[ Page 8775 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Government TV ads and Socred leadership campaign. Mr. Williams –– 8775

Registered nurses. Mrs. Dailly –– 8775

Hospital bed closures. Mr. Blencoe –– 8775

Mrs. Dailly

Coquihalla Highway. Mr. Lockstead –– 8776

Support for Bishop Tutu. Ms. Sanford –– 8776

Appointment of Dr. Norman Spector to UBC position. Mr. Nicolson –– 8776

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 8777

Ship construction. Mr. Mitchell –– 8777

Presenting Petitions –– 8777

Motion 71. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8777

Mr. Nicolson

Division

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 8778

Mr. Hanson

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barnes

Division

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office. (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 8784

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Skelly

Supply Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 37). Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 8791

Tabling Documents –– 8791

Royal assent to bills –– 8792

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us this afternoon are Mr. Thomas W. Wallace, member of parliament from Victoria, Australia, and Mrs. Wallace. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. PARKS: It is my pleasure, on behalf of my minister, Hon. Alex Fraser, to advise the House that we have with us this afternoon ten grade 7 students and their teacher, Mr. Shunter, from Kersley Elementary School in Quesnel. I'd ask the House to join with me and make them very welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the House today is Ross Siemens, president of the Central Fraser Valley Young Socreds Association. Ross heads up a group of members numbering in the neighbourhood of 370.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, all working for me.

With Ross is vice-president Veronica Falkenberg, Howard Huizing, Ryan Siemens and his wife Tammy, Todd Lapinsky and Bart Saathof. It is interesting to note that Ross's father led the largest Young Socreds group in British Columbia approximately 25 years ago. Would the House please welcome these proud young British Columbians.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today is a constituent from the town of Sidney in the great constituency of Saanich and the Islands, Mr. Dave Bowker. He has a special guest with him: Mr. Stanley Baker, who is a member of the district council of East Devon, United Kingdom.

MR. BARNES: With us in the galleries this afternoon are Dr. Marianne Jamison and her husband Dr. David Jamison. Dr. Marianne Jamison is a political science teacher at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas, and her husband is a biologist at the University of Houston. They have been visiting the precinct and Expo and are on their way to Alaska in the next few days; from what I gather, they are very impressed with their experience. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing Mrs. Karen Huber and Sister Eileen and 34 of her grade 7 students from Cloverdale Catholic School. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT TV ADS AND
SOCRED LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. The minister has recently placed herself on television in a brand-new series of propaganda advertisements. Can the minister confirm that the timing pretty well coincided with her announcement with respect to the leadership?

MR. SPEAKER: A very small part of the question is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to the question is no. The government television advertising currently in place is informational, not political.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister, in fairness to all the candidates, might reconsider the decision and pull those ads until after the convention.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

MR. WILLIAMS: Or is she suggesting that maybe it's an advantage to the other candidates after all?

REGISTERED NURSES

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Minister of Health. British Columbia has been losing registered nurses because the pay and the working conditions in this province are much worse than in neighbouring provinces.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: It is a fact, Mr. Speaker.

What studies has the minister undertaken regarding nurses leaving British Columbia for these better working conditions elsewhere?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The registered nurses' union is at this time negotiating with the HLRA with respect to their contract. It was only a few years back that our nurses were the highest-paid in Canada and other provinces were looking for additional nurses and in fact recruiting in B.C. as well. At the moment the nurses are negotiating with their employer agency to discuss the terms and conditions of a collective agreement, and I think that's probably the proper forum for them.

HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the acting Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no such animal.

MR. BLENCOE: Well then, the Minister of Health.

MR. REID: That's better. Smarten up.

MR. BLENCOE: Boy, they're a little antsy, Mr. Speaker.

Fernande Harrison, the vice-president of patient care for greater Victoria hospitals, has announced that three operating rooms at the Royal Jubilee will be shut down for two weeks in July because of a nursing shortage. A number of times I've brought the situation at the Jubilee and the VGH to the attention of this minister in this House. My question is: has the minister addressed the shortage of nurses in terms of its funding policies in B. C. hospitals — particularly in Victoria, which always has a problem with the age of its population, as seniors require hospital care?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr Speaker, if we were to go back to each July for the past 40 or 50 years, we'd probably find the same story printed in the papers: "Hospital Beds to

[ Page 8776 ]

Close Because of Nurses Shortage." Usually it's associated with what we refer to as vacations, and July and August are the time when beds are traditionally closed in the province to accommodate staff vacations. It's also a time of the year when there are fewer people admitted to hospital, particularly for elective surgery. But if the vice-president of patient care does not know the name of the administrator of the hospital, I'd be pleased to provide it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's known that in 1982 the shortage of staff in hospitals was compounded by the Ministry of Health cutting back nurses, and hospital beds were closed in British Columbia. Twenty-seven hospitals indicated in a survey of March 1986 that they had a shortage of critical-care nurses. Is the minister prepared to admit that enough is enough, and that we have to return hospital care in the province of British Columbia to decent standards, and will the minister admit that he's made some mistakes?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the member that the patient-days in 1982 probably exceeded the patient-days of 1981. We could look at the statistics, but I would suggest that probably more people were treated in the hospitals in '82 than '81.

Critical-care nurses have been a constant problem for a number of years, not because of the inability to fund, but because of the lack of critical-care nurses available on the market. That is the most difficult area of the hospital to staff, because not that many choose that particular specialty in our hospital system. Attempts have been made to modify the education process and recruitment process to try to encourage more registered nurses to move into the critical-care area. That is a constant problem. It is not confined to your hospital or to British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics available at this moment, but I would suggest that in British Columbia today there are probably about 1,500 acute care beds empty and available for patients but not being used at this moment. I don't know the precise number, but I would suggest it's probably about 1,500 acute care beds, open for patients but not being used at this time.

As to your last question, I would think not.

MR. BLENCOE: A final supplementary. Is the minister prepared today to undertake to ensure that the three operating rooms at the Royal Jubilee Hospital will remain open this summer for business?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak with the administrator of the hospital and if, in his wisdom, the most efficient use of that facility, not only from a fiscal point of view but from a manpower point of view, and medical, is to close those three operating rooms, I would think that I might accept his judgment in that matter, since that happens to be his job.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister referred to the fact that more patients have been treated this year than in the past. I would like to ask the minister: is he not aware that the important thing also is the quality of nursing care? Is he not aware that substandard working conditions and salary do eventually affect the quality of care, and that is our concern?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, anyone, and all people, I believe, would be concerned about quality of care, whether it's nursing, medical or otherwise. But I would suggest that the integrity of those professional people is probably the most important factor.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the acting Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister confirm that the Ministry of Highways is now engaged in test-hole drilling on the Coquihalla Highway?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll be pleased to take that question as notice for the minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A new question. Can the minister then confirm that at least at one location it was determined that the highway was constructed on top of eight feet of ice and 30 feet of snow?

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Following on the heels of the first question, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take question number two as notice for the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

SUPPORT FOR BISHOP TUTU

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. The Quebec National Assembly earlier this month adopted a unanimous motion in support of Bishop Desmond Tutu in his efforts to rid South Africa of apartheid. Has the government considered a similar initiative in the B.C. Legislature?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not at this juncture.

APPOINTMENT OF DR.
NORMAN SPECTOR TO UBC POSITION

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Post-Secondary Education, the appointment of Dr. Norman Spector as a senior fellow at UBC, not to any particular department or with any particular responsibility or being paid out of any particular fund, is rather unprecedented in the history of our province. Can the minister confirm that there was no advertisement or competition or search for applicants regarding this appointment?

HON. R. FRASER: I've been expecting a question on Dr. Spector's appointment at the university for some time. I'm glad the member finally asked. All I can say with respect to university employment is that the university hires their own people at their own will. They chose him, and that's how it was done.

MR. NICOLSON: Does the minister believe that they still have a will of their own, when millions of dollars of funding are now directed from his ministry under the so called Excellence in Education fund? And did this not follow rather hard on the heels of the announcement of the awarding of the final amount, bringing it up to a total of some $30

[ Page 8777 ]

million that has been put in front of the universities to bring them into the orbit of this government, which is a rather hard orbit to circle in?

HON. R. FRASER: The member's question, while confusing, has some points that I would like to address. Firstly, with respect to the Excellence in Education fund, the government has done a fantastic job of providing money for postsecondary institutions. I'm certainly very pleased to have been part of the process. In fact, now that it's going so smoothly, you'll be very happy with it.

I would point out that the government has established the ministry, which is working very well as the result of everybody's input. The government has established multi-year funding, which is working very well. Now the government is working with all the universities, all the colleges and all the institutes to help them direct the funds where we want them to go: to students. The whole process of the excellence fund was done with the consultation of the ministry officials, and with the university and college officials. They prioritized everything. It was all set down, everybody agreed; the whole thing is working beautifully, no problem.

It was due to the hard work that was done by everybody in the province, including the members in here, that the whole fund was created. Now the fact that a appointment to one university came coincidentally is not a concern of mine. The university hires their people, the act says they do, and that's the way they'll continue to operate.

