[ Page 10493 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Ms. Marzari –– 10493

Air ambulance service. Mr. Rose –– 10493

Use of government aircraft. Mr. Williams –– 10493

Air ambulance service. Hon. J. Jansen replies to question –– 10495

Ministerial Statement

Report of Advisory Council on Community-Based Programs for Women.

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 10496

Ms. Marzari

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services and

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Gran)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 10497

Hon. Mrs. Gran

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Williams

Mr. Lovick

Hon. J. Jansen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. De Jong

Mr. Mercier

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Smith

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I have the great pleasure today of introducing two lovely ladies in the gallery — certainly one from my constituency: Mrs. Virginia Carter and her lovely daughter from Penticton, Susannah Pow. Would the House please welcome them warmly to Victoria.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker and hon. members, on behalf of the office of the Speaker and our officials, I would like you to welcome a guest from the Legislative Council of New South Wales, Australia. Our guest is the temporary chairman of committees and deputy chairman of the Standing Committee on State Development. Would the members please welcome Hon. Kenneth Reed, MLC.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, we have many distinguished visitors this morning. I've noticed with pleasure that we have Susan Brice, who is active in the Capital Regional District and is also the mayor of Oak Bay and a good friend of all of us in this room. I'd ask the House to join me in welcoming Mayor Susan Brice.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. MARZARI: This is a question to the Minister of Health. Mr. Minister, two weeks ago a Toronto woman bled to death from a self-induced abortion. In this province the BCMA and the Federation of Medical Women have expressed their concerns about the impact of Bill C-43 on the availability of safe, legal abortions. Doctors are withdrawing their services for fear of harassment. Has the minister met with the BCMA, the Federation of Medical Women and other medical groups to determine whether access to safe medical abortions is being impaired by Bill C-43.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, the BCMA has not taken the initiative to discuss this issue with me or draw to my attention any concerns in this regard. It is my understanding that the existing legislation does not impact on hospital care, so I'll wait to hear if there are any concerns on behalf of the medical profession.

MS. MARZARI: The question had to do with your initiative, Mr. Minister.

Second question to the Attorney-General. Now that you've spent a few days at Niagara-on-the-Lake with the federal Minister of Justice talking about Bill C-43, are you prepared to refer the federal government's bill on abortion to the courts for a ruling on its constitutionality, as you did for the Canada Assistance Plan?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer is no.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. ROSE: My question as well is to the Minister of Health. Will the minister confirm that he has now decided to release the dates and times of the air ambulance charter flights which he denied to the House on Monday?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't know if I denied any such thing in the House last Monday. What I said was that from my perspective the air ambulance service was working well and that the service was in conformance with an Airvac operations committee which is comprised of ambulance, management, doctors and pilots who determine how the service will be best delivered. I said it was important for us to have flexibility. I'm also concerned about releasing personal details of patients. From my standpoint the air ambulance service is an excellent example that other governments are following.

MR. ROSE: Gee, that's really funny, you know, because the air ambulance service's director of operations has already agreed to supply this information. I wonder if the minister could assure the House that he will in no way try to intimidate his official for agreeing to release some important public information as long as the confidentiality of the patients was regarded.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, it is only the members on that side of the House who compromise.

USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Premier. On July 26, 1989, there were ten separate crossings of Georgia strait by government jets to carry only six cabinet ministers across that evening. Is that acceptable in terms of government policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, first let me say how appreciative I am of a question; I've waited 12 days for a question. I guess it's because the Leader of the Opposition is never in the House that I don't get the questions.

I would like to take this opportunity to again ask if he would make his flight logs available so we can see how much he has traveled at public expense to do some politicking throughout the province. I think it would be helpful for people to have that information.

Mr. Speaker, last night at 5:45 I left the parliament buildings. I boarded a plane about 6:10, and I arrived in Vancouver at 7 o'clock. I had dinner with the Governor of Oregon and a group of Oregon business people and legislators last evening. I came back about midnight. I stopped off at home and picked up my tuxedo for an event tonight.

[ Page 10494 ]

If you look at the log, you may say that the Premier traveled alone, came back alone and stopped at his house to pick up his tuxedo on the way back. Perhaps the opposition would question that. But I think it's very important to the people of the province that I meet with the Governor of Oregon. I could not have left here at 5:45 and have met him for dinner at 7 o'clock in Vancouver if it hadn't been for the availability of a government flight.

If we want to build this province and serve the people well, we need that service; it must be available to the Premier and ministers. I would expect every minister to be available seven days a week and if need be at all hours of the day, in order to carry out that function in all parts of the province — not just in Victoria and the lower mainland, but in every part of this province.

Despite the criticism and despite the fact that they conveniently refer to whatever they select, that they overlook the logs that were available from '72 to '75 ' that they forget to provide the information as to why the Leader of the Opposition is never in the House, traveling around the province politicking at the people's expense, and that they won't provide the logs for the Leader of the Opposition, I feel that we as a government will continue to serve the people of this province, regardless of where they live, through meeting governors or other delegations. That's how it will continue to be as long as we're continuing to be government — and that will be for a long, long time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Methinks he doth protest too much. I am pleased to advise the Premier that the Leader of the Opposition is releasing his logs this morning with full details. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the "dial-a-jet" service that the cabinet has.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we perhaps have a question?

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Your former Minister of Highways sent the government jet on the weekend to pick up his children to go to an air show in Vanderhoof, a two-hour drive away. Is that acceptable policy?

[10:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you called the House to order a moment ago, but I though I heard the acting Leader of the Opposition say that the absent Leader of the Opposition will make the flight logs available for all of his travels around the province. I'm happy to hear that, and I would hope that we don't have to wait too long. I'm hoping that it will also include exactly what the purpose of the trips were: where he visited, whom he visited, and on what government business. I look forward to that information. I think all of the people deserve to know where this opposition leader is, where he has been, where he continues to be and the purpose of the business.

As far as the other matter that he raises, I'm not sure that this isn't an untruth. I'll check it out.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier. Will you and your colleagues do the same?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I'd be happy to say that we will certainly follow through on what I believe will be an improvement on past practices. I'm talking about past practices for many years, including an NDP administration and former Social Credit administrations, saying that we will definitely — and I believe it ought to be so — make them available on a regular basis.

MR. WILLIAMS: A new question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Premier, your two members for Kamloops obviously don't enjoy each other's company, and that's understandable. Their flights to Kamloops are never coordinated, and there are frequently commercial planes available at exactly the same times they travel. Is that acceptable policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will defer that question to the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm more than happy to answer the question of the coordination and number of flights to Kamloops by me and by the Minister of Forests, and when I'm finished I will defer as well to the Minister of Forests.

First of all, I want to say that the reports that have come out about that are completely and absolutely false. Any perusal of the logs would show very clearly that on the days referred to, both people did not go to Kamloops. It does not take an Einstein to figure out that you can't fly in the same damn plane if you're flying on different dates. Even the extinct volcano that masquerades in here as the first member for Vancouver East should be able to figure that out.

Second of all, it is the case that the Minister of Forests and I frequently fly to Kamloops together. Third of all, it is the case that 40 percent of the times I go to Kamloops I use the government aircraft, and the other times I use commercial aircraft.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I want it to be said very clearly that the people in the interior of this province expect and need and deserve to have representation in government with them and to them. We have a very simple choice, as the member for Point Grey well knows. We can either take ministers to the people throughout British Columbia, or we can force the people to come down here to meet with ministers. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to be able to take services to the people of British Columbia and to have meetings in Kamloops, where people come from Salmon Arm, Vernon, 100 Mile House and everywhere else, on Friday, Saturday and every other day I do it. And the Minister of Forests does the same. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if the extinct volcano, the $80,000 man from Vancouver East, doesn't like it, he can lump it.

[ Page 10495 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests is standing for....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The Attorney-General deferred part of the answer to me, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I'd like to answer.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is there a point of order? I'll listen to the first member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question was not addressed to the hon. second member for Kamloops.

HON. MR. SMITH: The supplementary question was addressed to the second member for Kamloops, and I happily defer it to the first member for Kamloops.

MR. SPEAKER: In which case we will continue this saga on Monday.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Does the little member from Victoria, who can step out the back door and be in his constituency, not want to hear my answer?

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a question of whether he wants to or whether you want to give it. It's a question of whether the Chair is prepared to listen to it, and the Chair is prepared to listen to it during another question period.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, can I respond to two questions taken on notice?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I have a further point of order. I'll listen to the first member for Cariboo if he has a point of order.

MR. VANT: Well, it's a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: You're raising a matter of privilege or a point of privilege? Which standing order are you rising under?

MR. VANT: A matter of privilege. The first member for Vancouver East has uttered a falsehood. He accuses me of dispatching a government plane to pick up my children. That trip to Vanderhoof: my deputy minister was on the plane, and I went to Vanderhoof to see the junior Minister of State for Transport, Gerry St. Germain, to see Frank Oberle, to see the mayor of Vanderhoof. We had meetings in the district Highways office there. I also, of course, viewed the old Nechako Bridge, which is currently being replaced. Of course, I had meetings also with the MLA, Jack Kempf. Also, the airport there was an air transportation assistance project. They were very grateful that the runway had been extended, so I was there also for the official opening of that international....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, when you rise on a matter of privilege, as you did, wanting to bring these matters forward, there are fairly well established procedures for raising matters of privilege in the House. To make a speech or make remarks after question period is inappropriate. There are appropriate measures to deal with it, but you have brought enough information forward for the Chair.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago the opposition House Leader brought forward in this House an urgent question relating to an incident that happened in April 1989: "But is the minister aware that at least one death last April" — not April 1989, but "last April" — "has been blamed by the family on the unavailability of air ambulance services from Vancouver to Saanich because the planes were being used for ministerial travel?"

This incident has caused a significant amount of correspondence between the ministry and the patient's family. I find it unfortunate and shameful to take a tragic family situation to raise a political profile.

The fact was that when the patient was originally transferred to the Vancouver General Hospital and diagnosed as terminally ill, the physician did not request air ambulance service. When the patient was subsequently discharged from the hospital, the physician did not request, because in his mind there was no need for, air evacuation service. The patient was transferred by land ambulance and was stable during the entire transfer. The patient tragically passed away in Saanich Hospital three days later.

