[ Page 2555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Investigation under Trade Practice Act. Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2555

Mr. Sihota

Tabling Documents –– 2555

Family Farm Protection Act, 1987 (Bill M207). Mr. Rose

Introduction and first reading –– 2556

Fair Election Practices Act (Bill M208). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 2556

Oral Questions

Recommendations of auditor-general. Mr. Harcourt –– 2556

Dismissal of Mr. Ron Butlin. Ms. Edwards –– 2557

Attendance of ministers in House. Mr. Williams –– 2557

SkyTrain bridge construction. Ms. Smallwood –– 2557

Mr. Miller

Admission fees to provincial museums. Ms. Edwards –– 2557

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. G. Hanson

Mount Klappan coal project. Mr. Miller –– 2558

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 36). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Michael) –– 2558

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 47). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Michael) –– 2559

Mr. Miller

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 40). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 2560

Mr. Miller

Mr. Jones

Mr. Williams

Third reading

University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 46). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 2561

Third reading

University Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. S. Hagen) –– 2562

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Jones

Third reading

University Foundations Act (Bill 57). Committee stage. (Hon. S. Hagen) –– 2562

Mr. R. Fraser

Ms. Marzari

Third reading

British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act (Bill 53).

Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2563

Mr. Stupich –– 2564

Mr. Williams –– 2564

Ms. Marzari –– 2566

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2566

Ministerial Statement

SkyTrain bridge construction. Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 2567

Ms. Smallwood

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987 (Bill 55). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2567

Mr. Williams

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Ms. Marzari

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 44: minister's office –– 2575

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Miller

Mr. Lovick

On vote 45: ministry operations –– 2583

Mr. Skelly

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

On vote 52: minister's office –– 2583

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. R. Fraser

Mr. Rose

Mr. Miller

Mrs. Boone

Committee of Supply: Legislation estimates.

On vote 1: legislation –– 2592

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Appendix –– 2593

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

MR. DIRKS: In the gallery this afternoon we have the good mayor of a city right next to my riding, Mayor Audrey Moore of Castlegar. Would the House please make her welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the galleries today are friends of my family, Virginia and David Fairbrother and their three children. Will the House please make them welcome.

MR. D'ARCY: On behalf of myself and yourself, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome a former constituent of mine and a former president of the Young Socreds of British Columbia, John Landis Jr. I must say that when he was president of that particular organization, they had a reputation for somewhat better decorum and discipline than that which they enjoy today. But I welcome him to this House anyway.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf I would like to echo the greeting to John Landis, president of the UBC Young Socreds, who is from Castlegar, which I don't think the member for Trail mentioned.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery is a special friend of both the Speaker and myself, the unofficial mayor of Birkenhead Lake, Bob Thompson. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. REE: In the galleries today are the special guests of our chief librarian, Joan Barton: her aunt and her uncle, Mavis and Keith Ellis from St. Andrew, Jamaica, and also her friends from Victoria, Don and Joyce Cowan. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, as I'm duty-bound to do as part of the agreement that we have with the Scrum of the Earth, whom we played another basketball game with today, I have to report the sad news that we lost 24 to 23 — missing the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), who is putting his roof on. But the good news is that, after four hard-fought matches, it ended up a 76-76 tie.

HON. MR. REID: I just want to advise the Leader of the Opposition that he's on a roll and should keep going.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too bad you're not.

HON. MR. REID: I'm not, you're right.

It's with extreme pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that I introduce somebody who is on a roll. There is an alderman here from the city of White Rock, who had the opportunity to be the lead person for the Prime Minister's visit to the world-famous sand-castle contest, which over 200,000 people visited. Certainly the alderman, Jim Coleridge from White Rock, had a lot to do with it. Would this House make him welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK: In the precinct today are some officers from the Mexican tall ship everyone has seen in our harbour. I had the pleasure of having lunch aboard that ship, representing the provincial government. Would the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

INVESTIGATION UNDER TRADE PRACTICES ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a ministerial statement.

As the hon. members are aware, certain Alberta-based financial companies have recently found themselves in serious financial difficulty. Among those companies are First Investors Corp. Ltd. and Associated Investors of Canada Ltd., who were placed under court-appointed management in Alberta on June 30. A number of other related companies may also be involved. Some 14,000 B.C. Investors with more than $150 million worth of investments are affected.

While this issue would normally entail the involvement of two ministries of government — my own and the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services — my ministry will take the lead role in this instance. This comes about because my colleague the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) holds investments in related companies.

Because of the large number of investors and the amount of money involved, I am appointing Lyman Robinson, QC, as investigator, pursuant to section 12 of the Trade Practice Act.

Mr. Robinson, former dean of law at the University of Victoria, where he is currently a professor of law, is also a commissioner with the Law Reform Commission. Mr. Robinson will report his findings to me as soon as possible.

MR. SIHOTA: This side of the House welcomes the announcement by the minister. First of all, I want to thank the minister for giving us the benefit of seeing the ministerial statement in advance and also thank him for his careful comments with respect to the interests of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

I want to applaud the choice of Prof. Lyman Robinson. He is an individual with impeccable credentials, someone with whom I'm also very familiar because of my tenure at the University of Victoria. I cannot think of a better choice in this regard.

The inquiry is, as I understand it, being made pursuant to the provisions of the Trade Practice Act, which are sufficiently broad to allow an individual conducting an inquiry under that act to take a look at representations with respect to the status of various accounts — in other words, the whole issue of whether these funds were or were not insured; to take a look at representations under section 3 of the act that were made with respect to the transactions — and of course there has been many a story from the public with respect to representations that were made at the time of executing and investing in contracts with Principal Trust and its group of companies; and it allows clearly for one to investigate with respect to deceptive acts — and I think I made a comment in the House about that earlier on with respect to advertising.

It is a much appreciated and welcome move. I think it is one that ought to provide some comfort to those who have lost funds through investments, and is certainly welcomed by all of us on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis tabled the 1986-87 annual report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.

[ Page 2556 ]

Introduction of Bills

FAMILY FARM PROTECTION ACT, 1987.

Mr. Rose presented a bill intituled Family Farm Protection Act, 1987.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to explain a little bit about the bill. It's designed to address a neglected need in British Columbia the need to help farmers protect and sustain their farming operations. Over 2,000 farms passed out of individual ownership between 1981 and 1986, and that's about one a day.

This bill is modelled on Manitoba's current act, complements the present Debtor Assistance Act and proposes three major tools to be put in place to keep farms in family ownership. First, farmers will be guaranteed a day in court before a bank or other lending institution can foreclose, and the court will be empowered to look for alternative solutions to prevent arbitrary foreclosures; second, creation of mediation panels of farmers to mediate between the lender and the creditor; and finally, in extreme cases, that a cabinet can be given authority to proclaim foreclosure moratoriums for all or any part of the farming industry.

Agriculture is a vital resource industry for British Columbia. This bill or something like it is needed now, because there is more financial stress in B.C. agriculture than exists in any other part of Canada.

Bill M207 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[2:15]

FAIR ELECTION PRACTICES ACT

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled Fair Election Practices Act.

MR. G. HANSON: In commenting on this bill, its main purpose is to establish a permanent electoral commission that could operate independently of the party in power. This bill would provide the commission with a mandate to establish fair electoral boundaries, set election spending limits and oversee all aspects of provincial elections to ensure fairness and the greatest possible access to voting rights.

The bill also reduces the voting age from 19 years to 18 years, to fall in line with legislation with other provinces in Canada. It calls for the appointment of a chief electoral officer to be recommended by an all-party committee of the Legislature, and provides for a thorough enumeration after each writ of a general election is issued.

Bill M208 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

RECOMMENDATIONS OF AUDITOR-GENERAL

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to ask the Premier a question about the acting auditor-general's recommendations this morning to the Public Accounts Committee, when unfortunately he made two recommendations that were rejected by the government back-benchers. So I'd like to ask the Premier if he would accept the recommendation that the auditor general conduct a full review of the process of accountability of Crown corporations to this Legislature.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the benefit of all that was said and presented to the committee, but I understand that the recommendations were in fact tabled — not rejected, but tabled. In light of that, I think in fairness to the committee and the process which we all support, we ought to see the result of the tabling motion before anything further is done here.

MR. SPEAKER: I might remind the Leader of the Opposition that any detailed discussion of what happens in the committee before the report is brought before the House is not a proper subject for question period.

MR. HARCOURT: It's an open meeting, Mr. Speaker, and I think that this is an important matter that has been left too long — to have an acting auditor-general. I would like to ask a supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Leader of the Opposition could take his seat for a moment. I can't change the rules. The rules are made by all members of the House, and the rules are that the matter that's before the committee cannot be discussed in question period, or in the House, until that committee reports to the House. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to rephrase his question in another manner that doesn't interfere with the committee discussion this morning, then the Chair could accept that question.

MR. HARCOURT: In general terms, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, because he's made statements on this whole question of the accountability of Crown corporations.... I would like to know if he personally is going to bring forward recommendations — he has made these statements, so I'm assuming that we will be seeing these shortly — about the auditor-general being able to conduct a full review of Crown corporations.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can't give the House any assurance that I will bring forth recommendations, but I can assure the House that accountability is certainly a matter of concern to me, and accountability for Crown corporations as much as anything else in government, and it will be fully looked at.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker. The auditor-general, to do that, requires some independence and some staff, and I would like to have the assurance of the Premier that he will make sure that the auditor-general reports to the Legislature and has proper staff. Will he give the assurances that there will be independence for the auditor general to the Legislature, and with a proper budget, that his staff will be restored?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, again I can't give the hon. member of the House the assurance that I or anyone would in any way recommend a change in the procedure or the involvement by the auditor-general in Crown

[ Page 2557 ]

corporations, because it could perhaps be quite improper in some instances for the auditor-general to be involved with the reporting or the auditing of a Crown corporation, if in fact such Crown corporation is part private and part public; for example, the Workers' Compensation Board. So before we run off and make statements as to what should be or what might be, it should be carefully considered.

DISMISSAL OF MR. RON BUTLIN

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. You have suggested that you put the issue of the firing of the B.C. Games manager into "the context of the second contract" with him. Was there any requirement that the minister be silent about the disposition of the contract signed in late 1986?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is no.

MS. EDWARDS: A supplementary. Why has the minister made reference to the 60-day contract when expressing his interpretation of the termination in late May of the director's then-current contract?

HON. MR. REID: In reference to the response on number one contract and number two contract, the reason for my explanation is that one contract had to be seceded before the second contract could be put in place.

MS. EDWARDS: There seems to have been no requirement, however, that there be any silence on your part about the contract that was terminated, the one signed in late 1986.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS IN HOUSE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Yesterday the House was dealing with the restructuring of B.C. Place and B.C. Development, and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) chose to not participate in the debate of this monumental transfusion of $396 million. Is that kind of behaviour acceptable to the Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: If we're going to use question period to discuss who should or should not participate in debate, then I suppose we could spend the whole of each question period discussing where people are when the debates are going on. I don't think this is at all in order. However, there will be a further opportunity to debate in committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: I take it this is a new policy of government: that ministers are simply not expected to be in the chamber even when borrowings of as much of $400 million are involved, and they don't have to respond.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, that was an omnibus bill presented by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), and it was properly presented. Now it will be debated in committee, and there will be every opportunity for every member on the other side to debate each and every section of the bill.

SKYTRAIN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with regard to reported major structural problems with the concrete supports of the Kerkhoff-Hyundai SkyTrain bridge. I'd like the minister to confirm that for the House. I'd like the minister also to make comment on the fact that the construction at that bridge now has been down for two to three days. Will the bridge he finished on time?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In response to the first question, the member did bring that question to me some time ago, and I obtained a written report from the officials and inspection officials on the SkyTrain project. The report indicated that there was no problem. At most times there are up to ten inspectors on the job, so we are very conscious of the safety aspects. I have no reason to suspect that there is anything other than first-class workmanship going into the job. As for the project itself, it continues on schedule and within budget.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I raised concerns over the construction with the minister quite a while ago. My question is specifically to the last two or three days. My information is that the job is down now, and it is down because of major structural problems in the concrete. Can the minister comment on the job at the moment?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: If the member has some information to that effect, I would certainly appreciate receiving it, because if it is down because of structural problems I am certainly not aware of that. I would very much appreciate having some specifics, and I look forward to having them as soon as question period concludes, so I can follow that up without delay.

MR. MILLER: In view of the information that came to light earlier today during estimates and the questions that were raised initially on the expertise of the company Kerkhoff-Hyundai in terms of this project, and in view of the questions raised by my colleague from Surrey, would the minister undertake to do a very quick investigation? We certainly don't want a repeat of the Coquihalla experience, in terms of the doubling of budgets on these kinds of projects. Would the minister do a very quick check to ensure not only that the project is on budget, but that the completion schedule will be met and the budget projection will be met in terms of that completion date?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm in constant contact with the officials, and the information given me as recently as yesterday afternoon would suggest that we are on time and on budget.

ADMISSION FEES TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS

MS. EDWARDS: I have another question to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. The minister has refused to reconsider his decision to impose fees at the Provincial Museum and the two heritage parks in British Columbia, and at several other facilities. In light of the fact that there was major advertising in government publications that these facilities are free, would the minister at least consider one free day throughout the year for these facilities?

HON. MR. REID: I'm pleased to announce that starting October 1 and through to the end of April, every Monday all facilities will be free.

[ Page 2558 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the Provincial Museum. As the minister is probably aware, the Minister of Tourism has erected a used hotdog stand from Expo outside the museum to collect the fees. It turns out that the Minister of Tourism has not obtained a municipal permit, and it's in violation of the zoning and the development permits. As the minister responsible for municipal affairs, does she approve of a ministry of the provincial government disobeying the local laws of a municipality?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I was made aware of that situation on this morning's news broadcast on a Victoria station. I would really prefer to have that question put to the Minister of Tourism, because I really have no further knowledge of that, and I'm sure he's much better informed on that subject than I am.

HON. MR. REID: In response to the question from the member for Kootenay, inasmuch as the museum is just a tenant of BCBC and we are only responsible to pay the rent, the building itself comes under the direction of BCBC. And it's not a hotdog stand; it's a stand to sell passes for $10 to families and to children. We understand they're lined up waiting to get in over there today, so it's having a very successful day; and I will report daily the attendance at the museum and the income to the province.

[2:30]

MR. BLENCOE: With all the buck-passing, nobody wants to deal with this issue. A question to the Minister of Tourism. Does he believe — clearly the Minister of Municipal Affairs doesn't want to deal with the issue — that his ministry, which is responsible for this used hotdog stand, should disobey the local laws which all other Victorians and British Columbians have to observe when they put up or erect buildings? Does he believe his ministry should be separate from the laws that apply to other people?

HON. MR. REID: The answer is no.

MR. G. HANSON: A supplementary to the Minister of Tourism. Is the minister aware that in 972 days there will no admission charges to the Provincial Museum?

MOUNT KLAPPAN COAL PROJECT

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Minister of Energy on behalf of my colleague the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno). Over 35 groups have petitioned your ministry for public hearings on the Mount Klappan coal project. Has the minister decided to hold public hearings on Gulf's stage 2 proposal for the Mount Klappan project?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, hearings will be held if, as and when the company makes a serious proposal.

Orders of the Day

HON. S. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask for leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's my pleasure this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, to welcome two friends of mine to the galleries. They are two friends whom I haven't seen for a long time but with whom I attended school — it seems like a few years ago. I'd like to introduce to the House Don and Verneal Kallevig, and ask you to make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 36; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. MILLER: Very briefly, Madam Chairman, I raised a cautionary note in terms of the introduction of the amber arrow, and the minister, I believe, stated that yellow lights are now used. Perhaps the minister could briefly advise the House how quickly we will be proceeding in terms of installing the yellow arrow. What is the configuration? Will it be another device affixed below the green arrow that will operate substantially as the yellow light does now with the normal traffic signal? Will you try a few installations and monitor the effect? Those are general questions in terms of my concern about monitoring and any accidents that might happen as a result of unfamiliarity with the device.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't know the complete technicalities as to the design, but the concept is plain and simple. Drivers who are currently entering intersections where the green arrow starts to flash to indicate that a left turn is permitted.... The problem we seem to be having is the lull between the time that the green arrow ceases to flash and the time in which the oncoming traffic commences to move. There is hesitation in there, which causes the drivers to be uncertain of whether they can proceed to make a left-hand turn, because the oncoming traffic doesn't seem to be moving. There are a few seconds in there, which is the problem. It is, indeed, resulting in a number of accidents. All we intend to do, through technical design — whether it's going to be in the same circle or in an additional circle....

All we're doing, Mr. Member, is making the law. It will be up to the municipalities and the cities to make the changeover. I can assure you that we will not be putting any undue pressure on the municipalities and cities to install these devices overnight. However, the guidelines, laws and regulations will be in place to have this requirement as the changes are made and designed.

We have experienced a good number of accidents as a result of this uncertainty, and all we're doing is trying to correct that problem.

MR. MILLER: I assume, and the minister can simply indicate by nodding his head, that these will only be installed where the left turn is only to be made on the green arrow; in other words, not in those situations where there is a green arrow to assist the movement of that left-turn traffic but there is nothing prohibiting a left turn when the green arrow is not on — for example, just to give that left-turn traffic a break to

[ Page 2559 ]

get out there, but you can still make that left turn on a green light. I assume it's only going to be where you can only make the left turn when the green arrow indicates that you can.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The clear intention of the legislation is to eliminate the uncertainty in the instances where the green arrow indicates a left-hand turn and is flashing to the point at which it ceases and the traffic in the opposite direction commences to move. That's the only purpose of the legislation: to have an amber light there to indicate the same message exactly as an amber light does under normal circumstances.

Sections 7 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 36, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Committee on Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR CARRIER AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 47; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. MILLER: First of all, with respect to 31.1: "The commission shall (a) comply with any general directive of the minister with respect to the exercise of its power and functions...." Can the minister briefly outline the need for this section, what kind of directives he would intend to send to the commission and what will be done by the commission with respect to these directives that is now not being done?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Currently the commission has a right to hold public hearings and do things that are provided for by legislation and within the regulations. The minister will now be in a position to send a directive, a policy statement of the government, to the commission that perhaps a hearing should be held to consider the impact of the trucking regulations on small communities and hamlets in the isolated areas of the province. It's a tool that may or may not ever be used, but if an occasion should arise when the minister, in the public interest, feels that a firm policy directive is required from government, the provision is now there for the minister to act.

MR. MILLER: First of all, when the minister — or any minister — brings in a specific piece of legislation and then says it may or may not ever be used.... I have some difficulty with that, because obviously there was a feeling on the part of the minister, and perhaps the cabinet, that there was something urgent enough to bring in amendments to legislation.

The example that the minister used was that there may be a directive issued by the minister to protect the interests of a small community in terms of holding hearings, etc. Yet if I'm not mistaken, and I don't think I am, the Motor Carrier Act clearly sets out matters that are there to protect the public interest. That is one of them: the impact on communities of a particular service; how they would be impacted if other carriers were allowed to come in, whether they be bus or transport carriers. So clearly the commission's mandate, at this point, is to consider those very items that the minister has just suggested that he would be issuing directives to the commission to consider.

Again, I have a bit of difficulty. Is the commission not doing its job now in terms of the legislation that exists, and the kinds of issues and protections that are included — the public interest in a number of issues, in terms of rates and service levels? Is the commission not doing an adequate job of meeting those concerns?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Madam Chairman, I have no complaints up to now. Having been the minister for a short period of time, I have no complaints. But it's the feeling of the minister that section will perhaps give an opportunity in the future, if and when a situation may arise when the minister feels it's important in the interest of the citizens of the province and in the interest of carriers and shippers and small communities that perhaps some direction may be required — I repeat, may be required. It could be it will never be required; let's hope it won't. In the changing world we're living in, with regulations being changed nationally, some regulations being changed provincially and future changes anticipated, perhaps it may be in the interest of the public in general in British Columbia to have the powers given under section

[2:45]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, we know there have been some changes made already at the branch level. For example, the manager of some years has departed, and in his place we now have a former civil servant who used to be responsible for some items — the superintendent of brokers, I believe. Obviously there are some changes taking place within the branch, and it's not surprising, perhaps, in light of the move to deregulation that we see.

I want to repeat a concern that I talked about in second reading, which is that the amendments introduced in section 11 of Bill 47 create a bit of a danger, I think, which is that the door is open to the politicization of the commission and its functions. I say this not because I'm accusing this particular minister of wanting to be able to exercise that kind of political influence, but when we change legislation we must remember that we can't deal with it personally. It's a piece of legislation, and anybody at any given time will be dealing with it.

