[ Page 3125 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Hospital user fees. Mrs. Dailly –– 3125

PCL Privatization. Mr. Passarell –– 3125

Dynatek Electronics. Mr. Nicolson –– 3126

Habitat conservation fund. Mrs. Wallace –– 3126

Coal slick on Stuart Channel. Mrs. Wallace –– 3127

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Transportation and Highways estimates.

(Hon. A. Fraser)

On vote 76: minister's office –– 3127

Mr. Rose

Ms. Sanford

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 58: minister's office –– 3130

Hon. Mr. McClelland

Mr. Gabelmann

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Stupich

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 67: minister's office –– 3138

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Hanson

Mr. Michael

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Davis

Ms. Sanford

Division

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Universities, Science and Communications estimates, (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

On vote 85: minister's office –– 3149

Mr. Nicolson

Tabling Documents –– 3149

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1984

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like the House to welcome some special visitors from New Zealand in the gallery this afternoon: my wife's sister and her husband and two children. I'd like the House to welcome Christine and Phillip Bell-Booth and their children Anna and Emily.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like the House to welcome one of my more charming constituents, raised in the Cassidy area and returning to the coast after a 17-year term entertaining in Toronto and a tour of Europe and North America: Miss Lynn McNeil, piano player and singer, in the members' gallery.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, of particular interest to the Minister of Labour, she specializes in a collection from the Big Band era, and has a collector's comer — which may remind the minister of something — that she's currently showing in the Bengal Lounge, evenings, for the rest of the month.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I note in the members' gallery today some distinguished visitors: Dr. Gibson, who is chairman of the Universities Council; Dr. Saywell, the new president of Simon Fraser University; and my own acting deputy and careful tour-guider, Andy Soles.

MR. LAUK: In the public galleries today, I want to introduce Joe Jacoy and his daughter Chris. Mr. Jacoy is the master treasurer of the Giuseppe Garibaldi club in British Columbia. Would the House welcome them both.

Oral Questions

HOSPITAL USER FEES

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Health. Is he aware that the Nanaimo General Hospital has been forced, as a result of Social Credit government policy, to require all hospital patients to post a $60 deposit on admission?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I'm not aware of that, nor do I believe the hospital would be able to impose that upon a person who doesn't have the opportunity of putting up $60. I'll check into it; I haven't been made aware of that.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the fact that the minister will check into it, but I would also like to give him some supplementaries to consider when he's checking. Is he aware that the seven-day deposit, which increases from a minimum of $60 if one goes into a semi-private or private room, applies not only to elective patients but also to those who are there for emergency? I wonder if the minister would also check into that for me.

The further supplementary to check on is this. I understand that a number of hospitals have said that they are seeing more seriously ill patients, especially those who are unemployed, putting off hospital visits because of the user fees imposed by Social Credit. I would like the minister to come back and give us a report on that, please.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to bring back a report on the material that is factual — the conjecture and nonsense I probably won't be able to respond to.

MRS. DAILLY: I am referring to government policy. I've always thought most of their policy was a myth, and now the minister is admitting that it is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is not government policy that a hospital require patients to post a bond. That would be a hospital policy, and we'd be pleased to look into it.

MRS. DAILLY: We are not discussing the posting of a bond. We are discussing the imposition of user fees, which is the policy of the Social Credit government. So when the minister checks into this, Mr. Speaker, will he please check on the imposition of user fees that are being imposed to the extent that people who are ill can now no longer even show up at the hospital because of the imposition of that user fee.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). First, may I ask the House Leader whether or not we may expect the Minister of Finance during question period?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're suggesting he's expecting? I don't believe so, no.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I obviously caught the House Leader asleep. I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, and I would like to know whether or not the Minister of Finance is expected in the chamber during question period.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hopefully.

PCL PRIVATIZATION

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for transit in the province. Will the minister confirm that Mr. John Kelly of Killarney Management Corp. has been reappointed president of PCL and had his contract extended to complete the liquidation of PCL?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I will confirm that this is true. The contract has been extended.

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the fact that one of the bidders for Pacific Coach Lines is Conmac Stages, will the minister at least agree to a moratorium on the sale of PCL pending a full public inquiry into bus safety and safety precautions?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I am unaware as to those who have tendered bids or will be the successful people in that transaction. I have a commitment to wind the company down, and we're in the process of doing that. I am sure that any concerns regarding safety will be dealt with by the board of directors, which concern is of course being expressed now by the member in asking the question. I'll see that this is taken into consideration by the board.

[ Page 3126 ]

DYNATEK ELECTRONICS

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister for Universities, Science and Communications: because of media manipulation by the minister last May, thousands of unemployed Victorians lined up just prior to the election campaign to sign up for promised jobs at the Dynatek Electronics plant, which is sponsored by the minister, and which he said would be open last summer. Will the minister explain why the plant has not yet opened its doors?

HON. MR. McGEER: In replying to the question, I think the member should recognize that the people who lined up were lining up at federal employment centres.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On your word.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not on my word, I can assure you. I think much of that is merely wasting the taxpayers' money, but it does indicate the desire and necessity of our encouraging, by all government policy possible, the location of new and productive industry in this province. While one might have hoped that the federal government would have been far swifter in initially indicating its support for Dynatek equal to what it had already given to other industries located in the province of Quebec and eastern Canada, nonetheless that has happened. It is our hope on this side of the House — I trust shared by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — that that great plant will soon be functioning at full capacity. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that it will not be very long before it will be underway, providing not all of the hoped-for employment on Vancouver Island but at least more than the policies of the NDP were able to produce.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary to the same minister. The government has had a couple of extensions of the deadline for Dynatek to arrange its financing. The federal government, I think, has been on board with the provincial government since August 31, and then there was an extension from the August 31 deadline to December 31, 1983, and Dynatek requested another delay. Can the minister confirm that this government has further extended the financing deadline to March 31, 1984?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm that, and I will bring information back to the member, but I say that if not, we certainly should, and I would so recommend.

MR. NICOLSON: If the minister is going to recommend that, on the basis of what assurance? How firm will it be then if that deadline is extended to March 31, 1984? How much longer can we keep moving the goal posts?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I would hope we would never relax in British Columbia in attempting to stimulate new industry to locate in the province. If it isn't tomorrow in this industry — and I think it will be very soon and it will be this industry — it should be others in addition to this, because with the unemployment situation in British Columbia in an unsatisfactory state and with government not the prime provider of jobs in this country, anybody else's statements notwithstanding, we have to get behind the private sector as the only way to provide true wealth. That's what this government is going to do, Mr. Speaker.

[2:15]

MR. NICOLSON: A final supplementary. I agree that we have to get behind the private sector. I'm not asking the minister when you are going to stop. When are you going to start?

MR. LAUK: What about the tunnel? Is that private or public money?

HON. MR. McGEER: You always resist the obvious ones, and I'm going to pass that one by.

I will say that that's the first time I have heard a member from the New Democratic Party opposite give a ringing endorsation of private enterprise, and I support him for leader.

MR. HOWARD: I understand the Minister of Science used to be a leader at one time himself.

I'd like to direct a question to that neglected minister nobody seems to ask questions of, and that's the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in his capacity as government House Leader. When in this session does he intend to call notice of Motion 32 on the order paper, which is a motion of censure against Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Out of order, as usual.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat.

HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Environment, and it has to do with the habitat conservation fund. I wonder if he would be able to give the House — and I don't expect an exact figure — a ballpark figure of how many dollars he has taken into that conservation fund since April 1 this year to the present date. While he's about it, how many dollars has he expended?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the question is one that requires some detail and, with all respect, would be best placed on the order paper. I don't think it's fair to assume that any member would have that information without taking same on notice or putting it in written form.

MRS. WALLACE: I asked for a ballpark figure, and the minister appeared to be prepared to give me that figure. If not, he can certainly take it on notice, but because of the length of time it takes to get an answer on the order paper, and I'm a bit anxious to get this figure, I was taking this method.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, the information was actually contained in my estimates, which were passed last fall. However, the ballpark figure has ranged in the neighbourhood of $900,000 to about $1.3 million per year that comes in from the $3 surcharge on the hunting and fishing licences. It varies, of course, according to the number of licence purchases, but it's right around a million, plus or minus. It seems to be ranging right over a million dollars now.

[ Page 3127 ]

MRS. WALLACE: The second part of the question: how much has he expended this fiscal year to date on habitat conservation from that fund?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That I would have to get details on, because it is an ongoing fund. There is a habitat advisory board that approves projects as the expenses are attributed to each of those projects, so at any given point in time it would be difficult to say exactly how much has been expended. I can assure the member that the habitat conservation fund is expended on the advice of the advisory board and only for that purpose.

MRS, WALLACE: I thank the minister for the information.

COAL SLICK ON STUART CHANNEL

The Minister of Environment told me yesterday, relative to the coal dust spill or supposed coal dust spill in Stuart Channel, that he had people in there investigating and that he would let us know what was found. I wonder if he has anything further to report on that.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't believe I said that I had people in there investigating. I said I had people checking on it, and I did check into it. The federal authorities have been investigating the spill. Our people have been checking on that, making sure that they are aware of what is being done or what might be done or what should be done. I understand from the federal people that they believe they have identified the ship that caused the problem, and it would seem that the coal dust problem is dissipating.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On Vote 76: minister's office, $200,936.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three different subjects that I'd like to deal with, and I'll try to deal with them expeditiously. This is one of the few opportunities that we get to deal on a one-to-one basis with the minister and his officials. I'm sorry his officials aren't here, because some of the questions I have are of such a nature, in terms of their specificity and detail, that they may require the attention of the minister's officials. But we'll see as we proceed.

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) made a good deal about the restraining devices for children, and the minister responded that he didn't feel that compulsion was necessarily the answer. At the moment there's nothing like that and I would think any improvement would be worthwhile. I realize it's the cost. I won't elaborate on that except to say that cost is always used as an impediment to better auto safety. We know that the kind of lobbies the American automobile companies have mounted to the president's office and the department of transport in the U.S. opposing better auto safety standards in their structure always use the argument that it's a matter of cost. Health costs and costs to individuals through poor auto safety and construction and poor seatbelt legislation! We've known for 25 years that seatbelts were the answer; they used them in planes years and years ago, but we've only recently got around to using them in automobiles. A lot of people still don't like them, for a variety of reasons. Sure, there are always going to be those people who will not use them, despite the spot checks. They get sloppy and lazy. But I don't think people are generally aware of the dangers to children in automobiles and how they can become projectiles in even a very small accident. If there was an element of compulsion there, it would also be an educative force. I would like to identify myself, as a grandparent, with the remarks of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

I was also noticing that I don't think there is any rule or regulation about people riding in the backs of campers. I know you can't ride in a trailer, but I've see a lot of people riding in campers, especially children — lying on their tummies up on top, looking out of the window over the cab. Surely that's the height of foolhardiness for families to permit that. I've seen travel trailers made of plywood and aluminum that have been absolutely smashed like matchsticks in an auto accident, and surely a camper's construction is no better. To allow children to be lying on their bellies and peeking out the top window of those campers is a tremendous and grave risk, and I am sure it adds to the hazard. I won't say any more on that, except to say that I do support better kinds of regulations and legislation dealing with auto and camper safety.

I don't want to hang this committee up for a long period of time, but I'd like to deal briefly with a couple of riding problems. What was true of Burnaby being an artery is also true of my riding, Coquitlam. As you know, Port Moody has a tremendously heavy traffic flow; it was described the other day in the paper as the ozone capital of North America, and that's because of a combination of things. A major factor is always the high traffic density. There is a tremendous traffic density through those communities, and I don't think there is proper access. There is certainly little or no possibility of a bypass, so it seems to me about the only thing we can do is to widen existing arteries in the case of Port Moody, and it is probably possible to do that on the Lougheed side over by Riverview.

I want to deal first with the Port Moody situation. The second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) made quite a pitch for Surrey and the accesses to the new Annacis Island bridge, having to do with the saving of $20 million on the main span. I would like to suggest that if you're looking for places to throw that $20 million, you could take the ALRT into Port Moody. That's where it was intended to go in the first place. There was a commitment that it go there, but that certainly seems to be receding. If you can’t unclog the traffic arteries for that city, then you've got to serve it with some kind of an alternative. I don't think there's any way, regardless of the objective, that you can keep up the freeways, with the kind of growth we've had in the urban areas over the past 25 years. If I may, I can give the House a personal example.

In about 19611 was driving from Coquitlam to UBC. At that time there was really only the Lougheed, and it took me an hour. Subsequent to that time an improved Canada Way, an improved Hastings Street and the 401 were put into force. With all those added arteries there, by 1968 — between 1961 and 1968 — it took an hour from my place to UBC. So what happened was simply that more cars loaded on the freeways, and the answer has to be some kind of mass transportation.

[ Page 3128 ]

We know that the CPR has held the ministry up for ransom on $30 million worth of upgrading, and that's held back a lot of things. I'm really pleased that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is here and listening to this, because of his intense interest and commitment to public transportation. I just wish his interest in coming to Port Moody with that ALRT was a little bit more enthusiastic, because I think that if anything, he has been pessimistic about that.

I would like to leave the Port Moody side of it for a second and dwell a little bit on the Coquitlam problems. I'd like to know the status of the upgrading of the Mary Hill bypass. As the minister knows, plans have been around for at least ten years for the city of Port Coquitlam to be bypassed. A part of the connecting road between Port Coquitlam and the Pitt River has been completed. It's wide, it's terrific, it's like a lot of overpasses, but it really goes from nowhere to nowhere. It hooks on to Kingsway and it goes on to the Pitt, but it really doesn't help us very much when.... We had a bridge washout about two years ago and we've had a Bailey bridge with a light on it ever since. Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman — this is not good enough. There is a tremendous population of suburbanites in that Mary Hill area, and I don't know how much longer they are going to be expected to have to put up with a temporary Bailey bridge when that bypass needs to be completed.