Yesterday I took a question on notice from the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry). During his question he alleged comments made by a ministry official, and in so doing he did not have the courage or the facts to identify this official. We in this House are able to defend ourselves when comments are made about what we have done or what we have said. I find it shameful that a member of the opposition would attack a member of the Health ministry without having the manners or the decency to at least identify that member. I say it's an act of the lowest order. His comments slander every single one of the proud men and women who serve the public in the province of British Columbia. I find those comments sleazy and as smear tactics against the civil servants in the province. I again ask him to withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Point of order. I wonder if, in his argument, the minister is not going way beyond the rules of the House for answering a question taken on notice.

[ Page 10496 ]

MR. SPEAKER: It's interesting, but hon. member, the difficulty the Chair faces is this. The minister has as his right the opportunity to stand in question period and respond to a question taken on notice and use up the time of question period. When a minister chooses to wait until after question period and respond to a question taken on notice, the Chair has allowed and will allow a little tolerance. The language is becoming somewhat intemperate, but then it seems to have been intemperate most of this morning. It is the preference of the Chair that the response to a question taken on notice be made after question period.

When an answer is being given, it should be directly related to the question that was put. To this extent, I'm listening to the answer, and I'll wait until I've heard all of it.

On a continuing point of order, the opposition House Leader.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to repeat that I'm not objecting to the length of the answer. I'm objecting to the intemperate language used in the answer, because it has become a ministerial statement in disguise, and it doesn't give this side a chance to respond.

MR. SPEAKER: There's ample opportunity. I have a feeling that we'll be here next week.

HON. J. JANSEN: My comments today were regarding the comments made about one of the staff members who the member is unwilling or unable to identify. All I'm asking — and I ask again — is for him to do what is honourable and withdraw his comments or have the courage and manners to support his statement. Failing that, Mr. Speaker, I can only respond to his question by saying that such comments are completely unfounded, untrue and dishonest.

[10:30]

Ministerial Statement

REPORT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
COMMUNITY-BASED PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning I wish to file the report of the Advisory Council on Community-Based Programs for Women, chaired by Oak Bay mayor Susan Brice.

During the past two months....

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a statement to accompany the report?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, you must expect a response from the opposition.

HON. MRS. GRAN: That's fine.

During the past two months the council has worked extremely hard to develop this report. The members brought a wide range of knowledge, skills and experience to the council, and I commend the strength and sincerity of each woman's commitment to that task.

The council's members came from a wide variety of backgrounds, interest groups and political persuasions. After weeks of research, discussion and deliberation they have presented a report which is thoughtfully prepared and non-partisan and has the unanimous support of members. The report confirms the messages I received from women across the province throughout my tour and in the direct mail survey conducted earlier this year. It provides us all with the clear guidelines we need in order to take positive action on behalf of all women in this province.

I want to offer my congratulations and those of the Premier and cabinet to the 12 women who worked so hard to prepare this report.

MS. MARZARI: The members on this side of the House are happy to see that the report is finally out and public. We'll be taking a careful look at its contents, because my suspicion and my conviction is that the report will be an indictment of women's services in this province, showing vast gaps in quality and quantity of service to women who need it.

I have to comment on the minister's congratulatory remarks to the women who have sat on the committee. On a number of occasions I have expressed my concern for the membership of the committee. These are good women who have spent their lives working in the community — very many of them.

They were asked on to the committee as individuals, but as time went on, their affiliations and their sponsoring groups and the groups — voluntary and otherwise — for which they work have repeatedly been mentioned by the minister as if to say that the groups themselves support, endorse and encourage this report. On two separate occasions this has been publicly declaimed by the groups themselves. The women on this committee have been put in a terrible situation, between a rock and a hard place. It is my concern for them that prompts me to speak today.

In doing this — putting the BC and Y and B.C. transition houses on the line in this way — there is an indication to me that this report in effect silences women. As they continue to meet — rather than it being a six-week committee it might be extended — the women on this committee might well find themselves without a constituency base to report from.

I greet the report. I hope it says what I know it will about the inadequacy of services. I am very concerned about the process by which the committee was put together and feel a great deal of sympathy with the women who might find themselves without a voice.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before proceeding with the next item of business, I would like to remind you that this is an unusual sitting. We're sitting today

[ Page 10497 ]

from 10 until 1, and then we have been invited back this afternoon for a special occasion. The division bells will be sounded at 15:15 — or 3:15 for those of you who prefer that time — and we will ring it three times. We would ask all members who can attend to be in attendance, because the honourees will be here within ten minutes of that time. We ask members to be prompt.

Any further information you require about this afternoon is available through my office or through the Provincial Secretary.

Orders of the Day

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

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

On vote 34: minister's office, $284,000.

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I would like to introduce the two staff members who are here with me today: my deputy minister Allan Brent, and Steve Hutchings from the Purchasing Commission. I will only make a few brief opening remarks, because I'm looking forward to the questions from the opposition and having some good dialogue over the departments in my ministry.

I want to say about Government Management Services that it's a ministry which contributes to the cost-effective delivery of government programs and provides corporate management expertise on pensions and benefits, supply management and common services. We purchase required goods and services for government ministries and public agencies, and through Women's Programs enhance the economic, social and political standing of women in the province.

My ministry is an environmentally sensitive one and the first to introduce recycled paper to our offices, which is now being used in all ministers' offices.

The focus of my time in the last seven and a half months as minister has been on Women's Programs, because it is reasonably new and certainly has a higher priority than it has ever had before. During my tour of the province I consulted with women, and they set the priorities or agenda for this ministry. The four issues that we've chosen to deal with in this year's mandate are pay equity, day care, education and family violence.

As you are well aware, we have introduced — or will be introducing — pay equity into the public service. I will be shortly announcing a committee on day care. Family violence, if I could just spend a couple of minutes on that, was discussed by the Status of Women ministers from across Canada. A very strong statement came out of that Lake Louise meeting, and it was very simple: violence against women is a crime.

Lastly, I want to say a few more words about the advisory committee which has wound up six weeks of intense research and deliberation and has delivered a report that is unbiased, non-partisan and extremely honest. It compliments the government in many areas for services that are currently provided in many different ministries for women. It points out in a very honest and sincere way where we are lacking in communities, and I am looking forward to the public seeing the report.

The ministries concerned with the recommendations have received copies of the report and will be dealing with those recommendations and implementing them as we go along in the remainder of this fiscal year.

Having said that, I'll sit down and look forward to questions from the opposition.

MR. ROSE: I welcome the minister into the fray for her first opportunity to defend her estimates. It must be a very scary experience. I know it would scare me if she were standing over here in my place and I were sitting over there in her place.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It will never happen.

MR. ROSE: You're right, it will never happen — not to me, anyway.

But I would like to say that the minister has a very big, comprehensive and varied portfolio, and I think it is a massive task to get hold of such things as diverse as the Purchasing Commission and the Systems Corporation. We know about the government airline; we've had a lot of discussion about that in the last few days.

We were looking forward to the White Paper on pensions. We haven't seen that yet, and we're waiting here with what some might call bated breath. We're also interested in a pension benefits standards act, and I want to go into this in a little bit more detail later because I think it's extremely important that British Columbians not be the only citizens in Canada whose province does not protect the contributors through rules of a pension benefit standards act.

Just to give you a brief background, the Ontario one protects even part-time workers and makes them part of the pension scheme if they work only 35 percent of the time. I think we could follow the Ontario model without changing very much, and I don't see why we shouldn't bring it in. I've got some stuff on pensions that I'll be bringing up later. The point is that our people are vulnerable here, and most poor people are old people. We have to get into this. It's long overdue, so we must do that.

The minister has said that she believes in fairness, and she wanted all of us over here to be fair. I think in the main that we've tried to be fair. We might have stepped over the bounds on occasion, but we have no monopoly on that.

[ Page 10498 ]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The minister was given the name by me.

HON. MR. SMITH: That's your idea of fairness?

MR. ROSE: You'll get your chance to speak, and I hope you'll defend yourself better than you did in question period, because it wasn't very good. I want to say that I don't want to get into this kind of shouting match with the Attorney-General, but it seems to me that whenever he gets on, he lowers the tone of the House considerably — after the Premier does his best to raise it, and I've thanked the Premier on that on many occasions.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I want to say that the family got in touch with me — not the reverse.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You weren't even here, so how would you know?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how long I'm going to have to take this kind of direct interruption. Why don't you do this in your speech? I think it's quite interesting that the family comes to me and I go to their defence, and somehow I'm the villain.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Nonsense! Why don't you sit over there and be quiet?

HON. MR. SMITH: Try to defend yourself.

MR. ROSE: You're going to have a chance to defend yourself, and you're going to need it, too, brother.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to start on a very quiet note, and somehow I was provoked. But it's not unusual for the minister to provoke me; he usually does that, and quite successfully. I think perhaps I provoke him at times, even though I am a fairly gentle individual.

[10:45]

I have a question to do with a matter that was raised yesterday on air travel by the former Barrett government. The minister could only have known about the precise dates of the travel of the late Phyllis Young and Gary Lauk in '75 by examining the logs for those appropriate years, which are available through the Clerk's office. I wonder how she could explain or verify that people went somewhere 15 years ago and with whom under the government's present arrangements. The logs were tabled with no explanation of the codes, who went where or for what purpose. The logs are being kept under lock and key — or were — and are available only at the Premier's whim and over the strenuous protest of the minister. She first refused to give the logs, and then she was overruled.

When she gets the proper advice from the Attorney-General — and I don't think she should take his advice, because invariably it will be bad — I wonder if she could answer that question. If these logs weren't freely available....

HON. MR. SMITH: They were.

MR. ROSE: They were not. They were freely available under the Barrett government. They haven't been since 1987. How would she know that...if I needed those logs?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, those logs were tabled by the Bennett government when it came into power. I don't believe that it's the first time we've talked about the air travel of the NDP government.

I want to just address the late Ms. Young. She was a public figure in British Columbia, it was a public document and it's public knowledge. My answer casts no aspersions on anyone. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of what sometimes goes on across the floor from the government.

I wasn't asking for verification; I was simply pointing out that in the very short term of the NDP government there was a very large air service with 12 airplanes. It operated in much the same way that we do today, because minister's jobs haven't changed a whole lot, except to get busier. So my answer to you, sir, is that that is public information. I have access to it, you have access to it and anyone else who wants access is welcome to it.

While I am standing, I'd like to just answer your questions about the White Paper for a B.C. pension plan. That will come from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen); that's not in my ministry. The pension standards act is future legislation and will also come out of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

I want to agree with the member on the pension standards. We had a discussion last year over pensions. We were talking about MLA pensions at the time; we seem to have an easier time helping ourselves than do the public. That means the opposition members, too.

