[ Page 4537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 24). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4537

Tabling Documents –– 4537

Oral Questions

Provision of AZT to AIDS victims. Mrs. Boone –– 4537

Environmental laboratory. Ms. Smallwood –– 4538

Ombudsman's investigation of Principal Savings and Trust Co. Mr. Sihota –– 4538

Indian land title. Mr. R. Fraser –– 4539

Barkerville historic park. Ms. Edwards –– 4539

Ministerial Statements

Canada's Fitweek. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 4539

Mrs. Boone

B.C. participation in Fitweek. Hon. Mr. Reid –– 4540

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 25). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 4540

Mr. Stupich –– 4542

Ms. Marzari –– 4542

Mr. Blencoe –– 4543

Mr. Sihota –– 4544

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 4546

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

On vote 56: minister's office –– 4546

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. D’Arcy

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Michael

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people here in the gallery today in anticipation of a message. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) and I would like the members to make welcome the following persons from the Sechelt Indian band who are here today: Chief Thomas Paul, Councillor Ben Pierre, Councillor Stan Dixon — who is no stranger to this chamber or in fact to the whole province — Councillor Lenora Joe and Councillor Warren Paull. Would the members please make them welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER: It's a rare pleasure for me to introduce a group of visitors from the Chetwynd district in the great South Peace River constituency. Mr. Speaker, in your gallery are Mr. John Boraas and about 15 adult education students from Northern Lights College. Please join me in making them welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, there are four classes from Terry Fox School in Port Coquitlam who will be in and out of the galleries between 2 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. today. Perhaps the House could make them welcome as well.

MR. DE JONG: On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), it gives me great pleasure to introduce Mr. and Mrs. John Ivor Smith of Duncan. Would the House please give them a cordial welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Visiting the Legislature today and visiting with a number of people is the mayor of Surrey, Mr. Bob Bose. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: I'd like to welcome today a friend I haven't seen for some time, whom I welcome to the chamber, Mr. Allen Clapp.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from Surrey, I also welcome Mayor Bose to Victoria today.

MR. CRANDALL: I too, from my distant riding of Columbia River, have two guests. I'd like the House to welcome Dick and Ella Gondek.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH: This is a very historic occasion, because while it is a land title amendment bill, it really is a Sechelt band land title bill in every sense of the bill.

This bill will amend our Land Title Act to provide for the registration of Indian reserve land under the B.C. Torrens land title registration system. It is the first time in this province, and the first time in Canada. This bill is responsive to the self-government aspirations of the Sechelt people, but it has been structured so that any Indian band in this province may, with supporting federal legislation. in the future elect to take advantage of the route that Sechelt is following.

This bill is the instrument by which an Indian band's fee simple ownership of its reserve lands will be given legal recognition in this province. Before this could happen, federal legislation establishing the band as a legal entity would delegate to it the power to adopt provincial land title registration laws. This has already been done for the Sechelt Indian band, the first band in the country to do so. Fulfilling these conditions opens the door for the entry of band-owned reserve lands into the mainstream of the Torrens system. The entry process is the same as that by which provincial Crown land enters the Torrens system. A lot of care has been taken to ensure that a clear route of title is established and that existing interests such as leaseholds and mortgages are recognized in accordance with Torrens principles.

By incorporating its land into the Torrens system, the Sechelt band will be able to enter into financial and real estate dealings in accordance with conventional business practice. This has long been an objective of many of our native people and also of their tenants, financiers and others who wish to secure their real estate transactions by registration in land registry offices. By meeting these objectives the bill will create much greater opportunity for economic development for Indian bands that elect to take advantage of its provisions.

This bill represents about three years of hard work, and I want to acknowledge the former Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Garde Gardom, who worked so hard for this day. I want also to acknowledge the Premier and my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who both strongly supported this move, and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), who has been extremely supportive as well. But most of all I want to acknowledge the Sechelt band, who have decided to move the musty old Indian Act into the twenty-first century and be the pioneers in this country to do so.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to file the lottery branch grants report. I'm also making available to the members a comprehensive list of more than 400 community projects which will receive financial support from the fund.

Oral Questions

PROVISION OF AZT TO AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. On Monday in this House you indicated that you are considering changes to government policy regarding the full funding of AZT treatment for AIDS patients. Given that people with AIDS are terminally ill, I now ask this question with a great sense of urgency. Will the minister tell this House exactly when he will make this decision and when we will know if this province will join the rest of Canada and fully fund AZT treatments?

[ Page 4538 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making a statement that I'm considering changing our formula under the Pharmacare program. We have a very good Pharmacare program in place at the present time which covers most of the drugs that are used. We have various categories of that program. For example — I'll go through it again today just in case someone has missed parts of it — plan A is partial reimbursement of costs to a senior holding a valid Pharmacare card...which all drugs are paid for; plan B, full 100 percent payment of benefits is made direct to Pharmacare suppliers for benefits provided to individuals residing in a licensed care facility; plan C is full 100 percent payment of benefits made directly to Pharmacare suppliers for benefits provided to individuals and dependents eligible for medical benefits under the Social Services and Housing program. Plan E is a partial 80 percent reimbursement of benefit costs above an annual family deductible of $300 and to a maximum of $2,000. That is the Pharmacare program, and all drugs come under this program.

MRS. BOONE: The minister responded on Monday to a question from our leader about whether he would follow the unanimous advice of his advisory group to fully fund all AZT treatments. He responded at that time that maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't. He did not say specifically that he wouldn't follow them, so it was taken that he was obviously readdressing the situation. The minister must be aware that AIDS patients taking AZT are saving the taxpayers money insofar as the medication enables them to spend less time in acute-care hospital beds. Will the minister please acknowledge that it is a fiscally responsible decision to fully fund AZT treatments and keep these people out of our hospitals?

HON. MR. DUECK: I will give the same answer I gave the other day — I believe it was Monday: that is future policy. I did not make a commitment, as we wouldn't in any event, because future policy is something that will follow sometime in the future, in the fullness of time. Secondly, I have asked anyone who had a difficulty paying for that particular drug....

I know they are unfortunate people. Anyone who is ill is very unfortunate, and we accept that just as well as you do. You haven't got a licence on sympathy or empathy towards sick people. When questions like that are asked, you insinuate that somehow we haven't got sympathy for ill people. This is not true. However, I've also asked that any individual who has a problem and doesn't qualify for social services....

I understand that there are some receiving the AZT who could qualify but have not applied. Let's say there are some who do not qualify. We will look at that particular individual's hardship and try to help him. I think that is going a very long mile for anyone who's in that unfortunate position. Don't ever think that you have a licence on sympathy and empathy on that side of the House.

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister has confirmed that his ministry sent a government environment lab a memo instructing them to cut back services 30 to 50 percent and that the lab should perform only essential services until the beginning of November. Can the minister tell the House what environmental services the lab performs that are considered nonessential?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset let me say that any such orders are only conditional on the lab being sold in the first place.

Secondly, all essential services that are deemed essential by the various regional managers and people who make these decisions will be made, and there is a whole litany. If you wanted that type of answer, you had better place it on the order paper, because it would be extensive. I could take 15 or 20 minutes at a time and answer in the House, but it would be extensive.

All tests will still be done. It is just that there is going to be, if the lab is sold — and that's important: if the lab is sold — some delay in getting them done in the same fashion and time-frame as has been done in time past.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Supplementary. The memo instructs the lab to reduce services now, pending a possible sale in October, so this is actions.... The lab has been instructed currently to cut services.

Yesterday the minister confirmed reports that a majority of pulp mills in this province exceed their control limits. The minister has also told this House that these mills are taking steps to improve their pollution control standards. How can the minister adequately monitor these improvements as well as 3,000 waste discharge permits in the province when the services of the government's labs have been cut back to 50 percent?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad the member asked me that question, because it does give me a chance to talk about a separate testing facility we are putting in place for the testing of dioxins — which, of course, is the main concern when you are dealing with kraft pulp mills that use chlorine in their bleaching process. That process is going ahead. We will have a separate dioxin-testing laboratory. I will be more than happy to provide you during my estimates with the full details of that process. but it is separate and distinct from the Environmental Lab.

OMBUDSMAN'S INVESTIGATION OF
PRINCIPAL SAVINGS AND TRUST CO.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. There are, of course, 18,000 — I'm sure the Premier knows — investors in Principal Trust, many of them seniors, who lost a significant amount of their savings as a consequence of the collapse of Principal Trust. The ombudsman is currently investigating the government's actions with respect to the failings of Principal Trust. Could the Premier advise this House whether or not the government will abide by the decision of the ombudsman with respect to Principal Trust?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This is something that the Ministry of Finance has been capably dealing with, and I would defer the question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This question had been raised during a discussion of our estimates, so I thought it appropriate that I take the opportunity to alert the whole House. As the

[ Page 4539 ]

Speaker knows, during estimates only one or two opposition members are present at any one time, so it's useful for all of them to have an opportunity to hear the answer.

The answer, quite simply, is that we have supported the ombudsman's examination in its entirety. As a matter of fact, he has been complimentary of the degree of cooperation he has received not only from the ministry's corporate relations division, but also from the Securities Commission people themselves. To that extent, then, the ombudsman's investigation is underway and well in hand.

There was a series of supplementary questions put during the estimates debate, Mr. Speaker. It may well be that other more pertinent questions can be put, but I'll allow the questioner the freedom of putting those questions now if that's his choice.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier again. The Minister of Finance, during the course of those estimates to which he refers, indicated — and I'm paraphrasing here — that it would not matter a whit — those are the words that the Minister of Finance used — what the ombudsman had to say, indicating very clearly that he would not respect the decision of the ombudsman. Given the sanctity of that office and the role that office plays in society, that struck me as rather peculiar. Does the Premier agree with the position of the Minister of Finance that the government will not respect the decision of the ombudsman as it relates to the Principal Trust matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: In general terms, obviously all information provided us by the ombudsman — or any other body that provides advice. but particularly the ombudsman — is of extreme importance to government, and all of that information is considered. This is not to say that we pass on the difficult or the responsible decisions to another body or non-elected group. However, since the reference was to something said by the Minister of Finance, I will defer the question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, Mr. Premier. You probably said it better than I did — and probably in fewer words, if memory serves me rightly — the point being, of course, that we are interested in the ombudsman's findings. The specific question that I do remember.... The member, by his own admission, was paraphrasing, so there's a distortion in the selective choice of words here. But the specific question that was raised during the debate on the estimates, of course, was: if the ombudsman requested us to make whole the investors in First Pacific — or First....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Principal.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The two subsidiary companies of the Principal Group — their names escape me for the moment. If the ombudsman found it necessary for us to make them whole, would we be prepared to do so? I said categorically that this government would not agree to make the investors in that unfortunate situation whole. That is an issue that will have to be resolved by the court system. I've said that repeatedly to the press, in this chamber, and now I'm pleased to have the opportunity to express that view to all the members of the opposition who weren't here during the estimates and therefore wouldn't have been made aware of the government's position on this matter.

MR. SIHOTA: It's clear lack of moxie on the part of the Premier to answer some of these questions, but we'll test the Premier's moxie a bit by asking him the following question. The Alberta government — in fact, Premier Getty — has said: "If there's an indication of negligence or fault on behalf of the government, then the government will have to make up that negligence and fault." It goes on to say that they will compensate the investors in that eventuality. Is that also the position of the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The party on this side of the House, which has governed the province for the last 35 years all but three, has always taken the position that we will deal with all matters responsibly and that we will not simply make political statements that may be popular for the day. We've seen it done by the NDP socialists. Instead we will weigh all the information provided us and deal with these matters responsibly.

Again, in this particular instance, we know that there are a number of hearings taking place at present. We know that all of the information has been carefully and considerably gathered by the Minister of Finance, and we will deal with this in a very responsible fashion and not — as what is suggested by the NDP — simply jump off and make a decision without giving it considerable thought.

INDIAN LAND TITLE

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on this very historic day I'm surprised we've got this far through question period without somebody asking the Attorney-General if, in light of the historic announcement for the Sechelt band, any other bands in the province of British Columbia are seeking the same opportunity.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I think that there's great interest in this legislative leap, not only in British Columbia but across the country, and that a number of other bands have been in touch with the Sechelt band and are very interested in this great experiment.

BARKERVILLE HISTORIC PARK

MS. EDWARDS: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. As the minister knows, the Wendle House historical program at Barkerville, which allowed school groups to fully experience life as it was in the 1890s, has been cancelled. Could the minister explain why school students from throughout the province are losing this program, which over the years has greatly enriched the educational experience provided by the Barkerville heritage park?

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. I don't have the details about all the programs and activities around the province. I'll provide the member with the exact details of the program and where it's at.

[2:30]

Ministerial Statements

CANADA'S FITWEEK

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, this Friday, May 20, marks the beginning of Canada's Fitweek in British Columbia. Canada's Fitweek is a nationwide celebration of physical

[ Page 4540 ]

activity, the largest of its kind in the world. Canada's Fitweek is co-ordinated by Fitness Canada and last year encouraged approximately 7.5 million Canadians to participate in a wide variety of activities. It is anticipated that well over 7.5 million people of all ages and walks of life will participate in more in than 13,500 events this year.

Fitweek is no trivial matter. The health and well-being of our citizens is very important, especially when we commit one-third of the provincial government resources to health care. We can, through a little more exercise, make life a little easier for our illustrious Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and, of course, ourselves.

The Ministry of Health, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, is supporting the promotion of Canada's Fitweek in British Columbia. The fitness branch of the Ministry of Health is coordinating several events for the Ministry of Health employees in Victoria. One of these events is Sneaker Day Friday, May 20, which is the kickoff event for Canada's Fitweek. Ministry of Health employees will be encouraged to wear sneakers at the office. I request all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to seriously consider Canada's Fitweek as an opportunity to pull those New Year's resolutions off the shelf and start walking, climbing stairs, running — and, I should add, quitting smoking — or getting involved in some other regular physical activity.

MRS. BOONE: We certainly recognize the importance of fitness to all British Columbians and would encourage people to join in the activities, as the Minister of Health has stated. Most of us — I think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) probably wouldn't take advantage from more exercise — on this side of the House and, I'm sure, on your side of the House certainly would.

I am a little concerned, though. There's a statement here that it would make life a little easier for our Finance minister. I certainly would not like to encourage exercise as a means of making life easier for our Finance minister. But if exercise is going to make life easier for the rest of the people, then let's certainly go with it.

B.C. PARTICIPATION IN FITWEEK

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Along with my colleagues the hon. Minister of Health and the hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I'd like to invite all citizens of British Columbia to participate in the celebration of physical activity during Canada's sixth annual Fitweek, May 20-29. Nationally, fitness is coordinated by the government of Canada and the 12 provincial and territorial governments, as well as 20 national organizations. Locally, thousands of agencies, municipal governments and corporate sector sponsors support the many activities of fitness.

I'm pleased to see my ministry staff involved in Fitweek with the Tower Trot up the curatorial tower located next to the Royal British Columbia Museum on May 20. Also, on May 25 we'll see an interministerial Fun Fitfest taking place on the lawns of the Legislature between 12 and 2 p.m. I'd like to encourage all hon. members to dust off their sneakers and involve themselves in Fitweek.

MS. EDWARDS: As the minister will have noted, I keep fit myself by having just slipped out and back into the House.