So we've opened the door for that kind of politicization, that kind of flow from the minister, to what has been an independent commission appointed by the minister. Obviously the minister should exercise that kind of judgment, concerning who sits on the commission. But the minister

[ Page 2560 ]

may find that, in the final analysis, it might be a bit uncomfortable in terms of the seeming appearance of politicization, that the commission is no longer separate and independent, although appointed by the minister. We've opened up the door that swings both ways, presumably, between the minister and the commission.

I add that cautionary note. We're not going to oppose the legislation, as I indicated in second reading, because the government has — to their credit — agreed that, prior to any substantive changes in deregulation in the transportation industry, there will be an all-party committee of this House. We haven't established exactly how that's going to be done. I know the minister has indicated that he intends to distribute a paper — a Green Paper, I believe he called it. Again, I don't particularly object to that. I suppose that would be the appropriate time a committee would be struck — perhaps a subcommittee, who knows? — to tour the province in terms of the interests of those communities. After all, the smaller, remote communities need special attention, I think. So the committee would do the work necessary before we would get into any legislative change.

I do have some concern, and I do hope that the changes do not lead to a deterioration of the function of the commission, which over time has really done a decent job. I think they've tried to keep abreast of the times; they've tried to be nonbureaucratic. But they've really been carrying out the function as laid out in the Motor Carrier Act, and that is something we agree on, not something the commission decides. We decide that.

Having said that, I have no further problems with any other sections of the bill, and we will be supporting it.

Sections 11 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 47, Motor Carrier Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Committee on Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 40; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. MILLER: I wonder if the minister would give a brief explanation of the amendment.

HON. MR. PARKER: It's just a matter of terminology. According to the forest council, the word "rent" is more appropriate than "rental."

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

On section 19.1.

HON. MR. PARKER: By way of explanation, Madam Chairman, the section calls for cost information to be collected, and the amendment provides for the confidentiality of the cost information from each individual source. Section 149(3) of the act provides: "Subject to a lawful requirement, no person employed in the Ministry of Forests shall release or divulge a report submitted under subsection (1)(b) or (c)...." We're amending that to read: " (1)(b) to (d) or information contained in it unless (a) the person who submitted the report gives his consent; or (b) the information is released or divulged as part of a summary that presents it in such a way that it cannot be identified with the person who submitted it."

MR. JONES: In light of that, I can appreciate the minister's not desiring to divulge information about specific companies with respect to pricing and contracts and that kind of thing. But does the minister's statement imply that information in general will be available without the names of the companies but some idea of the pricing of important commodities in this province will be available to the public? Will persons interested in obtaining such information have to go through the minister's office?

HON. MR. PARKER: The information gathered in building the cost data bank will be available in summary form. It will be available in stumpage calculation information. So it's readily available.

MR. JONES: I'd like clarification on the definition of "readily available." Can members of the opposition and the public obtain that information in summary form, or must they go through the minister's office to do that, or can they go through the ministry itself?

HON. MR. PARKER: Whatever will be, will be. I don't know what's going to happen down the track.

MR. JONES: I don't think che sara, sara is an answer. It's the Minister of Forests who determines the degree of availability of information in his ministry. I would like to know whether he feels that this kind of information should be public information or whether he wants to maintain a degree

[ Page 2561 ]

of confidentiality and control of that information by having it go through his office, or whether it will be readily available through his ministry.

HON. MR. PARKER: The cost information is available in the stumpage appraisal system. It's available in the stumpage appraisal manual. If a person has a stumpage appraisal manual, he'll have that data. That information is available from the public information section of the Ministry of Forests and Lands.

MR. JONES: There's a relationship, then, between the amounts in the manual, or the allowances, and the real numbers, and this will vary with the manufacturing facility or the harvesting group or whoever is involved. So the question is, is that relationship — which is the interesting one in terms of public policy, one would think.... Could we have some assurance from the minister, then, that that will be available to members at least, in terms of review, so that we will know what the relationship is between the real numbers of the range — and there's going to be a significant range, of course — and the allowance that the ministry allows?

HON. MR. PARKER: We could provide information on range, but we will not provide specific information to members of the House.

MR. JONES: Just to clarify, Madam Chairman, the point is that we're not asking for the cost of a particular company. It could be company A, B, C or D, without knowing what the company was specifically. Then having that data, in effect having the range, and not just broad averages but being satisfied in terms of those specifics, and the implications of, and the information around, the differences between what is allowed and what the real numbers are.... Because as the minister knows, the Hopwood report prepared for the truck loggers, with the cooperation of the ministry, clearly showed a significant difference — in fact, it was a 25 percent difference, if my memory serves me right — between what the Crown allowed and the actual cost the corporations faced. That's a significant difference in terms of reasonable return to the Crown in those circumstances. So that's a question.

HON. MR. PARKER: The purpose of this section and the amendment is to provide the legislative authority to get the real numbers. That's the intent here. We will have the real numbers on the costs of doing business in the forest industry. The specifics, according to each licensee, will not be released; that confidentiality will be kept. However, the data can be shared providing the anonymity is assured.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, I'd like to thank the minister for that position. It's thoughtful and reasonable.

[3:00]

Sections 19.1 to 23 inclusive approved.

On section 24.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, the whole transitional period is just not clear to me. Maybe the minister could give us an overview of how he sees this transitional period evolving vis-à-vis the export and refunds relative to export and implementation of the new system, and what sort of general time-frame he sees here.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, the purpose of this section is to cover the period of time it takes to get all the different licences in line with this amendment act. It ensures that the stumpage rental and the royalty charges can be implemented on all forest tenures. So it's to cover a grey period of time.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure I understood, Madam Chairman. The minister must have some kind of calendar in mind with respect to this transitional period, and the likely implementation of the new system. Is it something like September as the goal, or something like that as the minister announced previously?

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, we have a tentative date, on or about September 1. Whether that's achievable is not clear at this time, but it will be before the end of calendar 1987.

Sections 24 and 25 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. PARKER: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 40, Forest Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. PARKER: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 40, Forest Amendment Act, 1987, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND
AMENDMENT AC77, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[ Page 2562 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton, in the chair.

Bill 46, University Endowment Land Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Committee on Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MS. MARZARI: I address section 8 in the context of the things I said yesterday during second reading of this bill. I believe that section 8 basically takes the responsibilities and functions of the Universities Council and transfers them to the Minister of Advanced Education.

The powers that are conferred upon the minister suggest that a university will not establish a new degree program without the approval of the minister. It strikes me that this is the very instance in which the ministry and the government should be looking for an arm's-length agreement between universities and a board or a body that sits somewhere between institutions called universities and the ministry itself. Although 46.1(1) clearly outlines and reiterates, basically, that the universities are autonomous in terms of "the formulation and adoption of academic policies...and the establishment of standards for admission and graduation...and the selection and appointment of staff," subsection (2) talks about the university not establishing any new degree programs without ministerial approval.

I only point this out because I think it's a symbolic move for the ministry to abandon the Universities Council, although I and the opposition understand completely that the Universities Council has atrophied and hasn't been used as a tool. I understand completely that the universities themselves had lost any respect for the council.

I believe that this bill should not become an act without these comments being made.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. JONES: Yesterday I raised a concern with the minister with respect to the loss of input on the part of school trustees in this province into the Joint Board of Teacher Education — the loss of input into deciding how teacher education should take place in this province. The minister responded by more or less saying that it's really a matter for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet).

I'm a very forgiving person. I am sure that the minister is very busy and, by all accounts that I've heard, he is doing an excellent job. However, it seems to me, as a former school trustee and board chairman — as are a number of people who sit in this chamber — that the loss of their voice in what is certainly an important part of our education system in this province deserves a little more than: "Don't bother me with that kind of question."

It seemed to me that it was the responsibility of this minister, when he saw that amendments in this bill would bring about the demise of the Joint Board of Teacher Education.... If he had concerns about his former role as a school trustee and about teacher input into an important part of the education system in this province, he would have ensured and discussed with the Minister of Education himself some alternative mechanisms for seeing that that trustee voice was totally lost through the changes brought about by Bill 20.

I think it's an omission. The gravity of it is a question, but it's still an omission on the part of this minister. Perhaps he has talked to the Minister of Education, and perhaps he does have an answer today.

HON. S. HAGEN: I believe that there will be an opportunity for input into the new board. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't have agreed with this section. I think you know me well enough to know that I believe in input, that I believe in gathering input from as broad a spectrum of society as I can. I rest assured that there will be an opportunity for the B.C. school trustees to have input.

Sections 10 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S. HAGEN: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 32, University Amendment Act, 1987, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call committee on Bill 57, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITY FOUNDATIONS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 57; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. R. FRASER: Madam Chairman, under the title "Agent of the Crown," I believe the minister said yesterday, according to my reading of the Blues, that as agent of the Crown this act would enable donors to deduct up to 100 percent of the value of the gifts from their income tax. I want to ask the minister through you: is that what he meant?

HON. S. HAGEN: Yes, to the hon. member, what I said is what I meant, and the situation does not change. The same tax provisions were available under the Universities Council of British Columbia, which had an agent-of-the-Crown status.

[ Page 2563 ]

MR. R. FRASER: If I was to say that a person who had an income tax bill of $5,000 could then donate $5,000 to the university, thereby having a tax of zero, is that right?

HON. S. HAGEN: It's been a long time since I've done any tax work. I don't think it's quite that simple. As I'm sure the member knows, there's a long, complicated tax calculation on the sheet. What we are trying to do is achieve agent of-the-Crown status for the three universities by this bill.

MR. R. FRASER: Then could I ask the minister if this will enable....? I don't believe, for openers, that there should be 100 percent tax-deductible credits to anybody, and so I would like to ask the minister if he could assure me that this will give the universities no more or less leverage than any other charitable organization.

[3:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: To the first member for Vancouver South, this will give the universities the same benefits they had under the Universities Council of British Columbia, and I'm sure that the member would be familiar with that, since he was the previous minister.

MR. R. FRASER: What I wanted to establish is whether or not it would be a greater advantage to a taxpayer to donate to the universities than to the CNIB, the Red Cross or other charitable agencies. Is there a difference now?

HON. S. HAGEN: Madam Chairman, I'm not an income tax consultant. I would suggest that the member contact an income tax consultant or possibly his Member of Parliament.

MR. R. FRASER: I don't think the statement in the Blues is correct. I don't think you can deduct 100 percent of a tax by making a donation, and I want to be certain that we can't. I don't want universities to be given a special advantage over other charities, which would then distort charitable giving.

I want the minister to review this question and look at it very carefully. If in fact there is a differential, I would encourage the government to remove it.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MS. MARZARI: Section 7 deals with investments made by the three corporations being created under this act. I would like to suggest to the minister that investment policies be made by the boards with regard to B.C. companies, with regard to investment in British Columbia, and perhaps with regard to an ethical investment program, which is being readily adopted by many of our credit unions and which might be extended to the universities.

I ask the minister if he would take that as a recommendation, to think that through and possibly suggest it, if not write it into the act or into the terms of reference or regulations of the act, so that these new corporations — this new foundation — will in fact reflect the values of British Columbians, as they try to promote economic growth and development.

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to thank the hon. member for that good comment. Without wanting to interfere with the autonomy of the universities, I would be pleased to make that recommendation to the universities. I don't have any difficulty with what she said. I just don't want to restrict them to any large extent.

Sections 7 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. S. HAGEN: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 57, University Foundations Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 53, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ENTERPRISE CORPORATION
FINANCIAL RESTRUCTURING ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act, Bill 53, provides for two transactions which are prerequisites for the government's plans for establishing the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation and for placing it on a sound financial footing. These transactions, combined with other transactions provided for by the amendments to the B.C. Place Act contained in Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987, Bill 55, will enable the government to restructure the finances of the company so that it will not have to borrow funds to service its debt.

The principal transaction contemplated under the amend ments to the British Columbia Place Act is the conversion of an appropriate amount of the company's government debt to equity, to be held by the government. This conversion, which will relieve the company of a substantial interest burden, is appropriate in view of the large land holdings being held for development by the company. These land holdings, while still substantial in value, cannot be relied upon over the next few years to generate a steady stream of revenue for servicing the existing debt of the company.

The first transaction under Bill 53 will effect the consolidation of the British Columbia Development Corporation and British Columbia Place Ltd. Into the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation. This consolidation was announced by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on March 6 this year.

The second transaction under Bill 53 will enable the government to assume some of the debt of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation in consideration for the transfer of the share in the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation from the British Columbia Buildings Corporation to the government, provided for in Bill 55. Such consideration is appropriate, given that the British Columbia Buildings Corporation debt financed its equity investment in British Columbia Place Ltd. Transfer of the share is required to enable the government to assume direct responsibility for the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation.

The provisions of Bill 53 have been separated from the amendments to the British Columbia Place Act contained in

[ Page 2564 ]

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987, as the transactions contemplated under Bill 53 are expected to be one-time events. Therefore, the provisions providing for these transactions should be of a temporary nature. They will cease to have effect on December 31, 1987, and should not be enshrined within the more permanent British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act, which is to be the new name for the amended British Columbia Place Act.

The transactions provided for by Bill 53 will be made retroactive to March 31, 1987, to enable the Crown corporations involved to begin the 1987-88 fiscal year with a clean slate. This will enable the government to more readily monitor the financial performance of these Crown corporations during 1987-88 and to utilize 1987-88 as a base year for assessing their future performance.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 53, British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, at least one can say that the minister didn't say this was housekeeping. It's not getting rid of any debt; it's transferring it from one entity to another. It is transferring it from a couple of Crown corporations to the Crown itself, so it's the public accounts of British Columbia that will reflect the total increase in debt, and who knows how much more, because we don't know the figures. We do not have the statements for B.C. Development Corporation. We don't know what the figures are going to be.

I don't know whether the minister can handle this in second reading or whether it would be more appropriate to committee, but I want to put some questions to him. I note in section 2(a) that all the property and assets of the Development Corporation are going to be transferred to this new British Columbia Enterprise Corporation.

A question.... I might say it disturbs me, but I don't know whether it does or not yet, because I don't know what the answer is. The value of all those properties and assets is not going to be book value, or at least the possibility of them not being book value is there. We don't know that they're going to be appraised. All we know from section 4(a) of the bill is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order made before December 31, 1987, establish the value of property, assets and rights for the purpose of this transfer to the Crown. So the assets could presumably be inflated tremendously in value and wipe out the $87.4 million deficit that BCDC had on March 31, 1986. We don't know what it will be by March 31, 1987, but if the rate of increase in the deficit is anywhere near what it was in the year ending March 31, 1986, we're looking at a deficit in the neighbourhood of $200 million. We don't know; we have nothing to go on other than the increase in the deficit in the year ended March 31, 1986.

That could be wiped out, of course. The Crown could come out looking real good if the assets were inflated to the tune of $200 million; at least it would break even. I wonder what the guidelines will be that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will use. Will they employ appraisers to look at the properties? Will they have an analysis done of the accounts receivable, the investments and the loans outstanding? How will the cabinet arrive at a value of the property and assets to be transferred?

Then in 2(l)(b): "all of the obligations and liabilities of the development corporation...." Some of the obligations and liabilities are real, but beyond that there are the guarantees. Will they be looked at? Here again, we look at 4(b) and we see that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will specify the indebtedness of the Buildings Corporation. Presumably, we'll look at the guarantees and arrive at a figure as to just how much the corporation owes at that point in time.

Specify the indebtedness of the corporation for the purposes of the section.... I'm sorry; I'm onto 3(l) now; I didn't mean to do that. Just back up a bit now. We're talking about the current obligations and liabilities of the Development Corporation. When I say "current," I don't mean March 31, 1986, which are the figures we have, but those that will exist sometime in 1987. We're not even assured that it will March 31, but sometime in 1987.

Then we look at section 3: "Assumption of Other Liabilities". The minister said that some of the debt of B.C. Buildings Corporation will be transferred to this new corporation, British Columbia Enterprise Corporation. The "some" is going to be defined by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council. In 4(b), the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will specify the indebtedness of the Buildings Corporation for the purposes of 3(l). How are they going to arrive at the indebtedness? What do they intend to do, shift all of it? Make an allowance for losses that may not be realized yet — that is, contingencies in some of the investments made by the Buildings Corporation? I just don't know how they're going to arrive at that, and I'm not sure that the minister does at this point in time. Maybe this time would be more useful during committee, but I wanted to alert him to some of the things that I think we should look at.

Looking at section 3(3) a little further, it's not just March 31, 1987. "On and after March 31, 1987, any part of the indebtedness referred to in subsection (2), in respect of the period on and after March 31, 1987...." When is this going to end? At what point in time do we say: "Well, enough is enough; all of the indebtedness incurred to that point is going to be transferred to the new corporation"? We just don't know.

Again in section 4(c), the cabinet is going to make the determination. That information — the cabinet discussions — will not be available to the House. We won't know what arguments are presented in council. All we'll know is that cabinet has made a decision to make certain transactions, based on what? Based on the political needs of the day to make something look good or bad and to have the Crown absorb the whole of the loss and even enough of the loss to make sure that the new corporation gets a good start? We just don't know. There are a lot of questions about this.

At the present time, unless the minister is very persuasive when he winds up second reading, I expect the opposition will be voting against this bill on second reading.

[3:30]

MR. WILLIAMS: I think that the points raised by the member for Nanaimo are significant. We look at the amount of debt you're shuffling off to the general public and the taxpayer here. You admit to some $396 million in this exercise, although it isn't limited. There is $205 million through the Buildings Corporation, and then that's not limited. So we're talking about shovelling off the back of the truck a debt load unprecedented in the modern history of the province, and with no clear end at any regard.

[ Page 2565 ]

But the point made by the member for Nanaimo about the land assets is especially significant. I am sure that the minister understands the significance of it in countless ways. These valuable lands were transferred, many of them, for a dollar. Let's think about that. Wasn't all of Songhees transferred for one dollar? Just imagine walking out of this building and standing on the steps and almost for as far as you can see on the other side of this Inner Harbour — from the Johnson Street Bridge up to the Bay bridge, up the Gorge, around the comer and out to Esquimalt — that incredible, magnificent waterfront transferred for one dollar. What's it going to be on the books, Mr. Minister? One dollar. What do you think that waterfront is worth, in terms of dollars per front foot on the harbour — $100,000 a foot? That might not be out of line. Maybe it's $50,000 a foot on the waterfront. Maybe the minister has some numbers there.

That's just one piece of real estate transferred here. We've talked about debt burial and shovelling debt off the back of a truck onto the backs of the taxpayers on a scale unprecedented in the modem history of the province. You've owned up to the $601 million, but you already wrote off $54 million in the B.C. Development Corporation, as the auditor-general reports. You've thrown in interest payments to B.C. Buildings Corporation for good measure, and that ups the ante again. But this lump that's buried in these land transactions may be even more significant in terms of debt burial.

So that's a dollar. Now, what about the other pieces of land that are being played with here? All of the land above Riverview, that huge area when you go over the Port Mann Bridge — you look at the Riverview area and you see the development above it. All of those remaining lands from Riverview were transferred into this corporation too, and if my memory serves me right, that too was for a dollar. But that's not just Riverview alone. That's the stuff that Andre Molnar is developing now. We read the ads in our newspapers every weekend in terms of those lots being sold and fancy houses on them. We're talking hundreds — nay thousands — of acres in the suburbs of greater Vancouver. That's part of your debt burial scheme as well. Not only Riverview: the Westwood Plateau. That is thousands of acres — all the lands behind the Coquitlam shopping centre. And what was that transferred for? Was that not for a dollar as well? So we're talking about a monumental cleanup here.

You've got the $396 million that you admit to, the $205 million that you admit to, and then there are hundreds of millions in land values as well that are wallpapering over this scheme and hiding other losses, other problems within these corporations. It's absolutely extraordinary what you're trying to cover here. As the member for Nanaimo says, there are the guarantees of the B.C. Development Corporation that you're dealing with here as well. There is $1.6 billion out in guarantees of the Development Corporation: how are we satisfied about the security and the quality of the loans under those guarantees? Where do we stand? Are you saying they're 100 percent good? Your track record in the Development Corporation is abysmal. In the last reported year, the loss of B.C. Development Corporation, which that minister there is responsible for, was $87 million, and about $60 million the year before. You still haven't delivered to this chamber the annual report of the Development Corporation for the last fiscal year, even though that ended at the end of March.

The other liabilities: my God, you've still got the dismantling of Expo in this garbage bag of debt. The dismantling of Expo is a new cost. The stuff has been sitting there; the interest clock is continually ticking with respect to all of this stuff. So the demobilizing of Expo is still to be dealt with, because that shunted into B.C. Place after Expo. You still see those rides when you go over the Georgia Viaduct. Whatever they call those rides that you see from the viaduct, they're still not demobilized, still not broken up, still not sold. Another hare-brained scheme of the minister's — not this minister, but the other one that spends so lavishly — is to dump all of those playthings, for some ridiculous low price per acre, into a public park in North Surrey at tonehead, with some play land outfit from the United States of America.

