[ Page 6035 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statements

Feasibility study on new steel production plant. Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 6035

Mr. Gabelmann

Vancouver Island gas pipeline. Hon. Mr. Davis –– 6037

Ms. Edwards

An Act to Merge the British Columbia County Court and the British Columbia

Supreme Court (Bill M206). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 6037

Presenting Reports –– 6038

Oral Questions

Deficiencies in log scaling. Mr. Miller –– 6038

Forest industry inquiry. Mr. Kempf –– 6039

Sale of Westwood land. Mr. Rose –– 6039

Auditor-General's report on privatization process. Mr. Bruce 6040

Presenting Reports –– 6040

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6040

Mr. Perry

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Rose

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Strachan

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today are two very good friends and neighbours of mine, Dr. Egon Nikolai and his wife Fern. Accompanying them are Dr. Chuck Mielke of West Vancouver, Dr. Perry Trester, president of the College of Dental Surgeons of B.C., and other members of the executive of the dental college. As well, in the visitors' gallery are my ministerial assistant's mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. Pescod from Nanaimo. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. BRUCE: Last week I had the pleasure of introducing one of my fine constituents from Lake Cowichan. She enjoyed herself so much here the other day that she came back again and this time brought her husband. Would you please welcome Mr. Barry Volkers from Lake Cowichan.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, hardly a day goes by in the House that we don't miss our dear friend and colleague, Alex Fraser. It's a pleasure to see a blaze of yellow daffodils in the House today recognizing April as fund-raising month for the Canadian cancer campaign. Today I would like to introduce, along with my wife Lois, in your gallery, Sheila MacDougall, the president of the Victoria unit of the Canadian Cancer Society. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PETERSON: In your gallery are two very good friends of mine whom I would like to introduce to the House, Roselyn Cherneff and Charlie Johnson. Would you please join me in making them very welcome.

Ministerial Statement

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON NEW
STEEL PRODUCTION PLANT

HON. MR. VEITCH: I wish to inform the House today of an important industrial opportunity that my ministry is responding to, one which provides an opportunity for sustainable development in the province.

I've been in discussion with senior representatives of an established world-class steel producer that wishes to explore preliminary feasibility of building a major steel production facility in British Columbia using advanced environmentally sensitive technology. This represents one of the most significant opportunities ever presented to this province, but is an opportunity we must pursue with utmost car to ensure that our environmental objectives are harmony with developmental objectives.

If this is achieved, we will be displaying eve further leadership in the concept of sustainable economy development. This concept, which has been endorsed nationally and internationally, means economic development where environmental priorities are paramount. It means economic development that ensures prosperity, that secures security and a viable quality of life for our children and is consistent with the government's regionalization objectives in helping to recession-proof the province of British Columbia through diversification in each and every region of this province.

Sustainable development is a major theme of this government. As we emphasized in the throne speech last month, it is important for us to test this great opportunity against that vital philosophy, This opportunity is truly exciting.

The plant would bring approximately $4 billion in new direct investment and generate about 6,000 direct jobs in British Columbia. In addition, many thousands of new spinoff jobs will result, including the construction of housing wherever the operation is located and hundreds of new mining positions in British Columbia.

We have checked the bona fides of the proponent. They are impeccable, and we are satisfied that the company is very serious and, without doubt, capable of performance.

I'd like to review for the House events to date. I held discussions with representatives of the proponents on several occasions. A delegation from the proponent visited British Columbia for a week in February. On February 20, the proponent met with myself and, later on in the day, with the Premier, myself and my deputy minister, Mr. Bob Plecas. The requirement to develop an environmentally sound plant was stressed over and over again. My ministry provided the company with technical and other information, in particular information relative to the environmental review process in British Columbia.

On March 31, I received a letter from the proponent confirming their desire to establish a plant in British Columbia and requesting our participation in a preliminary feasibility study. I held further discussions with the proponent's representatives. There have been no decisions and only the most preliminary exploration of possible sites for the project, so I cannot comment — nor will I comment — on what sites might, at a future date, be ruled in, or indeed be ruled out.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: They don't want to hear this over there, Mr. Speaker. They don't care about jobs or the environment.

The first phase of this project would create 6,000 — jobs, and all of these, except for certain management t positions, would be filled by Canadian workers. Many more jobs would be created in other sectors, especially in the B.C. coal industry, which would not supply the lion's share of coal for them all. It's also fitting and consistent with our economic strategy that this project would see British Columbia importing raw materials — iron ore from offshore in this case —

[ Page 6036 ]

and producing finished products for export; this is important, Mr. Speaker. At the same time, we will be adding value to our own resources, because millions of metric tonnes of B.C. coal would be needed to produce the steel. As well, this development would stimulate exploration for iron ore in British Columbia.

[2:15]

I'm sure this House will be interested in the fact that one of the things that attracted this company to British Columbia is the fact that this province is establishing new and exciting trading relationships around the globe. Another most important factor is the confidence which the international community has in the government of B.C. and in our attitude toward sustainable development in a free market economy. Another important point is that the company has not — and I want to underscore it — contemplated and is not contemplating any financial assistance other than the requested participation in the feasibility study.

I have been in constant contact with the proponent, which I am pleased to announce is the China Steel Corp. of Taiwan. This is a world-class firm that British Columbia firms have been doing business with for many years. China Steel has been looking at investments around the world, and we're pleased to see the potential for a new, exciting, environmentally sound opportunity here in the province of British Columbia.

I have responded to this proponent by saying that the government of British Columbia is indeed interested. However, I have made it crystal-clear to the proponents that before any commitment is made, before any feasibility study is undertaken, even before any pre-feasibility study is undertaken, we must be satisfied that technology is available that will protect our environmental values. That's important to the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Again, Mr. Speaker, they don't seem to care. If it isn't their idea, they don't care.

I've told the proponents that the project would have to conform to strict environmental standards and take advantage of the best available technology in today's world. To this end, I and my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and eminent experts in engineering and environmental science will review the technology and personally visit steel mills in other parts of the world to learn what can be expected of this type of facility. This team will include senior officials of the Ministries of Environment, International Business and Immigration, my own Ministry of Regional Development and the federal government. It will draw on the university and professional communities to complete the delegation. Members of the media will be invited to travel with the team to view the opportunity firsthand and to conduct their own interviews.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the opposition's rudeness is only exceeded by its lack of concern for the people of British Columbia.

We've been told that advances in technology mean that the steel industry can shed its reputation for environmental compromise, but we want to see firsthand this new technology and its impact, and we must be convinced.

Until this team has done its work we will not commit to the feasibility studies. However, to avoid delaying this project and its benefits to British Columbia, my staff will in the meantime be having preliminary discussions with the company on the terms for the first phase of the possible studies. The first phase of the studies would include a preliminary environmental assessment, and only if this assessment is feasible would the rest of the study proceed.

The studies also include assessments of markets, sites, infrastructure requirement, socio-economic impacts and commercial feasibility. I don't want to sound too cautious. Like other enlightened members of this House, I am excited by the prospect of billions of dollars of new investments in the province of British Columbia. I am excited by the prospect of a huge, new export industry for the province of British Columbia. I am excited by the prospect of adding value to our natural resources here in British Columbia, here at home rather than overseas.

It was not long ago that British Columbia was seen primarily as an exporter of raw materials, sometimes described as "hewers of wood and drawers of water." This is no longer the case. Because of the positive action and leadership undertaken on many fronts by our government, we are now poised to enter a new world of economic expansion which will provide the type of lasting, fulfilling employment only dreamed of in British Columbia a couple of short years ago.

British Columbia currently has the opportunity to import raw material, process it and export the finished products around the globe while at the same time taking advantage of the employment and wealth-producing possibilities which can accrue to British Columbians. Because of the government's environmental and economic policies, British Columbia may now turn a vital, positive corner in our economic lives with increased security for our citizens,

But we are cautious of this project. If it proves feasible, it must be done correctly. It must be done in an environmentally sound manner. It must be done so that it provides benefits not only to a few but to all British Columbians. We will not proceed if these prerequisites are not met. The government looks forward with great optimism to this project.

MR. GABELMANN: I will be a bit shorter than the minister was. First of all, may I say thank you to the minister for providing us with notice of the statement in advance. We appreciate that.

On a lighter note, I want to say that essentially this is really an announcement of a tour to decide whether there will be a pre-feasibility study. You might call it a pre-pre-feasibility study. I also expect

[ Page 6037 ]

that it will be the first of perhaps a dozen or two dozen announcements of this project, leading up to the next provincial general election.

Having said that, we on this side of the House have argued for many decades for diversification of the economy in this province. We welcome a diversification which will end our reliance on exporting raw resources in often unfinished form. If this kind of project can lead to that kind of economy, then we welcome steps taken in that direction.

You need to note very carefully though, Mr. Speaker, that this is really a very preliminary announcement, There are no sites, no studies of markets, no identification of materials supplies, no socio-economic studies and on and on. We're at a very preliminary stage.

Just mentioning the words environment and sustainable development 18 times does not necessarily make it so. People who live in this province have seen what's happened to the Pittsburghs and the Hamiltons of the world, and they do not want it to happen here.

We welcome the announcement. We welcome efforts made to determine whether this kind of project can succeed in a proper way in this province, and we look forward to many more announcements of this project.

Ministerial Statement

VANCOUVER ISLAND GAS PIPELINE

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement of particular interest to those who live on Vancouver Island and on the Sunshine Coast, use energy there and are concerned about the cleanliness of their local environment.

In the last few days we have finalized in all its legal detail the financial agreement with the federal government to provide the dollar underpinning for the Vancouver Island gas pipeline. A tripartite agreement — federal, provincial and pipeline company — document has been signed, and it outlines all of the financial, engineering and environmental requirements which will be imposed on the pipeline. The financial contribution by the private sector will exceed that of the two governments. Nevertheless, the commitments by the government are essential to the project proceeding.

There are several important additional requirements that must be met. The gas supply must be contracted; it will be contracted from the B.C. Peace River producers at market price. In other words, they won't be required in any way to subsidize the project. Contracts must be finalized — they've been drafted and initialed — with the major forest products companies and the pulp mills along the route. They, again, will be paying market price or oil equivalent prices for gas and indeed will be assisted in converting their oil-using plants to gas.

There are environmental concerns, including those in the Coquitlam watershed, which must be sensitively addressed. Hopefully, all of these requirements will be met within the next month to six weeks. Meanwhile, the pipeline company will be buying its steel. The actual bids are 10 percent below their estimates; equipment bids are 15 percent or more below the estimates.

It looks like the project is underway. To date, it certainly looks as though the problems are surmountable. The report of the B.C. Utilities Commission, identifying the various hurdles over which the project still has to pass, will be released next week, and we will be addressing those to ensure that construction starts this summer.

MS. EDWARDS: First of all I'd like to express thanks to the minister for informing me just before the afternoon sitting that he would be making this statement. I have to offer the minister congratulations for having wrung the money from the hands of the federal government.

What I was hoping to hear when the minister talked about having achieved that particular goal was that now the people of British Columbia would have time to slow down and look at this project, and be able to familiarize themselves with what really is happening, and what the restraints and the conditions would be.

It looks as though there are some provisions, some expectations, coming out — deficiencies that the Utilities Commission saw. I think it takes some time for the public to be able to take a look at these, and I was hoping that these would be made public. The public has so far not had an adequate chance to know what was going on and make any input. However, I am very disappointed to hear that the minister now expects things to go ahead in a month or six weeks, which, I think, is not adequate time to deal with the kind of environmental deficiencies that we may have seen and the disagreements and the strength of conviction of the people whose watershed was, has been, and perhaps still is, threatened with damage.

I would urge the minister to ensure that the environmental positives of this particular project be assured and that they be seen to outweigh the negatives.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO MERGE THE
BRITISH COLUMBIA COUNTY COURT AND
THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME COURT

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled An Act to Merge the British Columbia County Court and the British Columbia Supreme Court.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: I am pleased to rise and present what I would consider to be legislation which represents a fundamental change in the availability of justice in British Columbia. It is an act to merge the B.C. Supreme and County Courts. The County Court has served this province well. However, over the years, judges in the County Court have come to take on many of the responsibilities and attributes of a Su-

[ Page 6038 ]

preme Court judge, to the point now where there are few distinctions between the two courts, and those that remain are often confusing and irrational.

Mr. Speaker, in introducing this legislation, we surpass the recommendations of the Hughes commission which, by providing additional powers to County Court judges, served only to blur the distinction between the two courts. Merger would result first in greater administrative efficiency, and secondly, it would turn what many now call the Vancouver Supreme Court into a Supreme Court for all British Columbians, so that people in Prince George, Trail and even Kamloops will have ongoing access to a Supreme Court.

It is our view that this legislation will be implemented in consultation with the bar and with the Chief justice of the Supreme Court, and it would ensure that there be resident Supreme Court judges throughout British Columbia.

This is a New Democrat alternative, and New Democrats are proud of the initiative in judicial reform that this legislation represents and would encourage the Attorney-General to follow up on the leadership exhibited in this bill.

Bill M206 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.

Presenting Reports

Hon. S. Hagen presented the reports of the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training for the periods of April 1, 1986 to March 31, 1987 and April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1988.

Oral Questions

DEFICIENCIES IN LOG SCALING

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Forests. The auditor-general's report has identified serious deficiencies in check scaling and noted that, "some regions rely almost entirely on industry to monitor and report volume and species of timber harvested."

