[ Page 4577 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4577

An Act to Establish an Institute of Aboriginal Languages for British Columbia

(Bill M205). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 4577

Oral Questions

Privatization of highways maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 4578

Shipbuilding contracts. Mr. Sihota –– 4578

Carter-Ward case. Mr. Williams –– 4579

Agricultural aid program. Mr. Rose –– 4579

Presenting Petitions –– 4579

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

On vote 56: minister's office –– 4580

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. D’Arcy

On vote 60: Mainland-Southwest Development Region –– 4590

Mr. Blencoe,

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today to attend the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services are two members of the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia: Mr. Fred Punko, CGA, who is past president; and Mr. D. H. Cheetham, who is the director of professional services. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are a group of grade 4 and 5 students from sunny Port Edward Elementary School, with their teacher, Miss Paul, and two parents who are accompanying the group. The community worked extremely hard to raise the money for the group to come down here. The children are quite excited by the trip. I'm sure Miss Paul will be glad to get back. I ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and this chamber.

MR. LOENEN: We have some very special friends from that great neighbour to the south, the United States. They come to us from the eastern United States. They are visiting Seattle for a naval reunion, and they've decided to come up to Canada and watch us here in the House this afternoon. They are Ken and Polly Dryburgh from Berkeley Heights, New Jersey; Jack and Arlene Gingrich from Lebanon, Pennsylvania; Dick and Lillian Batdorf from Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. I know the House would like to extend a very warm welcome to them.

MR. ROSE: I would like to introduce my constituency assistant and protector, Mrs. Gwen Ranger, who is in the gallery and would like to have her name in Hansard.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As the House knows full well, the government has initiated a B.C. savings bond issue which has been going very well in rural British Columbia. In recognition of the excellent sales being made in the Nanaimo area, I took the liberty of inviting some Nanaimo citizens down to celebrate their bond sales successes. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming the presence in our midst today of Dick Winkelman, Bill de Carteret, Bill Smith, Agnes Flett, Merv Unger, John Winia, Laverne Kilner and Barbara Thorne. Will the House congratulate them on their bond sales performance.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today are three very distinguished Austrian gentlemen: Dr. Klaus Guenther, Ralph Kinhirt and Dr. Otto Wusche. With these gentlemen are two other distinguished citizens of our country: Dr. Stewart Behie and Mr. Victor Marco of Makin Pulp and Paper. This group of gentlemen are involved in the construction of a $300 million pulp and paper plant at Britannia Beach, which is in our Speaker's riding. I would ask everyone to welcome them here.

MR. SERWA: On behalf of my colleague from Okanagan North, the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson), I would like to introduce to the House constituents of the minister's, Mrs. Louise McLoughlin and her daughters Julie and Fiona from Vernon. Accompanying them are their hostesses in Victoria, Mrs. Pat Malcolmson and her daughters Lisa and Claire. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: It is certainly a pleasure for me to introduce a Grade 11 class consisting of 45 students from Hope Secondary. We all know the little town of Hope, the most beautiful little town in the Fraser Valley. With them are teachers Don Dale and Gordon Calvert, and parents Pat McDonald, Brenda French and Vicky DeSmoker. Would this House please give the students and the adults accompanying them a warm welcome.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the fifty-second annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act for the year ended March 31, 1987; the 48th annual report for the business done in pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act for the year ended December 31, 1986; and the 19th annual report of the business done in pursuance of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended August 31, 1987.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE OF
ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES FOR BRITISH
COLUMBIA

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled An Act to Establish an Institute of Aboriginal Languages for British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON: This bill is about the rights of native people of this province. It is about the indigenous people of British Columbia's right to learn their own languages with the same recognition and respect that European and Asian languages have to their respective ethnic communities in this province.

The great aboriginal cultures of B.C. are in many examples facing the extinction of their languages as elders pass away. The languages were not written and are communicated from elder to child. Young native people are going to be denied reasonable access to an understanding of their own heritage and culture if such an institute continues to be ignored.

The fundamental principle contained in this bill is that the board of directors of this institute would be a majority of native people, to ensure that the priorities and control of their heritage rests in their own hands. This House owes a debt of recognition to the great aboriginal cultures of this province. The cultural accomplishments of the Haida, the Tsimshian, the Salish, the Athapaskan, the Kootenay, the Kwakiutl, Nootka and others are recognized worldwide.

[2:15]

This is the seventh time this institute has been presented to this House. The time for adoption of this bill is now.

Mr. Spooker.... [Laughter.] Boy, this might even get in the paper!

Bill M205 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.

[ Page 4578 ]

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I have here a memo dated May 18 from the project director for highway and bridge maintenance for the government restructuring privatization group. The memo was sent to all Highways employees in contract area 1, southern Island. It advises those employees of the names of the six firms which have been invited to prepare detailed proposals for road and bridge maintenance contracts. The memo also advises those six companies that have indicated an interest in contracting Highways employees...and advises those employees of the particular company's proposed business ventures. However, the memo also states: "The name and address of each regular employee affected by privatization in contract area No. I has been provided to each of the firms."

My question to the minister is just this.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I notice some yelping from the other side. One can only hope that the bite is worse than the bark — or better than.

The question to the minister is just this. Would he not agree that this action on the part of his ministry constitutes a blatant invasion of the privacy of those employees as well as harassment?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. LOVICK: Well, certainly that's one of the clearer answers we've had from the minister.

Given recent announcements and developments emanating from that ministry, namely gag orders, namely firings of an individual who apparently spoke out against these messages, will the minister assure this House that nothing else is going to be handed out to those private firms about those employees, namely their work records or things of that nature? Will the minister give us that assurance? If names and addresses, what else?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The question begs future policy.

MR. LOVICK: I'm sure we all take some comfort from that answer.

Another question. It seems very clear to me from a reading of the existing contract between the government of British Columbia and the B.C. Government Employees' Union that what has taken place in that decision to provide the names of the government employees to private contractors is that we have two violations of the collective agreement. My question is if indeed.... Well, I guess I should be more specific. I'm sorry, I'm being unfair.

The first violation concerns the fact that the BCGEU is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent. That's article 202 in the agreement. The second article is 204 concerning no other agreement. The question is whether the minister will agree with us or will assure us that no other laws are going to be broken. Obviously we have a contract violation here; will the minister assure us that other laws are not also going to be broken?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I think you're perhaps seeking a legal opinion on one issue; but on the other issue I think you should address the question to the minister responsible.

MR. LOVICK: Just in passing, it should be noted that I have sought legal opinion.

The second point is the predicament we on this side of the House have when it comes to privatization, because we're never quite sure who's in charge. I suspect the same is true of the government; it's not sure who's in charge either.

Another question which concerns the motive for this action on the part of government. What is it really about? I would ask the minister to confirm for this House whether the real reason that government has given the names to these contractors is just so that those contractors can then perhaps sign up 51 percent of the affected employees, and thus get the 5 percent preferential treatment promised by the government. In short, is this not simply a means to make it easier for those contractors to get on with their privatization program?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I could take the question as notice on behalf of the minister who is responsible for this particular action, but I can assure you that the process in place to ensure that the employee discount is applicable only to employees has several safeguards in it to make sure that such an undertaking as you suggest does not occur.

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS

MR. SIHOTA: I have a question to the Attorney-General as the senior cabinet member from the greater Victoria area. This afternoon the minister's Tory friends have announced that Saint John, New Brunswick, will become the shipbuilding capital of the world. Nine out of the 12 frigate contracts will be let to Saint John; three of the 12 will go to Quebec. It's clear that our local Tory MPs have failed us, and it's clear that this government has failed in terms of trying to procure more contracts for the west coast. Why, after one year of lobbying by this provincial government, has this government failed to secure even one of those twelve frigate contracts?

HON. B.R. SMITH: Besides taking that question as notice for all the Tory candidates who are going to sweep the ridings in South Vancouver Island, which I will do, I would remind this member that the procurement success story of this government in Ottawa is one of the best in the country; it certainly is. The work that we did with Versatile and the contract at Yarrows, the work that also has been done for general defence spending in British Columbia and the improvement and the increase, and the joint council of federal and provincial cabinet ministers that meet on and prioritize these matters, have proven a great deal more successful than in the past.

But having said all that as a preamble, we've not had our fair share in this province in federal procurement. We've not had our fair share in contracts. Ten percent of the population, 3 percent of the procurement; it's not good enough. That's the whole thing that we're setting out to rectify, and we've made a darned good start at it.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, this government has had 30 years to try to get us our fair share of contracts. It hasn't done that. If this minister is proud of his government's record, he should talk to the shipyard workers in my riding. We've gone

[ Page 4579 ]

from a high of 1,400 people working there to a low of about 150 people working there now. If that's the type of record this government is proud of, I say shame on that government!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please get to his question?

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the minister is this: what can the minister offer today to those shipyard workers, with respect to giving them some hope that there will be shipyard work here in Esquimalt within the next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. B.R. SMITH: Those questions smell of camera mascara, Mr. Speaker. I take the member's thrust as this: when it comes time to announce that we have a joint venture purchaser of our two ships that run between here and Seattle — which are going to increase and almost triple the capacity of what we're going to carry in this triangle run — you will support that, and you will support the guarantees that work and fittings will be done in Victoria yards and that the jobs will stay here in Victoria, and you won't hide behind the usual party rhetoric that it's bad to dispose of these in any way to the private sector. I know you'll support us.