This is covering screwball deal after screwball deal, and it's to accommodate new screwball deals. As the member for Nanaimo says: "Where will it end?" What about the Development Corporation's loans, Mr. Minister? What kind of allowances have you got in terms of bad loans still within the B.C. Development Corporation? What have you set aside so far for major bad loans within BCDC? We look at these crackpot schemes you people consider again and again, and can't help but think about the gasohol one coming down the pipe.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not theirs.

MR. WILLIAMS: They shunted it off to Agriculture, because even these guys knew it was too screwball to accommodate within the Development Corporation, which is already in a river of red ink. Mr. Minister of Finance, what are the provisions for loan losses within the Development Corporation currently with respect to loans under $1 million? Mr. Minister of Finance, what are the provisions for loan losses currently within the Development Corporation for loans over $1 million? What percentage of your portfolio is in a bad-loan category? What percentage of your portfolio is in a watch-list in terms of being wobbly loans, in terms of the likelihood of payment being narrow?

All of these are reasonable questions, Mr. Speaker. Yet here we are, entertaining this financial restructuring act, this statute that's before us now from the Minister of Finance. It's an abysmal track record — unequalled, I think, in this part of the world, in modem years. There's no indication that it's going to end. There's absolutely no indication whatsoever that the profligate spending tendencies of the minister responsible for this corporation will ever cease until there's another provincial election. There's no indication that the minister is going to be shuffled off, as should clearly be the case. There's no indication that she's being harnessed in in any regard in her spending habits.

There has been profligate spending under this minister in this ministry, unequalled in this province. It is no small wonder that we have to do some debt restructuring around these corporations that she's responsible for. She is the most profligate spender in the modem history of British Columbia, and much of that spending is with no return. It's all too clear. We have not been provided with adequate material at all, in terms of the nature of the problems you face. It is an open-ended situation in terms of accommodating the debt here. It may well not be just the $396 million that you talk about here, and the $205 million that you talk about here, that you're shovelling off onto the backs of the taxpayers.

There are untold millions in terms of the land deals that are accommodating the underlying waste within these corporations. At Songhees, as I've said; at Riverview, as I've said; at Westwood, as I've said, we have incredibly valuable land

[ Page 2566 ]

assets handled in a questionable way, in every respect. That is another cover for the debt and the waste being handled by this minister. To come before this House and ask for approval of this kind of bill at this stage, and with this limited reporting, requires that the opposition say no. We want an end to the profligate spending of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. SPEAKER: The first member for Victoria seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON: With us on the floor is Judyth Watson, a Member of the Legislative Assembly for Western Australia. She's a Labour MLA for the riding of Canning, and her home is in Perth. I'd like you to join me in making her welcome here.

MS. MARZARI: In rising to speak to this bill, one has to look back over a number of months of announcements that have been made regarding B.C. Place and its folding into BCEC. We knew then that BCDC's debts would also be folded into the new Enterprise Corporation. We were barely able to digest that when we were looking at a deficit of $400 million at that point. The opposition has tried very hard, I think, using various techniques, to find out what that debt structure looked like.

[3:45]

There's basically nothing wrong with consolidating debt to pay it off, but we are a public body, and when that debt is consolidated, I think it's incumbent upon us and upon the government to disclose what that debt looks like. When we know about BCDC being folded into the Enterprise Corporation, it's very important, before this move is formally ratified, that the debt be looked at, that it be accounted for, that the Public Accounts Committee perhaps be asked to look at it. It's something that the Public Accounts Committee, the deputy Chair and I have talked about doing. It has not yet come before the Public Accounts Committee, but I would suggest that it might be a good idea for this government to ask the committee to look at the BCDC debt.

But that's only one component of the new bill now before us. The new bill adds $205 million. When I read that I realized, as we now add the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, that we are layering on yet another level, another public body to absorb yet more debt and to run two additional public corporations, the convention centre and the pavilion.

In looking at this additional $205 million, which I believe was addressed last night, I feel I should read into the record the BCDC annual report of 1983, which states:

"In September 1982 the BCBC made a $205 million equity investment in B.C. Place Ltd. and holds the only outstanding share. The investment is long-term and is expected to return excellent future dividends. Our investment is already fully covered by the significant increase in land values over costs realized since acquisition. To assist BCBC in this venture...the interest costs until such time as the cash flow from the investment exceeds our interest payments on related borrowings."

Well, we all know the sad tale of the operating deficits on B.C. Place: $162, 000 in 1984, $3.889 million in '85, and almost $4.6 million in'86. This was no investment. This was debt from the very beginning. The government must have known this, but only now, as I see it being folded into the overall package now called BCEC, can we even begin to understand the full nature of this debt that needs to be made up for or written off.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the time has really come for reckoning, and that before this bill is put forward.... As I say, there's nothing wrong with consolidating debt, but there is something very wrong with not reporting on that debt and ensuring that there is public accounting for that debt.

The other question, of course, which comes to mind and which cannot be overlooked is the timing. The consolidation of this debt before March 31 or April 1 of this year, no matter when transactions are conducted, no matter when the land is sold off, is beyond understanding. The so-called clean sweep seems to neglect basic principles of accounting and public accounting.

There is a way of consolidating debt. There is a way of doing it with some integrity. There is a way of producing reports and of laying it on the table that people can understand, that the opposition can look at. By doing it in this way and by choosing the timing that you've chosen, this government lays itself open to accusation, to suspicion. Your integrity is questionable by doing it this way. There must be a way of coming around it.

I would suggest — this is just one small step — that certain of the transactions, certainly the loan portfolio of BCDC, could be sent to the Public Accounts Committee. That would be one small step. As for the rest of it, I would suggest that we need an inquiry before a bill of this nature goes through and before we get on with the business of packaging and selling those lands, so that we have a complete accounting.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, I advise the House that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There were so many points made there that there was no way I could capture them all, but I'll try to address the few that I did catch.

First of all, the opening speaker dealt with accounting policies. I think it's clear that the House should understand that the accounting policies that were implemented here in the determination of the transfer of assets were in an effort to simplify the relationships, not complicate them.

The major accounting policies followed were.... First of all, land and projects are recorded at the lesser of current market value or cost. Loans are recorded at principal outstanding, less provision for losses. Public facilities are recorded at cost, and trust funds are the loans administered on behalf of the government, for which BCDC is fully indemnified.

We can get into further detail during committee stage, and I am happy to do that. Some of the comments I heard implied that Songhees lands were being transferred. They're not. There is no suggestion that Songhees lands are being transferred.

There was reference to Expo. There will be a statement on the Expo dismantling in short order, in a reasonable period of time in the near future. I can tell the House that there is no embarrassment associated with that exercise. It will be a good-news story. Dealing with the rides on Expo, we have offers on the rides, and there are three proposed locations. So

[ Page 2567 ]

we are not without remedies in terms of that portion of the dismantling.

There is constant reference to a sum of $396 million and, by virtue of the loose phrasing used, listeners might wonder whether we're talking here about a write-off of bad debts or something. The fact of the matter is that the proposal deals with the necessary write-down and simplification of some of these relationships, and $396 million is being converted to equity. It is believed, using the properly accepted accounting principles I introduced a minute ago, that those sums that we have worked out are defensible, and we're very happy to deal with that.

I think it's important to understand the government's motive with these two pieces of legislation. The objective is to clarify the accounting records of past years, made in different times by different players. I heard some suggestion that this is a coverup. Of all the absurdities! The reverse is true. We are here dealing with the subject so that the records can be set straight, so that there can be a public debate in this room on these matters.

Furthermore, I heard some suggestion.... There was a query from one of the speakers, wondering about the write-off provision for bad debts. In the interest of full disclosure, we did provide the questioner with that very same material today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yesterday.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: No, he was given further material this morning, and if he cared to read the material we provided him, he would note that on the bottom of the page there is a write-off provision for bad debts. It would have answered the very question he put to me. Anyone observing this absurdity would wonder what it is that we are trying to cover up. We are covering nothing up. We are bringing it all before the House for clarification, and there will be full and ample opportunity to get into some of these details during the committee stage.

I am happy, therefore, to move the question.

[4:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 16

Bill 53, British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Financial Restructuring Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Ministerial Statement

SKYTRAIN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement.

Earlier this afternoon, during question period, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) made statements to the effect that would support allegations regarding serious structural problems were evident at the SkyTrain bridge. I would like to read the report sent over to me.

"The allegations are untrue. What is happening is that construction crews working on the north tower are removing the sheet-steel panels used in the water — the form mould for the tower. Divers, as they normally do, are assisting and helping to dismantle the water frame. A short distance away on the north shore, a crew is driving preliminary piles where the cable anchor tower will shortly be built.

"Work on the SkyTrain bridge is as normal: on time and on budget."

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to first thank the minister for the information, and I'll be pleased to relay it to the numbers of people who have been phoning over the last few months about the specific concerns that I raised with her previously.

I want to take exception, however, to the comments the minister made about allegations. I'm afraid the minister doesn't understand the process of question period — that the questions were put to the minister to clarify some of the concerns expressed to me.

The minister provides information. We are pleased that the project is on time and that there are no significant problems.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 55, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, I just wonder what flight of fancy, what wild moment of imagination, resulted in the renaming of the Titanic the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

We've had a session in which we've never seen the Minister of Economic Development — she's so busy out wheeling and dealing. Last night she was too busy eating cake to even deal with the matters before the House. Maybe she can advise us: did she hire a marketing corporation to find a nice new name for the Titanic?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, you mean she did it all on her own? Is that the situation — the name of the

[ Page 2568 ]

Enterprise Corporation was developed by the minister herself?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, the member has asked whether the name was requested by me. It was a decision made by the board of directors of the two corporations and accepted by the two corporations, which will now come under the name of B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

I know the name "Enterprise" raises the colour in the face of the first member for Vancouver East.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the shares of the company, Madam Chairman, and the shares of the company deal with backup — all of these assets, presumably. It's in this area of assets of the corporation that one is intrigued. One would ask, with respect to the land values of this corporation: what numbers are there in terms of the assets behind these shares?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The audited values, Madam Chairman.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister then advise the House, Madam Chairman, what those audited values are? For example, what are the audited values of the Songhees lands in the Inner Harbour of Victoria?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, I wonder if the member would just phrase that once more. I'm afraid I've not quite caught whether he's asking about a specific. piece of land or the total amount of land.

MR. STUPICH: Madam Chairman, before he does, I think we're on section 4 rather than 3. I believe section 3 has passed and we should be on section 4.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: We're on section 3, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: I think not, Madam Chairman. Section 4 starts at the bottom of the page; it's just the very beginning of it. The material we're into right now — and there's a lot more.... It says section 3 at the top of page 2, but that's section 3 of the original act. We're talking about section 4.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, we would appreciate it if the minister would provide us with both those areas she just referred to, i.e., the value established by audit for all of the lands — in saying "all of the lands," I mean the major components — but specifically, in terms of those major components, Songhees, the False Creek lands, the Riverview lands, the Westwood lands, and Whistler as well.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That is fully explained in the recent Public Accounts, and the amount is $131.313 million in total.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister also asked regarding the specific elements. Yes, we indicated we were concerned about the specific elements. What then is the value that you have in terms of audit for the Songhees lands?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I might be able to assist here, insofar as it was primarily my staff members who were involved with the numbers we're describing here. The Songhees valuation, after these adjustments are made, will be $3.411 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: I hope we can get the additional information as well regarding the other lands, if we might.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm happy to advise you. The total valuations for the properties, after the write-down exercise, are: False Creek, $96.872 million; Songhees, $3.411 million; Westwood properties, $1.969 million; Whistler properties, which I might add are still under review — they might, as a consequence of discussions with the community up there, require further adjustment — but at the moment we project $9.513 million; for a total of $111.765 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: The audit, then, accepts these numbers. So we're talking about $3.4 million for the Songhees lands. That's not very much money for the lands over there on this magnificent Inner Harbour. We're talking about virtually everything from the Rainbow Park site in Vic West around to the Johnson Street Bridge, and then continuing up to the Bay Street Bridge and the lands behind. With a few alienations, it's the original Indian reserve in Victoria West. It is a huge piece of land, and you're attributing to it a value of $3.4 million.

The Minister of Finance seems keen to respond, so maybe he could elaborate some more.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That figure is the cost of the land acquisition, which as I said obliges the accounting principles that we agreed upon when we embarked on this exercise.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think this confirms the business of more debt burial. There is no way in the world that any appraiser would put that kind of ridiculous low value on the Songhees lands. That would never happen. You've also got a staff in the Assessment Authority that reviews these questions constantly.

[4:15]

As part of completing acquisition of all lands in the Songhees area, two and a half acres that isn't even waterfront were acquired by the Crown to consolidate the lands. That 2.3 acres, I think it is — not waterfront, but rock backland — was bought by the Crown. It was only a couple of acres, out of what? A hundred in Songhees, or something like that. A clearly modest part of Songhees was bought by the Crown in the last few years from Mr. Hartwig, a prominent supporter of the government. Does the government have the figures for the acquisition of a small part of the Songhees lands? What was paid for that two acres?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think that this is not related whatsoever to the section we are debating. However, I think the point was made in another debate just earlier. The Minister of Finance made the point that the whole restructuring of

[ Page 2569 ]

these companies was done in a way in which there would be, by the sale of the lands, a return to the people of British Columbia. It should be noted that in a recent announcement on that very land that the member for Vancouver East is discussing, there was a sale of over $5 million.

I don't know the piece of property to which you are referring by the name of Hartwig, because I don't know that transaction, nor do I know the gentleman. That was certainly before my time, so I have no idea as to what the finances are in that; perhaps the Minister of Finance would know. But again, that was before this Minister of Economic Development was involved.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am aware of the actual sale figure, Madam Chairman. It was $1.1 million for a couple of acres. It wasn't waterfront land at all; it was backland — you know the rock that you see as you come off the Johnson Street; Bridge back of the waterfront. Yet you've got an evaluation down here of $3.4 million, and as the minister says, there is a sale underway which we've not had the details of to date. She says it's in the $5 million range — for some of the waterfrontage, I presume.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It seems that the member is only giving substance to what the two acts are doing; that is, getting a return for the people of British Columbia on the land. He is arguing book value as opposed to assessed value, and you can't compare oranges and apples.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's very clear what's happening. I think it's very, very clear; I think the minister knows it's very, very clear. You're putting down unreal numbers in terms of the value of these lands so that you can look good, so that it can accommodate any kind of perceived problems within these corporations. Because if a couple of acres of Songhees in a free-market transfer are worth over a million dollars, and it's backland, and you say that all of the Songhees lands are worth only $3.4 million, well, that's certainly a natural setup to try to make you look as if you're really very able in marketing land, and as if you've made these huge profits, when in fact the real numbers are very different.

Those lands are extremely valuable, but you're not recognizing that in these numbers. So that's going to again accommodate the kind of waste that's been going on within these corporations that are now being amalgamated. It's a way of dealing with previous profligacy, waste and bad judgment within these corporations that you're now parenting in the name of the Enterprise Corporation.

The Songhees reserve lands are clearly worth huge amounts of money, and I suggest that you have these other lands down.... The Westwood Plateau is at $1.9 million. If my memory serves me right, we're talking about something like 1,000 or 1,500 acres in the Westwood Plateau — a whole new city back of Coquitlam Centre — and you're telling us that it's worth $1.969 million. It isn't worth $1.969 million; it's worth a king's ransom, and you've put it down here with this kind of number. You're talking about creating a clean slate, and that's not the circumstance at all. You're putting a slate together here that has no relationship to reality, in terms of what those values are.

We've talked about the debt-restructuring thing; the land side is another major side. So you have these huge suburban lands at Westwood, the land at Riverview, the land in False Creek, the land in Songhees, and you've put them down with very modest values. I assume that these numbers include some of the private acquisitions and then the dollar for the free Crown grant. Is that how you came up with these numbers?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The hon. member can't have it both ways. He cannot criticize us for using conservative accounting principles — that is to say, valuing the land at the lesser of cost or market — then at the same time attack us for correcting price valuations made at different times by previous governments who did use that kind of market approach. What we're trying to do is ensure that the accounting dealing with these assets is done in a properly recognized fashion, a fashion that is approved by every accounting house of any stature in Canada, and one that we endorse.

Dealing with the Songhees land itself, the member should appreciate that all of the Songhees land is not serviced. There will be a servicing cost, and that cost will be sizeable. Until that servicing occurs, the valuations of the other parcels will be somewhat less. As the member knows, raw land is far less valuable.

So you can't read anything into a $5 million sale of waterfront land and extrapolate that over the balance of the lands. The balance of the lands are not serviced. As the member just pointed out, it is rock; so servicing will be an expensive item. It is appropriate to value these lands at cost. If, in the fullness of time, the government is able to service them and still make a profit, should we not applaud? Surely the purpose of the game is to get ourselves on a basis that can be judged and where performance can be rated. Until we get to that stage, I submit to the hon. member that he is going to be faced with continuing to make the weak arguments he's making today. I'd like him to be on a little firmer ground a year or two from now, when he comes back to judge the performance of this government in settling these matters.

MR. STUPICH: I look forward to that time as well. I notice two ministers popping up to answer the questions. I think my questions would be more appropriate to the Minister of Finance, but I'll leave it to them.

I'm looking particularly at section 3 of the original act, which is section 4 of this one. Near the top of page 2 and under 3(2)(a): "...purchase or otherwise acquire shares, notes, bonds, debentures or other securities of the company or of B.C. Pavilion Corporation...." The Minister of Finance will have the authority to do any of those things in any amount without coming back to the Legislature, subject only to the approval of the cabinet. That's the way I read it. It can buy any number of shares; it can loan absolutely any amount of money by way of note or buying bonds or debentures or any other security that the minister chooses to use. There is no limit on the amount that the B.C. Enterprise Corporation or the B.C. Pavilion Corporation may get from the government, other than the good nature of the Minister of Finance. Am I reading this correctly?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Section 5.1 has the effect of limiting the indebtedness. In any event, as a consequence of this restructuring, I can tell the hon. member that the government does not anticipate having to make further borrowings as a requirement for keeping these companies whole. It is anticipated that this restructuring will enable a transfer and a sale of assets in the marketplace that will be orderly and,

[ Page 2570 ]

given the rising market situation we're faced with, will not require a drain on government expenditures.

MR. STUPICH: It's not very long since the Minister of Finance stood in this House and said that he would never borrow to pay for groceries. What the minister anticipates today may not hold true two or three years from now.

When the minister said section 5.1 limits the amount of indebtedness, he's looking at section 7, which refers to 5.1 of the old act, where it says that the amount shall not exceed a prescribed amount. Is that a limitation? Who can tell me what "prescribed amount" means today, next year and five years later?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We're not on section 5, but it refers to borrowings. I think you're not referring to borrowings in this section we are now on.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is quite correct. I was sidetracked by the Minister of Finance referring to that section.

In answer to what I said about 3(2)(a), he said that it's limited by another section we're coming to later. Looking at 3(2)(b), the Minister of Finance, again with the concurrence of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council,"may...convert any government held shares," etc., and then under (ii) convert any "indebtedness owed by the company or B.C Pavilion Corporation to the government into other shares...." So any amount that the B.C. Development Corporation or the B.C. Enterprise Corporation may borrow from the government — any amount at all, subject to a section we're coming to later — the government at any time may write off and say, "We're not going to call it a debt any longer; we're going to call it an investment in shares," as opposed to a loan of some form. That's the way I read it. Am I correct in that?

Madam Chairman, the minister indicated to me.... Oh, I'm sorry.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I guess Hansard doesn't record nods. The answer is yes.

MR. STUPICH: Madam Chairman, I'm going to read briefly from a rather long editorial that appeared in the Vancouver Sun.

"The provincial government is asking more than the Legislature should give.... The bills before the Legislature concerning B.C. Place...are disturbingly vague — too vague. These bills as now written amount to a blank cheque from the people of B.C. They give the government extraordinary powers.

"Our first concern.... Is for the citizens and taxpayers of B.C. who are being asked to give the government this blank cheque.

"The government will never have to come back to the Legislature for any money to deal with B.C. Enterprise Corporation or B.C. Pavilion Corporation. Now they say they're going to make it in the marketplace. Their record is not all that good; but whatever — if they ever want any more money from the taxpayers of the province, they'd never have to come back to the Legislature.