The Tozer-Levy report — your own internal document — recommended six-person SWAT teams in every region of British Columbia to combat this serious loss of revenue. Why has the minister rejected the advice of his own internal staff?

HON. MR. PARKER: We've created nine teams in the consideration of the management group of the Forest Service. Nine teams will be the right distribution for the province, and the means of dealing with the concerns of the auditor-general, which are welcomed. As you know, in both public and private business you engage an auditor to assess the business and how it's proceeding — whether or not it's meeting the normally accepted principles of operation. This particular item that's raised by the auditor-general is one that we welcome, because it's an audit system that we're using in the Ministry of Forests to make sure that we are meeting our obligations under the act and that our clients are meeting the obligations under their contracts.

MR. MILLER: Supplementary to the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. Nine teams represent 18 people; there are 18 current vacancies. All you're doing is filling current vacancies. Two regional managers, Mr. Levy and Mr. Tozer, recommended 36 new full-time equivalents to deal with this serious loss of revenue. Why have you rejected the advice of your own ministry staff?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question has been replied to already.

MR. MILLER: Again to the Minister of Forests, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise what the magnitude of revenue loss is as a result of inadequate policies and staffing levels in the ministry?

HON. MR. PARKER: The comments by the auditor-general, Mr. Speaker, were that his people think there's a high risk of incomplete or inaccurate data being received by the ministry, and they have flagged that issue. Now whether or not there has been has not been determined by the auditor. As far as the ministry is concerned, our procedures are adequate and have been serving the purpose of revenue collection in the province.

When we brought in the policy changes at the beginning of October 1987, we identified the fact that because we were lifting the revenues we would have to change the system by which we were dealing with collections — and we have been doing that — and we're about half-way through the process of getting that whole collection system revised and up to speed. One thing we've put into place already is the electronic transfer of scale data; that means that there are fewer errors in transcription, which is one of the biggest concerns we've had in the past.

MR. MILLER: Again to the Minister of Forests, who didn't answer the question about how much revenue we have lost, I checked with the auditor-general; their interpretation of a "high risk" is "virtual certainty." That's from the auditor-general's office. Would the minister confirm that on just two small sales last year in the Campbell River and Sunshine Coast districts, $300,000 worth of timber escaped billing and was only discovered through an anonymous tipoff?

HON. MR. PARKER: It sounds to me like a criminal act. If the member opposite would like to share that information with us, we'll make an investigation. I otherwise take the question as notice.

MR. MILLER: Again, the minister refuses to answer the question. Would the minister advise whether penalties have been imposed — that is, fines or removal of eligibility to bid on small business sales — as a result of the issue I just mentioned?

[ Page 6039 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: I must insist on receiving the information that the member is speaking to, because I do not know which timber sales, and we go by timber-sale numbers. Each licence has its own specific number, and that is the number that is appended to the timber.

MR. MILLER: A new question to the Minister of Forests. It's very surprising, Mr. Minister, that you would not be aware of a revenue loss of that magnitude. Would the minister confirm that there is no time requirement for scaling to be done after harvesting is completed?

HON. MR. PARKER: The scaling procedure is that the timber removed from a site is to be scaled before it's relocated to another site.

MR. MILLER: With regard to the reconciliation of the cruise to scale, in the Tozer-Levy report two senior members of your staff state that the appraisal audits are superficial due to lack of sufficient staff'. Why has the minister not acted to increase staff to protect the interests of the Crown and the people of B.C. who own those resources?

HON. MR. PARKER: The member is referring to an internal memo. I would imagine the question would be most properly addressed to the individual to whom the memo was addressed. I'll be happy to do just that. I'll take that question as notice.

MR. MILLER: The Tozer-Levy task force, very hastily assembled to deal with the issues raised by the auditor-general, stated that the log squad, what they called the SWAT teams — they wanted 36 people; you've got 18 — must have authority under the Police Act to stop and check trucks and to seize loads. Has the minister taken action to obtain this authority?

HON. MR. PARKER: The Ministry of Forests can seize loads that are improperly marked for which there has been timber theft. It has been done in the past. It's being done now and it will be done in the future. No change.

MR. MILLER: Ministry senior staff have made a number of recommendations. There is a serious loss of revenue in this province. The minister can't identify how much revenue. He can't identify why he hasn't acted.

Mr. Minister, first you go out of your way to rewrite contracts to suit forest companies....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. MILLER: Can the minister inform the House whether he is acting for the forest corporations or the people of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

FOREST INDUSTRY INQUIRY

MR. KEMPF: To the same minister. Given the damning evidence of this report, has the minister now decided to do a full inquiry, whether it be judicial or a royal commission or through the standing select committee of this House, into all aspects — not just scaling, but log movements, the Vancouver log market, the waste that's being left out in the woods.... Has the minister decided to do the right thing on behalf of the people of British Columbia with respect to their primary resource?

HON. MR. PARKER: We always attempt to do the right thing for the people of British Columbia.

MR. KEMPF: One billion dollars still not going into the coffers of this province from a forest industry that it should be coming from, and the minister makes snide remarks?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Has the member got a question?

MR. KEMPF: Yes, I have a question. Is the minister going to act? Is the minister going to call a royal commission or a judicial inquiry into what's going on in the forest industry of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PARKER: I can tell you that we're considering that. Whether or not it will come down is a matter of future policy, and we will deal with it at that time.

MR. KEMPF: One final question to the Premier. Has the Premier decided, given the evidence in an auditor-general's report, to intervene on behalf of his minister and make sure that the revenue that should be coming — and that should have been coming for five decades — from the forest resources of this province into the coffers...? Is he going to intervene and make sure that this happens?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't know whether I heard the question.

MR. KEMPF: Open your ears.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I have every confidence in every member of cabinet, and they'll carry forth their responsibilities in a proper manner. I'm sure the matter will be dealt with according to what's best for the citizens of the province.

SALE OF WESTWOOD LAND

MR. ROSE: I'd like to direct a question or two to the Minister of Government Management Services. This concerns the Westwood lands. Last January the opposition called on the government not to repeat the folly of the Expo lands sales, that is, flogging a valuable parcel of real estate to one single developer. In-

[ Page 6040 ]

stead, we urged the government to consider leasing and selling it to many local B.C. developers. Can the minister confirm that negotiations are currently underway with a single developer for the sale of the Westwood plateau?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for the question. The sale of the Westwood properties is well known. It has been well advertised and advertised internationally. Proposals have been submitted, and the member is well aware of that. I understand some 70 packages were picked up, including one from the NDP caucus, so he's certainly aware of the number of proposals that have been picked up. Yes, 18 firm proposals have been presented to the corporation, and I can advise the member that the 18 proposals have been reviewed and evaluated. There has been a shortlist established of some four, five or six firms, and, yes, negotiations are transpiring.

MR. ROSE: A supplementary. Can the minister confirm that the government is prepared to accept a lump-sum cash payment of some $63 million for the Westwood land from a single developer?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't know where the member got that figure from, nor do I know where the newspapers got it. That figure has certainly never been released by the government. The final negotiations.... In fact, I'm not sure the first meeting has yet been held; I haven't chocked with my staff in the last couple of days. But it's strictly speculative, and where that figure came from this minister has no idea.

[2:45]

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker and the members of this House, that the members on this side of the assembly will go down on record as being in favour of private ownership of land in the province of British Columbia.

MR. ROSE: While the minister is checking his facts, I wonder if he could also confirm that at least one other developer — Triple Five Development — offered the government over six times the price' based on a joint venture, with the government retaining ownership of the land.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, any negotiations transpiring at present are strictly confidential. They are being dealt with by a committee established by the corporation, and I cannot confirm or deny any figures that the member or developers wish to pick out of the air.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT
ON PRIVATIZATION PROCESS

MR. BRUCE: A question to the same minister, in respect of the auditor-general's report. The auditor-general has written that the government's privatization process adequately considers value for money when the government follows a public bidding process. However, the process favours privatization through employees, without public bids. The auditor-

general goes on to say that this preferred process is inadequate to provide the information needed to evaluate the value-for-money consequences of privatization decisions. Could the minister advise the House whether he agrees with this verdict and what impact the auditor-general's comments will likely have on further privatization initiatives?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The auditor-general's report has just been received. Indeed, he is certainly critical of the process whereby direct negotiations were conducted with employees of various ministries. We in government make no apology for the procedure that we followed. We are very proud of the privatization initiatives negotiated to date; we are particularly proud of the negotiations completed with employee groups. They've been tremendously successful across the length and breadth of the province.

Regarding the tail end of the question, Mr. Speaker, that is future action and future policy. The committee will be analyzing the report and making recommendations to cabinet.

Presenting Reports

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee of Selection, and I move that it be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: By leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so I would like to thank the members of the selection committee on both sides of the House and all members in the House who agreed to allow their names to stand for the various committees.

Motion approved.

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. PERRY: Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue the debate from where we left off yesterday, but perhaps in a more congenial spirit. I'm delighted to see a smile on the face of the Premier today. I noticed one yesterday and was looking forward to complimenting

[ Page 6041 ]

him on it, but we ran out of time. It's a very nice sight to see.

I've considered very carefully Mr. Chairman's remarks yesterday, and I'd like to thank the Attorney-General (Hon. S.D. Smith) before he leaves the House. I'd like to express my very sincere appreciation of the generous compliments that he made to me yesterday. Having reread them, I think that some of those who know me a little better, including my family, might think that he went a bit far in his flattering comments about me. They may have been rather extreme, but I appreciate them nonetheless.

Mr. Chairman, I think that there has been a serious misapprehension on the government side as to some of my intentions, and I would like to take the opportunity before the House to correct the misapprehension. Reading the Hansard Blues from yesterday, I've come to the conclusion that members opposite have taken personal offence and interpreted remarks that I made during a political campaign as an accusation of personal corruption on their part. If so, I sincerely regret that they've interpreted my comments that way, and I wish to assure them that I do not regard them as personally corrupt. I mean that very sincerely.

I look forward to working with all members in the House. I said before and I repeat: I appreciate the welcome I've received from most members in the House, and I look forward to serving the public with members from both sides of the House - particularly the government, which ultimately does the business of the people in British Columbia.

I have made remarks that have been strongly critical of government policy. I do not regret those remarks, and I will continue to make some of them in my role as a member of the opposition and a representative of the people of Vancouver-Point Grey. But I would like members of the government, including members of the cabinet, to be clear that I do not regard them as personally corrupt.

I would like to continue the debate on the estimates of the Minister of Government Management Services with one additional question, and I'll try to be very brief. One other issue which concerns my constituents is the matter of the Jericho lands. Having discussed the issue of the Jericho lands with staff and the principal of the Jericho Hill School, my understanding is that there are legitimate reasons presently before the government for the school to be moved to a site in Burnaby. If the school is moved for legitimate reasons and with the consent of the school, as I understand is the government's policy, this raises the question of what will become of those lands presently held under public tenure in a very sensitive site in the city of Vancouver. I would like the minister to reassure the House that the lands will not be subject to disposition through sale, that they will remain under public ownership and control, and that any development of the Jericho lands in the city of Vancouver will proceed only with the consent of, and after full consultation with, the community that surrounds those lands.

That's the only additional question that I had for the minister. I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I thank the member for his interest in those properties. It is indeed a lovely site. I can assure the member that very little thought has been put into the future of those lands: whether they will or will not be disposed of. It's a future policy decision. We have not made any recommendations. No serious discussions have been held by the corporation. There have been no discussions held in committee. But I do thank the member for his interest, and I assure him that there will be a great deal of thought and discussion by the government on that subject.

MR. CASHORE: The question I would like to pursue now has to do with the Expo land deal documents that were tabled in the House a couple of days ago. I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Minister, that it's going to take a long time to wade through that material and really get a sense of everything in its completeness. I do need some assistance, though.

My understanding is that the agreement for the purchase of the Expo lands was made on April 25, 1988, and that the agreement received some wide publicity at that time. Would the minister confirm that?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That is a question directed to me of which.... I was not the minister at the time. I was not in charge of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, and was not involved in the negotiation process. An agreement was signed, and I'm sure the member can read the date on the top right-hand corner. I don't have the agreement in front of me either. The date is certainly available.

I recollect a very large press conference being arranged around the time the deal was signed. I recollect a very large display of the vision of the development of the property. I recollect that one of your members, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams), was seen on television attending that. I'm sure he would be familiar with the precise date. I also recollect very complimentary remarks being made by the first member for Vancouver East. If it's important to the member to have the precise date of the press conference and the media event, perhaps I could have that traced by my staff, or searched through the library, and delivered to the member — if it is really important.

MR. CASHORE: Thank you for that answer, Mr. Minister. We will take it as a given that it was April 25, unless other information is forthcoming. I take it then that there was an agreement dated approximately May 11 — a little over two weeks later — which is referred to as the soils agreement. Would the minister explain to the House just what the relationship is between the soils agreement and the purchase agreement?

[3:00]

[ Page 6042 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The front page of the summary of material on the agreement indicates a $1 million cash deposit on execution of purchase agreement dated April 25, 1988. Then it refers to section B, where it talks about $49 million on closing May 11.