I'm always delighted when he lets me know that he's going to make ministerial statements. However, I'm very happy that Fitweek is here, to encourage people to keep fit and be able to carry on at the rate that British Columbians like to carry on and be fit.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a ministerial statement. I would simply like to say that my colleagues have expressed very well the importance of Fitweek and I fully concur.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 25.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 25, the Credit Union Amendment Act. Under the Credit Union Act, the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation is given the power to direct a credit union under supervision to amalgamate with another credit union. However, the act is unclear on whether the direction is binding on the members of the supervised credit union. The statute also fails to provide CUDIC — Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation — with the ancillary powers necessary to give full effect to its direction to amalgamate. These defects in the Credit Union Act are remedied by Bill 25, which provides a new section specifically dealing with amalgamations directed by CUDIC.

The new provision authorizes CUDIC or an administrator appointed under its authority to prepare the constitution and rules of the new credit union and to appoint the persons who will serve as its first directors. This documentation will then be forwarded by CUDIC to the superintendent of credit unions, who will issue the certificate of amalgamation, amalgamating the two credit unions.

The new section makes it clear that the approval of the members of the credit union subject to CUDIC's amalgamation direction is not required. The amendments also anticipate the situation where there may be a direction by CUDIC that a credit union under supervision amalgamate with a credit union not under supervision. In that case, the full rights of the directors and members of the non-supervised credit union remain in effect. It is only the supervised credit union that has no choice but to amalgamate if directed by CUDIC.

A further amendment to the Credit Union Act will facilitate the appointment of lawyers as directors of credit unions. Presently the Credit Union Act precludes a solicitor from serving as a director of a credit union if his or her law firm has acted for any credit union at any time in the past. This section was intended to prevent a lawyer from serving as a director of a credit union when he or she was in a position of conflict of interest. However, the practical effect of the provision is to prevent lawyers with relevant credit union experience from ever serving. Although the Credit Union Act will now be silent on the issue, lawyers will be subject to the same conflict-of-interest rules as imposed on other individuals serving as directors. In addition, lawyers will continue to be subject to the comprehensive conflict-of-interest rules of the Law Society of British Columbia.

[ Page 4541 ]

Bill 25 includes a retroactive provision which ensures that the recent amalgamation of the First Pacific and Westcoast Savings Credit Unions is validated. This amalgamation was conducted under the authority vested in CUDIC on the recommendation of the review committee investigating the affairs of the two credit unions.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the exceptional contribution made by Mr. Arthur Roberts, Mr. Douglas Stanley and Mrs. Renate Mueller in conducting the independent review which led to the successful amalgamation of the two credit unions. This has resolved a difficult, long-standing issue in the Victoria area. It is widely agreed that the amalgamation of First Pacific and Westcoast Savings Credit Unions is in the best interests of both credit unions, their members and the members of B.C.'s credit union system as a whole. Financial projections show that the amalgamated credit union will be considerably more profitable than the separate credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will remedy perceived defects in the Credit Union Act. The retroactive provision in respect of the First Pacific –Westcoast Savings amalgamation will ensure that the new credit union is properly constituted and empowered to carry on business.

I'm very pleased to report that as a consequence of the outstanding work of the interim board of directors which I appointed a few months back, the amalgamated credit union organization has made significant progress. As a consequence, at the first meeting to be held of this organization, which I believe is scheduled for sometime early next month here in Victoria, the success of the amalgamation will be evident to all those participating at the meeting.

In particular, I'm very proud of the contribution made by three lay people appointees that I made to that rejuvenated board. The individuals by name are: Mr. Robert Glazier, a lawyer; Mr. Allen Vandekerkhove, a well-known Victoria businessman; and Mr. Roland Beaulieu, well-known retired Victoria businessman. In addition to these three individuals, there were also three nominees from the board of the defunct First Pacific group and three members appointed from the board of the defunct Westcoast Savings group. I think this nine-member board has made tremendous progress. I personally, and the government — and I think all members in this Legislature — should applaud the progress they've made in creating a very exciting new financial institution out of the situation that had earlier prevailed, which clearly could not long endure.

The issue is one that had consumed the attention of local media and many members of both credit unions for well over a year. It had resulted in much public discussion and critical comment, none of which could be adequately dealt with at that time — in the sense of myself or others being in a position to speak with some knowledge of the financial situations that prevailed at that time. None of us were free to make the kind of comment that might have helped clear the air surrounding the need for a merger.

I'm very pleased, now that that merger has taken place, that we have a stronger financial institution as a consequence. I know many individuals are very pleased with the action, and I'm very pleased that so far, at least, we've had no negative comment — at least comment negative enough to justify any legal proceedings. I've heard some comments from across the floor this afternoon to the effect that we are fixing up some defects in the old legislation as if it was an oversight. I think that any such claim is totally inaccurate and not correct.

The fact of the matter is that we believed then and still believe that we had all of the necessary authorizations that we needed to proceed with the amalgamation. As I said when I introduced the bill for the first time, this amendment is brought forward in a sense of an abundance of caution to make very sure that what we've done meets with the full support of the Legislature and the law of the province. I suppose others might be tempted not to have brought forward this kind of change on the assumption that the merit of the merger surely would have foreclosed anyone's interest in contesting it in a legal sense.

I've always attempted to administer my legislative responsibilities in a way to ensure that we move calmly and rationally, and to the maximum extent possible, we can make sure that there is no confusion in anyone’s mind about what the intent of a particular piece of legislation might be or how that particular piece of legislation might be implemented. I'm quite proud of the record the government has brought forward in the past on these issues, and I take some exception to any suggestion that we are rectifying some past oversights or errors. That clearly is not the case; it merely is an attempt by ourselves to refuse any confusion on the matter whatsoever.

[2:45]

I've also heard it alleged that some elected members might have been successful in initiating this particular question from the other side of the House that piqued my curiosity to the extent that I made some investigations to determine whether such representations had in fact been made. I can tell the House that these initiatives were brought forward by my ministry without having the benefit of any exterior wisdom on the subject. Not as if we needed any exterior wisdom, but nevertheless I just want to clear the air because I saw some media reports which indicated that we were reacting to representations made by others without any authority in the matter. I suppose it's always a valuable thing to receive representations that are helpful, but it's not very helpful to see media reports that representations have been made and therefore certain third parties can take credit for initiating the undertaking. It was an inaccurate media report, as I have been able to ascertain through discussions with my people.

I'm satisfied that the greater Victoria community embraces this initiative with confidence and comfort. At the first general meeting, which will take place next month, there will be additional information provided that I'm sure will excite the local Victoria community and result in a wide degree of depositor confidence and renewed business activity. It should not go unnoticed that this will create the second largest credit union in the province and a very healthy one at that, one that all Victorians can take pride in. Also, all members of the credit union movement in B.C. can take some pride in the fact that CUDIC and the B.C. Central Credit Union, who were also players in designing the remedies that I have described with this bill.... All credit union members can take some pride in the fact that this was a cooperative solution, that the degree of cooperation between CUDIC and B.C. Central was real and successful, and that if, as and when further leadership is required by the Credit Union Deposit Insurance or B.C. Central, together with my ministry's corporate relations division.... We have now set the stage and the precedent so that we can move together in a united way when a common problem is perceived. That's something that I believe should give comfort to everyone who is active in the system, Mr. Speaker.

I think that I have adequately described the bill, as is my obligation to the House, and therefore I am very pleased to move second reading.

[ Page 4542 ]

MR. STUPICH: Any concern that the Whip might have had that this would be over with too quickly has gone now with the encouragement from the Minister of Finance to my colleagues to speak at great length in response to what he has said, which has had nothing at all to do with the legislation.

May I deal briefly with the legislation. The problem hasn't been that the legislation has been wrong, Mr. Speaker. The problem has been that three successive Socred Ministers of Finance have been cutting back on the supervision of credit unions, cutting back on the staff, and cutting back in the expertise so that the credit unions have been allowed to go their own way, and some of them have gotten into trouble. One of the two mentioned in this legislation is in trouble. There hasn't been the assistance from government that credit union members — thousands of them all over the province — have depended upon and have accepted as their right. They have accepted the fact that the Ministry of Finance is providing this supervision and is watching them, and on the basis of that knowledge — that trust — they have entrusted their savings to the credit union movement.

Certainly, to the credit of the credit union movement — if I may say — no credit union members have lost any money. The government has not had to bail anyone out. But certainly some credit union members have paid more than their share to keep the whole system alive, so that no one has experienced any losses and the government hasn't had to do any bailing out.

Apart from that, the credit union movement and, indeed, credit union members have been waiting expectantly for long-promised legislation that would make some changes. Had those changes been made some time ago, the need for this legislation would not have arisen. We are still waiting for that credit union legislation.

May I just say with respect to the changes that we are introducing now....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thought we were talking about this bill.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, we are, and I'm going to say that when this bill was introduced, the Minister of Finance was asked about it by the press, and his response was, "I'm doing it this way because I'm autocratic, I'm dictatorial, and I don't believe in the rights of the majority to make a decision" — words to that effect. That's not the right way to go about it. If there was to be an amalgamation, it should have been something that the members voluntarily agreed to do. There should not have been the pressure on them that there was in this particular situation, and there wouldn't have been the pressure on them had the Ministry of Finance conducted itself in a better way in supervising the work of the credit unions in the province.

Yes, this bill is before us today, and we won't vote against it, but we can't help but say that the Minister of Finance has not served the credit union movement in the way that he should have, any more than his two predecessors, and he's not serving them well now by not bringing forth the legislation that everyone is expecting.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, this is not a controversial bill, but it has to be repeated that neither is it a seminal bill or the end product of many months or years of working. We must look at this bill as simply a stopgap measure in the consultation process between the credit union movement and the government using CUDIC as the regulatory and as the — if we can call it that — assisting agency.

The credit union movement, when it first felt the need to combine together and develop for itself a deposit insurance corporation, developed its own body which rapidly, for various reasons, became largely the creature of the provincial government. That's how it went, and that's how it goes. So the credit union has always enjoyed an ambivalent relationship with the provincial government that regulates it. That is probably very appropriate, because the regulatory body — the deposit insurance body — has to be very careful and cautious, as do the credit unions, as they develop their credibility in the community.

This particular piece of legislation was put together for the merging of two particular credit unions. CUDIC has had that power for some time now, to merge credit unions when they get into trouble and when they come under supervision. This bill, more than anything else, puts shape around what those mergers should look like and develops some process through which credit unions must move in order to develop their merger proposals. I think the credit union movement probably feels okay about that, since CUDIC had the power to do that. They probably feel somewhat relieved that now there is a definite legal process that this must move through. I think the credit union movement would still say that in the last few years, we have witnessed that many credit unions — not financially unstable credit unions; credit unions that will honour the deposits right down the line — have come into trouble. Some of them have not been able to meet the statutorily required reserve of 3 percent, and some of them have just minimally come under that reserve and have been put on supervision.

If we proceed the way this legislation suggests, a credit union that comes under supervision — even a credit union which is minimally under supervision; it just barely doesn't meet that 3 per cent reserve.... This legislation does not provide the discretion for CUDIC that it might need. Those credit unions might well not be merged. Perhaps they need a year or so to prove themselves; perhaps they need assistance other than a merger.

If we regard this legislation as an interim piece of legislation, while the consultation process between the provincial government and the credit union movement proceeds, we might come up with a much more flexible planning tool in the future. Mr. Minister, I am assuming that is your intent. Would you see amendments to this bill coming forward as those consultations continue over the next little while? I see this bill, as I said before, as one which has come into place because of a particular situation and a particular necessity for the merger of two major credit unions. Would you agree with the B.C. Central Credit Union system that this is a stopgap measure, and that it will hopefully lead to further consultation? That's a question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is second reading, hon. member. We're speaking to the principle of the bill.

MS. MARZARI: Oh, this is second reading. This is not committee; this is the speech. All right.

Then I leave that question hanging in limbo waiting for an answer during the committee stage of this bill. I'm sure that the minister will be very anxious to answer that question first off when we come to the committee stage. I have left the question with the minister, and I believe that is the major question to be asked about this bill.

[ Page 4543 ]

The credit union movement wants to remain credible, wants to have an appropriate deposit insurance corporation, wants to have some more controls over itself and would like to think that this is going to be a continuing consultation process, and not a final measure in terms of who must merge with whom and when coming down on them from CUDIC.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker. it's true that we'll probably have a number of questions in committee stage, but I think it would be appropriate for greater Victoria MLAs to make a few comments about this piece of legislation. Obviously we are seeing the amalgamation of two major credit unions in our community — two very important credit unions who have done a lot of good work in this community. We're optimistic, obviously, that they will continue to do that in the years ahead.

There are a number of things I want to comment upon. One is that our Finance critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), alluded to the whole question of taking a look at the fundamental reasons why this amalgamation had to take place. For some years there were some questions asked, particularly of Westcoast Savings, its lending policies and the management of that institution. We know that that institution, led by the former executive director, the chairman in charge of Westcoast Savings, Mr. Lutz, made some questionable.... There have been a number of questions over the years asked about the policies of Westcoast Savings resulting in a substantial deficit for that institution.

I think it raises the whole question of monitoring and supervision of these institutions. Credit unions have done great service to this province and will in the future, but there has to be, if the provincial government is going to have a role — we've talked about this before for a number of financial institutions — care and understanding and proper, efficient supervision by the public sector of those institutions.

In a way, although we are supporting this legislation and generally recognize that the amalgamation probably had to happen, we are sad to some degree that it actually has taken place. If things had been a little different, if there had been the proper action by the public sector to watch certain activities, it could very well be that this amalgamation wouldn't have had to happen.

It is incumbent upon us, as my colleagues have already suggested today, to take a really positive look at the future of the area of supervision and monitoring and make sure we have the appropriate and adequate staff to ensure that the public sector is involved in protecting the interests of those who believe and invest and work within the credit union movement.

Secondly, I want to comment upon the fact that this legislation is before us.

MR. SIHOTA: Why is it here?

MR. BLENCOE: "Why is it here?" my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asks. I'm sure my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will be asking that question on his own behalf.

Once again this Minister of Finance and this government are demonstrating an inability to read the letter of the law. We've seen it time in and time out over the last two years. I go back to special warrants and all those things. Remember those?

[3:00]

MR. SIHOTA: Oh yes, we've got to change the wording of those.

MR. BLENCOE: Changing the wording for warrants because some months ago they broke the law with the special warrants in the Financial Administration Act. And now we have an act before us to clean up the sloppy administration by this Minister of Finance. We have an act before us that is correcting the mismanagement and the misjudgment of this minister in terms of the credit union and what you're allowed to do in terms of forcing amalgamation.

My understanding — and I'm sure my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will also add to this — is that this matter was drawn to the attention of the Minister of Finance, that he was told that perhaps he might want to take another look before he moved to force amalgamation. that maybe he should see if he has the right in law to do that and that maybe, once again, we should think about using this Legislature. Too often, Mr. Speaker, this government goes around this Legislature and over the top of it, but never considers that perhaps it should once again be the focus of our endeavours in the province of British Columbia in terms of keeping to the law — not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law.

So we have before us another piece of legislation brought by the Minister of Finance to correct, in many respects, a mistake. Unfortunately, the Minister of Finance hasn't been able to admit to the people of this community that he perhaps overstepped his bounds a little bit. That's unfortunate, because obviously these things happen. In the height of wanting to try and see, in this case, two credit unions survive and get them back together, he moved a little too fast and didn't read the letter of the law. Be that as it may, we have the legislation before us. We'll be asking a few more questions in committee on that very thing. I'm sure the Minister of Finance will, as usual, answer our questions to the fullest. I am confident of that.