MR. NICOLSON: To the same minister, if the system is working so well, is the minister now prepared to table the guidelines under which this money is dispensed? And can he tell me: is Dr. Spector going to be there as a student or a teacher?

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. On March 14 I presented evidence prepared by the timber range and recreation manager of the forest district of Vancouver that Doman Industries was caught manufacturing export logs and leaving unmanageable quantities on the ground. Can the minister advise what penalties Doman paid?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot advise what penalties, if any, were assessed with respect to Doman Industries. I will take that question on notice and make the appropriate inquiry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the minister, the tenures granted by Doman a decade ago were granted on the understanding that a pulp mill would be built in the Nanaimo area. That has not been done, nor has their AAC been maintained in recent years. Is the minister reviewing the non-performance with respect to this licensee?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

SHIP CONSTRUCTION

MR. MITCHELL: To the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Recently a delegation from B.C. went to Ottawa to see if Ottawa would break loose with some money to build an ice-breaker on the west coast and support the ship-building industry of this province. My question to the minister is: what support has his ministry and his staff given to that delegation? And have they contacted the government in Ottawa supporting that proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The response was "yes," hon. member. And the bell terminates question period.

Presenting Petitions

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have a petition here signed by more than 24,000 people from across Canada with respect to South Moresby, which I am pleased to table at this time,

MR. SPEAKER: The member tables a petition.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Motion 71.

MR. SPEAKER: The member would conclude debate, if that is the indication.

On Motion 71.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We much enjoyed some of the remarks of the hon. opposition this morning. I must confess that they were in a far better mood on Thursday last. I went by their caucus shortly after we adjourned, and they were literally dancing around the maypole. But I can tell you that there's a wealth of unanimous parliamentary and historical authority that is completely supportive of the resolution that was called by the government this morning, and I'd just like to put a little of that into the record.

First of all, a quotation from Forsey and Eglington: "A money measure, whether a taxation measure or an estimate, and whether or not it is part of the content of a budget, is not necessarily a matter of confidence, and defeat in it does not necessarily entail either resignation or a request for dissolution."

Then everybody read the remarks of the learned Prof. Edward McWhinney, and he indicated very clearly that this was nothing more than an embarrassment for the government. I quite frankly share the comments of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Brummet) in that regard. Mr. McWhinney continues: "What we're dealing with here is something that occurred as a result of a caprice, but that doesn't change the fabric of the 1983 election results. Most of it is an opportunity for some humour on the part of the opposition to comment on the disarray of the government."

Prof. Sanders made the observation that it was a vote in a committee, not in the House — and the House is, of course, the crucial body.

There are also the remarks of Sir Ivor Jennings: "Whenever the government is defeated, even if on one of the traditional occasions of confidence — the Speech from the Throne, the budget and the granting of supply, for example...." It's still up to the Prime Minister and his colleagues to make the decision as to whether the issue in which they were defeated was of sufficient importance to entail either resignation or dissolution. This, of course, is buttressed by dozens of precedents all over the Commonwealth, and the principle applies, as has been indicated in the article,

[ Page 8778 ]

with special force to a defeat by a small majority on a snap vote.

So, sure, it was a hoot, a chuckle and a laugh, and there was some embarrassment, but I say very clearly that there was certainly some betrayal too, because some of our members started to trust the untrustable. If this was division by ambush, we had a degree of twinkle-toeing through the tunnel, real or metaphorical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The House Leader, who, I think above all, should try to set an example in this House, if any of us should, is impugning members of this House with the remarks he has just made, and I would ask that he withdraw those remarks.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: If the shoe fits and the member feels offended, I'm more than delighted to withdraw unqualifiedly, Mr. Speaker. But it was, and it is, a bagatelle — an old expression my colleague from Vancouver Centre well knows: de minimis non curat lex. This was a great example of that. I'd say it's perhaps piggly-wiggly politics at the very best, because rather than asking this outstanding administration to take seriously this capricious and sort of Philadelphia lawyer approach that was thrust upon us yesterday, and specifically upon the man who produced the most outstanding international exposition in the history of our country.... To say that he and his loyal staff — they're all public servants — should have to divvy up $1 over a year was just goofy, goofy, goofy.

But it was a hoot, and I'd like you to tell the 4.5 million people who've gone through the doors of Expo already and the 16 million people who have paid for visits. If this discussion would get in front of those people, do you know what they'd like to do? They'd like to reserve the Plaza of Nations, declare an official day of ridicule, and put all the opposition, together with their camp-followers from city hall — which I say is B.C.'s answer to Red Square — right smack into the stocks, Mr. Premier.

You ask this little administration, this little government, to really and truly take all this nonsense of yours seriously. Well, I say we will, but just to the extent that the people in our province have for the past ten years: in other words, absolutely no way. Because the only thing you have dealt with in this House for a ten-year period is process, never substance. I'll tell you, the people of British Columbia never, ever again are going to grant these British Columbia socialists another opportunity to cripple our province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll try it any time, sit, and we'll take you once more to the cleaners — make no mistake about that. The B.C. free enterprise system and B.C. people are too strong, too courageous and too dynamic to ever buckle under the yoke of state socialism — make no mistake about that. And they will fight. They will fight in the farms, they will fight in the fields, they will fight in the lumber mills and in the logging camps, they will fight on the plains and prairies, they will fight in the towns and villages and municipalities, and we will face you any time and any place, for we will never falter and we will never fail.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
(continued)

On vote 70: minister's office, $186,423.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons the Orwellian nightmare is so pervasive in this province is that under that Minister of Tourism.... I want to give you an example. Mr. Heal, Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Burns got funds from the Social Credit government, from the taxpayers of this province, to establish a selection procedure, to sit on an advisory committee, to find a contract that would then involve taxpayers' money; and after the deal was fixed, they would then sit down with the Crown and undertake a contract to get money.... Six days later these people, who are key hierarchical Socred political apparatchiks in this province, got tax-dollar money.

The people of this province are poorly served, Mr. Chairman, because they have to climb over Socred political hacks, flacks and doughnut-hole-pushers, and every other permutation and combination of that, to get to the people's business. I want to go through this very important piece of documentation. The people haven't had a reckoning on it. The people of this province need to know why their tax dollars are being funnelled to political hacks for dubious work on retroactive contracts, to my knowledge, without precedent.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It's in Public Accounts.

We have raised extensively in this House our concern about partisan polling done at taxpayers' expense, advertising done at taxpayers' expense, disbursement of lottery funds at taxpayers' expense. We have an Orwellian nightmare in this Social Credit government, and those tentacles stretch from the Premier's office through into the lotteries branch....

[ Page 8779 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're on vote 70, Ministry of Tourism, minister's office.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons we moved non-confidence in this minister is the kind of administration currently underway that is taking legitimate tax money which should be used for programs for people but is tunnelled to political hacks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're reflecting on a previous vote as well. Could we return to vote 70, the minister's office.

MR. HANSON: We're talking.... The minister rose in his place the other day and indicated that it was a decision of his ministry to undertake the consulting services of Mr. Kinsella, Mr. Heal and Mr. Burns.

Now Mr. Burns, he was the Provincial Secretary's campaign manager in 1981. Sorry, in May of 1979. In February of 1981 he was appointed interim general manager and deputy commissioner general of Transpo '86, later Expo. The initial appointment was for a six-month term: $36,000. In March of 1981 he was appointed to the board of directors of the B.C. Development Corporation for a three-year term.

In April of 1983 Michael Burns appeared in news reports as one of the six main Social Credit fundraisers involved in raising money for this government. In August of 1983 he resigned as manager of Expo 86 and at this time Burns heads up the Sentinel Group, together with Patrick Kinsella of Progressive Strategies and Doug Heal of Douglas Heal Communications. Burns has previously incorporated Sentinel Strategies Ltd., of which he is president. Other directors are Bette Burns and assistant secretary James Hogan.

In March 1984 he was reappointed to the board of B.C. Development Corporation. In January 1985 — and this is my chief concern in my remarks right now, Mr. Chairman — that tax money was spent by this minister's department, public money, in a retroactive contract, tunnelling money to Douglas Heal, Patrick Kinsella and Michael Burns in retrospect.

I've never seen a contract like that. I've looked at a lot of contracts in viewing vouchers, Mr. Chairman, and the contracts go like this. They are an undertaking, they say "a term" — a term of work to be employed. Usually it outlines what the schedule of service is, herein called the work. There's a term. There's a stipulation of how payment is made — a schedule of payments. There's provision for reports, for confidentiality and so on. This contract was signed on January 16. The money was paid on January 21. There was a rush put on it. The term of the contract was six months prior to the sitting down and signing of the contract.

The people of this province deserve an answer for that. That's their money. The people of this province are tired of you spending their money on foolishness like this. You could have had a council of deputy ministers draw up the request for proposal. You could have had a council of deputy ministers, key people, non-partisan people, career government employees. But you picked three of your key political hacks from the big blue machine to bring the taxpayers to heel.

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Okay, you say it's only $33,350. But the people of this province deserve to know why retroactivity, and why these people. The minister stood up and said because one of them has computer training. That's foolishness. That's a totally inadequate response, totally inadequate.