On technical questions regarding soil agreements or anything to do with soil agreements, I must bow to my colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan). The Ministry of Environment has been given responsibility by cabinet to oversee the soil agreement; and indeed, the minister was involved quite deeply in a consultative-advisory manner during the negotiation process — as it was recognized and had been recognized for many, many years. It was well known that that soil was contaminated. As I have said on previous occasions, our corporation and the government are proud of the way in which this has been handled. We take the responsibility. We have accepted the responsibility, as is done in the vast majority of relationships between the vendor and the buyer. In this case, the government has followed what you might say is past precedent in accepting that responsibility, and rightfully so. We will see that that soil is delivered to the buyer in a clean, environmentally acceptable manner. Standards will be set by the Ministry of Environment, and I'm sure those standards will be very acceptable to all bodies, including the city of Vancouver.

MR. CASHORE: You have referred to this being done on the basis of past precedents. I find it unusual that an agreement would be put forward in two phases of two separate agreements spanning two weeks. I think we need some reassurance with regard to what exactly was going on there. After the original agreement was signed, did the purchaser then come to realize there was this problem with contamination, and at that point it behooved the minister who was responsible at the time to make an additional arrangement, which would then explain the signing at a later date? I'd like to hear the minister's comment on that. If it were determined that the Crown was liable because it had knowledge of the contaminants, regardless of the agreements signed, that raises an interesting question in terms of the stewardship of the public purse.

While I'm asking that question, you might give us your thoughts on why the Crown didn't see fit to go after, for instance, Canadian Pacific and Marathon Realty, who were the original owners of the land. The fact is that the province received land that was presumably contaminated prior to the province receiving the land.

If the same principle in law applies — that when Concord Pacific purchased it, it was, ergo, the responsibility of the people of British Columbia, who at that time held title to the land, to cover that responsibility for the polluted land — then does not that same "ergo" apply in the relationship between the people of British Columbia and the previous owner of the land? This is a landowner, as my colleague has pointed out, that is a corporation that on a worldwide basis has certainly done extremely well and been treated in a generous way by the people of Canada throughout its history.

I would like this minister to take his time and explain very carefully to this House why those two agreements were on those two different dates. He says "past precedents." I would think past precedents for most effective agreements of this nature would indicate an agreement all in one package signed on one day. I don't really think it's past precedent to have a supplemental agreement approximately two weeks or so later. There may be an explanation for this. I would encourage this minister to come forward with an explanation on behalf of his government. It's something that the people of British Columbia would like to have explained, and so far I don't think it has been explained.

Two questions. Why the lapse in time between those two agreements? Did that therefore mean that the government had not fully apprised itself of the situation it was dealing with? Maybe it was dealing with people much more sophisticated than they were. If that is the case, then why would the same principles that applied in the agreement between Concord Pacific and the people of British Columbia not apply in the agreement between the people of British Columbia and the previous owners?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: First of all, I take some offence to that remark that the Concord people were more sophisticated than our people. I don't know why the opposition has to continually make-reference to things along those lines. I think they're stooping to a low. I truly take offence on behalf of my staff. I take offence on behalf of the professional negotiators that acted on behalf of government. The member opposite, from Nanaimo, makes remarks that we got taken on the deal. Well, Mr. Chairman, I said it yesterday and I'll repeat it today: those lands were advertised worldwide. If there is one sure way, in the free market system, of finding out precisely what the optimum value of a property such as that is, it is to put the facts out into the open marketplace, as we did internationally. We did that, and we looked at all of the proposals. Our negotiators analyzed those proposals, and sat down and negotiated the final agreement with the leading contender.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I have a lot of difficulty with why we continue to get these snide remarks. Perhaps the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) would like to stand up and give us a full report on the Commonwealth Holding Society and some of the goings-on there back in 1976.

The thing that I would like to say to the member is that perhaps there were different dates on which the officials signed. Perhaps the agreements had been reached on the contents, and all of the documents weren't signed on precisely the same day. But to make a suggestion that this was suddenly discovered, after the hundreds and hundreds of hours that those

[ Page 6043 ]

two parties had been negotiating, I find somewhat inconceivable.

The question of liability. I suppose if we chose, we could perhaps attempt to trace back the person or corporation, the body responsible for the pollution of the land. There are several members in this House who indeed are aware of who the culprit was; I know that the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) would be aware. It was B.C. Electric. They were the ones that ran the gas plant there for many years. Many members, part of this assembly, have worked in that plant; I've heard different ones comment on having worked on this site — the smell, etc.

The body that has now taken over B.C. Electric, we're all aware, is B.C. Hydro, and I suppose there could be an argument put up that we should be asking them to pay for the cost of cleaning up the soil. But, Mr. Chairman, that would be playing ring-around-the-rosy; it would be like taking money out of one pocket and putting it in another, as we indeed do on the sales and transfers of money and the disposition of surpluses at year-end among Crown corporations and government. Indeed, that happens quite regularly on the transferring of land.

The bottom line, looking at the background.... The property was purchased, and we felt at the time that we were paying a good dollar for it. It was in the range of $8 to $10 a foot. The selling price, as reported yesterday, was $45 a square foot. If we hadn't accepted the liability on the soils remediation, the price certainly would have been discounted accordingly. So it would have been a matter of getting in probably three more experts in soil contamination identification, perhaps spending another lump of money in for having thorough analysis and costs identified, and over the bargaining table with the advice of all the consulting firms — the drillers, technicians, consultants and specialists — on just what it would cost to pick up the tab. Had that figure been identified as being in the vicinity of, for example, $18 million, then I think it's quite predictable what the purchaser's response would have been to that clearly identified figure. He would have simply taken $18 million off the selling price of $320 million.

Always remember, Mr. Member, when we are talking about the selling price as being $320 million, we're certainly aware — as the member is aware — that much of this is delayed payment, and that there was no interest, as agreed to at the bargaining table, built into the amount owing.

When speaking of the $320 million selling price, one must also take into consideration the provincial participation regarding density. We are still reasonably convinced that the density will be finally agreed upon well in excess of the 12 million square feet that was identified as the base figure in the negotiated agreement with Concord. Indeed, Mr. Member, we are still predicting a figure somewhere in the range of $150 million, and it could be as high as $190 million. Taking the middle figure of $170 million and adding that to the $320 million, we could conceivably end up with a final sale price of some $490 million not $320 million. That is in the future. Negotiations are currently going on, as the member is aware, with the city of Vancouver — planners, engineers and negotiators. I am sure that not a week goes by — probably not a day — when meetings, discussions, telephone calls or letters aren't being exchanged.

[3:15]

1 am certainly pleased that the government of the day decided to do what they did. I think it was a wise decision. A simple example is the amount the developer has put into that project already in the way of consulting fees, legal fees, and thousands of hours of meetings and negotiations. Concord must have spent millions of dollars to this date getting the planning process underway, and there is still no sign of an early agreement with the city of Vancouver.

In the meantime, we have had at least the $50 million in the bank, and I am sure that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) has invested that wisely. It has probably already grown in excess of $55 million, and that is with extremely little time and effort of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation or employees of the provincial government.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Minister, I don't really believe that you have answered my question about why the same rules do not apply when a contract is being developed between the people of British Columbia and Concord Pacific as would apply in a deal between the people of British Columbia and the corporation from which the land was originally purchased. One can only assume that since there was that time-gap after the writing of the main agreement, the soils agreement must have, in some way, come along out of left field. There just has not been a legitimate answer forthcoming with regard to this.

My understanding is that the purchase agreement was on an as-is, where-is basis — with one exception. That one exception was in paragraph 503(a), where it pertains to this soils agreement. It's very interesting that it would be called an as-is, where-is agreement, except in this situation that has resulted in a Pandora's box for the people of British Columbia, who have responsibility for an incredible environmental problem that the people of Vancouver are really concerned about. It appears that there are very serious concerns about the type of process that might be used. Hence, the consultant's report goes through a wide range of possibilities, all the way up to one that costs $480 million. Hopefully you'll find something that doesn't cost nearly that amount, but it still means that the people of British Columbia are being saddled with it.

Not only that, why on earth did the province agree to pay all the cleanup costs, including an additional 3 percent for Concord to manage the cleanup? Surely, Mr. Minister, when you speak in a very proud way about what you say is a wonderful agreement, couldn't you even accept the fact that the purchaser should have some responsibility in this, if indeed you are not able to claim responsibility of the person from whom you purchased the property?

[ Page 6044 ]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't know how one goes about answering ridiculous statements. I did my very best yesterday to explain this in detail, but the member keeps coming back to this $480 million cleanup cost. It's so ridiculous it really doesn't deserve comment. It is ridiculous and irresponsible to suggest that the figure would be anywhere near that, because it will be a very small fraction of that.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member says I didn't answer his question. I thought I had answered his question. The previous owner of the property was the CPR. My understanding is that the CPR obtained the property from B.C. Electric.

I suppose what the member would like to see happen is for the provincial government and the B.C. Enterprise Corporation to start on a long legal treadmill of suing the CPR and spending taxpayers' money, to the tune of millions of dollars. I can tell you that the cost of lawyers handling a case such as that would run in the range of $195 an hour, and I can imagine the fun the legal profession would have with an attempted suit along those lines. There'd be a real field day over in the big city, while the working stiffs are up in the interior, out in the woods cutting down the trees, priming the pump, and the farmers are out in the fields trying to get by with a portion of the income, pouring tax dollars into the province, and we are going out and taking on the CPR in a lawsuit for full indemnity of that soil.

Then, if that suit was successful, I suppose we could expect a duplication of the entire process. We would then have the CPR suing B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro would have to hire an equally large battery of high-priced lawyers to fight the case put forward by the CPR. And so we would go; the clock would be running. I'm sure they would have a field day for at least six or eight years on that one.

Who would pay? I suggest to the member that the people of the province would pay, because they would run up millions of dollars in legal fees to end up suing themselves. The bottom line would be that B.C. Hydro would end up paying the full cost of the cleanup of the soil, whatever that figure might be -$16 million, $18 million, perhaps $20 million - and in the meantime the legal profession would have a real field day for six or eight years.

No, Mr. Member, this government did the responsible thing. We're concerned with the soil on those lands, and we're concerned about the environment. We accepted the responsibility and we signed an agreement with Concord assuring them that that soil would be cleaned up and paid for and would meet the high standards set out by the Minister of Environment.

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Chairman, this is incredible. The minister goes along with all of his charity, saying: "Why should this group have to pay? Why should CPR have to pay? Why should this polluter have to pay?" But then he says: "The people of BritishColumbia have to pay." If he's not saying that, it's tantamount to saying that, because that's the kind of deal they effected. He hasn't been able to explain why they worked out a deal signed on April 25, which seemed to have forgotten about all of this.

He talks about this government being very concerned about the condition of the environment, etc. Presumably it had that knowledge. Why did it not avoid the embarrassment you're going through right now, not only in this House but throughout the province — why didn't your predecessor avoid it? — by having that worked into the agreement signed on April 25, if you were so sure at that time that you were coming forward with an agreement that was protecting the environment of that area on behalf of the people of British Columbia?

I submit to you, Mr. Minister, that we're dealing here with something incredibly incompetent that was going on at that time. 'You haven't been able to say whether or not your government tried to effect a deal without reference to the contamination - the deal signed on April 25. You haven't said that and you aren't going to say it, because you are going to try to evade it because it's so embarrassing to your government.

We have this situation that is really very difficult. Yet you, Mr. Minister, don't seem to understand that the same principles that apply in an agreement between your government and Concord should also apply between your government and the people from whom you purchased the property. When you're going on about how this is ever going to work out, I'd suggest that you get in touch with the people who administer Superfund in the United States. They are far more up to speed in terms of protecting the public interest than this government is. I would suggest that if you were to get in touch with Superfund and find out how it works, you would see that there is indeed a workable solution to this type of dilemma, one that's been working and protecting taxpayers in other jurisdictions.

One of the questions I asked you that you didn't answer — I'd like to get your answer on the record — is how you justify including a 3 percent fee to Concord for managing the cleanup. Surely the purchaser of this has some responsibility with regard to this part of the situation. Couldn't you even negotiate that if they were going to be managing it, they would at least see that as their fair share? Can't you people negotiate anything?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: If I could interrupt our debate for just a moment, I'd like to welcome a group to our gallery today on behalf of the members for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy and Mr. Mowat). They are students from the bridge program from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in the great constituency of Vancouver-Little Mountain.

[ Page 6045 ]

They are here today with their teacher, Mr. Campbell. Would the House please make them welcome.

[3:30]

In response to the member on the 3 percent commission, clearly a decision made across the negotiating table.... I'm not sure whether the member has ever sat at a negotiating table, but I can assure him.... He's nodding his head that he has. I was about to say that if he hasn't sat at a negotiating table, then there are many members over there who have sat at negotiating tables — in fact, I have sat with one of them — who could explain the process of negotiation. Negotiating an agreement such as this, although much more elaborate and more involved, with tremendous hours involved, is not much different in its overall format than negotiating a collective agreement, whether it be with teachers, professors or the BCGEU. There is a negotiation process, in which people sit down over a number of days, weeks or months — certainly months in this instance — and identify problems. They draft a framework for the discussions at the table, and one by one, through the process, items fall off the table and are agreed upon. They are written down and put into legal language, and eventually an agreement is either made or not made.

In this particular instance, it became a done deal. Involved in that agreement was a provision that a 3 percent commission would be paid to Concord by the corporation to oversee and manage the cleanup of the site. It was considered by both parties at the table, or I'm sure the document would have never been signed. On the day of the signing, the parties felt it to be fair, equitable and part of the overall pluses and minuses built into that massive document, which covered some five volumes.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore), who just left the House, apologizes for leaving in the midst of the minister's reply, and thanks him for his reply. He says he'll be looking forward to reading it in Hansard. He said: "It didn't sound very good, but I'm sure it will read well."

