as of March 30, and we had over 190 new leads immediately followed up and a further 77 to be completed within the next six months. There are reportedly over 18 potential joint ventures identified, with an additional 25 anticipated, as a result of that trip to Japan. Did you want more details about some of the other trips?

[ Page 343 ]

L. Stephens: I would just reiterate that if I could get the names of the ministers and staff and so on, and the costs incurred for these trips, that would be great.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We will provide that. To my knowledge, there was no family travel, but the rule is that if family travels, it's their cost. In terms of staff, significant staff went on the Japanese trip; minimal staff on the other trips. I need to say that the whole trade mission to Japan was cut down from well over a million and a quarter, I think the figure was, to just over $868,000. It was admittedly an expensive venture, but I think there's no question about the value of it in terms of long-term relations with clients in that area. Those figures were released during the trip, and we made no attempt to conceal that. But we did cut it back and send only the Premier and me and not the five other ministers projected to go, in order to cut costs but still fulfil our obligations to our trading partner.

[7:45]

L. Stephens: I'd like to take a look at the funding going towards the economic and regional development subsidiary agreements, vote 19. I understand that this is a federal-provincial agreement, and it has been wound down. Was the money over the last year used essentially to pay for the costs of winding this down, or where did the money go from these programs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The easy answer is that those were disbursements from approvals in previous years.

L. Stephens: The vote on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation -- I realize this responsibility has been transferred to the Premier's office, but perhaps the minister has some idea of how much was spent on the corporation up until the responsibility was transferred from your ministry to the Premier's office.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm happy to provide you with that figure, but we are dealing with what's happened since we have been government on the special warrants. We'll see if we can dig it up here.

C. Tanner: Mr. Minister, if I might take you back about five minutes ago, I'd like to thank you for the information you did finally give us. It took a little while to get it, but you mentioned that your loans were secured by second mortgages, property, preferred shares, agreements for sale, and I think you said personal guarantees. You certainly said four of those five, and I think you said all five. Could you give us a figure, without revealing the companies to whom those loans were given, on what each one of those amounts was for those various forms of security?

Hon. G. Clark: So nice to see you in the chair, Mr. Chairman. I would like to respond to the members, because the loan portfolio is an interesting problem in government. The loans are granted by different ministries and then they get moved over to Finance, the loans administration branch in my ministry, which is responsible. I've made a commitment, and I'd like to make it again in the House, that we'll be tabling in the House making public all of the loans issued by the previous administration -- the entire loan portfolio -- how much they were for, and the amount of the valuation, any loans we've given -- we haven't really given any but we certainly shall -- and the amount of how much we've written down or provided for in terms of the loan, the aggregate amount of the reserve required for the loans. Just for members opposite.

The Attorney General's ministry has advised us that they -- and I don't want to blame them -- and my ministry as well are concerned about saying that this particular loan given out at this amount of money is written down to this amount, because that would prejudice our ability to recapture or try to gain the maximum amount for the taxpayer. What we will do is give you all of the loans, who they were for, how much they were -- that should be a public record as far as I'm concerned. That's how the federal government operates, and that's how we intend to operate. We're going to release them all, and then we will give the amount of the reserve proportion.

Just so it's clear, the Ministry of Finance is responsible for administering all the loans of government, but the granting of those loans, in some cases, comes under this minister, or under the Minister of Advanced Education when it comes to student loans, and a variety of other mechanisms. But my ministry and the loans administration branch actually administer all government loans.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the answer that the Minister of Finance has given us, but before he came in we had some time eliciting the information from the minister as to what the security was for the loans granted. What we've asked the minister for now is, specifically, not the names of the companies, because I'm not totally convinced that that is public knowledge. While you might be, I have some trouble with it. But we do have the right in this House to know what the security was -- which he has now told us -- and how much that security is in gross amounts, so we are able to make the same judgment that you've made as to the validity of those loans.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure the member was in the House when I answered. There's very little in this statement that I didn't answer when I was first on my feet. Now if you go back to the Blues you will find that I said "most of it." I didn't say it as well, but I said that, with the exception, I think, of the phrase that said: "The Attorney General will advise on how much on specific ones and commit to table them in the House." But you will also remember that I suggested the loans administration was responsible to the Minister of Finance, that he booked something against our programs.

I stood up and said that the 86 we're talking about here is approximately what we were advised is the unsecured amount. If it was secured, it wouldn't be in here, so this is a guess by accounting principles of how much is unsecured. Now I said all that. Then members persisted. I'm not trying to be repetitious. I was trying to give fuller answers on some of those things. You may 

[ Page 344 ]

not have been in the House, but I recall saying that. You can examine the record, and if I've misled the House, well I'm sorry for it. But he just reiterated what I said when I was on my feet earlier on. I don't think there's any contradiction. He disclosed more fully that he would give more detail. But I deferred to him on that very subject -- on the actual administration of the loans and the legality surrounding it -- because those are details that he is privy to that I am not privy to at this moment. But I am responsible and stand in this House and respond, and I say that our judgment on our professional advice that this is the amount that we should book for potential bad loans and write-downs in the future....

C. Tanner: I appreciate that the two ministers are apparently now attempting to give us the information, and to the Minister for Small Business, I know that this was not your responsibility. I know that you've taken the portfolio over, but I would like to hear your comments on the situation you found when you took over, when you've got one ministry making the loans and the decisions and another ministry administering them. How have you resolved that obvious problem that no business that I know is ever run like that? How have you resolved that problem since you took it over?

Hon. G. Clark: That's an excellent question, and it's more appropriately dealt with under my remarks. But you're quite right. The loans are a bit of a mess. The reason for the major write-downs is there are no criteria really for applying the loans. It's very discretionary -- a lot of political interference. Again, we're doing an investigation trying to get to the bottom of that. But we have an obligation, you're quite right, to try to straighten that out and make sure that any loans or loan guarantees granted have some rational analysis to them. They're public, and here's why we're doing it and here's the explanation so we can weigh it up objectively and not hide behind secrecy or any kind of political discretion.

We're doing that. We haven't done that yet at this point. The loans administration branch is administering all of the loans. This ministry and others give out loans. They have not given out substantial loans unless they are extensions to existing loans to try to put us in a better financial position. That's an ongoing project, Mr. Chair, which is subject to estimates debate, not really part of today's debate.

The Chair: I want to thank the hon. member who just took his seat. I've been referring to him as the House Leader, but in light of the fact that we are in Committee of Supply, I should refer to him as the Minister of Finance, for the record.

C. Tanner: You didn't quite answer the question. I said: "What steps have you taken to rectify that situation where one ministry is giving the loan and another ministry is administering it?" You just said, if I heard you correctly.... You changed slightly what you said ten minutes ago when you said you haven't given out any loans: you just said you have given out a few loans as extensions to existing loans. Could you tell us, since you've been receiving warrants in the last five months that you've been in government, what those loan extensions are?

Hon. G. Clark: The job protection commissioner still exists. In fact, it's been enhanced in the budget and has existed for the last five months. Where the job protection commissioner moves in, there's some remission on a variety of subjects. Those were subject to order-in-council -- for example, hydro discounts and the like, which are part of the job protection mandate. There has been a modest amount, and in some particular instances, they've been high profile -- the Cassiar mine. The Cassiar mine is a loan which we've dealt with.

But if I can get back to a very important point, which is how we deal with this, we had Peat Marwick review the loan portfolio. They made recommendations. We didn't accept all those recommendations. I'll deal with that when my ministry's up, but we thought they were a bit too conservative because they suggested we write off more. But that's a judgment call, frankly. We had a thorough review of it. We had a review of the approach. We have now struck an investigative team in my ministry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the giving out of the loans, because there does appear to be some political interference.

We're concerned also in the AG ministry. I can tell you we'll be reviewing them as well -- the Attorney General's ministry. But we have not yet formulated a more rational policy for criteria which would apply other than the job protection commissioner, which does and has to allow a certain subjective analysis as to how we might help a critical resource industry. We will be accountable; we'll make sure that any concessions that we give to try to keep alive an industry will be made public and have been made public.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, no. Frankly, we'll probably do it after we make the decision. Within the act there is the ability. The job protection commissioner has certain discretion and makes recommendations to cabinet. We will take issue on them -- and be held accountable by you, I'm sure, member, and by the public. But we've not given up the right, nor do we think we should give up the right, to intervene to try to assist critical industries in tough economic times. That's what a job protection commissioner does, and we want to narrow the scope of that and remove the political dimension if we can. But we will still be in a position to assist industries from time to time. We will do that; we're not afraid of doing that, but we hope it's on a rational basis, and we'll make anything we do public.

L. Fox: I'm rather surprised. I thought we were discussing the issues of the budget of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade. He seems to be all of a sudden supported by the Finance minister. I don't know whether that's something usual, but it certainly seems 

[ Page 345 ]

to take a lot more time -- and probably not a whole lot more in terms of an answer.

I want to clarify a couple of things with the minister. Before I do, I hope the minister doesn't find this as frustrating an exercise as I have found it. It's rather like shadowboxing. We've had innuendos and insults and so on coming across the floor, but nothing has been given us in terms of fact that we can take and put our teeth in in order to come back. I've found that rather frustrating.

I was specifically asking about the loans that you have put in a doubtful category, the loans that have a 50 percent attachment of responsibility to the federal government. I asked you if any portion of the $86 million liability you identified fell on the Canadian government.

[8:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If you examine the record, I said no. And I say no again.

L. Fox: Sorry. You're obviously in concert with those loans. Did the federal government agree that these should be placed into a doubtful category and that they would take the appropriate action to support you?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that's a complicated question. Basically, if we make the loan, we're the one that books it. They will provide money to us, and if it's in a portfolio that we then loan out, we're responsible for it. That's the price of 50-cent dollars from the federal government. They account for it by basically wanting to know that it goes into this kind of program with this kind of risk -- in a general way. But as to what portion we're booking under federal-provincial loans, I'd have to dig for that. We don't account for that in this way. But we'd be happy to try and provide that to you.

L. Fox: Am I given to understand that there's no liability to the province with respect to that 50 percent of the loan that was given by the federal government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is no.

L. Fox: One last question. I assure you it's the last one. Earlier today, with another minister, he gave reason for this assembly to believe that he had very little input into the write-offs within his ministry. In other words, it was an edict or a direction by the Finance minister directly to his ministry. Are you suggesting to me, or would you concur, that this is the process that happened within your ministry, that you were instructed by the Finance minister to allow for those doubtful loans?

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it's a statutory expenditure, and that's basically what happened. That's why I suggested earlier that I would defer some of those things, the process. There's no magic to that. He has his responsibilities and I have mine.I'm answering for mine, and he's answering for his.

L. Stephens: I see that on December 6, 1991, a $1.13 million loan to a silviculture firm, Brinkman and Associates Reforestation Ltd., was approved by the government on the recommendation of the job protection commissioner, and that on March 6, 1992, a $1.5 million loan to Cape Mudge Resorts Ltd. was also approved. My question, Mr. Minister, is have there been any other loans which have been approved on recommendations of the job protection commission, but which have not been announced through press releases or any other way?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer is yes. The ones that you noticed were loans under the Job Protection Commission; you rightly identified those. Those are ones where it was determined by the job protection commissioner that he could preserve those jobs, and there are a number of others. There's one to Wagner and Teldon for $500,000; there's Creekside Forest Products, $223,000; the one you mentioned to Brinkman Associates; Thuro Logging, $125,000; Presto-Flame fire logs, $115,000; the Cape Mudge one, which you noticed; and then there was one to Fiberco Pulp, which was announced in the last two days, for $10 million. The total: $13,593,000.

C. Serwa: Just a few more questions. Although this part of the debate has been long and protracted, I'm not the beneficiary of very much new information. A decision appeared to be made by the minister and the ministry, whether he was present, whether his staff were present at decision time when they decided on this -- I haven't even determined that. I know nothing about the criteria used. I know nothing about the period of the loans that have been collapsed into this. The only thing I can really surmise, from the evasive answers, is that the whole thing was constructed, in the event that they're not recoverable, to create the worst-case scenario for the deficit of this present fiscal year. I think that's being unrealistic, not honest, not responsible. I think the people of British Columbia are not going to be deceived.

I do have a question to the minister, though. In some of his opening remarks, he made some comments with respect to Crown corporations and the bad business practices of those Crown corporations. From what I can see, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Buildings Corp. and B.C. Ferries have been well run and are doing a good job. But perhaps the minister would elaborate on the bad business practices of the Crown corporations here in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: If you asked me a specific question about the Crown corporation that I'm responsible for, I'd be happy to answer that. I talk about business practices, and you saw the ICBC rate hikes. This is the same man who wants to talk about stump ranching. I'm happy to resolve these matters in the way stump ranchers would if you want, but we'd have to do that outside.

The period of loans you asked about dated from the late 1970s, from the best information we have here. The criteria used in deciding were, as I say, standard 

[ Page 346 ]

business practices and accounting principles as recommended. I'm sure you're going to get into that when you talk to the Minister of Finance about his estimates.

But we are happy to provide you with information, short of betraying commercial confidentiality. I said that earlier on. I said we can't tell you, because some of these happen to be public traded companies, and we won't give our business assessment of them. We won't under freedom of information. We will use appropriate practices for accounting for public dollars when the time comes.

Under public accounts and that sort of thing we are making attempts to bring budgets in on time and to file reports on time, so that there's maximum disclosure of financial information. That's the business practice of this government, and we're trying really hard to improve some of those practices. We're saying yes, that generally some of the Crown corporations had a few problems, and we're dealing with those. That's why we have a secretariat to oversee them.

If you want information on specific Crowns, then deal with the specific ministers. On the one I'm responsible for, you can ask me questions.

C. Serwa: Thank you very much, although again the response is devoid of any real information. I'm glad that the minister brought up ICBC, because it's a case that exemplifies what we're discussing here tonight. Yes, there were rate increases in ICBC, and what happened? Blame the Socreds. It had been poorly managed. But, lo and behold, they looked and it had turned a dividend. It's non-profit, it should balance, and it turned a dividend in the previous year. It turned a much greater dividend the year before. The fact is that it was healthy.

Why the rate increases? The next thing that they did was blame the drivers for the high frequency and the courts for the high settlements. That kind of wore thin. Then they blamed the federal government. Then the real reason came out -- or a major portion of the reason: the investment income had been reduced dramatically because of the drop in interest rates. Then in the throne speech we heard the final answer: "Crown corporations have to pay." It's just another form of indirect taxation that affects every person in the province.

L. Stephens: I would like to go back a little bit to the job protection commissioner and the list of loans that you were kind enough to give to this House. I have another question on that and it is: would you be able to tell us what securities you've been able to acquire for those loans, if there are any? Or perhaps we should ask the Minister of Finance when his turn comes.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The rule we're holding to is that we take as much security as we can.

K. Jones: Mr. Minister, I'd like to ask you a question regarding the Transportation Museum in Cloverdale. I understand that comes under the Pavilion Corporation as far as operations are concerned. I'm looking for a solution....

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order. The closure of the Transportation Museum was announced in the budget; it's not part of this discussion. If he does want to deal with it, it was announced in the budget, and he can deal with it under my domain, because the decision was made as part of a budget announcement.

K. Jones: The Transportation Museum is an operating entity today and has been throughout this fiscal year. It is accountable within this bill. The Finance minister is totally wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. He wants to interfere with the process of this government.

L. Stephens: I just have a couple more questions for the minister. How many employees did the ministry have on November 5th? How many employees does the ministry employ today? Can the minister supply information on how many employees are on contract to the ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Your last question on contractors is on the order paper, and we're compiling answers there. The other two questions -- we'll find it in a minute. You had a query on the Transportation Museum. While we're getting information, I'll give you the basic answer. In previous years, it lost as much as $1.4 million a year. The Pavilion Corporation tried, through their business plan and marketing ventures, to put it on a more businesslike footing so that it wouldn't be losing money. But the museum draws roughly 25,000 visitors a year and is losing $500,000 a year. In order to cut waste, we decided we would close that museum down. As a matter of fact, we have been approached by the mayor of Surrey. He has some ideas about what he thinks should be done with it. So we suggested that, at no cost to the government, we'll talk. The idea is always to preserve the value of assets, but we can't go on losing money, and we've made a tough decision that we would cut our losses on it. The Pavilion Corporation is actively working with the Minister of Culture. The Pavilion Corporation houses the collection. The Ministry of Culture owns the collection. So between those two agencies, we're working on an orderly closure and relocation of those cars, trucks and whatever else is in there.

The base allocation of full-time equivalents for the ministry for 1991-92 was 651. The number in employment as of November 5 was 640, and it's still 640. So we didn't increase. Just for your information, we're bringing that down by about 11 for next year.

[8:15]

K. Jones: In response to that information that I hadn't asked for but got anyway, I'd like to complete my question and then carry on with some further questions with regard to the Transportation Museum. I would like to have your commitment that we may have the books on the Transportation Museum. We'd like to have details from you. First of all, what were the total salaries and wages for 1991?

[ Page 347 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't have that with us. I could only give you a ballpark figure, but we'd be happy to provide that to you.

K. Jones: Could you bring that into this session? I think it's very important. It's very important to the people of Cloverdale and to the question of the propriety of the operations of the Pavilion Corporation. The number of staff that I'm being told are actually working there, versus the number of dollars allocated to that, don't exactly jibe.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Once the financial statements are audited, we will provide that information. The reports of the corporation will then be available. If you have specific questions, I'm happy to take them, and if you think there's some impropriety, of course we'll investigate that. The general problem with the collection was that despite marketing attempts, it appeared unable to be economic in that area.

K. Jones: I have information that would tend to make one believe that perhaps the decision on economics is not correctly based. Do you have an audited financial statement for the year up to March 31, 1991?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You're asking me to be accountable for things when I was not a minister. The annual report is in the public domain, and we'd be happy to provide you with the latest one available.

L. Stephens: Mr. Minister, do you have a figure for the employees on contract to the ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I don't have those figures with me. It's on the order paper and will be provided in detail.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask both the ministers sitting at the table the same question; either one can answer first. I think the Minister of Small Business said that five or six loans were given out recently, or within the last six months, under the job protection branch of your ministry. Would the minister tell this House what he sees as the difference between giving grants and loans -- unsecured, apparently, because he couldn't tell me what the security was -- to secure jobs, which this government does, and what the last government used to do in giving it to business? What's the philosophical difference?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's a wide open question. First of all, we're not doing grants. They're loans. The Job Protection Act provides that upon the recommendation of the job protection commissioner, and only upon his recommendation, the government can provide a loan or loan guarantee or some financial arrangement. That was legislation brought in by the previous government -- the hon. member for Peace River South opposite -- which we supported, as you know. We would have liked to have seen some amendments in it to encompass some of the things we are doing this year.

We feel that the arm's-length distance of that job protection commissioner gives some assurance to us that he is somewhat removed from political interference in the determination of loans. He recommends. We have confidence that by being in the business community and trying to get deals from all parties, he comes in with good advice.

The approach to giving loans.... I think there's evidence of it. We will attempt to ensure that if the government shares in the downside by financing, taking some risks -- some secured, some unsecured -- we want and insist that the government participate in the upside, so when business turns around, we regain the money that's lost. If there is a difference in emphasis, we are pushing that, so the public gets a good deal for the risk it has taken. We're prepared to admit that there are risks, or we wouldn't be making some of these loans, but we attempt to secure them as well as possible. The financial administration branch insists on a tough deal. That's the Minister of Finance. We get the best deal possible through negotiation and decide on whether the risk is acceptable.

I would like to emphasize that it's really critical that the public share in the upside when things do turn around, and that's got to be built into the restructuring. If a restructuring that's not acceptable is brought to us as one of the parties and we think there can be better terms, we send the job protection commissioner back to cut a better deal.

Hon. G. Clark: The minister handled it superbly. Frankly, the difference is.... The biggest problem in our loan portfolio was with the ad hoc loans that were politically directed over the objections of staff. What we have now is the job protection commissioner making a deal where all parties share in the reduction. There's usually a wage deferral or cut that all the creditors usually share. There are Crowns, and the government comes to the table. We also negotiate so that there's some upside benefit for us. Only on the advice of the job protection commissioner have we given any loans, and my ministry reviews them with much tougher standards than before. We try to secure as much as we can on them. At no point have cabinet or ministers overturned the decision of the job protection commissioner or given money out in excess of what was requested.

The real problems by and large have been in major loans or grants given by the previous government which really had no foundation. There's quite a substantial difference.

C. Tanner: I would like to congratulate both ministers on that philosophy. It is about time the public in this province enjoyed the fruits of good decisions as well as suffered from the faults of bad decisions.

I appreciate what the minister said, except you didn't quite tell me what you felt the difference was between what you're doing and what the other government felt they were doing, other than the political influence. They tried to make business loans to, I assume, promote jobs, and they obviously weren't as good at it as you claim to be so far. These ministers well know that come a year hence, we'll be looking to see 

[ Page 348 ]

how well they've done. Could the minister tell me, other than the political influence, what the philosophical difference between the last government and their government is?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've answered that. When we get into the full estimates we can delve into more of that. We've put on record what we have here. We have not rushed into revising all the programs that were there. We are going through very careful analysis of programs that we haven't renewed, and we will take the time necessary to come up with a re-establishment of criteria and so on.

We're straying a lot from the estimates, so I'd like to concentrate on them in the time left for us. We're almost running our time here if we're going to get through tonight.

K. Jones: Mr. Minister, would you commit to providing access to the books to us members -- from March 31, 1991, to the current time -- so that we may know the status of the Transportation Museum and so that there may be a possibility for a non-profit operation to continue that facility in the future?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said before, I'm prepared to commit to providing you the audited statements. If the member is suggesting that there is some impropriety, then I suggest that you disclose what you know, and we will investigate it and be accountable for it. Come and see us. We're not going to open up and give you the books; we're going to provide you with audited statements. But if you provide us with information that there's an impropriety, of course....

L. Fox: So much for open government.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We've said that there's commercial confidentiality, and I did say "audited statements." That doesn't mean opening the books to every fool who might want to delve into them. I think there's a maximum....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I didn't suggest that any hon. member was a fool -- far be it from me to do that. Nor would I suggest that anybody's a stump-rancher. I wouldn't do that, as some members would. Let me just say that we will provide to you whatever information is necessary to get to the bottom of any suggested impropriety, but I want you to be careful. Come and see us, and we'll deal with your concerns.

K. Jones: I appreciate that offer, and I will take you up on it. I would also like to ask the minister if he is aware that a business plan prepared by Coopers and Lybrand was drawn up for the Historic Transportation Society of B.C. -- that's the board that operates the transpo museum. Was that in the hands of the ministry or the Pavilion Corporation? And why was that not considered prior to the decision to cut the museum, since the business plan showed an economic means by which to make the museum very much more viable, with a very good multi-year plan?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That report was known by the Pavilion Corporation management, and I think the closure is a budget item. When we debate the estimates, we will get into the decision of closure and debate it then. That's a future action.

K. Jones: How much money was spent on advertising related specifically to the transportation museum during your time as minister?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We'll have to take that on notice. We don't have that detailed breakdown.

K. Jones: In order for us to facilitate under the very pressing situation that exists in Cloverdale, with the announcement of the removal of the museum, it's very important that you give that information to us at the very earliest time. Tonight or first thing tomorrow morning would be most advantageous, so that we can take some of the fears from people and assure those who have been booking the facility and who have helped to make it economically viable -- people who have booked weddings and other social events that raise money in the community to support the facility and lessen the cost to government -- that they will be able to have their event carry through instead of having a cancellation. Will you be prepared to give us that information tonight or tomorrow?

[8:30]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm not sure exactly what information you want. I said that we'd be happy to share the audited statements with you. If you haven't spoken to the Crown corporation management, I think that you should.

But as for a commitment that we are going to keep it open so that an independent society can try to raise the shortfall of $500,000 a year, I can't and won't give you that commitment. The decision has been made that we will not provide operating subsidies for that. The decision was based on the assessment by the management of the Pavilion Corporation that there was not a business plan available that gave them the comfort necessary. We decided that we would not take the risk and have the public pick up continuing deficits.

K. Jones: Mr. Minister, could you give us an idea of what advertising was done to promote this museum in the past year?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The only time there was an advertising program -- and it really was a scam, as you know -- was when some people threatened to paint John Lennon's Rolls Royce. That created such a rush that it was a somewhat successful marketing venture. But that kind of scam just can't be relied on. I'd be happy to try and find the figure of how much was spent on advertising and provide it to you.

[ Page 349 ]

D. Mitchell: I just have a quick question for the minister, and it relates to the business information centre program administered by his ministry during the period covered by the special warrants that we're approving here this evening -- hopefully -- in Bill 16, in the schedules attached to that bill. The business information centre program is an important program. I think the government supports it, in the sense that it was mentioned in the throne speech that the government is highly supportive.

I'm curious, though, about the axing of the B.C. Business Network system during the period covered by the special warrants here. The reason I'm interested in this is: if your ministry and your government is supportive of the business information centre program, why would you, during this period under review, under these special warrants, axe one of the main resources for the business information centre program, one of the main tools used by local chambers of commerce, local business information centres, in terms of building up these centres?

The example that I might offer is in my own constituency. The Squamish-Howe Sound chamber of commerce has experienced phenomenal growth in the last few years -- in fact, 112 percent growth. They attribute that growth specifically to this B.C. Business Network system that has now been axed -- a system that is now used as a model in other provinces. In Alberta and Ontario they're using this as the prototype for their own programs. You say you're supportive of the business information centres. Yet you've taken away one of the major tools for business information centres in small towns. Mr. Minister, could you just comment on how you can justify axing that program, that tool for small towns?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We didn't axe the B.C. Business Network. That's part of the Trade Corporation. The Trade Corporation did, and that's part of the Premier's estimates. So you discuss that part with the Premier. The business information centres, though, were not axed. I'd just like to say that there are currently 87 of those operating through the province. Eight-five are run in cooperation with chambers of commerce, and the remaining two are operated in Victoria and Vancouver by the province.

Currently the business information centres handle approximately 80,000 business inquiries, and the Vancouver business information centre handles another 50,000. So that's the volume. We are committed to the program and will try and find ways of making this service available generally at an improved level -- if we can do that.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the answer by the minister. Just to confirm that I'm interpreting correctly what you said.... You're supportive of the business information centres. They've done an increasing volume of business. One of their prime tools or resources, though, has been taken away by your colleague the Premier, and you would like me to ask the Premier why he's done that when he appears before this committee later this day. Is that what you're saying -- that you have no responsibility for this in your ministry, and that the Premier has taken away the main tool of these centres that you support so strongly? Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Partially, yes. I'd like to say that we are in the process of exploring other ways of providing that database information. It was an extremely expensive program. We inherited it. We couldn't justify the continuation of it, and therefore it was cut back. If you want to get into that, I'm just suggesting that the appropriate place is to get into a debate with the Premier. But as far as revitalizing and maintaining that service is concerned, we will do everything we can to ensure that a database is available for those business information centres.

W. Hurd: I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development regarding the role of his ministry in the softwood lumber case, in particular the travel allowances and budgets. Were any funds from his ministry allocated to this effort during the period of special warrants in his ministry?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm trying to find the exact amount. We'll provide that, but yes, we have expended considerable moneys. We contracted lawyers in Washington, we have a number of people doing what you might call lobbying preparation work for us and legal and consulting work in the state of Oregon, and we contribute to the effort in Washington. Since we've come in we've spent $1.668 million. A lot of that is on lawyers' fees in Washington. We have to provide...

D. Mitchell: Shame!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have no choice. ...detailed information. The process is that the lawyers will get a request for information, it's shipped back here, and they tell us what we legally have to provide under the commerce rules. We're trying to build a case. It comes back here for information, and even over Christmas our people were working, putting together volumes of information to build the best possible case.

If you really want to debate what we're doing in softwood lumber we can sure get into that, but I would suggest that the lead in this is the Minister of Forests. We share the responsibility. We could discuss some of that there. I'm happy to answer on whatever we spend. I've given you the figures, and we stand by them and feel that it was necessary. In some ways I wish we had more resources that we could put into it. I think there is some effect being shown for our lobbying efforts. We are getting letters and editorials and are influencing public opinion. I think this concerted effort has a chance of succeeding, but it would be from having given it a pretty good shot.

C. Tanner: This question is for later on when, sometime in the future, my critic's role comes into play in Tourism. You mentioned some trips that were made, but you didn't mention the one made by the Minister of Tourism to Los Angeles within the last month, and I 

[ Page 350 ]

think the trip was for about six days. The reason I'm asking you, since you mentioned the others, is that I assume it came out of your department. If it did, could you give me the figures so that I might question the Minister of Tourism when it's her turn.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Sorry, simply an oversight. We are happy to take it on notice and give you all the details. I confirm the Minister of Tourism did make a trip dealing in large part with the film industry, which is one of the areas that we have identified as a growth area in our strategic plan. We feel that B.C. is an excellent location for film. The money is easily justified. We'd be happy to provide any details.

I will confirm that all the international travel comes under my ministry, and we have a target budget, which is something we manage very carefully. You'll find when we get into the estimates that we've reduced the amount, generally.

C. Tanner: The reason I'm asking the question is that I want to ask the Minister of Tourism for some results, and to ask for results I need to know the figures. Is there any possibility you could have them for me sometime before.... It might be today; it might be tomorrow; it might be a week from hence when I get to talk to the Minister of Tourism. Will you have those figures for me by then?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't guarantee that, and I'll tell you why.

Hon. G. Clark: It's because we haven't got the bills in yet.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In some cases hotel bills or car expenses will be billed directly, so they're still in the accounts. I'm sure that she'll try and give you as much information as possible. The problem is that if it's an unaudited amount, you're giving an approximate one, and if it happens to be $500 over or something, then you come back. We're very careful about the figures we give out here. If we can give precise answers, we will. If we can't, we won't.

C. Tanner: I'm prepared to accept on behalf of this side of the House a rounded figure -- if you or the Minister of Tourism could give us something like that so that we can make the judgment as to the value of her trip.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We can't round it, because all we'd do is give you a budget. We'd give you a budget figure probably, but it hasn't come through the account system. I can't undertake to give it, but we will do what we can.

D. Jarvis: You were asked a question a short while ago, and you were unable to answer it, and the Minister of Finance answered it for you. It's with regard to loans, and you brought up Cassiar. I was wondering if it was in order for me to ask you some questions about Cassiar -- the financing and the loans. Is it in order?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's not in my vote so I suggest you ask the Minister of Finance. We have disclosed quite a bit of information on Cassiar.

The Chair: The next ministry is Education -- and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights.

J. Dalton: I would almost be tempted to say at this point that it's been a real education. I, of course, wouldn't say that.

Before I direct any particular questions to the hon. minister, I would like to congratulate her on her appointment, not only as the Minister of Education but also as the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and Human Rights, and also as the Deputy Premier. You carry a lot of responsibilities, hon. minister, but I know with your background and your experience, particularly in the education field, that you will do great credit to the ministry.

However, I would introduce a note of caution as well. If the number of calls that I've been told have come into my constituency office this week because of budget shortfalls in certain school districts is any indication of things to come, then I think we're all in for some very difficult times, in particular for the school year of '92-93.

[8:45]

I can assure you, hon. minister, that I will do whatever I can to support you in the cause of supporting education. It's certainly one that I personally have a great deal of interest in, given that I have three children in the school system -- and professionally as well. I've been an educator for many years. So I do appreciate the fact that you've been appointed to this ministry, and I know that through a collective effort we can hopefully address these problems, in particular the financial ones, and set things in order.

I have, first, some general questions that I would like to put to you, and then we can get down to some specifics on the votes in your ministry and the interim supply bill we're facing. Can the minister tell this committee how much money has been spent in the ministry prior to her being sworn into office on November 5?

Hon. A. Hagen: Just before I respond to the question from the hon. member, may I perhaps just make a couple of comments, too? First of all, I thank the hon. member for his kind words and to say that I look forward to having a person across the floor from the official opposition who has a strong commitment to education and to a cooperative approach to doing the best for our children in British Columbia. And that, I know, is especially true when someone has children within the school system. I look forward to our debates both within this House and in other domains as well.

I would like also to introduce the acting deputy minister, who is with me this evening, Valerie Mitchell, who will be assisting me in our debate this evening.

Now to turn to the question, the member needs to be advised that the estimates of this ministry were fully canvassed and passed by this Legislature prior to its 

[ Page 351 ]

adjournment, and therefore the matter he has just raised is not a subject for our discussion tonight. There are special warrants that have been passed in relation to this ministry, and I would be happy to address any questions that the member may wish to pose in relation to those.

J. Dalton: Actually, all I was looking for was a point of information as a starting point for our questions and discussion this evening, but that is fine.

The next question is this: can the minister tell the committee how much her ministry has spent during the past five and a half months since she took office as the minister?

Hon. A. Hagen: That matter is not a part of the schedule that we're discussing. The estimates of this ministry were fully canvassed in the last sitting of this House before the election, and they were passed by the members of the assembly at that time. So those matters are not before us; we are dealing with the special warrants that relate to the events in this ministry since the government took office, as the member has noted, on November 5, 1991.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would just remind you to refer your questions to the special warrants.

J. Dalton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am getting to those. Just one more general question for the hon. minister, dealing with the responsibilities within her ministry. Have those responsibilities been significantly changed since she was sworn into office? That is to give us a comparison between the ministry prior to her taking office and the ministry she now heads up -- in particular, I might add, with regard to the responsibilities in not only education but also multiculturalism and human rights.

Hon. A. Hagen: Indeed, the hon. member is correct. This ministry is now not only responsible for education, but also for multiculturalism, human rights and immigration policy and business immigration. So those particular responsibilities have been transferred to this ministry with the reorganization of government that took place with the swearing-in of the New Democrat government on November 5.

J. Dalton: Thank you for that response, hon. minister. I now turn to the various votes within your ministry for '91-92 -- vote 21. Can the minister tell the committee what change in operations has taken place in her office since she has been sworn into office?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the member that these are not matters before us in the current schedules; we're dealing only with special warrants. Those matters were in fact passed by this Legislature prior to the last election.

J. Dalton: I will now turn in particular to the schedules set out in the supply bill, and there are three warrants dealing with education and the other ministerial responsibilities of the hon. minister. Warrant No. 4, November 13, 1991, was for a total of $903,000 designated for the Education ministry. Could the minister please tell the committee what sections of her ministry were the recipients of the special warrant of November 13, 1991?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm happy to advise the member that the two elements of that warrant are for immigration policy and programs, and for the British Columbia Council of Human Rights. Both of those were as a result of the transfer of those responsibilities to my ministry.

J. Dalton: I take it from that answer that there were no direct expenses as far as education funding is concerned, so I will move on to my next question, also based on the same special warrant of November 13. Could the minister please tell the committee how much each of the aforementioned recipient ministerial areas received -- that is, the breakdown within the ministry itself?

Hon. A. Hagen: The immigration policy and programs division received $563,000, and the British Columbia Council of Human Rights, a total of $340,000. I would note, as the member may know, that those warrants were to January 14 and were for a part of the remaining months of the fiscal year.

J. Dalton: One final question on that first estimate of November 13. Could the minister tell the committee if any of this money went to providing additional staff members? If so, can she designate why that was so?

Hon. A. Hagen: The answer to the question is no. There were no additional staff members on those expenditures.

J. Dalton: I now turn to the next special warrant, January 8, 1992. The line amount designated for the education ministry was $939,000. Can the minister please tell this committee what amount of money was placed towards ministry operations in this special warrant of January 8 -- that is, the allotment of $939,000?

Hon. A. Hagen: None for ministry operations. These special warrants also relate to the two program areas to which we've been referring: immigration policy and programs and the British Columbia Council of Human Rights.

J. Dalton: I have another question related to the same special warrant of January 8, 1992. Could the minister please tell the committee which of the designations within the ministry operations received additional funding as a result of this spending warrant?

Hon. A. Hagen: Perhaps I can assist the member by providing him with the breakdown of the figure $939,000: $600,000 of that was for immigration policy and programs; $339,000 was for the British Columbia 

[ Page 352 ]

Council of Human Rights to the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1992.

G. Wilson: A question to the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. I recently attended a dinner sponsored by a local group in Vancouver, which the Premier attended and at which he announced, I believe, a $10 million grant or donation to matters of multicultural settlement. Could you elaborate a little bit on where this money is coming from and how that can be accounted for in this program?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm happy to advise the member that there has indeed been money -- nothing close to $10 million, although I'm sure that the immigrant settlement agencies that received some funding would have been happy with such a sum. The Premier and I announced an immigrant settlement program in mid-January for a total sum of $1.5 million, which has been disbursed to a wide range of agencies and services throughout the province in the last month.

G. Wilson: Further to the minister, with respect to that $1.5 million, then -- which is, indeed, demonstrated here in terms of a special warrant through Education -- could the minister tell this House how much of that has actually gone into the provision of assistance for immigrants with respect to special training programs, education, English as a second language or any kind of social integration programs? And if the minister could tell us where that money has been allocated with respect to the various communities in British Columbia, has it been focused and concentrated solely in urban Vancouver, or has that also been provided to rural communities?

Hon. A. Hagen: This program was intended to support the settlement of our immigrant population in ways that are not supported by other programs, such as English-as-a-second-language programs within the ministry. The process by which we arrived at the priorities for the program involved an extensive consultation prior to setting up the program. That consultation was with the immigrant-serving agencies through some of the umbrella organizations and through individual agencies. That was carried out by the immigration policy branch. The decision was made to target the funding specifically to the needs of youth at risk, the needs of families and counselling for families and women. There were huge gaps there, and those were identified by the immigrant-serving agencies.

The Leader of the Opposition is posing a good question in terms of the distribution of those grants. They are grants that have been made right across the province -- in the Okanagan, the interior, the Island, the north, as well as in the lower mainland and, in a broad sense, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, where we have a very large number of our new citizens making their homes and making their livings. I can certainly provide the member by letter, if he wishes, with a list of those organizations that have received grants.

G. Wilson: I welcome that information from the minister. I think it's very encouraging that we're committing some dollars to assist new immigrants to the province of British Columbia.

With respect to this $1.5 million, is it possible to discern how much of that, if any, might be available to immigrant families in the province, who may be dealing with matters such as child custody problems in terms of bringing over family members? Or are there any provisions in that respect? I ask this question because immigration primarily is a federal matter, as we know, and is generally considered a part of a federal program. Yet there are many members of our community who require that assistance, and I wonder if any dollars have been committed in the last year to provide that kind of assistance.

[9:00]

Hon. A. Hagen: The policies relating to immigration are shared responsibilities, and this government is interested in developing the policies and the working relationships with the federal government in this respect. Specifically to the question that you ask, none of the $1.5 million allocated for immigrant settlement programs is related to social service matters or to matters that are a part of the federal jurisdiction in terms of the selection of immigrants. What we looked to here were programs that were complementary to federal programs and part of our shared discussions about how we can most effectively use dollars and programs for the settlement and support of people coming to Canada and making this place their home.

G. Wilson: I now turn my attention to another matter. I recognize and respect the fact that the minister takes the position that the budget with respect to the Education ministry was preapproved by this Legislature prior to the last election. However, an extraordinary event occurred since the election, and that was the repeal of Bill 82. Even though the legislation has not yet been repealed, certainly the fair wage commissioner has been relieved. There have obviously been commitments made that have to be rectified with respect to the provisions under Bill 82. They have a financial implication for the Ministry of Education. I wonder if the minister could explain to us precisely how that commitment has been honoured. In the estimates that are before us now, where are any of the financial commitments that may have been made on behalf of teachers with respect to Bill 82?

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, the piece of legislation to which he refers is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Secondly, as far as the estimates that were approved in this House in 1991-92 are concerned, there were no effects pertaining to my ministry.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister for that information. That is useful information for us. British Columbians generally will be interested to learn that the Ministry of Education is primarily responsible for the financing of schools, but the Minister of Finance is 

[ Page 353 ]

going to have the purse-strings on teachers' retroactive pay with Bill 82.

I realize that we cannot debate the dollars that were committed and preapproved. But in terms of the provision of educational dollars in that year, could the minister tell us whether or not the committed amounts that were put forward to her satisfaction in the trusteeship of the school districts and boards are an issue that we in this House ought to be taking some concern over? The decisions taken by government on Bill 82 have financial implications that will clearly have been made in the last fiscal year but are going to have to be carried forward to the next fiscal year. I wonder if the minister has an opinion on that.

Hon. A. Hagen: What we're talking about is a continuum, and I'll be looking forward to the debate on the estimates of my ministry when we can canvass these matters fully.

G. Wilson: I thank the minister, and I'll accept that we will deal with that in the estimates.

I have only one further question for the minister, and then I'll leave it to others who may have some questions with respect to past dollars. It comes back again to the special warrant on immigrant settlement. There are a number of initiatives that have been put forward, and one of them that we certainly support with respect to the multicultural component is on health care for new immigrants. I wonder if any of that settlement money provided assistance for immigrant people who had ailments that required immediate medical attention?

Hon. A. Hagen: An unqualified no. These grants had a particular focus that was determined in consultation with the immigrant-serving agencies. They are fundamentally to provide family, youth, women and agency support to assist families in integration. Youth-at-risk programs help peer learning. There are programs to assist agencies in developing their programs. We have not overlapped into the jurisdictions of other ministries, such as the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Services. We would all recognize that ways in which we can blend and cooperate in our program development would be advantageous, and we certainly will be looking to that as we plan for the future. I'm sure the hon. members opposite would welcome that initiative to find the most effective way to deliver services to the people who are new to Canada and settling here.

J. Dalton: There's one last special warrant question that is certainly eye-catching, because of the amount in comparison to the other two: warrant No. 11, February 28, 1992, for the total of $3,510,000. To the hon. minister: can you tell the committee the breakdown between the extra funding for independent schools and the breakdown for immigration settlement programs?

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes. The $1.5 million that we have been discussing in the last few minutes relating to immigrant settlement programs is in that amount. In fact, the exact amount is $1.525 million for that program, and the remaining amount, $1,985,000, is additional funds to various independent schools. This is related to increases in enrolment, which are funded by a statutory requirement based on, as they say, the number of running shoes that have come through the door for schools that qualify for those funds.

J. Dalton: I thank the minister for that forthright response. Let's deal now with the supplement to vote 24 regarding independent schools. Can the minister tell the committee why there was such a need for an increased allotment to the independent schools and what happened to the projections for student enrolment for the year?

Hon. A. Hagen: As the hon. member may know, adjustments for both public and independent schools are based on enrolment throughout the year, and I am able to advise the member that over the course of last year there was an increase in the anticipated enrolment in independent schools. As I understand it, the figure used in setting the estimates was 5 percent, which had been the figure of the previous couple of years. The actual increases -- and they cover two budget years, because of our March 31 fiscal year -- were 7.9 percent in the fiscal year 1991, and 6.3 percent in 1991-92. So it's the increase over those two fiscal years that has produced the addition to the vote that the member referred to.

J. Dalton: One further question on that same special warrant of February 28. Was there any requirement within the ministry for additional staffing? Did those funds go at all to extra salaries or staffing?

Hon. A. Hagen: The answer is no.