Mr. Chairman. $33,350, as we've indicated before using examples, could have given a number of students bursaries who can't afford university education in this province — any number of other things,

When we go and look at those vouchers, this government makes it very, very difficult for us to look at vouchers and scrutinize. There were no people in tunnels last Thursday. There were people doing all sorts of things and one of them was reviewing vouchers, and this was a voucher.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They don't like to hear it.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You know, there's ResWest. There's a lot of concern about the functioning of ResWest and the competency around the selection of ResWest by these political advisers to the Premier's office.

Let's just go.... The implications of that contract — it was a five-year contract. They have an exclusive contract for five years. They are there until 1989. That's a licence to print money. That's money for old rope. That's just like getting money from home. It's unbelievable that you would expend tax money to political functionaries like this in that way. It has no credibility whatsoever. Five years' exclusive contract. What does ResWest do? Charges $150 per member and a 10 percent commission on each booking. This is justified, according to management at ResWest, since "it is in effect a travel agent." An exclusive monopoly travel agent — isn't that unbelievable? — and therefore entitled to 10 percent.

A $5 booking fee is paid on each booking, and this will come off after Expo. There were no commissions paid to travel agents and no toll-free line. The projected income from the Expo period.... According to a news report, ResWest spent $2 million on the system, hardware, software and staff and is hoping to make enough to cover their investment and get the firm well established in the future. As of April 30 there were 83,000 individual bookings. The rough total of profit for the Expo period is $3,051,000. That is an awful lot of money. That is a choice plum — an unbelievable political plum.

We want the answers. We want to know what association the Sentinel Group has with your ministry now. What contracts does Sentinel Strategies have with you now, that you're aware of? What work is Michael Burns doing for you now? What work is Patrick Kinsella doing for you now? And Douglas Heal now? How many tax dollars? What undertaking in contracts now? And we want a full explanation of this one, knowing that it is in the fiscal year under review, which is not before your ministry estimates right at this moment; we know that, but it's the only public window, It is tax money — public dollars that are expended. They have the fight to know. I'd like to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thought for a moment you'd never sit down. You get so carried away with your righteous indignation — get all worked up into a lather, and half your information is incorrect and the other is suspect.

[ Page 8780 ]

Sentinel Strategies Ltd. was hired to put together a model to put a reservation system together, because of the expertise of Mr. Michael Burns. I make no apologies for that. The Sentinel Group was not involved, as you have mentioned several times in your contrived outrage. The Sentinel Strategies Ltd. principal is Michael Burns. He was selected to establish the terms of reference for a tender call to operate a provincewide reservation system because he is an acknowledged authority when it comes to computer hardware and software, both of which are essential aspects of operating such a system. Also, Mr. Burns had been involved for quite some time with Transpo '86, the predecessor of Expo 86, and had done some personal research into what would be required for a reservation system.

The contract ran — and you have failed to mention this — from May 1, 1984, through December 1, 1984. During that time most of the work was done on the contract. Unfortunately, the contract was not completed and signed until January 16, and most of the work had been done, including the consultation with various bidders and assessment.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Explain why.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know. For some reason the contract wasn't completed till January 16. So since the work had already been done by Mr. Burns and done to our satisfaction, every effort was made to expedite the payment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. All members of the committee will be given an opportunity to respond to the minister's statement in debate, but will do it one at a time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I repeat that Mr. Burns had done a tremendous amount of work to our satisfaction, the contract was completed and signed, and payment was expedited so that he could get his money. In fact, I can even recall I had to apologize to Mr. Burns at the time. I don't recall the reasons why we were late in signing that contract, but we paid him as quickly as possible.

Yesterday I mentioned from memory that I thought seven companies were involved in bidding on the reservation system. I was wrong. It was nine companies, Mr. Chairman, now that I have had a chance to research the matter. Nine companies expressed an interest in operating a reservation system, with five finally submitting detailed bids. These bids were reviewed by a committee, which included the following: Michael Burns of Sentinel Strategies Ltd., who had drawn up the parameters for the bids; Mr. John Dye, who was then president of the Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia; Mr. Don Spears of B.C. Systems Corporation, to mention your career bureaucrat, Mr. Member; Mr. Wayne Carter of my ministry; and Mr. John Currie, who at that time was an ADM in my ministry. So we had a committee of five knowledgeable people, each bringing their own field of expertise to evaluate these bids. We had computer experts, people who were expert in reservation systems, such as Mr. Dye, people very knowledgeable about the tourism industry, including an assistant deputy minister.

The member says it was foolishness to spend $33,000 to assemble the information and put in place a reservation system, which we want in this province long after Expo. We want it to be there for all time, and we want it to work properly. I don't think that's an inordinate amount of money to spend to make sure it's drawn up properly. He questions the competency of ResWest, which are entirely separate from any of the groups mentioned here, who happened to be the successful bidders. They had to put up $2 million to buy equipment in order to take on this bid. He wouldn't think about the risk that was involved. He doesn't mention that. They had to put up $2 million in order to accept this bid and put a reservation system into place, not really knowing whether they were going to get their investment back or not.

He calls it a licence to print money, but it's quite a high risk, I would submit, to put $2 million on the line — between the two partners of ResWest — for a reservation system, a reservation system that is not subsidized by government in a direct way. We did agree that whoever got the bid would be mentioned in our advertising literature for a specified period, I think five years; that we would mention the reservation number and the system in our pamphlets and brochures for a period of five years, but there is no direct government subsidy. It's totally operated by the private sector, and it's working well. If they're making some money, I'm very happy for them, because they put $2 million of hard-earned cash on the line. Who knows if they will make money after Expo? I sincerely hope they do, because we want the system to be successful. We want it to be around for a long, long time. It's one of the finest reservation systems in Canada, perhaps in the western world. To our knowledge, it rivals any reservation system that is operating.

I hope that clears up a lot of the points mentioned. I sincerely hope the member doesn't work himself into a frenzy, as he did a few moments ago.

MR. HANSON: Two questions: under what authority did Michael Burns, Patrick Kinsella and Douglas Heal undertake the work effective May 1, 1984? Under what authority was that decision made? A second question: why was the invoice sent on Sentinel Group letterhead?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To answer the first question, they were acting on the authority of a letter from my office that asked them to put the parameters of this system together so that we could go to public tender. I can't answer the second question. You'd have to ask the people in Sentinel Strategies Ltd. or Sentinel Group why it was sent on their letterhead.

MR. HANSON: An invoice on Sentinel Group letterhead dated January 16 is submitted for payment to the deputy minister's office, and the minister stands up today and says Sentinel Group and Sentinel Strategies are not connected. I'd like him to explain that to me.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The contract, of which I have a copy in front of me, clearly mentions only Sentinel Strategies Ltd., and the cheque is made payable to Sentinel Strategies Ltd. That's all I can tell you.

MR. HANSON: The minister, in his comments a couple of moments ago, attempted to rebuke me in terms of the relationship between Sentinel Group and Sentinel Strategies. When Michael Burns submitted the invoice to the deputy Minister of Tourism on January 16, 1985, attached to the voucher was the invoice entitled: "Sentinel Group. Invoice, January 16, 1985, to the Deputy Minister, Department of

[ Page 8781 ]

Tourism, Parliament Buildings, Victoria. Professional services for the Minister of Tourism pertaining to accommodation and reservation system as requested and agreed upon by the Minister of Tourism. Our fee: $33,350." Then at the bottom there is reference to Sentinel Strategies. They're both on the same invoice.

But it is of public interest that Patrick Kinsella, in his relationship with the Premier, Douglas Heal and his relationship with this government, and Mr. Burns with his longstanding and ongoing political relationship.... The people deserve answers. We want to know why Sentinel Group letterhead. An invoice came through for payment, and why? Will the minister table the letter to this House outlining the parameters of the understanding and agreement with Mr. Michael Burns for this so-called work that was provided effective May 1?

[3:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: All I can tell the member and the House is that we had the contract drawn up with Sentinel Strategies Ltd. and the cheque was made payable to Sentinel Strategies Ltd. As for doing business with people who are known to this government, that happens all the time. It happens every day, and the reason it does is that the very largest percentage — I would say 99 percent — of the people who are in business in this province are supporters of this government. So it's very difficult to find someone who is not a supporter of this government to do business with. We happen to have a contract with Sentinel Strategies. We made the cheque payable to Sentinel Strategies. If they sent a letter or an invoice out on some other letterhead, you would have to ask them why they did that.

