1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1995
Morning Sitting
Volume 18, Number 9
[ Page 13131 ]
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
Prayers.
Hon. E. Cull presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 1995.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
This supply bill was introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1995-96 have been debated and voted in this Legislative Assembly. The bill will provide interim supply for the initial three months of the 1995-96 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. As the 1994-95 supply will expire on March 31, 1995, interim supply is required so that a variety of essential payments to GAIN recipients, hospitals, school districts, universities and social agencies, as well as the government's payroll, may continue uninterrupted. Therefore, in moving the introduction and first reading of this bill, hon. Speaker, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to advance through all stages this day. I move first reading of this bill.
Motion approved.
Bill 6 introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading forthwith.
The Speaker: Hon. members, I'm of the opinion that standing order 81 does apply. We will just need a few moments to distribute the bill so we can have a short recess.
The House recessed from 10:08 a.m. to 10:16 a.m.
Hon. E. Cull: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 6.
SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1995
(second reading)
Hon. E. Cull: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills. As required by the Financial Administration Act, special warrants are included in the bill. Schedule 1 lists those approved for the 1994-95 fiscal year.
The first section of the bill requests one-quarter of the voted expenditure as presented in the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests the disbursements amount required for the government's voted financing transactions, which appear in schedule C of the estimates. The third section requests an amount for $28 million in statutory authority for the Purchasing Commission working capital account to permit the delivery of goods and services provided through this account.
It's a straightforward bill. I now move second reading of Bill 6.
J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure for me to rise and speak to second reading of this supply act.
In my opinion, interim supply is a normal and quite acceptable part of our budget process, notwithstanding the howls that we heard about the practice from the government when they were in opposition. Indeed, I can't pass up the opportunity to read just two or three quotes into the record, the first starting with the Government House Leader in this House in 1991. And he says: "...our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either." He goes on to say: "When the executive council spends some $3 billion without public debate, it undermines the very democracy we are here to uphold."
The member for Alberni said: "The financial [administration] act of British Columbia is very clear in section 21. Interim supply can only be used in urgent and unforeseen circumstances."
Mr. Speaker, it's always a difficult situation when one has to read back the words of one holding such an honoured position as yours. However, one will be forced to recall the member saying: "Clearly, interim supply is a political tactic designed to subvert the democratic process and deny the opposition an opportunity for relevant debate before funds are spent." Mr. Speaker, you are not alone. Indeed your deputy said in that same debate -- to quote the member for Nanaimo: "It would be irresponsible in the extreme if we agreed to interim supply without considerable discussion." So I guess we must expect that there will be some debate on this particular bill.
As I said originally, I think interim supply is a pretty fundamental part of our budget process, and I can't foresee there being changes to it. Particularly when interim supply is for a period of three months, it seems to me a reasonable process and one that we should accept. I am not so content to continue with the practice of special warrants. It seems to me that as governments routinely come to this House and ask for permission for money already spent, ask for retroactive approval of funds spent, we should look seriously at that process. This year we're being asked, as a Legislature, to approve $200 million of taxpayers' money that's already been spent.
In relative terms, that is an amount smaller than some of the serious excesses we've seen from this and other governments in previous years. Indeed the practice of bringing back these very large amounts for approval.... Other governments might refer to -- if the Minister of Finance can't remember that far back -- ones like Socred governments and others. I think there is emerging, as we reform our parliamentary practices, an opportunity to move away from special warrants.
I look with particular interest at a private member's bill entitled Parliamentary Calendar Act, tabled in the last couple of days by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi. If we were to consider this bill and pass it, as I believe we should, we would be guaranteed to be back in this Legislature starting the second week of October. That would provide ministries who found some real need to spend more than the approvals given in the spring session an opportunity to come back, through the minister, make an argument by way of an amendment to the budget, and debate those expenditures before they're made. That's what I would like to see us focus on.
This doesn't have to be a partisan issue; it has to be an evolving part of the way we change our system of governance. If we start to move toward a calendar, as I think we should and as has been proposed by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, that would set the stage for us to deal in a far more reasonable, responsible and acceptable way with expenditures that may, from time to time, have to be increased for a particular ministry.
[ Page 13132 ]
With that thought in mind, I would encourage us to move forward with debate on this legislation. There will be an opportunity in third reading for our caucus and others to examine the spending we are asked to approve retroactively and to enquire from the ministers about the details of that. I'm not going to speculate this morning in second reading on the need for those expenditures, but I again want to underline that with some reasonably modest changes to our parliamentary practice here, I believe that we could do away with one of the most unacceptable processes in the whole budget structure.
G. Wilson: There are rare opportunities in this Legislative Assembly when we can, in principle, speak to matters of parliamentary reform to the manner by which we govern, in the interests of British Columbians, and spend their money. This second reading debate is an excellent opportunity for us to discuss in principle how we might differently do the processes of the approval of budgets, spending of money and the accountability of that money with respect to the people of the province.
I will yield from reading the words of members of the government, because the Leader of the Third Party has already done so. The fact is that it is generally considered that the proposition of special warrant spending is abhorrent and should not occur, and that interim supply is something that generally is required where governments are finding themselves in a situation where they are unable to adequately prepare for and provide dollars within the fiscal year that they are dealing.
It's lamentable, however, that the Leader of the Third Party believes there is no way around the interim supply question. I think it's lamentable, because what it demonstrates is that notwithstanding the package of parliamentary reform that the Reform Party is putting forward, they fail to recognize that British Columbians want to have a more accountable and finite process with respect to budgeting and the allocation of their budget dollars.
We within the Alliance have advocated a proposition that warrants a great deal of attention. It is a proposition that suggests that we need to be moving towards four-year-based budgets. In the proposition of four-year-based budgets, we would be commencing to establish the next four-year base within the third year. If we were to do that, not only would there be much greater detail in terms of the analysis of expenditure, but there would be a much greater degree of certainty of supply and greater flexibility for government to be able to provide funding and carry forward funding into those areas where expenditures exceed one fiscal year.
It would also provide us with an opportunity to provide a much more detailed analysis with respect to efficiencies in government and make those changes with greater flexibility within the ministries, where they find that those changes may provide better services at a better cost to the public, but without having to go back through the rather onerous and detailed problems that we currently face with the structure as it now exists.
It's lamentable that within the substantial package of reforms that we see from the Reform Party, they have not progressed that one step further. I would strongly recommend that all reform-minded people -- and I use the word with a small "r" -- look at the proposition of four-year-based funding, because it really does have merit. What it provides is greater flexibility, a greater degree of certainty and a better opportunity for the Minister of Finance, for example, to be able, within a four-year-base period, to provide the kind of ongoing funding to those programs that the people of the province would deem necessary and essential. There is a way around it.
[D. Lovick in the chair.]
I also find it somewhat ironic that the whole matter of balanced-budget legislation doesn't raise its head at this time. When we talk about the question of interim supply and special warrants, I would think that those political parties -- and I believe the Liberal opposition to be one -- that suggest balanced-budget legislation should be in place would be standing up and speaking strongly against this bill. If they cannot stand up and strongly speak against this bill, how on earth can they defend their position with respect to balanced-budget legislation?
Furthermore, I'm surprised that the Leader of the Official Opposition isn't here now charging the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Attorney General, the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health as personally liable for the debt overruns they have seen with their special warrants. It is the policy as I understand it has been articulated by the Liberal opposition that ministers who overspend their budgets should be personally liable for it; I believe that's their policy.
