[ Page 10613 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Federal consultation on free trade with Mexico. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10613

Temporary work permits for Mexican farmworkers. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10613

B.C. Senate vacancy. Mr. Harcourt –– 10614

Dual entry in school system. Ms. A. Hagen –– 10614

Lifting of Queen of Burnaby. Mr. Sihota –– 10615

Tabling Documents –– 10615

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 –– 10615

Mr. Rose

Mr. Zirnhelt

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Williams

Presenting Reports –– 10640

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the galleries today I note three former members of the Legislative Assembly. Would hon. members please welcome Jim Hewitt, Tom Waterland and Lorne Nicolson.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with great pride I introduce a guest of the assembly who is in the gallery today, a young lady from Tokyo who is taking the English language program at the University of Victoria. Would the House please welcome Tomoko Ono.

MRS. BOONE: The member for Prince George South missed a former member up there, the member who represented both his and my riding, Alf Nunweiler. Would you please greet him.

MR. SPEAKER: There may be a considerable number of former members visiting us today.

MR. BARNES: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I gather the Lieutenant-Governor is going to be hosting MLAs past and present this evening. I guess we're not going to be able to recognize everyone, but Lorne Nicolson is one that I would like to recognize, along with his mother-in-law, Betty Golata. And I understand that Lorne has with him two exchange students who are representing Rotary International: Tatiana Schmidt from Munich, Germany; and Cristi Villegas from Cali, Colombia. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, today we have four interns from the Social Credit caucus who are finishing up that fantastic program you host every year. I would like the House to give a good greeting and farewell to Bruce Hallsor, Kristine Allison, Carolyn Torhjelm and Claire Handley. We enjoyed having you.

MR. JONES: We have some visitors today all the way from New York. They are Dov Fienberg and Linda Handler. I'd like members on both sides of the House to give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I know that the entire membership of the House will want to join me in wishing a happy thirty-fourth wedding anniversary to the Premier and Lillian Vander Zalm.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to introduce the best health minister this province ever had — my predecessor, Dennis Cocke.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL CONSULTATION
ON FREE TRADE WITH MEXICO

MR. GABELMANN: I have a question for the Minister of International Business and Immigration. Last week federal minister John Crosbie announced that his government has started to consult provincial governments on possible expansion and inclusion of a free trade arrangement with Mexico. Would the minister please tell us if British Columbia has been consulted and, if so, what sort of discussions have already taken place?

HON. MR. VEITCH: There is a future policy part of that involved, but I can say yes, the government of British Columbia has been consulted. Yes, we're also working with the government of Canada to ensure that we have more say as far as the current free trade agreement with the United States is concerned. We're looking more to having a better presence at the table on that particular agreement.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm delighted to hear that we'll have a better presence than we had last time. Perhaps we could have saved our commercial fishermen on this coast. What steps has the minister and the government taken to ensure that B.C.'s interests in these discussions are properly represented and protected?

HON. MR. VEITCH: British Columbia is always at the table when it comes to any negotiations with the federal government. We're always there ensuring that all of the interests of the people of British Columbia are protected — not just the special-interest groups. That means everyone in the province.

As far as any negotiations are concerned with respect to the federal government, we will continue with that stance, and we'll ensure that the interests of the people of British Columbia are foremost in every discussion we have with Canada. You can be assured that we won't settle for anything less than a first-class deal for the people of British Columbia.

TEMPORARY WORK PERMITS
FOR MEXICAN FARMWORKERS

MR. GABELMANN: I have another question to the same minister. The Lusztig report recommended that the Minister of International Business and Immigration and also the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage) explore the question of temporary work permits for farmworkers brought in from Mexico. Given the fact that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture have spoken favourably of this report, I wonder if the minister can confirm that it is not the government's intention to enter into discussions with a view to bringing in cheap labour from Mexico.

[ Page 10614 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, any discussions we have regarding Mexico, Japan, Germany or anywhere else is the subject of future policy. It will be dealt with at the time when those discussions are held.

B.C. SENATE VACANCY

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Before I do that though, I'd like to congratulate him and Lillian on their thirty-fourth wedding anniversary. I hope you enjoy the night. I had a very pleasant similar celebration of Beckie's and my nineteenth last night, so I hope that you have the night off and enjoy yourself.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have a question for the Premier. Finance Minister Michael Wilson has suggested that with Meech Lake dead, it would be easier to push the CST through the Senate by stacking that Senate with political friends who are sympathetic to Mulroney's tax grab. Can the Premier inform the House whether he has decided to give the people of British Columbia an opportunity to vote in a democratic election to fill the current B.C. Senate vacancy and send a B.C. Senator to Ottawa to help fight the CST?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the statement from Mr. Wilson, but I suppose it's based upon the fact that Meech Lake did contain a provision whereby we could have some considerable say in who might be put forth as a candidate for the Senate. Obviously that's not to be. I'm guessing that we revert back to the old system of an appointee by the federal government and the Prime Minister based upon whatever rationale they might use. I regret that, because I certainly realize that everybody here is well aware of how Senate reform has been a priority of this government. We've advocated the triple-E Senate: elected, equal and effective — not the triple-A Senate, as I've heard it from the other side: abolish, abolish, abolish.

I agree that an elected, equal and effective Senate could certainly be a considerable influence in dealing with some of the issues that are of concern to us regionally. I appreciate that recognition by the Leader of the Opposition and by the opposition, and I trust henceforth that there will be a change of attitude from the NDP and they'll now support a triple-E Senate.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Premier has said that he supports a triple-A Senate too, to abolish the present Senate and to change it considerably.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: That's exactly what he said.

But does the Premier not agree that B.C. today is in exactly the same constitutional and legal position as Alberta was when they held a Senate election? And does he not agree that it's better to give the people of B.C. a choice rather than allow the Prime Minister to simply pick a name from a list of political pals? If it's good enough for Alberta, Isn't it good enough for B.C. ?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not ruling out any possibility. I certainly think we have to wait and see what might develop over the next while. Without a doubt, there is some considerable question now in all parts of the country as to what will happen constitutionally in the country from here on. So I'm not ruling out anything.

But to liken the situation here today to what it was in Alberta when the government there called for election of a Senator is completely wrong. Alberta took the action following the agreement by all provinces to the Meech Lake accord at Meech Lake. The provision there was that there was in fact an opportunity for us to recommend to the Prime Minister the names, and he would choose from them. Obviously, based on that, Alberta made that decision. We would have as well, and we had already said this. But today we do not have that accord; we don't have that opportunity of recommending or having those recommendations considered or perhaps accepted. But we'll certainly watch it.

I should mention, however, that we as a government must also consider that we do not simply do this for political purposes or convenience, because there will be a considerable cost, naturally, and I think we have to be responsible and consider the cost and the chances of acceptance. Therefore we'll be communicating with the federal government, particularly with the Prime Minister; and if the federal government in fact accepts this, I would be the first to propose that we have an election.

Again, I am pleased to hear that there will then be support for such from the opposition. We've certainly seen a change in attitude.

DUAL ENTRY IN SCHOOL SYSTEM

MS. A. HAGEN: In light of his recent commitment to parents whose children have fifth birthdays in November and December, has the Minister of Education now decided to allow these children the option of enrolling in kindergarten this September?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I made no such commitment as that member has interpreted. I said I would give them a hearing, that I would look at the various ramifications, and that when a decision was made I would let them know. That decision has not yet been made.

MS. A. HAGEN: On June 15 the minister made that commitment to the parents, a commitment to review the policy of the ministry. In this final week of school, will the minister explain why he is still playing around with the educational lives of these children, their parents and the child care and pre-

[ Page 10615 ]

school centres that serve them, all of whom are trying to plan ahead?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not playing around with this issue. I did not make a commitment on June 15 that I would change the legislation. What I have to consider is whether it warrants changing the legislation to accommodate one-sixth of the students in the province and probably disadvantage the other five-sixths. I have not made a decision about the legislation, and I have not made the commitment that the member is.... I'm not playing around. These people clearly understood. The legislation clearly said last year that there was one transition year, and that this year dual entry would be required. That is the legislation in place. I have to consider whether to ask for a change of legislation, and all of the ramifications that that brings with it.

MS. A. HAGEN: A final supplementary to the minister. The minister has heard of this issue since last February. He finally made some commitment to pay attention to the issue on June 15. Why did the minister then not simply announce that this government is not prepared to listen and be flexible? Why is he still keeping this issue in abeyance?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I have consistently announced that we like to abide by the legislation, and that we expect other people to abide by the law, even if the socialists opposite want to encourage people to break the law.

LIFTING OF QUEEN OF BURNABY

MR. SIHOTA: Question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Shortly after the cancellation of the Polar 8 contract, the government provincially announced that it would engage in three projects; the 85-car vessel ferries, the lifting of the Queen of Burnaby and the superferries. The lifting of the Burnaby was scheduled to occur between September and February of this year. Could the minister advise the House whether or not that work will proceed as scheduled?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't want to interrupt the member. I would like the government backbenchers to allow the minister to hear the question, if they could refrain from interjecting.

MR. SIHOTA: Could the minister advise the House whether or not the lifting of the Queen of Burnaby will proceed as scheduled between September of this year and January of 1991? That was the schedule you originally announced. Will it be proceeding on that schedule? I ask that question because of the impending layoffs at the shipyard here in Esquimalt.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question on notice. It's my understanding that that's precisely what will be done, but I will get you more specifics on it.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the minister confirm that B.C. Ferries has abandoned its plan to buy a vessel offshore?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: No, I won't confirm that.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the minister commit her government to building whatever ferries B.C. Ferries intends to build with respect to the superferries? Will you make a commitment today that those ferries will be built here in British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: This government's priority is to do as much work as possible in British Columbia and provide jobs for British Columbians.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the following: the financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the year ended March 31, 1990; the annual report of the Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation, in accordance with section 160 of the Credit Union Act; and the financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Housing and Employment Development Financing Authority for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we commence with the business of the day, I'd like to inform the House that by agreement, we will adjourn this evening at 5:30 so the members may attend a function at Government House. With that, Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

Orders of the Day

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

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

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

MR. ROSE: To the Minister of Government Management Services, I am trying to recall a conversation we had — I believe it was yesterday morning — concerning communications policy. Would the minister mind confirming that her role is merely administrative and has very little to do with policy in communications matters? We were told yesterday that it was really under the Minister of Economic Development.

[ Page 10616 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, my answer is the same as it was yesterday. The policy matters for communication in British Columbia lie under the jurisdiction of Regional Development.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister has any role in policy whatsoever in terms of her own ministry, because she is really the minister of communications — or at least government communications. I found it very difficult to understand this, because certainly the cost of phone rates, fees and all that sort of thing in government communications are directly a responsibility of her own. I'd like her to expand on what her role really is in determining policies that affect such a large portion and a large amount of money in her ministry.

HON. MRS. GRAN: My answer is going to become tedious and repetitious. If we played any part, it would be a consultative part, given the B.C. Systems Corporation and the experienced people in the ministry. Again, the policy for communications is with Regional Development.

MR. ROSE: Would it be possible at all for the minister to expand on this and tell us a little bit more directly, since she's responsible for the phone bills and how they might be impacted by, for instance, a dual long-distance telephone system for Canada, what her role would be under those circumstances? I think she's getting some answers. I don't know that she hears the questions.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The function, in terms of what the member is speaking of, is administration only The member is talking about policy. Again, policy falls under Regional Development.

MR. ROSE: I don't mean to be unduly persistent on these matters. But I am concerned — in view of what was said yesterday — about an item under vote 35 which lists the cost of the office of information technology at about $2.5 million. I'd like to know what that's all about.

[2:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the vote pass?

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister is consulting with her staff — or insulting her staff, I'm not certain which. Anyway, she's busily engaged in supplying me with an answer. I would really appreciate getting it.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Maybe it would be appropriate, while I get the answer to that question sorted out, that the member continue, because he must have other pressing items he wants to talk about.

MR. ROSE: Yes, there are a number of pressing items, but I'm not sure you will be anxious for them to come along any sooner than they would ordinarily

HON. MRS. GRAN: Go for it.

MR. ROSE: I understand what the minister is saying, and she's busy consulting with her staff. The office of information technology net recovery is $2,491,800 under vote 35. If you look down to the explanation or the vote description, it says: "(e) Office of information technology. This subvote provides for the analysis, advice and coordination of the government's information technology and" — get this — "telecommunications strategies and policy issues, including technology standards, security policies and education." So I'd like to know how the minister can reconcile this description of the vote with what she told me yesterday and again today.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The term "policy" used in this sense is for policy for government operations. What the member is talking about is policy for British Columbia, and there's a great difference.

MR. ROSE: I don't know what the minister thinks I'm talking about.

HON. MRS. GRAN: You're talking about phone rates.

MR. ROSE: I'm talking about telecommunications strategies and policy issues, including technology standards, security policies and education. I'd like the minister to explain what this really means. What, for instance, are telecommunications strategies? Would you mind explaining that one? Then we'll go on to some of the others. I'd like a definition of terms here.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The office of information technology works similarly to Treasury Board — if I can use that as an analogy — working with ministries and helping them develop their communication plans within the ministries.