If that were not enough, there are other problems. The other main problem is right in the downtown part of Coquitlam. The truck traffic now is so heavy through the downtown over the Kingsway bridge that it is virtually impossible. You can't pass two cars on it, or a car and a truck, and there has got to be some solution to that problem too, because as long as you don't complete the Mary Hill bypass, the Kingsway bridge is a problem. So that community is part of the bottleneck. Every bit of interurban traffic — road traffic and rail traffic — goes through that community. It's a very difficult thing to get any motion there at all. So I'd be interested in knowing what the minister has in mind in terms of times and dates of completion for those two problems. I think if one of the problems were solved, the other would be solved automatically. If we completed the Mary Hill bypass, then I'm quite sure that the truck traffic intensity on the Kingsway bridge would lessen dramatically, even though it is an inadequate old bridge.

[2:30]

The other thing I want to talk about is probably of wider interest; it isn't just an interest of the people of my community. I don't pretend to be any expert about this, but it concerns the practice of licensed tour vehicles licensed under the Motor Carrier Act. I received a representation from a constituent who is a duly licensed operator in the lower mainland. His particular problem, since he was licensed to carry tourists, is that in spite of the fact that he complies fully with the licence, he has no protection against the bandit tours, the bootleg tours or the unlicensed tours. I know that in the Motor Carrier Act there is a lot of legislation. Parts of that act deal with the licensing of these people, and it covers a very wide spectrum. We have the duties and the responsibilities of the licensee. That's spelled out, and I can give you the chapter and the verse of the section. It has to do with safety, loading, inspection of vehicles, keeping to the schedule, abandoning schedules, and all that stuff. It's all covered in there, and I won't bore the House with that. The second part of it has to do with the general supervision of motor carriers by the commission, and the duties of the commission are spelled out in tremendous detail. But there is nothing really about enforcement with respect to people who do not comply with the licence. I am told that there are up to half a dozen companies — and I have the names right here — operating out of the Vancouver airport without licences from either the city of Vancouver, under the vehicles-for-hire licence, or the Motor Carrier Commission. They can operate far more cheaply because they often don't have class 4 drivers, the names of their vehicles are not on their buses or their vans or whatever they use.... They park, though, in the parking lot. They do not park downtown in front of the hotels. They pick up their tours — frequently people who do not speak the language.... So we have inadequately policed vehicles, perhaps with inadequate drivers without a licence, operating without any protection or endangerment from the Motor Carrier Commission. I'd like to know why this is permitted to go on. I can tell you on a number of grounds how they allegedly are offending the rules. You have a section 61 in the Motor Carrier Act. I don't intend to read it entirely, but it says:

"Soliciting of business by unlicensed persons. (1) No person other than the holder of a licence for the operation of a public or limited vehicle, or his agent authorized in writing, shall without the consent of the commission

"(a) sell or offer to sell transportation of persons or tickets for transportation, or sell or offer to sell transportation of freight...."

That's clear enough. Unless you have a licence, you can't do these things.

"(b) by advertising or otherwise solicit the transportation of passengers or freight...."

In other words, you can't advertise in a B.C. paper or magazine. These things are now happening.

"(c) operate, control or manage a travel bureau or place for the sale of tickets or for soliciting or advertising the transportation of passengers or freight...."

The big problem with all this is that these things are all happening. The Motor Carrier Commission knows about this because they have received complaints, but there is no enforcement. Nothing is done to protect the people who hold licences, while these gyppo outfits that don't even offer or have a label on their motor vehicle.... Maybe they don't even own it. Maybe they're just agents that go and advertise, get the trip from the foreigner and then hire some carrier licensed to complete the trip.

Another thing they're doing, I'm told, is that they run on prescribed routes for the licensees, and they're not allowed to do that. But I am told that there are a number of them — and I can give you the evidence — that operate and come over to Butchart Gardens, leaving Marguerite Tours, Gray Line and those that operate out of Victoria open to unfair competition. So this is a very serious matter, and I think it is certainly worth looking into. What's the point if you have a penalty section with fines and rules and you have no enforcement? When the Motor Carrier Commission is told about this, they're saying: "I'm sorry, there's nothing we can do about it." Somebody flagrantly breaks the rules, hauls tourists in an unlicensed vehicle and then comes along and applies for a licence and is given one, which has happened at least in one case.

That is as briefly as I can put it. The only other thing I would add is that what seems to be the case here is that they

[ Page 3129 ]

also operate not only with leased vehicles, but they operate with passenger vehicles, and this is an ICBC problem. They are not supposed to be using those automobiles for commercial purposes if they exceed 1,600 kilometres per year, and they do it all the time. Nobody, including the airport people, the Vancouver licence-for-hire inspector, the MOT and the Motor Carrier Commission agent seems to be policing this. What is the point in teaching people — the licensees and the legal ones — that to be crooked pays? If you're crooked and you don't bother with the licence, you can make money and sell your trip to a tourist from the airport and around Vancouver for $50, instead of $80. Licensees require trained drivers, decent vehicles and all the attendant advertising and extra costs that go with legitimate firm, and they are allowed to be undercut by some sort of a gyppo operation that operates outside the law.

HON. A. FRASER: You raised a lot of issues. Regarding the non-enforcement of the Motor Carrier Act and unlicensed vehicles, I wasn't aware that it was as bad as you say it is. I am certainly not aware that the Motor Carrier Commission did not act. They're acting all the time on it, and they get the complaints from the licensed carriers, I would appreciate getting and pursuing anything you have on it. That's the only answer I can give on that reference to tour vehicles.

The other item in your own riding you asked about was Mary Hill bypass and its status, First of all, the money spent to date has been about $25 million. All road work is either complete or under contract. That is the dirt side of it. Two structures still have to be built: a bridge over the Coquitlam River and a railway overpass. What we're looking at is the completion of that whole extra artery by 1985. Funds are available, but everything is under contract now, with the exception of the bridge over the Coquitlam River and the railroad overpass. Hopefully that will be done in the next fiscal year. But we're already covered by legal contracts on the larger jobs.

Regarding the Kingsway bridge, that is a city bridge and a city responsibility. As a matter of fact, we loaned them a Bailey when the old one fell down. I think that's the one you were referring to, but that's on loan from us. It's their problem. They're aware of that.

MR. ROSE: You should have given them two; then you wouldn't have had to put in the light.

HON. A. FRASER: Right. But we did help them and they were most appreciative of it when they had that emergency when the bridge went down.

Another thing you mentioned was about the money saved — I want to clear that up; I've heard that from our own members as well — on the bid for the main structure of the Annacis. There isn't anything saved as far as our ministry is concerned. The treasury hangs on to the savings. That's the way it works.

The other item I'm very interested in, Mr. Chairman, is about people, whether children or others, riding in campers. I completely agree; it's unsafe. I understand from the superintendent of motor vehicles that they're not allowed in trailers but they are allowed in campers. I think maybe we should change things and make it illegal for people to ride in campers unless they at least have a proper seat. I think we can pursue that and ban what's going on. It's a highly dangerous practice. I think we can do that in 1984, hopefully by regulation.

I appreciate your remarks on child restraints. You are correct that the cost factor does get into it; maybe so from the vehicles, but there also is a cost factor on the individual who has to buy the restraint. I would hope the responsible citizens who can afford it are doing it. I think to a great degree they are, but we aren't finished with the decision process on child restraints being compulsory. We're still looking at that.

I think I've covered most of your items, Mr. Member.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this morning some of my colleagues raised a number of issues that apply in my constituency, and I'm not going to go over those again. I share the same concerns about the charges on the Highways ministry ferries as my colleagues do, comparing that with the fact that so many of the ferries in this province make no charge whatsoever.

Every year during these estimates I have spoken about the need for a highway bypass on Vancouver Island from Parksville north. The minister, I know, recognizes the danger of the existing highway, and the minister does not deny that it's a very dangerous route indeed. Yet I must stand every year and mention again the fact that the Island bypass is still unconstructed. The government still has not purchased all of the land that is needed. I would like the minister to give us some idea today as to a starting date for that particular bypass route so that I can let the people in my constituency know that we are not going to be neglected forever by this ministry.

[1:45]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the debate on these estimates the critic for this particular ministry, the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), mentioned to the minister that he felt the issue of bus safety and vehicle testing should be left until it could be dealt with in the Select Standing Committee on Transportation, which has been assigned the duty of looking into privatization of the motor vehicle testing in this province. The minister agreed yesterday that that should happen, that during these expenditure estimates that particular issue should be left because it could be better dealt with on that committee that's looking into motor vehicle testing and how it's going to take place in the future under Social Credit philosophy. I would like to quote from Hansard yesterday, Mr. Chairman, where the Minister of Highways and Transportation responded to the member for Atlin on this very issue:

You mentioned the vehicle inspection branch and all that. Well, I think you're right, Mr. Member. that we're in committee on this now — a House committee that was set up. As a matter of fact, there's a meeting tomorrow. Maybe that's the best place for that to be discussed at this time.

That's very clear to me. Mr. Chairman. It's not to be raised under these estimates. It's better discussed in that committee.

So I attended the meeting that was held today of that particular committee looking into vehicle testing in this province. I'm not a member of the committee, but because this is an issue I have been particularly concerned with — and I happen to be the first one to have raised the issue in this Legislature following the tragic accident on Mount Washington just over a week ago — I attended that meeting and heard the request advanced by my colleagues, based on the statement of the minister saying that the issue of bus testing and bus safety is better brought up at that committee.

[ Page 3130 ]

Mr. Chairman, I regret to report that the Social Credit members on that committee refused the request made by the NDP members following the instructions of the Minister of Highways. They refused to discuss that issue in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must to bring to the hon. member's attention — I'm sure she is aware of this — that it is not permissible to discuss committee items in this House.

MS. SANFORD: I'm discussing the statement made by the minister yesterday in this Legislature, as reported in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, you were, and the Chair was permitting that, hon. member. But then you got off onto discussing what was taking place in the committee that you attended today.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, based on what happened today in a forum which I can't discuss in this Legislature....

MR. VEITCH: You weren't there.

MS. SANFORD: I was there.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Based on what happened in that other forum outside this committee, I can only conclude that the Social Credit members are not interested in the issue of bus safety and bus inspections. I can only conclude that there is something they are covering up and hiding, and I'm going to tell you why.

On a number of occasions we have called for the government to conduct a public inquiry into bus safety and bus inspections in this province. The minister has stated flatly that the government will not undertake such a consideration. It is very clear that the coroner who is involved in the particular investigation taking place was very concerned about what was happening, in order for him to order that bus to be taken apart and put together again piece by piece. But I think the editorial in the Vancouver Sun is correct: we cannot expect the coroner from the Courtenay area to undertake the larger consideration of general bus safety in this province. Why is the government not prepared to conduct a public inquiry? We have had indications from the people involved in bus inspections in this province that they actually switch parts from one bus to another in order to have them pass the safety requirements of the province. The minister said he hoped they were doing that responsibly. I'm quoting from the Vancouver Sun article: "I hope they're switching the parts responsibly." It's an irresponsible act, in my view, to have these companies switch parts in order to meet inspection requirements in this province. On the sole issue of all of those seats being torn out of their location in that bus during that accident, I think the minister should undertake a public inquiry into bus safety in this province. Surely the minister cannot be happy with the existing regulations — if in fact this bus met those regulations, which the minister indicated it did the other day in this House. He cannot be happy with those regulations if in fact the seats are going to be torn out of their location in the bus in an accident of this type. That alone, it seems to me, would require a public investigation and a full public inquiry.

Why can't a committee look into standards of construction on these vehicles and make recommendations? Why can't a committee or a full public inquiry look into the question of the use of seatbelts, which has been discussed since this particular accident? Why can't a committee or a full public inquiry look into the question of spot checks that should take place on these buses on a regular basis, far more regular than is happening right now? That committee has been established by this Legislature to look into public safety. Public safety is what we're interested in. I think the committee is remiss if it does not deal with this issue at this time.

Surely the minister can't be happy with switching parts. Surely the minister can't be happy with seats that are torn out of their place. Surely the minister can't be happy with the kinds of problems which arose as a result of this particular accident. Surely the minister can't be happy with the reports that come from his own department about cannibalizing one bus to put parts on another bus to pass inspections, or the rental of tires for a day so they can pass inspection. The public safety in this province demands a further look at this whole question, and the minister, in my view, is dismissing the whole issue at this time without the kind of concern that he should have for public safety in this province.

Vote 76 approved.

Vote 77: administration and services department, $9,035,729 — approved.

Vote 78: highway operations department, $468,289,850 — approved.

Vote 79: hydro development — highways, $10 — approved.

Vote 80: motor vehicle department, $25,400,685 — approved.

Vote 81: motor carrier commission and branch, $1,258,273 — approved.

Vote 82: transportation policy department, $5,721,481 — approved.

Vote 83: air services branch, $4,385,176 — approved.

Vote 84: Crown corporation assistance, $54,822,700 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

On vote 58: minister's office, $182,042.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will take only a moment before we ask the members opposite to relay their questions, but I did want to pay tribute to the people on my staff who have helped us over the past years to develop programs in the Ministry of Labour. Joining me in the chamber a bit later will be Mrs. Isabel Kelly, deputy minister of womens' programs and acting Deputy Minister of Labour; and Mr. Stephen

[ Page 3131 ]

Stackhouse, assistant deputy minister of management operations.

During the past year a number of appointments have been made to fill vacancies as vice-chairmen of the Labour Relations Board. They include Ms. Dale Michaels, formerly vice-president of the Institute of Resources and Development at BCIT; Mr. Alex Markides, Ms. Shona Moore, Mr. John Kinzie and Mr. Brian Williams, all of whom have been well-respected practitioners in the field of industrial relations. I am also pleased to have been able to appoint a very distinguished member of the Vancouver bar, Mr. Gerald Levey, as the new administrative chairman of the Workers' Compensation boards of review, as well as a person who brings a wide range of experience at the administrative level, in both the private and public sectors, in Mr. Walter Flesher as the new chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board itself. I know all members would join me in wishing these people well in their new positions.