The B.C. pension plan will serve a very big need. I, for one, am extremely happy to have seen that announcement in the budget and the throne speech. It's come to my attention, as Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, that women in particular are having difficulties in that area. One of the reasons we have so many senior women living in poverty today is that they weren't able to provide for those years, finding themselves either left or widowed.

The points of the opposition member are well taken, but I want him to remember that those two issues are in another ministry.

[ Page 10499 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to enter into debate on these estimates. A few moments ago the opposition House Leader was talking about how logs were filed and what information was filed. I happened at one point to have been the minister responsible for aircraft, and I've gone back over how the logs were filed and how information was given.

The information that this minister has given at this time has been the most complete set of information ever laid before this House. I had the opportunity to peruse the logs — some of which were filed and some of which were not — under the Barrett administration. I know that they had not six airplanes, not seven, not eight — they had 12 aircraft at their disposal to fly cabinet ministers around the province.

HON. MR. SMITH: And a third fewer cabinet ministers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll speak about that in a moment.

I'm not saying that they weren't attempting to do the best job that they could do with the talent that they had available. The talent was lousy; they did a lousy job on behalf of the province of British Columbia, and they were kicked out.

I was just looking at the month of April in 1975 On April 9, April 14, April 19, April 22, April 23, April 24, April 25, April 28 and April 29 the then Hon Ernie Hall flew back to Vancouver. Now I don't know where good socialists go, and I speak respectfully of him because I liked the individual. Wherever it is, he's there now.

I also remember the Hon. Mr. Strachan, who gave us the beautiful Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and insurance rates at $25 a month. We all remember that Mr. Strachan not only had an airplane fly him around; he had a little Beaver airplane fly him in to where he lived so he could land close to his house from Victoria harbour. I know that was government business, because that's all the kind of business he ever did. If he had stayed away from ICBC, we'd have been a heck of a lot better off.

We all remember Alfie Nunweiler, don't we? The man without a job, the man without a position, the minister without portfolio, responsible for something up north, flew all over the country doing I don't know what.

All I'm saying is that they were running around the country. They were running around the world. They were traveling around spreading what they believed to be their brand of socialist government, doing a lousy job on behalf of the people of British Columbia. But they were doing the best they could.

The opposition over there has the unmitigated gall to take aircraft that they know, they understand.... There are still some of the members here; the only one who was ever in the executive council at that time is the — what did you call him? — extinct volcano. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr Williams) is still providing the backroom leadership, as he did for Mr. Barrett; he's still there at the present time.

But there are other members here who were not members of the front bench at that time and whom I would like to have stand up and criticize Mr. Hall, Mr. Nunweiler, Mr. King, Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Barrett, Mr. Cocke, Mrs. Dailly, Ms. Young, Mr. Lauk.

Mr. Lauk flew more than anybody else that I can possible think of for that time. Not only did they have less members in this whole House; they had 12 aircraft in which to fly them around. As I said, Strachan had an aircraft flying him home. It was a seaplane so he could land close to his home.

What gets me is the hypocritical approach of the opposition to stand here in this committee and criticize this government for doing its job. I want you to measure, by any standard, the results — and you can measure them any day of the week — of the government that operated in this province from'72 to '75 against this government that has operated from 1986 to 1990, and I'll tell you that we'll come out on the positive side of that standard. We're doing a job on behalf of the people of British Columbia; they thought they were too, but they were doing a lousy job.

I just wish they could forget about the issues that are not important in this House and get on to the issues that are important. If they want to talk about the use of aircraft, I can go on for days and give you one for one, hon. members. I'll give you one for one every time you want. It's hypocritical and it's political, and they will do anything to gain power.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm intrigued to hear the former minister responsible for the aircraft get up with all his huff and puff, as he's just done now, because I remember, back in 1988, when the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was asked by the member from.... On May 19, 1988, Mr. Hon. Member for Burnaby Willingdon, you were asked about what the breakdown was between ministerial use of the jets and ambulance use of the jets. I want to remind you what you said on May 19, 1988. This is what you said:

"The hon. member asks what percentage of the total flights conducted by the air service branch is for the purpose of providing air ambulance service and what percentage is for the purpose of transporting government personnel. I guess that was the gist of the question. In response, " — listen — "I'd say 60.6 percent is in support of air ambulance, 35.9 percent is for transportation...."

Mr. Minister, don't you think, in view of the data that has now come out when the logs have actually been presented, that somehow you transposed the figures? You know what "transposed" means, don't you? It means you put the wrong ones in the wrong place. You said 60 percent were ambulance service, Mr. Member for Burnaby-Willingdon. You owe this House an apology here and now, in terms of those numbers. You get up and you answer. We've now seen the real logs. What are you doing dealing this kind of garbage in the Legislature?

[ Page 10500 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, I'm very aware of what the word "transpose" means. It's the same kind of transposition that was used when they made a clerical error in the Social Services budget of $100 million. I understand that very well. The same kind of transposition was used many times during that government they had.

The simple answer to you, sir, is that we have now more cabinet ministers than we had back then, with fewer aircraft. If you want to do a little math on that, you'll find out that our numbers were not that far off.

MR. SIHOTA: What about what you said in '88?

HON. MR. VEITCH: What about you getting up in your place and talking when you get a chance?

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, the aircraft are here for ambulance service. They're also here to transport cabinet ministers to each and every comer of this province. I was up in Prince George the other day. I got in at about ten o'clock at night; I had two meetings that night. I had meetings all the following day, and at one-thirty the next morning I wandered back out to the Prince George airport so I could get back here. Your ministers were doing exactly the same thing when they were in government, and you had more airplanes; you had 12 airplanes. We've got six aircraft, and without the Challenger we actually have five aircraft now that do it. So we have less than half the aircraft that you had then. You were running all over the province. Every night Ernie Hall went home; most nights so did Gary Lauk.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the late Strachan?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The late Mr. Strachan used to fly home, as I say, with the seaplane from the Victoria harbour here to some place up where he lived, time after time. As a matter of fact, during the NDP era they had five scheduled flights a day flying into Vancouver. I noted a letter, when I was the minister responsible, that complained that in one month, Mr Chairman, there were 369 flights by NDP cabinet ministers into Vancouver. I think they were doing a lot of business in Vancouver at that time.

[11:00]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of tabling of documents — we'll get back to the other stuff later — I think the minister has been misinformed about who tabled what and when. I have the journals of the House for March 19, 1973, where it is revealed that by leave of the House R.M. Strachan, Minister of Highways, presented the B.C. government aircraft passenger log for 1972. Let's not talk about who did what to whom.

Since you have these available.... They would never be available if they hadn't been tabled. It shows the month yesterday. You single out people like Lauk and....

HON. MR. VEITCH: Nunweiler.

MR. ROSE: No, Lauk and Phyllis Young. I would like your comments on this. For that same month from which you selectively pulled this name, we've pulled that month. We find that out of 1,010 flights, cabinet ministers were carried 57 times and others 953 times.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Look it up yourself. There were 5.6 percent, not 62 percent. I'd like the minister to comment on that one.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm at a bit of a loss because I am only on my first term as a member of this House. I was here 14 years ago as an employee. I traveled on the scheduled flights under the Bennett administration. We can talk about which is the most efficient way to deal with the aircraft, but I can tell you that as an assistant to a minister, I traveled often from Vancouver to Victoria by myself on those airplanes.

If the NDP had five flights from here to Vancouver, then I can tell you that if they had only 57 flights in a whole month — five a day — then those airplanes must have gone empty just about every time and back again. I don't know how we get efficiency out of that kind of knowledge.

When we're talking about release of the logs, I agree with the opposition House Leader.... The proudest moment of my life was not when I stood up and answered that question about the logs in this House. It will not stand out in my memory as my finest moment, but the Premier corrected that. I appreciate the wisdom that came from the leader of our party — the Premier of this province. I think it's fair to be big enough to admit when you've made a mistake.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew never does that — never makes mistakes — and just sits there knowing everything and being wonderful. We all know that's not true. We're all human beings in this House, and we all make mistakes. My mistake was to not release the logs — and some of the comments I later made. But the logs are released. The opposition asked for more time for the logs, and more time was given.

I think that we should deal a little bit with reality and some truth here. We can talk about the good old days and what the NDP and the Bennett administration did then. I remember the headlines about Jim Nielsen commuting home. The controversy over ministerial use of aircraft has gone on forever and ever not just in British Columbia, but in every province and with the federal government also. It's not easy to meet the demands of ministers, and it doesn't matter

[ Page 10501 ]

whether it's British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba or Ontario.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate some of the things the minister has said. For the amount of time that the press and others had to look at the logs, I commend her. We could have used more time, because clearly it was quite a midden there.

The thing I find genuinely offensive is the previous actions by the previous minister. That was misleading the House in terms of these figures. At least with the present minister we got the actual information; we got the facts. For that we can commend her and the Premier. But insofar as the former minister is concerned, let's get it clear: he did not tell the truth about this information previously — not at all. There's no way that that data can be supported, in view of the information we now have. I say, here and now, the member from Burnaby should apologize — apologize here and now.

May 19, 1988: "I'd say," says he, grabbing into the air.... You'd say anything, Mr. Minister. That day you said: "I'd say 60.6 percent is...air ambulance." Come on! Ain't so. Not true. You should apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the minister if she wishes to respond, I would just like to say that the minister is under no responsibility to answer questions relating to the previous minister of the portfolio.

MR. LOVICK: To the minister. We do indeed appreciate the fact that you have admitted some significant errors on your part, and that's good. One can always admire that on anybody's part. However, the discussion thus far has illustrated, sadly, a confusion about what the real issue is. The issue isn't whether cabinet ministers are using the air service. The issue has to do with alleged abuses of that service. That's what we're talking about. Sadly, that long, long elucidation of incidents from your colleague from Burnaby didn't cast any light on those issues. Rather it's entirely reasonable to conclude that that little pitch was designed merely to obfuscate matters, and that's too bad.

What I would like us to do is focus a bit, if we could, on the alleged abuses. I would like the minister — having had an opportunity to consult, having had an opportunity to see what the press and we on this side have had to say about abuses, having indeed tabled a number of incidents — to give us her explanation of whether the service is operating properly or whether she acknowledges that there have been abuses. Could we start from that point?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll go back to the start and an alleged abuse. I agree with the member; there is a lot of confusion. I'll go back to a newspaper article in the Vancouver Province that accused me of using the government aircraft to commute to my home daily. That was a lie. That same article also said that the diversion from Boundary Bay to Abbotsford was $1,000; it's $122, and that was a lie. Based on that one article, newspapers and media throughout the province picked it up and ran with it, as did the opposition, sadly. I remember my critic calling me the frequent flyer.