My understanding of what the member is talking about is phone rates and competition across Canada, and the effect that it would have on British Columbia. It has absolutely nothing to do with this part of my ministry.

MR. ROSE: I've abandoned that. I take your word for it that you've nothing to do with that. They have taken that away from you. You have nothing to do with superannuation or pensions, and yet you're the superannuation minister. I just begin to wonder from time to time what on earth you are in charge of.

What concerns me here at the moment is not the cross-subsidization or the competing Unitel-CNCT, but what you are doing with $2.5 million. Tell us what you expect to get out of it. What's it for?

I wonder if the minister could give me a recent example, and I take it from the budget papers here — the estimates — where it says that this subvote provides analysis and coordination of the government's information technology. Could you give me an example of your analysis?

[ Page 10617 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: I get the impression that the member is killing time, so I'll play his little game with him. It will be also educational for me.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sorry. The last thing I would want to do is demean a member of the opposition. You're always so fair.

MR. ROSE: Give me a break.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes. Give me a break, he says. I'll give you a breakdown on the $2.4 million. Half of it goes for salaries and benefits. The other half goes for operating costs in that part of the ministry. But most of the departments in Government Management Services are administrative and consultative. This one is no exception.

We have some very qualified people working in the office of information technology who are called upon by ministries to offer advice and to help them put together communication plans within their own ministries. I think it's extremely simple to understand.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to be obtuse, but if it's so simple, I don't know why I can't get a simple explanation of what you're doing. How many people do you have in there that you're spending $1.25 million or $1.5 million on each year? How many staff do you have?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, there are 22 employees.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if you could give me an example of a recent telecommunications strategy that these 22 have come up with.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'll be happy to provide that a little later on in the estimates.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if you could also explain what "security policies" means in here. Does that mean the security of information, security of the building or security of privacy? Which is it?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, obviously it means security of the systems.

MR. ROSE: Isn't the security of the systems followed by the B.C. Systems Corporation, so nobody can tap in there? There can't be any moles or anything else that gets into the computers — keeping out the viruses.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes.

MR. ROSE: "Yes." I don't know if that was recorded.

Have there been any examples of people trying to invade our systems in British Columbia that you can tell me about, since you have a fairly large security staff there?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to supply the member with that at the same time that I get all of the other things I know he's going to ask, for however long he's going to stand there.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stand here until I get some answers. I've been really disappointed. Here I am standing with bated breath. It's bad enough if you've got bated breath, but I think it's awful that I'm not getting any answers here. I wish the minister would tell us when we can expect this enlightenment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 34, the minister.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Good; no, go ahead.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I'd be pleased to defer to the minister if she wants to answer some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please go ahead, hon. member.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Chairman, I have questions to the minister about some of the air traffic into the Cariboo during the by-election. The information we've garnered from the records is that during the by-election campaign, except for the last few days — that is, from August 23 when it was announced to September 17 — 11 different cabinet ministers, the Premier and Mrs. Vander Zalm and various government officials flew into the Cariboo riding.

The following ministers visited the riding: the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker); the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch); the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) ; the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber); the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage); the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr. Strachan); the former Provincial Secretary, the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid); the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston); the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier); the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen); and the former Minister of Highways, the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant).

They flew 22 trips into the Cariboo at that time, which was just about one a day. I would like to ask the minister if it was more than coincidence that there were so many trips into the Cariboo.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think it's important for me to say that, having been through a great deal of controversy in the last couple of weeks over the government airplanes — and that's not the first time that has happened in government — those airplanes are used for government business. They are very necessary for ministers to carry out their jobs, especially representing the rest of the province.

[ Page 10618 ]

For a long time I've wanted to talk about the need for government to go to the people and for us not to expect the people to come to us in Victoria. I'm particularly concerned about those people who live outside of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

The member who just asked the question will know better than anyone that access to government is not always that easy when you live outside the lower mainland. It's especially more difficult when you're represented by an NDP member.

It makes a great deal of sense for the government to be certain that those people in the outlying areas and in the rural areas of this province are looked after, and that their concerns are heard. The aircraft provide that opportunity for ministers, for Crown corporations and for a great many people.

The airplanes, as we know, are well used, and that's what they're there for. But I can tell you that the policy is followed on all occasions. Government representatives and ministers traveling on those airplanes are traveling on business. In fact, I can't think of a time as a minister when I am not on ministry business, except when I'm inside my own home. Outside of that home, even at social occasions, you're asked to talk about government and ministry business. So I think it's fair to say — and I don't have any hesitation in saying — those trips would have been on government business. But perhaps one of the ministers whose names you've mentioned would like to stand up and talk about it.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I would be happy if you would provide me a list of the business that each minister was engaged in, because I know some of the ministers weren't very public in the business they were involved in. It has to be more than coincidental, because if you extrapolated from an average of about a trip a day around the province, that would mean some 69 trips a day around the province. So we had more than our fair share, although it could be that the government was concentrating on the Cariboo during the by-election. People resented that a bit, because the cost of that would be conservatively estimated at about $70,000 for the air travel — which doesn't get added to the expense of the by-election.

What I really want to know is whether or not it's more than just coincidence, for example, that the Premier chose to be in 100 Mile the day he announced the by-election. Could the minister tell me which was decided first, the date of the by-election or the date of the Premier to be into 100 Mile to announce for the first of many times a strand board plant that is going to create 500 jobs, most of which replace previously lost jobs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oriented strand board plant

MR. ZIRNHELT: Strand board plant — an OSB plant.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I appreciate joining in the debate on this minister's estimates and talking a little about some of the good work that's been done around this province. I hear the members across the other side talking about use of government aircraft, and a few days ago I pointed out the use that the NDP made of government aircraft to do the business of the government of the day as they saw fit. I'm not suggesting they did a good job, but they did the job that they thought they were doing.

It may be of interest to the hon. member that in about 3½ months, when I was Minister of Regional Development, I was in thirty-some communities in the province of British Columbia. What this government believes in — quite unlike the NDP — is taking the government out to the people in British Columbia. That's what it's all about. It's getting out into the areas. The NDP have such a collective socialist mind that they think that they can sit here in Victoria and make decisions for everywhere, no matter where it is in the province.

The opinion of this government has always been to get out to the people of the province. Because we happen to be here in Victoria doesn't give us any special rights. Somebody in Pouce Coupe, somebody in 100 Mile House or somebody in the Cariboo probably has far more knowledge than you or I will ever have with respect to economic development.

You were talking about being up in the Cariboo. Yes, we're up in the Cariboo; yes, we caused several things to happen in the Cariboo — and we are causing several things to happen in the Cariboo — because we worked at them.

[2:45]

I haven't seen any results from the hon. member. I realize that he hasn't been here very long, and I don't know if the horse-logging is proceeding in the Cariboo or what is, but I can tell you there are jobs at 100 Mile House. Because of the action we took with Ainsworth Lumber, because of the negotiations that we had with Ainsworth, and because of that announcement, there's been a new spirit at 100 Mile House, and if you had been around there, you'd have noticed it.

I was talking, when I was up there a few weeks ago, with the people that operate the Welcome Wagon. They said that every two or three months prior to that announcement they used to maybe welcome a new family coming into the community, but there would be a lot more moving out. Now, my friend, there are so many people moving into that community, because there's a new spirit.

The spirit is confidence. That's something the NDPers didn't know anything about. When people derive a confidence in themselves, when they're allowed to make their own decisions, when they're allowed to participate in the process, then things happen. It doesn't happen collectively, and that's why Sweden fell down, that's why your government fell down in 1975, and that's why you'll never be government again in this province, because you simply don't trust the people. You don't give them the opportunity.

We went up into the Cariboo. Yes, we've been all over this province, and if you look at the economic results in this province, you'll see that they are

[ Page 10619 ]

second to none compared with any place in Canada. That's why we've been able to balance the budget in this province; that's why we've got the best economic record of any jurisdiction in Canada, of most in North America, because we go out to the people and we allow them to participate in the process.

Isn't that what government aircraft are used for, my friend? That's why we went there. We went there to work with the people that you are now representing. You have the same opportunity. You have a lot more time to be there and work with them. I notice your leader is out doing something every day; I don't think he's advancing the cause of economic development in the province, but he's out. You have that same opportunity. But you have to trust the people. That's the failing of socialism.

They believe that the government, once they're elected, is an all-knowing being, no matter where they come from. But the idea of the British Columbia Social Credit Party is to get out and work with the people in every region of the province. And, my friend, it's paying off. It's paying off in the Cariboo; it's paying off in spades. It's paying off in Williams Lake; it's paying off in 100 Mile House. And next time round? It will be a very nice experience to have had you here for a short while in this Legislature, and I'm sure that you will have contributed as you see fit. But we're going to elect another member up there. We're going to do it because we trust the people and they trust us.

HON. MR. SMITH: I'm delighted the member has asked the question with respect to air travel in the by-election. I think one of the things that has come to light during this whole exercise is the lack of professionalism disclosed by members who have the privilege of communicating to the public from the press gallery in Victoria and, as well, the kind of "syco-fanatic" connection between them and members of the NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: The reason I say that is because obviously you can take a pretty vacuous mind and find out that from point A to point B you did go on X date. The question that's imperative to know, if you're going to try to manufacture some kind of problem from that, is: why did you go from point A to point B on that date?

That information was always, and is still, readily available to anyone who has the professional integrity to want to ask the questions. Unfortunately those who want to print the answers seem not to have that integrity, and hence the questions haven't been asked. So it is that today an opportunity is here to answer the question in the case of the Cariboo by-election, because the member in fact refers to the movements of the Attorney-General during that period of time.

I will tell you that on August 24 I was in the great constituency of Cariboo. I was in to Quesnel on a government aircraft, and I was out of Quesnel on a government aircraft. What I also did when I was in Quesnel — the reason for which I was there — was part of the undertaking I gave to this Legislature a year earlier to be involved with the implementation of the justice reform package. I was there for court services with, among others, my ADM. We met with native court workers, people who were involved in victim services and probation issues and with people in the court registry and the staff of the court. We analyzed and looked at a number of issues that pertain to the administration of justice in that area.

In addition to that, I was invited to speak to the Rotary. As I did frequently when on that tour, I talked to service organizations like the Rotary, Kiwanis or the chamber of commerce. I think it's important that you go beyond just the special interest group in dealing with this kind of issue, and that you let them know what it is you're about. I did speak to that group that day and mentioned, in fact, one political candidate. I will admit to that. I mentioned a political candidate who, as it turns out, is a free enterpriser, and I said kind things about him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, it was coincidence, as the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) asked me. It was very much a coincidence. He's a fine person, and I've known him for a long time. I did mention him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Because he's a member of the Rotary, and because I knew him from a former time when he was in Vavenby and Clearwater. Indeed, I went to high school with his wife. He was the Liberal candidate in that constituency. His name is Darwin Netzel. That's the candidate I mentioned, the only political person I mentioned in the course of my address to the Rotary. That address, by the way, was recorded by the local media.

Secondly, I was in that constituency on September 13. 1 flew from Kamloops to Williams Lake. You won't have that on your list, Mr. Member, because I rented an airplane from a local organization in Kamloops and paid for it myself. The reason I did that was because I went to Williams Lake to speak politically — only politically — and to address a meeting organized by the Social Credit constituency association in Williams Lake. I went to that meeting, spoke to them and flew home.

I was in the constituency a third time. On September 18 I flew in on government aircraft and I flew out on government aircraft. That was during the time of the by-election. During that period of time I was also there with staff. The reason I went there was for a meeting that I had arranged, in fact, before the by-election was called. It was in Anahim Lake, British Columbia. I had agreed to meet with — and indeed, had met with — members of the bands of the Chilcotin to set up a justice council. I met with them again on the 18th. Politics weren't discussed once during the meeting — not once.

[ Page 10620 ]

We had lunch together out in that area. We had about a five-hour meeting together. We agreed to pursue the formation of a justice council, which is now up and operational and is supported to the tune of $250,000 from the Ministry of Attorney-General. I went to Riske Creek the other night with the same people, and I flew in on government aircraft then as well to meet again in the Chilcotin with natives from the Chilcotin. If I think of something useful to do that the symbolic value of the office of Attorney-General is worthy of taking to the native people of British Columbia — and taking without publicity or dragging some antagonism out there and trying to demean it by coming into this Legislature and playing your crass little games in here today.... That's why I was out there.

Any and all of that information is available to that member and their little "syco-fanatic" friends in the press gallery who like to play with it. All of it is available. Get it, use it and honourably disclose it. Try to have some pride in your community of the Cariboo. Try to understand that the native people in the Cariboo are entitled to have the Attorney-General and his staff visit them in Anahim or Riske Creek, as are all the little socialists in Victoria who can get to them any time they bloody well want.

That's what you should understand, Mr. Member. That's why it's very important that you have raised this issue today. I urge you to go through my flight records and raise it every single day for the rest of this session, Mr. Member.

As I did earlier in this session, I challenge each and every one of you again today to come to Kamloops and publicly debate with me the issue of whether it is appropriate for government members to take the offices of government to the people in the interior. Or is it your preference to force those people to come and pay for the cost of bringing themselves and their problems to Victoria? I challenge you again — all of you. I challenge you to do that, and I challenge you again publicly.