The third question — and there'll be more questions in committee stage. We know the amalgamation has taken place; the minister, in his wisdom, along with his advisers, has forced the amalgamation of two Victoria-based credit unions. However, Mr. Speaker. I think the thousands of members belonging to those two credit unions are entitled to some insight from the minister and those who put the investigation or the background together for the amalgamation.... I think those investors, depositors and creditors are entitled to something: a report, some rationale, some tabling of evidence that backs it up, not just the minister saying: "Well. I think it should happen." Those investors and depositors should be given something concrete that shows that it was indeed necessary.

I'm sure the new super board, with its Finance ministry appointments, has some recommendations for the two amalgamated boards. Indeed, the depositors should be given a business report. They should be given projections. What's the future? What studies did you do to rationalize the amalgamation of these credit unions?

MR. SIHOTA: Where's the business report?

MR. BLENCOE: Where's the detailed analysis? I recognize that obviously there may be some material that's confidential, financially delicate, but those thousands of depositors are entitled to some report. They've had nothing so far. All they've had is the minister saying: "We're going to

[ Page 4544 ]

put this group together. We're going to get amalgamation, and there's going to be a date set." He's appointed some people to it, but there's no evidence, no report to depositors. They're entitled to that, Mr. Speaker.

I would hope that the minister, in time — not in time, as soon as possible.... .

AN HON. MEMBER: In the fullness of time.

MR. BLENCOE: James Chabot revisited.

I hope he will provide those thousands of depositors some insight into the inside deliberations of the group that recommended amalgamation to the minister. Let's have the business report. Let's have some projections and analysis. Give us the reasons other than your personal belief that they should be amalgamated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Oh no! Unfair!

MR. BLENCOE: If the minister feels slighted, I don't apologize. In seriousness, I think the depositors are entitled to some answers, to some business reports, on the future of the amalgamated credit unions. That, I think, is a very reasonable thing to ask on behalf of those depositors.

MR. SIHOTA: I wasn't going to talk on this until the second member for Victoria twisted my arm. But since he did, I thought I'd better speak on this matter for a minute or two.

The reason I want to speak on this matter is largely because of the comments the minister made when opening second reading debate on this legislation. Let's not have any illusions as to why this piece of legislation is before the House this afternoon. The only reason this piece of legislation is in front of the House this afternoon is that the Minister of Finance was asleep at the switch when he moved ahead with respect to amalgamation of these credit unions. The minister says there is no legal problem here, and we're doing this with an abundance of caution. Then he goes on to say that none of the members on this side of the House had informed his ministry of the failings of his actions and how they were contrary to the provisions of the Credit Union Act or not authorized by the provisions of the Credit Union Act, and he says that the government is moving with an abundance of caution.

Well, let me say that the minister's comments in that regard as justification for this legislation are really an abundance of baloney. I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker. This piece of legislation is here because the minister did not have the authority under section 180 or 182 of the Credit Union Act to do what he purported to do. That's the one that allows him to make regulations and take action. He didn't have that authority, and he took this action.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister scoffs and scorns, and says: "We did too have that authority." We all know why the legislation is here. If the minister had the authority, the legislation wouldn't be here, particularly in light of the fact that apparently nobody is interested in challenging the legislation in any event. Let's face it, Mr. Minister: this is here. If you just admitted it, I don't think we would have gotten into this protracted debate. If you just admitted that the government made a mistake and they needed this type of housekeeping legislation to get through, that would be fine. But in keeping with the style that the Minister of Finance has exhibited in this House, he tried to attribute it to other reasons, and there's no foundation in that.

This legislation really is a microcosm of two things that are wrong with this provincial government: first, its lack of respect for our democratic traditions; secondly, it's a reflection on matters of integrity. I want to deal with both those matters.

On lack of respect for our democratic traditions, over and over again we've seen this government bypass the laws, bypass the rules and run rampant with its ideological, radical, right-wing thoughts and actions. It has chosen to proceed with privatization plans without consideration of what the law says. It has chosen, as my good friend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the subject under discussion is second reading of Bill 25. I don't think there's any reference to privatization in Bill 25.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, we're discussing the principle of this bill, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm sure the minister doesn't want to hear all of this, but in the fullness of time, if I can quote the minister, the comments I'm making right now will demonstrate exactly why I'm making them, and we'll come right back to this legislation. If the minister will hear me out, I'm just building the case.

Of course the minister doesn't want to hear the extent to which this government wishes to bypass our democratic traditions. It's doing it on privatization without paying any heed to our legislation: it's doing it....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Special warrants.

MR. SIHOTA: In fact, it did it on special warrants. It chose to bypass and break the law in the case of special warrants, so much so that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I have to remind you again that on second reading we are dealing with the principles of the bill only.

MR. SIHOTA: As I was saying, this legislation is a microcosm of what this government has been doing. It's been sleeping at the switch; it's been saying: "We have the authority to do all sorts of things through the regulatory provisions and mechanisms that we've got. Let's not come before the Legislature and bring forward laws and get approval for enactments and actions. After all, the members of the Legislature may ask questions. The opposition may ask something the minister can't handle." Fearful — trembling, in fact — over the prospect of coming before this Legislature and facing this outstanding opposition, the minister chooses instead to bypass our democratic traditions and proceed through the taking of actions under the regulatory guise.

But the point is that the minister did something he did not have authority to do. That's the reason we have this legislation before us. If the minister thought he had authority, he wouldn't have brought in a retroactive piece of legislation. If

[ Page 4545 ]

he had authority, there would have been no need to remedy what the minister had done wrong. The minister fought the law and realized that the law should have won. But the minister can't beat the law, and now there he is, coming back here. It's astonishing the number of times this government, during its 18 dismal months in office — 19 now — has been sleeping at the switch and not paying any heed to legislation because of its thirst to achieve its objectives, radical as they may be.

The second aspect that is of concern here — and the second kind of theme that develops out of this legislation — really is the theme of integrity. We can joke a little bit about the other one, but I want to talk about this one in a serious vein. The minister said, if I heard him right, that statements in the press that the ministry had been advised of the minister's inappropriate action were not true. I take that as an affront, as a member of the Legislature who made those comments and who advised the minister. I went back and looked in my file. Unfortunately, I didn't have the date, but I can tell the minister approximately when it was.

[3:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: He's going to paraphrase it.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Minister, if you want to debate that one, I'll quote you directly on that. I will tell the minister exactly who I talked to, how many conversations I had with that person, and I will give you the approximate range of dates when we discussed it. The name of the person was Cheryl Zurawski from the Ministry of Finance. I phoned up that person and asked her.... I think she was the contact person, in keeping with the press release, Mr. Minister. The minister nods in concurrence. The phone call took place within a few days of the issuance of that press release, largely because I was out of town on the day the press release was issued. It was within a week or so of that press release coming out. I phoned up the person and asked under what authority the government proceeded with the minister's actions. First I was told they'd get back to me and tell me, and then I was told by way of a return call that the minister did not require any authority under the legislation — that he could do it on his own. At that point I pointed out the provisions of the Credit Union Act, particularly, I believe, section 182, and said: "Look, the minister has no authority."

One of the themes that comes out in all of this is integrity. The minister could have come into this House and said. "Look, I made a mistake, and we're remedying it," and this thing could have gotten through in a matter of minutes. But instead he went to his usual method of trying to say that there is no way that the opposition brought these matters to his ministry's attention — when that wasn't the case. I would encourage the minister to talk to this official, whom I do not know personally, and verify the fact that they were called, and once he's verified that, to come back into this House and withdraw the comment he made earlier with respect to the fact that members of the opposition did not contact his ministry. If the minister — to use a word I used earlier on — has any moxie, I'm sure he'll do that. We look forward to the minister's coming back in committee stage to eat the little bit of humble pie that he should have eaten right at the outset so we didn't get into this type of debate.

Mr. Speaker, the other attribute of integrity that relates to this legislation is the minister's comments with respect to the removal of solicitors from the boards of directors of these companies. The Credit Union Act. section 60(8), says: "No employee of the board. auditor or solicitor of a credit union. public servant concerned by his duties with the affairs of a credit union. and no corporation, shall be a director or officer of a credit union." The minister, by virtue of Section 1 of this legislation, first of all has decided to strike the word "solicitor" out. Why? Very simply because the minister again was asleep at the switch. He appointed a solicitor, whom he made reference to in the course of his opening comments, to the board of directors of this credit union, not realizing that it was contrary to section 60(8) of the Credit Union Act. The Minister of Finance obviously is not familiar with the legislation that falls under his wings. So he broke the law, and then he had to remedy his mistake by bringing forward this retroactive legislation. It's not palatable to say that that was done in an abundance of caution. It wasn't done in an abundance of caution: it was because the minister made a mistake. It would be fair enough if he admitted that, but no, he goes on to try to pass it off and say that the current Law Society rules allow for coverage of conflict-of-interest matters and the lawyer will be governed by the Law Society rules as to conflict of interest.

I'll tell you something. Mr. Speaker. I know the minister is now talking to one of his colleagues because he doesn't want to hear this. This government clearly doesn't understand the concept of conflict of interest. It makes a mistake; it recognizes that the legislation prevents that type of conflict of interest from occurring; and instead of acknowledging the fact that there may be a conflict of interest there, it chooses instead to bless the conflict of interest scenario that it has created.

A solicitor, like an auditor, of a credit union has access to all sorts of information as it relates to a particular credit union. For obvious reasons of conflict, we've said to auditors and to solicitors in the past that they can't sit on the boards of credit unions. Now I ask you. Mr. Speaker — and I'll ask this minister later — what's the difference between an auditor and a solicitor? If it's okay for the solicitor.... Obviously we know what the differences are in terms of their professional capabilities. But in terms of the principle of section 60(8) there is no difference. Why not amend section 60(8) to allow auditors and public servants concerned by their duties to sit on...? Is that going to be the next amendment by the minister? Why doesn't the minister just recognize that he made a mistake and say that a solicitor who has dealings with a credit union ought not to be placed on that board? The minister knows as well as I do that there is an abundance of solicitors in this town — about 600 of them, I think, at last count.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: And building up.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: There are a couple too many in this House.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Social Services is right: there are a couple too many in the House — on that side of the House.

All the minister has to do is inspect the principle enshrined in 60(8), instead of trying to salvage his ego and prevent acknowledgment of the fact that he erred. He gets into his long diatribe on Law Society rules that are going to

[ Page 4546 ]

govern and prevent any type of conflict matters from arising. That's a red herring. That's got nothing to do with it. What this legislation is all about is the fact that this minister made a mistake at the outset. If he had just admitted that at the beginning, we wouldn't have needed to get into this and he wouldn't have needed to get into the type of hyperbole he used in order to introduce this piece of legislation.

We'll have some questions to the Minister of Finance at committee stage if he wants to proceed with this form of dialogue on this bill; but if he wants to eat a little bit of humble pie, then we'll get through it very quickly. We look forward to the minister's comments during committee stage. I must say, on the other side of the coin, that we have no problem with this legislation in terms of supporting it. But if the minister had been forthright.... Maybe that's not the proper word — "forth left" maybe. If the minister had just come out with a little humility and admitted that he had erred, then we could have passed this legislation very quickly. That quality is obviously lacking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are advised that according to standing order 42, the minister closes debate on second reading.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: There were a number of points made, and I don't think I'll attempt to answer all of them. We can get into that at committee stage. That's the customary place where we do the sparring. Let me just point out to some of the hon. members that one individual was named during a presentation by one of the opposition speakers. I want to remind the House that that individual name is involved in litigation. It may not be prudent to make too many comments on that matter for the record.

Secondly, the suggestion that we might be making some further changes is true. I think it's no secret. I've often said that we are attempting to bring in some amendments to the structure and operating style of the credit union movement. To the hon. member who questioned the delay, let me just point out that the delay results entirely from our desire to reach a consensus among all the players involved. That consensus does not now appear likely. As a consequence, we'll have to proceed without having unanimity on the issues we hope to address.

There was some reference made by the last speaker, I believe, to my reference to a press story. Just for the House's and the hon. member's information, I was well aware of the phone call to Mrs. Zurawski. That issue, of course, was after the announcement. I was referring to the press story that indicated this piece of legislation was initiated as a consequence of a member of the opposition's alertness. While I agree we need more alertness in this world, claiming ownership of the solution was another instance of how that particular member seems to believe the world revolves around only one sun. I can tell him categorically that this issue was under examination, and remedies were in place long before he expressed any interest in it. The press story I referred to was the claim that he was the author of the bill. Obviously the press report was inaccurate — at least, I assume it was.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to conclude debate and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 25, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $236,125.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Firstly, I'd like to thank my critic for allowing the House to proceed to other business while I attended a meeting; I appreciate that very much.

Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure for me to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services for the fiscal year 1988-89. The estimates debate provides a valuable opportunity to report to the Legislative Assembly on the ministry's activities over the past year, its efforts and achievements as well as the new initiatives planned for the future.

Ours is a ministry with diverse responsibilities. It has a long and varied history as one of the first departments of the provincial government. Its programs have changed over the years, but it has kept as its core the role of a service bureau providing the support structure for the administration of government. The range of services covers lottery grants, air ambulance service, air service, 61 government agents' offices in communities throughout the province, the Queen's Printer, communications and data systems services, the provincial archives, administration of elections and protocol. Each provides its own unique challenge as the ministry strives to provide efficient quality service to the government and the people of British Columbia.

We take a businesslike approach, always looking for new initiatives which improve efficiency while at the same time minimizing costs. In this regard, I'm proud of our record over the past year. My ministry played a key role in the visit to British Columbia last October of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. Among the many highlights of the eight-day visit was a ceremony at which the Queen signed a royal warrant officially granting the province a complete coat of arms. During his visit to Victoria the Duke of Edinburgh unveiled a plaque designating the provincial museum the Royal British Columbia Museum.

My ministry played a lead role as well in coordinating the province's activities as host of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Vancouver. Representatives from 47 countries attended the event, which was a first for British Columbia in terms of meeting size and stature.

The lottery grants program continues to provide financial support for a wide range of projects around the province. During the last year, I'm proud to say, we paid off the Expo 86 debt with money from the British Columbia Lottery Fund. This year a total of $4.5 million is being allocated from the Lottery Fund for the Health Care Research Foundation under the chairmanship of my colleague the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). This is an increase of $500,000 over last year.

[3:30]

I've also approved a special grant of $500,000 for the purchase of equipment to be used by the province's health researchers. The year 1988 marks the tenth year that lottery funds have been used to support health care research in this

[ Page 4547 ]

province. During that period, more than $35 million in lottery funds have been allocated for this very worthwhile purpose.

Over and above these grants. a substantial portion of the direct capital grants from the Lottery Fund is made in support of health-related projects sponsored by volunteer organizations. Some examples are: the $1 million grant to Shaughnessy Hospital for the spinal cord injury ward, which will operate as a provincial referral centre; the $272,000 grant to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Victoria and Vancouver Island to establish a treatment centre; and the $100,000 grant to the Victoria Heart House in support of programs for patients undergoing heart surgery.

The Lottery Fund also provides $5 million for downtown revitalization, administered by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), and $3.5 million in support for the British Columbia film industry, administered by the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. These programs not only contribute to the cultural and heritage development of British Columbia but also help diversify our economic, hence employment, base.