Let's focus on that one alleged abuse. Since the logs have come out, the name of the minister who was alleged to have abused those airplanes.... Her name hasn't been used, and that's interesting. It's interesting because there was no truth to the article. There was no abuse. Today there is also no apology from anyone. No one in the Vancouver Province has said: "We were wrong." But they were wrong.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. LOVICK: Have they said so?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, they haven't said it. This morning, another set of lies in the same newspaper. I recognize that we in this House all read the newspaper, and often the questions in question period from the opposition come straight out of the newspapers. The headline on this story is: "Private Air Firms Protest Gov't jets." This time it's not an anonymous source; there are names attached. So I phoned. I phoned Mr. Dave Anderson of Anderson Air Ltd., who is quoted as saying: "Government jets 'are not cost-efficient at all'." It's a lie. He didn't say that. He's terribly upset. He said he's been hounded by the media for the last week.

HON. MR. SMITH: Did Ouston or whatever his name is write that?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, Rick Ouston is the author.

Further on in this same article it talks about the company that built the Citations that we use. It quotes an engineer who we can't find; we don't know who he works for. Yet it says that he's a Cessna engineer. It gives his name. I phoned the company representative in Toronto and spoke to him personally. I didn't ask my staff to do it — I did it. They were horrified at that kind of information being quoted in a newspaper widely read in this province.

We use the Cessna aircraft for a reason. Experts have told us it's the best aircraft for the job that has to be done in British Columbia. The Cessna is used all over Canada and is known throughout the world to have the best safety standards of any airplane available. They can land on a shorter runway. In fact, they can land on a gravel runway if absolutely necessary. We use these airplanes for a reason.

What we're talking about here — and the member talked about alleged abuse — is one case of alleged abuse. I'm the minister, and I've suffered in my riding for that. My constituents were not pleased to think that I would joyride home to Abbotsford every night to be with my family and have a nice dinner, when in fact, that was an outright, blatant lie. It's difficult.

You know as well as I do that when you are accused in the newspapers or any medium it is

[ Page 10502 ]

difficult to have it changed. As politicians on either side of this House, we don't have any way of protecting ourselves against lies, so the very worst thing we can do, regardless of our political persuasions, is keep those lies going and feed off them.

HON. J. JANSEN: Following up on the minister's comments about inaccuracies in reporting and the reliance that that side of the House has on them, I refer to an article written by Rick Ouston. The headline is "Charters Crawl as Socreds jet." It quotes Adrian Kroll, recording secretary for the ambulance paramedic union: "Adrian Kroll...said yesterday his members would use government jets to transport patients from the interior, but the jets are often being used for other purposes."

[11:15]

We talked to Mr. Kroll, and he said: "I don't know where in the world they got that comment from. What I said was...." The reporters phoned three times to interview him. Mr. Kroll is an ITT member. He is on the infant transport team which delivers high-risk infants and children to the Children's Hospital. What he said, and what was not said in this article— I don't know where this reporter got this information from — was: "They get what they need when they need it." Nowhere in this article do we see that. Mr. Kroll said he was extremely upset. He was misquoted. It's a straight fabrication. It backs up what the minister said about other articles we've followed up on that are completely untrue.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Health talks about telling the truth, about falsehoods and statements that may or may not be inaccurate. Indeed, as it has begun this morning, I think this debate has a lot to do with telling the truth. We're trying to get around to whether this government has told the truth about the use of its aircraft. I want to ask the minister a very simple question, because she takes issue with what's reported in the media: could she kindly tell the House the percentage ratio between the use of the aircraft for ministerial travel and the use for ambulance service? I believe it's 68 to 32, but I want the minister to confirm it.

HON. MRS. GRAN: To the member, that is also public knowledge. In fact, I believe it was in question period that I acknowledged that in the last calendar year the government aircraft had been used 38 percent of the time for ambulance service. The rest of the time obviously went to executive travel, which includes B.C. Hydro officials. They use the aircraft and pay the full cost for it.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that answer, because I wanted to make sure that the numbers reported were indeed accurate, given what said earlier. She said that she reviewed the material from the logs last year. Of course, the minister has been kind enough to table the logs for the years '87, '88 and '89. Did the minister have a chance to peruse those logs before making them public, to arrive at that number?

HON. MRS. GRAN: We keep those kinds of statistics in the ministry, but no, I didn't go through all the logs. It wasn't something I was terribly interested in doing.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that response as well. I can appreciate that the minister wouldn't have sat down and gone through each of those chits. That would be an exercise in exhaustion. Believe you me, I haven't done the same.

But the minister says that they keep the statistics. Does the minister have access to those statistics?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, I have access to all the statistics kept by my ministry. I don't keep them at my fingertips.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that reply. I don't expect the minister to have the numbers at her fingertips while we're here, but I'm sure her officials have access to those numbers.

Could the minister advise whether that ratio of 62 to 38 has remained constant for some time?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, I can't.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that the ministry has access to that information. I see the minister nodding, so I assume I'm correct in that regard. Do the staff that the minister's talking with now have the ability to procure that information and make it available to the House?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I gather what you're talking about is the percentage of ambulance use over the last years. One of the figures that I saw in terms of the last set of logs that were released in 1987 was that the ratio at that time was just about 30 percent. I think it fluctuates, but it usually is about 30 percent.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says that she has seen figures, and I take it that her ministry can produce those figures to verify what she has said, namely that the ratio since '87 has been approximately 30 percent. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm having a little difficulty understanding. Estimates are not an opportunity for you to play courtroom, so let's not get into that kind of scenario.

What I'm telling you is that there are averages kept by the ministry, and they do vary. The logs have been released consistently throughout the years on demand. Right? That's going to change, and each time....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, Alex Fraser used to release them regularly, I think. Forgive me if my

[ Page 10503 ]

history isn't quite up to date. But what will happen now.... A review of air services, which includes air ambulance, has been underway in our ministry for some time. There will be an automatic release of those logs, and that information will be available. We'll be making that information available to the public in the next few months.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you for that reply, Madam Minister. Let me say that I know we're dealing with the estimates and I know we're not in a courtroom. Often because of my background people assume that I'm doing something that I'm not, in terms of the questions I'm asking here.

Let me put it to the minister this way. I take it that the ministry has access to these averages over the years. Can the minister procure that information from her people and make it available to the House?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sure we can make that available, but I'm still having trouble understanding. Is the member having difficulty believing that the average is...? You're not having trouble with that? You just want the figures tabled in the House. Well, as we go through the estimates I'll produce those figures.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it, Madam Minister — and I know you're new to the portfolio, so I'll let you consult with your people on this question — that those numbers are not hard to get.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will please address the Chair, not the minister directly.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, Mr. Chairman — through you to the minister. I assume that those numbers aren't.... Believe you me, I'm not doubting the minister.

I guess — if I can be direct — that I'm simply seeking verification of that from the minister. The minister can consult with her staff on this. I take it that information can be gained fairly quickly. Therefore is it possible for the minister to undertake to provide that information before the conclusion of the day, let's say?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I thought that's what I just said — that I would during the estimates. But I can tell you that in 1987 the ambulance use of the aircraft was 56 percent; in '88, 39 percent; '89, 38 percent.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to make this clear, because I couldn't hear it clearly over the chatter Let's just take '88. Is the minister saying that in '88 the percentage use for ambulance was 39 percent?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I hear the minister saying yes to that. Although she didn't say it on the record, I see her nodding. I'm sure the minister can appreciate my difficulty. When there's a lot of chatter going on, it is sometimes difficult to hear. Will the minister confirm on the record or just by nodding that the number is 39 percent?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: She did. Okay.

The numbers that the minister provided were, I think, 56 percent for '87 and 39 percent for '88. Could the minister explain why the numbers she has provided vary from the numbers that the former minister provided on May 19, 1988? He gave a figure that was in excess of the numbers the minister just gave the House.

HON. MRS. GRAN: These figures would have been for the previous year up to that date. I can't comment on what another minister said, only on what I have to say now.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister this question. Regarding the records that the ministry keeps, when you arrive at percentages, am I correct in assuming that the ministry bases those percentages on flight time and that you keep a record of flight time?

HON. MRS, GRAN: It's based on the number of flights.

MR. SIHOTA: Would the ministry also have access to the information as to the hours of flight?

HON. MRS. GRAN: If we were using the miles and the time as you're suggesting, in this last year for example, the figures look even better in terms of use for ambulance. Air services flew a total of 1,101,645 nautical miles; 467,432 of those miles were for ambulance use.

MR. SIHOTA: I think there are some explanations as to why that would be, but I'll get into that a little bit later on. So the minister says that this year the amount of flight time was 46,000 hours. Did I hear that right?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The figure was 467,000.

[11:30]

MR. ROSE: Through the kindness of the minister making the logs available.... On the same subject: in March of 1990, according to our research of the most recent months that were tabled, there were 116 flights for cabinet ministers and government personnel, 31 flights for air ambulance and nine for test flights. That means that for the month of March, less than 20 percent of the government jets' flights were for air ambulance. I wonder how this squares with the minister's priorities — that the priority will be for ambulance service.

[ Page 10504 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the priority has always been for air ambulance. Figures vary on the usage of the aircraft for ambulance from month to month. In one month it could well be much higher than in another. I don't know how I can clarify that to make it any clearer for those members to understand.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, we have a little difficulty understanding the averages because of certain months that we selected, and we have our selective processes as well as the other side. I used the same month that the minister did in determining those flights by government members in 1973 or 1975 — or whenever it was. I have it here.

It's no wonder, because of the ministerial use of those planes, that we're forced into about $4.4 million worth of private ambulance service during the year. Not only that, but we don't have the variety of aircraft, so we're forced for other reasons, because we've gone high-tech on the flights. It's interesting that government members are jetting around and the ambulance service often is not, and there are reasons for that.

Let's just take another month. Here's June of 1988: 123 flights for cabinet ministers and government personnel and 23 flights for air ambulance. That means that in June of 1988, government jets were used 82 percent of the time to chauffeur cabinet ministers, and 15 percent of the time they were air ambulances. That' s going to distort the averages too.