Mr. Chairman, the past year hasn't been either a great one for British Columbia or an easy one. We have come through one of the worst recessionary times in 50 years, and it has had a significant impact on labour relations in our province. Loss of corporate earnings has led to wage rollbacks, unfortunately to the loss of jobs, and to a change of priorities in bargaining, with job security rather than pay increases becoming the most important item on the agenda. The difficult economic times have perhaps had one or two positive by-products. To date the amount of time lost due to labour disputes is a fraction of what was lost in the year before, That is a pretty good sign, I would think, because normally labour relations are cyclical, and this year we seem to have broken that cycle. I hope the improved work-stoppage statistics indicate a willingness by both employers and unions to recommend economic realities and to act responsibly.

Job creation is perhaps one of the most important areas of this ministry, particularly during these times. In 1982-83 direct provincial funding was provided to help create almost 24,000 jobs, focusing in particular on student and youth employment, persons new in the labour force and women interested in pursuing a non-traditional occupation. The province, in cooperation with the federal government, provided funding to create an additional 9,000 jobs in various smaller communities around the province to help these communities retain their skilled labour force and economic base. In the area of apprenticeship training we have to admit, and I'm sorry to say, that the number gains achieved over the past few years have been lost through apprentice layoff or transfer — again because of the recessionary times — because unemployment in our major industrial sectors of forestry and mining, where most apprentices had been placed, simply suffered worse than other areas of employment opportunities. We hope to be able to find ways in which we can admit more apprentices into the system and to make more provisions such as the federal-provincial simulated work experience program, which worked very well in our province and perhaps better than in any other part of Canada, mostly because all parties involved — management, labour and the two levels of government — really got behind the program and pushed so that it became extremely successful.

[3:00]

We'll be taking some steps in the rest of this fiscal year and certainly in the next fiscal year to coordinate our activities in the training and industrial relations areas and in the areas of occupational health and safety as well. We will likely be putting forward, sometime soon, some legislation to help us do that and to go along with some legislation that this House has already approved, including the Gas Safety Amendment Act, the Electric Safety Amendment Act and the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act. Again, as with all legislative changes, I'd welcome any suggestions from the members opposite or anywhere else on how the system is working and how it might be improved.

I'd like to turn just for a moment to the area of women's programs. We now have a policy development and research office in full operation in Victoria. The community outreach office in Vancouver has established a wide network of contacts with women's organizations, counselling centres, employers. unions and educational institutions to offer better direction to women seeking information about work. An advisory group to the deputy minister of women's programs has now been established, comprising senior officials from all provincial government ministries to represent the needs and concerns of women within these ministries and, of course, women clients of the ministries as well. Women's programs is also coordinating the work of the interministerial working group on family violence, with representatives from the ministries of Health, Human Resources, Education and the Attorney-General. This group is reviewing all British Columbia legislation and programs in the area of violence in the family, and it will be making recommendations for improved coordination and program delivery. It is expected their summary report will be presented to the federal-provincial territorial working group on family violence in the spring of 1984.

Mr. Speaker, those few comments are really all I wish to say at the opening. I'd be pleased to hear any comments and try to answer any questions to the best of my ability.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, my thanks to the minister for his decision to introduce these estimate debates with an overview of what he is doing in the ministry. I suspect the brevity of it was probably related to the note he received partway through.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It certainly was.

MR. GABELMANN: I too intend to be brief this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, simply because it doesn't make any sense at all to me that we prolong these estimate debates when we have some couple of months left — less than that now — before we're into the new fiscal year and, I trust, an opportunity within a few months to have a proper debate about the spending that will take place starting April 1.

I do want to say a few things, however. In making these comments I should remind those people who read Hansard, I guess, rather than those of us in the Legislature, that because of the strictures of debate, it is difficult, if not improper, to have the discussions on the amendments to the Human Rights Code, the proposed amendments to the Labour Code and possible changes to the Workers Compensation Act which are very high on my mind and, I know, very high on the minds of a lot of people in British Columbia. I should say simply that I recognize that this isn't the appropriate time to have those discussions, other than to say — and I think this would be within the rules, Mr. Chairman — that I trust the minister will go very easily and very slowly when he begins his...he isn't beginning, because the process has gone on for some time, but when he deals with the processes leading

[ Page 3132 ]

to changes in the Labour Code. I doubt that there is anyone who would argue that the Labour Code should be unchanged. None of us believes in writing legislation and leaving it forever in its original form because it happened to be good at that time. Obviously, improvements can take place, and if the minister is looking for support for some of his attitudes, he should know that I have an immense amount of sympathy for his view that the arbitration process, among other aspects of labour relations, has become far too bound up in legal processes and far too expensive. As one who has served on an occasional arbitration board myself, as a non-lawyer, I recognize that the legal processes and requirements that have been built into the system recently are such that the worker really isn't being dealt with quickly or fairly, and certainly not cheaply. I think if the minister will consult widely with both labour and management he will find a fair amount of sympathy for his desire to speed that process up and to make it more efficient, not to deny any of the fairness that is built into the present system, but to get it out of the virtual courtroom setting that it has almost got into at the present time.

Short of that, I find that I have to really scratch to find very much more that I am sympathetic with regarding the minister's musings about changes to the Labour Code. It is not my right or responsibility to warn him, but let me say that we have difficult economic times in this province right now and the confidence for investors isn't as strong as it might well be, and if the minister wants that to get worse, the way he can guarantee it is to open up that Labour Code in the way in which he has been talking in other respects. Certainly if the draft that was floating around last summer has any validity to it at all, in terms of the direction of the government, then we're facing some very difficult times in this province, because people who have worked for decades to build up certain rights will not sit by idly and watch those rights be taken from them. The resulting labour-management conflicts that could well develop from that kind of action will do nothing whatsoever to improve investor confidence or get people back to work in this province.

Having said all of that, I recognize that I was probably out of order, but I did want to get it off my chest, Mr. Chairman.

I noticed that in his opening comments the minister paid tribute to various people who are working for him and who have recently been appointed. I want to pay tribute to somebody who is no longer working for him, and that is the immediate past chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. Art Gibbons did a good job. I didn't always agree with him, and I know that both management and labour didn't always agree with him, but I think he got hold of some serious problems inside that organization — and there are serious problems inside, as the minister knows better than I, I suspect — and was moving in positive directions. A plan was in place to deal with the unfunded liability. There was more involvement with people at the workplace, in terms of programs for safety and in terms of designing regulations, and in my view that process was beginning to really produce some good rewards. Unfortunately that was stopped.

We've got this curious dilemma: on the one hand these are times when businesses can't afford increased assessments, and we all recognize that. The assessment levels, particularly in some industries, are extraordinarily high and in some cases are almost crippling to the financial viability of those businesses. Yet many of those same employers were castigating the Workers Compensation Board for carrying on with an unfunded liability in the amount of — and guesstimates range — between half and one billion dollars. My guess is that it was closer to the half a billion dollar figure. But the same people who were complaining about having their assessments increased so that the plan to reduce the unfunded liability could continue in place over that nine-year program that had been developed were complaining about the increase in assessments that would have dealt with that problem. Now we have what is, in effect, the fourth freeze in assessments in eight years, and in the fifth year there was a 6 percent limitation on assessments. Out of the last eight years we've had five years with an inability on the part of the board to raise, in effect, as much as they were spending, even if the spending was going to be some years or decades down the road. Mr. Gibbons was getting hold of that in a way which was difficult and was hard medicine for a lot of people, but I feel some tribute should be paid to him for that.

I am going to come back to the WCB in a few minutes, but I just want to go through a couple of other issues. I only have four or five areas that I want to discuss. Certainly during the estimates for 1984-85 we'll deal with more of it in more detail.

Unquestionably, there isn't much publicity about employment and unemployment in respect to the Labour ministry; most of the publicity around the minister and the ministry relate to the WCBC, the Labour Code and human rights. I think the primary responsibility of the ministry must be this job training mess that we are in in this province — and for that matter all of us in this country — where we continue to train people for jobs in which there are already 80 percent unemployment rates. When I look through the apprentice summary that's in the annual report — the most recent one I have is for 1982 — on line after line I see apprenticeships in large numbers for careers that are already full of unemployed craftspeople. Fifty percent of the carpenters in this province haven't worked for two years, and in most of the other trades similar figures apply; yet we continue to train people.

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

I'm not blaming just this government; I think the whole country has failed. All of us have failed to properly understand that we need to do some planning about employment. I don't see much done in the way of employment forecasting. Kids in grades 11 and 12 now don't know what the best information is about what jobs might be available for them in five or eight years when they are ready to go into the job market. I don't know that we're spending enough time on that kind of area. I appreciate that it's not just the Ministry of Labour; we obviously have involvement from other ministries in this. What we desperately need is an overall planning arm or agency which includes representation from people out there in the real world who have some day-to-day experience and expertise in what really is happening in future job markets.

I must say — I can't let it go — that when we look at the unemployment rate among young people, the under-25s, using federal government figures, 25 percent of that age category is unemployed. That doesn't include all of those people lost and not counted, people who have decided to stay an extra year at school if they can afford it or who have simply stayed at home and not got into the system. Even the new way Statistics Canada is counting doesn't include a lot of those people. But even if we take the minimum figures — they're

[ Page 3133 ]

talking about 25 percent of those people under 25 not working — what we're really doing now is training a whole generation in a skill that we don't want them to learn: that is, the skill of not knowing how to work and how to find work, because jobs just don't exist. It takes a graphic illustration like the one in Vancouver yesterday or the day before, which the Vancouver Sun showed in a front-page photograph, to put it into some perspective. It isn't a question any longer of people not knowing how to work, or of not wanting to work or not looking hard enough; the jobs just aren't there. No one can deny that anymore. If the government has one priority at this time, it should be to find a way.... I'm not sure exactly what it is, but there are a variety of alternatives that could be considered and should be publicly discussed and thought about. Perhaps after some community consensus has developed there might be ways to put young people to work in a whole range of jobs that are essential and are going undone at the present time.

So I urge the minister not only to beef up his own program in terms of employment forecasting, but to put together some kind of interministerial program to deal properly with that. I heard a rumour the other day that there's going to be a new ministry dealing with advanced education and employment, but I don't know....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Jim Hume now?

MR. GABELMANN: That's why I didn't give the rumour much credence.

Anyway, I'll leave that. While I'm on the question of jobs I want to raise one issue that I thought about raising in question period and then didn't, because the rules of question period are such that I would have had to give a very brief explanation and the minister could very well have done a political hatchet job on me. I wouldn't expect it from that minister, but he could have. And because I didn't want to get into the constraints of question period I've left it for these estimates, where I can take a few more minutes and explain to the minister that I'm not attempting to put any blame on him or on the government, or on B.C. Hydro in this particular case.

[3:15]

The situation is with Ferranti-Packard, the only producer in British Columbia of power transformers for B.C. Hydro. The minister is aware of it, Mr. Chairman. The rule basically is that any firm in British Columbia has a 10 percent advantage on bidding. This company was underbid by 14 percent by a non–British Columbia firm, so B.C. Hydro is now going to an eastern firm for its transformers, with the result that the only firm in British Columbia that produces transformers, employing now about 32 people and previously in the range of 60 or 70, is probably going to have to go out of business. I have no way of predicting or knowing this, but the concern I have and the thing I think we must find a way of keeping an eye on, is that it's quite possible for a non–British Columbia firm to figure out what the B.C. firm would bid and then underbid that by more than the 10 percent, take a loss for a year or so until the B.C. firm is well and truly out of business, and then the rates go up again — particularly in an area like this where there isn't a multiplicity of suppliers and so you aren't going to get very many bids. I recognize that the company uses as their argument that the wage rates here are higher than they are in their companies back east and what not. I'm not disputing that. But what I am wondering about, and wondering whether the minister can provide some assurance, is the basic question of what protections there are against artificial underbidding so as to drive British Columbia firms out of business. Over the years we've lost a considerable number of jobs as a result of that kind of non-provincial underbidding. As I said earlier, I'm not saying that you guys are bad guys; I'm just saying there is a concern and one I think we need to deal with seriously.

Back to the WCB. I've said for years now, and I'm getting tired of hearing myself say it, that what we need to do in this province — labour, management and the government; the government through the WCB — is to embark on a major job safety, environmental health program. The reason the assessments are going up, the reason so many employers are screaming, isn't that the WCB is mismanaged or has too many employees, or is paying out benefits in too liberal a manner. There may be some of that throughout the system, sure, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is that there are too many accidents on the jobs and still too many environmental hazards that create valid compensation claims. That's where the focus has got to be. The current direction of the board to limit the assessments and to cut its expenditures is going to do nothing but increase the number of claims. So we have the human side of it on one hand, of people being injured and not being productive members of society, and on the other hand increased costs to the employers as a result of not focusing on the primary problem: that there isn't enough emphasis on safety.

I think the minister or any member of this House who has spent any time looking at it knows that you can go into different operations — whether it's in the woods, the mining industry, or wherever else — and you can see totally different work habits relating to safety. I see that in small logging operations in my riding, some of which are virtually accident-free — not entirely; no operation's ever going to be totally accident-free — because both the company and the workers spend an immense amount of time and energy and make their prime focus job safety. Then you can go down the road to the next one and find that they don't even talk about it and their accident rate is demonstrably higher. That's what the focus has to be, not scapegoating the chairman of the board, or not scapegoating various parts of the way the WCB operates. It's not to deny that there doesn't need to be some careful look at the way it operates and an attempt to smooth it out, but let's remember what the priority must be there. It's on job safety.