MR. ZIRNHELT: I really wanted to ask the minister and get an answer as to whether or not it was more than just coincidence that the frequency of government business was so much greater during the by-election. It would appear to have overtly partisan political purposes, and that's the point. I don't know where the question of trust came up. I implicitly trust the people of the Cariboo, and I believe that government should be taken to the people. I think opposition should be taken to the people, and we do that too.

I think it is important to note that it is more than coincidence. I would like to know why the government organizes its business with such intensity during the time of a by-election.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly enjoyed the Attorney-Generals dissertation. I want to add that whether there is an election on or not, this government believes in doing its business and looking after the people of the province of British Columbia.

[3:00]

By the way, I noted that there was an issue in Burnaby — and I will relate it back to this vote, Mr. Chairman — with respect to a school in Burnaby. That school board — which is completely and absolutely NDP-dominated — and the council said: "We'd better leave that until after the school board and municipal elections in the fall, because it's too hot an issue to handle at this time."

I believe you have to be government all of the time, whether there happens to be a by-election on or not. It may be of interest to the member — if he would stop politicking for a while and look after his constituency, as I'm sure he would like to be able to do — that as Minister of Regional Development, I have been in the Cariboo dozens of times — many times. If you will look at the action in the Cariboo, we helped solve little problems as well as big problems. If you look at the industry and the jobs that are developing in the Cariboo — in Quesnel and 100 Mile House — you'll see that indeed that has been effective.

Not only that, Mr. Member, but since you've been elected I have also been up into the Cariboo several times talking about export — yes, exporting out of places such as 100 Mile House. It may be a surprise to you, living there, that a lot of export is going on. They export out of Williams Lake and 100 Mile House some of the best log homes in all the world. They're built in that area. They're prefabricated and shipped to Japan, Germany and all over the world.

It's our job to help those people find markets, you see, so that people like you can collect your money sitting here in the Legislature. We're just recipients of this largesse. We don't generate it; people out there generate it. Somehow or other the socialists think that you go and turn the tap on somewhere, and the money pours out of it. It takes actual, real people working in the Cariboo and elsewhere producing the money that they send to government. It's our job — it was my job as an Economic Development minister, and it's still my job as Minister of International Business — to get out into every hamlet, town and city of this province, whether I meet with ten people or 100 people or 1,000 people, and find out what there is to export so that we can help them.

I want to tell you something. In a province the size of British Columbia, where we have a budget approaching $15,300,000,000 and a population of only about three million, you've got to sell something to somebody else in order to enjoy the standard of living that we have in this province. That doesn't just happen by NDP selling to NDP or governments selling to governments. It happens by real people getting out there selling their products to the world. It's government's job to help them do that, and we're doing it in good style.

Last year we were one of the only provinces in Canada that showed an increase in export — about 2.2 percent. We exported about $18 billion worth of products. The increase from your area, sir, increased

[ Page 10621 ]

dramatically last year. Not only are they selling log homes, timber and 2-by-4s from your area now; they are selling tree-cutters, machinery and all sorts of things that the genius of the people in the Cariboo that you represent are manufacturing. It simply takes that little bit of assistance from government to help them get it out to the markets someplace.

That's why we fly to Cariboo, to Williams Lake, to Prince George and all over British Columbia. That's why we deal all over the world: to spread British Columbia's message and to do a job for you. With great respect, I can't tell you how to do your job, but sometimes being part of the solution is better than being part of the problem. Work with those people, sir. Find out what they have to offer and what they want us to do as government, and we'll work with you. We'll help you. You can sit there all you want and tell us that government should not go in during an election or anytime there's any controversy, that government shouldn't be doing its job. I don't happen to believe that. I happen to believe that the government should be doing the job every day of the week. That's the way we operate as free-enterprisers and Social Crediters on this side of the House; I realize that your opinion of things is the converse.

HON. MRS. GRAN: To the second member for Cariboo, who I'm sure has received much more information than he asked for, I just want to say that the obvious answer to your question is that the answers have to come from the members and ministers who made those trips to the Cariboo or wherever else.

MRS. BOONE: You know, I hadn't really intended to speak on this, but listening to the bafflegab from the two ministers of defence here.... We used to have a minister of defence who sat down here, but she went back to Ottawa and is now the justice minister. Now we've got more of them over there. It seems that they are very adept at protecting the minister there.

One of the things I think the government is totally misleading the public on is when they constantly say that the New Democratic Party is opposed to the use of government jets. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) stated our case quite eloquently last week when he stated that we have never said we do not believe ministers should have government jets for performing their duties. We have never said that they should not be able to have their spouses with them, because we on this side acknowledge that government has to do their job and be capable of doing it. We also acknowledge that ministers' lifestyles are such that they should be able to have their spouse with them. However — and I think our House Leader said this — we're not talking about the use of the jets; we're talking about the abuse of the jets. That's a big difference — the abuse and the misuse that are taking place. Those are the questions we have been raising to the minister. They're about the abuse when you have government jets going off....

HON. MRS. GRAN: What abuse?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Prince George North has the floor.

MRS. BOONE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You talk about jets going off in different directions — and often the same direction — within a very short period of time with one passenger in each one, taking ministers home for weekends or what have you. Talk about ministers traveling with one passenger when they could frequently have two or three passengers or a number of them. That is what has come from the logs. It is that information we are questioning. We're questioning you on them because we feel very strongly that that is an abuse of the situation.

As somebody pointed out to me the other week, it may not necessarily be an abuse but a lack of scheduling. We're asking for some guidelines, some scheduling process so the jets are used for their proper purposes and are functioning properly, so that we as taxpayers are getting good value out of the jets. If there is a Helijet going across, which is a lot cheaper to use than our government jet, it should be used, because they travel across quite frequently.

I see the member from Burnaby on it a lot, but there are other ministers that I never see on it. Look at the frequent flying back and forth. It's virtually used as a taxi service, and that is the abuse we are talking about, Madam Minister. We never object to ministers having to perform their functions and go to any parts of the province. That's something that has to be. I would certainly question the new Minister of International Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch) taking government out to the people, you know, but certainly ministers have that right. They have the right to go out and do those things.

For any of you people to stand up and question the right of ministers to take their message out to the public is wrong. That's not what we're talking about.

The second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) has been quite clear in pointing out just.... And I'm sure at no other time during the year or any other point in time have you had 22 different ministers going into the Cariboo at any given time, so obviously there's got to be some kind of an abusive situation there, and I think the minister should be looking at that.

MR. ROSE: If the minister is going to reply, I yield to her.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm saddened that this topic has come up again. Let me tell you why I'm saddened. Your opposition House Leader will understand what I am saying, because what you are doing is foolish. It's foolish in the extreme to criticize something that you know nothing about. Government aircraft are not used any differently today than they were 15 or 16 years ago. But to use the word "abuse" when you don't have a case of abuse — you have suspicions of abuse — is wrong. It's foolish.

[ Page 10622 ]

Let me just demonstrate to you the difference between this side of the House and the opposition side of the House. Not one member on this side said anything about the bonus points, which belonged to the taxpayers of this province, used by a member of the opposition to take a family to Disneyland. Not one member said anything. It came out in the media — I don't know how — but not one member stood up in this House and talked about it. I think it's foolish in the extreme for any member on that side to make allegations unless they can be proved. I've looked at the logs during the NDP years, and there is every evidence that ministers went home every night of the week

MR. LOVICK: Like you.

HON. MRS. GRAN: You see. There's an example of what I'm talking about. The first member for Nanaimo — and I don't know whether the remarks were correct — called me, in the media, "a rat" and a couple of other very uncomplimentary things. The article that he was taking his information from is untrue, totally and completely untrue.

I think it's foolish to play this stupid game. And it is a stupid game; it's a very foolish game for the opposition to play. You have been government once. The actions on those airplanes were no different than they are today. I'm sure each one of the members could explain where they were, what they were doing and that it was legitimate use of the aircraft. I'm not questioning it. I just think you're very foolish people.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: Since my name was taken in vain a little while ago, Mr. Chairman, I have to respond. I want to let the minister know that if the flight logs of the former NDP government of 1972-75 were a matter of a record, at least we had the records and you had the records. If it had been left up to you, you would never have revealed the records. Am I not right about that?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MRS. GRAN: That's not true.

MR. ROSE: That's right, because you've refused to do it time and time again. What happened? You were forced to reveal them.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Once.

MR. ROSE: More than once; until you got your marching orders. We have never objected to the scheduled airline that went from out here at Pat Bay to Boundary Bay. We have never complained about that. We have never complained about the use of government aircraft, because ministers need to use those government aircraft. We're not concerned about that. What we are concerned about, though, is frivolous use of government aircraft.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Name some.

MR. ROSE: My colleague here has a number of records and examples that he'd be just delighted to give you in a little while. Let me just say one other thing.

On the matter of bonus points, you and I, in a matter of confidence and in camera, know that these bonus points were discussed two years ago. It was decided then that we had no legal recourse over those bonus points, nor could they be gathered and given back to anyone, let alone the government. Had this been the case, I think your argument would be quite different.

HON. MR. VEITCH: But there's a moral principle.

MR. ROSE: Just a moment.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: I'm quite sure that the examples of bonus points are not limited to one side of the House. But you can't transfer them, you can't give them back to the government. We in our caucus felt two years ago that we should not use them for the very purposes that the minister outlines, and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen). We don't believe in that. But the point is that they just accrue to the airlines if they're not used. I don't belong to the frequent flyer club. I don't belong to any of those things; maybe I should. So at least I'm squeaky clean on that one. But that isn't the point. The point is that they're of no value to anybody else, and if we could give them back to the government, we should do it.

We've had airline infractions on both sides of the House, some of them resulting in very ugly scenes. Again, I agree with the minister: I don't think it helps any of us if we dredge up "you did this" and "you did this" and "you did this." We believe in the system where ministers need to get from place to place from time to time. We're not concerned about that at all. We are concerned about what might be considered flagrant abuse and overuse of airlines, such as making transfers out to Abbotsford, to Nanaimo and to various other places to pick up, when commercial airlines are available. We in the opposition use the commercial airlines. There are many examples where profound savings could accrue if government ministers used them, especially on weekends. But they are not always convenient. Government ministers are very busy people, and we can understand why it's important to use government aircraft. But two trips to Kamloops within two hours is a bit much.

[3:15]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the opposition House Leader has covered most of the territory, but I want to just remind the minister that if in the first instance in this issue of the last few weeks she had

[ Page 10623 ]

not refused to release the logs because she was worried they might be used for some political campaign or some political use, this would not have been the issue it Is.

MR. ROSE: She knows that.

MR. GABELMANN: She knows that full well.

The Premier, better politician that he is, knew that too, and instructed the minister....

HON. MRS. GRAN: I already admitted that. What do you want, blood?

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, we've got the admission, fair enough. But there's another admission that's needed, and I haven't heard the minister give it.

The minister says: "What are you doing? This is sad. You shouldn't be doing this. It's disgraceful." I don't think she used the word "disgraceful," but that's the kind of image that was left from the comment.

Mr. Chairman.... I've lost my train of thought for a moment, which happens to all of us at one time or another, I'm sure.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mine, too.

Mr. Chairman, the issue is an important one, and I don't think, when the minister says, "name the abuse; tell us what's wrong," that she is recognizing that she herself recognizes that there has been abuse. Otherwise, why else is there a review of the policy which will lead, hopefully, to a situation where the system is not abused? It is an abuse of the government jet service to have four out of the six craft flying to Cariboo for government members to participate in a political by-election. The Social Credit Party should have paid for travel to the Cariboo by-election.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) is entirely within his right to travel on regular flights to his riding during a by-election, as any other member would be. But when the Premier or cabinet ministers go to the Cariboo to campaign....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for North Island has the floor. All other members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

MR. GABELMANN: It's an abuse of the democratic process to use taxpayers' money to go and campaign in a by-election. That's that issue; that's number one.

It's another abuse for the two members for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond and Hon. Mr. Smith) not to in one instance delay leaving Victoria by one hour or, in the other case, advance leaving Victoria by one hour so that they could take one jet to Kamloops. We would not object to one jet going to Kamloops. If the schedules couldn't have been arranged by 60 minutes in either case.... I don't believe that could not have been arranged one way or another. People who have to have meetings can make different arrangements to fit that kind of situation.

I want to say to the minister that at least two former members of this House — and there were others.... They will probably both be here tonight, and I'll name them: Jim Nielsen and Garde Gardom. They flew on the regularly scheduled plane from Pat Bay to Vancouver — I'm not sure whether it was Boundary Bay; I think they went to Richmond, to the international airport — virtually every day on the scheduled flight. We knew that, because the logs were released regularly in those days.

We did not raise that issue in this House, because we believed it was appropriate that those ministers could sleep in their own beds at night. This job is tough enough — and when you are in cabinet, it's even tougher — that if you can have that kind of amelioration of the difficulties of the job, you should. We made no complaint about that. We talked about it, we looked at it, we thought about it, and we consciously decided that that was not an abuse. Why was it not an abuse? The plane was going on a regularly scheduled basis, and the ministers hopped on.