V. Anderson: One thing is to congratulate both of you on your positions. I'm not envying you the decisions you'll have to struggle with in the next year or so.

I was just curious when I saw the listing as multiculturalism and human rights, with immigration not listed. Is there a particular reason, or is that just the way it happened to get printed?

Hon. A. Hagen: I think there wasn't room on the brass plate on the door. I don't know that I have a good and rational reason that the title doesn't include all of the responsibilities, but I know that certainly in our working relationships with the community the responsibilities of the ministry are well known.

If I might, Mr. Chairman, I gave a not totally accurate answer to the previous question on FTEs, for the last warrant, and any increase in staff. There was an increase of one-quarter of a full-time-equivalent, which was related to the processing of work associated with the immigrant settlement program. I want to take this opportunity to commend the staff of my ministry, who have received plaudits from the immigrant settlement community for the manner in which the applications were distributed and processed, the consultations that were available and the timely way in which they made 

[ Page 354 ]

those announcements. They did a fine job and deserve to be commended for their work in this particular project.

V. Anderson: If I understand rightly, these three ministries have been added to your ministry and that's why we're dealing with these warrants.

Having to do first of all with multiculturalism, could you share with me what is the program within the education aspect in the school system to which some of this money might have gone in developing multicultural programming and support systems, such as multicultural teachers or workers, whatever it might be, within the school system itself.

Hon. A. Hagen: I look forward to having that discussion with the member for Vancouver-Langara, who I know is the spokesperson for the official opposition in that matter. But the multicultural programs are not a part of the special warrants; they come out of another program, so they are not a part of our discussion here tonight.

V. Anderson: So human rights and immigration were the two covered by the special warrants. Could you help us to understand at this point how many staff are on the Council of Human Rights and who the staff of that council are; and do they operate independently of your ministry or are they operating within the ministry? I know they have a semi-judicial function, so I was wondering how many there are and how they operate in relationship to the ministry.

[9:15]

Hon. A. Hagen: First of all, I want to thank the member for an excellent question. The B.C. Council of Human Rights is indeed a quasi-judicial body which rules on complaints under the Human Rights Act of this Legislature. So there is an arm's-length relationship between my ministry and that council, since it deals with the matters that come before it in full right as a quasi-judicial body.

I think the member also asked the question about the number of FTEs. To the best of my knowledge, there are 20 FTEs, and the council consists, I believe, of five people. I'm just checking my recollection of that number, and I'm quite sure that it is five appointed people who serve on that council.

V. Anderson: Could you share with us how those people are selected for the B.C. Council of Human Rights? Are they chosen through the ministry? Are they nominated? Are they representatives? Just what is the makeup of that council, being semi-judicial?

Hon. A. Hagen: These members of the human rights council are appointed by order-in-council for a term.

V. Anderson: If it's appropriate to ask, when people come before the B.C. Council of Human Rights and they have a decision.... Naturally, if they agree with the decision they have no problem. But is there an opportunity to appeal a decision of the council? Who would they appeal that decision to, and how?

Hon. A. Hagen: As with all bodies, there is other recourse for people in respect to decisions, but it is my understanding that the decisions of the council are final decisions. People may then choose another avenue if they so desire, through due process -- that's available to all citizens.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's promptness in response.

Regarding the immigration part of the responsibilities of your portfolio, could you share with us the number of people who work on that as far as staff goes? What is the relationship between the provincial immigration concerns and the federal, and is there a formal link or connection that your department works through with federal immigration?

Hon. A. Hagen: The total staff component for the immigration policy division is 23.

The working relationship between the federal and provincial governments is a cooperative one. This province has not sought or established much in the way of formal policy and working relationships with the federal government. One of the initiatives that we have taken is to work much more vigorously toward those formal relationships. The immigrant settlement program will assist us with that because we were one of the only provinces in Canada that contributed nothing in the way of formal programs to assist settlement. We are now looking at ways in which the federal and provincial governments may cooperate more fully around a whole range of the needs of people who are settlers in our land, not only for the first year, which is the area for the federal government to have primary responsibility, but for the ongoing needs of people, families, workers, children. We all know that those ongoing needs exist. Through good policy and good working relationships we may work to make certain there are programs in place that are useful and suitable right across the province.

V. Anderson: With regard to the grants that were given that we discussed earlier -- the $1.5 million to communities for the aid of persons in their resettlement in Canada -- I want to commend the government for that approach and that undertaking.

I would also like to share a little comment that has come back to me in regard to that. As I understand, most of the men turned out to be -- for lack of a better word -- unilingual groups. It was helping people within different language or cultural groups to help each other become acclimatized and settle within the community. Having worked in the area, I know that's very important. We must start there. But there's also the other multicultural.... The question that was raised with me was whether we have been making a distinction between the unilingual and the multicultural, and realize there are two different approaches that are complementary to each other -- one is not better than the other -- and whether that complementary approach 

[ Page 355 ]

of aiding the unilingual groups as well as the multicultural interaction groups is part of the process that's working through the ministry of immigration and multiculturalism, because they would both be involved in that.

Hon. A. Hagen: That's a good point in terms of the interrelationship between the groups. I want to assure you that when we get to my estimates, we'll be able to discuss more fully both parts of the program.

But certainly, as I look down the list of organizations that have received support under this new immigrant settlement program, they are certainly anything but unilingual organizations. There are some that are unilingual and that deal with particular ethnic or national groups, but there are many, too, that relate across cultural, ethnic and national groups. I'm not sure that we can always make wonderfully neat distinctions.

I want to just go back to the priorities that we emphasized in consultation with those groups, so that we can indeed target our funding where people who work in immigrant-serving societies believe we can do the most good at this time. I want to note, as we get into estimates, that that program is ongoing, and we'll have an opportunity to canvass it again shortly.

V. Anderson: I noticed in the 1991-92 estimates that grants and contributions were listed under the Council of Human Rights. Presumably some of the funds have gone to administration, overhead, operating costs and salaries. But could you give us some idea of what the grants and contributions might be that go through the B.C. Council of Human Rights?

Hon. A. Hagen: The work of human rights is not only to deal with instances where peoples' rights have perhaps been violated, but for all of us to learn to live in tolerance and harmony within our province. The grants and contributions part of that budget would be for information materials and programs for the public and for contributions to legal representation for human rights proceedings under the Human Rights Act. Fundamentally we're looking here at education and information to people, to have them understand more broadly the principles of human rights and the laws that apply to protect people in the workplace, in their homes and in various areas. That's a part of that branch's work.

V. Anderson: In response to whether I understood partly what you just shared with us, did you share the thought that there is some money through those grants available to people who are approaching the Council of Human Rights to aid them with the cost of having their cases heard?

Hon. A. Hagen: The matter to which the member refers would be in education programs that are under the B.C. Council of Human Rights, which they plan and organize in their pursuit of broadening the understanding of human rights' issues in the province.

V. Anderson: I noticed in the statement here, under immigration policy and programs, that it lists some $50,000 in recoveries. I wondered what they might be and what the recoveries might be from.

Hon. A. Hagen: Under some of the work of the immigration branch there are user fees, so that is the item that the member refers to.

W. Hurd: Has any provision been made by special warrant for any increases in the debt-servicing costs of school district budgets for the special-warrant period?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'm not sure whether the member for Surrey-White Rock was here when I went through the various elements of the special warrants. The answer to the question is no.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, it's a pleasure to debate education with you. I had the privilege of debating very closely with you during the election, and I know we share a lot of common ground on these issues. My question -- and again, if this was already covered I'll certainly proceed to my next point -- is on public nursing and public health within our schools. Is that an item that was funded under special warrant?

Hon. A. Hagen: No.

L. Reid: Is that something that will be flowing from special warrant in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Hagen: Mr. Chairman, given the length of our agenda, let me just repeat again that the matters covered by special warrant are the transfer of the new responsibilities to my ministry: multiculturalism, immigration and human rights, an immigrant settlement program, and additional funding to the independent schools under vote 23 of last year's estimates because of increased enrolment. Those are the only matters in the schedules that we're dealing with tonight, Madam Member.

L. Reid: Under immigrant settlement services, hon. minister, is there any provision in terms of English-as-a-second-language education?

[9:30]

Hon. A. Hagen: Not in a formal way in the sense of teaching, but there are some volunteer classes that have been funded under the ICA. There is one program that serves for volunteer programs for ESL, another that provides some ESL instruction for refugee claimants, and a program in Kamloops that provides English as a second language targeted to women, who were one of the priority groups that we were identifying. I'll see if there are any others that we can identify for you among the wide range of programs that various organizations have provided. There is an evening ESL class targeted to women. So the answer is yes. But again, those programs are targeted to the groups requiring support that we singled out in consultation with the agencies. And I think you would recognize, Madam Member, the 

[ Page 356 ]

importance of women who often do not have opportunities to learn their second language. This was a good choice on the part of those organizations, and good programs have been developed.

L. Reid: Hon. minister, the point is extremely well taken. Were these programs offered in public schools in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Hagen: These are programs offered by voluntary agencies, non-profit societies, as community programs for the province. I have said frequently that these programs complement the needs and programs in the public schools, and our goal is to make them all the more complementary because that blending of programs to serve people rather than them being isolated one from the other is something that we know we need to work on. The integration is an important part of our longer-term planning.

L. Reid: My interest in the question was simply to be reassured that our buildings are in fact being used beyond the regular school day with those kinds of programs.

I'd like to touch briefly on one item for clarification. In terms of the hot lunch program that went forward, is that something that was definitely 1991-92 fiscal year and has no impact at all on any special-spending warrant?

Hon. A. Hagen: The member is correct.

J. Dalton: I return to one of the things that we can deal with, and that is special warrant 11 dealing with the independent school supplement. Can the minister give us a breakdown of the groups -- one, two and three -- designating independent schools? What amounts were supplied to each of those groups?

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, I can do that. The breakdown is in two fiscal years. I can't add fast enough to put them together, so I'm just going to give the member the figures. For fiscal year 1990-91, group one -- and I'm going to round the figures rather than give you every last penny -- $28,300; group two, $5,616.... I'm sorry. I'm dealing here with enrolment, not increases in funding. I am not able to break those down with the information I have here at the present time. We would, however, be able to get that information for you, but I'm not able to provide it with the information I have available right now.

J. Dalton: If I might be permitted, I would like to ask something on the special education programs, which are designated in the School Act. There are eight programs in total. I will list them: learning assistance; special health services; high-incidence, low-cost; low-incidence, high-cost; dependently handicapped; gifted; hospital-homebound; and identification-planning. Obviously the hon. minister is familiar with each of those programs. Can the minister give information to the committee as to the spending that is placed on each of those programs and the summary of the services that were provided for each?

Hon. A. Hagen: No, this matter is not a subject for debate tonight. It's not a part of the special warrants.

W. Hurd: I have a couple of questions for the minister on the special-warrant period pertaining to my riding, which is one of the faster-growing school districts in the province. Has any portion of the special warrants been adjusted to any increase in the block funding formula for faster-growing school districts? It might have been announced in the special-warrant period.

Hon. A. Hagen: No.

The Chair: The next ministry is Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

D. Jarvis: Seeing that the hour is late, and we've been standing up here for quite a while, since ten this morning, and we're approximately only a third of the way through, I estimate that we should all be finished some time around 4 a.m. Thursday, April 2.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: You want to go to Friday? Good.

I wish to ask you a few questions, if you wouldn't mind. I'll make it brief because I know some of my friends would like to get on the floor before Thursday.

Could the minister tell the committee how much money has been spent under her total vote by the former administration during those seven months of the fiscal year prior to her assuming control?

Hon. A. Edwards: I do believe I thought you might ask that question. Therefore I asked my deputy if he would put it together, and he is just arriving. So if you can just hold a minute, I will have him here with me in a minute with some figures that will be much more accurate than what I could give off the top of my head. So I will continue to discuss with you, unless you want to give me another question while we're looking up the answer to that one. Actually, you mean everything within the warrants which, of course, you can.... The amount from April 1 to October 30 is $30,650,756.

D. Jarvis: Can the minister inform the committee how much money has been spent under her total vote by the current administration during these last five months of the fiscal year since she assumed control?

Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, $40,052,190.

D. Jarvis: Could the minister tell me whether or not there have been any changes with regard to programs or responsibilities within your jurisdiction as they are described in the 1991-92 estimates? If there have been any changes, could you please detail them for the committee?

[ Page 357 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Member, if you will give me a minute, I will introduce to you and to the House my deputy minister, John Allan, and from the revenue section, Jennifer Smith. I welcome them to the House, and I hope you do too.

The question as I understand it is: have there been any differences between the estimates as in the blue books and the warrants as they have been spent? Was that your question?

D. Jarvis: Can you tell us if there are any changes in the programs or responsibilities within your jurisdiction?

Hon. A. Edwards: The programs are the same, basically, except that the responsibility for Hydro has moved to a different ministry as of November 5. Other than that, the programs are exactly as they were laid out.

D. Jarvis: So I assume that there have been no new programs introduced under your ministry.

Hon. A. Edwards: There have been no new programs.

D. Jarvis: Specifically with respect to vote 25 as given in the '91-92 estimates by the minister's office, can she tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration? In other words, how much was devoted to vote 25 since November 13 when the special warrant was issued?

Hon. A. Edwards: Does the member mean: how much of it was spent since November 5? Or are you asking if the amount has changed -- the $288,000 and some? Is that the question?

Interjection.

Hon. A. Edwards: The $288,000 is constant.

W. Hurd: I'm somewhat confused. We were advised that there were no new programs in the ministry covered by the special-warrant period, but I refer to special warrant No. 6 in January 8, 1992, where it indicates in Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources an additional funding to provide for new program expenditures on the power and gas extension program and the mineral development agreement. Can the minister outline whether these were new programs and whether there was additional funding allocated for them during the special-warrant period?

Hon. A. Edwards: There are two programs which were approved by the previous government in the summer of 1991. They were PGEP, the power and gas extension program, and MDA, the mineral development agreement. Those programs were approved in a process other than under the estimates and then put into the ministry as programs within the ministry.

D. Jarvis: Going back to vote 25, minister, does the minister have any additional staff under this vote?

Hon. A. Edwards: No.

D. Jarvis: Were there any other increases in particular expenditure items under this vote covered by the special warrant, and if so, could the minister detail them for the committee?

Hon. A. Edwards: No.

[9:45]

W. Hurd: Again, an additional question under special warrant No. 6 on the power and gas extension program and the mineral development agreement. Can the minister give us an idea of where the program funding for these particular programs existed on January 6, and what portion was spent during the special-warrant period?

Hon. A. Edwards: The additional program funding came from vote 65, which was for additional program funding for all contingencies for all ministries. If you want me to elaborate on that as to some of the amounts, I can give you that. The power and gas extension program was approved after the budget was introduced -- never passed, of course, but introduced. It was a $4 million program. We haven't expended the full program; we expended approximately $2.7 million of that program. The mineral development agreement was another program, approved at $1.12 million, and we spent $558,000 of it.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat confused. Were any funds allocated to these two programs by the previous government, or have all expenditures under special warrant been from a zero point in terms of the financing of these two projects?

Hon. A. Edwards: All of these funds were originally approved by the previous government; they were all done by warrant.

W. Hurd: My question is whether or not these two programs had existing funds in them. Or are we talking about basically a green-field fund here? I'm somewhat confused. The warrants had been approved by the previous government, and had not been expended in any way by the previous government? They just existed under special warrant?

Hon. A. Edwards: The money was put into a contingency vote after policy approval by the previous government. It was then forwarded by warrant to the ministry.

D. Jarvis: In the ministry's operations with respect to vote 26 in the '91-92 estimates, can the minister tell us what has changed in this vote since it was first introduced by this administration?

[ Page 358 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: Basically it's similar to what was laid out.

D. Jarvis: Specifically.

Hon. A. Edwards: If I were here to give you specifics we might be here till next year, but in very broad terms the expenditures are very similar to what was laid out in the estimates, and the spending has been covered by warrants.

D. Jarvis: I don't feel that my question was really answered there, Mr. Chairman, but....

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Probably should. Does the minister have any additional staff under this vote? Were there any increases in salaries or associated expenses, and if so, what?

Hon. A. Edwards: There were no extra expenditures related to salaries or employees.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps we can get into an area that's a little more specific, and something that I know the minister is familiar with. Leading up to and in fact during the last election campaign, there was a controversy in the Fraser Valley with regard to gas drilling and storage, with which I know she's very familiar. Perhaps she could inform this House, and through this House the people of British Columbia, and specifically the people of the Fraser Valley, what expenditures the ministry she is now in charge of had throughout that controversy, and what areas they were expended in.

Hon. A. Edwards: The expenditures for the full hearing process, as far as the ministry were concerned, came out of the regular ministry budget -- regular staff expenditures. The hearing was under the Provincial Secretary.

G. Farrell-Collins: I understand that the full expense of the Anderson commission was under the Provincial Secretary, which is now Minister of Government Services. Is that correct -- and that there was no funding that came out of your ministry specifically?

Hon. A. Edwards: That's correct. The commissioner was appointed under the Inquiry Act.

G. Farrell-Collins: Can you then confirm for this House that there were no additional expenditures whatsoever under this ministry in any way associated with the controversy over the issue of gas storage and....

I'll wait until the member of the executive council is finished asking his question, and then I'll ask mine. If he'd like to ask questions, I'm sure he's allowed to rise and participate in the debate.

Can this minister assure the members of this House and the constituents in the Fraser Valley that this ministry expended not one dime with regard to this issue on research, on lobbying, on advertising -- on whatever?

Hon. A. Edwards: Actually, the Anderson report came out in February 1991, so there are no related expenditures in these warrants.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps the question was not as clear as it could have been. I'll ask it again. Did this ministry, under special warrants during the last fiscal year, expend any funds whatsoever in the time-frame from March 31 last year to March 31 this year -- which is now -- in any way associated with the controversy in the Fraser Valley over gas storage and drilling?

Hon. A. Edwards: I certainly assure the member that I, as minister, have seen that some of my normal expenditures were made so I could meet with people from the Fraser Valley. Certainly normal ministerial activity covered by these warrants went on -- consulting with people from the valley and with people who had something to say about it. There was nothing that went beyond the normal expenditure covered in the warrants.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you very much for that answer. I appreciate it, and I will pass it on to the members of my constituency who are very concerned about this issue. I may ask one small question in addition to that. I understand that the consultation process takes place, and that the minister does have to travel and meet with members of the public. The question I would like to have an answer to is this: is she aware of any consulting contracts, any sort of legal contracts that were done for consulting on this issue either before she was minister or since she was minister?

Hon. A. Edwards: Under these warrants, none.

D. Jarvis: With respect to each of the special warrants passed by your administration, can the minister further itemize moneys devoted to this vote by the following subvote categories: administration and support services, executive management, energy resources, mineral resources, power and gasline extensions?

Hon. A. Edwards: Yes, I can do that. But could you tell me what time-period you want covered? Which warrant? I can give you monthly expenditures by function, if you like. I can certainly give it to you in written form, if you would rather have it that way. Or if you'd like me to read it, I can do that.

Vote 25 -- this is the minister's office. In April 1991 it was $20,272; May, $15,160; June, $17,885; July, $23,505; August, $30,546; September, $28,880; October, $12,180; November, $25,822; December, $40,888; January, $37,020; February, $27,954. Mr. Member, you will have to have an estimate for March -- $23,257.

Vote 26 includes executive revenue and operations, energy and minerals. I can go through the 12 monthly totals for those if you would like. But I'm going to sit 

[ Page 359 ]

down and ask you if you would prefer to have them sent to you in written form.

The Chair: I would like to remind hon. members that when they stand, they should wait to be recognized, in respect of Hansard, and direct their questions through the Chair.

D. Jarvis: How about you sending them to me.

With respect to vote 27 in the 1991-92 estimates, the British Columbia Utilities Commission, can the minister tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. A. Edwards: Nothing has been changed in the Utilities Commission vote.

W. Hurd: I have a question regarding the role of the job protection commissioner in Trail, British Columbia. Are any expenditures from the ministry devoted to the work of the job protection commissioner in connection with Cominco and the layoffs?

Hon. A. Edwards: No.

D. Jarvis: With respect to special warrant No. 4, can the minister tell us how much, if any, of these allocated funds were directed towards the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline?

Hon. A. Edwards: The Vancouver Island gas pipeline funding was done through interim supply No. 2.

D. Jarvis: With respect to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline again, how much was spent?

Hon. A. Edwards: We're only dealing with warrants, I believe.

[10:00]

G. Wilson: With respect to the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline, much has been made of this in this document. The Minister of Finance....

Hon. G. Clark: I would like to point out to all members that the Vancouver Island gas pipeline is a special account which is approved by interim supply for the full year. It has a statutory provision to allow expenditures. It is not debatable before the House now. The minister has answered that the special warrant has nothing to do with the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. It is quite appropriate for debate during estimates but not appropriate at this time.

The Chair: If it's not included in the special warrants, it's not up for debate at this time. 

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the notion that we are debating only special warrants -- and I agree that we have to restrict our comments to them -- it seems to me that to be able to understand exactly how dollars have been commissioned by this ministry and expended by this minister since taking over November 5, it is important for the people of British Columbia to be fully aware of what the liabilities within that ministry may have been, because special-warrant commitments and expenditures and the method by which the minister has decided to discharge the taxpayers' money have been determined in large measure by the liabilities within the ministry. It seems to me that this has been an item of major concern within the independent financial report tabled in this House, and that it is legitimate to ask about the liabilities incurred in the previous year and how that may have made the minister make decisions with respect to expenditure.

Hon. A. Edwards: At the risk of taking a little time to discuss something that is not debatable here, I would certainly share with the Leader of the Opposition the frustration of not being able to discuss the Vancouver Island gas pipeline, because we shared exactly the same frustration last year. This year it is under a different place. It's not under warrants. We are debating warrants, so I can't answer the question.

The Chair: Hon. opposition leader, with all due respect, I realize that this is a matter of great difficulty because, as you point out, you want to get a sense of the spending and implications of the warrants prior to their being issued. But the matter before this committee is quite clear. We are on the interim supply bill, which deals with a number of warrants under the schedule, and the Chair is bound to request that the members relate their comments to the schedule. Would you please proceed.

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It sounds very much like: "Well, we couldn't do it before, so you can't do it this time. So let's continue to make the same errors."

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition appears to be trying to challenge the Chair. The point is this, to make it clear: not a penny of this special warrant is applied to the natural gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Therefore it's not up for debate.

The Chair: The Minister of Finance makes a very clear point, and with all due respect to the hon. opposition leader, there is no way under the conditions of this bill before us for it to be expanded to cover matters not addressed in the various warrants. So I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to proceed with matters that would be in order.

D. Jarvis: We'll leave the Vancouver Island pipeline for the moment. Could the minister tell me how much, by warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6, was spent and invested for exploration in B.C.?

[ Page 360 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: I wonder if the member would like to clarify what he means by exploration. Mining exploration, petroleum exploration...?

D. Jarvis: How much, by warrant, was invested for exploration in mining and petroleum resources?

Hon. A. Edwards: This is a very complicated thing for us to break out of the figures, but if you would like to hold a minute we'll certainly give it a try. I have the figures only in a monthly form, again. Perhaps you would like them mailed to you. Do you want some sample months, or do you want the whole lot?

Let me give you a very rough figure, which may help you in your next question, if that's what you want. It may be approximately $1 million in petroleum geology, within our ministry. That is one of the figures that we have. You must recognize that these figures are not broken out to necessarily separate exploration from some of the other functions that our services support. What I'm giving you is something very broad, but I can tell you that it's about $1.3 million for petroleum geology. We're trying to find a figure now for mineral geology. That may be even less directed to what the member wants, but it will give you a figure -- $3.5 million for mining geology.

D. Jarvis: Thank you very much. Considering it's one of our highest sources for revenue, it's quite interesting to see that there was only $4 million invested in exploration.

An Hon. Member: It's called free enterprise.

D. Jarvis: That, my friend, is what's not going to happen, it looks like, if you only spend that type of money. Anyway, how much by warrants 2, 3, 4, 6, was used for mine site reclamation?

Hon. A. Edwards: We're certainly trying to break out these figures for the member. It's a great opportunity to have warrants come up so that we can look at these things of an evening. Approximately $200,000 was spent over the year. We can give you the monthly figures if you want us to do that later.

D. Jarvis: No, Madam Minister, that's fine, the $200,000. Could you name the sites?

Hon. A. Edwards: Most of it was spent at Mount Washington -- $170,000. There were a number of abandoned mine sites, which came under section 17.2 of the Mines Act, where we spent $29,000.

W. Hurd: During the period of special warrants, were any fees paid to consultants and/or experts on an economic study of northeast coal?

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I just want to bring to the House's attention that questions on the order paper are not allowed to be asked during debate. They are on the order paper.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. The point of order is well taken. I would request that the member who has the floor refrain from referring to matters that are currently in that category.

D. Jarvis: Madam minister, how much of warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6 was allotted for pollution modification of Burrard Inlet and Indian Arm, if any?

Hon. A. Edwards: None, Mr. Member.

D. Jarvis: How much of warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6 was awarded to Western Canada Water?

Hon. A. Edwards: None.

D. Jarvis: How much of warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6 was granted, tranferred or loaned to B.C. Hydro?

Hon. A. Edwards: None at all. It's not in these warrants.

D. Jarvis: How much was invested by these warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6 in Cassiar?

Hon. A. Edwards: None at all. As I understand it, there's no investment in this. If you're talking about spending, we did not spend money on the Cassiar mine.

D. Jarvis: Do I assume that there were no loans or grants under your ministry?

Hon. A. Edwards: No, there were none.

D. Jarvis: Turning to special warrant No. 6, can the minister tell the committee how much of the $4,700 listed under additional funding to provide for new program expenditures on the power and gas extension program and the mineral development agreement went specifically towards, say, the Vancouver Island pipeline?

Hon. A. Edwards: None.

D. Jarvis: Under the same warrant, can you tell me how much of this went into the mineral development agreement and, specifically, how it was spent?

Hon. A. Edwards: The actual amount spent on the mineral development agreement under these warrants was $558,532. I can tell you how it was all spent. Basically, I'll give you a few categories, if you like: under geoscience we spent $358,163; under technology, basically for acid mine drainage research, we spent $150,035; on economic development we had three items which were.... There is the impediments-to-effective-mine-assessment process, $20,000; aboriginal forum in Prince George, $10,334; and then the final expenditure was on public information for the Mining Association of B.C. curriculum project. We spent $20,000 on that, helping to develop some materials that had gone into the schools in British Columbia.

[10:15]

[ Page 361 ]

D. Jarvis: A couple of general questions now. Were there any other increases in employment within the ministry? If so, could the minister provide the committee with these details -- since November 5, that is?

Hon. A. Edwards: There have been no changes in the number of employees in the ministry, except for general changes back and forth. The staffing levels are the same.

D. Jarvis: Did the minister, on November 5 or at any time prior to the date of the last special warrant for which this ministry is responsible, give any written instructions to the ministry staff to seek savings or advise on cutbacks, eliminations or anything at all which could have had a realistic impact on the $29,287,990 of the combined special warrants or any portion thereof?

Hon. A. Edwards: I was just checking with my deputy to see how many times I talked to him about this.

Consistent, I would say, with direction from the Minister of Finance and consistent with the government direction to save money and not expend money that was not needed to be expended, yes, I spoke to and was in communication with my deputy.

D. Jarvis: Maybe I'll get some....

As described in the Peat Marwick review, which is covered under these warrants, can the minister explain how much of the water resource tax pertains to the energy, mines and petroleum resource industry?

Hon. A. Edwards: I would only be giving the member a guess if I said it. It's under the Ministry of Environment, and I think that the member will have to question the Minister of Environment.

D. Jarvis: Madam Minister, you very nicely allowed me to come in and be briefed on your department. I was wondering if you could give me some information with regard to the Cassiar mine. Since you gave me the review, could you answer some questions for me on the Cassiar mine?

An Hon. Member: It's not on the schedule.

The Chair: If that's satisfactory with the....

D. Jarvis: Yes, that's fine.

D. Symons: Under special warrants 1, 2 and 3, can you tell me the amount of money spent by your ministry under administration and support services for asset acquisitions?

Hon. A. Edwards: We're looking through the printout at these detailed figures. Asset acquisition, of course, is not something that we do a lot of. It's not something I would have at my fingertips. It takes a minute. To the middle of November, we spent about $176,226.

D. Symons: I noticed in the estimates for 1991-92 that there was approximately $1 million. I didn't ask what you had spent; I asked what the previous administration spent. I assume that figure you gave me -- the $176,000 -- was for the previous administration. What did your administration spend through November 5 to this time on warrants 4 and 6, also for asset acquisition under administration and support services?

Hon. A. Edwards: Since November 5 the ministry has spent $366,773 on asset acquisitions.

D. Symons: Those figures add up to approximately $500,000, and that ministry had estimated before that they would need $1 million. There seems to be a $500,000 excess somewhere. I'm wondering whether the Peat Marwick report used the figures that were in the 1991 estimates or the figures that were actually used in the ministry. It would seem that if we're using the figures that are estimated and those moneys are not spent, that report is very flawed. I wonder if the minister could explain what has happened to that $500,000 that was left over from that account.

Hon. A. Edwards: Back to the old technology, Mr. Chairman. In that amount, which exceeded $1 million by a small bit, there was $350,000 to buy furniture for the new Jack Davis Building, which is in progress. Because we were under special warrants, we did not spend that amount of money at all. The rest of the amount -- to make the total -- has not been spent as well. I can't account for what it wasn't spent on. Only the $350,000 had a particular reason to be there, and we did not spend that.

D. Symons: I'm not sure, then, whether it would be your ministry that would answer the question or the Minister of Finance. I'm curious which figure would be used -- the actual figure spent, this $500,000 figure, or the figure of $1 million that Peat Marwick was using when he was deciding the debt of this province.

Hon. A. Edwards: Mr. Member, that's as far as I think I can go and follow the rules.

D. Symons: This is the same line of questioning, only we'll move down to the mineral resources department. You can quickly work out both and save a little time here; we don't want to delay these actions any longer. It's under asset acquisitions -- under mineral resources -- and the same question: how much was spent under the previous administration and under yours of the approximately $695,000 that was budgeted for that particular expense?

Hon. A. Edwards: Until November 14 the expenditure was $171,009, and the total by March 31 is $325,735.

D. Symons: That, like the other figure, is approximately 50 percent of the amount that was budgeted. Could you explain the difference, please?

[ Page 362 ]

Hon. A. Edwards: I think the member must recognize that if it's in the budget, we don't necessarily spend it. We spend it if we must spend it, and if it's urgently and immediately required for the public good, under warrant.

D. Symons: Again it's this problem. There seem to be moneys that are not used -- moneys that were budgeted for. I realize they don't have to be used, but I'm still concerned whether those inflated figures, because they weren't used, were used by Peat Marwick. It makes a large difference in what ends up being figures that this government has used before the public.

Hon. G. Clark: I thought I would respond to the member, because he's so interested in this. At the end of the coming year, public accounts are published....

G. Wilson: On a point of order. The Minister of Finance will have ample opportunity to have however many hours he requires to go through his accounts and to account for Peat Marwick as they pertain to the special warrants in his own particular ministry.

The Chair: Hon. Opposition House Leader, you rose on a point of order. Would you state, specifically, your point of order....

G. Wilson: My point of order is....

The Chair: Just a moment, hon. member. You interrupted the Minister of Finance, who was taking his place in the debate. As all members know, any member may stand and get involved in the debate. There is no restriction on who may stand. Proceed. What's the point of order?

G. Wilson: The point of order is that if the Minister of Finance wishes to rise in debate and ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, he's perfectly welcome to do so. But if he wishes to stand and answer a question that is put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that is clearly out of order.

The Chair: Hon. member, I have to disagree with that. It may not be desirable in your opinion, but it's not against the rules. Please proceed, hon. member.

Hon. G. Clark: I just wanted to make a point to the member that the year-end financial statements are published and audited by the auditor general, so the details are fully available. There will be some variance with Peat Marwick -- no question about it. That's obviously a subject he can raise at that time. This is just so you understand that the books of the government are audited at the year-end -- the actual books, the real numbers. They're audited by the auditor general. The Public Accounts Committee reviews them and debates them. So it makes no difference what the numbers are here. What makes the difference is what the final numbers are in public accounts.

D. Jarvis: To the minister again, and I'm not going to be too long, because I promised when I got up that I wouldn't take too much of your time tonight. Could the minister advise the committee whether any disbursements under warrants 4 and 6 were made to any particular mine for environmental or pollution upgrading? If so, could you itemize these expenses?

[10:30]

Hon. A. Edwards: The answer again, Mr. Member, is no.

D. Jarvis: I wish to thank Madam Minister for her time, her courtesy -- and her gentleman friend there. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Hon. members, on seeing no other member on his feet....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. We now move from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to the Premier. I'll just wait for a moment as his staff take their place.

We are now on the office of the Premier.

G. Wilson: First let me congratulate the Premier for his election and for the realignment of his office, which I understand has been substantial since November 5. I understand that the Premier has brought into his office a number of new personnel. I wonder if the Premier, just to get us off on the right foot here tonight, might provide us with a fairly detailed description of the realignment of the office since taking it over, with respect to the staff on board within the executive council operations. In addition, if he might talk about how the integration of the trade development section of the office of the Premier is managed, handled and developed by his staff.

Hon. M. Harcourt: First of all, I would like to say I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and his congratulations. I also would like to introduce the two members of my staff who are here with me. George Ford is the deputy minister, and he has been performing yeoman service. He is a very experienced public manager and leader in Canada. As well, Jan Hemming, who was in charge of the financial management in the Premier's office, is now with the Women's Equality ministry as the manager of finance and administration. They will be able to assist in giving members of the House and me the information that may not come quickly to my tongue. I appreciate having them here with me to help give the information.

Now the two issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised. He said that the realignment of the office has been substantial. The realignment has not been substantial. It is basically a similar realignment, where you have the two basic operations of the office of the Premier and the executive council. The office of the Premier has essentially the similar positions that were there before, and as well, the executive council opera-

[ Page 363 ]

tion also has the similar resources that cabinet needs to carry on its functions, with a very large number of the same personnel.

There have been some changes. There were some order-in-council changes initiated by the outgoing government, including a severing-of-service OIC by the outgoing Premier, who severed her own service with that OIC. There were a number of others that were likewise.

The office of the Premier and the executive council operations have not changed substantially. There are a few areas that you may want to pursue in follow-up questions.

The B.C Trade Development Corporation, again, has maintained its basic format, according to the contract that was signed between the government and the Trade Development Corporation. It has a new mission statement. There are a couple of new people at the head, one of whom we were pleased to announce: Oksana Exell, who has newly been appointed to the position of president of the Trade Development Corporation.

The Trade Development Corporation has been put under my jurisdiction because of the importance of trade to the province of British Columbia. I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House realize that trade is 50 percent of the B.C. economy. I thought it was important in the first ministers' meetings that I have been through that that emphasis on the importance of trade to British Columbia be front and centre, and that could be represented by the Premier and the Premier's office.

The structure is basically the same as before for both the office of the Premier and the executive council operations, and the basic structure is there for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. The warrants over the last while mirror that, basically within the budget allocation as put forward in 1991-92.

There is one change. The chair is now a full-time person, and that appointment took place earlier this year.

G. Wilson: Thank you, to the Premier. I wonder if it would be possible to have some kind of organizational chart to make it easier to know who some of the people are under the employment of the Premier's office, so that we could have some understanding of exactly what the roles were.

I wonder if we could get a clarification with respect to the personnel who are helping you. I understand that one is from the Ministry of Women's Equality. Could you explain how that works? I recognize that there was a simple transfer. Is that what...?

Hon. M. Harcourt: No. She won the competition for this new position.

G. Wilson: So I think that's clarified. She's no longer in the office of the Premier, I understand.

In light of the comments with respect to staff, I wonder if the Premier might tell this House the extent to which the budget that had been committed in the 1991 period was expended prior to November 7 and the extent to which moneys were used in special warrant to increase expenditure and what those increases and expenditures were.

Hon. M. Harcourt: There has been no increase in those expenditures. The amount expended to the end of warrant 3 on November 14 was $2,036,000. The approximate amount from November 15 to March 31, 1992, is $1.7 million. As a matter of fact, $1.687 million has been invoiced to the end of March, and some of the expenses incurred have yet to be received.

G. Wilson: Could the Premier tell us, then, where the budget is to be found for the trips abroad and the costs of that travel and the extent of the chargeback?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I made two trips on behalf of the people of British Columbia, out-of-province travel promoting trade and economic development in the major trade centres of dynamic activity for British Columbia; and secondly, as a first minister and chair of the first ministers' conference.

The out-of-province travel is under the budget of the Minister of Economic Development. The trade trips I took were on November 15 to 20, as Premier, to host B.C. Week in Japan, which was organized by the previous government. The Premier was committed to host this very important activity in Japan. I then went on an economic development and trade mission while in Asia, to Hong Kong, to Guangdong province and the city of Guangzhou, where I was able to establish very warm relationships with the mayor, the governor and the ex-governor and mayor, who is now the vice-chair of one of the major government bodies in China.

I also went on another major trade mission to New York, London and Switzerland. There was an economic development and investment -- financial and trade -- mission to those very important centres from January 22 to February 4. If you would like to know the cost of those particular trips, I don't have that information with me, but it was within all the government regulations and limits on trips.

G. Wilson: I am by no means attacking you here. I'm simply trying to find out how your office works, how much it costs and how we're going to be able to get through some of this material tonight so that the people can better know. I understand, through the questioning, that the Minister of Economic Development.... For example, your trip to Japan cost $860,000. Is that charged directly out of his ministry? Is that $860,000 charged back to the Trade Development Corporation?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The total cost.... I would prefer to use the word investment -- investment in a very important initiative that we supported when the previous government undertook this initiative to British Columbia's major trading partner, Asia. Some 25 percent of our exports go to Japan. The investment, not from my ministry but from the British Columbia government Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, was $475,000 from that ministry, and from all other ministries and Crown corporations was $393,000. That covered all the cost of the staff, the 

[ Page 364 ]

travel and the trade show itself, which involved 65 British Columbia companies. The overall amount was reduced from a budget of just over $1 million to $868,000 after we got in. We proceeded to try and reduce the investment into that mission, and it was reduced -- the travel was originally to be five ministers -- to just the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development.

[10:45]

The investment, by our staff estimates, saw 5,000 Japanese people meet 65 B.C. companies. The analysis our staff have done is that that investment in the B.C. Week in Japan would result in new investment and sales of $45 million, creating an economic spinoff over two to three years of up to $150 million. We regard that as a very good investment for the people of British Columbia.

G. Wilson: The investment, as you suggest you like to call it, obviously has to reap some benefit. The difficulty, Mr. Premier, as I think you will agree, is that when we're looking at expenditures in a year when we are facing a record deficit, often people look at the expenditure and the actual financial benefits are very hard to find. Perhaps the Premier could help us in looking at exactly what agreements or what trade signature was put to some kind of actual tangible evidence, so we have some receipts for the $860,000 the people spent to invest for you to go.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition is aware that it's not like doing sales in Toledo, Ohio, where you go with your sample case to a hotel room and you've got a deal within an hour. This is not the way that business is done in Japan and most of Asia. People who are the leaders want to establish a personal relationship. They want to know you and want to know that you understand the culture and the needs of their particular countries or companies, and building up that long-term relationship is absolutely essential. To say that there were immediate sales -- there were. If you would like to know the success of some of the people involved in subsea activities, some of the artists that attended, some of the contacts that they made, I'm sure that we could get you some of that information.

I want to repeat what I said before I left on that trade mission: I'm not there to come back with a bunch of signed contracts; I'm there to let the people of Asia know that this is my first visit as Premier to Asia. It's to make the point that that's what B.C. is -- the front door of Canada on to the fastest-growing, most dynamic economic area in the world, which is Asia. It's something I've been doing for well over a decade. I wanted to reinforce the contacts that I was able to build up as mayor and as Leader of the Opposition, and now as Premier. So it is not an immediate gratification. It was an expenditure of investments in terms of cash, staff time, and effort, Mr. Chair, but I believe it had a very significant impact in terms of signing a protocol with the Bank of Hokkaido, followed up by a visit by the Minister of Economic Development to meet the top 60 business people in the Sapporo and Hokkaido area, and many other initiatives that we were able to undertake while we were in Japan. I could elaborate on the success that we had in Hong Kong and in Guangzhou, but I won't tonight.

G. Wilson: I concur that it is extremely important that these kinds of bridges be built and that we make sure that that happens. I think it is important that it not been seen that we're trying to somehow chastise the Premier for travelling to try and promote British Columbia. We are certainly not trying to do that.

I appreciate also that the Premier was forthcoming with some detail with respect to the costs. What we are trying to do today is establish, in terms of budgetary expenditure within the office of the Premier, how these costs translate into the figures that we're trying to get through tonight. I wonder if the Premier has an equal accounting for the trip that was taken to New York and to Europe.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't have that information here, but I can give you some instances of where I think the response of either the investment or the business community was very positive. When I was in New York, I was able to speak at the Waldorf to the financial and investment leadership from Wall Street, including a number of the representatives of the B.C. syndicate -- the four major investment houses that advise us -- plus the junior and associate partners who were present at the luncheon I was speaking at -- plus the meeting with the bond-rating agencies and other financial and business leaders in New York.

The response to the message I gave them that we're open for business and that we welcome a long-term relationship with the biggest trading partner that we have.... I don't think some people in the States realize just how big the trade between Canada and the United States is. It approaches $250 billion a year. It is worth preserving that relationship and dealing with some of the problems that we face.

More importantly, I wanted to put out the message that we're going to be fiscally prudent, that we're open for business and that we see tremendous opportunities for investment in British Columbia. I said to them that we would be reducing the deficit from approaching $3 billion to under $2 billion by a judicious mix of cuts and revenue measures.

The message that I was able to get across was well received. As a matter of fact, the day after I gave that speech and had those meetings, our borrowing costs went down one-quarter of a point, which is about $12 million. So it paid for the trip, I think you'll agree.

G. Wilson: Thank you to the Premier for that explanation. I wonder, again, in just trying to sort out where all of this travel cost falls, if the Premier could tell us, within the office of the Premier and executive council, what proportion of the committed expenditures has gone for the numerous first ministers' conferences that he has attended.

Hon. M. Harcourt: The numerous first ministers' conferences, to be specific, are three. The first was on December 19 in Ottawa. It was a one-day meeting on 

[ Page 365 ]

the economy, and I argued, I think on behalf of all members of this Legislature and the people of British Columbia, that the monetary policies of this federal government were very harmful to an export-driven and great trading province like British Columbia; the high dollar and high interest rates were unacceptable to the people of British Columbia. I said also that first ministers should do more than get together for one day and talk, that we needed to take however long to help the fragile state of Canada knit together, and that we needed to have an agreement that we be fiscally prudent, all of us -- that we had to help restructure the Canadian economy. British Columbia was advancing in that area, probably more successfully because of a whole series of factors -- the entrepreneurship of our citizens and the skill of adjusting to a global economy. I said that we needed to get together more than once a year, that we should meet again as quickly as possible on the economy.

