[ Page 3857 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3857

Ministerial Statement

Five-year forest and range resource program 1988-1993. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 3857

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 3857

Ministerial Statement

Report on MacMillan Bloedel TFL 39. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 3857

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Social assistance benefits for employable single mothers. Mr. Cashore –– 3858

College funding. Ms. Marzari –– 3858

Strathcona Park hearings. Ms. Edwards –– 3859

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 62: ministry operations –– 3859

Mr. Barnes

On vote 64: Thompson-Okanagan development region –– 3859

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rose

Mr. Williams

Mr. Messmer

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. B.R. Smith)

On vote 14: minister's office –– 3878

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. Sihota.

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Camosun College has a very successful program of inviting faculty from China to visit them. We have one of those faculty members with us today, a librarian from Wuhan, accompanied by the Camosun librarian. Would the Legislative Assembly please welcome Jie Zheng and her host Rick Baer.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We have in the gallery today a number of prominent citizens from the North Shore in the Vancouver area. They include Jack and Pauline Blachford, Rita Breakey, David and Ina Carey, Neill and Margret Comba, Wes Craig, Joe and Maria Duro, Ron Gamble, Bill Hayes, Marc and Jacquie Howard, Dudley Kill, Tom and Diana Mason, Howard and Sylvia Maundrell, Kim Patrick, Sheila Plumb, Fritz and Merina Reber, Eleonor Ryan, Ernie and Joan Sarsfield, Betty Waters, Cyril White, William and Barbara Whittaker, and George Zilahi. Would the members please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: We have in the gallery today a number of students from the great riding of Vancouver East. They are grade 8 students from Vancouver Secondary Technical School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. NcNeil. I ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I have just noticed in the precincts a friend of mine from the constituency of Nanaimo. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Mr. Howard Hunt.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled a report entitled "Five-year Forest and Range Resource Program 1988-1993.

Ministerial Statement

FIVE-YEAR FOREST AND RANGE
RESOURCE PROGRAM 1988-1993

HON. MR. PARKER: The program calls for the planting of an estimated 1.4 billion seedlings on Crown land from 1988 to 1993 by the provincial government and the forest industry. This government has a deep commitment to reforestation, and the five-year program reflects our goal for fully productive forests in the future.

The report notes that the government's funding for basic silviculture will decrease now that the cost of reforestation of areas harvested is being done fully by the industry. It discusses the important new directions in forest policy initiated by the government, and I'd like to name a few. First, the new comparative value pricing of timber; second, innovation in the forest industry; third, reforestation responsibilities; fourth, the privatization of government nurseries; fifth, wilderness management; sixth, the implementation of a national park on South Moresby Island.

The report recognizes that a vigorous and world-competitive timber-pricing industry in British Columbia will help to maintain a high standard of living in the province. Toward this goal we will stimulate innovation. We will do this by increasing competition within the forest industry; we will encourage greater value-added in the manufacture of wood products; we will promote better marketing of wood products; and we will increase the competitive sales of timber under the small business forest enterprise program from an apportioned volume of 7 percent to an available volume of 15 percent of the provincial allowable annual cut. The volume for this competitive sales program will be obtained from several sources; the primary one will be a 5 percent reduction of the allowable cut of all major licences.

The report also describes the programs of the Ministry of Forests and Lands and the role of the private sector in implementing the programs. Copies of the program are being made available to members of the House.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in view of my expertise in the forestry industry, it will be indeed a brief response.

I would like to say that from what I've heard about the report in the minister's statements here, it appears to be progressive and enlightened. We'll certainly be interested in studying the report and looking at its implications. I think the opportunity to have a report to debate before the legislation comes before us in the form of a White Paper or Green Paper is a very progressive way to go. We would have preferred, though, that a report of this importance to our province — about its number one industry — might have been able to be provided to the members of the opposition a little bit in advance so that we could give a better. more comprehensive response.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled a report of T.M. Thomson and Associates of Victoria on MacMillan Bloedel Ltd.'s block 6 tree-farm licence 39, Queen Charlotte Islands.

Ministerial Statement

REPORT ON MACMILLAN BLOEDEL TFL 39

HON. MR. PARKER: This independent audit was conducted after a number of allegations were made of poor forest management practices. We believe these charges were serious enough to warrant an investigation. So I ordered the audit on February 16, 1988, and directed that it should provide a thorough and impartial review of both the company's and the Forest Service's adherence to government legislation, regulations and policies.

[2:15]

The terms of reference for the audit included investigating the forest company's waste survey information, use of wood from road and backspar trail construction and wood utilization standards. In addition, I asked that waste levels within block 6 be compared with the balance of TFL 39, and that TFL 39 waste levels be compared with other coastal TFL licensees. I also requested a review of information to justify the annual rate of cut allowed, according to the management and working plan approved by government.

Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service is studying the report's conclusions and recommendations, and I am taking the following steps. First, we will review all wood waste from timber harvesting on the coast during 1987 and adjust stumpage charges accordingly. We will develop one system for measuring waste on the coast. While the report states that the systems used by the licensee and the Forest Service for measuring waste are statistically correct, a single system is preferred for planning and management purposes. We will also ensure that licensees are held fully responsible for proper

[ Page 3858 ]

forest practices, and improper performance will be penalized. Third, we will issue a public discussion paper on new wood utilization standards, and we will implement new standards as soon as possible. Fourth, we will review the public review process in the development of management working plans to allow for a full public discussion before approval is given. And fifth, while no more staff will be hired by the Forest Service, our existing staff will receive additional training and be reassigned to auditing and monitoring duties in order to strengthen these functions at the district level. As well, there will be increased use of independent contractors, as recommended by the report.

I found the audit report's recommendations most useful and appropriate, and we are taking action on the recommendations which I am confident will improve forest management in our province.

MR. ROSE: Again, Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful if we had had our critics here for this. It's a very comprehensive report. I think any moves to enhance the efficacious use of our resource to see that it's not squandered by wasteful practices that may be efficient economically.... They should be halted. I suppose that this might give us some indication that there's going to be some pressure to eliminate the kind of high-grading we've heard about — in fact, that brought about this report in the first place.

There is a matter of privatization in terms of inspection that concerns us a little, and as the weeks roll on, we'll have a chance to debate this during the forestry estimates. I think that a more comprehensive, detailed look at our response will be revealed at that point.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS
FOR EMPLOYABLE SINGLE MOTHERS

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The government has announced that $50 will be taken away from mothers on social assistance who have babies over the age of 15 weeks. How can the minister reconcile the hypocrisy of taking money from poor women and their families while spending millions on a propaganda exercise supposedly in support of families?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would suggest that the question is very argumentative, but I'll let it go ahead and let the minister reply. I would hope that the member would phrase his questions more properly in the future.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This question has been canvassed very thoroughly in the last two days during my estimates and in the media. The member is wrong and knows he is wrong when he says that we will be taking $50 away from single mothers. That is not true. I explained that to him during my estimates, but I will explain it again.

We are not necessarily labeling anyone as unemployable and leaving them there ad infinitum, as has been the case many times in the past. Many women who have children want to get back into the workforce, Mr. Member. Contrary to your beliefs, they don't necessarily wish to stay on welfare all their lives.

We are saying that with the addition of some 150 new people into the financial assistance side of the ministry, we will be able to do more one-on-one counselling and to sit down with these people and find out what their needs and wants are, and whether they desire to re-enter the workforce. We have put programs into place to do everything possible to assist anyone who wants to be employable to get back into the workforce and bring a new meaning to their life and to break the cycle of three generations of welfare families that we have in the province of British Columbia. There are some 35, 000 single parents on welfare, Mr. Member, and this government is trying to do something about it.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. You don't do it by pushing them in such an unseemly manner. Mr. Minister, we have the situation of the Premier interfering in your ministry by saying he will personally intervene. I have to ask you how your government's attack on single mothers and their children strengthens families.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It would appear that the only people attacking single mothers are people in the opposition and the Jean Swansons who are professionals at getting people upset and unnecessarily disturbed by planting ideas in their minds out there, and who constantly campaign on the backs of the less fortunate and get them unnecessarily anxious about what's going to happen.

The Premier, like all the members on this side of the House, is very concerned about the plight of families less fortunate than ourselves. As the Premier said, we will do anything to assist these people to get back into meaningful employment and break the cycle of welfare.

MR. CASHORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That attack on Jean Swanson is absolutely inappropriate. The citizen is not here to defend herself, and her name is sullied in this Legislature. That is argumentative, and that's inappropriate. Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that the glitz doesn't fool anyone. Your Premier's actions speak louder than words, and your government is anti-family.

The question is: are you prepared to end this hypocrisy and this harmful and unnecessary attack on families led by single mothers?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't think Ms. Jean Swanson needs that member to defend her. She does very well on her own, thank you. I just spent some time on television with her. She's an expert at what she does. She is very, very good; in fact, the media know exactly where to run when they want a comment to get people on welfare all anxious and disturbed: they run to the Jean Swansons of the world.

The program to strengthen families, which involves $20 million, is going to be delivered mainly through my ministry. Some $16 million has been set aside in my budget, and we've gone into it in intricate detail in the last three days as to how these services will be delivered to assist people through very difficult times, to assist them before, during and after pregnancy, to assist those with older children, to put homemaker services and counselling in place, and to assist them back into the workforce and off income assistance.

COLLEGE FUNDING

MS. MARZARI: My questions are to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training. The theme this afternoon is about asking you people to make your priorities fit

[ Page 3859 ]

your budgets and your budgets fit your priorities. What you say is not what you do.

In February, before the budget process, Mr. Minister, you were given expert advice by the Association of Colleges that student demand would be up by 3,200 FTEs at least, and that colleges would be stretched beyond the limit, which they have been for some years, and that new money was needed — $25 million at least — to deal with 3,200 FTEs. It took the Association of Colleges to come to your doorstep to put this on your desk, yet the budget came out status quo; in fact, minus 3 percent for colleges. Will you commit yourself now to raising the college budgets to the level recommended by the B.C. Association of Colleges in February?

HON. S. HAGEN: I'd like to thank the hon. member for that deep and probing question — which she is very, very good at. It's certainly refreshing, after the last couple of days, to have that type of question asked.

I would like to tell the House that indeed we on this side of the House are all interested in, and concerned about, the college system that you spoke of. I am sure you are aware that last week I had a meeting with the council of college principals and also with the executive board chairman, and announced to them that I was establishing a task force that will report back to me in one month. As a matter of fact, they started their work today; they will report back by May 13. The purpose of that task force is to assure me that the money that is required to fund the enrolment increases is not in the system.

I assured them at that time and I assure this House today that, depending on what that report says when it comes back.... I certainly wouldn't want to say anything that would either preempt or prejudice that report, but if, when the report comes back, it states that the money is not in the system, I will go to Treasury Board and ask for the funds that are necessary to meet the enrolment requirements.

MS. MARZARI: Is the minister then saying that he has not promised the college system an additional 3.5 percent on their budget when he met with them on Thursday afternoon last week, which is information that I have received?

HON. S. HAGEN: The purpose of the meeting last week was to clarify the budget figures, which in fact show that there is a 3.5 percent inflationary amount in the budget. They came under the impression, which was unfortunately, I think, reported in the media, that there was a 89 percent increase to the college budget, which was not the fact.

MS. MARZARI: They came under that impression because that's what the estimates suggested. The budget of this government put forward a .89 percent increase. So you're telling me now that 3.5 percent was found; there was a bookkeeping error. Is that 3.5 percent being taken from BCIT, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN: The colleges and institutes budget, which is a portion of my entire budget, showed an increase of .89 percent, which reflects a decrease to the BCIT budget and an increase to the college budget.

MS. MARZARI: Just last year the Premier's office instigated a David Park inquiry into BCIT, and the David Park inquiry reported back to the Premier's office: leave BCIT alone; it's doing what it's supposed to do and it's doing it well. And yet yesterday morning I heard you on the radio say that BCIT is too rich, and we shouldn't be throwing money at it. I want to know where this instruction came from. Did you receive instructions from the Premier's office to cut back BCIT, or was it done behind your back, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN: First of all, the hon. member's facts are incorrect. As a matter of fact, I commissioned the Park report, as I did the Price Waterhouse report. The report came back to me and, in fact, I made the report public. The results of that report and the Price Waterhouse report indicate that there are many courses offered at BCIT that are also offered at the colleges throughout the province, and which cost more at BCIT than they do at the colleges.

We are saying that there is no excuse for that. We are dealing with public tax dollars. It's my job to see that the students are given the quality of education they need, but also that we're concerned about controlling the costs of that education.

[2:30]

MS. MARZARI: Then let's talk about previous promises. If the report came from you and not from Mr. Poole and the Premier's office, what about the promises you made to BCIT that although they would go to formula funding, that wouldn't happen until 1989 or 1990? Yet they are being forced to go to formula funding this year with a massive cut of $3.5 million. How can you reconcile what you are saying in this House with what you told BCIT three or four months ago?

HON. S. HAGEN: The letter I wrote to BCIT at least five months ago, I believe it was, indicated to the chairman of the board and the president of BCIT that they would be brought under the new and revised college funding formula within a period of 16 months. We have already started on that process so that by the time the 16 months is here, they will be under that college funding formula.

STRATHCONA PARK HEARINGS

MS. EDWARDS: A question to the Minister of Environment and Parks. Could you confirm that the changed terms of reference for the ministerial review on Strathcona Park indicate that the findings could be used to make decisions related to other parks in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MS. EDWARDS: That being the case, Mr. Minister, could you tell us if you have decided to expand the hearings beyond the area immediately on Vancouver Island - in other words, expand the hearings throughout British Columbia so that everyone interested in what could happen to our wilderness parks will have an opportunity to speak to that inquiry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question is: have I decided on further inquiries or public reviews. The answer is no, I have not decided on that answer yet.

MS. EDWARDS. The question was not whether you had decided on further inquiries. The question was whether you had decided to expand the venue of the hearings to the rest of

[ Page 3860 ]

the province so that people who could be affected would have the opportunity to make submissions to the review.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Have I arrived at that decision? The answer is no.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING
(continued)

Vote 61: minister's office, $224, 319 — approved.

On vote 62: ministry operations, $1,387,596,502.

MR. BARNES: Actually, I don't need to delay very long. I just wanted to get a clarification for the record with respect to a question I asked the minister yesterday on the numbers of clients who are currently residing in the hotels that are sort of doubling as residential facilities. I understand he doesn't have that number. Could the minister indicate whether that number is available, or could it be made available?

The reason for the question is that, as the committee realizes, hotels in the downtown east side are providing a vital service to those who can't afford to live in other facilities. As a result, there are no regulations controlling those facilities with respect to residential tenancy law. They're not run on the basis of a contract between the tenant and the landlord. There's no protection for them. The increases in shelter allowances that normally become available to them are just passed through to the owners.

This is something we'd like to have remedied, but the minister doesn't know the numbers involved. We are suspicious that what is happening is that where they make security deposits, those security deposits are lost because the tenants are normally not able to recover them, having no legal means to do so. We think there is a rip-off taking place there, but we don't have numbers. It could be anywhere up to half a million or a million dollars.

The other final question that I would like the minister to address is: how many people on social assistance are currently of no fixed address? Could he give us the number of people who are receiving benefits and are of no fixed address? Those are the only two questions I'd like to pose.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I appreciate the member's question. He asked it yesterday, and I answered then the same as now. I don't know how many of our clients are in the hotels that he speaks of. I don't know if those numbers are available, but we're going to try to find them. If we do have that kind of statistic, I'll make it available to you. We'll go back and take a look.