Similarly, Pat Bay to Boundary Bay — we have not complained about that. It is an appropriate use of the government jet. We have not complained about that.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's just the interior.

MR. GABELMANN: If I were the Minister of Government Management Services, in charge of air services, and I had a minister in the Peace, a minister in the Prince George region, a minister in the Terrace region and another minister mid-Island, and those ministers were coming to Victoria most Monday mornings, I'd make sure that the jet started out in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek or wherever, landed in Prince George, went over to Terrace and down to Comox, and went on to Victoria with three, four or five ministers on board.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mostly it did.

MR. GABELMANN: Mostly it does not appear from the logs, in fact, that it does.

HON. MRS. GRAN: A lot of times it does.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay, we're getting somewhere then. So a lot of times a good policy is in place. Would the minister agree that that issue is to be looked at in this review, and that there will be more of it in the future than there has been in the past?

[ Page 10624 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: The member for North Island.... I probably have more respect for him than for a lot of people here. I want to answer this question again. I started my estimates by talking about the issue that we're talking about today. I have admitted publicly many times that my answer in the House was foolish and that many of my comments afterwards were foolish. I am grateful to the Premier — and I have said that in public — for straightening it out. That's been said for the tenth or fifteenth time. I'm not the first politician to make a mistake, and I doubt very much that I'll be the last.

I want to talk about the review. It has been underway for the last two months. The review was not started because of the controversy over the logs or even over my statements. Everything the member for North Island has talked about is certainly part of that review. Efficiency — if, instead of the word "abuse," you had said "inefficiency," it would have been easier for me to deal with. There is no member on this side of the House or, I believe, on that side of the House who would knowingly abuse anything that belonged to the taxpayers. I believe that sincerely.

I also want to say a few words about the inefficiency and the waste of taxpayers' money on scheduled flights. Scheduled flights were the order of the day for the ten years that I was an executive assistant to a minister. I flew on those flights often. I flew by myself most of the time. There's a division on the efficiency of scheduled flights, because most often that plane was empty. I believe that's one of the reasons why scheduled flights were discontinued in this government, in the main. Efficiency is something that all ministries should be looking at all of the time, and that's a very big part of the mandate of this ministry.

The trips to Abbotsford. That plane has been flying to Abbotsford for 15 years. I was often picked up in Abbotsford because the plane was going that way. There were four ministers in the Fraser Valley. So we're not talking about something that's different. It's still the same as it always has been, but we have more ministers in this government and we have more demands made on the ministers. But never have I said that we couldn't be more efficient, and I think that's what we should be talking about.

MR. GABELMANN: I wonder if the minister would not agree that it's an abuse of the taxpayers' money to fly a single minister in a Challenger jet.

HON. MR VEITCH: Again, I hadn't intended to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, there's a young member for Nanaimo; could he be quiet a moment, please.

I hadn't intended to speak any more on this particular debate, but I looked over the logs too when I was minister responsible for government aircraft, and I noted when the NDP were in power they had five scheduled flights going in and out of Vancouver. I have no argument with that. If they had government ministers on them, or officials or whatever, I have no argument with that either. But what we're talking about....

I respect the hon. member for North Island very much. He's a man of integrity and also my critic, and I do respect him. But you can't have it both ways, hon. member. You're talking about abuse. I heard the word abuse with respect to airplanes used here a while ago, and I guess that means abuse of taxpayers' money.

I would have to ask this committee, Mr. Chairman, whether or not it is an abuse for a member of this Legislature to consistently, day after day, be in many parts of this province at government expense. I don't give a dam whether you've pooled all of your flights to other parts of the province or not. But the taxpayers are paying for the Leader of the Opposition not to do government business but to politic every single day in each and every comer of this province. Not only is he paid the same rate as a cabinet minister in this House; he is also receiving free airfare. I don't care how he gets there. He doesn't get there by government jet; he gets there by commercial jet. But the money comes out of the same pocket; it's out of the taxpayers' pockets. I don't care if you've pooled all of your resources and all of your ten flights a year or however you've done it. I think there is a principle of abuse here. When that person is not on government business — he's on opposition business, trying to defeat the government — it should be paid for by the New Democratic Party and not by the people of British Columbia.

You can't have a double standard here, my friend. You can't say that the government is abusing aircraft because they happen to go home or because there happens to be one person flying on a plane at one particular point in time when every.... Not every day of the week, but I can count more days of the week that the Leader of the Opposition is not here. I can count more days when he is in other parts of this province, out there politicking at the expense of the taxpayers of this province, at government expense.

[3:30]

1 say you can't have it both ways. I say abuse is abuse is abuse, and I believe that he should be called to reckoning for that abuse of the taxpayers' money.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm not aware of the circumstance that the member for North Island is talking about. I've just had a discussion with the staff, because a good portion of the logs had to do with a time when I was not the minister. The policy on the Challenger was always to try and fill the plane, particularly when it was going back to Ottawa, which I believe we did a pretty good job of. I'm not aware of the circumstance that the member is talking about.

MR. GABELMANN: I must say I'm surprised that the minister says she's not aware of it. It's clear that

[ Page 10625 ]

on at least two occasions in the period included in the release of the logs the other day...

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: No, I didn't say that. We're talking about the government and the government's policy and the government's approach to the whole issue. One of the services that have been provided to the people of B.C. by this whole exercise is that in future this whole process will be tighter.

I sometimes debate with myself whether I should respond to the Minister of International Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch) on an issue like this, but it needs to be said that we have not at any time complained about ministers traveling on government business by use of the jet — not just because there's no commercial flight available, but even when it's just more convenient in terms of time, because time is precious; there aren't enough hours in the day. We have not complained about that. Nor have we complained about a minister going to a community on the government jet on government business and staying over for a party function, which happens frequently. The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) comes to Campbell River frequently and, quite properly, includes in his day's work a meeting with the Social Credit association. I don't blame him. I hope to be doing the same thing in a year or so.

Mr. Chairman, I think this discussion — rather than using the word "debate" — needs to be handled in a careful way, and I don't think government members have done that. The two ministers can laugh. We have not — and I say it again, ad nauseam — complained about "appropriate use of the jet."

Let me give you an example of what I think would be an appropriate use of the government jet, were I a cabinet minister. I have to be in Campbell River at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning for a presentation on behalf of the government. I cannot get to Campbell River for 8 o'clock tomorrow morning other than by leaving here at 5 o'clock this afternoon and missing the entire session tomorrow — which, if I get beyond ten days, will cost me $250 out of my own pocket. If I were a cabinet minister, it would be entirely appropriate for me to leave here at 7 o'clock tomorrow morning on the government jet and be back here at 10 or 10:30 tomorrow morning to attend the House sitting. It would be entirely appropriate, and that's the kind of situation that faces ministers frequently. So let's be clear about all of this.

It is inappropriate — I repeat, inappropriate — to have one individual on the Challenger. It is inappropriate to have two jets flying to Kamloops, taking two different ministers within two hours of each other. There have been other illustrations of what is inappropriate, and that's all I have to say on the subject.

MR. LOVICK: Sadly, the debate has involved a number of people that, I think, surprised us all. We thought we were discussing the estimates of this particular minister — Government Management Services — and other members of the gang over there felt the need to protect and look out for the interests of that minister. Given that we are dealing, after all, with the minister who is also responsible for women's programs, who is committed of course to trying to further the cause of equality between men and women and trying to break down those old, chauvinistic attitudes — those attitudes of condescension and patronizing and so forth — I would like to apologize from this side of the House for the behaviour of those males on the other side who have been so patronizing and who have prevented the minister from answering her own questions and dealing with her ministry estimates. Quite frankly, I find it offensive, and I'm sure that the minister responsible for international whatever and the Attorney-General both mean well. I suspect they mean well. The problem, however, is that they, by their actions, demonstrate pretty clearly that they don't understand what the feminist revolution is all about. They don't understand that women no longer want men to be their protectors and to leap in and answer questions for them, and I have considerable sympathy for that minister trying, I am sure, to answer questions, wanting to explain and defend the actions of her ministry, and not being given an opportunity because of the actions of her own colleagues. So I'd like to start with that observation, Madam Minister.

I tried to pose a number of questions to the minister last week. I didn't have an opportunity, because of members opposite and their set speeches. The minister wasn't even allowed to answer in that time. Rather, the clock was run out. So, sadly, what I have to do in the beginning of this debate is take us back a few steps.

I think my colleagues have now made it very, very clear that most of the arguments we are hearing from the other side are, frankly, red herrings. They missed the point either deliberately or as a result of ignorance and a failure to comprehend what the issues are. We have been saying from the beginning — and my colleague from North Island said it very well most recently — that we're not talking about the use; we recognize legitimate use of the service. Moreover, he sketched out use. We're talking about alleged abuses.

Where we left off last time, Madam Minister, when I raised the issue of abuse, was a tirade — if I might choose my words carefully, but I think correctly — from you, suggesting that any talk of abuse was really a fabrication of the press. You thereupon went about saying that the press were in fact lying; they had deliberately and maliciously misrepresented and distorted the case. And you went on at some length.

I notice, by the way, Madam Minister, despite my good advice, offered generously to members like the minister for international whatever, that he is still not even allowing you to listen. He feels he must get in and tell you how to respond to these concerns. Pity!

The point I was making is that the minister's response to the charge of alleged abuse — I emphasize "alleged"; we weren't saying you're guilty or anything like that; rather, we were saying there are allegations that ought to be responded to — was a

[ Page 10626 ]

direct denial. There was a tremendous bit of self-indulgent hectoring of the fourth estate, suggesting that the media were dishonest and irresponsible and incompetent — all of the above — and, moreover and most importantly, suggesting that the media had deliberately lied. I want to start with that, Mr. Chairman, if I may — if I can find the newspaper clipping.

What happened was that the minister made various statements about particular stories, notably those in the Vancouver Province by the reporter Rick Ouston, and said, in effect, that Mr. Ouston had simply lied. Next day we had a statement from that selfsame reporter, who had checked out his sources and reported as follows. Because this is a serious accusation and a serious matter, Mr. Chairman, I want to quote for the record what that subsequent story had to say -the clarification. So I beg your indulgence. The story reads as follows:

"A Province report on government jets was a 'set of lies,' the Government Management Services minister told the Legislature yesterday.

"The Province quoted Cessna Citation engineer Mark Shepherd yesterday as saying B.C.'s Citation jets were designed for long trips and were inefficient for short hops. 'It quotes an engineer who we can't find; we don't know who he works for,' the minister told MLAs. 'I phoned the company representative in Toronto.'

"Shepherd does not work in Toronto. He is with the Cessna Citation plant in Wichita, Kansas, and spoke to the Province by telephone Tuesday and Wednesday.

"The minister also cited a reference to the president of Anderson Air, a firm that flies prop-driven air ambulances for the government. Dave Anderson was quoted as saying jets were not 'cost-efficient at all.' The minister said she had phoned Anderson and told the Legislature: 'It's a lie. He didn't say that. He's terribly upset.'

"The Province then phoned Anderson. He verified that the minister had phoned him earlier yesterday. He said the minister never asked him if the Province's story was true. He said he told the minister he had no comment on what was in the paper. He again told the Province that government jets were inefficient as air ambulances, but refused to discuss the matter further."

End of quote. End of story.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is pretty solid evidence that we have not been told the truth. I think the Minister of Government Management Services, at the very least, owes us an explanation, and owes that reporter an apology for the statement she made in this Legislature. I would ask her to give us that now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. LOVICK: One is reminded of the French proverb, "Qui ne dit mot, consent" — silence is consent.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I can't believe that the minister will sit there, given that evidence, given the direct contradiction to what she said in this chamber, and somehow believe that it isn't her responsibility to answer the question. This minister, Mr. Chairman, and others have waxed rather mightily about honour and noble behaviour and ethics and decency, and all of that — quite legitimately if they are right in what they say. But I'm presenting the minister with specific evidence of behaviour that is not acceptable in this chamber — or in civilized society, for that matter — and giving her an opportunity to respond. Instead, I get silence. I would implore the minister again to tell us her version. Given that she sees this as some kind of media conspiracy to make her look bad, as she has indicated on more than one occasion, will the minister please stand and respond to this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ouston is a constituent of mine. Far be it from me to defend someone in the press, but I wonder if the minister couldn't clarify the matter. I'll try not to be belligerent about it, but clearly there's a difference of opinion. There's a follow-up story from Mr. Ouston, saying that he's checked his sources and they confirm everything he said. The minister is saying something different. It appears from the newspaper reports that you owe Mr. Ouston an apology. That certainly is the appearance. If that's not the case, then it behooves the minister, it seems to me, to explain why he doesn't deserve an apology.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, I don't know what Mr. Anderson said when he was called back. My conversation with him went something like this: I told him about the article in the morning newspaper and what he was quoted as saying. He said that he had been hounded for the last few days by the media — not by one individual — and that what he had said was, "No comment," and that the remarks reported in the newspaper were not his. That is essentially what he said to me. So if he said something different to the reporter when he phoned back, I really can't do anything about it. But I know what he said to me in a personal conversation on the telephone.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK: To the minister again. That's very compelling, but it's a far cry from the passionate denunciation you made last week. Look, Madam Minister, you have certain obligations in this House, and you can only pretend to be new at the job for so long. You've got some obligations, and one is to play scrupulously with the truth. You don't have the right to stand up and say that people are liars, You repeated it again and again, and now you're proven wrong — or at least your testimony is called into question, at minimum — and you're saying to us in effect: "Well, maybe we misunderstood." Come on, Madam Minister. You owe us more than that.