I have to talk about the boards of review. I've still not seen the statement of Friday afternoon last, in which the minister....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, the minister is quoted as having said after we all left Victoria on Friday afternoon that the boards of review are finished and that the appeals will be handled in-house, in effect. Certainly there have been some public musings about that, if not a public announcement. I would like to know: if the minister hasn't done that, does he intend to? And if he does intend to, how does he plan to ensure that someone who works for or with somebody else in the same office or administration isn't dealing with the appeals? I'll never forget being in this House on that side in the early seventies when bits of legislation were presented by the NDP government and having the minister and others over

[ Page 3134 ]

here talk about the need to have a fair and independent appeals procedure. We heard more about independent appeals than we did about anything else for three years. I think that applies for workers in the Workers' Compensation Board too. Maybe the present system is cumbersome, but to have a three-person board of review is appropriate, in my view, because at least the worker — who's the one on the firing-line, for the most part, in the appeals — has some sense that at least he will have a sympathetic ear on that board. If the boards are single-person boards, if they're outside the WCB, then you're never sure of the particular bias of the person who's handling the appeal.

I urge the minister not to reintegrate the appeal process into the WCB. It must be kept separate, it must be kept independent. It's got to be improved; it's ridiculous to have a 4,500-case backload. There is obviously something wrong with the administration when something in the order of 40 percent of the appeals, I understand, are overturned. The decisions of staff people in WCB are overturned in 40 percent of the appeals. If that's happening, it's outrageous. It means the board system isn't handling them properly in the first place. Normally in a situation like that to have more than 5 or 10 percent overturned would be unusual, but to have approaching one half? Something is really screwy there, if I can use the vernacular. And I don't think it's the boards of review. I've represented workers at board of review hearings, and as far as I'm concerned there has been no indication on the part of the board that they are intending to be favourable to the workers; in fact, quite the contrary. In a couple of cases where I was confident that the worker had a sound case, the board of review said "no." So I don't think it's a question of bias toward the worker on the part of the board of review; I think it's a question of bias against the worker within the WCB, and that's got to be dealt with. If you haven't abolished the boards of review, don't. Okay?

I've talked about the unfunded liability and I won't say anything more about that. I just want to talk about farmworkers for a moment. One of the things Ministers of Labour have done for years in this Legislature — including the Minister of Labour in the NDP government — is that whenever members got up and raised particular questions about things going on within the WCB, the standard response of the Minister of Labour would be: "The WCB is independent and the government doesn't interfere in their operations. I can't interfere. I write the legislation, I appoint the commissioners, but for the rest of it, they're independent." How was it possible for the minister to delay, as I understand it, the implementation of the regulations concerning farmworkers which were supposed to go into effect in April 1983, if my memory is correct on that date?

I grew up on a farm in this province, so I see it from that side. I have two brothers who are farmers and who employ farmworkers, so I understand it and I see it from that side. I don't understand why their workers should be treated differently than any other workers in this province. It's as simple as that. They are citizens, they are workers, and they should have the same rights as any other worker. In other marginal economic endeavours like restaurants, for example, we don't say: "Okay, we're not going to enforce certain regulations, because if we do some restaurants might go out of business. They go out of business if they can't compete." We say to ourselves that farming in this province is socially worthwhile and necessary, and we want it to be maintained and to prosper. The way you deal with that, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure the income side of the farmer's operation is such that he can meet all of the standards required by society. Farmworkers have as much right as any other workers in this province to have WCB regulations properly drafted and then applied to them.

I want to deal with a few issues in the farmworker area that go beyond WCB and relate to employment standards and various other aspects. When I make these five comments, I'm not stating them to be true, because I don't know personally, but stating them as representations that I have received from farmworkers. It's what they think, it's what they say, and I have no reason to believe.... In fact, in the one case where I think they are wrong, I have deleted the item; I'm not going to present it. But in the cases that I do want to present, there is no reason to believe they are not telling the truth.

The Employment Standards Act states that a farmworker must be paid weekly, and payment must be made within 72 hours after each seven-day pay period. Many farmworkers complain that farmworker contracts withhold wages until the end of the harvesting season, and I have heard that from many different sources now. What happens is that the contractor gets paid at the beginning of the season by the farmer and then withholds payment to the farmworkers until the end of the season. So it's not the farmer who is at fault in this case; it's the contractor. I'm told others pay before the end of the season, but not on a regular basis, as the act stipulates. Some farm labour contractors enter into an agreement with the farmer or employer to receive 50 percent of the total payment for the harvest in advance of the work being done; however, they refuse to pass the money on to the workers. This is the case where I said they get paid in advance and don't pass that on. That's the first issue. It's just a question of regular pay for farmworkers.

Farmworkers also say that the contractors who are supposed to pay half of the contributions to the benefit plans — CPP and the like — are actually deducting the employer's share of those contributions from the wages that are paid to the farmworkers. Many who work on piecework in the Fraser Valley — that's the majority of them, I believe — complain that scales are not accurate. Again, I don't have any direct knowledge of that, but there certainly is a widespread feeling that many of the scales on which their pay is measured are not accurate, and people are being underpaid as a result. I grew up picking cherries, apples and peaches, and so I know all about piecework. What would be wrong with guaranteeing a minimum daily wage, as we do now with domestics? If a picker is so inept and inadequate that he is not being of any value to the employer, then clearly the farmer or contractor cannot continue to keep him on. That is a reasonable employment practice. But to guarantee them the $29.20, or whatever it works out to for an eight-hour day, seems to me to be a reasonable approach and something the minister should consider.

The question of the employment standards branch. When I or those on my behalf call the employment standards branch to find out what they're doing about some of these complaints, one answer we get is: "Last year we put a team of twelve IROs into the Fraser Valley to deal with the problem." But no one on the farms has ever seen them, it seems. I wonder if what happens is that the twelve IROs, when they do swoop into the valley, actually don't go and spend a day or two and maybe only deal with the contractor issue, because that had flared up in the overloaded vans and that sort of thing as a result of accidents. How many of the industrial relations

[ Page 3135 ]

officers who are employed in that region — I think you have 30 or so altogether — and deal with farmworkers speak the languages that are spoken on the farms? I am curious to know what's being done about that. I really think there should be some unannounced visits right to the farms, checking the scales and pay records.

[3:30]

The final issue is one of safety: pesticides, lack of showers, those kinds of things that I mentioned with respect to the WCB regulations. I just don't understand why those regulations aren't being put into place.

Those are the complaints that I have received, and they appear to be valid from all the checking around that I am able to do. I wanted to raise two other issues, but I see that green light on. I'm not sure I'm going to make it in the minute or two left. Perhaps a colleague will help me out in that respect.

MRS. WALLACE: Once again, I have been very interested in what my colleague is saying and would like the opportunity to hear the rest of his remarks.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you. The question of fair wages as defined in the Hospital Act is now an issue with the Vancouver General Hospital. I wonder what response the minister has given to a letter from the Building and Construction Trades Council, dated October 31, 1983. It clearly indicated that carbon copies had been sent to several people, including myself. That's at least three months ago, and I haven't seen a reply to it. They may well have replied and not sent a copy to me. Based on the conversations I had with the people in the building trades, I don't think that's happened. I am sure the minister knows, without my going into a lot of detail, what concern this refers to. There is a requirement that fair wages be paid, and there is a tradition that fair wages are those that approximate wages being paid in the organized construction industry. I would like to hear the minister's response to that. If I'm not happy with it, I might follow up a little more after his comments.

The final issue relates to human rights. Let me start by asking what seems a silly question, but why wasn't their phone number put in the ad in the newspaper the other day when the offices were changed? Is it because you have no intention of allowing people to phone the ministry concerning human rights issues? It does seem like a silly little issue, but it strikes me that it may well be a signal that human rights officers in this province are soon to be a thing of the past, and you didn't want to spend the money putting a telephone into that branch. I'm sure there is a simpler answer to it, and I'd like to hear what it is.

I am concerned that the IROs — industrial relations officers — who are now required to investigate and in many parts of the province respond to human rights complaints neither have the time nor the expertise to deal properly with human rights questions. While I recognize we're dealing to a certain extent with possible changes to be brought up in the next session, the fact is that the Human Rights Code of British Columbia of 1974 is still in place. To have IROs handling investigations under that Code is totally inappropriate. Some of them, no doubt, because they are experienced people in labour relations, can do a good job, but I suspect that most of them don't have the time or the inclination, and certainly not the training, to handle human rights cases. I'm not sure that I can appeal to the minister to hire more staff for the human rights branch when he's just laid a whole bunch of them off, nor am I sure that it makes much sense to appeal for that when I suspect he's got a pretty drastic legislative change in mind for the Human Rights Code. But I just make that appeal to the minister. I hope he recognizes that having human rights complaints dealt with by IROs is unfair to both the complainants and the IROs, who, for the most part, are over-worked already.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to go back and deal with the issues the member raised in the order he raised them, but I want to deal with two before I forget them. One of them is the phone number. I am told that it was simply a bureaucratic slip-up and it's in the second edition, which has been published with the phone number in it.

The question as to how many industrial relations officers go out to the farms: I know they do go. I'm probably on the other side of the question, because I represent an area where a heck of a lot of farms are and I get the opposite complaint from the farmers: "What are you doing with all those IROs fouling up our business and looking into our business, " and things like that. So I know they do go, and I know they do go unannounced. With the exception of the matter of minimum wage, farmworkers are covered in the same way that domestics are.

On all of the other questions, with your permission I'd like to have my staff research Hansard and get you a written reply to those other questions, because I think there are some errors in some of the assumptions made in there. I recognize that you're just bringing forward questions that have been raised with you.

The matter of the amendments to the various codes that we have, including Human Rights and Labour Code. You will know that the Premier promised during the so-called Kelowna accord that a committee would be established on both of those items, which would be an advisory committee to me, as minister, to deal with some possible amendments before those bills are presented to the Legislature. We've had some trouble getting names. I would be very hopeful that the committee on the Labour Code could be announced this week and the committee on the Human Rights Code could be announced very quickly, perhaps within the next two weeks.

The Workers' Compensation Board is a very large corporation with very large responsibilities, and it has many of the pains that very large corporations have, whether in the public or the private sector. I think there are improvements that can be made with the WCB, particularly on the financial side, which, if made, will help us attack some of the other problems that we obviously have in the Workers' Compensation Board. I don't get as excited about the unfunded liability as a lot of people do, because it is largely a bookkeeping entry. Just look at last year, with $500 million unfunded liability, at the same time the WCB made a $300 million profit. They took in $300 million more than they paid out. I look to all the bookkeepers and accountants around here, but something seems to be a little out of whack there, in my opinion. The other thing, of course, is that in October this House passed amendments to the Workers' Compensation Board, following changes to the Financial Administration Act, which allows us to greatly improve our investment opportunities in the Workers' Compensation Board. We're allowed, under the new act, to invest 35 percent of our funds in equity investments. We're not going to go that high, but we are going to start this spring with 30 percent investments in equities. We

[ Page 3136 ]

think we can improve the investments. We've got over a billion dollars to invest. We're a very large investor in the market. We use a very conservative investment figure of 2 3/8, I think, investment to interest, based on the rate of inflation. I don't think, particularly in times when the inflation rate is way down, that that's very realistic either. So there are lots of things you can do with pencils to change that unfunded liability. I think we should look at the harder stuff first and worry about that as we go. Not that we shouldn't worry about it, because future pensions depend on our having the money to pay for those future pensions.

The member mentioned that this was the fourth freeze — and perhaps even the fifth, counting the 6 percent last year — in recent years. Actually it's only the first freeze, because in each year, because of the way the legislation is written and indexing that's required, the only freeze was on the administration side of the assessments. Even with the 6 percent so-called freeze, the increase in assessments to the firms in the province was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 or 13 percent. In other areas, when the freeze was put on it was only on the actual administrative side of the WCB. So there haven't been freezes. This year we've frozen everything. I think it was the only possible thing that we could do, faced with the horrendous increases that industry was going to have to face this year. I said, when the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board announced that freeze, that we would ensure.... I feel that we will have no difficulty in ensuring that it won't impact on the unfunded liability.

Moving on to job training, I agree with the member 100 percent that that's got to be where our major emphasis has to be. We've been talking about task forces and job forecasting agencies — we've got them all over the country. They're forecasting till it's coming out of our ears. We haven't got everybody all forecasting the same thing, so it's a big problem. I think I agree with the member that some kind of joint force should perhaps be Put together on a national basis, that can zero in a little better than what we do by moving all over the place. We, in our own ministry — and interministry.... Within our own government a review of apprenticeship and training is going on right now. I heard the same rumour that the member did, but I haven't got it on any better authority about a new ministry. One of the things that we're trying to do is establish ways in which we can train people to be more prepared to change careers, because careers are not likely going to be the same in ten years as they are today. A lot of the jobs that were available five years ago may never be available again in the same way. I think we've also got to have people trained with broader basic skills, so that they can then move into other areas if they have to. One of our senior staff people is currently talking to labour and to management and industry to try to pull some of these things together in this province. But we probably need to move farther than that.

I agree that we've got a chicken-and-egg situation here in some ways, because we shouldn't be training people for jobs when there's high unemployment. But at the same time, if we all really believe that recovery will come, we should be training people who will be ready when recovery comes. So where do you go from there? Perhaps we need, again, better methods of deciding where those important skills are. I'd say it goes far beyond my ministry too. Maybe we should look at the universities, where they are turning out lawyers and teachers when there doesn't seem to be much need for any more lawyers and teachers; yet we're sending them out the end of the funnel non-stop. I came across an interesting.... Well, I'd better not say that about lawyers; there are too many of them in the House here. Well, I will. I came across an interesting statistic the other day which showed that in Japan they have a total of 40,000 lawyers in a country with 120 million people. In the United States, with double the number of people, they're turning out 40,000 lawyers a year, and I'm sure that proportionately it's the same here in British Columbia. That's horrible.