CARTER-WARD CASE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Finance. Clayton Powell, one of the lawyers in the Carter-Ward case, suggested to the former superintendent of brokers, Rupert Bullock, that Carter and Ward were up to their eyeballs, and so was Mr. Peter Brown. Is that the way you read it? "It appears to be," said Mr. Bullock. Can the minister explain why for three years the Vancouver Stock Exchange did not investigate this scam, despite its knowledge of it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm delighted to have the opportunity to tell the House once more about how the situation today is so radically different from the situation which prevailed during the time that the Carter-Ward affair unfolded.

First of all, I'll remind the House that we have increased staff by about 60 percent since those days at the Securities Commission itself. Furthermore, we have increased funding dramatically at the Securities Commission, which has resulted in a far higher capacity for us to ensure that we minimize any opportunities for that kind of an event to take place again. That's not to say that we might not have future situations, as does every stock exchange in the world, hon. member. Vancouver is not unique in having some embarrassments.

But I say categorically that the record of this government in and its commitment to ensuring the Vancouver Stock Exchange operates in a way that enhances the reputation and profile of Vancouver as an international financial centre is beyond question. There should be no confusion in the minds of anyone in this House about the very serious view the government takes of the operating style of the exchange. There should be no questioning of our degree of commitment or integrity in reaching, to the best of our ability, for a situation in which these kinds of events might never occur again.

Furthermore, may I close my comment by reminding the House that by virtue of these changes we've brought about and by virtue of a closer relationship with the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors, we now have in place a degree of cooperation and coordination which heretofore has been largely missing. There are joint responsibilities in terms of monitoring the operation of the stock exchange, and I think that bodes well for the future of the stock exchange. I feel very comfortable about the progress that has been made and the prospects for future progress.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Attorney-General. Peter Brown's company — that's the bagman for the Social Credit Party — made $470,000 out of these fraudulent gains that Judge Southin just made a decision on. The other big fish go uninvestigated, unpunished. Is there a two-tiered system of law in this province? Can the Attorney-General explain why no criminal charges have been laid in B.C., and why no action has been taken for Securities Act violations, when section 68 and section 45 in the previous statute were clearly violated?

[2:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'm advised there is a court case in Toronto that touches on this matter. Also, the Securities Commission is looking at the matter generally. I just want to say to the member that it ill behooves him...comments of a general nature about Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown served this province loyally and well in his capacity with Expo, and also loyally and well in the B.C. Enterprise Corporation before his retirement and as the chairman of the board of UBC. He is a good British Columbian. I don't think broad-brush comments like that befit this House.

AGRICULTURAL AID PROGRAM

MR. ROSE: Mine is a gentler question to the Minister of Agriculture. For almost 20 years now B.C. has provided an agricultural aid program to developing countries in the Third World to relieve suffering. When it was announced, then Premier W.A.C. Bennett said: "The people of British Columbia have a moral responsibility to help people in less fortunate areas." I think I might have time for only one question, so I'll ask you two of them at once. First, what policy considerations led the government to abandon this moral responsibility and wipe out the program? My supplementary: is the minister prepared to arrange for a supplementary estimate to continue this small but important program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The policy decision was made in the past. As to what we'll do with it, I cannot comment until I meet with the group tomorrow. I'm meeting with, I believe, 24 organizations, so I will comment after that.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I'd just like to say that it's sometimes very difficult for us to ask appropriate questions with so many ministers away. We're grateful for the fact that we get a list of them, but the list seems to be growing. I wonder if I could register that as a little caveat to see if we can't do something about this in future.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES: I ask leave to present a petition, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 4580 ]

MR. JONES: This petition is presented to the government in order to assist the government in reconsidering the per them increases for seniors in long-term care. I'm sure the 264 names on this petition will be added to the thousands already received by the government expressing the strong feelings of our senior citizens on this matter.

The petitioners reside primarily at 3755 McGill Street, the Seton Villa Retirement Centre, and virtually every resident in that centre signed the petition stating that: "Whereas the senior citizens of B.C. have worked hard to make this province the great province that it is, and whereas all retired persons should be allowed to live in comfort and enjoy the fruit of their, working life without the worry and stress of financial pressures...."

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the government will pay serious attention to the concerns expressed by the petitioners.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
(continued)

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

MR. GABELMANN: I want to take a couple of minutes of the House's time this afternoon on an issue which, frankly, is not a great matter of state, not an issue that will bring the government down, but a symbolic issue of some importance. If I could get a Page to come to my desk, I will have delivered a couple of copies of my legislative letterhead for the Provincial Secretary to have a look at while I make the point that I would like to make.

You are not to look at the photograph, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I wonder if you would be kind enough to hold the letterhead up to the light and read the embossment. It reads, "Domtar krypton parchment, 100 percent cotton" — in British Columbia, where we have the finest paper mills in the world.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: We make it in Canada now. The minister responsible for privatization, the former Liberal cabinet minister who did so much to screw this country up, says that it will be fine when we have free trade. This particular paper, in fact, in many instances is made at rag mills in Canada — not in British Columbia, mind you, but in eastern Canada; in Ontario in some cases.

As I stated initially, it is not an earth-shattering issue, but it is a concern, particularly of constituents of mine, in a riding in which we have a world-class paper mill and a second paper mill under construction. We do make paper in this province of a quality sufficient for legislative purposes. Why is it that we have to type our letters on material that is not even paper in the traditional sense of the word, but is rather a cotton product, a cloth? I would suggest to the minister that he should have some discussions with the people at the Queen's Printer with a view to seeing that some fine British Columbia paper is used by MLAs in this Legislature.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm beginning to cotton on to what the member was speaking of. But I must say that I was looking at the photograph here, and the cotton sort of corresponds with the polyester in the jacket that you are wearing. You must have gotten taller also, hon. member. I notice that you have grown up through your hair slightly since this picture was taken.

We'll certainly look at this, and I'll have a talk with the Queen's Printer and see if we can't get some good British Columbia paper from the wonderful pulp mills that are being built in British Columbia as a result of the great work that this government is doing.

MR. CLARK: I want to ask the Provincial Secretary a couple of questions about the agent-general in London.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: Yes, it is, Mr. Minister. I have here an order-in-council dated January 13, 1988, that says: "Garde B. Gardom, QC, is appointed for a term of five years to act as agent-general for British Columbia, terms and conditions set out in the agreement between the province of British Columbia and Garde B. Gardom, QC, deposited with the Provincial Secretary."

When I look back and I look at the previous order-in-council, No. 2348, which appoints a Mr. Alexander Hart. I note that Mr. Hart's salary is $41,500, and it is listed in the orders-in-council. Every previous agent-general's salary has been listed in the orders-in-council, yet for this one there is no salary listed; rather we have a contract deposited with the Provincial Secretary.

I ask the minister several questions. First of all, why did the government decide to change the long-standing practice of listing the salary of the agent-general in London and to do it by way of a contract which we have not seen the numbers for? Why has there been a change in the way in which this is listed?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member is slightly confused in this area. The contracts have to be filed with the Provincial Secretary, who is a repository for those types of contracts, but the order is the responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Development. I am afraid you would have to ask the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and I am sure you will have the opportunity to do that in question period or at some other time.

The contract is merely on file with us for safekeeping, as are all orders-in-council. That's our only attachment to that particular contract. I can't offer you any advice beyond that.

MR. CLARK: I have looked through the orders-in-council of the previous agents-general in London. They don't have any contract filed, and their salary is public information. I ask the minister, who has the contract, to tell the House how much Mr. Garde Gardom makes as the agent-general in London.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I will once again explain to the hon. second member for Vancouver East that I will answer any questions pertaining to the responsibilities of the Minis-

[ Page 4581 ]

try of Provincial Secretary and Government Services or indeed of the minister of state for that wonderful region known as region 2. This responsibility lies with the Ministry of Economic Development, and I am sure that if the hon. member wishes, he can ask that particular minister. It is not my responsibility. We are there as guardians of contracts, as a repository for contracts, and if you wish information pertaining to that, you will have to ask the minister responsible.

MR. CLARK: This appears to be a devious attempt to not publish the salary of the new agent-general in London. It appears to me that there has been a radical increase in that salary, and the minister has the contract. I ask him to table in this House the contract between the agent-general, Mr. Gardom, and the government of British Columbia. No other agent-general has ever been paid by a contract; they have all been paid by order-in-council. It should be public information, and we should know how much we are paying the new agent-general. There should not be an attempt to circumvent public scrutiny by making a special sweetheart arrangement with a former Social Credit cabinet minister and then depositing it with the Provincial Secretary.