The other one is about exactly how many are of no fixed address. Just let me reiterate that we're trying to address that problem by the two contracts that I spoke of yesterday to have DERA and the St. James people administer their money for them to get them some permanency and to be paying rent and establishing a bank account. We've got a rough idea of how many are of no fixed address. I don't know if I can give you that exact number either, but we'll do a run on the GAIN numbers in the computer and see if we can come up with it. I don't have it at my fingertips. On both of those numbers, we realize the seriousness of the problem and agree with a lot of the comments you've made, as I said yesterday. If those numbers are available, I'll get them to you.

Vote 62 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby North asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. JONES: It's come to my attention that there are some students from Marian high in Burnaby in the House today, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Vote 63: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

On vote 64: Thompson-Okanagan development region, $649,635.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to take the opportunity at this point to take some time to ask the minister some questions and to make some statements about the minister of state system, and his particular minister of state system. It's the first opportunity we've had on this side of the House to debate this issue. As we all know, the history of this is very controversial, and it has stirred a lot of people's concerns in terms of process and accountability. We've never had the legislation for it. We had special warrants of $8 million, and only a few weeks ago did we finally get the legalizing of those special warrants through interim supply. Now, finally, we have a budget item, a vote, before this Legislature, so we can debate it. We're certainly going to take the opportunity to ask a few questions and get some details of that particular vote.

In our estimation the minister of state system is politically corrupt. It's one that we don't accept. We will promise to the people of the province of British Columbia that when we are elected to government it will be the first thing that will go. It's gone; it will be history. It has nothing to do with parliamentary democracy. It has nothing to do with how we've run this province since Confederation. It is, as some commentators have said, a political con game, and Mr. Chairman, people have seen through it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's appropriate; keep it all here in your little town.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, they continue to attack my community. They attack the capital; they attack the member from Oak Bay and his community; they attack the member from Saanich and their communities. They continue to attack them under this crazy program of decentralization. We won't stand for it. This is the capital of the province of British Columbia, and we're proud of it. I certainly would like to see the member from Oak Bay talk about his community, what is happening to it and the devastation of their programs and policies in this community. Attack Oak Bay! Attack Victoria! Attack Saanich! Go ahead, Mr. Member, do it!

[ Page 3861 ]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the first question. I would like to ask the minister, the governor for the Thompson-Okanagan, how much of his first million dollars he has spent.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I guess it's to be expected that some of these members would insist that every decision made for every region of the province be made right here on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It stands to reason that they would resent any decisions for the Thompson-Okanagan being made by the people of the Thompson-Okanagan. I'll be sure to convey your sentiments to them, Mr. Member, that you wish people here to make all the decisions regarding the future of the interior of this province.

MR. CASHORE: What about the regional district?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The regional district, the cities, the municipalities and the people of the region will all be involved in any decisions made regarding region 3 or any of the other eight regions of this province. The elected people will be involved. We want them to have a say as to what the future of their region will look like. The people living in those regions should be able to say what their municipality or region should look like going into the twenty-first century. The decisions shouldn't all be made right here in Victoria, Mr. Member.

I take offence at the idea that it's politically corrupt or a con game, and I'll convey those remarks to the people of the city councils of Kelowna, Penticton, Vernon and Kamloops, that you think that they're corrupt and that it's a political con game.

You seem to run and cry, "The sky is falling," every time we try to move a decision out of Victoria; that's what we heard a few months ago. I think Victoria is doing very well. In fact, I doubt very much if it has lost a single job over this, and the vacancy rate that we talked about yesterday proves that Victoria is doing very well. I hope it continues to do very well, and I think it will. But I'll tell you something, Mr. Member: I'm very concerned that Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Revelstoke and Merritt do very well also, and I want those people to have a direct say in what happens in their region. I think that's only fair.

As far as giving the member an exact amount of what I have spent of my ministry of state budget to date, I can't give him that number off the top of my head — nor can anyone else, right to the exact dollar. But the number's available, and I will get it for you in due course, Mr. Member

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE: You've had that special warrant for six months, and you can't tell this Legislature how much you've spent of the first million dollars — a special warrant that broke the rules of this Legislature?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The special warrant was debated during the supply bill. Ample opportunity was given....

AN HON. MEMBER: You ruled it out of order, didn't you?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes. Just a moment. If you'll pay attention to the rules or have someone explain them to you, you'll understand what I'm getting at.

The special warrant was debated in the supply bill, which was discussed on Friday, March 25, at some length. Therefore the member is attempting to discuss business which the House has already discussed. We are currently on vote 64, which discusses the minister's 1988-89 budget as a minister of state, and that debate would be appropriate, but recanvassing the debate of March 25 is out of order.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order. I thought, Mr. Chairman, that you'd perhaps like a little assistance from this side of the House before you come to your final and brilliant decision, as you usually do.

I really think that the government House Leader tends to protest too much. It was not debate of the special warrant but accounting by the minister who's here to answer questions about his responsibilities of how much of that special warrant had been spent. That's all he's asking, not the efficacy. The nature of the special warrant wasn't up for debate. If that is out of order, certainly that diatribe we just heard from the minister about who and where decisions are being made was equally out of order. I think that if we're going to play that game, we should play by the rules or else have the kind of open and friendly dialogue that we usually enjoy in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we starting a debate here, gentlemen? The government House Leader.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague opposite seems to be confused.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, no. He's normally always right. I can't understand why he's so confused about this one. We have had the discussion of the special warrant. That took place between about 11:00 and 1 o'clock on Friday, March 25. Therefore any debate about the special warrant, which the second member for Victoria clearly referred to, would be out of order. Debate on the $649,000 contained in vote 64 is clearly in order, and I have no argument with that. It's only reference to the special warrant that I find out of order, and so must this assembly.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I read here: "Vote description. This vote provides for the office of the minister of state and the administration of the Thompson-Okanagan development region." That's to do with that minister in his capacity as minister of state, and he is spending taxpayers' money. Most of it, I understand, he hasn't even spent yet, in terms of the first allocation. It is quite appropriate for me to ask exactly what he's doing with his dollars, and I ask again, through you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member will resume his seat. The Chair appreciates the deep knowledge of the two hon. House Leaders on this matter, and I would say that they are both right. Certainly the government House Leader is absolutely correct in what he says about debating those items such as this which were dealt with previously. But if we're dealing with an expenditure out of that particular money and if.... There is always a certain leeway involved in any Committee of Supply with respect to expenditures, but I think that we can

[ Page 3862 ]

come to a compromise here, whereby the second member for Victoria can solicit the information he requires, providing that he doesn't stray into that grey area which we are forbidden by the rules to discuss, and that is the debate which occurred....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right then. Let's let the second member for Victoria continue with his questioning of the minister on vote 64.

MR. BLENCOE: I think that it is absolutely critical that the people of the province of British Columbia be allowed insight into this whole minister of state system. It has created great concern across the province. The minister does his attack on us for centralizing, but I ask the minister, when he talks about wanting to do things for his region: whatever happened to local government? Whatever happened to regional government? Whatever happened to their ability to make decisions and make recommendations to you? Whatever happened to that? Do you have to go out there — from the Poole room over here, under the control of the inner sanctum of the Premier of the province of British Columbia — and reinvent the wheel?

Why do you need, for instance, in your region at least 25 more committees? And the poor mayors and aldermen that you seem to want on your committees — already trying to do things for their community — now have to spend hours and hours on your 25 committees, in which nobody knows how they're going to make a final decision. Nobody knows where the end product is; nobody knows what decision will be made in the end; nobody knows how the decision is going to be made. Why do you need all those committees? I understand, from my staff talking to some of your people today, that it could be more than 25 committees.

So what happened to local government? What happened to the respect for your mayors and aldermen who have the ability to do economic development and make recommendations to this province and to this Legislature? Whatever happened to that autonomy that we've accepted in this country and this province since Confederation?

I ask questions, Mr. Chairman, about what happened to the first million dollars, and I immediately get a great defence from the House Leader on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's a million?

MR. BLENCOE: What's a million dollars? Sure, we've heard that from this side. What's two million dollars when you've got a political agenda? What's another $649,000 for 25 committees that are supposed to report to some super committee down the road?

This whole system of these governors of the united states of British Columbia is becoming a joke. It's one joke. It's the Premier's fantasy in the Poole room, saying: "When I was here before, my colleagues were gutless. I introduced the Land Use Act." Do we all remember the Land Use Act, Mr. Chairman? We remember it: 50 ways that that Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Premier of today, could overturn local government decisions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member was doing particularly well up to the last 45 seconds. Now he's become completely irrelevant. Perhaps he could come back to vote 64.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm giving the background to my perception, and the perception of my distinguished colleagues on this side, of why we have a minister of state system. I hope it is reasonable, within these four walls, within parliament, for the opposition to give their perception of the Socreds' perception — their perception of reality. It's fair, don't you think? And, Mr. Chairman, the only conclusion we can come to is that this government has decided that there's a bunch of dollars lying around: let's set up 25 committees at least in this region and bring.... all appointed, not elected; another level of bureaucracy; and we'll control the agenda of local government. That's what it's all about, Mr. Chairman.

You know, Oksana Exell, a spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, hit the nail right on the head. She said her members are confused about whom they should approach if they need government help; there are too many people involved to accomplish anything. She said: "If you assemble that number of people in a room, you're not going to come up with objectives. If you ask a committee to design a horse, you end up with a camel. With 350 people you couldn't even get a camel."

Mr. Chairman, it's time to recognize that we don't have a decentralization under this minister of state. It has nothing to do with decentralization. It's centralization into the Premier's office — into the Poole room. That's where it's going.

The Premier left after the Land Use Act. He was angry, because he wanted to control local government. Now he's concocted this great idea with all this myriad of committees and big meetings. But no one knows where the decisionmaking really lies.

Let's take a look at the minister's area. What have we got here? As I've already said, about 25 committees feeding into the overall planning process.

His area, Mr. Chairman, is organized like this. On December 15, 1987, they held a large meeting, a kind of rally, with approximately 150 people attending. All of those people dutifully signed in, giving their names and addresses for further contact. Since then the parliamentary secretary and regional development liaison officer have convened about 18 smaller meetings in various parts of the area, drawing names for attendance at those meetings from the original 150. And there have been industry-oriented meetings around the area which have been more task-oriented and project-specific.

But then we get to phase 2 of all these 25 little committees and all these people that get together — I don't know what for; I suppose to talk about the Socred political agenda. For phase 2 of the process, they will convene service meetings, whatever that is...

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Why don't you attend and find out?

MR. BLENCOE: We don't recognize a politically corrupt system, Madam Minister.

...which will deal with long-term goals and planning in the service area. At present the minister's staff is gathering names of people to participate in those meetings. So we've had I don't how many committee meetings. They're getting more names from more committee meetings, and during all

[ Page 3863 ]

of this process the minister's staff are gathering together profiles on economic development strategies for municipalities around the area, municipalities that for some years have been saying: "We've done those plans; all we need is either the policies or the legislative changes to get on with the job."

By this crazy united states of British Columbia system, you have set back economic development in this province ten or 15 years, by this massive bureaucracy that's costing the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars and slowing down the development process.

But I go on phase 3, I guess, Mr. Chairman. They plan to hold one or two larger formal meetings a year during which, presumably, the input of all these smaller groups would be considered, although they are unable to explain exactly what would happen. My staff asked whoever they can track down in this region: "What's going to happen?" "Oh, we're not quite sure." The next of these large meetings — that's the large after the large after the small after the large — is planned for the fall of 1988. That's the large after the large after the small after the large and 25 more committees.

This is all about economic development, of course. This is all about streamlining the process. This is all about creating jobs in this.... Oh boy, they sure need jobs in your region. You sure haven't done much for them in the last few years. It's all about jobs. We've got committee, the large meeting, the small meeting, phase 2 and phase 3. But they're going to meet in the fall of 1988, I think — from what we could get from your staff.

Interestingly, when we asked what goals they hoped to achieve by the time they emerged from the first meeting — but I'm not sure which meeting that really is, because they said we may be having some other meetings later on in the fall — we were told they hoped to come out of it with a business plan for the area. Ah, a business plan — terrific. Local councils have been doing business plans before any of us were born in this Legislature. They're in the business of business plans; the regions are in the business of business plans; mayors and aldermen are in the business of business plans.

Of course, we have this marvelous Premier in the Poole room saying: "Well, we've got to have a bunch more committees in all the regions" — at least 25, at the last count in this minister's region, to do what local councils have been doing for 100 years. But let me go on. I'll have to sit down, I know, and someone will let me stand up again.

[3:00]

MR. ROSE: I think that this is an excellent debate and an excellent exercise in democracy. I'm really pleased that a group of grade 7 school students are here from Grant Park in my riding of Coquitlam, and I hope they enjoy their visit to this beautiful building to see democracy in action. I would appreciate it if everyone here could make them welcome. Would you consider that an intervening speaker, Mr. Chairman?

MR. BLENCOE: I was talking about this business plan because we were told that after the committee of 25 committees meets — then they have a larger meeting and then a larger meeting and then back to the smaller committees — they'll be coming up with a business plan. There have been many business plans in this minister's area for a long time, but we have to reinvent the wheel, because there is another objective in the province of British Columbia today.

Let's be honest about it. We all know what it's about — it's Social Credit political objectives. It's to control local government, take over their traditional role and set their business plan for them. Come election time, of course, if you played ball, and you've been a good boy or a good girl or whatever it is — girls, the Socreds talk about — then you'll get the largesse just before the election. We know how it all works.

Let me get back to this business plan. Staff were asking this minister's staff about the business plan. This business plan was to be developed by all these committees getting together — 25 of them — and then the bigger committees getting together. They were going to develop the business plan. In the next sentence we were told that the plan was being drafted now. Oh, we think, they're supposed to get together in consultation with all these committees to put a plan together. Then we're told that the business plan is being drafted,

I don't want to be suspicious of this minister and this government's objectives, but it seems to me that if the business plan is being drafted, I wonder if they already have the objectives set for the business plan. It's just a little question I ask the minister, because we're told that after these great 25 committees and one meeting after another meeting and the fall of 1988 and whatever, then we'll have a business plan. Then we're told: "We're drafting it right now." I guess they feel that it's possible to draft it before the meeting. I guess that's carrying on the Socred tradition of doing things behind closed doors. I guess so; that's the way it's done. We only ask the questions, and we get the answers.

The next stuff is about the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards). I'll ask that when we get to her. Yours is just as bad, Madam Member, but you may want to clean it up before we get there.

Now I want to talk a little bit about all these committees and all this bureaucracy, which is going to stifle economic development, because we've got local councils which have been doing it for years. These are all about supposedly creating economic initiatives and jobs. The only jobs being created are in this bureaucracy. Of course, we all know those jobs are not through the Public Service Commission, don't we? Nothing goes through the Public Service Commission that might be delicate or in the interests of the political agenda of the current government.

Let me talk about this so-called seed money — this $16 million that the minister of state now.... Not only does he have $649,000 extra for whatever he wants to use above the $1 million that he got some months ago; he now has at his disposable up to $2 million out of the $16 million for this regional seed capital program. And remember what I said about the spokesperson for independent business: they don't understand all this, they are confused, and I don't blame them. But let's go through how this is going to work, because this is supposed to cut red tape, make the system flow freely and get jobs into the area.

