[ Page 6007 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Continuing Care Act (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 6007

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989 (Bill 17)

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6007

Tabling Documents –– 6008

Oral Questions

Unemployment insurance. Mr. Harcourt –– 6008

Government housing program. Mr. Blencoe –– 6009

Claxton v. Saanichton Marina. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6009

Ministerial Statement

Mammography screening program. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6010

Mr. Perry

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6011

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Williams

Mr. Perry

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. McCarthy

Hon. S.D. Smith

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery today I have two groups of guests. First, from the British Columbia Truck Loggers' Association: president Don Edwards, first vice-president Don Williams, second vice-president Ted Leroy, immediate past president Bruce Russell, director Rudy Deering and their secretary-treasurer — a fellow who is no stranger to this assembly — Graham Lea. I would ask that the House make them very welcome.

Also in the gallery are some friends, John and Gladys Mitchell. Gladys is an old school chum of mine. We lived side by side on farms in the Similkameen Valley and went to school together. She's a gal whom I have a great feeling for. Accompanying John and Gladys Mitchell are Cyril and Babs Shelford, and I would ask that this House make them all very welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS: In your gallery this afternoon we have a number of prominent businessmen from the North Shore in Vancouver. They include Mr. Peter Armstrong, Mr. Mike Roche, Mr. Sheldon Eggen, Mr. Doug Hayhurst, Mr. Gordon Levett and Mr. Bjorn Bjornson. I would like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Mr. George Morfitt, the auditor-general, and Mr. Robert Hayward, deputy auditor-general.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This afternoon we have with us guests of my ministerial secretary, Gladys Firth, who are visiting us from Winnipeg. I would like the House to welcome Alan Finnbogason and his wife Marguerite. Alan is with the board of tourism in Winnipeg and is an adviser to the federal-provincial tourism agreement –– I would also like you to welcome Sam and Marie Fabro, who are also from Winnipeg. Sam, along with our colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain, is a recipient of the Order of Canada. Would you please welcome our Manitoba guests.

MR. R. FRASER: I have two special guests to introduce today: one, Alex Reibin, executive director of the Central City Mission; and the other, Archie McGougan, a friend of the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers) and mine, who is on the board of that agency.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to follow the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) in welcoming Peter Armstrong here today. Peter, of course, is the president of the old boys' association of that fine school called St. George's, which I've had a bit of an association with.

MR. LOENEN: It gives me a great deal of delight to welcome someone who has contributed greatly to my political career, Mr. Al Basile. Please welcome him.

Introduction of Bills

CONTINUING CARE ACT

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Continuing Care Act.

HON. MR. DUECK: For the purposes of explanation, I would like to make a very brief statement describing the essence of this bill. The bill will establish a new act related to the programs operated through the continuing care division of the Ministry of Health. The long-term-care program began in 1978 and has continued since that time without any statutory base other than the Supply Act. During the past decade the program has evolved into a broad range of facility- and home-based services on which the ministry is spending nearly $400 million annually, The new Continuing Care Act will establish appropriate mechanisms to protect health and safety of continuing care clients of the ministry; to establish expectations about care standards and clients; and to safeguard provincial equity in facilities. I look forward to further discussion and debate on this bill at second reading.

Bill 15 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.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE LIMITATION ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 17 contains measures designed to give B.C. municipalities a temporary option to cap residential property tax assessment increases which are significantly above the community average. This option will be confined to the land component of residential property tax assessments. This legislation is intended to moderate the effect of sharply rising land values which are unprecedented in many B.C. communities. I have held discussions with the mayors of Vancouver and other communities on the matter, and we have reached a consensus which is reflected in the legislation.

My concerns about the city of Vancouver's original proposal have been allayed as we more clearly define the limits of the capping measure, confine it to the current year's assessment roll, and make the option available to all municipalities.

[2:15]

My government intends to carefully address the problem of inflated residential land values, with a proviso that we do not distort our assessment system, which has proven a fair and equitable basis for property taxation. Therefore we view this as a measured response, one which we will revisit in the coming year, depending on market conditions.

[ Page 6008 ]

I must remind local governments of recent increases in the homeowner grant and land tax deferment options for owners over 60. I ask them to consider these offsetting factors before deciding on using the option we have given them.

In closing, may I say that this is the first piece of legislation introduced by this minister with which I have felt uncomfortable. I believe we have a firstclass assessment and taxation system, and only because of concern and pressure expressed to us by the Vancouver city council and other local councils on the lower mainland, and our strong belief in local autonomy, is this bill before the House today.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the auditor-general for the year ending March 1989.

Oral Questions

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

MR. HARCOURT: A question to the Minister of Finance. Today the federal government announced a drastic overhaul of unemployment insurance. It involves more restrictive qualifying rules, increased waiting periods and lower benefits. Has the minister communicated to Ottawa, in the strongest possible terms, how these UI changes will hurt British Columbians, particularly British Columbians in areas of high unemployment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this current national issue. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions or assumptions of the Leader of the Opposition that are implied with his question. As I understand the federal intention, it is to recognize regional unemployment levels, and insofar as B.C. is one of those that presumably would be a beneficiary under such a program, it's not clear to me that the province's unemployed will be disadvantaged. We have examined the material submitted by the federal government at some length. I can tell the hon. member and the House that the government is extremely concerned that the effects of the federal government program announced would apparently be to increase the level of spending by the federal government.

I suspect that most Canadians anticipated that the federal initiative would have as one of its benefits or side effects an initiative to reduce the federal deficit. It would appear, on an analysis of the details provided to us so far, that these changes to the unemployment insurance regulations will increase the cost of the program and have the effect of increasing the federal deficit. I find that astonishing, given the present unsatisfactory level of fiscal stability at the national level. In response to the suggestion by the hon. member opposite, we are conveying our concern to the federal government on this matter. We find it extremely surprising that they would be taking this opportunity, prior to the budget speech itself, to announce a new spending initiative.

MR. HARCOURT: New question, Mr. Speaker. One of the concerns we New Democrats have is that the changes to UI will push more people onto the provincial welfare rolls. I'd like to ask the minister what steps he has taken to protect the province's financial position, given that very strong possibility.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I suppose when you're working from a prepared script, Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to deviate from it as you get your answers.

I don't believe the assumptions drawn by the hon. member are necessarily valid, as I pointed out. Speaking on a parochial basis, on the basis of the information available to us it would appear that British Columbia will potentially be a beneficiary under this program. Therefore it doesn't follow that the hon. member's assumptions need to be spoken to at this time.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that all of us had anticipated that the federal government would be making some moves, as they embarked on their fiscal year, that exhibited a state of mental discipline and a frame of mind towards deficit reduction. I don't see that evidenced with this proposal before us by the federal government.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary. Would the minister table in the Legislature the analysis they have of the UI changes that leads him to believe federal spending will go up and B.C. will be a beneficiary of the changes to unemployment insurance?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That raises an interesting question, Mr. Speaker. The government does finance research for the opposition, and I think it finances it generously. Are we understanding that the implication here is that you're not able to perform that function yourselves, and that you would like us to undertake it for you? Government deals with staff reports daily; as a matter of fact, someone says ad nauseam.

It's expected that that's the basis on which we make our management decisions. The opposition, representing their constituents, are quite entitled to receive government's views on different matters at different times, and I think I've adequately and openly expressed government's view as it relates to this question.

MR. HARCOURT: The attempts at sarcasm or humour both failed miserably. The information is not available to our research staff. The minister returned from Ottawa last Friday. He has just received that information himself. If he would now like to make that information available to our research staff, we'd be more than pleased to look at it. I'm asking again, Mr. Minister, for a straight yes or no, without sarcasm or futile attempts at humour: will you make that information available now that you have returned from Ottawa?

[ Page 6009 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm happy to read into the record the material I have before me. It is a briefing note that deals with the issue of the announcement today on the changes to the unemployment insurance system. Is it the interest of the member to get the information he has requested?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARCOURT: My request was to table, not to read and cat up the very valuable question period time.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING PROGRAM

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The central statistics division of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations advises that the 800,000 households, to which you refer in your advertising on housing currently, is about 2.4 million people.

I want to know who was right. Was it the Minister of Social Services and Housing, who claims 800,000 households will benefit from the government's housing policy; or was it the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, who said that it was only 500,000 people, which is close to two million less than your advertising states? Who is right?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The important thing here is that our housing program will benefit many thousands of British Columbians. Unlike the second member for Victoria, we're not interested in nitpicking the program to death. We're here to make the program work. We're interested in benefiting British Columbians totally. This morning I had a very productive meeting in my office with the Urban Development Institute, who are very optimistic about the program. In fact, they came to see how they can help us make it work, not to nitpick it to death.

MR. BLENCOE: We don't call it nitpicking. Your advertising says 800,000 households –– 2.4 million people. You're now saying we're nitpicking in terms of saying that it's actually two million fewer people than your advertising states, and you haven't said no. The Minister of Finance said that yesterday.

Will the minister answer a very simple question: who is right? Is it 2.4 million people in terms of households, or only 500,000 people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member seems to be hung up on statistics. He wants me to start quoting actual numbers. We're here to help all British Columbians to have a house. We're here to help them with affordability, with supply, and eventually with home ownership. If the member would read all three parts of the program and its intentions he would see that the program is designed to help all British Columbians.

MR. BLENCOE: Quite clearly the minister is saying that two million fewer people than stated in their advertising will benefit by the housing programs.

A new question. Can the minister confirm the Treasury Board analysis that only 20 percent of tenant households in B.C. will benefit from the temporary renter's tax credit, while 80 percent of tenants won't get one penny?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Again, the member seems to be hung up on statistics. The renter's tax credit is designed to help those at the low end of the income scale, those in most need, whatever the numbers happen to be. The example given with the material accompanying the budget speech was that this particular part of the housing program was designed to help those at the very low end of the income scale,

MR. BLENCOE: Another question to the minister on the numbers, which is important to the people of British Columbia because you said that 800,000 households or 2.4 million people will benefit. The government's official economic forecast predicts housing starts will drop by 5 percent in 1989 and 1990. Yet you have announced this huge housing program.

At the same time the minister claims that 4,000 new units of rental housing will be delivered in the next 18 months under the government plan. Would the minister agree that one or the other of these forecasts is totally wrong, and that you had better go back to the drawing boards and really develop a housing program for the province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: According to the people who know this industry –– I had meetings with two groups this morning: the Urban Development Institute and the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, where the problem is most severe –– they seem to be very optimistic about our program and have offered to do anything they can to make it work.

It's a program that will be delivered by the private sector with government initiative, and they are very pleased with it. In fact, they feel that our target of 4,000 affordable rental units in the next 18 months will be easily attainable. I should point out that when we put the program together, we went to the private sector –– the people who earn their living in the business –– and asked them what was needed. They gave us the answers that we could build a framework upon, and they are very pleased with the framework that they see.

If the second member for Victoria has more knowledge than these people about building houses, then I would like to hear from him.

CLAXTON V. SAANICHTON MARINA

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question to the Attorney-General. Since the province has lost the Saanichton Marina case at both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal, has the provincial government decided to appeal this case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[2:30]

[ Page 6010 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH: The Claxton v. Saanichton Marina case, as this House may know and the member does know, involved the interpretation of what is known as the Douglas Treaties. When that matter was heard at the Supreme Court of British Columbia and following that, there was some concern about the appropriate interpretation of that treaty and the application that might flow from that interpretation to other areas beyond Saanichton Bay.

As a consequence of that the Crown, who was the defendant in the case, appealed the decision to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. After the appeal was heard and prior to the rendering of that decision, I met with the chief of the Tsawout band together with members of the council and elders of that band. I discussed with them extensively the reasons why we were before the B. C. Court of Appeal.

Following that meeting we discussed with the Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) their concerns about the potential disruption of that bay from dredging and the establishment of a marina. In addition to that, I met with the residents in the area who were concerned about the land use issue.

Following the rendering of the decision by Mr. Justice Hinkson in the British Columbia Court of Appeal, we have studied the statements contained in the appeal. I think the final paragraph of that decision is the one to which we were attracted. It says: "In disposing of the appeal I wish to emphasize that all that is being decided in this case is whether this marina, if constructed, will derogate from the right granted by the treaty to permit the Indians to have access to and carry on the fishery in Saanichton Bay."

As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, we now have the interpretation that we sought on behalf of the province and the people of British Columbia to restrict the application of that treaty and that decision to Saanichton Bay, and we will therefore not be appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Williams requested leave to table documents with respect to Doman Industries.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PROGRAM

HON. MR. DUECK: I rise today to clarify the position of this government with respect to the provision of breast-screening services for the women of British Columbia. I feel that a clarification is in order because of the editorial which appeared in yesterday morning's Vancouver Province newspaper, an editorial which also clearly supports the position of the British Columbia Medical Association with respect to establishing fee-for-service mammography screening.

While I can appreciate that the BCMA would like to benefit monetarily by controlling access to a provincewide mammography screening program, I do not believe that such an arrangement is in the best interests of the women and taxpayers of this province. It must be noted, furthermore, that with our current system, which includes fee-for-service arrangements with the BCMA for diagnostic mammograms, combined with the screening program, all women of this province have full access to mammography services. We are moving to expand the screening program, because it ultimately will be more cost-effective and will provide more convenience for women.

I would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the Ministry of Health, in cooperation with the B.C. Cancer Control Agency, has an outstanding record respecting cancer research and treatment. What yesterday morning's editorial chooses to conveniently ignore is that pilot programs, such as the breast cancer screening initiative established by this ministry through the B.C. Cancer Control Agency, are held up to international scrutiny and can be nothing less than exact in establishing the medical protocols and professional criteria which will ensure its future success and expansion. I am pleased to say that while this pilot program has been running only for eight months, the technical, professional and administrative structure chosen has proven to be extremely successful.