MR. HANSON: I asked the minister what work Mr. Burns, Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Heal are doing for this his ministry now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to that question is none, at the moment.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to ask the minister if he could advise whether the contract that was awarded to Sentinel Strategies, a contract in order for this firm to prepare a background study, to prepare a request for proposals, to conduct information meetings, to organize a selection committee, analyze proposals and negotiate a final contract for the reservation system.... Will the minister advise whether this initial contract to find a firm to do all that background work was in fact publicly tendered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before recognizing the minister, I've been advised by the Minister of Environment that he wishes to ask leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PELTON: Please excuse me for making this announcement when I'm not in my own seat. But I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon a grade 7 class that's visiting the Legislature from Mission. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Smith. I would ask all those members present if they would be so kind as to welcome these people.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: At the time that we decided to go to a reservation system, time was of the essence. Under normal circumstances we probably would have gone to tender to have people draw up a tender to go to tender for the reservation system. But since we were very pressed for time, we decided to seek out the expertise not only of someone who had knowledge of computers and reservation systems but someone who was completely familiar with Expo and its needs and requirements.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister is in fact confirming that the initial contract awarded to Sentinel Strategies Ltd., which is the same group as the Sentinel Group, the Sentinel Group being a group of Michael Burns, Patrick Kinsella and Douglas Heal, was in fact awarded to this group without the process of public tender. Is that correct?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister has refused to respond to, I think, a very critical question. I'm sure that he will want to respond in order to clarify his position precisely.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have every intention of responding, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the member makes an assumption which I'm not sure is correct or not. I don't know if it's correct or incorrect that the principals of Sentinel Strategies and Sentinel Group are identical. I'm not sure of that, and I'm not sure if that member is sure of that. I think he's making an assumption.

The other thing is that — and I've said it about three or four times now, Mr. Chairman — we asked Sentinel Strategies to do this work for us as outlined, to put together the parameters for a reservation system, and also to evaluate the bids as they came in. I would also point out that the debate that we're having right now does not relate to my estimates under vote 70. I'm trying to clarify the situation, but I would point out that we're dealing with a year that does not pertain to vote 70.

MR. MacWILLIAM: We are aware of that, Mr. Chairman. However, we have in our possession an invoice dated January 16, 1985, entitled "The Sentinel Group Invoice." It is addressed to the "Deputy Minister, Department of Tourism, Parliament Buildings." The invoice is for "Professional services for the Minister of Tourism, pertaining to accommodation and reservation system as requested and agreed upon by the Minister of Tourism. Our fee: $33,350." On the bottom of that invoice it also says: "For the minister's information, Sentinel Strategies Ltd., Consultants to Management" — with the following address.... The same invoice, entitled "The Sentinel Group," also has the title "Sentinel Strategies Ltd." Is the minister still refusing to admit that there is a linkage between the two firms?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member is attempting to put words in my mouth. I didn't say there was no linkage. I think it's quite obvious that at least one of the principals is the same. I've never alluded to anything different. I'm just not certain — and I'm not sure if that member is certain — if all the principals are the same in both companies. That's all I've said. Obviously there is a linkage between the two companies if an invoice comes out under their letterhead.

[ Page 8782 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister earlier referred to the fact that time was of the essence and indicated that it was such that the contract did not go to tender. Would the minister advise us of the date on which the Sentinel Group actually began the work established through the contract? When did the work actually begin, and when was the contract actually awarded? I want to clarify that precisely.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I went through this very thoroughly in answering the question of the member from Victoria. I gave all the dates: when the contract work started, on authority of letter from myself; when the contract was signed; and when the contract was paid. I don't think there's any sense in repeating it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The work was deemed to have commenced May 1, 1984. The contract invoice is dated January 16, 1985. What I'm trying to establish here very clearly is the fact that work had commenced significantly before any formal contract had taken place. Would the minister advise us why there was no contract in place when the work actually began? He has admitted that it didn't go to public tender, but he has not explained, at least to our satisfaction, why work commenced before any contract was either signed, sealed or delivered.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To clear it up as best I can, Mr. Chairman, we had given Mr. Burns's company, Sentinel Strategies Ltd., a letter of confirmation that we wanted him to do this work. As far as I was concerned, that was as good as a contract. As to why the actual contract wasn't drawn up until January 16, I can't explain that. At the time it was drawn to my attention, I had to apologize to Mr. Burns for an actual contract not being drawn up until that time. We made every effort to get him paid as quickly as possible, because he had been under contract, through the letter from my ministry, since May 1.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister has referred to a formal letter between his ministry and Mr. Burns. I wonder if the minister would at the appropriate time — after committee — table the letter with the House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns was made chairman of the committee that was put together. Can the minister advise us why he would make Mr. Burns chairman of the committee when he had an ADM on the committee? Wouldn't it really make more sense for the full-time staff person on a responsible project like this to take on the chairmanship?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm just discussing it with my deputy and trying to recall, and I'm not so sure that the ADM wasn't chairman of that committee, but I can't be positive about that. I think maybe the member is jumping to conclusions here, but recollection seems to tell me that Mr. John Currie was the chairman of that committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: If my memory serves me right, I think it's the minister who led me to believe that in his earlier presentation today, because I made notes on it, and that's my note on the basis of your presentation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I said it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I have a matter that is probably innocuous compared to the matters that we've been dealing with up till now. Nonetheless, it is of some value to raise it. I've discussed this issue with the minister earlier; in fact, I sent him a letter I received on June 8 from a Mr. Emil Ratelband, who is a citizen from Coevorden in Holland who came to this country to help celebrate the centennial year of the city of Vancouver and was hoping to get involved in the Expo excitement. He invested some $200,000 of his hard-earned money, uprooted his family — his wife and three children — and invested in a project called the Dutch Castle at Georgia and Howe in Vancouver Centre. Now, mind you, this person is not going to be described as a constituent in the usual sense, but nonetheless for about six to nine months he will be located in Vancouver Centre and he did write quite desperately a letter with some fairly disparaging revelations about his treatment by various levels of government, particularly the liquor distribution branch, and the difficulties he experienced in trying to get a licence to sell spirits.

He had apparently attended the Canadian embassy prior to leaving the country in Holland and was given every assurance that he would receive cooperation and the usual hospitality that we like to extend to people coming from other lands. But I just wanted to have the minister respond to this dilemma that this person finds himself in. Just to quote a very small part of his two-page letter, he says: "If you can imagine what a hell of a job this was for a small businessman to come here just for nine months and then to be boycotted so much that I cannot say that you are such friendly people...." He says that he has come to invest his money in British Columbia. He came here to celebrate the centennial year, but he wonders why it is that he hasn't been given the special consideration that others who are involved in the Expo experience are receiving. Mind you, he is not actually involved in Expo, but I think it is the objective of the Ministry of Tourism to give as good an experience as possible to visitors, especially people who are taking such chances as this small business person has taken.

[3:15]

So perhaps the minister could comment on the position of the ministry with the view to trying to assist this person, who, by the way, is among quite a few people outside the Expo gates who are experiencing quite a few disappointing facts with respect to their investment. They're finding that they have extended themselves way beyond what they should have had they not followed the enthusiasm that was being generated around the opening of Expo prior to May 2. In other words, inside of Expo there is a vacuum; it's having a vacuum effect on the economy outside of the gates. I think the minister is probably aware of this as well. Not that he anticipated this, but this seems to be coming more and more evident with each passing day. So there is a serious problem, not only with this particular Dutch Castle, but with other businesses that are finding themselves falling far short of what they anticipated with respect to their, investments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, to the member for Vancouver East, I just want to clear up.... If I did lead you to believe that it said Michael Burns was the chairman of the committee, that was done unintentionally or inadvertently.

[ Page 8783 ]

I'm still not 100 percent sure in my mind who was the chairman, but I think it was the ADM.

To the first member for Vancouver Centre, the first that I was aware of this problem regarding the liquor licence for the Dutch Castle in downtown Vancouver was when you mentioned it to me the other day. Then you sent me the gentleman's letter today, which I have forwarded to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), because it falls under his purview.

So yes, while I am concerned and I was not aware of the problem, I have taken it up with the minister, and he had not heard of the problem either. He has the letter in hand now and will respond to your constituent as quickly as possible, because he does understand the urgency of the situation. So I'm sure you understand it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of my ministry. But I have discussed it with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is going to act on it immediately.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Once again, let me refresh the minister's memory. The minister had discussed a letter between the ministry and a Mr. Burns, of the Sentinel Group. Can the minister advise when that letter was written?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I can't, offhand. And there was more than one letter. There was a series of letters as a follow-up, as we developed what was required. I don't recall. There were two or three letters that went between my ministry and Mr. Burns. I can't give you dates.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, will the minister be prepared at the appropriate time following committee to table those documents?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have no problem with that, except to point out again that it is outside of the discussion of this year's estimates, which we are debating in this House at this time. So really, to enter into that type of exchange is totally outside of the parameters of this discussion. This whole discussion we're having during my estimates is out of order. I'm just doing my best to clear up the situation and give as much information as possible. But I suggest that probably we've canvassed the situation thoroughly, and now would be a good time to get back to this year's estimates and vote 70.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's point is most relevant, and possibly the forum for the line of questioning would be Public Accounts or another committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: It just does beg the question in terms of the propriety of people who play these dual roles, operating in both of these spheres. Mr. Burns is the fund raiser for your convention costs in Whistler just a month or so away, and he has indicated that he has to get — what? — half a million or three-quarters of a million dollars in terms of funding for that convention. Isn't it reasonable, in terms of public policy, that those most active in terms of party funding, such as Mr. Burns, should not be involved in this kind of work, which determines the winner of a multimillion dollar contract and a multimillion dollar income from this unique quasi-monopoly reservation system? Doesn't it seem reasonable that there should be standards established so that these people are not put in these invidious positions? It doesn't seem reasonable.