I wonder how the averages for that particular year.... There must have been months when they were excessively used as air ambulances because there was an epidemic or something, but that doesn't seem to square with the figures we have. That's why we're asking.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the way the priority is determined is by patient need — not whether it's government aircraft or any other type of aircraft. It's patient need, the terrain, the geographical location, the type of service required and whether the airstrip is water or land. Those determine the type of service that is required and given.

From an ambulance standpoint, we have service locations in Prince George, Cranbrook, Castlegar, Edmonton, Kelowna and Vancouver. It doesn't make much sense for a plane to fly all the way to Prince George and lose all that time in terms of patient care, if we can effect a quicker resolution from a plane somewhere else in the province and for a different terrain. If that patient requires transport from a remote site, then we use a different type of aircraft.

In listening to all this discussion, I'm trying to understand about averages and about the fact that government planes aren't being used. I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the way the priority of aircraft is put in place is according to the needs of the patients. That's number one, and that's going to continue. When we need jet aircraft for transport in a jet zone — which has been established by the committee I talked about earlier, which is comprised of all users and all types of specialists with all types of expertise — then the priority is government air. At that time, if we take those flights, the majority of flights in that qualification are government air. Those are the types of questions that those members opposite should be asking. They don't understand whether it's 39 percent or 23 percent.

Why don't we talk about patient care once in a while? Isn't patient care important in all this process? What are we talking about? We're talking politics here: whether a cabinet minister was traveling or a patient was traveling. What's the matter with patient care? Is no one on that side of the House concerned about that?

Interjections.

HON. J. JANSEN: Unbelievable. Listen to them all justifying their politics — not concerned at all....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the minister make his comments through the Chair, please.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought I was talking through the Chair, but I was pointing in that direction. I get carried away sometimes in my waving of hands.

But I should also mention that we use a number of different aircraft. We use jets. We use turboprops. We use helicopters. We use floatplanes. We'll use an ultralight if the patient needs that service. We will do everything possible to get patients to where we need them, when we need them and how we need them.

MR. DE JONG: I had not intended to get into this debate. However, I have been listening very closely, and it seems to me that we are going somewhat in the wrong direction in approaching this matter. We talk about what percentage is used for the ambulance service and what percentage is used for government service. In my opinion, the percentages are really immaterial. When we look at the hospital services that are currently provided compared to what was provided five or ten years ago, it's very clear that many services that would only have been provided through some of the major hospitals in cities like Vancouver and perhaps Victoria are now provided in many other hospitals throughout the province.

I'll give you a very clear example of that. A brother-in-law of mine.... When it comes close to the family, you take a greater interest in what is available, because you are very concerned about the individual. In 1987 he suffered a severe heart attack, and there was no problem. In fact, we were all surprised at the speedy service provided for him to get from Vernon to Vancouver. There was no question about the government air service not being available. He had a recurrence of a similar nature early this spring, only about a month ago. Again, there was no question, although I must say that some of the things they were not able to provide in terms of care in Vernon in 1987 are available there today. The urgency wasn't as great the last time as it was the previous

[ Page 10505 ]

time, due to their being better able to combat the problem of an ill person at the local hospital.

I get very annoyed, to say the least, that we use simple percentages and don't look at the broader picture as it applies to hospital services and ambulance services when required. I know for a fact that in the case of a relative of ours who is very close to us, there has never been a problem. The government air service has always been available when needed.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to ask leave of the House to make a brief introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, visiting the House today are 25 or more students from Brechin Elementary School in Nanaimo, along with their teacher, Mr. A. Ferguson. I would ask the House to please join me in making these people welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I have to leave the House for some meetings, but a while ago the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) commented on 1988, when we were doing estimates in this House and talking about the ratios of use of aircraft — ambulance versus executive use. At that time I was sitting with officials, and they gave me an estimate of it. As it turns out, the member for Vancouver East, who has now left the House, said that I misled the House. I don't expect him to take anything back or apologize or anything else. The numbers the Minister of Government Management Services just gave were very close — within a very few percentage points — to the estimates for 1987, which were the estimates I was commenting on at that time, and the only information I had in front of me.

I think the extinct volcano needs a little more lava. You should do a little more research. He'll do anything to politick, but he's always very short on facts, and he prevaricates as well.

MR. ROSE: I'm not sure that the hon. minister, for whom I gave way, would like to leave "prevaricate" on the books.

MR. GABELMANN: He doesn't know what it means.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if he would care to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the minister wish to withdraw?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The opposition House Leader wishes me to withdraw. I accused the first member for Vancouver East of prevaricating. If I could find another word I would use it, but I will withdraw "prevaricate."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. ROSE: I thought that was graciously done, Mr. Chairman. It was so gracious that I'm going to withdraw the word "unctuous, " as applied to the minister's speech — before I use it. 

MR. CHAIRMAN: I sometimes think that the Clerk should provide a dictionary for the Chair.

MR. ROSE: It's called Beauchesne. We have all the unparliamentary words right here at our disposal, Mr. Chairman. Any time you need a list of them, I'll be pleased to supply them. I know them by heart.

The minister has said that patient care comes first, and so it should. What we are concerned about is that if there are instances because of other priorities such as ministerial travel — and we've had some published examples of that....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't know. I just hope....

For instance, the champion frequent flyer, according to the information that I have, is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage). In July 1989 he took 22 flights in one month. That is quite a record. I need to be assured — and so do the people of this province — that no patient was left stranded or delayed because of the use of that plane. What we've done in essence — and I'd better say this before my friend from Nanaimo says it — is privatize ambulance services and socialize ministerial travel.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, maybe you should, but that's a decision.

One of the problems is with the government aircraft, because we've gone high-tech with the jets, and we don't have the variety that is needed, which was mentioned by the Minister of Health. So we're forced to dish out juicy, million-dollar contracts to provide those, because money was squandered on the Challenger by the Minister of International Business and Immigration. We can't even give away that white elephant now. I think your predecessor said that it was used once last year for air ambulance. How many helicopters, floatplanes and Beavers could you buy for eight million bucks? It's ridiculous. We're spending over $4 million every year on private contractors.

[11:45]

I want to ask the minister whether, in her review — which is taking place, she assures us — she'll look into the fact that there could be a more varied service in order to not rely so heavily on those Cessnas. Obviously you're seldom using the Challenger. Would that be a consideration which the minister would view kindly?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, expert after expert has told us that the best plane for the uses that we require in British Columbia is the Cessna. Without question, it's the very best plane.

[ Page 10506 ]

Your concern seems to be the charter of other aircraft, but you're talking about selling some of the Cessnas to buy helicopters and....

MR. ROSE: The Challenger.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, the Challenger is a separate matter from the Cessnas used for ambulance service. But I can tell you that the Challenger, for as long as it's with us, is going to provide a fair number of ambulance hours. We're estimating 600 hours in the next few months. So as long as we have it, we're going to use it. I think we're going to find out that it's a very valuable airplane to have. Quebec has one that's used totally for ambulance service — organ transplants — in a lot of areas where a Citation is even difficult to use, because it's a small plane inside and not terribly comfortable for a doctor to travel in.

The review that I've talked about may well look at those kinds of things. But I want to tell the member that we don't have any difficulty with chartering with the private sector — none at all. To take that away, I think, would be wrong.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister — I wouldn't say deliberately — misses my point. She comes to a tremendous defence of the Challenger; she says Quebec has one, and all the rest of it. Why did you try to flog it as recently as a few months ago? You found that there were no takers for a flying white elephant.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The "white elephant" are your words. Yes, we did put the Challenger on the market. The market is soft right now. It seems to us as a government that, rather than letting the plane sit somewhere waiting to be sold, it's better being used, and that's what's happening.

The Challenger purchase was good for British Columbia. We received $34 million worth of business for Canadair through the purchase of that airplane. It hasn't lost any value; in fact it has increased in value In a good selling market. It is an asset to British Columbians. So it's your opinion that that airplane is a white elephant.

MR. ROSE: All I know is that the minister was anxious to sell it. That was where the suggestion came from; it didn't come from this side of the House.

The other point that was missed, though, was that we do not have enough variety. It's not that there would never be any use for contracted ambulances I'm not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that since we've got all our eggs in the Challenger-Cessna basket, maybe we could supply a greater variety to serve this area and the coast. You say the experts tell you. Well, the expert over there, the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen), says we don't have the kind of machinery necessary to get into certain places, and that's why we have to charter.

MR. MERCIER: We've been listening to so much about air travel. You can tell how small-minded the opposition is about how an operation runs, because all over the world governments and business found that airplanes were quite a convenient method of transportation to complete the objectives that they have. The objectives of this government expand well beyond....

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get on to some other items that the minister is responsible for. In continuing this line of questioning, I think the opposition has tried to tie health services to air services. They have really practised their usual innuendo fighting. They obviously took advantage of air transportation when they were in office 1972-75. How do they expect members to serve their ridings?

It's really convenient for one of the members for Point Grey to criticize, when he can hop back and forth every day in 30 minutes on the Helijet, which he does. Well, hopping back and forth in this province in a Helijet only works for a 30-minute flight. When you have a greater distance to go, you have to use different vehicles. I think it's a very efficient way, and the opposition are starting to look a little ridiculous for pounding on this same issue.

MR. PETERSON: Just starting to look ridiculous?

MR. MERCIER: They don't have to try very hard.

The issue I wanted to bring to the minister's attention is quite important: recycling. The Burnaby council, although not of the same political persuasion, has gone to great lengths to develop programs for recycling materials. I know the minister is responsible for doing all the government purchasing. In conducting the purchasing function, things that are acquired in government operations can be reused. To win in the recycling game, it isn't just the supplier of the products, it's the end-users of the products. I'd like to hear some comment on the types of products that are purchased and the supplies that you are responsible for acquiring on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and the practices that have been put in place for meeting the goal that we all have of improving our environment.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I want to thank the member for Burnaby-Edmonds for changing the subject — it's a welcome relief, I can tell you — to something as exciting as the Purchasing Commission. It doesn't matter where I go in Canada, I hear about British Columbia's Purchasing Commission. In fact, B.C. chairs the National Committee on Environmental Purchasing because B.C.'s Purchasing Commission is seen as the leader in Canada. They developed the first provincial environmental purchasing policy in Canada. Even the opposition would recognize that all of us in B.C. should be proud of what the Purchasing Commission has accomplished and is continuing to accomplish.

They also implemented a successful pilot project to turn government waste paper into reuseable fibre and to seek new uses for this output. Project Paper

[ Page 10507 ]

Push will be expanded this year to include all Vancouver and Victoria government offices. So far we've dealt with 645 tonnes of reuseable paper.