This program has excited interest in many other provinces which are now considering adopting our model in other jurisdictions. Evaluation of the pilot breast-screening program was initially planned to occur after one year. However, because of its great success and the overwhelming support it has obtained, planning has gone ahead for earlier expansion through the establishment of other clinics, as well as a mobile mammography unit to reach women in areas outside the lower mainland. I must point out that the first phase of this expansion has to be regarded as an extension of the pilot project. Additional information about costing, communications, quality control and data processing will be obtained in order to ensure scrupulous control over quality and costs.

This approach has the support of the sponsors of the screening mammography program, including representatives of the B.C. Medical Association. Despite the views expressed by the current president of the BCMA, it should not be assumed that he speaks on behalf of his entire membership, nor should an outside organization which stands to gain economically from a fee-for-service arrangement be allowed to set the terms or the pace of setting up this complex program in an orderly fashion.

It should be noted that it took ten years to get our cervical cancer screening program fully operational, a program that today has been modelled around the world. The success of the cervical cancer screening program was realized because scrupulous technical and medical research was applied.

While we have shown our commitment to expand the breast cancer screening program, the same exact scrutiny will be applied. This government believes such scrutiny is in the best interest of the public. This House can rest assured that we will put the public

[ Page 6011 ]

interest before those of the BCMA or the Vancouver Province any time.

MR. PERRY: I again thank the minister for the courtesy of a copy of his statement, although I received it only a couple of minutes ago. I have not had the time to consult with officials of the breast cancer screening project, so my comments are rather ad hoc. I hope to return to the issue during the budget estimates.

Let me just say that I too have had my problems with the Vancouver Province in the past. For the record, let me read to the House what the Vancouver Province did say in its editorial: "Screening mammograms performed at the pilot project cost the government $35 compared to $75 for diagnostic." I think the real issue is how best to serve the women of British Columbia with preventive services in the safest and most cost-efficient way.

I am not familiar with this aspect of the fee schedule –– I don't make a habit of studying the fee schedule and memorizing it ––   but the implication of the editorial is that a mammogram performed for diagnostic services where the physician suspects a malignancy is charged at a higher rate than a screening mammogram. The issue which, among others, not only the women in this province but the physicians –– including women physicians –– have urged for the past several years is that the provincial fee schedule does not allow in any case for the payment to physicians for preventive services, be it mammography screening, counselling against smoking, counselling against alcohol abuse, reproductive advice, abortion counselling, or any other preventive service.

The issue, as I interpret the Province editorial, is whether the government wished to continue the process whereby physicians in British Columbia are obliged to order diagnostic mammograms costing the taxpayer $75, rather than ordering screening mammograms on the same equipment for $35. This is purely a policy of the Ministry of Health not to fund preventive services, which costs us taxpayers much more money because the doctors are not able to bill for preventive services.

That's one point. I think the Province went on to say that the best use must also be made of existing facilities. The existing 57 diagnostic units should be equipped to provide screening mammograms. These units can be used to perform screening mammograms; to the best of my knowledge, it's exactly the same machine. The real issue should be supplying to the province the best machines which deliver the lowest radiation dose to patients and providing the money for those machines which our hospitals often are not equipped with in British Columbia. We give patients more radiation than they need to receive.

Let me just address two other issues raised here. The minister implied in his statement that medical services provided by physicians as opposed to screening programs are somehow not held up to scrutiny. Medical services provided by physicians are scrutinized closely by colleagues, by departments of radiology. The responsibility of every single radiology department in this province, which the ministry should know, is to ensure that the highest standards are met; that the highest benefit is achieved for the patients at the lowest cost of radiation to patients. I think it's insulting to the radiologists of the province to imply anything different.

Let me address one other issue that was raised in this statement, that of the overwhelming support for the screening program. There is no question that screening programs like this command overwhelming support from the public and from both sides of this House. Let me remind the House that the initiative came from the physicians of British Columbia for these programs, not from the government, nor did it for any other screening program or preventive program in the history of British Columbia. All such initiatives have come from the physicians of British Columbia.

Let me address two other issues.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member is extending the privileges of a reply to a ministerial statement when he exceeds the time of the minister. I would ask him to wrap up rather quickly.

MR. PERRY: I think I will respect the House's privilege and take up the rest of the issues during the estimates debate. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

On vote 31: minister's office, $259,265 (continued).

MR. GABELMANN: This morning when we left off, we were talking about the responsibilities of the minister in respect of policies that are leading the government into a situation where thousands upon thousands of government employees are operating not as employees but as contractors. I failed completely and miserably to elicit any real answers from the minister, and I wonder if, over the lunch time, he has had an opportunity to collect some answers to these questions. It's the public's right to know how many regular jobs are being replaced by contractors.

[2:45]

In five years we have gone from spending $120 million on this item to almost $426 million this coming year –– the year we are in now –– a three-and-a half-fold increase in spending for personal service contracts at a time when the government says it is cutting back in its workforce, a time when it says it is becoming leaner, when many services have been privatized and are no longer necessary to be included in these budgetary items. How is it that we have gone from $120 million to $426 million in five years for this item if it isn't other than what I suggested this morning –– an attempt by the government to deunionize

[ Page 6012 ]

its own workforce, or alternatively to mislead the people of British Columbia in respect to how many people actually work for the government?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the example that is the easiest to explain –– in government in a variety of ministries and locations –– would be the overload secretarial pool; no question about that. We've had that in place for some time now, using office overload.

There is no question, on review and analysis, that the program was being used more extensively than originally intended, without having day-to-day control. Whether it was government policy –– I believe it was negotiated with the unions in the last contract negotiations –– there has now been a ceiling put on the number of days –– I believe it is 59 days –– that that position can be filled on a "temporary overload basis."

Certainly it is one of the three basic elements of management in managing the enterprise of the government. We all know what the three elements are for a good manager: he plans, he sets an organization in place, and he controls. One of the most important elements of management is that of control.

We on this side of the House probably take a different approach from members opposite. We believe in very rigid control procedures on government growth so it doesn't become a massive, never-ending growth entity unto itself. We believe in trying to keep the sails well trimmed, lean. We believe that we should hire as and when we need to hire. It may be, Mr. Member, that we hire for short periods of time, perhaps 30, 40, 60 days; on one occasion perhaps a little longer, a little shorter on other occasions.

Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I am going to enter into an area that I had said I would not enter into, so I will do that with perhaps an understanding that I am entering that area, as they say in letters, without prejudice, so to speak. I did not want to get into a debate and a wide explanation with the member on every single-STOB section with every single minister of government, because it is clearly not my job to do that. But in the interest of shortening the time-frame, it might be of assistance for me to review with the member very briefly some of the elements of understanding and examples within the supplement to the estimates for the year ending March 31, 1990.

Perhaps the first thing we should do is turn to page 114 of the blue book. Under operating costs, if we look at the definition of STOB 20, we see that it is headed "Professional Services." It includes fees and expenses for professional services rendered directly to government, such as legal, engineering or management consultant services. It doesn't say "et cetera" there, but it certainly could have.

Looking at some of the bigger amounts, turning to page 4, under STOB 20, we see a very major item under the Ministry of Forests. The second column down, column 28, "ministry operations, " shows a very significant figure, $148,394,277. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that what that includes –– wholly or very nearly wholly; 100 percent, perhaps, or very close to it –– is the question of silviculture –– tree planting, thinning and spacing projects throughout the length and breadth of the province. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the member would do if he or a member of his party were the Minister of Forests or the Minister of Finance. Perhaps they would wish us to spend that $148 million-plus on putting all of those employees doing the thinning, the spacing, the tree planting work and all of the silviculture –– there must be thousands of them working on a seasonal basis –– on the government payroll, add to the FTEs and all the things that go with that. Maybe that's what he's getting at; if he is, then we clearly have a difference of philosophy on the management and administration of governments.

Further, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the same page, column 30, forest resource development subsidiary agreement, again, we have a very large figure of $66, 103, 831. These are moneys spent in a very similar way on improving the forest resource base in British Columbia, a jointly funded federal-provincial program.

I'm not sure how the member would suggest we employ those people. I don't want to repeat what I said earlier about the larger amount. Perhaps we should go back to page 2 and look under the Ministry of Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be taking anything away from debate in estimates of a later date, but perhaps we could just look very quickly at the Ministry of Attorney-General, line 14, ministry operations. In round figures, it is $26 million; $17.5 million of that, Mr. Member, is spent on legal services and Crown counsel; about $6.5 million of it is spent on court services –– court reporters, transcripts, prisoner escorts, air travel.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the member is suggesting. If he is suggesting something similar to what he was suggesting on forestry, he would have the government hire another few hundred –– or thousand, whatever the figure works out to –– employees from the legal profession and have them on full-time government payroll. Then when we don't need them, we pay heavy severance and layoff coverage and all kinds of other things. Perhaps that's what he would rather see us do in the government. If that's what he wants us to do, well, I can answer the question very quickly and shortly, Mr. Chairman: we're not going to do it. We have a philosophical difference.

I hope that we have in some way added a little bit of information to the debate. And perhaps we can get onto the other very important subject, which I would like to go back to, if the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is ready to finish his earlier vicious attack toward several of our employees at the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. SIHOTA: May I have the liberty to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

[ Page 6013 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, as I know you will appreciate, in Esquimalt we have taken great pride in our military heritage and in the fact that we have been for a long time now housing the Canadian Forces Base in Esquimalt. I'm pleased to indicate to the House that in the gallery today are eight officers from CFB Esquimalt, accompanied by their captain, Captain Mackay. Could all members of the House please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

MR. GABELMANN: First of all, let me say thank you to the minister for finally beginning to come to grips with this issue. He didn't do so in the written answer tabled yesterday, and he didn't do so this morning, but this is the beginning. While I don't intend to pursue it very much longer this afternoon, perhaps we'll have an opportunity to continue this discussion, as more information comes to light.

I want to say that the first comment the minister made was that it's his government's intention to have a control –– I wrote down the words –– on growth of government. We're talking here about an item that has grown three and a half times in five years. Some control! Some government!

Another thing he said was that the government only wants to hire when you need to hire –– or words to that effect; I may not have written down all the words. In effect, you should only hire people when you need to hire them. Why then are considerable numbers –– and I'm still interested in knowing what these numbers are –– of employees working full-time in employee-dependent relationships with supervisors, listed with telephone numbers in the telephone book, with every other appearance of being an employee, and yet being paid for under this item? Why is that? This isn't a question of needing to hire when you need to hire. This is a question of that particular department or commission or board or part of government having reached its FTE limit, and so there is a mechanism to avoid the FTE limit by hiring people through these personal service contracts.

In the professional side of government, some of these people are called sessionals. We have instances in government of people who are employed by the government, are encouraged to leave their employment and are immediately rehired on a personal services contract. They keep their same desk, their same phone, their same listing; everything is the same except that they are no longer in the union. They are now outside.

All I'm interested in finding out is how widespread this practice is. Clearly it exists. Grievances and subsequently, in one case at least, arbitration boards would not have been filed and established if it didn't exist. I don't want to beat this to death, but I do want the minister to.... If he can't do it today, fine. I don't have any problem with that. I think it's a simple matter of just pushing the right button on the computer and printing out the numbers, but that's another issue.

If you can't, I don't know why you can't. Why can't the minister tell us how many people are in fact employed by the government on a relatively full-time basis? Many of these contracts expire on the last day of the fiscal year, and then they're renegotiated the next day. I just want to find out how many people there are. What are we talking about? What's the magnitude of the problem?

[3:00]

The $426 million in this item is not accounted for by silviculture. If I look at the forest estimates, I see $148 million for silviculture. That includes more than STOB 20 costs. It includes much more than that. It includes the cost of seedlings, among other things.

We're looking at a considerable amount of money going into what is ordinarily described as salaries benefits. If I don't have a case to make, I'm not going to make it. I haven't been making it yet in any forceful terms, because I can't get the information from the minister. I submit that the minister has a responsibility to share whatever information of this kind isn't confidential in labour relations terms, isn't confidential in those limited numbers of areas where government information has to be confidential. I don't want the names of the employees. I don't want to know who they are. I deliberately don't want to know that; I don't want to involve people in this. I do want to know, and I think the public has a right to know, how many people we are talking about who are in effect being hired beyond the FTE limit by this ruse.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I certainly appreciate what the member is attempting to do. I appreciate his efforts. I understand his degree of frustration. I think we all go through that in government in trying to put our hands immediately and precisely on answers to our precise questions.

I've just discussed with our staff regarding my ministry, and I would say that in my ministry we probably have, in personal service contracts with individuals with very little other expenses in on supplies, cars and services and what have you, close to the number seven.

STOB 20 in our ministry shows around $2.5 million. Perhaps a little bit of a breakdown for my ministry –– and he can follow through then with other ministries to get the details. But breaking it down in the area of privatization and public participation, we're looking at about $518,000 for professional business evaluations for privatization.

Under the GPSD, we have built into the budget $500,000 for such things as boards of arbitration. Again, I'm sure the member wouldn't be suggesting that we hire a battery of arbitrators to be sitting around Victoria waiting for arbitration cases to come up. No, we deal with them as they arise.

We also have money set aside in that figure for wage surveys, which we do on a regular basis. But again they're done through provincial or national organizations to pick up on the levels in management, technical and hourly areas to make sure that we are somewhere within the ranges we should be. The member would argue that we're maybe not doing as good a job as we could in some areas.

We also have the creation of what we talked about earlier today, the office of information, technology

[ Page 6014 ]

and systems, which is brand-spanking new. I explained to you yesterday what it was all about. We have a large figure in there for the current fiscal year –– $900,000. OITS is being established, and we need a lot of professional evaluations on data and communications. It's going to be a massive undertaking and will no doubt keep a lot of people busy in the capital city, breaking down those recommendations, suggestions, appraisals and reviews for us, but it needs to be done.