I am sure that if I asked the Economic Development minister, she would say: "It's not my responsibility. I have deposited it with the Provincial Secretary, and those documents and details are with him." So I ask the minister to table in this House — what has he got to hide? — the salary and all the perks that are paid to the former Socred cabinet minister, Mr. Garde Gardom. It is public information, and we have a right to know — both this House and the public of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Talk about circumvention! I am trying to explain to the hon. member.... I am sure he is aware that we are dealing with the estimates of the Provincial Secretary. You dealt quite extensively with the estimates of my colleague the hon. Minister of Economic Development. The estimated funds to pay for any contract that anyone may have relative to B.C. House in London or to the agent-general are under the administration of that minister. It would be completely and absolutely inappropriate for me to comment on items that fall within that person's jurisdiction.

I realize that the hon. member is new to the House, but I am trying to kindly explain to him that we are merely the repository for contracts, as we are the repository for orders-in-council and other things. If you will check the estimates book, the responsibility clearly lies with the Minister of Economic Development, and you're going to have to take your chances with her, hon. member.

MR. CLARK: The contract is deposited, and as the minister said, he is the guardian of that contract. It is certainly within his purview to table it in this House, as I requested.

I want to make one further comment. The minister said: "It's the Economic Development ministry; that's who pays the funds." I looked at 1986-87, and I find that Mr. Hart was paid $31,875 by the Intergovernmental Relations budget and $9,563 by the Economic Development ministry budget; so it is shared.

[2:45]

The fact of the matter is that even though they were paid by different ministries last year, it is not acceptable to say it's someone else's responsibility. You have the contract; you said you're the guardian of the contract. It's a simple matter.

Unless it's a dramatic increase in salary, unless there's some skullduggery going on here, or favouritism to friends of the Government again. I don't understand why the minister will not table that contract in this House. Once again I ask him to table the contract of Mr. Garde Gardom.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member cites the example Of Mr. Hart, then agent-general in London, being paid from two different ministries. The reason is very straightforward: the responsibilities for that particular entity changed during the year; therefore the payments were made from two different ministries. In November '86 the responsibility changed from one ministry to the other. I'm not going to encroach upon some other minister's jurisdiction.

MR. CLARK: You've got the contract; he doesn't.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The contract is there, and if you wish to deal with it, deal with it through the minister responsible. I'm sure that person will be here next week. The minister responsible is the Minister of Economic Development, hon. member, and I'm afraid I can't elaborate any further on it.

MR. CLARK: What are you hiding?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm not hiding anything. I'm merely telling you that you should follow due process and deal with the Minister of Economic Development. That's the person who's responsible for the agent-general in London, not the Provincial Secretary.

MR. MILLER: I'm new to the House too, and I'm just seeking a little information. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me and the House with respect to the lottery grant situation — the process that is laid down in terms of people making application to the lotteries branch, of that being considered and a decision made, favourably or unfavourably, and of notice being sent out. I wonder if the minister can sort of go through that quickly and describe the process as he understands it.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Applications for lottery grants are received in a variety of ways. Sometimes they're sent out by members of the Legislative Assembly. Other times two constituents request them. Most times they're requested directly by a person seeking a grant for some particular reason. They're sent to me ostensibly, but they go right through to the lotteries branch. They're assessed at the lottery grants branch. Sometimes we'll look one over two or three times, and a lot of phone calls will go back and forth trying to accommodate the individual if at all possible. Sometimes the grants don't quite fit the criteria, so we will try to help out. An awful lot of time is spent phoning these individuals and trying to work them out. Then the decision or recommendation is brought to me, as the Provincial Secretary, and it is either accepted or rejected at that point.

MR. MILLER: How are they notified?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Usually they're notified by letter through the mail that they are either accepted or rejected.

MR. MILLER: I understand that politics obviously are played. I don't totally object to politics — after all, I'm in the

[ Page 4582 ]

game — but in the case of applications that are accepted from ridings represented by a member on the government side, a joint notification goes out from the minister and the particular member for that constituency; in the case of tidings represented by this side of the House, the notification generally goes out straight from your office.

I wonder if the minister could advise me why, in a particular instance in Prince Rupert, the notification to a successful group was sent from your office to the president of the Social Credit constituency association in Prince Rupert. That person in turn notified the applicant by telephone that they had been successful. I wonder if the minister could explain why that took place and comment on the propriety of allowing non-elected people who have no function in government to be given the status, if you like — call it what you will — of being used as a conduit in terms of advising groups that they have been successful in applying for lottery grants.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The fact that someone may be a member of apolitical organization matters not in this particular instance. As I remember the instance, the individual phoned me in an advocacy role for the particular organization that was requesting the grant. If someone writes me a letter in an advocacy role, we normally tell them that the grant has indeed been successful. Sometimes it's a mayor, sometimes it's an alderman — whoever it happens to be. The fact it happened to be a president of a constituency association — I can't even remember the name — doesn't matter all that much.

It's not an attempt to circumvent you. If you want to send me over your letterheads, and send me over some letters, I'll enclose those letters with the cheque that goes out for any grant in your area. I don't mind doing that. You have to get on the ball, though, and send some letterheads over to me -send some letters over to the individuals.

MR. MILLER: I'd be quite happy to correspond with the Provincial Secretary. Right now we're communicating orally, and we're trying to get to the bottom of this particular instance. In this particular instance, the applicant — it was a rather modest grant in the first place — did not go through my office, and I pursued that. Neither did the applicant go through the president of the Social Credit constituency association.

What troubles me is that the official notification to this group that they had been successful was sent to a politico who was not involved in the process, except perhaps, as the minister says, by telephone. The official notification was sent to this person, who in fact sat on the letter to this group. They didn't get it until a week and a half or two weeks later.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Was it wrinkled?

MR. MILLER: It probably was.

I'm wondering if the minister feels that's the proper thing to do — to advise his political party in a particular constituency and to have them act as a conduit for messages to people about their success in applying for lottery grants. Does the minister think that's a good thing to do?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll explain again to the hon. member that the individual acted as an individual, as a citizen of the Prince Rupert area and as an advocate. He took the time — I'm sure he's busy, whatever business he's in; I'm sure he's a very busy type of person — and showed an interest in it. I guess the least we can do is be courteous about these things, and show an interest in someone who shows an interest in someone else. If you show an interest, I'll send you a letter. But you didn't do it this time. Maybe another time you will.

MR. MILLER: I just want it clarified so that I understand, being a new member, how the system works to the minister. So anybody who acts in an advocacy role, who happens to phone on behalf of a group that may have made an application for a lottery grant, will then be the person you send the notification to, so that he in turn can notify the people who made the application. Is that what the minister is saying? That's what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, hon. members, the member for Yale-Lillooet asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT: Thank you, colleagues. I hate to interrupt such a heart-warming debate, but with us we have the other half of a social studies class that was here at 2 o'clock. They have with them their teacher, Mr. Dale, and it's the grade 11 class from Hope Secondary. I would ask the members of this House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: To the hon. member for Prince Rupert, who has no intention of joining the Tory ranks like the previous member from there.... Do you?

MR. MILLER: Why get on a sinking ship.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Who's Tory now?

Not all letters go out with advocates' letters or notes attached to them, but sometimes they do. If you want to send me a letter as an advocate, and if the applicant is successful, I'll forward your letter right along with mine, even mention you in dispatches. I would never play politics, not in this place, never. I'd be pleased to accommodate the hon. member if he's worried about getting his name on it. But you're going to have to send me those letters — keep those cards and letters rolling, and I'll send them along with it.

MR. MILLER: I appreciate the joviality of the Provincial Secretary in responding to these issues. But again, I have to go back. It's not through concern for myself. I happen to know the individual in question. It's not a political matter in that sense, as far as I'm concerned. I just want to be clear about the process you have put in place. You said that you sent the letter from your office to the president of the Social Credit constituency association in Prince Rupert, so that she in turn could advise the group that they had been successful in their application for a lottery grant. You said you did that on the basis that this person played an advocacy role and that's part of the procedure. I assume that it's part of the procedure. I ask you: if someone else played that advocacy role, whoever it might be, whether it was me or the mayor or whoever — and I want to get this clear — then that person would in turn be sent the official notification and it would be their responsibility to notify the group who was successful.

I don't know whether the minister's confused or whether he's confusing me, but there seems to be some confusion on

[ Page 4583 ]

the minister's part as to the actual structure of the system that is in place to handle this minor administrative matter.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You're quite right, it is a minor administrative matter and I'm sure we won't feel the earth shake as a result of it. If the mayor of your community or the mayor of my community said, "Look, I'm advocating for whatever, and if it's successful, could you drop me a note on it," I would do that.

MR. MILLER: They would be the person who notifies?

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, not necessarily the person to notify. I wasn't even aware in this particular case that that happened; I thought they both got letters. But we would certainly inform your mayor and we would certainly inform you, if you asked to be informed, about the letter. But you have to ask first, and thou shalt be given — generally, sometimes, maybe.

MR. MILLER: I think I understand now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You understand now.

MRS. BOONE: I guess I understand a little more too, because I was just going to ask. I've written a fair number of letters to the minister as an advocate for my constituents requesting....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Yes, but I've never been made aware whether or not they have received the lottery money or not. In fact, I didn't ask. So one has to specifically ask: "Please advise me. I am writing to you and I am requesting some assistance on behalf of somebody; therefore would you please advise me if they get it." If we don't specifically ask that, then you are assuming that we don't want to know; is this what the situation is?