I wonder if I might turn to something else. I've had enough of Concord Pacific right now, and as the person in charge of a critic....

MR. BRUCE: You're all alone.

MR. ROSE: This usually happens when I get up to speak, but I'm not unduly depressed by it. Those who are here will be listening, I think — at least I hope so.

What I'd like to do is go onto something else and lob the minister a few marshmallows to do with the very interesting golden handshake given to one David Poole. We haven't heard much about this lately, and I think this would be an excellent opportunity to discuss it, since we don't appear to be going anywhere anyway. I wonder if the minister, since he's really in charge of severance and pensions, could detail his and the superannuation commissioner's role in the process. What do you do? What is the nature of the minister's role now that he has taken over this interesting grab-bag of departments, commissions, etc.?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member brings up a subject that.... He is certainly well aware, as a result of a great deal of public discussion, that the government has appointed former Chief Justice Nemetz to conduct a study on the entire matter of pensions and severance policies of government. The facts are well known. The study that has been commissioned in the hands of former Chief justice is well underway, and I'm sure the member would not want me to prejudge the results of that study in any way.

We certainly look forward to receiving the report. We have asked him, as the member is aware, to examine the current policy of this government. We have asked him to look at other jurisdictions, and I'm sure he will. I'm sure the appointed person will make inquiries of other provinces — probably of all the provinces. I'm not sure how many, but I would think he would inquire of all provinces. I'm sure he will travel and have personal discussions with some of the main provinces, and sit down with them to do a thorough analysis, a detailed review of how other jurisdictions, particularly governments, handle cases of retirement, severance pay and pension benefits. I hope the member will find that our past policies have not been much different from those of other provinces. I hope he will, but he may not, and if we are out of step, either too high or too low, then I would fully expect recommendations to be forthcoming for changes to be brought to my attention so that I will have the opportunity to discuss those recommendations with my senior staff and take recommendations on to the executive council. But until such time as that review has been completed and I have received the report, I am unable in any way to prejudge what the former Chief Justice might say or indeed make any comment to the member regarding things that might be contained in the report.

MR. ROSE: It looks as if we're going to have a magnificent future, because Mr. Justice Nemetz is a well-respected jurist and known to many of us for his exemplary service on behalf of the province over the years. But that doesn't explain the past. I want to know what happened.

I would just like to remind the minister of the chronology of this affair — this unfortunate affair, in a lot of people's minds.

On August 4, 1988, Mr. Poole's departure from the Premier's office was announced for September 30. The Premier asserted that the decision was Poole's alone and said: "I deeply regret that he has made it." Mr. Poole took with him a severance package of some $97,000 and his pension rights with an amortized cost of well in excess of $100,000.

On September 4 we learned that Mr. Poole had left early in the wake of the Knight Street Pub report, identifying specific interference by Poole in favour of friends and insiders of the government, namely Mr. Charles Giordano. I know his case is before the

[ Page 6046 ]

courts, so I won't comment on it, other than to state the fact that he was a former campaign manager of the Premier.

On September 14 the Minister of Government Management Services and the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) signed a cabinet order, and I have it here, giving recognition to Mr. Poole's stint of five years and two months with the Alberta and Saskatchewan college system. The order is interesting in that it requires no client cash contribution from Mr. Poole such as average employees pay, and it is not signed by the superannuation commissioner, John Cook.

One of the early questions I would have is: why not? I've got the cabinet order of September 2 about a former employee who had to cough up $52,000 to cover his period with the government. Another one here was asked to cough up $30,000. Interestingly enough, even a member of this House was asked to cough up some $500 to cover her worth. A person from Hong Kong was also part of that package.

Interestingly enough, this Mr. Poole was given this expensive golden handshake signed by the Minister of Government Management Services and the presiding member of the executive council, Mr. Richmond, who is the Minister of Social Services and Housing. But in stark contrast to all the other orders in-council, this one was not signed either by the legal officer in the case — I can't read his name, but it looks like Mowat, superannuation commissioner and the statutory authority.... I can't read this either. It looks like McIlargy, but I don't think it is. Adamson on one. Anyway, they're all signed, except this one. Virtually every one made contributions, except one Marie Taylor, who got credit somehow, for nothing, for years she worked for Simpson-Sears in Ontario. You will recall that Mrs. Taylor was a former head of the Utilities Commission.

So that's an interesting question: why did he get special treatment? Why was there no signature either by the legal officer or the superannuation commissioner? I suspect that the superannuation commissioner wouldn't do it; he is a very cautious man and didn't want to be part of this.

Anyway, going on with the chronology, on November 16, when confronted with the details of Poole's severance, the Premier said: "I guess they have a pretty neat deal in government." He also said he had no idea what the severance provisions for Poole were, and the Minister of Finance said his only part was to give strict instructions that Poole was to be treated no differently from anybody else. I bet he wasn't treated any differently than anybody else! Anybody who will believe that will believe in the tooth fairy. He took a big bite out of us on this one.

On November 18, 1988, the amortized cost of Poole's pension settlement is estimated to be $112,500, excluding any provision for indexing. I'm not opposed to indexing. I think it's the only way we can save our pensions, and that we don't systematically rob people who are being retired. But that's another debate.

November 21, 1988: Social Credit research director Marlyn Brown circulates a memo to Socred MLA constituency offices defending the Poole pension settlement as fair. Mr. Brown wrote: "Of course, Mr. Poole's resignation was agreed upon by all parties, but it goes without saying that his decision was prompted by outside pressures and through no fault of his own...." The former Minister of Economic Development expresses unhappiness with Poole's severance, and well she might.

The Minister of Government Management Services says: "Official severance policy is to be fair and reasonable in light of all circumstances." This is a report in the Province on November 22, 1988. "Former deputy labour minister Graham Leslie announced that the Premier was personally in charge of approving his severance package" — meaning Leslie's — "and that the Premier hates the idea of giving severance pay to departing civil servants." I don't know whether Mr. Poole was civil or uncivil, but he certainly was departing.

On November 23, Judge Nathan Nemetz was appointed to look into the severance policy. The Leader of the Opposition asks if Mr. Poole was fired for cause, as it seems to imply in the press release. How could he walk away with close to $100,000?

Secondly, I want to know who approved that sweetheart deal. Auditor-general George Morfitt is reported to have been investigating how the severance was calculated. On November 29, 1988, Harcourt asks the Premier for suspension of section 34(4) of the Pension (Public Service) Act which provided authority for recognizing Mr. Poole's out-of-province service.

In a letter, Mr. Harcourt asked the Minister of Government Management Services a number of questions. I will go through them very rapidly because I know some people are very tired of hearing about this arrangement with Mr. Poole:

"The Leader of the Opposition requests you provide answers to the following questions:

"What Crown and employee contributions, if any, were made which are not included in the 11 OICs passed under section 34(4) since September '87? In the case of David Poole, does the absence of any payment whatsoever mean no payments were made?

"If no payments were made, then how will the new public pension commitments to Mr. Poole be financed?

"Under what guidelines of your department is pensionable service as far back as 1950 and as far away as Hong Kong and Scotland being recognized by order-in-council?

"What assurance can you provide that David Poole or any other public servant receiving pensionable service under section 34(4) is not double-dipping?

"What assurance can you provide that section 3 (4) orders are not being used as a form of compensation for departing employees?

"Finally, why was this particular order granting pensionable service not signed by the Superannuation Commission?"

[3:45]

Those are some pretty important questions. That letter has never been answered.

[ Page 6047 ]

On December 1, more questions were asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this House. On December 8, Mr. Harcourt, the Leader of the Opposition, asked Nemetz to investigate Poole's pension package. The auditor general, George Morfitt, suspends his investigation — and this is a crucial point — to allow Justice Nemetz to address the issue of Poole's departure.

On December 13, 1988, Nemetz confirms that the focus of his inquiry is future policy, not Poole's severance. That's at odds with what the minister just told us. Either he doesn't know or he has accidentally misled this House. I'd like him to consider that. Why would he say that Mr. Nemetz is going to look into Mr. Poole's severance, while Mr. Nemetz, the respected judge, denies this?

December 22: Nemetz declines to investigate Poole package, saying his mandate is future policy. The minister across the way replies to Harcourt's November 29 letter, saying: "Further comments would be inappropriate until Mr. Nemetz has had the opportunity to conduct his inquiry." Those are awfully difficult contradictions for me, in my rather limited intelligence and experience, to understand. The minister says: "Nemetz is looking into Poole and I can't talk about that until that happens." Then Nemetz, the judge, says: "I'm not. I'm not looking into what happened, but what should happen in future."

December 28: the Leader of the Opposition calls for the Premier to stop payment of any further payouts to Poole. This was in response to reports that Poole had received $51,000 from the government in 1989.

I'd like to ask further: the policy of severance pay was drafted in 1983. It seeks graduated pension benefits and severance benefits depending on the level of employee, the income, how long he'd been with the government, etc. A senior management position would entitle the loftiest one to five months, according to this policy. Was the policy changed in August '87? I'd like to know what the policy is now. Is there a policy, number one? Was the policy changed in August 1987? What is the new policy? When did it change and who changed it? I think if we could start with that, we might be able to shed a little light on this particular issue.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I certainly apologize if I misled this House, if I in any way suggested that Nemetz's report was going to have any effect on anything that has already been done. I apologize if I left that impression, because that certainly was not my intent.

The former Chief Justice is certainly going to be looking at the government policy that was in place and making recommendations for any changes needed in the future. Drawing from that, Mr. Member, I would have to say that the policy in place at the time—- or parts of it, or the perimeters within which it fell — certainly led to the recommendations made and eventually signed by two members of the executive council.

The question of why did we sign.... It was an order-in-council. It was brought to the cabinet chamber. The cabinet in its wisdom made a decision on approving the recommendation as written out. The decision was made by the executive council. It has the authority and the right to make such decisions. The responsibility rests on their shoulders and, indeed, the two people required to sign, as the member has named them, signed the OIC on behalf of the executive council.

The question about why it didn't perhaps go a different route.... I would suggest to the member that the person we're talking about in this case is the most senior civil servant in government. There is no one any higher in the civil servant category. Not only was he a deputy minister, but he was the senior deputy minister, reporting directly to the Premier.

The reason for Mr. Poole's departure and the technicalities of it are clearly outside my jurisdiction, and I don't think they are subjects for the House to be discussing today. But certainly the most senior civil servant of government had a parting of the ways, and government in its wisdom looked at the alternatives, at policy, at past policy and would have looked at what might have come out of many months, or perhaps years, of battles in our court system.

I can tell the member from personal experience that it is indeed a very lengthy, costly process for both parties to embark on. It is a very rare occurrence in government in situations of involuntary departure that civil, fair-minded people are not able to negotiate a settlement without turning to the courts. In my experience in this ministry, I can't think of any single case — I'm not saying there hasn't been one; I can't think of one in my experience as a minister — where we haven't been able to settle severance disputes away from the courts. I can say and I have said in the past that I am familiar with other settlements that have been made that have been for as much or more than what was given in this particular case.

The base-rate cost of living. Looking, as an example, at the IWA base rate in January 1, 1976, $6.14 an hour, and looking at that base rate today in 1989, and doing an examination of what is fair and equitable on a percentage basis in relationship to those base rates I can tell the member opposite that there were much more generous awards given in the area of pensions....

MR. ROSE: For severance?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: For severance. ...back in 1976. Maybe it has to do with the first name; I'm not sure. Maybe the secret to this whole thing is having David as a first name. But there was one David Cass-Beggs, who received a tremendously generous pension, signed by the government in 1975; it was an order-in-council piloted through the executive council by the minister of the day, who sits in this House representing Vancouver East. There are others as well as David Cass-Beggs who we could put on the record. But it was extremely overly generous, in looking at what was fair in '76 compared to what you would relate as being fair today.

[ Page 6048 ]

Yes, we try to be fair and equitable when making decisions and judgments on matters such as this. It's a sensitive matter. We don't like going to the courts and hiring these high-priced lawyers to fight the battles on our behalf, which forces the other party to do the same. We know and the member knows that past experience has proven that you can burn more money away through legal battles than it would cost to settle the dispute amicably.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

As far as the details of the package are concerned, there have been a lot of figures bandied around the corridors. The member knows full well the position of the government and my position, which is that matters such as these are dealt with on a confidential basis. Indeed, many agreements that we have with senior people include severance arrangements, and they include confidentiality clauses that are built into the agreement. So to break or violate any of those things would be most improper.

I'm certain, Mr. Chairman, that the member is well aware that this is not unusual. It is the precise, exact policy that is followed by all public bodies. The practice is followed by school boards. When dealing with personnel matters, the doors are closed; the meetings are held in camera. The same policy is practised by all councils. Indeed, the record will show that the former mayor of the city of Vancouver, the current Leader of the Opposition, would close the door and excuse the press when deciding on matters of severance and personnel matters. He need not make any apology for that, because that is the practice wherever you go. It's the practice at the municipal level, the school board level, the regional level, the provincial level; it's the practice at the federal level. Indeed, matters such as this in the private sector, by and large, are done confidentially. And that is for the respect of the employee, Mr. Member. We don't wish to drag his name through the meat-grinder and advertise to the world.