We met on a second trip on February 10. We had a one-day meeting, and I reiterated the points that the cost of the high dollar and high interest rates was $500 million in the B.C. economy, according to a study done by Mike McCracken of Informetrica. That alone had had that impact on British Columbia's revenues. I also said that the off-loading by the federal government of the insured funding programs, the cap on CAP, was having a detrimental effect on our economy. As a matter of fact, I put forward a proposal that if the federal government were to lift the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, it would release about $150 million that I committed to put into training of British Columbia citizens to have the skills they require for the global economy. I also said we had to get together for a couple of days to get to the concrete changes that Canadians want -- to upgrade our infrastructure, to train our citizens, to revamp our health care programs -- so that we use the health care dollars more efficiently to deal with the agriculture and fisheries changes that are required, to remove interprovincial trade barriers and to improve our international trading capability. I said that we couldn't get together for lunch and talk for a couple of hours to deal with those points.

At my instigation, we were able to have me as the chair of the Premier's conference, and the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance organized a two-day meeting in Toronto at the suggestion of the Premier of Ontario to have my deputy, George Ford, work with the other deputies to organize tightly worked-out policy papers with action recommendations and to meet within five weeks. We did that on February 24 and 25, and we considered proposed initiatives in eight areas, which I tabled before this House last Friday. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was able to see some of the specific initiatives we're now moving along to help the Canadian economy and help the people of Canada get back to work, to be prosperous, to restructure the Canadian economy. The initiatives are now starting to advance.

The specific question on the exact costs of the travel.... You should understand that ministerial travel for all ministers is budgeted through Government Services if it's in country and through Economic Development if it's out of country.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the Premier's lengthy description of what he did when he was there. I was actually after some cost figures, but I do appreciate the statement from the Premier as to what he accomplished. What we're trying to get a handle on here.... We applaud the frugal comments made by the Premier back in Ottawa on behalf of all British Columbians. I think all of us want to send a signal to the people of British Columbia and right across Canada that politicians are going to start to be fiscally responsible.

I wonder if the Premier can tell me whether, on these trips that are now funded through Government Services, he travels by commercial airline and does so on a regular ticket, or whether he travels by executive jet.

The Chair: The Minister of Finance on a point of order.

Hon. G. Clark: The Premier has canvassed this at length, and the fact is that it's not a part of this special warrant under this ministry. It's a question for Government Services. If he wants to talk about government jets, that's Government Services. If he wants to talk about travel in the country, that's Government Services. If he wants to talk about trade missions, that's the Minister of Economic Development. But not a penny of the special warrant that is being asked to be approved with respect to the Premier's office or B.C. Trade is covered by anything remotely connected to the question that was asked by the member.

It would help all of us if the questions could be constrained to the special warrant before the House.

The Chair: I want to thank the Minister of Finance for his point of order. I think it's well taken. I would ask the opposition House Leader to be guided by those cautions.

[11:00]

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess those are questions that we'll get answered once we get into a debate on Government Services expenditures. I thought it was a fairly simple question, actually, that the Premier, who had indulged in a lot of discussion on what he did when he went to these meetings, might have felt he wanted to share with the people of British Columbia. However, I understand that the Minister of Finance doesn't wish to have that shared with the people at this time, so that's fair enough.

I wonder if we could come back now to the question of the executive council operations in relation to the integration of this Trade Development Corporation within this budget line itself. In terms of operating, I see excessive revenues for the trade corporation in past years have been significantly high, and in this last year that seems not to have been the case. I wonder if the Premier can tell me what changes have been made to the structure and expenditures within the operation of that corporation that might have led to that.

[ Page 366 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: There have been no significant changes to the operation. There has been some trimming of expenses. But I think you'll see that the more significant changes take place in this year's estimates and not in these special warrants.

D. Mitchell: While we're on this line of questioning regarding the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, which during this period covered by the special warrants did come under the office of the Premier, I wonder if I might ask a question that to me seems rather significant with respect to the corporation itself and its own organization. The Premier referred to this. We have a chairman of this Crown corporation who is not an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly and not a member of the executive council. I believe this is a bit of a departure from past practice, where we've always had the principle of ministerial accountability expressed in organizational terms, largely speaking. There was a minister who served as chair of Crown corporations, generally speaking, but now we have a situation where a non-elected official is serving as chair of a Crown corporation. I'm wondering if there's any significance that can be attached to that or if the Premier could just comment. I know that this is extending into the future, and we will ask that later on in estimates, but is this something that is likely to be the order of the day? Or are there some exceptional circumstances during this period under review that prompted you to not be the chairman yourself or not have a minister of the Crown responsible as the chair of the Crown corporation?

The Chair: I'm having some difficulty relating the question, as interesting as it is, to the matter before us, which is the schedule of warrants that we are debating. However, the Premier may proceed.

Hon. M. Harcourt: It was felt,first, that the Premier could give a greater feeling of importance to trade and to the Trade Development Corporation by having it under the Premier's jurisdiction. I think that has been the loud, clear message that has gotten across to our major trading partners. Trade is vital to B.C., and the Premier and the government see it that way.

Secondly, we needed a full-time chair if we were going to have the corporation operating effectively, rather than a temporary chair on occasion being a minister who's busy doing other things. As a matter of fact, I think we had four different Economic Development ministers involved in chairing that, so there was a lack of continuity. I think we now have the best of both worlds. We have the political message that the government feels trade is absolutely essential. The Premier is getting that message across by having it under his office and jurisdiction. Secondly, we have a very capable chair who is full-time, and an excellent new president, Oksana Exell, who has just taken over those duties. The past president, David Emerson, who has left amicably to head up the new airport corporation, is going to stay involved with the corporation.

I think that, in short, is an answer to why those changes took place.

D. Mitchell: Just one further comment on this question for the Premier. The change, then, during the period covered by this special warrant where we have a president and a chair responsible for this Crown corporation, both of whom are non-elected, is a significant departure from practice in the past. I think the Premier has indicated roughly why this has taken place. Is there any loss of ministerial accountability by having a chair not serving as an elected official responsible to this House, serving in this House as a member of the executive council of your ministry?

Have there been any other changes to the board of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation during the period covered by these special warrants? I'd be interested to know, if you can mention it.

Hon. M. Harcourt: No, there haven't been any changes. This is not unique to the Trade Development Corporation. B.C. Hydro has a chair and a president. As a matter of fact, most of the Crown corporations do not have a minister as chair. So this is not a unique situation.

D. Mitchell: One further question on the relationship between the B.C. Trade Development Corporation and the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Small Business. The minister was up earlier this day discussing the special warrants approved by his ministry during the period covered by this bill, Bill 16, Supply Bill (No. 1). Many questions were deferred to you because they really came under the ambit, he felt, of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. I'm wondering if you could describe the relationship between this Crown corporation, which now comes under your responsibility directly as Premier, and your ministry, which also has responsibility for trade under your Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Small Business. It seems a little confusing. Could you just comment on why it is we have a Trade Development Corporation in the provincial government of British Columbia today and a ministry that also has responsibility for trade but is separate and apart -- separate minister, separate Premier? Is there overlap here that is unnecessary? Could you comment on the reason why you've structured things in this manner?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The reason is that there is an immense amount of work to be done. The Trade Corporation is export-driven. It's export-driven for B.C. value-added and high-tech companies. That is a very extensive and growing role that the trade corporation is taking on. The Minister of Economic Development and I and our deputies work very closely.

The Minister of Economic Development is fully occupied with trade discussions that are intense at the GATT level, the problems and turbulence around the free trade agreement, the North American trade agreement that's being proposed. The whole question of a trade strategy that's more current, disciplined and targeted for British Columbia businesses is a very important part of the minister's activities.

Secondly, he is very actively involved in the small business strategies and venture capital funds that we 

[ Page 367 ]

are developing. We've already announced the Working Opportunity Fund and other initiatives that the Minister of Finance made known in the throne speech, which we'll be elaborating on throughout the session.

Thirdly, he's working on the regional economic development activities that have to take place so that all British Columbians share in our bountiful resources and benefits. He has a number of specific initiatives underway there.

So you can see that there are four very large areas of activity that the minister and I are sharing. We work very closely between ourselves and our officials.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to hear that the Premier is getting along with his cabinet colleague. The question, though, really relates to a point of confusion with respect to ministerial accountability. I'm not really sure. I can tell you that there is some confusion when it comes to trade matters, which are vital to this province, and the Premier has stated that they are vital to his government. Where does the division of labour exist between the ministry that has responsibility for trade and the Trade Development Corporation, a Crown corporation of our province that comes under the direct responsibility of the Premier? Is there a clear dividing line between the two? Is there an overlap? I understand that the Premier works well with his colleague, and that's fine.

His colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade indicated earlier this evening that when it came to questions of trade, oftentimes he could not answer. He said: "You simply will have to ask the Premier." Why, then, in the current organization covered during this period.....

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is just not true. I referred one question to the Premier. I gave very clear explanations, and they can read the record tomorrow. I deferred one question to the Premier on the Trade Development Corporation.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. That is not a point of order. If you feel that there is a question of privilege, there will be an appropriate time to raise it, but not at this time.

D. Mitchell: I will just go back to the comment I made. Could the Premier give us an explanation one more time as to what the division of labour is between the ministry and the corporation when it comes to trade matters? Could he just shed a little light on that?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I will try and get back to what I thought I said last time. The Trade Development Corporation is trying to help our entrepreneurs and business people who want to trade beyond the borders of British Columbia. Export-driven deals is the purpose of the Trade Development Corporation. It is a trade corporation that this government supported when we were in opposition. It is part of a tripartisan desire and goal to increase our exports, opportunities for entrepreneurship and the sale of goods and services abroad. That is the mandate of the Trade Development Corporation.

The question of trade policy, specific trade agreements and treaties rests jurisdictionally and constitutionally with the federal government and is quite properly the role of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, Premier. What can I say? We look forward to seeing how this evolves during the course of your administration, to see if this division of labour makes sense or if there will be some changes.

I'll give you an example of why there is confusion, and it relates to the specific point that the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade referred to. A question came up that he indicated only you could answer, and if I could, I would like to direct that question to you. It's something quite specific, but it doesn't really seem to fall within the ambit of what you're referring to in terms of trade policy.

The question deals with the business information centres, which come under the mandate of the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. I asked a question with respect to the axing by your government of the B.C. Business Network system, which I believe is certainly exported oriented, but it's an issue relating to small communities in British Columbia with business information centres which have used, to great benefit, the B.C. Business Network system. There have been some tremendous benefits. In fact, this project has been so successful that it's used now, I understand, as the prototype for similar systems in Alberta, Ontario and elsewhere. Yet it's been axed by this government. When I asked your colleague the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade why, given the fact that in your throne speech you indicated support for business information centres in this province, you would take away from them a major tool that they have -- a major resource that they have for developing the business information centres -- he indicated that he could not answer that, and that in fact it was the Premier who had axed the B.C. Business Network system and I would have to ask you.

I would ask you that question now. Can you explain why you've done that?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is that we were approached by the federal government, who said, based on the success of British Columbia, they would like to set up a cross-Canada network that was to have gone operational on April 1. We have since discovered that that is going to be delayed. So through our Purchasing Commission and other government resources, we are trying to maintain that very valuable resource, as you say, for small business in particular throughout this province. We would hope that the federal government would carry through on this service right across Canada.

G. Wilson: If I can go back to my initial question to you, Mr. Premier, that was with respect to the structure of your office. I wonder if it would be possible -- and I recognize that it's unlikely tonight -- but at some time 

[ Page 368 ]

to have a flow chart of your office so that we can sort out who's who. I understand, for example, that you have a director of outreach at $76,000 a year and two other outreach co-ordinators at $59,000 a year. We wonder just where those people fit in the general heirarchy of your office.

[11:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: We have an organizational chart, and I'd be more than pleased to make sure that the Leader of the Opposition receives that.

The outreach resources that we have are basically a continuation of the sort of resources I had when I was the mayor. I had one person in my mayor's office who was responsible for making sure that citizens had access. If there were bureaucratic tie-ups or red tape or mail wasn't getting through or phone messages weren't being responded to or citizens felt aggrieved, they had ready access to the mayor's office. As you can appreciate, with a city of 430,000 one staff person was sufficient to help, and I had a whole network of facilitators. For example, I had my citizens' day as mayor to deal front and centre with people who felt they weren't getting good service from city hall.

I have three people in that office now to serve a province the size of West Germany and France with 3.2 million people. That is the basis of that resource: to open up the Premier's office, open up the government so that citizens can have access, can be heard, can be dealt with.

The Chair: Before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to request of the members that they at least come close to relating to the schedule, the warrants, because I'm having a lot of difficulty connecting the debate as it has been going on for the last little while with the matter before the committee.

G. Wilson: The salaries paid to the outreach people are clearly within the period under review. I appreciate the comments that the Premier has made. It sounds like an interesting model. One wonders, however, with 17 ministries and ministers and 51 MLAs, how much more representation and direction the public might want. However, it seems like an interesting model. We would appreciate it if the Premier could provide that structure for us. Then we would be able to understand how this works.

I have one other question relating to the matter of trade. In terms of the potential aspects of the Mexican free trade agreement, could the Premier outline to what extent his office, in terms of international trade, is going to be a participant in any comment? What expenditures have been allocated to this date to review what has taken place up to this point?

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, I was going to make the case that this is tedious and repetitious, but I won't make that one yet. I will, however, make the case that this deals, I assume, with next year's budget. You're asking what position the government is going to take. It has absolutely nothing to do with the special warrants before the House, nor is it remotely connected to the Premier's office. It's really straying and testing the patience of the House, Mr. Chairman. I don't know how many times we have to rise to call the Leader of the Opposition to order, but we'll never get through these if we go on and on about things that have nothing to do with the Premier's warrant.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. I believe the time has come for the members to realize that they cannot continue to make their comments without relating specifically to the special warrants that have been placed on this schedule. Clearly, it is very difficult for the Chair to permit the trilateral free trade agreement and other matters to do with personnel, with no reference whatsoever to the matter before us, without losing control in the committee. Please guide yourselves accordingly, hon. members.

G. Wilson: Let me rephrase my question. During the period of special warrant under review in this bill, was any money expended in the office of the Premier that would have allowed the Premier or members of the Premier's staff to participate in either national or international discussions with respect to the pending Mexican free trade agreement?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes. The Premier's office has the resources of the federal-provincial and intergovernmental people, who are very experienced in these matters and guided me in my role as first minister at the first ministers' meetings, where, as I've said quite a few times, the matter of trade did come up. I felt very strongly about this and expressed what I thought the people of British Columbia wanted to see, which is to have this province and the other provinces play an active role in the North American free trade agreement, realizing the federal government's jurisdiction over trade and treaties. It was in my capacity as first minister at the three meetings that I attended, particularly this last one in Toronto, that existing resources within the warrants in the budget of the Premier's office...that I participated in issues like the North American trade deal.

G. Wilson: I'm delighted to hear that's so, and I commend the Premier for taking some advance action on this matter. I wonder if the Premier then could just tell us what percentage of his budget, or how much money -- and whether there is an individual within his office assigned to deal with that pending agreement under the special warrants that are apparently under review?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There is one person. That one person works very closely with the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade.

J. Weisgerber: I'd just like to ask a few questions of the Premier on the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. I don't find it unusual for a Crown corporation to have an independent non-elected chairman. I think it's quite a normal process if you look at the Crown corporations that have traditionally existed with the 

[ Page 369 ]

British Columbia government. What I do think is unusual, though, is for a Crown corporation to have a full-time president or CEO and a full-time chairman. Even the largest Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, has a chairman and chief executive officer and a president. B.C. Rail has a president and CEO full-time, and a part-time chairman. Those are a couple of the larger Crowns. This one, the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, is minuscule by comparison -- very small compared with the two corporations I mentioned.

There have been so many changes in the five months that the Premier has headed the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. I wonder if he would tell us who has held the position of chairman, who's held the position of president, who's held the position of chief executive officer over the past four months, and who currently has those positions and whether or not they're full-time positions.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Previously the chair was a very part-time chair. The Minister of Economic Development, Elwood Veitch, who is no longer here -- I hope we can use his name in that context -- was the chair. The CEO was an ex-deputy....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes. I'm just saying that was the arrangement before. In the past five months we have had a new part-time chair until, I think, the end of January, and a full-time president, David Emerson. The part-time chair until the end of January was Wilson Parasiuk. The full-time chair, after the end of January, when he had severed his relationships in the private sector, was Mr. Wilson Parasiuk. The CEO, as I said, was David Emerson until he left very cordially to take on a new challenge, and I think a very good challenge, of having the Vancouver International Airport become part of the B.C. corporation. That will make the airport more flexible, more competitive. We'll be able to get on with some of the improvements we need like a third runway, and other initiatives required at that airport. The new CEO who has replaced David Emerson is Oksana Exell, who was in charge of the corporate services department and very ably headed that division within the Crown corporation. Before that, of course, we knew her heading the Federation of Independent Business here in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: If I understand correctly then, the president and CEO is Oksana Exell, and the full-time chairman is Wilson Parasiuk. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is yes, and that's what I think the orders-in-council, which the member would have access to, would say.

J. Weisgerber: Just one other question, and I'm not certain that this one even should be directed to the Premier. But when I look at the expenditures by ministry and at the revised forecasts on page 49 of this book, the last item is: "Other Evaluation Adjustments." That appears to be a new entry in the accounts and doesn't appear to assign itself to any particular ministry.

I am seeking clarification. Does this fall under the jurisdiction of the Premier, and is this an item for which I should question him, the Minister of Finance or some other minister? I'm simply seeking clarification from the Premier on this particular item.

The Chair: I would say that it appears very much to me as though we are close to an estimates type of debate. However, I've had that difficulty most of the evening. The Premier can respond.

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Chair, could I just say that I don't think that is part of the warrants before us. If the leader of the third party would like to get into that discussion in the estimates that will be coming up for the current fiscal year, we'd be more than glad to answer his questions at the appropriate time.

J. Weisgerber: Just so I'm clear, because if it's not appropriate debate, we will debate it when it comes up. But the item was an $84 million write-down of receivables including taxes, natural resource revenues and fines. It was not included in the budgets that were tabled in the last estimates in this House in April 1991. It now appears in the revised forecast for 1991-92. If it wasn't put there by some action of this government, by some special warrant or by some other action of either the Minister of Finance or the Premier, I am at a loss to know how it has now become part of the consolidated revenue report that's been tabled in the budget.

Hon. G. Clark: Valuation adjustments are made every year, and they are not an expense, so they're not part of the discussion. They don't require a special warrant or approval of the Legislature. For example, in the 1991 public accounts you will see some $30 million or $40 million of valuation adjustments. So that valuation adjustment is not part of this debate, nor is it part of estimates debate, because it is not an expense which is incurred and which requires spending authority from the House.

D. Mitchell: Just to go back for one moment to the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. Is it possible to say how much of each of these special warrants for the Premier's office in the schedule to this bill was earmarked directly and specifically for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation? Is it possible to isolate that, and could you provide that to this committee?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to table that information with you. I can say that special warrant No. 4 has a provision for the B.C. Trade Corporation of $2,342,900, and special warrant No. 6 has a provision for $750,000, totalling $3,092,900. I've tabled that for the information of the Legislature.

[11:30]

D. Mitchell: Thank you to the Premier for that information. Is it possible to take this one step further? I just ask if the information is available from your 

[ Page 370 ]

officials here this evening. Is it possible to explain the precise distribution of moneys under both of these special warrants in terms of his office operations? Now that we have the B.C. Trade Development Corporation portion of those special warrants for the remainder of the moneys under each of those special warrants, is it possible to give us a breakdown for how they were used and allocated for your office during this period under review?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can get you that detail. I can tell you that the $750,000 was to cover the loan guarantee program under the Trade Development Corporation. The special warrant for $2,342,900 was a quarterly payment by the provincial government to the Crown corporation according to the five-year agreement signed between the provincial government and the Trade Development Corporation.

D. Mitchell: I'm sorry. I might not have been clear to the Premier. What I was actually asking for was this. Now that we've isolated how much of those special warrants has been earmarked for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, I'm wondering about the remainder of the moneys under the special warrants. Is it possible to provide a rough breakdown for how they were used -- aside from the B.C. Trade Development Corporation -- for the operations of the Premier's office and executive council?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Mr. Chair, I have just tabled the information that lays out the amount for the Premier and executive council operations in the interim supply special warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6. It totals $3,972,000.

D. Mitchell: I see the information that the Premier has tabled, and it does break down the moneys approved by special warrant. But what I'm asking is: can we have a breakdown of how those moneys were used within the Premier's office and the executive council? We've isolated those which were earmarked for the B.C. Trade Development Corporation. How did the remainder of those moneys break down under the operations of the executive council that you have responsibility for during this period under review, Mr. Premier?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Well, to go back to my initial answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, the structure and the personnel in the Premier's office and the office of the executive council operations are basically the same. It essentially goes to cover the salaries and the office expenses of those people who have been in that structure under the old government and the present government.

D. Mitchell: Perhaps I could ask a specific question. Are the operations of the new Crown corporation secretariat, for instance, covered under the moneys approved by these special warrants for the Premier's office?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The answer is no.

D. Mitchell: I would take it, then, that perhaps those would be under the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. I take it that that is correct, according to what the Premier has said. Are operations of the executive council -- cabinet committees, cabinet, staff for cabinet -- covered under the special warrants that we're approving for the Premier's office?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Yes.

D. Mitchell: Just a final question on this, and this was what I was getting at when I was asking for the breakdown. Is it possible to give the specifics, for instance, in terms of cabinet staff hired in support resources, whether they be in the form of consultants or contractors -- staff hired for cabinet or cabinet committees? Can you give members of this committee information regarding money spent under the special warrants that were approved and that are attached in the schedule of this bill?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I've given a great deal of information that the structure is basically the same as it was under the previous estimates; secondly, that the personnel are essentially the same; thirdly, I have tabled an organizational chart; and fourthly, I have tabled the amounts in the various warrants. If the member wants to see the details of the operation, that information is going to be available through public accounts, and it can be gone through at that time. We have basically given the detailed information of the way the Premier's office is operated, in the information that I have either talked about or made available tonight.

G. Wilson: I'd like to thank the Premier for coming forward before us tonight and making for us very clear and appropriate comment with respect to the expenditures within his office. I would also like to thank the Premier for undertaking to supply the opposition with a flow chart of his office, so that we have an understanding of who's who, and we will be able to understand better, as we look at the estimates for next year's budget, how those moneys will be applied and discharged within your office. I thank you for coming.

The Chair: We have now concluded the office of the Premier, and will proceed, by agreement, to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm expecting that there will be some staff arriving momentarily, but I'll take note of the question that's about to be asked.

J. Tyabji: I thank the minister for the opportunity to ask him about the details of the special warrants under the Environment portfolio.

First of all, a general question with regard to the special warrants. There is an amalgamation of certain aspects of former ministries under the Environment ministry portfolio. If there have been any changes in terms of the inclusion of aspects of other ministries, through the special warrants, in the Environment portfolio, could you please list these for me?

[ Page 371 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: First of all, with regard to the details of the special warrant, I'm expecting some information to be arriving fairly soon. But as you know, on November 5, 1991, at the time of the swearing in, two ministries of government -- the Ministry of Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Environment -- were combined into one ministry. Basically, the estimates that applied to each of those ministries were combined, and then those moneys became the moneys that were applied to the ministry for the ensuing time towards the end of that fiscal year. There has been no change in terms of any particular amount, issue or function being added at that time.

While members of staff are arriving, I'll just take this opportunity to say that sitting on my right is Mr. Gerry Armstrong, the deputy minister, and sitting on my left is Ms. Gyl Connaty, the manager of financial planning and reporting. Also present is Mr. Greg Koyl, assistant deputy minister of management services.

J. Tyabji: If you don't mind, Mr. Minister, I would like it if you could walk me through the votes and details of the votes with regard to the special warrants that were spent. If we could start under Crown lands special account with the salaries and benefits.... I don't know if this is possible, but what would be very helpful is the category of salaries and benefits in the Crown land account.

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. Special accounts are not part of the warrant issue, because essentially they give statutory authority to spend, which is different from actual approval of spending. It's an issue that the Peat Marwick report canvassed and which we have some concerns about, I don't mind saying, and we're reducing the number of them. But they're not up for debate at this time.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The point of order is well taken and has been raised a number of times throughout the committee's meeting. I would ask the member to try to confine her remarks to those warrants that are stated here in the schedule.

J. Tyabji: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I should have sat through a few more of the proceedings, I guess.

If we could go to vote 32, with regard to the minister's office, I have a few questions as to the specifics for the November 13 special warrant, under the group account classification for salaries and benefits. Actually, we'll cover them all. Maybe I'll ask you about salaries and benefits, operating costs and asset acquisitions. Could you provide some figures for those, please?

Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand, the question is with regard to the minister's office portion of the minister's budget. If that is correct, the question was about the minister's office portion of the budget for the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. The budget for the year was $337,000. The amount spent by the previous administration to the end of October for the minister's office budget was $180,000. Spent by the current administration from the end of October until the end of the fiscal year was $141,000. The total to be spent for '92-93 in the minister's office budget is $321,000.

If part of that question was a breakdown on staff salaries, I don't have that at my fingertips. I'll just leave it at that.

J. Tyabji: So we don't have a breakdown for the accounts for the minister's office. If we can go to ministry operations, the special warrants.... Before leaving the minister's office, can I ask if there have been any staff increases through the special warrants to the minister's office which would go under the category of salaries and benefits?

[11:45]

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to salaries and benefits, there's some information coming through now. For salaries and benefits the amount is $318,279; operating costs, $17,000; asset acquisition, $2,000 -- I believe that refers to equipment -- for a total of $337,279.

With regard to the question of staff additions, the fact is that the combination of the Ministry of Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Environment resulted in a reduction of the total staff component. It may interest you to know that if we went back approximately a year, there were actually three ministries: Parks, Crown Lands and Environment. So the total amount going into the minister's office staff in order to service those ministries is a net reduction.

J. Tyabji: I have to congratulate you on reducing staff and streamlining. That's very commendable.

The information you gave me on salaries and benefits, operating costs and asset acquisitions: is that through both special warrants? I was unclear as to where the figures were coming from.

Hon. J. Cashore: The figures I gave in response to the question were for the entire fiscal year. The special warrant would be for part of that, given the dates that are listed in the special warrant as you have it in front of you.

J. Tyabji: Could we go to ministry operations, please? We can start with the group account classifications. Obviously for the sake of speed we can go through as quickly as possible. Could I get some kind of breakdown with regard to the special warrants? How do the special warrants break down through the group account classifications under vote 33? It doesn't matter whether you give it to me as the total fiscal year or under each special warrant. I'm just going to write it down by classification.

Hon. G. Clark: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the opposition House Leader is not here, but I just would like to make the point that the people operating electronic Hansard have been here for 15 hours. By leave, I believe we could allow television to expire at midnight. I don't think there will be anybody watching 

[ Page 372 ]

past midnight. We would obviously still have Hansard and electronic Hansard; we just wouldn't have television coverage. The leader of the third party has agreed. I haven't had a chance to confer with members opposite.

I wonder if we could have leave to move that at midnight television expire, or we could do it by vote.

There's the opposition House Leader. I was just making the point that the....

The Chair: With all due respect, hon. minister, I'm not at all comfortable with having a discussion with respect to an order. This is a procedure that perhaps should be discussed between the House Leaders or the Whips or whatever. I'm not sure that we should try and raise it at this time, in the middle of this debate.

Hon. G. Clark: Okay, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question, which was for a breakdown of the ministry's operating budget, since the fiscal year began with two separate ministries, we start then with Lands and Parks. Management services, $9,363,274. Land services, $11,345,941. Surveys and resource mapping -- this figure is a net of recoveries, so it's a net figure after recoveries -- $11,205,089. Lands operations, $10,811,675. Parks program management, $3,742,643. Parks operations and development -- and again that's a net of recoveries figure -- $31,304,217. That was vote 44 at that time. These were in the estimates that did not get debated in the last session. The total was $77,772,839. That was the portion for Lands and Parks, and we're just recovering the figure for the Environment portion of the ministry.

Perhaps if the hon. member for Okanagan East would agree, we could go on to another question, and I will come back to give you those figures in a few moments for the Environment part of the ministry.

J. Tyabji: That's just fine.

If I could go to a different question. One thing that is of great concern in this portfolio is the special-warrant spending under vote 33, which is ministry operations under the heading of B.C. Environment, so it would be vote 33, section 3, No. 1, environmental protection and all the way through to No. 8 going down to regional operations. If there's some kind of breakdown, for example on special warrants for water management, pesticide management, environmental assessment, fisheries, wildlife, integrated management and regional operations as broken down in the estimates, if there's some kind of rundown that you could give me on that....

Hon. J. Cashore: I have the figures here for the total for the year. If the member is asking for the breakdown of the portion of the year that relates to those special warrants, we have to go with the global figure that you have there and just recognize it is an amount that is within the total budgeted amount to fill out those numbers during those periods for which those special warrants are related. Management services is $36,627,000; Environmental Appeal Board, $204,000; and under the heading of environmental management, we have environmental protection, $20,464,000; water management, $13,639,000; pesticide control, $535,000; environmental assessment, $770,000. The total for that section is $35,408,000. New heading: fisheries, wildlife and integrated management. Fisheries, $6,767,000; wildlife, $5,052,000; integrated management, $1,823,000 -- for a total of $13,642,000. Next heading: regional operations and enforcement, $51,382,000. The total for the environment under that breakdown is $137,584,000.

Going back to the hon. member's previous question, I can now give you the breakdown under the B.C. Environment side: salaries and benefits, $64,956,578; operating costs, $72,179,154; assets acquisition, $6,079,920; grants and contributions, $2,107,100; other expenditures, $170,000; under that in brackets you can put recoveries, $4,290,032, for a total of $141,202,721.

J. Tyabji: If we could go to the regional operations part of environmental protection, how many conservation officers were affected by the special warrant, and in what manner -- for example, salary increases, or if money was allocated through the regional operations? I'm assuming that's the heading they would come under.

Hon. J. Cashore: During the period covered, we had 126 full-time conservation officers. There was no change in salaries; the standards with regard to salary levels and all other benefits remained the same. The special warrants were simply to enable the funds necessary to maintain the clearly established targets with regard to those full-time employees.

J. Tyabji: If we could go to the public relations and communications part of the budget, was there was any allocation of funds in the Environment portfolio for public relations or communications through the special warrants?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. Special warrant money would have gone to that through the public affairs part of the ministry. If you want, we can get the total for the year, and then you can recognize that the special warrants are just a part of that and consistent with what has been put forward.

J. Tyabji: Going to the special warrants part with regard to vote 33 under Lands and Parks, we have two different headings for assets acquisition. Was money allocated through the special warrant to assets acquisition under Lands and Parks in the Environment portfolio? If so, could you be as specific as possible as to what the acquisitions were?

[12:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: I would just like to explain to the hon. member that the special warrants apply to every item in the ministry. We can go through this exercise of answering with regard to each of these questions you're asking me, but the answer is the same 

[ Page 373 ]

for each one. The special warrants apply to the amount that was put forward at budget time and the estimates last year, and the answer is always the same. The answer is, with regard to every one of these questions, that that's what the special warrants apply to. They do not apply to extraordinary items, that I am aware of, that are not part of the regular budget of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

J. Tyabji: In that case, if we could possibly go through item by item, and I can do the subtraction myself to see if there's any difference between the estimates for '91-92 and the final budget. If we could do that now under vote 33, and we could go to the subheading of B.C. Lands. Perhaps we could go through B.C. Lands and then B.C. Parks. If you could call out the numbers, I'll write them down.

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order. The member talks about vote 33, which is the estimates for '92-93, I believe. This is not for the debate in the House. If I could just clarify, what the minister said was that they were not over budget on any of the items before they were tabled in the estimates. They are exactly as you see in the estimates. That seems to be your question, and it's fruitless to continue, it seems to me.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

The Chair: The point of order is well taken, government House Leader. If we could concentrate on the matter before us, the schedule.

J. Tyabji: If I understand correctly, we are here to talk about special warrants, and as I have asked you about the asset acquisitions under B.C. Lands and B.C. Parks for the Environment portfolio. I would like to know what the numbers are. It doesn't matter to me whether we talk about the specifics for special warrants, or whether we talk about a global figure. Obviously it's easier to take the global figure, which is why I had phrased my question in that manner. It doesn't matter to me how I phrase the question, but I would like some kind of breakdown on the numbers.

Hon. J. Cashore: I think I understand the question. The question's already been answered. The fact is that all of the answers are in the estimate book. I have given the numbers that the member has asked for already under the heading of Lands and Parks. I don't see a need to repeat them. I've stated them verbally in the House. I've also indicated that those numbers are in the estimate books. If there is a question to me suggesting that perhaps the special warrants apply to something not covered in the estimate books, then I could understand canvassing that. But my answer has been that there's nothing over and above what is listed in the estimate books. It would be interesting if we could know where this line of questioning is going, because we are simply stating the obvious.

J. Tyabji: So if I'm to understand the estimates tabled in '91-92, you ended with identically the same amount. When we broke things down this way, was there no difference in the amount of money spent?

Hon. J. Cashore: The special warrants -- when it came to what was totalled there, it was the very same as the estimates. Again, I don't understand where this question is heading other than to be stating what is already obvious.

W. Hurd: I have a question regarding the Parks '90 plan. Is there any special warrant spending pertaining to the Parks '90 plan, or any aspects of that report which have been implemented in the special warrant period that has been covered by those expenditures?

Hon. J. Cashore: That has been outlined in the estimates, and that's the answer. The work of Parks Plan '90 has been ongoing.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, while sitting here listening, I have come to the conclusion that, in fact, none of the votes last year have been passed. Therefore every single item within your estimates is included in the special warrants. Therefore, as I would understand it, it is all perfectly proper for us to question any expenditure made by way of special warrants. Because the vote wasn't passed, it really goes back and opens up the whole ball of wax.

Hon. J. Cashore: I agree with what the hon. member has just said, and if there are questions relating to matters of substance, I will do my best to answer.

G. Wilson: Mr. Minister, I wonder if you could tell me, out of the roughly $23 million that's under environmental protection, how much of that money was actually committed in terms of habitat maintenance and habitat protection for salmonid enhancement in estuaries in the coastal British Columbia region?

Hon. J. Cashore: That question is a real stickler. We do have the answer; we will get the answer. I won't give the member any guarantees on how soon he will get the answer, but when we get it we'll give it to the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Wilson: With all due respect, we've just heard the minister say: ask a substantive question and we'll give you an answer. I asked a substantive question, and he doesn't have the answer.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: It seems to me that the process that we are going through here tonight is one that allows the opposition, and therefore the people of British Columbia, an opportunity to see how the people's money has been spent. We are not here to simply have everything taken on notice so that we can have provision provided.

Let me then ask the minister a question that perhaps he can respond to. With respect to the question on environmental protection, or in any other of the line ministries under B.C. Environment in the estimates 

[ Page 374 ]

which are under the special warrants that we are considering here tonight, how much of that money was actually committed to municipal solid waste management last year? What proportion of the solid waste management commitment under the Ministry of Environment was actually put in place with respect to recycling programs?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, he said that he was not getting an answer. But I've committed to give the Leader of the Opposition an answer. If he expects us to be able to come up with literally thousands of subfigures with regard to these numbers, then I would submit that he's not being as reasonable as he might be -- even at this hour. It's a question that could be put on the order paper, but I've made a commitment to get that information for the member, and we will do that. So it's not correct to say that you've asked for an answer that's not forthcoming. I'm sure that even the Leader of the Opposition would expect to be reasonable in enabling that information to come forward in due course, which it will.

With regard to the question about recycling, the Leader of the Opposition should be aware that the special warrants do not apply to the sustainable environment fund. That question should be addressed to the sustainable environment fund, and there will be an opportunity when we get onto estimates.

G. Wilson: I do want to be reasonable to the minister; I'm not trying to be unreasonable. I'm aware that the money specifically committed to recycling is under the sustainable environment fund. My question was with respect to environmental protection, whether any of the money committed within that $23 million went to municipal solid waste management programs and in particular to open dump sites currently being administered, licensed and permitted under the Ministry of Environment, which are on hazardous watercourses and creating leachate problems and a great deal of difficulty for people in residential developments in and around those areas.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased to know that finally we've got to some substance that can be answered. Could the minister tell me the amount?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes, we'll get that information for the Leader of the Opposition.

J. Tyabji: Mr. Chairman, if you could help me out, I understand that some studies have been done on beverage deposits, and I know there was a commission. There was some money spent on that, and currently it's being considered for legislation. Could you please let me know how much money has been spent on the analysis through the special warrants for the Environment portfolio?

Hon. J. Cashore: To the best of my knowledge, most of the money that would go to studies on beverage containers would come out of the sustainable environment fund, and therefore it would not be the subject of these special warrants. However, in fairness, I point out that the money that goes into the Ministry of Environment staff, who are certainly very much involved in that process, does come out of the special warrant. As to how much, no, I'm not going to give you that answer, because that would require very precise calculation. It would mean that I'd have to be convinced that there's some value in providing that number. I'm telling you that yes, there is staff support for the process leading to a beverage container strategy.

J. Tyabji: Could you give me some idea of how much money was spent through the special warrants for the Environment portfolio on the Greater Vancouver Regional District air quality monitoring service?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to that is $475,000.

With regard to an earlier question that I believe was asked by the Leader of the Opposition about salmon habitat, the answer to the first part of his question is that the protection of salmon habitat in salt water is a federal responsibility, and therefore he'd have to talk to the federal government about that. We do attempt, where possible and within the constraints of our budget, to purchase estuarian habitat and would have spent about $1 million in 1991-92 with regard to funds going into estuarian habitat that could relate to salmon enhancement.

The Chair: Hon. members, would you please be so kind as to address your questions through the Chair; stand and be recognized, in respect of Hansard

J. Tyabji: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. Under the heading of environmental protection, we have some funding for organizations for the use and protection of the environment. Could you be as specific as possible in giving me some idea of how much money is spent and to what end, under this category?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm having a little difficulty hearing. I think there is some noise in the room, or it may just be that my ability to hear is fading. Perhaps that microphone could be a bit louder. I knew it was under the heading of environmental protection, but I didn't get the specific that the member was asking for.

[12:15]

J. Tyabji: Could you give me some idea of the funding that has been provided to organizations for the use and protection of the environment and be as specific as possible as to the end for these funds?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to do my best to answer the question, but I would like to ask the member to please help me and be more specific. Give me names of organizations that you wish some specific answers about. Again, if I can't come up with those precise dollar figures right now, we'll get that to 

[ Page 375 ]

you. But there are lots of organizations, and I don't find that this question has the focus that enables me to answer it.

J. Tyabji: As listed in the estimates, there is a provision made for funding to organizations for the use and protection of the environment under environmental protection. What I'm looking for is.... This is all lumped together under environmental protection with such things, for example, as the Fraser River Harbour Commission. Some of the basin agreement is in a different section of it. I can read subheading (a) under vote 33, if you like:

"Grants and contributions are provided for the Fraser River basin agreement, and to the Greater Vancouver Regional District for air-quality monitoring, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the Fraser River estuary management program, and to a number of organizations concerned with use and protection of the environment."

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that all of those would be under the special warrants and would have received money up to the totals listed under special warrants. If the hon. member is asking for the totals listed, I'll state those numbers in a few moments.

G. Farrell-Collins: I do have a number of questions for the minister that I'm sure he is prepared for. The first one is: what is the total number of consultants and/or contractors hired...?

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. There's a question on the order paper to this effect, and of course, questions on the order paper are not appropriate for oral questions.

The Chair: The point of order is well taken. Again I'll caution the hon. members.... I was listening to the debate when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair, and we seem to be drifting far afield. Could we please concentrate on the schedule.

K. Jones: Point of order. The Minister of Finance spoke on a point of order before he even heard the context of the message being presented. He was prejudging the statement being made, and therefore you shouldn't have been considering it.

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member, a point of order is not debatable.

F. Gingell: If I may, I'd just like to come back to a question relative to the sustainable environment fund.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the question on the sustainable environment fund, it's not the subject of a special warrant, therefore the question is out of order.

F. Gingell: The amount of money that has been appropriated from the Ministry of Environment that went into the.... There was an amount that went through appropriations from the ministry into the sustainable environment fund for the year 1991-92.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: At the moment we don't have the 1991-92 financial statements, and I'm really surprised we don't, because it's now 20 minutes after March 31, and I would have thought a nice, efficient government like that would have delivered them around.

In the year 1991, there was $161 million that was revenue from appropriations in the sustainable environment fund that came from forest renewal, and there was an additional $50 million that went into the portion of the sustainable environment fund that is from environment protection and enhancement. If there was any amount that came in 1991-92, that surely came in through this ministry and through these special warrants. Not correct?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, the question's still out of order, but just so that this question doesn't persist, there were moneys that went into SEF with regard to forestry silviculture, and also from the Lottery Fund, but not money that was in the general budget of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks.

G. Wilson: I would like to come back again to the B.C. environment fund, and in this instance, my question is with specific reference to water management. Could the minister tell us, of the $14 million that is listed here under the special warrants that we are debating tonight, the amount of dollars that have actually been committed to the maintenance and management of watersheds that are dedicated by municipalities, and whether water management dollars have been put into maintaining those watersheds for long-term uses for future residential or commercial demand?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, the Ministry of Environment carries out various kinds of monitoring, enforcing and biological work with regard to watersheds and other parts of our environment. This is the routine work of our ministry, so the answer is yes. With regard to breaking out a figure, no, that's not readily available.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chair, this is becoming somewhat frustrating. I'm well aware of how the Ministry of Environment works. I'm not here to ask how your ministry works; I'm really here to ascertain how much money is being committed to various programs and expenditures. That's what we're doing here tonight -- a review of the special-warrant expenditures, not a review of how ministries work.

My question is motivated because it is of interest to British Columbians to try to pare out of that water management money how many tax dollars are actually going into the maintenance and protection of dedicated 

[ Page 376 ]

watersheds, and how many are going into general watercourse maintenance and management. They are two quite separate, quite different entities.

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition could describe any number of entities in the way he would like to account for them. What we are able to report on is on the basis of our method of categorizing the various activities of the ministry. I've given him a generic answer -- that's true -- where I pointed out that we do work with regard to watersheds. We work in consultation with the Ministry of Forests; there are many aspects to that. But if the Leader of the Opposition is saying, "Break it down into the categories that I am going to give you," the fact is that we don't have those figures readily available. Perhaps he would like to suggest some new form of accounting. I think the form of accounting we are using is appropriate. That work is ongoing. It is being done by a dedicated staff; it will continue to be done. That's the answer.

G. Wilson: Mr. Chair, let me try to come at this question from a slightly different perspective, then. I am not in any way trying to be confrontational in my questioning or antagonistic to the minister. But I am interested in getting some answers to some of these questions. Within the ministry's water management branch -- can we break it down that way? -- how much of the money that is being or has been expended through special warrants has gone into the maintenance and protection of dedicated domestic watersheds? And how much has gone into the larger question of general watershed protection? I'm floored that that is such a difficult question.