The order-in-council that set this up does not change the necessity for receiving the approval of — guess which minister?

MRS. BOONE: Which?

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Economic Development. Now the Minister of Economic Development still has her hands on this little $16 million fund, but the minister of

[ Page 3864 ]

state has been put in the regions to take a look at how this $16 million is to be used through his 25 committees and big meetings and little meetings. You get all these people coming forward, saying: "I want a loan." All that is changed is the introduction of a requirement that the minister of state must also have approved the guarantee, adding, as I've said, another layer of bureaucracy. Nothing to do with democracy at all.

This is how the process works. First, the applicant applies directly to the minister of state. Hmmmm, nice. I think everyone is starting to realize how this is going to work. Second, the application is referred to a regional small business development board composed of the minister of state, his parliamentary secretary and volunteers from the region. The Minister of Advanced Education looks quizzical, but of course he, like everybody else, isn't sure how this.... We just have to glean this information from where we can, because no one is really quite sure. This seems to be today's report on how you're going to work the system. Third, the application, if approved, goes to two different financial institutions for proposals on the level of loan that they're willing to give and the guarantee level they would require from the province. Boy, this is really speeding up the process for these small entrepreneurs. Fourth, the minister of state and the Minister of Economic Development will consult to see which of the resulting financial proposals they are willing to accept.

I know we want to create jobs, I know we supposedly want to try to streamline, but you tell me how this process is going to streamline in the regions. It's cumbersome, it's complex, it's confusing; and what it's going to do is slow down economic development in the province. Even the experts in small business are saying so. They don't know who to go to. What we've got is a political machine set up in the regions to pull the political strings for Social Credit. It's the only conclusion we can come to. You've got systems in place. You've got local government. Hopefully this government still believes in cabinet government and the Minister of Economic Development.

So what do we have? We have committees to reinvent the wheel. They say they're going to evaluate all the resources and the inventory. That's all done. It's all there. Why do you need to do that all again — unless you have another objective. I think the spokesperson for independent business was quite correct: you're going to end up with a camel. We might not even get a camel, because we have so many people, committees. A further update from trying to talk to this minister's staff about how it's all going to work. The staff note to me.... As usual, it's a mistake to delve too deeply into these matters, because you hit the confusion barrier very quickly.

Trying to find out how this system is going to work is unbelievable. In two or three days we've got two or three opinions, a number of committees that go up and down every day. The people of British Columbia must wonder what's going on with this government. You want to streamline, and you create 25 more committees? You want to get decisions made? You can streamline today and go through local government. They are elected; they dutifully represent the people in the regions. That's who you go to. That's who you work for, not these little backroom committees that you've appointed all over the province with the first million dollars in your back pocket, another $649,000 in the other pocket, and in your top pocket up to $2 million in this new seed capital money, which by the way we have no terms of reference for, no criteria laid out for. I haven't seen a thing: no selection process, nothing laid out for the people of British Columbia.

We don't know who's coming in which door - front door or back door. We haven't got a clue. The people of the province of British Columbia would like to know that if you go in the front door there isn't somebody coming through the back door who says: "Hey, I've got a better idea, buddy." That's how it works in Social Credit British Columbia, I presume, Mr. Chairman. Well, you know, people are tired of that. They want honesty; they want integrity. They want upfront government that's going to say it the way it is, not some trumped-up con game, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't represent local government. It has nothing to do with local government at all.

Let me take a look at this latest memo, from talking to the minister's staff. A Ministry of Economic Development representative gave me the following news — none of which is official, but all of which is the truth as he understands it for the moment. The program is not firm yet. Two days ago the ministry gave a brief rundown to the Canadian Bankers' Association regarding the criteria for examining possible loans, but the ministry is now developing guidelines: how the regional boards which will examine these loans will work and the pecking order for applications as they are submitted.

The composition of these boards, we're told, is very uncertain. We're told that maybe the ministry's representative will be on that board but may not have a vote. Local business people? Municipal people? Really, we're not quite sure who's going to sit on it. But I tell you, you've got a stack of money for something you're not sure about. You've had a million dollars in your back pocket for six months, and you're still not sure about it. We know we've got a bunch of committees running around, Mr. Chairman. How much more can the people of British Columbia take, in terms of a system that no one really recognizes?

Mr. Chairman, there are so many questions to answer, so many things the people want to know. What are your salaries? What's your hiring process? How many employees have you got? How did you, for instance, come to the conclusion that Mr. Dan Bulford would work for you? No one knows. We've had no information.

How many real committees are we going to have in this burgeoning bureaucracy that's costing the province of British Columbia millions and millions of dollars? What's the process for accepting economic ideas? What are the travel costs for people in your development groups? Why are there no FTE levels noted for these votes, as it is noted for all other ministry votes? Are they included in your regular ministry, or are they not? What are the criteria for loan selection? What are the checks and balances in the system? We've got absolutely nothing. And you continue this offence to democracy in the province of British Columbia once again. We want to know why, for instance, there are differences in how much each region gets.

Mr. Chairman, all we're saying is that on behalf of the people of the province we're starting to expose this system. We will continue to get information; we will continue to get to the bottom of it; and we will continue to respect local government. The minister had better start coming clean, along with his colleagues, because this system continues to be offensive. It has nothing to do with economic development; it's got everything to do with a political agenda out of the Poole room prior to an election.

[ Page 3865 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I sincerely wish that the government House Leader had stayed, because he was the one who referred to "diatribe" — I'm sorry, the opposition House Leader. I stand corrected.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: And will be for a long time.

I wish the opposition House Leader had stayed, because he referred to "diatribe" coming from this side of the House. I sincerely wish he had heard that which we have just heard from the Neanderthals on the other side of the House. He talks about reinventing the wheel, I tell you, I've never in my life seen a group less receptive to change. They would still be using a stone wheel with a wooden axle, Mr. Chairman, if we left it up to them. We talk about reinventing the wheel; what we're trying to do is maybe improve the wheel a bit, make it turn a little freer and easier.

The only other thing I would add is that I think Pee-Wee Herman had better be looking to his job after a performance like that from the second member for Victoria. I think Pee-Wee Herman is in trouble. All he needs is a bicycle and a checkered jacket and I think Pee-Wee's job is in jeopardy.

The member goes along ridiculing that which he cannot comprehend, which is typical. If you don't comprehend something, can't grasp an idea or don't want to ever change anything, then you ridicule it. We just saw a perfect example of someone ridiculing someone who's trying to start a new idea.

[3:15]

As I said before, we are endeavouring to make decisions in the region by people who live in the regions. The people I talk to in my region are very pleased with the way they see the regionalization program taking place. If the member doubts that, he should go up and ask a few of the people in the area who have been involved so far, who see it as a bold, new step and a new concept, maybe, to improve the employment picture in areas such as mine. The employment levels in my area are not as high as they should be. The unemployment figures are too high, there is no question about that, and they have been for several years.

I suppose we shouldn't change and try to adopt new ideas to see if we can make it work a little better, to see if we ca help the businessman or woman, or person if you like, out there who is struggling and may need just a little bit of financial assistance that will be provided by the regional seed capital program. Maybe we shouldn't try that, Mr. Member. We should just say: "No, your business is failing, go down the tube; we don't think you've got a chance."

He ridicules a chart that we have put in place to make this come about as quickly as possible. We have put a turnaround time of a maximum of one week on applications for loan guarantees under the regional seed capital program. We think we'll be able to meet that turnaround time, and the checks and balances are there.

On the one hand, he ridicules the fact that we've got some checks and balances in the chart, and on the other hand says that there are no checks and balances in the whole system. You can't have it both ways. Either there were checks and balances, as you went through the chart and you saw what they were, or there weren't any. Try to decide which side of the fence you're on. There either are some checks and balances or there aren't. They are there, and they will work very quickly.

If the second member for Victoria doesn't believe that it can work, then I suggest he contact some of the people in Vernon, Kelowna and Kamloops where the system has worked. If you want some names, Mr. Member, I'll gladly furnish you with some names where we have saved or created some new employment in the area. I will give you names of businesses, Mr. Member — through you, Mr. Chairman — where we have been successful. You go and talk to those people and then come back and tell me that the system doesn't work.

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you filibustering this? Because if you are, you're going to miss your plane.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm not in any fear of missing any plane to where I'm going, Mr. Member.

The member started out by asking: "How much have you spent?" I'm going to tell him how much I've spent, but first of all we are debating vote 64, which is right in front of the member should he choose to look in the supplement to the estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, 1989. If he chooses to look in the book, vote 64 is broken down into exactly what we're going to spend.

The member asks what we have spent so far. He's referring to the 1987-88 budget. As I said to him a few minutes ago, I didn't have the number right at my fingertips, but in deference to that member and wanting to keep him as fully informed as I can — and that is difficult — I have obtained a number for him. This might make him feel warm and cuddly all over. He might note that to date we have spent a maximum of $110,000. We don't intend to spend money foolishly. Every dollar will be well spent.

He talks about 25 committees. I don't know where he got that figure. I think he invented it, like he invented most of the speech we just heard. It was a figment of his imagination — and he's got a vivid imagination. I don't know where he got 25 committees. I don't know where he got the figure of a roomful of 350 people.

MR. BLENCOE: It's 28 now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know where he got the number 28. These numbers just come to him in a flash of light, I think. Maybe, like other political leaders in this country, he talks to his dog or something and he gets numbers of 25, 350, 240, 752, I don't know. Come up with another number, Mr. Member. I think if we wait here long enough he'll come up with a thousand numbers for us. But they're all figments of his imagination — a vivid imagination. They're just figments of that member's imagination, so he goes on ridiculing that which he cannot understand. He doesn't even try to understand it. He can't comprehend that some things might change from time to time in this society. Once in a while, something may change.

MR. BLENCOE: They'll change, all right.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, all they can do is sit over there and salivate over the possibility of sitting on this side of the House. I can tell you, Mr. Member, it ain't going to happen. You're not going to be over here. You've been sitting over there since '75, some of you; you're going to stay over there until '95 — or 2005.

I can tell you, Mr. Member, that the people in my region are very much interested in what their region is going to look

[ Page 3866 ]

like five, ten or 15 years from now. What we want them to do, Mr. Member, is to have a say in what their region of this wonderful province will look like, and we fully intend to let them have every say possible. If we have to make changes as our society changes, Mr. Member, we are not afraid to face the new century and to change to adapt to face the new century. Okay?

Mr. Chairman, I think the member had a couple more questions in there, but they were so mixed in with the mumbo-jumbo that I can't remember what they were; nor, do I think, can he. But if he does wish to restate any questions that I failed to answer, or if he has failed to grasp the concept of change and regionalization, I would be happy to go on at greater length, if that is his desire.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the member should have had his trumpet for that purple prose he was pushing a couple of minutes ago and all that jazz that we just got. That's putting down the good term "jazz."

I'd like to deal with some specifics in that region, Mr. Minister. I'd like to know whether you've rethought the questions of the Coquihalla Highway and the negative impact it will have on the southerly part of that region, the area of Boundary-Similkameen. I'd like you to advise the House what thought you've given to the upgrading of the Hope-Princeton highway, where traffic will be reduced by one-third as a result of the extension of the Coquihalla. I wonder if the minister can tell this House how much of the Coquihalla traffic from the coast will go north versus the amount that will go south. Can you tell me, Mr. Minister? Do you know what the traffic volume figures are for vehicles entering the Okanagan — how many of them, when they reach Peachland, will be heading north and how many will be heading south?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have seen the numbers on the traffic; we had a presentation from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I don't have those numbers with me in the House, because they will more properly be addressed, I think, under the minister's estimates. I'm sure he will have those numbers. I've seen the numbers; I just don't happen to have them.

You should also note that new traffic will be created down through the area you just mentioned because of changes in transportation and in the economy in the whole interior. Last Friday I attended an announcement in Kamloops of two major firms who are opening a distribution centre in Kamloops — Clark Reefer and Dolphin Distribution — for their traffic in western Canada and the United States. They're doing that, Mr. Member, because of the Coquihalla Highway, specifically because of phase 3, because it will be going down through Merritt and Boundary-Similkameen and into the United States,

So that's only one example, a concrete example, of firms locating in Kamloops. This is not a theory, Mr. Member; this is a fact. They are moving their major distribution centre to Kamloops because of the Coquihalla Highway. The specific numbers will be provided to you, I'm sure, by the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) under his estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: What more proof do we need that this is a sham? You're the new regional boss, the new regional mayor, for the Thompson and the Okanagan. We ask you about Boundary-Similkameen, and we get an answer about

Kamloops. Hey! You know where you get your votes, but the poor member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer) knows where he ain't going to get his votes — there's the problem. You've set your priorities, and they're Kamloops — home turf. That's what you said, because you didn't have an answer. You don't know the numbers.

Mr. Minister, the numbers are disastrous for Boundary Similkameen. You don't know that the traffic on the Hope Princeton will be reduced by one-third. Those are official projections. Now I'm going to tell you what the numbers are. If you were concerned about Penticton and Highway 3 and the riding of Boundary-Similkameen, you'd know those numbers. They'd be indelible, because they represent economic disaster for the tourist industry of Boundary Similkameen.

The numbers are as follows, Mr. Minister: 4,000 vehicles will enter from the coast on the Coquihalla Highway; 3,400 of them will go north, and 600 will go south. How do you like — if you'll forgive the pun — those apples? That means a disaster in Boundary-Similkameen in terms of tourism. If I owned a motel or a hotel in Penticton, I'd be scared right down to my boots in terms of being able to pay the mortgage.

That's the breakdown: 3,400 and 600. Now the question is: have you looked at the question of grappling with that and trying to deal with it? If you had, you'd be working on the Hope-Princeton highway. You'd see that the Highways ministry budget was expanded tremendously to work on Highway 3. And you would have been fighting and would have established a turn-off route to Summerland well beyond the Peachland turn-off, so that there would have been a route that, I believe, is 20 kilometres shorter to Penticton.

Boundary-Similkameen is a riding that has consistently been taken for granted by this government — the little-sister riding of South Okanagan. We've almost always had a Premier from Kelowna. They've always twisted the development process so that Kelowna benefits and that there's a price to be paid in Penticton and in the southerly part of the valley. That continues to this day, Mr. Minister.

How do you like that breakdown: 3,400 to 600? Doesn't that tell you volumes about the decision-making that has gone on to date? Can you assure this House right now that it will not be a 50 kilometre peel-off for Penticton and a 100 kilometre peel-off for Kelowna, because that's the design? Can you give the House that assurance? Can you give the House assurance that there will be that other route through Summerland established at the same time, so that Penticton will be saved from total disaster? Can you give assurance that Highway 3 will be rebuilt? No, you can't.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure, off in sub-subcommittee. You are based in Victoria. Don't you give this line to us about this being a decentralized system. And if you're worried about the time, Mr. Minister, if you're going to give the kind of tirade that we just got from you, you can forget about any leaving this House by 4 o'clock or quarter to four. I'd appreciate answers in terms of the Coquihalla, and then we'll deal with other regional issues, and we'll just see how well informed you are.

[3:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll be happy to deal with that subject or anything else that you want to talk about in my

[ Page 3867 ]

region, and please don't be concerned about me getting out of here. I'll stay here until midnight if that's what you desire. I can catch airplanes at any time, Mr. Member, and this is far more important than my leaving this House to catch some plane, so please don't worry about me.