"The government would be able to pay off, without further reference to the Legislature, any debts incurred for these projects, in any amount, from general revenue, under powers specifically granted in the bills.

"'Extraordinary' — the word we used at the outset to describe these bills — is perhaps an understatement of the seriousness of the powers being sought by the government to enforce its will on the people of the province.... The Legislature should not pass these bills."

Madam Chair, that editorial was not written yesterday. It's dated July 30, 1980, and here we're doing it again. We're giving the minister and the cabinet.... You know, for this kind of authority, even for B.C. Hydro, the government used to have to come back to the Legislature every year when it wanted to increase borrowing for B.C. Hydro, and there was some handle on it. We knew what B.C. Hydro was doing, because there was that legislative authority to say no to B.C. Hydro, had we chosen. We didn't. We always passed the bills that the government introduced, whether we were in government or whether the Socreds were in government. But at least there was that accountability.

[4:30]

There is no public accountability as far as B.C. Enterprise Corporation is concerned. They're not responsible to the Legislature. They never report to the Legislature. They never report to the auditor-general. The auditor-general can't look at them. The auditor-general would like to at least review his right to look at them, but that apparently has not been agreed to yet. No accountability; they never have to come back; a blank cheque for anything that B.C. Enterprise Corporation or B.C. Pavilion Corporation wants to spend at any time; and we're being asked in this section to say: "That's okay with us. We don't care how much you spend. We don't care what you do with it. We don't care whether you ever tell us about it. But go ahead and do it and have fun while we do something else."

Madam Chair, we can't allow this section to pass without opposing it the best way we are able to.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: B.C. Place's auditor will be the auditor-general, Madam Chairman.

MR. STUPICH: Madam Chair, B.C. Place — there's no such place any more; it's going to be something else. The minister is telling us that. Well, we have to take his word that it will be the auditor-general, but that hasn't happened yet and the minister may change his mind by tomorrow. There's nothing here to assure us of that. I would prefer that it were, but I have no knowledge at this point in time that it will be other than the minister telling us what's going to happen sometime in the future. But whatever, we're still giving the government a blank cheque in this. Why not put a limit on it? I appreciate that in another section we might argue the point of the limit more forcefully, but certainly in this one it's absolutely limitless, subject to another section.

MS. MARZARI: What I'd like to ask pursuant to section 4, called 3 on page 2, is for clarification of the process being used here for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. As I read it, and how I see these transfers operating, the government is intending to transfer the 80-year lease on the trade and convention centre, and the title to the stadium and the related assets of those facilities, to the Pavilion Corporation. Then you're going to transfer the shares to the Minister of Economic

[ Page 2571 ]

Development, and those facilities are going to operate separately from BCEC, and report directly to the minister. Am I correct?

My question is this: why do you take two operating entities and run them through the process this way? Why do you want to confuse the loans and lands with operating entities? Why not create the Pavilion Corporation, which makes some sense, and keep it separate and distinct from the beginning? Wouldn't the accounting be a lot clearer? It seems to me that we're creating a step here that does things that I must admit I can't really get my hands around.

Further questions — I should just go through them. What are the related assets of the stadium and the convention centre? Is there any balance sheet to show the value of these assets?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation already existed, so we had a corporate shell. We did the logical thing, I submit: that is to say, transfer the operating assets, the assets that have to go out on the marketplace and sell themselves and have a daily profit-and-loss kind of operation. We did consolidate those in the new structure of B.C. Pavilion Corporation.

In answer to the question as to what the assets will consist of, they will consist of $157.1 million for the stadium, which is the cost, and $300,000, which represents the value of the lease on the convention centre. These are the two entities that, as I said, have a daily operating requirement. As such, it was deemed appropriate that they should be spun off in a corporation of their own where their performance can be judged, and where the staff can be properly charged with a mandate to keep the facilities full, occupied and profitable, all that kind of thing.

So the balance sheet will consist of those two assets. The other side of the balance sheet will show an equity for the total of $157.4 million. It's a very simple balance sheet.

MS. MARZARI: From this point forward, will the operating deficits of those facilities show up on the B.C. Pavilion Corporation's balance sheet, rather than on the BCEC's? I can see taking the value of B.C. Place as a stadium and its original value some years ago when it was built, and putting it as a capital asset on the new B.C. Pavilion balance sheet, but the buildup of debt there has been substantial. Are you saying that the operating debt from this point forward is going to be on the Pavilion Corporation's balance sheet, rather then back there with the old stuff?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, there's no debt accumulated here. What the balance sheet shows is equity. In other words, they have two assets and they have an equity, which is the ownership's interest in the assets. As to future operating expenses, I do believe — the Minister of Economic Development may wish to expand — that the operations of the convention centre and the stadium will be, and are now, the subject of some discussion with people in the greater Vancouver community. So that may yet remain unaddressed.

In any event, there is certainly no harm.... As a matter of fact, I think it's entirely preferable that these assets should be spun off so that their performance can be judged. The very objective that I've heard from the opposition benches is obliged here. I see nothing for you to criticize. It is a straightforward accounting transaction where the books will be clean. Isn't it preferable that you start off this fresh-start government with clean books so that you can have some facts to deal with next time we meet on this subject? It's a public corporation. The facts will be made available.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Madam Chairman, in answer to the member for Point Grey, I think she would want to know that there is a community board of directors in the Pavilion Corporation, and they will be responsible and report to the minister.

MR. WILLIAMS: I think it's necessary to reinforce the comments made by the member for Nanaimo. What we have here is a blank cheque again. There was a reference in 1980 to the blank cheque that was delivered for B.C. Place. We are now going through the miserable process, again, of offloading this huge mountain of debt. We've used up the truck to throw off the debt onto the backs of the taxpayer, and now it's a new truck and a new debt that can be handled here. You can call it what you like. You can buy shares and that whole fiction, in terms of additional shares in the name of giving you money or getting rid of new debt. But that's what the exercise can be.

We have here a minister who has shown profligate spending ways. None of her colleagues in the government benches and none of her colleagues in cabinet would attempt to spend in the profligate manner that this minister does. None of her colleagues have her royal spending habits. None of them entertain in the grand manner that the member from Shaughnessy does — at public expense, all too often.

This section is asking for blank cheque number two for that minister. We won't buy that one. We won't buy a blank cheque for this minister. She has shown what she does with the money. We won't buy another blank cheque. I think the people on the government back benches should reflect on that. Have you been happy with the recent weeks and months of the spending of this minister? Have you all been happy with the spending that has gone on with the million-dollar party last week and all of the other stuff`? This is your opportunity to show where you stand on profligate spending. This is an opportunity for everybody in this House to say we won't go along with this nonsense any longer. The public purse is not open; it's not bottomless. We want some real economic development in British Columbia. We don't want any more of this razzle-dazzle stuff. That's what we mainly get for our money out of this Minister of Economic Development. We say no, no, no. No more wasteful spending by this minister.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: When I took on the responsibilities for B.C. Place and BCDC, it was very clear that there were several responsibilities that were duplicated. What we have here today is the sorting out of a very confused state of affairs in terms of financial management and responsibility. This government — with a new minister in charge of those responsibilities, and with a new Finance minister responsible — has divided off those responsibilities in their proper areas.

Heretofore, if the member who has just taken his place were to ask for an accountability on the stadium, he would have found it all mixed up with land development on B.C. Place and 12,500 acres all throughout the province. We've taken on a new responsibility. We've put the stadium under the Pavilion Corporation, and as the Minister of Finance has

[ Page 2572 ]

clearly stated, you'll be able to know and see the accountability of the stadium and its operations in the future under the Pavilion Corporation's responsibility and its board of directors responsible to this minister and to this House. In addition, there is a trade and convention centre that has been added to those responsibilities — again, in the same manner. Those responsibilities will be well reported to the Pavilion Corporation, operated by the Pavilion Corporation, not mixed up with land development, not mixed up with sales of land, but divided off in its proper context. I think that's just good business judgment.

Although it has nothing to do with the section we're discussing, I also think, including the reflections I have and the mail I've been getting in the last couple of days, that the $300,000 expenditure by the board of directors on the opening of a building worth $160 million was a very good investment in marketing. Although the member who has just taken his seat wishes to call that profligate spending, we would call it on this side of the House.... I can tell you that, from what I have heard from the community, including the community which hires more people in this nation, let alone in this province — the hospitality and tourist community — it's probably the best investment made in marketing for a very great return.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's all very interesting, but the minister doesn't deal with the question of the blank cheque. She wants it; she wants it bad. She wants a blank cheque — no two ways about that. That's the way she operates. It's the rest of you who should be harnessing her in and saying: "No, we will not give this minister a blank cheque." Pure and simple — enough, enough, enough.

There's no question the minister travels in elite circles, and I am sure those people who whisper in your ears say that everything's rosy in the garden, but that's....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: She says, all of a sudden, that it's okay for her to discuss these things, but not the opposition. This minister is a venerable member of this government, as our House Leader has indicated in the past. This minister was involved through the whole evolution of B.C. Place. This minister was part of the cabinet throughout the piece in terms of this mixed-up mess she's talking about. Land development was mixed up with seats in B.C. Place Stadium; development problems were mixed up with a convention centre. It's as if we have some new saviour on our hands, all dressed in white, who's going to clean up the mess. But this person has been part of the mess since 1976 — has been part of the whole evolutionary process. She voted for the last blank cheque for B.C. Place, and now she says she wants blank cheque number two.

[4:45]

It seems to me it's too much like Lady Macbeth: "Out, out, damned spot!" As if to say: "I was never a part of this; I'm part of this new administration as of last October, and I really had nothing to do with that terrible, confusing, wastefull, debt-ridden mess." The reality is that you have been a major player on the government benches for the modem decade — for the modem era. You have been part of the mess. Now you're coming here and saying: "I have the solution in terms of dealing with the mess, and the solution is another blank cheque." That's the kind of unmitigated gall that's parading before us today — pure and simple.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think the Chair would like to see fewer personal attacks on the other members of the House. If we could just deal with a little more relevancy on this section....

MR. STUPICH: Just very briefly, I'd like to appeal to the members of this House.

We're being totally irresponsible if we vote in favour of this section as it stands here, in my opinion. We go through the motions — a charade, if you like, in some instances — of passing a $10 vote in estimates. The reason for putting that $10 vote there is that it gives us an opportunity to discuss whatever government service is being paid for in that vote. No, it's not $10; it's a lot more than that spent. But we go through the motions.

We're being asked to give the minister a blank cheque to spend any amount of taxpayers' money without ever coming back to the Legislature. It's done by the Minister of Finance in consultation with his cabinet — a totally blank cheque for any amount.

We're not sent here to give government that kind of authority. Why, would we be here? If it were that easy, why bother bringing us together at all? Why not let cabinet do everything, if we're not going to have the opportunity to discuss with the minister the way in which money is spent? It is a totally blank cheque.

I have been assured that there is another section later on that limits the amount, but that section does not limit the amount. My attention has been drawn to section 7, which limits the amount in only one respect: it limits only the amount that may be borrowed. But section 4 before us now says that the minister can spend any amount of money whatever, buying shares in these two corporations. It is a totally blank cheque, without ever having to refer to the Legislature at any time for any of this.

Madam Chairman, I appeal to the members. Is that really what you came here to do, to support cabinet, whatever cabinet asks for, whatever they say, and to say: "We don't care what you do; we're going to give you this authority, and then we'll all go home"? That's not why you were elected; that's not part of the democratic system.

The one safeguard we have is that the elected members of the Legislature have control of the purse-strings. We go through it, and certainly the government will win in the end, but at least we must maintain that structure, that system, or what's the point in having this Legislature at all?

Madam Chair, I appeal to the government to withdraw this section, and I appeal to the members to vote against it if the government doesn't have the decency to withdraw it on their own.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, there has been constant reference here to blank cheques, etc. There should be an understanding of what is happening here. One of the hon. members was provided this morning with this material. There are, at the moment, approved obligations of BCDC for loans not yet made that will have to be covered by borrowings whenever the applicants meet the requirements to qualify for the funds. The opposition isn't intending, I hope, that government should be paralyzed and unable to

[ Page 2573 ]

fulfil its obligations. We have to have the freedom to increase the borrowings for obligations made....

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As was suggested, you keep wanting to jump ahead. If you'd approve this one, we could move ahead and deal with the question of the limit.

I have some trouble with the straw-man approach, Madam Chairman. If you call the question we will get on with the question of the limit.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 17

On section 5.

MR. WILLIAMS: Section 5 enables the minister to exercise the powers of a shareholder. We are dealing with a retroactive capability. Can the minister advise what action she has taken as a shareholder, in terms of how many major sales have been pursued in the name of this corporation?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Three sales were announced publicly in regard to the Songhees land.

MR. WILLIAMS: There were three sales with respect to the Songhees land, and major long-term leases with respect to False Creek lands?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, Madam Chairman.

[5:00]

MR. WILLIAMS: So the leases would be leases within existing buildings, and not land leases, in the old Plaza of Nations or whatever.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister advise the House what bidding process was involved in the various elements of either the leases or the land sales? What kind of public tendering process took place?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We called for public proposals, and I think the member would be aware of that. They were all advertised.

MR. WILLIAMS: Can the minister then assure the House that that's the case with respect to the leases in the Plaza of Nations area as well?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Most of those leases were arranged prior to my coming on board. I cannot answer for that. Any that are there since my coming into this position of responsibility, I think, were really a response to people who have come to the Plaza of Nations to request space, and I don't believe there was an advertisement on any of them. There is a party that they can apply to, just as you would on seeing an empty store, and I think that is just the way it was done in the past.

MR. WILLIAMS: Would the minister table with the House the information regarding these major sales? We're talking about very significant amounts of money, and the terms and conditions with respect to those sales.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the last question, I'm told that most of those tenants came to the administration through Expo 86. They were Expo tenants and wanted to stay on the Plaza of Nations after Expo closed.

In response to the very last question, that would all come forward to this House through the audited statements of the corporation.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, it's a basket of statements that comes in a final form years after the fact. We're talking about significant huge property sales currently underway. It is reasonable....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, okay. But the whole question of process is important. For the benefit of the minister in terms of any public debate, any public questioning of the whole exercise, this process — the information and documentation — should be as open as possible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The bid proposals are all public. In fact, they've gone through a lengthy process. We're talking about the only ones that we have. As I mentioned in the earlier question, there are three pieces of land at the Songhees. Those are the only transactions that have taken place. They were made public by public announcement, and they've had a long history of vetting with the local government as well as our government and the administration of the corporation.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been listening intently, and I am at a loss to understand the relevancy of the questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: You might have a point, Madam Chair.

[ Page 2574 ]

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. STUPICH: This is the section that we talked about earlier, when the minister said that the limits on the amount of taxpayer money that may be shovelled over to these two corporations are set by this section. As I read section 7, there's a limit on the amount of money that may be loaned, and the limit is to be set by cabinet. The cabinet, of course, can change it daily or weekly — whatever it likes. It is no more a limit than is the whole business of cabinet's approval in the first place. There is no limit with respect to loans, and such limit as there is applies only to loans; it doesn't apply to shares. The reference to the government being able to buy shares in these two corporations on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, as approved by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, is still there with no limit.

So it would seem as though everything I said about there being absolutely no limit to the amount of taxpayers' money that may be. shovelled over to B.C. Enterprise Corporation or B.C. Pavilion Corporation is true. The only limit is the minister's ability to persuade his cabinet colleagues to endorse the recommendation he has made. Is that not the way we're standing?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Madam Chairman, the member is quite right that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will have — and must have, in our judgment — the ability to amend limits as required.

In answer to the specific questions, because it is our desire to be forward and to fully satisfy the opposition members here, it is our expectation that when the order-in-council dealing with this matter comes before us, it will be in the order of $350 million. The member should understand that right off the bat we have an obligation of approved loans of $200 million which will require covering. I suspect and I hope that the hon. opposition members don't desire to see this government go out of business. We have to have some ability to continue to operate for this very necessary economic stimulus; that is to say, of providing some financial help to firms who qualify under certain strict criteria.

Dealing with the second question of the ability to sell shares, I think it's important for the House to remember that part of this exercise was intended to allow the disposal of government assets in these areas, and also intended to allow the marketplace to become shareholders in ventures that would prove to be marketable in the marketplace. If, for example, as a consequence of the creative efforts of these very capable British Columbians who are lending their services to us on a voluntary basis, they were to create entities which have some value in the marketplace and therefore a public offering is deemed advisable, surely in the interest of protecting the government's position in the matter we've got to have the flexibility to acquire shares in that eventuality.

Hon. members have to understand that this is intended to be a device to allow the private sector to participate in the coming prosperity of the province, and we have to have those latitudes and freedoms to best protect the interests of the citizens of this province.

MR. STUPICH: Madam Chair, I don't know which bill the minister is discussing right now. I'm talking about Bill 55, section 7. In the first place, certainly it's not our intention to hold up the ongoing transactions of BCDC, as much as we might like to hold up some of them; I don't know. But that's not the point right now. Obviously the minister didn't understand, and perhaps that's why the members all voted with the government: they didn't understand what I was saying either.

I just feel that there should be some legislative limit. Otherwise we've given up our total responsibility to have anything at all to do with B.C. Enterprise Corporation and B.C. Pavilion Corporation. We have said to the government: "Do whatever you want, we don't care. Just don't bother us." But with respect to the shares, we're not talking about shares of ventures that are going on out in the marketplace or anything else. Section 4, which you're talking about right now, refers to shares of B.C. Enterprise Corporation and B.C. Pavilion Corporation. I don't think the minister in his remarks meant to say that he was going to be putting those on the market. The only reference to selling those shares in this legislation is that the government may buy any unlimited number of shares in B.C. Enterprise Corporation and B.C. Pavilion Corporation, and thereby shovel money to the corporations without ever asking for it back. It's just a grant then. It's a gift rather than a loan.

Let's not talk about shares in other corporations. That's got nothing to do with the legislation before us now, as I see it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I enjoyed the comments of the Minister of Finance, Madam Chairman. He said: "You wouldn't want us to go out of business, would you?" Well, what these bills are about is going out of business. B.C. Place is going out of business, B.C. Development is going out of business, because they couldn't pay their bills. They couldn't pay the debt. They couldn't pay the interest. They were borrowing to pay interest on interest.

Mr. Minister of Finance, yes, we'd like you to go out of that kind of business. Pure and simple: we would like you to get out of the kind of monkey business the minister is always involved in. We'd like you to get out of the business of borrowing to pay for interest on previous borrowing. We don't think that's very wise. Yes, the answer actually is: we would like you to get out of that business.

The Minister of Finance has indicated that yes, there is going to be a limit on the spending of the Minister of Economic Development as per this section and that it is the intention of the government to limit it to $350 million. There are already borrowings of some $200 million. It leaves a pittance for the Minister of Economic Development — only $150 million. The first blank cheque is $150 million. That's not reassuring, because there's a lot of money that could be made on these lands, given the values you've attributed to them. It should eliminate the need for any borrowing whatsoever. If I could buy Songhees for $3.4 million, I would never have to borrow again in my life, nor would my grandchildren, nor their children, and on and on ad infinitum.

You're providing, in reality, unlimited funds for the Minister of Economic Development, and we cannot vote for that.

Section 7 approved on division.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

[ Page 2575 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

Sections 20 to 41 inclusive approved.

[5:15]

Title approved.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

Bill 55, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Committee of Supply, Madam Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

On vote 44: minister's office, $148,133.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, in view of the rather expeditious nature in which business is being conducted today, I'll try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. I anticipate being joined shortly by Mr. Bob Plecas, who is the deputy minister, and Mr. Eric Denhoff, who is assistant deputy minister for native issues, in case there are some questions that come up that we may want to canvass.

To date, since I have been sworn in as the minister, we have, with the members from my committee, met with representatives of over 25 percent of the native groups in the province, and would hope by the end of the year or perhaps early next year to have actually met with everybody who would like to meet with us. That has involved some fairly extensive travel of our committee, meeting with people on the lower mainland, on the Island, and also in the interior parts of the province.

One of the more specific ones that has come up and has been a pressing issue has been our relationship with the band at Ingenika, and their problems, and I'm pleased to report to the House that the director of Indian Affairs for Canada, the director of B.C. Hydro and my assistant deputy minister will all be going to Ingenika on Friday the seventeenth. The province has agreed to provide an interim water supply and training programs to increase community employment. We have $100,000 toward a community facility from the First Citizens' Fund. CMHC, through their emergency housing repair fund, has agreed to provide assistance to the band for this fall. And we're continuing to negotiate with the band on the most favourable site for a future reserve, because there is some question as to whether they want to stay at Ingenika Point or would like to move somewhere else. The chief and the band are quite happy with this. I think we can get it moved and resolved before the snow flies this fall.