It's hard to believe that there aren't numerous people who could have carried out the preliminary work with respect to establishing the proposal for the reservation system. Wouldn't propriety lead any cabinet minister to think that it had best not be a person who was a known campaign fund raiser for the Social Credit Party, when so much public money was to be involved, or public benefit, at least, was to be involved?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had covered this adequately, but just for the member's edification, Mr. Burns was only one of five people making a recommendation to this ministry as to who should get the contract. He did not have the say over who got it. He was one of five helping us evaluate some very complicated bids. This is a complicated thing to evaluate, and it takes expertise on both the technical and the practical side of reservations to evaluate these bids. His technical expertise was much appreciated. To repeat, he was only one of five people making a recommendation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, isn't it cosy that we find the Social Credit fund-raiser, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kinsella, who was the Premier's right-hand man, and the former communications head, Mr. Heal.... Isn't it a cosy deal that these gentlemen happen to be the ones awarded a contract that was not tendered, did not go public. It's just too cosy, Mr. Chairman — these political payoffs every time we look around. This government is rife with this kind of patronage.

Mr. Chairman, this is another clear example of why members on this side of the House called a vote of non-confidence against this minister.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think that this contract has been canvassed thoroughly. In fact, it's been canvassed to death, and it is clearly out of order in this year's estimates under vote 70.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister, as indicated earlier by the Chair, has raised a relevant point. We are debating vote 70, which is the administrative functions of the minister. It is very difficult to relate it specifically to the years 1986-87 because there has always been some leeway in Committee of Supply in some comparisons with previous years, but I think possibly the member for Okanagan North will use some discretion in this and not make an extensive debate on it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was merely summarizing my concerns in light of the fact that we have been unable to obtain what we consider adequate information from this minister in a number of different areas pertaining to the finances of his ministry. As the Chairman will recall, the original reason that this vote of non-confidence was brought down upon this government was that this minister has refused to submit the financial information legitimately requested by members of this opposition — financial information pertaining not only to the subject we just discussed but pertaining to many areas of his ministry; to be specific, financial information regarding the tendering of contracts, the awarding of contracts for Expo 86, the severance packages that were awarded to the 42 senior executives terminated — either fired or let go in some manner — from this Crown corporation.

[ Page 8784 ]

I submit once again that this minister is in violation of established legislation contained in the Financial Information Act, because he has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon. members are honourable, and I would ask you to withdraw any reference to the fact that the minister might have violated the law.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, it does not impugn the integrity of the minister whatsoever. It's simply a matter of fact; it's a statement of fact, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has refused to obey the letter of the law in terms of the requirements of the Financial Information Act. I quote, out of Revised Statutes, chapter 131: every corporation, association, board, commission or society to which a grant or advance may be made shall, within six months after the close of each financial year, publish a financial statement for that financial year which shall include a statement of assets, liabilities and operational statement, a statement of debt, a statement showing all remuneration, bonuses and gratuities paid to each employee, a statement showing all expenses paid on behalf of each employee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sure all members of the committee are well aware of legislation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I only reiterate those points to emphasize once again that this minister is in clear violation of established statutes. That's why this minister had a vote of non-confidence brought before him, and that's why we will continue to vote non-confidence in this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I'd ask you to withdraw any reference to the fact that the hon. minister has violated legislation. There is obviously a means of recourse if any person has violated the law. To use the immunity you have in this chamber to make allegations like that is improper. I would ask you to withdraw your statement unequivocally.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the statement. But the minister has not carried out the letter of the Financial Information Act, and because he has not carried out that legislation he is in contempt of this parliament. Until he submits the information we have requested, we will continue to oppose the vote for the ministry's political office — his political office.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, for that member to stand there and suggest that I am in contempt of this Legislature is unparliamentary, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair asks the member for Okanagan North to withdraw, as requested by the minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The statement that he is in contempt of this parliament I don't feel impugns the integrity of the minister. It's a statement of fact. I will withdraw the statement if you so desire, but needless to say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that the member has withdrawn the statement.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I must re-emphasize the point that this minister has refused to comply with requests from this House to submit the financial information that has been legitimately requested during this year, That's why the original motion of non-confidence in this minister was brought down, and I reiterate that that's why we will stand by this motion.

[3:30]

Vote 70 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 19

Vote 71: ministry operations, $17,193,217 — approved unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What I'm going to embark upon now, Mr. Chairman, is a most historic and, indeed, reflective time in the history of our province and this Legislature, and that is calling the vote of the most remarkable, industrious, innovative and productive man, British Columbia's number one outstanding citizen. Our party, the people of our province and the government of this province owes you, sir, every thanks and every gratitude for ensuring that British Columbia is back in the mainstream of Canadian life. With that I would call the fourth vote.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 4: Premier's office, $703,009.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This may be the last time I speak in the Premier's estimates in this Legislature. Certainly it will be the last time I speak in my own estimates, but I expect to be around to speak in the next Premier's estimates next year.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've been there and I didn't like it.

In introducing my estimates it's also a very unusual position, because the estimates I'm presenting to this House will be the estimates of my successor, and therefore will reflect the spending that will be undertaken by one of the very, very

[ Page 8785 ]

outstanding group of those who are seeking to fill the position of leadership of the party and therefore become Premier of the province.

If you'll forgive me, Mr. Chairman, I might take a little latitude and look back on some of the years of the past 10½ years in which we've introduced budgets and I've had a chance to appear in debate in this House, and to say that I've appreciated those years, not only my own colleagues but the criticism, from time to time, of the opposition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I also look back on the many accomplishments of government. Obviously the opposition will get an opportunity once again to talk about our shortcomings and our failures, but I like to think that many people, when they come to the Premier's estimates, or a leader of a party, quite often put too much focus for the success of a government on to an individual. I would like at this time to look back on a number of things that I think even the opposition today will agree were good policy for British Columbia, and some of the people who brought it to government, because, quite frankly, our party and our government has always been a team.

I like to look back on many of the programs now taken for granted, that people take for granted, that aren't generally associated with our government as people concentrate on projects. I think about the present Minister of Industry and Small Business, when he was Health minister, bringing in the long-term care program. I can remember that was a commitment of the party, but it does touch the New Democratic Party over there because we did send our staff to Saskatchewan to study the program they had set up there, theirs being first, in order to make it an integral part of the health system.

In that case the leadership for that program, as part of the government team, was the present Minister of Industry and Small Business, the former Minister of Health. I'd like to think of that as one of our finest accomplishments.

The Minister of Finance is not in the House right now, but again, a place and a time in which we took leadership in providing programs that were unique and innovative and have been copied was when, as Municipal Affairs minister, he introduced the shelter aid for the elderly renter.

[3:45]

Certainly at that time it was a first of its kind in the country. When I went to Premiers' conferences across this country, they were impressed, and that was the one program during that particular year that everybody was focusing on as being a program of leadership that did not offend the philosophies of the various parties, but seemed like an important step forward in public policy in this country.

So I would like to say that as part of the team the Minister of Finance, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, brought through cabinet and then to the floor of this Legislature important legislation that now is an important part of the social service delivery system in this province.

We've had some debate on Expo, but I'd like to look back eight years and through a number of people when the then Provincial Secretary and now Provincial Secretary again (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) introduced the concept of holding a world exposition.

At that time it was worked up to be called Transpo. Surely I have to say it received a lot of debate and discussion inside our caucus and our cabinet before we made it a policy, but it was clearly well thought out and an area in which we couldn't see that there would be a recession in the years '81, '82, '83, '84. But if we had had a crystal ball and had known what was coming, we surely would have adopted that as public policy, not only for the building after Expo, but for the employment it generated and the economic spin-off of about $4 billion that it's generated within the province at a very crucial time when people needed work. Yet we have a project that is not a make-work project but a build-for-the-future project.

That was started by the Provincial Secretary of the day and our Provincial Secretary today. It was carried on by the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) as Provincial Secretary, and I can remember his going to the International Bureau of Expositions in Paris. He was fortunate enough to be there at the time when he got to visit Paris, but it took a lot of his effort, because all along the way there was a lot of the government team involved, whether from cabinet or caucus, giving support as problems arose in putting on a project of this nature. Therefore it took a lot of dedication.

Following the present Minister of Finance, of course, we had a departed member of the Legislature who became Provincial Secretary and took it into its major formative stage, and that was Evan Wolfe, who was Minister of Finance and then Provincial Secretary in this House.

Latterly, of course, we've had the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Richmond), whose estimates we have just concluded. There were times when Expo, or Transpo in the beginning, didn't have a site, because it wasn't always designated for False Creek. There were times when we didn't think it could be built, and neither did the chairman of Expo and the directors of Expo, who are all public citizens and played a part in setting the standards of volunteerism that have brought the fair to success. But I like to think of the four colleagues I have mentioned as being a major part of providing the leadership and the encouragement, and always standing fast when this very important project for British Columbia and Canada.... Because now it is seen as not only world class but an outstanding event in which all Canadians take pride.