When you start talking figures — traffic volumes, tourism figures — in this House to the people of British Columbia, then you'd better talk all the figures. You'd better talk traffic coming over the Rogers Pass and up from the United States too. Don't just throw in the one figure that suits your purpose — just talk about the negatives. You talk about all the figures and the increase in traffic from the United States.

Yes, we know, and the people of Penticton do, that the Coquihalla has a potential to do them some immediate harm. There is no question about that. The member seems to take great joy in that statement. They take great joy in the fact that some community might be hurt by some highway that's built. I want the record to note that when we talked about Penticton maybe being done some harm, the opposition was jubilant, and they thumped their desks. I want the record to note that that's the way they feel over there.

Yes, we know too that if that party had been government for the last ten years, the Coquihalla Highway never would have been built. They've been on the record as being against it from day one; they would never have built it. Some community somewhere might have been hurt, so they would never have built it. There are many other things in this province that they wouldn't have built either, Mr. Chairman, and I could go on and list them — what the province would have looked like had that party been in government for the last ten years. They wouldn't build anything. Their second member for Victoria just admitted a few minutes ago that they don't want to change anything. They want to leave the old wheel as it is; let's not improve it, let's not change anything.

The member over there is already priming his party for a by-election in Penticton. He's trying to get the people of Penticton upset with the statements he makes in this House so that he can go up there and campaign in a by-election in Penticton. The doom-and-gloomers. Everything is going to go wrong if you do this, if you build that. It's always doom and gloom. Never look on the positive side — that the volume of traffic might increase overall and everyone's traffic might increase. It never crosses his mind that the volume of traffic may go up over the next few years; that good highways in this province like the Coquihalla might attract more visitors and more industrial traffic and commercial traffic to the province, and everybody's share is going to increase. That never crosses their minds.

Mr. Chairman, we are working very closely with OSTA in the southern Okanagan to do everything we can to enhance their position vis-à-vis the tourism that the member spoke about. We are working very closely with them to make sure that the plans they have for their area come to fruition and that they realize all the possible benefits from the increased traffic that they're going to get due to the success of our tourism marketing, the spinoffs from Expo, plus the commercial traffic that is going to flow north and south through this province because of the Coquihalla Highway.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister did not answer the question. We would like an answer to the question. The minister has admitted now that Penticton will indeed be hurt; that the southern part of that valley — Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Grand Forks, Keremeos — all of those areas tied to Highway 3, will be hurt. He's right.

Let's remember back to the opening of the Hope-Princeton highway. With the opening of the highway, the entrance to the Okanagan was that southern area of the valley. It was Osoyoos and it was Penticton, and there was a dramatic impact upon Penticton as a result of the building of that highway. Now, 20-odd years later, the same thing is happening again to that valley, but the new gateway to the Okanagan will be Kelowna, not Penticton. It requires all the skill in the world to save the economy over the next several years of the Penticton-Boundary-Similkameen region. It requires great skill. It is clear that that skill is not being displayed.

I ask the minister: have you convinced your colleague to change his present plans? And don't say that this is a specific question for the Minister of Highways, because that flies in the face of all the rhetoric you just dumped. If you're serious about being the manager of the Thompson-Okanagan region, you'll be on top of this; you'd able to say what those numbers were, but you couldn't. You would have been able to say: "Yes, we're changing the peel-off so that it isn't a 50 km peel-off for Penticton and a 100 km peel-off for Kelowna; and yes, we will spend the money to route the road through Summerland so that there will be a shorter route to the southern part of that valley; and yes, we will be upgrading the Hope-Princeton highway." Because if that isn't done at least in tandem with the extension of the Coquihalla, their tourist industry will be bludgeoned, Mr. Minister.

So I ask: do you have that in hand, and will we be assured that those peel-offs will change and that there will be a new route to Penticton?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we do have it in hand. We are in continuing discussion with the people there. The specific questions about peel-offs and speed limits I would suggest you leave to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, the same as the upgrading of the Hope-Princeton. That's a matter for the Highways minister to address.

But I do want to clarify one thing. The member is totally wrong, Mr. Chairman, when he says that the entire Boundary-Similkameen will suffer from this. The gateway to the Okanagan from the south will still be Osoyoos, and they will come up through Oliver, through Penticton, as they always have done. I made reference to Penticton because of the fact that the turn-off now for traffic coming from the north will be at Peachland rather than down at Kaleden corner. That is the traffic that Penticton may — and I say may — possibly miss. They will miss some of it, but it's not going to be a disaster, as the member who stands over there and preaches doom and gloom says. There may be some traffic that cuts off at Peachland — undoubtedly there will be — that before would have gone down to the Kaleden corner and therefore through Penticton. But that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the traffic is going to bypass Penticton. Penticton is a beautiful community with two lakes and marvelous beaches, and it has tremendous attraction for visitors from all over North America. They are still going to go to Penticton.

As I tried to explain, we are into an aggressive marketing situation with the people of OSTA to make sure that they get their share of any tourist traffic coming to British Columbia. So I didn't want to leave the impression that everything is going to be doom and gloom, as that member would, because we built a new highway. I am convinced, as are others, that the overall traffic will increase tremendously over the next few years and that everyone will benefit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Boy, is that ever thin soup we're getting from you. And I'm pleased to note that Silent Sam,

[ Page 3868 ]

the member for Boundary-Similkameen, is here listening to this interesting debate. There will be 2,200 vehicles less on the Hope-Princeton highway, many of them tourist-oriented people. That's a one-third decline. Do you have any idea, Mr. Minister, what that will mean in lost tourist dollars in the Penticton region?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I am sure that the member opposite is going to come up with some number about how it's going to affect Penticton. I don't happen to agree with him. I do agree that it's going to affect some of the communities on Highway 3, just as phases I and 2 of the Coquihalla have affected communities along the Fraser Canyon. We know that and we've dealt with it; we've addressed it. There was, I believe — I haven't got the numbers on the tip of my tongue — a downturn in the traffic going down the Fraser Canyon, and some people suffered. This government helped them through a rough time through marketing and other initiatives, and the creation of the Gold Rush Trail, and this government is prepared to do the same thing for the people on the Hope-Princeton highway.

I don't necessarily agree with the member that every car that goes from the lower mainland heading east and takes the Coquihalla is going to turn north at Peachland. I think Penticton will still attract a great number of those people because of the natural attributes it has.

All the member wants to talk about is the down side of everything. Yes, we're aware of the down sides. Whenever you build a new piece of road, Mr. Member, there is almost inevitably going to be a down side for some other community. We're aware of that, but we're not going to sit here and dwell on what the down sides of that highway are going to be. Talk for a few minutes about the up sides of that highway. In Kamloops, Merritt, Kelowna, Vernon — and yes, indeed, Penticton — talk about what the up sides of that highway are going to be, the commerce and industry that's going to spring up along that highway because of its being constructed and being the superior road that it is. Go talk to the people who are going to benefit from that highway instead of just dwelling on the doom and gloom of some of those who may be hurt by it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The record once again shows that the minister responsible for the region doesn't know the numbers, doesn't know the implication for tourism in the region he is responsible for. The record now shows that. Let's also remember that this is the former Minister of Tourism, and he doesn't know what the implications are for tourism in the region that he is responsible for.

I'll give you the numbers again, Mr. Minister. The numbers are something like this: the net loss to the southern part of that valley will be 64,000 vehicles carrying 198,000 people over two months. Net loss to the Penticton-Boundary Similkameen region, or part of Boundary-Similkameen region.... If you put a conservative number to those people and make a reasonable assumption about the number of them that are tourists in those, peak summer months, conservatively it looks like a net loss to that riding of something like $8 million in the summertime — in this one sector alone. That may not sound a lot to us from the lower mainland, but for the motel and hotel owners and resort people of that region, it is a disaster. You can very well say that we've got it in hand, but what you're really saying is that you're just holding their hands.

You're carrying on discussions. It's abundantly clear what has to happen. You carry on this long-distance dialogue. The problem is that that region has been taken for granted all too long.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: A by-election speech is a little more valid than the leadership speech we got a few minutes ago. Now that Gracie and Bill are having this problem.... Forgive me. The first member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) are having these problems and you're all lining up. All of you are smelling the wind and saying: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most beautiful of all?" We get these wonderful speeches like we just got from the member for Kamloops, who thinks: "Compared with that guy from Richmond I look like a winner." That's why we got that last speech a few minutes ago.

We'll be hearing more from the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) and from others, and it will be fascinating to watch. There will probably be a second act when those two war-horses bury the hatchet in the next week or so, but it will just be patch-up before the next round. We look forward to it all, just as the back-benchers on the government side do.

[3:45]

So those are the losses just in this sector alone. What kind of work have you done in terms of promoting some kind of new circle tour for tourism in that region? If they are going to go over the rust-bucket road, it will be fascinating. Take the freeway to Kelowna and then take the rust-bucket road back through Keremeos and Penticton and these charming old towns that have been hurt by this new diversion of traffic. Is that the tourism strategy for the valley, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How about Graham Lea's strategy?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, we all remember Mr. Pothole Lea, who was Minister of Highways during that government's term in office, when that member was a member of the government. I don't think they built a mile of new highway in the three years that they were in government. When they were asked about the deplorable state of the highways in British Columbia, just for the record, their Minister of Highways told the Americans: "Stay home. We don't want you up here." We don't have that attitude over here, Mr. Member.

You talk about smelling the wind. I don't know what you've been smelling, but it's something that's illegal or smells awfully funny. I don't know where you get your ideas from. The same place, I guess, as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). They come down to you in a bolt of lightening somehow, and you get these wonderful ideas.

We've just heard the by-election speech again, and how the people of that riding have been deprived for so many years. I really don't think they have. I've known the former member from that riding for a long time, and the present member is one of the hardest-working members we've got in government. He's my parliamentary secretary. He's not only been all over his riding in the last few weeks meeting with people and talking about these very things, he's been all over the entire region on my behalf talking with people. The people of Boundary-Similkameen have been very well represented over the years and will continue to be, and they will be

[ Page 3869 ]

represented by two Social Credit members in the very near future. This fall we'll celebrate the win of the second Social Credit member for Boundary-Similkameen, when we hold our provincial convention in that fine town in October.

Mr. Member, I understand the implications very well, despite what you say. You are correct that I didn't have the highway numbers at my fingertips, and perhaps I should have. I've seen them. We've been through them. We've been through them with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, with the elected people in the area, in Penticton, and with the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association. We understand the implications, and we know the numbers that you are speaking of, the dollars. But you also present every time the worst possible scenario there is: doom and gloom. We don't necessarily think it's going to be that bad.

We will continue to work with the good people of Boundary-Similkameen in the tourism industry and every other industry, to do the best we can to assist them to come through what may be a difficult period over the next little while. They've been through some difficult periods, as a lot of us have. They are no strangers to adversity, but they're not throwing up their hands and saying the sky is falling. They are working with us to make the situation better.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, all of that hand-holding doesn't help them very much. It requires some comprehensive planning, which this administration is simply not capable of. You're the big boosters, so you build the freeway to Kelowna, and that's all you need to know. That's good news. But you don't deal with the fallout; you don't deal with it at all, and that's abundantly clear. You didn't know the numbers at all. You're too busy taking money out of the miserable monthly payments to people on welfare and single mothers to have any knowledge of what's going on in the Okanagan.

What have you done with respect to the Penticton airport, Mr. Minister? What presentations have you personally made to Canadian Airlines International in terms of the negative decisions that have been made? Once again, Kelowna is soaking up all the air traffic. Once again we've got a self-fulfilling prophesy in terms of Penticton and the southerly part of that valley. The air service to Penticton gets worse and worse, and everybody starts going to Kelowna to catch a plane.

The result is negative in terms of employment in Penticton. It becomes a downhill slide. Look at the population figures for Kelowna and the Penticton region over the last 20 years. As a kid I lived in Vernon. All of those towns were the same size when I was a kid. But, boy, has that changed!

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS. No. I'm telling you there's been a rigged game going on. The town of Kelowna is the one that soaks it all up, and the towns that don't grow on the same scale are the other towns at the northern end of the valley and the southern end of the valley. That has been a consistent, conscious policy by a Socred government dominated generally by premiers from Kelowna who take these towns for granted. So I say to you, Mr. Minister, what have you done in terms of being on top of the airport issue in Penticton?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Once again, the member starts rambling from one.... First, there's no comprehensive planning; then he's got to throw in the single mothers issue, which we canvassed. We can do that again, if you'd like to canvass that issue for about the fourth time. Then he goes on to talk about the towns not being the same size now. No, they're not. Prince George isn't the same size it was when you were a kid in Vernon either; neither is Kamloops. They are different sizes. These things happen; towns grow. They grow at different rates. Vernon isn't the size of Kamloops. Vernon isn't the size of Kelowna; neither is Penticton. That doesn't mean that these towns aren't viable and that they won't grow. It also doesn't mean that the people in those areas — since we're talking regionalization — shouldn't have a say in what they want their town to look like, what size they want it to be, and how they want it to grow.

Yes, I'm very cognizant of the air service in Penticton being cut back. It's been cut back in Kamloops as well. But I don't tell the private sector how to run their business. The private sector, including the airlines, respond to need. What I'm endeavouring to do, Mr. Member, is not sit and talk about what's going wrong, but try to correct what's going wrong and make it go right. so that the airlines will increase their service because the demand will be there. Would you have me go and talk to Canadian Airlines International or Air B.C. and tell them to keep their service levels where they were, when the demand is decreasing? Is that what you expect me to do, Mr. Member? What I would rather do is have the economy improve and help the economy to improve, so that the demand for air travel will increase, and they will increase the number of flights from Penticton and from Kamloops as well.

MR. WILLIAMS: As we peel this onion here, it's very clear that this man who has the responsibility for this huge region doesn't understand what infrastructure does to a region. If you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about regional planning, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the reserves have moved in. That's good news.

These things are not random, Mr. Minister. The fact that Kelowna has ballooned in growth in the last 20 years is not a random thing that has come from the heavens. We are talking about man-made phenomena — person-made phenomena; the women don't want to take responsibility for that one. The point is: so much of the activity of central government — Victoria, with its $10 billion budget — impacts communities and how they grow in this province. So more and more government services have been in Kelowna; more and more government spending on highways has focused on Kelowna and less and less on these other towns. As a result, the town of Penticton has slid dramatically in growth relative to Kelowna or at least the region around those two communities. There has been dramatic change.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You don't want any change; you want to remain the same.

MR. WILLIAMS: You've said you won't even interfere with the private sector, Mr. Minister; you won't even talk to them.

I tell you that Penticton is currently suffering a self-fulfilling prophecy because of the focus on Kelowna. Air service has declined because this government spends more

[ Page 3870 ]

and more on Kelowna and the people in the southern part of the valley have to go to Kelowna for that service, and it's a result of the activities of government over time. This riding has been taken for granted by this administration for all too long.

Do you know the implications of that poor service for employment in Penticton? Do you know what it means for construction of the air hangars there? Do you know what it means for fuel and jet sales in Penticton? There won't be jets there any more. Do you know the implications for firefighters and their employment at the airport, Mr. Minister? You nod your head. Will you advise us then what those implications are?

MR. MESSMER: I've sat and listened to this for quite a while, to that person who has five kilometres of road in his constituency and knows so much about roads in the Okanagan, and it's time I got up to tell him about them.