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I understand that he tells me that he feels floored. I'll just register that; that's a piece of information that is of interest to some members of the House.

D. Jarvis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear what the minister is saying. Could you ask the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Labour not to hold their own meeting down at the far end of the House, please?

The Chair: The point of order is taken. Could we have some respect in the corner of the House, please.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to some categories: water allocation and regulation of surface water, $2,235,177; resource quality, $3,072,878; flood damage prevention, $4,393,262; resource inventory and planning, $3,267,709; program management, $1,654,782.

It would be helpful if the Leader of the Oppositon would give some indication as to where he's going with these questions. What is the question behind the question? Perhaps I could be more helpful if I knew that.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I still cannot hear.

G. Wilson: I wonder if we could have some decorum in this House. At least some of us are trying to get some work done tonight.

The minister asks a legitimate question, and I'd be happy to tell him where I'm headed on this question. It is specifically with respect to the $3,072,000 on water quality. That is one of the items that we wanted to see broken out. We have some concerns. We would like to know, Mr. Minister, if you could tell us what amount of that water quality line in your budget is actually provided for inspection and testing of water quality. I ask that because there are growing concerns in many communities that there have been inadequate expenditures in the period covered by the special warrants under consideration here. What amount of dollars were actually committed for water quality inspection and the provision of maintenance and protection services? I would assume that it would be in the breakout of the $3,072,000 that you just outlined.

[12:30]

Hon. J. Cashore: We have an ambient water quality program that's very close to $700,000. The Leader of the Opposition should recognize that there are such things as laboratory services and a myriad of activities that relate to the issue of water quality. If he's expecting a complete breakout on that, the answer is no.

G. Wilson: Mr. Minister, what you have provided is helpful, and I thank you for that.

Would the minister be prepared to outline with respect to environmental assessment the degree to which the $729,000 expenditure is committed to staff assessment for items such as development, and is that residential, commercial, industrial or resource extraction development?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is staff, equipment, operations of the branch, various personnel procedures and the equipment needed to do the job.

G. Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I wonder if the minister could tell us, then, under the amounts in the special warrants under consideration tonight, how much of that environmental assessment, if any, has gone into the review of the Nechako and Alcan development project. And has this ministry taken any leadership with respect to expenditure for assessment on the Nechako River -- which, of course, is negatively affecting many aboriginal people as well as many people who are ranching and living in the regions around and on the banks of the Nechako?

Hon. J. Cashore: If the Leader of the Opposition is asking how much of the special warrants are going into the environmental assessment aspect, we've answered that question several times. The answer is that the special warrants go into environmental assessment as part of the ongoing work of the budget. We've already established that we're not going beyond budget, therefore the special warrants are within the budget as listed in the budget book.

[ Page 377 ]

If he's asking if the ministry is involved in the issue of assessing and addressing concerns with regard to the Nechako River, the answer is yes.

G. Wilson: Well, I'm delighted to hear that, and I'm sure that the people in the areas affected along the banks of the Nechako, as well as Chief Peter Quaw and other aboriginal people who have been showing leadership in trying to get some water quality maintenance and management protection for the Nechako, will be delighted to hear that. Will the minister share with those concerned British Columbia residents how much money this ministry committed last year in environmental impact assessment of the Alcan development on the Nechako River?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is: not very much. Our staff have been working on that issue. If you were to break out the staff time -- if you were to do that type of extrapolation -- it would come to a recognition that we have been addressing that issue. It's an issue that, I think, will be very appropriately canvassed in the estimates. I'm sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition agrees that we really need to be looking at this with regard to our future plans, rather than with regard to the last year. But I can assure him that since I came on the job, I, along with my colleagues, have been addressing that issue. We've been addressing it in consultation with staff within this ministry and within other ministries. But if he's asking for a breakout on that, no.

G. Wilson: I guess the joy that the people along the Nechako have just heard -- for those who were still up and listening to this -- has been short-lived. While the answer was yes, the answer is also: not very much money.

I wonder if we could move to the question with respect to regional operations and enforcement. We're anxious to know, of the $51 million that is committed to that question, how much of that money has gone into the enforcement and maintenance of permits that are granted by the Ministry of Environment for toxic dump sites that are happening in the Georgia Strait-Howe Sound areas? We wonder whether or not there has been any commitment in the last year under the special warrants we're reviewing tonight for ongoing enforcement at federal dump sites that are approved by permit by the provincial Ministry of Environment.

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, we don't have that number at hand.

G. Wilson: I'll accept that the figure will be forthcoming, I assume, when you say you don't have it hand. I would hope that the minister will share with us what kind of moneys have been put in place.

I wonder, then, if the minister could outline to the opposition what the regional operations enforcement breakout would entail -- if, in fact, we are dealing primarily with matters of wildlife enforcement in terms of violations with respect to illegal hunting, poaching and so on, if we are looking at enforcement with respect to direct pollution and if that might be involved also with pulp mill pollution, and whether or not we're looking at regional operations and enforcement against other government agencies which are violating existing government regulations with respect to stream management enhancement. The principal offender of course, which we all know, is the Ministry of Highways.

Hon. J. Cashore: That was a speech, not a question. It was interesting, but there wasn't a question in it.

G. Wilson: With all due respect to the minister, that was not a speech. It was a question. Let me be much more specific. I can see I'm going to have to try to direct my questions with fewer syllables and much more direction. I recognize that the members opposite would also appreciate it if I used words with fewer syllables. Perhaps they could engage in the debate.

It would seem to me that this is a legitimate question on the $51 million, because environmental enforcement, especially with respect to matters on the B.C. environment, is a critical question and people want to know that it is in place. There are large numbers of violators. We constantly hear that existing regulations are not being enforced. I believe it to be a legitimate question to the minister -- if he can tell us how that expenditure on environmental enforcement breaks out.

What proportion is it with respect to wildlife violation? It is a significant number, I would suspect. What percentage does it go to with respect to hazardous materials into the atmosphere and water, and to what extent are the violations created by other government agencies? For example, the Vancouver Island pipeline, which was not a government agency, certainly created significant stream damage, and the Ministry of Highways has recently been taken to court as a result, I understand, of both federal and provincial Ministry of Environment enforcement regulations.

Hon. J. Cashore: The amount for the conservation officer service is $8 million. Conservation officers are involved in a number of operations with regard to investigating pollution offenses and poaching. I have never suggested that we had sufficient conservation officers under the previous budget to monitor and enforce the myriad permits and regulations throughout the province. I'm sure that the hon. Leader of the Opposition would recognize that we have work to do in this area.

I'm really looking forward to being able to talk about the initiatives that we will be able to talk about when we get onto the estimates. We're really going to be able to talk about some exciting developments at that time. But given that the Leader of the Opposition wants to canvass the planning process that was set up by a previous regime, I will tell the leader that since I have become the minister I have made a very great effort to be in close contact with our staff, wildlife biologists and conservation officer service of 130 individuals, and to do everything that I possibly can to build morale and help them to be able to fulfil their task, given that it's an extremely challenging and difficult job -- one that requires the kind of support we received from the B.C. 

[ Page 378 ]

Wildlife Federation and others with their reporting process. It's often people in the Wildlife Federation or trappers or others who are the first ones on site to see offences taking place out there, especially with regard to poaching and other types of things. No one has ever suggested that we don't have a very demanding challenge when it comes to this issue. We've been working very hard on that since I became the minister. Before I became the minister, the people in our ministry were working hard on that with a view to developing those policies that we're looking forward to discussing when we get onto the estimates.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the answer from the minister. Those are some of the figures that we were looking for. I also appreciate that he has inherited a ministry with a lot of regulation that's unenforceable, and I certainly don't hold him responsible for that. I would hope that I'm not hearing a defensive tone in his voice as we go through these estimates, but I would suggest that we're not canvassing the planning process. We're trying to canvass expenditures of money here.

If we can go and look at pesticide management, there was $1 million committed last year. Is the minister aware, under the special warrants under debate tonight, how much of that $1 million might have been put into the study of potential management techniques for the gypsy moth, given that his ministry has recently issued permits to allow the federal government to spray in Vancouver?

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to pesticide management, the special warrant goes towards the cost of operating the office that functions under the Pesticide Control Act. Mr. Ron Kobylnyk is the individual who is in charge of that branch, and he has issued the permit based on weighing the information that's come before him from health, environmental and economic perspectives. That process is now heading towards the Environmental Appeal Board.

With regard to the earlier question on enforcement, about 28 percent of the activities in our conservation office are services related to fish and wildlife issues and the remainder are largely pollution-related activities.

[12:45]

G. Wilson: That is indeed enlightening information, and I thank the minister for providing it for us.

Could the minister tell us -- under any of the expenditures under consideration here tonight -- if the Ministry of Environment has engaged in any research with respect to alternative sources of pest control outside the use of pesticide management? That is, has there been any research done on the potential use of manual trapping or other sorts of pest maintenance and control that would eliminate the need for the use of pesticides in B.C.?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, the ministry is involved in ongoing work through the pesticide management branch working with the Ministry of Agriculture. For instance, the goal is to try to reduce the amount of pesticides being used and to find alternatives.

With regard to the earlier question about enforcement, I keep getting late-breaking dispatches, so I'd like to add another one. The total revenue from fines during the fiscal year was budgeted at $1.7 million. It might interest the member to know that if we were to look at the fines received under the Waste Management Act in the years 1986 to 1989, the average fines collected would have been under $35,000 for the entire province in an entire year. So there has been a significant improvement, but not enough. We should also recognize that the dollars of revenue that come in as a result of enforcement through the courts are very expensive dollars. They cost an awful lot more than what comes in. So, to be effective, there has to be an array of measures: that court-centred approach and also a carrot approach rather than a stick approach; the polluter-pays principle; and various other elements which will enable us to address this problem effectively. At the end of the day the judge of how effective we are is not how much we collect in fines, but how much we clean up our environment.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, earlier this evening I asked a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and was informed by your leader that she was unable to answer and that I could get the answer from you. Accordingly, with respect to the Peat Marwick review for the period of warrants, could you give the committee a breakdown of the revenue for water resources, firstly by ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: I'm advised that we're dealing with expenditures and not revenue.

K. Jones: With regard to the Owen Commission on Resources and Environment, and the announcement that came during this last period and its expenditures, could you give us a detailing of its total expenditures to date?

Hon. J. Cashore: I would really like to be able to talk about this, but the question is out of order. It's funded by SEF, and I really look forward to getting on to the estimates, when we can discuss that, because it's a topic very dear to my heart.

K. Jones: You participated in the program that made the announcement of that. Was there no money expended by your ministry in that announcement? Was there no advertising spent on that project?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, there was money in the estimates and in the special warrants for staff support and that sort of thing, and working up the process towards being able to make that announcement.

K. Jones: What was that amount expended?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's not possible to expect that we'd be able to break that out. The fact is that we have staff who have worked on preparing that submission, preparing that announcement, preparing the groundwork. No, it's not possible to break that out.

[ Page 379 ]

K. Jones: There was a contract given that was in support of that commission, I believe, to the NOW Communications firm with regard to your advertising and as part of that commission. Was that contract supported by any money under this warrant?

Hon. J. Cashore: No.

J. Tyabji: I remind the minister that I'm still waiting for an answer as to the advertising budget with regard to the special warrants and also for the list of the organizations.

I notice there is no separate category for research and development in the Environment portfolio, so what I would ask is that we talk about the subject of research and development under the category of wildlife. I have several questions. The first one I'd like to ask is: if there is research and development into alternatives to the current methods of controlling some of the wildlife populations that we see on the periphery of urban areas.... Just to give you an example to make your answer more specific, we have a couple of problems in Okanagan East with Canada geese and deer infringing. Urban encroachment on wildlife areas has resulted in a problem. The current methods of dealing with this is to destroy the animals; this is not something that is satisfactory to the public or to the people -- some of the orchardists -- who are affected by it. I want to know if there has been any money expended under the special warrants, because this issue did come up, to deal with this problem as an environmental issue as an alternative to the current methods of dealing with it.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is an array of resources available in terms of research that is ongoing with regard to the issues that the hon. member raises. Certainly where wildlife concerns impact urban communities or, at least, built-up communities is an important issue. Mr. Jim Walker, who is the assistant deputy minister of fish and wildlife, is very highly regarded in this field. If there is anybody in British Columbia that knows how to deploy his staff effectively in order to glean that kind of information and make use of that research work that has already taken place, it is Jim Walker and his staff.

With regard to the issue of research and development, the research aspect of it is the part where we need to be concentrating, and in the Ministry of Environment we are working in many ways to enhance that issue, including research by our own staff.

J. Tyabji: The issue of solid waste management was brought up earlier by the opposition leader, specifically recycling. I'd like to talk about some other waste management alternatives. I had been asking you about the beverage deposit. I'd like to delve into other things. For example, since you've been sworn in has any money been expended under the special warrants in terms of initiatives or research and development with regard to composting or other alternatives to solid waste disposal?

Hon. J. Cashore: I look forward to discussing that issue. It's an important issue under the SEF estimate; therefore the question is out of order and we're not to discuss it at this time.

With regard to the public affairs budget, thanks for reminding me about that. The amount is $1.3 million for our public affairs budget for the year, and special warrant money also went into that.

L. Fox: I intend to keep my question to the minister on the warrants, but in order to do that, I ask to be allowed to give a little background. The issue I'm dealing with is vacant service station lots. We have within the ministry acceptable levels for contaminated soil, but we don't have at this point, at least to my knowledge -- hence the question -- acceptable levels in terms of groundwater on those specific sites, thereby making it impossible for owners of these sites to sell them or whatever. Was any money expended within any of these warrants towards developing acceptable groundwater levels?

Hon. J. Cashore: As I understand the question, it relates to abandoned service stations and the possible contamination of groundwater in the vicinity of the underground storage tanks. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment has set guidelines with regard to abandoned storage tanks. We are reviewing those standards to enable our ministry to ensure we are achieving at least the national levels with regard to those tanks. We recognize that there are difficult aspects to this question. As the member points out, often a small business person ends up with that site and is left with the contamination problem. As for the question of whether the special warrant has been applied to addressing that issue, the answer is yes in terms of the ongoing work of the ministry. Again, I believe it's an issue we should be canvassing during estimates.

L. Fox: By way of clarification, the groundwater I refer to is not in the storage tanks themselves but in many cases is leeching in from other sites. I know of two sites which individuals have had to hold on to for about a year. My question primarily was: was the emphasis given within the warrants to developing suitable levels for acceptable groundwater so that we might alleviate some of the pressures on these private landowners?

[1:00]

Hon. J. Cashore: I answered the question. We have ongoing work in that area. Special warrants simply are supporting the work of the budget that was already established.

K. Jones: I'm sure the minister is aware of the Cypress Park development proposal. His ministry has various programs in relation to that. The relationship with the ownership of that is a special relationship, I understand, and different from other parks. Could you explain the difference to us between that park and other parks in relation to this expenditure?

[ Page 380 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: There's a public consultation process underway with regard to that park. This is an issue that should be canvassed during estimates, and I think that the member should save his discussion for that time, when it would be much more productive.

W. Hurd: I have a question regarding the windup of the hazardous waste disposal corporation. Could you advise us how much money was expended to wind that corporation down?

Hon. J. Cashore: The question's out of order. It comes under the sustainable environment fund.

W. Hurd: Would that also include any severance pay to officers of the corporation?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

W. Hurd: My next question relates to the parks fee increases that were announced during the special-warrant period. Were any consultants hired to study the impact of those fees on the user groups in provincial parks?

Hon. J. Cashore: No consultants. We have people more than adequate to conduct those reviews within the ministry.

W. Hurd: Further to the issue of the parks fee increases, can the minister advise the committee of the deliberations with respect to the impact on his expenditures during this period of this particular increase in parks fees?

Hon. J. Cashore: There were a number of factors, including the motel-hotel and campground industry and the rates that they set, and the importance of the government not undercutting their business.

K. Jones: Back to the question of Cypress Park development. Has there been any expenditure of money investigating the proposal to expand the boundaries of the park beyond its present boundaries?

Hon. J. Cashore: If the question refers to the ongoing work of the ministry in reviewing all possibilities and considerations, the answer is yes.

K. Jones: Further to that, how much money has been spent in that type of work?

J. Tyabji: In the past few months, since you've been sworn in, a couple of very important issues have come up with regard to air quality and the atmosphere. What I'd like to know is: what moneys have been spent through special warrants with regard to stopping ozone depletion or in any participation on the part of the provincial government in the federal government's attempts in this regard; whether we're doing it in terms of research and development or in terms of some kind of analysis of the regulations; or if any money has been expended at all in terms of public education?

The second part is with regard to the atmosphere and air quality. Anyone who has flown over the province in the last few weeks has seen the very severe problem we have in terms of open burning and smoke. I'd like to know if any money has been expended to try to reverse that and to look into some of the alternatives, or to try to halt the expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere.

Hon. J. Cashore: With regard to the last question, the answer is yes. With regard to the earlier part of the question, it's part of the ongoing work of the ministry.

J. Tyabji: On the second part of my question regarding the expulsion of carbon through burning and open burning, could you please be more specific in terms of what money has been spent and to what end?

Hon. J. Cashore: No. I'll be more specific in the estimates.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, I have a straightforward question about water taxes, which for years have been causing hardship for the resource industry. When I asked the Minister of Energy earlier about a breakdown of revenues from this tax, she said that I should ask you. Let me put it this way: do you have someone in your ministry who is responsible for either collecting this tax or developing policy in this area?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, this has to do with revenues, not expenses.

D. Jarvis: Under your warrants.... Do you have anyone responsible for either collecting this tax or developing policy in that area? 

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, was that person paid moneys from any of these warrants?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes.

D. Jarvis: Mr. Minister, may I therefore ask if the person who has been funded by these warrants would have any information that I'm seeking this morning?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, even on April Fools' morning I'm not a mind-reader, so I don't know exactly what the member's seeking. But I would assume that he probably does.

D. Jarvis: That was a very simple question, and not even on April Fools' morning could anyone be confused about that. I asked: would the person who has been funded by these warrants have the information that I'm seeking this morning?

Hon. J. Cashore: In my opinion, yes.

[ Page 381 ]

D. Jarvis: Again I ask for the information that I'm seeking on the water tax collected. How is it broken down between ministries?

Hon. J. Cashore: It goes to consolidated revenue, so it's not really appropriate for this discussion.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask the minister: what do you mean it's not...? It's a simple matter of fact. The revenue comes into this. If you know how to run books it's a matter of a statement. Can't your staff answer the question by simply saying that so much money comes into Forestry, so much money comes into the Energy department? It's a very simple thing. You've got the staff there. Let's hear it. What are you trying to hide? We've been trying to get this information out of the Energy department for two to three weeks now, and no one will answer. Surely you can come up with a simple statement like that. That's all, just a question.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: On a point of order. The member should stop making comments if he is not sitting at his desk.

The Chair: The point of order is well taken. Would members please refrain from interjections until they are recognized.

This is for the benefit of all members. Members may ask a question, but they cannot insist on a an answer. It is a matter of discretion on the part of the minister whether he wishes to answer. The questions cannot be insisted upon.

C. Serwa: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[1:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, I assume that we can continue to question the special warrants under the Environment ministry.

The Chair: That's correct, hon. member.

W. Hurd: I just have a question regarding the pulp mill regulations announced by his ministry. Can he advise the committee what expenditures there were in connection with any consulting fees on the economic impact of these regulations on the pulp industry?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is that is there were no such consulting fees. We have the capacity within the ministry to canvass this issue thoroughly, which we did appropriately, and we continue to do so.

W. Hurd: Perhaps he can advise the committee what those figures were, and what his ministry had determined the economic impact would be on the pulp mills in the province. Could he share that information with the committee?

Hon. J. Cashore: The economic impact on the pulp mills will be that the pulp industry and all of British Columbia industry will benefit from a very positive reputation, and that B.C. will emerge as one of the cleanest environments in the country.

M. Farnworth: I would like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave not granted.

W. Hurd: Again to the minister: I appreciate the positive benefits his ministry perceives in connection with the pulp mill regulations, but I was really quite interested in a dollar figure, if he could produce that for the committee.

Hon. J. Cashore: We've weighed all aspects of this situation, and we're confident that we made the right decision both in terms of the economic benefit to the province and with regard to the benefit to the environment, which really is fundamental to the legacy that our children are going to inherit.

W. Hurd: Am I to assume, therefore, that there are no figures available on how much it will cost the 26 pulp mills in this province to meet the new regulations announced by his ministry?

Hon. J. Cashore: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't advise the member ever to make assumptions.

W. Hurd: My question continues to be: is there a figure available or is there not?

[ Page 382 ]

Hon. J. Cashore: The questions that this member is pursuing are not really part of the warrants, so the questions aren't really appropriate.

G. Wilson: We're certainly anxious to get some of the data that we have asked for and that has not been available tonight. I trust that the minister will make that data available to us, as he said he would.

If we could move to a matter on B.C. Lands, this is also under this ministerial operation in the special warrants under consideration tonight. Could the minister tell us how much of the money committed under B.C. Lands has been committed to the GIS mapping service for survey and resource mapping? To what extent is the GIS mapping service now being developed in terms of a comprehensive land inventory with Washington State, if at all?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's $5.5 million.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to thank you for providing us this opportunity to ask you questions, Mr. Minister, and I look forward to some answers during the estimates discussion.

The Chair: That appears to conclude the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. We now move on to the Ministry of Finance.

F. Gingell: This is the first opportunity that I've had in this House to address the minister and congratulate him on his appointment as government House Leader...

G. Wilson: Acting Premier, minister of defence....

F. Gingell: ...acting Premier, minister of defence, and so on.

Recognizing that the original estimates for the year past were subsequently adjusted to put certain other appropriations through your ministry -- and they finished up with an amount of $387,000,860 -- could you please advise us what portion of the supplementary bill and the special warrants are part of that expenditure plan and how much of them...?

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order, I would just like to bring to the attention of the House the disorderly conduct of the member who is now crouched behind our benches, standing behind the member who is asking questions, and making rude gestures and gesticulating. Ask him to take his seat in the appropriate place in the House.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. As a matter of courtesy, if the members first of all could be quiet. It is a practice for members to visit one another and carry on informal discussions, and this has been acceptable in the past. We would just ask that all members be sensitive to the proceedings in the committee. Would the member who had his place continue.

F. Gingell: My quick calculation brings the overexpenditure in this ministry to $118.94 million for the year. Could you please tell us what those amounts are made up of?

Hon. G. Clark: This ministry is over budget as a result of two things: $12 million for Cassiar and $5.5 million for other things -- $3 million of which is for GASSP, the accounting system which I know the member opposite supports.

F. Gingell: In the budget documents that you presented the other day, the expenditures shown against your ministry come to $506.8 million. The adjusted plan was $387.86 million. Perhaps you could reconcile that difference of $118.94 million to this amount of $17.5 million.

Hon. G. Clark: There are some valuation adjustments in the budget documents. That's not before the House today; the House is debating special warrants. That is an expenditure item. We have fully expended our budget that was tabled and not passed in special warrants. In addition, there's about $17.5 million on top of that, and I discussed what that was for.

F. Gingell: Regarding the number of FTEs planned for your department for the year 1991-92, can you please tell us how many FTEs there were on November 5 and how many FTEs there are on the staff of your ministry now, and include in that number any individuals who are described as contract employees?

[1:30]

Hon. G. Clark: The FTE system has been totally discredited. There's one special report from Peat Marwick that documents that. They're really meaningless. The previous administration artificially kept the number of FTEs lower. It didn't mean that there were fewer people working for government. I think Peat Marwick said there were some 11,000 people. So it's really not an effective track of what's going on. The most important thing is expenditures.

If you'd like, just for the sake of this, because we're still keeping these fictitious numbers.... We're authorized to have 919 FTEs, and there were and are 850 FTEs, as I understand it. It doesn't mean anything, because the treasury branch has I don't know how many employees -- certainly dozens -- and they're not counted in the FTE count. It's really just a bogus exercise the previous government engaged in to try to disguise the true size of the bureaucracy.

F. Gingell: Could you tell me how many additional FTEs or contract employees have been hired by your ministry since November 5?

Hon. G. Clark: None is really the answer. We're at about 850 FTEs, which is significantly less than is actually approved.

[ Page 383 ]

F. Gingell: I didn't ask what was approved. I asked, how many additional since November 5? Am I to understand from your answer that the answer is nil?

Hon. G. Clark: We're not any higher.

F. Gingell: Could you tell me if any individuals who -- obviously, from your previous answer -- were replacing someone who had been let go or resigned, have been hired at amounts over normal government scale?

Hon. G. Clark: If he could be more specific, I'd be happy to answer. Again, it's a fairly large ministry and there's a fairly large turnover. We're operating at about the same level. There has been no increase. The only areas you might want to think about are the Korbin commission and the Crown corporation secretariat. Those are new, and I'd be happy to answer if that's what you want.

F. Gingell: Perhaps I have used the wrong term. I understood that there is some standard government pay scale: if employees are hired by your ministry at amounts in excess of that scale, you require some form of order-in-council. I am inquiring with respect to any of those order-in-council-type ones.

Hon. G. Clark: That's incorrect. Anybody who is hired is hired at scale. There are contractors hired, and they are all over the map depending on what the contract is for. There are lots of those in government -- too many, in our view, and we're looking to rolling some of those contract workers into the normal workforce where they should be. Anything that's above their rate doesn't require any special approval. Really what we're concerned about is the quantum: keeping within the expenditure guidelines and making sure that any amount of money spent is within that budgeted or allocated.

F. Gingell: Do I take your answer to be extended to say that there haven't been any additional staff members hired under contract by your ministry since November 5?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I didn't say that. There are lots of contracts. One of the things I instituted after the election in terms of dealing with the deficit problem was to direct ministers to review contracts. As a result, I'm deluged with hundreds of contracts for a whole variety of services, and they're all in the Public Accounts book -- that book lists all the contracts. They're for everything from GPSD pay equity questions to simply, literally, secretarial questions -- and there are lots of them all the time.

F. Gingell: Then I take it that, because of the way you feel about this particular subject, there are probably fewer employees on contract on April 1 than there were on November 5?

Hon. G. Clark: I'm just reminded that this is on the order paper, so it's out of order. But there's really no change in the number of contract employees.

F. Gingell: Was any amount included in special warrants to look after severance arrangements for any members of your staff who would be in excess of, say, $25,000? I'm not worried about....

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, and anybody else who may be. Perhaps you could tell us which particular positions and what those severance payments amounted to.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer to that, and I don't think I'm inclined to give the severance.... There is a quantum, an aggregate amount, and that will be public. We will be delighted to make it public. But there are lots of individual contract relationships that are private, and part of the conditions of the settlements are private. I don't think it's in my budget. It might be. I'm not sure exactly, but I'll find out for you.

F. Gingell: I understand that all of the pension and benefit costs go through your ministry and then are charged up to the various.... In the Peat Marwick report, they did report, as the auditor general has in past years, on the question of the quantum of the payments being made into the pension fund on behalf of the various employees of the province. Can you tell me, Mr. Minister, whether a sufficient amount of money has been paid into the pension fund in the year under discussion through the special warrants, which would be considered sufficient by a reasonable actuarial valuation?

Hon. G. Clark: According to the current rules of the superannuation commissioner, they're sufficient. We're not breaking the law or anything.

F. Gingell: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to revisit that. Are you telling this House that you have paid only the minimum amount you have to pay under the law, which has clearly been identified by the auditor general in prior years as being an insufficient payment?

Hon. G. Clark: There's an unfunded liability, which continues, although it is declining over time.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that, and the underfunded liability arises from various sources, the major one being the underpayment of annual pension payments. I'm really at a loss to know why the question is not being dealt with in a little more complete manner. I appreciate that the underfunding may arise from investment income being less than projections or from people living too long -- you're spending too much money in your Ministry of Health to keep them alive -- and all those problems. But with the auditor general having told you that the pension payments have not been sufficient in the past, and that matter having been confirmed for you by Peat Marwick, is there any reason 

[ Page 384 ]

you haven't included larger sums in these special warrants?

Hon. G. Clark: We're looking at the whole thing. We could have borrowed the money and paid the unfunded liability, and inflated the deficit artificially, in my view. We chose not to do that. We're reviewing the question of the unfunded liability. There's no crisis. We do have to deal with it at some point. We're reviewing it.

F. Gingell: I wondered whether any amounts included in the special warrants and the payments of this year are payments made for services, or various costs, to implement the recommendations of the auditor general in past years.

Hon. G. Clark: Nothing specifically. The office of the comptroller general basically reviews all these matters all the time. It's part of the ongoing operation of government.

F. Gingell: In the accounts, I appreciate that it is a special fund, but I believe the amount that gets into this special fund comes through the form of an appropriation. There was an amount created in the year, rather than included in the original estimates, called government account systems strategic plan, in the amount of $3,360,000. I was wondering if perhaps you could tell us what that's all about, and whether all of those funds have been expended in this current year.

Hon. G. Clark: I would rather do that in estimates, rather than waste the time tonight. I know you're interested in it. We have expended that amount of money, and it's a significant accounting shift that's required. It's been identified by the auditor general and Peat Marwick, and we're pursuing it.

F. Gingell: I can assure you, Mr. Minister, I've got lots of time. I've waited a long time for this, and $3,360,000 is a substantial amount of money. Could you tell us if this has been expended for consultants or for equipment, hardware, software, or exactly how that $3,360,000 has been spent?

Hon. G. Clark: Mostly software, some training, and there are two pilot projects -- one in Labour and one in another ministry.

F. Gingell: Can you be a little more precise than just mainly software?

Hon. G. Clark: No.

F. Gingell: Moving along, there was a new organization created in your ministry in this past year called the Crown corporations secretariat. I will, if I may, deal with that a little. Can you tell me if the position at the head of that, the senior position -- I'm not sure if it's a president or a deputy minister -- was advertised?

Hon. G. Clark: No, it wasn't.

F. Gingell: Can you inform me of the remuneration for this position?

Hon. G. Clark: A deputy minister's salary.

F. Gingell: There's quite a range there, isn't there?

[1:45]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Pretty close? Can you tell me what that number is? Can you tell me why this public-service position was filled without being offered to any or all British Columbians who are duly qualified and have the skills and knowledge required for that position?

The Chair: If the questioners could relate their remarks to the special warrants, it would assist the Chair.

Hon. G. Clark: We were delighted to have someone of Mr. Williams's qualifications available.

F. Gingell: Could you please advise me if there are any special arrangements for this position that are outside the normal contract arrangements with a deputy minister who happens to have received his job by working his way up through the bureaucracy, entering into various competitions and winning his job through a normal and acceptable, free and open democratic method, as opposed to this particular circumstance, where you've done it by fiat? Are there any severance arrangements or anything else?

Hon. G. Clark: Not that I'm aware.

F. Gingell: Perhaps we could move to the $12 million for Cassiar that's included in your special warrants. First of all, would you advise us how this has been spent? What is the breakdown?

Hon. G. Clark: There's $7 million pay in lieu of notice for the workers, as required in the Employment Standards Act; $3 million for relocation assistance, which is $2,000 per family unit; $1 million of equity buyback of principal residences located in Cassiar; and $1 million for counselling services and sundry items.

F. Gingell: Can you tell me how the $7 million under employment standards was calculated?

Hon. G. Clark: It generally follows the Employment Standards Act. I think it was up to 16 weeks, depending on length of service. It's a typical arrangement. We were not obligated to pay it; we did put it in bankruptcy. We chose to try to mitigate the impact of the closure on the workers.

F. Gingell: Can you advise me what special conditions were apparent to the government at this time that caused you to make this $12 million payment 

[ Page 385 ]

that you weren't legally responsible for? There are many towns being closed down and individuals suffering problems from losing their jobs, and they haven't been supported in the past.

Hon. G. Clark: Justice, Mr. Chairman.

F. Gingell: Well, I'm a little taken aback by that, Mr. Chairman.

We've all heard about the $975,000 contract to Peat Marwick Mitchell, and I see that it is listed in your additional expenditures. Can you advise us of the costs incurred by your ministry for individuals and firms outside of Peat Marwick Mitchell with respect to this independent financial review?

Hon. G. Clark: Nothing; there was no increased cost. The ministry had to respond with an increased workload, but there was no cost.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: It's Peat Thorne, or someone else, these days, isn't it? They change their names every few years.

Mr. Minister, included in your purview are the contingency funds. Can you please advise me what payments and transfers have been made from the contingency funds in this past year?

Hon. G. Clark: There was no Supply Act passed. There was no contingency, so each ministry had to deal with it. In fact, it's what I suggested already: GASSP, government personnel services division....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: GASSP, which is what we talked about -- accounting; government personnel services division, $450,000; revenue items -- we needed more money to collect revenue; budget requirements, $300,000; and the independent financial review of a million dollars, roughly.

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: The total contingency breakdown is about $5 million, and it is the same things we're talking about here. There was no contingency fund because there was no supply bill passed, so each ministry had to pass special warrants rather than draw down contingencies. Normally there would be a contingency fund. We'd draw the million dollars for the independent financial review from that. Because there was no contingency fund, we had to pass a special warrant.

F. Gingell: Then the unbudgeted items expended by your ministry in the past year are purely and simply the independent financial review, the Cassiar payment and the pay equity.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, the million dollars.

Mr. Minister, I see that in the special warrants there is an amount of $200,000 included under the words "pay equity evaluation." Could you tell us how much you expect that project to cost?

Hon. G. Clark: The pay equity project is a major undertaking of government, but this is to deal with the consultants hired to implement something that is being negotiated between the parties. I've already provided you with that. What you see is the amount for the special warrant, and anything further than that we'll discuss in our estimates.

F. Gingell: Surely, Mr. Minister, when you made the decision to proceed with this further study and put $200,000 in warrant No. 6 to cover it, you would have been advised and would have known how much additional money will be expended on this program to bring it to completion.

Hon. G. Clark: That's something for estimates debate. This is how much we've spent to date on consultants dealing with pay equity.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that, but surely to advise the House on what this cost will be -- whether it's $500,000 or $600,000 -- is not an unreasonable request.

Can you please advise us, Mr. Minister, how much money was expended by your ministry in 1991-92 under special warrants for the new secretariat of Crown corporations?

Hon. G. Clark: Ten dollars.

F. Gingell: Earlier this evening we had discussions about revenues, and the amount that has been charged back to the Crown corporations to reduce the cost is not a subject that's allowed to be discussed in this debate. I would therefore ask my question again: how much money has been expended -- gross -- by your ministry out of these special warrants for the secretariat of Crown corporations?

Hon. G. Clark: The answer is $10; it's a $10 vote. It means that it's charged back to the Crown. If you like, I'd be delighted to get the information on how much the Crown has been charged for that service. But in the special warrants, it's $10.

F. Gingell: Are there any other major items as large as this or as significant as this, in the matter of policy, that are under your ministry's responsibility and are covered by these special warrants, which you in turn have turned around and charged to Crown corporations?

Hon. G. Clark: The UIC and CPP are charged back to ministries. That's a very major item. There is nothing else in my ministry. The Utilities Commission is another $10 vote. There are other examples of that.

[ Page 386 ]

F. Gingell: I don't know whether I can finish off by saying that I accept that you're going to say you've only spent $10, because you have spent $1 million, $2 million or $3 million and have recovered that by sending an invoice to somebody else. Every time we want to talk about revenues, you won't let us discuss it. But when we come to the question of trying to find out what the disbursements made by your ministry are, on this particular subject, I really think that the question needs to be answered.

[2:00]

Hon. G. Clark: I'll give you the answer and tell you how much we've spent. I don't know right now. I think it's $2 million for next year. It's probably that prorated. But don't misconstrue -- you can certainly ask me questions about the secretariat; I don't have any problem with that. But the specific question you asked me was how much was spent out of this warrant, and the answer is $10. I don't mean it to be misleading.

F. Gingell: Is it technically correct for the Minister of Finance to have a warrant in which he includes an amount of $10 when he will turn around and disburse the amount of $2 million?

Hon. G. Clark: The reason for the $10 vote is in order that you can scrutinize it. That's a technical way that allows you to debate the question. Otherwise we'd just have it off somewhere in a Crown. We could have formed a Crown corporation, as Saskatchewan did; we didn't do that. It's a charge-back system.

My deputy reminds me that it may not actually be $10; it may be zero. We opened a section 22 account under the Financial Administration Act. The Crowns pay into that; it's paid out. In the budget document that I've tabled in the estimates, you'll see the full amount, and we can debate it.

F. Gingell: Could the minister please describe to this House the benefits and all the various things that are going to result to the good of this province from the expenditure of $10?

Hon. G. Clark: The purpose of the secretariat is, by and large, twofold: first, to coordinate the activities of the Crowns, because they haven't been in the past; and secondly, to provide independent policy advice on the questions of the Crowns. If the Crown is pursuing a policy and we want to review that question, the secretariat can engage consultants or others to give us independent advice on their practices and, basically, to develop policies as well as to save the government and taxpayers a significant amount of money.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, perhaps you could inform us of the number of employees who have been hired in this secretariat up to March 31.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't know the answer. Again, I don't think it matters....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: In terms of actual employees, I think it will end up being about five or six -- well, maybe more. In the end it might end up being about 15. But I don't think it really matters how many people. The amount of money is a couple of million dollars, and most of that is contract work.

D. Mitchell: Just a question while we're on this issue of the Crown corporations secretariat. The minister says that it doesn't matter. It does matter, because members of this committee want to know.... During the period covered by the special warrants that we're on, the Minister of Finance established a Crown corporations secretariat. It reports to him. It's performing a function that we're not quite clear of in this committee. We want to find out in a little more detail the purpose of the Crown corporations secretariat.

What exactly is it doing? It's reporting to the Minister of Finance; it's coordinating the activities of Crown corporations. That seems a little vague. We don't know how many people are working for it. The minister says it doesn't matter. It does matter. Could you please just give us a breakdown or an organization chart of the person in charge, and who is reporting to him, and who else has been hired on a consultant or contract basis?

The Crown corporations secretariat is important. The throne speech of the government says that Crown corporations are going to play an increasingly important part in the life of British Columbians. Also, the budget speech that the minister presented in the House refers to the fact that Crown corporations are going to be important in British Columbia and important for the government. Given that, and given that this Crown corporations secretariat has been established, I think it is important to let us know what in fact was going on with this Crown corporations secretariat during the period covered by the special warrants attached to the supply bill Could the minister just tell us a little bit about the specific mandate of the secretariat: who's working for it, how many employees there are, how the budget breakdown works? Are there any contractors, consultants and others who are also engaged? What is going on with this Crown corporations secretariat, Mr. Chairman? I think the members of this committee deserve to know that.

Hon. G. Clark: I'll provide some written material for the member.

D. Mitchell: The answer is not sufficient. He'll provide "some material" -- we've had instances of that in the House with this minister, where he has committed to provide some material, and either the material has not been forthcoming or, when it has arrived, it's not the material we asked for.

Can the minister specifically promise this committee that he will provide details on the Crown corporations secretariat, for which he is responsible, Mr. Chairman? We would like to have a breakdown of the individuals working for the secretariat, their function, and the overall goal of the Crown corporations secretariat with respect to the Crown sector of the province of British Columbia. We just want to know the information. We're 

[ Page 387 ]

not asking for anything that I think you are unable to give us, Mr. Minister. Can you just make the commitment? Can you give us the information? Give it to us orally right now, and we'll move on to the next item.

The Chair: Hon. House Leader, I just want to clarify the objective of your questions as they relate to the schedule and the specific special warrants in Bill 16. The matters that you are canvassing sound awfully familiar to me as being typical of what happens in estimates. However, I'm not suggesting that there is no relationship. I would just ask you to make that relationship for the benefit of the Chair.

D. Mitchell: I will, Mr. Chairman. I'm speaking of expenditures that have been made by special warrants passed by this government under the name of the Minister of Finance, during the period under review in this supply bill. During that period a Crown corporations secretariat was established. Individuals were hired; moneys were paid; salaries have been paid.

We're not asking for anything extraordinary; we're asking for some simple information. We're asking the minister to provide an explanation of the specific role, mandate and function of the Crown corporations secretariat. We're asking for a list of the individuals who worked for that secretariat during this period under review, and we're asking for some basic details on other individuals who have been hired by the secretariat either by contract or on a consulting basis, because that will give this committee some valuable information during this period under review, in terms of the function of this important secretariat that deals with the Crown corporations of the province of British Columbia.

This is a simple question. I don't understand why the minister refuses to answer it. I know it's getting late, and perhaps he's tired. But I ask him to simply answer the question. The Crown corporations secretariat is what we're dealing with, I might remind the minister. He is the minister responsible for that. During the period under review covered by these special warrants, a Crown corporations secretariat was established. The minister has to be accountable to this committee during the period under review. The question is very simple. He's hired someone to head up the Crown corporation secretariat -- a colleague of his, a former member for Vancouver East. He's heading it up and receiving a salary. That salary has been paid by special warrant during this period under review.

In addition, I believe other individuals have been hired. They report to....

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: If the minister could simply rise and give an explanation, we could move on to the next item. But how can we conduct the business of this committee if the minister will not be accountable for the matter that is before us, which is listed in Bill 16? If he could simply provide an answer, we could move on to the next item.

I ask the question to the minister one more time: will he provide the information to the committee so we can move on to the next item?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not covered by special warrant. I said I'd try to deal with it in written form, so I'll give you some information. I've tried to answer the question. I think it's enough tonight, and I'll deal with it in estimates.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, I really am concerned about this question of whether or not it's $10 or zero. In fact, had the whole amount been in turn billed out to Crown corporations, or had it been billed out at a profit, and you'd shown a net revenue item.... Mr. Minister, I'd like to suggest to you that you should take advice on this question.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry. This year -- the year we're dealing with -- it's zero. There is no special warrant. It's statutory under section 22. Next year, in order to make it accountable and debatable in the House, it's a $10 vote, which allows for that debate. So this is actually totally out of order, but we've been dealing with it. 

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

F. Gingell: Perhaps you could just add to the things that you are going to let us have -- whether they're out of order or not -- a list of any contracts in excess of $10,000 that have been entered into by this body. Would you do that for us, Mr. Minister?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll take that under advisement.

Hon. T. Perry: Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could ask leave of the hon. members to introduce to the House the Hon. Amor De Cosmos, whom I've spotted in the Speaker's gallery enjoying the debates. Could the House please make him welcome.

F. Gingell: In special warrant No. 2.... I appreciate that it is prior to your being appointed; nevertheless, it's an expenditure by your ministry for which we would like an explanation. Under 11(b) in that special warrant there is an item of $10 million for ongoing non-budgetary, rather than budgetary, programs. Could you explain that to us?

Hon. G. Clark: Sorry. I wasn't the minister, and the deputy wasn't the deputy, so I don't know the answer.

F. Gingell: Is that the end of it?

Hon. G. Clark: I'll find out for you.

D. Jarvis: In regard to special warrant 7, Cassiar, was the amount provided for relocation the same for the mineworkers as for others employed in the community?