As I said yesterday, the record will show that we're spending in the neighbourhood of $178 million a year, and the figure is growing by 20 percent. We've got to get hold of this and get control procedures to hold down the cost to the taxpayers, to make sure we're managing the areas under the jurisdiction of the ministry. There's got to be some control devices put in place.

We have money set aside for training for pilots –– dispatch and engineering. I'm not sure whether the member is aware, but we send our pilots back east and south on occasion to make sure that they are right up to standard. We send them to all the latest training things available to them on the latest instrumentation. It's ridiculous to think that we should bring those trainers up here and put them on government payroll for a few months to train the pilots. No, we send the pilots down to where the training takes place.

All in all, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member's question, I wouldn't want to be held 100 percent to this, but I would say that our figure is somewhere around seven. It could be eight, nine or maybe even as high as ten, but we think that the figure is very close to seven. I am sure that that will satisfy the inquiry of the member.

MR. ROSE: I was interested to note that the minister is yearning for the reappearance of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). Tell him that he's not gone forever. He will be back. He has a number of other probing questions, and I know he'll proceed with the usual brilliance and humour that he's known for. I could tell you something privately about his whereabouts right now, and I will, but if I put it over the mike, it's hardly private anymore. I just want you to know that he'll be back, and I don't want you to plan any other activities for a little while, because there are lots of things that we have to talk about in this new ministry, this grab-bag of goodies called Government Management Services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the meantime you don't have anyone else...?

MR. ROSE: No, we've got a good deal of bench strength over here, and we would have no difficulty. We haven't talked about pensions and privatization, but I'm really pleased that the minister has actually bared his breast and come forward with these personal service contracts in his own ministry. If there are only seven in his, there must be an awful lot hidden elsewhere. What concerns us is the fact that, although they're in his budget, he takes the cop-out. He says: "Well, it's really not up to me; I can't tell you what's going on in other ministries. If you want to know about exploiting women cleaners at Riverview Hospital, you'd better talk to the Minister of Health, because it's his bailiwick." We don't accept the fact that there are no apparent standards for these personal service contracts. When you look at some of these contract employees, they're almost like indentured servants. It looks to me like something about three hundred or four hundred years ago in colonial America, whereas there are people working as slaves for $6 an hour in the same institution where government union workers are getting $12.95. If that's not exploitation, I don't know what it is. What's $6 an hour? It's below the poverty line for a single person. And some of us are outraged by that because many of the most exploited are women. Yesterday, in defending his casino at the Windermere Building, the minister said he wasn't concerned with the morals of whether or not we should have gambling. I think he should be concerned with morals and values; the government is a very powerful symbol, and how it treats women is going to be reflected throughout society.

This government announced, with some fanfare, in the Speech from the Throne that it intends to have a minister of state for women. We look forward to that. We haven't seen that. The emerging values of our society, when most women are asked to work –– or have to work –– for economic reasons say that we should be approaching pay equity more closely. We haven't been quite able to define it here, but they have been able to in certain jurisdictions. I think we have to look at decent employment for women, and I think they should be reasonably well rewarded.

Something else the minister may or may not know is that women have less opportunity to have pensions. A lot of us in this House are concerned with pensions, not only for ourselves but for others. Most women have no pensions at all. As a matter of fact, in the figures I've got, 52 percent of women in the workforce have no pension. Of course, those who stay home and are not in the workforce have none either. There's no homemakers' pension, although that subject has been discussed for years.

We should be developing a day care policy as well. In Ottawa some ten years ago, under Her Excellency the Governor-General of Canada, Jeanne Sauvé, a day care centre was established for women workers in the House of Commons. There's been no suggestion of that here, but I'm quite sure there are single parents working in this institution, as there are in most government institutions. Thousands of women are employed in government, usually at low-paying jobs. The latest figures I have are that 53 percent of women were in the workforce in 1984, and they earned between $17,000 and $19,000 a year; whereas men, 83 percent of whom were in the workforce, were earning $24,600 to $39,000. So the women are underpaid.

Another thing that bothers us is that there appears to be no record of how many women are in the workforce, how much they're paid and what kind of employment they're most often found in. Yesterday,

[ Page 6015 ]

when the minister boasted about the increased number of women in the workforce, I tried to make the point.... When you use percentages, I know the figures are very confusing, because they're percentages of something else. I'd be interested to know if we suddenly have a policy of hiring more women, or more women in senior positions. Don't you have any records? You're the Minister of Government Management Services; have you got any records of the gender, the work activity and the salaries of the men and women working for the government service, and if not, why not? That's my first question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I would suggest that the member read the Blues from yesterday to find out what I said about the female gender, because I was not speaking at any time about how many we had hired or how many were in the workforce. The only reference I made was to the number of females who had advanced to management positions.

MR. ROSE: No, you had percentages.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, I certainly did. I said that in 1986, 17.3 percent of management employees working for government were female, and that the figure had risen to 24.5 percent, an increase of 41.6 percent. Certainly not good enough, but dramatically heading in the right direction, and it's something I personally want to see continue in that direction.

I think I have to take a bit of offence at the suggestion that the employees of some sectors of the government, perhaps those the member was referring to as being exploited.... I think by and large the province on average.... I know that everything is not as good as it could be, and we are always looking to make it better. Indeed, with the tremendous budget announced by the Minister of Finance, we can look forward to a lot of improvements. With the kind of settlements we have had in relation to the cost of living, we are going to have more purchasing power in our economy. We are going to have more people working. The trend is going in the right direction. A lot of jobs are being created; people are coming to our province from all over Canada. We are getting about four times as many people coming to British Columbia from Ontario as are leaving this province to go to Ontario. I find that very interesting.

[3:15]

I just have to appeal to the reason of the member opposite; I know he is a reasonable man. You can't have things both ways. We in B.C. are proud of the progress we've made. We know we've got a long way to go yet to get complete equity, parity and fairness for all.

I would suggest to the member, with all respect, that he do some wage surveys of Manitoba and look at the figures back there; that he look at the mess left in that province just a short time ago. I don't know whether it's going to improve under a new government or not. They were left with such a terrible debt by the previous administration that I don't think they are ever going to come out of the mess they are in. It's a terrible, shameful mess. Of all the provinces in western Canada, I must say that it's just.... In analyzing the budgets and the taxes, I don't know how they are going to come out of the mess they are in.

Manitoba Hydro is worth zero on the books; it's absolutely worth nothing. They have gone into such crazy contracts. I don't know whether the new member is aware of some of the things that have happened in that province. I don't know whether the new member is aware that Manitoba Hydro signed contracts with the Americans. Several years ago the hotshot negotiators in Manitoba signed contracts with the Americans to sell hydro based on the selling price of a barrel of oil. On a comparative basis, they are getting about half of what we get in British Columbia. There's an absolutely terrible mess left by that previous administration.

I am going to repeat what I said a minute ago: you can't have it both ways.

Let's get back to these STOBs. The member is still talking about STOB 20s, and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was talking about the same thing. We sit in the Legislative Assembly and listen to debate; we listen to the opposition. Whether you believe it or not, we listen to and act on a lot of the things you say. We act on a lot of the surveys and the information we get from industry, from the general public and from citizens throughout the province.

We got a message many years ago. It was one of the reasons I went into politics. It had to do with silviculture; it had to do with the number of seedlings being planted in our forests throughout this province. I can remember the figure very well. In my first year of politics I had done a little bit of homework and had found out that they were planting.... In 1982 I think the figure was around 78 million or 80 million seedlings.

I took it upon myself to call up the B.C. Forestry Association and invite the top two chaps over for a breakfast meeting. We sat down and had a very interesting meeting. I said: "Look, I'm a backbencher in the administration, and I've got a bit of time to do some research and homework. I want to see us planting more trees in British Columbia; I know you want to see the same. Perhaps we're not doing as well as we could, and we are getting criticized for it. What do you think is a good number to target? Where should we be in three or four years?"

They said it was very interesting, and that they were very pleased to have the invitation to come over and have breakfast. We had a very interesting chat. Their words to me in 1983 were: "If you can get the level up to 150 million, we are going to be very happy, because we know that's the level needed, along with natural regeneration, to sustain growth. Things are going to be in good shape."

I know the member opposite is up on this subject. I know the member can tell me –– he knows and all members of this House know –– that the figure last year wasn't 150 million seedlings put in the ground, The figure was 200 million seedlings put in the ground.

Mr. Member, you can't have it both ways. You can't be arguing that contract services and STOB 20s

[ Page 6016 ]

and silviculture expenses are going up when you were arguing a few years back that we've got to spend more money in these areas.

We responded to the submissions put to us by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). We responded to the suggestions put to us by the Forestry Association. We responded to the concerns in the southern interior. We responded to the suggestions in the north country, and we decided to put more trees in the ground, and so the STOBs and the budgets go up. Now we come to the House under the Ministry of Government Management Services and we get criticized on the suggestion that perhaps we've got too many people working on contract, that we're spending too much money and that they're not full-time employees.

I can tell you without any hesitation that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) has no intention of taking the $148 million that's budgeted for silviculture purposes and hiring hundreds and thousands of people on government payroll, full-time workers, to plant trees for six or eight weeks in the spring and six or eight weeks in the fall, because that's not, plain and simply, good management and good business.

MR. ROSE: I thank the hon. minister for his flights of fancy and for answering every question under the sun except the one I asked him.

However, I thought what we were doing was discussing this section here about how the contracting out, or how the personal service contracts, may or may not affect women in the public service. That's what we want to talk about. You can't even tell us how many there are. As far as the business about looking into the question of their work activity, their employment income, none of that is available. It should be, because the government should be a model employer, and it isn't.

When it stoops to such tricks as exploiting.... You ask me about exploitation. What are you paying your homemaker services? You've cut them in half. How much are you paying them? You think it's important that people stay in their homes and elderly people, like the Chairman and I, get a little attention once in a while and get the odd meal cooked. Six dollars an hour is about what they're paid.

You ask me about exploitation. Riverview Hospital, immigrant women: what have they got? They've got a six-dollar-an-hour wage right beside people making $1,195, or $12.75 an hour. Medical benefits they don't have. Paid sick leave they don't have. Maternity leave they don't have. Leaves of absence, dental group insurance –– everything that's available to other people –– they don't have. Sure, the cleaning is cheaper. I'm also told, because I live right next to the hospital, that it's not as good either, because these people can't keep it up for that kind of money.

You ask me about exploitation. When are we going to have some stats about salaries paid in the public service? If we're hiring people on contracts, I see no reason on earth, with all the computers.... We've got the B.C. Systems Corporation. The minister is very proud of that; I think we're all proud of it. We tried to peddle it two or three times and nobody would buy it, but everybody is proud of it. Surely in that Systems Corporation, with the push of one button we could have that information in the House. To sit there and stonewall us constantly... Either you don't want to tell us how many contracts you've got outstanding, or you don't know. Why isn't this information as to gender, work activity, employment and income shared and made public? I don't understand that. You've got all the resources of government.

How many females have you got classified as level 7 or above? Can you tell us that? How many female deputy ministers are there, or senior managers? Can you tell us that? Or do I get another speech about forestry, about how you're going to change the forest policy: instead of planting little trees and chopping down big ones you're going to reverse it?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I really hate to be repetitious. When I talked about female management, I was talking about where the chart starts talking about management employees and upwards, all the way up to deputies. There is a blanket group in there normally referred to as "the excluded." It's those figures, Mr. Member, that I am quoting. I don't have the chart in front of me; all I did was take the percentages, But the percentage was 17.3 percent; they are now 24.5 percent. That is an increase of 41.6 percent since 1986.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That is the percentage of current management employees within government.

On the member's other point about identifying for the House the percentage of female workers in all the STOBs and contracts throughout government, I'm not sure whether the exercise is one of waiting for something, perhaps for the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) to return. I don't know what the exercise is here.

Surely the member must be aware of and must appreciate the thousands of contracts that are contained in all those STOBs, totalling some $400 million. We have already talked about the one on silviculture: $148 million. If you're asking me to somehow do a survey with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and come back to tell you how many of those people who are putting trees in the ground or managing the worksite or cooking the meals –– or whatever they all do out in silviculture thinning and spacing –– are male and how many are female, I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I'm somewhat at a loss as to just how I can possibly identify that. If that will satisfy the member –– I'm not sure whether it will or not –– I'll talk it over with my colleagues. We'll have a chat with forestry, we'll talk to the A-G and Education, and see if we can't somehow get a handle on how many of these thousands of people out there are male and how many are female.

I don't know if he is now suggesting that when we put these contracts together we maybe specify that if you bid on putting 100,000 trees in the ground up in the Shuswap, perhaps there should be all females, or

[ Page 6017 ]

all males, or a 30-70 split, or something like that. Maybe that's what he's getting to. If he is, I wish he would get to the point, because I'm missing a little bit of what the member is trying to explain. Perhaps he could stand up and give us some more words on just what he's trying to get at here.

MR. ROSE: I just want to clarify for the minister, because when I was in full flight he perhaps didn't get the full import of what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for just the STOBs; I was asking for a breakdown of government employees as to gender, income and rank. I don't see why that would be impossible. The minister told us yesterday that there's something like 27,000 people left in the workforce. Some 31 percent had been purged; they went to their reward –– early retirements and things like that. I don't think it would be too much to ask what levels the remaining 27,000 are at and whether they're male or female.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

That's number one. Number two: there are obviously contract employees –– and by the thousands, the minister just told us. That's a revelation we haven't heard before. There's $460 million or so devoted to it. But how many are there? That's what my colleague from North Island was asking all morning: how many personal contracts for individuals are out there? His concern was that either there's a deliberate attempt to weaken collective bargaining, or there's an attempt to disguise the fact that there's actually more than 27,335 people working for the government. That's all we're asking. I didn't ask for just the STOB employees.