Fine, we have the Coquihalla Highway going through. That is a fact. It's something you don't want to accept, but nevertheless it is a fact. So what's going to happen to the Hope-Princeton highway? There are submissions now before the government for upgrading the Hope-Princeton highway. We strongly believe in the South Okanagan that it is also an alternative to the Coquihalla.

Interjection.

MR. MESSMER: Yes, there are submissions in; those submissions have been there for some time. Yes, and ideas to the government. There are also upgrading plans from the border to Penticton. Further to that, there are plans to complete the road from the point where the Coquihalla enters at Peachland to Summerland. That will complete the four lane traffic.

We, the communities in South Okanagan, differ from Victoria in that we're not looking for handouts; we're looking for an opportunity to help ourselves. Certainly the communities within Boundary-Similkameen are quite willing to do just that. They live there by desire. They chose to....

MR. CLARK: There's not a penny in the budget.

MR. MESSMER: We don't know that yet, but I assure you that there probably is some money in there, because it's in the plan.

Let's go back to what's happening in the Okanagan. A remark was made by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) that we were going around holding meetings. Yes, we have gone around and held meetings. You referred to the 18 meetings and that we do not rely on municipal or regional district people or economic development officers. I'd like to tell the member that those 18 meetings — I was at most of them — were held with those same people whom you said we would not meet with: municipal leaders and economic development officers. They're trying to do something for their community.

[4:00]

I don't know how out of touch you are, but obviously you must be, in that communities under municipal councils — certainly from larger areas — no longer look after the economic development field themselves. It's very strange: they hire people to do that job. So what happens is that we're there, as parliamentary secretaries within the ministry, to help those people to deal with government and government agencies.

MR. BLENCOE: Who's elected to do that?

MR. MESSMER: Who's elected to do that? The representative who's the MLA. We welcome their assistance, and that's exactly where it should go.

So going back to the road situation, the answer is yes, roads are very important, Mr. Chairman, and we are doing something about it in Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let the record show that we finally heard from the silent one member for Boundary Similkameen. His answer is that we have submissions; he is the most submissive member in the House. Then he says those submissions have been there for some time. Thank the Lord for the smallest blessings, Mr. Member.

You say you'll be happy with just a little bit of an improvement in the existing road from Peachland to Summerland. That wasn't good enough for Bill Bennett; he spent a billion dollars to get to his home town fast, and lied about half of it.

MR. SERWA: Nonsense, hon. member. Shame!

MR. WILLIAMS: No nonsense, no shame, hon. member. If you don't think that.... They hired a royal commissioner to look at the Coquihalla mess, and he called it prevarication and deceit. I call that a lie. In this House, again and again, day in, day out, doctoring the books....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you please request the member opposite to confine his remarks to those that are acceptable in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member continue and keep in mind that we are on vote 64.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to proceed again with the airport question in Penticton, Mr. Chairman. It's pretty clear that the member for Boundary-Similkameen has very modest goals for his riding. We say those goals are far too modest. We say the region faces serious problems because of so-called free trade. The trade deal in the Okanagan will have, unfortunately, a negative impact on the soft-fruit industry. It will, unfortunately, have a negative impact on the grape and wine industry. We say that the highways decisions will have a negative impact on tourism, unfortunately, in the Penticton region.

We are concerned that this new arrangement with this member from Kamloops as the boss of the Okanagan region won't work. We're quizzing him today and we're getting rhetoric back; we're not getting real numbers. It's clear that he's not informed and not on top of the problems of that region. That means that they're going to hurt.

Mr. Minister, do you know how many flights a day are going to be cut at the Penticton airport?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member seems to be all over the map here and running the gamut from free trade to everything else that pops into his mind.

I for one don't think that the long-lasting impacts of free trade are going to be detrimental to the Okanagan. Initially,

[ Page 3871 ]

yes, we recognize that the grape industry is going to be hurt by free trade; we've said that, and we fully intend to help that industry through a difficult period. The soft-fruit issue is conjecture on that member's part, whether it will be hurt or not. If it is, that is another industry we will have to help. But in the long run, free trade is not only going to be good for the Okanagan but good for this province and this country.

If the member wishes — since he brought it up — maybe we should get into a free trade debate on whether it will be good for the country or not. I'd be happy to debate free trade with him. In fact, Mr. Member, the Okanagan region has been receiving more inquiries from foreign investors than ever before, especially since January 2, when the free trade arrangement was signed with the United States. Investors now see British Columbia, and in particular my region, which you seem to think I don't know or understand.... We are receiving more inquiries about region 3 than ever before regarding investment in diversifying our economy into manufacturing and other goods because of the market that is available right at the doorstep of Boundary-Similkameen — perfectly situated, ideally positioned to take advantage of any new industry that will come because of the free trade arrangement.

The highways and the tourism that you keep referring to — that it's going to be some kind of a disaster — I will disagree with you on that. It's not going to be the doom-and gloom picture that you predict. I firmly believe that Penticton and Boundary-Similkameen will continue to be one of the major tourist attractions of this province whether you think so or not, Mr. Member. It's easy for you to stand up there and say how badly they're going to be hurt, this minister's not informed, and all the rest of it. You talk about rhetoric coming from this side; all we've heard from that side all afternoon is rhetoric.

And yes, I do know the situation regarding flights in and out of Penticton. When I received the news of that.... As a matter of fact, the people from the airlines visited me in my office to give me some advance notice. They showed me the numbers and why they had to cut back their service to the Penticton airport, and it is simply because of a lack of ridership. They assured me that the minute the trend reverses and the demand is there, they will reinstate flights. They have said the same thing in my home constituency of Kamloops. We have lost a lot of air service too, Mr. Member, because we've been through some pretty tough times. But we don't think they're going to stay that way; tough times end, and they will end soon.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let the record again show that the minister does not know the number of flights that will be cancelled in the Penticton airport. The record shows that we got a bafflegab response. And this is the man who's responsible for this new decentralized system. Where's your briefing book, Mr. Minister? You don't even have a briefing book for the hundreds of thousands you're spending — millions. Does the minister know what the implications are for customs service at the airport in Penticton as a result of the steps that have been taken?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have no intention of commenting on the number of customs officers, which is a federal jurisdiction. And no, I'm not aware whether the federal government is going to cut the number of customs officers or not, because the flights we're talking about that were cut were not international flights. Penticton is a point of entry into this country, and the flights that involve customs do not emanate from Vancouver, Calgary or Cranbrook, such as the flights that he's speaking about which are being cut.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let the record show again that the minister is not informed on a subject that is important to the people of this region or this riding. Let the record show that they plan on cutting back weekend service in October, so there will not be customs service in that airport in Penticton. That means that small American aircraft will all go to Kelowna. It becomes part of the self-fulfilling prophecy again in terms of the expanding of the town of Kelowna and not the town of Penticton.

Can the minister advise the House if he has any idea what the public service payroll is in Penticton right now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I want the record to show that if the federal government has decided to cut back the customs service in Penticton, it has absolutely nothing to do with the number of commercial flights that have been cancelled due to lack of demand in Penticton.

Yes, I do have all the figures regarding the public service payroll in Penticton, and I have them for Kelowna, Vernon, Kamloops and Revelstoke. I don't happen to have them right here with me at this moment, but if you wish.... I'm sure you have the numbers with you, so you're asking me a rhetorical question. Yes, I have all of those numbers, and we've gone over them in detail in the ministry of state. We're very much aware of what the public payroll is in every community.

MR. WILLIAMS: The ministry of state has all of this data. Can the minister roughly remember a ballpark figure for the public service payroll in the Penticton area?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 64 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Chairman. Maybe one of the ministry of state staff will check the numbers.

Maybe I can help the minister out again. I was a kid up in the north Okanagan, not the south Okanagan. I think it's something like about $10 million a year, just in Penticton, and in the Boundary-Similkameen riding it's about $16 million a year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: You think it's something like about...?

MR. WILLIAMS: Let the record show that the minister responds by saying: "You think it's something like about...." The minister wants precise numbers. Well, we will give the minister precise numbers.

Currently the town of Grand Forks has 133 government employees; the bi-weekly salary there is $137,000; Greenwood has three and a bi-weekly salary of $3,101.72; Keremeos has four and a bi-weekly salary of $4,201.72; Oliver has 34 and a bi-weekly payroll of $36,393.41; Osoyoos has 3 and a bi-weekly payroll of $3,167.09; Penticton has 364 fulltime employees and a bi-weekly salary of $378,555.98; Summerland has 30 full-time employees, and that is worth $31,818.55 on a bi-weekly basis. The whole riding of

[ Page 3872 ]

Boundary-Similkameen has 571 full-time employees and a bi-weekly salary of $594,520.34.

Maybe, if it's not too much of a challenge, the minister can multiply those numbers by 26 and come up with the annual figure. If you do, I think you'll find that in Penticton it's around $10 million, and for the whole riding of Boundary-Similkameen it's around $16 million. You should know this. I think you should have a pretty good idea about these things, if you're really involved in that region. That's what this is all supposed to be about: decentralization, understanding the local issues, the regions, their future and their potential. It's abundantly clear that you don't understand these things at all, and you don't have a handle on it.

[4:15]

In addition to the threat to the soft-fruit industry in that region and the threat to tourism as a result of a freeway to Kelowna, there is an additional threat in that region. It is the threat around privatization — the Mad Hatter scramble in privatizing. Highways maintenance. How many of those employees are Highways maintenance employees now? How many work in forestry offices and seedling operations and nurseries and in other ministries that you would like to privatize? That payroll of $10 million in Penticton is threatened, just like that town is threatened for tourism under the trade deal that you swallowed whole from Mulroney. Those are serious threats. What kind of assurance, Mr. Minister, can you give that riding and that region that those numbers on the public payroll will not go down in all of those towns?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's clear that the member thinks that by reading some numbers from a book, it makes him have a clear understanding of what's going on; and because someone doesn't stand here and read all the numbers for the government payroll in every community in his region, he doesn't understand what is going on. Mr. Member, if it will make you feel better, I will get the book and read government payroll stats for the entire region. We'll start in the north at Blue River and we'll go right down to Osoyoos. We'll go over to Golden, if that will make you feel better or if it will make you think that that's how you understand your region — by standing and reading a bunch of public payroll numbers.

The threat of losing those jobs.... There may be some people who will not be on the government payroll after privatization, but they'll still be living and working in that area, Mr. Member. They can be good, productive citizens without being on the public payroll. So, yes, there may be some transfers from the public to the private payroll, but they choose to live there, as the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer) said, and they will stay there and continue to be productive citizens. They just may not be on the public payroll.

MR. WILLIAMS: One thing we can be sure of, if those people do stay there, if their jobs aren't moved to Kelowna, which is the common pattern, to some private company.... Yes, they will still be in those towns. But if they are privatized, one thing you can be sure of is that they'll be paid less. You bet your bottom dollar. That's what the privatization game is all about: seeing to it that the people who work for government get paid less.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: More.

MR. WILLIAMS: The only people who get paid more are the fat-cat consultants down here in Victoria working off a system of rip-off around privatization. Those are the ones who are getting paid more.

Do you assure the people of that region that they are going to be in those towns, that there won't be any cutbacks in the public payroll, that they'll remain in those towns and will have income levels like they have? No. I say that when you get to those numbers in towns like Penticton and Grand Forks, you're talking about a significant chunk of the local economy. The local main street and-the small businessmen depend on those payrolls in that town at that level. That too is threatened by your kinds of strategies and policies. So you're threatening this area in terms of highways, in terms of the public service payroll, in terms of tourism and in terms of trade. That's more than a triple whammy.

You say: "Well, there will be short-term problems." You have consistently admitted today that there will be significant short-term problems: one year, two years, three years. That's not short-term for people in business; that's not short-term for people who have to pay the bank; that's not short-term for people who have to pay a mortgage or look after their kids.

There is a lot of disastrous fallout from an incompetent administration, from a Mad Hatter Premier who can't think ahead past tomorrow, if he's lucky. There's no understanding over there of cause and effect.

Privatization of the highways and other government activities will have a negative effect on this region. The Coquihalla, unfortunately, will have a negative effect. The trade deal will have a negative effect on soft fruits, and tourism will be negatively affected. You need a major interdisciplinary team on some scale to deal with the fallout of your policies, and you don't have it.

There has been a gutting of the public service by you people like we have never seen in this province. There is a threat in that region, as there is everywhere in this province, and it's very serious. You and your boss don't understand the implications of the gutting of the civil service that is currently going on. The gutting has been underway; it's hemorrhage time here in Victoria. The best brains are being lost, and now the threat is extending into the regions. It's a very high cost indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many took early retirement?

MR. WILLIAMS: The numbers are there in terms of early retirement. One almost despairs at the decisions you've taken to date, in terms of unscrambling the messy omelette you're creating in public policy. There is a major job that a new administration is going to have, and that's just to catch up to 1970. That's what the chore will be.

You give no assurance today of your understanding of this region. It is not reassuring to us and, I think, not reassuring to the people in the southern part of the Okanagan-Boundary country.

You've got some briefing. Let's hear from the briefer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing order 61(2), "speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." We are debating vote 64, and I would ask members to consider that. Mr. Minister, would you please continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have a tremendous amount of information on projects that have gone into the Boundary Similkameen electoral district under various ministries. For

[ Page 3873 ]

the sake of the record, I would like to read some of them. But before I do I just want to again say that the member dwells on the negative effects of the Coquihalla Highway without ever mentioning that there might be a positive effect from that highway. He's always on the negative: this is going to be doom and gloom, and if we privatize some highway maintenance, that's going to be terrible. He makes the assumption that they are all going to be paid less and that they are going to move to Kelowna. That is not going to happen. The people will continue to live there.

He talks about a nice buzzword: a major interdisciplinary team. To do what? I'll tell you: to put more government employees into Penticton or Grand Forks. "Let's hire some more government employees." That's what I hear from that member; that's going to solve all of the problems up there. Let's hire some more government employees and shift them out to the various regions that may be experiencing some difficulties.

Just to give you a bit of a summary of some of the activity that has gone on in Boundary-Similkameen between April 1, 1987, and January 28, 1988, in Advanced Education and Job Training, the JobTrac program put $911,923 into that riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In Kelowna. He talks about the whole region.

Okanagan College, with campuses in Oliver, Osoyoos and Keremeos: $18,560,286. Let me go on here: Agriculture and Fisheries — land development assistance, ALDA program, $1,882,414; Economic Development — business loans alone, $9,545,024. It goes on and on. The school districts in Grand Forks, Kettle Valley, Southern Okanagan - a total of $12 million or $13 million. And the list goes on and on.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Just to point out to that member that we do not ignore that riding of Boundary-Similkameen, there are pages and pages of projects and assistance and joint ventures that have gone into Boundary-Similkameen. So I just want the record to show that most of what we hear from that side is rhetoric about what a disaster this will be and what a disaster that will be.