An Hon. Member: That's what he said.
G. Wilson: That's what he said.
So it seems to me there's a $16 million tab that the Minister of Education is going to be liable for. The Attorney General is going to have to be liable for substantially more. However, that would not top the Minister of Health, who would be responsible for $135 million out of his pocket. I'm surprised, given that this is the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition, that he isn't here now demanding either the payment of that $135 million by the Minister of Health or his resignation. That is the Liberal opposition's policy, as absurd as it may seem to those of us who listen to it in astonishment.
[10:30]
However, let me close my remarks with respect to the special warrants. I could not agree more with the proposition put forward with respect to parliamentary reform in terms of an established calendar. It certainly has been the policy of the Alliance since its inception and is something that I have been advocating personally since 1987. The bill before us now, submitted by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, is an excellent piece of legislation.
I strongly urge that we move toward fixed-calendar agendas, so we can use the opportunity of this House to properly debate those matters during the course of expenditures of one fiscal year. Where we notice that, through whatever change the government may find itself faced with -- either statutorily because of demand in social services, education and health care, which may rise beyond their control, or because they have changed their policy and direction -- they therefore find they have additional costs, those could be addressed within this Legislature, and they could be debated properly with due process being followed. This is an excellent piece of legislation. I hope this government recognizes the need to move to calender reform and to allow, through the use of private members' day, something that has been sadly lacking in this institution for the last number of years. I hope we can bring that bill forward, debate it, pass it and put it in place.
The way the proposition is today, interim supply must clearly be granted if we are to continue to do business. Let it
[ Page 13133 ]
also be said, however, that there clearly are alternatives that should be reviewed. They should be looked at because they are non-partisan in nature, and it is in the interest of all British Columbians to see them implemented.
G. Farrell-Collins: As other members of the House have stated, there has been a long pattern in this House where governments of successive political stripes, whether they be Social Credit or New Democrat, get up in the House and introduce interim supply, and members of the opposition get up and yell and scream. I notice that when the desks changed, that pattern just kept going. It's time we stopped doing that.
The members who have spoken already have raised some good non-partisan issues, for the most part, regarding changes that could be made in this House to make the democratic process work better and be more accountable, particularly on fiscal matters. Unlike what the Leader of the Third Party said, I believe it is not impossible to do away with the process of special warrants and interim supply. There are ways of getting around that.
One of the items mentioned by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi was a parliamentary calender, which I know he has felt strongly about for some time. There are opportunities to deal with special warrants, at least, and perhaps if we were to move the sitting of the spring session up a bit, we could also deal with part of the interim supply problem. There are ways of doing that, and there are opportunities to look at those. The current government and the next government should take a good, hard look at those items in a serious, non-partisan way and try to pursue them in the best way possible. As the Leader of the Third Party said, the fundamental reason why we're all here is to vote the supply, to vote on the taxation and revenue that the government generates from the public and to determine how that money is to be spent. If we do that in an offhand manner or in a manner that doesn't reflect actual expenditures, which is the case with special warrants, then we are undermining the very principle of why parliamentary democracy exists.
There are ways to get around that. Special warrants are an item nobody is proud of. I don't think governments are proud of them, and I know members of this House don't like to see them take place, because they are a backdoor way of funding government's expenditures. What we have to do is start to impose a little discipline on the cabinet ministers, whether it's this government or the next government or the last government that came before, of which the Leader of the Third Party was a longtime member. That discipline has to happen and it has to happen at a personal level.
I want to clarify some comments that were made earlier about the concept of applying individual discipline to ministers with regard to their budgets. If there's a 5 percent overrun in a budget in a ministry or if one is anticipated in their budget, the minister should take a 5 percent penalty in his or her pay for the year rather than go and just offhandedly issue a special warrant to cover up the mess or the misbudgeting or the poor estimates that took place the year before or, in some cases, the unexpected expenditures. The ministers themselves would be responsible. I don't think that's.... Nobody's asking them to fork out $166 million to pay for health care costs -- that's not the intent.
The intent is to impose a little personal discipline or accountability on the ministers so that when they see the budget overrunning and problems occurring in the future or coming down the pipe, they can go back and make expenditure cuts. Instead of just saying, "We'll just get more money," they can go back and say: "How can we save?" They can go back and try and save money in other areas. That kind of personal discipline is one more step in a non-partisan way to try and ensure that there is some personal and political accountability right at the minister's office so that they don't deal with it in an offhand way, but take it seriously and try to deal with it.
There are some measures that were put forward by members of the House today -- I imagine the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi would still like to get up and speak about his Budget Act and his Calendar Act. They're all good suggestions, hon. Speaker, which all parties should take in good faith. We will be putting forth some of our versions of those items as the session progresses, and hopefully we can all work on them on private members' day and see that some of them get passed.
D. Mitchell: I just have a few words to add to the debate this morning on this very important bill, Supply Act (No. 1). Hopefully it's the last supply act that will have to be introduced during this session, but we can't predict that. This act has two components. First, I think it's important to understand that we're being asked to grant the extraordinary amount of some $5 billion approximately for interim supply to the government for the first quarter of the fiscal year. The second component is that we're being asked to retroactively approve the spending that has taken place for this current fiscal year -- that's just coming to an end tomorrow -- of some $200 million of special warrants, unforeseen expenditures. We will have a chance in the next short while to question ministers as to why those expenditures could not have been foreseen in the budgets that we debated in this House just last spring.
The principle of interim supply really strikes at the heart of why we have a legislature. In a perfect world we might not have to pass any new laws or to amend any old laws. But the Legislature would still serve a purpose by granting approval for spending of tax dollars by the government. That's why we have a legislature; it's one of the origins of why a parliament exists. The government is asking us today for permission to spend some money. But, of course, they're not going to get the money, the supply, before they hear the grievances of the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia. That's a historic principle that goes to the heart of why we're here and why we've been elected to serve our constituents in this forum.
There has been some hypocrisy on this issue over the course of time, particularly on the part of members of the government. I'm not going to take time to read back quotes from various members when they were in opposition, including the Minister of Finance who, when she was on the opposition side, lambasted the previous government for this very issue of coming to seek retroactive approval for special warrants.
I'll just read into the record the date and reference for anyone who wants to check what the member for Oak Bay said. If they look in Hansard for May 30, 1991, they'll find some very interesting comments by the now Minister of Finance criticizing the previous administration for the practice of spending under special warrants and talking about how undemocratic it was. Of course, she's a great democrat and this government is made up of great democrats. But when they were on the opposition side, they thought this was a terrible issue -- they thought it was undemocratic in the extreme. But now the Minister of Finance comes to this House today and says this is a straightforward piece of legislation, there is nothing controversial here, and let's get it approved quickly. Well, when she was on the opposition side, she didn't think so.
[ Page 13134 ]
Members want to know, I suppose, what the Minister of Finance said. Members want to know that in this chamber on May 30, 1991, the Minister of Finance said, when referring to the process of interim supply and in particular to the special warrants -- she was referring to the previous government, which was doing exactly what she's asking for right now: "They have so little respect for our parliamentary traditions. That is one of the most fundamental principles: that the government come into the House and justify its taxing decisions and its spending decisions." And she went on to point out that the government was spending money without coming to the House.