One other band I would like to speak about in these brief moments is the Alkali Lake band. The Alkali Lake Indian band is the first Indian band to have successfully addressed the problem of alcoholism in the band, and they have had a success rate of almost 100 percent. The native working with the native on a problem of native alcoholism has been remarkably successful. I have discussed with my colleagues in cabinet and also with the chief of the band the possibility of, jointly with the federal government, having their expertise — which they have developed internally and privately on their own with no help from anybody — be turned into an asset for not only themselves but for the province, by hopefully constructing a native detox centre to be built and operated by native people for native people at Alkali Lake. While we strive to find economic development for many, many bands, in this one particular case this band has developed such an internal expertise in dealing with alcoholism that the whole community is involved. That's one of the things we could do.

I have canvassed the list of privatization on many occasions, and my critic opposite has attended a number of addresses I have given on the matter, so I don't really want to dwell on it too long. It is sufficient to say that the list of Crown corporations which we have examined includes every Crown corporation and every ministry of government. The potential for privatization has been boiled down to a relatively short list within the government and a relatively short list within Crown corporations, and at some time in the not too distant future I will be presenting the list of what I consider to be potential benefits for privatization to the cabinet for their consideration. It is not our intention to go through the privatization process as a matter of union-busting or a matter of getting out of a business which provides a service, but rather to try to have it as a win-win situation, such as has been experienced in so many other parts of the world.

I'm inundated daily with privatization information from other jurisdictions, as well as with inquiries about privatization from people who are interested in purchasing government assets. I hope to be able to report to cabinet on a situation which will improve our deficits, reduce the amount of exposure we have, and get us out of those services and industries which we need not be in. In the whole process there have been a few surprises.

Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to questions from the members opposite.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the ministry's mandate is according to the description under vote 45, which follows the minister's office vote, which is that this ministry is supposed to develop and coordinate policies,

[ Page 2576 ]

strategies and activities regarding British Columbia's relations with other governments at the provincial, federal and international level. The minister went through a brief survey of his activities with respect to relations with native people in the province, and discussed the problems at Ingenika and the very great success story at Alkali Lake. I'm wondering if he would talk about that other aspect of his ministry, its developing of policies, strategies and other activities with regard to relationships with the governments at the federal, provincial and international level.

This is a very critical time in the history of Canada. The constitution has been discussed at a recent meeting of first ministers, and an accord has been reached which has brought the province of Quebec into the constitutional family. We're wondering exactly what the ministry has been doing with respect, for example, to the Meech Lake accord. Is that package going to be discussed in this Legislature, as it has been already in the Quebec National Assembly, and is in the process of being debated in a number of other Legislatures around the country? Exactly what strategy has the minister developed to bring the Meech Lake agreement home to British Columbia and to allow it to be debated here by the people of this province, as well as in the Legislative Assembly, which has the requirement to endorse the package?

I hope the minister will explain a little more broadly the intergovernmental relations aspects of his portfolio before we get into discussing the native area of that portfolio.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, I should have dwelt on that a little bit. I have met with the intergovernmental ministers, and the Governors and their assistants in all of the neighbouring states save Alaska, which is something that has never been done previously — that is, in Washington, Idaho and Montana. I continue to have almost daily conversations with Mr. Horsman in Alberta.

In terms of our immediate neighbours, we have some better communications. Interestingly enough, some of the Governors had never even visited British Columbia, and will be doing so this fall. We've extended invitations. We share a substantial border with the state of Montana, yet the Governor had never had a visitor from British Columbia nor considered visiting here.

Tomorrow I will host, along with my colleague the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers), a number of officials from the United States government and the governments across Canada — ministers who are involved in relatively the same activities that I'm involved in. They have come here as our guests, as state and provincial ministers of intergovernmental affairs. We will be addressing a number of trade issues common to both countries. We have leaders from the lumber industry and also from the energy sector speaking before these groups.

I can assure, you that invitations go out occasionally to people, but when the invitation is for Vancouver, the attendance is much higher than it would normally be, save and except by a few members from the Maritime provinces. We have complete agreement from all of the ones across Canada, except for those from the Maritime provinces.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

You asked about Meech Lake and the Meech Lake accord, and how that process is going, and how we will be able to bring it forward to the public. Yesterday I received the Alberta resolution. Alberta did not take it to the public; they have presented the resolution in the House. It would not appear that we will have an opportunity to do that in this immediate session, but I suspect that if we come back later this year, or early next year, that would be the appropriate time to do it. At the present time we are preparing the documentation for discussion in the House. Cabinet has not yet decided whether the matter will go for public discussion outside this chamber or whether it will be considered in other parts of the province.

At the national level, in what we do with other nations, the consular corps in Vancouver continues to grow. Yesterday was Bastille Day for the government of France, which I attended on behalf of the government — which is, of course, a nice culinary adventure, as the French would always have it. But our relationships with other countries have improved, as more and more nations wish to establish consuls in Vancouver. In the process, usually in the spring of the year when the weather in Ottawa is really inclement, a group of visitors come out with their consuls and ambassadors to visit us. We've also had visits from a number of ambassadors that aren't currently represented here through consulates.

We do maintain B.C. House in Ottawa, and through that, connections with all of the ministries. We have been fortunate in being able to restaff that house to the level that it was once at, but not recently. Timothy Kuash is now the executive director of that house. He is someone who is well-known to members of both sides of this House, and is working to look after the affairs of all of the ministries of government involved.

We're also a member of the Pacific Council of Ministers, which meets to discuss a number of issues relating to this province.

MR. SKELLY: The reason I ask the question about the Meech Lake accord and the opportunity for people in British Columbia to discuss the accord is that the Grant Devine government has decided they will not hold public hearings on the accord. I gather from what you say that the Alberta government, another Conservative government, has also denied the public access to debate on that accord. It's generally an indication of cabinet's priorities when you say that cabinet has not yet decided. It sounds to me like "cabinet has not yet decided" is the decision in this province.

Given the promise made by this new government in British Columbia that the Legislature is going to be more involved in debating the issues and in problem-solving issues through the use of select standing committees, this might be an ideal way that the government could use one of the select standing committees of the Legislature.

The committee I'm thinking of is the committee that I'm a member of, Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. We've been asked to look at judges' salaries. I'm not sure that's what the public had in mind when they wanted to put the legislative committees to work. I think the Meech Lake accord is probably more the kind of issue the people of this province would like to interrelate with their legislators on and discuss with their legislators.

I hope that when the minister makes his recommendation to cabinet on the discussion and the debate and the resolution around the Meech Lake accord, he suggests in the strongest possible terms that this matter be referred to public hearings to the appropriate select standing committee on the Legislature. I'd be interested in hearing the minister's response to

[ Page 2577 ]

that suggestion, because if this process is be of any use at all to the people of British Columbia — this process of debating estimates — surely the minister can make some assurances across the floor that that's something he is interested in, and that he is willing to make representations to cabinet about it.

I hope that the minister will make the representation to cabinet that the appropriate select standing committee of the Legislature should be assigned terms of reference to take the Meech Lake accord around to the people of the province, so the accord can be broadly discussed by the people of British Columbia.

It's important to do that for another reason, because British Columbia up to the present time isn't considered a major player in terms of the constitutional debate in Canada. We are considered those funny people on the other side of the Rocky Mountains who have a very small role to play in the discussion of constitutional or Canadian issues. As a result, we're often left out of the debate.

I recall when I first started as a member of the Legislature, that W.A.C. Bennett and Joey Smallwood used to be called "the bookends of Confederation." They were always good for a bit of a laugh. They were always good for coming off the wall with suggestions at constitutional meetings, but they weren't considered heavyweights in the process of first ministers' conferences and in debates on constitutional issues.

I recall going to a first ministers' conference in Regina at a time when Bill Bennett was the Premier of this province. At that first ministers' conference, a number of things were being debated; among them free trade and the economic situation in Canada. Since that was the last year of international women's decade, a lot of the provinces were reporting on progress they had made in incorporating the objectives of the international women's decade into their legislation and the administration of those provinces.

Quebec, which was there as an observer since it wasn't a participant in the constitutional process at that time, made a very detailed statement and a very detailed report to the first ministers assembled and to the people of Canada as to the developments that had taken place in Quebec in order to incorporate the objectives of the international women's decade.

The province of British Columbia had two members in their delegation, as opposed to Ontario; Ontario brought a number of people. They brought Cliff Pilkey, for example, who was the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour. They brought representatives from the opposition so that the opposition could be up to speed on constitutional debates. They brought members of other sectors of society so that this, rather than simply being a government-to-government issue for the people of Ontario, was an Ontario to the rest of the country issue and so that all Ontarians were brought into the debate.

In British Columbia it was a very closed kind of debate. The Premier was there with his assistant, Norman Spector. He presented a proposal on government subsidies to new share purchases which astounded all of the first ministers present since it, again, was totally off the wall and totally unrelated to the subjects being discussed.

[5:30]

I am suggesting to the minister that this debate has to be opened up to the people of this province. We've been members of Confederation since 1871. We've paid the price in many cases for being the furthest-west members of Confederation. We've paid the price for living across the Rockies from the rest of Canada. I think that a responsibility of this minister and of this government is to bring the people of British Columbia into the debate with respect to this nation, and with respect to Confederation and the arrangements that keep this Confederation together, so that when our representatives, our Premiers and our people go back east to talk constitutional issues, then we're going to be taken seriously, people are going to stand up and take note, and we're going to be aware of the agendas that are being debated. From my observation, having attended a number of first ministers' conferences as an observer, that is simply is not the case right now.

I hope that when the minister is making his suggestion to cabinet as to how Meech Lake is going to be treated here in the province of British Columbia, he will suggest that the issue be referred to a select standing committee of the Legislature, and that that committee be instructed, as part of its terms of reference, to hold hearings throughout the province and to bring all of the people of British Columbia into the debate. I'd be interested in hearing the minister's response to that proposal.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In view of the fact that the Chairman is from a constituency located on the other side of the Rockies, it would probably be appropriate to call it the British Columbia-Alberta border, not make reference to those of us who happen to live on this side of the Rockies. I don't often defend the Chairman, because I was so seldom defended when I had the job myself.

The suggestion of the committee I'll take to cabinet, but this House will also have a complete and full debate on it, and it would not be appropriate for a committee to come back and say: "We've canvassed all the matters; here's the report to the House; the House will adopt this report and let it go through." I will consider your suggestion and bring it to cabinet, and we'll see how much veracity I have to suggest with it. I'm not so sure that it's not a good idea.

I think British Columbia did have a significant role to play. But I'll tell you something about the size of delegations. When you go down to one of these ministerial meetings, the provinces of Ontario and Quebec always have 25 seats behind them, and they're always full. None of the other provinces do. And you know, it has very little to do with the quality of the input. I have seen input from provinces that have two or three people there that is just as good and just as bright. Of course, the government of Canada always have 25 seats. It's a little bit like these hearings that they're having down in the Congress of the United States, where they let people sit in for 20 minutes and then usher them out, and another 25 people come in. It doesn't seem to do the government of Canada very much good. Quite frankly, I don't think that they take any kind of special role when these things come forward.

I think the people we send to all of our constitutional meetings have been very well briefed and prepared, and they don't need to have a great phalanx of people behind them to defend them. It's in the interest of all kinds of economy. I don't really think it's necessary to pad the chairs, and somehow it makes us look a little more qualified doing it. You've been there yourself to see what happens from other provinces, who don't do a much — or any — better job than we do on these things.

[ Page 2578 ]

British Columbia has had a significant role, and we'll certainly give your suggestion great consideration.

MR. SKELLY: Maybe at the three meetings I attended — with one possible exception, and that was the Western Premiers' Conference in Calgary in 1973, when the quality of the B.C. representation was far superior to the quality of representation I've ever seen since.... Of course, the Premier at that time was one David Barrett. With the possible exception of that meeting, which had a fairly large delegation.... But it was also fairly close to home, so I can understand the economic constraints that might apply.

Of course, these meetings are held across the country, not simply in Ottawa or eastern Canada. I think that it does help, Mr. Minister. For one thing, it indicates to the public and to the other ministers present that the positions placed before the conferences are positions that have been developed in consultation with the people present in the delegation — oftentimes people connected with labour and industry in that particular province. So it indicates to the other Premiers that there has been that process of consultation; or at least, their positions are of such a quality that they feel they can take people along and not be concerned about negative comment from their own delegation on those positions.

In any case, what I'm saying is that British Columbia does not seem to have the stature at intergovernmental meetings in Canada that it needs to have. Perhaps you alluded to that yourself a little bit when you said: "...if I can muster the credibility with cabinet" — to take this information or that recommendation to cabinet. Perhaps you were suggesting that yourself. We've often looked at this particular ministry as a kind of halfway stop on the way from caucus to the bench, caucus to B.C. House or caucus to the beach at Maui. It's also often seen in this Legislature as not a heavyweight position in cabinet or caucus. I think that a lot of that depends on the minister himself — the ability, energy and get-up-and go of that particular minister, and how excited he is for the office and for the things that have to be done.

I watched the constitutional debate taking place a few years ago around the repatriation of the constitution and the development of the Charter of Rights. Those were exciting times for all Canadians. All Canadians got involved in the debate around the constitution and the Charter of Rights. Unfortunately, I think our government let the people of British Columbia down in that debate, and it's very unfortunate that that happened. We were not seen in that debate either as major participants. The major participants in that debate were.... Of course, some of them were from western Canada. Peter Lougheed, Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow, as well as Premier Davis from Ontario and Premier Hatfield from New Brunswick, were seen as major players in that constitutional debate, yet our government here in British Columbia seems to have let us down by not giving enough priority to this ministry of cabinet and to the role that this minister should be playing.

When the Premier set up the Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations upon coming to power after November 6, 1986, the only priority he established for this ministry and this minister — there have been two ministers since that time — was to speed up and to make a priority of the negotiations between Ottawa, this province and the native people on the issue of resolving aboriginal land claims in British Columbia. That's the only priority he assigned when he created this cabinet position back in November 1986.

From our point of view here in the opposition, it doesn't seem that very much has been done. Again, I attended the first ministers' conference on enshrining aboriginal rights in the constitution — the negotiating process — and that conference ended with some debate and frustration on the part of all concerned. The minister said that he has met with the representatives of almost one-quarter of the native people in British Columbia. Has the minister been discussing specifically with the native people in British Columbia the issue of aboriginal land claims in this province and the process of settling land claims in British Columbia? Not all of the people who've come out of those meetings have expressed satisfaction with the process. I'm thinking of Chief Adam Eneas, who came out and said that the meeting between his organization and the cabinet committee was simply a smokescreen. I'm wondering if, during those meetings with various native Indian groups in the province, the government is discussing the issue of aboriginal land claims and the process of settling aboriginal land claims in B.C.

HON. MR. ROGERS: In the Vancouver meetings that took place last fall, Mr. Shields and other members of labour, as well as people from the industrial sector, were invited to those very critical softwood lumber talks, I guess we have to play them by ear: whether or not we think it's necessarily worth the expenditure to take a whole group of people to Ottawa to do those.

You're right about the native issues in the first instance when this ministry was brought into place, but of course the mandate of the ministry has been expanded quite considerably since that time to deal with a whole host of other issues. Our position remains the same, in that we are waiting for the federal government to recognize their responsibility in terms of the land claim issues. But in a whole host of other issues that relate to native people, our role has been expanded. The hiring of an assistant deputy minister, increasing the number of staff and our whole proactive role with the native community is the direction I was given to take this ministry in, and it's the direction in which we are going. We will continue to expand that.

The fact that we don't agree with some of the things that the native community puts forward is no excuse not to get out there and meet with those people and solve some of the minor problems that they have. Some of the problems are relatively minor — in fact, very minor indeed — and there hasn't been good communication. It's not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination. Difficulties come up almost daily. But in some cases we are having some success, and much better success than we've had in the past. The fact that a cabinet committee will go out and travel and meet the tribal councils, will sit down and spend two or three hours with them hashing out a number of individual issues, is a big improvement and change from the position as little as two or three years ago. That's the role we're going to continue to play.

As you well know, a lot of native issues.... When you first get to the meeting, there is the process of — how shall I put this politely? Everybody stands up and makes a grand position, but there is a compromise position to come to after we have done that, much of which is eminently doable. If there are things that are doable, we want to try to accomplish that. I had meetings, as I told you, not so very long ago with Mr. McKnight. Mr. McKnight's appointment as the federal minister by Mr. Mulroney bodes extremely well. I think his attitude is a great improvement over his predecessor's, and

[ Page 2579 ]

the possibility of coming to some kind of agreement with him is much better. The federal government is advancing funding, as you know, for some of the land claims issues — against the land claims within certain areas of the province — and other than that, the matter is really before the courts. If we get involved any further, I think we're going to be called into contempt.

[5:45]

MR. SKELLY: On the minister's last statement, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that that's the case. I'm sure that the courts in this country would like to see some settlement of the land claims issue. They wouldn't like to see it settled in the court, and I think the federal government and a number of experts in this field have recognized that the courts are probably not the best agency to settle it. I am sure that the courts would like to see the provinces and the governments involved, through a process of negotiation, deal with the native people in that province and settle their outstanding claims through that process, rather than have the courts impose a solution which ultimately isn't acceptable to any of the parties involved and will lead to a whole new process of negotiation, but this one under the gun of a court order.

I don't think that the courts — with some exceptions right now, of course — would look on the settlement of the general land claims of the province as contempt, especially if representations were made to the courts that the governments involved and the native people were willing to withdraw actions from the court and settle those issues outside of the court.

There is still the possibility of referring those issues back to the court later, and I have no doubt that that's going to be done. Whenever you have a three-way negotiation there is going to be an aggrieved party standing before the court, and so that's a possibility. But I think that the process of negotiation has to begin.

I'm confident enough in the people of British Columbia and in the native people of this province that if reasonable people with reasonable ideas sit down at a negotiating table, then reasonable conclusions can be reached. That applies in the same way in labour relations and in other areas as it does in the process of settling aboriginal claims. Those claims have been settled all over the world, or negotiating processes have been put in place all over the world, so that I can't see why, here in British Columbia, we seem to have found some fault in ourselves that we can't follow through on this process and reach an amicable settlement with our native people.

There are instructive lessons of history that we can look at. For example, the minister mentioned that he feels that the government can sit down with native groups and resolve small issues or resolve outstanding grievances between natives and the provincial government. Other people feel that by setting up employment opportunities or economic development proposals, those things will satisfy and stand in place of a settlement of aboriginal claims in British Columbia. I can assure the minister that if he examines the history, none of those things work to our credit in settling Indian land claims.

There is a far more important issue outstanding as far as the native people of the province are concerned, and until that issue is put on the table along with the kind of grievances you are talking about, I don't think it's going to work to our credit to try to solve those problems without dealing with the major one: the problem of outstanding aboriginal claims to British Columbia.

Again, pointing back to what I said about the status of this ministry in the government in the first place, I think this is an area where this minister can increase the priority and the importance of this ministry and increase the importance of the work of this minister, as the minister is doing. I know he's involved in privatization and in some of the other aspects of government; but I think one of the most important, outstanding pieces of unfinished business in this province today is the business that relates to aboriginal claims. It's an issue that's constantly flaring up.

The passage of generations has not cooled that issue, and is not likely to cool that issue until it is resolved. I can tell you that in Alberni over the last week, on the Indian food fishing issue, it flared up again, as it will on the Skeena River, as it will on the Fraser River, as it will on many other rivers in the province, as long as the Indian nations exist. This issue is going to flare up until we work out a way to resolve it. The only way we can do that is by sitting down with the native people of British Columbia and negotiating a comprehensive settlement along with the federal government.

I would like to see this minister be the first to make the move in that direction and to distinguish himself as Minister of Intergovernmental Relations in moving that process forward. I think your government in the past, as you have stated, has not been a good communicator as far as native people are concerned. I can't say very much better for our government, although we took the same position as you did. We tried to involve ourselves with the native people in economic development projects. We tried to involve ourselves in the settlement of the cutoff land claims in the province. The last statement I recall Norm Levi making when he announced that he was setting up the cutoff lands committee with John Squire, the former MLA for Alberni, and Adam Eneas from the Penticton area, was: "We know this is going to lead to the settlement of the general land claims in the province of British Columbia." That's the ultimate outcome. We cannot do one without the other. We cannot solve problems of individual bands without ultimately getting involved in the general aboriginal claims issue.

I think this is an area where this minister could distinguish himself in his own caucus and where this ministry could gain a lot more priority and respect than it has enjoyed in the past in this Legislature. I hope this minister would demonstrate some initiative and energy in this area and fall into line with the priority laid down by the current Premier, when he established this cabinet position in the first place; that is, to treat aboriginal land claims as a priority.