[ Page 10627 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, I'm not sure what I owe anybody on the other side of the House. When I talk about lies, I talk first of all about the article in question that first came out, which said that I traveled home every night to my constituency. That is a blatant lie. Is the member saying that I should take that back, because maybe I am guilty of something? I think one has to be very careful, because when you are of another political persuasion and it's worth your while to paint a minister in a government of a political persuasion you don't agree with as being dishonest.... I stand behind what I said. The article was filled with lies.

MR. LOVICK: Well, rather than trade insults or something like that, Mr. Chairman — even if we do so in a civilized forum, using you as an intermediary — let's pose some very direct questions.

The minister just told us that she did not fly home every night using the aircraft. Would she be good enough to tell us how many times she has had the aircraft diverted from Boundary Bay to Abbotsford since her appointment to the cabinet? Just give us an example of, say, a month-long period or three weeks.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I can't give you the exact figure, but not many times was it diverted. Often when I did fly back to the lower mainland, the flight was direct to Abbotsford; it wasn't a diversion. A lot of things have been taken out of context in this. But when I go back during the week, it's to attend a function related to my ministry. Perhaps I could give you some examples: a forum on child care in Delta, a meeting with a group of nurses in Richmond, a meeting with Women for Better Wages at Hastings and Gore in Vancouver — and I can go on and on. So if you're arguing about whether the airplane should have gone to Boundary Bay instead of Abbotsford, I don't know. But when I go back during the week when we're in session, it's on government business.

MR. LOVICK: Is the minister telling me that one of the diversions from Boundary Bay to Abbotsford was to attend a meeting at Hastings and Gore in Vancouver? You found it worthwhile to fly to Abbotsford to get to a meeting in Vancouver? Is that what you just said?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I think some of the difficulty is the lack of understanding of the area I represent. Number one, the Abbotsford airport is the best in all the province, weatherwise. There is also access to the freeway right off the Fraser Highway very close by. It's as easy and it takes less time to drive the freeway from Abbotsford to Vancouver than it does from Boundary Bay. In fact, it takes me a substantial amount of time more to drive to the Boundary Bay airport. If you look at the logs, you'll see that any time I've used the aircraft, it's a split between Boundary Bay and Abbotsford, and very rarely was I alone.

MR. LOVICK: Just to inform the minister, I don't need much instruction on the Abbotsford airport. I learned to fly there when I was 17, so I'm quite familiar with that airport and the behaviour of the weather, etc. I know about that stuff.

If Abbotsford has that many attractions, can the minister tell us whether she has given any thought to moving the regular shuttle from Victoria directly to Abbotsford? Wouldn't that perhaps be of greater benefit to more people?

HON. MRS. GRAN: All of the suggestions that have been made are well taken and will all be discussed when changes are made after the review is completed, and it is just about completed.

Again I want to say to you that the review has been underway for a long time — for at least two months — and was not initiated because of this.

MR. LOVICK: That's reassuring; I'm sure we're all happy to know. The obvious question is: what was it initiated by? Is this just an ongoing review or...? Apropos of just that point, the question is whether the minister looked at Government Management Services, detected some guidelines that were — to put it charitably — rather loose and said: "This operation is not functioning as effectively, efficiently and smoothly as it ought; therefore I am instructing my staff to investigate." Is that what happened?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The review was a decision made by the entire cabinet.

MR. LOVICK: That is indeed interesting, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering if the minister would share with us when that decision was made, and whether there was any background position paper explaining it. It seems a rather significant — albeit desirable — shift in policy, and I'm wondering if she could tell a little more about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 34.

MR. LOVICK: One of the reasons that we continue to pose questions which I grant, on the face of it, must appear to be not terribly pressing or precise or urgent is simply because there is this incredible cloud of suspicion hanging over all of us, as you know.

It would seem obvious to me that, on the part of the government members of the House and in their position, I would want to — if you'll pardon the pun — clear the air. It would seem to me that it ought to be done forthwith.

Therefore we persist in posing these questions. It becomes even more obligatory for us to do that when we get answers from the minister that, quite frankly, strike us as jejune and not terribly relevant to the questions that have been posed.

Let me give you one example of our grounds for suspicion and concern. Mr. Chairman, you recall, I am sure, that great event in legislative history and freedom of information when a number of members

[ Page 10628 ]

of the press — as well as a number of colleagues — attempted to look at the manifests and the logs. We were met by a rather officious official who told us: "No, you can't touch that stuff, because it's the property of the Department of Transport, it's federal stuff."

However, we then discovered less than a week later that the federal government didn't have that kind of regulation at all and that those logs are the property of the users of the airline. I am wondering if the minister would explain to us where that particular confusion came from. Was her official simply given bad information when she spoke with us, or was she acting out of fear or some such thing?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The logs are required by law by the Department of Transport to be kept. So if you want to be technical, they don't belong to them. But it's an offence if you can't come up with the logs for those aircraft. So it was important to make sure that none of them disappeared.

The first member for Nanaimo — and we try really hard on this side to be charitable — has a way about him that just makes you want to turn your back.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'll respond to that. The temptation is powerful, but I'm going to resist.

HON. MRS. GRAN: When have you ever resisted before?

MR. LOVICK: Most of the time, actually. After a while, one begins to feel like beating up on individuals who aren't able to fight back or some such thing.

Let's establish for the record the facts regarding getting the information about the logs. We were not asking to take them out of the premises. We were asking to get them photocopied. The other outrageous request that we made was that we could perhaps take the little silver clips off them and take them apart so we could photocopy them. So to suggest that we would take them, disappear with them and therefore cause you to commit a federal offence is simply silly stuff.

So let's clarify. Surely you have a better answer than that. In other words, you said: "You can't look at these things. You can't photocopy them, because we're afraid that if you put them in the photocopier they'll be eaten by the great god technology or something." Surely you have a better answer than that.

No better answer? Okay. Let's carry on.

MR. CLARK: I just have a couple of questions. The minister has sparked my curiosity. She said the review was a decision made by cabinet. Cabinet, I am sure, is consumed by questions. It strikes me that it implies that it was occasioned by something. To review air services is something which wouldn't be done in the normal course of events. It doesn't strike me as a normal cabinet decision. Maybe the minister could explain that.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The Ministry of Government Management Services has been on a service-quality thrust for the last couple of years. Part of that is reviewing and analyzing all of the departments within the ministry. It just so happened that I became the minister when it was time to look at government air services.

It is normal policy in our government for ministers to bring forward initiatives that they're dealing with for cabinet's information and decision. It didn't happen any differently than it did with any of the other parts of my ministry or any of the other ministries. Reviews are an ongoing process in government.

[4:00]

MR. CLARK: The minister brought before cabinet the notion that air traffic should be reviewed for ratification, and nothing occasioned it other than the fact that you were going through the ministry, department by department or branch by branch. Is that the minister's position? There was a debate in cabinet and a decision was taken.

It just strikes me that if I were the minister responsible — and I haven't had that privilege — reviewing air traffic would not be something that I would think would require a cabinet decision or even require bringing to cabinet. If the ministry decided to review air traffic or to privatize it, then that would be a decision made, I think, by the minister and her ministry.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Cabinet is our major customer, and it's a natural thing to go to your customers to talk about what you think you can do better to serve those customers, not to mention that the Ministry of Health is a very big part of what we do in government air services.

MR. CLARK: Can the minister confirm that the review and the terms of reference of the review were discussed with the Ministry of Health particularly, and tell us what the parameters of that review would be? Presumably, if it went to cabinet, this was well thought out — it had background papers and briefing notes and the whole range of things that would be required. Can the minister confirm that that is the case and that this was reviewed with the Ministry of Health as one of the major clients — not anymore the major client, but one of the major clients — in light of the pending review?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The answer is yes. We had extensive discussions with the Ministry of Health.

MR. CLARK: Would the minister then be prepared to table the terms of reference of the review? The minister said it's gone through a thorough debate; it's gone through debate in cabinet, it's been approved by cabinet; it's been discussed.

HON. MRS. GRAN: No. I didn't say that.

[ Page 10629 ]

MR. CLARK: Oh, I'm sorry. The decision to make the review had gone through cabinet. You said that. I'm not trying to lead you anywhere. You said you discussed with the Ministry of Health the terms of reference at length. I think it would not be inappropriate for us to see the terms of reference of the review.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The review is not yet completed, so it would not be appropriate for me to table it in the House at this time.

MR. CLARK: With respect, that's not what I asked. I understand the review is not complete. What I'm trying to get at is this. The minister has stated that the genesis of this review was prior to this latest controversy and was part of a well-thought-out, ongoing program — the service-quality thrust of the ministry. There was a debate; there was discussion with the Ministry of Health; it went to cabinet; to go to review had been approved by cabinet.

What is of interest to me, in light of the current controversy, is what is being reviewed and the terms of reference of that review. You have indicated that you've got those terms of reference; you've discussed them at length with the Ministry of Health. Would the minister be prepared to table the terms of reference — the scope of the review that had been approved by cabinet and approved by the client groups, particularly the Ministry of Health?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General.

MR. CLARK: I thought I was going to get an answer.

HON. MR. SMITH: You'll get an answer. The minister is writing it down.

The other day I asked a number of questions in here relating to the rent of buildings and the like, properties in this area, and the minister's responsibility for the Buildings Corporation. Much to my surprise, the raising of those questions caused a number of people to call and ask me about other issues they were concerned about in the same general area. So with that in mind — because I asked those people if they wanted a response — I will raise some of those questions now.

One concern was the operation of the government telephone service, which enables people here who work for private sector organizations that are profit-motivated and profit-dominated to have access to anywhere in the province, with the cost being borne by the taxpayers. Properly, I think, when I reflect upon it, I was asked by a number of small independent news organizations in the interior why those organizations — typically large, and in some instances multinational, corporations centred in the large urban areas of our province — would have those special privileges, and the small ma-and-pa organizations would not.

I think the opposition House Leader is looking at me somewhat quizzically.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: He says he wasn't paying attention, but that he is somewhat interested. I thought he would be, because this raises a very interesting question: why would profit-centred organizations have their special privileges subsidized by the taxpayer simply because they're located here? They have access to the government telephone system, and they can therefore phone with impunity, without cost, anywhere in the province.

Of course, they also are able to use the machinery. They have these computers nowadays where they just flip a switch and publish their material from one terminal to another, without cost to them but obviously with cost to the taxpayer.

It has been drawn to my attention that the independent paper in Terrace or Prince Rupert, or the Clearwater Times or the North Thompson Journal or papers like that which provide a very useful community service, might want to access government to deal with forestry issues, mining issues or the like. Environmental issues arise all the time, or flood issues that have taken place. Apparently they do not have the same opportunity. They can't plug in to a government telephone system and call Victoria, let alone call their friends and neighbours around the province at the taxpayers' expense.

The question was raised as to why that should be, because obviously the consequence of it is that they are forced to buy into a wire service which they may or may not want, or which they can or cannot afford. It seems to me that what may have started at one time as an important privilege is ending up as a special privilege for specific organizations.

As I said, I asked earlier about telephone access from this building and from the gallery to anywhere in B.C., and about the cost, if any, of subsidizing those private news organizations with taxpayers' revenue. I want to know today whether small-town news organizations can access that same telephone system or even perhaps have some limited access by being able to telephone Victoria on a reverse-charge basis. There must be some way that we can organize that so that they can have that access.

The question, therefore, to the minister is: can these private news organizations — to be specific, the North Thompson Journal and the Clearwater Times — have access to the same telephone system or even limited access by phoning Victoria? Or do the major news organizations alone enjoy this special privilege which is subsidized by the taxpayers of British Columbia? I'm sure she'll have to get back with the answer; or maybe she won't. That is the first question that came as a result of the discussion we had the other day.

The second one that was raised with me is whether or not there are any organizations now granted press status who are effectively running a publishing business from the buildings — in the area, for instance, of forest planning. Frankly, I don't know the answer; that's why I'm asking the minister. But the suggestion has been made to me by phone that

[ Page 10630 ]

indeed this whole area of what was determined to be a privilege — and properly so — of access to certain things in the gallery has gone beyond that. Today, apparently — so I am advised — there are effectively business organizations or business activities being run from the privilege of that tradition in that gallery.

I want to know — because I don't know the answer — whether that is true, and whether there are any such organizations benefiting, if you like, from a taxpayer-owned organization to the extent that effectively they can run their own businesses.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's interesting you say that, to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). What was surprising to me was that I got some sense of what happens to you from time to time. When I raised the question the other day, I immediately got two or three little envelopes presented to my desk with "what about this," "what about that" and "what about the other thing." This was interesting to me. In any event, I said to them that I would ask the questions. So there it is.