I think back to others. I think of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser), who isn't with us today because he's ill. I think back to the job he's done in planning a highway system, coming from the interior, convincing his colleagues not only in cabinet and in caucus but in Treasury Board of the importance still of opening up the interior in a way not just to move people and cars and tourists, but to put in transportation links that allow the interior to develop an industrial base where transportation and trucking play such an important role if you're going to locate an industry in Prince George or Kamloops or the Okanagan or any of the areas where small business and industries have been starting up and which now are encouraged with perhaps his boldest suggestion of all; that was over eight years ago when it became public policy in this government to build the Coquihalla Highway.

I can remember that decision. At that time we were going to build the road over a number of years as we tried to bring it on stream. I can remember the Minister of Highways and the Minister of Tourism and others making the decision, or at least making a request to cabinet, that it would be good public policy to accelerate that highway, to have it in place by Expo, to also accelerate the construction links to Kamloops and to the Okanagan as an important part of linking the interior road systems not only up to the Cariboo and the Rogers Pass and north to the Yellowhead, but into the Okanagan and then interlocking with an upgraded Kootenay road system. Again

[ Page 8786 ]

it was their drive and determination and not mine that led to the construction of the highway we're now all proud of.

I can remember them coming and also saying: "We can do it if we get a toll, not to pay off the highway but the cost of acceleration." I can remember members like the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland), within whose riding all three major highways run, suggesting that a toll on the Coquihalla was more than revenue. It was going to be an important factor in trying to limit the amount of new traffic on the Coquihalla, making sure that the sudden impact on the Hope-Princeton and the Fraser Canyon did not seriously affect the small communities there and the service industries which depend upon this highway. Again, a lot of thought, a lot of courage, a lot of boldness by my colleagues, some of whom are not here today, in putting together a project from which there will be continuing dividends.

As I look back, many of the worthwhile things that I feel were done by government have not been easy and have not been done in a single year or a single session, but have taken a long commitment; they've taken a long time to implement. It's eight years since we first made the Coquihalla public policy. It will be ten years by the time the Kamloops connector and the Okanagan connector have been constructed and opened — the year 1988. Again it was a team effort. As I look back, that's the strength of any government, as it is in opposition — that is, in oppositions that want to be government. It's working as a team, recognizing that there's more to a government than a single individual. There is teamwork. There are always fresh ideas to consider, and there's always the all-regional parts of the province to consider in developing and implementing public policy.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources when we decided to build the Revelstoke Dam. I can remember when that important decision was made. That dam has been constructed and opened, and if that decision had not been made, we would not have had sufficient energy in these recent years. What we call surplus to our needs in high-water years and can get on short-term export does not meet all of the new power that's created by the Revelstoke Dam. It was a timely and important project, but again it took a lot of leadership on behalf of the minister responsible and succeeding ministers. It's part of a network of energy production that will never now be developed as cheaply. It's much needed, particularly in these days of utilizing our energy — and developed at a time when it was far less expensive to develop than it is now — in order to lead our critical industries and make them more competitive, to reopen mines and forest companies, such as the critical industries commission has done.

Public participation in that is not handouts; it's using that power, from decisions made by members such as I have cited, and those who have held the Energy post, like the member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the present Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others, in making and sustaining those major decisions which from time to time take so long to fulfil. They're j hard to explain to the public during construction; therefore it takes a lot of team effort to make sure that these projects get initiated and carried out. But they do pay dividends.

As I say, today our hydroelectric power is one of the most important tools that we have, not only for reopening mines and forest companies, but getting new production from existing facilities that are open under two measures that were brought in — Critical Industries and amendments to Energy — to allow us to use it. It has helped us maintain employment, restore employment, increase employment. It has made us more competitive in the international marketplace, just as I believe that my successor and whoever is in Energy will have a major opportunity in dealing with the proposal for the Site C construction if we can get a commercially affordable contract, such as they've done in Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and other provinces, to develop some part of it for export and some part of it to meet our energy needs when that dam is completed.

If it were started today it would not be finished until 1994, when British Columbia's energy projections and those of the northwest and the west call for additional power capacity. We will not be in surplus; therefore some part of that dam will have to be dedicated to British Columbia. But instead of all of our people, our industries and our homeowners having to finance that dam in high-borrowed costs.... Construction is not the major cost; it's the financing, the cost of money over large periods of time and during the construction period that contribute greatly to its cost. That power will be needed here, and we can help pay for it in large measure with earned U.S. dollars, which will help our balance of payments, help our international sales, and certainly help British Columbians to continue to enjoy a price advantage in the deliverability of power than if we had to finance it ourselves. The development of the Site C and its opportunities have been the part of the present member for Vancouver South who did so much in working with the U.S. power utilities when he was Minister of Energy, working with the state director of energy down there and others in trying to create a climate of opportunity, when they hadn't considered British Columbia as an option.

We've had the opportunity to look at power contracts in Manitoba and other provinces and to see the value of competing projects in our market area, the Pacific northwest and California. Certainly this has been carried on by the existing Energy minister, the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), keeping alive this opportunity. He signed an agreement the other day, because of their work with a number of west coast utilities, in order to do a study that would give us all of the relevant information. That would be available to the government. It would supplement all of the information we have, and we've been exchanging information with the utilities plus the state energy director in California in order to see if we do have the basis for a commercial deal. If no commercial contract is available, of course, B.C. will at some point in the next few years have to build it alone, because of our own energy demands, but then we will not get as cheap a power for our own use and our own industry and jobs as if we had been able to get the type of price that I think can be realized in the growing California market for our own industry.

There again, as I look back on government, quite often the Premier gets the credit and quite often that credit is not deserved by one person alone. It belongs to ministers and caucus and the members of government. In order to sustain sometimes controversial public policy.... In time the projects I'm mentioning particularly I think have proved beneficial to the people of this province. There was a minister who is not present today and is no longer a member of the Legislature, and while that project is still controversial to many, I think historically the former member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) took the vision for the north that has

[ Page 8787 ]

traditionally been a part of our party, and I think also of the people of B.C., because as I remember the Barrett government between 1972 and 1975 also talked about a vision for the north. They did talk about opening up resource areas; they did talk about transportation systems. So I do believe the vision of continuing to open up those areas to provide comfortable communities for people who often work in hardship. I think the many years of the development of northern coal as the first commodity under which the Canadian National Railways, the British Columbia Railway, B.C. Hydro, government of B.C. through Highways, and, yes, the federal port authorities could develop an infrastructure that this country and our province needed to lessen our dependency, in the emerging Pacific Rim, on a single rail and port transportation system out of southern B.C....

[4:00]

Surely everyone here must understand that the decisions taken then, and the reasons for them, went far beyond coal. They went to the fact that this country, if we were to be reliable suppliers of all commodities.... That is the first thing; where the commodities are needed on a regular basis in the international marketplace, they look at price and quality and reliability, because the steel mills of Korea or Japan or other facilities cannot afford to lose their supply when their mills are running all the time. They've got to have reliability. They felt Canada would make them vulnerable with a single rail system that could shut down and single port system that could be shut down and not meet capacity, and therefore felt that for Canadian products we needed another major rail system.

Now we have the CP connecting into the south, the CN into the north and, of course, the B.C. Railway running up the length of the province from north to south, connecting all rail links and making us a much more reliable supplier. The member for South Peace River, the former member, as minister showed a lot of determination and courage because the negotiation involved the private sector in this country, it involved the national government, it involved Crown corporations at the provincial and federal level, it involved a number of buyers and it involved major decisions that had to be made from time to time. I know that many members of this Legislature still feel that that's controversial. I don't. I think it will go down as probably one of the most visionary things that has ever been done in the province. There again, we need the Ministers of Energy and of Highways, the ministers responsible for a host of government responsibilities, to be on side in a complex public policy decision, both in its initiation and its carrying out during that time.

So I look back on all these things.... I'm not going to remember all of the ministers and the things they did, but I know that the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland), when he was Minister of Forests — we all want to see our forests replenished on a sustained yield basis; we want to see more sophistication — brought into this Legislature the most innovative forest legislation, the five-year planning and review.... We're continuing to work with the federal government and others in upgrading that, because it's still not perfect. But I want to say that what he did was revolutionary in the commitment it made for government. That commitment has only been interrupted in part by the revenue difficulties during the recession.

Mr. Chairman, those are some of the things I think about as I speak in my estimates for the last time as Premier. But I would like to say that one of the things, in a House that is, I guess, often confrontational — fighting.... People don't often see the opposition and the government getting together. There have been moments in developing public policy and in doing other things when we have been unanimous and have worked together. I think of two things that people don't often think about, the two areas in which I'm proud the government introduced.... But it took the cooperation of an opposition that also believed in the same things.