[4:00]

It's a decision, and it's a policy decision not only by this provincial government but by other provincial governments. It's my understanding that the former government in Saskatchewan and the one that just about got wiped off the map in Manitoba a short time ago used to practise the same policy as this government. So we make no apologies for that, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: I notice that there was a rather weak defence by the minister of the practices. I understand the confidentiality. But orders-in-council are not confidential; they're public documents, and I was relating to them. I asked why the superannuation commissioner didn't sign this one, when all the others were signed by both him and a legal officer? Why is this the only one sent directly to the Lieutenant-Governor?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Perhaps when I answered that, the member was having a personal discussion with one of his other colleagues across the way, because I distinctly answered the question very early on.

The answer to the question is that Mr. Poole held a particular senior position. Not only was he a deputy; he was the senior deputy, the Premier's deputy and the chief senior civil servant in the province. The member certainly isn't suggesting that the situation should be that senior deputy reporting to the Premier should have the privilege or the authority, prior to departure, to instruct his subordinates to work out the arrangements and sign a document such as this.

It would seem logical to me, and I will be extremely interested in receiving the Nemetz report. I'm looking forward to the recommendations, I'm looking forward to seeing what goes on in other jurisdictions. I want to know whether we are right or wrong in our current policy. I want to be comfortable with current policy. I don't want us to be extraordinarily high, and I don't want us to be extraordinarily low. I like to look at what the averages are, what's here and what's there. Let's look at what's fair and equitable.

That's not much different from looking at negotiation processes or all kinds of other things. We continually ask ourselves how they do it in other jurisdictions, or what they are paying over there, or what's the policy over here. We do that continually. The explanation is as given and as I said earlier, when I believe you were having a conversation with one of your colleagues.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his reply, and I'll attempt to thread through the steps of the obfuscator's waltz. I don't understand what he's saying. Every one of these other orders was signed by the superannuation commissioner, Mr. Cook, and many by Mr. Adamson. I want to know if Mr. Poole was fired.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: My response to that question many months ago was that we had a parting of the ways. The answer to the question put to me by the press, not too long ago, was that we do not pay severance to anyone.... As a matter of fact, if you check the record, you'll find that I put out a release some time ago stating that we do not pay pensions to anyone who leaves voluntarily. That was stated many months ago, and I think that answers the member's question.

MR. ROSE: I take it then that the minister is telling us that, due to the fact that Mr. Poole received a fairly substantial golden handshake, he was indeed fired — by definition.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I will say it one more time. My understanding of the situation is that Mr. Poole did not depart from government voluntarily.

MR. ROSE: If he didn't depart from government voluntarily and you don't give severance pay to those who are fired, then will you please tell the House what justification there was for the government to

[ Page 6049 ]

give this estimable gentleman this enormous golden handshake and a kiss on both cheeks?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that Mr. Poole wasn't fired. What I did say, and I'll say it one more time, was that he did not leave the services of government voluntarily.

MR. ROSE: Honestly, I can't.... The question is: did he fall or was he pushed? That's all we need to know. Government employees who leave voluntarily do not get severance pay. Right. Government employees who are fired do not get severance pay. Then how does Mr. Poole get severance pay?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I haven't said, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Poole was fired. I didn't say that. I did say that he didn't leave voluntarily. And I have not said that people who are fired don't get severance pay. I have never said that. I'm not saying that under certain arrangements people who are fired.... I have not said that under certain circumstances they do not receive severance pay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate is very interesting, but Hansard is going to try and record this, and when the members and the minister speak across without being recognized, it's very difficult for Hansard to record it. At some time in the future this particular debate may be very interesting, for people who aren't in the chamber today, to read in Hansard. I'd ask the opposition House Leader to wait till he's recognized and then proceed. I recognize you now, sir.

MR. ROSE: Well, I'm looking at 34(4) in the policy, and the policy is certainly quite clear on this subject. I virtually give up on this line of questioning, which I suppose....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, don't give up.

MR. ROSE: You want some more?

I'd like to know if 34(4) is still the policy. On page 4 of this 34(4) — this was the pre-Poole policy manual for people — you have several levels: senior management, middle management, lower management, special staff.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, cess-Poole.

Senior management, more than $50,000 a year: I think that would define Mr. Poole. Length of service: one month to a year gets five months; two weeks per year after eight years, if he's 41 to 55; he still only gets five months. This guy got something like $175,000, if you consider indexing and all the other parts of it. That's why I wonder. I'm not interested in comparison to Cass-Beggs. This was a contractual thing, to bring this man in to head B.C. Hydro, and his contract included the provision that if the government was defeated he would have to leave. He left a very senior position. He didn't come from being an instructor at a junior college or a community college;

he came as an acknowledged energy and hydro expert. Besides, he didn't leave in disgrace. He left with an admirable record, and one that I think we could all emulate. So if his severance pay might be similar, the conditions were entirely different, and that doesn't excuse this at all.

I would like to know: if Mr. Poole was not fired, then why was he granted such a tremendous amount of severance pay, when your policy obviously does not cover this? Why wouldn't the public have a right to suspect that he was given this generous amount because he knew where all the bodies were buried? Maybe we bought more than just his loyalty; we may have bought his silence.

MR. LOVICK: Omerta.

MR. ROSE: Pardon?

MR. LOVICK: Omerta. It's the Mafia's's code of silence.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I see. I thought you were in pain for a moment there.

I am quite interested in the minister's attempt to answer this question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: There are a lot of reasons why people separate, why there's a parting of the ways. The member is trying to use the hard word "fired." Why doesn't he talk about a mutually agreeable departure or a negotiated parting of the ways? There are lots of things taken into consideration. The member knows that, and so does the member for Nanaimo.

I'm sure that if we were to examine the college in Nanaimo, we would find arrangements that were made without a lot of hullabaloo, where two people sat down and said: "Look, it's not working out, I think we'd better have a parting of the ways; I think it's time. We'll seek some advice without spending buckets of money on legal fees" — as indeed we sought and obtained advice. We consulted with senior staff in government, and we received advice.

Yes, I feel that the authority in this particular case, as I've stated before, rested with the executive council because of the stature of this individual. I think that if the member would just reflect on other cases, other situations.... Common sense, reason, good judgment, fairness and equity, alternatives — all of those types of things have to be taken into consideration. I can state emphatically that there were no political considerations involved in the negotiations with Mr. Poole on my behalf or on behalf of any of my colleagues that I'm familiar with.

[4:15]

MR. ROSE: With due deference to Hansard, and their desire to get everything right so people can read these words 40 years from now — I'm quite sure I won't be able to — can the minister explain, as the guardian of the public purse, the staunch defender of the public purse that he poses to be this afternoon, why, in order-in-council 1781, Mr. James Joseph —

[ Page 6050 ]

I've deliberately left his surname out — 65, had to make up his public service superannuation fund contribution in the amount of $52 000 to cover that period, and the B.C. Ferry Corporation was required to make a contribution to this fund of about $61,000? How do you explain that?

Compare that to another estimable gentleman from Hong Kong. He was employed for four years and three months in the period January 1, 1965... in Hong Kong with the Hong Kong social welfare department: "...that this be recognized as pensionable service," and the Crown be required to make up some $30,000 and this man nothing. I can name others who were asked to contribute $45,000, but other people got away with nothing.

Here's Marie Taylor, for instance — a five-year period with Sears Canada in Toronto: "...that this be recognized as pensionable service." Why? We don't even pay our constituency secretaries or assistants for pensionable service, on either side of the House. Yet here it comes if you work for Sears. Mrs. Taylor paid nothing, and the Crown paid $45,000 for her pensionable service, She was a member of the Utilities Commission.

I don't know how this works. Poole comes in and he pays nothing. He gets the golden handshake. There's no record of anything he paid. Who paid it? Where's the money coming from? It's not coming out of the superannuation fund; I don't think Mr. Cook would be that loose. He's the guardian of the public purse, and I have reason to believe that. How do you explain that Marie Taylor, the daughter of a one-time Socred MLA, and David Poole, the principal secretary to the Premier, got pension rights and paid nothing? And the minister says there were no political considerations! Again, I find it difficult to reconcile those statements.

The whole thing is full of contradictions. It's a virtual tortuous maze of contradictions. I don't see how anybody can have confidence in what the minister.... He's trying very hard. I wouldn't say he's not trying to the best of his ability to provide reasonable answers, but you can't provide reasonable answers to unreasonable propositions, and you have the difficult job of attempting to defend the indefensible. So tell us about Taylor, tell us about Poole and why these other poor guys had to pay up to $61 000. Here's one who was nailed for $20,000; another one, $30,000; a member of this House as an MLA had to pay $500 — no political consideration there. It's just not credible, and quite frankly, I think it's highly aromatic.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: As in a lot of cases such as this, I'm sure that a lot of good will come about from the discussion, and a lot of positive things will come about as a result of the Nemetz report. As I said earlier, I'm truly looking forward to receiving that, and perhaps we can get at some of these things that the member is talking about: the Hong Kong service and department stores and things like that. I can assure the member that the former Chief Justice has access to all these OICs that the member has referred to. He certainly has complete, free access to all those documents, and indeed to lots of other government documents. We have been working and will be continuing to work very closely with the Chief Justice.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the money was paid out of government funds. That's the responsibility of the executive council. As someone once said: "The buck stops here." It has the responsibility to make decisions and to manage, and that was the decision made — somewhat different from the $80,000 paid to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). That was paid from bingo funds, elderly ladies playing bingo in Nanaimo making their contribution to the Commonwealth Holding Society. And they pay out $80,000 to the former minister, $2,000 a month. I'm still not sure whether he received interest on that $80,000. I learned as recently as late yesterday that the $80,000 actually didn't stay in the hands of the Commonwealth Holding Society. Do you know that the money was put in the hands of a law firm and then into a trust account? I bet it was an interest-bearing account. A brand-new revelation. I just heard that late last night. I'm sure we know who got the interest. Paid for from bingo funds and bake sales, a lot of people putting a lot of work and effort into that, $80,000 to do research and plans on a $500,000 piece of property. My goodness!

Getting back to the question at hand: yes, decisions are made, and unfortunately, they are not all equal. That's life. I suppose what the members opposite would suggest is that we have a single figure, and everybody gets it whether they work for six months, 20 months or 20 years. But I can tell you that situations of this nature are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Yes, we have a policy. Yes, we have a framework that we expect discussions and negotiations to fall within.

But judgment calls are made. In listening to the best advice we had available on this case, we decided on the OIC as presented. As the member is aware, we are embarking on a thorough review of our policy, through the former Chief Justice, and of policies across this country, to see how we stack up. I'm sure the Chief Justice will be delivering that report to us very shortly, and we will be reading it over closely and examining his recommendations clause by clause. We will be going over it — not only myself but my senior staff — and reviewing the former Chief Justice's advice, taking the report to my colleagues in cabinet, and either at the time the report is delivered to my colleagues or shortly thereafter, we will be taking recommendations, if needed, for future government policy to my colleagues.

MR. ROSE: Some witty member — cynically, I think, and certainly humorously — recently observed that if Mr. Poole had left in half the time, he might have been worth twice as much. However, I wasn't that closely acquainted with his work. As Senator Everett Dirksen once said: "A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon it runs into real money." If we're going to look after the public purse and have the people confident that we're treating everybody fairly, and it is indeed not political, then the record of

[ Page 6051 ]

the past few months has not been erased. But it certainly has to be corrected.

MR. LOVICK: I think the time has come to change the tone somewhat, if I might put it that way. May I begin first though, Mr. Chairman, by asking the House leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Those of you who have spent any amount of time in this chamber for the last two years will have noticed that there is one individual who probably spends more time in this chamber than any other single person — in the galleries, at least. He is probably one of the most well-informed, knowledgeable individuals in the entire province of British Columbia.

He seems especially well informed because he always responds favourably to all of my utterances. Therefore I take great delight in welcoming and would ask you to please join me in welcoming Mr. Bill Kirkness.

Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity to participate in the debate on the Government Management Services portfolio. To begin that, I have to say that I have some difficulty when I hear the minister constantly admonishing others for impugning his integrity in some way, shape or form. Then instantly he turns to a regular batch of ammunition he carries with him that I think demonstrates the sense of fair play of a ferret.

The individual constantly wants to refer to members who aren't present in this chamber and are not able to defend themselves and wants to talk about issues that, quite frankly, go much beyond anything to do with the business of this chamber. I am referring to the references to my former seatmate, who is currently the Member of Parliament for Nanaimo Cowichan. I am referring to the numerous references to the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society and to bingo games. I am referring to this $80,000 payoff.

I hope we could set to rest that whole rather silly debate by just reminding the minister of one elementary point: he surely — if anybody — ought to recognize that there is a distinction between private moneys and public moneys. We are in this chamber to talk about the expenditure of public moneys. That is our purpose and our responsibility.

That minister, whenever the heat becomes a little intense and he is bereft of ammunition to fight back decides to change the subject and to engage in those kinds of arguments. If the minister is sincere when h tells us that he believes in the code of conduct for this chamber, and that we ought to acquit ourselves honourably and fairly, then for heaven's sake let him once and for all resolve that he will no longer make use of those — fairly called, I think — cheap shots.

They don't belong in this chamber; they have n relevance whatsoever to what we're discussing, Mr. Minister. You know it, I know it and members of this chamber know it, So let's forget that. Please grant u that, Mr. Minister.