The third issue that was put to me to be raised is with respect to the press gallery: one, is there a facility for dispensing alcoholic beverages in exchange for money?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't know, I don't attend the place.

Two, is that facility licensed by the liquor licensing authority? Three, if it is not, by what written authority does that facility operate? That is a question to the minister that the public who have contacted me would like answered.

Finally, again in respect to the Buildings Corporation, would the minister determine whether there are any news organizations or their employees who have free parking spaces supplied by the taxpayers? Could the minister supply the names of those organizations? Secondly, what is the annual value, if any, of any free parking space that may be provided? Thirdly, is provision of any such parking space a taxable benefit in the hands of the beneficiary? Fourthly, what, if any, is the amount of that benefit, and has Revenue Canada ruled on the application or the acquisition of that benefit?

Mr. Chairman, those were the questions that I had put to me by citizens of British Columbia, who, frankly, are entitled to know if those kinds of privileges do indeed exist. If they're paying for them, I think in all seriousness that everyone in the House would want that information to be disclosed publicly I will leave it to the minister to answer those questions now — or later, if she has to get details.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General raises some interesting points. I doubt very much that I will have to do any research though. I'm sure all of the members of the press will disclose, in their respective newspapers, everything that they are given in the Legislature and will be the first to admit if they're receiving taxable benefits that they aren't paying for. I have absolutely no doubt about that and will await with bated breath the next round of newspapers. I'm sure it will be on the front page. I just know that it will be. So tomorrow is going to be a very special day for all of us.

MR. ROSE: I wonder whether the minister had intended to respond to the last question my colleague placed before we heard the four probing questions from the Attorney-General, who, incidentally, I think would make an excellent opposition member. Are you not going to answer the question? Have you forgotten it?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The question had to do with the terms of reference for the review. I'll take that into consideration.

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry that I don't have the other answer I needed for the Attorney-General, but I understand that.... I'm looking up the citation now. We're having our experts here, our rule sleuths, looking through the various references. I think it's part of Bill 1, which is a parliamentary right having to do with freedom of parliaments from the local liquor laws. When I find the citation, I'll be very pleased to pass these along to him. Have you got it?

Anyway, I've got some questions on the Purchasing Commission. Here we go into the Purchasing Commission. I wonder if the minister could tell me why, since the Purchasing Commission Act requires an annual report of business done to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, there has been no report to this parliament to date.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The Purchasing Commission report is part of the ministry report which will be tabled soon.

MR. ROSE: I think it's very important that we have this material quite early in the session, especially before the minister's estimates, because we can hardly debate that annual report after the minister's estimates are over. I would suggest that it might be a recommendation to see that we have some of these annual reports in earlier so we have a chance to look at them before we deal with the estimates.

I'd like to say that when I was first given the rather onerous task of being critic of this grab-bag of corporations and commissions, I visited the CEOs of each of them — I think every one. I said in the House last year that I was quite impressed with them. I thought we were being well served by the CEOs. I was impressed by the enthusiasm with which they seem to approach their job, and also by the freedom and openness that they displayed to me.

[ Page 10631 ]

I haven't had occasion to be in touch with many of them since that time, although I did attend — I believe it was — the Purchasing Commission's fair in the convention centre last year. I liked their idea of displaying or publishing the kind of things that the Purchasing Commission buys, and seeking approaches, offers and contracts from local manufacturers and other business people.

I just wish that we had a wider interpretation of their mandate. To begin with, I would like to ask the minister — since I don't have the annual report — if she has any idea of the value of the materials and services that were acquired last year through the commission and how much was acquired through other channels?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The answer is $350 million annually, and including other agencies the amount comes to approximately $500 million. The amount of money spent in the public sector is $6.3 billion.

MR. ROSE: Is the minister really confirming that the Purchasing Commission, which the public thinks is the principal agent for purchasing for the Crown, actually purchases as little as 6 percent of all government procurement?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, the figures would bear that out.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Not bad? I think it's shocking. The public thinks that the Purchasing Commission, which has a squeaky-clean reputation for probity, openness, tendering and all the rest of it, is the chief agent. If the Purchasing Commission were in charge of more purchasing, I don't think we would have had the purchasing scandals that we've encountered this spring. I want to know if the minister would agree that the mandate....

MR. RABBITT: Shame, shame, shame!

MR. ROSE: Thumper, are you back again?

What steps is the minister going to take to expand the mandate of this very excellent organization?

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I want to explain to the member — and I'm sure he already knows — that the $6 billion figure also includes school boards, hospitals, universities, municipalities and colleges which do not currently or necessarily deal with the Purchasing Commission. But in this session we actually have tabled legislation that will enable the Purchasing Commission to do more purchasing with those agencies.

MR. ROSE: With the expertise lodged in the Purchasing Commission, they could probably do a great deal more. I think that the hospitals, schools and other institutions would greatly benefit from their professional expertise in this field. But 6 percent of government spending — I don't know how much is accounted for by the other institutions, colleges, universities, schools and hospitals. I really have no idea. Even if it were $3 billion, it would still only be 12 percent if you doubled it. So I think the minister's efforts should be directed to increasing this.

For instance, the Health ministry finances $43 million worth of equipment purchases for hospitals every year, and it doesn't go through the Purchasing Commission. We've been treated to the saga of Siemens Electric. It cost a couple of people — very nice people, good people — their jobs here, and it tarnished another one who is a candidate. It seems to me that that occurred because they didn't have the kind of machinery in place to prevent these things from happening. Had it gone through the Purchasing Commission, that would not have happened. I wonder if the minister would agree that much more needs to be done.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, obviously we would agree that more areas of government should be dealing with the Purchasing Commission. But it's important to note that this is a voluntary service, and that when people decide-boards, agencies, branches and ministries of government — to purchase through the Purchasing Commission, they do it because they choose to do it for all the right reasons. The last thing we would want to do is to alienate any of those parts of government. In fact, we would rather have a customer who wants to be a customer.

MR. ROSE: I don't know why you're worried about alienating them; you've alienated practically everybody else.

I would think....

HON. MRS. GRAN: Why are you laughing?

MR. ROSE: I don't know. Why am I laughing when I'm hurting all over? It only hurts when I laugh — or vice versa.

Mr. Chairman, I've got a suggestion for the minister. Leaving aside the hospitals, colleges and school boards, because I really think they are autonomous operations — or at least they have been in the past, I can understand that they would be reluctant to give up their particular rights. But a lot of the stuff is purchased by the ministry for the hospitals, and in that sense I don't think they need the kind of necessary autonomy encountered.

I think that the CEO of the Purchasing Commission can confirm that there have been some real horror stories of people dealing in various kinds of computer and copying equipment and the unconscionable contracts, because they didn't know what they were doing and could have used the advice; I'm talking about school boards and hospitals. There's a perfect example of how we could have saved the public money that got into long-term contracts that were probably.... We paid through the nose, in other words, and I can give you the chapter and verse of that one if you need it. We don't, because we want to

[ Page 10632 ]

get on with this. We're very anxious to get through this and examine all the facets of this ministry-

I think that everything over $1,000 in government spending should be vetted through the Purchasing Commission. Is that a little small?

MR. MERCIER: Municipalities are higher than that.

MR. ROSE: What would you say? I don't mind. Would $50,000 be all right? Maybe $20,000? 1 don't know. I'll take the advice of the CEO of the Purchasing Commission if they can come up with a figure, but it certainly seems to me that we need a much tighter ship than we have at the moment.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I just wanted to confirm for the member that the vast majority of purchases over $10,000 for ministries do come through the Purchasing Commission. But I compliment you for your efforts, and perhaps you could ask that same question of each minister and just remind them about the Purchasing Commission, the wonderful reputation they have and what a great job they do.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the minister would like me to give that spin on it, as they say up there in the press gallery. Is that right?

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the minister's estimates, particularly when it comes to the Purchasing Commission and expenditures of dollars. I'm not sure whether $1,000 is too small to consider. There are many businesses in British Columbia that pay taxes on a continual basis — ever-increasing taxes as it seems to be with this government's policy — and they would like to have some of those taxes somehow returned to them in the form of being able to sell to the government some product that the government uses. I'm just amazed to find that the Purchasing Commission makes as little as 6 percent of the purchases in the province of British Columbia.

As small business critic for the party, I get a lot of requests and a lot of business people in the province asking me: "Where can we get some government business?" If the minister has ever been involved in business, she knows that a $1,000 purchase can seem like a healthy purchase when it has been a very slow day. Also, they're very concerned when they notice that the particular purchases in a region, an area or a community are being made in Vancouver, particularly if they're in the north, on Vancouver Island or in some other part of this very large and bountiful province of ours. They do not even have an opportunity to bid on those local purchases. Particularly when you find that the cost of shipping those goods to the community — be it Dawson Creek, Port Hardy or Cranbrook — sometimes exceeds the cost of the purchase itself.

I wonder if the minister could relate to us what the Purchasing Commission is involved in to make sure that the dollars collected by Victoria — by the Finance minister in particular — are more evenly distributed throughout this province, so that we don't have the regional disparity, particularly in economics, that we now see in British Columbia. We see tremendous growth in the lower mainland and Victoria. We see the unemployment figures for those areas, yet when we look in other areas of the province, the unemployment figures are double and in some cases two and a half times what they are in the lower mainland.

[4:30]

Diversification is what people are looking for. As the largest business in British Columbia, I would hope that the province and the Purchasing Commission would have some plan in place to assure British Columbians that what they are paying out they are getting back in some way.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I want the member to know that the Purchasing Commission is doing more and more regional purchasing. They offer not only the service of purchasing but also a great deal of advice. There is also education on how to purchase. If the branch or organization is intent on doing its own purchasing, a lot of advice and education are available in the ministry.

When purchasing in the regions, the commission tries to stay as close to the source as possible. But those bids must be competitive at all times. The Purchasing Commission has been extremely successful in doing what the member is talking about.

I want to give one example of that, which is the Queen's Printer, where suppliers were set up by region and asked to quote by region, so that they were close to the source and yet competitive. It has been an extremely successful initiative by the Purchasing Commission. The Purchasing Commission is readily available to offer that kind of advice to anyone who wants it.

MR. G. JANSSEN: In the example the minister is using, is she saying that the Queen's Printer is now having printing done in regions rather than in one central location? Are brochures, booklets and handouts from government being produced in the regions so that some of those funds are returning to them?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The answer is yes. Although the example I gave you was for office supplies, the answer is the same for printing.

MR. G. JANSSEN: We appreciate that initiative, so that some of those dollars are being returned to areas that are very hard hit economically.

There are a number of brochures put out. "Discover Your Markets" starts off by saying: "It is the policy of the B.C. Purchasing Commission to purchase goods and services whenever possible in the region of delivery." With the limited resources that my caucus has and that are available to me, I naturally haven't had the opportunity to check the entire province for the types of purchases being made, but I know in my own area.... I wrote the

[ Page 10633 ]

former minister a letter concerning this, particularly about the purchase of vehicles and about opportunity. I said: "High priority has been given to informing local business of opportunities to supply the government." I made the information on how to do this available to the dealers in my area.

There seems to be no difficulty with the federal government, as they often purchase vehicles in the community of Alberni and have them serviced there. Rather there seems to be some difficulty with the Purchasing Commission and their plan.

Recently, not a month ago, British Columbia Hydro needed a vehicle, a request was put in to purchase a vehicle and they were simply sent one. The dealers in my community asked if they could be put on the list for purchasing. They would like to be contacted, for instance, when a vehicle is needed. I don't want to restrict the minister to the one example of vehicles, but at many times bids are not even asked for from the local dealers.

That is the question, and I appreciate the fact that the Queen's Printer is involved in this. But in many areas — and I hear this continually throughout the province — bids are not asked for. Purchases are simply sent. Requirements from various ministries and offices are asked for; somewhere somebody makes a purchase or sends the equipment, the vehicle, the stationery, the pencils or the shovel handles — whatever it may be; and it shows up at the destination. The local suppliers, even though they are aware of the government's system, with Government Management Services and the Purchasing Commission, don't receive the opportunity to bid on those items. If they were given that opportunity and were turned down because their price was too high or because the quality wasn't good enough, I'm sure they would find a manner to adjust to that. But when they are not even given the opportunity to place a bid on the particular purchase that's necessary, it becomes very disheartening, particularly when you're writing out a tax cheque at the end of the month — it's ever-increasing — and you're not even asked to bid on a product where you hopefully could recover some of those dollars or perhaps even generate a profit if you're lucky enough to pay some of the taxes that inevitably show up at the end of the month.

Surely the government must have a list of the businesses involved. They're obviously available from the social services tax department or the Ministry of Finance. Those lists could be made available as purchases are required. Is that type of system being studied by the minister?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, it's not being studied; it's in place. It's the most comprehensive and up-to-date system in Canada.

On vehicles, specifically, the bids are done through the manufacturer. The delivery is done locally. So it's up to the manufacturer to make sure that the fairness is in there, on a regional basis. Over 600 vehicles, at a cost of $8.5 million, were sourced in 1989-90 from nine regional centres in the province.