If you're interested in asking me whether I think there should be some affirmative action, I would like to know if there's a government policy of affirmative action.

I'll leave it at that for now. We're going to come back to these STOBs a little later.

[3:30]

MS. MARZARI: It's rather difficult to believe what I've just heard. Very straightforward questions were put to the minister in charge of government services about women's employment with this government, and we received a 15-minute answer around seedlings; also the insulting suggestion that we were asking the minister to count whether male or female seedlings were being placed in the ground. I am trying to make this leap of faith –– that we are in fact dealing with a rational process here.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the member: I did not say those words, and I would like the record to show clearly that those words were not spoken by me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I proceed, it's quite appropriate for you to make a correction after the member has spoken, but it is not appropriate for you to interrupt the member's remarks to make a correction. It wasn't a valid point of order.

MS. MARZARI: The minister did ask whether the opposition was interested in knowing whether male or female seedlings were going into the ground.

The minister was asked what the numbers are regarding females in the provincial service. The minister answered that at the present time 24.5 percent of management positions in government are held by women. I am assuming, then, that the minister is talking about those positions which are at level 7 or above in the provincial service. Is this level 7 or above, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Member, it would be appropriate for you to make your remarks and then ask the minister to stand afterwards, as opposed to having a debate. That's the normal procedure in committee.

MS. MARZARI: Okay. Then that is my first question.

My second question is: does counting that 24.5 percent of women in management positions include women who have been hired on professional service contracts? Does that include women who are employed on a part-time basis for short periods of time? Or does it only include women who are working in full-time professional positions for the government?

My colleague previously made the statement that government sets the tone, that government should be the model employer for the rest of the community; that if government does not live up to its own values and aspirations about equity in employment and management and the way things get done, then we are all served the less.

This government has recently announced a ministry for women. The minister ostensibly will be announced within the next few days or weeks. This minister's job will be to look at fairness for women. I've read the terms of reference in the budget and throne speech, and they suggest that person will be in charge of looking at responsibilities that women carry in the workplace and in the family.

It would strike me, and I think there would be very few who would disagree, that in order to look at a new ministry, in order to look at the extent of the problem that one is addressing, one of the first things we have learned to do in this culture is to measure the extent of the problem we are addressing. If in fact the government believes that there are difficulties in pay equity, in the promotion of women, in the hiring of women in the first place and in the training of women, then I believe it's up to this government to measure the nature and extent of what we have now.

It's pretty traditional in affirmative action programs, in pay equity programs, in contract compliance programs –– which every other province in this country has and which our federal government has –– to do this kind of measurement. When this side of the House asks the minister how many women are in management positions, we're really asking a complex

[ Page 6018 ]

of questions. Have you measured? Are you thinking of measuring if you haven't? And when you do decide to measure, what will you call it? Will you call it an affirmative action program whereby women –– perhaps ethnic or racial minorities, natives, the handicapped –– might be included so that we can develop, as the city of Vancouver has, as every major urban area across the country has, as every other province in this country has, some way of measuring and developing programs to promote and assist people who have been traditionally left out of the mainstream of the labour market?

Rather than suggesting that you're more comfortable with trees than with women, I'd like to just simply leave you with the question: are you going to take the ministry for women seriously in Government Management Services? Are you presently engaged in measuring –– using twentieth century computer techniques –– the nature of the workforce that you have now?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes.

MS. MARZARI: Would the minister then be good enough to inform this House and the many thousands of people who will be interested in reading this Hansard what the nature of that measurement is, how it is being done and what your goals and time-frame are for completing the measurement?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The question of the percentage of management employees involves what I understand to be the management levels 1 to 12. The statistics that I quoted cover full-time employees. The response to the member's question is that it is an ongoing process, and I'm sure the member will see some positive reports and some positive results in the not too distant future.

MS. MARZARI: I will make a positive assumption then that the update from 1984 will presently be in public hands, that the numbers that I have been working with for the last nine months have been 1984 numbers, and that the numbers you have just divulged in the House are present numbers which are not on public record, except for this particular Hansard.

I hope I am assuming correctly that there is a comprehensive measurement of women in the workforce being done by Government Management Services, and that we will be able to see across the board where women are located and what they are making in the system. Your silence suggests to me that you are not quite sure if the measurement is that extensive. Is the measurement going to be an extensive one, and is there going to be a public report made from Government Management Services of the gender breakdown in the provincial workforce?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, a comprehensive analysis is currently underway. I repeat myself to the member's question: I am sure that the member will see some positive results from my ministry at an early date.

MS. MARZARI: I'll put forward the suggestion because you are going to be dealing with a minister for women — in one way or another — relatively soon. There will be very strong pressure on any minister for women to do this measuring and to do the complete breakdown, in order to develop the kind of contract compliance and affirmative action programs that will drag us into the twentieth century, like every other urban area in every other province in this country.

Since you are the ministry in charge of this exercise and basically do the housekeeping for this government, I would think that you would be in the driver's seat when it comes to developing these measuring-sticks and also working on these programs which seem to be part of the furniture for every other government in this country, and which seem to be painfully difficult to get at with this particular government. So I will take that as some kind of a contract, Mr. Minister, that you will be producing on that. I will be asking regularly for follow-up.

I would like to suggest that you include in your statistics a measurement of casual staff, contract staff and professional service staff so that we are, in effect, looking at women throughout the system, whether they are permanent employees of the government, unionized, contracted-out employees or on contract for service arrangements with the government. That will give us some indication of what we're looking at.

I think then perhaps for the first time, in British Columbia, we'll be able to see the full range of salaries that day care workers get vis-à-vis senior management, that teachers get vis-à-vis university instructors and that homemakers get. We'll be looking at $6-an-hour figures for people who work up to 18 hours a day doing jobs that many of us would not accept under the worst conditions.

Mr. Minister, I leave you with that task, and I assume that your promise will be fulfilled and that the questions we'll be asking over the next few months will be rewarded with some half-decent answers. We'll be looking forward to some kind of an affirmative action plan for women.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That last remark rather stunned me in reference to cleaning jobs and $6 an hour — the remark that many of us wouldn't accept that kind of work under any circumstances. My, my, my! Tsk, tsk, tsk! I have to tell you, Madam Member, that I certainly make no apologies for getting down in the ditches with a shovel when there was nothing else available. I make no apologies for going to work for 55 cents an hour in Victoria in Kresge's and Woolworth's washing dishes in the basement. I make no apologies for stooping to that kind of labour, and I'm amazed many of us wouldn't work for that kind of money under any conditions. I have to say there's a lot of pride in working people, regardless of what level of pay they might be receiving. They're going to work and they're proud, and I'm proud of them.

MS. MARZARI: Well, I'll match your 55 cents an hour in Woolworth's, because I worked for 53 cents

[ Page 6019 ]

an hour in Woolworth's myself. I'll tell you what to do with your pride. You try to be a mother with three or four kids at home, and take a $6.50-an-hour cleaning job in a long-term-care facility or in a home-care situation, and come home after 12 hours of that and talk about pride. Try to find child care on top of that, and find out that it costs you $450 a month, so you can't even afford to have your job. Then wonder why you have to go back onto welfare, where you're making 60 percent less than you need to live on. Talk to me about pride!

MR. WILLIAMS: Yesterday the minister tabled answers to written questions that were asked by me on March 21, Mr. Chairman. In his written response, the minister states: "Lands were sold through various forms of public processes, including tender calls, proposal calls, advertisements and negotiated sales on real estate listings." In my written request I asked which sales were based on bids and which were not. Could the minister go over the list he tabled and provide the House with that information?

[3:45]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I want to reflect for a minute on statements made by that member earlier today. I must say that members on this side of the House are not very pleased with the cloud of doubt he has left hanging as a result of his words. He left a great deal of doubt in the eyes and the minds of the people of British Columbia as to the sales of properties other than Concord made by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. He made some very strong suggestions — very strong indeed — to the point that.... I wonder whether, if those statements were made outside the House, they would perhaps be strong enough to be libelous; perhaps not, perhaps so. I feel quite strongly about it. He left an element of doubt about the respectability, the integrity, of a lot of citizens of this province, a lot of employees of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and a lot of people working on contract.

Mr. Chairman, it's my view that that member should come clean and either stand up in this assembly and withdraw those remarks, and make an apology to those employees he's left that inference about, or get on with the job and lay something out we can get our teeth into in this assembly, and answer those questions head-on.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question was a simple one, Mr. Chairman. In his written answer provided to the House yesterday, he said: "Lands were sold through various forms of public processes, including tender calls, proposal calls, advertisements and negotiated sales on real estate listings." I asked the minister which ones were on a bid basis and which ones were on a negotiated basis.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, am I to be assured that the current questioning is leading up to this evidence, or the statement that a lot of people are waiting for, about something — that some sales have taken place that weren't "aboveboard" or whatever the terms were that he used this morning? Or is this just another branch we're heading out to in the wilderness, doing a bit more searching and grappling around?

Maybe I misunderstood the member. If I did misunderstand you, I wish you would set me straight and clear up the record. It was clearly my feeling and my impression that you had something you were going to present that was really going to blow the lid off everything and that was really going to prove that somebody had done something wrong, in the way of selling something held by the government to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Perhaps you could just clear that up for me — that you really perhaps didn't mean it that way — and apologize to the individuals concerned, and we could carry on with the estimates. I'd be very interested in where the member is coming from on this question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before you proceed, I might remind the minister that it's not appropriate to address questions to members of the opposition. We're here to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the ministry in question, and matters that can be dealt with appropriately under the standing orders.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a little more experience as a minister as well, and the lesson is certainly appreciated by me if not by the minister.

It's a simple question, Mr. Minister. I thought it was simple enough and reasonable enough that there would be a forthright answer. It's intriguing that the minister sees these ghosts. But the question was straightforward and, I think, reasonable.

In most provincial jurisdictions, when public lands are sold they're sold by tender, with the terms very clear indeed. What you've had underway is a crash program in privatization and the selling off of assets. Some of us might really want to give that another label, but we'll hold back on that. The point is that almost everywhere in this country valuable lands owned by the Crown are only sold by tender; a bidding process with the terms very clear indeed. So I'll repeat my question. Which lands were sold by tender and which lands were not?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have asked my staff to give us a breakdown of that list, and I will have the response to the member at the earliest possible time.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the answer and look forward to the information.

In addition, you state in your written answer that all sales were based on market value as determined by land valuations and/or competitive process. Is the minister prepared to confirm that there were up-to-date appraisals in every case where there was not a competitive bid process?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'm led to believe that that was the case, and certainly the policy of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.... But we can go back and have

[ Page 6020 ]

an analysis done of those that weren't dealt with through the competitive process to determine whether or not there were indeed current appraisals to establish market value. But the response given to the member at this time is in the affirmative.

I will double-check and recheck to make sure that question is being answered 100 percent accurately. My response at this point in time, with the information I have before me, is yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, and trust the minister's and his deputy's nod. We look forward to that further assurance.

In addition, there's the statement that the corporation does not have a policy which distinguishes numbered companies. It was my understanding that, in fact, the corporation did have a policy against selling to numbered companies. Maybe that too could be checked if the minister is going through that process anyway.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Regarding the numbered companies, the corporation maintains a policy of thoroughly checking the bona fides of any corporation that submits a bid, whether it's numbered or otherwise. We do not in any way make a distinction between a numbered company or a company that is not numbered. I know that the member is aware — having been as involved as he has been over the years in the private sector, the latest-named guru of the free enterprise world in the province — how numbered companies come about. He knows that if a person wishes to establish a company and has no particular need or yearning for some fancy name, whether it's made up of the first letters of his, his wife's and kids' names to form some type of fancy name or old heritage name or whatever... If he just wants to set up a company and get on with the business, he knows it's a lot quicker to get through the company application to have an approved name by simply asking for the next number that comes out of the system. He knows that numbered companies are not a peculiarity to the province; they are very common. There are literally thousands of them, and there is no reason whatsoever to not do business with a numbered company.

It's my information from my staff, and it's written out in the response to the member, that we do not distinguish between companies, whether they are numbered or not. They are legal entities; they have met the obligations. They've submitted their tender in time with the proper deposits. They've responded to the proposal procedure where our corporation searches and finds out who the directors of the corporation are. If they have met all the criteria, they are evaluated through the due process. All factors are looked at, whether the offer is one of cash, terms or time, etc., and a decision or determination is made by a group of what I would refer to as professional people, most of them hired on contract to evaluate in a professional manner the bids put forward, so that they, in turn, can recommend the eventual sales to the board of directors.

MR. WILLIAMS: I don't want to get into that kind of debate with the minister, other than to say that the use of numbered companies certainly allows a range of things to occur, things that in terms of public policy we might not be happy about. I don't intend to spend much time on that right now.

What intrigues me is that in the final paragraph of the minister's response, he says: "The province is not different than any other owner as to their rights to dispose of their property as they see fit." I find that intriguing. It's an indication of how the concept of the public service, of the public interest and of what we should do as government has eroded over the years in this western outpost of British democracy.

In most other provinces, the idea of selling land without a very clear tender process would result in the defeat of a government. That kind of statement, I think, tells us something about the civil service you have around you now and about the government we have now, one that sees government as no different than private business or than a person that happens to own property himself, which he can dispose of as he sees fit. But in the public sector, there are obligations to the community at large. There are social obligations. There is the milieu, the neighbourhood, so much of what civilization is all about. It isn't just another business transaction, when you are dealing with assets of the Crown. But we won't spend too much time on that right now either.

[4:00]

I was intrigued with some of these little items in the list of sales. Let's pick one that would seem uncontroversial off the top of the list that the minister provided us with the other day. It's the sale of lot 1 in Westwood, in Coquitlam: 2½ acres to the Foursquare Gospel Church. The price is $40,000.