I know the members are getting a little tired, and it's about time to shut down the Legislature, since it's been dragging on into summer. But, as I said, I think this is one of the key issues this province has to deal with. It is what Justice Berger calls "unfinished business." As long as we members of the Legislature treat it as a secondary issue, as something unimportant or something that can be glossed over, or that perhaps using a beads-and-trinket approach, we can solve the smaller problems of native people and maybe persuade them in that way to ignore the larger problems, then we're not doing ourselves any service as a people. We're certainly not doing the native people of British Columbia any service, because I can tell you they will remember that this is their land — their nation — from generations past and generations hence.

[ Page 2580 ]

I think it would be a great act on the part of this minister and this government if we said that from this day forward, we'll take the step that other governments should have made. We'll take the step that other British Columbians should have made and begin the process of negotiations with native people and the federal government to resolve that long-outstanding claim, that long-outstanding injustice.

I hope the minister would take that as a bit of advice from the member for Alberni, to take some initiative in following the priority laid down by the Premier and to take the first step in resolving land claims in the province of British Columbia.

I have just one last statement on that. You mentioned the Alkali Lake band and the fact that they were plagued with serious alcoholism problems that utterly destroyed their community and undermined their ability to do almost anything. It was devastating to that community and to many other native communities throughout the province. It was devastating to their ability to do anything.

It wasn't the British Columbia government or the national government or the citizens of Williams Lake or the charitable organizations in British Columbia that went to the people of the Alkali Lake area and told them to clean up their act. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't work with individual alcoholics; it doesn't work with groups of alcoholics. They wanted to regain their own respect, their own ability to function as a community, and they did it themselves.

It's probably the best example of self-government you or I could have dreamed up, because the things you do yourself are always the things that are best for you and for your people. The same is true of the Nisgha School District. You can always appoint a school district or send somebody in there to provide education, but the best education is one that people provide themselves. They know the needs of their people; they know the needs of their communities. Then there was the agreement signed between this government and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council for child support and child services in my area. It's always better when you do it yourself.

A lot of people talk about the settlement of aboriginal claims in the province as imposing a cost on us. When I talked to the minister before, we talked about the figures being bandied around by various Indian leaders — hundreds of millions here. I can recall a leader from my constituency saying it would cost a billion dollars to settle native land claims in British Columbia. The minister and his advisers know that in the process of negotiations leading up to the bargaining table, there are often some pretty extreme positions taken. Unfortunately for native people in the province, and unfortunately for us in the province, nobody has brought those extremes into line by bringing those people to the bargaining table so that we could actually start bargaining on real terms. We know that native leaders have to follow the politics of their community by making those kinds of strong statements. We know that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith), and others representing non-Indian people of the province, sometimes have to make what appear to be outlandish statements as well. If we got those two groups to the bargaining table, immediately things would become more real.

The Indian people of British Columbia do not want to bankrupt this province. It's not in their interest. In fact, they want to enrich it even more, and are capable of providing the talent, ability, energy and labour that will make this province a much richer province. It will make regions in this province much richer. They don't want to bankrupt the province. They don't want all that money. They want a life in British Columbia that can be as good for them as it is for the rest of us.

We've all seen the statistics. We mentioned them in the House last year and the year before. Indian kids die at a lot earlier age. Indians have a worse health and safety record than other citizens in B.C. As long as that inequality persists, we are worse as a society. All Indian people want is to see those statistics change so that they can have equal opportunity as Indians to enjoy their life in this province and to see their kids grow up in a decent and dignified way.

I'll leave my debate on this part of estimates with my hope that the minister will take the energy and initiative to proceed as quickly as he can. This is not going to take a short period of time; it will take a long time. I hope the minister will begin as quickly as possible to open those negotiations so that the solution, when it comes, can be the best solution for all British Columbians.

MR. MILLER: I have a number of specific questions relative to my constituency on the topic that the member for Alberni has been talking about. Just a brief preamble. It's been my experience — and I am sure the minister, having been in his office as long as he has, may share it....

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Oh, okay. I will relinquish my spot. The second member for Nanaimo wishes to make some points, and he's got a meeting.

[6:00]

MR. LOVICK: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly thank my colleague from Prince Rupert for allowing me that — and also the indulgence of the minister.

I suspect that my part of this will be very brief, because I assume I can indeed anticipate the answer to the questions — namely, that everything is under review. My questions, of course, all have to do with the privatization process. I am happy to hear the assurances from the minister that there is not going to be some kind of mindless ideological basis to this, but rather, that we are going to proceed carefully and warily.

The question I would like to pose — and it's a variant of a question I asked the minister earlier outside the House — is whether, given that we are now apparently in a process of coming up with what I think you referred to as a shorter list than originally intended, you can tell the House if we might at least get a list of criteria or principles that are guiding the deliberations. It would seem to me that providing us with that kind of information would do much to allay the fears and the misgivings that have been expressed by so many people. I would ask the minister if we might consider that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: If you go through the process the way we've gone through the process, it's a little bit like going through a maze, in that you go in with what appears to be a very simple, pure business point of view, look at what could possibly be privatized, and you run into policy walls, boundary walls, all kinds of parameters that you wouldn't see in the private sector. When you have private sector people look exclusively at things that can be privatized, you have to put another visor on the front of their glasses that says: "It's also a political thing." So to draw you a road-map of how we could

[ Page 2581 ]

examine each one just doesn't apply. If you examine some Crown corporations, it's fairly simple. If you examine others, there are so many policy and political questions in there that it doesn't hold water the same way. The one thing that our committee and the deputy ministers' committee have found to be so difficult is that there isn't a standard mathematical formula that you can plunk down and fit into each one, because some of them have very significant social consequences; others have rather minor social consequences and rather substantial economic development consequences. I wish there was some simple formula, but we certainly haven't been able to find one.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate the answer and the spirit with which it is presented, and I recognize, moreover, the kind of predicament that the minister is pointing to, that there is not some simple formula.

However, the minister is as aware as I am of what his counterparts in Ottawa have done. The federal government has come up with.... It may be, if anything, too superficial and too slick, but the fact of the matter is that they have nevertheless come up with a statement of guiding principles or criteria — call it, if nothing else, at least the kinds of general principles they are guided by in the course of their deliberations. It would seem to me, as I say, that to present us with that kind of information would have a very therapeutic effect. I think you could probably discover that a lot of the concern and a lot of the apprehension that has been registered thus far.... It's not just from this side of the House, I hasten to point out. A lot of that, I think, would abate rather quickly if we could get some of those things. I'm merely commending to the attention of the minister the kind of work done by his counterparts in the federal government. I think what they did was, frankly, quite good. And I think that the people of B.C. would probably also benefit from that kind of statement.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'll have a look at that. I must say that in Ottawa's case they've only done those things which were blatantly obvious, and then halfway through the process, as they unfortunately so often do, they seem to have lost their courage. Now, after having spent an enormous amount of money examining which Crown corporations they're going to privatize, it would appear that they've changed their mind and they're not going to do it. I think that's the hallmark of this federal government, and it probably bodes well for your political party. They seem to have great difficulty making up their mind.

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to leave the discussion at this point, but I can't do so without an observation. The alarm bells begin to go off when I hear this discussion couched in terms of "courage." I'm a little worried about that, because if we fall into the trap of saying just how tough we are going to be, how much we can do, it's a matter of political will, etc., I have a hunch that it's casting the whole thing in the wrong context. So I hope you'll accept that mild rebuke.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I just say that they have leaked through so many channels what they're going to do, and then changed their mind. We have tried to do exactly the opposite by just trying to prepare the thing in a normal, professional, expeditious way, and it will be a decision entirely made by cabinet. Your suggestion about the parameters is in order. I will be making a major address next week in Vancouver on the issue, and I'll send you a copy of it so you can have a look at the whole thing.

MR. MILLER: Where was I when I was so rudely interrupted?

I want to talk about the whole issue of the claims process, not necessarily from the philosophical point of view of what I think the government's responsibility is, but rather more specifically.

Just going back to my own experience in dealing with some of the problems that exist in our native communities, it's clear to me, as it probably is anywhere in the world, that it's poverty. In a great number of the cases we're frankly dealing with poverty, and when you have poverty you have all of those things that are attendant to it. I don't care whether they're black, blue, red or white; you get those kinds of conditions. I don't want to get into any major analysis of why that has developed, but suffice it to say that it has developed and it's pretty rotten. Some of them are pretty bad situations.

I'm also aware that the federal government, perhaps with the best of intentions, over the years has tried to encourage and assist in a number of ways the whole question of economic development — in other words, has tried to promote the kind of circumstance where the people in a particular community can pull themselves out of that situation through an economic development project or more than one.

I'm also aware that by and large it has not been a very successful approach. It has not been a very successful program. I recall one year sitting down with some people in Masset and going through the number of projects that had been looked at and analyzed and tried, and there was quite a long list of these efforts that have been tried over the years but really people were not any further ahead. In the case of Masset it was very unfortunate, because they were renowned as boat-builders and fishermen and were doing quite nicely; but unfortunately, over a period of years they found that the companies ended up owning all the boats, they had lost their capability to build boats, and lo and behold, you had a reserve community with really no economic base and just a massive problem.

So I'm wondering what the minister intends to do in that area. First of all, how does the minister see his role? Is he an advocate? Is he an expediter? Just what is the role of the minister on this particular question? I'm assuming when I'm discussing this issue that the minister accepts the responsibility in that regard, if not in terms of the whole question of the settlement and resolution of land claims. I assume you have that responsibility, so what do you see your role as?

Secondly, what new ideas do you have or are you willing to explore, given the kind of history at the federal level of failure in economic development initiatives? In what kind of creative, new ways are you looking at this question in your ministry from the point of view of involving the native people, from the point of view of appropriate types of economic development projects — stuff that can be put in place and will be of lasting benefit in terms of money and jobs? Just how are you looking at this question in any kind of a new way, so that we can...? We divorce ourselves sometimes in this Legislature from the real world out there, and we've got to deal with that.

Just a couple of specific questions. I'll try to put them all in one and hope the minister will respond. Just as an example of the kind of initiative that some groups are taking — the

[ Page 2582 ]

North Coast Tribal Council, for example — the minister is probably aware of the major development that they are undertaking on the waterfront in Prince Rupert. That will be a welcome addition to the community of Prince Rupert. Hopefully it will be a sound development that will reap some benefits for the tribal councils involved, and will also provide the opportunity of employment for native people in the area. I think it's a very good kind of project. What's the minister's involvement here in terms of assisting the group, whether that's encouragement or trying to find additional sources of funding, so that the project indeed will proceed as it is, but will be a success?

In terms of the Queen Charlotte Islands, recently I talked to the band manager in Skidegate, and as a result of the South Moresby agreement, the minister may be aware that the Haidas have had the Haida Gwai Watchman program and are hoping to move into tourism in a bigger way now that the issue has finally been resolved. Assistance may be required. What discussions have the minister or his officials had with the Haida in this regard? Do you foresee anything proceeding in the near future in terms of that kind of development?

Finally, a question with regard to the cutoff land claim process. Is that a process that the government is committed to resolving as a provincial responsibility? Certainly that was the view of my party in government, and I think it's still the view of this government. I did have a letter from the previous minister — the minister might correct me if I'm wrong — regarding the Port Simpson cutoff land claim. What is happening with that specific cutoff land claim?

I have a number of questions about the minister's role. I was quite critical last week in question period regarding a statement the minister made. Nonetheless, I have a deep interest in actually doing something here. Not that I'm trying to brag, but I think we did launch some specific economic initiatives such as the Bums Lake Native Development Corporation, in terms of their participation in the sawmill that was developed there and is still running, still making money and still providing jobs for people in that area.

The Port Simpson cannery, which admittedly had some problems, is now under the auspices of the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative Association. Over the last couple of years it has had a pretty successful season primarily processing Alaska pink salmon and providing jobs in that community in a traditional area, where the native people have developed some real expertise in terms of fish-processing and things related to the fishing industry.

It's a mixed bag of questions, but I hope the minister can respond.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Regarding the cutoff land claims, I don't have the answer on that specific one. But we have been moving on a fairly regular basis to solve these things. We've done about 15 of them in the last five or six months, and they have all been resolved without great difficulty. I don't anticipate there will be great difficulty in resolving that one.

You talked about poverty. Yes, there's a great deal of poverty, but it's not universal. Even in places where there is relative wealth, there are still enormous social problems we have to deal with, or we have to try to assist in dealing with. I think the Nuu-chah-nulth arrangements we made for child care are a great step in the right direction. The more of that activity that they take upon themselves and we assist them in the ways we can, the more responsible they are. Anybody is more responsible for their own actions if they're left to do those things. I'd like to work in that direction.

[6:15]

In terms of economic development, the history books are full of people with well-meaning thoughts who never bothered to consult with the people who are actually going to be the recipients. In that regard, our Cabinet Committee on Economic Development has gone out — not just myself, but the whole committee — to meet with various nations and tribal councils to talk to them about what they want to have done. You get a much better feeling about it. Quite often we walk into somebody else's house, and we know how to redecorate it, how to recarpet it, where to hang the paintings and how to cook the meal; but it's their house and it's their responsibility.

What my staff and I want to do is work on those areas which have been successes and not come down on them and say: "We have decided this is in your best interest." Usually they accept your benevolence, but the trouble is, it doesn't necessarily lead to success. I don't believe they can stand an awful lot more in the way of failures. There have been some very good successful ones, and I want to try to pinpoint what makes them successful and see if we can't work on that strength, rather than continue to put money on it.

The federal government — well-meaning, I'm sure — have made so many colossal blunders in dealing with the native people. First of all, they would have moved them all to Edmonton to be educated. There's a whole group of native people moved out of this province and moved away from their families to be educated. Then they decided that they all wanted to live in Ottawa-style stucco houses and built some for the people. This is what somebody in Ottawa decided was in their best interests, and not what the natives decided. I'd like to work on those economic development things which do work.

Through the First Citizens' Fund, we have been assisting people in boat-building, in buying equipment to augment their income, and we get quite a lot of that sort of stuff. They're coming forward in terms of applications to us for the First Citizens' Fund and others.

The Stuart-Trembleur band, as I say, has been a very great success. We're working with special ARDA and in certain cases that's been a success. But not all of them are successes, there's no question about it. We have to expect some failures. I'd like to count on the successful ones, and if we can count on them and see why they are successful.... The more we allow them to make decisions the better off we are, and that will continue apace.

The North Coast Tribal Council in Prince Rupert. We are currently reviewing an application of theirs for $100,000 from the First Citizens' Fund to assist them with that.

The Queen Charlotte Islands. The ADM for Tourism has been working with the Haidas since that announcement, but the federal acquisition of South Moresby as a park is only a week old. I really want to go back to what got me into trouble for saying that last week, and everyone will cringe, but I genuinely believe that if the Haida are not involved in the management of and doing something with that park, that'll just be another park that won't get very many visitors. I mean, the flora and fauna are one thing, but the Haida history is alive in that park, not only on Anthony Island but in a whole host of other places all the way up and down those islands. That's what makes it really something very special. Those are things that weren't going to be affected had there

[ Page 2583 ]

been logging — I must admit that — under our proposal with the Wilderness Advisory Committee. But about eight or nine years ago I took a Beaver floatplane and went and toured most of the ones that are identified in a tourist brochure put out, I think, by the native people in Skidegate. That's where I picked it up. I went and had a look at those things before it was a park and before it was something you could see, and if we don't capture that stuff and make sure that that's part of what makes that park special, I think we're going to miss something a great deal. The Haida have to be very much involved in that process.

The Port Simpson cannery is much better off being run by the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative, but still a little bit marginal. We're working with them to see what we can do.

Our economic development counsellor has met with the Skidegate economic development council just last week. Hopefully we can get some progress there, too. It's not, as you know, just a matter of money; it's a matter of how much attention we pay to it. It's a regular committee of cabinet. They report weekly to cabinet on what we do. We are well represented by the people who live there. It is sometimes difficult to assemble them all and get them on an airplane and get them out where the people are, but I don't believe it's appropriate for us to summon the native people to come down and see us here in Victoria. It's much better we go to see them on their location, and when the House does adjourn, we plan to travel.

Vote 44 approved.

On vote 45: ministry operations: $2,457,460.

MR. SKELLY: One question; maybe I should have asked it under the minister's vote. I'm wondering what the progress is in the negotiations of the master tuition agreement. I've had a question to the minister on the order paper — a whole series of questions — that hasn't been answered. It was one of the first questions put on the order paper this year. I'm wondering whether the minister would advise us what the progress is in those negotiations.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm advised by staff that they are very pleased with the progress. We're making good progress. At the end of this month, for the first time ever, there will be a tripartite meeting on the issue.

I know the question has been on the order paper. I know I've been asked about the question. It's split between the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and myself. I genuinely believe we'll be able to resolve it. I can't answer the question until such as time as we can. But at the staff level they feel confident that something can be worked out. That's another issue that probably should have been addressed two or three years ago and waited until it became a crisis. the crisis will, I believe, be resolved before the middle of next month. By the time the school year begins, the thing will be resolved.

MR. SKELLY: And my question will be answered.

Vote 45 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 52: minister's office, $206,621.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I welcome the opportunity to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services for the 1987-88 fiscal year, and to discuss some of my ministry's accomplishments over the past year and our plans for the current year.

Before I begin, I'd like to introduce to the committee my deputy minister, Mel Smith, QC. Mr. Smith has been with the provincial government for many years, most recently as Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. He has earned a high degree of respect as a senior public servant and I welcome him to the ministry. I'm sure the committee welcomes him as well.

The Provincial Secretary and Ministry of Government Services has had a very long and varied history in the administration of government of the province of British Columbia. It is the successor to the office of the Colonial Secretary. Over the years it has nurtured many government programs which have gone on to become ministries and departments in their own right. The Ministry of Health was once a function of the Provincial Secretary's office. The recent restructuring of the provincial administration had an impact upon this particular ministry, and I'm very pleased indeed to assume responsibility for the programs that were included within my ministry, specifically the government agents, telecommunications, communications policies and air services. We're also the ministry responsible for Expo 88 in Brisbane, Australia, in 1988.

While programs have come and gone, the ministry has retained its special role in relation to the provincial Legislature, the office of Lieutenant-Governor, provincial elections and protocol. The addition of the government agents branch has brought another significant historical responsibility to the ministry. For over a century, the government agents have been the provincial government to the residents of our smaller communities throughout British Columbia, providing a variety of services ranging from registering their births, deaths and marriages to the collecting of their taxes. The government agents understand the people in their communities and can react quickly and sensitively to their needs. Our objective now is to improve the services that are available to our citizens through the 61 government agents located in the province.

On the Government Services side of the ministry, activities take place which are very significant from a historical role as Provincial Secretary. These services, such as telecommunications, the Queen's Printer, postal services, record management and vehicle management keep the wheels of government turning — to use a bit of a pun — and allow all of us here to communicate with each other and with the citizens whom we represent.

We're proud of our record in achieving efficiencies in our operation, keeping the overhead of government to a minimum. Any successful business finds ways to continually streamline its procedures and reduce its overhead costs by eliminating duplication. In the same way, we continue to reevaluate the methods that we use to deliver services in order to keep those costs down. The ministry is helping the government to operate in the same manner as successful businesses by recovering the costs of certain overheads from user ministries. This approach causes users of the service to be aware of and accountable for these costs. Further, having knowledge of the true cost of each program in government is the first step towards controlling these costs.

[ Page 2584 ]

In the same manner, ministries are charged for the cost of operating the government telecommunications system. This network is unparalleled in this country, as it accommodates the unique nature of British Columbia and provides vital communications links tailored to the size of this province and its geographic diversity. In a change which we successfully implemented in 1986-87, ministries are now charged for the mail that is processed by the postal services branch on their behalf. Users are becoming aware of the cost of each item and are taking efficiencies in this area. The savings in the postal branch are estimated to exceed $10 million this year, illustrating another successful operation that saves taxpayer dollars while providing a vital service to ministries.

The ministry is taking steps to improve the management of the government's vehicle fleet by monitoring the operation and cost of vehicles. The vehicle management unit also coordinates the maintenance of each vehicle, and we attempt to avoid unnecessary charges and to reduce paperwork in the process. Each ministry will soon be charged a monthly fee for the vehicle it operates, again adding awareness and accountability. of the government operations. With this combination of streamlining, cost control and accountability, the vehicle management program causes ministries to choose and operate vehicles with an eye to economy.

Every government service program is finding better and less expensive ways of doing things. Coupled with the chargeback system, these efforts make us, as a government, much more efficient, much more businesslike.