Now let's talk a bit about Government Management Services. I want to begin with a very straightforward question. I have listened now for two days to the discussions in the chamber. I have listened to the minister's efforts to answer questions and to explain things, but I do not yet have — and I am prepared to acknowledge it may be my failing — any clear sense of just what this new ministry is and does.

[4:30]

I know that it has responsibility for a number of Crown corporations and for commissions. I know that it presides over the privatization and — I am trying to remember the other name of that organization — communications division. I know that it has a number of those responsibilities, but I am wondering about the thing itself called Government Management Services.

I want to refer to the first item in the vote description under "Administration and Support Services." As I say, this is merely to elicit some information; I have no other agenda. I quote: "This subvote provides for administration and support to the ministry including executive and general administration, financial and personnel management, and information systems." Fine; straightforward, characteristic of any ministry vote. But then it says: "Provision is also made for some services for the Legislature and office of the Premier." Further, it goes on to say: "This subvote also provides for cabinet committee expenses and travel expenses within Canada for members of the executive council, ministers of state, parliamentary secretaries and related staff."

It sounds pretty clear to me that this Government Management Services entity moves into a number of other jurisdictions as well. I wonder if I might then start by asking the minister to please explain to me just what the divisions are. Is some part of the regional development operation being paid for by your ministry votes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed to the minister, I might comment on a little bit of night reading for the members. We seem to be getting slightly off the subject of what is appropriate to discuss in Committee of Supply, and I'm quoting from — the nineteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, page 741. If members have an opportunity to read that at their leisure, perhaps we'll have the debate a little more closely confined to the actual terms of reference of what we're supposed to debate, which is the administrative responsibility of the ministry.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, could I just point out the irony of your timing. I think I'm probably the person closest to having been directly in order for some time, and I would just like to clarify that your utterance was not directed to my comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, Mr. Member you are quite correct. Your debate was in order, and I was hoping other members might wish to emulate it as their model in this committee. I believe it's the first time in some time that we've heard debate

[ Page 6052 ]

that's in order. I would ask members of the executive council and other members of the House to consider that. Page 741 is the reference for you.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: If the member would read my opening remarks in the Blues when I started on Monday at around 2:40 p.m., I think he'll find in there a pretty good review of the kind of areas within my jurisdiction. He'll find that we have within our ministry a lot of Crown corporations — many more than show on the surface, I might add. We have all kinds of mini and small Crown corporations that you don't hear about very often.

I might just add as a footnote that I'm doing my very best behind the scenes to wrap up a lot of these old Crown corps that have been on the books and the public accounts for years and years. Some hold little or no assets; some hold random amounts. We're trying to consolidate and transfer and clean up the backlog to lower the cost of overhead and legal fees and registrations, and all of these kinds of things. Give us another year, and I think you'll be pleased with the cleaning up that happens as a result of the efforts of this ministry.

I want the member to know that I took cognizance of what he said regarding the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society. I'll give you my pledge that I will never mention the word in the chamber again, with the understanding that the member will give that same lecture — and I know I'll have his assurance — to his very close seatmate from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Perhaps we could clear up a few things from the past if that lecture was given to him.

MR. LOVICK: You're too subtle. I don't follow you.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Perhaps it would be better spoken off the record, Mr. Member, because he sure knows what I'm talking about.

In our ministry we do set policy, we do make recommendations on such things as per diem, meal allowances — breakfast, lunch, dinner — maximum vouchers permissible for such things as hotel expenses. In fact, we aggressively seek out areas were we get the best deal. That includes traveling as well. Yes, we not only do the staffing for our own ministry directly, we also do the staffing as required for the Premier's office. Needless to say, other ministries look after their own. Certainly we assist the Premier's office, and we service anything to do with computers. Other ministries have a free and open choice, when it comes to computers, whether they wish to contract those services to the B.C. Systems Corporation or whether they choose to go to the private sector or both and have a competition for delivery.

In my view, we do have an area that deserves closer management when it comes to anything to do with computers in government. As I said during my estimates, we are currently spending some $170 million a year in processing computer work in all the ministries of government. The figure has been growing at a very rapid rate certainly for the last two years — some 20 percent a year — and we anticipate that figure to continue to grow at quite a rapid pace.

What we have done in this ministry is recommend to cabinet, Treasury Board and to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations that we be given the authority to set up an office of information technology and security. We have already appointed the director, and we are already halfway through the staffing of that new office. There is lots to be done.

There is tremendous responsibility on that new director to review, to communicate, to seek agreement, to streamline, to integrate and to make recommendations on the cost-effective delivery of that incredibly important service that all government ministries require and, more importantly, to also oversee and assure that we have the very best security of information. As the member is aware, there are certainly many areas of government — certainly much more so in some ministries than others — where security is critical.

We're looking forward to the development of that division within my ministry. By and large, suffice it to say that the basic description of my ministry would be one that delivers service to other ministries of government. There are a couple of exceptions to the rule that were placed in my ministry in a way of convenience, I suppose, but also a bit of a tie-in to service to ministries.

Certainly, those two areas would be the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, which is very much in the promotion, selling and development of conventions and bookings for the B.C. Place Stadium, the trade and convention centre, the Whistler Golf Course, the Whistler Conference Centre and the Enterprise Corporation, and doing a very good job at that.

They are a teeny bit of a misfit, although not wholly because they do naturally serve government as well. They are into the marketplace internationally selling British Columbia, selling Vancouver, selling Whistler to the world literally, and doing a tremendous job in filling up the B.C. Place Stadium, the trade and convention centre and other facilities.

The other exception, I suppose, you would wonder about and want to think about its fitting into the ministry would be the PNE. Suffice it to say we have that responsibility. I don't attend as many of the board meetings as I would like to, but I try to keep in very close touch with the Pacific National Exhibition.

I can tell the member that as far as the boards of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the B.C. Systems Corporation are concerned, it's rare I miss a meeting. I attend pretty well all of them. I keep in close touch. I find by doing that, we are able to do a lot of cross-indexing: taking ideas from one area and putting it in another.

We have a tremendous number of cost centres, as the member is aware, if he reads the overall description. We have something like 13 clearly identifiable cost centres and reams of sub cost centres within those 13.

Back in early February, we saw an opportunity to spend three days up in Parksville at a senior management retreat — a workshop — that we organized. We

[ Page 6053 ]

invited representatives of every single cost centre -the top chief executive officers of the Crown, the deputies and the assistant deputies. Indeed, we went over the entire plans, the ideas, how we can work together, the things we can produce, where we can work more closely together cost-effectively with heavy emphasis on service. I think it was a productive session, and I can assure you that the staff enjoyed it. I certainly enjoyed being a part of it.

We have developed many programs. The member heard of the program I spoke of in the opening of my estimates. That is just one example. I could outline about 28 others. One program that was really put in high gear with a real heavy emphasis deals with the question of recycling, environment and the investigation into the Styrofoam cups. The policy since that point in time has been that the British Columbia government through the Purchasing Commission will no longer buy any Styrofoam cups that contain the slightest percentage of CFCs.

That was an initiative that came about through the Purchasing Commission. The Purchasing Commission has a tremendous responsibility and a wide spectrum of opportunities in being able to get into the entrepreneurial area to identify potential markets to create jobs and economic development. We're doing those things.

Also, the member is aware of the recycled paper. We gave some samples. I know the member had a look at them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: No harm in dreaming, Mr. Member. Without dreams, where is one, after all.

[4:45]

The other area where I'm sure we're going to get cooperation from the length and breadth of government and in Crown corporations is the tremendous opportunities of recycling lubricating oil. I think we are looking at dollars into the six figures, tremendous savings to government. We don't intend to spend months and months studying, analyzing, consulting and what have you. We're doing it mainly inhouse. I can assure the member you won't have to wait very long. I would think in two more weeks you are going to see a positive move by this ministry embarking on programs in that area. I think British Columbians will be proud of the results from the work being currently undertaken.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for his detailed and lengthy answer. It's not entirely the question I asked, but that's all right because I think it's a step forward. What I wanted to do before I pursue any of those things in detail is to just make sure I understood correctly one of the points the minister made.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In answer to my question, he said fairly early in his response that his office does the staffing for the Premier's office. I would like him to clarify that because I notice we have vote 4 coming before this

Legislature in which the salaries and benefits of the Premier's office amount to some $1,184,000. What I'd like to do then is to simply make sure I understand what the minister was alluding to when he said, "...do some staffing for the Premier." Let's start there.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I'm very pleased that the member brought that point up. It's incredibly important that the record be clear and the jurisdiction and responsibility be defined. What we do is simply offer our staffs services. If the Premier's office is in need of a clerk-steno 3 or 4, someone that is not already working in the office, and they're looking for some names and recommendations — perhaps even a short-listing arrangement where we will give two or three potential candidates — it's that kind of a service that we provide to the Premier's office.

MR. LOVICK: I must say that I'm rather surprised by the answer. That was not what I had anticipated, so if I might, I'll just pursue. That sounds like an office pool or something that is permanently maintained within government management services. If we're talking about providing a clerk-steno to the Premier's office as the need arises, is it the case then that you have a reservoir or a stable of talent that you just make use of as the need arises? If so, how large? How many people are out there given you have to respond to the exigencies of the moment and deal with pressing demands from the Premier's office and perhaps others?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's more of a consultative arrangement; a service assisting them with the posting process, with "red tape." It's that type of a service that we would indeed provide to any ministry. As you are aware, other ministries have personnel divisions and are much bigger in size and have that experience and expertise within their ministry. It's one of consultation and advice and assistance, but we would offer that service to other ministries as well.

MR. LOVICK: Is it the case that there is a complement of full-time employees permanently assigned to Government Management Services who are called upon on occasion to satisfy needs as they arise for other ministries, including the office of the Premier? Is that the case, and are those people subject to all the normal benefits of the Government Employees' Union contract, or is this a temporary workforce, a special workforce? How does that function?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The answer to the member's first question is no.

MR. LOVICK: And the second question?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I understand the second question to be: do the full-time staff of the Minister of Government Management Services and/or the Premier's office receive and are they entitled to a wide range of employee benefits? If that's the question, the answer is yes.

[ Page 6054 ]

MR. LOVICK: I'm not about to quibble, Mr. Chairman, but it wasn't precisely what the question was. However, I think we'll probably address it as we go.

I want to come back to my first question, in answer to which I was given a rather lengthy dissertation on everything you always wanted to know about Government Management Services but were afraid to ask.

May I say, Mr. Minister, that I perhaps missed your introduction of your staff persons, and I would therefore just like to say that I am pleased to see Peter Clark, the ADM, and Allan Brent, your deputy, here. I have met one of them before, and I have always appreciated their cooperation. I'm delighted they are here and thank them for their time.

Back to my question, if I might. Again, I am referring simply to the vote description, and I guess it's going to be about the third sentence. It says: "Provision is also made for some services for the Legislature and office of the Premier." You've given me some indication of that. Your example, curiously enough, was clerk-steno. I think you probably mean some other things, but that was your example. Could you give me some idea of roughly what percentage of your budget is devoted to providing services for the Legislature and for the office of the Premier? In other words, how much, in addition to the votes for the offices of the Speaker and the Premier, is in fact subsumed in your ministry?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The dollar amount would be so small and insignificant it would be difficult to measure, because it's simply a matter of asking for a service or asking for some information and that service or information being given. I can assure the member that probably several hundred times more time is taken up answering queries from MLAs — a small number of MLAs — than would be spent on the Premier's office. It's a very small amount, hard to measure, Mr. Member.

The only other area where we would be giving a service to the Premier's office that would have some identifiable dollar value would perhaps be in the area of computer services, but personnel wise it is extremely small.

MR. LOVICK: Same vote description, next sentence; a more important one, I think: "This subvote also provides for cabinet committee expenses and travel expenses within Canada for members of the executive council...." That's not the whole sentence, but let's stop it there. Why is it that we have to have a special budget item for those functions rather than those functions being taken care of under the votes for the particular ministries?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: For travel of all cabinet ministers in all areas we have a budgeted figure of $650,000. It's one of convenience: all the expenses are channelled through my ministry. Final approval, authorization for payment, is the responsibility of my staff; that's where the form ends up.

We were talking about systems support for the Legislature, and that figure, my staff advise me, is $1.5 million.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just to add to this, because it's an intriguing question, the member and the committee should be aware that cabinet committees have been doing an awful lot of work in this past administration, an awful lot of travelling. Social Policy is one; ELUC is another; CCRD, of course, is spending a lot of time. For example, speaking as chairman of the ELUC committee, to have ELUC travel, which is about eight ministries taken out of my portfolio, would not be appropriate. So it is therefore an appropriate and also a wise decision to have all the travel of cabinet committees covered under one minister's vote, as opposed to piecing it off to the various cabinet ministers that make up cabinet committees.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer, Mr. Chairman. I take it, then, that the real answer to this question is that this particular configuration of the ministry is a manifestation of the government's reorganization. This is a new efficiency We are led to believe that this is in fact a better and more efficient way of managing things. Do I detect that that is the argument? All right, I'll accept that for the moment.

How about the reference to the ministers of state? The ministers of state came into existence, you recall — and you remember there was considerable controversy — with huge budgets that we all wondered what were for. Now I am discovering in this particular separate vote, above, beyond and in addition to the ministry of state budgets, which seem to be mostly earmarked for travel purposes, that we suddenly have this particular description. Anybody care to comment? Either will do.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I must say how much I'm enjoying this thrilling experience of getting into these areas that I'm sure are of great interest to all members of the assembly here.