I don't know if the price would have been the same if it had been a mainstream church like the United Church, but I do know that 2½ acres in Westwood is the equivalent of, what, half a dozen lots? Buying half a dozen lots for $40,000 looks to me like quite a bargain. The member for Dewdney nods. He knows what real estate is moving at even further out in Mission, Haney and Maple Ridge.

Maybe the minister could advise us if that one was on a bid basis, and if all the other churches bid against Foursquare Gospel and they just lost out; that Foursquare paid the highest price going — $40,000. It doesn't sound four-square to me, but maybe you can enlighten us a little, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We will research that question immediately, and I'm sure we'll be able to get back to the member in just a few minutes.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did the minister say: "In a few minutes"?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: There's another one that kind of intrigues me too. I see that you've sold quite a bit of Songhees over here, for example, and the first on your list is Cavell Developments Ltd., which is lot 7.

[ Page 6021 ]

It's 1.99 acres and was sold for $2 million. That's waterfront land over here, and from the parliament buildings we can see it on the Songhees site. I see another case in Westminster Quay to Royal Pacific Ltd., which includes 2.57 acres of water, 2.81 acres of land and 4.12 acres of docks, for $2.2 million.

In the case of the New Westminster lands it includes eight highrises of 100-plus suites each; price, $2.2 million. In the case of the Songhees land — the Cavell company — there are two phases; 51 suites in the first one and 49 suites in the second one, for a total of 100 suites.

The common thing to do in terms of determining property values is to establish a land value per suite or number of dwelling units on the site. In the case of the Westminster Quay site there are over 800 suites on a waterfront site that I would suggest is more valuable than Songhees — it's downtown New Westminster. The Songhees site is smaller in area, has far less shoreline and is in a smaller town. The price is virtually the same.

I would think that even a clerk going through the list would raise questions about these two items and compare them. I don't think you'd even have to be a land valuer or an appraiser in making the comparison. We're talking about 800-plus units in downtown New Westminster versus 100 units in Victoria. New Westminster is part of a community of a million and a half people; the Songhees is within a community of a quarter of a million people. They're both waterfront sites. The Victoria site is modest, a limited water frontage; the New Westminster site is one-half mile of waterfront in downtown New Westminster. Maybe the minister could explain why the numbers seem to be the same.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We will instruct the staff to research those figures and those land parcels immediately, and I'm sure we will expect to have a report back to the assembly prior to adjournment.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister repeat what he said? I didn't quite understand it. You said you would have your staff research that thoroughly and you would have a report back by 6 o'clock. What kind of whirlwind employee do you have, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have a number of whirlwind employees who respond very quickly and are very efficient in their work. They're very dedicated to their job and they're the kind of people that would like to clear up some of the scurrilous remarks that were made in this assembly earlier today. [Applause.]

MR. WILLIAMS: That was rather weak support from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain as the minister who was responsible for this giveaway program. It's kind of understandable that there was not a lot of energy in that applause. That's interesting isn't it?

You sell one piece of land for $2 million and you can only build 100 apartments or condos on it. You sell another chunk of land for a couple of million dollars and you can build 800-plus apartments on it; you can build commercial development on it in addition; you can put a marina in as well, on the river; and so on.

It's worth thinking about in terms of that First Capital City corporation that was established by this government. It's interesting that it was the spark plug in many ways in getting New Westminster rehabilitated. They spent millions and millions of dollars rebuilding the New Westminster waterfront. Much of it is quite charming: the esplanade along the river is one of the more attractive features in the whole urban region. But it was very expensive, and in the initial stages it was risky. That's why the Crown ended up bearing that risk. The former minister nods. I commend the government in that regard. I think it was a worthwhile risk to take, in the rebuilding of our first capital.

But if you're going to do that sort of thing, if you're going to make the kind of expenditures you made — in pedestrian overpasses, building the market, vehicular overpasses, putting in the infrastructure, putting in the waterfront promenade, the parkland along the river, which has transformed New Westminster — then it's in the sale of the last parcels that you make the bulk of your money. But you sold it. You've sold 2,200 feet of river frontage, the remainder of the site, almost half a mile of downtown New Westminster land, for $2.2 million.

Mr. Minister, if your staff can carry out an analysis of that deal in two hours — and you say you can and they can — why wasn't the analysis carried out earlier, when the deal was cut? Why? I tell you that a clerk could look at this file and tell you something was wrong. You sell the land at Songhees, and you probably sold it low; but then you sell the land at New Westminster, and you sell it for an incredibly low price, compared with other sales you're making, and compared with other sales in New Westminster. The market information is there. It's all there to be got by anybody who wants to look.

We look forward to further information from the minister, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the status of all of these lands.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I certainly await word from my staff, and I'm sure it will be coming quickly. I'm sure a member who has been in the development business as much as the member opposite knows full well, particularly with his planning experience.... The type of analysis that he illustrates, where a clerk can look at a proposition in 15 minutes and put together some figures and determine good deal, bad deal or indifferent.... We can't do that. He knows that; he's nodding his head in the affirmative, Mr. Chairman.

When the facts are presented, I'm confident that the types of things that will appear will be development costs, undeveloped portions, all or a part. I'm sure there are questions on whether or not clearing was necessary, where old pilings had to be removed, or buildings had to be torn down, or soils had to be cleaned up; the cost of bringing services onto the site.

[ Page 6022 ]

Some of the figures that I have seen for servicing in some of these developments are absolutely mind-boggling, because costs are very high. We have some figures available as to what some people are spending to provide site servicing: into the millions of dollars. The Concord estimates alone are something along the lines of spending $80 million to $100 million per year on site development, with servicing and development.

To make a broad-brush statement that the Songhees versus New Westminster is somehow or other a bad deal concocted by B.C. Enterprise Corporation.... I think all members in the House, Mr. Chairman, would be advised to wait for the response from the corporation. I'm sure there have either been appraisals or a fair market tendering process to determine values. One way or the other, I, along with the member, will be awaiting the response from the staff,

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions for the minister. I've listened with great interest to the remarks of my colleague the senior member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and some of the fascinating questions he has raised. I must say that as a new member of the House and a mere representative of the people of Vancouver-Point Grey, I find the answers very disturbing. I think what I find most disturbing is the attempt to evade the questions. They are simple questions that call for simple, honest answers and for the truth. I find it very disturbing that the taxpayers of British Columbia who finance the government can't rely on the minister to reply simply to questions which are very simply and clearly put, and which ask for the truth. The purpose of this House is....

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: That suggestion was honourably put and well received.

The questions are simple, and I think they require only simple, honest answers. I look forward to seeing the answers tabled in the House, as the minister ultimately promised.

[4:15]

I'd like to begin with a comment about the proposed sale of the Westwood lands. As I understand the calendar, there are approximately 30 days left until the government announces its decision on the sale of the Westwood lands. If I remember correctly, the bids closed on March 10.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I took a position during the election campaign which I found very popular with the public of a conservative riding such as Vancouver-Point Grey  — that because of the mistakes made by the government in dealing with the Expo lands, there should not be any further sales of Crown lands; that land should be leased for development so the Crown and the people of British Columbia, whom the Crown represents, would retain control over the land in the long term and a steady source of revenue.

To my great interest, a casual acquaintance called me and told me that he agreed with my position. This is a man who does $25 million worth of real estate business in British Columbia. He told me he was one of the bidders for the Westwood lands. When the government, on behalf of the people, put forward the opportunity to rip off those lands, he, as a conscientious businessman, could not decline the opportunity to bid on them; but as a British Columbian he felt that the government was making a serious mistake.

I questioned him very carefully on this, because his advice, as someone who has succeeded admirably in business — particularly in real estate — was extremely interesting. His advice for the government, were he the Minister of Housing or the Minister of Government Management Services or the Premier, was that it should retain public lands such as Westwood and lease them to enable young British Columbians and families who have no hope of affording a home under current economic circumstances the best possible chance of buying into the future, buying their own home, and to assure a steady stream of revenue to the provincial treasury. I thought this was very interesting, coming from a man who is normally a supporter of the Social Credit Party and who does $25 million worth of real estate development in this province. Unfortunately, when I asked him to make his remarks publicly, his answer was that he would be ruined were his name to be released to the public in the political climate that prevails here. I still hope he will make these remarks publicly.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY: This is the truth, and I submit that if the hon. members opposite don't recognize it, they may find to their dismay that the truth will become manifest in the next election. This is where public opinion is in this province.

I would like to ask the minister why he feels it to be in the public interest that the Westwood sale proceed. Why does he not declare a moratorium on that sale and refund to the developers their legitimate costs of preparing their bids, in the interest of preserving public control over those lands and long-term public access to revenues from them? That's my first question. I'll take the Chair's recommendation on whether I should defer the others or proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Either way, hon. member. You've got time left; you have 15 minutes. Would the minister like to respond?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'm happy that the member has taken his place in the questioning of my estimates. I'm pleased to see him speaking up and asking some questions on such things as this.

Perhaps on reflection, casting my mind back some weeks, the member could perhaps make clear what he meant during the campaign with his comment that the current Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia was the most corrupt in its history. I'd like to know whether or not that member is

[ Page 6023 ]

still happy and pleased and content with that scurrilous remark damaging the integrity of everyone on this side of the House and, indeed, a lot of citizens throughout the province.

Talking about the development of 1,410 acres of residential properties commonly referred to as Westwood, developing that for both single and multiple dwellings and putting them out on the marketplace on the basis that the homes would be owned but the land would be leased, I guess the first thing that comes to my mind.... I wonder if the member would be kind enough to perhaps put in a quick call to this $25 million developer to find out whether he has a home that he spent a lot of dollars on and is located on leased land. It's fine to talk about other people, but I think that you should look at yourself first. Is he happy? He must be, because I'm sure he wouldn't be making such suggestions if he didn't practice what he preached. Indeed, I'd be interested to know whether the member opposite has a home and whether his home — with or without a mortgage; I don't care about that — is on leased land.

MR. PERRY: The remarks that were made to me were made in confidence, and I'm not going to disclose the location of this man's home so that he can be victimized by anyone.

I think the appropriate answer to your question is that the city of Vancouver, with the provincial government, controls land on the south shore of False Creek where there are leasehold developments. There are leasehold developments on lands owned by the Musqueam band in which the tenure is perfectly satisfactory. There are many other leasehold arrangements around the province, both for residential and commercial land, in which tenure is perfectly satisfactory to the owners of the homes on that land.

I think, with regard to the other remark, I would not want to risk using unparliamentary language in this chamber, but I'll simply say that I have made a habit throughout my life of correcting my errors and apologizing for anything I think is wrong. I don't make a habit of making untruthful remarks, and I don't feel I have anything to apologize for to anyone in this House.

I would like to ask some other questions of the minister though. I think the public will decide who's right on those issues.

The minister implied this morning that economic spinoffs which accrue from the development of the Expo lands would not have accrued had the lands been developed in parcels or by any other means than the sale to Concord Pacific. I find this an exceptionally dubious proposition. Rather than ask the question, I'll leave it at that.

He asked also whether we on this side of the House were aware of any jurisdiction which assigns liability for cleanup of pollution to previous owners of the land. I would like to reiterate comments made by the first member for Vancouver East to the effect that in the United States liability now is assigned to previous owners of land for pollution which they leave to future generations.

I wanted to comment also on comments interjected by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) regarding the problem of cleanup of toxic waste at the False Creek site and the former Expo lands. This is an extremely serious problem, in my view, and a very complex one. I think that we've only begun to understand the complexity of the issue from a scientific, health and environmental point of view.

One of the issues which concerns me is the statements made by both the Minister of Government Management Services and the Minister of Environment earlier this morning that standards are in place. I can quote the Minister of Government Management Services from the Blues for this morning: "I'm certainly thankful that we had the foresight and accepted the responsibility on the sale and development of that property to have thorough testing, a thorough analysis of the toxic materials in that soil. I'm thankful that somewhere, somehow, we did that homework. I'm thankful on behalf of the residents of this province...."

Later on the Minister of Environment stated: "The standards will be made public; they are standards that we have developed in conjunction with the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in other Canadian governments." I've read the draft report from the council of Canadian resource ministers' special committee. I don't know if the minister has read the documents. In its executive summary in the first pages of the report, the committee states that all such standards are totally arbitrary, that in the review conducted by the Canadian interprovincial committee there was no time to develop de novo standards but only to review the standards adopted in some other jurisdictions. It makes it clear in the executive summary that these standards are totally arbitrary, not based on any scientific knowledge of the environmental or health consequences of exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil, because the knowledge simply doesn't exist.

This is a field that relates somewhat to my professional training, and it doesn't surprise me that no scientific knowledge exists in regard to these hazards. Virtually all of the public policy must be based on guesses or best estimates, which ultimately are only guesses. I find it disturbing to see the implication that this matter was studied in depth, particularly the implication that this was done before the Concord Pacific deal was signed. The evidence indicates totally the contrary.

I have a few other questions I'd like to pose in response to the minister's comments this morning. He asked where the other bidders on the site were. I think the obvious answer to that is that bidding was only allowed on the entire site, something which precluded participation by the great majority of — and in fact, as it turned out, virtually all — British Columbians; in fact no British Columbian was capable of bidding financially on the entire site, even at the grossly deflated price charged for it. The vice chairman of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and former alderman of Vancouver, Brian Calder, spoke out before the sale went through and urged the

[ Page 6024 ]

government to break the land into smaller parcels on which local developers could realistically bid. The government spurned the advice at that time — obviously sensible advice, in light of what we have heard today.