For example, here's a figure the member failed to mention. He mentions that there are 371 government employees in Penticton, but he doesn't mention that in Kelowna, the town that he thinks receives favoured treatment, there are only 360 government employees. So there are fewer than in Penticton. Here he has been saying: "Oh, Kelowna gets everything. Everyone's going to move to Kelowna." I just want the record to show that there are more government employees in Penticton than there are in Kelowna.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wondered if the minister has concerned himself at all about the spray tax that will impact people in the Okanagan Valley.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, there's no question; you are correct that such a tax will impact greatly in the Okanagan. It's a subject that's under discussion. I've discussed it with the ministers involved, and so has the member from Boundary-Similkameen, as late as today. So it's a topic that is under discussion.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you know, it's going to have a $1 million impact on the industry, Mr. Minister, in that region. It's just another indication of a thoughtless government that is not recognizing the severe problems that industry and that region are going through at the moment. It's a $300,000 tab in that subregion alone. It's very significant. It's a kick in the pants to people who have had a tough time, and will have a continuing tough time because of the lack of policy and preparation by you as the minister of state.

Isn't that a high-sounding name? We've never heard the likes of it in B.C.: minister of state for the great region of the Thompson and the Okanagan. Yet what's there? It's like a stage setting of phony houses along the street. You open the doors and there's nothing there; you see out into the countryside. It's a movie set.

I think I'm satisfied that I've canvassed enough specific items of importance to that region to show that the homework has not been done, that the minister does not understand the region, that he's not dealt with the major problems facing it. It's abundantly clear that his deputy mayor, or whatever you call the Grand Pooh-Bah, has little more of a clue himself, is wringing his hands, is satisfied with making submissions and is getting no action.

It's abundantly clear that this thing isn't going to work. It's too bad. There's a need for some genuine regionalization in this province. But if you took it seriously, you wouldn't do it this way. If you took it seriously, you'd have some answers and we haven't had any today.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I can't let that kind of rhetoric pass without making a comment or two on it. It's very easy....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Oh yes, and I'll prolong it just as long as necessary, Mr. Member.

It's very easy for the member to get up and say there's nothing there. That's rhetoric. He hasn't been paying attention and he hasn't listened to a lot of the answers. If he wants more than is here, I'll be happy to provide it to him. We have all the information that he seeks. Any of the numbers that he wants are easily available to him.

He talks about addressing specific items. That's exactly what we're doing in the region, addressing specific items. We've made it a number one priority. The planning process is very important to us as well, but we have made the specific items and some of the entrepreneurs that we've dealt with our number one priority because of the need for jobs in that whole area. We are dealing with the problems of the area, Mr. Member.

I'm pleased to hear you say that there is a need for regionalization in the province. Finally someone over there realized that there is a need for it if we take it seriously, and I can tell you we do take it very seriously. I'm sure that as the next few weeks and months unfold, you will start to see more and more of the results and you will realize just how seriously we do take it.

MR. BLENCOE: I think for six months we have been trying to get details of how this minister of state system is going to work, and this minister has had six months to come up with the information. We have been contending that this

[ Page 3874 ]

whole system really has another objective at stake, and I think the minister has answered and put in place the fact that we were correct. He is not prepared today. He didn't know the answers about the system he's supposedly got in place.

It's clear, therefore, there is another objective with this process. He can't answer some basic facts about his region. Six months and a stack of money from the taxpayers and we're still not getting the answers. It's quite obvious this so-called Social Credit decentralization has absolutely nothing to do with real decentralization. Real decentralization is about devolving power, decision-making, to the local level, not umpteen committees that rove the region having little meetings and reporting back to bigger meetings - and then we don't know where all those decisions go. Real decentralization is letting local governments make the decisions in their regions, giving them the policies and the legislation to make the decisions to carry out economic development. It's quite evident today, through the answers of this minister, that they don't have anything except a bunch of committees that are supposedly meeting, that have a bunch of money, and that we have no criteria for as to how those decisions are to be made — none at all. Not once has this minister or any of these ministers of state in six months been able to provide this House or the people of British Columbia.

I was talking a few minutes ago about all these committees, these 25 committees that are going to meet and continue to meet and then have larger meetings. Now, talking about seed capital, I've come across another committee — after 25 more committees.

MR. SIHOTA: More bureaucracy.

MR. BLENCOE: More bureaucracy. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has drafted extensive plans, vis-à-vis the seed capital fund, for how the allocation of these funds is to be carried out in the region. But the minister, of course, hasn't got them with him today. It will require another committee separate and apart from the other 25 committees to put it together, and we're told we'll have those details in the mail from the ministry very shortly. That's what we're told: shortly.

How many months, how much money has to be spent, how many more committees? You've got local government. You've got the leaders of industry saying: "Who do we talk to? Why so much confusion? What are the criteria?" It is a joke. Unfortunately, it's a sad joke, because taxpayers' money is being wasted, economic development in the province and the regions is being slowed down to a standstill. How can you possibly make decisions with committees of 300, 400 — 25 committees — and no answers when we do the investigation of how the final decision will be made?

I listed today the process for these poor small businesses that have got to go through this process. They now have to go through not only the Minister of Economic Development, because she is going to have the final say, but four other components to the process for getting help from this government that we never had before in British Columbia. It was never there, so why do we have it?

Today we got no answers in terms of details of this great regionalization; the minister didn't have any information. So what's it all for? What's the objective? Well, I think those who have been saying that we've got a political con game are absolutely correct. It's a power grab of enormity by this government, this Premier and these eight ministers to control the objectives of local government. That's all it is. And, Mr. Chairman, I now discover another committee that will report on how these funds are to be carried out, when we've already got an incredible bureaucracy that is going to deal with these small businesses. What a way to run the province of British Columbia!

If you want to streamline government, it's simple. Local government for the last five years — and I am aware of this — has been putting the plans together through its local councils, its regions and its economic development commissions. They're there, they're developed locally, they're developed — quite different from this government — democratically by elected officials, not appointed people of the minister of state that the minister of state thinks are appropriate for the political objectives of the region. They say this is "more democracy at the local level." It's got nothing to with democracy. It's got everything to do with controlling the objectives and, of course, slowing down economic development to a standstill in the province of British Columbia.

What have we got in terms of the staff? The minister one of these days will answer how many employees he has. I'd like to know that. But, for instance, let's take a look at the immediate people involved with the minister of state: parliamentary secretaries, policy advisers, regional development officers, regional development liaison officers, project officers, advisory groups, resource teams. Good Lord!

In the province of British Columbia we've had local councils, local government and local regions drawing up the inventories, the resources and the population projections and where economic development can go. They're elected to know those regions best. I say, and we on this side of the House say: trust local government. You don't need a concocted, phony system developed in the Poole room with the Premier to control local government. And you certainly don't need, as I've outlined today, 25-minimum committees — 26 now; we just got a briefing note. They're going to meet from now until Christmas, and when we ask today, "Who's going to make the final decision, and which people will come together?" we hear: "Well, we're studying that, and we may have to have another committee to make that decision."

We'll stand by; we'll wait to get the decisions on that. Maybe the minister will have some answers for us. Heaven forbid, Mr. Chairman, he's had six months. He's had a million dollars in his back pocket and now he's got I don't know how much more — $2 million minimum, plus $649,000. He admits he has only spent $110,000 of the first million dollars, and I'd still like to know what the emergency was six months ago for a million dollars. But of course, that's Social Credit management of taxpayers' dollars: "Go to the coffers; take as much as you want; call it an emergency." Clearly there was no emergency, because they didn't want to bring the program and the plan to the Legislature of British Columbia. They didn't want us to scrutinize or even see legislation that set up these new ministers of state. By Jove, if we've ever seen a reason why we needed legislation and clear enunciation of policy for the people of British Columbia, and of this minister's lack of evidence and information to show that he knows what he's doing with the taxpayers' money, it's been today.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister some direct questions. Could the minister tell us how many employees he has in his ministry of state and explain the differences in budgets, for instance, between his region and some of the other regions, as you have more money than some other

[ Page 3875 ]

regions? Perhaps you could explain some of those differences.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd be happy to explain, if possible, to that member, but I think it's very difficult because there's a lack of comprehension over there and a lack of willingness to comprehend anything. We listened to the same speech about an hour and a half ago from that member, fantasizing about the numbers of committees, the numbers of staff, the positions that don't even exist. He's mentioning positions that.1 know nothing about, that don't even exist. But they pop into his brain and he spouts them out, and they go on the record, so I feel I have to respond to the same speech that I responded to an hour and a half ago. And I suppose when I sit down, I'll hear the same rhetoric over again and have to get up and respond again, because I can't let that sit on the record in Hansard and let people think that because I didn't respond, somehow it's true. There was very little truth in anything the member said.

First of all, he's got some fixation in his mind that there are committees all over the place: 25, and then he's found another one and another one. Well, I can tell you that they are a figment of his imagination. Maybe he's been smelling something that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) smelled. He talked about smelling the wind; maybe that's where he gets his inspiration.

MR. SIHOTA: The second member or the first member?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). The old one; the one who's maybe been around too long. The one who doesn't want to change anything, the same as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) doesn't ever want to change anything. Everything is fine; it's been that way for.... Let's leave it; let's not ever change anything. Economics change, Mr. Chairman. Everything else changes around the world, but we want to remain the same.

MR. SIHOTA: Governments change.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Not often, but they do. Don't hold your breath, Mr. Member for Esquimalt; you'll be sitting over there looking in this direction for a long time. However, we don't want to get into that.

The thing I do want to set straight, though, is numbers of committees. This seems to be bothering the member, how many committees we have set up. Maybe I should ask the member to make an honest guess how many committees I have set up at this moment in my region. I want you to write down a number, Mr. Member, the best guess you can come up with, because all you've been doing so far is guessing. I want to hear the best guess you can come up with for the number of committees that the parliamentary secretary and I have set up in our region. I'll leave it at that.

[4:45]

He asked how many staff I have in the ministry of state function. There's myself, of course, and there's the parliamentary secretary. But we're on the payroll anyway, so we don't increase the cost. Then we seconded one person from my ministry to be a regional development officer at the same salary she was making in the ministry, Mr. Member. So she doesn't cost us anything. She's moved from somewhere across the causeway into the parliament buildings and brought her secretary with her.

Then we have a regional development liaison officer in the field. And do you know something? He's the only person we've hired from outside for a position that didn't exist in government before. Even his secretary was seconded from my ministry in Vernon. Just to set the record straight for that member, we have hired one person in the ministry of state function. The rest were seconded from my ministry at the same salary they were making when they worked for the ministry. As I have said, the good member from Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Messmer), as parliamentary secretary, and I were here anyway. so we don’t cost any more. We might work a little harder and put in a few more hours, but we don't cost the taxpayers any more money

Another thing, to set the record straight for that member: we don't have the position he referred to of policy adviser. We fully intend to call on expertise from time to time as we need it from members in the region, private consultants or whoever. Now the member is saying that the people from the region — the elected people, etc. — cannot advise us as to what they want to see in their region. I don't believe that for a minute. He's saying that we need policy advisers.

Let me give you one example, though, of how we have been working with local communities to try to assist them wherever possible — not to tell them how to do their business, but to try and assist them wherever we can; and they welcome the assistance. I might add. Just to set the record straight from what was said by the first member for Vancouver East, they welcome our assistance. Yes, many of them have their development plans and profiles in place and they're updating them from time to time. Here's one from Penticton, updated 1987. The latest one we just got, March 24, updated 1988, from their director of economic development in Penticton. Maybe the member from Vancouver East should take a look at what Penticton thinks about Penticton before he spouts off about what he thinks about Penticton. He should take a look at how they see themselves, to set the record straight. They don't see doom and gloom.

I'm going to quote from their economic profile:

"The city of Penticton, in British Columbia's beautiful Okanagan Valley, is the province's most southern major interior centre."

They don't see it as a town that's going downhill. They see it as a southern major interior centre, and I happen to agree with them.

"The sheltering effects of the surrounding mountains, combined with the moderating effects of being located between two crystal clear lakes, act to provide us with what has been judged to be the most desirable climate in all of Canada."

Listen to the economic part, Mr. Chairman:

"Our excellent access to western Canada, the western United States and the Pacific Rim make us the logical choice for manufacturing operations in western North America. Our supply of available industrial land and buildings, our low energy costs, and the number of people who truly want to live and work in the Okanagan, complement our locational advantages. Just ask a member of our existing diversified industrial base for confirmation of these facts."

I'm not going to read any more into the record. I just wanted the members of this House and the people of this province to know what the people of Penticton think about the people of Penticton and the place in which they live. They don't see it as doom and gloom. They don't see every move

[ Page 3876 ]

as something negative. They are working diligently, and they're working with us to try to change their economic situation.

The only other thing I wanted to mention for the member's edification is the tracking book that we have in my ministry for tracking projects that we're working on. If the member would like to see it sometime, I'd be most happy to show it to him. The projects that we are currently tracking that are active number 97; 97 projects are being tracked and assisted in every way possible by my ministry of state office. I could read them all, as the member from Vancouver East would do. He loves to sit and read numbers. He thinks that proves something, that you really understand the situation. I will spare the House my reading 97 projects but would be happy to show them to the member should he so desire.

MR. BLENCOE: I got some information there, so I would like then to ask this. The minister has admitted that he's only spent $110,000 of his first million. I wonder if the minister would now tell us whether he considers that that $1 million was then an emergency?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: At the time, Mr. Chairman, yes, it had to be done because we wanted to get the process underway. We didn't want to have to wait until the Legislature was called back in the spring to do it. So yes, it was necessary at that time to appropriate those funds.

MR. BLENCOE: The Legislature was about to come into session a few days later. Where was the emergency? Why a million dollars? You've only spent $110,000 in six months. The Financial Administration Act says it has to be an emergency for a million dollars. Do you agree that since you've only spent $110,000, there was no emergency for the other $890,000?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member seems to labour under the impression that because we have appropriated a million dollars we should run out and see how quickly we can spend it. Would he be satisfied if I had gotten a million dollars and blown it all? Is that what you want, Mr. Member?

The other thing is, answer my question: how many committees do you think I've got out there?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the million dollars, a special warrant.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, we've gone through this before. The special warrant, the $8 million, was debated during the debate on the interim supply bill of March 25, 1988, from 11 o'clock till 1 o'clock in the afternoon. Therefore no more debate will be allowed. The bill has been passed. If the member wants to discuss the vote before us, the $649,000, that's appropriate, but anything centering on special warrants is out of order,

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question before the House is vote 64: "Be it resolved that a sum not exceeding $649,635 be granted to Her Majesty to defray the expenses of the Minister of Social Services and Housing for the Thompson Okanagan Development Region." That is the question we should be discussing.

MR. BLENCOE: What's a million dollars? I'm sure the people of the province of British Columbia will be interested in the fact that we're not to get any real answers to that misappropriation of funds.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You should have asked the question on March 25.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we've been asking, you know. The people of the province of British Columbia would like to have some answers as to why this government would see fit to abuse the Financial Administration Act to fund a system that has no legitimacy in terms of accountability, legislation, policy or anything.

Let me ask the minister another question. He's out there with all these extra dollars. He's got $890,000 left over from his first million dollars. He's got $694,000 more as of this budget, plus a minimum of $2 million of seed capital which is going to be decided by a bunch of committees. I wonder if the minister would table in this House, or provide today, the full details of the criteria for the loan selection and the utilization of that money.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't have to. The member read off the flow chart of how it works. It's right there; it's very plain. It is for loan guarantees only, up to $50,000, which I'm sure the member knows.

He talks about abuse of the Financial Administration Act. I think it would have been an abuse if I had gone out, as he suggests, and spent the whole million dollars. We're spending it very prudently. In some cases we're being very cautious. We're setting up our committees very cautiously and selectively.