Yet here we have a government that, after the last election.... We had an all-night session of this Legislature. We sat right around the clock, 24 hours, right through the wee hours, and some members of this House will remember that debate well. We sat right through the night, and the very next day in question period the Premier committed to this House that we would never, ever see this happen again. Well, here we are. We're being asked to approve special warrants once again.
And so there is some hypocrisy on this issue, and there is the need for reform. I'm pleased today to hear in the House that the member of the Third Party, the leader of the Reform caucus, and other members of this House find appealing the notion that we maybe should have a parliamentary calendar act and perhaps a fixed budget day, so that there can be some certainty in the process of a government coming forward and seeking approval for spending retroactively. I'm pleased with that. But if the government isn't persuaded that that notion has some merit, they might want to look to the advice that they commissioned themselves. And I'm referring to the famous Peat Marwick report.
Many members in this chamber and the Minister of Finance herself might recall that in the very famous, maybe now infamous, Peat Marwick report -- some called it the Peat Marwick manifesto for this government -- the issue of special warrants was explicitly addressed. Has the government accepted the advice of Peat Marwick on this issue?
Well, Peat Marwick did say in their report that there is a need for special warrant provisions, because unforeseen funding requirements can arise when the Legislative Assembly is not in session. Of course, I don't know that Peat Marwick were specifically recommending that the House should be adjourned for nine months at a time. I don't think that was the intention. But they did say: "The intent that special warrants only be used in exceptional circumstances should be emphasized and encouraged." So we have to ask: what was exceptional or truly extraordinary over the last fiscal year, the fiscal year that ends tomorrow, that it requires $200 million in special warrants?
I can believe that the government can't plan for everything and that there can be exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. That in itself isn't unusual. But Peat Marwick said: "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."
Was that done? When the government passed the cabinet order, the special warrant requiring the funding, was there explicit communication with the public, as Peat Marwick is recommending, as to why the urgent and immediate moneys were required? And was that distributed? That's one thing we'll want to ask when we get into committee stage on this bill.
Furthermore, Peat Marwick said: "We recommend that an annual statement of all special warrants and an explanation of their urgency be included not only with the public accounts, but in the supply bill itself." Of course, we see in the supply bill that there is a schedule attached with a very, very brief description as to why the special warrant is required, but I wonder if that really fits the recommendations of Peat Marwick. We will have a chance to discuss that as we head into committee stage on this bill.
The reason I raise this is that I wonder if the government is really taking account of the advice that they commissioned at great taxpayer expense. Are they really taking that into account? And we're going to find out why the extraordinary and unforeseen expenditures were made when we go through these special warrants, each one individually. And we're also going to be able to debate the issue of interim supply itself.
The leader of the Alliance, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, made a reference to balanced-budget legislation and the fact that there are many groups in this Legislature that at one time or another have advocated the need for a law that would require the government to impose upon itself the special discipline that would force it to balance its budget each and every year. Even the Premier mused about this in public before the Minister of Finance brought in her recent budget. But we notice that they seem to have backtracked on that now. The Premier seems to have either been confused when he mused, or he has reconsidered the notion that we should have some kind of a law forcing the government to balance its budget.
Interjection.
D. Mitchell: Or he was amused; I'm not sure.
The Leader of the Official Opposition said that he's in favour of balanced-budget legislation, although we're not sure what kind; we haven't seen his specific version yet. If it's the kind that he was required to live under when he was mayor of Vancouver, I'm not really sure that's meaningful, because all he did was raise the taxes to balance the budget every year and force people in Vancouver out of their homes and businesses. I'm not sure that's the kind of balanced-budget legislation we're talking about.
But other members and groups in the House, including the Reform caucus, have talked about the need for some kind of discipline that can only be imposed by law, or perhaps by a constitutional amendment, that would impose fiscal discipline upon a government that might result in special warrants never being allowed or considered without some more explicit approval than simply a secret cabinet order. If that's the case, we might be able to debate that in the committee stage of this bill; I'm not sure. The Minister of Finance might have some comments on whether or not balanced-budget legislation might be a solution to this problem. There are possible reforms that would increase the fiscal accountability of government to this Legislature.
[10:45]
One of the main problems is that we've had a lengthy adjournment of more than nine months. That's why the government had to pass special warrants through cabinet without coming to the Legislature to seek the money; they're now doing that retroactively.
I'd like to conclude my comments by reminding the government about the principle of the Legislature -- why we're here; why grievances should be expressed before supply is granted -- and to remind the Minister of Finance of the words of a former Leader of the Opposition in this Legis-
[ Page 13135 ]
lature: "Not a dime without debate." Those words were expressed by a former Leader of the Opposition in this Legislature when the socialist government of the early 1970s was in power. They were engaged in this process time and time again, in different manners for different legislation, and through a budgetary process that was flawed and continues to be flawed and needs reform now, a generation later, even more than it did back then. The Leader of the Opposition of that day, whose name was Bill Bennett, used the rallying cry of "Not a dime without debate" to chase the previous socialist government from office. I wonder if this socialist government in 1995 has learned a lesson.
W. Hurd: One of the marvellous things about these debates is the opportunity to participate as other members offer their views on interim supply and special-warrant spending.
One of the exercises in which I have been involved in the last few days is to carefully examine the expenditures of Forest Renewal B.C., which is a Crown corporation in British Columbia. I look upon special warrants as almost a good news, bad news scenario. The bad news is that the government has overspent its budget for the last fiscal year; the good news is that it actually comes before this assembly at all.
The forest renewal crown corporation, for example -- which members on all sides of the House, except the official opposition, supported -- has at its disposal $450 million which will never come before this House in any other forum than a select standing committee. When you examine the expenditures of this forest renewal corporation and understand that there are 47 different agencies of government in the province today, I wonder whether any government would be willing to recall the House in October, with a fixed parliamentary calendar, when more and more expenditures of government are being shoved off onto the books of Crown corporations.
Surely any government that thought there was going to be a chance of a budget overrun would simply use the books of a Crown agency to expand the scope of its spending, and we would never see a special warrant come before this House. In listening to the debate from the other members of the assembly, I find their support for this Crown agency rather troubling, in the sense that it does represent a vehicle to ensure that special warrants may never occur. Therefore, overspending that the members referred to could conceivably never come before this assembly. I think that's an important issue o comment upon. The use of 47 different agencies to expand the scope of government expenditures beyond the normal budgetary process is one that is deeply troubling to the opposition. But in the case of Forest Renewal B.C., which represents $450 million of expenditures, the members not only opposite but also from the other parties, chose to support it. It's amazing how, in the course of these debates, hypocrisy raises its head from almost everywhere.
C. Serwa: I wasn't going to speak very long on this particular subject of interim supply, but I will speak on it because it is a very important matter that comes before the House. I think all of us recognize and fully appreciate that some ministries really are not masters of their own expenditure destinies -- for example, forestry. We may have a dry year, we may have a lot of forest fires, and it's not possible when the estimates go in the previous spring to ascertain just what is going to confront us on that matter. So if we make more than adequate provision for that -- or perhaps snow removal, or a one-in-a-hundred-year flood, for example, that causes considerable damage to our road and transportation system -- then the expenditures have to be made by government.
Those are legitimate expenditures and a legitimate responsibility of government outside the control of the executive branch of government; it's more in the domain of the good Lord, perhaps. Certainly in that particular case, the asking for an interim supply measure is warranted. There is nothing else that can be done, and it does come before the House. The reality is that we have an opportunity, through the extended debate process, to legitimately debate that type of expenditure.