I have been told by various groups that they have received their grant. I've phoned and asked them if they've got their grant and they've said yes. But I have never once received any kind of indication, not even a copy of a letter from the minister, indicating that a certain group had received a grant.

Now surely, if you can do that for the president of the Social Credit constituency in Rupert, then you ought to do that as a common courtesy for your colleagues here in the House. Do you not feel that that would be a simple matter to do, and can we not get a confirmation from you that it will become policy that you will do this, not maybe, sometimes, perhaps, but that you will do this on a common courtesy basis, Mr. Minister?

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: If the hon. member for Prince George North asks me to inform her about the progress of a particular application, I'd be pleased to do that. I don't remember you doing that to date. I can't read your mind, hon. member. I would suggest that probably your first bet, rather than.... Well, if you want to you can phone the applicant and ask them if they received the grant, or you can phone the lottery branch or you can phone my office and we'll let you know as to the progress. We'd be pleased to do that at any time, but you have to ask me. I don't know how much mail you want. I don't want to start a letter-writing campaign with you or anything like that. Just let me know and I'll inform you.

MRS. BOONE: This really is a little silly here. I mean, all we're asking is for common courtesy.

If I write to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) regarding something and he responds to a particular person, or if I write on their behalf and he writes me back or carbons me in on his reply to the person, all we are asking is that the lottery do the same as a genuine common courtesy. When you see an MLA has written to you — and an MLA obviously must be concerned if they're going to take the time to sit down and write a letter to you in support of something — then surely it would be a common courtesy to carbon them in on a copy that says this person has received a grant, or what have you. We're not asking for a special letter. We're not asking for anything like that, just a carbon copy. I'd be satisfied with that, just to know that the people I've been working for are being serviced.

I would just like to ask you a few questions with regards to the lotteries, now that we're on to this. The government is transferring $124 million to the BS fund from lottery funds....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Not $125? Well, AIDS support groups such as AIDS Vancouver and AIDS Vancouver Island are receiving absolutely no support from the provincial government in an), way. Are the AIDS support groups and hospices, etc., eligible for grants from the lottery funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We don't normally fund any groups for ongoing operational costs, hon. member. I guess that's what they'd require funding for. We do fund specific grants for operational things: we give some money to the PNE and other areas like that. But in our normal grants process, it's not part of the criteria to fund for operating grants. If they wanted an equipment grant or something like that, their application would be received the same as anyone else's. I don't know if we've received any applications from them or not; I don't remember any. But AIDS or anyone else wouldn't receive money for operating grants — not normally.

MRS. BOONE: Perhaps I'm mistaken on this; maybe the minister can correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the legislation gave the Provincial Secretary the power to make grants for any purpose that he considers to be in the public interest. You have made a grant to the Ministry of Health for research, as you consider that to be in the public interest. Obviously that is going to be used as an operating grant for that area. They're not just going to be purchasing equipment with that, I would assume; they're going to be paying salaries, etc. Surely if you deemed it to be in the public interest to supply moneys.... If this group is offering a good service and if they made application to you, would it not be within your power to give them a grant based on that special interest?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We've established criteria as to how these grants are handled. I'd be pleased to send the hon. member a copy of the criteria, if you don't already have it. There are certain groups, like the health research group and so forth, which is really a government agency.... I serve

[ Page 4584 ]

as the vice-chairman and the Minister of Health serves as the chairman. We fund other groups — the Summer Games, for instance — out of the lotteries as policy. But it has not been the policy for community grants to go for operating purposes to anyone, unless it's a very special set of circumstances. We'd have to change the criteria in order to do that.

Again, I really don't think we'd be able to keep tip with the amount of money we would require for ongoing operating costs. I'd rather see lottery grants used for one-time-only situations — travel within the province for young people, or something of that nature — than to dip into the general revenue side of it and increase the expectations. I don't think you'd ever get enough money out of lotteries to fulfill all the expectations out there, as a general rule, for operating grants. That's why, as a general rule, we don't it.

Specifically, we do it for the Health Care Research Foundation and others — and, of course, the B.C. Summer and Winter Games and areas like that. But beyond that, we don't. So if they're looking for operating grants, I'd say the answer would be probably not. But if they're looking for money for a worthwhile equipment project or something like that, we'd certainly take a harder look.

MRS. BOONE: Once again, it seems similar to the dilemma we were in over requesting letters. You say you've got criteria. However, those criteria can be ignored when you're dealing with the Summer Games or some of the other special areas. There are those of us who might think that providing funding for an AIDS group which is a very serious problem right now, might be a special concern that ought to be considered by the minister; that it's not just something that should be thought of as a one-shot deal; that it's not something that can even be considered with everything else. This is a very serious problem, and these groups are providing a very good service. Yet there's no funding coming from anywhere in government to assist these groups.

Surely if the minister received a proposition for a lottery grant that he deemed to be very worthwhile and in the public's best interest, he has the right, as you have said you do for other worthwhile projects, to make special considerations. You've already decided to put some money into the BS fund. That's certainly not meeting the criteria that have been established for communities. What makes something becomes a special project for the minister?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The budget stabilization fund is part of the budgetary process. That has been done by statute here in the House, and indeed has passed through this committee. I really don't want to open up the floodgates for requests for grants for operating funds. I would not be able to honour them if we did.

Again, I'll point out to you that if the AIDS group or any other worthy organization wishes a grant for something that falls within the criteria, I'd be pleased to send them copies of the criteria, as I'm pleased to send you copies of the criteria. I established them when I became Provincial Secretary, in consultation with other members of government, and it's working pretty well. I don't want to change that right now, and I don't want to open up the floodgates with respect to requests for grant money for operating costs. But if they want it for something else, as I said, I'd be very pleased — I'd be honoured — to look at their request.

MR. BLENCOE: I want to canvass a number of things this afternoon, but first I want to conclude our debate of this morning on St. Ann's Academy. I was very pleased that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) decided to get himself into the debate, and I'm very pleased — I just want to make sure that I heard correctly this morning — that the Provincial Secretary said that if the Provincial Capital Commission or the minister responsible, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), made application to him for lottery funds, he would certainly look at that application; he'd consider that application. Because thus far that obviously hasn't been considered.

I did meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on that very issue, trying to seek, obviously with a first priority on general revenue funds, for St. Ann's.... But now, out of frustration, of course, I go to the minister responsible for lotteries to see if there's any way this government, at the last moment, before this beautiful site is turned into a tourist trap.... As far as I'm concerned, there might be some allocation of dollars for St. Ann's.

So to conclude that part of my discussion, Mr. Chairman, the minister is on record as saying that he would consider an application. I'm certainly pleased to hear that. Hopefully the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Provincial Capital Commission will read Hansard and the Blues, and maybe there'll be some consultation. I hope the Social Credit members for this region would also be behind that move to find some funds for St. Ann's, so we can maximize our options for that national historic site.

I want to leave that and move on to another issue. In many ways I'm sort of putting on my Municipal Affairs critic's hat and speaking on behalf of local government, particularly those areas that are experiencing substantial growth.

MRS. GRAN: How can you do that?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to do that vis-à-vis lotteries and money available for community grants, my concern being that....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I have the authority of the people of Victoria, who sent me here to represent them.

MRS. GRAN: All of them?

MR. BLENCOE: Sixty percent, Madam Member. But, Mr. Chairman — through you to that member for Langley — we do our utmost to represent all of our constituents in Victoria, regardless of the party they support.

I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, that $79 million or thereabouts has been reallocated from the estimate, reallocated from lottery money that could go into various communities in the province, and put into the budget stabilization fund — this rainy-day account that's been created; this "now you see it, now you don't" rainy-day account.

It's most unfortunate that there is actually more money going to the BS fund than there is to community grants and funds for communities in desperate need of expansion of services. I particularly request that the minister take a look at those municipalities that are experiencing substantial growth. The pressure on community facilities like playing fields.... They are stretched to the limit. There are municipalities like south Surrey, where I'm told there are now 600 children per playing-field and where at evening soccer practices

[ Page 4585 ]

there are four teams designated per playing-field. I understand that this summer in many of these growth areas like Surrey, kids just can't get playing-fields. There aren't enough of them — Little League and that sort of stuff.

When I see the crass politics of $79 million going to the BS fund, and we've got young children in these growth areas who can't get to playing-fields — the coaches are frustrated, the parents are frustrated — and when I see places like Matsqui and Abbotsford, where there are only about four fields with lights for winter, for playing, for kids to get out and participate.... In Aldergrove, only one field with lights; I understand that even in the area of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), a growth area, they have all sorts of problems of inadequate facilities for young people. They are turning kids away from playing fields. Then I see the crass politics, the political games being played with an estimated $79 million that is going to come out of lottery and community grants that could go to those young people in those growth communities.