I want to comment also and ask the minister to clarify what he said earlier this morning regarding the cleanup of the Expo lands. He implied that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was grossly exaggerating in raising the possibility of a cleanup cost of $400 million. As the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) pointed out in response, the estimate comes from a draft report of the soils remediation program, entitled "Evaluation of Remedial Action Alternatives." The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam read into the record earlier today the estimated cost of one of the options. I don't think the government knows the true cost of a reasonable cleanup of the site.

I find it very disturbing to see that we are now scurrying in a very ad hoc manner to attempt to answer these questions after the fact; I find it even more disturbing that I and my constituents, as taxpayers in British Columbia, who pay our full share of taxes, are going to be asked to shoulder this burden, rather than the former and present owners of the land.

[4:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, regarding the cleaning up of the site, all I can relate to the member is what the experts, the ministry, the professionals, the consultants, the ministry employees relate to me. I suppose the logical thing to do is refer the question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) so that he can answer it during his estimates. I know the topic will be brought up to the minister during those estimates.

It is perhaps somewhat awkward for a Minister of Government Management Services, who happens to be in charge of the corporation, to be answering technical questions dealing with environmental costs. All I can relate to him is that the figure quoted this morning on environmental cleanup of that site is the most grossly exaggerated figure I've ever heard in all my life. I don't know what else I can say. I don't know whether you want me to shout it from the rafters, climb up in the gallery, go out on the front lawn or what. It's a gross exaggeration. Time will indeed tell; the facts will be presented in due course. The range of figures that we have is dramatically less than that. I am not going to debate the matter anymore; all I can do is tell him what has been told to me. Future discussions could be taken up with the minister directly.

I find it strange indeed that the members keep plugging away, chiseling away and boring away at the fact that we have accepted the responsibility to clean up these lands. How would they rather have it? There are choices out there which were available to the government of the day. Would they have had us leave the land barren in its dirty state? Would they have had us perhaps put a 12-foot fence around the site and block it off to the public so no one could walk on or touch the polluted soil? Would they have had the land sit idle and non-revenue-producing with no tax to the city, no jobs for the working people of this province, no economic spinoffs and no development? Perhaps they would have preferred the government to go into a full development mode, not only packing the price which we paid for the land originally, which was some $8 to $10 per square foot. Around $8 to $10 a foot was the purchase price of the land.

Perhaps the member would choose to have not only that investment and the investment of Expo — the debt — hanging over the heads of the taxpayers in the province; perhaps he would have also chosen a route whereby the government would have entered into a full-scale development of the site. We could have put in the roads, the water, the sewer, underground lighting, park development....

MR. ROSE: Underground lighting?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Underground wiring for light standards, Mr. Member. Thank you very much. The member is certainly in fine shape today.

I would like to hear what the member would have chosen for the government to do. Invest hundreds of millions of additional taxpayers' dollars in that development and then sell it off in small parcels perhaps to the private sector to have buildings built which are going to be built anyway? Or did we in hindsight and review analysis not do the right thing by disposing of it and accepting the responsibility for seeing that the land was cleaned up to an acceptable standard before the first foundations are poured?

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the members talk about the Expo site. I wonder how many people in the province are aware that these parcels of land were put together by the B.C. government through Crown corporations, and the purchase price ranged between $8 and $10 a foot. I wonder how many people are aware that the sale to Concord delivered to BCEC $45 a square foot. Yes, it's a big parcel of land; there are lots of spinoff benefits that we have covered before. The total acreage is some 204.

Let's look at the subtractions. In looking at the total acreage we see 204, but we see water lots being 38, leaving a balance of 166. We see 18 acres required for streets. We see 45 acres set aside for public parks. We see 12 acres for public open space. Those three items alone — another 75 acres — leave a net of some 91 acres for actual development space on that land.

The open area around the Plaza of Nations is currently being finalized and negotiated with the city of Vancouver. That will, no doubt — in the eyes of the developers — subtract an additional 2 or 3 acres, leaving the development site of some 89 acres out of the starting point of 204.

What would the NDP have done under similar circumstances? Would they have taken the taxpayers' money and gone into the full development business? I can tell you something, Mr. Chairman, by and large it has been proven that governments are not very good at getting into the development business. That's

[ Page 6025 ]

been proven in many jurisdictions and many provinces. We are better off doing it in the private sector.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the member that there are many parcels of land, past and present, that have been disposed of by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, having been put into government portfolios back in those years from 1972 to 1975. If you want to look at a return on money for some of the land deals made and some of the purchases made in those years and the bottom line return to the citizens in this province....

HON. S.D. SMITH: Try Campbell Creek.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The second member for Kamloops says: "Try Campbell Creek." It would be interesting indeed to look at some of those transactions and blocks that have been held by Crown corporations since those glorious years of '72 to '75.

The criticism about the selling price. I don't know what else this government or the Crown corporation could do to establish fair market value. I said it earlier and I'll say it again: not only did we advertise in the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia, not only did we advertise across the length and breadth of Canada in such journals as the Toronto Globe and Mail, but there were ads in major newspapers in the United States and indeed throughout the world. How better to establish market value than to have such widespread participation from literally thousands of interested investors throughout the length and breadth of the world?

Perhaps the member would have been happier if the sale price had not been $320 million with no interest payments for those tail-in years. Perhaps the Minister of Finance would have been happier with an upfront selling price of $145 million. But that wasn't the deal negotiated. The negotiators, the professional people employed by the government through the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, recommended that this firm had the best offer, the most cash and the best reputation to carry on the development in a professional manner of all those who tendered.

I don't know what else the opposition would have us do, Mr. Chairman, because it's clear, in looking at professional advice from a firm called Burns Fry, with national credibility and international reputation.... They gave an appraisal and evaluation of that business transaction and considered it worthy, fair and equitable on the basis that it was undeveloped land, land with very few if any services, land that was going to require tens of millions of dollars in the short term and — yes, Mr. Member — hundreds of millions of dollars in the long term.

Perhaps too the member is not aware of the tremendous economic spinoff. I've covered the $2 billion in capital investment already on that site and the $8 billion in total economic spinoff benefits. But along with that the member should be aware that the vast percentage of this money is coming from abroad. It's new money being put into our provincial economy, creating new jobs and new wealth, giving additional tax revenue to the government which in turn will be utilized to provide better social services, more money into the environment, more money into health, more money into education — all those positive things coming about as a result of this transaction. We stand ready to justify and hold up our head on the commitment we have made, proud of the commitment that the site will be cleaned up to high environmental standards, set by the Minister of Environment in this province, that will stand up to scrutiny and be accepted by the planners and the council of the city of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, before I take my seat I must make a correction to a document tabled by me yesterday in response to a question put by the first member for Vancouver East. It seems that the word processor skipped ten words — a very important ten words but a very innocent oversight by my staff for which I take responsibility and give apologies. The paragraph in question was the last paragraph in answer to the question put by the first member for Vancouver East.

The paragraph is headed: "Flipping." I congratulate the member for Vancouver East for bringing to my attention a short time ago that the sentence in question read incorrectly. It read: "The province is not different than any other owner as to their rights to dispose of their property as they see fit." On very quick analysis you could see that it did not read correctly when talking about flipping.

The proper sentence reads as follows: "The province is no different than any other owner in its ability or right to influence a subsequent owner as to their rights to dispose of their property as they see fit." I will see that prior to adjournment we table this correction. I wanted to read it out for the record now as it has just come to my attention, and I will see that the members of the opposition — particularly the member for Vancouver East — are supplied with that correction.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, I am sorry, but your time is up under standing orders.

MR. PERRY: I'd be prepared to yield to the minister if he wishes to continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister wish to continue? The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey will carry on, please.

MR. PERRY: A previous Chairman earlier today reminded the House that the tradition of this House is for the estimates debate to focus on the minister's performance as we decide how we shall vote on his estimates this fiscal year. Therefore the tradition of the House is really for this side of the House to pose the questions, so rather than respond to the questions that were posed to me, I will assume they were rhetorical.

I'm not avoiding any of the questions, but my answers have been made to them during the election campaign outside of the House in public for a, and they are on the record many times during the recent election campaign. I think the most interesting question was how we might have disposed of the Expo

[ Page 6026 ]

lands, but I submit that's not really the question before the House today.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. Order, please, hon. members.

MR. LOVICK: Just ignore them.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've dealt with much more difficult opposition during my career. I'm not particularly worried by those kinds of scurrilous remarks.

Let me focus, though, on some of the issues that were raised by the minister in his response regarding the selling price compared to the true market value of the Expo lands. I raise this question now largely for the public record. I raised it often during the recent election campaign in Vancouver-Point Grey, and I was intrigued that at approximately ten all-candidates meetings, 14 coffee parties, perhaps ten all-candidates media fora on radio and television and in numerous media interviews, at no point was any question raised either by the candidates for the other political parties, including the Social Credit Party, or by the media or by any other person about the factual content of my remarks.

Therefore I would like to repeat the estimates I gave at that time for the consideration of the record and history, if not the government. What I said at the time was that independent estimates of the value of the Expo land site ranged from a median figure of roughly $650 million cited by the officials of B.C. Place in 1984, two years prior to the international exposition. That was a figure that B.C. Place officials gave as an estimate to University of British Columbia economists studying the Expo....

HON. S.D. SMITH: Oh, those are the guys who predicted that Expo would fail.

MR PERRY: This is a published estimate, published in a book in British Columbia, which I cited numerous times during a recent election campaign. That estimate of $650 million was given as the value of the lands in 1984. That was approximately four years before the Concord Pacific deal was signed. This is all on the public record, and the public will judge it.

The current estimate I received from realtors I consulted was that the current February 1989 value of the Expo lands, undeveloped, was in the order of $1.1 billion. We've heard today that the maximum selling price for the Expo lands was, if I understood the minister correctly, $140 million, and that the true selling price so far is only $50 million. I stated this many times during public campaigns, and no one seriously questioned me, including the Social Credit candidate. I think the true selling price still is open for debate. I've listened very carefully to what the first member for Vancouver East said today in his calculations. I checked the arithmetic myself and agree with his sums of $665 million as the net loss on the property — the net loss to the treasury and the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I find this incredible, frankly. I'm merely a physician. I work with small sums of money at the University of British Columbia. I worry when I spend $17 to prepare slides for a lecture because that's public money; I'm expected to account for it. In fact, I received a statement of payment for approximately $17 from the continuing medical education division today, confirming that in my department we had paid a bill of $17 to prepare educational materials. I'm used to dealing with money responsibly, and I find what I've heard in this House today, and the defences of the minister, incredible.

Let me deal with the issue that the minister raised this morning — at page 6 in today's Blues — and again a few minutes ago. He said that the negotiation process for the sale of the Expo lands "was conducted by very professional people, the best of lawyers and the best of negotiators, and they concluded a deal with Concord." I have no desire to impugn the integrity of the individuals involved — I still don't even know who they are — but professionals in British Columbia are defined by statute, are governed by codes of ethics and codes of discipline.

Members on this side of the House met last night with the registered engineers of British Columbia and were reminded of the important statutory duties of professionalism required of them by the government and the House, including the duty to investigate their own profession when mistakes are made. The engineers reminded us of how thoroughly they have investigated the disaster at Save-on-Foods and Drugs and of the report that was issued recommending major changes to the practice of engineering in British Columbia precisely because they are professionals. If those people who negotiated the Expo lands sellout on behalf of all British Columbians were professionals, they would have examined themselves prior to recommending that deal to the government, and their professional association would now be recommending discipline against them for selling out the public interests of British Columbians. Therefore I submit it is ridiculous to refer to them as professionals.

Let me attempt to enlighten the House and to pose a question at the same time as to why those so-called professionals did recommend to an incredibly naive and, I repeat, incompetent government a deal which will go down as the most absurd and ridiculous financial deal in the history of the province. It is perhaps exceeded by the deal that a former Premier made in concluding the Columbia River Treaty, although I recognize that at the time he had much more limited resources of financial analysis and forecasting than the government presently has.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Coquihalla.

MR. PERRY: Or the Coquihalla deal.

Let me attempt to answer the question of how this deal could have occurred.

[ Page 6027 ]

I come from a profession and from an academic background in which we are accustomed to assessing mistakes, attempting to assign the responsibility — not blame, but responsibility — for mistakes, and to correcting them to ensure they never happen again. That's my academic discipline and, facing that discipline, I attempted, during my election campaign, to learn how the government could have made such an absurd decision, who advised it, and why they advised it in that way or how they came to those recommendations. The closest I've come to any insight — I do not submit that this is the answer; it's the only answer that has made any sense to me or rung any bells of veracity in my head — is the same businessman who does $25 million worth of real estate business each year. I asked him how he could explain this, because his assessment was that the loss to the public treasury on the sale of the Expo lands, compared to a fair price, was $300 million. His estimate was not quite so high as mine, but it was still $300 million that the cabinet and the government of this province gave up, $300 million less than a fair price.

I asked this man: "How do you explain how this could have happened and why there was so little comment from those in the know at the time?" Brian Calder was one of the few outside of this party who criticized the deal. This man's answer to the question, for what it's worth, was that those so-called professional negotiators became so captivated egotistically by the concept of the negotiating in the big leagues with an international financier and multibillion-dollar dealer that they lost all judgment. They simply were taken to the cleaners by someone much smarter than they, who only served his personal business interests just like anyone else would have done in the situation. It would have taken a saint, I submit, Mr. Chair, to forgo a deal like that offered to Li Kashing on a silver platter.

This is the closest I've come, and if the minister can advise me of the answer to why this recommendation was reached, or if any other ministers or former ministers can advise the House, I think that would be fascinating to know. The public will want to know those answers.

Let me just raise another issue in terms of the problems in cleaning up the Expo lands. I wonder, and I think it would be interesting to have the answer before the House, whether the Minister of Government Management Services or the Minister of Environment has read in detail the soils remediation group reports or the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers' report. I believe I asked that question earlier, and I don't think it has been answered.