[2:15]

[ Page 388 ]

Hon. D. Miller: A variety of assistance was provided in terms of relocation and severance and mortgage buybacks. It varied depending on the group. There wasn't complete consistency throughout the application of those provisions.

D. Jarvis: Can you give me more on what that formula was, rather than just saying there was a difference?

Hon. D. Miller: I wouldn't describe it as a formula. The amount of support offered by this government depended on the employee group and the contractual arrangements that they may or may not have had with their employer. I'm extreme proud of the actions of this government in supporting the working people of Cassiar in their difficult circumstance. The amount of support varied, depending on those other circumstances.

D. Jarvis: With regard to the relocation, how did you ascertain what amount you were going to give people for one-way tickets to Vancouver?

Hon. D. Miller: It was based on provisions that they may or may not have had with their respective employers. In some cases the government simply backed up what was contained in some of the agreements. Where there were shortfalls, the government attempted to make up the shortfall.

D. Jarvis: If an employer said that he had made arrangements for, say, $20,000, was this government prepared to give him the $20,000?

Hon. D. Miller: To the best of my knowledge, no employer had made that provision.

D. Jarvis: Can you tell me then exactly or specifically how much you paid to the families to relocate in Vancouver?

Hon. D. Miller: No.

D. Jarvis: Why can you not tell me?

Hon. D. Miller: Because as we speak some employees have relocated, but quite a significant number have not, so I can't provide details of payments that we haven't made.

D. Jarvis: Then can you give me the figures of the people who have relocated?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have those numbers with me, but I'll be happy to provide them to the member subsequently.

D. Jarvis: You have staff. They don't do that for you?

The Chair: Pardon me, member. Could you wait, please, until I recognize you. Thank you. I know that the hour is late, or the day is new, I suppose, and the House is new.

D. Jarvis: I say to you again: can you give me the amounts that you paid out to the people who have actually relocated? You should have those figures. Why can't your department furnish me with those figures at this time?

Hon. D. Miller: This is probably the most pathetic attempt at opposition I've ever witnessed in my relatively short time in this House, some five years. The member is not listening. He is asking questions which are absolutely useless to the debate. I said that I would provide the information subsequently. We don't have the information here, and that's the answer.

F. Gingell: The amount of the special warrant was $12 million. It was divided down $7 million, $2 million, $1 million and $1 million. Can you tell us how much of that total $12 million provided for in the warrant will be spent within this year?

Hon. D. Miller: Not at this time.

D. Mitchell: I find it astonishing that we can't get any answers from the ministers. It's not as if they can possibly be unprepared for this exercise in committee. The Minister of Finance is leaving during the review of the special warrants under his ministry. What arrogance! Does the Minister of Finance not care to be accountable for the special warrants that we're here to discuss under his ministry? He actually leaves this committee in the middle of the debate. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to rule on this. I have a question for the Minister of Finance. He leaves the chamber. He leaves the committee in the middle of the review of a special warrant.

Hon. D. Miller: On a point of order. The purpose of this debate is for the members opposite to ask questions. They have failed to do so so far. I would ask the member to stop whining and complaining and pose a question.

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I really am surprised. I thought we had spent a fairly worthwhile hour talking about this.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that you exercised some control over this meeting, so that we who have the floor at the moment are not interrupted in this unacceptable and rude manner.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I'll take it under consideration. I would bring this House to order and ask for some respect for the Chair and for the House. I would remind the members of standing order 61: the strict relevance of the debate and the questions on this matter.

[ Page 389 ]

F. Gingell: Included in the budget for 1991-92 and therefore included in these special estimates is an amount under the heading "Compensation Fairness Program." Could the minister please advise us if all of the funds allocated under this program -- that's vote 33 in the amount of $997,500 -- have been expended?

Hon. G. Clark: Anything that's left unspent will reduce the deficit next year.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, who has now returned to the committee. It's nice to see him back, especially considering the fact that we are reviewing the special warrants spent under his ministry during this period under review. I welcome him back; it's nice to see him. It's nice to see that he's being consistent, though, and refusing to answer the questions that we're asking.

I have a question for the Minister of Finance that deals with the Peat Marwick report, for which a special warrant in the amount of $1 million was approved during the period under review that is covered by the supply bill, Bill 16, before this committee. Can the minister tell us if, during the period when the Peat Marwick report was commissioned by his ministry, there were any special instructions? Were there terms of reference set for the Peat Marwick report? And if so, is it possible for you to share the terms of reference for the Peat Marwick report with this committee?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, and they were made public. I'm amazed you haven't got a copy of them.

D. Mitchell: What I was asking the minister was whether or not there were any special terms of reference, other than those that were made public in terms of directions -- any specific direction that was given to Peat Marwick.

In addition to that, I would like to ask if the officials of Peat Marwick had complete access to the Ministry of Finance during their independent financial review of the state of the province's finances. Did they engage in significant consultation with officials of his ministry? Was there essentially free access to government and to officials in his ministry?

Hon. G. Clark: Yes, throughout the entire government and the Crowns.

D. Mitchell: I still haven't received an answer to whether or not there were any special instructions or a special mandate given to them over and above the reports that have been made public. We have asked the minister whether or not he would table in the House some information relating to Peat Marwick. There was one important element missing relating to a question of any background papers or research reports, other than those that were made public with the Peat Marwick report. Were any background materials or studies done by Peat Marwick in preparation for the reports that were made public? The minister hasn't tabled anything in the House. I'd like to take this opportunity now to ask him in this committee whether there were any, and whether he is prepared to make them public.

Hon. G. Clark: Any working papers or notes that Peat Marwick had are the product of Peat Marwick. I received the final reports as per the terms of reference, and I've tabled them.

D. Mitchell: Another question to the minister on the Peat Marwick review -- the independent financial review that he has referred to many times in his budget and in this House. The Peat Marwick report makes a number of recommendations to the government, which were made during the period under review. I'd like to refer to one in particular and to simply ask the minister for his response to a particular finding and conclusion in the Peat Marwick study. I think it's particularly relevant to the matter that is before the committee, because it's a finding and conclusion dealing with the matter of special warrant -- and, after all, we are dealing with special warrants here in this committee. The particular finding of the Peat Marwick report deals with special warrants, as provided in section 21 of the Financial Administration Act.

What Peat Marwick says is that these special warrants have been utilized to obtain funds from the general fund in situations that might not be considered as urgently and immediately required for the public good. They go on to say that there is a risk that special warrants may be used to initially circumvent the Legislative Assembly's authority and control over public funds, although the appropriation must eventually be part of the next Supply Act -- and of course that is what we are debating here today in this committee. Peat Marwick goes on to say that in certain instances special warrants have been used to fund regular government operations because the Legislative Assembly is not in session. We are in session today, and that's why the government cannot today issue special warrants under the terms of the Financial Administration Act.

The conclusion that Peat Marwick comes to on this issue of special warrants is this:

"There is a need for special-warrant provisions because unforeseen funding requirements can arise when the Legislative Assembly is not in session. However, the intent that they only be used in exceptional circumstances should be emphasized and encouraged. To this end, we recommend that the Financial Administration Act be amended to require that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council state the reasons, in writing, why a special warrant is urgently and immediately required for the public good. Furthermore, we recommend that an annual statement of all special warrants, and an explanation of their urgency, be included with the public accounts as well as in the next supply bill."

I'd like to ask the minister, with respect to this quote from the Peat Marwick report dealing with special warrants, whether or not he agrees with these findings and conclusions..

Hon. G. Clark: The member said this was a debate. It's a pretty pathetic excuse for a debate, I must say.

[ Page 390 ]

We have struck a committee to review all of Peat Marwick's findings, and the comptroller general and my deputy are on it. We're reviewing it.

D. Mitchell: Although your insults aren't helpful, I know you're getting tired. I'm simply asking a question. You provided some new information to the members of this committee tonight. We were not aware that a committee had been struck to review the findings of Peat Marwick. But in particular, I was dealing with something quite specific, and that is the findings and conclusions of Peat Marwick on special warrants. This is a question, obviously, that goes beyond the ambit of this bill, because we will ask the minister when we get into estimates.

The specific recommendations are that this abuse of special warrants should not have been tolerated, and should not be tolerated again. So I ask the minister about the recommendations and conclusions of Peat Marwick that the Financial Administration Act be amended to require the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to state the reasons in writing why a special warrant is urgently and immediately required for the public good. Is the minister saying that this matter is simply under review right now, or is the minister willing to say that he accepts these findings, that they have some validity, and that during the period under review, any action has been taken on this that members of this committee could be guided by?

[2:30]

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: Regarding the Peat Marwick report, I was encouraged to hear that a committee had been struck to study the recommendations. Are the parameters of that committee also to consider the bill that was received by the government from Peat Marwick Thorne?

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: I assume from the answer that there is none.

My next question would pertain to the size of the bill. Has the committee considered the bill, and do they consider it fair?

The Chair: Next question.

D. Michell: What arrogance!

W. Hurd: Can the Minister of Finance describe to the committee the....

B. Jones: On a point of order, I think the opposition House Leader understands the standing orders and the use of offensive language, particularly directed at another member of this chamber. I find his characterization of the Minister of Finance as arrogant offensive to me and to this chamber, and I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.

The Chair: I've heard your point of order, hon. member. If the House Leader of the opposition has used the word "arrogance" in his remarks pertaining to the Minister of Finance, I'm sure he would wish to withdraw that.

D. Mitchell: I was simply reacting to the behaviour -- the truly reprehensible behaviour, I believe -- of the Minister of Finance, who refuses to answer any questions in this committee, who comes to this committee with an attitude that implies he's not prepared to answer any of our questions. I believe that the minister's behaviour is really out of order in this committee.

The Chair: Hon. members, temperate language is always in order, and I would ask that the member assist the Chair in this. Next question.

W. Hurd: Again to the minister, perhaps he could describe the terms of reference of this committee that reviewed the Peat Marwick Thorne report. If they weren't prepared to look at the bill that the government received, or at the terms of reference for the study, can he tell the committee exactly what his ministerial committee is designed to do in terms of its consideration of the Peat Marwick report?

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, is the minister prepared to answer any further questions of this committee?

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair has no power to compel the answers.

W. Hurd: In view of the fact that the minister is unwilling to answer any further questions, is it appropriate for a member of this House to make a motion for adjournment of this proceeding until he's ready?

The Chair: Such a motion would not be in order, as it has been negatived already in this discussion. Next question.

A. Warnke: I would like to turn the minister's attention to warrant No. 4 of November 13 last year, in particular Finance and Corporate Relations, which came to $15 million. Could the minister provide us with an expenditure breakdown, as much as possible, of warrant No. 4?

Hon. G. Clark: All of the warrants covered what were tabled as the estimates. The only areas that we were over budget in were the $17 million, as I described them: $12 million for Cassiar and $5 million for a variety of other minor matters. That was simply the amount required to carry us for the next few months within the existing budget as tabled by the previous administration.

A. Warnke: Very good. I want to thank the minister for the answer.

I want to turn to warrant No. 6 of January 8, 1992. First of all, once again I would like for the minister to provide an expenditure breakdown of warrant No. 6.

[ Page 391 ]

Hon. G. Clark: The only difference from the answer I just gave is that it included ferries and transit, because there was an adjustment to accommodate the new change.

A. Warnke: The special warrants -- both 4 and 6 -- should apply to provincial treasury operations. Is that not correct?

Hon. G. Clark: It's not covered by appropriations. It's a special account.

A. Warnke: I would also like to explore warrant No. 6. The allocated amount authorizes in excess of $99 million, and under this is the phrase: "...additional funding to provide for an unanticipated expenditure increase," and so on. It's a rather long sentence here. Could the minister perhaps explain what the funding is for unanticipated expenditure increases? Could he elaborate as to what exactly these unanticipated expenditure increases are?

Hon. G. Clark: It's exactly the same thing as I've said a hundred times now. It's the $5 million for GASSP, for the GPSD pay equity study, for the independent financial review and for a variety of other matters. It's about $5.5 million, actually -- same number.

A. Warnke: I have one other question to the minister. Since November 5, under the special warrants allocated -- 4 and 6 and others -- have any funds under the special warrants gone to the expenses of public servants -- i.e., moving expenses, etc.?

Hon. G. Clark: There's no extra money. If it's in the base budget, it's accounted for every year.

W. Hurd: I'd like to commend the Minister of Finance for rejoining the debate on special warrants in his ministry and showing great patience at this hour. I would like to return to the question of the Peat Marwick Thorne report, since it has been raised many times in this House in the past two weeks; in particular, the bill that was presented to his ministry by Peat Marwick Thorne. Is he prepared to advise the committee as to whether the committee that he struck in his Finance ministry considers the billing to be fair?

Hon. G. Clark: These are such juvenile questions that they just don't deserve an answer.

W. Hurd: We're dealing with a $1 million special warrant. Is it the opinion of the Finance minister that $1 million of taxpayers' money is a juvenile and trivial matter?

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: Is the minister prepared to describe any of the terms of reference of his Finance committee as regards its assessment of the Peat Marwick Thorne report?

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: Is he prepared to answer any questions pertaining to the billing of the Peat Marwick Thorne report and whether the people of the province received a fair amount or a fair cost for the service that was provided?

Hon. G. Clark: People have received outstanding value from the Peat Marwick report.

W. Hurd: How can he suggest to the committee that the people received fair value for the money if the contract was not tendered to the major accountants in the Canadian accounting community?

K. Jones: Under which warrant was the severance pay-out made to deputy ministers?

Interjection.

K. Jones: What? Do you have a response? What was the amount of this pay-out?

Hon. G. Clark: I've answered these questions.

K. Jones: No, you haven't answered that question at all.

The Chair: Order!

D. Jarvis: On a point of order. Can you answer why we have to stand up to ask questions and the minister can just lay back there picking his nails and not stand up and answer?

The Chair: I've explained....

Interjections.

The Chair: Order! Hon. members, please. Order, please. I will explain again: while you may ask your questions, the Chair has no power to compel an answer.

[2:45]

F. Gingell: I don't know whether to thank him for all of his answers. I don't think we're going to get anywhere further on this particular subject. I would thank you for the answers that you did give, Mr. Minister. We'll close on that ministry.

C. Serwa: This afternoon and earlier this evening -- or last night -- we asked questions that had been basically deferred to the Minister of Finance, and I would like to readdress some of those questions. It has to do with the Advanced Education writeoffs of $23.5 million in student loans. The Minister of Advanced Education....

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. All valuation adjustments or writeoffs, whatever you want to call them, are not expenditure items covered by the special warrant. No, it didn't cost us any money out of this 

[ Page 392 ]

budget; therefore they're not eligible for debate in the House at this time.

C. Serwa: There is some concern on this side of the House questioning the display of information by the Treasury branch with respect to the special warrants and the expenditures that have been incurred. Is it in order to ask questions on why Peat Marwick was hired, for example? Obviously this came into the last expenditure base. Why did the minister decide to hire Peat Marwick to do a thorough financial review, and what is the problem with the traditional method of accounting that is utilized in a variety of jurisdictions throughout Canada?

The Chair: Member, was that question directed to the Chair?

C. Serwa: I believe it is in order, Mr. Chairman, because it is involving an expenditure of a million dollars, and it did take place within that time period.

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct. It certainly is in order, and I think I've answered it several times in this House. We needed to get a financial picture of the state of the province. We chose to move very quickly with one of the two largest accounting firms in the country, and they did an excellent job.

L. Fox: That report identified about $600-odd million worth of write-downs or allowances for doubtful loans.

An Hon Member: No, it didn't.

L. Fox: Let me draw your attention specifically to the individual ones. In the Ministry of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade is an identified allowance of $86 million. There was an additional identified allowance within that report of $26 million for Advanced Education. The minister will recall that in earlier questions we tried to get the criteria they used in order to identify those doubtful loans. Would the minister be prepared at this time to identify the specific criteria for all of the write-downs or allowances for doubtful loans identified within that report?

Hon. G. Clark: We are reviewing all the recommendations of Peat Marwick. But I will tell you that they were absolutely strict, private-sector criteria -- exactly the same as for the private sector. I might say that it was not unique to Peat Marwick. There is a valuation adjustment every year, including last year and the year before that under the previous administration. I remember there were some valuation adjustments after the Vander Zalm government took office. These valuation adjustments -- which, as I said, are not part of this debate, but just so people know -- are attributable only to the 1991-92 deterioration of the loans.

L. Fox: I'm quite familiar with the criteria that industry and business use for identifying doubtful loans. I'm also quite familiar with the security measures used in order to give out loans and so on. I noted with some interest how you quickly arrived on the scene when the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade was having some difficulty with the issue. I can't understand the hesitancy now to answer the question and give specifics. I would like to know. It's my understanding that with respect to the student loans, for instance, part of the criteria used was whether they had missed a payment.

Interjection.

L. Fox: That's why I'm asking the question. I give you the opportunity to make it clear to this House exactly what the criteria were.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't feel like answering, but I guess I will in this case to make it clear. Student loans are given by banks and guaranteed by the government. After 180 days of a missed payment, the banks then give it back to the government as a bad loan, and the government has to try and collect. We have an astonishing and terrible default rate with student loans, as pointed out by Peat Marwick. There's a valuation adjustment to take account of that, and this is not the first time it has happened.

C. Serwa: In the 1991-92 fiscal year, the estimates for the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations were $387.9 million, and the final expenditures were $506.8 million -- a difference of $118.9 million. Perhaps the minister could explain why that ministry, which is really quite cut and dried and quite stable, all of a sudden had a very substantial increase of $118.9 million.

Hon. G. Clark: I've sort of answered this question. The only special warrants that we're dealing with are twofold: $12 million for Cassiar and about $5 million in further overruns. We're debating the special warrants here, and that's an overrun which, quite properly, we're to be held accountable for.

C. Serwa: Mr. Chairman, the overrun period incorporates the period with this expenditure. As a matter of fact, 32.8 percent of the expenditure of the Ministry of Finance was spent from November through to March 31. I believe that the minister should be able to respond to my question with respect to that, explaining that difference and that substantial increase.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't want to be out of order, so that's why I'm not explaining it.

The Chair: We seem to have come to the end of....

W. Hurd: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I have another question.

The Chair: I'm sorry.

[ Page 393 ]

W. Hurd: Further to the Peat Marwick Thorne report, the committee is led to understand that this is a financial review, not an audit. Perhaps you can share with the committee what reasons the ministry had for commissioning a review instead of an audited set of financial statements for British Columbia.

L. Fox: Just one final question to seek clarification, so that I can have some understanding. Given the lack of response to the member for Okanagan West, it is then clear that the minister is not prepared to address any of the allowances for doubtful loans or bad debts made within the last year's final forecast figures.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm adhering to the rules.

L. Fox: Thank you.

C. Serwa: We're here because of the Minister of Finance. I suggested much earlier that the committee rise and report progress. The Minister of Finance is bound and determined that we should stay here. For his benefit I would like to read into the record a statement that the Minister of Finance made a very short time ago:

"Mr. Speaker, our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that 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."

The Chair: Order!

C. Serwa: And he goes on and on. I'm trying to make a point.

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. We've had this debate. The question before the House is a special warrant, and it's completely out of order.

The Chair: Thank you, minister. I'll remind the House again of standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

W. Hurd: In view of the fact that we've confirmed in this committee that a $1 million special warrant was paid for the Peat Marwick report, it's perfectly in order for the committee to continue to ask questions about it. I would ask once again whether the minister has an explanation for why he chose a financial review instead of an audited set of financial statements.

The Chair: The member continues.

W. Hurd: Is it not true that a financial statement, far from being an audit, is or can be a political document that can at times be used to misrepresent facts and the true state of the province's finances? Is a review not an accurate reflection of the province's finances compared to a regularly constituted audit?

C. Serwa: Referring to the schedule, I'm asking the minister to explain how the increase in expenditure in the Ministry of Finance budget could be done in that time-frame without reference to the schedules that we're debating at the present time.

Hon. G. Clark: For the last time, there are statutory provisions and appropriations. We're debating the appropriations here. The difference is obviously statutory provisions.

W. Hurd: Perhaps it would clarify proceedings if I were to ask the minister if he is prepared to answer any further questions regarding the Peat Marwick report.

L. Fox: The question, Mr. Chairman, is actually to you for my knowledge in future exercises. Would the members of this House have the opportunity to ask during estimates the questions with respect to the funds in the projected numbers due to the doubtful loans? Will we have an opportunity to debate that in the estimates?

[3:00]

The Chair: I realize the hour gets late, and some of us are new at what we do. The Chair cannot offer advice to the hon. members.

W. Hurd: I certainly welcome the opportunity to question the Minister of Forests on the last five and half months of his activities while supervising his ministry. I note that there are two special warrants, No. 4 and No. 6, dated November 13 and January 8. Can he advise the committee whether this represents the total expenditure of his ministry during the five-and-a-half-month period?

Hon. D. Miller: Could the member clarify the question, please?

W. Hurd: Perhaps before I continue with my questioning, it might be appropriate for me to ask the minister to introduce his officials to the committee.

I'll rephrase my question: on November 13, 1991, warrant No. 4: the amount authorized for the ministry was $106,398,000; on January 8, 1992, warrant No. 6: the amount authorized for the ministry was $106,734,000. Can the minister advise the committee whether this represents the total expenditures of his ministry from November 5 through to the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. D. Miller: Those special warrants were used to provide for the routine expenditures of my ministry.

W. Hurd: Can the minister tell the committee how much money had been spent under his total vote by the former administration during those seven months of the fiscal year prior to his assuming control of his ministry?

Hon. D. Miller: No, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 394 ]

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister is more of a financial guru than I give him credit for. Perhaps he can advise the committee how we're to determine the total estimates for his ministry, if he isn't able to provide us with the total amounts prior to the first seven months in the fiscal year.

Hon. D. Miller: As I stated previously, I find this line of questioning -- in fact, the whole debate by the Liberal opposition -- to be the most pathetic attempt at opposition I've ever witnessed in my five years in this chamber. I don't know where they're trying to go. I suspect that they don't. They haven't done their homework; they've had five months to prepare for this debate. This is a sorry excuse for an opposition. Frankly, some of our special-warrant money was used to pay for this opposition, and I think it was money wasted.

W. Hurd: I appreciate the candour of the minister and the forthright manner in which he has handled the questions of his ministerial budget. Can he advise me whether or not there have been any changes in regard to programs or responsibilities within his jurisdiction as they are described in the '91-92 estimates?

Hon. D. Miller: As I am sure has been explained by countless ministers before me and, I assume, by countless ministers after me, the special warrants were used to pay for the provisions outlined in the previous year's budget. It was not our budget. The facts are there.

W. Hurd: From the minister's answer I assume then that the total activities of his ministry were covered by the two special warrants in question? He's got to think about that one.

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: Maybe I could move on to vote 34, the minister's office. Specifically, with respect to vote 34 as listed in the '91-92 estimates, the minister's office, can he tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. D. Miller: Nothing.

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for his forthright answer. Perhaps I could move on to the executive summary in the Peat Marwick report with respect to resource management and some of the issues outlined in that management study to ask him whether or not any of the special warrants that he has described to us went into any of these recommended changes in his ministry. The Peat Marwick report notes that information required to properly manage provincial resources has not always been generated, resulting in some decisions which are not fully informed. The province will have to incur additional costs to develop adequate resource-inventory information. Perhaps he can tell us which portion of the special warrants were devoted to resolving that critical problem in his ministry.

Hon. D. Miller: The member is quite correct that quite often, dealing with forestry issues, people are uninformed. That, of course, makes the job of my ministry more difficult. I would cite a couple of examples to back that up. The member who is questioning me made some statements suggesting that we should not log in watersheds in this province. That's about 70 percent of the timber harvest in this province. That's one of the most ill-informed statements I've ever heard in my life, coming from a member who purports to be the Forests critic for the Liberal Party.

Another uninformed statement comes from the Liberal Environment critic who, in several letters, makes the statement that we should stop all logging in ancient forests. Between the two of them they would wipe out the forest industry in this province. That's the kind of misinformation and irresponsibility that we're constantly combatting in my ministry.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock, I would just caution the members that general good humour and temperance would speed the course along this evening.

W. Hurd: Continuing on my line of questioning on the Peat Marwick recommendations, another recommendation is that resource revenues in a number of areas should be reviewed. During the past five and a half months, while the Forests ministry was spending by special warrant, have those reviews taken place?

The Chair: Next question.

W. Hurd: Continuing on with the recommendations, since I assume from the answer that the resource revenues have not been reviewed by the ministry -- and this is the minister who's accusing the Liberals of being irresponsible -- perhaps I could ask about point 3 in the Peat Marwick report, which says: "Forests appear to be harvested at the maximum sustainable level. Industry and government should look carefully at intensive silviculture, higher value-added and better integrated resource management." Can he describe to the committee what expenditures his ministry has undertaken in these important areas?

Hon. D. Miller: Routine expenditures as outlined in the budget, Mr. Chairman.

W. Hurd: Question again to the minister on point 3 in the Peat Marwick report: are those routine levels sufficient to sustain the resource and jobs in British Columbia, in his opinion?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, we're debating the special warrants, which provided spending authority for my ministry to operate as outlined in the budget presented last year.

The Chair: Would the member tie his remarks as closely as he can to the warrants.

[ Page 395 ]

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, the minister has declined to answer the most important question: what portion of his spending activities in the last five and a half months has been by special warrant? I asked the question originally whether all his ministerial expenses were handled by special warrant, or were there areas that we shouldn't even be talking about here?

Hon. D. Miller: I am appalled that at this late hour, at 3:10 in the morning, having debated other ministries.... If the member reads the bill we're debating, he'll see that we're debating special warrants. Special warrants were the mechanism used to provide funding for the ministries. Your question is clearly.... You've answered it yourself, or you should be able to answer it yourself.

W. Hurd: I assume from the minister's rather lengthy answer that the answer is yes, which I would have appreciated hearing in the first place.

I continue with the executive summary of the Peat Marwick report, where it says: "Setting aside lands for urban development, parks and aboriginal land claims will affect government costs and revenues in a number of ways that should be anticipated." In connection with the activities of the Forests ministry in the past five months, have those ways been anticipated?

Hon. D. Miller: Could I ask the member to repeat the question?

W. Hurd: Referring again to the executive summary in the Peat Marwick report, I note that they say: "Setting aside lands for urban development, parks and aboriginal land claims will affect government costs and revenues in a number of ways that should be anticipated." Has this minister expended any funds under special warrant to anticipate the number of ways in which his revenues and costs might be affected?

[B. Jones in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: The statement is self-evident. I'll refer to one example. I think I was very specific when the chief forester made his independent decision to reduce the harvest levels on some tree-farm licences on Vancouver Island, which the member opposite seemed to criticize, as I recall. I pointed out specifically that there is a cost attached to those decisions to remove areas from harvest.

W. Hurd: The recommendations of the Peat Marwick report state that the province's resources are not yet being managed on a fully integrated basis. Have any expenditures in the last five months been devoted under special warrant to address this critical issue?

Hon. D. Miller: My ministry is making best efforts, and I think very good efforts, to manage the resources on an integrated basis.

W. Hurd: I'd like to shift my attention to the transfer of cutting rights in connection with mills in the province. I'm particularly interested in tree-farm licence 23, the Westar transfer. Were the costs of the special committee of five government members that was struck covered by any special warrants in his ministry?

Hon. D. Miller: It was just routine expenditures out of the ministry.

W. Hurd: Is this the method by which the minister intends to handle the transfer of these cutting rights and TFL transfers in the future -- by appointing a government committee rather than involving other members of this House?

The Chair: Hon. member, you're referring to future policy. We're dealing with warrants under the bill at hand. The question is out of order.

W. Hurd: With respect to vote 35, ministry operations, in the 1991-92 estimates, can the minister tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. D. Miller: Nothing. With respect to TFL transfers, I would like to say that the member should be informed, if he had been an observant critic -- obviously he wasn't -- that there is a new policy. It has nothing to do with this budget. For the first time there has been a pledge to consult the public before we allow these transfers.

[3:15]

W. Hurd: Could the minister itemize, under special warrants, the following subvote categories: management services, forest renewal plan and other programs; item 2 -- harvesting; item 3 -- research; item 4 -- forest protection....

Hon. G. Clark: Point of order. I don't know what the member is talking about, but it certainly isn't special warrants.

The Chair: If the member would please continue with relevance to the particular warrants at hand.

W. Hurd: Finally, my question to the period under review, which we've acknowledged was all handled by special warrants. I assume that any questions I ask pertaining to the ministry activities during the past five and a half months are fair questions, because they were covered by special warrant spending.

The Chair: Would the member please continue his questioning with particular reference to relevance to the warrants at hand.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, I continue to ask about the various itemizing of the ministry activities and what portion of the two special warrants that I've identified went to pay for them -- management services, harvesting, research, forest protection, integrated resource management and inventory. These are critical issues to 

[ Page 396 ]

the people of the province. Surely the minister is prepared to describe to the committee how much he devoted to those critical areas. I would think that he'd welcome the opportunity to answer that question.

Hon. D. Miller: I indeed would like to be helpful, but I draw the line at reading the blue book for the member. I assume he's capable of reading it himself.

W. Hurd: Regarding the task force on native forestry which was announced by the minister -- and, I assume, also paid for by some form of special warrants -- can he confirm that the study was indeed commissioned by special warrant spending? Can he describe to the House how much money went into it?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the exact amount.

W. Hurd: I assume that an issue as important as a task force on native forestry has not therefore been costed out by the minister. Is this answer going to be satisfactory to the aboriginal people of the province?

Hon. D. Miller: I look forward.... Perhaps I shouldn't look forward, because the level of debate has been so poor that I'm sure the estimates that we will eventually get into on our ministries.... I had hoped there would be a better level of debate. But I certainly look forward to discussing with somebody -- if not members on the opposite Liberal benches, then at least perhaps with some of the very high-quality people on the government benches -- that very important report and its implications for native people in this province.

W. Hurd: Our only reason in asking the question is to give the minister an opportunity to put a figure to this important program. I ask the question again: does he have a ministerial budget for this, and was it covered by special warrant?

The Chair: Hon. member, I believe the Minister of Forests already explained that that figure was not available at this time. Do you have another question?

W. Hurd: Yes, I do. It pertains to the announcement of cut reductions on TFLs 44, 46 and 54 on Vancouver Island. My question to the minister is: were any funds expended under special warrant with respect to providing a soft landing for some of these communities which were so adversely affected by this decision? Could he describe to the committee how much money was expended?

Hon. D. Miller: No, Mr. Chairman.

W. Hurd: If I assume the answer to be correct, Mr. Chairman, the minister has not provided any funds for this important issue on Vancouver Island. Or is he just saying that he doesn't have the figures?

I note that the decisions on the cut reductions on Vancouver Island were based on recommendations from the chief forester. Can he advise this House whether any other submissions were made with respect to this decision, and whether they impacted on the decision of the chief forester, whose salary I assume was also covered by special warrant?

Hon. D. Miller: Once again, I would advise the member that if he wants to be the critic for forestry, he should perhaps start by reading the Forest Act. He will note in the Forest Act that the chief forester has a statutory and independent obligation.

W. Hurd: Is it not true, however, that the chief forester also has a moral responsibility to receive other input from interested groups with which to arrive at a decision of such magnitude on Vancouver Island?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I understand that my hon. critic used to work in the forest industry, and perhaps that's one of the reasons that we have some trouble there.

K. Jones: Point of order. I think this august House warrants a much greater respect from the Minister of Forests than his very derogatory responses to valid questions on behalf of the people of British Columbia. And I think that you should be bringing him to order, and asking him to speak to the question and not make these derogatory personal attacks.

The Chair: Thank you, member. I think the House and all members would be well served with some attention to temperance in debate and keeping our remarks strictly relevant to the matters before the House.

W. Hurd: Again to the minister on this matter of the aboriginal forestry issue. With respect to Vote 37 in the 1991-92 estimates, the Fort Nelson Indian band mineral revenue-sharing agreement, the British Columbia utility, can the minister tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

The Chair: Hon. member, I think it is traditional in British parliamentary tradition that ministers of the Crown are responsible for those activities under their ministry during the time that they were ministers, and not prior to the time that they were ministers. It seems to me that your question is one that pertains to the period for which the current minister was not in office.

W. Hurd: Mr. Chairman, we have not been able to determine what the special-warrant spending of the previous period was. Without that information, we're hamstrung in asking for a total picture of the entire budget.

Perhaps I can ask a question with respect to the small business forest enterprise program. Can the minister tell us what has changed in this special account since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. D. Miller: These items have been explained time after time to the Liberal opposition, and I don't know what it's going to take, Mr. Chairman. Do we have 

[ Page 397 ]

to draw them pictures? To be candid, this opposition has had five months to prepare. It is truly a disastrous performance on their part. They should realize that this performance is not doing them any good. It's not doing the people of the province any good. We will have ample opportunity to engage in a full-blown and extensive estimates debate. To keep reminding these members that they're out of order, that they're asking inappropriate questions, after they've been reminded time after time, is surely becoming tedious.

W. Hurd: I would remind the minister that we're only asking questions about the spending of his ministry under special warrant, which is the reason we've been meeting for most of the evening.

Perhaps I could ask a question of the minister about the Green Gold grants program, where funding is made available to non-profit groups across British Columbia. Could he provide us with an estimate of his ministry's spending under special warrant on this program?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't. Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to provide a list subsequent to this on the expenditures under Green Gold.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I could ask a question about the globe-trotting activities of the Minister of Forests. Could he describe to us whether his travel budget has gone up during the period in which he was spending by special warrants.

Hon. D. Miller: I would remind the member he is out of order. It's not covered under these special warrants.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can describe how the trips are paid for, if they're not covered by special warrant.

Interjections.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister can describe to the committee what benefits were derived for the province from his trips.

Hon. D. Miller: Not to take too much time, I noted the very excellent answer provided by the Premier when a similar type of question was posed to him with respect to initiatives he'd undertaken. They can read Hansard, Mr. Chairman. This government considers it not only highly appropriate, but absolutely essential to develop the kind of contacts with one of our major trading partners, Japan....

An Hon. Member: Sit down.

Hon. D. Miller: I'll resist the urgings of my colleague to cut short this response. We considered it imperative that we establish those kinds of contacts. We sell over $2 billion worth of forest products to Japan. We sell over $100 million worth of pulp and paper products to Korea. We think it's important. We think there was a serious error on the part of the previous administration in not having a Minister of Forests visit Japan or Korea since at least 1986 -- I'm not sure we know the exact year.

We were well received. We received some very positive feedback. I might add that the industry people who accompanied me on that trip to Japan and Korea were effusive in their praise that finally we had a government in British Columbia that recognized the importance of our offshore markets, and was prepared to do something about it.

[3:30]

I'm sure we will be taking many trips in the future to other locations that we think provide market opportunities for our forest products industry. We have a strong commitment to that forest products industry, to the people who work in it. We think that's an important part of our economy. We want to see it grow, and we will work as hard as we can to ensure that happens.

W. Hurd: My next question relates to the activities of the job protection commissioner in Port Alberni. Is any portion of his budget being assumed by the Minister of Forests?

The Chair: I'm advised that the question is out of order in that it does not pertain to the Ministry of Forests.

W. Hurd: I find that rather curious, because I have in front of me a news release from the Minister of Forests regarding the Job Protection Commission in the Port Alberni area. I assume it was put out by his information ministry. Perhaps he can tell me how much the information ministry paid to do the work of the job protection commissioner?

Hon. A. Edwards: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's misleading to ask a question about an expenditure that is not in the warrants of the Ministry of Forests.

W. Hurd: I must confess that I'm confused, because the news release I'm holding is from the Ministry of Forests regarding the work of the job protection commissioner.

Hon. D. Miller: I'd be quite happy to talk to the member at some other opportunity to elaborate on this, but very briefly, we turned the report of the commissioner over to a local committee. I must say that I highly commend the member for Alberni for the very excellent work he has done. I've noted the admiration that many members of his constituency hold for him for organizing the local committee that looked at that report, which considered future opportunities for that community.

W. Hurd: Returning to the issues of TFLs 44, 46 and 54 on Vancouver Island, specifically the reports that were tabled by some of the environmental groups on the Island, are you suggesting to the committee that those reports did not impact on the decision of the chief forester to quite dramatically cut the annual allowable cuts on those tree-farm licences?

[ Page 398 ]

Hon. D. Miller: No, Mr. Chairman.

W. Hurd: I assume from the answer they had no impact?

The Chair: The answer is no.

W. Hurd: Perhaps I should rephrase my question to the minister regarding the annual allowable cuts in TFLs 44, 46 and 54. I understand that numerous submissions were made by environmental groups to the chief forester with respect to areas that needed to be preserved and the annual allowable cuts that might be sustainable. Perhaps he can advise us whether they had any impact on the ultimate decision.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, I advise the member that he is free -- in fact I would encourage him -- to request a meeting with the chief forester, who would be most happy to meet with the member and explain in more detail the technical reasons that those decisions were made. There is an extensive planning process. There is wide consultation with members of the public and groups such as those the member mentioned. All of their input is looked at seriously and considered and forms part of the basis for the decisions ultimately arrived at by the chief forester.

The Chair: I appreciate that the hour is late, but I would advise those members who are having subcommittee meetings to step outside for those meetings so that we may conduct the debate with due decorum.

W. Hurd: I return briefly to the issue of the lumber tariff. I would question the minister as to what appropriation his ministry has made for fighting this particular lumber tariff, either in the province or in the United States.

Hon. D. Miller: Approximately $1.8 million, in that area.

W. Hurd: That was the precise figure given to us by the Minister of Environment during his statements to the committee. Are we to assume that both ministries have an equal budget for this particular initiative?

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct -- the Minister of Economic Development.

W. Hurd: Can the minister describe to the committee some of the trips that he has made in connection with this lumber tariff issue and how much they might have cost under special warrants?

Hon. D. Miller: It has already been pointed out. I repeat time after time that those transportation costs are not part of these special warrants. I don't know what it takes to get it through to that member.

Further, I have taken one trip down to Oregon. If the member has not yet had an opportunity to get a package of the documents that I tabled in the House with respect to that trip, I'd suggest he do it. He will find that the work of officials in my ministry and in the Ministry of Economic Development has indeed paid off. I commend those public servants who have been working many long hours to combat this completely unjustified countervail allegation by the United States.

That work has resulted in some very positive support from the Pacific Northwest states. Referring to the package of documents that I tabled, the member will see that there is a letter from Mr. Andrus, the Governor of Idaho, to the Premier of British Columbia, in which Mr. Andrus characterizes the U.S. administration as hypocritical for launching this countervail. He will see that there is a joint communiqué of our Premier and Governor Booth Gardner of Washington, in which they call for the issue of log exports to be removed from this countervail. He will see that there are a number of editorials from the leading paper in Portland, the Oregonian, wherein one official of the Ministry of Economic Development is named as providing information; where the Oregonian supports the position of the government of British Columbia.

He will see that all the efforts made by this administration with respect to that countervail are bearing fruit. We are finding we have allies in the Pacific Northwest. We would hope that the members opposite would want to join us and assist us, and that all members in this House realize the disastrous consequences if the U.S. administration were to get away with applying this spurious tariff to our softwood lumber industry.

I'd be quite happy to brief the member, and indeed any member of this House, in a more comprehensive way. In return, I would ask that those members expend every effort they possibly can in assisting the people in the forest industry in British Columbia, and the people who depend on that industry, to continue fighting this unjust countervail.

W. Hurd: I'm not sure if there was a dollar figure in that, but I'll take it at his word. My next question relates to the Commission on Resources and Environment -- Stephen Owen. I note that both ministries have been involved in making announcements. Can the minister describe to the committee what portion of the special warrants went to funding the initial work of the commission?

Hon. D. Miller: I understand the allocation for that particular item is not within the Ministry of Forests and therefore is not in order.

W. Hurd: Just a further question regarding a release put out by the Ministry of Forests in March pertaining to the cost of third-party liability insurance on Forest Service roads. I note that the premium has now been extended to $200,000 worth of third-party liability. I wonder if he can describe to the committee how much this has cost in terms of special-warrant spending during the period under review.

Hon. D. Miller: Nothing, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 399 ]

W. Hurd: I note also that the Forests minister released a Forest Resources Commission report entitled A Land Use Planning System For British Columbia on January 28, 1992, which we understand will be of particular interest to Stephen Owen. Perhaps he could describe to the committee the terms of reference in this study and how much his ministry devoted to that particular study.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain the question is in order. The budget for the commission is roughly $2 million. I don't have the figures here on what they expended on that particular report. The important thing is the report. I would ask all members to take note of that report again, because it's important. It describes the dual economy that exists in this province and the fact that we have many small communities highly dependent on basic resource industries, the forest industry being foremost. All of us have to bear that in mind in terms of our actions in administering resource issues in this province.

W. Hurd: I note that on February 7, 1992, an independent consultant was appointed by the minister to investigate the waste of thousands of cubic metres of harvested aspen in Fort Nelson. Perhaps he could describe the terms of reference of this consultant and how much money has been expended in his work so far.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the terms of reference or the dollar amount, but I would simply say that I found it unacceptable -- my people in the ministry found it unacceptable -- that harvesting would take place and the end result is 60 percent of the wood harvested is left lying on the ground. We're trying to find a solution to a terrible problem inherited from the previous administration.

W. Hurd: Does the minister have an idea of a cost or dollar value for the thousands of cubic metres of wasted aspen?

The Chair: Minister?

W. Hurd: With respect to my previous question: is the minister prepared to take it on notice and provide that figure to the House at a later date?

The Chair: I'd advise the member that ministers are not required to take questions on notice. This is not question period, and the Chair is not able to compel the minister to respond. It is up to the minister whether or not there is a response.

W. Hurd: Following my line of questioning on the annual allowable cut reductions, I note a dramatic cut in the annual allowable cut in the Williams Lake timber supply area. Can he advise the committee what moneys might have been expended on inventory data to make that type of decision or to suggest to the chief forester that that type of cut be made? What type of ministerial expense went into arriving at that?

[3:45]

Hon. D. Miller: Could someone explain to me the relevance of the question? I fail to understand what the amount of money in terms of the technical work, inventory or whatever has to do with anything. Where is this member trying to go? Has he a list of questions that somebody gave him? They're not connected to anything that I can figure out. They're completely unfocused. I don't know where this member wants to go. I don't think he knows where he wants to arrive at. Is he simply trying to eat the clock? Does he think he's providing some service? Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could advise the member that really it's quite a challenge to be an effective critic, and they've started off on the wrong foot. Not to be hard-nosed here, but we're trying to give some good advice. I think you've got to rethink your strategy over there because it ain't working. If anybody who happened to be watching this performance....

D. Mitchell: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, we're not here to witness personal attacks on any members of this assembly by the minister who's reviewing.... We're here to fulfil the responsibility, and the member is fulfilling the responsibility, of members of this committee of this Legislative Assembly by seeking information from the minister with respect to the special warrants here under review under Bill 16. We're here seeking information and we're here fulfilling the responsibility of members under our obligation to review government spending under this interim supply bill. We're not here to witness personal attacks on members, hon. Chairman, and I would ask you to please give the minister some guidance. Personal attacks on members are not what we're here to witness. We're here to fulfil a responsibility.