If the member cares, I could tell him exactly how many committees there will be and how they will be set up, but I want his best guess at how many committees I have out there. He's gone from 25 to 350. I want to ask him a question. I want his best guess. If he comes close, I'll give him a dollar.

MR. BLENCOE: What are the priorities in terms of small businesses who will be applying to your little secret, unelected committees, of which there are at least 25 in your region? What's the selection process? Which companies will have a priority? Which kind of businesses? What's the selection process and what are the criteria?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member has some fixation on the number 25 — that there are going to be 25 committees. Is that your best guess? Is that the official guess? I've got to write down 25. You're going to lose your money.

If the member wishes, I can get the criteria for these loan guarantees. They're several pages long. If he wishes, I will get it and read the entire thing into the record. I don't think it would serve any purpose. I'll do it right now if you like. It doesn't matter to me.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I'm still going to go to my constituency when this debate winds up, whenever that is. So it's of little consequence to me. But rather than try to remember what's in about a four- or five-page document, I'll send for it and I'll read it for the member.

MR. BLENCOE: It's really unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that we don't have that information before us. But if the

[ Page 3877 ]

minister will provide it, we certainly would like to see it. It will be very useful, because we have all those committees out there supposedly making decisions, and they are going to be trying to find out who is going to get the money. We'd like to know exactly the criteria and who is going to sit on your committees. Who's going to make the final selection? We don't have that information because when we asked certain individuals in your ministry, they said: "Well, that's fluid; that's changing."

I'd like to ask the minister, in terms of his ministry of state, what the status of the Agricultural Land Commission is. It's under the minister of state system; it's supposedly under review. What work are you doing on that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I believe the question was the status of the ALR review. What we have done to date is just send out letters of inquiry, I guess you would call them, to all the elected councils and regional districts in the area to ask them for their input into how they see the ALR functioning; whether they're pleased with the way it's functioning now, which they may very well be; whether they would like to see some change, and if so, what the extent of those changes would be, and in what direction they would like to see it go. As I said, they may be very pleased with the way it's working now. If that is the case, then we would like to know. To date, I don't think we have received any responses, but the letters just went out within the last ten days.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, there are all these various committees — a multitude of committees, supposedly a part of open government. Could the minister tell us whether those committees will be open to public viewing? Will the discussions be open to the public, when you finally get down...?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman, if the member could tell me which committees he's referring to. Don't say 25 committees, because there aren't 25 committees, so I can't answer such a vague question. If he will tell me which committee, then I will tell him where and when it is meeting and invite him to the meeting.

[5:00]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we've only got statistics, committees and reports to go by, and what we can glean from talking to various people in the regions and in the ministries. Of course, the basic problem is that we have no game plan before us. We've got nothing laid out in terms of this process. We've never seen anything in six months.

So the minister says he hasn't got 25 committees. We've got nothing that shows exactly what is being done. All we know is that we have a process for small business that is all sorts of parts of an application process for a loan — components that have never been there before. All they can do is frustrate small business trying to save their businesses or trying to create economic development in the region. The only conclusion we can come to is that it has been ill-conceived and hasn't been thought out properly, and after six months, we're still bungling along. We're still — as the Premier said a few months ago — groping and flailing and trying to get this thing together. It's still not there.

The minister has not told me today how the decisionmaking will be finally resolved. I know you've got a bunch of committees running around, and a bunch of public meetings set for the fall; we know that. You have another committee set up to figure out how the allocation of these funds is to be carried out in the regions. But we haven't got that reported; we don't know. The minister can't answer us.

All I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is get some information. I'd like to know, for instance, what checks and balances you have in the system vis-à-vis scrutinizing businesses that apply to you for funds. What checks do you put in, in terms of taking a look at how viable they are? We don't know that. You're playing around with a lot of taxpayers' money. We haven't seen that plan. We haven't seen the book of what process you're putting in place. The people of British Columbia would like to know that.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For the record and maybe to dispense with some of the rhetoric we hear from this member for Victoria and the member for Vancouver East: "they don't have a plan; they don't know where they're going; they don't know what they're doing..." I wish to show this to the House and to the member.

This is the British Columbia regional seed capital program and the criteria developed around that program. The member says we don't have the checks and balances and the criteria. It's fairly thick. If you like, I could read the whole thing into the record-, it might take a little while. I'll show it to the member and gladly show it to the whole House. It includes sections, for example: introduction, decision flow chart, guiding principles of government assistance, criteria for assessing projects, project analysis.... It's just been developed; it's brand-new stuff. It's change. It's something new, a new idea that we're trying. A big light goes on — brand-new.

MR. ROSE: Don't sit on it; share it.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'm sharing it with you: process, guarantee documents, application forms, brochures, preparing a business plan, preparing cash flow, budget backgrounder, payments — and it goes on and on. It's a well-thought-out, wonderful program that will become, I think, a lifesaver to some small businesses in our region - a lifesaver for them.

MR. ROSE: Is this a draft?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes. Brand-new, great stuff.

MR. ROSE: It's ill-conceived.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This is ill-conceived, he says, and it's not well thought out. Let's go into some of the attached timetables of initiatives. Perhaps I could read all that. We know exactly where we're going and what we're going to achieve — what we're going to attempt to achieve with the help of regionally elected people, municipally elected people. We have a timetable for all these things, and we're working diligently towards that timetable. Some regions may move at a different speed than others.

He was asking why discrepancies in budget and discrepancies of style of doing things and timetables may differ. That's exactly the objective of regionalization, so we don't all march to the drummer that's down here at the southern end of Vancouver Island where this member lives. Maybe we march

[ Page 3878 ]

to the drummer in our own region, and we listen to the people who are elected locally and the people who elected us, so that the elected people who represent them in Victoria are dealing directly with them and that person dealing directly with the government. We do have a timetable.

So I want the record to show that the plan is well thought out, that we do have timetables of initiatives, we know where we're going with this and we're developing it with the local people as we go. If the member would like, I could read even more of this. We have reams of material that I could read into the record, if that would make him feel better.

MR. ROSE: I think it's very important that the minister, in responding to certain questions coming from this side of the House, has suddenly discovered that he has a couple of documents in terms of planning and also spending control and public protection. None of us on this side has ever seen these documents. Apparently they're brand, spanking new, a Christmas present, really, and to be kept under wraps — don't open before December 25. We have never seen these documents, and so I wonder if the minister would be kind enough, at the appropriate time in our proceedings here, to table these documents so that we can have a look at them. That's all we're asking for.

We don't expect everybody and all these regions to march to the same drummer. I know that the minister once headed a rube band; he might be marching to a rube drummer. Some other districts might be marching to a more sophisticated drummer and some maybe even to a wild and primitive drummer. No, we don't expect it to be all the same, but we do need information and we're entitled to have it, because that's our job as watchdogs of the public purse, and we intend to do it and to do it as conscientiously as we can.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In response to the opposition House Leader, I would be more than happy to table this document. Like I say, yes, it's brand-new. It has just been developed. In fact, the ministers of state just went over it the other morning — Wednesday, I believe — for the final draft of it, and approved it, so it's all new stuff. So at the earliest opportunity I will make this available to the opposition. Absolutely. I'd love to, and I want the record to show that.

[5:15]

Vote 64 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 14

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

On vote 14: minister's office, $236,953.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I can see the enthusiastic response on both sides. I know that members on both sides are saying: "Please put the vote now on these estimates. We don't need to hear any more. We've heard this guy all year. We like what he's doing. We're going to vote for his estimates." I know that's what they're saying.

This has been a year in which we've taken major steps to improve the justice system, to make it more responsive to the public and to do some grassroot things that we probably should have done a long time ago.

I speak of the program for victims — the victim assistance program. I'm not going to talk long about it, but I'm going to thank the members on both sides of the House for the support they've given to the program. Many of them, both on our side and on the other side, have come out to meetings and have participated and have helped their communities put programs in place, police-based programs and community programs, that have been very well received.

We were able to commit in the budget last year almost $1.7 million, and this year a commitment of $2.1 million. I think it is very useful new money. It honours those people in the justice system who have been forgotten for too long, the people that don't need the presumption of innocence, don't need the services of a lawyer, really don't require the Charter and all of the things that are important to the rights of accused people. These are the innocent people in the justice system. They don't need any presumption, but they haven't had very much attention. They haven't had anyone to help them through that maze of questioning, statements, preliminary hearings, pieces of blue paper, cross-examination, a trial in front of a jury and all the other statements they've made, and the long delays often, and the lack of information that flows, and busy people all through the system telling everybody that something is going on, but not the victim of the crime.

While I don't suggest that this program is anything more than a helping hand and a start along the road to do something for them, at least it's a program that's there, and if we can match it with some legislation later in this session which will guarantee some basic rights to victims of crime, I think we've made a very important beginning in improving the justice system in the year 1988.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair. ]

I want to talk briefly about a terribly serious and vexing challenge that the justice system has faced this past year: the presence in Vancouver of youth gangs — a new phenomenon, perhaps, in the form that we have them. It is not a new phenomenon, but certainly it is in terms of the magnitude and the seriousness and the inherent violence present in that new stratum of society. We've had some problems in coming to' terms with it. If we lived in Los Angeles, where gangs are a daily occurrence, where people are killed while sitting on their porches in residential neighbourhoods.... In fact, in Los Angeles, only about ten minutes from Beverly Hills, two members of a family were killed by stray bullets within 12 months of each other, with hardly a fluffy in the newspapers about it, because that's a community that has become so desensitized to this kind of thing. But when we have naked

[ Page 3879 ]

violence and attempted murders occurring among young gang members in our community, we are outraged; not only outraged, but we are frightened by it.

We have put together a very good force to deal with that in Vancouver. A Vancouver police-RCMP force, together with a special prosecutorial unit, was put in place this last year under a very experienced prosecutor so that we could deal with law enforcement as a specialty for this area. We could make sure that these cases had very high attention on the part of the police and the Crown. We could make sure, when we had a case where a very serious crime had been committed, that an experienced prosecutor would take all the steps necessary to treat it seriously: trying to have the case raised to adult court if it was appropriately serious; trying to make sure that the bail conditions, if there had to be bail, were very stringent, or that bail was denied; and then taking a very strong view in relation to a sentence and punishment and incarceration in protecting the public. We gradually are starting to have some effect.

Finally, the public education program is $235,000 of new money so that we can get at the roots of this thing in the school system and give some help to the educators in Vancouver who are faced with the threat of this in their school grounds. It's to try to reach young people early to warn them and to show them how they can take means to protect themselves from this insidious menace. It is an intricate problem, and a very serious one. I think we've faced up to it in law enforcement and we've had some progress.

Third is the automatic enforcement of maintenance program, which is a major step forward. My colleague the Minister of Social Services and I worked long and hard to bring forward this program. I believe that before the year is out we should have the program active across the province, that we will be able to bring some fairness to those parents, mostly single mothers, who are unable to receive adequate support from husbands who can or should support them, and that we will be able to bring some dignity into their lives.

I should also mention the capital replacement program in my ministry which is so vitally important, contingent upon the closing and phasing out of Oakalla. Of course, if the minister of state for the whole western world save Vancouver Island were here, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), he would rise in his place with pride when he hears me say not only that the Oakalla phase-out will be delivered, but that we have been able to get the approvals we need to do the components of the Oakalla replacement.

Those components include, of course, the Surrey remand centre, which has had its trials and tribulations at the local level. But that has now finally received the blessing of the new council, as it did the former council. It's going forward and it's on a fast track. I have directed that with all these components, when we go to bids, we get fast-track bids as well as ordinary bids. We got fast-track bids for the Maple Ridge Correctional Centre, and I will be in Maple Ridge on Monday morning at a ceremony in which we will be officially launching that project and making the appropriate announcements.

We also have our third important component, and that is the building of a new women's prison, a prison that we will be building in conjunction with the federal government. We will be operating a women's prison in British Columbia for federal as well as provincial female prisoners. That will replace the old wing we have now at the Lakeside institution, which is part of the Oakalla complex. I feel very strongly that that needs replacement. I have been in that facility.

MR. JONES: When are you making the announcement to Burnaby?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, I'm waiting for a federal announcement as well, but I have certainly been told that the federal approvals are coming through and that it's going to go ahead. We haven't been able to make official announcements, because it's a joint federal-provincial project.

MR. JONES: So it's another election promise.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Well, I don't mind what it is as long as we get it. I'm prepared to be part of an announcement of any kind, whether it's a harbinger of a federal election or not, as long as I can go ahead and be on track.

We've got a good site on the river, and that's the third component of our capital program. That will allow us to relocate by the end of 1990. We are nearing completion of the design stage for the Surrey pre-trial centre and the new courthouse in Surrey, and we are at the site preparation stage for the Burnaby correction centre for women. As I said, the preparation is already underway for the Fraser regional correctional centre in Maple Ridge.

A few other major initiatives this year, one of those being the Gaming Commission. We released their report, and I think they worked extremely well in the short time that they had. Many of them are private citizens without background or knowledge in the field of gaming. It was not a commission designed to be specialist, but I think they learned the business of fairly regulating charitable gaming in a very short period of time. I thought it was a very good report, and it was well received. They are now proceeding to carry out a number of their regulatory mandates.

I probably have not said so before in this place, but I'm very pleased with the decision that the government made in relation to destination resort gaming. I felt it was important to have that matter explored and a recommendation brought forward. The commission did bring forward a recommendation, and I'm very pleased with that: namely, that we not proceed with destination resort gaming. To regulate our charitable casinos and our bingos, and do them in a reason able way with the experience that we have with the ships to Seattle, I think is probably the best and most well-received form of tourism gaming that we're going to have; that is, to have gambling on an international cruise or maybe some long-range cruise, just as the cruise industry around the world does and has done for some years. That has neither raised difficulties nor been complained of. We know that if we take a cruise somewhere, whether to Mexico or the Caribbean.... I'm talking about these things secondhand. I've never had the privilege of being on a cruise.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I know that the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew spends his holidays on Royal Viking and P&O and so on. He was able to stay more recently in lucrative private practice than I was, so he goes off on those cruises.

It's part of that industry, and it brings me to B.C. Steamships. The Gaming Commission gave a very good

[ Page 3880 ]

report on the operation of the slot machines on B.C. Steamships, and I am happy to say that we are progressing with our plan to joint-venture a majority interest in the shares of the B.C. Steamship operation to one of the bidders that has come forward. We have at least three, and possibly more, very high world-class international bids from international cruise ship organizations that are prepared both to run a passenger service between Seattle and Victoria and also to expand that service, in one case to Vancouver and in another case from San Francisco to Victoria, and to add some cruise business.

[5:30]

I see this as a method of expanding the service by privatization — partial privatization. I should make that clear, because I see the government's continued presence being necessary from a number of standpoints. First of all, it permits the running of the machines, for sure. I consider that that gives very good quid for the quo, because the other side of that is that if the government has that presence, we're always going to be able to say the head office is going to be in Victoria; we're always going to be able to employ the component of British Columbia people on those ships; we're always going to be able to ensure that the basic work, refit and so on, is done in local yards. We might even use yards in the riding of the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, if his comments are kept to a minimum — if his comments on my estimates are under his usual two weeks.

MR. SIHOTA: I have no questions.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No questions.

But I think that those things are all important. Most important of all is the continuation of a regular passenger service for tourists between Seattle and Victoria, with the Princess Marguerite being the flagship and being the romantic vessel that does that. Those are the bottom-line things that we would want to ensure in any joint-venture arrangement.