During the past year, $600,000 in grants from the British Columbia program for educational and entertainment television services was provided to 32 communities in the province, enabling those small communities to benefit from Knowledge Network programming. This communication program is financed by the B.C. Lottery Fund.

Another area where lottery funds are being used is in support of programs and services for the disabled. Just recently a grant of $38,000 was approved to assist the city of Trail in improving the disabled access to community facilities in anticipation of the disabled games being held this July in that city. In May of last year an emotional gathering in B.C. Place marked the end of Rick Hansen's Man in Motion tour. Our Premier announced his intention to form an advisory council for the disabled to give the handicapped direct access to government. My ministry has been given the responsibility for seeing that such a council is established.

In this regard I was pleased that in the March 15 Speech from the Throne the government announced its intention, following a public consultative process, to introduce legislation during the current session to set up a Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with a Disability. In that regard my hon. colleague the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is chairing a committee and has been meeting with diverse groups of disabled people throughout the province, and will soon be handing a report in to me. The council will be given a mandate to ensure that persons with disabilities are full and equal participants in the life of British Columbia.

For over a century government agents have been providing service to British Columbians outside the capital area. We now have 61 government agent offices in small communities which operate as the sole contact point for citizens with the administration of government. With sensitivity to the needs of the community and familiarity with a broad range of government programs and services, government agents can provide one-stop government information centres throughout the province. This is an important part of the government decentralization initiative to put the citizens of British Columbia outside of the large metropolitan areas directly in touch with their provincial government.

A new community-oriented access centre consolidating services from a number of ministries was opened earlier this year in Fort St. John. Similar facilities are planned for other cities, including Terrace and Nanaimo, and I'm happy to say that we are extensively upgrading the government agent office and services in the city of Penticton.

By the end of this fiscal year, computer terminals will be installed in all of the 61 government agent offices throughout the province, providing access to a wide — and, I might add, I ever-increasing — variety of government information and services.

As I mentioned earlier, another area of activity in my ministry is the air services branch. Besides meeting the routine requirements of government, our crews and support teams have an enviable record of providing air ambulance service in the province. In fact, it is a service that probably will be copied all over the world, as we have people coming here to look at the British Columbia service. During the past fiscal year, 2,089 patients, critically injured or taken ill outside of major metropolitan centres, were transferred by air ambulances to our well-equipped hospitals throughout the province. This required a total of 2,593 hours of flight time.

Thanks to our air services branch, British Columbians can be reassured that no matter where they or a member of their family are injured or taken ill in this province, the very best hospital care in the world is never far away.

We are currently in the process of upgrading the fleet, replacing four older aircraft with a very high number of flight hours with three new ones. The result will be a continuation of operational efficiency, safety and a quality level of service, with the addition of a long-range transport capability and improved air ambulance service.

As I mentioned at the outset, my ministry is diverse; it encompasses many responsibilities. Some of the higher profile ones we have covered, but there are others which, although not as much in the public limelight perhaps, are very important to the efficient operation of government.

There is the postal services branch, for example, which processes and delivers government mail in a highly efficient manner. Every year the branch saves the government more than $10 million in pre-processing large volumes of mail, thereby obtaining lower prices from Canada Post and other mail delivery services in the private sector. About 75 percent of the mail is distributed through Canada Post; the remaining 25 percent, which is internal government mail, is distributed through contracts with the private sector. The postal services branch provides service to more than 2,000 office locations daily, and processes more than 45 million items of mail in a year.

Another avenue of improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness has been developed in the government's vehicle management services. Responsibility for the management of all passenger cars and light trucks used by all ministries is being consolidated within the vehicle management branch.

This will result in improved maintenance and safety of vehicles, as well as the maximum use of private sector service stations for repairing vehicles.

My staff have also been making progress in the area of insurance and risk management. Following a review two years ago of government ministry's purchase of insurance, it was determined that self-insurance in many cases was the least expensive alternative. Using the staff — highly qualified staff, I might add — of the risk management branch, the government began self-insuring schools, colleges and hospitals as opposed to buying private insurance. This initiative has saved the taxpayers of this province almost $20 million over the last two-year period.

[ Page 4548 ]

The government also saves more than $300,000 a year by storing government records in contract warehouses under the direction of the records management branch instead of paying for the cost of storage space in ministry office locations. In addition to these services, the ministry provides support to both the executive and legislative branches of government for the operation and maintenance of the legislative buildings, the cabinet office in Vancouver as well as Government House.

The ministry is also responsible for the operation of the elections branch, with its responsibility for ensuring that the democratic process is applied fairly and equitably throughout the province. It is a program of interest to all citizens, and no less to the members of this committee.

I was pleased and honoured to represent the province of British Columbia at the opening of Expo 88 in Brisbane, Australia, on April 30. My ministry was given the responsibility for coordinating British Columbia's participation at the world exposition which runs until October 30. The province is represented in Expo 88 by the Adventure British Columbia Theatre, located within the Canada Pavilion. The theatre uses sophisticated multimedia techniques to convey a colourful message about the richness and excitement of west coast leisure and tourism opportunities. It has already proven to be a tremendous success in Australia.

I also have the honour of being the Minister of State for Mainland- Southwest of British Columbia. This region encompasses the major metropolitan area of greater Vancouver, part of the Sunshine Coast and the Fraser Valley and the canyon north to Lillooet. It is a vast area, and a vital one as the commercial-industrial hub of the province of British Columbia.

As minister of state, I have actively sought the cooperation of local officials, and I've made the program a visible grassroots process. The communities in our region have been given an opportunity to help shape the program and, indeed, the future of their community and their province. Public meetings have been held throughout the region, and we have met as well with every regional district, municipality, school board and chamber of commerce. As a result, we are now processing over 300 items requiring action stemming from the public forums. In addition, we are working with the Ministry of Economic Development in more than 20 important business development proposals.

It's an exciting process, one that will incorporate the local communities into the development of our province. I am pleased to be part of it. I extend, of course, as I've always extended, the invitation to the opposition to become part of this process.

In summary, the Provincial Secretary's ministry provides important services to the people of the province of British Columbia: some of them directly, others provided indirectly through support for other government ministries, as well as this Legislative Assembly. I'm proud to be the Provincial Secretary.

Finally, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the staff of my ministry for their tremendous hard work and their absolute dedication.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions that the hon. members may have relative to the spending estimates for the coming year.

MR. D'ARCY: In the discussion of vote 56 I suppose we're going to have to move around a bit, as the minister did.

Unless I missed it, I noted that in his remarks the minister either did not deal with, or dealt very superficially with, the question of employee relations, particularly the superannuation branch.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's not in my ministry.

MR. D'ARCY: Superannuation is in your ministry.

What I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is first of all the superannuation area. The public has been fairly well informed, at least earlier this year and late last year. Lately the government has been going rather quietly about its privateering plans, but certainly last fall and winter it was very trendy — or so the government thought — to speak about turfing large numbers of government employees voluntarily or not so voluntarily. While at this point I don't want to go too deeply into the voluntary retirement program — I suppose one could say it has been either overly successful or too successful, depending on one's point of view — clearly an enormous number of eligible provincial employees have taken advantage of that program. We don't know at what cost at this point, but I would assume that it's indicative of the fact that a great many people in the public service with valued and loyal contributions over decades seem to be only too happy not to be working for the provincial government, especially since many of them are in a position to do other things with their lives.

[3:45]

I don't believe this speaks very highly for the general morale and the scope that people believe they're going to have in the future working for the provincial government. We have yet to see how well services that the public has bought and paid for — and is still paying for through the nose, with the increased taxes this year — are going to be delivered with a great reduction in the number of highly experienced employees. However, I think the system is fairly adaptable.

With the government proceeding with its reduction in services, whether through simply cancelling them or privateering them, it can be assumed that there may well be a number of terminations within the public service of people who do not qualify for early retirement. That may have occurred already. One of the questions I would have is: what happens to the contribution that government has been making to the superannuation fund on behalf of those employees? We know that they get their own money which they've put in, with a modest amount of interest, but what about the government contribution? Before he jumps up and says it was never theirs because they never qualified for a pension, I might remind the minister that in all discussions and negotiations between government and whatever employee jurisdiction on salaries, benefits, working conditions and so on, government has always taken the position that indeed the government's contribution to the superannuation fund was a cost relative to employees and had to be calculated into the cost of maintaining that employee, the same as salary, medical benefits, unemployment insurance, the government's share of Canada pension, and so on and so forth. So I think a report is needed on the exact status of those government contributions.

I have another aspect, one that strictly speaking is not part of the minister's responsibility, but it's something other governments in Canada are looking at through their ministry of provincial secretary. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, because the Chairman might declare me out of order, but it has to do with pensions and with the Provincial Secretary's

[ Page 4549 ]

ministry — not the ministry now, though. In other jurisdictions, most notably Ontario and Nova Scotia — by the way, this initiative started in Ontario when the Conservatives were still in office — they're taking a very serious look and in fact have instituted programs of compulsory partial indexing of private pension plans. I think that's something the government of B.C. should have a very good look at; it's an idea whose time has come. Governments in Canada at the provincial and federal levels — and municipally as well through the provincial superannuation acts which apply to municipal government — including the armed services, have for years and years provided full indexing of pensions. The Canada pension is indeed indexed, and the contribution level is simply adjusted in order to make sure from time to time that these pensions can meet their plans. I see absolutely no reason why private pension plans can't make the same adjustments, even if only partially. In these other jurisdictions, as I say, there's provision not for full indexing, but for partial indexing at, I think, half the rate of inflation — or something of that nature.

Part of the fury that has been directed at government, for instance, on the increase in long-term-care rates for seniors is due to the fact that many of these people are on fixed pensions. Sure, the federal pensions are indexed — the OAS/ GIS. But many of the people who retired ten or 15 years ago on private pension plans are on fixed pensions and will be until they die. I think part of the fury directed at government over that move could have been at least partly alleviated. The presumption that everybody who's retired on a pension is on an indexed pension is totally wrong. Those on private pensions are not indexed, and I think the government should at least take a look at that.

The minister spoke glowingly a few minutes ago, in his own version of the Provincial Secretary's speech from the throne — and I don't want to dwell on this, either — about his lower mainland development region. Of course, this is far from the area I live in. But he must have been receiving very poor attention on that from the people of the fourth estate, both here and in Vancouver. I don't take credit for being a great student of the media and what they report, but until I thought about it here, I'd completely forgotten that the lower mainland regional development area existed. There was this great peal of trumpets and enthusiasm when this regionalization notion was trotted out last fall and winter, particularly with a view to the lower mainland, which has 55 percent of the population of British Columbia.

I'd be interested to know exactly what initiatives the minister and his people have taken and how well they've been received. Can the minister make a case that some of those initiatives would not have happened anyway — and some of that communication between the people of that area? After all, the minister is an MLA from the lower mainland, so he should be in touch with his constituents and the people of that area anyway — without an extra budget. Rather than pontificating about how wonderful all of this has been and suggesting, at least to me, that since the press hasn't reported this, nobody seems to know about it, other than the minister, perhaps the minister could tell us exactly what initiatives have been taken for what benefit, and make a case that these things were not going to take place anyway. One of the important things in estimates for any minister is that he justify what money he is spending on what. I don't believe any member here really wants to see government setting up duplicate services.

I'm going to jump into some questions on lottery grants in British Columbia. I had it suggested to me by a number of people within the region I represent, both within my riding and outside it, that over the last year or so it didn't matter how well a grant application fitted into the guidelines or how enthusiastic the minister's staff seemed to be about it; it wasn't too hard to get a grant approved, providing you met the guidelines and it was a worthy project. That's as it should be, and I commend the minister for that part. But there seemed to be this limit of $40,000 on a grant. I would like to ask the minister if there was a limit of $40,000 on grants to community projects. Is it still there? Is it arbitrary? Was this made public? Perhaps the minister could give us some report on available revenue from the lottery funds.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

A little while ago he said glowingly that the Expo debt had now been paid off. I think we can all be happy about that. Of course, back when Lotto 6-49 was introduced, the then minister responsible for lotteries, the first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), assured the House and the people of British Columbia that Lotto 6-49 money was going exclusively to Expo. That's why we were having Lotto 6-49. It was not to interfere with the other lottery revenue coming into the province, and that would still be going....

Mr. Chairman, my goodness, you have aged — matured. I'm sorry, I must not insult the Chairman.

The people of British Columbia were assured by the minister then in charge of lotteries that the regular lottery allotment and the regular community services for the original intent for community projects, which was part of the enabling legislation back in the early seventies and was more or less carried on with by succeeding Social Credit governments.... The integrity of those purposes and the regular lottery funds would be maintained, and there would be no interference with that because of Expo, because that's what the Lotto 6-49 was for.

Expo is paid off. What's happening to Lotto 6-49 funds? Indeed, what is the general breakdown of the lottery fund allotments? Where does all this revenue go? The minister again boasted about some amounts going into health care facilities and medical research. We all think that's wonderful. Perhaps he could tell us how much in total has gone into the Expo debt, and how much is now available for other purposes.

A general question is: what limitations are there in general on lottery funds? How much is going to go into the privatization fund — the privateering fund — that the Minister of Finance is talking about? The minister is going to say, "a certain amount," I know. I bet he's not as good at convoluting this as the first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) is, though. He's probably going to be more accurate in what he says.

I think it's very important to British Columbia. Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, what the original intent of lottery distribution was. This is, you might say, a form of voluntary taxation. and it comes from communities. It doesn't come out of resource revenue; it comes from communities — people buying lottery tickets and people selling lottery tickets. The notion — and it was a correct one — was that government had a duty and a responsibility, since this was voluntary taxation, to take the revenue from the lottery funds and send it back to the communities. on a more or less judicious basis, through-

[ Page 4550 ]

out the province of British Columbia. On a community or a constituency or a regional basis, there should be more or less the same amount going back in as was coming out, over a period of time. Of course, it would vary because the types of applications would vary from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, while the government may consider it dandy to have this involuntary tax money to shove into general revenue to use for various purposes, the fact is that it should be returned to the communities for worthy community projects. Whether those are recreational or cultural projects, facilities for youth — which is tremendously needed in the province — assistance and programs for young people, facilities for seniors, cultural or performing or creative arts, museums or all those things, the money should be returned to the communities from whence it originated.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, for my own purposes, I don't believe that is happening. I don't believe it has happened for the last few years. I think the government needs to put forth some numbers and indicate that it wants to change its ways a little bit on this. There has been a subversion, shall we say — I won't say a perversion but a subversion — not only of the stated intent in the legislation enabling lottery funds but even of the government's own statements over a period of time. I suppose that money looks just too inviting, coming in as involuntary taxation money, and the government has other ideas for what should be done with it.

Foreign assistance is another thing — disaster relief. Some lottery money has gone to disaster relief. We can always say that's great; that's helping people in difficulty in other parts of the world. But once again, should that really be coming from lotteries? Certainly governments should be doing that sort of thing from time to time, because British Columbians are good and responsible citizens of the world. But should that necessarily be coming from the lottery funds, and is the public aware of this?

Mr. Chairman, I must have been designated, because I've been ventilating here for more than the allotted time.