The Chair: I thank the member for his point of order. I did not sense any personal attack. I understood that they were remarks relative to the quality of debate in the House, which is tenuous in terms of relevance. There is relevance in terms of the dollar amounts expended in the last five months, but that in my mind is the only relevance, and I think it barely qualifies under the rules of relevance in this House. However, I would ask the member for Surrey-White Rock to continue if he has further questions.

W. Hurd: Returning to my question on the Williams Lake timber supply area, I note that the annual allowable cut goes from 3.975 million cubic metres to.... There's a reduction of 117,000 cubic metres. Perhaps he can describe to this House how much of a loss of revenue that represents to the people of the province.

D. Mitchell: No. reply. Government Services is next.

The Chair: Can we move on to Government Services?

The member for Surrey-White Rock.

[ Page 400 ]

W. Hurd: I note that there's a 34 percent reduction in the annual allowable cut in the Mid-Coast timber supply area, so I assume there was a decision made by the ministry. Perhaps he can advise us how much that will cost the people of the province in terms of lost revenue.

Hon. D. Miller: I assure the members opposite that it is not my intention to be offensive. I think there is a purpose for this chamber, and there is a purpose for good honest debate and good tough debate. I relish that. I love this place for that, for the ability of members to ask such questions and the give and take and all the rest. Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, it's not my wish to be anything less than forthcoming, but I insist that the line of questioning, the questions that are being posed, are absolutely ridiculous. We are not going anywhere.

The very rough ballpark figure that you could use is about a hundred bucks a cubic metre. I've already stated that when we withdraw land, when AACs are reduced, when wood is not available for harvest, there's an economic cost. I suppose it depends, in terms of where you are, what the opportunities might be. Those are serious issues.

But I repeat: the line of questioning obliges me to give the kind of responses I've given so far in this debate. It's not my desire or my style to be abusive or anything less than forthcoming. Surely the members must have been receiving some advice with respect to their performance so far, and I would urge them, in the strongest possible way, to heed that advice. I think a government is made better by a good opposition. I'm not here to lecture or to tell anybody how to do their job, but the questions that have been posed have invited the answers.

The Chair: I would ask members on both sides of the House to consider the rules of relevancy in their debate.

Hon. M. Sihota: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to the debate in this House for at least the last four hours, and I want to say that I'm not too sure what it is the opposition House Leader is seeking to achieve by going through this exercise. I think it's fair to say that the exercise has been pathetic and the performance on the part of the opposition wholly inept.

There are people working in these buildings who sustain the operations of this chamber. People have been running these cameras for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 18 to 20 hours. People have been sitting outside for the better part of 18 or 20 hours. People have been down in the cafeteria for a lot of hours as well. At some point the member opposite has to have some sense of compassion for those people. Perhaps he should take the opportunity, while we debate Government Services operations, to go back to his leader and his caucus and admit that their performance has been less than would normally be expected from an opposition. They have, quite frankly, failed in their objective. Out of common sense and decency for the people who are working here, bring this exercise to an end. If he is not prepared to do that, then I would encourage the member opposite, who is responsible for this charade, to at least to apologize to those people.

The Chair: I will take that as a point of order.

D. Mitchell: I appreciate the point of order of the hon. Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. I don't want to prolong events here. We want to get on with Government Services. Let me just respond to the point of order briefly by telling him that we are here in this House to fulfil an important responsibility, and it's not easy to do that when we have ministers like the ones who were just up, the Minister of Forests and the Minister of Finance, who refused to answer the most basic questions dealing with the matter before this committee on special warrants for the fiscal year that has just come to an end.

I wonder if the government would consider apologizing to all members of the committee and to the legislative staff that are here. We're here at almost 4 o'clock in the morning for a reason, and it's because this government has put a gun to the head of the members of this Legislature by trying to ram through billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of retroactive spending and an interim supply bill for the first quarter of this year.

The minister who raises the point of order should be ashamed to be raising this point, because we're not here for the fun of it; we're here to ask questions. We simply ask that the questions be answered so that we can get on with the business. We desire to get on with the business.

Interjections.

D. Mitchell: The Minister of Labour and Consumer Services will have his turn. Just hold on, Mr. Minister.

The Chair: Debate on the warrants covering the Ministry of Government Services.

K. Jones: During the period under review and in consideration of special warrants, I'd like to ask the following question: this ministry is a division of certain aspects of former ministries, and using the 1991-1992 estimates as a reference, could the minister indicate which votes and which portions of votes came under her responsibility as of November 5, 1991?

Hon. L. Boone: As was previously mentioned, we are dealing with a special warrant; we're not dealing with votes in this area. Please deal with the special warrants that are on hand.

K. Jones: I see that the minister has some ministry officials with her. Perhaps she'd like to introduce them. I certainly apologize for them having to be out at this late hour, but we have work to do.

Hon. L. Boone: I'd be more than happy to. I have beside me Deputy Minister Doug Allen, Assistant Deputy Minister John Mochrie, and Assistant Deputy 

[ Page 401 ]

Minister Peter Clark -- I think. He hasn't left yet. As of midnight tonight, though, Peter Clark's part of our ministry unfortunately suffered a demise, but Peter is here showing his dedication to the ministry. I appreciate him being here to give me his knowledge and support.

K. Jones: Considering special warrants with respect to each of those votes during the period under review, and again using 1991-1992 estimates as a reference, can the minister inform the committee of the amounts of money that went into each of your vote categories under the November 13, 1991, special warrant for $72,303,000?

Hon. L. Boone: There were no votes. That was half of the ministry budget, which came to a total of $145.3 million from November 15. K. JONES: Thank you, hon. minister. At least you gave us that answer. It's better than the last minister. During the period under review, considering the special warrants within the same terms of reference, can the minister inform the committee of the amount of moneys under the January 9, 1992, special warrant for $73 million which went into each of the estimate vote categories?

Hon. L. Boone: That was the other half of the $145.3 million.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering the special warrants, can the minister tell the committee how much money had been spent under her total vote by the former administration during those seven months of the fiscal year prior to her assuming control?

[4:00]

The Chair: I would remind the member that questions relevant to the period prior to the current minister assuming office are out of order.

K. Jones: This is a question on the status of the ministry at the time she took it over. I'm sure she should know what that is.

Hon. L. Boone: As you ruled, Chairman, we are dealing with the last five months, and that's the five months that the special warrant deals with. This is what we are talking about today.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, can the minister inform the committee how much money has been spent under her total vote by the current administration during these last five months of the fiscal year since she assumed control?

Hon. L. Boone: The amount is $126.4 million.

K. Jones: Thank you, Madam Minister. During the period under review, considering special warrants, can the minister tell the committee whether or not there have been any changes with regard to programs or responsibilities within her jurisdiction as they are described in the 1991-92 estimates? If there have been changes, could she please detail them for the committee in terms of which ministry they came from and went to, and what the effect of this was on her ministry? Have there been any new programs introduced under her ministry or eliminated from it? How has this affected her ministry's fiscal situation?

Hon. L. Boone: There are a thousand and one questions there, but I can tell you right now that there have been a lot of changes with my ministry. As you know, there's been the amalgamation of two ministries -- Provincial Secretary and the former Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services.

This ministry has had transferred from the Ministry of Attorney General, government vehicle licensing; transferred from the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, Provincial Secretary programs; transferred from the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services, all the Government Services programs; transferred from other appropriations, the Lottery Fund; and government services transferred to the Ministry of Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture. So there have been a lot of changes taking place within this ministry.

We have implemented no new programs, but we have been funding freedom of information through this ministry. I'm sure that the member would be very supportive of that and recognize that it's a good program and one that deserves the financial support of this ministry.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, specifically with respect to vote 45 -- the minister's office as listed in the 1991-92 estimates -- can she tell us what was changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. L. Boone: We have a new minister.

As you know, the former administration, when they left, put forth an OIC removing many of the positions that were there. I have a ministerial assistant, an executive assistant and four staff in my office.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, does the minister have additional staff beyond those you have just described? Were there any increases in salary or associated expenses, and if so, why?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, were there any other increases in particular expenditure items under this vote? And if so, could the minister detail these for the committee?

Hon. L. Boone: It is a new ministry as of November 5, so there are substantial changes from the previous vote.

[ Page 402 ]

K. Jones: Could we have details in regard to those changes?

Hon. L. Boone: I've already listed to you the changes that have taken place in the ministry. Our budget is the same; we haven't altered the budget whatsoever. There have been changes that have been shifted around, and I've already identified those for you when I listed the changes that took place in the ministry with the amalgamation of the two.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, with respect to vote 46 from the 1991-92 estimates --ministry operations -- can the minister tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. L. Boone: This is a special warrant, and we are not talking about votes whatsoever.

K. Jones: We are talking about votes in order to get the definitions within the estimates -- the special warrants. We're asking them so that we can get the breakout in order to do our job. I hope you'll bear with us.

During the period under review, considering special warrants, does the minister have any additional staff under vote 46? Were there any increases in salary or associated expenses, and if so, what?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I had already answered that. The staff complement has stayed the same.

K. Jones: We're talking about operations now, not the minister's staff. Is there any change?

Hon. L. Boone: There are no additional FTEs. My ministry staff remains the same.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, were there any increases in particular expenditure items under this vote -- ministry operations? If so, could the minister detail those for the committee?

Hon. L. Boone: No additional expenditures.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants specifically, can the minister further itemize the distribution of moneys from special warrants 4 and 6 for this vote in terms of the following subvote categories: administration and support services; government programs and services, with subheadings of executive and corporate services; product sales and services; purchasing and supplier development services; travel management services? Perhaps I'll wait there.

Hon. L. Boone: Ministry operations expenditure under warrant 4 for vote 51 was $3,853,0000; under warrant 6 it was $3,703,245. For ministry operations under warrant 4 for vote 61 it was $21,760,000; under warrant 6 it was $25,445,128. For superannuation administration it was $2,650,000 under warrant 4 for vote 62; warrant 6 was $2,527,285. Is that adequate for the member?

K. Jones: There are a few others here that we'd like to have some figures on: the policy coordination office; the government communications office; and coordination of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions.

Hon. L. Boone: The policy coordination office is funded through the communications office, and I will get you that amount. That's combined for the two, and the warrant number for it was -- and this was in the first lump within the first section that I gave you under ministry operations; this is a section of that.... It was $1,100,000 for warrant 4 and $1,577,574 for warrant 6. The boards and commissions were not in this ministry for that warrant.

K. Jones: Policy coordination.

The Chair: Could I ask the member to address his questions through the Chair, please.

Hon. L. Boone: The policy coordination office lies within the government communications office.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants and with regard to vote 47, pensions administration, from the 1991-92 estimates, can the minister tell us what has changed in this vote since it was introduced by the previous administration?

Hon. L. Boone: There is no vote within this warrant, but nothing has changed within pensions administration.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, does the minister have any additional staff under pensions administration? Were there any increases in salary or associated expenses, and if so, what?

Hon. L. Boone: I thought I'd already answered that. I've told you that there are no increases in staff within my ministry. That includes the superannuation branch.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering the special warrants, can the minister further itemize the pensions administration vote with regard to these subvote categories: pensions administration and recoveries from pension funds?

Hon. L. Boone: Within the superannuation branch, this is a $10 vote. That means it's recovered from contributors from other areas.

K. Jones: With respect to the Purchasing Commission working capital fund, can the minister tell us what has changed in this special account since it was introduced by the previous administration?

[ Page 403 ]

Hon. L. Boone: This is not covered in this warrant. It was covered by interim supply last year.

[4:15]

K. Jones: Can the minister inform the committee whether at any time funds from these special warrants were transferred or granted to B.C. Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems, B.C. Lottery Corporation or B.C. jets? If so, can the minister please provide the details of these transactions for the committee?

Hon. L. Boone: There are no general transfers from the ministry to the corporations.

K. Jones: Can the minister tell this committee whether there were any increases in employment in any of these corporations since November 5, 1991, and if there were, can she provide a detailed breakdown to this committee?

Hon. L. Boone: That's outside this warrant. The Crown corporations are not covered with this warrant.

K. Jones: For clarification, did you mean that the employees who were hired at that time were paid outside the warrants from other sources of income?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I mean that the Crown corporations are not included within this warrant.

K. Jones: Were there any savings identified from the amalgamation of the former Ministries of Government Services and Provincial Secretary?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we have achieved some efficiencies, and some savings in government services. Some of them have been slow to take form. As you've noticed, we have -- at great pain -- lost a very effective and very qualified assistant deputy minister, and that office there. So we have achieved some efficiencies and some savings, and as I said, it's taken a while to actually realize those things.

K. Jones: During the period under review, considering special warrants, what tax savings did you achieve?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what he means. I don't implement the taxation. As you know, the Minister of Finance has control of taxation in this province, and this lowly minister has nothing to do with taxation.

K. Jones: Perhaps I can clarify that. What savings to the people -- the taxpayers of British Columbia -- did you make?

Hon. L. Boone: I estimate we'll come in half a million under budget this year.

K. Jones: Was that during the period of special warrants, or are you projecting into next year?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm saying that this year we are going to come in half a million under budget -- and that is with bringing in freedom of information.

K. Jones: I'm still not quite clear what "this year" means. Is that 1991-92 or '92-93?

Hon. L. Boone: We wouldn't be discussing it if it was '92-93. We are discussing these warrants, and that's what I'm limiting my debate to.

Hon. J. Cashore: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Under standing order 43, under the heading "Irrelevance and Repetition in Debate," the standing order states that no member shall be irrelevant in debate. I submit this member is being irrelevant in debate, and that he should cease and desist and let us get on to the next item.

The Chair: Thank you for your point of order, hon. member.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister with regard to unfunded pension liabilities if she could detail in which pension programs there are unfunded pension liabilities.

The Chair: I think that that matter of liabilities has been canvassed in other discussions under this bill, and it has been determined that because it's not an expenditure under that warrant, it is out of order.

K. Jones: I'll accept that ruling, and from that I can assume that there was no expenditure to beef up the unfunded liabilities during this period. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Miller: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Chair: Debate continues, there now being a quorum.

K. Jones: Has the minister been able to determine the extent of the underfunding in the pension liabilities?

The Chair: The member.

K. Jones: What portion of the air services expenditures was attributed to travel by the Premier?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm sure the member can appreciate that we have not broken down a proportion of the government air to any member, whether it's the Premier or any other minister.

K. Jones: Does that mean that you have no accounting of the time allocations or the usage of the aircraft within your ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: Of course not. It means that we do not have it here broken down on a percentage basis. As you know, you are quite welcome to go out and review 

[ Page 404 ]

the logs. If you want some further breakdown, then we would have to get it. But we do not have that information here on any member who is using government air.

K. Jones: Under what authority has the Queen's Printer become a marketer of specialty products for sale to a captive market of provincial ministries, MLAs and government employees?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't understand the question at all. Could you be a little more specific about this? I don't know what you're talking about.

K. Jones: The question was: under what authority was the Queen's Printer operating as a marketer of specialty products for sale to a captive market within government agencies?

Hon. L. Boone: Thank you, but repeating the question doesn't explain it any better. If you would please explain to me what it is, who the captive market is and what they are selling.... I have no idea what you're talking about or indicating there. Please, if you want an answer, be a little more specific so that I can understand what you're talking about.

K. Jones: We are talking specifically of products that the Queen's Printer places their label on and then turns around and sells to various departments, ministries and individuals within the government.

Hon. L. Boone: The Queen's Printer operates under the same authority that they do with everything. It's a $10 vote. They recover their costs from various ministries for all the supplies that they sell to them. I really don't understand the line that the member is taking in this questioning. If he has a particular point that he's trying to get at, I'd really appreciate it if he would do that.

K. Jones: Does the Queen's Printer add any form of markup to the goods it purchases and then sells to others? Printed material and the VIP Giftware Guide suggest there is a markup that is close to 80 percent. Is that true?

Hon. L. Boone: It's cost recovery.

K. Jones: Does the Queen's Printer purchase those goods which are for resale on a GST-exempt basis?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

K. Jones: Assuming there are markups on the goods sold, where do the profits from these sales go?

The Chair: The member.

K. Jones: Could the minister tell us when she informed people that GO B.C. grants would be no longer available from this government?

Hon. L. Boone: Lottery grants are not covered under this warrant.

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, the voice trailed off, and I didn't hear the date.

The Chair: The minister indicated that lottery grants and hence your question are not covered under the warrants. Therefore your question is out of order.

K. Jones: I take it she made the decision during the period under review. Is that correct?

The Chair: Decisions made in the period under review may or may not be covered by these warrants. The minister informed the House that the question was not covered in the warrants, therefore the question is out of order.

K. Jones: She's already stated that all of the operations of the ministry were covered under warrants.

The Chair: The question has been ruled out of order.

K. Jones: Could you please inform the House of the number of GO B.C. grants awarded by this government since November 5, 1991?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not under this warrant.

Hon. G. Clark: It's lottery funds; it's not under this warrant.

Interjection.

K. Jones: The lottery grants program is under your ministry, Madam; you should know that.

The Chair: Further questions from the member?

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

K. Jones: Could the minister give us a breakdown by constituency of all of the GO B.C. grants awarded during this period?

[4:30]

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, it's tedious and repetitious. He knows it's out of order. It's a special account; he can't ask questions on it. I suggest he be ruled out of order and we move on.

The Chair: The question has been ruled out of order. Would the member continue his questions without reference to the Lottery Fund.

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I have exhausted my questions. I'll be happy to step down.

[ Page 405 ]

The Chair: We will move on to the Ministry of Health.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

L. Reid: Mr. Chairman, there are three special warrants in Health and Seniors up for clarification: November 13, 1991 -- no purpose is stated; January 8, 1992 -- no purpose is stated; February 28, 1992 -- "to provide funding for costs arising from increased service utilization and increases to the cost of drugs under the Pharmacare plans, increased service utilization of the MSP and the computerization agreed to in the BCMA and supplementary benefits practitioner agreements."

First, I would like to congratulate the minister on her appointment to this very large and very crucial ministry. It is heartening to see that a woman has been entrusted with spending so many of the taxpayers' dollars. It was not so long ago that women would not have been considered for such a position. I would like to take this moment to applaud the Premier for his decision to name as many women as he has to his cabinet.

However, I am not here today to speak about advancement for women in politics. Rather, I am here on behalf of the people of British Columbia to seek accountability from this government with regard to the money it has spent since taking office on November 5, 1991. As I am sure the Speaker is aware, the government is asking this House today to approve the expenditure of well over $76 million by special warrant for the Ministry of Health and the Minister Responsible for Seniors. Hon. minister, could you please provide this House with a specific breakdown for Seniors, separate from Health?

Hon. E. Cull: I just want to remind the member opposite that the Ministry of Health budget, including the portions responsible for seniors, was extensively canvassed in the Legislature before it adjourned last year, and this budget was in fact passed after over 20 hours of debate. I don't think we need any further debate on the budget, which was passed over a year ago.

The Chair: The minister makes a valid point, in that although the budget was not passed for '91-92, several ministries -- including the Ministry of Health -- were exceptions. The member should be guided by the fact that that ministry's estimates have passed.

L. Reid: In fact, I wasn't asking to debate. I was asking for a single answer in terms of dollars, to separate out Health from Seniors. I hope you can provide that, and I trust that I will be introduced to your support staff who have just arrived.

Hon. E. Cull: I am pleased to introduce my staff: my deputy, Krysia Strawczynski; Vicki Farrally, with alcohol and drug programs; and Kit Henderson of the Medical Services Commission.

L. Reid: Again, this Legislature has been asked to approve a special warrant of $76 million. In the interest of honest and open government, and full accountability, I would like the minister to elaborate on exactly where this money was spent. But before this House goes on to consider the exact details of the government's spending on programs for Health and Seniors since November 5, I would like this minister to tell this House whether or not program changes or responsibility changes have been made to her ministry as it was described in the '91-92 estimates book, so that this House may get a clear picture when comparing these two sets of estimates. Have there been any changes to the programs and responsibilities under her purview? Could the minister tell this House exactly where those changes were?

Hon. E. Cull: That question, again, has nothing to do with the special warrant and is out of order.

The Chair: The member will have some difficulty in light of the fact that this ministry has received authority to spend during the 1991-92 fiscal year, as I pointed out earlier.

L. Reid: Could the minister please identify which votes this warrant was applied to? We'll start with the first one listed.

Hon. E. Cull: The warrants are as follows: warrants 4 and 6 apply to alcohol and drug programs, and warrant 12 applies to the Medical Services Commission and Pharmacare.

L. Reid: For clarification, does the warrant of November 13, 1991, apply to alcohol and drug programs?

The Chair: The member.

L. Reid: Could the minister please tell this House what portion of the special warrants went towards paying the salaries and benefits of employees in the minister's office?

Hon. E. Cull: None.

L. Reid: Was any portion of these warrants spent on environmental, family and preventive health, under the February 28, 1992, warrant?

The Chair: The member.

L. Reid: Was any portion of those warrants spent on the B.C. Centre for Disease Control?

Hon. E. Cull: No.

L. Reid: Was any portion of the warrants, as outlined, spent on forensic psychiatric services?

The Chair: The member.

[ Page 406 ]

L. Reid: Was any portion of those warrants spent on mental health?

Hon. E. Cull: No. I told the member what the warrants covered just a few minutes ago, and that's all that's in there.

L. Reid: At this point I would like to refer to order-in-council 1495, where it says that Jocelyn Jenkyns was appointed executive assistant to the Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Seniors. Can you tell us what financial implication that had on your department?

Hon. E. Cull: It had no implications.

L. Reid: Order-in-council 1496, again an administrative assistant appointed to Health. What financial implications did that person hold?

Hon. E. Cull: Again, no implications.

L. Reid: Order-in-council 1617, remuneration....

The Chair: It will assist the Chair and the recording of Hansard if I have an opportunity to recognize the members before they speak.

L. Reid: Order-in-council 1617, remuneration, again for another member working in the area of consultation, I believe. Any impact on your ministry?

Hon. E. Cull: There are no new staff in the minister's office, except for those who are replacing staff who left when the former administration left.

L. Reid: Am I to understand that the staffing requirements are identical since you took office on November 5?

Hon. E. Cull: The question is out of order. But the answer is yes, they are just replacements. Staff left when the former minister left; staff were replaced.

L. Reid: Again, we have the minister's order-in-council 48: enter agreement with St. Vincent's Hospital Health Care Society. Did that have any financial implication on this budget?

Hon. E. Cull: No.

L. Reid: Item 81, appointment of an assistant. Did that have any financial implications?

Hon. E. Cull: No.

D. Schreck: You're out of order.

The Chair: Hon. members, questions of order rest with the Chair. If a member wishes to raise a point of order, he should rise in his place and be recognized.

D. Schreck: I rise on a point of order relevant to standing order 43, which clearly provides that in the case of tedium the member may be directed to take the member's seat. We've had a series of questions, all of which are irrelevant and have been ruled out of order. I suggest that standing order 43 be applied and that the member take her seat.

The Chair: With all due respect, the member is phrasing different questions -- although very similar -- as she is going down the list, and I would ask the member to keep that in mind.

L. Reid: Can the minister give a breakdown to describe how much of this special warrant -- and let's start with special warrant 1, November 13, 1991 -- went to each of the areas described in the schedule: drugs under the Pharmacare plan, the Medical Services Plan and computerization?

Hon. E. Cull: None of that warrant.

L. Reid: The second warrant, January 8, 1992. The same question.

Interjection.

L. Reid: February 28, 1991. Can the minister give a breakdown to describe how much of this special warrant went to each of the areas described on the schedule: drugs under the Pharmacare plan, the Medical Services Plan and computerization for the BCMA?

Hon. E. Cull: For computerization costs, the amount is $16.1 million; for the Pharmacare program, the amount is $16.5 million; and the remainder is for the Medical Services Plan.

L. Reid: Under the Pharmacare plan expenditure, how much went to each plan? What drugs did the money go to pay for?

Hon. E. Cull: It was $6 million to Plan A, $0.5 million to B, $4 million to C, $4 million to E, and $2 million to home oxygen.

L. Reid: Can the minister identify particular drugs whose costs added significantly, in percentage terms, to the cost of the plan and, therefore, to the expenditure made under this special warrant?

Hon. E. Cull: No.

L. Reid: Can the minister tell the House the percentage of drug costs covered under this special warrant that went to cover the cost of generic as opposed to brand-name drugs?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I can't.

L. Reid: I would be most interested in the answers to both of those questions. If they could be presented at a later date, it would be most appreciated.

[ Page 407 ]

The Chair: The minister indicates the affirmative.

L. Reid: When looking at the Pharmacare costs that this warrant covers, does the minister note any instances where generic drugs could have been substituted for brand names, but were not?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I'm not aware of that, but we could provide that information at a later date too, if we have it.

L. Reid: Also put this on notice for a future answer: how much does the minister estimate could have been saved if generic drugs had been prescribed whenever possible instead of the more expensive brand-name drugs?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm taking note; carry on.

L. Reid: Of the amount that was approved to cover increased service utilization of the Medical Services Plan, can the minister give this House a detailed account of where the money was spent -- premium assistance costs, fees paid to physicians, etc.?

Hon. E. Cull: It was $21.1 million to physicians and $5.6 million to supplementary practitioners.

L. Reid: Of the amount that went toward covering physicians' fees, can the minister give us a detailed account of what type of services this special warrant went to reimburse doctors for -- how many of each type of operation, how many office consultations, how many tests, etc.?

Hon. E. Cull: I'm sorry, we don't have that information.

L. Reid: Can the minister give us a breakdown by region of how this portion of the special warrant was spent?

Hon. E. Cull: No, we can't.

L. Reid: I think it is absolutely critical that British Columbians have an understanding of where their health care dollars are spent in the province. This one deserves extra attention, hon. minister.

Hon. E. Cull: There will be plenty of time to debate those kinds of things when we get to the estimates -- if we get to the estimates, at this rate.

[4:45]

L. Reid: It was my understanding that we would be prepared to debate special warrants when we were doing special warrants. I appreciate the advice about what's coming down the pipe at a later date, but that does not assist this side of the House in understanding how your ministry has spent these dollars.

The Chair: Yes, it's quite correct that the questions can be asked, but the Chair is powerless to insist upon a response if the minister is not prepared to give one.

L. Reid: Within these regions, can the minister provide this House with a breakdown between the amount spent on GPs and the amount that went to specialists?

Hon. E. Cull: Not for the special warrant. This can only be broken down for the entire budget, and the budget was debated last year.

L. Reid: Have you had an opportunity to break down the budget? I would be most interested in those facts.

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, I have, but I've been busier looking at next year's budget.

L. Reid: Can the minister outline what other areas of service saw increased utilization -- other than physician services -- that this special warrant went to pay for?

Hon. E. Cull: Supplementary practitioners.

L. Reid: For clarification, can you explain exactly what you mean by supplementary practitioners?

Hon. E. Cull: Chiropractors, massage therapists, physiotherapists and naturopaths.

L. Reid: In terms of the special warrant of November 13, 1991, from an earlier question I understand that this related to drug and alcohol treatment programs. Exactly what programs were funded through this special warrant?

Hon. E. Cull: Outpatient services, detoxification services, residential treatment, supportive recovery and prevention, other treatments, evaluation and administration.

L. Reid: I would be most interested, hon. minister, to learn where these programs were located.

Hon. E. Cull: In British Columbia, all through it.

L. Reid: It might be a stretch, hon. minister, but if you could be a little more specific I'd really appreciate it.

Hon. E. Cull: They're located all through the province. While it was somewhat humorous, it was also accurate. They're in communities all over the province.

L. Reid: With all due respect, I would not expect to find a program funded by British Columbia housed somewhere else in this country. So again, where were these special programs located?

Interjections.

[ Page 408 ]

L. Reid: I need to be convinced this evening that in fact this government has looked at allocation of health dollars throughout this province in an equitable fashion. You've given nothing to assure me that your highest priority is the health of this province.

Hon. E. Cull: This is the last time I'm going to answer it this way, but in all regions throughout this province there are different kinds of programs in different communities. You'll find drug and alcohol programs throughout British Columbia.

L. Reid: How many people were treated under these programs?

Hon. E. Cull: A thousand people last year, approximately.

L. Reid: Does the minister have any stats on the demographics of the users of these programs? If so, please explain.

Hon. E. Cull: Approximately 10 percent of the population is estimated to have addiction problems. Two-thirds of those individuals are male, one-third are female.

L. Reid: What portion of the programs, hon. minister, were dedicated to native health?

Hon. E. Cull: In '91-92, $2.9 million.

L. Reid: What portion was dedicated to the health needs of young people?

Hon. E. Cull: It's difficult to cost it out, but 4,000 children were treated under the program last year.

L. Reid: Thank you. I'm interested in some further clarification, hon. minister, on the February 28, 1992, warrant in terms of Pharmacare and MSP. If you could clarify the paragraph that is attached to this document, I would be most appreciative.

Hon. E. Cull: I believe I've already done that.

L. Reid: Work with me -- a little extra clarification is much required.

Hon. E. Cull: The two of those are the only ones covered in there, and we canvassed it just a few minutes ago.

L. Reid: Would you be prepared, hon. minister, to break that down in terms of dollars to MSP and dollars to Pharmacare?

Hon. E. Cull: I just did a few minutes ago. I distinctly remember reading out those figures. If the member checks the Blues, I'm sure she'll have them.

L. Reid: I will do that.

If I can proceed with orders-in-council. M15 -- Hawthorne Lodge designated as a hospital. Were there spending implications regarding this special spending warrant discussion?

Again an order-in-council -- Hospital Act regulations amended. Was there an administrative cost in terms of your special spending warrant discussion?

Hon. E. Cull: No.

The Chair: Hon. members, again I request that the members be recognized, take their place and answer the questions for the benefit of Hansard. Thank you.

L. Reid: Order-in-council M26. An individual was appointed to the board of the management of Kelowna General Hospital for a two-year term. Is that a paid position? In fact, did that have funding ramifications for your department?

Hon. E. Cull: I detect a pattern in the questions here. They're all related to hospital care, and there are no hospital care programs affected by any of the special warrants under discussion tonight.

The Chair: I would ask the questioner to consider those remarks.

L. Reid: Again the No. 1 warrant, directed to drug and alcohol abuse programs. Are any of these programs, hon. minister, directed specifically towards women?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes, there are a number of services directed to women. There are two residential programs and a number of other agencies which provide women-only services from time to time.

L. Reid: Are any of these programs directed specifically towards seniors?

Hon. E. Cull: I've been advised that there are two programs directed specifically to seniors, and then there are a number of counsellors who work with seniors with substance-abuse problems.

The Chair: Might I make a suggestion to the hon. member for Richmond East? Although she is not required to take my suggestion, it might be helpful if she could ask a series of questions that are related, in order to expedite the exchange between her and the minister.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair. Again, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Health. In terms of the first special warrant listed on the page, were any of the dollars allotted to programs to treat women in our society -- to assist in drug-and alcohol-related abuse problems?

Hon. E. Cull: Yes.

[ Page 409 ]

L. Reid: I appreciate the answer, hon. minister. I would be interested in details, in terms of where these programs took place. Was it in metro Vancouver? Are the dollars dispersed widely throughout the province?

Hon. E. Cull: Hon. member, it sounds like most of this money is in the urban areas, but I can't confirm that right now; I'd have to answer that question for you later.

L. Reid: I am still interested, hon. minister, in a breakdown of health dollars and seniors' dollars. Are you able to provide that yet?

Hon. E. Cull: No, I'm not. It's part of the debate that took place last year and was passed by the House.

L. Reid: Under the expenditure that went to cover computerization and the supplementary benefits practitioner agreements, can the minister give us a detailed breakdown of the exact expenditures covered by this special warrant?

Hon. E. Cull: The number I gave a few minutes ago -- $16.1 million -- is $12.8 to doctors and $3.3 million to supplementary practitioners.

L. Reid: I thank the hon. minister for her graciousness this evening. I indeed hope we can delve into a vast discussion, as the Health ministry goes forward, because my understanding -- and I certainly hope it's the wish of every single member of this House -- is that when you are going to spend 33 percent of the dollars, and you are not going to ask the taxpayers for their comments.... I think that requires further clarification. My question to the hon. minister would be: in terms of the dollars put forward to free-standing clinics in this province, was that fiscal 1991-92, or was that a special spending warrant?

[5:00]

Hon. E. Cull: Next year's budget.

L. Reid: I would rise to thank the minister, even though I am absolutely disheartened by that answer. To go forward on an expenditure of that nature without debate in this House is reprehensible. I truly thought this opposition directed that comment to you loud and clear yesterday evening.

Interjection.

L. Reid: I'd be happy to debate it, hon. minister.

The Chair: The member continues.

L. Reid: I trust that we will go forward in parliamentary tradition in much detail on the expenditures of Health.

The Chair: We now move on to the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.

G. Farrell-Collins: I intend to be efficient and brief this morning. I know the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is as concerned about tedium and would love to get home to his cat, so I intend to be brief. I guess some things are important in the minds of the NDP backbenchers.

Could the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services indicate to the committee the amount of money spent under his total vote by the former administration in the seven months of the fiscal year prior to his and his government's assuming control of the ministry?

Hon. M. Sihota: Just for the members' avocation, I'll just put all the information on the record in one shot. A series of special warrants were provided to the ministry, and I will outline them. The 1991-92 estimates, adjusted for reorganizations, stand at $24,984,000. Additional funding was approved for special warrant 6: pension benefit standards, $123,500; constitutional affairs, $95,000. Special warrant 5: legal liability, $115,000; labour relations review, $290,000; mediation, $50,000; constitutional and aboriginal affairs, $200,000 -- a total required funding, therefore, of $25,857,500.

The expenditures at November 5, 1991, as we stated, to reflect government reorganization, were $14,105,000. It is projected that an additional $11,480,000 will be spent, with a balance for the year of $25,585,000. Subsequent to November 5, 1991, there were 251 authorized FTEs in the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. The numbers remain unchanged. In addition, there are 187 positions in the programs that are not subject to FTE controls. They are as follows: IRC, 80; WCB review board, 71; compensation advisory services, 36.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you very much. Had the other ministers been as forthcoming with information, we would have been out of here a long time ago. I certainly appreciate the cooperation of the Minister of Labour.

I had some trouble with his speed at this hour. If he could just repeat the very last section with regard to the other items, it would certainly help me.

Hon. M. Sihota: Those numbers can be found in the Blues.

G. Farrell-Collins: I see the cooperation is not as forthcoming as we thought. We'll have to go through this a little more thoroughly than I had hoped.

Perhaps the minister could tell this committee how much of the funds that have been spent by his government in the last year were spent on additional mediators, the names of those mediators, the dates when they did their work, the amounts they were paid and the process by which they were contracted.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have a suggestion for the hon. member. He may want to put all the questions on the record, and I'll make notes of the questions and undertake to answer them.

[ Page 410 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I don't know if the minister is not prepared to do this. We've been waiting for five months for this government to call the House. They finally called the House. Here we are. We've just expired the fiscal year. They tried to cram through a full year's worth of spending in many ministries in a day and a half of debate.

It would be interesting if the minister would come to this committee prepared to give the information that's requested. I would like to ask the minister if there are other questions that he has answers to, or if intends to give absolutely no answers other than the list of figures that he started with.

The Chair: I would suggest, before I recognize the minister, that the member ask the questions. We are not here to debate attitudes or intentions or any matters other than questions as they relate to the special warrants under the supply bill schedule before us. I would ask the member to ask the questions, and perhaps we can proceed in order. Does the minister wish to respond?

G. Farrell-Collins: With all due respect, Mr. Chair, the question was very general and one that I hoped the minister could answer: does he have other information that will be forthcoming today? Is there any point in me continuing to ask questions if the minister simply refuses to answer? In that case, I won't waste my time or his, and it will be very obvious that he is unprepared for this discussion of special warrants. We can just stop it at that.

I would very much like to see the minister be forthcoming with answers. He's had five months to prepare for this debate. I notice that he doesn't have any of his staff members here. Perhaps he could find them, and we could get down to work.

The Chair: The member has more questions?

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I do. I'm going to ask the questions anyway, and perhaps then it will be seen in the eyes of the public that this government is not open or honest and that this government refuses to debate a full year of special warrants that he ran his ministry on. I intend to go ahead with them.

An Hon. Member: Go ahead. Do you think anybody's watching television at 5 o'clock?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member interjects and asks if people are watching television in the province, specifically this at this early hour of the morning, and I certainly doubt it. However, that's not the issue here. We're not here for television's sake; we're here because there's a job to be done. This government has been in control of the budget of this province for over five months. They have to answer for the spending they've done on special warrants in that time, and the minister has simply refused to do so. I intend to ask these questions on behalf of the public of British Columbia so that they can see very clearly that this government is not open and honest and, in fact, has no intention whatsoever of accounting for the moneys that it spent.

Could the minister indicate the complement of staff that has been hired to implement the Pension Benefits Standards Act, and list their salaries and benefits for us?

It would have been nice if we could have had some answers to some of these questions.

With regards to the Industrial Relations Council that the minister spoke about earlier, I'd like to know if, in addition to the regular staff, there are any other individuals, agencies or organizations who receive funding to help resolve labour-management conflicts in this province, and what criteria have been used to govern these contributions in the hiring of these people.

Next question. Given that it routinely takes up to eight months for an industrial relations officer to hear sexual harassment cases, can the minister advise us if there was any additional funding to resolve this problem?

I do have a series of questions that I know the minister will be very eager to answer, given the time that he has spent over the last few days trying to support his policy of fair wages. The questions deal with the development of this policy and the moneys spent to achieve it. I'd like to ask the minister what amounts, if any, have been spent in the printing, production and distribution of reports, studies or any sort of a government background material with regard to fair wage policy.

Hon. Chair, I know that the minister has spent a good deal of time in the last two days on television and radio, and in discussions with the print media, in his attempts to justify the government's policy, the so-called fair wage policy. The minister owes the members of this committee and, through this committee, the members of the public some explanation and some accounting for the funds that he expended on the development of this policy -- on the research into this policy, on any consultants hired to help develop this policy -- if there have been any expenditures whatsoever out of this minister's office, aside from his own expenses, that went into the development of the fair wage policy.

I think the minister should give the people the respect they deserve and answer this question. I'm sure he has access to that from the top of his head. I doubt that he needs to haul staff in for that one. I'm sure he can answer that question, and I'd be very eager to hear an answer from him.

The Chair: Questions can be put, but they cannot be insisted upon. The Chair is powerless to press the matter as far as answering questions are concerned. As long as the member takes his place, he is able to continue asking the questions.

G. Farrell-Collins: The people of this province deserve to have an answer to some of these questions this evening. The reality is that this opposition has tabled questions in this House through the normal procedure to all the ministers, and we've yet to receive a response to any of them. So I'm very doubtful and very concerned that this open and honest government 

[ Page 411 ]

and this supposedly open and honest minister will ever come back with the answers to any of these questions. I would certainly be eager to know the time-frame in which he intends to respond to the questions that I have listed and the ones that I'll continue to list.

If he's asking the public to wait an additional month, two months, five months, two weeks or an hour and a half -- whatever the amount -- the public, which has been waiting for the last five months for this government to come into this House and be accountable for itself, would like to know what that time-frame is and when we are likely to hear from this minister. I would encourage him to at least respond to that question today.

[5:15]

The Chair: Does that conclude the member's questions?

G. Farrell-Collins: No, it does not. Do you intend to answer that?

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, I will. Once you conclude your questions, I'll answer them.

G. Farrell-Collins: I asked a specific question to the minister about the time-frame. I have other questions to ask him. However, in the meantime I would like the minister to advise this House and the people of British Columbia what the time-frame is in which he intends to return to this House with some answers. I think that's a fair question, and I think the minister agrees it is.

If his House Leader and his Whip, who are sitting right in front of him, would cease to give him direction, then perhaps he would be willing to answer the question on his own. If he's operating at their direction, then I wonder if this government is open and honest at all, or if this is just the government of the Whip and the government of the House Leader.

Hon. M. Sihota: Let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. I've asked the member to put all the questions that he has on the record. Once he has done that, then I can answer his question about time-frames. I can't give him a time-frame until I know what his questions are. So just put all the questions on the record and then phone us sometime, and you will get answers to all your questions.

D. Mitchell: I have a brief question for the minister. I notice that during the period covered by the special warrant for his ministry in this bill there was a review of the Industrial Relations Act undertaken by the minister and his ministry. Could the minister simply advise the committee as to the specific terms of reference for that review? The three major individuals involved in the review have been made public, I believe, but I understand that there is a team of other support staff or other representatives in the legal community -- the labour law community in particular -- who may be supporting that team. Could you confirm that? In addition, could he indicate the time-frame, the budget and the terms of reference for this review of the Industrial Relations Act?

G. Farrell-Collins: It's very interesting and intriguing that yesterday we spent virtually the whole day in a debate that consisted of only one side of the House. The debate was by the members of the opposition towards the government, and not one member of the government, not one member of the back bench, with the exception of the House Leader -- even if we don't address the questions to him, the House Leader speaks to them anyway; he speaks on behalf of the Premier and everyone else on his side -- contributed anything. And once again we're engaged today at this late hour -- or early hour now -- in a one-sided debate in this House. We have a minister who refuses to answer the questions within this committee. He instead intends to defer it to a later date. He won't tell us what that time is until he gets all the questions. My understanding is that in the past, that's not the way this committee operated. It's not in the spirit of the work that we're trying to do.

I've made a special effort today in my presentation. I think the members of the government would agree that the questions I have been asking have been very specific and valid and have been of concern to the people of the province.

I'm trying to see if the minister will be realistic and cooperative -- as I am trying to be, given the time -- and answer the questions that we're asking. I hope -- and I assume -- that the minister is prepared. I'm sure he is one of the more capable members of the government in their cabinet, as he was when he was in the opposition. I would hope that he would be able to contribute as an open and honest member of this government and answer these questions, as is the procedure in this House.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The rules are quite clear. The questions can be put, but answers cannot be insisted upon. I would ask the member to ask the questions, and that is the extent of his ability, as far as the conclusion of those questions go -- the responses. So would the member continue with his questions.

G. Farrell-Collins: Mr. Chair, I ask for your clarification on this. Is it not true, according to the procedures of this House and the way this debate is normally run in the House, that members in phrasing their questions have up to 15 minutes to do so?

If that's the case, then am I not allowed the time to comment on the process on the question and lead up to the question? If that is the case, then I intend to do that. I ask the leeway of the Chair to do so.

The Chair: In committee, as I understand it -- and I may stand corrected -- the member is allowed 15 minutes uninterrupted and then would lose his place to an intervening speaker. But that matter hasn't been a problem in committee in the past.

[ Page 412 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I take that as a yes, there is a 15-minute limit to the time I may speak.

Hon. G. Clark: It has to be relevant to the debate.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's correct: relevant to the debate. I believe that I have been. I would hope that interruptions of my questions would be only when....

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order, the questions are to the warrant, and the member has spoken now for about seven minutes on nothing to do with the warrant. It has to be relevant and to the point. At this hour of the day, in particular, it's quite obvious that he's filibustering. The minister has said very clearly to put all the questions on the table, and he will answer them in the committee.