Now I'll talk about a subject which I only know, of course, academically, and that is the subject of horse-racing, an industry that is, I think, on the brink of some very important developments in British Columbia. This industry is important to the members for Vancouver Centre and Vancouver East; it's important to the members in the valley, Langley and so on, and to the members from Maple Ridge. We have a very good world-class breeding industry in its infancy in this province now. We have horses being bred in British Columbia and horses that are going on and making their mark in thoroughbred racing. If you're a racing fan and if you watched the Breeders' Cup in November at Hollywood Park, which has the seven richest races in the world, you would have seen a horse called Success Express win one of the million dollar races. That horse was bred out of Au Printemps. Au Printemps is a British Columbia-bred horse, and from that mare came Success Express. A local breeder in Victoria was one of the owners of that. That is the kind of horse and the kind of quality racing we can produce in and out of British Columbia if we give this industry the assistance it needs. It doesn't need a lot of handouts, either. What it needs is some opportunities. It needs to have a first-class facility , located somewhere in the lower mainland.

The present facility we have at Exhibition Park is too small. The facilities are crowded there, and it needs a major upgrade and a lengthening of that track to a world-class track, together with some barns and other facilities. It needs all of that at a minimum. Whether that happens there or whether it happens at another location in the lower mainland, there's a very real necessity to do those things and to do them within the next year or so, because we're in danger of losing a number of our good horses and our racing to Longacres, Bay Meadows and Santa Anita. I think that this industry is at the threshold.

I have had nothing but the most positive, united reaction to the establishment of the task force which I set up a few months ago under Mr. Mohan Jawl of Victoria, who himself has impeccable breeding and racing credentials and also a very good reputation for being an intelligent, fair-minded individual who could conduct a commission of this kind. I've had nothing but terrific response from all elements of this industry, which are often not united on things that they do. Like other industries, there are various factions, and people want to do this and have that location and so on. But they've all been together on this one. They all think that the Jawl commission is very positive.

In this budget you will see that 0.5 percent of the 7 percent Parimutuel tax on horse-racing bets has been transferred into the horse-racing improvement fund for the capital improvement of horse-racing facilities. I consider that a very positive development.

I believe the justice system is performing very well in this province, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we have addressed a number of very major reforms.

I've only mentioned a few of the big issues in the past year, but I take a certain pride that in the past few years we have passed a number of major pieces of legislation — I just remind you of those — which have all been justice reform measures. The Charter of Rights amendments were passed in this Legislature in 1985 and made a start on bringing our laws into conformity with the Charter. We probably still have some more to do.

The Motion Picture Act bill was passed in 1985 to allow the regulation of, and much better control over, video pornography in this province, and that bill is working well. I only wish that the federal Criminal Code amendments could have been developed in quite the same way as we developed ours, which was in a bi-partisan way by going out into the community and holding a number of meetings with people in the industry, with community and church groups and others — the same sort of people who presented briefs to the Fraser commission when it met.

I also take a lot of pride in the fact that we did major reforms to the laws of arbitration within the past two years, established the first international arbitration centre in Canada and modernized our international arbitration legislation as well as our domestic arbitration legislation, to bring it up to 1990 standards instead of 1890 standards, which is what we had before.

We also passed the first major, comprehensive expropriation code in this province to set up an impartial expropriation commission which will be able to adjudicate and value people's property, so that little people who find that their land, is in the way of a pipeline, or a power development, or whatever it is, and are expropriated are now going to have a much better shake in this province because they're going to receive payment immediately for the appraised value of their property up front. They're going to be able to go to the commission and fight that if they wish; and if they succeed, they'll get additional money and their costs.

I also take pride in the fact that we passed a major amendment to the provincial judges' act which took judges'

[ Page 3881 ]

salaries provincially out of the hands of my office, where they had been put in old, historic times and where they should not have been, and put them into the hands of this House, so that a committee of this House from both sides of the House could deal with that matter, based on a recommendation every two years of a group of citizens struck each year to go and make recommendations. But the legislative committee has the final say on the judges salaries, and I was pleased by the way the House committee carried out its duties in that regard.

We also passed the first major overhaul of the Legal Profession Act last year, and that will be proclaimed into force very shortly with a lot of very good, new provisions that tighten up the control over the profession and should ensure greater competency and protection for the public. We will be appointing three lay benchers within the next several months , people able to bring a different point of view to the administration of that professional body.

I believe that those measures, together with some of the family law reform we've done on the maintenance legislation, show that we have had a very strong commitment to law reform. In this session, I expect to proceed with a victim's bill, the Police Act with some revisions that are going to be made as a result of a number of briefs and submissions we've had since we put our exposure bill out last year, and a parole bill, which we will bring in within our limited jurisdiction after I've heard comments on my Green Paper.

Finally, I mentioned the justice reform commission that my able deputy, Ted Hughes, is heading up, which also has on it some laymen and one judge, Mr. Justice Wallace of the Court of Appeal.

You will notice in your community newspapers that this commission has been very active in getting around the province and receiving briefs. They will hear, as I did on my fall tour on victims, the tremendous frustrations that a variety of very solid citizens in this province feel about the functioning of the justice system, their sense of alienation from it, and that there is absolutely no way that they can penetrate its mysteries and also its costs and delays.

In saying that, I am not in any way denigrating the fact that we have probably some of the best judges in the world here in the courts of this province at every single level, people who are impartial, conscientious and who work very long hours. But the answer to getting justice moving more swiftly and more accessibly so that people can afford it is not to build new courthouses or to appoint phalanxes — except in the Western Community, where we are going to have an itinerant judge, as I said, going there and into some other communities that need some access because of the growth of their populations and their distance from other court centres. But the answer is not a lot of judges and fancy courthouses; I don't think that's the answer. It may be that we're going to have to build some new courthouses; we sure are. We're going to have to build them in places like Kelowna and Surrey and other places that are badly in need of some improvement and changes. But the answer is to make the system somehow more manageable. I can see some various directions that I think are fairly evident. You don't have to be a crystal ball gazer to see that.

One is to get some work out of the court that's in there; that is, to get it into alternate dispute resolution. There are a lot of very major commercial trials that go on in our civil courts that involve questions of prospectuses — whether they were filed on time — and condominium problems and issues of contract, and so on. A lot of these disputes, I believe, could be dealt with in arbitration, if arbitration was attractive and swifter. ICBC cases — a lot of these cases that go to trial, these motor vehicle cases — could be dealt with through arbitration or mediation. Every week now in Vancouver, by consent, we're taking cases that are set for trial, motor vehicle cases, and we're putting more and more of them through the arbitration centre with commercial mediators. We're having, I think, about an 80 percent success rate in mediation. and we're getting those off the court list.

That's the kind of thing we've got to do in this province, and we've got to be proactive in doing so. We've got to change our rules, our laws if we want, and I favour doing this kind of thing with the carrot and not with the stick, as much as possible, to make it attractive to do it — not to say: "You can't go to court," if you must go to court. "You can't have your day there. You can't waste everybody's time with a lawyer who's too long-winded," and pay for it, if you want to do that. We've got to make it more attractive not to do it. We've got to make it more attractive to do it a different way. We may have to use the stick if the lawyer is going on too long, and we may have to penalize them in costs. We may have to do some drastic things. But I, fortunately, don't have to make these recommendations; this is for the Hughes committee. I have to come back to this House and ask for some legislative changes, or go to cabinet and ask for some tough new rules, but I'm sure prepared to do that.

I think that that is certainly good for an introduction. There are some very exciting initiatives underway. And I would be remiss indeed if I didn't acknowledge the people who work in my ministry — the very good people who are my deputy and my assistant deputies and the people who work in the field. We just went through early retirement only a few weeks ago, and that was a very fair and attractive program for our employees. But I have to comment that in my ministry, I lost some of the gems of my administration because they just couldn't leave the offer on the table. When you have early retirement, as we did, it's often your good people and your best people who take advantage of that, and we have lost some very good people. So we're probably going to have to do some recruiting and reorganizing. We've got good people left. But I want to acknowledge all those good people as well who took early retirement.

[5:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad to hear I've got one fan in the Social Credit, and one here as well.

First of all, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I think it's the first time since you've occupied this position that I've actually had the chance to stand up and speak in the House. I do miss your antics in the comer, but I'm sure you enjoy yourself far more in the position that you are in. Congratulations on achieving that position.

To the Attorney-General: certainly I look forward to the debate that will take place over the next couple of days or more. I was reflecting on it. Actually I was going to read our debate last year, and I thought I might be better advised not to do that, because I'd probably astonish myself by finding out how little I knew about what happens in this ministry. The last year has been a good one for me, and I've had a tremendous opportunity to become far more familiar with that ministry. Hopefully it will show during the course of comments over the next day or two or three.

In addition, I trust we will be able to conduct this debate in the same fashion we did last year. A number of people had

[ Page 3882 ]

commented on the way in which it proceeded last year, and I like to think we have a bit of an obligation to try to meet that standard again.

While I am being complimentary, I certainly want to say I am pleased to see Mr. Hughes here. I know that Mr. Hughes has been touring the province on his committee or commission and listening to people involved in the legal system across the province. I am sincerely looking forward to the report when it comes down. Knowing Mr. Hughes, I am sure it will be a fascinating and interesting report and will in many ways serve as a blueprint for where we go, in terms of reform of the courts in this province. I must say I am excited about that prospect. I haven't had the chance to appear before the committee, and I don't think I will. But I will certainly be in attendance in Victoria, I believe, on April 22 and 23. I want to assure Mr. Hughes that we will be finished by then.

The Attorney-General, during the course of his comments, was talking about some of the highlights of the year. I must say I was disappointed that he didn't mention one of the things that I thought he would view as a highlight. I used to turn on the TV once in a while on those occasional evenings when I was free and able to go home, and on would come Raymond Burr. I thought I was watching another Block Bros. ad, and I was thinking: "Oh, well, here's another routine Block Bros. ad. How unfortunate." I'm not usually involved in residential or commercial acquisitions. I'd start to tune out, and just as I was drifting on to some thoughts, there would appear the Attorney-General, and all of a sudden my attention would be alerted.

I don't know what happened when the Oscars came up or the Genies or whatever they are. I didn't see the nomination list, but I hope that there was at least a nomination for best performance by an attorney-general in a supporting role. I don't know if any other Attorneys-General were involved, but I do hope that, given the Attorney-General's current position in the government.... I trust that it wasn't anything consistent with The Last Emperor. In other words, I trust that we will be here a year from now talking again about these estimates prior to an upcoming provincial election; after that I'm sure we'll be over there.

I want to talk just quickly about one matter and then begin to ask some questions which I think are topical today, and get a start on that track.

I did mention that I've had the opportunity over the past year to become more familiar with the operations of the ministry. It is somewhat peculiar: when you come into this position as a rookie, you often don't really have a concrete understanding of the ministry. I have had the opportunity this year to visit a lot of the areas in the province and talk to staff in the ministry, and I will say for the record that morale is not very good. It's pretty low, in many instances, around the province, particularly in two or three sectors that I'll be talking about a little later on. There really is a feeling — at least it's communicated to me; I don't know if it's communicated to others — about alienation and not feeling a part of the system, and working under tremendous financial constraints. It invites its own level of stress and its own form of low morale. I think we're seeing that.

It's fair to say that the topics I will be raising during our discussion over the next few days will focus on funding problems within the ministry. There is not an infinite amount of money available for the Attorney-General's ministry, and I know that the challenge is always to live within the budget, but I want to focus on some areas where the priorities are misguided or there is a need for additional expenditures.

Last year I indicated some of the areas that I was going to canvass, and I'm going to do that again today, in fairness, so that everybody knows where I'm coming from. This is in no particular order.

I noticed the Attorney-General was talking about the Police Act — I certainly want to raise some issues about that — and police services. Probation and parole are another set of issues that I'm going to be raising. The Gaming Commission was something else that was mentioned. I don't think it would be a surprise, in light of correspondence between me and the ministry, that I intend to make some comments about legal aid. And I don't think it's surprising, in light of the topical interest in this issue, that I'll be raising the matter of the new schedule of court fees. Those are some of the issues that I intend to raise — you're surprised — and certainly I look forward to our discussions.

However, I want to start off with another issue that is somewhat topical. I want to ask a couple of questions, partly because the key characters in this were not at question period today, and we won't have question period until Monday. I am concerned about some of the goings-on with respect to the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation, and some of the stuff that has happened in the last week. I don't think that's a surprise either. Members of my party have expressed considerable concern about it over the past few days.

Within the purview of the ministry, I'm just wondering if the Attorney-General could comment on this whole matter of the Premier, through his office, issuing a press release in conjunction with an investigation that may or may not have been occurring under the auspices of the Attorney-General's department. It struck me as rather peculiar that the Premier did that, and I'm wondering if the Attorney-General would care to comment.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I have taken the same position really with everyone in relation to allegations that anyone or any group of people might be under criminal investigation. The only position I can take as a neutral person who must safeguard the liberties of the public and be absolutely free to make prosecutorial or law enforcement decisions — people who work under me — is that I must never confirm or deny any allegations that may come my way. Not doing that may produce some temporary real hardships and anguish for some citizen who it's alleged is under investigation, isn't under investigation and so on, and I recognize that.

I also recognize that many people do not understand this peculiar role of a minister of justice. Why shouldn't I be able to confirm that somebody isn't under investigation, or that they are under investigation, or that they've been cleared if they've been under investigation, and all these things? Why shouldn't I be able to say that? The reason I can't say that is that if you once confirm, you must confirm or deny every other time. Then it would be possible for someone who was running a cocaine-smuggling business to simply have a lawyer ask if the Attorney-General was investigating them, and if I said no, then no doubt, if I was investigating them, the surveillance might be held to violate the Charter. Or if I said nothing, then obviously they would assume I was investigating them, they would be very cautious, and we wouldn't succeed.

So it is a real problem not only in explaining the purpose behind it, but in finding understanding. In the five years I've been in this job I've had to explain that position a number of times, and I am not the least bit dismayed or concerned that

[ Page 3883 ]

people don't understand it. That's the position I've taken, and that's the position I continue to take. I will not make those comments, or comment on investigations or the lack of investigations, or confirm them, regardless of who asks me.

MR. SIHOTA: In keeping with that, it therefore struck me as wholly inappropriate that the Premier would take this extraordinary action that he took with respect to releasing a press release on the matter — entirely inappropriate, extraordinary, and under the circumstances, given the explanation of the Attorney-General, in my opinion unwarranted.

I'm wondering if the Attorney-General had communicated his point of view as he has articulated it in this House to the Premier of the province.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Yes, I most certainly did, before such release was put out. I might say that my position was accepted, namely that I would not and could not make a comment.

MR. SIHOTA: In light of that explanation, it seems to me even more of a gross and unwarranted action on the part of the Premier to have taken that type of action. When that type of counsel and advice is given to the Premier, when an explanation as thorough as that is provided to the Premier, it's astounding under the circumstances, then, that this deliberate action on the part of the Premier, which surely amounts to an affront to the Attorney-General, would have been taken by the Premier. I think I want to convey my regret that the Premier took that action.

In view of the hour, and since there are other more pressing topics — we all want to get on to the matter of the schedule of court fees — may I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn. I move the appropriate motion at this time so that we may continue this discussion tomorrow.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.