The Purchasing Commission also implemented Paper Smart, a policy that encourages staff to use recycled paper, to duplex photocopying and printing, and to eliminate the use of legal-sized paper and files.

As minister responsible for the Purchasing Commission, I am indeed proud of the initiatives that the staff have undertaken. They have worked not just within British Columbia but also in providing opportunities for business people in this province to access contracts right across western Canada.

The environmental issue is very, very strong throughout the Ministry of Government Management Services. I've already said that we're leaders in Canada and that we should all be proud of that. Some of the other examples— other than paper recycling — have to do with re-refined oil, which has been an ongoing issue in the Purchasing Commission for some time. The minister's stationery in every minister's office is recycled paper. That paper is available to the entire public service.

As you probably know, you don't have to deal with the Purchasing Commission, but certainly it's the best way to purchase in British Columbia. We're hopeful that our environmental policies will encourage not just government ministries to use the Purchasing Commission, but also hospitals, school boards and municipal governments. That service is available to everyone in British Columbia. It gives local business — British Columbia businesses — a better opportunity to access the business that's available through the Purchasing Commission.

I should add that the Purchasing Commission is also a leader in energy conservation. You saw recently in the Times-Colonist a picture of BCBC installing energy-conserving light bulbs on the front of the parliament buildings, That's just one example of how this ministry, particularly the Purchasing Commission, has paid attention to the environment. I'm very, very proud of what we've done.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to return to the questions I was asking the minister, so I guess I'm changing the topic again. I'm a little confused with the answer the minister gave.

As I understood the minister — and again, there was a little heckling going on, so I may not have heard it all — she was talking about 1.1 million hours of flight time in 1989, of which 467,000 were used for ambulance service. I just want to verify that. Were those the correct numbers?

HON. MRS. GRAN: They were 1.1 million nautical miles and 467,000 nautical miles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member still up in the air?

MR. SIHOTA: No, I'm not up in the air anymore.

Do you have information that relates to hours — how many flight hours as opposed to nautical miles?

HON. MRS. GRAN: We use miles because hours are not representative of the true facts.

MR. SIHOTA: Do you keep records of hours on a broken-down basis? Or would you have to go to the logs, check it all out, and go through a rather cumbersome process? Is that information as readily available as the nautical miles and the percentages that you referred to earlier on? Or is that information just not readily available in the ministry?

HON. MRS. GRAN: That information is available in the logs. When we change the process of public access to those logs, that issue will be dealt with at the same time. But the records are kept in the logs.

[12:00]

MR. SIHOTA: So if I wanted to know whether X hours of flight time were spent on air ambulance and Y hours of flight time were spent on ministerial travel, that information would not be readily available through the ministry. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I suspect that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew does have an agenda with his questions — an agenda that goes beyond the estimates — even though he says he doesn't. My answer to you is that nautical miles are the only way to determine anything meaningful.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, the fact may or may not be that I have an agenda, but let's just for a second assume that I do, if one were to take the minister's argument. So assume that I do. Does the minister believe that that's a reason not to provide me with the information that I'm requesting?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I didn't say I wouldn't.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister said she wouldn't provide that information. So let me.... Sorry, go ahead.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I don't want it on the record that I have said I wouldn't provide the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew with anything. I haven't said that. What I've said to you is that we deal in nautical miles. When the process is changed on how the information is accessed from those logs, then the information that you're looking for will be there for whatever purpose you want it.

MR. SIHOTA: But if the minister is saying that currently that information is not available.... If I wanted to know how many hours of flight time were spent on ambulance service, is that information not readily available currently to the ministry?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The statistics that we've given you are based on the number of flights, and that's

[ Page 10508 ]

how we determine the percentage. The information that you're talking about is in the logs.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, look. I sense — and I'll put this on the record so it's clear — that the minister thinks that I'm trying to prove her percentage numbers wrong by trying to present it in a different way through flight hours. That's not what I'm trying to do at all. I almost sense that in the minister's response.

All I'm trying to find out is this. You have said that you've got some percentages, and that's fine. You've also said that you provide the information through nautical miles. Are there other ways in which you also look at that information? One way you can look at it is the hours of flight time spent on one activity versus another. Does that category also exist as a source of information for examination of air travel time?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll say it again. We use miles and numbers of flights. The information that you're talking about would take the same kind of manual hours that going through the logs the last few days has taken both the media and the opposition. It's something that we would like to change. But we're comfortable with using flights and miles.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the minister for that answer. I probably only have one or two questions left, and then we can get on to other matters. Can I take it that the minister's answer is, then, that information is not readily available in terms of categorizing it in the fashion that I've described it: X hours of flight time?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the information that the member is talking about is available in the logs and has been available publicly for the last three days. I don't know what else I can say.

MR. SIHOTA: It's available in the logs, but the ministry doesn't record it for overall analysis purposes, doesn't keep a summary of that information, in the fashion that I've described. Is that a fair way of putting what the minister had to say?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I believe that it is a correct way. We don't require the information you're talking about for our purposes. But it is available to us if we wanted it, and to you also.

MR. SIHOTA: My final question is this. She has provided us with the information for '87, '88 and '89, and I thank her for that and for the candour with which she provided that information.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Minister, I think we'd get through the estimates a lot quicker if you'd talk to your caucus members and tell them to keep their mouths shut so we could just get this stuff finished.

Let me ask the minister to answer this final question. Is it true, Madam Minister — because you do have the information there for '87, '88 and '89, because you referred to it earlier — that for the years '87, '88 and '89 the information was not available in terms of X hours of flight time spent on one activity: namely, the ambulance service, versus another, namely, for example, ministerial travel? Apart from the logs, that information was not available in summary fashion. Is that...?

MR. GABELMANN: Before I ask a few questions, I just want to have on the record something that I think should be obvious, but occasionally, listening to some of the heckling and interjections from the government backbenchers, there's some evidence that maybe it's not clear to all members that the record should show that none of this questioning or the comments made by MLAs on this side of the House in the last few days questions the need and the rightfulness of ministerial travel on government jets. There are many occasions when it is appropriate for cabinet ministers, their senior deputies, some other officials and even, I might add, for ordinary MLAs in this House. It is appropriate for the jet to be used on occasion if it's available. Nobody has ever questioned that point, and it needs to be said.

There are airports that serve regions of this province which have limited commercial schedules and which occasionally require long delays in Vancouver. It's really difficult when this kind of activity occurs. As a result of that, there are occasions when it is entirely appropriate if the plane is available. That's important to say and to understand.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I intend to do this quietly and, hopefully, rationally. I trust that members of the other side will behave in a similar fashion.

The air ambulance was established. The air services were established as an air ambulance in the first instance. It was public policy that their priority would be for air ambulance, and that when the planes were available for senior public service and ministerial travel, they could and were used. That policy should continue.

What we have been talking about is clear and obvious abuse of that situation. We're talking now about a government air fleet which appears to no longer have ambulance service as its priority and main use.

I want to ask some questions. If I'm correct in understanding, there are six Cessna Citations. May I ask where they are....

HON. MRS. GRAN: Five.

MR. GABELMANN: Five. I guess the confusion comes from the Challenger being included in the jet fleet. Let's leave the Challenger out; it's another issue. There are five Cessnas. Where, in the ordinary course of events, are those Cessnas stationed?

[ Page 10509 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think now we're getting to some questions that are worth discussing. Where the airplanes are stationed is very important. One of the things that I'm sure is going to come out of this review is that we should have at least one aircraft stationed perhaps in Prince George, in a more central part of the province— not all of them in Victoria. But currently all of the airplanes are stationed here in Victoria. I have to tell you there is always one airplane on call for ambulance.

MR. GABELMANN: To clarify the last point: if there are five overlapping requests from ministers or senior public servants, will only four of those requests be honoured?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Not necessarily. There's always one aircraft kept close enough to be used for ambulance purposes. For example, if there was an emergency in Kamloops, and there was an aircraft in that vicinity with a minister or the Premier in it, that aircraft would be diverted and used for ambulance purposes. The minister or the Premier would be left to find another way to go to wherever they were headed.

MR. GABELMANN: If within a few minutes there was more than one ambulance request, and all five Citations were in the air carrying government ministers or staff, what would happen?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Our air service has as its number one priority emergency ambulance service. If those aircraft are close enough to the emergency, they would be diverted to that emergency. In many cases — and I think the Minister of Health just explained that — dispatchers have to make a judgment call. They have to do it quickly and sometimes under a lot of stress. They have to decide very quickly whether they can wait for that airplane to be diverted and arrive where the emergency is or whether they should charter. Those are decisions that get made in a matter of minutes or seconds.

MR. GABELMANN: As they should, Mr. Chairman. The minister confirms that all five Cessnas could be in the air at any given time carrying government. Could be; I'm not saying always are, or anything. I understood the minister to answer the question that all five Citations could be in the air at any one time carrying ministers or senior public servants or B.C. Hydro officials or whatever. That's possible, right?

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's highly unlikely for all five to be in the air at once. It's my experience, in the short period of time that I've been minister, that there's at least one and sometimes two of those aircraft down for maintenance purposes, so very rarely do you have five aircraft in the air at one time.

[12:15]

MR. GABELMANN: Fair enough, and I understand the maintenance issue, so let me ask the question another way. It is, then, possible that all the available aircraft — available to fly — could at any one given time be being used for the purposes we are talking about, ministerial and other government travel?

HON. MRS. GRAN: There is always one aircraft in Victoria for ambulances, so the answer is that all five would not be in the air at one time carrying cabinet members or other public officials.

MR. GABELMANN: If a minister had ordered up a plane and it was approved and he was getting on the plane in Prince George, just to pick a city...

AN HON. MEMBER: Or she.

MR. GABELMANN: Or she.

... and the Citation available for ambulance purposes was on the ground in Victoria, and an emergency happened in Terrace, what guidelines does the EHS dispatcher have in respect of making a decision about what to do in that situation if a plane is needed quickly? It's a situation of the Victoria Citation taking an hour or more to get to Terrace, or the Prince George plane taking 20 minutes or, I guess, probably 30 minutes at the most, or arranging a charter on the ground, which presumably doesn't happen instantly either. What kind of guidelines are in place for that kind of scenario?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, we're getting into a difficult area now, because the policies for emergency health fall under the Ministry of Health and I can't answer those questions. But I can tell you that the patient's needs are served first and foremost. Again, we go back to the dispatcher. If a call comes from a doctor, the dispatcher acts on that call and has to make a judgment at that time on which aircraft to call, whether it's the government aircraft in Prince George, I think you said, or in Victoria or whether it's better, for the patient, to charter an aircraft in Terrace.