The Chair: Hon. minister, the point is well taken, but I would advise all members that it is difficult for the Chair when questions are placed and members insist upon the responses. I would refer all members to review the standing orders of the House, in particular 61.

G. Farrell-Collins: On a point of order. In my lead-up to the question, I'm trying not to force the minister to answer a question, because I'm very familiar with the rules also. I know there's no way of forcing anyone to answer any question in this House.

What I am trying to do, however, is convince the minister of the importance of the question and the importance of an answer given to the public. I certainly don't think that is out of order. In fact, it's very relevant and very pertinent to these special warrants. It's very important that the minister understand that importance, and perhaps then he would like to answer the questions in a timely manner in this House.

When he talks about the fullness of time, I'm reminded of a former member of the House from Burnaby-Willingdon, who used that term frequently. We still, after five months of him being out of government, don't have an answer to any of the questions that his side were asked.

The Chair: Hon. member, asking questions is not out of order. It is in order to ask questions. It is not out of order for ministers to defer or, for whatever reasons, not respond. Those are the conditions under which the House operates.

D. Mitchell: I have a brief question for the minister relating to his ministry's special warrants during the period under review. I believe through published reports -- this is with respect to the chairman of the Industrial Relations Council, in particular the previous chair of the Industrial Relations Council, Mr. Ed Peck -- that there was a proposal by this minister that Mr. Peck would actually continue to serve as chair of the Industrial Relations Council simultaneously with another co-chair coming in at the recommendation of this minister so that we would actually have two chairs on the Industrial Relations Council during this period under review. I wonder if the minister would care to confirm that a proposal actually came forward from his office that we would actually have co-chairs, Mr. Ed Peck and another chair simultaneously. Is that correct? Could the minister confirm that?

I would interpret the minister's silence as confirmation that this order did come from his office. I wonder then if the minister could explain why this plan that was hatched in his office did not succeed, why the co-chair program at the Industrial Relations Council did not proceed, and why Mr. Peck ended up leaving shortly thereafter. Could the minister explain why that was?

The minister obviously doesn't care to answer that question, and I wonder why. We can only speculate in this committee as to why the minister does not want to answer that question. Is there something to hide? It's obvious that his silence speaks very loudly on this issue.

I wonder if the minister could comment on the severance package paid to Mr. Ed Peck, and if he could table the details of that severance package, which was, I believe, negotiated by himself and his office. It would be interesting for the minister to table the details of that severance package to Mr. Peck in this committee.

I take it by the silence of the minister that he does not want to table details of that package, and members of this committee can only be left to wonder why he would refuse to do that. His silence speaks volumes.

I have another question for the minister, and it's with respect to the chair of the Industrial Relations Council that succeeded Mr. Peck: Mr. Lanyon. Could the minister tell the members of this committee whether the political background and affiliation of Mr. Lanyon had anything to do with his appointment as the new chair of the Industrial Relations Council?

I take it by the minister's silence that the political affiliation of Mr. Lanyon was the critical factor in his appointment as the new chair of the Industrial Relations Council.

I wonder if the minister could comment about the Industrial Relations Council during the period covered by this special warrant that's attached to this supply bill 16 before members of the committee. The Industrial Relations Council has changed significantly during this period. Not only do we have a new chair, but I understand other significant changes are taking place at the Industrial Relations Council. These changes were initiated in the minister's office directly under the authority of the minister and under his specific direction. Would he care to comment on what those changes imply in terms of a change of philosophy and a change of operations at the Industrial Relations Council, the chief labour tribunal of British Columbia?

I must say I have to thank the Minister of Labour for his forthrightness. The answers have been stimulating. The debate has been stimulating, and I want to thank him for his openness and his cooperation with the committee this morning.

G. Farrell-Collins: As I said earlier, I had intended to take this debate very seriously and to give 

[ Page 413 ]

pointed questions to the minister. I had hoped that he would respond with the same seriousness and the same sense of responsibility to this House. It's unfortunate that he has not. We've gone out of our way to be relevant, and we've done that with this ministry. However, I'm forced to ask the minister some questions. It seems he refuses to respond. I'll ask him the questions and read them into the record, and I hope that in very short order he will respond to the members of this chamber and, through this chamber, to the people of British Columbia.

For each of the departments for which the minister is responsible, could he indicate the allocation of the various funds for salaries and benefits; the size of the staff; the cost for administrative and support services; the operating costs; the cost for communications, advertising and information systems; asset acquisition costs; the cost of various grants and contributions that his ministry and its various departments have made; any other expenditures, what those expenditures were, to whom they were granted and the amounts granted; the various allocations to the programs within the departments and which programs were granted money, the locations of the programs within the province, the amounts of the allocations to those programs, the reasoning behind the granting of those allocations, the staffing level of the various programs and the salaries of the staff of the programs; and how much has been spent on contract work, how many contracts have been up for bid, how many contracts have been assigned, how many contracts were not put up for bid but were granted at the discretion of the minister, what amounts the contracts are for and the purpose of the contracts? Since the minister is not listening, I assume he'll use the Blues tomorrow. That will take another day for him to answer the question, but at least it is on the record.

[5:30]

D. Mitchell: On a point of order, this is a serious matter. I wonder if we could call for some medical assistance. I believe the Minister of Forests may have expired.

The Chair: That is not a valid point of order, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: Perhaps somebody should just shake him to ensure that he is still alive and just asleep.

The most important question I've asked tonight -- and the answer that I think the public and certainly the taxpayers of this province are most eager to find out -- is with regard to the fair wage policy and the development of that policy by this government. It's a serious matter. It involves a large sum of money on the part of the taxpayers. I would be very eager, given the timeliness of this issue, to have the minister respond as soon as possible with regard to the amount of money, the costs involved in the development of the fair wage policy of the government, the cost of any studies that were done, the cost of any policy work that was done, the cost of any contractors or consultants that were brought on board to help the minister set the rates of this policy, and any further expenses the minister can identify.

I also find it necessary to ask the minister what sorts -- oh, we have him snoring now! -- of costs have been associated with the ongoing constitutional debate in this country. Have any consultants or experts been hired to help the minister in the formulation of this province's position? We're all aware of the constitutional committee, and I'll make it clear that that was not funded out of this minister's budget. However, I'm sure that there have been delegations going back and forth to Ottawa made up of various bureaucrats, and perhaps consultants or advisers. I would hope that the minister could table for us in this House as soon as possible the costs associated with that debate. As a member of the committee that toured the province, I know people are very anxious about the costs of this whole constitutional industry, and I'm eager to hear the numbers on that as soon as possible.

In addition, and along the same line of the constitutional debates, which is part of this minister's portfolio, could he pass on to us any grants or contributions in the constitutional sphere that his ministry has offered to third parties or special interest groups to participate in this constitutional debate, with a breakdown of the costs and travel expenses relevant to the people involved?

I find it unfortunate that the minister has declined to answer any of the questions this evening. I know he knows the answers to many of them, and it would perhaps have been much better if we could have done it in that fashion. I endeavoured to be relevant and pointed in my questions, and I had hoped that the minister would respond in kind. Unfortunately, he has not. I intend to transmit the Hansard from this section of the debate on special warrants to all members of the construction industry who are waiting for answers on the fair wages, and certainly to the people in this province who have communicated to me their concerns on the constitution, whose questions the minister has refused to answer today.

The minister will have to explain for himself and for his government. I'm sure he ran in his constituency on open and honest government. People now know that that whole issue, the whole foundation of this government's campaign, was in fact a sham.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd like to thank the hon. member for the questions. In the spirit of open and honest government, I can assure the member that he will receive answers to all of the questions he has posed before the conclusion of the budget debate.

The Chair: That concludes the Ministry of Labour. We move now to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing.

A. Cowie: I'd like to congratulate the Minister of Municipal Affairs for being appointed minister of what I think is a very fine department, one that I have had the privilege of working reasonably closely with over the years. I know many of the members of his staff, and they do a fine job.

[ Page 414 ]

I will try to be brief this morning and stick specifically to the warrants of September 19, 1991, October 29, 1991, and then November 13, 1991, and January 8, 1992, which is after the minister became minister. It's unfortunate that we've had to wait so long to get into this process. In order to undertake the business, it's very important to know some of the details, which we haven't had available to us.

Perhaps the minister would like to introduce his good staff.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I appreciate the comments by my critic. With me this morning -- the sun is up, I should remind my colleagues -- are Mr. Ken MacLeod, my deputy minister; Mr. Lee Southern, executive director of the sport division; and Mr. Gary Harkness, assistant deputy minister responsible for our safety division. It's a very diverse ministry.

A. Cowie: It is a very diverse ministry. I'll start with the first question. How much did the previous government spend in the seven months of the 1991-92 fiscal year?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Part of the difficulty, of course, is breaking out.... The ministry has changed in its makeup and by taking on different roles. It's approximately $210 million.

A. Cowie: Can the minister tell the committee how much money his ministry has spent during the past five months of his operation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: About $125 million.

A. Cowie: Can the minister please detail the changes that have taken place within his ministry since the estimates for the fiscal year 1991-92 were published by the previous administration -- these changes you were alluding to a moment ago?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Basically, the change has been that we have deleted the cultural division from our ministry and added housing, obviously. A number of other things, such as archaeology, the Royal British Columbia Museum and all the various heritage programs are no longer with this ministry.

A. Cowie: Can the minister tell the committee whether there have been any changes to the minister's office, in terms of staffing levels, since the minister took office?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No change in complement. We are still at the level as indicated in the estimates.

A. Cowie: Can the minister please tell the committee whether any other budget, staffing or program increases have occurred within the minister's office since his government took office?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No.

A. Cowie: Can the minister tell the committee what has changed within the operations of the ministry since the last vote was taken by the previous administration?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There's a simple answer, Mr. Chairman. They basically correspond to the structural changes in the ministry -- that is, losing the Cultural and adding on the Housing to this ministry.

A. Cowie: Can the minister tell the committee, because of the addition of Housing in particular, are there any more staff as a whole in his ministry?

Hon. R. Blencoe: One of the other changes was the SAFER program coming over to my ministry, which brought, I believe, 12 full-time employees. The B.C. Housing Management Commission came along, but that doesn't show. As you know, that's a separate commission.

A. Cowie: Of particular concern to me are the service levels to the municipality. Can the minister tell this committee what changes have been made in respect to administration and support services, which the ministry provides to local government, since the new government took office in November?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Not on the basis of the same programs. I gave a figure earlier of $210 million; that figure should actually be $310 million for the pre-election period.

A. Cowie: I might note that you obviously run a very frugal, well-run organization because you're under budget. Of course, I imagine the minister can cut back on grants and things like that. It's a ministry where one can do that, unlike some others.

Regarding municipal revenue-sharing -- which we won't get into in great detail at this time -- I do want to know a few things. Can the minister tell the committee what changes have been made to the municipal revenue-sharing program since the minister was sworn into office until the speech by the Lieutenant-Governor?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There are no changes that apply to the year we're debating. There may be some changes later on, but as the member knows, that's for future estimates.

A. Cowie: I'll take great delight in debating that when the time comes. We have certainly upset a lot of municipalities, especially the one that I come from, Vancouver.

My next question is: can the minister tell the committee what the delineation has been between conditional and unconditional grants for his ministry since the previous administration passed the last vote on his ministry?

Hon. R. Blencoe: There has been no change. All the grants were committed prior to us taking office.

[ Page 415 ]

A. Cowie: Can the minister tell the committee what the difference was between the 1991-92 estimates and projected actual net revenue for the revenue-sharing fund?

Hon. R. Blencoe: Without getting into detail -- we can do that during estimates -- the revenue-sharing is quite a complicated formula in terms of how the revenues come in. There is up to two years' lag in terms of doing the compilation, so it's hard for us to give you those kinds of details.

[5:45]

A. Cowie: My last question in this line of questioning: the minister alluded.... In fact, I confirmed that he has been very frugal. My next question is: can the minister tell this committee how much of the committed but undisbursed grants have been accumulated since he has taken control of the ministry?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The grants are on an accrual system, so again it's difficult to give that kind of detail. We will in time be able to provide that kind of information to you.

A. Cowie: Just to make it simple for everybody, I'll get into those four warrants in a little more detail. Can the minister provide each designation within vote 46, ministry operations, for which the September, 1991, warrant provided funding?

Hon. R. Blencoe: The first warrant provided approximately $40,000 for the minister's office; $8.2 million for ministry operations; and $46.2 million for revenue sharing.

A. Cowie: Can the minister provide the amount of money? Well, you've broken it down, so I'll move on from that question, and I'll move on and do exactly the same thing for the October 29, 1991, warrant.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, running through it, minister's office $14,000; ministry operations $4.1 million; and $43.4 million approximately for municipal revenue sharing.

A. Cowie: Again, we'll do the November 13, 1991.

Hon. R. Blencoe: It's $61,000 for the minister's office; $8,214,000 for ministry operations; and for revenue sharing, $86,372,000.

A. Cowie: If the minister could do the same for the January 8, leading up to this point in time.

Hon. R. Blencoe: The last one is minister's office, $63,961; ministry operations, $8,284,000; and municipal revenue sharing $20,862,500.

A. Cowie: I've got some general questions now, just to try and get a feeling of how some of the money was spent. I'm particularly interested in housing. Housing will be a major issue in the next two or three years, and we may have a difficult time solving some of the crises for the poorest people in our society. I wonder if we could go back to that first warrant of September 19 and break down any moneys provided in housing in particular? I will reword that and go directly to November 13.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: You didn't have housing then.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: That's the answer. Trick question. I would like to move on, and perhaps you could answer that question for November 13th, because then you did have some power over that.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Again, so we can clear this up, the special warrants don't cover any housing, because they were fully debated prior to the election. All housing programs were with Social Services and Housing. There is no money for housing in these special warrants. It has all been previously approved.

A. Cowie: I was aware that that ministry had gotten full approval. I wasn't sure that they had approval for the warrants after November 13. The deputy is nodding that that is the case, so I will not pursue the line of questioning that I had several questions on.

I've had a number of people come to my office especially concerned with the lottery funding to Sport B.C. Yesterday you so kindly provided me.... I must thank you for the briefing that we had. My Social Credit cohort and yours were also there. I found it very helpful and an opportunity to meet your staff so that I would know in future who to phone. I might say that you were very kind to offer that we could phone some of your staff directly. You've offered a very open atmosphere, which I shall take benefit of from time to time -- and not overburden them, however.

An Hon. Member: That's leadership.

A. Cowie: That's leadership.

I am particularly concerned about Sport B.C., because their grant has been going down over the last two years. Could you tell me if there was any funding at all earmarked for Sport B.C. or any of the sports areas?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I look forward to having that discussion in the estimates. It is a special account and is not included in the special warrants. But we will have that discussion in the estimates. I know the member's concerns about Sport B.C.

A. Cowie: I'm not going to ask too many more questions, because I know it's getting late. To benefit everybody here, we do have to move on.

I will ask, though, the questions regarding any special funding that the ministry may have felt they had to do through these warrants because of, I would say, the five growth areas in the province: the Okanagan; the 

[ Page 416 ]

Vancouver area generally; the Victoria area; Nanaimo; and Kamloops, which I would have to add if I wasn't thinking of the whole of Vancouver Island. Are there any special grants or special funds that have gone through these warrants, or any special staffing that might have been applied to help out with that situation?

Hon. R. Blencoe: No special staffing -- this is a very efficient ministry. The member may know that over 80 percent of the ministry's budget is revenue-sharing. Obviously it's an ongoing expense. We are always processing applications for sewer, water and various other things. Growth is a category or component of looking at applications. That would have been part of the criteria, yes.

A. Cowie: Unfortunately my bank account is very similar to your ministry: most of it is a pass-through account, and not much remains. I'm going to stop at that. I want to thank the ministry for answering the questions. I am sorry that everybody had to come to the Legislature so early in the morning. I, myself, was awakened about half an hour ago. But it was a delight to be here, and thank you very much for answering the questions.

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to congratulate the minister on his very forthright responses to the questions asked. If we could have had that kind of response from the other ministers throughout the last few days, we would not have had this protracted meeting all night long.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member. I didn't recognize the member; that was the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

That concludes the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing. If the committee will bear with me for a moment, we will see what's next.

Hon. members, we could begin to debate the Social Services ministry, although the minister isn't here. The minister for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is here and would be pleased to....

The opposition House Leader on a point of order?

D. Mitchell: Well, just a comment that there's no business before the committee right now. We have an agreement to go in alphabetical order, and I think the minister is here now. I'm not sure if she's going to be bringing officials with her, but we're certainly prepared to proceed if she is.

The Chair: That was what I was going to suggest. I knew she was coming, but that's fine; she's here. Okay, the Minister of Social Services is now with the committee, and I would ask the committee to come to order.

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity on behalf of our caucus and also on behalf of the citizens of the province to gather some clarification and understanding of the programs of Social Services as they are administered. These are very important programs within the life of our community. Not only are they important to the people who receive assistance through these programs....

Hon. J. Smallwood: On a point of order, perhaps I can spare the member a long speech. This warrant deals with the case overruns for 1991-92 only -- nothing else.

The Chair: Hon. minister, that point is well taken, because I think the committee should know which ministries have passed the budget from 1991-92. Social Services is one of the ministries that did have its budget passed.

[6:00]

V. Anderson: I'm very well aware of the fact that we're dealing with the warrant, but my comments were relevant to that particular warrant, because these are funds that the people of the province -- particularly those in need -- have appreciated very much. I would like to thank the government for their concern for the people in need.

Having to respond to that particular warrant, which supplements vote 53 in the operations -- and it's there because of the unprecedented increase -- I would ask the minister if she might indicate to us, of the $88 million that the warrant covered, the various areas within her ministry to which this warrant was allocated.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'm sorry I interrupted the previous speaker, because obviously my intervention didn't aid him in understanding that this warrant deals with GAIN caseloads only. This is the income assistance side and only welfare cheques. The $88 million reflects an underestimated caseload for 1991-92.

The fact of the matter is that I am told both by my ministry and by Treasury Board that both Treasury Board's estimates on caseload projections and my ministry's caseload projections are historically very close to being accurate. Indeed, if the caseload projections were respected, this ministry would be some $15 million under budget. The point is that the previous government strategically underestimated the caseload, one might say, to drive the budget numbers that they brought into the House. In other words, they knew the projection; they purposely underestimated and underspent.

C. Serwa: Point of order. Clearly the minister is out of order and not speaking to the matter that we're debating at the present time. If the minister wishes to get into political rhetoric and expand the subject, I suggest that everyone else should have done that all along. It's late, or it's early -- we've been here a long time. I would suggest that the minister comply with the same regulations that are imposed on all other members.

V. Anderson: For clarification, in the budget we have listed "programs for independence." Might I clarify that this is the area of the budget about which she is speaking and to which this $88 million fund was 

[ Page 417 ]

directed? To which area of this budget was it directed, so that we might be clear as to the exact part of the budget that we're talking about?

Hon. J. Smallwood: This is the third and last time I'll provide this information. This special warrant is for the increase in income assistance caseloads only.

V. Anderson: I'm afraid the member didn't actually answer my question, because I did ask her about the budget as portrayed before us. Let me try again. There is a line: "Temporary assistance and income assurance." I would ask her to clarify if this is the line she's talking about, because the term GAIN, which she properly uses, is not used in the budget per se. I'm trying to clarify which line she has said this money has gone to, so that we would be talking about the same area.

If we look at the figures, as I have them, between the 1991 budget and the 1991-92 budget, there was an increase prior to the warrant being presented.... If I am correct -- that's what I would ask the minister -- there was a $234 million increase plus the $88 million increase. I would simply ask her if my understanding is correct.

Hon. J. Smallwood: No.

V. Anderson: In responding to my question, the minister has said that I was not correct. I would ask her again then if she would tell me the line in the budget to which this $88 million has been added.

Hon. G. Clark: On a point of order. Just for the member's attention, we are not debating the budget. We are not debating last year's budget or next year's budget. We are debating the warrants before us, and that's where you should address yourself. When the minister answers you are incorrect, it's because you're relating to next year's budget in particular.

The Chair: I don't know if I can assist, but you are attempting to relate the amount appropriated under the warrant to that part of the budget which had passed, in order to make a point. But I should point out to you that if you could continue your debate without reference to the budget and deal with the warrant which is before us, there wouldn't be the confusion.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd like to speak to the point of order as raised by the government House Leader, if I may. Earlier tonight I was trying to get some information from the minister to which I'm somewhat affiliated. I asked for clarification from the Chair, which in fact.... Is a member not allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in phrasing a question? If so, is the member not entitled to discuss the past budget in the lead-up to that question? I believe that the member is. They're allowed up to 15 minutes to phrase their question. I've been watching this debate, and I think that....

The Chair: Member, your question is: are you allowed to relate matters to do with the warrant to the budget? This is not provided for under the standing orders. We are bound to debate strictly those matters which are included in the supply bill and the various warrants on the schedule. The member has another point of order?

[6:15]

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Chair, perhaps my point wasn't understood. I'll wait for your attention. My point was that in phrasing a question or in the lead-up to a question it's important that the member set some context for that question. In doing so, the member very often has to discuss the past budget and the budget even before that. I certainly don't think that any discussion of past expenditures is out of order when we're trying to ask a question on what the government has spent by special warrant. The member should be allowed the lead-up and the preamble to the question prior to phrasing the question, and if that happens to deal with past budgets then so be it.

The Chair: The standing orders, however, are quite clear, and in this case the debate has to be strictly relevant to the warrants.

Hon. J. Smallwood: It has been a very long night, and it's particularly difficult to be generous at this time. But let's make some effort in dealing with this particular warrant.

Perhaps what I can do for my hon. critic is to put this into context, to let her understand the budgeting process more clearly and where this warrant fits in with last year's budget and the present budget. We will not talk about the present budget; we will have an opportunity to do that. This warrant is not increased spending over the current budget, so your question with regard to the $200 million is incorrect. This warrant is not over and above that expenditure; this warrant is for caseload increases over and above the amount projected for '91-92. The line that you refer to under programs for independent temporary assistance and income assurance is GAIN. That is the income assistance -- the welfare cheques. The $88 million is predominantly that.

It is an underestimated caseload for '91-92. In my introductory comments I indicated that our ministry has a very strong department and a very good reputation in projecting caseloads. I can only deduce, then, that when Treasury Board and this ministry projected the caseloads for '91-92, the politicians did not take that information; they strategically underestimated the caseload. Therefore you have in front of you expenditures that could have been budgeted for in '91-92. By statute we are required to pay for that caseload.

V. Anderson: Thank you to the minister for confirming what I had raised earlier -- that it was that line that we were talking about, and that the area we were talking about was the same program. I would ask the minister, then, if she could inform the House of the increase in the caseload for which this $88 million was required. Could she tell us the numbers this warrant was to cover?

[ Page 418 ]

Hon. J. Smallwood: What I can tell you is that the basic income assistance caseload increase is some 20 percent over last year. At this point we are 17 percent higher than the worst years during the 1980 recession. Our caseload numbers are increasing at a rate of something like 5,000 a month.

G. Farrell-Collins: Just a brief question -- and I hope you'll bear with me, Mr. Chair and hon. minister, because my understanding of the social services aspect of the ministry is certainly not profound. It's a meaningful question -- or at least in my mind it is.

You stated that the warrant attributed to your ministry was predominantly for GAIN. Two questions: first of all, what was the rest of it? If it wasn't all for GAIN, what was it used for? Secondly, on your comments with regard to the increased caseload, were there provisions within that warrant for increased staffing, training or facilities, or has the load merely been increased upon the workers who are already in the field?

Hon. J. Smallwood: The description of the warrant is in the bill that's before you. You can read that. It very clearly lays out what the expenditure is for. No, there was no increase in the infrastructure or administration.

V. Anderson: So that we're clear, let me just read the description in the warrant here: "The $88 million to supplement vote 53, ministry operations, to provide funding for costs arising from the unprecedented increase in demand for the income assistance program." Just following up on the previous question that was put to the minister, she says this is quite clear. In one way it is, in the other way it isn't, because the funding costs arising from the unprecedented increase could have many implications. One, as was suggested, could be more demand for staff. The other is that there could be more demand for facilities and equipment and other items.

There is another question that I would raise with her for clarification. Is she saying that all of this money, in total the $88 million, without any subtraction for staff or operation or administration, went solely in assistance grants under GAIN to people who had need? The whole $88 million went directly to people in need? I'm just clarifying if that's true or not.

A. Cowie: I just have one question which I've been curious about. If all of this $88 million was going to welfare assistance, and most of it, I take it from what the minister said earlier, was new welfare caseloads, could the minister tell me where in the province -- let's say five main areas -- this money is going to? I suspect it's going to the growth areas such as Kelowna.

Hon. J. Smallwood: No, I don't have that information here with me. I'd be glad to provide it.

V. Anderson: That question is very relevant to the province as a whole, as to the areas in which growth is continuing to take place. I would also ask if the minister could indicate to us the breakdown as to the people who are receiving this. Are they singles, families, single-parent families, multiple-parent families, seniors, handicapped, disabled? What is the breakdown of the increase that she's talking about in the various categories of recipients for this $88 million?

Hon. J. Smallwood: Let me first of all give you the basic caseload total for January '92. The basic caseload, and that does not reflect the number of people, but cases -- it's broken out into families -- is 139,573. Of that, 43 percent are single men, 17 percent are single women, 3 percent are couples, 8 percent two-parent families, and 28 percent are one-parent families.

V. Anderson: Are some of those persons on disability, on GAIN for physical or mental disability reasons?

Hon. J. Smallwood: What I quoted was the basic caseload description. In addition to that, there is a caseload description for the disabled and people over 50. That total is 19,086.

V. Anderson: It's important that we understand these figures, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important, as I'm sure the minister would agree, for the community at large to be very aware of the increasing concern that people in the community have for their own livelihood.

Is the minister able to help us to understand how many children might be involved in the family connections of those who are coming forward in this particular need at this point? It drastically demonstrates the responses which we as a total government need to be concerned with.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I don't think I have the number of children broken out here, but I'd be more than happy to provide both my critic and all opposition members with a complete statistical breakdown of the work our ministry does.

V. Anderson: Thank you, minister, for providing us with that information. Might I also ask if there is an indication in that extra caseload -- which may or may not be different from others -- of persons who are able to work part-time and are able to benefit from your increase in the incentive allowance, and whether this would be helpful to these people? Can you tell me if there is an increase in people using that incentive allowance, which was undertaken during the period of this warrant?

Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd be more than happy to get into all of these issues during estimates.

V. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to express our appreciation for her coming forth with the information that we have asked for. Since we're limited to the warrant itself, I would like to thank you very much for coming and sharing with us. We look forward to 

[ Page 419 ]

working with the minister in this field as this important need is met in the community.

The Chair: That concludes Social Services. The minister is ready for Tourism now -- also responsible for Culture.

C. Tanner: Good morning, Madam Minister. I would like to talk to you this morning about the expenditures in your budget that arose from the issuance of special warrants. I will refer particularly to pages 4 and 6 of Bill 16, Supply Act (No. l), 1992. But before I do that, may I personally express my appreciation of the fact that I found you opposite me as a critic for Tourism. While I'm pleased to find you, I wish the fellow members of your cabinet had the same enthusiasm for your department that you and I have.

Maybe you would like to introduce some of your officials first. I recognize a couple of faces, but there are one or two I don't know, and maybe some of the House would like to meet them, too.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, I'll introduce the members of my staff: Marr Henderson, who is with financial services; my deputy, John Walsh; and Barry Kelsey, head of the cultural services branch. Would you proceed with questions, please.

C. Tanner: Madam Minister, the bill we have before us includes in special warrants on page 4 an amount for Tourism and Minister Responsible for Culture of $7,465,000 on November 13, 1991. Just so that we can get some perspective of what the department has, and not so much to refer to the past as to this particular warrant, could the minister inform the House of the number of employees that she found in her department when she took office on November 5?

I appreciate that the minister has some difficulty, in that this department was part of a different department, but perhaps she could give us a reasonable estimate of the number of employees who were in the tourism department, the cultural department and the heritage department as of November 5, when she first took office.

Hon. D. Marzari: The total number of full-time-equivalents pulled together to form the Ministry of Tourism and Culture totalled 314. In the cultural branch -- cultural heritage, archaeology and museums -- there were 227, with 119 in the museum. In the tourism portion of the ministry, there were 87, which included the administrative unit that came over from Municipal Affairs.

C. Tanner: I understood the minister to say that that was the situation on November 5, which is the best reasonable estimate you can make because of the pulling in from various departments. Could the minister tell us what the position is today?

Hon. D. Marzari: It's precisely the same.

C. Tanner: Then I must congratulate you. I know that Mr. Walsh is a new member of your department. Could you tell us, first of all, who he replaced?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, I can't tell you at this point, but we adjusted our full-time-equivalents and our FTE status so that we have the same number now. Attrition inside the ministry, as it was pulled together, left room for someone in the deputy minister's office.

C. Tanner: Besides yourself of course, Madam Minister, Mr. Walsh is the most senior member of that department, and he must have replaced a member of equal seniority when he took his position. I've got two questions for the minister. First of all, what was Mr. Walsh's expertise for this position, and....

[6:30]

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The matter before us has to do with special warrants. I would ask the member to relate his questions specifically to the warrants that were used for this ministry.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, I am specifically doing that, at your instruction. I am addressing funds expended through special warrants since this minister has taken her position. It concerns a member of her ministry who was not there before, in a position that either wasn't filled before or, alternatively, is a newly created position. I'm asking the minister what the expertise was of that gentleman to fill that position. I think it's within the bounds of questioning under this special warrant.

Hon. D. Marzari: On November 5, 1991, Mr. Ad van Haaften was the acting deputy minister for the newly-formed Ministry of Tourism. Mr. Ad van Haaften, as many might know, is a marketer who came out of the marketing division in the Tourism ministry, which was a component of the Economic Development ministry until November 5, 1991. Mr. Ad van Haaften is now still head of marketing. He has resumed that role in the Vancouver office of the Tourism ministry. The new deputy, Mr. John Walsh, replaced him on December 5, 1991.

C. Tanner: If Mr. van Haaften was the acting deputy minister and he's now reverted to the position of marketing manager, either I misunderstood the minister or there must be an additional position. If Mr. van Haaften has now gone back to the position he had before, Mr. Walsh is an additional deputy minister. Have we added a new position, or have we done away with two or three positions to make room for Mr. Walsh? It's not clear to me, Madam Minister. I know where Mr. Walsh came from, but what position did he fill that wasn't there before?

Hon. D. Marzari: The deputy filled the position of deputy minister. Because there had not been a ministry, there had not been a position of deputy minister. When the ministry was pulled together -- pulling Culture from Municipal Affairs, Tourism from Economic Development and ultimately pulling lotteries 

[ Page 420 ]

from Government Services -- we created the position and office of deputy minister. We created the office of minister as well. So the new ministry is an entirely new product in this government. It was pulled together after November 5, which is why we're before you today answering your questions with numbers that come to us from three different ministries. We pulled them together, and we've tried to make some sense of them to prepare for this year's budget.

Mr. Walsh did not replace a deputy minister. Mr. van Haaften was sitting in the deputy minister's office for a month until we found the deputy. He was an acting deputy, but he has resumed his role as assistant deputy in the Vancouver office of Tourism. The new office was created.

C. Tanner: One of two things must have happened with the advent of Mr. Walsh in your department. First, let me congratulate the government and you and your officials for creating this department. It's an excellent way to go. I think the way the ministry is being structured is going to be advantageous to the tourism industry, to the government, and to the public in this province. But I'm still not quite clear which one of two things we've got here. Have we got an extra deputy minister within the government as a whole that we never had before, or have we got an extra position in your department, in the body and spirit of Mr. Walsh, which is new since you joined on November 5?

Hon. D. Marzari: I think the confusion arises from the definition of a full-time-equivalent. An FTE is simply a place inside the public administration. The Ministry of Tourism created 314 FTEs. Deputy ministers were not floating through space. We did create the office of deputy minister for this ministry, and it happened to fit into one of the FTEs that became available. Nobody was bumped to create that FTE; it happened through attrition. The FTE was not a deputy minister FTE. FTEs are not calculated or measured that way. They are simply spaces in the public administration.

We have worked very hard to keep our costs down and to create efficiencies in the ministry. I wouldn't say that creating the deputy was one of those efficiencies, since deputy ministers are expensive; but they're very much worth the effort, because they become part of the infrastructure of the ministry and run the ministry. So we have a new deputy minister. We have a new office. We do not have an additional FTE.

C. Tanner: The minister has pre-empted my next question. I appreciate that we have a new department and a new deputy minister in this department, and that there was an acting deputy minister before. If we were counting deputy ministers within the whole government, then it seems to me there must have been 19 deputy ministers before and now we've got 20.

But let's not talk about the deputy ministers so much now as about dollars. Earlier today, or yesterday -- the days are getting somewhat confused now, but sometime in the last 12 hours -- the Minister of Finance said that it's difficult to count bodies because of the comparisons between this time and last time, so can we count dollars? Of the dollars that you found in the department and those that were spent for salaries, can you tell me what they were on November 5 and roughly what they are to date? Obviously you haven't got all your figures in. What are they today as compared to the amount of money you were paying for salaries on November 5?

Hon. D. Marzari: No, I cannot, but I will certainly attempt to make those numbers available to you.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that the minister can't tell me today what the situation is, but she probably can tell me the dollar figure for November 5.

Hon. D. Marzari: I cannot provide numbers right now for what it would have looked like when we pulled together the 314 FTEs from disparate ministries. The process happened over some period of time, and the numbers have not exactly been broken out. I'll certainly see that you get them as soon as they are available.

C. Tanner: I would appreciate those figures sometime in the very near future.

Could the minister assure this House that her ministry has endeavoured to limit the costs for tourism? If she has done so, could she offer some explanation as to why she needed a special warrant if she's only spent the amount of money that was allocated in the other departments before she brought them together?

Hon. D. Marzari: The special warrant that the critic is referring to is the $7,465,000. This warrant paid for the ongoing program of the cobbled-together ministry that was produced on November 5. So we would not be able to say that there were special programs incorporated into that warrant. We can only say that our ministry has pulled itself together, maintained an even flow, maintained programs, been working closely with staff and with the community to make sure that there is no abrupt transition, and that we have maintained service and expectations in the community. The $7,465,000 you referred to, Mr. Member, has to do with the ongoing nature of the ministry program itself.

If I could go back to the former question.... It doesn't begin to completely answer your question, but additional costs to the ministry that we have incurred since November 5 include $383,000 for asbestos removal at the Fannin building at the museum. This is accounted for under special warrant by the fact that provisions had not been made to move the museum's artifacts from where they were stored to the Fannin building after the asbestos had been removed.

The two offices that were created when the ministry came together included my own office -- the minister's office -- and the deputy's office. Between November 5 and today the total comes to $71,000 for the deputy's office and $125,000 for the minister's office, including six FTEs.

[ Page 421 ]

C. Tanner: I caught everything the minister said except the last. I am slightly deaf and didn't catch the last bit: including what?

The Chair: FTEs.

[6:45]

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

C. Tanner: The minister, fortunately and thankfully, is volunteering information which I hadn't asked for, and in fact I haven't got anywhere near there yet. I'm still on page 4 and the $7,465,000 that we first started at, and I appreciate that the minister is jumping ahead to page 6, where we got the $10,736,000 and the $383,000, which I see is with a very good explanation as to why it's there. There is no explanation at all as to the $7,465,000, nor is there any explanation at all of the $10,736,000 on page 6.

Therein lies the problem for any members on this side. If the case had been that this had been through a budget before, if the case had been that these weren't newly created departments, we could go back to the estimates of last year and see why the money was spent. We've arrived here today, the day after the first day of the new budget year, and the only way we, as new members on this side of the House, can find this information is by eliciting it from the department. So bear with me if sometimes it seems that we're having some trouble getting the message to the House of where you're spending the money.

If we haven't spent any money in that department other than the two newly created offices, and if it's a fact that, as of November 5, you had spent seven-twelfths of your budget, and if you've only spent $71,000 for an extra office for the deputy minister and $125,000 for your office, why was there a need for another $7,465,000 on November 13?

Hon. D. Marzari: Because there was no budget in 1991 and because a vote was never taken because of the politics of the day, the new government was put into a situation in November, when it took office, of having to complete the budget year. The mechanism that the government used was the warrant mechanism. What you've got in front of you in both of these warrants is the ongoing budget of the ministry, the day-to-day business of running the ministry. You don't have special exigencies except for asbestos removal. You have here a warrant being used, regretfully, by this government because there was no budget in 1991. If there had been a budget in 1991, you would not be debating warrants today. You'd be debating, perhaps, an interim supply bill. You're dealing with warrants today because there was no budget last year.

C. Tanner: I appreciate that, and I sympathize with you because of the problem. And you, I know, can give me the assurance that for your department next year we won't have this problem -- can't you, Madam Minister? You can make the assurance to this House, not on behalf of the government but just your department. You can give the House the assurance so that next year I can stand in my place and ask you this question, and then you can say it will never happen again. You can give me the assurance today that we won't go through this process next year.

Hon. D. Marzari: The nature of the House is such that, when you have a budget and it's voted upon, the government spends within its budget, and you will not have another estimates process until next year. However, it's probable that there will be special warrants brought in during the year or next spring. It will probably be driven by things where my colleague in Social Services might find there have to be adjustments made based on factors that cannot be controlled now, such as rate of growth in social service requests and eligibilities. This government will bring warrants before this House from time to time. but you will not see a budget driven by warrant again.

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the minister that relates to the special warrant that's being reviewed here, which is in the schedule to Bill 16, the supply bill. During the period covered by this special warrant, can you tell members of this committee whether or not you gave instructions to any officials in your ministry to develop a plan of action that would allow your ministry to meet the commitment made by your party, a commitment made to the cultural industries, in particular, in British Columbia regarding a pledge to ensure that 1 percent of total provincial government expenditures would be achieved by your ministry? Did you develop any action plans or give any instructions to officials in your ministry to meet that pledge?

Hon. D. Marzari: The cultural services branch of the ministry is a remarkable one. Many of its members have spent up to 25 years in cultural services, and they are probably as expert as anyone in Canada in looking at and assessing the needs of the cultural community in our province. It is also a sad fact that our province basically pays the lowest per capita on cultural services in Canada. In fact, if we look at our budget, and we're just assessing now, we're looking at 0.2 percent spent on culture per capita if we don't include the capital costs that came into culture from lottery grants.

One of the basic premises we are working towards in the ministry is the notion that we will, over the long term, build a strategic plan which will, coupling with the corporate sector and the federal government, build that budget and capacity. The community expects it, I expect it and the cultural services branch expects it as the route we will be travelling. In fact, that is one of the reasons this ministry exists.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for that candid answer to the question. The answer goes beyond the scope of the period covered by the special warrant, but I certainly appreciate the answer.

To go back to the question dealing with this period covered by the special warrant, the period from November 5, when the minister was sworn in, to March 31, 1992.... During that period of time, just to repeat the question, did the minister provide any specific directions or guidance to officials in the ministry, in the 

[ Page 422 ]

cultural services branch in particular, to develop a plan of action that would allow the government to meet the election pledge of the NDP and achieve a target level of 1 percent of total government expenditures to be spent on culture -- a target level similar to what is spent in Ontario which would allow us to rise above the lamentable state of cultural funding in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

D. Mitchell: Would the minister be able to share with members of this committee the direction given to the officials in the cultural services branch and provide members of the committee any draft plan of action that was developed within the cultural services branch? It would be most appreciated if you could.

Hon. D. Marzari: We could probably expand on the theme during the estimates debate, and as the action plan does develop I will ensure that your office and the critic's office receive it.

D. Mitchell: Thanks to the minister for that commitment. I'm really more interested in the period under review with the special warrant -- the period from November 5, when the minister assumed responsibility for the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, cultural funding and the cultural services branch, up until March 31, 1992. During that period, was there a plan and specific communication developed within the ministry, and could that be made available? I'm not really speaking about the long-term goal, which of course we're interested in as well. But during the period under review, can you share with members of the committee any information or draft action plans developed during that period?

Hon. D. Marzari: No.

C. Tanner: I understood you to say that you spent some new money out of these warrants on two offices, one for yourself and one for the deputy minister. Did you also spend some money that wouldn't have been spent before for Mr. Walsh's salary?

Hon. D. Marzari: Every ministry needs its deputy -- it sounds like a western song. Before we came into power there were 22 deputy ministers; at the present time there are 20. The mere formulation of the ministry dictated the need for a deputy's office, and that was created. Would we have created the deputy's office had there been no ministry? No. Since there is a ministry, do we need a deputy? Yes.

C. Tanner: In Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1) 1992....

Interjection.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry I woke up the Finance minister up, but if he could just keep up with the rest of us. I did have the good fortune to have a couple of hours' sleep tonight. Obviously the Minister of Finance is lacking the same accommodation that I had.

It is this bill. Can you identify any funds that you spent under those warrants towards establishing a ferry link between Victoria and Seattle?

Hon. D. Marzari: No special contract; no special funds were set aside for a ferry link to Seattle. Rather, the work that has been done -- and it has been considerable -- on the ferry link to Seattle has been absorbed within the existing FTE that we have.

C. Tanner: I understand that your department has been working very seriously on trying to establish that link. You used members of the department that you created, and you didn't bring in any consultants or spend any extra dollars because of it.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, that is correct.

C. Tanner: Could the minister perhaps give us a little background as to the sort of funds that might have been expended, in time, by members of her department on this subject?

Hon. D. Marzari: It is an ongoing part of the working nature of the ministry, and I fear that I cannot do that. It would be dishonest to even make an attempt. I would be misleading the House if I started pulling numbers out of thin air.

Considerable effort was put towards pulling together the proposal call, which was done before my time in the ministry; assessing the proposal call, which was done just as this government was coming to power; beginning negotiations with Sea Containers, which took two or three months and which was a very tumultuous negotiation; and then, after Sea Containers pulled out of the deal, working with the figures B.C. Ferries put forward for a potential run to Seattle.

As you know, they were dealing with a span of four and a half months. Although no one worked on it full time, there was a considerable amount of activity in and around the ministry, with our planners looking at the ferry link. As you know, yesterday we regretfully announced that B.C. Ferries was unable, because of technical and timing difficulties, to put a ferry on the Seattle route.

[7:00]

C. Tanner: I thank the minister for her candour on this subject, because it's a painful one for all of us, particular those of us who live on the southern end of Vancouver Island. Could the minister assure the House that whatever arrangement -- temporary, permanent, semi-permanent -- or understanding we had with Sea Containers for, I guess, a period of about six or eight weeks didn't cost the province anything?

Hon. D. Marzari: I can assure the member that it did not cost the province any additional dollars to what would have been spent in the natural ongoing course of ministry work; that is true.

[ Page 423 ]

C. Tanner: I appreciate that it didn't cost the province any dollars as far as input from either consultants or members of her department who were doing their regular line of work. But it is my understanding that the province thought they had....

Interjections.

C. Tanner: Good morning, Mr. Premier. I hope you're well rested.

Could the minister, just for the sake of the intelligence of this House, assure us that no money was spent by the province during the period when we thought we had an understanding with Sea Containers, other than the money spent in the department for employees? Did any money change hands between the province and Sea Containers in the time during which we thought we had an understanding with that company?