Let's talk about air services. I hope I'm not putting too much on the minister's plate here, but he's....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: Okay, that's right. We'll take a break, and the minister can go to bat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed, Mr. Minister, the first member for Nanaimo has asked leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH: I noticed a man in the gallery opposite who worked very hard in my campaign for the nomination. You recall that I won by the magnificent margin of 37, and that person must have been responsible for 237 of those 37 votes. I'd ask the House to welcome Brent Hawkins.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. member for Rossland-Trail for his usual reasoned debate; he's true to form.

You're quite correct: our employees are valued and have been very loyal. Those who have availed themselves of the early retirement provisions of the arrangement that was made were loyal. I think the government acted wisely and in a very considerate way in advancing them the opportunity to take early retirement and to go on, as you say, to other endeavours. As we both know, government isn't everything; there's a whole big, wide world out there, and there are lots of things to do in it.

The services, I can assure you, are being delivered very well. As you're well aware — you've been here longer than I have — government is not a static thing; it's always moving and evolving. Hopefully we can fine-tune it and don't have to keep adding personnel to the system in order to do it. We've done it over the years, but with the advent of technology we ought not to have to do it.

As far as the government agents are concerned, we're not cancelling services; rather, we're combining services and enhancing them. Where we have one-stop shopping centres in place, the public are receiving them very well. We have reports on that. There is some ironing out of the process, but by and large they are being received very well.

What happens to the government side of the contributions if someone for whatever reasons leaves government employ? That is part of the whole superannuation budget, if you will, or program or portfolio. When an employee left before being eligible for pension, not having served enough time to become vested, were we to pay that out we'd have to find another way of increasing the.... We'd have to go to the employees or the people or somewhere else and put more money back into that fund, because it would create an impost on the fund that would certainly require more funding, and you would probably have to raise the rates you charge your employees. It's part of the fund, part of the scheme. Giving it away would certainly mean higher rates, higher payment from government in some way, shape or form. There's no question about that.

You are talking about partial indexing of private plans. I'm aware that they're looking at that in the province of Ontario. It's not within the mandate of our superannuation branch at present. Our superannuation commissioner, however, does meet with all the various pension plan people throughout Canada, both public and private, and we're continually looking at things. I appreciate what you're saying. I'm not sure government should get into the business of indexing private pension plans; nonetheless it will be interesting to see what the Ontario experience is if they do move ahead with it, and we will certainly be watching with an enduring interest.

You talked, my friend, about development region 2. I'm glad you've given me this opportunity to do that; I thoroughly appreciate it. We've really striven to make this ministers-of-state program a visible, grassroots process. I want to explain to the hon. member, because I know he has an interest in it in his area.... I want to commend you for that. I only wish that other members had the same interest in the program that you have. You can't learn anything about the program by simply avoiding it and not coming in to find out how it's working.

There may be people in the media who for whatever reasons don't like it, don't think the program is a good process. Go and tell the people in Lillooet that. Go into some of these areas like Britannia Beach and talk to some of the people whom we've worked with and helped. Talk to the people who have come to this banquet and worked with us. They'll tell you that it is a success. It's working. It's not measured in any brilliant flashes of light that occur; it's a

[ Page 4551 ]

steady, ongoing process whereby I and my two hon. parliamentary secretaries, the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), interface directly with the people.

It's not something where you take away any of the rights or obligations of a local MLA. The local MLA has the problems and opportunities that face her or him daily. This is not a new level of government. It is certainly a new process in government. I know the hon. member is never averse to trying a new process or to working and becoming part of the solution where there is a problem.

We've created a master list of contact names covering service agencies, special interest groups, business organizations, labour and municipal, regional and school board officials, native Indian bands, and so on, and we're talking, we're interfacing with all these people, helping them with their problems, helping them with their ideas. We've staged ten public meetings throughout the regions beginning at the Enterprise Centre with 300 people in attendance. As well, we've met with every municipality, regional district, school board and chamber of commerce in the region. We've advertised all public meetings in newspapers and on radio, and in some of these meetings we had standing room only. Tremendous interest from the public.

Don't say there isn't a need, because the people have lots to do. Their time is as valuable as your time is, Mr. Chairman, or the hon. member's time or my time. They come out and attend these meetings, and they go away feeling better about the interaction between government and the individual citizenry. I think it's grassroots democracy working in a very fine way.

We've established a steering committee to draw up terms of reference for and to oversee the establishment of development groups. We have logged in our processing over 300 items requiring action stemming from the public forums. Many of these we've dealt with. Many of them we are dealing with. It's diverse throughout all regions of government. Sometimes it's just a matter of referring something to an MLA or a minister to deal with. We're very pleased to do that, regardless of where the MLAs happen to be from or which party they happen to be from.

We've circulated questionnaires to prospective members of our two development groups, and now are shortlisting from a list of a couple of hundred names of citizens that want to get involved directly in this process. These are very good people, people with substance, people from all walks of life — everything from educators to lawyers to bankers to engineers to accountants. You name it, they're all there.

We've helped seal a deal with a major manufacturer in the lower mainland, and are currently working with the Ministry of Economic Development on 20 important, fairly substantial business projects in the area. We've recently announced co-funding of two feasibility studies on projects of importance to local communities in our region: the Sechelt Canal study and the commuter rail study for the lower mainland, in conjunction, I may add, with Mr. St. Germain from the federal government.

We've approximately 20 issues that may be assigned to task force for review and recommendation. One of them of course, is the review of the ALR, a task that we were given at the outset. It's an evolving process. It's a process of grassroots involvement. It's a process where you invite people. Rather than having government pressed on them from the top down, we invite them to work in a very communicative way from the ground up.

I know that if the hon. members would take the time, forget their philosophy for a minute and get involved just a bit in the process, we'd be very appreciative of it. Forget the politics for a minute, and get in there and work with the people in this process. I invite you to do that and to avail yourself of it. We're not duplicating services at all. I do admit that in some cases we have moved things along where they seemed to just be bogged down, for whatever reason. Sometimes government itself and the process of government tends to bog things down, and we've helped to move things along in a more expeditious way. and we'll continue to do so.

The hon. member asked about the lottery grants, whether or not there was a $40,000 limit imposed. The answer is no, there isn't a $40,000 limit. We've been trying to hold the grants to that level so we can do whatever we possibly can to ensure that as many groups as possible throughout the province receive benefits from lotteries. I really think it's working well. I do, though, invite suggestions from the hon. members as to how we can improve that process because we are continually looking to improve it. It's not our money; it's the people's money that has been given to government for lottery purposes, and we're attempting to do whatever we can with a very low administrative cost.

Here are some of the details that the hon. member wants to know, and I'm happy to give him any other details that are at my disposal. Of each dollar spent on tickets, approximately 45 cents is for prizes, 15 cents operating costs, 6 cents retailer commission, with a remaining 34 cents used for a variety of provincial programs. Based on our current sales projections.... I must explain this to you. We've had exponential growth in lotteries. They've just boomed since we've taken them over.

I must again commend the president of the Lottery Corporation, Mr. Simonis. I'd like to commend the chairman but that would be a little self-serving. I'd like to commend Mr. Simonis and all the people at the Lottery Corporation for the excellent job they do. I can tell you that while I was in Australia, one of the reasons for my going there other than to represent the government at Expo 88 was to talk with some of the lotteries people in Australia to see if we could do some business with them. I think we can. Mr. Simonis is going back down in September, and I think we can put together some business, particularly in our electronic data systems. We're just miles ahead of anyone else in the world in that particular area, as far as lotteries are concerned. You can pick up the phone, if you want, and phone Adelaide or Melbourne and they'll tell you. Ask them who the leaders are in the world, and one of them will certainly be the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

Based on our current sales projections, the Lottery Fund will receive about $159,470,000. Lottery sales are levelling off now because you just can’t expect that sort of growth. A percentage point means an awful lot more than it did a few years ago; but they appear to be levelling off. In speaking with the people from the international lotteries corporation, Intertoto, when they were here last year, they thought it would level off more quickly in British Columbia than it did — they expected it to happen sooner. So it appears to be levelling off a little, but it's still increasing slightly.

[4:15]

Twenty-two million dollars has been allocated to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) for grants to cultural groups, recreation and sport, the B.C. Heritage Trust, and other programs within his cultural heritage

[ Page 4552 ]

mandate. Five million dollars has been allocated to the downtown revitalization program, administered by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). Members are aware of the valuable work done by this program, and the first award under this funding arrangement is being made to the city of Victoria.

To B.C. Film, $3.5 million has been allocated. It has really saved money to get this indigenous film industry going. If you ask whether we're spending something on economic development, in that way we are; I think it's a good place to spend money. This is part of a three-year commitment of $10.5 million. Their board is doing an outstanding job of developing an indigenous, British Columbia-controlled motion picture industry. We're a little bit behind on that, but we're really moving ahead. We were depending an awful lot on offshore industry to keep our motion picture industry — which is a great one — going.

To the Health Care Research Foundation, $4.5 million has been allocated, under the chairmanship of my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck). I'm pleased to serve on that committee with him. This is an increase of $500,000 over last year. As I stated in my opening remarks, I've approved a special grant of over $500,000 for the purchase of equipment to be used by the province's researchers — worthwhile money. We couldn't do this as easily without lotteries.

Within my ministry, $44.5 million has been budgeted for community capital projects, travel assistance and other community-based programs. This is up substantially from last year. Within these programs we are working with a wide range of volunteer groups, and I am continually impressed by the strength of the volunteer sector in this province.

Operating grants, $1 million; community PEET grants — that's where we put in receiving dishes for community programs, mainly for the Knowledge Network.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Minister, but time has expired under standing orders.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Do you want me to just finish this or...?

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we'll accommodate the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, then. Thank you.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I thank the hon. member.

Operating grants; community PEETS grants — $600,000 in that area. Travel grants, $700,000; special events, $5 million; direct grants — I believe that's where some of the foreign relief money comes from — $10 million; Expo legacy grants — we have $15.2 million from a prior commitment, and we'll be cleaning up this year with a new $12 million, for a total of $27.2 million. The administration for the whole program is, relatively speaking, a modest amount — $954,000. You asked how much would be going into the budget stabilization fund. The amount budgeted for this year was, I believe, $79 million.

I hope those are the answers to your questions.

MR. G. HANSON: I know the Provincial Secretary probably anticipates the subject area I'm going to be asking him about. I've been a bit of a stuck record on this subject for some time.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What are you electing to say?

MR. G. HANSON: What am I electing to say? One of my responsibilities on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman, is to be debate leader on fair election practices. In the minister's remarks, when he was referring to the elections branch, he talked about the importance of the democratic process being applied fairly and equitably. I want to direct some questions and remarks around the by-election that is currently underway in Boundary-Similkameen to replace Jim Hewitt, who stood down some months ago. These remarks will apply as well to a by-election likely to be announced in the near future for Alberni.

Mr. Chairman, as you are probably aware, the election that is being fought in Boundary-Similkameen.... The voters list presently in use there was the result of an enumeration conducted by statute in 1985. I want my remarks to be very clear that the elections branch staff are doing their best to deal on a partial basis with the fact that there is no full-scale enumeration conducted by statute for a by-election. As the minister knows, we on this side have argued for a number of years that there should be a full enumeration prior to both a general election and a by-election. There's no reason whatsoever that a full enumeration couldn't have taken place prior to the announcement in Boundary-Similkameen. There's no reason why there couldn't be a full enumeration for Alberni and possibly a number of other examples that may occur in this House over the next period of time.

Bill 28, passed some time ago, has a provision for an enumeration to take place three years after the election. But what is happening, Mr. Chairman, as you and the minister both know, is that the Boundary-Similkameen by-election is falling between the cracks. It's operating on a 1985 list with a marginal update that occurred as a result of the October 1986 provincial election, where a number of people had their registration made current. My understanding is that, given the 1986 update for the election and the efforts being made by the elections branch in Boundary-Similkameen, something in the order of 5,000 or more names have been changed on the list.

Let me tell you that that list, whether it's 40,000, 41,000 or 42,000.... I'd like the minister to tell me his report from the elections branch, what the current list total is, because Stats Canada, according to the 1986 census, indicates that the population of 19-year-olds and over in Boundary-Similkameen is something around 49,200. A few of those people would be ineligible because they might be British subjects or they might be recent immigrants or whatever and not be entitled to vote, but the vast majority of them, 95, 96, 97 percent of those people 19 years of age and over, should be eligible to vote.

To take the minister at his word — fairly and apply equitably the democratic process — my contention is that everyone 19 years of age and over who is eligible to vote and satisfies the residency and age requirements.... The bone of contention that we have is that 18-year-olds should vote; however, according to the law it is currently 19 years of age. Those individuals should have easy access to the list. All members know, but most citizens of Boundary-Similkameen don't know, that they are not going to be able to go on voting day and register and vote.

I know efforts have been made through some advertisements and by phoning from the electoral branch, but it's piecemeal; it's partial. To get 5,000 names on the list — some

[ Page 4553 ]

2,100 were section 80 voters from 1986 and some 3,000 in this spring's registration effort.... Imagine how many names would have been changed on that list if a full enumeration had taken place. That 1985 list has thousands of names on it that shouldn't be on. They have moved away. There are thousands of people residing in Boundary-Similkameen who are not on the list.

That's the situation we are facing for this June 8 by-election, and it's a shame, because contrary to what the minister says, in the full fairness and equitability of the democratic process, the fact that you cannot go on voting day and register, get on the list, be given a ballot and have that ballot counted along with the other ballots.... The effort being made by staff.... Again, I underline that I am not in any way criticizing staff; but what is occurring is that the political will does not exist in this government to have a full enumeration for Boundary-Similkameen and Alberni, to allow all eligible citizens the right to exercise their franchise and to give this government a report card on its 19 months in office.

I think everyone would agree that this government needs a report card so they can take guidance as to whether they are meeting the expectations of the citizens of Boundary-Similkameen; whether the direction on free trade and the impact on the grape growers are satisfying the citizens of Boundary Similkameen; whether the young people are satisfied in terms of educational opportunities. The list of issues goes on: the conduct of the government; whether the people feel they're being well represented. That by-election is an important report card for this government, and unfortunately there are thousands of people off the list and thousands of people on the list who shouldn't be there because they live elsewhere. A full enumeration in the same fashion that the federal government would have conducted, capturing 95 percent of those eligible....

It's often very confusing when you read the statement of votes, because they talk about the percentage of individuals who voted who were on the list. It always seems high that 75 or whatever percent of the people who voted were on the list. That's very misleading, because as you know, because we don't have a full enumeration prior to by-elections, we end up with. . . . Something like 10,000, or 20 percent, of the riding's citizens who are eligible by age, residency and citizenship will not be voting. I think it's a disgrace.

There are approximately 50,000 individuals who are 19 years of age and over in that riding.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: The minister says: "If they don't register, how can they vote?" My point is that the people who should be voting are those who are 19 years old and over who satisfy the residency and citizenship requirements. My argument, and the argument from this side of the House, would be that the maximum number closest to 50,000 should be the number, not a list that has dead bodies and non-residents on it, and that is not purged by a full enumeration. That enumeration's not coming until next year.

[4:30]

I know that phoning has been carried out, but I'd like the minister to answer my question. How many people 19 years of age and over satisfy the residency and citizenship requirements according to Stats Canada and the provincial Economic Development ministry? How many individuals would be entitled to vote in the best-case scenario?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. member for his dissertation. He said we should have conducted a full enumeration. Well, as a matter of fact, the list we're working on is from 1986, an updated list from the election of that year that included everything, including the section 80 voters who registered on voting day. He said there's no full-scale enumeration. I want to tell you what we are doing. I honestly believe, given the currency of the list and given the way we have purged the list.... I hope the hon. member will concur with me and allay any fears that he might have once I explain it to him.