I also remind the member — and I'm sure he's aware of it — that there's a computer system in the chamber of commerce office in almost every community, where any business or dealership can access any bid that is there in government. It's a system that is only in western Canada, initiated by the Purchasing Commission in British Columbia, and I'm sure that member is well aware of it.

The other thing that I say to the member is that if you have any queries, if you have any dealerships or any businesses in your community, the Purchasing Commission is used to working and happy to work with MLAs who are there and working on behalf of their constituents. So please feel free to deal directly with the Purchasing Commission.

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'm aware, of course, as a past president of the chamber of commerce, of the tremendous opportunity that is available through the computer system and the listing of the supply, and also of the fact that particular business people or manufacturers may wish to access this system to inform the government and all other purchasers, not only in western Canada but through most of the United States, of products they may have for sale. So I am aware of that.

The question of the purchasing. In light of what the minister says, I wonder, then, how it is possible, as has just been explained by the opposition House Leader, that incidents such as happened with Siemens could happen, where purchases were made and no opposing bids were applied for. We're into a situation where the minister is telling the House that it's all there, you can access it, we'll work through manufacturers and purchases are made, and yet we find that many purchases are made without opposing bids being called for. We find those particular businesses wanting to access the system, wanting to be able to perhaps bid on the product for a lower price in order to save the taxpayers of this province money, and we find out that the purchases were made from a single producer without a bid being put out and without anybody having any knowledge of the fact that a purchase was being made.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, working with — and the key word is "with" — the Purchasing Commission is voluntary. The member keeps going back to something that was purchased through a hospital. Hospitals, colleges, universities and municipalities are not required to deal with the Purchasing Commission. The better the job that the Purchasing Commission does, the more likely we are to see those agencies dealing with the Purchasing Commission. Again we go back to service quality. The Purchasing Commission wants to have customers because they want to be customers, not because they've been forced to do it.

I would suggest that you deal with the issue of the Siemens purchase with the Health minister in his estimates. But the purchase was done through a hospital.

[ Page 10634 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I recognize that the purchase was done through a hospital, Madam Minister. However, it is perhaps sad that it wasn't done through the B.C. Purchasing Commission, which has a tremendous record of fairness in this province. And when the hospital in this particular case — I don't want to dwell on Siemens too long — made recommendations to the minister, the minister in some cases ignored that.

Going back to where we started off, 6 percent of purchases in British Columbia are made through the Purchasing Commission. Perhaps it would be more fortunate that more purchases were made through the Purchasing Commission so that we have a better degree of fairness and we have the opportunity for more British Columbia firms to be involved in the process, rather than those decisions being made at a ministerial level.

The question to the minister is: can the Purchasing Commission be expanded to take in more of the roles of those various ministries so that we have more of that fairness and more of that redistribution in the province? I realize that she is a junior minister in the government and has just recently received her appointment, but I'm sure that if the B.C. Purchasing Commission were expanded, we would see that fairness distributed throughout the province of British Columbia and everybody would have access to those government purchases.

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I wanted to acknowledge the complimentary tone from the opposition about the Purchasing Commission and the job that they do. It is also a source of pride to me and to the government.

The member should be aware that the 6 percent figure applies to the entire public sector. The percentage for government ministries is much higher than that. But the good news is that every year the percentage grows, and every year more and more ministries do their purchasing through the Purchasing Commission.

I agree totally with the voluntary concept. It always works best when you deal with a company, a branch or an organization in or out of government because they do a good job, not because you are told to or forced to.

[4:45]

MR. SIHOTA: I want to ask the minister some questions in relation to her obligations as the minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation. I want to ask her a number of questions that really relate to how decisions are made within that corporation.

As the minister knows, government engages in all types of construction activity. Well, not construction activity, but it wishes to lease buildings for various purposes, and various branches of government wish to lease. When decisions are made to look for a site for leasing, obviously the B.C. Buildings Corporation plays a role. When structural changes have to be made to buildings, B.C. Buildings Corporation takes a look at the costs associated therewith and makes some decisions as to which of a variety of sites would be best suited for the endeavour the government wants to engage in.

Could the minister tell me what the process is for BCBC once it has issued its notice, which it usually does in the paper, saying that it's seeking bids for lease of certain space for a particular facility? What happens then? Would BCBC then receive all of the bids and evaluate those bids?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The answer is yes. The B.C. Buildings Corporation operates in much the same manner as the Purchasing Commission does. The entire ministry is customer service oriented. The B.C. Buildings Corporation has also a customer to satisfy.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd also like to know whether once they actually receive the bid for a particular proposal, they engage in evaluation of that proposal. Is that determination made independently by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, or do they make it jointly with a ministry, or is it up to the ministry to then decide which is the best bid?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The B.C. Buildings Corporation functions as a business. Their decisions are independent, but always taking into consideration the needs of that client.

MR. SIHOTA: Once they make a decision with respect to a lease and say that a particular lease is preferable, what happens next? Do they then forward their recommendations to the ministry for a comment, or do they just proceed independently and begin negotiations with the successful bidder?

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's a difficult question for me to answer unless you are talking about some specific circumstance. I would have to guess at the answer in terms of the question being asked and say that if the customer was not happy with the decision made by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, that would enter into it to a very large degree.

MR. SIHOTA: The ministry, then, has the ability, I take it, to veto a determination made independently by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. Is that correct?

HON. MRS. GRAN: That's not the appropriate term to use. There could certainly be a disagreement and a discussion, but I don't accept the member's word "veto." Decisions are made jointly, but the groundwork is done by the B.C. Buildings Corporation.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay. But in a case where the two may disagree — BCBC and a ministry — who ultimately makes the decision? Is it made by BCBC, or is it made by the ministry?

[ Page 10635 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN: My answer has to be that most decisions are made cooperatively.

MR. SIHOTA: There must be cases where there is just a disagreement between the two.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Be specific.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm asking the minister, first of all what the process is. The minister says: "Well, I guess people cooperate." I would hope that they do, and I would venture to say that in most cases they do. I'd agree with the minister there; there's no doubt about it. If there's going to be disagreement, the usual practice is for people to get together and work it out. But in cases where that doesn't happen, I'd like to know how the process works. I'd like the minister to provide me with an answer to that, so I have a better understanding, as a legislator, of how the process works.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I think the member understands completely the process that is used at the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It's a cooperative effort. The ministry involved is treated as any customer is by any business, in the same manner as the Purchasing Commission operates. Everyone knows what a good job they do; everyone also knows what a good job BCBC does. In fact, it was recognized as being one of the top 100 businesses. Its reputation is good.

I would have to have specific instances from that member in order to answer the question properly. It would be my view as minister that if there was a dispute, it would be discussed and a decision would be reached between the two parties involved. I would be happy, though, during my estimates — I gather I'm going to be here for at least one more day — to bring back the policy for you and for the House.

MR. SIHOTA: I thank the minister for that offer I'd like to see the policy tabled in the House; I'll wait for it tomorrow.

Since we are talking about this, let me also ask the minister this question. I take it — and correct me if I'm wrong — that it would be irregular if a ministry were to say: "Look, forget it. We disagree with what you guys are doing. We'll do it on our own. The ministry will take over negotiations with respect to various leases."

HON. MRS. GRAN: BCBC is the landlord for government. Unless the member is talking about one or more specific instances, the answer is yes.

MR. SIHOTA: To make my understanding clear, then, it would be irregular for a ministry to move on its own to ask BCBC to vacate responsibility with respect to negotiations. I appreciate the minister's answer in that regard.

Various ministries have specific needs. If you wanted to build a health clinic, you would be mindful of your needs. I'm not talking about a hospital; I would assume that there's a different process for hospitals. But if you want a health clinic or to open an office for Social Services and Housing, you may want to have different considerations — whatever. That being the case, could the minister advise how BCBC becomes aware of the peculiar needs of a particular ministry, with respect not to space but to layout?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, a very large part of the service at BCBC is customer service. There are people employed who do nothing but that: talk to the ministries about their needs — not just what they need today but what they're going to need ten years down the road. They are well aware of each ministry's needs and their future needs. As far as I know, as minister, the communication is wide open between the people who deal with that aspect in BCBC and the people who deal with it in the ministries.

BCBC is a Crown corporation that has done an excellent job in providing the services for government that are needed. I'm not aware of instances where there are disputes, but I'm sure there are some.

MR. SIHOTA: Yes, Madam Minister, I agree with you. I think BCBC, over the years, has done a reasonably good job. They have the expertise that they've developed over the years of getting into leasing. They have that peculiar knowledge and the ability to negotiate and make sure that the space requirements are appropriate. I agree with the minister in that regard.

I'm intrigued by what the minister says about the experts they have on staff. I take it from what the minister is saying that they have people who are skilled and know what a particular ministry would be looking for. They can go back on previous experience and say: "I remember the last time we got into looking at this ministry, and one of the mistakes we made was that we didn't have appropriate wheelchair...or we didn't do this or that." Do you actually have people right on staff who have this expertise and provide guidance? Or do you just engage consultants?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Yes, we have staff. The B.C. Buildings Corporation also contracts out for that, to the private sector.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Madam Minister, for that answer.

The matter of these experts.... I think it's great. I didn't realize that BCBC actually had these people, but I think that's good. You would expect that from a Crown corporation that's doing its job.

I'll use the same word I used earlier. Would it be irregular for a ministry to say: "Look, we don't want your experts; we've got our own in-house people, and they'll make the determinations"?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I want to reject the word "irregular." I just have to be honest with you: I can't give you an answer to that question. Maybe it would

[ Page 10636 ]

be helpful if you continued so that I had an idea of what you're trying to get at, instead of this cross-examination that goes on. Let's hear what you have to say, and then maybe we can develop some reasonable answers. I'm here to provide all of the answers that I possibly can.

MR. SIHOTA: I thought the minister had been hearing everything I was saying, and I'm sure she'll continue to listen to what I've got to say. She has been very forthright in answering the questions.

If "irregular" is not the proper word, is it unusual that that happens, or is it commonplace that ministries would do that?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I just finished saying that I couldn't answer that question in an honest way. I don't know.

[5:00]

MR. SIHOTA: Madam Minister, I again appreciate your being honest enough to say that you don't know the answer. I am wondering if you could be kind enough, in the review that you will obviously be doing between now and tomorrow, to ask your staff to address their minds to that question and table in the House any information you may have in that regard in your answer to my question. Is that a fair request? I hear the minister saying, "Sure," so I would expect the minister would respond.

I just want to ask the minister another question. When particular needs are being addressed with respect to the requirements of ministries.... I won't use the word "irregular." I take it that from time to time there may be committees formed of ministries that advise BCBC as to their needs while the negotiation process for a lease is taking place. Again I'm assuming that that's a common occurrence, but correct me if I'm wrong.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Each ministry — and I think I said this before — has a person or persons whose responsibility it is to communicate their needs to BCBC.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: If I can summarize what the minister's had to say to this point, BCBC is an independent organization that engages in negotiations with various property owners to lease and to make sure that buildings are up to standard for what the ministry requires. They in fact act as the agent of the ministry in those negotiations, and it would be irregular for a ministry itself to enter into those negotiations and to dictate the terms of the lease or the nature of the development. The policy is that ministries are expected to proceed through their agent and express their concerns one way or the other through their agent, and the agent is the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Is that a fair summation of what the minister has had to say so far?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Except for one thing. You used that word "irregular" again. I would choose to say that that would be their normal mode of operation.

MR. WILLIAMS: Actually, I'm back at the old Expo site stomping-ground. The minister may recall that questions were asked about which ministry was responsible for the remnants of the Expo contract; that is, with respect to the sale to Li Ka-shing and the Concord Pacific group. Could the minister advise us if her ministry has any role with respect to this at all?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, I've watched with a lot of amusement as that question got asked. The Expo lands fall under a lot of different ministries, as you've seen each time you've asked the question. The only part that this ministry plays any longer is that we do have a staff member who was involved in the privatization process and is still assisting with some aspects of the contract.

MR. WILLIAMS: I thought that the minister did just about get up and then the minister from Terrace elbowed her out of the way and said that he was the one that was responsible. Now it's clear that it's a joint responsibility. He elbowed you out again.

Could the minister advise us if the remnant that the ministry is dealing with is the lease with respect to McDonald's?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, that isn't part of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the minister could help us out and just advise us what specific area remains in terms of her ministry. I'm more than pleased that it's the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) that's responsible. I look forward to discussing that in some detail.

I think the minister is considering the matter right now. It's kind of interesting. I guess Mr. Peter Clark, responsible for privatization, has some partial responsibility here. But I suppose, in a broader sense, the interesting thing would be if Mr. Clark or the privatization staff have carried out an analysis of this exercise and whether there are any lessons out of it in terms of future management of matters such as this. As we all know, ten acres was sold for $40 million in the last year, and that takes care of the down payment. There are significant rumours in the downtown business community...

HON. MR. FRASER: Circulated by whom?

MR. WILLIAMS: By the biggest lawyers in town.

...that there is an even bigger impending sale. So all of this would seem to provide us with some lessons in how to handle real estate.