[3:15]

As the critic for municipal affairs and representing those municipalities in their attempt to try and provide decent services for young people - in many areas keeping them off the street, out of harm's way.... There are hundreds and thousands of parents and coaches in those growth communities who are desperate for more playing fields, services and facilities that will allow those young people, particularly from the ages of seven to 18 — critical years, as I'm sure many of my colleagues know, in terms of channelling young people into the right field, the right areas.... Many of them do at times wander from the straight and narrow, but yet these facilities and playing fields and these coaches and teams give them an outlet.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of those young people and those coaches in the areas that I've suggested — Surrey, Matsqui, Abbotsford, Aldergrove and Langley.... When I see $79 million minimum coming out of lottery funds, going over to this so-called BS fund — this rainy day account — and I hear on the radio and on television of young people who can't get one ball game or one soccer game, who can't even get close to a playing field, I have to wonder what the priorities are.

I would ask the minister, on behalf of those municipalities and young people — maybe he would speak today on this — is he concerned about that? Does he agree with siphoning off $79 million when it could be going to the youth of this province? Indeed, it is money invested today that could help many of those young people become the great supporters and part of our communities and strong British Columbians.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member should hark back a little bit to the history of, we'll say, Lotto 6-49 and the reason it was brought in. The reason Lotto 6-49 was introduced in British Columbia was for one specific purpose: to pay off the Expo deficit. And it did that. I guess the hon. member would follow up and say that since it was introduced for that purpose, all of the funding from that should go into community grants or something of this nature.

I want to tell you, certainly I am concerned and certainly this government is very concerned about sports and the welfare of young people. As a matter of fact, with the summer games, recreation and sport and some of the direct grants to communities and so forth, we spend well over somewhere between $10 million and $12 million a year from lottery funds for that very purpose alone. Certainly we are concerned. That amount has been growing every year as well.

I would like to point out to the hon. member, as I did to someone else this morning, that in the last two years the amount of money that is allowed for culture and grants and things of that ilk has increased by 28 percent. It has levelled out this year, but it increased by 28 percent over the last two years.

The B.C. Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games are there for young athletes, for young people to do just the very things that you are speaking of. They are very successful, the most successful in Canada and an example for the world.

To answer your question, if the mayor of a growing community wants to write me and ask for some assistance, again I would certainly consider that. But I also want you to consider, being the municipal affairs critic that you are, and a very good one, that indeed the municipalities have a tax base with which to build playing fields and recreational facilities and things of this nature. We help them out from time to time with lotteries, sure we do, but a municipality like Surrey certainly has a large tax base and revenue sharing, and the local tax base of the areas that they receive their funding from. We certainly don't have enough money in lotteries in aggregate to look after all of the needs of some of these communities. We just don't have that kind of money.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Obviously we don't have enough money to go everywhere, but when I see $79 million out of your estimates being shoved over to the BS fund, a politically motivated fund for rainy day events, that's a cynical move. When we get report after report on a daily basis that the youth of this province in those communities that I've outlined can't even get a ball game, can't even get close to a playing field, it's quite obvious that the political agenda of this government — the cynical manipulation of the figures and the creating of this budget stabilization fund — is politically motivated. There's no other reason for it.

What I am suggesting today is that thousands of young people are being shortchanged in being able to participate in sports and other activities. You are prepared to continue to endorse $79 million that could go to recreation facilities and sports fields and lights and facilities that could allow these young people to participate.... You continue to support $79 million going off into this crazy account that you've created. So much for your concern for all the family things that you've been talking about - that you want to help the family. I think this government should reassess its priorities, the budget stabilization fund and how much money you're going to lose to that fund. Put it where it's needed now, in those areas that I have suggested. I think that would be a far better priority for the young people of this province.

I'll leave that now. The minister may wish to respond further. I doubt it. There's one other item — a small one, not earth-shattering — that I've often wondered about. The minister and his ministry are responsible for letting MLAs know when congratulation letters should go on 90th birthdays or special anniversaries and that sort of thing. In my riding, for instance, with two New Democrat MLAs dutifully elected, when we get notice of who to send a letter to, why do you also send notification to the local Social Credit president

[ Page 4586 ]

dent? What is your policy on that? In tidings that Social Credit members hold, are the presidents of New Democrat constituency associations notified? I'm just wondering what policies are in effect and what games are being played here.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I wasn't aware that we were notifying the presidents of political organizations, and I will look into that. If New Democrat presidents again request that they be notified, I presume we would do that for them. I will check into it, hon. member. I wasn't aware of it. Fair's fair.

MR. BLENCOE: I notice, too, that the buddy MLA for the Social Credit Party is also notified in order to be able to send out congratulations. I wonder if the minister would look into that. Let's have a fair system. I would prefer a policy on this. Let's lay out exactly who is to get the information and do the congratulations. I'm not totally convinced that we should be politicizing in terms of Social Credit or presidents of ridings, etc. Personally, I think the policy should be MLAs. But if we're going to expand it, then let's have it fair on all sides. I wonder if the minister would take a look at that situation as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I would assume, particularly in the case of an older person, that the more people who congratulated them the better. I'm sure the hon. member isn't trying to take away congratulations from a particularly old person. I will look into all of these things, hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY: I believe we're getting there. As MLAs from this fine chamber gather around the airline and ferry terminals, as they do on days like this, I believe we're getting somewhere.

Before I go into some other items, I want to make a few more comments about the policy of disposition of lottery funds and get some clarifications from the minister, if he will be so good. We've heard from the minister on several occasions in these discussions that he goes to great lengths to try to spread what small — he says — largess there is in terms of community grants relative to this massive number of requests and applications that he receives which are well within the guidelines of what he has laid down.

In looking at the press release that came out yesterday accompanying the minister's long-awaited lottery branch report, we find that the $10 million roughly allocated or shown paid out in capital grants to communities amounts to approximately 4 percent of the expenditures surrounding the Lottery Fund. So here we have 96 percent not going into the regular one-third community grants for capital, and the minister says, quite understandably of course: "Gee, we have trouble spreading it thinly enough to catch everybody in there." Of course he has, because I don't know whether it's by his decision or a Treasury Board decision or whether moneys have simply been appropriated by the Finance ministry, but quite clearly, either the minister is party to this, or he is rather weak in dealing with his colleagues, or he fights hard and simply gets overruled.

The basic grant program that lotteries were originally set up to fund is receiving $10 million in the fiscal year reported here — approximately 4 percent. There's another 4 percent going into Expo 86 legacy fund grants, as the minister said. These are capital grants also to communities. Let's remember that of the Expo legacy fund grants, while they are 50 percent, there is only one for each community. The application of course, have long since perceived.... In other words, they were only available in one year from an application point of view, and only one is available.

I also have to point out that the functions being served by the Expo legacy grants — and they are all worthy — are ones that until relatively recently were served by the recreational facilities fund, the one-third grants for capital improvements for recreational, cultural and heritage operations in communities throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia. Those facilities grants — which as I've said, the Expo legacy has, at least in that one year of '86, somewhat taken the place of — were not funded from the Lottery Fund. They came out of general revenue. In fact, I believe they came — it doesn't really matter what ministry — through the parks branch.

[3:30]

Similarly, the roughly 3 percent.... The minister has mentioned several times in his discussion the relative increase in grants for cultural and artistic operations around the province. Once again, it is only relatively recently under this Social Credit government that those grants came out of lottery funds. They used to come from general revenue. The recreation and sports allotment is, again, roughly 3 percent. Again we have to go back — at least in my knowledge — to the W.A.C. Bennett administration, and of course, there were no lotteries then. Even under the Barrett administration and the early years of the W.R. Bennett administration, recreation and sports grants were not a function of lotteries.

Another worthy thing is the health care research fund, the $4 million approximately. I recall in the late 1970s — I can't remember precisely the year, but I remember the then leader of the PCP in this House — the good Dr. Wallace from Oak Bay-Gordon Head and myself arguing that medical research, which had up to that time come from general revenue, was simply too darned important to be left to the whims of the Lottery Fund. The minister of the day, whoever it was — I believe it was Mr. Curtis, the former member for Saanich and the Islands — claimed: "This way we will be able to put even more money than we would otherwise if we take it out of these grants for medical research, out of general revenue and find the money from the lottery system."

Heritage Trust is again an area which traditionally came out of the recreational facilities fund — the assistance for heritage preservation and development. The travel grants for bands or hockey teams traveling to championships.... Championship hockey teams or any other sports endeavour or artistic group, performing or creative, which has won something and is traveling to represent the province nationally or internationally, received a certain percentage of their travel budget — going back decades, under several different administrations — not out of lotteries.

What do we find? Not only has this function been transferred into lottery, but we find it's now a discretionary function on the part of the minister. Rather than having set guidelines, where a group could establish that they were indeed representing the province or their region, if they could establish that they had indeed won some sort of championship, that they were representing the province and fitted the guidelines, and could establish by some reasonable evaluation laid down by the ministry their actual costs, a percentage of money was awarded to them to assist them with that in representing the province of British Columbia. Now we find out that not only is this not available from general revenue; it's not even available from the lottery funds unless the minister so decides.

[ Page 4587 ]

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I note the amount put aside for that function out of the total amount of lottery money amounted — and I'm speaking generously — to maybe .3 percent of disbursements. Not 3 percent, .3 percent.

The minister says how wonderful it's been to be able to use the money from lotteries to pay off Expo. Quite frankly, since we had a debt left over from Expo and that had to be paid, I'm quite happy; I'm glad to hear that that money has been paid off. The minister's own statements say that $176 million roughly has gone into that, plus another $60 million from the contingency fund. I suppose that means lottery money from previous years.