When we introduced legislation to set up an ombudsman, we set it up so that it would require the unanimous consent of all members of this House. It's to the credit of the committee members of that day that they were able to work on that legislation as they've been able to work again to find someone to fill the role. While personalities surrounding the inception of the ombudsman have sometimes overshadowed the importance of the office itself, I want to say to this Legislature that I firmly believe that it is one of the most important things we did as a government, and one of the most important things we did as a Legislature, working together on it, as we have twice in selecting candidates to fill the role of ombudsman, to protect the public from bureaucracy, as the ombudsman will do. It's not political; it is there to protect them from those things that fall between the stools, in which they have no protection under law. I'm proud to say it was introduced by our government. A lot of people in the province have talked about it, but we introduced it, were committed to it. I feel it to be one of the most important accomplishments of this Legislature — on both sides of the House.

The other part of accountability in which the whole Legislature makes decisions is the role of the auditor-general. Again, when I look back.... We introduced that legislation. It was to be a position that was not accountable to the government but to the Legislature, to all members, as it was to the public. And again, members of this Legislature unanimously picked the first auditor-general. I think we can say that we've all been very proud of the job that she has done, and we're sorry to see Mrs. Morrison announce her retirement. Once again the good will of all members of the Legislature will be tested in the selection procedure that picks the new auditor-general.

So the times of confrontation and discord for which we're noted are not always the things that set in motion those instruments of government that I think will be of lasting value. There have been times we've worked together.

I think that sometimes the controversy is equally as valuable as the times we've worked together, because our ideas have to be tested. Sometimes in the development of public policy, letting off steam in here is a far better way of dealing with controversy than having the steam let off in other areas in which it might offend against the democratic process. So I think it's an important part. I'm not like those who say that our politics are too rigid or too confrontational.

I know this: the people of British Columbia are probably the most informed and politically aware people in the country. I look back on the last provincial election — and I don't just look back to see one — and I see the turnout at the polls. Alberta recently had just over 50 percent of the people turn out. We had a record, with about 78 percent of the people in this province turning out to vote, for whatever party or whatever candidate. It's important that we keep that record and that political edge. I know that in important constituencies like Columbia River or Saanich and the Islands the turnout was 82 or 83 percent. British Columbians should be

[ Page 8788 ]

proud that political issues bring the people into the process and into the voting-booths. The most dangerous thing to our democracy at any time would be disinterest, low turnouts, where governments are elected with less than half the people ever bothering to turn out to make a choice. So while some people are concerned about the style of politics, as we all are from time to time, let us not lose sight of the fact that we in British Columbia do make and have made our people so politically aware that they do participate; they do care enough to turn out.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one other act which was done last year — an area where I'm not noted as a great expert, if anybody thinks I'm an expert on anything — where the opposition and the government, the Speaker's office and I think the Clerks' table got together in dealing with the rules of the Legislature. We put in new rules to make sure that this institution could function better.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't make my day.

I think the Legislature did do something then that wasn't just self-serving for the time but was for future legislatures — that this institution will survive and be stronger. Certainly the opportunities for individual members are protected in that legislation. Opportunities for some ways for the Legislature to work that we have not fully utilized yet are present in that legislation. I would like to compliment the role of a number of Speakers, but especially the current one and the former Speaker, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), who is not here today, under whom the study was done that produced what I guess you would call the MacMinn report, the basis for a large number of those legislative reforms...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sir Erskine MacMinn, yes.

...and rule changes for this chamber. I want to say that they will be available for members in the future. I think we have successfully made progress in the way this chamber will work in the future for the people of the province, and it will continue to give people confidence in the legislative process when the rules work better to allow the people's business to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed these last number of years as Premier. There's some anticipation: you do a lot of work when you enter politics; you're nervous about running, winning. Then the next thing you hope for is to become government. When you do that, of course, the next thing you start to think about is your retirement. I want to say that these days that occupies a fair amount of my time.

But I'm pleased to have served with all of you. I appreciate your contribution, and especially the criticism of the opposition. I don't want to end on too nice a note. I will miss certain aspects of this Legislature, and so to start you off, I would like to remember some of the names that you might call me, just so I won't feel I'm leaving unremembered. You might call me Mini-Wac. You might call me a dictator, a wimp, Three-dollar Bill; you might call me a leader that can't control his cabinet, or you might call me someone who never listens to his ministers or his back bench. You could call us a jackboot government. Please, one more time before I go I would like to hear those words.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, one of the things I determined upon when I became leader of this party was that I wouldn't rise to the bait. So for the Premier's last line, we won't make his day yet.

I'd like to thank the Premier for a last speech as Premier during Premier's estimates that was gracious and, I'm sure, emotional for him. It was a reflective speech that helped put the last ten years in perspective. We do appreciate many of the things that this government has done.

[4:15]

Speaking of confrontation, if you look back over the last ten years, the unanimous votes in this Legislature probably far outnumber the votes that have divided with the govern ment and the opposition on opposite sides of the vote. It's probably worthwhile, as the Premier has done, to put those kinds of things in perspective so that we know that in the vast majority of things we have worked together; we've voted together and we have assisted the government and each other in implementing legislation that the government has passed. I do wish to acknowledge things like long-term care, SAFER, the ombudsman and the auditor-general — things that we did vote for in this House. We supported the government in trying to make as neutral a selection as possible, so that the people of the province could be as well served as possible.

Of course, as opposition we have a duty to stand up and criticize and to identify what we consider to be weaknesses from our point of view and from the point of view of the people who inform us. As members of the opposition we have a duty to point out the things that we feel the government is doing that are wrong or to attempt to correct errors that we perceive in the government's programs and legislation, and I think we have done that to the best of our ability.

Rather than simply looking back over the last ten years — because there are a number of other members who are stepping down from long years of service in this Legislature — it's probably worthwhile to look back over the last ten or 15 years, because a number of good things have been done in the province of British Columbia over that time. I suppose, because of the boisterousness of debate in the Legislature and the hyperbolic statements that are made by members we sometimes think that very little happens other than controversy in this building, but there are some good things that have happened in addition to those mentioned by the Premier — things spearheaded by members in the Legislature who are currently leaving.

I look at the establishment of the B.C. Development Corporation, a corporation that was set up to assist small businesses and to establish businesses and industries around the province. It was set up by my colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who has announced that he intends to resign from this Legislature, but I think it was used to good effect by both governments and seemed to be something that was worthwhile for the people of the province and for businesses that were developing in the province. The current government, when it was opposition, criticized the establishment of the B.C. Development Corporation, but then they went on to use it, realizing that it was useful to the people of the province of B.C.

I look at a colleague who unfortunately has passed away now, Robert Strachan, who set up the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. We talk about the establishment of a financial centre in the city of Vancouver. I think the first step, or maybe the second step, after the establishment of the Bank of B.C. was the establishment of the Insurance Corporation

[ Page 8789 ]

of B.C., which brought a tremendous amount of talent and skill and also a vast pool of money that could be invested in this province to the benefit of all of us, the returns going to those who pay premiums in order to keep those premiums down. I think the government recognized the value of that contribution and kept it on and sustained it. I hope it's now become a permanent part of the administration of the province of British Columbia and the value is being recognized by all sides both in and out of government and in and out of public life.

I look at the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who has made the decision to step down from his participation in the Legislature, who was the first Minister of Housing that this province ever had and who set up a number of the housing programs that have served people in this province very well. A number of those housing programs were carried on by the current government and, again, served low-income people, senior citizens and others who for reasons other than their own could not get into the housing market. That minister and succeeding ministers have made available to those people high-quality housing at prices they can afford.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I look at the current member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who set up the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia by combining a number of common carriers and is recognized by the people in the medical profession and other caring professions and by people in hospital administration as one of the finest Ministers of Health this province has ever had and as a leader in health policy development and health facilities development. When you took at the facilities in British Columbia that have taken a forward thrust in cancer research, research into spinal injuries and those kinds of problems that are so difficult to deal with, I think that this member, as a minister, did a terrific job. Many of the programs that were developed under the NDP were carried on by the Social Credit government and were expanded and improved upon by the current government.

Our Minister of Education from 1972 to 1975, the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), will probably be best known for doing away with corporal punishment in schools — doing away with the strap. I think that in any civilized society the removal of punishments that are brutal and belong to another and a previous age.... I think that that's a tremendous credit to that minister; also what this minister did to advance and improve the school system in this province and to make sure that the highest quality of education was delivered to our students in British Columbia as a right. She did such things as implement a student grant system which eliminated the bar of wealth and privilege in obtaining access to universities, colleges and technical schools. That was an improvement that was brought about by this Minister of Education, including the expansion of the college system to every region of the province.

I think that's something which that minister can take credit for, but because the government has carried on that system, we can all take some credit for it if we're reflecting on these things today.

I think that probably the first recognition of native self-government in the establishment of the Nisgha School District was also pioneered by this minister. That's an important achievement that will work to her credit, and again has been accepted and carried on by the current government.

I look at things like the accomplishments of the retiring member for Vancouver East — the establishment of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, possibly something that's not appropriate for this day and age in terms of energy-pricing regimes, but something that was definitely appropriate at the time in order to make sure that the terrific increases that were taking place in energy commodities were collected and deposited to the benefit of the people of this province.