I'd like to touch briefly on the achievements of a branch new to my ministry which has an impressive record of service to the people of British Columbia. The air services branch performs a lifesaving role as an air ambulance service. Last year this branch flew nearly 1,900 patients from places outside our urban centres to major hospitals. I'm proud to have this branch in our ministry and to commend its staff for the fine work they perform.

I have made changes in the way my ministry assists other ministries with their public information programs. The decisions over how ministry communications are carried out have been returned to the ministries, while government information services oversees those projects that cut across various ministries and boundaries. Government information services have taken a new direction and become much leaner, a highly streamlined organization existing to provide expertise and coordination where they are needed throughout government.

Before closing, I would like to mention briefly some of our plans for this year, Mr. Chairman. We will have the opportunity to build on our success in the official visits program, which happened during Expo 86, when the 1987 Commonwealth heads of government convene in Vancouver in October. That falls within the responsibility of this ministry. The protocol branch will plan visits to British Columbia by over 40 heads of government and their officials, plus over a thousand members of the international media. Just as Expo 86 brought international recognition to the province, the Commonwealth conference will bring the eyes of the world back to Vancouver. My ministry will ensure that we again impress the world with our efficiency and willingness to explore new avenues of exchange in trade and indeed in culture.

[6:30]

In Government Services we will be following up on the steps we have already taken to streamline the work and lessen the expense of government. In particular, we will continue to increase the efficiency of vehicle management by working with the larger ministries to simplify the procedure of vehicle purchase, eliminate duplication and cut down on maintenance.

In the risk management area, we have begun the process of self-insuring and consolidating those insurance premiums we feel we must continue to purchase. By doing this for hospitals and school districts, in the past year we have saved them approximately $9 million. This year we will continue to extend the policy of self-insuring while buying private sector services in cases where it makes good economic sense.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, we are constantly reviewing the way we do business so that we keep pace with the government's requirements in a very cost-effective manner. The ability to suggest and implement improvements in all areas of government services indicates a high degree of professionalism among the staff of this ministry. In closing my opening remarks, I want to commend my staff for their resourcefulness, for their dedication in carrying out their duties and for the support they have given me thus far in my tenure.

I look forward to answering all the questions from my critic and others in the committee.

MR. G. HANSON: As the minister said, Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary ministry is very old; I think it is the oldest in the provincial government. It's often been the repository for public affairs before they bud into a full ministry; they spend a bit of time in Provincial Secretary and move off. Recently, though, more and more of the Provincial Secretary's responsibilities and duties seem to be farmed out to other ministries. In some instances, the public has not been well served. Just as one example in terms of losing cultural matters, particularly around the Provincial Museum and so on, I don't think we'd be in this kind of jackpot that we're in in my own constituency if that had not been transferred to someone more oriented toward the theme-park attraction approach to cultural heritage.

I want to touch on a number of things. When the deputy ministers were rotated some time ago, as kind of an on-the job training shift of experience, the Provincial Secretary, I think, did very well. As you indicated, Mr. Smith is a longtime career government employee. He enjoys a high stature, as does Mr. Mochrie.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Yes. I'm not sure, though, that you should be dispatching them off to set up new political parties. We covered that at some point. I don't think that is really appropriate, and I don't think that sort of thing should really be done. It's not in the tradition of Deputy Provincial Secretaries to be involved in that kind of activity, particularly when the ministry is involved with handling the election apparatus for the province, and so on. Enough said on that matter, but I did want to bring that to the minister's attention.

The first thing I would like to talk about is the Premier's discussions with respect to the use of government funds for polling. For example, Public Accounts indicates, in the last fiscal year available to us, that Decima, Canadian Gallup Poll, Goldfarb, Environics and Public Affairs International received money. I want to ask the Provincial Secretary if any polling has taken place at public expense since he has become Provincial Secretary. Is he aware of the public affairs bureau

[ Page 2585 ]

within his ministry? Has polling been done with respect to specific issues and with respect to gathering information — public barometric — desiring to just probe out there to find out attitudes, ideas or thoughts? Has any polling been done at public expense, whether the government feels it is government business or justified or whatever? Has a public affairs marketing company been engaged? Has the public paid any money for market research and polling?

HON. MR. VEITCH: First, dealing with the hon. member's statement relative to the Deputy Provincial Secretary, as you know the deputy is a renowned expert in the field of constitutional affairs in Canada. Mr. Smith did attend a function in order to learn, for his own edification, some aspects of constitutional matters. He did it on his own time and at his own expense. This was to further his own educational process, and that speaks well for the type of man that the deputy is.

To answer the polling situation, I personally believe that any government has not only a right but an obligation to from time to time check the barometer, as you say, to find out what the constituents are saying or thinking. I have no problem with that. I believe the government always has to have an ear to what people are saying, and sometimes here under this dome we become very insulated and forget that there are real folks out there.

In 1986-87, public opinion polling was contracted by government information services from Goldfarb Consultants to determine how information programs are evaluated, with particular reference to Provincial Report and to various advertising programs. Market testing is a normal process, Mr. Chairman, in planning communications. It is used by agencies to test comprehension of the message. It's not a poll in the accepted sense of the word; it's merely used as an internal vehicle to test the effectiveness of a particular information tool.

Since that time, to my knowledge, we have done no polling, but I will check it out completely. There may be some polling in other ministries, but certainly not that I'm aware of from GIS at this point in time. In fact, I don't believe there is any.

MR. G. HANSON: My experience in examining vouchers in the past.... When a polling firm is engaged, a contract is signed. There is a confidentiality section attached to the vouchers which provides an undertaking on the part of the firm that the matters under review — the subject matter, the questionnaire and the results — are confidential between the government and the polling firm. Because this minister has GIS, GIS would be interested in whatever the information is, no matter what ministry carried it out.

Can he probe a little deeper into his information package he's brought here? Obviously we continue to have a contract with Goldfarb. Can he give me the number? The number in the past was, I believe, around $60,000.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Six thousand dollars.

MR. G. HANSON: Six thousand dollars.

Does a contract exist with Decima? Does a contract exist with Canadian Gallup for the fiscal year we're in? Is there a contract with Goldfarb? Is there a contract with Environics? Is there a contract with Public Affairs International, which is,

I believe, another aspect of Decima? That's what I would like to find out right now.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is formulating an answer to other questions.... I understood the minister to say that he was leading us into self-insuring all the government vehicles. I want to know whether that was just the collision....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not government vehicles. All of the things within government other than vehicles.

MR. R. FRASER: Other than vehicles? I didn't want our government employees not to have liability coverage, and I'm pleased to hear that that is not the case.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll check that information. I have the director of GIS checking that right now, and we'll get back to you with the information. I'm not aware of any contracts at the present time. We had one with Environics getting some information, but I can get you the details of that later on. That information will come back to us very shortly.

MR. G. HANSON: You could perhaps advise the member for Vancouver South that he's not going to expedite things any quicker than....

MR. R. FRASER: I have no wish to end the meeting. I want to go on.

MR. G. HANSON: He only has one cassette tape.

Was that Environics contract around electricity discounts and B.C. Hydro? Environics has done polling for B.C. Hydro around the discount electricity program. I think it's very important for the public to know and be able to get an answer from one minister on this subject. It's not good enough to say it may exist in some other ministry's blah, blah, blah. It's really the responsibility of the minister who's in charge of the advertising of government — the media arm of government. Certainly marketing is a part of that, whether an individual ministry contracts on public attitudes, wildlife management, South Moresby or whatever. We should be able to get an answer from the Provincial Secretary, because the Premier has indicated his style of management of a government will be different than his predecessor's. I have more questions on that later. But I would like to hear from him.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The member is quite correct; the style is different. The style is refreshing; the style is new.

I was incorrect in the Environics contract. Apparently one of the Crown corporations has that, so we don't even have a contract there. We have no contracts with any of the firms mentioned by the member; none whatsoever at the present time.

[6:45]

MR. G. HANSON: I might advise the Chair that I have a series of questions. I'll be here a bit.

Perhaps I should stick with advertising, because it ties in with polling. Even though the Premier has indicated that he's not going to use government advertising to the same extent as his predecessor, the advertising budget has actually gone up. The total advertising budget for '87-88 — of course, this does include other ministries as well as yours — is $19,373,979.

[ Page 2586 ]

The budget for '86-87 was $18,091,350. So the increase in this fiscal year for total government advertising, whether it's in this ministry or not, is $1,282,625 — one and a quarter million dollars. Why is the budget increased despite the government's statements that it would not rely on advertising to the same degree?

I'd like the minister to give me some numbers with respect to the PR campaign launched by the government over Bill 19, and I'd like to know the firm that did that advertising work. Was it done through McKim Advertising? Was it done by the advertising company of record? Who did the advertising program on Bill 19, and how much? That's another question.

I'd like the minister to give the House some idea of how the advertising required by the different ministries is processed, or how those requests are dealt with through GIS. In other words, how do the ministries interface with GIS? Is there a GIS person seconded into each ministry? Do they have their own PR person? Is GIS a unit within itself within your ministry? There have been some changes, and I think it's important to understand that.

HON. MR. VEIXH: I can't, of course, address the spending for other ministries. I can tell you, though, that the total advertising budget for government information services for '86-87 was $7.4 million. We've reduced that in this current year to $5.4 million.

A number of changes have recently taken place in the staffing of government information services, which I'm pleased to confirm. This process was of course completed with the full participation of the then director, Mr. Dave Laundy, who, as you are no doubt aware, left government for the private sector. The reconstituted GIS has a clearly defined role to plan, to coordinate and to implement communications government wide, working very closely with ministers, deputies and information directors within the ministries. One director would have several ministries with which that person would interface. The responsibilities of the central information branch are completely distinct from those ministries.

Specifically, GIS is to undertake all programs involving more than one ministry, as well as special events — like the Rick Hansen function that we put on — and tours, and the activities of cabinet committees. GIS is to ensure integrity, quality and consistency in government communications. The branch is also responsible for the production of all government wide publications: telephone books, program directories, media guides, Provincial Report, B.C. This Week, etc., as well as the distribution of all news releases to the press gallery and through Canada News-Wire. It works with the ministries. An information director would be assigned to several ministries, working with the information directors or the ministers or the deputies in that particular area.

MR. G. HANSON: Going back to my question with respect to the PR campaign around Bill 19, was that paid for out of the Ministry of Labour's advertising budget?

HON. MR. VEIXH: I'll get that information as soon as possible.

MR. G. HANSON: You'll get that information to me? Okay. I'd like to know the firm, the amount that cost and whether it was authorized through your ministry.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: So that information is to come.

The Premier has been holding a series of town hall meetings around the province. My understanding is that government information services personnel do the PR, the setting up, the advance work, the advertising, the work around those town hall meetings. Can the minister tell me more about the budget for that program? How many staff are involved? How long is that going to continue? Some details about that program.

HON. MR. VEITCH: To answer the first question, GIS was, of course, available, and helped the information officer in the Ministry of Labour put together the advertising. It was carried out and paid for by the Ministry of Labour. Work was undertaken by three agencies: Baker Lovick, Hayhurst and McKim. Ministries have their own information officers, and we are there as an adjunct to that to help them along.

MR. G. HANSON: Do you have any idea about the cost?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, I don't have that for you, in that it was paid for by the Ministry of Labour. So I don't have that number.

As far as the town hall meetings go, we have one person specifically assigned to work with the Premier's office in that area. Government information services is responsible for organizing and coordinating activities in connection with the Premier's series of town hall meetings across the province. These meetings, of course, give many British Columbians direct access, in an open way, a "fresh start" way, to our new dynamic Premier. Advertising costs of about $1,000 each are associated with these meetings, and are limited to the local advertising to advise the citizens in the communities of the time and the location of the meetings. How long will it continue? As long as they need to continue, as long as we are government, I am sure we will continue to go out and talk with people and work with the people. That's the style of open government.

MR. G. HANSON: Is the one staff person Mr. Melville? There are no other advance people who go?

HON. MR. VEIXH: Sometimes.

MR. G. HANSON: Sometimes there are more GIS staff?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No.

MR. G. HANSON: So the $1,000 cost doesn't include the time of GIS staff who would travel, go to a place, set up, do advance work, do the releases, do the media, etc.? Clearly the Premier has a right to travel, visit the public, have that advertised, and carry the message as the Premier. There is a line, though, at which it becomes local partisan versus public. That's always a line that we as opposition watch very carefully, to make sure that those expenditures are not abused and that those costs that would have been more appropriately borne by the political party aren't borne by the taxpayer. That's the bottom line on it. The minister knows that's where we've watched very carefully, and we tend to be very vigilant in that area.

[ Page 2587 ]

Even though the advertising budget within your own Ministry of Provincial Secretary has declined, we know, by looking at the advertising budget of all the ministries, that we actually have an increase in government advertising over last year, from, as I said, $18,091,000 to $19,373,000, which is a bit odd for a government that says it's not going to advertise as much, not going to have the same style. The numbers don't reflect that. So the record is clear.

MR. ROSE: You don't need that much.

MR. G. HANSON: That money could go a long way....

I'm still going to get some numbers that the minister indicated in that first section on advertising.

I want to look now at a different subject under this minister's bailiwick, something that's had a lot of discussion in this House: the inappropriate apportionment of lottery proceeds in the province. The government always brings out the old red herring: "Hustle for lottery proceeds, and MLAs will get lottery proceeds." Bunk! It doesn't work that way.

The annual reports — and we're waiting for an annual report covering the most recent period — always indicate an unfair distribution of lottery proceeds to tidings with a Social Credit member in this House. That's not what people have in mind when they buy a lottery ticket. That's not what was intended when the lotteries branch was established. There should be an advisory board to the minister. I talked to Jim Chabot in this House about the same question until I was blue in the face, and I got the same sort of stereotypical, cliched answer about how MLAs should hustle to get lottery proceeds for their riding, etc.

If you want to go that route, there are some things we have to have. There should be public disclosure of grants that are turned down, and why.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: No, I'm serious.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We turn down far more than we accept.

MR. G. HANSON: I understand that, but that's something.... If you happen to be a member of this House, government side or opposition side, and there's a part of your constituency, whether it's an arts group, a sports team or some kind of worthwhile activity, that makes an application.... They're turned down, they contact their MLA, and their MLA sometimes contacts the lotteries branch to find out where that grant is in the works and whether there's going to be a favourable decision; whether the money is available for this fiscal year or not. Because sometimes there's a big stall and a delay. If we don't know about the grants that are turned down, then you can't have the argument to us that we've got to hustle to get grants. It just doesn't work that way, because you don't know what grants are pending, what decisions are pending, what's worthwhile and what isn't.

Lottery proceeds have been used in a very partisan way in this province. Every MLA in this House knows it, and the public knows it. They don't like it, I don't like it, and most members of this House don't like it. For example, in the annual report that we have before us, which is for the period from April 1, 1985, to March 31, 1986, the total funding to Socred tidings was $2.8 million. The amount going to New Democrat ridings was $431,000. I would point out that my numbers exclude Vancouver, because it's very difficult sometimes to find out where those numbers.... You know, if it's a grant to the Lions Club or something.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: No, we've broken it down. I don't think that there's any doubt in the minister's mind either that the lion's share of lottery proceeds goes to tidings sending a Social Credit member, and it's not fair. It's time for a change. If you want a fresh start, we've got to empty out the grease pit, steam-clean the grease pit. Set up an advisory council to do what the mandate is, which is sports and cultural affairs and so on, and allow those proceeds to be disbursed on a fair and equitable basis, based on merit and need, not politics.

[7:00]

We're operating like 1950s Louisiana with respect to these proceeds, and that's got to end. This minister has an opportunity.... It's an important subject, because if you were to establish.... You know, it's a lot like the argument used in this House not very long ago about having a committee of this House or an advisory council around the Minister of Finance with respect to the Vancouver Stock Exchange, so that he didn't have to take all the heat for things that happen out there. This minister is responsible for a very large amount of money.

I have some specific questions. We knew that the 6-49 proceeds were going to be allocated to offset debt at Expo, and that's continuing. I'd like to ask the minister if he can give me some information with respect to that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member that the lottery applications are handled in a fair and equitable manner. There isn't any question about that at all.

I want to tell you that one of the great benefits to communities outside the lower mainland area was and is the Expo legacy fund. The growth that will come from those Expo legacy grants will carry right on into 1988.

As you will see when we get all these numbers together finally.... Some communities are still changing a bit, and we're trying to work with them. Some of them are a little overambitious, and we're trying to help them along in these legacy grants.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), I think, was saying half a million dollars up in that area.

MR. MILLER: It wasn't as much as it should have been.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, what's half a million dollars? If it isn't money to you, it's a lot of money to me, my friend.

As you will see when you examine these in their finality, the distribution of Expo 86 legacy funds has been fair and absolutely impartial, with the constituencies represented by opposition members receiving grants worth $17,718,795, or approximately — and I want you to get this percentage number, hon. member — 40 percent of the total, although your party occupies only 31 percent of the seats in the Legislature. I don't how we could be more impartial.

You talk about lottery proceeds. the lottery fund has been handled in a very good manner. I want to tell you that as

[ Page 2588 ]

at March 31 this year, the end of our fiscal year — if you will listen, hon. member — the lottery fund paid $171,150,650 into defraying the cost of Expo — phenomenal.

I want to further inform the hon. member that the Expo costs, the Expo debt and that wonderful legacy which we left the world, Canada and British Columbia will be paid off in its entirety by this fall. There will be no debt, no impingement upon the public purse whatsoever — a phenomenal success.

Lottery grants are turned down, hon. member, but as far as I am concerned, they are turned down with no regard whatsoever to whether it's an opposition member or a member on the government side. They are handled purely and simply on their merit. I've dealt with many members of the House, the hon. opposition House Leader and others. I do my very best to meet with individuals, to meet with mayors. Yes, your job — I can't tell you your job, and every MLA handles his job in a different way — is that of an ombudsman in many ways to deal with and to talk to me. I meet opposition members on a continuing basis.

Yes, government ridings will receive more grants. There just happen to be a lot more government members, that's why. That's the way the people of British Columbia vote. If the time comes, God forbid, when you're government, then I suppose that will reverse. But I hope it won't reverse because of partisan politics but will reverse simply because you happened at that point in time — if the people have a lapse of memory, which I hope they don't have — to elect more members from your side. No other reason.

I think the lotteries grants have provided a boon to many small undertakings, many small....

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Not that particular Boone. Well, the Boone over there gets quite a bit of them, too.

In various parts of British Columbia sometimes it provides the seed money to start little golf courses. We provide fire halls all over this province. It does a tremendous job to help projects and communities that wouldn't happen under any other set of circumstances.

MR. ROSE: I would like to pay my respects to the minister for the consideration he gave Port Coquitlam over their senior citizens' recreational complex and the grant of some $50,000. I wasn't aware that the member for Prince Rupert got $500,000. What I really want to know is: how come he's worth about ten times as much as I am? Did he cause you more trouble?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, he's younger, and he thinks he may stick around a little longer, so we've got to look after him.

MR. G. HANSON: I want to ask a question with respect to the $75 million of the other than 6-49 proceeds. This year's budget contained a provision that $75 million was taken from other lottery proceeds and put towards the Expo debt. As a result, communities throughout the province have not received and will not be receiving these proceeds for recreational facilities and other community enhancement funding.

I'd like an explanation. One northern mayor noted that residents outside of the lower mainland gained little benefit from Expo. Now they're having to be the main source of community enhancement funding removed to pay for the debt. Was the minister aware of the promises made by his government that that money would be available for local activities?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're paying off $77,600,000. That's paid off out of reserves from previous years. The funding is still available for cultural programs, the Festival of the Arts, multicultural programs, library services, heritage programs, recreation and sports, the B.C. Games and many new initiatives. There's $20 million for JobTrac. Community grants are close to $20 million in total, hon. member.

I believe we're doing a very adequate job. The funding is finite; it's not infinite. I think we've done a really good job of looking after and managing this particular fund and not causing any debt — as far as Expo is concerned — directly to the people of the province of British Columbia. That $77,600,000 comes from reserves from previous years.

MR. MILLER: I wasn't going to enter the debate, but I see I was referred to by the minister in terms of that paltry grant we finally managed to get for Prince Rupert. I want to talk about that very briefly, because I do believe it's serious, particularly with respect to the more remote regions of this province.

I don't know if the minister fully appreciates the significance of that kind of development in a remote community, and the fact that the performing arts theatre in Prince Rupert will now allow for the first time — because we have a triangle, because Kitimat has a performing arts theatre and because Terrace has one — people in the northwest to experience the kind of culture that comes with theatre, which really has not been available for a considerable period of time, or only available to people traveling to the lower mainland. When you look at our sometimes intemperate climate, it only adds to the significance of that project.