The explanation, Mr. Chairman, is that every ministry will naturally have a budget covering expenses, per diem travel and what have you, for all employees within those ministries. It has been explained that decision policy, control procedures.... We have decided that we will have a central figure of $650,000 for all cabinet ministers set aside in budget, administered and controlled — I put a quote on that "controlled" — within policy framework contained within this ministry.

We involve ourselves quite a bit in ministerial travel. We certainly have the responsibility regarding the vehicles. That's part of the Ministry of Government Management Services. We also have the responsibility for the air services division. As the Minister of Environment remarked — and I thank the minister for his input — some cabinet ministers, some cabinet committees, have been doing a lot of travelling. I know that the committee on which I served, the social services committee, feels that it's

[ Page 6055 ]

important that we get out in the field and look firsthand at the situations going on in various corners of the province.

[5:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: Bringing government to the people.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Bringing government to the people.

I congratulate the chairman of that committee, the first member for Kamloops, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), for heading up this Cabinet Committee on Social Policy. I congratulate him for his foresight, for his enthusiasm in wanting to take government to the people, and for getting out to the wide variety of areas that we travel in this province. Not too long ago we spent a full day in the city of Vernon. We visited all types of facilities out there. That trip, by and large, was organized by the minister and his staff, but the utilization, whenever possible — travel arrangements — are made through Government Management Services air flights division, to make sure that we have a plane available, so that we can facilitate as economically as possible getting the people to the site and back without losing too much time.

We also visited the North Shore. We had a great trip over there. We toured some hospitals, met with various councils, went through a school and attended a very interesting tour of a learning institution, the job training centre. We had a tour of one class, I recollect very clearly. We talked to a lot of the English-as a-second-language students. It's very interesting to talk to the people out in the field: seniors' homes, those types of things.

Yes, it's not just that particular committee that travels, as the Minister for the Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) commented. There are others getting out in the field. The Cabinet Committee on Regional Development certainly does a lot of travelling. You read it in the papers continually. As a matter of fact, there's a trip coming up later this week. A trip to the great city of Prince George, I believe, is next on the list.

Policy, frameworks, guidelines, per diem, motel, travel, getting out and looking at what efficiencies are available and what's fair for per diems or meal allowances — all these types of things fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Government Management Services. Of course, the decisions on travel by cabinet ministers — whether they do or don't travel — are made by the respective ministers.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I think we're actually beginning to zero in. We're actually beginning to get a clearer sense of just what this new configuration is all about. I'm intrigued though. I see that the minister is getting a little bored by all of this, thus that rather interesting observation he made at the beginning of his answer to me that these were obviously thrilling areas and that everybody would be listening avidly to find out what the answers were.

Mr. Minister, that effort at sarcasm really doesn't speak well of you or of your ministry. Surely this government ought to be proud of its reorganization initiatives. Here is your opportunity to demonstrate that this whole system is making sense. I'm a bit surprised to discover that you're almost embarrassed because I am posing very direct, specific questions about what you actually do over there. I'm a bit surprised that you would respond to that in a very thinly veiled hostile way. It seems passing strange to me that that would occur, Mr. Chairman.

I think I can understand why it happens. Contrary to what the minister has been suggesting for the last two and a half days about the new efficiencies that have been achieved and the wonderful things made possible because of Government Management Services' activities, the reality is probably something rather different. The reality is that in the name of government reorganization, we've managed to demoralize a significant number of public servants in this province. We've also managed to destabilize the efficient operation of government in this province for a considerable period. In fact, it's a standing joke. When you pick up your trusty government services directory and start zipping through the pages, you'll never guess what you discover there. You'll discover, on average, somewhere between five and ten vacancies per page. You'll also discover when you start calling various numbers, that sometimes the numbers don't correspond to the names given. You'll discover the phenomenon of: "Well, that was last week, and so-and-so doesn't work here any longer."

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: There's no cheap shot there at all, Mr. "u"-in-education Minister of Education. That is a description of the reality that is there.

The whole colossal government reorganization initiative, though it may well bear fruit and prove to be productive in the future, thus far has been counterproductive.

As I suggested a moment ago, there are two problems with it. One is the demoralization. The minister pointed the other day with some pride, apparently, to the fact that the complement of full-time employees had decreased so significantly. He talked about the fact that, implicitly at least, we were running a somewhat leaner and meaner operation, or some such thing. The reality is that it is not entirely valid to brag about or take pride in losing all those people, especially losing them by early retirement initiatives, because the loss of human capital is immense. Moreover, a good chunk of it is going to be irreplaceable. We have not even yet begun to determine what it's actually costing us to replace those people and the services they provided.

Interestingly enough, one of the observations made by the auditor-general is that when we factored in the real costs of privatization, we failed to deal with the number of individuals who did not buy into the newly privatized operations. As the auditor-general points out, there is a significant omission in

[ Page 6056 ]

the government's calculations there. I mention that now primarily because my friend Peter Clark is sitting in the House, and he has been charged with so much of that initiative and activity that I'm sure he will want to address the auditor-general's concerns when he has an opportunity.

That's the first point in terms of the loss of morale and the loss of people. That's what the reorganization — I think it can be fairly argued — has amounted to on the one hand.

The other notion, of course, is in terms of inefficiencies. Simply because we have a revolving-door policy, we don't know from one day to the next, apparently, what a particular department is going to look like, or whether the employees who are working on Monday are going to be in the same department on Friday. That's been going on for some months now, and that's why I wondered, when the minister answered about providing this kind of residual pool of workers — as in a clerk-steno who would be made available to the Premier's office — if that might be one of the new functions of this new ministry, and whether what we're talking about is providing a kind of peripatetic office pool that can go out to wherever the need arises.

I have to say that I am little concerned when I see the minister responsible for this relatively new ministry begin his answer to my question about who these people are and what they actually do by suggesting that this isn't really important and that we don't really care much about this stuff. It seems to me that it's of fundamental importance, and I hope the minister will be quick to respond and to show me that I have indeed misunderstood his — what I perceive to be — ironic opening comment.

Would you care to respond, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I should take the opportunity now to clear up something that was perhaps taken out of context yesterday. I am particularly interested in the local daily paper, which picked up my discussion of STOB 20 and my explanation of the number of persons affected within the STOBs. I notice this morning's paper made reference to "thousands" of employees. For the record, what I meant, if you had read and listened further.... The person who wrote that article would certainly have seen that what I was talking about was the thousands of employees working for contractors, in professional service contracts in those STOBs.

Certainly I gave a very detailed, precise explanation to the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who has just entered the chamber, and examples of how the money would be spent by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker). I believe the figure was $146 million or $148 million in that one line of the Minister of Forests' STOB. To get into that in more detail, I would once again suggest that that perhaps be asked specifically of that minister.

Suffice it to say that when I said "thousands," I expected that the Ministry of Forests and its silviculture programs of planting trees, thinning and spacing would certainly run into many thousands. I have no way of knowing, but I would think that the number of employees working for tree-planting and forest improvement projects in the province probably exceeds 10,000 a year. It's in the many thousands, and hopefully that explains the reference I made to thousands of employees.

I don't know whether I picked up the member's comment out of context or not, but he did use the words "low employee morale in government"; at least I think he was referring to government. Perhaps he was referring to my ministry; I don't know. I can say this to the member: I travel as much as I can throughout the ministry, and I talk to as many people as I am physically able to talk to, time-wise. I meet a lot of them in government; I meet a lot of employees in Crown corporations.

I have not witnessed a sign of the low morale that member refers to. Perhaps he and I talk to different people; I suppose we do. Maybe the people who visit his office or make phone calls to him are not the same people that I shake hands with and visit on my tours. It's my view — and I will have been around this assembly now for six years early next month — that the morale of the employees of this government was never higher in that six-year period than it is today.

I see extremely good morale. I see it growing and building. I see enthusiasm; I see positive ideas. I see vibrant enthusiasm and a willingness to accept new ideas, to try different ways to make things happen, to make a thorough analysis of new suggestions and new ideas put forward from outside of a particular area; a willingness to change; a willingness to look seriously at the main things of government; a willingness to look at how we go about improving service and developing excellence programs; and a tremendous enthusiasm and willingness to enter into programs such as this, many of which, by the way, Mr. Member, are emanating from and being developed in my ministry by my staff. I have to emphasize that I am extremely pleased with the programs being developed and the enthusiasm and the willingness I witness out there among our thousands of employees.

[5:15]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

The member says that we make continual reference to the numbers going down, but that it's a facade; that they are all hidden and buried in corners, through contracts and things of that nature. Mr. Chairman, I just have to draw the member back to the basic figures, if he would choose, perhaps once again, to write them down. On April 1, 1983, this government had 39,965 FTEs — payroll employees. If he would add to that what we would have today had we done what the NDP probably would have done had they stayed in power.... The growth of the province since that time has been 7.6 percent. If you added 7.6 percent to 39,965, you would have 43,002.

If he is somehow suggesting that we are hiding people under the rug and in corners, and that we have people on personal service contracts to the tune of 15,667 around the length and breadth of this province

[ Page 6057 ]

then he is seriously mistaken. As I specifically stated yesterday when talking about personal service contracts in my ministry, the number is extremely small — so small, Mr. Member, that it's indeed difficult to measure.

I suppose we are lucky in this province that when the tough times came in 1982, when the severe downturn hit this province, we were free to make good management decisions. We were at complete liberty to go out and bite the bullet and take the measures needed to reduce the cost of government. Unfortunately, there is one province in Canada that currently doesn't have that liberty. I'm sure the new government in Manitoba would have loved to have gone in there and cut some sails and reduced the costs, but they're not at liberty to do so. Do you know why? Because your political party — the previous government in that great province of Manitoba — signed an agreement with their union forbidding the reduction or layoff of one single employee in a union contract. They tied the hands of the current and future governments in doing so.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: They'd do the same thing here.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I don't think they would. Surely the members opposite are more responsible than that. For the record, Mr. Member on this side of the House who made that statement, I will ask the member opposite. If you had the opportunity, what would the policy of the members opposite be? I would really appreciate hearing from the member opposite. Would you, indeed, put in a collective agreement form.... I see the member is getting some advice from the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who is certainly an expert in collective agreements, having had a tremendous amount of experience in that field.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, I have to rise on this point of order, but as a relatively new member I have to remind the minister....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I have the point of order, please.

MR. LOVICK: The point of order is that the minister is asking me what I would do if I were government, and about future policy. That's not my job; that's his. Clearly he recognizes his deficiencies, but he ought not to ask me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken, but it's not a point of order.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I see that the member opposite has just ducked the answer to the question that I'm sure all British Columbians would like to hear.

MR. LOVICK: Just when I like to believe we are getting close to a reasonably civilized discussion and actually answering questions, the moment we turn up the temperature ever so slightly, the minister has to suddenly decide to wax rhetorical and talk about old political battles and old struggles.

Let me just give the minister a little education in logic and debate, if I might. What the minister does, and fails to recognize he's doing, is prove precisely the point that some have been suggesting for a long time is the reason why morale in this government is not good. The minister points with pride to the fact that they have reduced the number of government employees so significantly. He brags about that and, moreover, suggests that the worst fate that could possibly happen to this province would be that somehow — perish the thought; help us from a fate worse than death — we had more civil servants.

Mr. Minister, do you not understand that it's precisely that kind of argument that makes people believe, quite legitimately, in my mind, that you do not have their best interests at heart? If you are saying that your principal objective in life is to get rid of them, how can you expect those same people to think of you as their benefactor, their friend? I hope you can recognize that.

Before you began to quote those figures, I was about to remind you that you had read them into the record. They themselves and your rendition of them make exactly the point to be made: you are giving signals to all of your employees in this government that you really don't trust the work they are doing, that you don't think they are providing you with the kind of service you require, and that you look forward to the day when you can reduce their numbers even more. That's the problem, compounded somewhat by the fact that once again the minister — who used to be a trade unionist, I understand — can't forget, having made the great conversion, the great leap, that he is now on the other side, and therefore at every opportunity he has to take a shot at the B.C. Government Employees' Union. He had to do that the other day and yet, wonder of wonders, this selfsame minister wants to stand up and say: "But I can go throughout the depth and breadth of my ministry offices and shake hands with one and all and, you know, the morale has never been higher."

Mr. Minister, you ought to know just a little about industrial relations. I hope you haven't forgotten that when your boss comes and talks to you and says, "How are things going?" you don't say: "Gosh, am I ever depressed. This is a rotten situation. What you guys have done to me really upsets me." If you believe that's going to happen, then you are really missing something. Your vaunted claims about the morale never being higher, I'm sorry, have to be reevaluated.

I want to turn to some other ground rather than belabour this forever, but I see the minister making notes, so I'm going to let him respond if he wishes. I just want to suggest this: if you are indeed committed to the notion that your workers' welfare ranks very high in your scheme of values and all that, then let me suggest that you ought not constantly parade this set of figures in which you are taking pride in the fact that there are fewer of them. That is simply bad logic

[ Page 6058 ]

and certainly will not do much for morale within your department.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Member, you can't have it both ways. On the one hand, we're told that we really haven't made any cuts, that there are more employees on payroll in one form or another than there have ever been before, and then we hear that we've made such severe cuts that everybody is threatened because so many people have lost their jobs.