Ferranti-Packard. Well, I think we feel very sad about the situation they find themselves in. It is a company which, I guess, has run into the difficulties of the recessionary period to a large degree. I don't know whether there are people deliberately trying to underfund or not. I know that we've had complaints of some provinces having under-the-table subsidies to various of their industries so that they can do that. I don't know whether it's true or not. I can say that we try our very best, in our Crown corporations particularly, to make sure that all bids are very thoroughly evaluated in every possible way that they can be. Ferranti-Packard's problem.... You mentioned 14 percent. I'm told that it was much higher than that, even with the 10 percent taken into account, but it was quite a lot higher than that in the latest round of bids. I'd have to look into that.

[3:45]

The other problem, however, in order for Ferranti-Packard to continue to compete, is that they would have had to have B.C. Hydro add significantly to their stockpile of transformers at a time when B.C. Hydro cannot justify adding to that stockpile of transformers. They would have had to have something in the order of double the number of transformers that Hydro was going to buy in this next fiscal year. As a responsible Crown corporation — responsible to the same taxpayers that you and I are — they simply were not able to give that commitment. So that was, I think, perhaps more serious than the other thing.

I've written to Ferranti-Packard. In fact, the letter probably hasn't gone out yet; I wrote it today, just expressing our concern and hoping that there is some way they can stay in business in Surrey until the economy recovers.

Back onto the WCB, I agree with you that job safety programs are of major importance. I also think something else should be done, though, and we should look very carefully at experience rating, rather than the kind of across-the-board rating today — to, first of all, penalize those employers who don't keep a safe workplace, and penalize them very heavily. I also think that we could probably, on the opposite side, give some kind of reward to those people who keep a safe workplace. I've instructed the Workers' Compensation Board to have a look at that to see whether that's not a better way to go than just a kind of blanket, industry-wide rating.

I don't know where the story about the appeal boards being finished came from. They are not finished. I couldn't finish them even if I wanted to, because the legislation is in place and it requires that they be there. I will say that we're looking at that whole system, and I've asked the chairmen of the boards to report to me on ways in which we can improve that situation, because I think it needs improvement. I can't promise the member that I will come up with ideas that will suit him. We may find ourselves at odds somewhere down the line. But right now I have absolutely no idea where that story came from.

On the matter of farmworkers regulations, the member asked how it was possible for us to delay those regulations. It

[ Page 3137 ]

came about as a result of consultation between me and members of the board. I agree that the Workers' Compensation Board is an autonomous board, but I also believe that as the responsible minister — and the government is ultimately responsible, as in the old saying, "The buck stops here" — I have a responsibility to represent the shareholders of that place, and that's all of the taxpayers of British Columbia. I won't say that I will never discuss matters with the chairman of the board or with the board of directors, or in fact offer suggestions from time to time, if I think that's necessary. I don't consider that to be political interference. I believe it is the responsibility of my ministry to do that.

I talked about employment standards, and I really will get back to you in detail on those, Mr. Member.

The building trades and the VGH letter. I'm told by one of my staff people that that was replied to on November 29, 1983. I think I've had a further reply from someone since then, in the last couple of weeks, which I may not have had a chance to answer. At the present time our legislation doesn't define what fair wages are. The letter, I believe, asked us to adopt the federal fair wages standards. The federal fair wages standards, as the member will probably know, are under some attack at the present time. The Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde, has said that if the public works procedure demands it, they will relax those standards. I don't know who decides that or how that works, but at the present time in B.C. we don't have any written standards.

On human rights, Mr. Member, I think I've answered the question. We will be putting the committee together. We do intend to make changes, but until then I will not be making any other changes until we see what form the new legislation might take after it is reintroduced following this session.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've answered all the questions.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, my thanks to the minister for the comprehensive way in which he has answered some of the points I've raised. I just want to pick up on three things very briefly. One is the boards of review — the minister says he doesn't know where the story started. I'm told by reporters that it started at the UFAWU convention on, the Thursday night, either in the speech or in the question period, I'm not sure which — if there was a question period.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Anything is liable to happen there,

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: And it did.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me just say that — despite the fact that you'll be getting a report from the new chairman of the WCB — I hope nothing is done until full discussions have been held with the compensation and safety committee of the federation — it's now called occupational health, I think — which I think are on February 23. I hope that that meeting will be held in good faith and that no decisions will be made at least until then. When they are made, let me say again, there must be, in my view, an independent process outside the jurisdiction of the board itself.

The second thing is that the minister argues that the Minister of Labour should have the right to interfere...

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Consult.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm on your side, so don't get your back up.

...in the sense of having discussions with the board of directors of the WCB. I've had that argument for years with various Labour ministers. I’ve always felt that that's the case. You appoint these people to be commissioners. That doesn't then deny you the right to have discussions with them about what government policy should be. Someday, when somebody on this side is Minister of Labour, I hope we carry on in that vein. because I think that....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I hope I support you, although it will never happen, but I hope I do.

MR. GABELMANN: So on that we're agreed. The disagreement is about the results of the conversation. We would be saying different things to the board commissioners than you might be saying — that's all. There isn't a disagreement about the absolute and unfettered independence of the board, because I have never held that view, although I might say that it may well be that my colleagues have held that view. If so, we may disagree on that.

On the fair wages question, I think the Hospital Act, section 46(2), is fairly clear. Let me just read this, because I think it should be on record: "Should any dispute arise as to what are current wages and conditions in the municipality or regional hospital district, the question shall be referred to the Minister of Labour for determination, and his decision is final and binding upon the contractor and the board of management." The words that I think matter are "should any dispute arise as to what are current wages and conditions in the...regional hospital district" — I've left some words out to make it clear. I think the minister has ample opportunity with that wording to make a determination of what fair wages are in a ballpark sense, and if he fails to do that I think he's in contravention of the act when asked to act on that issue. I’ll leave it at that.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I won't comment on that one any further, because we have not at this point defined "fair wages." Maybe at some point down the road we might want to.

On the question of the boards of review, as you might expect it was quite an interesting meeting we had with the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union the other evening. I was on the question period for something like one and a half or two hours. The matter of Workers' Compensation Board reviews was brought up by one member on the floor of the convention. and I do recall saying that I was extremely concerned about the backlog, fairness and justice involved in the delays that are going forward, and that I expected to recommend changes to the government. But I also recall saying to that meeting that I had not made any recommendations to the government at this point. So there haven't been any recommendations made, because I don't know what they should be at this point. I can guarantee you, though. that there will be no action taken until after I have the meeting with the people from the B.C. Federation of Labour, which, as the member pointed out, comes up on the 23rd. So there will absolutely be no action taken at that time and probably not until some time after that, if any.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman. I see this as something that I might well raise with the minister privately, but I'm

[ Page 3138 ]

afraid we may run out of time before I have an opportunity. It is not something I expect him to have an immediate answer for, but on the other hand there is some point, maybe, in sharing it with him publicly. It is with respect to his responsibilities for the WCB. I have a letter addressed to a constituent of mine, dated November 28, 1983, and I will send a copy to the minister:

"Dear Mr. Harrison:

"re: Your Claim No. A.C.83...."

I won't read the rest of it at this point.

"Our records indicate a balance of $36.53 is still owed the board for an injury you sustained to your back on July 12, 1949. The overpayment initially resulted from days worked not being deducted from wage loss benefits paid to you. This amount will be deducted from your cheque for the period November 7 to 27, 1983, under your current claim."

As I say, I don't expect the minister to know about this offhand, but I would appreciate it if he would review with the board whether or not this is their practice. This is going back a long way in history. The constituent did write to the board, dated January 6, 1984:

"Re your letter dated November 28, 1983.

"I don't think it is fair charging me for an overpayment you claim I owe you from 34 years ago. I cannot prove it, but I am sure this was paid in the 1960s, and even that should have been wiped out by the Statute of Limitations."

I don't know whether that has anything to do with it.

"It is not like you have not had a chance to find this before now, as I have been on compensation quite a few times between 1949 and the 1960s, when I'm sure this was paid. So why wait until 1983? It just doesn't seem right to me."

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't seem right to me, and I'm sure it doesn't seem right to the minister, from what he knows so far. Here is the concluding paragraph, and this is why I raise it at this point:

"If I don't get some kind of satisfaction and answer to this letter, copies will be sent to my MLA and other people."

Mr. Chairman, I leave it with the minister and ask him to let me know something about it some day.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Statute of Commonsense.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: That was just what I was going to say. The Statute of Commonsense is the one we should be using.

Mr. Chairman, this is almost as bad as Revenue Canada breaking into my constituents' piggy bank for the funds that their family owed.

We'll look into this. I'm sure that there could be some polite political interference, maybe.

Vote 58 approved.

Vote 59: ministry operations, $56,023,326 — approved.

Vote 60: boards and agencies, $2,693,975 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 67: minister's office, $197,095.

[4:00]

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's always a pleasure for me to comment on a ministry which has many diverse programs. We're now discussing the 1983-84 estimates, which have virtually been expended because of the lateness of the hour, but I want to say that no other ministry covers the range of interest that ours does, nor is any other ministry more involved in the development of human talents and resources. On the one hand we're constantly striving to improve the efficiency of government through central services such as the postal branch, Queen's Printer and records management; on the other hand we are instrumental in the development of individual human potential and the general quality of life in British Columbia through our recreation and sport, cultural, heritage and museum programs.

In fiscal 1983-84 our estimates show an overall decrease of 3 percent from our actual expenditures of 1982-83. This decrease has been realized despite the transfer of all government advertising and publication funds to our ministry and the transfer of ministry travel expenses to the protocol budget and the cost of a provincial general election to the elections branch. Our efforts to realize the 3 percent decrease despite these transfers, while at the same time maintaining the vitality of our programs and services, reflect the determination of this government to make economic discipline the cornerstone of its philosophy.

I could go on at length, but I know that there is some anxiety on the part of the opposition to pass these estimates, which have virtually been expended, but first of all I want to introduce my new deputy minister Bob Plecas, who is with me today. I am a new minister in this ministry as well. This is the first time that I have had the privilege or the opportunity to come before the assembly to answer questions about the administrative responsibilities that have been given to me. I look forward to that challenge at this time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. HANSON: The minister who just spoke was a contributing factor — in fact he was one of the main factors — to a very disastrous economic event that we have had in our province in recent months. We saw legislation come before us in this fiscal year that we are presently debating under that minister's authority — Bill 3 and Bill 2. I remember him very well looking tired....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Determined.

MR. HANSON: Mean. It had a disastrous effect on our province. It knocked the stuffing out of the recovery that this province was beginning to feel; and in my own and my colleague's riding of Victoria and southern Vancouver Island, we're still feeling the impact of those chops that are coming daily. I couldn't help but listen carefully to the minister's use of the words "development of human talents" as an objective of his ministry. The development of human potential, cultural authority and the mandate to look after cultural affairs are with that minister. Heritage. I have a few things to say along those lines. Travel. What he did not mention is that that is an

[ Page 3139 ]

extremely political ministerial portfolio. That is the one where the polling often takes place, and where the information services reside. Even today that ministry has sacked and robbed educational opportunities out of the Provincial Educational Media Centre in BCIT. I think all members should realize that Doug Heal and his operation within that ministry have laid off 54 Ministry of Education personnel: ten in the Provincial Educational Media Centre at BCIT and the remainder in the print services in Richmond, who do the lithography work.

Mr. Chairman, you'll be surprised to learn that all the equipment that was in place in these operations is going to Mr. Heal's operation. That may be a surprise to you. I'm sure it would be, because I just received the information today, and the employees have been advised today that $200,000 worth of equipment that was used to make educational films and other visual aids for the school system has been taken out of BCIT and has been put into Mr. Heal's operation. That is what we call the development of human potential? That is what the minister refers to as the development of human talent. We have in Mr. Heal's budget — I believe that's under vote 69 — $17,861,000 to do the government's political brainwashing of the public. They have the gall, Mr. Chairman, to go to BCIT — and you know where BCIT is — and take $200,000 worth of equipment that made educational films and transfer it under the control of Mr. Heal. Shame, I say, Mr. Chairman. What kind of government is this? And they talk about human potential, culture and heritage. This is a single-dimension government; this is a government that is in the present, in terms of greed and of holding onto power. That's what this ministry's about.

Here we have him talking about culture. We had the great privilege of having a site in our province named as a world heritage site — Anthony Island. Ninstints, it's called. It's a Haida word. It's a very famous place. For three years it's been under this provincial authority. It's a travesty. Nothing has been done. It's rotting away. I'm advised by archaeologists and other people in this province who know what they're talking about that this government has let this world heritage site slip away into disrepair. The poles and everything are rotting. They can't get any proper conservation work done. They send somebody up from the Provincial Museum who goes up once a year with a can of pesticide or herbicide to attempt to arrest the rot. That's what this government is all about.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Which budget do you want to take the money from to do this?

MR. HANSON: We're not like you, Madam Member. We on this side are not for robbing educational facilities for Mr. Doug Heal's operations.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Dick Melville — of the Ministry of Education, I guess — is the information officer who was given the pleasant task of advising the 54 Education employees that they are now redundant. I wonder how he told them — what he was thinking of when he told the employees that the equipment they used for the benefit of the children of this province was to go over as part of the empire-building operation of Douglas Heal, to be brought into the Victoria media centre. Things like videotape machines, synchronizing equipment, mini-cameras: this is state-of-the-art equipment that was supposed to be used for the children of this province. I probably shouldn't call them children; these are students at BCIT — young men and women who are looking for employment. All of this equipment was approved for purchase two months ago. It found its way into BCIT and now it comes back to the Victoria media centre. No wonder this government wants a new throne speech and a new budget. They want this session over with so they can reshuffle their cabinet, so they can make sure that the Public Accounts Committee doesn't meet and doesn't go through the polling bills, the travel bills. Unbelievable!