I have perused them, and one of the striking deficiencies in the soils remediation group reports is the absence of any reference in the proposed alternatives — of which the $468 million or $475 million option is the most expensive but is an alternative submitted by the soils remediation group to the government; it's not a figment of my, or the member for Vancouver East's, or the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam’s imagination — to the effect of an earthquake on the site, or the effect of an earthquake on engineering measures taken to control the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or the heavy metals underneath the site, or the effect of an earthquake on the remedial engineering works designed to deal with leakage of groundwater into False Creek. Nor, for that matter, is there any mention of the effect of an earthquake on the undersea land, which we now understand, as of yesterday's tabling of the Concord Pacific agreement, was also sold as part of the site.

I find that little short of shocking, given what we have learned in the last few years about the probability of a major seismic event, which is essentially taken as virtually 100 percent in the next 200 years. There will be a major earthquake in the Pacific Northwest affecting Vancouver, and not only are we not dealing with that problem in our schools, our public institutions, but we're not dealing with it even to raise the issue in the soils remediation group reports.

I had the privilege by good luck of running into some of the scientists and engineers who work for the soils remediation group on the helicopter, and I asked them if there was a reason for this omission. They looked startled by the question. I had the privilege of discussing this also with other advisers to the government on this matter, who also seemed surprised and concerned by the omission.

What we are seeing is a pattern of neglect of protection of the public interests, which is all too familiar in the history of this province and has been continued in this case, so that we now face, as the public, the responsibility of cleaning up a mess that was made by private entrepreneurs both in the remote and the recent past.

I would like to deal with one of the rhetorical questions raised by the minister: on whom should the responsibility devolve for cleaning up the mess? No one on this side of the House, certainly not I nor any of my colleagues, suggests that the mess should not be cleaned up responsibly. When the facts are known, the appropriate amount of funds should be expended to clean up the toxic waste under the Expo lands or in False Creek in such a way that legitimate risks to the public health are reduced.

[5:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, hon. member, but your time has expired under standing orders.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is fascinating, and I would like the member to continue. I think he's onto a good theme here.

MR. PERRY: I was making the observation that all members on this side of the House join with the government in wanting to see a proper cleanup of the site. The real question is: what are the scientific facts necessary to know what will be a real cleanup? Do the previous studies and those studies conducted subsequent to the signing of the agreement give us the information we need, such as data on earthquakes; data on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or the thousands of other toxic compounds likely to be present on that site; and the possibility that there are

[ Page 6028 ]

heavy metal concentrations much higher than those measured, which was raised by one of my colleagues in the department of pharmacology and therapeutics who has reviewed these studies in detail, and because of the pattern of analysis of heavy metals in those soils is concerned that there may be far higher concentrations in sites not yet detected by the sampling program?

I think these are serious questions, and until we know the answers we won't know what the proper cleanup measures are. The problem I have with the minister's approach, for which I would like a serious answer, is why my constituents and those of all members of this House should as a matter of course be expected to pay for the mess created by previous private owners of the site such as the CPR and the coal gas works.

Most of us are aware from studying Canadian history that the CPR was one of the most — if not the most — privileged and fortunate of corporations in the history of Canada, if not the world; that it has done extremely well over the years. Why does it devolve exclusively upon the taxpayers of British Columbia to pay to clean up the mess irresponsibly left by the CPR and other owners of that site? None of that responsibility devolves upon the CPR and its stockholders, who have reaped profits out of the industry that created those wastes. I find it an eminently logical proposition that the responsibility should be shared, if not entirely borne, by those who created the mess. That is the principle that our side of the House has elaborated as a long-term solution to pollution problems. I would like to hear the minister comment seriously on that question.

MRS. McCARTHY: Before the minister responds to the hon. member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I would like to make a couple of comments regarding the member's statements.

This member has come to the House in the last few days, and from his remarks obviously already knows more than anybody in the House. He's talking about neglect of the public interest, insofar as the environment is concerned. I would like once again to put on the record that this side of the House very clearly stated in May of last year that we would take responsibility for the environmental problem, the contamination problems, we were confronted with. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said so at that time. On May 16, in the estimates.... I'll just repeat what was said last year in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East. My response to him at that time was:

"I believe that the member mentioned environmental issues and made reference to False Creek itself. The government was responsible for the land itself; it was our land and we owned it. We took on the responsibility for the environmental problems. We have that responsibility. We cannot abdicate our responsibility in that regard.

"They are not as difficult. We had the very best environmental engineers available, and we have had extensive tests on it. We've worked with the city of Vancouver, and we have a problem. No one has ever said we haven't a problem. We have a very containable problem there which has been the responsibility of our Ministry of Environment, and we have worked with the Ministry of Environment on that, We believe that's something that the city of Vancouver and Concord Pacific and the government are going to be able to work out very completely."

The member who has just taken his seat says that neglect of the public interest surrounds the False Creek lands, insofar as the environment is concerned. There have been some wild statements is this House today regarding the sale of the False Creek lands, the B.C. Place lands; that has to be one of the wildest. The public interest has been served better on the B.C. Place lands in regard to the environment, and every other thing, than any piece of public property anywhere in this nation.

I am going to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we do have another piece of property on False Creek, and the Leader of the Opposition was very involved in that piece of property during the time that he was the mayor of Vancouver. Today in the city of Vancouver there is a pall that hangs over the south side of False Creek because the environmental responsibility was not met under the Leader of the Opposition's jurisdiction, when he was the mayor of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, we are proud of our Minister Responsible for Environment and proud of the stand he took. Had he not taken that stand, we could have been severely criticized by the people we serve in this province. I'll tell you why. We in this province owned the property; we expropriated it under the B.C. Electric act. We owned and had responsibility for the property, and where that contamination exists it was done by the old B.C. Electric, now B.C. Hydro, and is now the responsibility of the government that owns that Crown corporation.

For that group over there to say in a budget debate which, if anything, has had the hallmark of environmental concerns.... Every budget has its stamp on it. I would say that this year there are many things in this budget, but nothing has been given more attention this year than the environment. For that group that pretends to be so environmentally conscious, it's interesting that they should come into this House and criticize us on this side of the House for being so environmentally conscious over a piece of our land that we had to be responsible for.

Mr. Chairman, there have been wild accusations from the member for Vancouver East and the member from Vancouver-Point Grey. Thank goodness those members aren't in charge of the public purse. First of all, the two of them can't agree on how much they think we have lost on the Expo lands. While the member for Vancouver East this morning was bandying about $600 million to $650 million, the member for Vancouver-Point Grey was bandying about $300 million. Can you believe it? There is a $350 million discrepancy in the two stories that they are giving to this House.

In the morning we were given a figure which included the whole cost of Expo 86. Talk about oranges-and-apples comparisons — the whole cost of putting on Expo 86. Our colleagues on this side of the House

[ Page 6029 ]

know full well that the full expense of Expo 86 was paid for by lottery funds, including the whole Expo 86 debt charge. When we talk about the cost of the land, and how much it was sold to Concord Pacific for, I can tell you it is all very well for the second-guessers to come along in 1989. I'll bet those were the same people who would sell their house today for the same price they could have sold it for a year and a half ago — I'll just bet. They are very good at the real estate market today, but we took a positive step to sell the land because at the time we needed the dollars. Not only did we need the dollars but we also needed the jobs, the development, the creativity for Vancouver and British Columbia. We got that in spades with that deal. Make comparisons with a piece of property at Drake and Pacific today and the selling price in 1986-87 and early 1988. It's apples-apples comparison all the way along.

During the construction of Pacific Place a signal was sent to investors all over the world. We advertised all over the world, and we got the very best that we could get at that time, and we got a fair market price. That has been confirmed by one of the best groups in the nation, Burns Fry, after going over it with a fine-tooth comb and presenting the results to the cabinet and to the people of British Columbia. The report is available for anybody to see.

Mr. Chairman, there was a vision of Vancouver as an international city. That was the message given when Concord Pacific closed the deal with the province of British Columbia. It was an electrifying effect. Almost within weeks and certainly within months of the announcement, Marathon Realty announced a whole new project for the waterfront. Within another few weeks of that announcement, Bosa Construction talked about a whole new, dramatic development on an old site opposite Science World in the city of Vancouver. It's going to be an unqualified success, unique in North America. The plan was even lauded by the Vancouver East member when it was announced. It is a creative plan, a plan that is going to give an environment for a quality lifestyle in Vancouver, and one of which we will all be proud.

[5:15]

Two billion dollars will be spent on that site, and the spinoff effect will be at least $6 billion. The money will not only go for the construction of buildings — lots of jobs, construction jobs, British Columbia jobs — but a substantial amount will go for the direct development of infrastructure such as roads, utility works, schools, community centres and parks, all at the developer's expense, not by taxpayer dollars.

Coal Harbour will be developed because the world's attention was on Vancouver when this deal was made. The east side of False Creek will be developed because attention was given to international investment when this agreement was made. Over these years in British Columbia we have said to the world: "Come and invest. Come and do what we think will create jobs in this province." And they responded to our invitation. For the people on the other side of this House to say that British Columbians couldn't respond.... British Columbians did respond, and British Columbians did not come up to the price.

The best deal in dollars, the best deal in creativity, the best deal for British Columbia and the best deal for the taxpayers at that time was made by this government. There is no doubt that the purchase of Pacific Place is a catalyst for the development of this province. I believe it will be a catalyst for the development not just of greater Vancouver but of all of British Columbia.

I certainly am surprised at some of the figures that have been bandied around today. The member for Vancouver East mentions a price. Thank goodness the member for Vancouver East isn't in charge of public funds, because he very conveniently lost a whole $180 million in his comments this morning. He talks about present-day value, and then he says that we get no interest payments. What is the difference between his present-day value of $140 million and the 15-year value of $320 million?

It's $180 million, and he conveniently forgot all about it. He conveniently forgot that in that 15-year period when the city of Vancouver will be needing perhaps denser zoning, there is a possibility for us to make more money on that agreement. It's written right into the agreement. Interesting — the other side doesn't mention that.

I have to say that with people like Burns Fry giving a report which very clearly states that in May 1988 the best deal — those in the real estate business will confirm it — was made for the people of British Columbia in the sale of the lands to Concord Pacific.... The most important benefit of that deal is the jobs, the creativity and the excitement that will be created by a first-class development by a first-class developer that will stay the course and deliver to us a very creative, exciting plan, which the city of Vancouver not only wants but deserves.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I just want to take a couple of minutes to respond to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry). I wish I could be as sure of anything as he is of everything. He seems to have all the facts and figures. I sure wish he would have found us that customer who was lurking somewhere on the world scene with that $1.1 billion cash to come up and buy those lands. I don't know where he was hiding during the period of advertising.

I don't know what the member would have wished this government to have done after spending tens of thousands of dollars in advertising in London, Germany, the Far East, Hong Kong, New York and L.A. Perhaps the member would have chosen, once the process was fully in place and the clock was ticking and the proposals were evaluated, that we would have stopped all of a sudden and said: "Hold it. There's a chap out there at the university. He's got something that's really big here. He says that thing is worth $1.1 billion."

Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. I have never heard such preposterous suggestions put forward in this House as were spelled out, advocated

[ Page 6030 ]

and quoted by that member today. I guess you can't teach a crab to walk straight.

MR. PERRY: I thought what the minister said about talking sense to a fool and he calls you foolish was wonderful. But I didn't say it; I only heard it.

With the Chair's indulgence, since the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is here, I'd like to make an apology to him. He has called to my attention that I may have implied or said in my remarks that he served only a few minutes' notice to me of his statement. In fact, he did his best to give me about an hour's notice. I'd like that correction to be made on the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just remind the hon. member, because I know that he's new, that it's really not in order to do that. But we will indulge you on this particular occasion. Would you now continue on vote 31.

MR. PERRY: I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to respond to some of the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy). I think it's very important that the tenor of debate in the House should be as dignified as possible. I have the greatest admiration for the member, and I would not want her to misinterpret any of the comments I made. But I think that perhaps she misinterpreted some of my remarks. I hope that she didn't misinterpret any of them or most of them, but I was concerned when she said that I had referred to the environmental irresponsibility of the government. I want the House to be very clear on this. I commend the government for accepting the responsibility of ensuring that the Expo site is cleaned up, and I look forward to seeing that responsibility being fulfilled in the best possible way.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: But you said we shouldn't have done it.

MR. PERRY: I did not say that the government should not have done that. I think the record of Hansard will show... I reiterate here, in case there's any doubt, and I want to assure the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain that my objection is primarily with the process by which the studies.... Many of the important studies were begun after the sale of the land rather than before, when the government could have made the most informed decision before the sale was made.

My other major objection is with the policy of the government that only the public should be expected to clean up messes made by private owners of the land, including B.C. Electric Co. or its successor B.C. Hydro. I don't think that's fair. As a taxpayer and a representative of constituents who work very hard for their incomes and pay whopping taxes, I don't think they will consider that fair.

I want to urge the government to continue its policy of making sure the site is cleaned up admirably. I think it has appointed some very sound advisers, for which I commend it. I will be watching like a hawk to make sure that the government does that. I don't want to be misunderstood as criticizing that part of the government's process.

I would like to respond to some other comments that have been made in the last few minutes. I think it's understandable that there may be some legitimate divergence of opinion on the true value of the Expo land, and the true value of the loss to the taxpayers in the underselling of the site. The $300 million loss I referred to was not my figure; I think the loss was substantially higher. I think the record will show that I quoted that figure as the estimate made by a land developer who does $25 million worth of business in British Columbia.

The first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain also referred to the message which the sale sent to the people of the world. I agree with her that an important message was sent to the world by that sale. I think it was a very disturbing message — opposite to the one which the Premier gave to the world a year or two earlier. The message that was sent was that British Columbia is for sale. The people of my riding know that we are now reaping the damage created by that message, which is the rampant speculation in residential house properties throughout the city of Vancouver. This was one of the real messages sent by the sale to Concord Pacific: that British Columbia is for sale for speculative purposes.