Maybe the minister could advise us specifically what Mr. Clark's role is now.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The role is very small. It's simply a role of assisting in the wind-down of the

[ Page 10637 ]

privatization dealings. Mr. Clark's role is only in an advisory capacity because he has been there through the entire process.

If there are specific questions about the contracts, I think they probably should be addressed to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier).

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, I appreciate that. So in terms of the details, we'll deal with the Minister of Finance.

As I think about Mr. Clark and that shop, I have the impression that it's generally being wound down. Is that the situation?

When the Premier made his first announcements about privatization, it was privatization 1, privatization 2, privatization 3, 4 and 5.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: As my colleague says, it's almost like the Hollywood movie business — Jaws I, Jaws II, etc.

Clearly the managers are looking after those jaws these days, and I guess privatization 2, 3 and 4 are maybe not on the agenda. Is it the case that the group is not that active currently in terms of thinking of new candidates for privatization?

HON. MRS. GRAN: The privatization committee is still active. The role is not just privatization, but efficiency in government. The last privatization was the courier service, just recently.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could clarify that, because she did say they were winding down; but that was with respect to the Expo privatization. The privatization program is still ongoing. Maybe we could just get a little clarification of that.

I have before me some orders-in-council that talk about three.... I wonder if the minister could brief me on these, because I don't know what they are: Shuswap Lake Management Ltd., 4-4-1 Holdings Ltd. and Shaw Maintenance Ltd. These are three recent privatizations which didn't get much fanfare. I guess it's her ministry.

HON. MRS. GRAN: What's the date?

MR. CLARK: The latest, Shaw Maintenance, was January 10, 1990; the 4-4-1 Holdings agreement was November 10, 1989; and Shuswap Lake Management Ltd. was April 17, 1989. I guess two of those were when you were minister. I'm just curious because there was no fanfare. This was an order-in-council, and it's recognized as privatization. I was trying to get a handle on what those are. Is your ministry in charge of these kinds of things? That's the first question. If that's the case, what agenda are you pursuing now within your ministry with respect to privatization?

HON. MRS. GRAN: In fairness, I don't know what those orders were for. We'd be happy to bring back the information tomorrow.

As I said to the first member for Vancouver East, the privatization committee is not there simply for privatization. We are constantly looking at ways to make government more efficient. Ministers bring forward initiatives from their own ministries, where they, feel that if all ministries got together on one issue it would perhaps be more efficient — for example, warehousing. There are a number of initiatives in government that ministries do individually that would probably be more efficient if they were done in a collective manner. That's also part of the mandate of that committee. Quite frankly, that is mostly what we are doing now.

MR. CLARK: That sounded kind of left-wing — you know, sort of collective rationalization; we can work better if we work collectively, and those kinds of things.

I assume that contracting-out, which may or may not be privatization, is something else that would be part of it. Do you have Mr. Clark still there? Does he still have a committee. Have they got a mandate to go through, ministry by ministry, and analyze what can be contracted out, what can be privatized and those kinds of things? Or is that process complete, and you're now responding to ministry initiatives and the actual process of reviewing every ministry with this committee with a view to privatizing? That aspect's over, and now you're really cleaning up — dealing with initiatives that transpired earlier and responding to initiatives from the ministry. Is that an appropriate characterization?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Privatization operates in the same manner as the other two departments that we've talked about — the Purchasing Commission and the B.C. Buildings Corporation. Ministries bring the initiatives to us, and we deal with them, but we don't go out looking for...unless someone on the committee decided that there was an area in government that needed to be looked at. Everything that this ministry does is done on a voluntary-customer basis, because that's what the customer wants. It just works a lot better than forcing ministries into it. But ministries are encouraged to look at ways to make their operations more efficient. That's one of the reasons why we had a review underway of air services in our own ministry.

MR. CLARK: So there's been a fundamental change in the nature of that committee — the initial phase the Premier announced. That committee was aggressive, reviewing each ministry, looking for candidates for privatization. They found lots of them and pursued them. Now it's a matter of following up on those earlier initiatives and more appropriately, you're saying, responding. So that seems to me to be a fundamental change in the nature of that committee.

[ Page 10638 ]

I'd like to get just a little more clarification. If a ministry — I don't know what these are, and I agree the minister said she would bring it forward.... But if a ministry like Crown Lands — I'm just making that up — said, "Well, we think something can be managed by this better," is it then your ministry's staff, Mr. Clark's and that division's responsibility to pick up, proceed and negotiate the terms of the transaction? Or does the ministry pursue that, and does your division review it after the fact or give consulting advice, so to speak, in-house? Or do you actually take it over and run with it after the ministry's initiated it?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No, we're there to work with the ministries. We don't take it over. We work with them.

MR. LOVICK: As somebody who's been involved in trying to get answers for a long time on the government's privatization programs, I'm a little perplexed by the answer. Is the minister effectively telling us that the great agenda of this government on privatization, one of its flagship items, has now ceased to be?

HON. MRS. GRAN: No.

MR. LOVICK: But there's no function for the committee except and unless individual ministries come up and say: "Hey, we've got an idea about privatization. Maybe your committee could convene." Are we missing something? Will you tell us more?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I'll have to let that member answer the question himself. Is he missing something? I think he is.

MR. LOVICK: Don't push your luck, Carol.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I would suggest the same thing on your side, Mr. Member.

The answer is no. Privatization has not changed. The committee has the same mandate, but part of its mandate is also to look at efficiencies in government. I just finished citing the last example of privatization, which was our courier service.

MR. LOVICK: We're trying to get an answer to the question about whether the elaborate program of privatization that was enunciated about two and a half years ago is still alive and well. You'll recall that the committee was a later creature devised to facilitate the process. It was called very much to offer advice and give some guidance in terms of how you could make the transition easier, etc. The committee was never — and correct me if I'm wrong; I see you have your officials here who can do that — charged with the responsibility of implementing any ideological agenda or of looking at the whole range of government services with a view to privatizing them. That, however, was the stated policy of your government, Madam Minister.

We're asking now: is there anything left of the privatization program and that agenda beyond the committee designed to facilitate the agenda, which has been determined by somebody else? Is that too tough?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, that's not an answer that I alone can give to that member. I think the answer would have to come from each ministry. If a minister were to bring a privatization initiative forward, then it would go to the privatization committee for discussion; and if the committee felt that it was worthwhile to carry on with, they would then work with that ministry to carry it through. The member talks about an agenda, I know nothing about an agenda.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, if the minister knows nothing about an agenda, she has clearly been asleep for the last three years. The agenda was the principal announcement of this government's plans for the people of this province. It was announced, to great applause, at a Social Credit convention at Whistler. Where do you think we got highways privatization from? Let me remind you that phases 2, 3 and 4 were also built into that proposal. We're asking this minister, who apparently is the only person in government who any longer has any vestige of responsibility for privatization, to tell us what the government's plans are. Does she not know that answer? Is she saying that the only thing that's still around is a committee of functionaries to do some tinkering with things? Is that what she's telling us?

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Do you not give a tinker's damn?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Nanaimo on vote 34.

MR. LOVICK: Well, I'm not sure if this minister is refusing to answer the question or is looking for guidance from her assistants. I am prepared to wait until I see.... I think she is indeed searching for information.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the questions we're posing are entirely fair. If in fact there is a significant departure from stated government policy that is obviously going to have an impact on the operation of particular ministries, perhaps even including this ministry, then I think we ought to be able to find that out in this chamber by asking some questions. So I think the question is, with all due deference to whomever, certainly legitimate. Is she still searching?

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I remind hon. members that what the member states is absolutely correct. But I should also remind members that there is no compulsion for ministers to answer any question.

[ Page 10639 ]

MR. LOVICK: I just noticed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister did indeed stand up. And if she does wish to respond to that last question, I'm certainly prepared to yield.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Chairman, the member is asking me to talk about overall government policy in terms of privatization and whether or not there's a continued agenda. I would suppose that he's asking if we have more privatization initiatives on the horizon. At this point, I simply have to say to the member that the last privatization initiative we dealt with — which was quite recently — was the courier service. We've dealt with some efficiency issues within ministries. As far as I know, there isn't another privatization initiative on the horizon at this time.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering if the minister might tell us a little bit more about the courier service. I have some knowledge, but certainly not very much. Who initiated that one, where did it come from and what was the process involved?

HON. MRS. GRAN: It's a pickup of all of the mail in government on the Island. It was the employees. They are the ones who are now the proud owners. It was a good initiative.

MR. LOVICK: I'm wondering If the minister can tell us whether there were any demonstrated cost savings to be realized by this particular privatization. Let me just explain why I ask the question.

We had some rather surprising testimony in the chamber last week from your colleague the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) in response to questions from this side of the House about privatization. You were perhaps in the House, Madam Minister. We were asking questions about the privatization of the Environmental Lab testing service, and the fact that it's now operated by Zenon Environmental of Ontario. The minister said on a number of occasions — because I asked the question on a number of occasions to make sure I was understanding precisely what he was intending — that: "We" — this government — "are committed to privatization even if there is no economic ground for doing so." In other words, all those arguments we used to hear from that side of the House about privatization and why it's being done suddenly weren't on the table anymore. Rather, it was all about ideology. He explained that by saying that it's "because we believe in the ideology of privatization." I'm not quoting him, by the way; I don't want to put words into his mouth. But his defence of that position was belief. That's why I think it's a fair question to ask about this particular privatization: is there any economic rationale for it, or is it purely an ideological leap again?

HON. MRS. GRAN: In the case of the courier service, efficiency was the biggest reason why it was privatized; also, in the long term, there are some projected cost savings. I would imagine that the Minister of Environment would have been talking about efficiency as well as cost savings. Sometimes there are good reasons.

There have been, I'm sure, a number of privatization initiatives that wouldn't make sense and that government does do better. I think we could all agree in the House that government does do some things well. But government does do some things not so well. In my view, the privatization initiatives would have more than just cost savings attached to them

In the case of employee ownership, it's very important for those employees, if they are bent that way, to want to own their own business; and they certainly know how to operate it from having worked in it. But in this case, the courier service, it was based more on efficiency than on cost savings.

MR. LOVICK: I appreciate that answer. I must tell the minister that it's rather different from other answers we have had. What the minister is saying is, in fairness, an absolutely rational, reasonable and responsible model by which one should approach privatization. I would emphasize that the minister's response, however, is in contradistinction to the answers given by most of her colleagues, who have said that we're committed to privatization of everything as fast as we can — including, I might add, her leader, the Premier of the province, in his manifesto of 1987.

MR. RABBITT: Your nose is growing, Pinocchio.

MR. LOVICK: No, the nose isn't growing. The member for Yale-Lillooet is once again trying to get his moment with immortality and fame by interrupting others who are speaking, again failing miserably. I would suggest to that member that he might indeed like to do some homework and actually read the manifesto of 1987 and just what this government did commit itself to under the heading of privatization. He would discover that the ideological crusade was proceeding quite merrily.

I am intrigued by the fact that the minister.... Now that I have praised her, I can blame her a little bit. The minister's answer about the privatization of the courier service, that particular postal service, was a little vague and a little lacking in specificity. It's well and good to hear answers....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, would you restrain these members on this side of the House. They are just a little too exuberant in their comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If members have something to say, they should be seated in their own chairs.

MR. LOVICK: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Once again you have proved to be the model of decorum and dignity in this chamber, and I want you to know we all appreciate that.

[ Page 10640 ]

I was posing the question regarding the efficiency argument that was alluded to a moment ago by the minister. It's well and good to say, "Yes, we did it because of increased efficiencies," and that may well be the case. I'm wondering, however, whether the minister would be good enough to outline for members of his chamber just how that efficiency is being realized. What has happened? What changed in the service to produce this greater efficiency?

HON. MRS. GRAN: So that I give the member the correct answer, I would be happy to bring that information back.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to 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.

Presenting Reports

MR. BRUCE: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands for the fourth session of the thirty-fourth parliament, respecting matters of the Vancouver log market and log exports. I move the report be taken as read and received.

[5:30]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would remind members that tomorrow will be treated as a Friday, and the House will sit from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. With that, I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. ROSE: On that motion, I've been having discussions with the government Whip. He indicated that it would not be a typical Friday, but that we would have a question period at 10, followed by statements and then by the estimates. Can the minister confirm that? That was the information we were given.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I had no such discussions. I had assumed all along — and, in fact, in the circular I sent out — that tomorrow would be treated as a Friday. Tomorrow we'll go into members' statements and then back to Committee of Supply.

MR. ROSE: This place operates on trust and communication. I know some things are beyond the control of the minister, but his Whip indicated to me as late as last evening that that would be the process. I reported that to my own caucus, and that's the way we would prefer to proceed.

I'm not going to go to the wall on this and require unanimous consent — which it does — because I think the fact that we're off on Friday and leaving early Thursday is fine. But I do think that we're entitled to a question period, because we were promised that — not by the House Leader, but by the Whip, who is not here to defend himself. But the mini-Whip is over there, and he should know.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have had no discussion with anyone regarding question period. However, I shall ascertain in the morning whether he has promised such a deal. If he has, then there will be; if he hasn't, there won't be.

I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:32 p.m.