The type of expenditure that is faced by the Minister of Health, for example, is similar again. The Ministry of Health has no real control over a lot of their expenditures. It is another type of ministry in which we can get into an expenditure overrun that is legitimate.
I have a great deal of concern with overruns, which are enhanced by the government of the day, that occur in the Ministry of Social Services. I do not think those are legitimate, and fortunately for us, we do have the opportunity to come and debate that particular matter in interim supply.
Other ones, though, that have gone out of hand include legal aid services, which are entirely within the control of the Attorney General and the executive branch of government. Surely, that is something this particular government is responsible for expanding. It has gone and run away from them completely. So it's entirely appropriate, as we discuss interim supply, that challenges go to those specific areas where the government has allowed them to expand and the public, the taxpayer, is forced to pay.
I think that this is a very important part of the legislative process and a very important part of the day. I'm particularly favourable to a legislative calendar that would perhaps facilitate earlier debates so that there is an opportunity to come before the Legislature. I'm in agreement and in support of that type of reform.
All in all, I look forward to participating in Committee of the Whole on interim supply, and I thank you very much for the opportunity to say these few words.
Deputy Speaker: I recognize the member for Okanagan West.
J. Tyabji: East.
Deputy Speaker: Did I get them mixed up? I meant East. My apologies, member.
J. Tyabji: That's fine, hon. Speaker. People do tend to get us confused quite often.
I rise to participate in this debate because the point that I think the government is missing perhaps is what they committed to do before they came in. In addition to saying that special warrants were unacceptable, I note with interest that the special warrants that have been required this year show a true lack of a change in the system. The Attorney General's special warrants are most striking, even though it's true that the Ministry of Health has the largest overrun in terms of dollar figures. It's a very small percentage relative to the annual budget of the Ministry of Health. However, with the Attorney General's budget, we're approaching a 5 percent overrun in terms of what was allocated. We can note when we look at what it is with respect to the second special warrant that many of those things that are cited as reasons for the overrun are part of the political agenda of the NDP -- for example, higher than anticipated costs to fund the Legal Services Society's implementation of the private sector staff model; overcrowding in correctional facilities, which has not
[ Page 13136 ]
been addressed; and environmental cleanup costs at these correctional facilities, which probably have fair wages as part of the increased costs. We know that many of the programs that the NDP have brought in are going to be bumping up some of the costs within these ministries.
What is most striking with respect to the Attorney General's office is that there has been no significant reform of the judicial system. Without that, reform costs will continue to increase. Legal Services Society's costs, which were cited by the member for Okanagan West, are through the roof, and those are a statutory obligation. Under the current system there will continue to be rising costs.
We know that as we see society changing -- for example, with the downturn in the economy that occurred a little while ago -- there tends to be a ripple effect. There are going to be associated litigation costs. As people lose their jobs, they will turn to legal services as an avenue for some sort of mitigation of the problems associated with those litigation costs. If we look at every single advocacy society in this province, the one request they have had of this government is that they change the judicial process so that litigation doesn't continue to be an astronomical cost for small businesses and families. None of that has been done. Until that is done, we will continue to have legal services cost overruns.
Correctional facilities are in drastic need of change. We know that our penal institutions are not serving the objectives for which they were intended. We know there are cries throughout this province for changes in our judicial system that not only take into account individual civil litigation but also the criminal justice branch of the Attorney General's office. Most specifically, youth programs should be preventive rather than reactive. Right now the entire Attorney General's office is geared toward a reactive process that is extremely expensive. It's no wonder we are having such enormous overruns, and these overruns will continue.
The budget we have before us now will face the same obstacles the last budget did -- and the budget before that -- until the government lives up to the commitments they made in the last election and the election before that. They should take a serious look at changing the way they approach controversy and confrontation and criminal and civil disagreements. They haven't done any of that. We can all say that the Attorney General's office does have a statutory obligation to meet this and then ask how much of these expenses are 100 percent avoidable. How many of these things would not have to be paid for if the government had taken the initiative?
I want to mention that I think the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi gave a very articulate speech with respect to the Minister of Finance's perspective before she was the Minister of Finance. The one thing I would take issue with is that he did refer to this government as a democratic government. He said that many of the members of this government hold to democratic principles. I take issue with that. If we look at the status quo in British Columbia for the last ten or 15 years, then perhaps we could say that this government is democratic. Given the status quo, given that governments in B.C. were committed to special warrant spending, infrequent sittings of the House and basically an autocratic way of governing the province, then this government is no less democratic than previous governments.
Where I hold them accountable is that before they came in, they committed to actually reforming the process. They committed to bringing about changes that everyone in this province has been asking for for at least a decade, as anyone who has been following politics in this province knows. Those changes include fixed sittings of the House; they include proper fiscal management -- not shuffling debt into Crown corporations and not overrunning budgets because of statutory obligations when there has been no reform, but properly addressing democratic issues as they should come before this House.
This House has been practically obsolete under this government. That is hardly democratic. This House has become a showcase either for the government's political agenda, which they wish to review.... Those that they don't wish to review they pass by order-in-council. In question period, for example, we have the back-and-forth kind of mudslinging that has become the practice of this government and the official opposition in the last year. None of that is democratic, and until this government lives up to the commitments that it made before the last election, this government cannot be taken seriously. The status quo is not acceptable. It's not enough for us to continue to tread water with respect to the way we approach political issues in British Columbia. Where this government has failed in this debate on the special-warrant spending is that they have not done any of the things they committed to do before they came in. Without doing any of those things, they cannot be perceived to be democratic or any better than any of their predecessors. Until there is a sincere commitment to change things, there will not be proper parliamentary democracy in British Columbia.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
Special-warrant spending should be eliminated. We should have adequate debate prior to expenditure, and we should have proper debate of all of the programs that are listed as justification for the special warrants prior to the money being spent and prior to those programs coming in.
The Speaker: There being no further speakers, the hon. minister closes debate.
[11:00]
Hon. E. Cull: I'm not going to prolong the debate at this point, but I do want to address the one concern that has been raised by a number of the members. I'm sure we're going to hear about some of the interesting ideas raised around budgets, legislation, calendars and all the rest of that at other times during the budget debate.
I want to assure the members that the special warrants are clearly not treated in an offhand way. In fact, the first course we take during the budget year when it is apparent that there are unforeseen expenditures -- even when those unforeseen expenditures are statutory -- is that we go back to the ministry and look at their budget to ensure that there are no places where they can trim spending, make additional savings, defer programs or do whatever is possible to stay within budget. When that has been exhausted, as a result of the Financial Administration Act we do have to move to special warrants.
But we don't stop there. The members will note that the spending for 1994-95 is projected to be slightly under budget. Despite the fact that some ministries, through means that were not available to be controlled, have not stayed within their budget because of unforeseen circumstances, we have made offsetting savings in other ministries to ensure that total government spending for the fiscal year stayed on target.
So with that I will now close second reading debate. I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 6, Supply Act (No. 1), 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
[ Page 13137 ]
SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1995
The House in committee on Bill 6; D. Lovick in the chair.
The Chair: Before I go to section 1, I understand that we have agreement whereby we are going to treat this entire bill seriatim fashion -- namely, we will do sections 1, 2 and 3, and then we will go by order with each of the schedules appended, dealing specifically with Agriculture, then the Attorney General, then the Minister of Education, and so forth. Is that agreeable? All right.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
On the schedule.
On warrant 1.