The Minister of Government Management Services again asks the rhetorical question: where are the buyers? I reiterate that the estimate of $1.1 billion is the current value of the unserviced land at the Expo site — the Concord Pacific lands. That is not my estimate. That's an estimate provided to me by realtors in the Vancouver real estate community as a fair estimate of the value, when I asked for one during a recent election campaign. It was not challenged in public by anyone with any credibility; it wasn't challenged at all, period. I'm waiting to see people without conflict of interest, whom the public can judge to be fair, come out with other estimates of the value. I threw it out not as the definite, ultimate truth but simply as an estimate. I asked for comment and received no question of that estimate.

MR. R. FRASER: If it's worth that much, why wouldn't it be sold again?

MR. PERRY: I suspect that we shall see the buyers in the flipping of the Concord Pacific property. We shall see that property flipped many times in the next few years. We shall see the buyers paying prices to Concord Pacific and its successors much higher than those that were paid to the people of British Columbia. I will go out on a limb and suggest that those prices may be in an order of magnitude higher than the price received by British Columbians.

I would like to make one other comment and ask for the government's response on this. I think it's a very important issue of public policy. It occurred to me when considering the remarks made by the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCar-

[ Page 6031 ]

thy) about environmental irresponsibility. I had not said that the government was environmentally irresponsible in this case; I had said that it was fiscally irresponsible. As I sat here thinking about my remarks, it occurred to me that perhaps the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain is right: the government has been environmentally irresponsible.

[5:30]

I would like to ask the Minister of Government Management Services to respond in his remarks to a much broader question: what is or was the proper use of that public land? Not only should it have been leased to ensure a fairer and longer return to the public — and some public control over the use of the land — but what were the best public uses of that land in the interests of British Columbians? I think it begets a fundamental question of importance to residents of the lower mainland, including those in communities where the Premier and other ministers reside: what is the proper development of the lower mainland of British Columbia? Is it environmentally responsible, for example, to encourage the continued rampant development of office towers in the city of Vancouver, requiring more commuters to enter and leave the city daily from suburbs such as Surrey, Richmond, now Abbotsford, Chilliwack and even further up the Fraser Valley?

During the recent election campaign a candidate for another party suggested that Vancouver should be a global village, and completely misconstrued the nature of the term "global village" invented by Marshall McLuhan, the great communicator, about 30 years ago. What "global village" actually meant was not that the world should all come to live in Vancouver and bring us not only the creative impulses of immigrants, but urban congestion, increasing pollution, increasing automobile traffic, increasingly long commutes of an hour and a half, two hours, maybe three hours each way every day, such as the city of Toronto now experiences. The global village refers to the interconnectedness of people all over the globe, wherever they live, by the electronic revolution. One of the implications of the global village is that modern business does not require to be conducted in the same place, in the meeting-place of the ancient acropolis or the agora of Athens; it can be conducted over the fax machines, the telephone lines — electronic communications — and there is no need for modern business to be all located at the same site. Some of it could. The agora was the meeting-place of ancient Athens, where not only democracy but public business was conducted.

The electronic revolution implies that it would be environmentally responsible to locate some of the new development, which now inevitably seems to be heading for the Concord Pacific lands, in the Premier's riding, or perhaps in the Minister of Health's (Hon. Mr. Dueck's) riding — or just conceivably perhaps even in the riding of the Minister of Government Management Services; for example, in that wonderful city of Salmon Arm, where I have many friends who might relish some investment of new capital from a banking firm or a firm of international commerce whose distance electronically to Hong Kong or Singapore would be no further than it would be from central Vancouver.

If we want to talk about environmental irresponsibility, I suggest it is the height of environmental irresponsibility to encourage more development of high office towers in downtown Vancouver, rather than providing housing and open space for the people who already need to work there and now must live out in the remotest suburbs. This is something which not only the livable region plan called for — until it was cancelled by the present Premier — but also the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, set up not by an NDP government but by a Coalition government in 1952. You, Mr. Chairman, I am sure, will be more aware of those plans than I am, and of the wonderful dreams they represented to the entire lower mainland of British Columbia, which have largely been squandered by the centralization of all facilities in the city of Vancouver.

I would be most interested to hear the minister's comments, or even those of the former minister — the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain — as to what environmental responsibility suggests that business in British Columbia should be centralized in the downtown Vancouver peninsula, around the shores of False Creek, rather than housing. People desperately need homes. They are being evicted from apartments now, and are being forced to live further and further up the valley, and are creating that wonderful blanket of pollution I saw Monday morning when I flew over here by helicopter, which is spreading into the Chairman's riding and that of the Minister of Health.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want to be very brief, and to raise a couple of questions with the minister. But before doing that, I want to say that I am really pleased that I've been able to be in this House, because since the arrival of the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry), I have realized my life's ambition. I have met the first perfect human that I have run across in my life. He's a man who obviously has never made a mistake. I suspect he thought he did once but then quickly realized he was wrong. I want to say that in addition to meeting this perfect human, there's another plus: his presence here renders the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) positively humble by comparison.

My concern is this: is the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey commending to the minister that we not sell any more land in this province — that we only lease Crown land? I am very concerned about that, and I am hopeful that with the appropriate persuasion the minister will not accede to that request. I think it is very wrong. It's a policy that really would be quite retrogressive. In this province we have all kinds of areas where we have to have and should have people wanting to apply for and get Crown land and build on it — and they do. That has been the nature of our province. That is how we have created wealth in British Columbia for individuals, not making them exclusively tenants but allowing them

[ Page 6032 ]

the opportunity, the vision, that someday they might be able to own their own little plot, their own little piece of land.

Interjections.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I want it to be known that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) laughs at the notion of individual ownership. I want it to be known that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) laughs. I want it to be known that the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) laughs at the proposition....

MR. LOVICK: I rise on a point of order, just to clarify that we are laughing at the delivery of the member, not his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I want it on the record to be known.... When I heard those words I was concerned that perhaps the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) was out of sync with this new policy of wealth creation. I thought for a moment that either he was out of sync with the new wealth creation policy or else he had spent the morning rereading the speeches of Karen Sanford. But lo and behold, that isn't the case, because the first member for Nanaimo derisively laughs in support of that proposition, as does the opposition House Leader, as does the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), as did the second member for Victoria.

I must say it's important that the minister not accede to that request that we move away from the notion of ownership in this society to one in which, now that we have our own bit of ownership as members in this House, we will play kitty-by-the-door and adopt the philosophy of old one-tax George. I'm sorry that the planner, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), is not here, because he too is a disciple of one-tax George: never allow ownership; make certain that people are tenants. That allows you to maintain socialist control. It's the simplest way. You know it and I know it. Never allow people to aspire to have something of their own; instead, adopt elitism wherever you can find it, and above all else, don't let people own land. I want to say that that concerned me, and I am deeply concerned with the number of people across the House who have adopted that position, and that the minister might be moved by those arguments. I feel compelled to stand in my place and urge him not to be moved by those arguments, because they are fundamentally wrong. We are not a society of tenants; we are a society of owners.

The second thing I want to commend to the minister, in listening to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, is that that member referred to a mythical developer who had done $25 million worth of land development and so on. This developer had told them all these wonderful things, Having known the odd developer myself, I can tell you that no developer would have said some of the things that he ascribed and credited to this mythical developer, this $25 million man. But most importantly, this mythical straw-man developer was alleged to have said that he would have come forward with all these dire consequences that were going to befall us if the deal on the Expo lands were taken, but he was afraid to.

Mr. Chairman, I don't frequently indulge myself in this sort of thing, but I must tell you that is one of the sleaziest tactics that can ever be employed by one human being against another.

MR. JONES: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the word "sleazy" parliamentary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I was going to mention that to the hon. Attorney-General and ask that he withdraw it, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: I don't want to do offence to the House, but I must say that it's dishonourable to employ that kind of tactic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. Attorney-General withdraw the....

HON. S.D. SMITH: I thought I had, and if I didn't, I certainly do.

This is a dishonourable tactic, and I raise it simply for this reason: this is the kind of tactic employed by members opposite once before with something called the mud line, which had the effect....

[5:45]

MR. PERRY: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I object to the implication that my conduct has been dishonourable and in any way anything less than completely honest, and I'd like the.... This is a free parliament still, in which the elected members have the responsibility to represent their constituents honestly. I request that the minister withdraw his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just hold on for a moment, hon. members. I must point out first of all that that is not a point of privilege. It might be a point of order.

At this stage in the debate, because it has been going on now for a couple of days and from time to time has gotten somewhat out of hand — although I've tried to keep it otherwise — let me just read you something that we normally read at least once during a session. We might have to do it more than that this time. The heading is "Allegations against Members, " and it says: "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate."

Would the Attorney-General continue, please.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you raised that, because that was precisely why I raised the issue. As I was saying prior to being interrupted by that specious point of privilege, it was precisely those kinds of tactics, raised by a group called the

[ Page 6033 ]

Mud Line in this House not so many years ago, that caused the decorum in this House to descend into the gutter, a place where it does not deserve to be. I simply want to say to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey that he may well feel comfortable in that location, but I think the rest of us in this House do not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey rises on a point of order.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chair, I appreciate your admonishments to the House — not only today, but on other days — and I intend to do my best to respect them. My point of order is that I find the minister's comments insulting and inappropriate, and I request for a second time that he withdraw them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would suggest to hon. members that if one — no matter what side of the House he sits on — attributes a lack of honour to someone else, that would certainly not seem, in my opinion, to be a parliamentary thing to do.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should say that again. I'm telling hon. members that both sides have done that today, and it's certainly not appreciated by the Chair. I don't think there's any need for that in this debate, and I would just caution members to think about the words they use when they speak and the effect they have on those persons they are speaking to. We've taken up a lot a time in this 15 minutes, but I'd ask the Attorney-General to finish up. We'll give him a couple of extra minutes.

MR. ROSE: I've watched this now for a little while. Unfortunately, and it pains me to say this.... I suppose I sound like David Lewis when I say, "It pains me to say this"; he often said something pretty vicious after that. It seems to me that just about every time the Attorney-General gets into this debate he's called for unparliamentary language. For him then to indulge in the hypocrisy of accusing a new member of being some sort of mud line is preposterous.

Mr. Chairman, thinly veiled as it was, using lawyer's words to just skin along the line, he called my friend a liar. That's what he has done. If he doesn't recognize that, or the Chair doesn't recognize it in terms of protecting the member, then I have to bring it to the Chair's attention. He's called him a liar. I don't see why, regardless of his lofty rank, he has to use this House and abuse this House. I think he should be asked to leave.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey raised the point of order with you. You admonished the minister and the House on it. I think the last thing the Chair needs is a lecture from the opposition House Leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, my very good friend the opposition House Leader himself made a comment during the course of what he just said, using the word "hypocrisy, " which I think is also not parliamentary.

I'm certain that the hon. Attorney-General would be prepared to comment on the words that he has used and the suggestions he has made, and then perhaps the House can get back in order and do the people's business.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the somewhat specious attempt at a point of order that was raised by the opposition House Leader is not worthy of comment. I have not today called any member dishonourable, nor would I. I have called tactics dishonourable, and I too believe in freedom of speech in this place. I am quite serious when I say openly in this House that during another movie I watched this place descend into the kind of thing I'm seeing here today. I can tell you why that happens, and I want to point out, whether the member is new or is not new, that when people refer to governments as corrupt, and then in this House stand up and say, "I was only telling the truth and I've got nothing to withdraw, " and when they sit with individual members, as I know has happened, members of government, ministers, and say to their face that they believe that to be true, that is a tactic that I think is wrong, and I think it is less than honourable. When people stand in this House and say, "I had words with this developer, " and that the developer said this and said that and said the other thing and impugned the character of a former minister of the Crown, a current minister of the Crown and all kinds of other people, but then do not have the decency, frankly, to name names.... We just spread the manure, but then we don't come along and name the names. That is a tactic that used to be employed frequently in this House, and it is wrong.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, would everybody please take their seat. I am going to bring this to a halt right now. I think there has been all the comment that is required on the point of order that was raised originally. I would recommend to the House that at this point it would be the wise thing to do to have someone rise and move that we report progress.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't see the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) in his chair, but today he did ask a couple of questions regarding my estimates. They were pretty clear and concise questions, and I assured the member that he would have a response later in the day. Thus the reason for me rising prior to adjournment, Mr. Chairman. I feel it's important that when word is given that a response

[ Page 6034 ]

will be made prior to the end of the day, that a response be made prior to the end of the day.

One of the points made by the member had to do with the Foursquare Gospel Church. He made reference to the size of the property, and why BCEC didn't develop this land into four lots and pick up $40,000 or $50,000 a lot. The answer is that the church made an offer on a parcel at Westwood over which high-tension powerlines pass. The price negotiated with the church reflected the powerline easement and the parcel's ability to support only one residence. So I would put that on the record in response to the member regarding the Foursquare Gospel Church.

The member also talked at great length about the Cavell properties and Songhees. He compared the selling price with Westminster Quay and wondered about the development potential of one versus the development potential of the other, and why one was sold for less than the other. The explanation is very similar to what I predicted it would be. The Songhees one is free and clear; it's already serviced; it's developable property, and what you buy is what you got. In New Westminster, the property required a tremendous amount of development. The development consisted of, only 2.81 acres, and the rest was water.

The property requires construction and extensive foundations. In addition to the price of $2.2 million paid to BCEC, the developer of this land will be required to spend approximately $17 million in additional site costs not required by Cavell for the land in Songhees.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that will set the record straight, and that the member will read the Blues in the morning, and that it will satisfy his queries on those two properties.

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.