I want to tell you right now at the outset that in the last general election in October 1986, 40,875 voters registered, including the section 80s. As at May 16, 1988 — I guess that was the day the by-election was called — there were 41,600 registered voters on the list. That's a gain of almost 1,000 voters over the previous list; that's after purging the list.

I want to tell you some of the things we are doing. Our voter registration centres were open Wednesday through Saturday of each week during a four-week period from March 23 to April 15. During that time 1,740 registrations were taken. There's more than that now, but as of April 18, the total number of additions, changes and deletions to our voter record data base has been 2,006. The number of voters currently on the list, as I mentioned to you, is 41,600. This is up substantially from the last general election, even with section 80s.

Voter registration centres were established at Boundary Mall in Grand Forks, Similkameen Agencies in Keremeos, OK Falls Hardware in Okanagan Falls, Oliver Place Mall in Oliver, the farm labour office building in Osoyoos, Cherry Lane Shopping Centre in Penticton. Victoria Square Mall in Summerland, and government agents at Grand Forks, Oliver and Penticton. In addition, the registrar of voters is conducting a telephone registration canvass. Staff are comparing the voters list against the telephone directories, and where names are found in the directory but not the voters list, the persons are telephoned and informed they are not registered and advised as to how they may register.

It's interesting that 20 to 25 percent of people we find that way on our phones say they don't want to bother registering. What can you do about them? You can drive the horse to water, but it's pretty hard to make him drink.

The canvass is being received well by the public and will continue now that the by-election has been called. You-are-registered cards are being mailed now to all registered voters, using first-class post to ensure full and prompt delivery. Now, after the issuance of the election writ, approximately 22 voter registration centres are being opened as soon as possible to accept voter registrations through day 10. Locations of the centres will be advertised in all newspapers — and I can give that information to the hon. member, if he wants — circulating in the electoral district. In addition, radio ads are being used to inform the public of the registration opportunities and to direct them to the newspapers to find the registration location.

Section 80 registration will be days 20 to 25. Newspaper and radio ads are making it very clear that they cannot register on election day, and that there is no polling-day registration. There is no question about this. During this period the where-to-vote notices will be delivered to voters on the list as at day 10. Therefore people who have not registered will not receive a notice, and they will be prompted to visit a registration centre.

[ Page 4554 ]

In my opinion, the preceding program is very adequate. It's informing voters in a way that we've never informed them before. We check for deletions in such things as death registries. Deletions are made so there are no names on the lists of deceased individuals. I would wish to allay the member's fears there, as far as we're concerned.

You say there are 50,000 people in the area. I don't know that there are 50,000; there may be.

MR. G. HANSON: StatsCan.

HON. MR. VEITCH: StatsCan may say that.

Hon. member, we're doing everything we possibly can to get people on the voters list. There is some responsibility in a democratic system for individuals to get out and put themselves on the list. There's every opportunity. They'll have people going to the door. I'm sure the NDP will have people out knocking on doors. I know darned well we will, and we'll know that when we win the election on June 8. They'll be telling them about their opportunities and their obligations. But the individual has to make some effort to go to one of these places or to do something to get on the voters list. You can't take people by the hand and just tow them out there.

I honestly believe our staff is doing a tremendous job up there. We're very cognizant, of course, of your criticism. We want to ensure that as many people as possible get on the list. There are almost 1,000 names — I'm sure there will be more than 1,000 names now — more than during the last general election. I don't think that's commensurate with the population growth there, because I don't think the area has grown that much in that short a time.

I honestly believe we're doing a good job there. We're purging the list, and we will have even more eligible voters on the list come election day — by a long shot — than we ever had before.

MR. G. HANSON: This is a subject that the minister and I have spent a fair amount of time talking about in this House, and I know we're not making any gains. We argue that the people eligible means the people 19 years of age and over who have citizenship and residency. Is the minister telling me that the 41,600 names on the list are all resident in the riding, and that those are all individuals who are fully entitled, and that list is clean?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes.

MR. G. HANSON: Okay, from that number to 49,222. So what about the 7,500 eligible individuals that aren't on the list?

HON. MR. VEITCH: First, how old are your StatsCan statistics?

MR. G. HANSON: From 1986; that was the census.

HON. MR. VEITCH: As I said before, hon. member, I don't know why those people have not yet registered. Perhaps the rest of them will register during the writ period. I don't think they all will. As we pointed out, when we phoned these people, when we found their names in the telephone books and they did not correspond to the voters list.... My staff tells me that up to 25 percent of those people said they weren't interested. That might answer your question. If they're not interested they're not interested. This isn't Australia; we can't force them to vote. That's another topic for another time: to fine them.

Of course, we only register Canadian citizens as well, so some of those people may not be eligible to vote, for one reason or another. It may be a small number, as the hon. member points out, but there are a lot of reasons why people don't bother to register.

You ask if the list is clean. I think it's as clean as it can be; cleaner than most jurisdictions, and purged as well as we can possibly purge it. We've spent an awful lot of time on that. I think you'll find it's a very good list. As you can see, there are more people registered, by almost a thousand, on May 16 than there were in 1986. I think you'd admit that the trend is good. It looks good.

MR. G. HANSON: I don't want to flog this to death, because we've discussed this at length in the House. The partial effort that's been made — and I mean that in the sense of not being a full enumeration — by the elections branch, the fact that 5,000 or 6,000 names have been added to the list.... Imagine what would have occurred if a full door-to-door enumeration had been carried out. Many people in that area do not have telephones.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: I doubt that very much, because the federal experience is 95 percent capture.

Given the fact that Bill 28 is a relatively recent statute, eliminating the option for voting-day registration, and given that this is a by-election, would the minister consider that he could save the money on advertising, saying you can't register on election day, and give the citizens of Boundary Similkameen — those 7,500 that are not on the list, the 7,500 that may decide between now and June 8 that they wish to exercise the franchise — the option of going to a polling station and exercising their franchise through a voting-day registration? Would he support that with an order-in-council or some bit of legislation that would be supported by this side of the House?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The law is the law, and it has been proclaimed. You can't change something by order-in-council where there's no existing statute. The provisions of Bill 28 will apply. I'm confident that we'll have considerably more people on the list than we've ever had before. I think we're doing a good job in that area, hon. member. The law is the law. Bill 28 has been proclaimed. Anything I could do with an order-in-council would not be appropriate.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister to provide me with the copy of the ads that will be going into the newspapers, and the radio copy. I'd appreciate that.

I want to ask him a question about voting for 18-year olds. Surely we could be on the edge of court challenge, given that 18-year-olds can vote federally. Would the minister consider amending the Election Act to allow 18-year-olds the right to vote in the by-election?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, the voting age in this province is the same as the voting age in every other province in that it corresponds with the age of majority. I am

[ Page 4555 ]

sure the hon. member wouldn't want me to offend, nor would I wish to offend, the committee by talking about future action or future legislation at this time. The age of majority, which corresponds with the voting age, is 19 in this province. Granted, it's 18 in some other provinces, although the same rule applies: the age of majority and the voting age. You'd have to change the age of majority for a host of other things such as entering bars if you wanted to be consistent. We're not about to do that at this time.

[4:45]

MR. G. HANSON: As all members of this House know, within a few days or weeks we'll see a miscellaneous statutes bill in this House. It would be a relatively simple matter to include a one-line clause....

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: Anyway, it's a suggestion for the minister of an easy way to do it — striking out "19" and adding "18," and allowing 18-year-olds the right to vote in this province.

I'm going to conclude my remarks, but I would like him to consider announcing a full voter registration drive for Alberni. There may be other by-elections that fall before the next provincewide enumeration that comes by statute next year. It's highly likely that the Alberni by-election will fall before the provincewide enumeration. Would the minister consider having a full voter registration in Alberni and, assuming that my colleague from Nanaimo is a Member of Parliament, conducting a similar full voter registration for Nanaimo?

MR. MICHAEL: I just wanted to take a few minutes of the minister's estimates. First of all I would like to congratulate the minister and the government for the very well put together retirement program that was recently concluded for government employees who wish to take early retirement. I can tell you that I had scores of people in my constituency take advantage of that program, and I have not received one negative remark about the program from a single one of them. It was a very well-received program, and again I would like to commend the minister and the government for what I consider to be a very well-thought-out early retirement program.

Regarding the question of lottery grants in general, I don't believe that the government is doing as good a job as they could be doing, Mr. Minister, in advertising and getting the message across to the public about the manner in which lottery funds are spent. I think the average person on the street, if you asked them today about how our lottery money is spent, would say: "Well, it goes to sports and community groups and hall societies." I don't think they're aware that, as an example in your report tabled today, $1.4 million went to the Heritage Trust. I do not think the average person on the street is aware that your ministry spent $3.8 million of lottery money on health care research.

I don't think the general public are aware that there was a lot of money given to provincial organizations, such as $200,000 to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and $200,000 to the Canadian Paraplegic Association. There are many more similar instances where grants were given provincially. I think the public should know this, Mr. Minister, and I think that if it takes little bit of advertising to get the message across, it would be money well spent to let the public know of the very wide variety and diversification of areas throughout this province on which lottery profits are spent.

It's good to read in the report that the Expo debt is paid off. That has received very little publicity. I don't think the average person on the street is aware of that, but again, thanks to the 6-49 profits, the Expo debt is 100 percent paid off. It's good to know that not a single cent of taxpayers' money, other than money willingly spent through the purchase of 6-49 tickets, was spent on the Expo project.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the minister's staff, particularly in the lotteries branch. I, for one, sometimes pester them a little bit about: "Where's this particular application? How far is it down the pike? When can we expect a response? When can we get the cheque? When can we get the advance?" I'd like to thank the minister, if he would take that message back to his staff, particularly the lotteries branch staff. They are a very tolerant group. They are very warm and receptive. They are very patient, and I've had nothing but extremely good relations with the employees of the lotteries branch.

I think the public throughout the province — I know my constituents are — are very much aware of the tremendous projects that have been made possible by lotteries. I look across the length and breadth of my constituency and see the tremendous improvements to the Interior Provincial Exhibition. I see a new community centre in Salmon Arm, I see improvements to the community ski hill in Revelstoke, the Revelstoke seniors' hall expansion, the fellowship centre in Falkland and a number of projects such as that made possible by the lotteries funds. Certainly the well-thought-out projects and the innovation of community organizations that have made projects possible augurs well for the future.

The little projects, Mr. Minister. I notice that you are very heavy on paying attention to the little projects. We've had a few — to mention a couple — as a result of a tremendous natural-gas-line expansion in a big section of my constituency which took place two or three years ago thanks to a grant from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). We received a grant for about $1.4 million that put natural gas into Silver Creek, Chase, Sorrento. Blind Bay, Skimikin — several areas such as this. The minister now is financing natural gas furnaces for these little community groups to put in their community halls to cut down their overhead. It's only S1,000 or perhaps $1,500, but money very well received.

We've had a lot of success, a lot of good positive things in the constituency, Mr. Minister, but I do have one request that I'd like to put on the record today for you to have a serious look at. It's a problem. It's the only problem that I've had of this nature, and I'd like to put on the record this particular request, if the minister would make a note of it and perhaps get back to me later. We have an Expo grant that was approved back in 1986. It was one of the very first approved in my constituency. It was the Pritchard Community Association, Mr. Minister. It was a $50,000 grant. They've received two thirds of their money, and they've run into some severe difficulties.

The kinds of difficulties they've had relate to the standards of the building, the codes as enforced by the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. Instead of having one or two toilets for the men and women, they now find that they have to have about ten in total. The message I'm trying to get across, Mr. Minister, is that the costs are much greater than

[ Page 4556 ]

they had anticipated. Instead of being able to put in plastic pipes for drainage, they now find they must be a more expensive pipe; the fire doors — things such as this. I'm saying, Mr. Minister, that the costs are much more than were anticipated. The prices of plywood and lumber and things such as that have greatly accelerated from what the original estimates were back in 1986 — and we all know that the costs have, indeed, gone up.

I would ask the minister if he would give consideration to perhaps advancing that final third so that they can get the project to the lock-up stage and take it from there. I know the rules are that it must be completely finished. Well, there's no way they can completely finish it for that grant. I would ask the minister to give favourable consideration to advancing that final third so that the community of Pritchard, that very dynamic community that is trying its best to build for itself a community hall that's going to be used for a wide spread of activities.... If the minister would give consideration to that, I would be most appreciative.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) asked if I would consider having a full voter enumeration done in the constituency of Alberni. I realize the hon. member had to leave to conduct other business, but I'm sure he'll pick this up from the Blues or someone else will tell him about it, at any rate. His colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) will tell him about it.

We want to get as many people on the list as we can. I've discussed this with the chief electoral officer. We want to consider the currency of the list that we have in place — the '86 list — and how well we can purge it. If we feel that we can purge that list and start from a proper base, and then do our blitzes and our enumerations in other ways and capture more people that way, that's the route we'll take. If we feel that we can't do it that way, then we'll go to a full voter enumeration.

Here's what you have to realize though. I'm not really looking to that, because here's what happens with a full voter enumeration. You wipe out all the names on your list and you start from square one without any names. You have no list; you have nothing to work from. You have to build that up from square one. Then you have to go through all of that process — calling back, working on doors. It's very costly, and I'm not sure that, given the currency of the '86 list, you would capture as many people — after purging it, of course — with a net list with a full enumeration as you would.... Not only that, you'd do a full enumeration now and by law you'd have to do another one a year from now. That's seems like just a little much almost.

If we in all honesty after surveying the situation feel that we could do a better job by taking the current list, purging it, building upon it, working with it — it is to everyone's advantage to get as many voters on the list as you possibly can — we'll use that method. I happen to think at this point in time it's better to do what we did in Boundary-Similkameen. We'll know from there on, as we'll have some experience resulting from Boundary-Similkameen. I happen to think it's working very well.

I want to thank the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) for his comments. He talked about the early retirement incentive program. Yes, it has worked very well. I have had virtually no complaints about the program at all. I think it has worked very well, it has been very beneficial to those individuals who have availed themselves of it and I am sure it will be beneficial to the rest of the citizens of British Columbia and the government for the renewal of government itself.

He talked about advertising lottery funds and how they are spent. The hon. member is accusing us, probably quite correctly, of hiding our light under a bushel. We don't often do that. We usually as politicians, hon. member, try to exemplify — and even sometimes amplify, as the hon. member for Burnaby North would know — the things we're doing in our areas. With that in mind, and borrowing some of the experience from other parts of the world, we are embarking upon a program now at the lotteries branch. Part of our advertising program is to explain how lottery funds are being spent and the great things that they do for the community.

I must make a confession to the hon. members here. Coming into this job, I wasn't really that much of a lottery fan. I virtually never buy the tickets, but after having worked with it, lived with it and watched what this fund can do for people in a flexible way that would not be so available in other programs that the government might have throughout the province, where we would have to impinge upon them by way of a direct tax upon people, I am becoming more and more convinced that the lottery fund program is a very good fund indeed. We are increasing it every year, and we are doing more and more for people.

He is quite correct that it's the smaller grants to the smaller people throughout the communities of British Columbia that are important. We sit around here making great speeches and we think somehow or other we're very important in this place. We're not important at all; it's the folks out there that are important. I get all sorts of letters, letters typed with electronic typewriters and letters I call "kitchen table letters." They are written on sheets of yellow lined paper, some of them ripped from a kid's school scribbler. Those are the important letters to me.