Vote 68 has a 23 percent increase — a $200,000 increase — in what they call "protocol and special services." Why did that increase occur? That increase occurred because of other ministers who got in trouble with their travel budgets for their extremely generous living. So what they did was lump all of the travel under the "protocol and special services." Hopefully thePublic Accounts Committee — all members of the House — will have a chance to go through the expenditures within that vote.

I'd like to question the reason for the $325,000 cut in the insurance and risk management, which provides for technical advice and support services to government ministries, while at the same time they can increase by $200,000 the travel budget for the cabinet ministers.

I touched on vote 69, government information services. Here we've got this empire under the minister there which produces these misleading documents to try and make this government look good: "Restraint and Recovery." And some of them don't even see the light of day. I've got one here. This one didn't even get published, Mr. Minister. This one is called "Recovery '83." It's a little different than this other one here. There are incredible things in it. Let me just read you page 18. This is what the tax dollars that are being taken away — robbed from the minds of the children of this province and robbed from health care in this province, so that we can produce booklets by Mr. Heal that say things like this in response to the sales tax imposed on restaurant meals over $7.... This is what the government with your tax dollars, Mr. Chairman, decides it's going to say to the public: "We are not taxing the hamburgers, we are taxing the filet mignon. I guess the NDPers who are criticizing this one can afford $10 lunches every day. I can't honestly say that my heart bleeds for them." What a lot of baloney, Mr. Chairman! The taxpayers' money is used to print this kind of thing, and they ignore the argument of the small restaurants around the province and the hospitality industry, which found this a very expensive and difficult transformation to make, in terms of their accounting procedures and the way they conducted their business, to collect this tax on meals over $7. So here we have a booklet called "Recovery '83." This one was probably deep-sixed because it was just too much. So they decided to come out with this other one, which is just full of lies and misrepresentation.

Vote 70 under this minister is the shortcut to heritage conservation. What is heritage conservation? Heritage conservation is the protection of historic sites; it is the protection of Indian heritage resources in this province, which are in sad neglect. In fact, the whole heritage and conservation board — the board that was composed of lay people, university

[ Page 3140 ]

people and native people who had served this province for years and years in an advisory capacity to the minister — was disbanded. They got a "Dear John" letter. Professors and other people who wrote books on the history of British Columbia, who gave up their time and had their ferry fare and one of those ferry meals and perhaps an overnight stay in a motel for the service of British Columbia.... Margaret Ormsby gave her considerable expertise to the minister in terms of making recommendations on heritage site designation, on programs for native people, on programs for schools that should be attending to heritage matters. She got a "Dear John" letter saying: "Thank you. Your service is no longer required. We now have Doug Heal with state-of-the-art video equipment. We don't need your ideas, because Social Credit is turning the clock back. We don't need your ideas on spaceage culture and heritage management. Instead, we have our own agenda, which is to try to maintain control so that the public resources of this province are used for private benefit." That's essentially what it is, Mr. Chairman. Heritage conservation was cut by $523,000 or 22.8 percent. Cultural services were cut by $617,000. These are not big votes to start with. We are not talking about large votes; we are talking about crumbs and what is left of this magnificent province of a third of a million square miles, of 200,000 Indian people who want something done about their own linguistic and physical heritage, and here we have that cut. That cut of $617,000 is 40.5 percent.

Vote 71 is another $617,000, an 18.3 percent increase in the budget of GERB. If anything should make us all laugh cynically, it's the increase in the Government Employee Relations Bureau budget. Here we have an organization of fine, talented, skilled, dedicated labour relations experts and their support staff who are set up to do independent collective bargaining and contract management with the government employees of this province and to offer assistance to Crown corporations and other public employers. What happened? The government circumvented the whole process, set up the office of Mr. Peck and his little operation, and these people are relegated to looking at their old photographs. Yet we have a $617,000 increase for that operation which has been totally scotch-hobbled. What kind of a facade is this government?

[4:15]

So, Mr. Chairman, we had a very large expenditure of public funds in this ministry during the 1983-84 fiscal year that went out to advertising, to large advertisers such as McKim Advertising. I put a number of questions on the order paper, because the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to ask questions about expenditures of this government. I just want to find my Orders of the Day here so that I can inquire of the minister why in six or seven months he has been unable, in his ministry, which is amply funded, to provide answers to questions such as: "What was the cost?" This is all preelection advertising, Mr. Chairman, prior to the 1983 May election, where the taxpayer footed the bill for an election campaign that went on six or eight months before the call of the election. I think that someday there should be some kind of tribunal to investigate misappropriations of funds used for political purposes by that party. I think that that should take place at some point in the future.

What was the cost of production of B.C. Lottery's ALRT series of television advertisements during 1982-83? No particular answers in that respect. What was the cost of the series of ads for Expo 86? How were these funds paid? What votes did they come out of? What was the cost of purchasing air time for B.C. Lottery's Expo 86, broken down by television station? What evaluation was done of the effect and the effectiveness of this advertising series'? What was the cost of the health care TV ads, broken down by television station? What were the costs of "Province Reports" — these political reports that were put on and advertised during 1983? What was the cost of the TRAC series of television ads?

I never received any answers, Mr. Chairman. When we put questions on the order paper so that we don't take up precious time in our question period, which is only 15 minutes in length, I thought we would get some kind of response. But here we've had a minister who has been afraid to provide the public with the details of these very specific questions of the use of public funds for advertising on the television networks, handled through McKim Advertising and so on. Is he afraid? Is there a scandal here? Is there misappropriation of funds? Why would a government be afraid to provide that kind of detail to the opposition?

That's one of my questions, and I look forward to detailed answers to those particular questions.

A number of things are occurring in the structure of government service which come under this minister. I would like to ask a couple of questions about them. One thing concerns me greatly; again, he is the minister responsible. There is a large amount of contracting out of government activity now. One of the proposals is the contracting out of the food services in correctional operations. One of the things that this minister knows very well and refers to in his pamphlets that come out from Mr. Heal on how the ministries are managed: the food services are going to be contracted out. I would like that minister to respond and provide this House with the Government Employee Relations Bureau's information to him about what security precautions will be taken to ensure that there are no hostage-takings, and that no dangerous equipment or materials flow back and forth from private operators. These are very legitimate questions, Mr. Minister. They are of concern because, as you know, food service workers in the government service are trained in security matters. If you contract out the food services for Wilkinson Road jail, Oakalla, Metchosin and so on, what security precautions are being taken?

Another aspect is that from what I understand from probation officers and other people in the corrections branch, to people incarcerated in an institution the most important thing in the world is their food. The quality of food, if it is not substantial, nutritious and adequate, creates a morale problem which is a security hazard in such an institution. By contracting out, what does that mean? Do they feed the inmates less? Do they put them onto macaroni and cheese so they can make more money as a private contractor? Is there any kind of dietician or nutritional expert involved in this, or is this strictly a bottom-line measure?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Kraft Dinner.

MR. HANSON: The minister says that the people at Wilkinson Road can look forward to Kraft Dinner. I will tell you that if they're on Kraft Dinner for very long, you're going to have a real problem at some of these institutions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: My kids like Kraft Dinner.

MR. HANSON: I know you like Kraft Dinner.

[ Page 3141 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: I love Kraft Dinner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I heard someone mention baloney a while ago, and now it's macaroni. We will come back to order, and the member will continue.

MR. HANSON: I have covered some initial ground. I would now like to have a specific answer on justifying the expropriation of the educational equipment from BCIT that was used for the students and is now under Doug Heal. I would like the minister to tell me why the advisory board was fired from their work in heritage resources. I would like him to tell this House why Ninstints on Anthony Island, a world heritage site and one which in any other part of Canada would be treated with pride and looked after, is left to someone going up with a can of pesticide once a year to paint a bit of wood to keep it from rotting into the ground. I'd like him to tell us why the travel budget for cabinet ministers has been increased. I'd like him to tell us why Mr. Heal's operation seems to get bigger and bigger and why more erroneous material is being sent to the public. I'd like the minister to give us some idea about when he intends to respond in detail to pre-election advertising and polling, and I'd like him to give us the total amount on polling. I know a considerable amount was in the Minister of Labour's estimates for Goldfarb and various other Canadian facts. What is the total amount of taxpayers' dollars for polling purposes? I'd like him to tell me and this House why this particular booklet, "Recovery '83," didn't see the light of day. Rather than file this with the minister, I think for proper purposes it should be donated to the Provincial Archives as a historic document, and that is what I intend to do: "The failed recovery of 1983, the hon. James....

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. CHABOT: If that member over there would send over that document, I'll make sure that it gets into the archives.

MR. HANSON: It would never see the light of day again.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll look after it, and it'll get to the archives in due course.

That little member over there from Victoria seems to confuse the responsibilities of this ministry with those of other ministries. First, I want to respond in order to the questions that he has put. He talked about the Provincial Educational Media Centre being closed. I want to say that this is a Ministry of Education initiative. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. There is no plan to consolidate any facilities or equipment with government information services. None whatsoever. That is an initiative taken solely by the Ministry of Education. You're asking the wrong minister. You may have an opportunity fairly soon to ask the appropriate minister that question.

MR. HANSON: Is Doug Heal under you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, if you will listen to my replies. You seem more anxious to speak and make wild accusations and allegations than you are to listening to the answers.

He talks about Anthony Island. The management of Anthony Island was recently transferred to the parks branch. Since it was declared a world heritage site there has consistently been a native caretaker. We are meeting all the terms and obligations under the world heritage site designation. The member makes the accusation that the totem poles situated on that island are rotting and falling over. I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary, but the member knows full well, as an archaeologist himself. that those poles — and I want to say that I supported and advocated that designation of a world heritage site there at Anthony Island — had deteriorated severely long before it was designated. What we're attempting to do now is not to build new poles but to preserve those poles in their present condition. We're meeting the terms and conditions set out in that designation. For you to suggest that the poles are crumbling is absolute nonsense. I've been to Anthony Island, and I know the condition of the poles on that island. I think we're doing a responsible job in preserving what's left of that world heritage site at Anthony Island.

[4:30]

The member wants to talk about government information services. Government information services is a consolidation of expenditures that heretofore took place under all ministers of government. Essentially we have consolidated them, and through that consolidation and through cutting back we have realized a very dramatic saving on behalf of the taxpayers of this province. This fiscal year alone, Mr. Member, we've saved $2.5 million. We've cut back on the number of people dealing with public relations and advertising. First of all, the FTEs who existed in other ministries have been cut back from 206 to 102 positions, of which 62 are presently in government information services. The others are in ministries of government which need information officers and public relations people. So we’ve made a very dramatic rationalization of information services in government, and I think the taxpayers expected of us that we should save money and not fritter the taxpayers' dollars away as was done between 1972 and 1975.

The member fails to understand that there is a statutory obligation on the part of government to advertise, and the dollars shown in a lump sum under vote 69, government information services, are dollars that essentially are earmarked for every ministry of government. There's an allocation. Not only is there an allocation and a cutback in staffing, but there has been a very substantial cutback in the expenditures, as I mentioned a little earlier. I'm prepared to give the member the figures, if he wants, for every ministry of government, and the comparative figures for 1982-83. I'm not embarrassed by those figures, because every ministry has different obligations as far as advertising is concerned.

The member talks about the ministers' travel allowance. Yes, for the purpose of economy, that allocation has been consolidated in my ministry. It hasn't been concealed there; it's been consolidated there. I want to say as well that the allocation in the current fiscal year is 20 percent less than it was in the previous year.

The heritage advisory committee: yes, that committee has been abolished in the ministry. When the member asked a question in the House as to who would fulfil their role, I indicated to him that the Heritage Trust would be reinforced and beefed up, and that has taken place. The Heritage Trust, along with officials in my ministry, are doing a tremendous job in British Columbia of preserving our history. There is an

[ Page 3142 ]

allocation of about $1.2 million annually to the Heritage Trust. They are fulfilling a very important role and doing it efficiently as well.

The member asked a question about the contracting out of food services in the correctional institutes of the province and about the security of these people. I suggest that the member ask that particular question to the appropriate minister.

I believe I've answered the questions put to me by the first member for Victoria.

Interjections.

MR. PASSARELL: Did you send me that valentine?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is no. Cowichan-Malahat sent you that valentine. "Anybody but Passarell," she says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister's answers were entirely inadequate. He failed to touch at all on the advertising expenditures, which were in the millions. The television advertising bombardment that the citizens of this province experienced included Lotto ads and Expo '86 ads, provincial reports, B.C. Place ads and four hundred ways of looking at the Premier with a hard hat on. That cost millions, and you have not disclosed the breakdown to the public. You've not given an accounting to the public, and we are still awaiting that.

This full-time equivalent shell game that you play with government employees is appropriate to discuss under your ministry, because you are responsible for the establishment of government. Here we have the general thrust of maintenance and supervisory functions being contracted out in the parks area. I'm just going to give you a few examples of employees engaged in habitat management through the heritage conservation fund, and so on. Ministry of Health — 816 jobs going, 21 from privatization of Greater Vancouver Mental Health Services, 250 jobs in the building maintenance to be transferred to BCBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, we are on vote 67 of the Provincial Secretary, not the Ministry of Health estimates.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, the building crew that was responsible for the preservation of this building has just been transferred from this minister to BCBC, and I want to direct a few comments and remarks to that.

I want on our side of the House to go on the record as saying that that particular crew deserve the commendation of the people of this province, and of this community particularly, for their work on preserving, enhancing and saving this building from that government. Clearly, as the minister is very aware, it was the New Democratic Party government that started the restoration of the capital buildings of our Legislature.