MR. GABELMANN: Is it possible that the dispatcher would order a plane carrying a government minister that has just left Prince George and is in the air on its way to Victoria to divert to Terrace, pick up the ambulance patient and leave the minister in Terrace?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, that's entirely possible. If the dispatcher felt that it was in the best interest of the patient to take that particular plane, then the minister would be unloaded. I myself had an experience with that in Prince George not long after I became minister. I was up there dealing with women's programs. There was an emergency, and the plane was needed.

MR. GABELMANN: Given that and the fact that there has been a constant number of Citations avail-

[ Page 10510 ]

able for the last few years, how does the minister account for the increase in chartered jets? We're not talking about helicopters, floatplanes or other craft that are needed to get into small runways or different situations. How does the minister account for the dramatic increase in chartered jets for air ambulance service in the last period of time?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Again, I have to go back to the Ministry of Health. It's difficult for me to answer that question. But I can tell you that the aircraft used in air services are available at all times for emergency air ambulance. Why there is an increase, if there is.... I can't answer that, except to say that those judgment calls must have meant that they needed a jet more quickly than they could have get one from Victoria.

MR. GABELMANN: The minister has to understand that it's awfully suspicious that the number of chartered jet flights for ambulances increased so dramatically at the same time as the number of flights by ministers also increased so dramatically on the Citations. For government members to suggest that there isn't an issue here of public policy is clearly quite wrong; there is a major issue of policy here.

I want to ask just another question or two before I defer to the first member for Nanaimo, (Mr. Lovick). There is the question of management of the fleet. Clearly the EHS dispatcher manages the air ambulance dispatch. Who manages the government travel dispatch? Who organizes it to ensure economy, for example?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The Ministry of Government Management Services manages government air services, and they answer to us.

MR. GABELMANN: I understand the ministry does. I asked: Is there an individual charged with receiving requests from ministers, looking at them, figuring out where they're going and whether there's another plane going in an hour or two which may well be able to meet the needs? Who actually manages the scheduling?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Dispatch does the job that I guess you're talking about. Quite frankly, it's an area in which I'm sure the review is going to tell us there could be some efficiencies. I'm not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that the planes ministers are using and reserving at dispatch are not needed. I'm sure each minister can justify and verify the use of those planes. But it would be foolish for me as minister to suggest that there aren't more efficient ways to deal with the dispatch of those planes. Certainly that's an area we're looking at.

MR. GABELMANN: Is it not true that at least up till now, the planes, if available, are dispatched simply upon the unvetted request of a minister?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Essentially what you're saying is correct, but there is a policy to try to organize ministers' requests so that they can travel together, so that there is more economy and more effective use of the airplanes.

The only time that I as minister get involved is, for example, if it's out of province or if there's a request for MLAs or other people who need to have authorization under the policy to be on the aircraft. We do the very best we can to coordinate the trips properly. I'm not suggesting we couldn't do a better job.

MR. GABELMANN: Is that a public service function, or is it a function of a politically appointed staff person?

HON. MRS. GRAN: They're all union members; they're all public servants.

MR. GABELMANN: Perhaps the minister misunderstood me. Does the minister's executive assistant, special assistant or political staff have any role to play whatsoever in this process?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Absolutely not.

MR. GABELMANN: So what happens is that the minister has his assistant or secretary phone the public service side of the ministry and ask to reserve a plane to go to Kamloops, Prince George or Cranbrook. Then, if the plane is available, that request is approved. It's done simply as a bureaucratic function of the ministry. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes. They phone air services and reserve the plane. It's handled exactly as you're saying.

MR. GABELMANN: If....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair, hon. member.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I always do my comments in the third person, not the first person.

If a minister phones, reserves a plane and it's booked, and then a little while later another minister or his staff phones and books another plane to a neighbouring city perhaps, does the staff person then have a look at that and phone the minister back and say: "I'm not going to give you your request, because I think you'd be better off on this other flight"? Do they actually do that?

Let me ask the next question at the same time. Do they say: "No, that's not an appropriate request; we think you should be doing something else"? Do public servants have the temerity to do that to ministers?

HON. MRS. GRAN: My answer would have to be that the individual does his or her very best to coordinate those flights to two places to get the two

[ Page 10511 ]

ministers, or however many there are.... You are quite right; public servants don't usually question ministers or their offices. But I can tell you that as minister I have a very close liaison with government air services, as do my senior staff. We help out in that area.

MR. LOVICK: Just to pursue very briefly the point my colleague the member for North Island left off at, is it not the case that the guidelines as written effectively say that the minister's request for a special flight is granted? Any minister can make a request, and it doesn't look as if there would be anything in the guidelines to prevent that request from being accepted. Isn't that the case in the guidelines?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Essentially, yes. But you could go through our cabinet and find all kinds of members — I hear the complaints regularly — who are turned down. Our government House Leader is just telling me that he has been turned down lots of times. We have one minister who doesn't even bother to travel on government air services anymore because he's been turned down so many times.

MR. LOVICK: What did the minister mean when she made or was alleged to have made that statement to the press that the guidelines don't apply to cabinet ministers?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I guess that's an example of expressing — in frustration — what I was trying to get across to the media in the guidelines. The guidelines are written in a way that is very clear to me, but perhaps not to all other people. The criteria listed on the guidelines apply to public servants and other public officials. The special flight availability is for the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier and cabinet members. That's not to say that they are excluded from the policy, but they have greater flexibility within the policy.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, that's precisely the point I was making. In other words, the guidelines are such that ministers can more or less do what they want in terms of calling up a flight. It is highly unlikely that any civil service person would then say: "I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, there's something in the way." Is that a fair construction?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Maybe we should talk a bit about the purpose of the airplanes in the first place We've talked a lot about ambulance use and about that being the number one priority. I'm sure all of the members on that side of the House recognize that cabinet ministers would never be able to service the rest of the province if it wasn't for the efficient and convenient use of government airplanes.

[12:30]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, but I'm feeling like I have to say it over and over, because it's a very big part of making the lives of cabinet ministers easier in representing the entire province. I think those of us on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island sometimes forget that there is a whole province beyond Hope.

MR. GABELMANN: And beyond the Malahat.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes. I understand that the member for North Island has often talked about the difficulty he has in serving his constituents, and I sympathize with that.

I think about the people I met on my tour around the province — and I used the government aircraft. My staff and I traveled at night....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, we did. We traveled at night so that we could be in the next town bright and early in the morning, and I can tell you that the people in those cities throughout the province appreciated having a minister come to them rather than expecting them to come to Victoria. In my ministry particularly, with women, it's important for me to be out wherever they are and to talk to them and consult with them. So the use of the government aircraft is more than defensible.

MR. LOVICK: I was struck by the fact that the minister felt the need, for a moment at least, to suggest that we have to explain once again the reason for an air service. I would point out once again from this side that none of us has ever suggested there isn't a need for an air service or that cabinet members shouldn't have that service available. The focus of the question....

MR. MERCIER: So what's this all about?

MR. LOVICK: Isn't this interesting, Mr. Chairman? A number of people are feeling very defensive, curiously enough.

For the benefit of members opposite, the question we have been posing and trying to focus on is whether the service has been abused and whether the guidelines have been followed as they ought to have been all the time.

HON. MR. SMITH: Name names.

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to name some. Don't you worry, Mr. Attorney. You will hear some of that.

The question, though, is priorities. I would like to quote to the minister her own guidelines, because I have a hunch they are not entirely familiar to ministers. Let me remind her and all others opposite of what the guidelines actually say. They make the point that the air services branch may make arrangements for a special flight when the request is from a minister, to be sure — and I would quote underneath — "when no regular scheduled air service is available or the time of any scheduled air service is unreasonable or the flight cost is economical...."

[ Page 10512 ]

That's one construction, Madam Minister, but I want to point out that there's another way to read the document. This is why I asked you the question about whether the guidelines apply. It is also possible to read the same statement this way: the minister can make a special flight, without qualification. This is going to be a bit confusing. Do you have the document, Madam Minister? Okay. Let me take it from the top then. It says: "The air services branch may make arrangements for a special flight where the request is from the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier or a minister." Stop. No guidelines.

HON. MRS. GRAN: There's a period.

MR. LOVICK: Right, no guidelines. In other words, all those other guidelines, then — no regular air services are available, the time of any scheduled services is unreasonable, the flight cost is economical — apply only to other officials or public service employees. Right? That's what you meant when you said the guidelines don't apply. In other words, the moment the minister says, "I want a special flight," according to the letter of the guideline, everybody should say, "Yes, sir; no, sir; three bags full," or the equivalent: "Yes, madam; no, madam; three bags full." Is that not true?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I have to say that the questions regarding the guidelines are very tedious. I have already said that ministers, the Premier and the Lieutenant-Governor have greater flexibility under this policy.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I understand the member's difficulty, because he has never been in government. But I know that the member for North Island (Mr Gabelmann) understands what I'm saying when I talk about the flexibility in this policy. Mr. Member, you have read the policy correctly.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I want you to listen to this. Ministers are responsible to this House.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, if the only thing you want to do is hear your own words played back, then I won't bother standing up anymore.

Ministers are responsible to this House. What we're witnessing today is the responsibility of ministers. Public servants don't have to stand up in this House and defend their actions, but ministers do. So the accountability for ministers, the Premier and the Lieutenant-Governor is different in the policy, and so it should be.

MR. LOVICK: I'd just remind the minister, however, of the last paragraph following that set of guidelines. This is what opens the door to the whole issue of abuse. Let me quote to you the last statement following the passage I just finished reading to you. "Ministries shall ensure that requests for special flights are justified on the basis of economy or special needs that cannot be met in a more cost-effective manner." In other words, there is a set of guidelines for ministers.

The question then — back to the one I posed about an hour ago — is whether the minister would agree that there have been abuses of the service insofar as they deviate from that guideline. Would she answer that question?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll answer the question, and I've answered it over and over again. There is no abuse of the guidelines. I have also said that there are efficiencies to look at and ways that we can do things better. I know the member wants some admission of abuse from some minister, but I don't think, hon. member, that you're going to get it.

MR. LOVICK: I don't want admissions of abuse from some minister; I want an answer from the minister responsible for the whole service.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, you got it.