R. Chisholm: I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the $13.6 million entails, and if he would detail the whole program for this House so we can see exactly where the $13 million is going and the justification for it. If he would take five minutes to outline this, the rest of the House would understand exactly what we are discussing at this point in time.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'd be happy to explain. This $13.6 million is added to a reallocation within the ministry, for a total of $16.8 million to a transition program to pick up those commodities that have not yet negotiated transition programs. The reason for the urgency is that the biggest part of it was the tree fruits. I had engaged in a consultation process with the tree fruit people when they were facing a third bad year in a row. We were then in a position to negotiate what they thought was a suitable transition program, and we put all the transition assistance programs together. So here you have $11.6 million for the tree fruits; potatoes, $1.65 million; processing vegetables, $.55 million; strawberries, $2 million; hogs, $800,000; and others, raspberries and sheep, $200,000. Those total $16.8 million.
There was $3.2 million in the budget for reallocation, so if you take the $3.2 million off $16.8 million, we're left with this $13.6 million. So of that $13.6 million, $11.6 million goes to tree fruits and $2 million goes to other commodities.
R. Chisholm: I can understand the moneys for the transition. I have no real qualms or problems with that. The problem I have is that we've known about some of these problems for three years. These problems come out of '93 and '94, and now we're putting it in a special warrant in 1995. My problem, I guess, is with how we're budgeting. We should have been budgeting more in last year's budget to cover the discrepancies we have within our systems. We knew this three years ago, and yet we are reacting in 1995. My question to the minister is: Is there any way we can address these problems much earlier and then relieve the antagonism that our farmers are experiencing because the government was not responding back in '93, '94 and '95? If we could respond a little sooner, maybe we wouldn't be sitting here three years later discussing a warrant worth $13.6 million.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, we are in a period of transition towards the whole farm safety net. It will provide a safety net that is long term, that is trade safe -- if I can use that word.
With respect to what brought it about at the end of this year, we had the U.S. apple-dumping in February 1994, which we didn't expect, and we knew the effects after that point. The low commodity prices again were known after their sale. There's always a year in delay. We know about the '93 price problem and the net effect of that, into '94, and we're finding out now about the effects of the '94 prices. It's with that knowledge....
Part of the review process was a very thorough analysis of the financial data. The data we get from Statistics Canada is always a year or two late. We got current data by going in and looking at some 50 farmers' operations, which confirmed that there was a serious profitability problem and a serious cash flow problem, and that a cash injection, if it was to do any good, had to be done at this time in order to give the industry the confidence to move into another season.
R. Chisholm: Thank you for your explanation, hon. minister. My point still stands. In 1993 we knew what the prices were in 1994. We should have reacted in 1994; we didn't. Now we're reacting in 1995 for two years. Meanwhile, that has created an awful lot of antagonism, hard feelings and hardships for the Okanagan tree fruit growers, for instance. You've been discussing this with them for that many years too, so you know exactly what I'm talking about.
I'm wondering if this system could be changed or if you could react quicker to these situations, rather than compiling it all and bringing it up three or four years later. Meanwhile, you have farmers who are going through strife only because their government isn't reacting quickly to a situation.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reaction from the industry was: "We'd always like more, but this will help us move toward the revitalization strategy more effectively."
You said we knew '94 prices in '93. It's the other way around; you know '94 prices in '95. So it's always a year later. We are moving toward the whole farm safety net program. There aren't deposits that have built up to give them a cushion. If we'd had good prices in '94 and in '93, we probably would have done all right. Even if it had just been bad prices in '93 and fair prices in '94, we probably would have got through this.
The financial analysis was not done. We needed the information based on the consultations that I undertook with them to find out and confirm the financial situation. As you know, this commodity group has made arguments about what is needed, and we never got down to actually designing the appropriate program until we sat through a very thorough but short process with this industry. We've done that. They've confirmed the direction of revitalization, and they, as an industry, have come together to support this kind of interim assistance that leads us toward the long-term NISA program and crop insurance.
R. Chisholm: From what you're saying to me about the reaction we're now seeing to the system, to NISA and to what's happening in the agriculture industry, will we see an ongoing analysis of these situations from here on in so that we can react a little quicker to the ongoing change to agriculture and the world market? Will this be a continuous thing or is this a onetime issue?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I've made it very clear to the industry that this is it; this is the program. We've extended revitalization out to the year 2000. In terms of transition assistance, this is it. As we approach '99, we, as do all provinces, have to have common programs in place. So I have told them that this is the support project. I've said that they have to fully understand that, and they have to link this support to the long-term safety
[ Page 13138 ]
net, NISA. They have to cede the NISA accounts, which will....
To answer your question "Will we ever get to a point where we can react quickly?" the point is to get into position where the bank accounts of the NISA programs have built up and everybody is on crop insurance. So if there is an emergency, the insurance kicks in. We don't have to design a new program every time there is an impending crisis.
We have to get away from ad hoc assistance. That's why we very carefully designed this program to dovetail with the long-term revitalization. It supports the replant program, and it rewards people who have moved toward quality. We're getting that kind of reaction from the industry.
J. Tyabji: With respect to the $13.6 million, first of all I'd like to say that I'm pleased to see the government trying something with respect to the fruit growers. Obviously that's a long-standing problem, and the industry is in need of a government that's prepared to work with them. How does that $13.6 million break down with respect to where the funding comes from? Is that coming straight through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, or is it going to come through the line ministry? If it does come through the line ministry, is it going to be in consultation with the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The money flows through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, and they will administer it. Immediately after I announced the assistance package, we met with them and talked about its distribution: the proportion that goes to NISA, the proportion that goes to what quality of fruit, and what the distribution is. We negotiated the details of this program with the industry.
[11:15]
J. Tyabji: How much federal money is going to be included in the province's long-term plan for revitalization?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, the Special Measures Committee the federal government set up reported last month. We are still awaiting the reaction from Minister Goodale. We have argued that we have done our part and that they haven't assisted the transition in the tree fruit industry. We don't know what the federal government is going to say. They will fund NISA, but we don't expect any federal dollars into this program. This is a stand-alone program. They will contribute 2 percent -- the 1-2-3 formula: 1 percent provincial, 2 percent federal and 3 percent producer.
J. Tyabji: To what extent did the province try to get federal cooperation to bring down the amount the province had to contribute to the revitalization program? In consideration of that, to what extent is the funding of the Summerland Research Station going to continue under the federal government? I know the recent budget has led to quite a few cutbacks. How is that going to affect spending in the revitalization program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The federal government assistance has been discussed through the special measures committee. As I said, so far they are not forthcoming with any assistance. I would like to correct for the record that the 1-2-3 formula was not the one that applies to tree fruit; it's 2-2-4 for a certain period of time for horticulture projects: 2 percent federal, 2 percent provincial and 4 percent producer. That's ongoing. There is a special one for edible horticulture that has been negotiated nationally.
With respect to the Summerland station, all I can say is that we would like to see it continue. Its future is a bit uncertain; the federal government is trying to claw back. We think it's an essential instrument, and any support that you or anyone can lend in directly lobbying the federal minister to keep that in place would be of help.
J. Tyabji: What was the province's representation on the Special Measures Committee?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There were three provincial representatives on that committee: David Hobson from tree fruits, Ross Husdon, who's with me here from the Tree Fruit Authority, and Wray McDonnell, the horticulturalist ministry employee in the Okanagan.