I admit, Mr. Chairman, that it is with considerable regret that I see the transfer of that very fine crew to BCBC, because there is no guarantee that that will be held together as one unit. They have considerable talents. Some of those people have plasterer skills, stoneworking skills and other building trades expertise that really are dying trades. That was an opportunity for all British Columbia to have that crew intact to go out and do other public works in the heritage conservation area for all citizens of the province. Unfortunately the bottom-line mentality of this government means that they're transferred to BCBC and are going to different areas, and that very highly coordinated and integrated crew is no longer going to be here to do the kind of work that's around us — and in all of the fine offices that these ministers lavish in in their great creature comforts. In terms of a heritage resource, this building belongs to all the people of this province, and that crew was the only thing that really kept this building from falling down.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: They're still all around.

MR. HANSON: For the time being, Mr. Minister. There are no guarantees. If we were in government, they'd still be here and would continue to work.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The job is finished. What's the matter with you?

MR. HANSON: This job is not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HANSON: One of those workers was one day breaking up one of the large granite blocks, chipping it into shape, and he said: "You know, the Socreds are so cheap, they buy their granite in bulk." I thought that was a good line.

We have more contracting out. We see people cleaning windows in this building on the third floor without safety belts. These are non-union contractors that are doing the work in this particular building.

MR. CAMPBELL: Is that bad?

MR. HANSON: Next time I see a person cleaning windows on the third floor without any safety equipment — without any belt — I'm going to draw it to the attention of this House, because this House should have some responsibility for that person's safety. If you think it's fine and dandy to save $2 an hour, but have somebody fall off the third floor of this building, I disagree with you.

The Coquitlam laundry: 100 workers to be contracted out. Over $1 million was spent on modernization in 1980. Court reporters are to be hired under contract. The sheriff programs are to be privatized. The food services in jails: I've already touched upon that. Even the Langford sign shop — they've closed that. Contracts are to be let into the regions.

The problem, as I recounted in my remarks about the correctional services and food services, is that oftentimes these are ill-conceived transfers, in the sense of what the costs are in the long term when it doesn't pan out. This is what I'm concerned about.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank my friend, the member for Victoria, for yielding to me. I want to introduce to the House a fine-looking group of young gentlemen, the First Cedar Hill Scout Troop, in the Gordon Head part of Oak Bay riding.

[ Page 3143 ]

They're here with their scouter-in-charge, Mr. Hal Coulson, getting a lesson in estimates and how the Legislature runs. They all have a number of good questions and observations as to how the Legislature might run. There are a very alert 19 members in this scout troop. I know the members will be absolutely delighted to welcome them all here today and hope that we set a good example.

MR. HANSON: This side of the House certainly extends a warm welcome to the scout troop as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say again to the minister that during the 1983-84 fiscal year this minister played a major role in damaging the B.C. economy. He introduced ill-conceived legislation which I don't think he really understood. It probably came from the real Deputy Minister of Labour. I doubt whether the Government Employee Relations Bureau staff had anything to do with it. I think it was probably a private consultant, who seems to have his heavy hand in the labour legislation that we see in this province. Bill 3 and Bill 2: it was a fool's errand, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. During debate in Committee of Supply the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed. This is in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, page 739.

MR. HANSON: Thank you. Your point is taken, Mr. Chairman. What am I doing is advising the minister that his administrative capabilities are suspect because he introduced legislation and took actions that resulted in damage to the economy of this province, and certainly to our own area very extensively, because it is an administrative centre as the capital.

All of the activity in terms of restraint or responding to shortages of government revenues could have been — and were being — responded to under the existing collective agreements. But that minister embarked on an act which resulted in damaging the economy and not gaining his objective. He was stopped in his tracks. All of the literature and supporting documentation in terms of the specific contract language for layoff and recall that we spent 24 hours a day talking about....

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. There is ample opportunity, or there was ample opportunity, for debate of legislation that is before this House. As I indicated earlier, matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply. I think you're a little bit off course. Possibly you could get back to vote 67, which is the minister's office.

MR. HANSON: The Government Employee Relations Bureau, set up to administer collective bargaining in the public service, was a good idea. We supported it, because the talent and skills of many of those people could be brought to bear to look at comparative contracts and collective bargaining throughout Canada and other jurisdictions. The government is complex. It has 1,200 different occupational groups, and smooth administration for the public benefit is clearly required, Therefore a specialized team such as GERB is required, What I am saying is that GERB was bypassed, outside influences gave bad advice to the government, and the government embarked upon a program which we are still reeling from in our province. I am very much within the domain of this minister's estimates, because he was responsible for this.

Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the minister to put a cap on Mr. Heal's operation, to stop expropriating talent, equipment and energies that were and continue to be dispersed throughout ministries that are providing services in education and health, such as I talked about today in terms of the province's Education media centre at BCIT, the production centre there and print services in Richmond. He can say that it's the Ministry of Education, but we can see the heavy hand of information services in this move. There is no reason why 54 Education staff have to be laid off there so that Mr. Heal's operation at the Victoria media centre can be beefed up.

I am going to conclude my remarks for the moment. I would really like the minister to seriously look at providing us with some detailed responses to the questions on advertising, on polling and so on that I've asked him on numerous occasions.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, before we finish the particular motion we're on now, I would like to just say in passing what a tremendous job, in my view, the minister is doing in the area of sponsoring and expanding lottery programs in the province of British Columbia. A lot of people choose not to buy lottery tickets, a lot do buy lottery tickets, but I think one of the things that is missed by a lot of British Columbians is the tremendous amount of support given by the minister through the lotteries branch to a wide variety of organizations across British Columbia. There are literally hundreds of organizations that benefit from the massive funds that are accumulated through the lotteries branch every year: professional arts organizations such as dance, music and theatre, sports organizations, Summer and Winter Games sponsorships, and things along those lines.

In looking at the 1983-84 expenditures, it's interesting to note — and I am sure it would be of interest to a lot of people in the galleries today — that the Boy Scouts of Canada, B.C. and Yukon division, received $42,960 from the lotteries branch in this past year. The list goes on: the Pacific National Exhibition received a quarter of a million dollars; the Girl Guides of Canada, B.C. council, received $22,250. There are many organizations like this — there are literally hundreds of them — that received money from the minister through the lotteries branch. I would like to compliment him on expanding those various types of lotteries, accelerating the amount of money going into these funds and thus helping hundreds of organizations in the province of British Columbia to get the funds necessary to perform the very necessary services that they offer, to the youth in particular, throughout the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is absent now, but I want to answer a few of his questions. First of all, I want to clarify the issue of Anthony Island as far as the management is concerned. I indicated that the management was passing to the parks branch. The management is really in the hands of the parks branch at this time, but it will be transferred to my ministry as soon as arrangements can be made for the transfer, and the management of the island will be a dual responsibility of this ministry and the Skidegate band council.

[ Page 3144 ]

I just want to also mention briefly the restoration crew that worked on the parliament buildings here for some years. The ministry gave them official recognition at a coffee party before they moved over to the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which is essentially an arm of this ministry, and they've been well recognized not only by me but by all members of the House as master craftsmen. They have not necessarily been lost to the buildings. They will still be available as required through B.C. Buildings Corporation. The corporation had a meeting with the staff of, I believe, 36 people and explained to them the terms and conditions under which they were being transferred and the arrangements that would be available when they are working for B.C. Buildings Corporation. I've been informed that they are all very pleased with their transfer to the corporation. They will be more fully employed than they were here, because the restoration program is essentially complete and it has been a matter of scrambling to find work for this crew of craftsmen.

Just very briefly, on the member's statement about not having reached our objective, I want to say that the government has reached its objective in legislative matters and the collective agreement in which we now have the ability to lay off employees in an orderly fashion to achieve the downsizing objective of government. To suggest that the objective has not been reached is to close one's eyes. I suggest that the first member for Victoria is closing his eyes as to what the government's objectives were and whether the government's objectives have been reached.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to indicate some facts and figures for the minister and perhaps get him to respond to what I believe are the facts and the reality in terms of some of those things he's been saying are a statutory obligation of the government to advertise. It may indeed be the statutory obligation of the government to advertise certain functions and certain things that this government has done, but in our estimation it is also statutory, I believe, and certainly traditional, that governments, where possible — even this government — try to document what is really happening; in other words, reflect to some degree the truth of the situation.

Mr. Chairman, we experienced not very long ago — and my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) mentioned it — a little pamphlet that was put out by this government called "Restraint and Recovery: the Next Steps." I believe, Mr. Minister, you were responsible for this document.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Which one?

MR. BLENCOE: This one here, full of all sorts of....

HON. MR. CHABOT: What's the heading?

MR. BLENCOE: You know what it's called, Mr. Minister. Perhaps you should check on it. Maybe you didn't know it went out, with all the inaccuracies in it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will have the opportunity to enter the debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I just want the opportunity to put into the record for the people of British Columbia that maybe some of the things that this government is saying — not maybe, actual fact — are really not very true. Even members of the government have had to admit on occasion that perhaps there are a few little mistakes in this document. Yet it was mailed to every home at incredible cost to the taxpayers of this province — "These are the facts and this is the truth."

Let me give the government and that minister, and you too, Mr. Chairman, some facts about what the reality is and why this document really should never have left this legislative precinct and really is a scandal in terms of trying to influence the people of British Columbia with distortions and phony figures, and at great expense to the taxpayer. This government preaches cutback management, and we've heard all sorts of claims that they are the best in cutback management. At a cost of about a quarter of a million dollars you have sent this little document out....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're wrong.

MR. BLENCOE: Maybe you'll give us the exact figures, Mr. Minister, as to how much you took from handicapped people and pensions to send this out — $50 CIP. How many pensions or how many child abuse workers would that have bought, Mr. Minister? Those are the priorities of your government in this kind of document.

Let me go through some of the facts that you put in here and the reality of what's happening in British Columbia today. According to this pamphlet, the economy has been aided by the July budget and the legislative package, and you say marvellous things are happening in the economy because of the Minister of Finance's budget in July. In actual fact the total reverse is true. B.C. lags behind every other province in economic growth and suffers from record job losses, bankruptcies and business failures. Yet you don't talk about that in the package, and you say economic recovery is on the way. You don't talk about how, when this thing went out and the stats were available, in October 1983 unemployment was 11.1 percent in Canada and 13.5 percent in British Columbia. Yet you're saying in this document that you've got a handle on unemployment. That's absolute hogwash and not reality and not truth.

[5:00]

You say that business is improving, yet from October 1982 to October 1983 in Canada bankruptcies were down 21 percent and in British Columbia they were up 8.4 percent. From January 1983 to October 1983 bankruptcies were down just over 11 percent, and in British Columbia, Mr. Minister, despite what this little document said and despite the lies in it, bankruptcies were up 37 percent. Yet your document says the province's economy was aided by the July budget and the legislative package. The total opposite is happening in the province of British Columbia, and you know it. Yet you don't have the decency or the honesty to tell British Columbians, when you send them a booklet for $250,000, what the figures are. Let's have some truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, please. I'm confident you're not trying to imply anything untoward as far as the minister is concerned. You used some terms which would be questionably parliamentary, and I'm sure I can get your

[ Page 3145 ]

concurrence that you're not casting any personal aspersions on the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: No personal reflection on the minister, Mr. Chairman.

Tax levels are talked about in this pamphlet. The minister earlier referred to when we were in government and the budgets we delivered, and I just point out to that minister.... He said the NDP government was spending incredible amounts of money. I will just remind that minister that the last budget we delivered was just over $3 billion and your last budget is $8.5 billion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. We're on vote 67, and not the overall budget. We've had the budget debate, and we're now in Committee of Supply, with respect to the Provincial Secretary's estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm just responding to that minister and his false accusations about money spent.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. If you would please pay attention to the Chair, we are on vote 67; we're not on the overall budget. The budget debate has been held, and we're in Committee of Supply. Would you keep your debate to vote 67, the minister's office.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the minister did reflect, if you recall, on the overall budgets of both governments, and I just thought it was useful to indicate to this House, and for the record, exactly what the figures were. Again, even today we're not getting the true facts in terms of what dollars were spent in those years.

This pamphlet talks about tax levels — this pamphlet that went to every home and is supposed to talk about the facts and the truth. All through it it talks about "facts" and "the truth." Claims are made regarding the control of tax levels, but during the last eight years of your Socred administration — and this was put out by that minister — the province's debt has more than tripled. You're not telling the people that in this kind of publication. Why don't you tell them that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the member is essentially going through the budget debate now. He's referring, I recognize full well, to a document published through this ministry, but I think that if he wants to make his remarks relevant to these estimates he should probably restrict his remarks to the issue of the wisdom of issuing this type of brochure for distribution throughout the province and the costs associated with it. But to get involved in discussing each and every issue that's contained in that particular brochure — issues which do not relate to my ministry, I want to say — is completely out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it's a very valid point of order, Mr. Minister, and I'm confident the second member for Victoria listened to it and will restrict his debate to the minister's estimates and not specifically to the content of that document.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. What an incredible statement by the minister! He puts this out under his name and his ministry, and he's saying that he's not going to take responsibility. What a classic con! Who is responsible then? Who is going to take responsibility for this kind of document? I have to address each one of you then. Yet the minister has admitted that this is his package. So we can't question you, Mr. Minister, about the figures in here that you sent out. You are not accountable for these figures in this package? Is that what you are saying? I think is is quite an admission to the people of British Columbia that you are not prepared to be accountable for this document or these figures. That is a heck of an admission to the people of British Columbia, and that says what this package is all about: it really has nothing to do with truth or reality.

I was talking about tax levels, Mr. Minister, and you are talking about tax levels in here. Did you tell the people of British Columbia that you have tripled the debt in eight years? No, you haven't told the people that at all, but you make incredible statements that you are getting a handle on the tax situation and the economy of British Columbia. We know that is not true, and we know the deficit is now over $15 billion. Where are the facts on that in here, Mr. Minister? Let's have some facts.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member who has the floor is falling back again to the habit of discussing irrelevant points and matters that should better have been discussed under the estimates of another minister. Again, I would encourage you, Mr. Chairman, to caution the member, because if he wishes to discuss this, I believe it would be relevant to discuss the contents of every issue that is found in any brochure that is printed by a service that is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary. We would be re-debating the entire issue of budgeting and budget. I would urge you to encourage that member to have some respect for parliamentary law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank you, Mr. Minister. The member for Nanaimo.