In any event, we now are in the situation that this has been paid off. And by the way, I have to point out that that comes to over 80 percent of all disbursements for Expo last year. We now find that in the present fiscal year there is no more Expo debt to pay off, so what does the government intend to do with all that money?

Well, we hear they don't quite know what to do with it so they're putting it into — I'm not sure whether it's the privatization fund or the stabilization fund. But the government, or the Finance minister — I'm not sure the Provincial Secretary was a party to this; he may simply have been overruled, but the government has decided: "Gee, Mr. Provincial Secretary, you don't have to put all that money into Expo any more; we're going to put it into a separate fund and decide, as time goes on, what it's really good for."

The notion of actually increasing the level of grants to the communities that spend the money on the lottery tickets and returning it, based on the stated intent of lottery sales, seems to have completely gone by the board. The minister is trying to tell the people of British Columbia, in my community and in his, and in all the others, that they're only eligible really for 4 percent, in community capital grants, of all the net revenue out of the lottery money.

Mr. Chairman, that is simply not good enough; 4 percent is simply not good enough in 1988. And then they say: "We have to put a cap on the number of grants. We have to be careful. We can't spend too much money on having people travel outside the province to represent the province." All these other functions, until comparatively recently in the province of British Columbia, were functions, if the government of the day cared to do them, which came out of general revenue.

We've gone totally full circle. Instead of functions coming out of general revenue and lottery funds being just sent back into worthy community projects, we find that not only are a great many capital funds that used to be in general revenue funded from the lottery, but we even find money going from lottery funds into general revenue — to subsidize Lord knows what at the government's whim.

Just to pick another example out of the report, we notice that part of the money goes for the public gaming control branch. Now of course we need public gaming control; but when people buy lottery tickets, are they aware that they're paying for the operations which oversee the licensing of bingos and casinos and private clubs?

HON. MR. VEITCH: That was last year.

MR. D'ARCY: This release came out yesterday, Mr. Minister, under your name. In any event, if it's been changed, I say thank you very much. It was the most inappropriate expenditure. I hesitate to suggest this, but I suppose if there's enough money in here.... I mean, it makes no more sense to finance public gaming control out of lotteries than it does to finance the liquor licensing branch out of lotteries. I hate to make that suggestion in case the government decides that's where they want to get the money for liquor licensing.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the minister would elucidate a little more as to exactly whether or not he's going to increase the amount of money which is going to go from the government into those parts of the lottery expenditure, which is alleged by the minister and other apologists on the Government’s side to be that limited amount of money which can go back to the communities. Was a limited amount all right, but it's a limited amount by the discretionary decision of government. That government over there has made a clearcut decision to divert money for almost anything else other than the stated intention.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that any of the things government has spent lottery money on, apart from the public gaming control branch, is inappropriate expenditure for government; I'm not suggesting that for a moment. I think all of the things listed here are very appropriate, and would we all that government could afford to spend more on things like medical research. I commend the government for spending money at all. But the suggestion of taking it out of lotteries when in fact over the years, over the relatively recent years, more and more of these functions that used to be paid for out of general revenue are now being g paid for by lotteries.

I referred yesterday to lotteries as being taken by the government as a voluntary taxation where the money is not seen as directly belonging to the communities from whence it came, but simply seen as more general revenue for the discretionary purposes of government, just like any other tax system. Indeed, we see more and more of that happening.

I hope that the minister will give some assurance that he intends to at least press his Treasury Board colleagues to see that more of the profits from lotteries go directly back into the communities for recreational, cultural and heritage facilities, libraries, museums and all of the things that lotteries money was originally and — in most people's minds in British Columbia — is still going into, and to reduce this level of diversion from 96 percent to a level that's somewhat more defensible.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member says 4 percent. I think he's looking at only one account within the total. What really goes back into the community by way of cultural, recreational, downtown revitalization, health-care research and community grants programs — other than the small amount for grants administration — is $80,470,000. That's over 50 percent.

The reason that some of the things the hon. member alluded to, such as cultural programs, were not funded from lotteries before is that even in the Barrett administration, lotteries were very small at the time. They were just starting and getting off the ground. There simply wasn't the money in there, I'm sure.

Lotteries helped keep these programs whole, even during the restraint times in British Columbia. The fact that there was a lottery and a fund to draw upon kept the cultural programs, the recreation, the sport, the B.C. Games, the heritage trust, the festivals of the arts, the library services and the multicultural programs whole and going. I'm sure that during the time when government was so strapped for money and when the province and Canada — to some degree — was

[ Page 4588 ]

experiencing a great recession, some of these programs would not have been able to continue in the same way had there not been a fund such as lotteries around.

Even the $79 million that is estimated will be transferred out and into the budget stabilization fund this year will be going into the community too, you know. In fact, everything that the government does goes into the community. That's the reason for the existence of government. It goes in, albeit through a different vehicle, and once a dollar is laid on the table, it's hard to say: "That's been a lottery dollar, and that's been a general revenue dollar." They both look the same. We're working on this year.

I want to answer a question. The hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) mentioned that his letterhead paper was being made elsewhere other than in B.C., and that we ought to be using B.C. products. I've had this looked into, and I find that on what they call VIP paper — which is used for the Legislature, ministers, deputy ministers and so forth — we spend approximately $23,535 a year. That's not available in British Columbia, but it's purchased from a British Columbia supplier.

However, all of the other paper — the general use paper like you see here — that we purchase, some $311,590 worth a year, has been purchased and is manufactured in B.C. If we can find another source of supply for the higher quality paper, we'll do that too. Maybe that will happen in the future. I want to assure the hon. member that it would be purchased here if it could be. Over 90 percent of the paper that we purchase for stationery purposes is manufactured in British Columbia.

[3:45]

MR. D'ARCY: Not wanting to draw attention to the calendar rather than the clock, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to belabour the lottery issue. I believe the minister knows exactly what I'm talking about. As I said, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the funds don't get spent in British Columbia somewhere, with the exception of disaster relief How many people in British Columbia know that disaster relief comes from lotteries? That's entirely the point.

British Columbians apply for lottery grants under the basic basis. They don't even know that Expo legacy comes from lotteries. They don't know that all these other things come from lotteries. They can't understand why, with all these more than hundreds of millions of dollars available, it's so tough to get a simple capital grant for a community project that fits the minister's own guidelines. The minister knows what I'm talking about even if he doesn't really want to admit to it. Anyway, let's go on; otherwise we'll be here all day and nobody really wants that.

Air services, Mr. Chairman. First of all, generally speaking what shape is the fleet in and how many planes? We'd also like to have some breakdown of basically the two major costs. How much of the air service expenditure really goes in providing the health services, the air ambulance services, and how much is spent on personnel travel? I'm talking about capital and operating and repair. I'm sure the minister should have at least an approximation on prorating that. Of course, we know that personnel travel by government aircraft is really talking about ministerial and Premier travel and their immediate staff.

The general public in British Columbia — and I certainly receive lots of queries on this — find it more than somewhat disconcerting that the government, regardless of how good or bad their deal is with Canadair, somehow has money for a $7.5 million jet, but at the same time doesn't really have enough money to even maintain the same level of air services which British Columbia has had for probably a couple of decades now. I think it's best to say there seems to be a public mistrust of the government's priorities in providing a $7.5 million jet, which seems to me primarily, if not exclusively, for the use of the Premier and his staff. The public, who are certainly paying the bills through their taxes — I hope not through their lotteries — are not necessarily getting the kind of emergency health air services, especially in some of the less densely populated areas of the province, that they've had for some time.

Also, moving quickly along here....

MR. WILLIAMS: Can't you get an answer?

MR. D'ARCY: Well, no, he's cogitating over that. He's working that one around.

Vehicle management, Mr. Chairman. The government's fleet of vehicles, whether they're leased or owned, is, by and large, old and decrepit. I believe it was approximately two years ago — it may have been three years ago — that the then auditor-general, Erma Morrison, in her report commented on the fact that the government owned a whole lot of vehicles which didn't seem to be putting very many miles on per year, and they seemed to be the older ones. The obvious answer, or the obvious reason for that, was that these vehicles were in the shop all the time costing the government or the ministries who operated them — I'm not sure who pays — enormous amounts of money to keep them on the road. We all know that if you spend a lot of money repairing junk, you end up with a repaired piece of junk.

The ministries involved really had no choice but to do this, because they kept being told by vehicle management — which is under the Provincial Secretary — that there's no point in thinking about something newer, even something newer and used, because there simply were no capital funds available, and for a while there weren't even funds for leasing vehicles. So vehicles that had long since been worn out in heavy and, I might say, valuable government service, often in some of the toughest ministries for wear and tear on vehicles, such as energy and mines, forests or the conservation people, quite often ended up being on the road when I almost wonder whether a compensation board inspector would have passed them. I almost wonder whether some of them would have passed the government's own vehicle safety inspection services when they were operational.