They talk about lottery grants and what they've done for their little girls who are going on a band trip in the province of British Columbia, and how they got $200 to help them out to make that trip, and they wouldn't have been able to do that if they hadn't had the benefit of the lottery fund. Those are the little people, the great people of this province that we're able to help with lottery grants, and I am very proud of it.

[5:00]

The hon. member talked about the Pritchard community hall and the difficulty they're having, that they would require the balance of their Expo grant slightly in advance of the undertaking being completed. You wondered if we could have an assurance attesting that, in fact, it will be completed on time. I think we can do something for you to ensure that we don't inconvenience those people, and we can move that out in advance. I will commit myself to that and do everything I possibly can to help in that area. I want to thank the hon. member for the questions.

MR. JONES: I'd like to say a few words to the Provincial Secretary regarding the Queen's Printer, in particular the proposed privatization scheme of the printing service of the government in the Legislature. My purpose in doing that is that I understand the government is very close to a decision — if they have not already made a decision — and I would urge the government to proceed very cautiously with respect to any privatization of the printing services and urge the government, if it is their intention to privatize that important institution, to take a second look at those plans.

I was driving into the parking lot a while back — a couple of months ago — and there was what I considered to be a

[ Page 4557 ]

ceremony going on on Superior Street at that building. They were taking down the flags at the Queen's Printer, and I felt that was a ceremony symbolic of the triumph of the ideology of government over common sense and common logic. What we have now in that building are a few holes left where the supports for those flagpoles were. I consider those holes to be symbolic of the government's logic with respect to the privatization of this important service.

I'm not qualified to go into the important history and traditions with respect to the Queen's Printer, and I doubt that it would be very compelling to this government in any event, but I'm sure the Provincial Secretary is aware of the vital nature of this service to the government and the Legislature. This is an essential service that we all rely and depend upon. The province, the government and this side of the Legislature all benefit from the tremendous service by that great, efficient operation on Superior Street.

The government must be considering how best to deliver that kind of service. How is the government, given their desire for cost efficiency, best going to deliver that service in terms of the economics, the cost to the taxpayers, the efficiency of the operation, the speed of service, and the security and confidentiality so necessary in the provision of the service?

I'd like to take a brief look at the area of security and confidentiality of that vital service.

Members on both sides of this House, I'm sure, are abundantly aware that in recent weeks there have been leaks of government information. The member from Trail-Castlegar picks up a brown envelope; it's not a leak, I'm sure. Not all those leaks have been as a result of internecine feuds between cabinet ministers. The security of government information is very important, and that's recognized very clearly by the Queen's Printer. Have there been any leaks of information from the Queen's Printer? I think not: at least not in the last nine years. The government and the Legislature are so fortunate that we have in that operation the kind of dedicated professionals, totally committed to the operation of government and of the Legislature, who are extremely loyal to their oath of secrecy.

In that operation there is some $6 million, over 15,000 orders, of in-house government printing. Many members of staff have an opportunity to deal with bills and budget matters. Yet in all these years there has not been a single leak of information. They recognize that, although all this inhouse printing is not absolutely confidential.... Some of it deals with emergency matters that can't be dealt with in the private sector — low-value printing that cannot be dealt with in the private sector. The important, uninterrupted nature of printing services to this Legislature cannot be provided by the private sector. So not all of that $6 million is absolutely confidential work, but a good portion of it is, and we all profit — the government in particular — by the tremendous loyalty that we have had from those employees. It is an amazing testimony to their loyalty to their work — their professionalism.

On many occasions there are typographical and printing errors that are spotted in that building and passed back to the ministry and checked out to make sure that they don't get printed and embarrass the government in particular. The government should recognize the tremendously important service that we have here.

I've seen much evidence on the part of government of that siege mentality, that paranoia, that fear that information will get out. The government should take great pride that there is no sense of risk in terms of the operation of the Queen's Printer, and that selling off this sensitive arm of government to the lowest bidder would involve great risks in terms of the security of that operation.

Particularly in the last six months, when there has been this talk of privatization of the Queen's Printer, those professionals have provided yeoman service under very difficult circumstances with their jobs, their livelihood and their futures threatened. Despite that, they have continued to give the 110 percent that they give through the Provincial Secretary to the government and to the Legislature.

I think we should all be very proud of that service. In fact, this side of the House should probably be urging you on with the folly of privatization of that service, because the opportunities of a less secure system may help the opposition. Maybe it would help to get information on the budget and bills ahead of time. But we don't want to do that, because we recognize the importance of that confidential service to government. There's absolutely no sense whatsoever, in terms of security, in privatizing that operation.

A second feature that I mentioned in terms of this operation is speed. The emergency orders, the importance of the timely and uninterrupted flow of printing services is provided so efficiently by this operation.

MR. R. FRASER: At what cost?

MR. JONES: We'll get to the costs in a minute. I listed the four things I wanted to talk about, and cost was one of those. Rather than make your witty comments from opposite, perhaps you could listen to economic information that we'll get to in a minute.

MR. CLARK: "Witty" is stretching it.

MR. JONES: Well, if we put the two of them together, we get witty; they're both half-witty.

Is there any evidence? Are there any complaints on the part of government that this operation is not providing the uninterrupted and timely service to the Legislature and the government that would lead one to the conclusion that perhaps this should be put into the private sector? I suggest there is no evidence that this has not been a most efficient, speedy operation providing tremendous service to the government and the Legislature.

The minister's own last annual report.... I don't think you have filed another one since 1985-86.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's ready now.

MR. JONES: It's ready now. Thank you. I know it wasn't the printing that held it up.

Even in the minister's own annual report, it says: "The facility" — and we're talking about the Queen's Printer here — "has been designed and organized to provide a very fast response to urgent and confidential government work." It's incredibly efficiently organized specifically and tailored to meet the needs of the Government and the Legislature in an efficient and timely manner.

The Queen's Printer is probably one of the only mechanisms that can give top priority to the Legislature in terms of printing services. A priority in the private sector has to be — and we all understand and recognize this — profit, not

[ Page 4558 ]

service to the government; it has to be profit. So they could not meet the standards the Queen's Printer has met so beautifully lo these many years. The private sector cannot match the efficiency in terms of giving priority to the Legislature.

MR. R. FRASER: That's ridiculous.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

MR. JONES: Let's say the member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) owns a print shop, and he's got government work and work from another major customer — say MacMillan Bloedel — and he's got MacMillan Bloedel on the press. The Provincial Secretary says: "We've got this emergency rush job. Take that plate off the press and put in that government work. This is important for the Legislature and for the people of the province."

What is that private sector printer going to do? Given the fact that he is primarily motivated by profit, he'll say: "I can't. I promised this job to the member for Vancouver South. If I take this plate off, then I'll interrupt the service to that customer. I'll do it for you. I'll risk my reputation with that other company, but I'll do so only if you pay through the nose."

The cost to the government and to the taxpayer is going to increase immeasurably if we get into private sector printing for this government. The private sector cannot match the kind of service I'm suggesting we benefit from here. They cannot match the speed and efficiency or the security and confidentiality of that service.

I want to pay a compliment to the government.

Interjection.

MR. JONES: Compliment. I want to pay a compliment to the government, and I think the Provincial Secretary was here in 1979 when this compliment should have been paid.

In 1979 the government hired Howard Britt as the Queen's Printer, or as they call him, the director of government printing services. They hired him from a position in Ottawa as head of the printing production management for the federal government. He was the individual who put the Queen's Printer in Ottawa on a secure, sound and economic footing. He is a recognized authority on this continent in terms of efficient print operations. He is invited by the National State Printing Association many times to give lectures around this continent on efficiency of printing services. Other Queen's Printers come from all over the world — including Britain, which seems to be the Mecca for this government — to view the great job that Howard Britt has done here in terms of setting up a most efficient Queen's Printer operation.

This is a world-class operation that we have on Superior Street. Members drive by that operation every day and probably don't realize that they're driving by one of the most efficient and most modern operations in Canada and in fact on this continent. This is a state-of-the-art operation, particularly in the area of computerized composition. We all benefit from that every day when we receive Hansard. The time and error factors in Hansard are cut down immeasurably by the kind of system they've initiated there. It's efficient, it's cost-efficient, and the taxpayers benefit from that.

[5:15]

Mr. Britt also provided another valuable service by being a master of equipment purchase for the government. The kind of clout he had with suppliers was really impressive. He had systems of testing equipment that people are just amazed at, so the government got the best service from all of its equipment. The benefit of that kind of experience and that kind of knowledge was shared all around, and we all profited.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired. Perhaps one of your colleagues would intercede.

MR. ROSE: I was fascinated by this glowing story, this tale of the history of the Queen's Printer. I hadn't realized that anyone in this House had such a deep and detailed knowledge of this operation. I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby North and urge him to carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With that kind of recommendation, one can do no less than recognize the member for Burnaby North.

MR. JONES: I was commenting on Howard Britt, the eminent authority on efficiency in printing services for governments in this province and on this continent. That's the kind of talent this government is forcing into early retirement by the actions it's taking — the kind of talent we're losing, both in terms of the expertise he provided and the stature he gave to the government operation. Certainly in terms of the operation, if it is privatized, we are going to lose the focus on the Legislature, on confidentiality and on the efficiency of an organization that is specifically tailored to serve the government and the Legislature.

I'm suggesting to the Provincial Secretary — and, I hope, through him to the cabinet, if they're in the process of making this decision — that this is an area that cannot be made more efficient by the private sector. It is state of the art, world recognized and as efficient as it can get to serve its purpose.

I've touched on the security and confidentiality, the speed of service and the efficiency of the organization, and I do want to come to the point that the member for Vancouver South made; that is, the economics. Some time ago Ernst and Whinney did an audit of this organization and suggested that in 90 percent of its orders it offered the lowest possible price. There was a subsequent audit by Stevenson Kellogg Ernst and Whinney that confirmed the efficiency of this operation. I'm suggesting though the Chairman to the Provincial Secretary that what we have in this operation is the lowest cost-per copy ratio in British Columbia. I'm suggesting that as evidence that this cannot be matched by the private sector, that there will be saving to the government at all from privatization of this organization. No private company can compete with that organization and make a profit.

Speaking of profit, last year the Queen's Printer made a profit of some $700,000. They try to aim for a break-even point and they err on the profitable side. They're not trying to make a profit, but they happened last year to make a profit of some $700,000.

The profit goal in the printing industry in British Columbia is between 30 and 40 percent. That's their goal. Some printing they make that, some printing they don't, but in the private sector they aim for 30 to 40 percent. Clearly, if this very efficient operation is privatized, we're looking at an increased cost to the taxpayer of at least 15 to 20 percent. Right now it doesn't cost the taxpayer a single cent. This is

[ Page 4559 ]

one of those famous $10 votes. It's a break-even proposition. All the costs of government operation in terms of the Queen's Printer are recovered from other sales and activities. This operation is a jewel in the government's crown, and it should be maintained as such. Privatization is absolutely ludicrous.

Right now, two-thirds of the $18 million in printing operation of the Queen's printer is already contracted out to the private sector. What are we doing here? The threatened privatization of the Queen's Printer isn't going to affect the two-thirds that is already in private hands. It's in private hands in an extremely competitive bidding system. That bidding system is so tight that very little profit is made by the private sector by contracting for government work. I'm sure some firms pick up this government work for slack periods when they need to keep their employees moving, but there is very little profit in terms of the bidding process that's been established by Mr. Britt in order to produce the best possible operation that British Columbia could have in terms of its printing services at no cost to the taxpayer.

The best deal possible is gained from that two-thirds of the $18 million in printing costs to this province that is contracted out already. The taxpayer gets a deal. It's already mostly in private hands. What are you guys doing? The only conclusion anyone could come to is that it's the ideological fervour of the government that has to see everything privatized. There is absolutely no logic behind this. Even the guru, Margaret Thatcher, certainly did not privatize Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

The government will, I think, if it operates at all logically rather than ideologically, come to the conclusion that the privatization of this operation is absolute nonsense, and I would suggest that a decision has to be made soon. Those employees have been operating for some time now under considerable stress. Morale, as I said, is affected, but they are still giving 110 percent. I think that's a testimony to their professionalism, but I don't know how long those people can carry on under those kinds of conditions.

The minister mentioned the importance to government of a businesslike approach. I suggest to that minister that what we have now in the Queen's Printer is the most businesslike approach imaginable in British Columbia. We get tremendous service in terms of efficiency, speed, confidentiality. Let's not threaten the great service that we get as a government and as a Legislature. Let's abandon the lunacy of considering privatization of this thing.

I would like to ask the minister a question with respect to the Queen's Printer: did the recent study of privatization of the Queen's Printer recommend maintaining the government printing services basically as is?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the member for Burnaby North for his comments and introduce, sitting beside me here, Mr. Melvin Smith, Q.C., who is officially the Queen's Printer for the province of British Columbia.

The hon. member talked about flags coming down. It may be of interest to know that flags are hung on the building in the spring, summer and fall, and they are taken down every winter because the rain rots the darned things. I just wanted to let you know that. They'll be up again in glorious sunshine as this government moves on in wonderful ways to help the people of British Columbia, and we'll celebrate that along with the Queen's Printer.

The hon. member alluded to the Ernst and Whinney report, and he's quite correct: up until now there have been no leaks in the Queen's Printer. But so much for that — where did you get your copy of the report? Anyway, we'll leave that as it is.

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think aspersions were cast on the staff of the Queen's Printer, and the minister should be absolutely aware that I have no confidential information on the Queen's Printer. The information that I have is generally available.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. hon. member. Although it is really not a point of order, the Chair is pleased to accept what you had to say

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to assure the hon. member that I'm not casting aspersions upon the staff of the Queen's Printer, but he obviously has a fairly good source of information.

He alluded to Howard Britt and the time that he spent in the printing business. Howard Britt worked for 44 years: he was 62 years of age when he retired. And yes, he did a super job for British Columbia, as he did a super job when he was doing the same sort of thing for the armed services of Canada and in Ottawa as well. He was approaching the age of retirement, and he availed himself of that. Do you know how he did such a good job? Howard Britt privatized 65 percent of the Queen's Printer's operations. And I want to tell you, hon. member, that had he still been there, he would have continued to privatize.

You're quite correct that the Queen's Printer does a core job and a super job for government. People in the private sector also do a good job for government. Just recently the book sales division of the Queen's Printer was privatized, and who bought it? The former employees. I tell you, they are entrepreneurs. If they ever voted NDP before, I can assure you it won't get their vote again. They're now free enterprisers. They're out there doing their thing and looking for all kinds of ways to enhance their business. Small business people, my friend, who were given the opportunity to privatize under one of this government's great programs, and it's working very well.

The hon. member said that the Queen's Printer doesn't cost the taxpayer a cent; I think he mentioned that two or three times in his speech. He's slightly confused. What I believe he's alluding to is the $10 vote shown in the Provincial Secretary's estimates. Last year, on items that went through the Queen's Printer, the people of British Columbia, through their government, spent $18 million on printing things. I know that at one time C.D. Howe said, "What's a million dollars?" but surely the hon. member for Burnaby North is not going to say: "What's $18 million?" That's a lot of money. That's what it cost the people. We spend an awful lot of money. The fact that the Provincial Secretary doesn't have to expend that from his vote because it is recoverable is merely an accounting procedure done so that you can cost account properly in all the departments. But we spent over $18 million last year. You're quite correct, hon. member: that's not a cent; that's a lot of money.