In the establishment of that B.C. Petroleum Corporation, it was indicated that the increment that we received for natural gas would work to the benefit of the municipalities of this province. The first revenue-sharing program based on natural resource prices was established by that government from 1972 to 1975, and the benefits of natural gas price increases were made available to the municipalities of this province. I can recall little Zeballos, which was in my constituency at that time, getting a $25,000 grant so that they could pave their main street. Many small municipalities throughout this province were able to take advantage of that.

The current government, under this Premier, built upon that revenue-sharing program and expanded the revenue sharing program to produce the program that we have today, one which I think is recognized to be of benefit to the municipalities and local governments of this province. We recognize that that was done under the current Premier.

The establishment of the B.C. Energy Commission, later to become the Utilities Commission — another thing that was established by the retiring member for Vancouver East and improved upon by the current government to include the review of B.C. Hydro's activities in the province and expanded to include the analysis and approval of new energy projects, including such things as the Site C project.

One of the things that I've always asked for or hoped for is that politicians should not really take sides on particular issues until such time as, through the mechanism of an impartial review procedure, the public has had an opportunity to look at these issues, make an independent decision, and then politicians and the public will be able to take their views after a decision has been made. The NDP government, under the member for Vancouver East, established the B.C. Energy Commission; it's been carried on by this current government as the Utilities Commission.

There are many things that, of course, happened under the government of 1972-1975. The agricultural land reserve was one of those things that was developed out of a lot of controversy, many complaints. Many people felt that there was some uncertainty about the future of their land ownership as a result of the establishment of the agricultural land reserve, but it was accepted by the people of the province and ultimately carried on by the current government, who recognized the value of protecting farmland and protecting that resource both for ourselves and for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, many of the things that are done in this Legislature are done on a bipartisan basis with the support of both sides in the Legislature. Even though there is controversy around their origins, ultimately when the decision is made, then both sides get on board and tend to support it for the benefit of all citizens of British Columbia.

That's even true of things like Expo or Transpo or whatever it was called. I made a decision when I was elected leader of this party in 1984, Mr. Chairman, that a decision had been made to go ahead with Expo by the government, over the opposition of the official opposition of the day. But once the decision had been made, once money had been

[ Page 8790 ]

invested and taxpayers' resources and energies committed, then it was the duty of the opposition to support it and make it the best success it can possibly be. That's the decision we've made here in the official opposition. We hope Expo will be the greatest success it can possibly be, and we hope that for the benefit of the citizens of British Columbia and for future generations here in British Columbia.

I think it's important at a time like this to reflect on the past — possibly not reflect too much on the past; it's sometimes better to forget some of the things that happened in the past for the benefit of all of us — but it's also important to look towards the future. There is a need for some changes in the direction of the province, and some of the information that's available out there I think indicates the need for a change. I think the Legislature, with so many members retiring, is now going through a generational change. Who knows, on that side or on this side, what might come out of that change? But whatever it is, I think we all hope it's for the betterment of the province and the people of B.C.

According to the statistics made available to us in the first week of June, there are this very day 175,000 people out of work in B.C. I know that information is as of concern to the government as it is to the opposition. Somehow we have to develop a method of getting those people back to work, of making sure they can fulfil themselves and earn a decent living in this province and put a little money away for their children's education, for the future. I hope we can commit ourselves to that kind of a project.

Of the people out of work, 60,000 are between the ages of 15 and 24. We have a real obligation to those people. They're not out of work because they had jobs and quit them, or because they're lazy; they're out of work because the opportunities simply have not presented themselves. Some of them have worked, but at very low wages, in some cases part-time and casual work. We have an obligation on both sides of this Legislature to see to it that opportunities are made available for those young people.

[4:30]

Of those out of work, 72,000 are women. Women have been traditionally discriminated against in the labour force. In order to equalize their entry into the labour market, certain services have to be provided which aren't necessarily provided to men, such as child care and special programs for training and developing skills they can use to market themselves in the labour force on an equal basis with men. I think we have to commit ourselves in the Legislature, on both sides, to those kinds of programs.

The Premier mentioned the critical industries commissioner, which I've neglected to mention until now. This is a piece of legislation that we've supported from the time of its announcement and since it was introduced into the Legislature. It's a piece of legislation we should look at, because what has happened with that critical industries commissioner is that when people get together and look at preserving jobs and enterprises, they're willing to look at making sacrifices for the benefit of all. Government has made sacrifices in terms of taxes, in terms of hydroelectric charges and other charges that they make against enterprise. Business has made concessions in terms of keeping alive marginally profitable or unprofitable operations. Labour has made concessions with respect to allocating to equity capital a certain amount of what might otherwise have been wage income, or in fact to delaying implementation of provisions of collective agreements which might increase the labour costs against that enterprise. When people operate with the goal of preserving an enterprise or preserving jobs, they tend to work together and make sacrifices to the benefit of all within the operation, but ultimately to the benefit of all of us within the province.

When you look at the number of people out of work in the province today, when you look at the number of people on welfare, when you look at the decline in investment — a real decline of 47 percent since 1981 — I think there has to be an attitude on the part of people on both sides of this Legislature, and in all sectors out there as well, of working together to preserve jobs and to preserve this enterprise that we call the province of British Columbia. If we can adopt that approach, if that is the result of this generational change in the personnel of this Legislature, then We will have served the province well. We will have served the people of this province well. I took forward to working with all members of the Legislature toward that end.

Vote 4 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee resolutions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the report be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on April 8, 14, 16, 21, 23 and 29, May 6, 13, 15, 21, 27, 29 and 30, and June 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and 17 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is an appropriate time to intervene in these proceedings to move a motion, consented to by my hon. friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the list of members to compose a special committee of the Legislature to recommend a person to be appointed as auditor-general as provided under section 2 of the Auditor General Act be as follows: Hon. E. Veitch; Hon. R.G. Fraser; Mr. Rogers, convener, Messrs. Strachan and Reynolds; Messrs. Stupich, Nicolson, Blencoe and myself. So moved.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $9.2 billion toward defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, and the sum of $312,526,000 for recoverable disbursements: required for the purposes referred to in schedule D of the main estimates for the fiscal year

[ Page 8791 ]

ending March 31, 1987; the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1986.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1986

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1986.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be committed for second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand that at this point the bill will be distributed for all hon. members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: the bill will be distributed, and we will take a brief recess, to be summoned by the division bells.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bill now having been circulated, I call on the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be now read a second time. I understand that leave was granted earlier.

This supply bill is the second and final for the fiscal year 1986-87. The first, as members will recall, was introduced on March 26, 1986, when this Legislature authorized the value of appropriations for three months. This bill, which is in the general form of previous years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $9.2 billion for voted expenditures as outlined in the schedule to the bill, and in addition the sum of $312,526,000 for recoverable financing transaction disbursements, as recorded in Schedule D of the main estimates. These sums include that authorized under sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No. 1), 1986.

Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply bill in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the 1986-87 fiscal year. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: We've had our debate. It's been a long one, sometimes perhaps verging on being acrimonious, but generally, I think, constructive. The ministers in general have been quite helpful and cooperative in trying to answer questions and arguments put to them by members of the opposition. We certainly will not hold up passage of Supply Act (No. 2).

In looking forward, I think, to the spirit of cooperation that both leaders have talked about today, and that the opposition leader picked up on, perhaps the one thing that I might hope for for the future is that when next we meet, when next we're dealing with the budget and estimates, the Public Accounts Committee will start meeting earlier and will meet truly as a Public Accounts Committee. I'm not criticizing now; I'm just saying that I hope that many things will be different.

Both leaders have suggested that there will be changes. In passing the Supply Act, we are providing the government with the money that they are going to spend. The other side of that coin is the accountability. In recent years we seem to have slipped away from having the accountability that previously was there through the proper functioning of the Public Accounts Committee.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say at this point in time. I've said as much as I want to say on this subject in the past. I support the motion for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister concludes debate on second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I note the comments made by the member for Nanaimo, who has been my critic — and may continue to be my critic — for a good number of years. Obviously it is not for a minister to comment on the service of a committee of the House. However, I'm sure that there are a number of other members who share that member's observations and comments.

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 2), 1986.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 2), 1986, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 2), 1986, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled, on behalf of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the consolidated financial statements of the British Columbia Railway Company for the fiscal year ending December 31, 1985.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Health for 1984-85.

[ Page 8792 ]

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Attorney-General for 1984-85.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, His Honour is approaching the premises. Might we just have a short recess.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will be advised by the bells on the arrival of His Honour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, he'll be here in about one minute, if the members would like to remain in their seats.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour is in the immediate vicinity, and it should be just a matter of a few moments before his arrival.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986

Education Excellence Appropriation Act

Health Improvement Appropriation Act

Forest Stand Management Fund Act

Assessment Amendment Act, 1986

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1986

Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1986

Insurance Premium Tax Amendment Act, 1986

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1986

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986

Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1986

Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act

International Commercial Arbitration Act

Commercial Arbitration Act

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1986

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986

Motion Picture Act

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1986

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Supply Act (No. 2), 1986.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

[5:00]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the thirty-third parliament of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and date stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:06 p.m.