MR. LOVICK: No, I didn't get an answer, with all due deference, Mr. Chairman; I have a straight denial. And now I want to offer some suggestions that maybe there are some counter-examples and some counter-evidence.

When we got our answer earlier this morning, the answer about abuses was: 'Everything that the press is talking about is lies."

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, that isn't what I said.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, was it just Abbotsford you were referring to?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No. I was talking about my own case.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, that's good. You were talking about your own particular case. In other words, no other abuses you knew were flagrant lies, or alleged abuses, except the ones in Abbotsford. Are you narrowing the question to that?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, as ministers we are each responsible for our own travel arrangements. This morning's example was my own instance, and we were talking about allegations of abuse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Labour and of Social Services and Housing has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

[ Page 10513 ]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, it is a particular pleasure for me to make this introduction today. We have with us Dave Rempel, principal of Mount Crescent Elementary School in Maple Ridge. He has with him 20 students from that school. As glad as we are to have the Maple Ridge students with us, even more significant is that with them and visiting us today are 20 students from the Soviet Union. These are students 11 to 16 years old. I had the opportunity to greet them at the front of the buildings a few minutes ago. I can tell you how pleased they are with the hospitality, the goodwill and the friendship that's been shown to them by the Canadian people. I'd like the House now to show them our goodwill and express our appreciation to them for coming to visit us here in this Legislature.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to join with the minister in congratulating the students from the U.S.S.R. and their two chaperones. I don't know their names, but I did have the opportunity to meet them in Maple Ridge at the secondary school last week, where they were celebrating a multiculturalism day.

These students, I believe, are going to be touring the province for about ten days or so. They did an excellent job with their performers. I'd just like to say that we're very honoured to have them in our community, and we want them to return home with good memories, and tell all the good stories that I'm sure they've had.

One final thing: I want to thank them as well for the book they gave me, called the Medeo. I'm not sure what that is, but I understand there is a winter stadium in Russia where people go to skate and play hockey, and people from all over the world visit this place. Mind you, when I read the book, it's very matter of fact. When they talk about the terrain and the colourful flowers, etc., they don't use all of the terms and adjectives that we do here in North America, but you get the sense that in their own sincere way they're really talking about a beautiful piece of that country. So we wish them well on their return home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The debate now continues on vote 34.

MR. LOVICK: The minister's answer to my suggestion about responsibility to look into an account for alleged abuses is that each minister ought to be responsible for his or her own behaviour. I would remind the minister of a very important doctrine of government by which our system does function. Though I have not been in government, I know a little bit about this stuff. The doctrine is called ministerial responsibility, and it means that the minister who is in charge of any given department must answer and account for all the activities of that department.

You, Madam Minister, are responsible for Government Management Services, including provincial air services. All the questions and allegations about abuses of that service therefore belong properly to you. I shouldn't need to tell you that, Madam Minister, but that is indeed the case. To suggest that it belongs to somebody else is simply wrong.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Then maybe we'd better clarify, because it seems to me that what you said was effectively to step away from the responsibility that properly belongs to you. Perhaps you would like to clarify.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's always nice to be able to enter debate and discussion on these matters, particularly following a lecture from the first member for Nanaimo.

[12:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) says that I shouldn't swear. He's right; I shouldn't curse. From time to time I do. But I must say that the opposition was somewhat more muted after I spoke today than they were before. That was the general object of the exercise.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Anytime I get the opportunity to stand in the House, discuss those kinds of issues and drop-kick the opposition, I will be more than happy to do so — particularly the second member for Nanaimo, whose skin, obviously, I now am under. You have no idea how pleased that makes me.

One of the wonders about our parliamentary system, of course, is the responsibility of ministers for the actions of their departments. Of course, the second member for Nanaimo is right when he says that each minister is responsible for the overall operation of the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: First member for Nanaimo. Sorry about that. He was the second member.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on two occasions now the member for Kamloops, the hon. Attorney-General, has misidentified me. I am indeed the first member for Nanaimo. Let us establish that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is taken.

HON. MR. SMITH: I will be happy to refer to the first member for Nanaimo as the first member for Nanaimo. He's a pretty forgettable chap, and from time to time I get confused.

In any event, the minister is responsible for each of our ministries, but it is also the case that each of us is responsible, in our own estimates, for the expenditures that we undertake. Of course, as that member may or may not know, the expenditures we're referring to here are from time to time charged back to the

[ Page 10514 ]

ministry that requests them. So what the minister said was highly correct, and hopefully that member has now learned that lesson about government. He claimed he knew so much about it a few moments ago.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) got filled with anxiety today as well by some of my comments. I must say that it has been instructive for me to watch the member for Coquitlam-Moody over the last couple of weeks. For the opposition leader, I guess it's kind of the ides of Moody, because now we've had two consecutive members for Coquitlam-Moody take a look at the leadership of their party just prior to an election, cut out and go on to other things. I must say that the Leader of the Opposition should know that following the ides of Moody comes the notion that you should "beware open-line shows in Nelson." That's the second step, and I'm sure he'll take note of that as well.

In terms of the use of various government facilities by members of cabinet, as well as by those from Crown corporations who have access to that transportation system, I think it is worthy of repeating, as I said earlier today, that the people of this province are entitled to have government represent itself to them in the interior of the province and outside of this little nest of socialists on the southern end of Vancouver Island.

There are a couple of ways you can do that. Obviously one of them is to force people to come to the capital at considerable inconvenience and great expense, because our capital is, after all, located in perhaps the most inconvenient place in the province for the rest of the population. You could force them to come here, or you can take people to where individuals are who want to have an opportunity to access government and access ministers. Those are the options. I think it behooves government ministers to do all they can in serving British Columbia, to be available as frequently as they can and in as many locations as they can to receive delegations and discuss government business. It's good for the people, it's good for the minister, it's good for government, it's good for the province and it's good for this Legislature. It allows you to be informed, it allows you to do your job and it allows you to serve the people in the way that is most convenient to them. I don't know why the NDP object to that. I really don't understand.

I would challenge any one of them — and I now do — to come to Kamloops at the time they wish. I will debate with them before the next election, if they wish, and during the next election — whether or not I'm a candidate — and I will debate with them the appropriateness of having the philosophy of taking government to the people. I'm more than happy to do that, and I invite you to do that. While you're here, Mr. Member for Nanaimo, if you want to get into a debate about the development of the Coquihalla Highway, which you were concerned about, I'm quite happy to debate you about that there as well, and I invite you to do that.

I invite the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) to come there as well and debate with me in Kamloops his position that Kamloops should not have a full radiotherapy centre. I specifically invite him to do that as well, because all of these services are managed by government and are provided by government and are appropriate to the broad range of activities that Government Management Services has to provide. I think the people should have an opportunity to hear what you say about those issues in the communities that we are serving. I would be delighted to do it as well in Fort St. John, and I'm sure the member for North Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet) would also.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether my point of order relates to the Chair or to the Attorney-General. The vote under consideration is the Ministry of Government Management Services. The Attorney-General is not anywhere near that topic, and it would be appropriate if he would return to it. It would also be appropriate if the Chair would have him return to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. I would remind the hon. minister to return to vote 34.

HON. MR SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm more than happy, because I have been on it. We're talking about the management of government services. Do you manage them in a way that presupposes that citizens will have to come to Victoria? Is that how you manage them? Or do you manage them in a way that ensures that government officials, cabinet ministers and decision-makers are made available to the people in their own locations? That is what we're talking about.

In talking about government management services and managing the services of government and in juxtaposing the position taken by the opposition on a whole range of government services, I repeat my challenge to any one of them — but particularly to the political pontificators we have heard today — to come to Kamloops and publicly debate. Whether or not I am a candidate is not material and won't be material. I'm quite happy to do it, because I have an overwhelming and overriding interest in this issue and have had all my life.

We in the interior of British Columbia for too long have listened to people like you talk about the management of government services in a way that means the province of British Columbia ends somewhere west of Hope. Quite frankly, we're sick and tired of it. Quite frankly, we're fed up with it. Quite frankly, the people of British Columbia will continue to embrace politicians who are prepared and willing to talk about the management of government services in a way that will see those services provided to all the regions of this province in a fair and equitable way— including the decision-making process.

Interjections.

[ Page 10515 ]

HON. MR. SMITH: The member for North Island says we have an 800 number for all of that. That's the socialist attitude to providing government services. Let them have an 800 number. We're quite happy down here in our nice little cocoon on southern Vancouver Island, where we can bicycle from the decision-making spot to our home or to the lobby groups. But in the interior, let them have an 800 number. It's Marie Antoinette telephone — this member for North Island.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, just in the midst of this oratorical outburst, the Attorney would surely like to give credit where it's due for that line. It's my line — the Marie Antoinette of the airways. If you're going to use it, at least acknowledge my contribution please, Mr. Attorney.

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

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess if the shoe fits the member for Nanaimo, then I'll lend him the shoehorn to help him put it on.

The issue that we should be examining with respect to the use of government aircraft in the way that has been discussed is pretty simple. I would challenge any one of them to do it. We should talk about the frequency of the use, the timing of the use and the purpose for which it was taken and used — who was met at the other end, what was discussed at the other end and what government business was done.

Before I take my place, I want to ask the minister a question in regard to her role as the minister responsible for B.C. Buildings Corporation. It speaks to the issue of expenditure of government money in and around this facility. I'm concerned if she can answer the following questions for me.

Are there any publicly owned or privately owned media outlets that have space here in the precincts, for which they do not pay rent? What is the cost of that?

What is the cost, if any — and I don't know whether this is the case or not — of the phone service that may or may not be provided to members of the press gallery, who use it, as I understand, now? Do they pay for it, for the use of their computers that go on those lines and run for great lengths of time?

Is there a fax machine in the press gallery, and who pays for it?

Have any rides been taken on airplanes...?

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I seek your guidance. Are the questions being posed by the Attorney-General the responsibility of the Speaker?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order, sir. I think the minister was completely within the guidelines of vote 34.

HON. MR. SMITH: On vote 34, in relation to the minister responsible for the Buildings Corporation, I wish to continue, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I think the point is fundamental. If it falls within the purview of the Speaker, it's clearly inappropriate to ask the questions of the minister. I would ask you to rule on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It may be a point for the Board of Internal Economy, and I will take that comment under advisement.

HON. MR SMITH: Mr. Chairman, as I wind up, I would like as well to ask the minister responsible for government aircraft if anyone has taken rides....

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. minister would move the appropriate motion.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll come back to this the next time we sit. In the meantime, I'll move that 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 1:01 p.m.