J. Tyabji: What did the province mandate them to negotiate? Did the province request that they bring forward a position by the province with respect to funding for the revitalization program?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I just want to put some context there. First, it really isn't part of this subject matter, but I'm sure the great tree fruit growing area of the Peace River would be interested in my answer. This is a national committee; it's not just a committee set up for British Columbia. We have, as you know, more assistance for the tree fruit industry than any other province. Other provinces in fact are envious of our program. Everything would have to be agreed there. In fact, I have to say that a lot of provinces are struggling to pay the NISA component, because it's broadened to more commodities. They're struggling. Some of them don't think they can even pay the 1-2-3 formula. While it would be nice to see the federal government kick in more, we couldn't wait for them; the need was now; the dollars had to flow this year. It had to turn an industry that was pessimistic into an optimistic one in very short order.
J. Tyabji: Maybe I should, for the purpose of debate, explain why I'm asking these questions. First, before the province committed to spend $13.6 million on this, I would want to know that they had gone to the federal government with a very specific request for cost-sharing, and I don't believe that was done. Second, two of the three people the minister named as representatives of the province were not, as I understand it, representing the provincial government; they were representing their provincial associations. The only person sent by the provincial government would have been Mr. Husdon, from the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, and I'm not sure to what extent the province was asking him to specifically request federal cost-sharing in that program.
Further, I think it's important to note that not many provinces have the kind of tree fruit industry that we have in British Columbia. I don't know that the Manitoba and Saskatchewan tree fruit growers' associations are that jealous of the province's initiative, because they don't have one, or they don't have a significant one. It's important to note that one reason there is some protection in B.C. is that it is a significant portion of the interior economy. So I'd like to know, before the province committed to a $13.6 million reaction, that they did try to get some federal initiative.
With respect to NISA, that was also a reactive measure that was six months late and poorly planned. The province could have had negotiators in well ahead of that safety net being removed and the dumping occurring. The dumping was anticipated by the fruit growers' association, and the province did unnecessarily expend a lot of money by not
[ Page 13139 ]
putting in place adequate measures to anticipate the cost to the growers and the cost to the province, I believe.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: To put it into perspective a little, we had signals six months back from the federal government that they were going to cut some $500 million, maybe $600 million, out of their Agriculture budget that would have gone to farmers. It's in that context that we were going to go and ask, when they were already funding 2-2-4 and enhanced for horticulture, when they knew the province had a program in there supporting this. It just was not a starter. As I said, I have at least a couple of letters to the minister arguing that they should pay more for transition, but they flatly refused, based on the fact that they were already contributing. They would not contribute to revitalization. Their contribution is through things like the research station and that kind of thing. With respect to other provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec all have horticulture and tree fruits; it's not just British Columbia and one or two other provinces.
J. Tyabji: Going back to the administration of the program through the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, is the minister referring to the one-day seminars that were conducted -- one in Summerland, which I attended -- as the consultation process with the industry prior to the program being set in place?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I held four and attended three of the one-day sessions which we called the Forum. There were representatives of the organizations that represent the independent growers. There were actually full-day consultations. We looked at options. We looked at analysis of the industry. We looked at all the hard data. We looked at the pros and cons of different options and approaches to assisting the industry, everything from rich to no assistance, and those were well received by the growers. There were about 30 growers, representatives of packing houses and so on, and they were broadly representative of the industry.
J. Tyabji: To get it on the record, what is the ultimate objective of the transition assistance program, and to what extent is it mandated to work on reforming the ALR as part of that final viability, if that's the goal, of the growers?
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The ultimate objective is to achieve the maximum amount of revitalized industry. We can't pick a figure. It will depend a lot on the viability of the industry and how individual farmers see it. There is nothing in here that will deal with any kind of amendment to the ALR. I can tell you that the wine industry, or the grape industry, tells me that if you didn't have an ALR, you wouldn't have an industry, because during the period when they had troubles, those lands would have been sold off and wouldn't be available now. I'm hoping that the same feeling will be there. The Agricultural Land Reserve is there to stay. We are making amendments as people come forward with applications that the Land Commission can see fit to approve, but in my view, the ultimate objective is to have a revitalized industry that can get its income from $2,500 an acre, which it is now, on average, up to something close to $5,000, to be able to produce the profits.
We know that industry has major problems with what it gets from the marketplace. About 53 percent of their lack of profitability is a marketplace problem. There's a major part that's management, but we hope that the replant program gives a cushion to those people who have replanted. It gives them some income while they're waiting for production from those crops.
J. Tyabji: I think it's important to put on the record that I asked to what extent there would be a reform of the ALR. The Alliance is strongly in support of a reformed ALR, which means continuing the ALR in a slightly different form so there would actually be a bit more flexibility with respect to some of the activities that occur on ALR land. We do not support the elimination of the ALR, and we don't think that would be lending itself to having viable agriculture in B.C.
Going back to the minister's comments that he has sent two letters to the federal Minister of Agriculture with respect to tree fruits, I would recommend to this minister, if I could, that there be somewhat of a turbot-style war on agriculture in B.C. The last federal budget was abysmal with respect to support programs -- or even initiatives -- to allow a self-sustaining agriculture industry in B.C., and I haven't heard a word from the provincial government. When we look at the minimal expenditure of agriculture in terms of the global budget, it's time for someone to stand up and speak in favour of agriculture so that when we see $13.6 million on the books it doesn't seem like an unreasonable amount to put out to save an industry that's producing hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of jobs and secondary spinoffs.
In terms of the long-term impact of this program referred to in the special warrant, I'm not comfortable that the minister is even looking to the federal government for long-term assistance. There was a reference to the Summerland Research Station, which is practically being shut down by the federal government by their last budget. Is this going to impact future expenditures, or even the expenditures that are listed on the special warrant? This minister may have been counting on the status quo of expenditure when they issued this special warrant.
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You can be hollering and have it come to nothing, or you can be working at trying to be effective. With respect to B.C.'s share of agriculture funding, we have agreement from the provincial ministers that there should be an equitable share. We made the case that to this point, largely because of the prairie grain subsidies, B.C. hasn't got its share for its industry. We have agreement from the ministers that the formula for flowing the dollars will see an equitable share come to British Columbia. We're hopeful that B.C. will see an increase in total. So it's in that context that you have to put the tree fruits. The federal government is committed to the long term and supporting the safety nets. Because we're spreading safety nets to more commodities, this is going to result in a larger bill.
So I'm out there supporting the industry. It's an industry that's been revitalized. I'm arguing about the importance of it all the time, and I don't know that more could be done. You might take on the federal government, but it's in the context that we are dealing with them on other issues. In particular, we have issues around grain, where we have to work very hard to get our share of funding that is going to go into the grain industry.
The Chair: Just before I entertain the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, could I advise members that certainly we want to have a complete debate on these things; however, we aren't going to canvass the entire estimates of the ministry. We are only dealing with a relatively small warrant. I offer that caution to everybody -- I underline "everybody".
G. Wilson: I appreciate that you will entertain us, and I look forward to what entertainment we may have.
I only have one question to the minister, and that is with respect to the $13.6 million. When we are trying to cut down
[ Page 13140 ]
on the amount of middle-level bureaucracy in the province, why would you choose to put $13.6 million into the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority for its administration? Much of that money is going to be dissipated through that organization. Why would you not, in terms of a direct subsidy, simply be able to provide the farmers $13.6 million? That is clearly what we are hearing from the farmers.