I don't really want to stand up here and gripe, but I think there is a bit of a gripe coming in terms of the money that went into that project as opposed to some other projects. I don't have the facts and figures here; it's a brief debate.

MR. RABBITT: We'll take your word for it.

MR. MILLER: There's a member over there who's prepared to take my word for it. Quite frankly, I don't ever stand up and try to mislead this House on any issue.

But I just want to re-stress the importance — because I did have private conversations with the minister about this — of the need in those remote regions to get the kind of money that really makes these things possible. Quite frankly, Mr. Minister, I appreciate the $500,000, but in my candid opinion it was not sufficient. I think more was warranted.

The second issue I wish to raise relative to lotteries is the notification of members. After all, we're dealing with money taken in by the government through a system that I have expressed strong reservations about in terms of the increase in the whole.... You know: "By buying a ticket I can strike it rich." I just think that that sometimes fosters a bit of a wrong attitude in our society. Nonetheless, I don't think it's hypocritical — I'm prepared to see that money go back into worthwhile projects.

One of the things that happened around Expo time was that the local groups who used to get a specific cut of the sales.... I know this because my union received, through their local society, one of the first franchises for the Western

[ Page 2589 ]

lottery. Having been involved with the union, I know that over the years there were lots and lots of these small grants that went out to buy uniforms for the hockey team.... I know the union bought a 12-passenger vehicle that was available for amateur sport groups to go to things in Terrace and other locations. It really did a tremendous job in terms of that level of support in the community.

They were cut back. The percentages were cut back, and my suspicion is that it was cut back so that the bigger take could be taken for Expo. I'd like to know if there is going to be some attempt to return these groups — again, I don't have specific figures — to the kinds of cuts on those lottery sales that they used to get and use so well in the communities.

I'm sure it's now the policy of the minister that the member be notified, whichever constituency it may be, that a particular group or organization has indeed been selected to receive a lottery grant, to allow the member the opportunity to express his good wishes for that event happening as well.

Finally, Mr. Minister, just a note of congratulations. One of the last acts of the now retired government agent in Prince Rupert, Mrs. Vin Finnigan, whose husband I worked with for many years in the pulp mill, was to marry me and my wife. She was quite delighted to undertake the ceremony. I can tell you that she did an excellent job; I'm still married. I wanted to pass on that rather personal congratulatory note.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll go back to your performing arts theatre in Prince Rupert. The large problem there, I believe, was that one member of council and the mayor were at odds with each other, to say the very least. You and I had discussions about that. Certain members of council at one time said they didn't want the thing. What am I to do? Here we are, provincial government willing to give money from the Expo legacy fund, and the community is saying they don't want it. It took quite a while to get that straightened around and finally get their act together.

[7:15]

Unfortunately, it was pretty late in the game. We had exceeded the $30 million that we set aside for Expo legacies by quite a bit of money. I can't give you the exact numbers right now. It's a bit of a moving target in that some communities are not able to do things, or need a little more or a little less. That was the only reason that it took so long in Prince Rupert. It was an internal feud there in the council for whatever set of reasons; I don't really know.

You asked me about the percentage of sales. We call them the 6 percenters. People used to, and still do, receive a commission on lottery sales. They received a commission on the type of lottery tickets.... Again, the lottery business is not a static business; it changes. I don't buy the darned things myself, but people get bored with buying a certain kind of lottery ticket; they need a new kind of game. What they were contracted with or franchised on was the old type of lottery tickets, which are going down, down, and eventually won't exist any more, because nobody will be buying them. They'll be doing the quick pick, and the scratch-and-win, and the 6-49 type of lotteries. What I have instructed the Lottery Corporation to do.... We could just sit around and let them go out of business and not pay them anything. But I said: "if any of them want to sell out, give them a reasonable figure and give them some money, if that's what they want to do; buy them out." We don't insist that it happen, but if they want to make that happen, we're willing to come to some reasonable accommodation, because they got the lottery thing started in the first place, and they deserve consideration.

That's the reason why profits in that area are diminishing. There is only one that has increased in that area, and that's a synagogue in Vancouver. I don't know why that has happened.

I'd also like to thank that government agent for legitimizing your situation. I think that's a very admirable thing to do.

On the government agents, I don't want to take up too much time of the committee, but in Atlin a number of years ago there was an agent that they tell me about. A fellow came in to get a permit for a placer mine, and the government agent sold him a mining certificate. There were two fellows. One said: "Do you know where there's a hotel?" "Yes, there's a hotel just down the street." "Well, we're going down there, and we need some liquor." He said: "Well, I'm the local purveyor of liquor in Atlin." So he sold them a case of liquor, and they went down to the hotel and proceeded to kick the blazes out of it, so I'm told. He went down there in his role as a peace officer and arrested them, and arraigned them before himself as justice of the peace. The next morning he took their fine as government agent, and sent them on to Victoria. So they do a lot of things. In a lot of communities they are the government.

MR. MILLER: I hadn't intended to respond, but I can't help myself, I must. In response to my request about the lottery grant, I'm pleased to say that the minister has said there were difficulties with the local council; that's the reason why the grant was not given sooner and was not larger. In fact, it's somewhat ironic that those people on the council who really started to fight, I suppose, about where the grant should go were strong Socred members who spent a considerable amount of time during the last election telling the voters that we wouldn't get any of these things in Prince Rupert if I were elected.

I'm glad that I'll be able to go back and tell the voters and those members of council that they were dead wrong; that in fact they're responsible for Prince Rupert not receiving a larger grant for the theatre. So thank you, Mr. Minister. I'll be able to go back and enlighten those members of your party in Prince Rupert, some of whom still cling to that misconception.

HON. MR. VEITCH: A fight takes at least two people. I think there were some on both sides who participated in that patricide.

MR. G. HANSON: There is another area of the minister's responsibilities that I want to address my remarks to. I have to be a bit careful, because we have Bill 28 on the order paper. One matter that I think deserves a lot of urgent attention from the minister is the whole elections apparatus of this province: the way that voter registration is carried out, who is eligible, to vote, how the boundaries are established, etc. I am mindful of the fact that we do have a royal commissioner out holding hearings at the moment. I have some specific questions about Justice Fisher's role. His original mandate in the terms of reference indicated that he would be looking at the dual member ridings and the areas contiguous to them. It has been clear through the course of the hearings that there has been reinterpretation of his mandate by the commissioner. He has....

[ Page 2590 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we have some order. The principals are having a little difficulty hearing each other.

MR. G. HANSON: My point is that the original terms of reference for Justice Fisher have been reinterpreted by him through the course of the hearings, as far as I can see. He has stated at some of the hearings that initially it was the 17 dual member ridings and the areas contiguous, which took us up to something like 58 ridings. He has since stated at several of the meetings that contiguous isn't just contiguous to a dual member; it is the entire boundary of that adjacent riding. That then impacts on the few ridings that were not part of the original discussion.

At the hearing in Victoria a paper was presented, and there was some discussion, that perhaps all ridings in the province are in the redistribution. If the interpretation of the mandate, of the terms of reference, is that almost all ridings are in the hopper in terms of redrawing boundaries.... The schedule of public hearings was set up to deal with dual member ridings, and ridings such as Skeena, or other, contiguous, ridings, are now being asked to come in and give their views. But there are no public hearings in these ridings.

Can the minister clarify precisely to us whether all ridings are in the hopper? Is it the 17 dual-member ridings and the contiguous ridings, which takes it up to 58 — or whatever? If the mandate has somehow been expanded through the interpretation of the terms of reference, should public hearings not be held in the areas now affected?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member is quite correct that there is legislation before the Legislature. In fact, there are two bills before the Legislature dealing with this. The hon. member's bill is so broad-reaching that we could discuss anything relative to elections. You just swept the whole field, my friend. So I guess if we were working under the strictest of terms, that's the way it would have to go.

I can't prejudge the judge. I would never attempt to do that. The judge is the head. He is a royal commissioner with all the rights and privileges that go with that. But the order-in-council setting out the terms of reference for the Hon. Mr. Fisher were very specific. The first principle was to change dual-member ridings into single-member ridings. In order to do that, those ridings which were contiguous to them — rubbed up against them, if you will — may be affected, at the judge's discretion. He may bring back that kind of report. The final decision on all this will rest with this Legislature.

I want to ask the hon. member if he thinks we should be looking at the whole scene, rather than just the dual-member ridings. Is that what he's getting at? Is he telling me we should have a commission that looks at the whole of the province, rather than just this? Tell me what you think.

MR. G. HANSON: As the minister knows, my private member's bill calls for an independent and permanent electoral commission that would review everything.

My specific point is that public hearings are not being held in areas that may now be affected. It is my understanding that the definition of "contiguous" is not the rubbing up against a dual-member riding but is the entire boundary and other affected ridings. Do you follow?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, that was not the government's intention. Contiguous is contiguous. We're not talking about being contiguous to contiguous to whatever that rolls into. We're talking about contiguous: rubbing up against.

MR. G. HANSON: I have another question.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You didn't answer my question.

MR. G. HANSON: I get to ask the questions right at the moment.

Our side of the House made representation to the minister with respect to how the final report would be handled and how that process would come into law in this chamber in the absence of an independent and ongoing electoral commission. Because Justice Fisher is going to take a snapshot, and there's nothing in place after; there's nothing there. I would like to ask the minister again if he would consider referring the final report to a standing or a special committee of this Legislature.

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: Excellent. It has some support on your back bench.

It's a straightforward question, Mr. Minister, and I know you've had this raised by us in the past. Justice Fisher will do his preliminary report and make that public, and the drawing and so on, and then he will hold other hearings and give a final report. Why not give us the undertaking now, in your estimates, that the final report go to a special committee of this House, in the same way the auditor-general or the ombudsman is appointed, and have that translated into law by consent, through that committee?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The best I'll give you right now is a definite maybe. I'll take what you say to heart and have a look at it, but I won't give you that undertaking now. It has some merits, and perhaps that is one road we can take. But as I say, at this point I'm not prepared to.... You've got to allow a good idea a little time to permeate, you know....

AN HON. MEMBER: Sink in.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Sink in, that's the word — and then decide whether it is a good idea. It has some merit, and I'll have a look at it.

MR. G. HANSON: I appreciate the minister's accepting those ideas. That's what we're trying to do: make some good processes and good legislation.

There are a couple of other areas not included in the government bill before the House that are worthy of consideration as well. The vote for 18-year-olds, to bring them in line with the federal law. It is such a glaring anomaly to have young British Columbians go to the polls and vote for a national government and be denied the opportunity to vote for a provincial government. I would like to ask the minister if he thinks it's a good idea to extend the franchise to 18-year-olds, as in other provinces.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That, of course, would require additional legislation, which would have to be dealt with at this time. I hear what the hon. member is saying. Voting is a

[ Page 2591 ]

responsibility. The age of majority is really what we're talking about. It would probably take the whole business of liquor and everything into account if we addressed that. It could have ramifications other than just whether one can vote at the age of 18 or 19. That would have to be taken into account before we would have a look at it.

[7:30]

MR. G. HANSON: It's probably only a matter of time before someone will take it to court, and the public is going to have to pay tax dollars to determine what should be a straightforward response by the government to bring this province in line with others and to give them the vote. I've made the point, and I'd like the minister to take it under advisement.

I also think he should take under advisement the whole question of disclosure. It's time we had disclosure and spending limits in provincial elections, riding by riding.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Oh, you disclose what you spend, but there's no limit to what you spend. Along the same lines as the federal election, a limit should be established by an independent electoral commission for a particular riding. It's a fair way to go, and if the minister is bringing in other legislation on elections he should do that.

A question was raised some time ago on the comptroller general’s report, with respect to a member of this House and the way advances were handled through the Provincial Secretary's ministry. Will the minister give us some indication of how that's being handled now? Is that being cleaned up?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Those advances that you're speaking of came about as a result of a particular member receiving advances while he was a parliamentary secretary, I believe of the Minister of Transportation and Highways at the time. There was a bit of a jurisdictional problem. There were some problems with it. Has it been monitored? Is it being monitored? Is it being checked? The answer is, absolutely. We watch them on a daily basis. The only other advances that are really channelled through our comptroller are the type of spending expense that members of the Legislature would have. That has two watchdogs now; it has a comptroller and also the Board of Internal Economy. So yes, they are being monitored very closely, hon. member.

MRS. BOONE: I have a couple of very small questions to the minister that I'd like to get clarified. It's about a part of your ministry that very few people have much contact with: vehicle management services, which your deputy minister knows a lot about. One of the things I want clarified is, can the minister confirm that the control of all passenger vehicles, including Forests and Highways, will be coming under the jurisdiction of vehicle management services in the future?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, it's in the process now. Because ministries were buying vehicles from all over — many ministers were — we think we can probably save a lot of money by avoiding duplication in those areas. It's going to take a little time; old habits and old ways die hard sometimes. But we are bringing that in. That's part of the streamlining process that I spoke of in my opening remarks. The answer is absolutely yes. We hope to have it all ready to go in the next few months and have it completely turned over to this ministry.

MRS. BOONE: In my discussion with some of the employees out there in the ministries of Forests and Highways, there was some considerable concern about their futures. Can the minister please outline the procedures that he has established to take care of these people? Will they be bumping into the current vehicle management people? What procedures are established to take care of them'? Will the existing Highways shops be closed and the work contracted out to the private service-stations?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I hope they're not literally bumping into the vehicle management people.

The vehicle management branch is a very small, very efficient branch. Old ways do die hard, so I understand why there's concern. I say to those people: "Give it a chance. Make it work. Give us your ideas. We'll work along with you." Nothing is forever, but we'll work along with them and try to make it work. So it's a win-win situation for everybody.

MRS. BOONE: Is the minister then saying that no Highways and no Forests personnel will be laid off as a result of this amalgamation or takeover of services?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can't say what will happen in other ministries. I can only say that.... I know that at one time you actually worked with our ministry in that particular area, so you know quite a bit about it. I can't say what will happen in other ministries. I'm only saying that the vehicle management branch, as you're well aware, is a very efficient operation, and we'll do our very best to cooperate with everybody.

MRS. BOONE: I have some concerns about this, because in the past couple of years vehicle management has expanded considerably and taken over many different areas. People have been laid off, so the workload has increased considerably; but the people in the field haven't actually increased. Will these people be transferred into vehicle management, so that the workload on the people there will not be increased substantially?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Some FTEs will indeed be transferred. I don't know how many. We still have the large vehicles and snowplows and big trucks and all that, so I don't know how much time they spend working on passenger vehicles and pickup trucks. I would think not that much time.

MRS. BOONE: There are a couple of questions I'd like to ask the minister with regard to the personnel aspect and the current posting procedures in the government services.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: No, each ministry handles their own.

There is a definite problem with regard to the posting procedures, as I see it, and that goes throughout the entire ministry, whereby rather than actually posting positions, people are put in auxiliary positions for as long as.... I forget the day. There are so many days, and then they automatically become permanent positions, which in effect eliminates the whole posting procedure. In fact, people are put

[ Page 2592 ]

into jobs, kept there, become permanent employees, and the postings never actually occur.

Will the minister look into this within his own ministry, to ensure that this is not something that is occurring frequently, and will you stop the occurrence of those things? This does happen, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. VEITCH: To answer the hon. member, there's a real fine-tuning process going on right now. It's different now because of the possible impact of some privatization initiatives that may or may not come about in certain areas. I would rather be able to deal with those people at that point in time. But if there's anything untoward I'll look it over and see if we're doing anything that we ought not to do in that area. Above all, we want to have good human relations existing within the ministry and within the government.

Vote 52 approved.

Vote 53: ministry operations, $54,368,021 — approved.

Vote 54: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 55: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLAT10N

On vote 1: legislation, $14,201,820.

MR. ROSE: I'm glad the government House Leader finally found vote 1, which he lost in his purse and has brought up, because it has to do with the votes of the Legislature, how this very Legislature is funded and operated. There have been some real improvements in this Legislature and how we operate here this year. I want to pay tribute not only to the Premier and all the other members, the government House Leader, but also to the Speaker and the Clerks who work with us. I haven't been around here as long as some of the more youthful members, but I've been around here long enough to know the bad old days, and this is considerable improvement.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I did. I can function in any old days, but I prefer these days. While they're not happy days — and happy days are not necessarily here again — there's certainly a vast improvement in the decorum of the House and also the way we treat one another. I think we've proved — which I tried to say and offered my opinion and my venerable advice....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's not vulnerable, that's venerable.

In the Speech from the Throne, I thought we could deal with issues, and there are substantial differences in our philosophies. You can't paper that over; you can't sweep it under the rug. But that doesn't have to colour the way we treat each other personally. I think the improvement has been magnificent, so I thank all those people who made it happen.

Could I make a special note of a couple of accomplishments for this year? First of all, the space and accommodation and support for the opposition has vastly improved, and we could even hope that some of the government members will have a similar experience in the near future, whether they deserve it or not.

The other thing has a lot to do with the Speaker. Mr. Speaker was a controversial member; he was a highly partisan member. I hate to reveal caucus secrets, but when I was proposing to our caucus that I second Mr. Speaker, some of his controversial past surfaced. I said I had seen Mr. Speaker in his various — I was going to say "guises" and that sounds almost furtive — personae. When he needs to be highly partisan, as he was as a member both here and in the House in Ottawa, he can be so. He's highly partisan, highly combative, highly organized and very effective.

[7:45]

I also saw him as the host of an open-line show. When he needed to be non-partisan, he was. As a matter of fact, if he'd been more partisan, he might have been more acceptable as a hotline host, but he's not. He has, though, proved to all of us that he is extremely even-handed. As a matter of fact, it's a little like the story of Oliver Wendell Holmes. A lawyer was going down on the train. He had a very touchy case, and in his notes — this guy was looking over and saw it — he said: "Insult the judge." Somebody said: "Why are you saying that? Oliver Wendell Holmes is a sterling jurist, outstanding and very fair." He said: "He is so objective, and this case is so close that if I insult him he might lean over just enough to prove he's not biased and allow me to win this case."

Mr. Speaker has been extremely even-handed and objective. In order to get marks from our side, I don't intend to insult him — at least not publicly.

I would like to say that we've had a tough year. We've had a lot of legislation. We've come through it very well, and I think with the kind of dignity and respect for one another that's really important.

MR. RABBITT: Good legislation.

MR. ROSE: I was sorry to be interrupted by the Rabbitt pack down there in the comer, but I know it's all meant in good fun.

I think it has been a very productive year and a very difficult one in many ways. I think we've survived miraculously. The tone is still good, and I hope it continues.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I can't let this go by without thanking my hon. colleague opposite for his kind remarks. It truly has been a remarkable session. I must give credit and associate myself with what he has said, because he is absolutely right.

I want to publicly acknowledge the government Whip, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree), and the opposition Whip, the first member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson). The three of us have been here since 1979. We have seen how parliament can fall apart, and we have seen how well it can work if we act like ladies and gentlemen and work together. This has been the best one I've seen. So I thank you, sit, for your comments. They are most appreciated and welcome.

I have to tell my friend that probably what this place needs is more musicians and fewer lawyers, right? You won't disagree with that.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I totally agree with what my hon. colleague opposite has said. He said it far better than

[ Page 2593 ]

I can, but I would be remiss in not responding and agreeing with him that this a remarkable session. I thank you very much, sir, for the cooperation we've had, and also to the first member for Victoria, and the chief government Whip, the member for North Vancouver-Capilano.

Vote 1 approved.

Vote 2: auditor-general, $4,465,920 — approved.

Vote 3: ombudsman, $2,493,970 — approved.

The House resumed; Mrs. Gran in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

40 The Hon. D. Parker to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 40) intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 14 (b), in the proposed section 89 (4) of the Forest Act by deleting "rental," and substituting "rent.".

SECTION 19.1, by adding the following section:

19.1 Section 149 (3) is amended by striking out "subsection (1 ) (b) or (c)" and substituting "subsection (1) (b) to (d) ".

55 The Hon. E. N. Veitch to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 55) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 10, in the proposed section 16 (2. 1) of the Electrical Safety Act by

(a) deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a),

(b) adding "and" at the end of paragraph (b) (i), and

(c) deleting paragraph (b) (iii) and substituting the following paragraph:

(c) exempt persons or classes of persons from all or part of the codes or standards adopted.

SECTION 19 (f), in the proposed section 25 (2) of the Gas Sqfety Act by

(a) deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a),

(b) adding "and" at the end of paragraph (b) (i), and

(c) deleting paragraph (b) (iii) and substituting the following paragraph:

(c) exempt persons or classes of persons from all or part of the codes or standards adopted.