The facts are that yes, we have reduced quite dramatically the number of employees directly on government payroll. That is not to say that many of those jobs are not being done now within the private sector — e.g., about 2,400 who used to be employees of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways are currently working in the private sector. The taxpayers are paying for it, and the employees are members of the BCGEU, by and large, and the world's going round. Hopefully time will tell that the services are as good or better, and the savings will be evident as time progresses.

In some way the member is suggesting that our employees have a poor attitude and the morale is low because we have brought about some efficiencies in government. If the member has studied some of the social sciences — I am sure he has; he has probably taught them — he would be aware that employees who are doing an efficient and highly productive job and know it in their hearts, do indeed feel good about themselves, feel good about the environment, and indeed, have a tremendously good attitude toward themselves and toward their employer.

I would suggest to you that that is the case with our government employees. They are doing a very creditable, productive job. We are tremendously pleased with the performance of the employees within our various ministries. To make a suggestion that because of these efficiencies that have been brought about we have a poor morale problem, Mr. Member.... I would suggest to you that there is nothing further from the truth.

I can tell you a personal story. I had an experience talking to a lady, wife of a well-known trade unionist in this town, who related a story to me about three or four years ago. She decided to take early retirement. This is a true story, so help me. I asked her why she left as early as she did. She said: "I got so tired of looking around my department for something to do, I couldn't stand it anymore. The days were so long. I decided to take early retirement." Believe it or not, that is a true story.

I would suggest to you that you will not find those types of remarks being stated by any of the government employees in British Columbia today. I would suggest to you that you will find productive people out there doing a first-class job with a first-class attitude. Somehow the member feels that as the population grows, the number of civil servants should increase.

[5:30]

It's interesting with the member coming from an industrial community like Nanaimo — a progressive community, a wonderful city that I know very well. I used to visit Nanaimo every second night when I worked on the Princess Marguerite years ago. I could tell you lots about the city. For that member to suggest that the government workforce shouldn't be trimmed, while he represents an industrial community like Nanaimo that has hundreds of workers in the forest industry, pulp industry and many other workers in processing and manufacturing plants.... He knows the reduction that has taken place through automation, technology, restructuring and management planning decisions that have dramatically reduced those particular industries in his community. He somehow makes the suggestion or inference that we are the cruel, bad government that's creating a terrible atmosphere among our employees because we've reduced their number. I think that is a very poor conclusion. I think it's a very poor suggestion for a member representing an industrial community. Many of your constituents have lost their jobs. Hundreds of them have through automation and technology in the forest industry, and you're certainly well aware of that. Indeed, we have brought in a lot of modern methods to reduce the tedious labour that used to be performed in government.

The other thing you're perhaps overlooking in government efficiencies, streamlining, restructuring and cost-saving initiatives that we have brought about is that we've certainly brought about a better, firmer security for the future. Indeed, because of the health and strength of this government, this is the only province in Canada with a balanced budget this year; it doesn't have to be repeated. Because of the efforts put forward, our employees know that they've got a more secure and brighter future. Members on both sides of the House should be proud of that. We should be pleased and proud with the recent three-year contract that was negotiated by the staff in my ministry, which gave the employees a well-deserved wage increase and increases well in excess of the cost of living.

I believe that perhaps you're talking to the wrong people, Mr. Member. They are the small percentage still out there with an axe to grind, because it certainly doesn't fit or match with what we see happening in government. You talk about the downsizing of government on the one hand, and then you talk about making phone calls, and people aren't there because they've been promoted or moved to a new area. That shows you the tremendous opportunities that still exist in this government.

I want to say to the member, so that he knows we're on top of this particular area of improvements to technology and systems, that we have a situation set up now in my ministry where all the telephone numbers and all the people are on the computer. When the new directory is printed, we won't have to spend a lot of hours and days manually checking and rechecking. We just press a button on the computer, and the new telephone list pours right out. It goes to the printer, and it's done in very short order. Those

[ Page 6059 ]

are the kinds of improvements, the kinds of advances, the types of technology that we are taking advantage of to give better service, which Government Management Services is responsible for in many areas — excellent service to our fellow ministries in government.

MR. LOVICK: I often have the sense when I engage in any conversation or so-called debate with the member opposite, the Minister of Government Management Services, that there is either a hearing problem or an understanding problem; I'm never sure which. I always have a sense of being one of two parallel streams. These two streams seem to go and don't interact somehow. As one who has some claim to ability in speaking reasonably clearly and in spelling things out, I think, straightforwardly enough, I nevertheless discover that I always have to respond to a set of allegations and charges that bear just about no resemblance whatsoever to anything I happen to be saying.

I thought: how could that be? Is it the fact that the hour is late? Is it the fact that the minister is flagging and we have perhaps kept him too long in the House? Is it the fact that there is simply not enough effort on his part to comprehend what I am asking? I am sure he has the intellectual wherewithal to grapple with the questions, but, sadly, I keep searching in vain for evidence thereof. So what can I say?

We are of course committed to the same kinds of efficiencies as members on the other side. But let me suggest to the minister that if it's the case that three or four years ago your friend, who shall remain nameless, said to you, "I had to get out of government service because there was never anything for me to do," that is a terrible indictment of the managers in government — your government, your political party. If that's happening, it's because somebody isn't minding the shop. It's got nothing to do with the nature of government. Anybody who is naive enough to believe that is clearly not understanding the nature of work itself. The point is that a properly managed place, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector, will never produce a situation in which a willing worker will stand there with nothing to do. Indeed, if in fact it is the case, as you suggested to me about an hour ago, that "sometimes the Premier's office needs help, sometimes they need a clerk-steno, and we can manage to pluck one out of the bowels of my ministry without difficulty," then very likely the person who was so plucked — I'm careful how I pronounce that — may not have been doing something before being plucked. Clearly, that person was not so busy if they can be peremptorily moved from one job to another as the apparent need arises. If that is the case with your great example of what you're doing, I wonder what then of the other examples.

Let's turn to something a little different.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Supper.

MR. LOVICK: I hear somebody say "supper" — probably one of the more astute observations to emanate from that corner in a long time.

I'm sorry that the chairperson for committee is no longer the member for Vancouver South, because I wanted to pick up on something he introduced the other day in these estimates and that I unfortunately didn't have an opportunity to pick up on — namely, the Challenger jet. I listened very carefully to the minister's explanation of why we had the Challenger, why we felt it necessary to maintain that as opposed to simply using scheduled aircraft, given that probably in the majority of cases — or indeed in all cases — there is regular service which would do just as well. I listened quite conscientiously, quite carefully, to what the minister had to say, thinking he would share with us some cost illustrations: "Yes, indeed, we've compared. We can present to you the logbooks of the aircraft to show you what percentage of the time it flies full. We can show you all of those cost illustrations to demonstrate that people are indeed getting good value." But we didn't get that kind of answer. Au contraire: what we got was a speech worthy of Louis at Versailles.

Never before in this chamber have I heard a better definition and defence of privilege. The person made reference to the fact that ministers could get up and move around, could flex their joints; that it was convenient and nice, and one didn't have to go through any of those terrible agonies that the poor, hapless, ordinary traveller has to. I heard all the arguments presented that we traditionally associate not with efficiency but with privilege.

I wonder if the minister — assuming for a change of pace that he is indeed capable of rethinking a position he perhaps too precipitately took — would like to share with this House the fact that he has indeed listened to the questions and comments from the member for Vancouver South, as well as to mine, and that they will perhaps rethink the use of a Challenger aircraft. Would the minister care to respond?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Just picking up on the member's remarks, I am extremely pleased to hear him say that his party, too, is committed to efficiencies in government. I have to tell you that I always felt that and thought that, but to hear it said was great news. I welcome that; I'm pleased. I want to make an offer that any time members opposite have ideas on cost-saving initiatives and restructuring things that you think we can get into, then please feel free to pass those ideas on to my ministry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Member, and continue to do so. We assure you that we look at all of those. Seriously, we look at the ideas that come in in the form of letters or verbally, from employees, the private sector, outside people — we have a look at all these things.

I think, though, that along with that, the member should respond. I don't want to take advantage here

[ Page 6060 ]

or break any rules of the House by me asking you the questions, but it would be nice to hear what you would contemplate deprivatizing and what the policy and action of the NDP would be. I think it would be quite interesting to hear that.

Just because you have good intentions about government efficiencies doesn't really mean that your actions would be positive. You can have the idea up here, but if you don't have the wherewithal to make it happen, then oftentimes the results can be poor. I would suggest that if we went back in the records and looked at the cost of administering government, there has never been, nor will there ever be, such dramatic growth in the overall cost of government as we witnessed in 1973, '74 and '75. Perhaps the example I gave about the lady's response was sort of the tail-end, the windup, of the attitude, the leftover mind-set we inherited following the 1975 defeat of that government.

[5:45]

Turning to the Challenger, I find it interesting that, other than by one writer for the local daily paper in Victoria, I have yet to see reported in a daily or weekly paper, or in words said on radio or on any report on any TV channel, that the minister of the day, when making the purchase of the Challenger last year, not only negotiated the extremely good price of some $7.2 million but, along with that, had the ability, the initiative and the wherewithal to negotiate an offset agreement. Probably the member is not aware of the many other offset agreements that are negotiated under similar sets of circumstances when the Purchasing Commission and other departments are out conducting negotiations on behalf of their ministries and on behalf of government.

I would be extremely happy to see it publicized through the media to the people of the province that the previous minister negotiated a firm guarantee from the vendor that Canadair would spend $14.5 million in British Columbia as part of that negotiated agreement and purchase price — twice the price of the aircraft. The value of the aircraft as recently as just a few days ago.... It's been reported to me that that plane could probably be sold today for in excess of $10 million — a very good deal on behalf of British Columbia. The other thing, Mr. Member: not only has Canadair followed through on their commitment of $14.5 million, but we are assured that over the next ten years, with all of the additional contracts that are all ready in place, the purchases in British Columbia will total $22,384,115.

The member made reference to my report yesterday to the member for Vancouver South about having the ability to travel on the plane and, as one of the local papers — not wanting to pick on anybody here — said "conduct secret meetings." I never made any reference to the word "secret." What they're able to conduct on that long, timely flight to Ottawa, return, which in total, I'm sure, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of ten to 12 hours, is government business; they can conduct open discussions. They can do all kinds of productive things while on that plane.

MR. LOVICK: Sleep.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The member makes reference to people sleeping. Well, when senior people on this side of the House travel, whether they be cabinet ministers or senior civil servants, they're productive, Mr. Member.

It's hard to measure the value of having that privilege to conduct discussion, to have meetings, to talk about plans without any fear at all of someone else overhearing the conversation, to talk about strategies, of how they're going to approach the Ottawa cabinet ministers and civil servants. To have that free, open discussion on that plane, during that whole five- or six-hour period there, and to discuss the strategy on the way home again is certainly worth the money. I see the member is nodding his head; he is in full agreement.

MR. LOVICK: The member, to clarify, Mr. Chairman, was rather nodding away, not nodding in agreement. One should note that.

I'm delighted to see that the minister is apparently unrepentent and still believes that the Challenger is a good deal, and therefore I want to extend an invitation to him to prove that to us. It seems to me a relatively straightforward matter. Perhaps I could invite him to table in this House some record of the logs, so that we find out how often that jet indeed travels with a full complement as opposed to half empty, the regular operating costs, our total capital cost, the cost of the salary of the designated pilot and air crew for that vessel, and further, some information in terms of comparable modes of travel. If, indeed, you are confident and convinced this is such a good deal, then surely you ought to welcome the opportunity to answer the questions so that all of us will soon be persuaded. We can all read a balance sheet. We can tell whether in fact we are getting something that is worthwhile. The problem is that we seem to get by way of answers only these, dare I say, rather mushy utterances about meetings that are going on and ten-hour marathon stretches where nobody sleeps because we are all eternally vigilant, etc. Perhaps the minister could agree then that he will do what he can to give us much more specific, concrete information.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: There is always something to be gained by consultation and debate. I have to say that that last suggestion from the member is extremely good, fair and positive. I will give the member complete assurance that this ministry will do a thorough analysis and evaluation of the productivity, the costs and the.... We will have a full look in due course, once the plane has been given a fair trial period.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: No, Mr. Member, in fairness, the plane deserves a fair trial period. I will tell he member, without any hesitation, that it hasn't been that long that we have put into place a regular schedule of Victoria to Ottawa trips. Perhaps it

[ Page 6061 ]

should have been done earlier; perhaps I should have implemented it earlier. After it has had a fair trial period, we will do a thorough analysis to see how it's working out, what the costs are and whatever the cost-benefit analysis might determine.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) has another suggestion. It is an idea that we hadn't really thought about too much, and that we should perhaps look at. The member is suggesting that we privatize it. I'm quite astounded and surprised at that, but that's another suggestion that can be put on the record. I'm happy with the input we're receiving from members opposite today. It's a real turn.

MR. LOVICK: I noticed that in the minister's answer, he instantly retreated from the first position he took. Namely, he responded with some alacrity and enthusiasm to the suggestion; he welcomed the suggestion. He said that yes indeed, we'll get you some answers. Now I notice that it will take rather longer than we had first thought. Could you give us some idea how long that will take?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: The answer to the question is: after a fair trial period. You have to have a period of time in which you can measure. You don't look at little glitches for one month or two months or three months. It's got to be a reasonable period of time. I assure the member that we'll be doing that, as we do in other areas of the ministry.

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 5:56 p.m.