[11:30]
Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Not one penny of that money going through will stop and be used up by administration. It will flow directly to farmers -- every penny of it.
On warrant 2.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I thought it would be useful to make some opening comments by way of explaining what vote 17 is required to do. The primary objective of the expenditure of this money above and beyond the voted allocation is to ensure public safety and access to justice. Approximately half of the amount is to increase public safety through secure corrections systems.
I'll give members some of the details. First of all, dealing with overcrowding in both adult and youth correctional facilities led to overruns on our anticipated budget of $8.9 million in the adult custody and $3.5 million in the youth custody. The budget year that we are concluding this week had made a provision in the adult system for about 200 additional beds over the previous year, which was an increase of about 10 percent. We had proposed an increase of about 12 percent in the youth bed budget. However, the average number of adult offenders in correctional institutions increased by 18 percent, and the average number of youth offenders in the youth system increased by 26 percent. So what happened was that even though we had a huge budget increase, by way of 10 and 12 percent, we had an even larger increase in the number of people we were required to supervise and house.
The ministry is working to meet this increased demand and at the same time ensure public safety, partly by increasing correctional capacity through new facilities. I have to say at this point that capital borrowing is required in order to produce new facilities.
I fear that voters may not understand that by choosing one of the opposition parties, they may put an end to that capital budgeting for additional correctional facilities. The Leader of the Opposition -- for one, at least -- is on record as saying no more borrowing. Public safety will be greatly jeopardized by the election of any but this party, come the next election.
So part of our response is to increase capacity through new facilities. In addition, very importantly, we are exploring alternatives to custody for low-risk offenders. I, for one, believe very strongly that we need to focus as much attention and financial support as we possibly can, and develop as much public support as we can, for alternative measures other than incarceration.
Unfortunately, we are also moving into double-bunking of our prison population, which I might say has become necessary because of insufficient funding for the system and the increased demands. But I have to say it is in violation of the United Nations covenant, which does not make me particularly comfortable.
There is $500,000 in this amount for additional costs for the keep-of-prisoners program. As members know, this is money given to municipalities that provide lockup facilities that are, in fact, provincial obligations. We had budgeted $5.5 million last year, and we needed another half a million dollars for that amount. For the members' information, we are now in the process of carrying out a review of this entire keep-of-prisoners program to see whether we can identify new efficiencies.
On March 27 last year, which was too late to include it in the budget, there was an agreement between the Public Service Employee Relations Commission, PSERC, and the B.C. Government Employees' Union relating to re-evaluation of salary levels in the correctional system. The re-evaluation led to pay adjustments totalling just short of $5 million -- closer, in fact, to $4.5 million. That's an additional cost we had not anticipated, because the agreement was reached following putting the budget to bed last year.
An Hon. Member: Negotiations were going on.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The member suggests that negotiations were going on. But if we had included an amount for that in the budget, our bargaining position with the union would have been severely impaired. Unlike members of the Reform Party, who want to tip their hats to the people they're negotiating with, I chose not to do that.
Of this $33-plus million, $4.5 million comes from environmental cleanup costs, primarily at Oakalla Prison Farm. There are some small amounts at Terrace, in that old facility that people will know if they've driven Highway 16, but this is primarily at Oakalla. It is to clean up the grounds that had been contaminated over the years by the semi-industrial nature of the site -- if members want the details, I'll provide gory details -- and what went on at the site. So those costs were incurred by us. It's fair to say there is some debate about whether those kinds of costs should be paid for by BCBC or by the ministry, and in this case, it turned out that the ministry had to pay for them. We had not budgeted for them, because an argument can be made that it's a BCBC responsibility. Another $300,000 of this is for counselling programs at correctional facilities. As members know, some two-thirds of adult offenders and more than half of young offenders in correctional facilities have a history of substance abuse, and we provide counselling programs. The programs we provided last year stayed at the same level, but the funding required was some $300,000 more than we had anticipated as a result of the way in which those programs get funded from various sources.
There is $600,000 in this amount for social service tax payments for legal services. This is $600,000 that the ministry pays, but we pay it into the Ministry of Finance, so there's no net loss to the taxpayer. This comes about from the fact that under the previous administration, many Crown counsel were on contract, as opposed to working for the government, and the process with the program to move people from contract to employment took longer than anticipated. The anticipation was that it would be complete by the end of the last fiscal year; in fact, it was not completed until around July. As a result, there were several months when Crown prosecutors who were still on contract were therefore required to pay social service tax on their billings. That amount is $600,000 and accounts for the....
Interjection.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: If the member wants to debate the year before last year's legislative program, he should get into a time warp and go back and do that.
Another big amount in this $33 million is $5.3 million. This is for additional resources and Crown counsel to deal
[ Page 13141 ]
with court case backlogs, increasing case complexities and other volume pressures on the court system. In the last three years we've seen a 21 percent increase in the number of adult criminal court cases, and this has resulted in a growing backlog, as I know members are aware. We've acted on this backlog by hiring 14 additional Crown counsel, we've expanded the number of disclosure courts from two to seven, we're in the process of doing a one-year review of old Crown cases, we're doing expanded diversion for low-risk people, and we are reviewing the tariff. Additional Crown counsel resources to address increasing case complexity and other volume pressures have also contributed to this $5.3 million. Five million dollars has been allocated to the Legal Services Society. I need to take a minute on this issue, to have members understand what this $5 million is for.
Members will remember, I hope, that last year I said there would be no more special warrants for the Legal Services Society. That was in reference to their inability over the years to function within the budget for the delivery of their services. During the course of the year a reform of how legal services are delivered in this province was initiated, and it has begun to be implemented.
As members know -- we've had discussions in the House before about it -- this reform involves moving to a partial, mixed-model system that has been recommended by just about every person and group that has looked at the issue of how they deliver legal aid, including the Canadian Bar Association in a report they did on the subject.
In moving to a mixed model, you incur additional costs during the transition period because while you're hiring a limited number of lawyers -- as is being done now -- to take on a caseload, you still have lawyers in the system who have already been assigned cases and whose bills haven't come in. You have a period of time when there are, in effect, double costs: your old costs from year-old cases or, in some cases, even two- and three-year-old cases that are still coming in, and current cases that have just been assigned. As the new staff lawyers begin, you have to pay them as well, so you've got this double cost.
We have had to deal with the transition costs that are required to produce a system that will, in the long run, save us money and prevent the kind of escalation we've had in the past. During the course of the year, Treasury Board allocated additional funds specifically and exclusively for the costs of implementing the reform model, and that is $5 million.
The Legal Services Society expects -- the financial year obviously isn't over yet -- that their costs are likely to exceed the amount of money allocated to them, but we are not funding that. We have said to them that they have to find that money within the resources they have. For them, that means being even tighter this year than they were last year. If members have been marking all these numbers down and adding them up, it should total the $33.6 million in this special warrant. I'll be glad to try to answer any questions members have about any of these issues.
M. de Jong: I rise on a point of privilege, which I think is the appropriate way to do this.
Members will know that last July a complaint was lodged with the conflict-of-interest commissioner regarding my participation in a debate on another miscellaneous statutes amendment bill that included reference to the Legal Services Society. When this bill was tabled this morning, out of an abundance of caution I again sought confirmation from Mr. Hughes that I would not be precluded by any of the conflict legislation from participating in this debate. I emphasize that am not declaring a pecuniary interest in any portion of this bill. Mr. Hughes, whom I have spoken with, advises that he is tied up with other matters and doesn't have an opportunity to provide me with an endorsation of my ability to participate without conducting further investigation into the matter. For obvious reasons, he does not have an opportunity to do that.