So I would hope that the government is prepared to have a good look at some of the superannuated vehicles they have, because it not only is not cost effective to have vehicles around which, as Erma Morrison pointed out several years ago, are in the shop all the time, or even when they're not in the shop people don't want to use because they're unreliable and they don't want them breaking down 30 miles back-of-beyond, but it also puts a limitation on the level of service government employees in the field can give to their professional duties and, once again, provide the level of service that they can give to the public who are paying for those services. So I would hope the minister is taking solid steps to update the aging vehicular fleet in the interests of being more penny wise as well as being less pound foolish, because quite clearly the present situation - and that's been the situation for several years — is not good.

I'm going to bypass some of the rest of the material I have. I want to make a couple of points, though, regarding the protocol office.

[ Page 4589 ]

First of all, I want to state just how competent and cooperative I've found the protocol office over the last few years. I also find that while the personnel are delightful and ready, willing and able to help, they often have limited resources to satisfy the quite legitimate needs of the public relative to some of the requests for services which are quite correctly channelled to the protocol office. I would hope the minister can see fit to make more material available for the general public on request — material such as protocol information, provincial flags, provincial pins for groups traveling and representing the province elsewhere in the world. The service is not just the goodwill of the people who work there, but the people who work there really have something to be proud of in terms of what they can provide to the public in British Columbia. I'm sure the minister knows that it generates a tremendous amount of goodwill for government. That government especially, but I think government in general, probably needs all the public relations help it can get these days.

A quick parochial mention; I've stayed away from these things, but I'm going to ruin my record before I sit down. The minister has mentioned several times how he's improving and streamlining the service of government agents around the province, something which philosophically and in theory I certainly welcome. However, for a number of years — about a decade — the second-largest community in my riding, Castlegar, has been requesting that a government agent suboffice be opened there. There's no question that it's terribly inconvenient, considering all the services that come through a government agent in some of the smaller urban centres of the province. I'm not going to enumerate them, because the minister has already done so; the minister knows what they are. Quite clearly it's an inconvenience to the public to always have to deal in government agent's business with the office either in Nelson or in Rossland. So could the minister, in his gloating and boasting about the government agent service, think about those communities which, quite frankly, deserve those kinds of services and don't have them? I'm sure there must be other ones around the province equally good who also have long-standing requests.

I'd be delighted to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member asks what percentage of the total flights conducted by the air service branch is for the purpose of providing air ambulance service and what percentage for the purpose of transporting government personnel. I guess that was the gist of the question. In response, I'd say 60.6 percent is in support of air ambulance, 35.9 percent is for transportation and 3.5 percent is for test training and ferry flights. So over 60 percent is to air ambulance — 2,300 or 2,500 hours of flight time, or whatever it was; a tremendous amount.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The hon. member referred to the Challenger. The Challenger is one of the best deals that British Columbia has ever pulled off. We have seven aircraft in that fleet. We're trying to get it down to five if we possibly can. Two of the Cessnas had the largest number of hours on them of any Cessna aircraft of that type in the world. They sometimes rotated, I think, back and forth between one of the Third World countries and these two aircraft. They were at the point where you would have to send them down to the States to have the skins x-rayed to ensure that they didn't peel back like a banana peeling when you're flying at 25,000 or 28,000 feet or whatever.

But the Challenger — yes, we paid about $7.5 million for it, and we got back almost $16 million in offsets, twice as much as it cost. The offsets that we got were new contracts to be placed in British Columbia, new work for British Columbians — $14,500,000 in new contracts. So any time you can get double your money back, you've done a pretty good deal.

As far as the Cessna people are concerned, I've told them straight out through our negotiators that I won't buy any new Cessnas unless we get at least 100 percent in offsets back; we'll go to something else. They've acceded to that request. We're buying two new Cessnas and we're going to get 100 percent back on them. We're getting 200 percent back on the Challenger — first class. That plane is now configured for two stretchers as well as executive transport. We can configure it for four stretchers, or even six if we need to. It will be used extensively on long-range trips throughout the province. It's a very good machine.

Moving on to the government fleet. You are quite correct that some of these cars needed to be superannuated, as you so aptly put it. We just purchased last year 650 new cars. The ones that have low mileage on them — it isn't normally because they are in the garage all the time; it's because they simply weren't being used enough. We're trying to contract with the individuals to pay them mileage rather than to have them have a car around at all. We're trying to work that out between the individuals using the cars and ourselves.

A review is in process of looking at the whole fleet and finding ways of updating it. You're quite correct: some of them are getting just too darned old. There's no point in me telling you something else, because you're absolutely correct. We replaced 650 of them last year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: An equal number to go, or more.

The protocol offices are working very well. We've ordered some new pins and some new flags and things. The reason we ran out of things is simply that we changed the coat of arms when Her Majesty gave royal warrant to our new coat of arms last year. They should be in. Promises, promises, but those items should be in place for you next week or the week after at the very latest. We have ordered them. We've also increased the staff there.

I'll look into your request for a sub office. I think we're probably already doing that in Castlegar for the government agent, hon. member.

[4:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll send you a Steller's jay pin.

HON MR. VEITCH: Yes, do you want a Steller's jay pin?

MR. D'ARCY: The minister's statements regarding the Challenger and the Cessnas.... First of all, commenting on the Cessnas, I think Cessna probably owes the province something just in straight advertising. They are the equivalent of the Timex watch that allegedly went through the paper processing machine and was still ticking after a month.

In any event, I am not completely persuaded that the purchase benefits and the spending benefits from both Canadair and potentially from Cessna wouldn't have occurred

[ Page 4590 ]

anyway, or if the government had been successfully lobbying. It does not seem to be fair for a straight trade-off that private enterprise, unless there's something else they're planning for.... I suppose what I'm saying is that it doesn't somehow ring entirely credible. But I'm delighted to hear that at least something has come back for that expenditure, and I would hope that the air fleet, like the vehicular fleet, can be brought up to date so that the maximum availability and the number of hours is available from all aircraft. After all, they are to serve all the people of British Columbia.

I have only a couple more things to talk to the committee about. One of the things I would like to mention is that about two months ago the minister and all members of the Legislature received a note from the Legislative Library that they were going to have to cut back on the availability of services to the public and individuals other than MLAs. I don't recall that kind of notice coming out before. I have since determined that, in spite of heroic efforts by the staff, there does seem to be some difficulty in satisfying all requests. I would hope that the minister is not only aware of that but attempting to be the solution and not the problem, to make sure that that tremendous facility is regularly available once again - that the services of that facility are available to all people in British Columbia on the same long-standing policy.

Similarly, I note once again regarding B.C. heritage that the Provincial Archives.... While there's a large increase in the allotment in the individual vote under the ministry, a lot of it appears, at first blush at least, to be for increased occupancy charges. I consider the Provincial Archives to be an absolutely priceless heritage and record of not only the material history but also the social and cultural history of this western part of North America. I would hope that there is no actual restriction in the ability of the archives staff to continue to serve that great trust they have, and to continue to take advantage of those offerings which they receive from time to time from the public.

HON. MR. VEITCH: The library funding would come under vote 1. I guess, hon. member, we should really take that up in the Board of Internal Economy. If you want, I'll do that for you and address it there.

We've recently completed a survey — I haven't seen it yet — as to what users of the Provincial Archives want there. You are quite correct: it is a priceless heritage. When that survey comes back — if it isn't back already — we'll examine it, and it may help us a bit to upgrade the services even further in the Provincial Archives.

A lot of it is occupancy costs because a lot of it is just storage of things. We've helped that out somewhat now because the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee helps us move things through a lot more quickly and gets rid of paper that we have stored. So that's been very helpful.

Vote 56 approved.

Vote 57: ministry operations, $60,927,088 — approved.

Vote 58: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 59: pension and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

On vote 60: Mainland-Southwest Development Region, $832,974.

MR. BLENCOE: I recognize that members are trying to get away for the long weekend, but as a matter of principle, I have to say a few words on this minister of state and the minister responsible for the Mainland-Southwest Development Region.

For some eight months now, we have watched with interest the machinations of these united states of British Columbia. Thus far, we have seen very few results from a lot of bureaucracy and certainly a fair amount of taxpayers' money. This minister has already had $1 million. He's now got an additional $832,000, or nearly $833,000, plus— if we ever see it get off the ground — an extra $2 million for seed capital.

I notice in the budget for the lower mainland that travel expenses for volunteers amounts to $10,000. Travel for government employees is another $20,000, and advertising is $95,000 — 11 percent of his budget. The Ministry of Health, for instance, spends 1 percent of its budget on advertising. Even the Tourism ministry spends 11 percent on its own ads. Yet here is this minister spending $95,000 of taxpayers' money to advertise I don't know what because nothing has been done yet.

We just have to wonder as we go through this close to nine months later — in all these united states of British Columbia and this minister-of-state system — what the taxpayers are getting for their dollars. In many regions I've already investigated we have umpteen committees that have been struck, and it would appear they were struck to usurp the traditional role of local government. We just shake our heads when we take a look at this scheme that the Premier of this province introduced nine months ago. I have to quote Jim Matkin: "It's hard to understand what it's really supposed to do."