Hon. D. Marzari: Is the member asking if money changed hands with Sea Containers?

C. Tanner: Yes.

Hon. D. Marzari: Sea Containers did not put forward a bond. They simply exhibited a document saying they could do the job. So no money changed hands.

C. Tanner: If that's the case, what assurance did the government, your department and the people of British Columbia have that we had an understanding with Sea Containers? They hadn't put up a bond; they hadn't put up any money. All they'd done is sign a contract.

Hon. D. Marzari: Sea Containers went through a very rigorous proposal call that took five months to prepare, deliver to the market, and then assess. In the process of that assessment, it came up against six other tenderers, I believe. The advisory committee of Victoria business people and the ministry assessed the tenders on the call. Sea Containers came in with the most realistic and satisfactory bid during the course of that call. I do not believe they were asked to put up a bond. They did give their word of agreement, and they did enter into negotiations basically from the day they were called. They did put a person in Victoria. There was a Sea Containers person in Victoria to provide assurance that the negotiations were continuing in good faith.

The answer to your question is no. No bond was put forward.

C. Tanner: I think it was the understanding of the business community on the southern end of Vancouver Island that the government and Sea Containers had an understanding, and, if I'm reading the minister right, Sea Containers made a proposal which was tentatively accepted, on some conditions. I take it that the conditions weren't fulfilled on either side -- but particularly on Sea Containers' side -- and they chose to withdraw. As I understand it, we got this far in the negotiations and the proposal and up to that point we had nothing to hold Sea Containers to what they were proposing -- not even a document with a signature on it?

Hon. D. Marzari: The initial tender document was signed, and subsequent letters of intent were signed. If the minister is alleging that it was not an appropriate proposal call or there was something deficient in the process we went through, then he should probably put it on the floor of this House during estimates or at some other time. I assure the member that people far more experienced than both of us had a chance to go through the proposal calls, to see the signed documents and to enter into a business agreement with a reputable international company, which was going to deliver the ferry service to us.

If the member is alleging that there was something untoward or something was wrong with these negotiations, I wish he'd say it out loud. Through my years in business I have not seen such a well-prepared, public, fully accountable process of tendering, of debating the competing tenders, of going back to the winning bid and conducting negotiations with regular reports to the public on what was happening. It was a model of doing public business. The tragedy is that the patient died.

C. Tanner: The minister inadvertently called me a minister, and it's going to be another three and a half years before that happens. I'm just a member at the moment. Give it a little while, though.

No, I'm not making any allegations at all about that contract. I merely want to see what the commitment of the bidder was -- Sea Containers -- and what the assumption of the government was. I think what we found out is that they made a proposal over their signature, and they didn't put up any money, and they didn't put up any bond, and the government accepted that proposal at its face value. That probably summarizes the situation you found yourselves in.

Subsequently, when that thing fell through, the minister then started to talk to one of the Crown corporations, B.C. Ferries -- I'm presupposing here, and the minister may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong -- but B.C. Ferries looked the idea over and decided one of two things: it wasn't feasible, or they didn't have the vessels to do it. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Marzari: My apologies for calling you minister, Mr. Member. I must have reverted momentarily to my time on that side of the House.

The B.C. Ferry Corporation reviewed the situation and came up with the idea that it would be impossible at this late date to put a vessel in operation, to properly refit it for the American waters and for the American specifications. They could not deliver a vessel to the service until well into the middle of summer, by which time the timing for the marketing and developing of the product would be too iffy and too chancy.

It was the considered opinion of the advisory committee, composed of members of the tourism association of Victoria and the Victoria Chamber of Commerce and myself, that it was not a good idea to take a vessel to market that wasn't exactly the right vessel at the right time in the right place, and that 

[ Page 424 ]

Victoria was sick of having sporadic service and needed a continuous, licensed and well-marketed service from day one. With that intent in mind, we are going back to the drawing boards and coming up with a proposal call which will take us into the spring and summer of '93.

C. Tanner: I appreciate what the minister is telling the House. Subsequent to her press release of yesterday, I have had at least two and maybe even three calls from various people who said they had made offers to the government to go not only to Seattle but, I guess, to ports en route to Seattle. Could the minister tell the House whether those offers were valid, whether they are considering them -- or were they only considering the input of B.C. Ferries?

Hon. D. Marzari: A number of expressions of interest have been received by the ministry since the proposal calls last year. In each case there has not been a boat to back up the expression of interest, and we have decided, as I said -- the business community of Victoria and the ministry -- not to go forward with a one-off deal with one individual, because we are looking forward to a long-term proposal operating out of Ogden or out of Belleville in '93. To alienate those leases at this point for a long-term lease to a one-off deal -- a one-on-one deal -- without going to appropriate public tender would not be publicly responsible, nor would it benefit the community over the long haul.

The Chair: Before I recognize the member, I would bring to members' attention standing order 61(2) and caution that it appears we're straying somewhat from the warrant. If we could strictly focus on the item in front of us.

C. Tanner: I agree with your ruling, and we are straying away from the subject, but this is a subject that is of particular interest to the public in this city. I appreciate....

The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. Although it may be of interest to the town, it must be of interest to the warrant.

C. Tanner: If this city doesn't flourish, this building's not going to stay here.

D. Schreck: State your question.

C. Tanner: I don't have a further question. I was merely going to congratulate the minister on her candour, thank her and tell her that as a critic I had a problem with her news release yesterday in that I could find nothing very much wrong with it. I thought it was well constructed, well thought out and, in fact, suited the situation in which she found herself. I commiserate with the minister that she was in that situation when she took office.

I wasn't able to obtain this information from one of the previous ministries, but could the minister inform the House how many people went and how much money was spent on her recent trip to Los Angeles, which I think lasted about six days?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the accurate numbers that will come to public accounts will be coming to the House through the Minister of Economic Development. However, I was watching the Hansard a few hours ago, and I'd be pleased to put before the House the total dollars spent by myself and my aide when we went to Los Angeles -- basically to promote British Columbia moviemaking in Los Angeles.

You must know that British Columbia is now vying with Ontario as a moviemaking centre. We now have in this province a $250 million industry that has every ability, if we plan it right, to grow to $1 billion by the end of the decade. It must be planned strategically, and we must promote strategically.

The trip had a great deal to do with going to Los Angeles with the B.C. Film Commission for a trade show, Location Expo, with a group of union officials who were going to Los Angeles to say: "B.C. is open for business." It was a rather novel experience for American producers, I gather, when five unions in concert said: "Come to B.C. We'll do business with you. We will give you a blank sheet, and we will write a contract." This in itself was quite a draw for the American producers.

C. Tanner: Point of order. I'm sorry to interrupt the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I can't hear what she's saying because of the noise on the other side of the House. I beg your pardon.

[7:15]

Hon. D. Marzari: The Canadian government also hosted a reception for producers, and it was very pleasurable to see the number of B.C. producers, working actors, union representatives and post-production services, including the Film Commission from Trade Development, that attended. The trip did a great deal for the film industry in British Columbia in terms of dollars that will be coming to British Columbia largely because of the effort that was put on by British Columbia in Los Angeles in that first week of March.

On the tourism side, I had an excellent opportunity to visit with tour operators in our office in Los Angeles. I had an opportunity to visit the Los Angeles Times and to speak with some of the radio stations that were part of a B.C. promotional package that our Tourism ministry developed in partnership with the Whistler, Vancouver and Victoria tourism associations. It was a very well-done and very professional promotional package, which basically sold B.C. to California.

California represents 9 percent of our American tourist traffic. To be able to get into the shoulder season there to start promoting B.C. was an excellent idea. I was able to actually be a part of the promotion in California for the few days I was there.

The trip was warranted in both cases. I came back with good ideas about how we must pull our acts together to ensure that we continue to promote the movie industry here. We have to do it compatibly with the Canadian motion picture industry and the film 

[ Page 425 ]

industry here. We have to do it in such a way as to make it easier for Hollywood and California and runaway producers -- as they call them -- to come to B.C.

The new vogue is the movie of the week, which is a television film. These films bring and create wealth in a local community of between $2 million and $4 million. We were talking to many of the studios that are doing movies of the week and bringing them to British Columbia. It's going to create wealth. It's not the traditional wealth that B.C. is used to. It's not resource based; it's the service industry. Along with tourism, the movie industry is going to be one of our biggest products if we plan it right.

On the question you asked: the total amount for my aide and myself for hotel and meals and business expenses amounted to $3,698.

C. Tanner: That's a very modest expenditure, and I seriously hope it brings some good results to the tourist industry in this province. As I understand it, the trade show consisted of 108 different exhibitors, of which we were one. Is it possible to be more specific as to the results? It must be very difficult to assert yourself when the other 107 are competing with the same audience.

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I will remind members again of Standing Order 61(2) and relevancy to the question in front of us. 

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Hon. D. Marzari: Since relevancy seems to be an issue here, perhaps this is an area that we can discuss further in estimates, because I really think the movie industry and tourism are worth discussing in detail. I hope we have more time in our estimates process than we have in this so-called mini-estimates process, which the warrants have become. I would be pleased to talk to the member in the House or outside the House about some of the agencies and studios we visited and some of the interest that was shown.

The Chair: The minister's points are well taken. There will be time to get into details outside of the warrant during estimates, so I hope the member will keep that in mind in making his remarks.

C. Tanner: One of the specifics in this schedule, on page 4 of Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, were funds that were distributed to the eight tourist districts around British Columbia. Could the minister confirm that some of those funds went to those districts, and could the minister confirm that there are apparently two or three different rates these districts are paid at, and that they're not all the same?

Hon. D. Marzari: They're not all the same.

C. Tanner: Could the minister indicate how much goes to each of the eight districts, please?

Hon. D. Marzari: This would probably be a better debate during the estimates process.

D. Mitchell: I have just a quick question for the minister. I think we're getting ready to wrap up. During the period under review in this special warrant, I wonder if the minister could inform the committee of an intention to design and develop something called the provincial cultural advisory panel. Could the minister inform the committee about the makeup of this provincial cultural advisory panel? Is it possible for her to comment on that? I believe it was developed during the period under review in this special warrant.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'm not sure if that is appropriate at this time. However, the minister can decide whether it is or not. Are there further questions?

D. Mitchell: Just very briefly. There are reports about the development through this minister's ministry of a provincial cultural advisory panel. I was just wondering if the minister could confirm that such a body is being considered, has been considered or has been developed during this period under review.

Hon. D. Marzari: There's no such body. The B.C. Arts Board, of course, has been in existence for 20 years, and there have been a number of groups that I have worked with throughout the province in developing policy and looking at various options. But there is no official group, and certainly there is no expenditure of public funds in my consultation process.

C. Tanner: This is my last question to the minister. Before I ask it, I would like to congratulate the minister on answering the questions without -- as far as I could see -- much reference to her officials, which proves to me she's very familiar with her department. Maybe if she doesn't need these people, we could save some money.

During the time that the minister has held her position and subsequent to the special warrants that were brought in, were any funds expended by special warrant through or into the British Columbia Cultural Fund? That's question number one.

Question number two: does the fund actually exist? More and more we're hearing of these funds set aside, and there isn't any.

And three: if there were funds expended under that vote, could you tell us how much they were?

Hon. D. Marzari: I think the answer to the first one is no, and the other two follow suit.

C. Tanner: I'm sorry that the member wrapped up on that particular.... I asked her to give me a figure as to how much was spent.

Hon. D. Marzari: The cultural fund is not covered by special warrant at all; it is a special fund. It is kept separate. It becomes part of the ongoing nature of the ministry, but it's not part of the warrant.

[ Page 426 ]

C. Tanner: I thank the minister and her officials, and I look forward to a continuing cordial relationship.

The Chair: We now move to Transportation and Highways.

D. Symons: Just before I begin, I'd like to make a comment that our side of the House here has been very diligent in looking at these spendings through special warrants over the past year, and we have moved with great haste over these last few days in order to see that this process is finished. The problem is that we are dealing here with approximately $3 billion worth of spending, and we've had basically -- if we count the fact that we've gone into today -- three days to do it. So we're dealing with a billion-dollar-a-day Bill 16, and it does deserve our scrutiny to see what spending practices the government has had over the past year.

Mr. Chairman, B.C. has 47,000 kilometres of roads and highways. This vital transportation network has served the province fairly well, and my job is to see that the money that has been spent in the last year has been used wisely. I'd like to begin by asking the Minister of Highways the amount of money spent through special warrants during the Social Credit term of office over this fiscal year.

[7:30]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'd like to preface my remarks with an introduction of staff: Bruce McKeown, ADM in planning; Dan Doyle, ADM in operations; and Gordon Hogg, ADM in finance. The subject of this debate, as I understand it, is special warrants after November 5.

D. Symons: I'm a little confused, because I believe some of the special warrants in here cover the previous period. Is there no way of questioning those warrants?

The Chair: The warrants on the schedule in the bill are clearly marked.

D. Symons: I believe warrants 2 and 3 are in this bill. I see warrant 2 here: September 19, 1991. I see Bill 3 here: October 29, 1991. They seem to be covered in this bill, and I wasn't getting an answer, sir.

The Chair: All of the warrants on the bill are in order to be discussed.

D. Symons: I just didn't get an answer to the previous one. In my confusion here in not receiving an answer about November 5 -- because obviously these are before November 5, and they are contained in Bill 16 -- I had not welcomed the minister's assistants there. I look forward to meeting these gentlemen during the year and working with them. So thank you very much for bringing them along today.

If we can go on then and deal with after November 5, could the minister inform me as to how much of those special warrants after November 5 the ministry has spent?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: After November 5, the total is some $252 million.

D. Symons: That seems to represent approximately 25 percent of the estimates for the year '91-92 that theoretically, if you took five-twelfths of the year, would have been spent. It seems to be a great deal of underspending in the second portion of this fiscal year. I'll carry along with that concept or theme a little further on.

It appears, from my reading of the special warrants contained in this bill, that the Social Credit government, during its tenure in office, was fairly close to the estimates that they had projected up to the time they left office. It seems that there's quite a decrease, a 40 percent decrease, in the ministry's spending since that time. I'm going to follow through and try to discover where these cuts were made.

May I ask the minister how many full-time equivalent employees were employed by the ministry before the October 17 election?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

D. Symons: Then may I ask how many full-time employees are currently employed by your ministry?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

D. Symons: On the same theme, may I ask what changes have occurred in the employment of the people under your ministry, particularly those at the management level, since you have taken office?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: None.

D. Symons: Can the minister tell me whether there have been any changes in the responsibilities of the Ministry of Highways and Transportation between the previous administration and your administration? Are the responsibilities the same, or has something been added or taken away from your responsibilities?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: B.C. Ferries and B.C. Transit have been transferred to the Minister of Finance.

D. Symons: I'm looking at vote 57, which was the vote for the minister's office, and I would like to know, on the 1991/92 estimates, how much of each of the special warrants passed by the previous administration and this administration went toward this vote. On warrants 2, 3, 4, and 6, can you tell me what parts of those went towards vote 57 of the 1991/92 estimates.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll preface my remarks by asking the Liberals if they have managed to keep track of all of their members. There is apparently someone loose on the front lawn of the Legislature.

The amount of special warrants applicable after November 5 were some $97,000.

[ Page 427 ]

D. Symons: I was asking for the amount in each of the special warrants. I was expecting four different figures.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The subject of this debate...

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, hon. members.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The subject of this debate covers only the warrants from November 5 on, and the sum of those two is $97,000.

G. Wilson: On a point of order, I would draw to the attention of this minister, who seems totally ill-prepared for any answers today, to the bill. Look at the date on the special warrants contained within the bill. They are September 19, 1991 and October 29, 1991. They are subject to this debate, and we would appreciate your answers.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The hon. member opposite may eventually learn that a minister is not responsible for the actions of previous ministers.

D. Symons: I'm not asking the minister to answer to the actions of the previous government. I'm simply asking for some figures that his ministry should have, and we have not been given those figures. We have been stonewalled on three occasions in the short time I've been asking questions about spending under warrants 2 and 3 that are contained in Bill 16. We have not got the answers. They should be forthcoming, and I will wait for them.

Interjections.

The Chair: There being no one taking your place, the member continues.

D. Symons: I was expecting the minister to be working to get those figures for me. I still haven't seen them.

Interjection.

D. Symons: I believe you've answered the next question already, but I'll just check it out. Has any new staff been hired in the minister's office?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes, the ministerial assistant is new, and the administrative assistant is new.

D. Symons: That's a different answer from the one I got a few moments ago when I asked about changes in staff. There have been some in your office.

Could the minister let us know if there were any salary increases for the staff in the minister's office over what the previous administration had been paying?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

D. Symons: I am confused, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I am, because we seem to have a minister who has been in charge of his ministry for five months. I'm only asking about the minister's office, which is a very small number of people, and he's not sure whether they have received any salary changes. It seems improbable that he couldn't be aware of that.

I have a further question along that line. Have any consultants been hired out of the vote for the minister's office under any of the NDP special warrants -- warrants 4 and 6?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that question is on the order paper.

D. Symons: I was asking about warrants 4 and 6 in Bill 16. Simply under that, have any consultants been hired and paid out of moneys allotted under warrants 4 and 6? Is there an answer to that question?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that question is on the order paper.

D. Symons: Has any advertising been paid out of this vote on any of the NDP special warrants -- warrants 4 and 6? Have any of those moneys been used for advertising?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.

D. Symons: Would you mind giving us a figure, sir?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

D. Symons: You have a staff with you, which I don't have with me, unfortunately. I was hoping that some of those answers would have been forthcoming.

Did any of the special warrants since November 5 -- that's the time you claim you're responsible for -- make any contribution towards the minister's salary?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.

D. Symons: I wonder if you might give us the figure of the total of warrants 4 and 6.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: No.

D. Symons: I'm aware of how much I receive. I'm surprised the minister isn't aware of his salary.

Under vote 58 in the 1991-92 estimates, I would ask how much of warrants 4 and 6 went toward the ministry operations?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: About $252,650.

D. Symons: I would like to take a look at certain ones. We've now completed that one. I wonder if we 

[ Page 428 ]

might go under the subheading of administration and support services and ask the same question of warrants 4 and 6. What amount of money has been expended for the administration and support services portion during your term in office?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The special warrant allocation 4 and 6 is $14,988,000.

G. Wilson: My question to the minister is with respect to highway maintenance. Of the moneys that are committed to highway maintenance under special warrant and under review by this committee, could the minister tell me how much of that highway maintenance has been done through day-labour contracts and how much has been committed through other tendered contracts?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I believe that question is on the order paper.

G. Wilson: That question is not on the order paper. We made absolutely no reference to day-labour work or to tendered contract work for highway maintenance. The minister has his staff here. I wonder what the purpose of bringing them out at this early hour in the morning was if it wasn't to use their expertise?

The Chair: The Leader of the Opposition continues.

G. Wilson: I haven't had an answer to that question. The question I'm asking -- which should be fairly simple -- is to give us a breakdown in terms of highway maintenance of the proportion of money that has been committed through day-labour contracts as opposed to tendered contracts.

[7:45]

Hon. A. Charbonneau: My staff has joined us this morning because they, like many others, enjoy their morning constitutional. The answer to your question is: none.

G. Wilson: I wonder if I could get the minister to restate that. Is the minister saying that of the $315 million indicated in terms of the expenditures and on special-warrant moneys as a proportion of that amount, no money has been committed to day-labour contract work through special warrant on the September, October or November warrants that are under review today?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will clarify for the member opposite that we use no day labour on maintenance; it is all within the rehab budget.

G. Wilson: Under highway capital construction, I wonder if the minister, having made that clarification, might tell us what proportion of the capital construction on projects is dedicated to local day-labour contracts and how much of that is dedicated to tender contracts.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will take that question on notice.

G. Wilson: We will expect a response, although I know that the expertise of the staff who are with him certainly would be able to provide that information. I am still puzzled why the minister would not use the expertise of those he has with him. I know his staff to be a very competent group of people who could provide that answer.

Nevertheless, having said that, I wonder if the minister could address, with respect to the Cassiar connector and the difficulties that have been part of that construction as a result of reported cost overruns, what proportion of the special warrants under consideration today has gone into the payment against the Cassiar connector project.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount is $12.933 million.

G. Wilson: See how easy it is when they answer the questions. I appreciate that response.

In terms of the line item "Second Narrows Bridge and approaches," I wonder if the minister could tell us whether that also has some connection to the Cassiar connector project. Or is a capital project different from the tendered project on the Cassiar bypass?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's a separate project.

G. Wilson: If that is so, could the minister outline the cost of that project, how much of the special-warrant moneys under consideration today have been dedicated toward that project, and how that project is separate from the Cassiar connector project?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The amount is approximately $172,000. As to the details of the project, I believe that better belongs in estimates.

G. Wilson: I wonder if the minister might then also tell us, with respect to the Okanagan connector, the proportional amount that has gone into that project from special-warrant spending and the extent to which reported cost overruns necessitated additional moneys through special warrant?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The total of the special warrants applied to that project was approximately $715,000.

G. Wilson: We are getting through this very quickly now. It's nice to see that we've got some cooperation to do this. With respect to the cost overrun, what proportion of that special warrant was due to cost overruns on the Okanagan connector project?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

G. Wilson: I would accept that the minister may have difficulty pulling out that particular project. I note, 

[ Page 429 ]

however, with interest, a commitment of $64 million in total expenditures on the Vancouver Island Highway. I wonder if the minister could tell us, in terms of the proportional amount of work done on the Vancouver Island Highway, how much of that construction has taken place since November 5, 1991.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can advise you that the application of funds from the two special warrants under debate was $16.457 million.

G. Wilson: With respect to the Sea to Sky Highway -- a project, of course, that is of great concern to many residents of the West Vancouver-Garibaldi area, as well as the Whistler region -- I wonder if the minister could tell us how much of the special-warrant expenditure has been on rehabilitation and what proportion is actually on new capital construction.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I can advise you as to the amount that was on the capital projects side, and that was $770,000.

G. Wilson: Could the minister than tell us how much has been done on rehabilitation and maintenance, particularly with respect to potential slide and flood control?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

G. Wilson: I accept that we will get some information back on that. It will be important for the opposition to have that available to them.

Again, with respect to the highway maintenance budget and the question of ferries, could the minister tell us how much has gone from the special-warrant spending to the maintenance, upgrading and improvement of ferries that are under B.C. Highways?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

G. Wilson: We will anxiously await some accurate information with respect to that.

I wonder then if the minister is prepared to give us a cost estimate or breakdown with respect to special-warrant spending on the projected expenditures of highway upgrading and construction and ferries upgrading or maintenance in the area of Robson, British Columbia.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There are no anticipated expenditures on ferries in the Robson area in the coming fiscal year.

D. Symons: I would like to revisit some of the figures that the Leader of the Opposition just asked about, because I am rather amazed at some of the answers given. I notice that in the '91-92 estimates there was close to $3 million for the Okanagan connector. This minister told us that they have spent $715,000 of the special warrants -- I assume that's 4 and 6. That seems to be a terrific amount of underspending. I wonder if the minister might just comment on why the money that was allocated for that does not seem to have been spent on that particular project.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The hon. member is confusing the figures of projected expenditures in that period with special warrants in that period.

D. Symons: If that is the case.... I thought you would make these estimates on where the money was coming from to pay for that. I assumed that the estimates were what they were working from, and the warrants would cover that expense. Since we didn't have a budget come through to cover those, that would come from the warrants. Is that not the case?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We are not here defending the estimates of the last fiscal year but to advise you as to the application of funds from the special warrants.

The Chair: The point is well taken. The member continues.

D. Symons: Chair, I am having trouble, discovering that there seem to be projects on hand for the year that had been accounted for in the estimates of last year, yet we're looking at considerable underspending in this ministry compared to what was estimated a year ago. That's where my line of thought was going, to find out why this underspending was taking place. It certainly seems that we're not going to get the answers, since all they're going to answer to is the money they've spent, not the money they should have spent.

Let us look under the grants and contributions part of the transportation policy planning and municipal programs. I would ask the minister: during his term of office, how much has been spent under warrants 4 and 6 on that particular subsection of ministry operations?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

D. Symons: The figures I have would indicate that there has been a considerable cutback in grants and contributions to municipal programs, and I'm concerned that this might be a downloading, on the part of this government, onto the municipalities. Could the minister tell me -- at least he's taking it under advisement -- if he is cutting back in a general way? Are these special warrants being undervalued, in a sense, to cover these responsibilities that we have to the municipalities?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: There has essentially been no slowdown in shared-cost programs. In a few instances, because municipalities may not have had programs ready to go, there may have been modest slowdowns in terms of transfers of funds.

C. Tanner: I think you mentioned that $16,457,000 has been spent on the Island Highway through these warrants. Could the minister inform the House whether that amount spent was for work done previous to his 

[ Page 430 ]

taking his office, or was it for work in progress and finished now?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: It's a little of both. The total expenditures in that period were about $28,900,000, with allocations from special warrants totalling $16,457,000.

C. Tanner: Could the Minister of Highways indicate to the House whether or not the department contracts out the planning component of the department as well as road maintenance?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: We hire some consultants for assistance and guidance in some contracts.

C. Tanner: Does the minister have a sort of mixed bag -- some contracted out and some in-house staff planners? Is that the situation?

The Chair: The member continues? The Leader of the Opposition.

G. Wilson: In terms of the capital construction projects that are listed under special warrant with respect to the maintenance and upgrading of approaches to and construction around the B.C. Ferries terminals, could the minister tell us to what extent his ministry is responsible for the upgrading, maintenance and construction of the approaches to and from the terminals and how much in special-warrant expenditure has been committed to those projects since November 5?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: My ministry is fully responsible, and I'll provide the details. I'll take the question on notice.

G. Wilson: I realize this is a rookie minister and a rookie MLA, but it would seem to me.... Even on this side of the House we know that in the ministerial estimates we have an opportunity when we're looking at special-warrant spending to have the minister and his staff here so that he can provide answers to questions and not simply take questions on notice. Having noticed that we are dealing here with special-warrant expenditure, it would seem to me that the minister should have some understanding of how his ministry has committed $500,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. I'm amazed that he seems so ill-prepared to provide us the information.

[8:00]

However, my question is with respect to the transportation policy and planning commitment. Could the minister tell us, out of the special-warrant expenditure, how many of the dollars committed to planning since November 5 have been committed to the planning and extension of the Island Highway?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I will take that question on notice.

D. Symons: I've momentarily misplaced a letter that I wanted to produce here. It's from the mayor of Osoyoos. He's concerned that the Highways ministry has not completed a project there. The city has spent a considerable amount of money relocating services. We were told earlier that there have been no cutbacks in municipal programs in Highways, but this municipality seems to be in great difficulty. Were these not covered in the special warrants? Or were the special warrants not large enough to cover the expense of completing these responsibilities to the municipality of Osoyoos?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The project has been delayed a year under fiscal responsibility. In the meantime, we will help the community button up the site.

D. Symons: I'm sure the municipality will be grateful to hear that information. They've been waiting a great deal of time to hear that. Again going back to other expenditures in the ministry, I'm discovering that the ones I want answers to seem to be taken under advisement. If we go back to the Sea to Sky Highway, I note in the estimates that there was $3 million there. I would estimate, if we prorate this for the time that your ministry has been in government, that you would spend approximately $1.2 million on that project. You've told me it's $770,000. I'm wondering why there has not been more money in the estimates to carry through with the reconstruction of that highway.

The Chair: My attention has been brought to the fact that some members may be reading newspapers, and this is generally prohibited and forbidden in the chamber. Whoever is reading the paper, please cease.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: The member may be confused between the special-warrant allocations for the period following November 5 and the projected expenditures covering the same period. The total for the Sea to Sky Highway in the period is about $1.2 million, with anticipated expenditures over the year of $3.2 million.

D. Jarvis: Under the special warrants for your ministry, were any monies expended for the planning and construction of the Westview interchange?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Yes.

D. Jarvis: Further to that question, could you tell me how much?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I'll take that question on notice.

G. Wilson: With respect to the municipal contributions portion of the description of the expenditures, could the minister give us an outline of the municipal contributions? How much money has been committed on a proportional basis to projects within municipal boundaries? I'm particularly interested to know whether or not he has a regional breakdown, to see how 

[ Page 431 ]

much money is committed in various regions within the province, and if that breakdown is available.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: That question would be more suitable for estimates.

D. Symons: I'm inquiring now about the highway capital construction portion of the '91-92 budget. I'm looking particularly at asset acquisition under that part, and I'm going to be asking the minister what portion of that budget during his term in office has been covered by warrants 4 and 6. What moneys have gone toward asset acquisition in highway capital construction?

Hon. A. Charbonneau: Approximately $101 million.

G. Wilson: My question is with respect to capital construction in the Ministry of Highways. Can the minister give us some estimate, with respect to the moneys committed by special warrant under review in this committee, as to the proportional amount of capital construction expended through that special-warrant period that would have been subject to fair wage legislation? Let me make sure that my question is phrased in a manner that the minister understands, so that he understands the response that he gives me. My question concerns contract construction in the highways capital construction program. Of the amount of moneys committed by special-warrant spending, how much of that would have been, and what would the difference have been if that project had been under fair wage legislation, as is now the case in the province of British Columbia?

The Chair: I would caution the hon. minister. The question has an element of being hypothetical, although it is a matter that the minister may wish to address.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: If the hon. member is speaking of the recently announced policy, none.

G. Wilson: I want to be very clear that the minister is saying that none of the monies committed under capital construction, had there been fair wage legislation in place, could now be estimated on the basis of new-wage construction. I would assume he's saying that if indeed those projects would not have been subject to, and therefore could not be given to us as a dollar value for comparison, they won't be subject to fair wage legislation again.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would advise the member opposite to read the policy.

D. Symons: I'm again looking at one of the ministry operations under highways maintenance. There is a section called grants and contributions, and I'm asking how much has gone to grants and contributions, highways maintenance, during warrants 4 and 6.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: None.

D. Symons: I am distressed that I find a large sum that seems to have been budgeted for that, and this government is simply not spending the money in a way that would be beneficial to the organizations that receive it. Could you tell me, sir, what this grants and contributions one would have covered if, indeed, you had any money from these warrants go to it?

The Chair: Members should not pose hypothetical questions, as intriguing as they may be from time to time.

D. Symons: I am disappointed, though. It seems that if moneys aren't being spent on what they were budgeted for, we're not allowed to find out where they're not being spent. But I thank the minister and his staff very much for being here to answer questions.

The Chair: The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is now concluded, and we move on to the Ministry of Women's Equality. We may need a moment or two for the staff to clear and for the new staff to come in.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. Chair, the hon. minister and members of this House. We have finally arrived at the debate for Women's Equality. I wonder whether it is a telling point that after all this debate over the last two days, the last area we are to examine is the one surrounding women's issues. I would like to begin by congratulating the minister once again on her appointment to this ministry. When this government was formed, hon. minister, your Premier promised to remedy marginalization of women in our society.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members. The member who has her place should be permitted to continue without disturbance or interruptions.

L. Reid: Again, my congratulations to the hon. minister on her appointment.

It's wonderful to see that we have the first stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality in this country. It is encouraging to see promises become reality, and I hope that we are here to see and examine how promises become reality and not just a changeable goal.

Women's issues are primarily economic. If women had more financial independence there would be less need for this ministry.

As women comprise 52 percent of the population, all of the operations of government are matters of concern to women. Providing services to women -- to citizens -- involves expenditures. However, expenditures that are unchecked can be dangerous to the taxpayer. It is with this intention that I will preface my remarks and quote from the Premier when he said that warrants are only used when they are immediately required for the public good.

Hon. minister, were warrants 2, 3, 4 and 6 immediately required for the public good?

[ Page 432 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: The answer is yes.

Perhaps while I'm on my feet I could introduce the people who work with me. To my far right is Dr. Sheila Wynn, the deputy minister with our ministry; to my immediate right is Jan Hemming, the financial officer with our ministry; and to my left is Pauline Rafferty, our assistant deputy minister; and our people who work with this ministry.

L. Reid: Thank you for those introductions, and welcome to this chamber. At least in terms of the alphabet you have a reasonable hour to appear.

To continue, can the minister outline to this House the mandate of her ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: I will be very pleased to talk about the vision and the mandate of the ministry under the opportunity we have to debate estimates. The purpose here is to examine the contents of the warrants before us.

L. Reid: It's my understanding that this was the only ministry created under a special warrant, which was my first question. However, barring the extra responsibilities of government services and families, could the minister now please outline to the House the specific differences between this ministry and the previous Ministry of Women's Programs?

[8:15]

Hon. P. Priddy: I guess I would make two points. One of them is that we're last because we believe in the adage that you save the best for last. Secondly, the House is a bit fuller now than it was earlier, and we knew people would want to have this opportunity to be part of this.

The differences between the previous ministry and this one can in part be outlined by the warrants. If you would like me to talk about the contents of the warrants, it would highlight the differences between the two.

L. Reid: Can the minister tell the committee, with reference to the 1991-92 estimates, vote 60, minister's office, how much of the money had been spent under the old minister's office as of November 5, 1991?

Hon. P. Priddy: You're referring to the minister's office? That was $170,000.

L. Reid: Can the minister tell the committee, with reference to the 1991-92 estimates, vote 61, subvote women's programs, how much of this vote was dedicated to public information programs?

Hon. P. Priddy: Four hundred thousand dollars.

L. Reid: Can the minister tell the committee whether these public information programs have been discontinued under her ministry?

Hon. P. Priddy: Some have been, and some have not.

L. Reid: Would you be able to clarify that response in terms of which ones are still in existence?

Hon. P. Priddy: There has been $50,000 spent since November. That has been spent on communications around family violence, or, as I would prefer, intervention prevention of violence against women, and in part on communication around child care.

L. Reid: Can the minister outline how these public information campaigns have been tendered? Has this involved any advertising contracts, and were they tendered?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, they were tendered.

L. Reid: On September 19, 1991, in special warrant 2, $42 million was allocated to the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services and the Minister Responsible for Families. Could the minister please detail the exact amount of this money that was dedicated to Women's Programs?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, if the question relates to matters that happened prior to the minister taking office, she can consider the appropriateness of a response.

Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you to the Chair. My response was that we took office on November 5, and I will respond to any questions covering the period since then.

L. Reid: I appreciate that you may not have the detail I require today, but could I ask that you bring it forward to my attention as soon as possible?

The Chair: Was that an indication in the affirmative to that question?

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure of the amount or level of detail that the member would like. There certainly is a variety of information available, which the member has access to as does anybody else, and she is welcome to review that.

L. Reid: In terms of providing a framework or structure to have your staff secure this information, what were the programs? Who did they serve? Were any new programs initiated at this time? Were there any new staffing requirements, including consultants and contract workers?

To continue, on October 29, 1991, in special warrant 3, $14,750,000 was allocated to the Ministry of Women's Programs and Government Services and Minister Responsible for Families. Could the minister please detail the exact amount of this money that was dedicated to Women's Programs? I ask the question because I believe that all four of these warrants -- if indeed they required immediate attention -- deserve clarification in this House.

[ Page 433 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: That warrant was issued under an entirely different ministry, the Ministry of Government Services and Women's Programs, which had an entirely different mandate. I'm happy to respond to any questions that fall under the current mandate of this ministry.

L. Reid: Indeed, I anticipated that, when I asked my first question: can the minister outline to this House the mandate of her ministry? I'm not convinced they're different. However, I look forward to also receiving that in the future. In terms of clarification that I might require, may it be the same structure when it comes back to me as I asked for under warrant 2, please?

To continue, on November 13, 1991, in special warrant 4, $12,925,000 was allocated to the Ministry of Women's Equality. Could the minister please detail the exact amount of this money that was dedicated to the minister's office?

Hon. P. Priddy: To ministry operations or to the minister's office? To the minister's office per se it was $129,000.

L. Reid: Were there additional staffing requirements? How many extra people were hired and at what cost? And what new programs were initiated at this time?

Hon. P. Priddy: No. No. And none.

L. Reid: On January 8, 1992, in special warrant 6, $2,700,000 was allocated to the Ministry of Women's Equality. Could the minister please detail the exact amount of money that was dedicated to the minister's office?

Hon. P. Priddy: Some $60,000.

L. Reid: Were there additional staffing requirements? How many extra people were hired and at what cost? What new programs were initiated at this time? How were these programs prioritized?

Hon. P. Priddy: If I could keep it in order it's: no, none, none and none.

L. Reid: On November 5 or at any time prior to the date of the last special warrant for which this minister is responsible -- January 8, 1992 -- did the minister give any written instructions to ministry staff to seek savings, advise on cutbacks or eliminations, or anything at all which would have had a realistic impact on the need for a full amount of the combined special warrants or any portion thereof?

Hon. P. Priddy: This is a new ministry, so it is very difficult to look back on a ministry that was not there to suggest savings. We are in the process of doing that now. We will continue to do that, because we believe it's an important commitment to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

L. Reid: When you do look back, please know that I'm only interested up until November 5. In fact, you were all there at that point.

In terms of clarification on special spending warrants, if I could have the minister speak in detail of how these funds were disbursed under 2, 3, 4 and 6, that would be most helpful.

Hon. P. Priddy: For warrant 4 and 6, which are the warrants I have a responsibility for under this ministry, I would be pleased to do that. Warrant 4, which was $12,925,000, was $1.4 million and $1.1 million, both for law and order initiatives transferred to the Solicitor General; $2 million to intervention and prevention of violence against women; $950,000 to Social Services; $500,000 to Health; $300,000 to the Solicitor General; $250,000 to Education; as well as $7 million in subsidy to the Ministry of Social Services -- for a total of $11.4 million, And $1.5 million in ministry operations.

L. Reid: Could you please speak to warrant 6?

Hon. P. Priddy: Warrant 6 of January 28, $2,700,000: $510,000 to stabilization of women's centres; $500,000 to intervention and prevention of family violence, which are grants to communities; $1 million to ministry operations; $100,000 to support aboriginal communities around intervention and prevention of violence; and $454,455 to employment equity.

L. Reid: I would suggest to this House that that is the most information we've received in the speediest amount of time since we've been in this Legislature. Nicely done, hon. minister.

G. Wilson: I'm particularly interested in the moneys committed to aboriginal people. Could the minister outline how much that was again and exactly what programs those were for?

Hon. P. Priddy: It's $100,000. It's an initiative that is driven, if you will, or empowered by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, in which we have a joint partnership. It is to support aboriginal communities in their choice of the best sorts of models and supports available to their community.

G. Wilson: So was that money expended on aboriginal women on reserves, or was it available to aboriginal women off reserves?

Hon. P. Priddy: The dollars were used in partnership with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to examine, with aboriginal communities, the best models. So they were not actually involved in the service delivery at this stage, but in helping to establish the best kinds of models. 

D. Symons: I just have one concern with an answer that was given earlier, and this deals with warrant 2. We realize that your government did not spend this money, but it's contained in Bill 16, which is before the House today to be discussed. I think the question asked was 

[ Page 434 ]

basically from a ministry that had a different mandate at that time -- Women's Programs and Government Services and Minister Responsible for Families. What we wanted really was a breakdown of those three parts of the previous one. What part of that money -- the $195 million -- went toward Women's Programs only? Surely those figures are available, and the women's ministry would have now received the figures from beforehand when they were gathered in a slightly different way.

Hon. P. Priddy: The member is referring to a warrant that was issued and established before this ministry was even in existence. So although some information is available -- and that has already been acknowledged to the critic -- I would suggest that your question has therefore been answered.

D. Symons: I still have a concern that we have Bill 16 before us, and we have warrants 2 and 3 contained in Bill 16. Basically what you're telling me is that nobody can answer to these two bills that we are discussing today. There's a large sum of money involved in here, and there's no answer to it.

The Chair: Hon. member, that is a correct observation. The warrants are included in the schedule as a pro forma, but not necessarily to the knowledge of anyone who has been elected since that time who can speak to them. But they are here for the record.

D. Symons: For the record then, it seems inconceivable to me that we are asked to gather here to pass a bill when we are not able to find out the information relating to large sums of money in here. There should be somebody responsible for answering simple questions.

[8:30]

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. members. This would appear to conclude the debate on the warrants contained in this schedule. I would like to thank all of the members for their patience -- this being in the wee hours of April Fools' Day, 8:30 in the morning. But I can assure you there's nothing foolish about this; this is very important business.

I would just like to now put the question.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

On the title.

Hon. G. Clark: I can't let the title pass without at least passing comment on the pathetic and inept performance from the opposition members. What we have witnessed, frankly, is a juvenile approach, which wasted valuable legislative time and cost the taxpayers thousands of dollars. We have seen technical questions that would more properly be placed on the order paper. Many questions could have been answered with a phone call to the ministry or with a briefing by the ministry. They were simply technical questions that we could easily answer without wasting valuable time in the House -- stupid questions as to the amount of money a minister is being paid. Public employees in this chamber, who have worked now for some 20 hours, have been abused by the opposition. If they had any decency, they would apologize.

C. Tanner: Some time earlier in this debate, Mr. Chairman, I was reprimanded by the Chair for using the word "stupid," and I notice the minister is using it himself. Would he retract that remark, please.

The Chair: If there has been any unparliamentary expression made, would the member who made it please withdraw.

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, Mr. Chairman. I referred to stupid questions, not stupid individuals.

The Chair: Did the member withdraw the remark?

Hon. G. Clark: I withdraw any reference to stupid individuals.

The Chair: Thank you. Does that satisfy the member?

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak to the title, as well. I can understand why the government House Leader is upset. I can understand why he is a little distraught. I can understand why his temper is frayed. He's obviously been up all night, as many members in this committee have been. And it has been a difficult night. It has been a difficult two days for members of this committee.

This has been a sad day for British Columbia that it has come to this, owing to this government's incompetence, lack of a legislative program, lack of a plan for how it was going to deal with the people's business, trying to ram through this supply bill in the dying hours of the fiscal year. We have now been here in this committee eight and a half hours into a new fiscal year. This government has now been illegitimate for more than eight and a half hours -- illegitimate not only legally, but morally as well.

The record will show that the members of the official opposition in this committee have done their job. They've done the job that they were sent here to do by the voters of this province.

I hope that this experience over the last couple of days, this unfortunate experience that was forced upon this assembly by the government's lack of a plan, will be instructive for all members of this committee, in particular the government members. I hope it will show them that they are not going to be able to abuse the privileges of this assembly -- as they have done here in the dying hours of the last fiscal year and now in the early hours of this fiscal year -- and that this will never be tolerated again. If there is one thing that we have all learned, it is that never again should this assembly allow an executive to try to ram a bill through the 

[ Page 435 ]

Legislative Assembly of this province in this fashion. This is a manufactured crisis that is totally of the making of this government because of their irresponsibility and the irresponsible approach they've take to the serious business of the people of this province.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved on division.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Supply Act (No. 1), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.

The House recessed at 8:40 a.m.

The House resumed at 8:47 a.m.

The Chair: Hon. members, I am advised that the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the House. Would members please rise.

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

Clerk-Assistant:

Supply Act (No. 1), 1992

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber. 

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 8:50 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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