I didn't participate in second reading debate. Through pure happenstance, that was apparently a wise decision. In this day and age of conflict investigations, I will take this opportunity to emphasize to the government the difficulties that will arise when legislation is tabled at the last minute and members are unable to get an opinion that they clearly require. The presence of a section of a schedule to this bill will preclude this member from participating in the debate on any section of the bill. I am therefore withdrawing from the debate, but out of an abundance of caution for the reasons I have mentioned, not because I believe I have a pecuniary interest.
[11:45]
The Chair: I thank the member for his comments.
I recognize the member for West Vancouver-Capilano.
On warrant 2.
J. Dalton: I would like to thank the Attorney General for his overview. You might describe it as a pre-emptive strike before we get into some of the more detailed questions on warrant 2. Perhaps in my introductory remarks I can also welcome the two ministry officials who have joined us. Too often in this committee.... In the estimates, of course, we do get the opportunity to give proper recognition to the officials who come in to assist the minister, but I think we should do the same even with regard to this relatively short process of dealing with a special warrant.
If I'm allowed to comment on the political overtone in some of the remarks the Attorney General made.... I believe I detected some passing reference to the official opposition, even though this may not be directly in point. I have obtained the Hansard of two years ago, when we were dealing with special warrants in the Attorney General's ministry. Questions and answers were raised with regard to the extent of the overrun in the ministry. I thought it might just be helpful to remind the Attorney General that in response as to why.... At that time we were debating, at least for one particular warrant, a fairly significant cost overrun. I should add that the cumulative overrun of the Attorney General in these three warrants -- and we're dealing with one of them right now, of course -- is over $34 million out of the Attorney General's budget of $780 million for the '94-95 period.
I just want to remind the Attorney General of what he said two years ago. In fact, it was March 31, 1993. He responded to the member for Richmond-Steveston about the cost overruns: "If the member wants it, we can provide it at another time." I would say, in parentheses, that the Attorney General was referring to providing more detail if needed. The Attorney General went on to say: "In the scheme of things -- we're pulling a C.D. Howe -- this is not a lot of money." I thought it might be relevant to read that into the record. Even though we all may fondly recall the infamous words of C.D. Howe -- "What's a million?" -- I hope the Attorney General is not running his ministry with the overall attitude, "What's $34.3 million?" or any sums of that nature, because this is a significant amount of money, and of course it's a significant issue.
[ Page 13142 ]
Putting that aside, let me firstly ask.... This isn't specifically a budget-related question on warrant 2, but I've noted that the original order-in-council of March 6 that approved this warrant has been amended. And I see the Attorney General is recognizing that.
One thing did catch my eye, and the Attorney General commented on it, so perhaps we can lead off with this: why is it that the Legal Services Society cost overrun was not in the original March 6 order-in-council and was added to the amended warrant 302, which is the one before the committee today?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a good question. The original warrant had, as all warrants do, the descriptions drafted by Ministry of Finance officials, and it was sent to me. In fact, if my memory is correct, it was faxed to me at home in Campbell River and I signed it. I did not notice then that it did not include the reference to the $5.3 million, I think, Legal Services Society component.
The warrant had not gone through the ministry so that ministry officials could look at it to see if the wording was correct. Once we'd noticed that that was incomplete information, I felt immediately that we needed to do a new warrant to ensure that the full description was available. We did it, and that's what happened.
J. Dalton: I thank the Attorney General for that response. I guess I was a bit concerned that perhaps he had overlooked the additional $5 million, but of course he's given us the explanation that that was not the case. I don't think we'll take this occasion to debate the merits of the mixed-model system within the Legal Services Society. I'm sure that's an issue we can deal with more fully in the estimates themselves for the coming year.
But I do have some questions I would like to put to the Attorney General on some other aspects of warrant 2. I know that he's gone through this in some detail, and it's very helpful to have the overview as to the various figures. But I'm wondering, for example, with regard to the environmental cleanup at the two corrections sites, why it was not possible to more accurately budget that. It would seem to me that when these facilities are being converted, it should be possible to project the actual costs of cleanup more accurately.
Just as an aside, I noted the Attorney General's remarks about whether this should be an Attorney General item or a B.C. Buildings Corporation item. Of course that really isn't relevant. It's like the constant discussion and comment we get from across the floor about off-loading from Ottawa. I think we must consistently remind all ministers and government officials that there's only one taxpayer. I don't care which pocket you take it out of, you're going to the same person and the same pockets. It throws us all off track when we deal with off-loading and whether the budget should be in one ministry or another.
Hon. C. Gabelmann: The amount is there because, when the budget was prepared before the fiscal year began, we had fully anticipated that the costs of closing Oakalla and preparing it for sale would be a BCBC responsibility. It seemed a logical conclusion to reach, so there was no consideration of putting that allocation into our budget. Most of the costs of preparing the site for its eventual sale were, in fact, incurred by BCBC, but -- for reasons only the accountants within government can answer -- a decision was made outside of my control and outside of the ministry's control that the environmental cleanup portions of the cost of demobilizing the site should be incurred by our ministry. That decision was made during the course of the fiscal year. It was completely unanticipated by us, nor did we have any advance warning from Finance that we should expect to incur that obligation.
J. Dalton: Well, in response to that I guess I can say that at least we have the opportunity in this committee to review such cost overruns, whereas, as all committee members know, we don't have the same opportunity to deal with Crown corporations and agencies and what their overruns might be.
I would like to just ask a few more questions about warrant 2. There's a reference in the summary to court case backlogs. I think more and more of the public and, of course, the legal profession itself are becoming concerned about the backlogs in the courts. In fact, just last week a Provincial Court judge from Kamloops made comments about the very serious nature of backlogs, and I am sure the Attorney General is aware of that. This will be a long-range and longstanding issue, and we will deal with it in far more detail in the estimates. I would just like to put it on record that we all know the serious implications of backlogs in both the civil and criminal courts. As the Attorney General well knows, there have to be some better methods to address them than the ones we have in place now. People have commented to me that we should consider night sittings and perhaps weekend sittings, and of course other methods such as diversion, which the Attorney General referred to. It's not a question, but I'd like to put that on record for now. We will canvass that in far more detail during the estimates.
Let me ask something about corrections. The Attorney General referred to the overcrowding, and that's well documented. Do we have any figures as to the cost of double-bunking that is included in the $33.6 million in warrant 2?
Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't answer that question right off the top. I may well be able to do so by 2:30, and I would undertake to try to get information to answer that. Given the time, that may be an appropriate way of handling it.
I know it wasn't a question, but let me just say about the statement with respect to backlog that it is a serious issue, one which we are treating as a high-priority problem. We are working on solutions in a wide variety of areas, including all the areas that the member mentioned plus additional ones. In respect of the comments by the judge in Kamloops, this was a family case. As the member knows, we are now embarked on a pilot project to try to deal with family cases in a different way, with the family justice reform project that is being piloted in four communities around the province. We hope later this year to be able to evaluate that program. I fully expect we're going to find that this is another alternative way to deal with family disputes many -- not all, but in many cases -- which will again help to reduce the pressure on the court system. But it's a serious problem, and one which we are focusing a lot of time, energy and resources on at the present time.
With that, hon. Chair, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12 noon.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]