All we can see thus far is a lot of money given to ministers of state and their parliamentary secretaries and a lot of money to be spent on advertising, but we certainly don't see any results. We have to conclude that local government could do the job just as well. You could consult with the regional districts or the economic development commissions in your region — through you, Mr. Chairman, to that governor of the southwest mainland — just as easily with a 37 cent stamp to the GVRD for their economic policies for the region. It's simple.

You don't have to create.... I don't know how many committees you've got, Mr. Minister. It seems that your development groups for your region haven't been set up yet. That's our understanding., We've got no recommendations coming from that sector yet, because in eight months you haven't set them up.

The regional seed capital program is not yet operational. We know that you are investigating a motor-racing track. You are doing something with the University Endowment Lands. You are supposedly taking a look at agricultural land reserve priorities, but we don't really know what you are doing. We're not sure how many committees you have struck. We do know that you are making more work for local government officials, who already have enough work to do, and we know you have $1.8 million already in operating budget — for what I don't know.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Maybe you should try to find out.

MR. BLENCOE: A lot of people would like to know. I had a call — not in your region — that the minister for Vancouver Island held a meeting this week and called 80

[ Page 4591 ]

people together, and 80 people came away totally frustrated because there was no conclusion and no recommendations. Every time they asked for a project, they said that it was line ministry responsibility or MLA responsibility. Many of them who were called for that meeting were busy, local elected people, and they went away frustrated. What is the point?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did you go?

MR. BLENCOE: No, we don't recognize this bureaucracy. It has no mandate in law. The first $1 million for each region never went through this Legislature - special warrant.

Local governments already have the mandate to do exactly what you supposedly want to do with these ministers of state. Small business is totally frustrated and doesn't understand what is going on. They have no idea. They know they have this seed capital program that was supposed to be in operation on May 1. But all they know is that the existing process for accessing part of that $2 million for grants or loans is still in place. That was put in by the Ministry of Economic Development, and now they have four extra steps to go through the minister of state. We learn that the Minister of Economic Development still has to be consulted and has to okay the projects.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that some of the 6,500 small business operators in B.C. are confused about who they should approach if they need government help. Should they call their elected member, their parliamentary secretary, the minister of state, the economic development officer in Victoria, the liaison officer in the region, or their MLA? They don't know. There's total confusion about economic development in the province of British Columbia.

As the mayor of Castlegar — a Social Credit member who ran for you in the last election — said, if the government wanted to introduce a system to bring the province of British Columbia to a standstill, it would introduce the minister-of state system.

Mr. Minister, I go through these great grandiose press releases that you put out. What have you got? What have you done? You couldn't even get the first loan to the first company. They went broke before you would even take care of them. The bureaucracy is so overwhelming now that no one knows who to go to or what to do.

I recognize that time is of the essence this afternoon.

Eight months later, our staff try to ascertain exactly what is going on with these regional development areas, and we can only come to the conclusion that they are starting to build up funds in these areas — like the rainy-day account, the BS fund. They are going to start using these taxpayers' dollars through this unelected bureaucracy and these committees that are supposed to be set up. We are going to start seeing projects get money through the back door. There is going to be no scrutiny and virtually no criteria for allocation of taxpayers' dollars. We have to once again stand up and say that local government's role is being usurped in this minister of-state system. They are offended and frustrated.

One example that I've already given today is on Vancouver Island where 80 people went to a meeting last week and got absolutely nothing for their time — no funding and no money. All that minister of state would say is: "Well, we are working on a three-year, a ten-year, or a 12-year plan." What is going on in the province of British Columbia? Let's admit it. It was a figment of the Premier's imagination; it was developed between the curb and his car, and now these poor ministers of state — including this one — have to try to make them work.

[4:15]

I suggest to this minister and the other ministers of state and the Premier of this province to cancel the minister-of state system. Cancel it: save the money and go back to local government and ask them very quickly what you are going to do in economic development in the regions. It's as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, you continue to entrench the view that what you have here is a political system — another bureaucracy for political agenda — that has nothing at all to do with bringing government to the people.

Once again, my colleagues and I have to oppose this system, which is alien to our way of governing our province and this country. We once again ask this government to reconsider its role, and what it is doing to local government and small business. It's slowing down economic development. When I investigate the Mainland-Southwest region, nothing has happened. Even the regional seed capital program hasn't got off the ground.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm getting signals from all over the place to hurry up here; otherwise I'd light into that fellow over there. I want to be so kind at this time of the day and explain a few things to him so that he understands.

Hon. member, $1 million was debated in this House, and the $1 million was indeed startup capital. We used about $100,000. We didn't use all of the money. That's how you fund it. The NDP were masters....

MR. BLENCOE: You broke the law.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, we didn't break any law. Come on! You're barking away there. The NDP were the greatest experts in using special warrants that I've ever seen.

As far as the advertising is concerned, you want to tell me, hon. member, that we shouldn't inform the people of the Mainland-Southwest region of British Columbia that 54 percent of the population were doing something.... If we put a simple ad in a newspaper in our area, the number of newspapers to reach the whole area, it would cost $95,000. It's very costly to advertise.

We're going to continue to inform people, and we're going to continue to ensure that this great program works. I'll tell you what the program does. You could find out, too, if you weren't so doggone bullheaded and would come over and find out what the program is all about. You sit back there and you bark and yap about it. You never go to a meeting because it's philosophically against socialism or something of this nature. I will tell you, it is philosophically against socialism. It's the little people getting out and having a say directly to government, and that's not the way the socialists think. That's why you don't like it.

No one ever shoots at a dead duck, my friend. This duck isn't dead; it's moving right along and it's moving along very well indeed. It's doing a good job. The people are interfacing directly with government. We're getting things done. You know the way the socialists cut red tape: lengthwise. We don't cut it that way. We're chopping red tape; we're making this thing work.

We don't win on every one of the deals, either. If I don't win on a particular situation before cabinet, I don't go in the

[ Page 4592 ]

corner and cry and sulk; I just get my cards together and I get back in the next game. That's how things are done in private enterprise, and that's how things should be done in B.C. if you want it to move ahead.

The people out there — the GVRD, or some members of the GVRD — may not like it, but I can tell you that one prime member of the GVRD is coming on board as part of the steering committee. That's Mayor Campbell of Vancouver. GVRD sent a letter saying they would love to have him on it. They're coming on board, and they are beginning to understand that that's where the action is. It's in no way to subvert or go by municipal governments or to go by MLAs or anything else. It's an adjunct.

The two parliamentary secretaries that work with me, two fine members of this House, the hon. second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), have talked to every one of the municipalities, every one of the regional districts, every chamber of commerce and every school board. Some of these people haven't seen a politician for years. These people went around and saw them, talked to them, got their ideas, found out what they really thought — not what somebody in Victoria thought they thought. That's what it's all about: working directly, grassroots, dealing with people.

I can tell you, hon. member, we have some 300 situations that we're examining and working on right at this point in time as a result of those meetings. We've got some 20 major projects in the mill right now. You just hang on and you look back at this thing. When you try to get on board and be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, we'll accept you gracefully. You don't even have to apologize to us and tell us you were wrong.

It's going to work, it is working and the people out there know that it's working regardless of what some politicians may think.

MR. BLENCOE: I can always tell when we're hitting the mark: it's when the Social Credit members on the other side will throw around the thirties and forties rhetoric about socialists and everything else. It's the only thing you've got a comeback for. In the last two weeks in your desperation it's the only thing you guys can talk about — socialism. It doesn't wash anymore. People of this province are tired of manipulation. They're tired of you bending the rules. They're tired of you passing money through without going through the Legislature. They want the law to be upheld, and they believe in local government. They're tired of you favouring your friends, favouring big corporations over little guys, and they're tired of you usurping the traditional role of local government.

You can scream all you like and talk about the socialists and everything else. We are going to stand here and talk for the ordinary British Columbian and for local government, and we're going to stand up for local government's right to make decisions in their regions — not some trumped-up, phony system that the Premier created in the Poole room over here. That's what was done. That's the system we have in place.

I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that you don't have to create these hundreds of committees. You could talk to local government very quickly. They've got the plans. They've been waiting. Do you know what they've been waiting for, Mr. Minister? Devolution of power. They've been waiting for legislation and policies that could allow them to go into the things they feel they can do best. Instead, what we have is another level of bureaucracy right over the top of local government — appointed by ministers of state, people appointed to these committees, no accountability at all to local government or to this Legislature.

That system is basically a political, corrupt system in our way of governing this province. It's time that this government recognized that the people have seen through why you've put it in place. They know how the Premier left office because he couldn't pass his Land Use Act, which had over 50 ways that the provincial government could overturn the local decision-making bodies. We have seen in eight months absolutely nothing that would show that this system is benefiting the people of the province of British Columbia.

This minister and the other ministers of state can throw around the old rhetoric of the thirties and forties and attack New Democrats. We are going to stand up for local government. We are going to stand up for their autonomy and their traditions. We are going to stand up for devolution of power, which would give those people, through their local governments, the right to participate in the decisions of this province — not some system that you've created in the Premier's office that has no bearing on how we've governed this province since its inception.

Vote 60 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my very best wishes to you and all Members of the Legislative Assembly for a nice long, happy May weekend and move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday next.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:25 p.m.