MR. COCKE: I am member for New Westminster, for the sake of Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Agriculture rises on a point of order, indicating that my colleague is out of order because he is quoting something that came directly from the Provincial Secretary's domain — that vast domain of propaganda. Mr. Goebbels would know what I am talking about. But the fact of the matter is....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: You gave up all your propaganda; you're a weak minister.

Getting back to this, he takes responsibility by sending out that stuff to the public, and the material contained within that propaganda is his responsibility, regardless of what ministry it emanates from.

[ Page 3146 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the member for New Westminster for his comments. I feel I must correct him though. It is not the content that should be discussed in Committee of Supply with respect to the minister's office. Under vote 671 suggest the debate we should be entering into is in the administrative aspect and also with respect to the cost. But as you can well appreciate, I think, as the hon. Minister of Agriculture so ably put it, a great number of publications come out of the Provincial Secretary's office, but the actual subject matter may relate to other ministries. To open the debate up to the content of that particular document, I think we'd set an extremely large precedent whereby debate on Provincial Secretary's estimates could cover and be identical to almost the overall budget debate and estimates of every minister.

The member for Kootenay rises on a point of order.

MR. SEGARTY: Thanks for your guidance. I'm sure the debate would also cover the propaganda that was sent out by the member for Victoria on municipal elections to all municipal councillors of British Columbia, since it also comes under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLENCOE: I have no opposition to debating that if they wish. Mr. Chairman, as you have suggested very properly, it is your opinion that this should not be debated now. When a piece of information coming from a ministry, regardless of what ministry that might be, is information that must eventually be debated in terms of its content, how can you possibly take that document and rip it into about 14 pieces and slowly but surely go down the government benches? As a matter of fact, we have no knowledge that the ministers in some of those areas had anything to do with the content. I suspect the content came from Doug Heal and Spector and a few of the boys. What we're talking about here is that the ministry take responsibility for that document.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will again caution the second member for Victoria to restrict his debate to the administrative aspects and costs and other matters specifically related to the Ministry of Provincial Secretary, as set out in the document. That would be permissible. But matters relating to other ministries of the government would not be in order.

MR. BLENCOE: That's a very strange position to take, because the minister is responsible for this document. I am going to ask him to clarify these particular statements in here, and my answers to his statements, to see what he can say about it. I think that's a reasonable request. He has admitted that this document went out. He has admitted that he was responsible for it. It's right here: government information services. I am correct, Mr. Minister, that you are responsible for that particular section of government? Can I ask you questions about a pamphlet you sent out? That seems reasonable. I don't see anything wrong with that, Mr. Chairman. Whom am I supposed to ask about the pamphlet? The minister of science and technology? Can you answer me that, Mr. Chairman? Did he send out that pamphlet? I want to know the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair takes the position that questions on the cost of the pamphlet and who sent it out can be asked of the Provincial Secretary. With respect to the actual content involving other ministries of the government, they would not be acceptable. If you wish to persist in questioning the content with respect to other ministries in the government other than the Provincial Secretary's, the Chair will be obliged to ask you to take your place.

The second member for Victoria.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You want me to answer your question?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I want to suggest that the member could drift — as he is drifting now — substantially further. He could say that the Queen's Printer, which is the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services and is responsible for the printing of essentially all government documents and annual reports....

Therefore the Provincial Secretary should answer for all the documents that are printed by the Queen's Printer. You're stretching it a little far.

I would like to say that I don't know who Goebbels is over there in the NDP. I would like to ask the question, because there has been a substantial amount of propaganda mailed from the NDP to aldermen, mayors and aspiring aldermen and mayors throughout British Columbia. There has been virtually what you might calla blitzkrieg of information filtering to these people who are involved in the municipal world, and in that respect I'd like to know who paid for this socialist propaganda.

[5:15]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Minister, I think you are likewise getting far away from the estimates of your ministry. We're on vote 67, dealing with the administrative aspects of the minister's office, and I would ask, Mr. Minister, if you would restrict your debate to it and to questions by members relating to it and to not go far afield.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I don't know, but I guess stationery is dispensed from the Speaker's office. Are we involved in distributing stationery? Yes, we have an involvement in distributing stationery. So I would ask the member how he used that stationery distributed from the Provincial Secretary's ministry. I'd like to know how much he used for the purpose of his propaganda efforts in the field of municipal affairs. I'd like to know what the cost of postage was. I'd like to know what the cost of xeroxing was. I'd like to know what the cost of staff time was. I'd like to know what the total cost was.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the whole House is now aware of how ridiculous it would be to pursue this course of action. To have the Provincial Secretary accountable for the words that appear on all paper that is distributed through his office is ridiculous. So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your attempt to bring this member to order.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New Westminster rises on a point of order.

Interjections.

[ Page 3147 ]

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. COCKE: You see, Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary has now set the precedent: asking irrelevant questions of a member who's not a minister and whose estimates are not up. They haven't been called by the House Leader yet, in any event. What was really going on here was a relevant debate, which is being stifled, and we'll have to ask all those questions under the first minister's office — and you can't stop us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, with respect, I think the minister was brought to order, the same as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) was brought to order, as to the wide-ranging nature of the debate they were getting into, and that it should be restricted to the estimates. I think we should carry on with responsible debate. The hon. Minister of Agriculture says we are all awake now and aware of the narrowness of this debate. Let's hope we can carry it on in a responsible manner.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it's quite obvious that we're not going to be able to get to the bottom of this thing. Clearly a decision has been made to try to avoid the embarrassment to this government for this particular package. When we try to bring out the inaccuracies — and that minister is responsible; it did go out under his ministry — all sorts of little games are played to ensure that the right questions aren't answered, and the figures aren't brought forward. For the minister to utilize the fact that a number of the people in the province of British Columbia requested some information from me in my office....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I have the list of people, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: They asked me, Mr. Minister. I didn't mail out to any British Columbian without their asking for information. This was information about what you people were doing to municipal affairs and how you were ruining municipal government. Someone's got to tell the people the truth in this province, because you won't tell them the truth! Somebody's got to do it. Mr. Minister, I've got those names and addresses, and if you come to my office right after this, I'll show them to you and you can have them. Perhaps you'll do me the courtesy, though, of showing me the names of all the people in British Columbia who wrote to you asking for this document. You show me that list, Mr. Minister, and then we'll be on equal terms again. But don't try and play those games, because it won't work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please direct his debate through the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: There's no point in trying to find out what figures and inaccuracies are in this document, because clearly we're going to be ruled out of order on each single one. It's the same kind of dealings that are happening inPublic Accounts — the refusal of this government to deal with Public Accounts properly. As Chairman of Public Accounts I have to say now that I'm totally dismayed with the way this government has been handling its business and taking those kinds of affairs....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please come to order. This will be the last incidence of the Chair asking the member to keep the debate within the confines of vote 67 and the Committee of Supply. Mr. Member, if your debate gets wide-ranging again I'll have no alternative but to ask you to take your place. and we'll continue debate with other members.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was indeed going to take the opportunity to go through the rest of the inaccuracies that this minister was responsible for, but unfortunately you've made the decision that the truth cannot come out. You're going to deny the truth, so the only opportunity I have, I'm afraid, is that I have to take my place and say it’s a sad day when you won't allow the people of British Columbia to know the truth about the $250,000 pamphlet that was sent to their homes without being requested.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it seems that the insistence to be out of order is beyond the level tolerable to the rest of the members of this House. The member having been warned several times, I would think that the standing orders provide that acquiescence to the direction of the Chair is essential. If that acquiescence is not there, I would urge you to carry out the remedies provided for you in the standing orders.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, as this session is rolling rapidly to an end, I thought I'd ask the minister a question. I asked it on the order paper in August. It's question 48. How many employees did the provincial government have full time and part time in 1976, 1977 and 1978 through to March 31, 1983? I'd like to know from the hon. minister whether there is any prospect whatsoever of getting an answer to a question which surely the government can answer readily.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes, and I intend to table the answer to that question before the end of this current session, which will give you the information vis-à-vis staffing in the public service and Crown corporations.

In response to the long-winded question which should have been a short question from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) regarding an information folder mailed by my ministry, there were 1,088,241 of those brochures mailed to B.C. households at the end of November at a cost of 7 cents apiece for mailing and 10 cents apiece for printing, which is substantially less than the erroneous figure you have been quoting.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I wrote to the Provincial Secretary in his capacity as the minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation with respect to the disposal of the Colony Farm land.

[ Page 3148 ]

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I have your answer. Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Yesterday I raised the issue with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and suggested at that time that a restrictive covenant be placed on the land before it is sold to ensure that it remains in agricultural use in perpetuity. The Minister of Agriculture indicated to me that the agricultural land reserve was in fact a sufficient guarantee that it stays within the agricultural land reserve itself. Now, Mr. Chairman, since this government has on a number of occasions overruled the Agricultural Land Commission itself and has removed prime agricultural land from the agricultural land reserve, it is quite clear that the land's being in the agricultural land reserve is no guarantee at all that it's going to remain in agricultural use in perpetuity.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This piece of land is located right next to an existing industrial park, and I have indicated on many occasions that I have great concern about the future of this land in terms of it remaining in agricultural use. The minister's response to my correspondence indicates that the intention is that it be sold for agricultural use, and that it will be sold in the two existing parcels — having been subdivided some years ago. The minister also indicates that there will be further subdivision if, in fact, the land does not sell in those two existing parcels. I would assume that this would have to have the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission, and if....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: A subdivision? Why not, Mr. Chairman? Obviously they're just going to overrule anything and bypass the Land Commission and further subdivide it if necessary.

The other concern that I have related to this land, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that it's going to be sold through public tender. Has an upset price been established by B.C. Development Corporation for this land? And if so, could the minister please advise what that price would be? Or will the government simply accept the highest bid for those particular pieces of land?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I can well recognize the concern the member for Comox has vis-à-vis farmland going into industrial parks, because I remember very well when some very prime agricultural land — Tilbury Island — was taken out of the ALR by the NDP and converted into an industrial park.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CHABOT: One other prime piece of agricultural land in the interior of British Columbia, the old Molson Hop Farms at Kamloops, was turned into an industrial park. It was taken out of the ALR by the NDP, and that's why I recognize your concern. You've seen it happen under a former government here in British Columbia, and I share your concern. I want to assure you that you won't see happen here what you saw happen under the NDP at Tilbury Island and the old Molson Hop Farms.

[5:30]

Mr. Chairman, the original intention of B.C. Buildings Corporation was to sell the land, which is in the ALR, as two distinct and separate parcels for the purpose of agriculture. It was the intention of the municipal government in Coquitlam to put an additional zoning restriction on the land: that is, put an agricultural zoning over top of the ALR designation. I had a meeting with the chairman of the board of BCBC just a few days ago, and I expressed some concern about the size of the parcels and the potential value of those parcels and the ability of an individual to acquire them for agricultural purposes. I told the chairman that maybe the board should look at the possibility of offering smaller parcels. So the intent originally was as described in the letter. I don't know what the board will do. They were supposed to meet today; I don't know if they did or not. They will be examining how they will make the land available, whether it will be released in two separate and distinct parcels of 380 or 390 acres in size or thereabouts or whether they should be released in smaller parcels. You don't need that size of parcel of land in the lower mainland to make it a viable economic unit. The land in question is presently held in 37 legal parcels.

The full intent of the government in the sale of these lands is that they be sold for the purpose of agricultural development and agricultural endeavour. We recognize it is ALR land, we recognize it is land of high quality, and we want to see the land continue to be used for agricultural purposes.

MS. SANFORD: The minister did not answer my question with respect to an upset price, nor did he indicate to us how the land would be subdivided without reference to the Land Commission.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I didn't say that it would necessarily be subdivided. I said that there are 37 separate and distinct legal parcels there now. It might pose a particular problem as far as access is concerned. That would be a matter, if a subdivision was required. They are of course subject to terms and conditions and zoning of the municipality. It is our intent to release the land for agricultural purposes.

I'd have to check out the upset price with the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I believe the land has a value of $5.5 to $6 million.

MS. SANFORD: I just want to clarify for the members of the Legislature that when the minister refers to 37 separate parcels he is talking about two very large parcels plus 35 one acre parcels which are along the riverfront and cannot be built upon because they're in the floodplain. So what we're talking about, effectively, is two major parcels of land. The information that I have received from the Land Commission is that because of the low-lying nature of those 35 one-acre parcels, it is unlikely that the government, no matter what devious device they might use, would be able to sell those for building purposes.

The other thing is that any further subdivision would have to go before the Land Commission, and the upset price, I think, is a very important consideration in the purchase of this land. If you're talking about $5.5 million or $6 million for that land, is that the going rate for agricultural land or is that a rate that's higher than the going rate for agricultural land in that area? That's obviously a consideration in the sale of this land.

[ Page 3149 ]

May I also point out that if people do not have $5.5 million or $6 million at this stage, the University of British Columbia would welcome the gift of that land so that they could use it for research purposes in the field of agriculture.

Vote 67 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 15

Mr. Nicolson requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[5:45]

Vote 68: Provincial Secretary and Government Services, $41,611,053 — approved.

Vote 69: government information services, $17,861,018 — approved.

Vote 70: culture, heritage and recreation, $17,843,737 approved.

Vote 71: government personnel, pensions and employee benefits administration, $13,052,221 — approved.

Vote 72: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $167,183,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF UNIVERSITIES,
SCIENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS

On vote 85: minister's office, $119,840.

MR. NICOLSON: As the minister is not going to get up and announce a new tunnel or treat us to one of the usual headline-grabbing pronouncements, I would move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. R. Fraser, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing, presented the committee's report, which was taken as read and received.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.