[5:30]

I'm proud of the people in the Queen's Printer and of the way they work. What is happening now is that last fall, an action group chaired by Stephen Stackhouse, Assistant Deputy Minister of Labour and Consumer Services, was appointed to examine the printing operation and to recommend to

[ Page 4560 ]

cabinet whether it should be privatized. The recommendation of this action group has not been reviewed by cabinet yet, and hence, no decision is made. Whatever decision is made, I can assure the hon. member and all members of this committee and of the Legislative Assembly that we will maintain the high quality, integrity, speed and efficiency with which this chamber and government is served, and work on them to enhance them.

The fact that someone at one time is selling books and working for the government and all of a sudden they privatize themselves and they get out and are selling books for themselves doesn't mean they're any worse booksellers. Chances are they're better booksellers.

That's the way the system works, hon. member. We must realize that while we're here in government, there are a whole bunch of other people out there doing things. A preponderance of people, thank God, work in the private sector and are paying the bills. Government is not static; government is always changing; it's always in movement. Government also must catch up with the times. Frankly, there are a lot of things that government is doing that it ought not to be doing at all. There are a lot of things it's doing that can be done better in the private sector.

Mr. Stackhouse's committee is looking at the Queen's Printer to see if it is in fact one of those organizations where it can be done better in the private sector; and if that's a fact, it will be privatized. We'll examine those reports when they come forward, and you can be sure that we'll take the correct action in the best interests of and on behalf of the people of British Columbia. We'll examine the report when it's reviewed by cabinet.

MR. JONES: The minister confirmed my suspicions that the report indicates an increased cost to the taxpayer of at least 15 percent by privatization of this process.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe the hon. member would send me over a copy of the report he has in his possession, or the information that he has in his possession, and then, obviously, I could comment on it. But I'm not going to comment, one way or the other, on anything that's in a report that has not been reviewed by cabinet. It would be inappropriate for me to do that.

MR. JONES: I thought we ran on a platform of open government, but I guess that changes after we're elected.

Could I ask the minister: who has replaced Howard Britt as director of government printing services?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's Mr. Vern Burkhardt. By the way, again, I share your feelings about Howard Britt. Howard is a super guy, as I mentioned before, and I wish him very well in his retirement. Mr. Burkhardt is also a very good fellow, and I'm sure he will do a super job over there.

MR. JONES: Given that response, I wonder if the minister could comment on Mr. Burkhardt's qualifications as compared to Mr. Britt's.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burkhardt is a professional manager, as Mr. Britt is a professional manager. I don't have a copy of his curriculum vitae here in front of me, but I know Mr. Burkhardt; he is an extremely competent manager. I know Mr. Britt; he is also a competent manager. I am sure that each person and each manager will do things in different ways, but the result will be equally good. I have heard no complaints, unless the hon. member has heard some complaints about Mr. Burkhardt. I haven't heard any. I think he is doing a very good job over there.

MR. JONES: Is it not clear to the minister that Mr. Britt is an eminent authority on printing service to government, whereas Mr. Burkhardt's reputation is that of a privateer?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Would you say that again?

MR. JONES: I will repeat my question, Mr. Chairman. Is it not clear to the minister — I asked him earlier to compare the reputations of the two individuals — that Mr. Britt's reputation is that of an eminent authority on the efficiency of printing for governments, and is it not clear that Mr. Burkhardt's reputation in this province — as reported in the press recently — is primarily that of a privateer? His major authority is in privatization.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'd like to know what the hon. member really means by privateering. I remember from reading years ago that it used to be a word for pirate or something of that nature. I am sure you are not suggesting that somehow or other Mr. Burkhardt is carrying on some sort of clandestine or illegal work. Talk about casting aspersions; I think the hon. member should take another drink of water there and gargle.

Mr. Bob Beazley, by the way, is actually the manager. He has got over 20 years of printing experience, and he is the 2IC to Mr. Burkhardt, and between them they are doing a good job.

MR. JONES: I didn't bear the word before that.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He's the 2IC; he's the working manager who works with Mr. Burkhardt, and he has 20 years of experience. He is doing a good job. Mr. Burkhardt is doing a good job of managing. I think he has great integrity, and if the hon. member has evidence to the contrary I wish he would send it to me. Otherwise, I hope he would apologize.

MR. JONES: The point I was making is.... If you phone up the Queen's Printer and ask the office there who the director is, they will say Vern Burkhardt. We had a Queen's Printer that was an authority on this continent on printing and efficient printing services to government. We have now a replacement who came from the Attorney-General's department. Very clearly, his latest accomplishment is the fire sale of the other part of the Queen's Printer operation.

The only thing I was saying there is that we have replaced an eminent authority, whose service, reputation and knowledge is in printing — in particular, printing for government — and we've replaced him with an administrator — and we're relating this to the potential privatization of this operation — whose credentials are really in management, in particular, privatization. If we are wondering about the directions of the government, we can tell by how they have appointed the head of this operation to that direction. Unless this is an interim appointment and unless the government can assure me that they are not interested in privatizing this organization, there is no other conclusion I can come to, other than the one that I have come to already, and that is the lunacy of the government.

[ Page 4561 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I was explaining to the hon. member a while ago that government is not static, like any other organization ought not to be static, and it changes. Mr. Burkhardt's position encompasses other duties, along with that as director of the Queen's Printer operation. Howard Britt did a very specific job for government. He came in there, did a darned good job, put it on a good footing, and privatized most of it — 65 percent of it — and went on to grow roses and whatever else one does when one retires — maybe smell a few even.

Along with Mr. Bob Beazley is Mr. Dick McKinney. I believe Dick has 25 years of experience in the Queen's Printer — super, knowledgeable people. I want to assure the hon. member that the Queen's Printer operation is being well managed and he can rest easy tonight. Don't stay awake too long tonight worrying about it, because I can tell you that it's being looked after very well. Mr. Burkhardt is also working very hard. We have tended to give him some extra duties to perform and it's working well. So don't worry. You can rest well. You are a good student of the Queen's Printer and I know that when you finish writing your thesis on this, you will say that it is operating well and that Mr. Britt has gone on to retirement and to do great things. Rest assured that it is working very well indeed.

MR. CLARK: My question yesterday to the minister was on why his assistant deputy minister and one of his directors met with Mr. Pattison's fleet manager. I was hoping that the minister could give us some indication as to the nature of that meeting today.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I was just checking with my official here. I'd like to introduce Mr. Jerry Woytack, the assistant deputy minister to whom you referred so glowingly yesterday in question period, hon. member. I want to assure you that this honourable person here, Mr. Woytack, who is in charge of vehicles, talks to a lot of car dealers. You would think a fellow who deals with cars would talk to car dealers, and people who deal with bakers would talk to bakers. We get proposals from all over the place. We got a proposal from the Jim Pattison Group. We look at those proposals. We have an obligation to look at those proposals, and we continue to look if somebody brings an idea to government. We are an open government, and we'll have a look at it — nothing more than that.

The big news is that the fellow in charge of car dealers was talking to a car dealer. That's the big news.

MR. CLARK: Will the minister confirm, after conferring with his assistant deputy minister, that the proposal by the Jim Pattison Group was to take over the leasing of government vehicles now performed by the vehicle management branch of his ministry?

In other words, the proposal was to effectively privatize that group. Maybe the minister could take the opportunity to explain this to me. As I understand it — and I'm not completely familiar with this — the vehicle management branch of some 40 employees operates really as a lease company. They purchase the cars and manage them, and then they essentially lease them to the ministries they are dealing with.

Therefore it would seem to me rather easy to privatize, if this is a group operating essentially in a private sector capacity. If that's not the case, maybe you could clarify it, and also clarify whether the proposals by the Jim Pattison Group were effectively to privatize a section of that operation.

HON. MR. VEITCH: First I want to tell the hon. member that we lease an awful lot of cars. We lease cars, as I said, from Carter....

MR. CLARK: How many cars?

HON. MR. VEITCH: How many cars do we lease? Maybe 500 cars. We lease a lot of cars.

MR. CLARK: How many do you own?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh, 4,000 or 5,000; I don't know. I'll give you the numbers.

The proposal by the Jim Pattison Group had nothing whatsoever to do with the management of the staff of the branch: it was simply a lease proposal. It had nothing to do with managing the branch or the vehicles. I don't think it would matter — and it doesn't seem to matter — to the people working in that branch whether the cars were leased or owned by the Government. They still have to do their management function and look after those things anyway, because all the leases we have are what they call dry leases. They still have to look after them and send them out and have their vehicles looked after, so that wouldn't make any difference.

[5:45]

If the member is suggesting that somehow or other, because a car dealer came over and had a proposal for us to lease some vehicles — whether they were our vehicles and were sold to him and leased back or not — that would affect the employees, it wouldn't. They'd still have to look after them. I'm afraid you're not on to a story here, my friend; there just isn't one there.

MR. CLARK: I appreciate the minister advice that this isn’t a story. The minister made an interesting point: first of all, that they own 5,000 cars — that's from information I have — and that they lease 500. So a small percentage, relatively speaking, is leased.

The question I'm asking is whether there appears to be a move, which I'm inferring from a meaning, to dramatically increase the number of leased versus purchased cars. That's what's being discussed.

Secondly, I appreciate the minister's saying that this would not impact on the 40 or so employees in that branch, but maybe he could clarify for me — because he mentioned this very point and I want to give him the chance to clarify it even further — whether one option would be to sell those 5,000 cars or some thousands of cars to a car dealer and lease them back, as the government has done on a number of occasions, with the ferries, etc. Is that one of the things being discussed or proposed by your staff, and is that one of the things discussed or proposed by the Pattison Group?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, it wasn't one of the things discussed by the Pattison Group. The proposal was that they would buy our vehicles — or perhaps they would — and lease them back to us. We haven't had a proposal that they would take over and run the whole thing, and I doubt very much that car dealers would want to get into that. They may be very good at selling cars, but I don't know if they would be very good at managing them. Who knows? But that was not one of the proposals.

[ Page 4562 ]

We get proposals from all over the place on a continuous basis, and the reason we have only 500 vehicles leased out of 5,000 is that it hasn't been financially advantageous to do that. If it becomes advantageous, we'll lease them. If it's cheaper to go the other way and buy them, we'll continue to buy them. We'll do the very best on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I can assure the hon. member that we won't pay a dime to see an earthquake that we don't have to.

MR. CLARK: It's very interesting. The minister is now confirming that the discussion was potentially to sell those thousands of vehicles to the Pattison Group and to lease them back, and that you're studying the economics of that. What I'd like to know is whether that's being shopped around among other groups or whether this was a particular meeting with the Pattison Group. My concern about that approach, which is the approach the government has used on other occasions, really has to do with the tax advantages to the private company in doing that. I think it has some problems if you look at the true cost of such a program. I'm not saying that leasing the vehicles or buying them is necessarily wrong. I'm saying the minister, as the minister responsible, has an obligation to tell us where they're moving in this regard, because there is concern out there, given the kind of privatization initiatives — and sweeping ones at that — that the government has announced and is proposing around this. I want to get some assurance from you where you're moving in this respect.

I appreciate what the minister is saying. It's consoling that this wouldn't require the layoff of any of those 40 employees anyway, because they effectively have to deal with lease arrangements as well. I'm not suggesting, as the minister has tried to say two or three times to me, that the Jim Pattison Group would effectively take over that branch of government. I am suggesting, however, that it appears to be the case that the government is discussing with one individual in particular — not a used car dealer but in fact a lease manager for Jim Pattison — selling those 5,000 cars to a private lease arrangement and then leasing them back. I think there should be some public discussion around that option.

HON. MR. VEITCH: To the hon. second member for Vancouver East, I'm sorry, I'd like to help you with this and make your day, but you're not on to a story here. This was an unsolicited proposal from the Jim Pattison Group — we get them all the time — and we must examine the proposal and have a look at it to see if it makes any sense. But I want to assure the hon. member that the reason we're not leasing more cars is that the government — leasing is just another way of financing, as you're well aware — can get its money more cheaply, I'm sure, than even Jim Pattison can at the present time. If that changes, then we may lease from Jim Pattison or somebody else, but when we do we'll tender the proposal. We'll get them out there and it will be done in a straight-up manner. If you're in the car business and you're not here then, you can tender. You can bid on that if you want and kick a few tires.

MR. ROSE: What about the ferries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, if he's in the ferry business he can do that too. I don't know.

No, it was an unsolicited proposal from the group. I doubt very much that it will go any further, because I believe that at this point in time we can get our money more cheaply. We've got a lot of mileage left in some of those old cars, and some of them are pretty darned old. We want to continue to use them and get the last bolt out of them before we get rid of them. So there's no story. Sorry, hon. member. Wish I could help you.

MR. D'ARCY: It's been a while since I had a chance to reply to some of the minister's earlier comments.

First of all, without raising new topics, Mr. Chairman, I have to comment on the minister's pontifications regarding his development region. It is quite normal for the general public to have considerably high expectations of this kind of initiative when it comes from government. Maybe even the minister himself has quite high expectations. I'm not saying the concept potentially might not have some merit, but a large part of the reason the press and, I think, the public has soured on the whole concept a bit is that over the last few months, and even very recently, there have been a number of significant initiatives of major regional scope involving the lower mainland and the provincial government and municipal councils and school boards, but mostly municipal councils in the lower mainland, that have apparently had nothing at all to do with the minister and his — what's it called? — development region. It would appear that the Premier's office or the various so-called — what's the trendy word the government uses? — line ministries are in fact dealing with those major issues, whether it be Colony Farm or the Expo lands or transit systems or whatever is being dealt with.

The minister says: "Oh well, we're financing studies and we've got various projects we're paying for." It sounds to me, Mr. Chairman, as though the minister has simply confined some suspicions I had that those things would have been done anyway. Those are worthy things government should have been doing anyway and would indeed have been doing anyway. But in order to legitimize the regional development office, and perhaps make the minister feel better, because obviously the minister has good expectations for it, they've been told, "We're going to do this out of your $1 million or $2 million allotment," or whatever the minister is being given. After all, if the minister has this money in the regional office — or whatever it's called — bank account, they might as well spend it on something. I'm not saying it's been spent frivolously; I'm not suggesting that here. I am saying that all of those projects or all of those functions that the minister talked about are worthy projects and would have happened anyway.

Certainly the transportation corridor thing.... I can recall members in this House from the Coquitlam and Dewdney area going back to 1972, when I first entered the chamber, urging the provincial government and the federal government and the Canadian Pacific Railway to get their act together and set up an urban transportation corridor using that existing rail system. If we've got another study, that's fine. Maybe something will come out of this.

I make those points because I think it's rather obvious why the press and others have lost some of the glow or the interest they once had in the process. It would seem that the major initiatives involving municipal government, involving property, involving development of a regional interest.... We're not talking about specific small things, but of a major regional interest. That was what was touted by that government over there as being the whole rationale for this. Subjects of major regional interest have not been going through that minister's regional development office; they've been going

[ Page 4563 ]

either directly through the Premier's office, in most cases, or through the specific ministry involved.

Anyway, enough of that. I have a number of other questions that were spurred by the comments the minister made on the lottery funds. But in view of the time of day, I believe that it might be appropriate to move the committee rise, report quantum progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.