[ Page 10641 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Control the Sale of Tobacco to Minors and to Prevent

Tobacco Addiction Among Young People (Bill M224). Mr. Perry

Introduction and first reading –– 10641

An Act to Protect Public Health Through the Guarantee of a

Tobacco Smoke-Free Environment (Bill M225). Mr. Perry

Introduction and first reading –– 10641

Health professions Act (Bill 31). Hon. J. Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 10642

Offence Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 53). Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 10642

Securities Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 56). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 10642

Tabling Documents –– 10642

Private Members' Statements

Future constitutional reform. Mr. Harcourt –– 10642

Hon. Mr. Smith

Voucher funding for post-secondary education. Mr. Loenen –– 10644

Mr. Jones

Motorcycle awareness. Mr. G. Janssen –– 10646

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Fish and wildlife resource values. Mr. Serwa –– 10648

Mr. Cashore

Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 13). Second reading.

(Hon. Mrs. Gran)

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 10651

Mr. Rose –– 10651

Mr. Clark –– 10653

Mr. Miller –– 10654

Mr. Cashore –– 10655

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 10656

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 –– 10656

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, visiting the buildings this morning is a group of people from the English-as-a-second-language program at the Carey Road campus of Camosun College. This is rather a unique approach to the ESL program, and my colleagues and I would like to express our appreciation of their attendance this morning.

MR. WILLIAMS: In the gallery today are the interns who have worked with Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Elvy Del Bianco, Sean Vanderfluit, David Jones and Geoffrey Gartshore. I'd like to recognize their work and worth to the process here in the House and to wish them well in their future careers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair would like to advise you that a number of former members were here in Victoria last evening, and some of them will be joining us on the floor of the House today. I make them all welcome.

MR. MOWAT: In the House today it's my pleasure to introduce Michelle Kitchen and Brad Kitchen who are visiting from Toronto. They recently were married. Brad is the son of Peter and Myrna Kitchen, longtime friends of ours and supporters from Vancouver. I'd ask the House to make Michelle and Brad welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say I would like to offer you our thanks and congratulations from both sides of the House — I'm really not permitted to do that, but certainly from this side of the House, and I assume it would be echoed across the way — for taking the initiative in the very successful reunion of former MLAs we had last evening at the Lieutenant-Governor's house, and for the provision of identifiable pins as a kind of badge of honour — you might even consider it a battle medal. But in any event, I think the fact that we all got together last night was really worthwhile, to relive old friendships and old rivalries and to be among old friends. We thank you for your efforts.

MR. BARNES: I want to recognize the presence of a former MLA from Mackenzie, Mr. Tony Gargrave, who is also a constituent of mine. He was here at the reception last evening with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Would the House please make Tony Gargrave welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO CONTROL THE SALE OF
TOBACCO TO MINORS AND TO PREVENT
TOBACCO ADDICTION AMONG YOUNG
PEOPLE

Mr. Perry presented a bill intituled An Act to Control the Sale of Tobacco to Minors and to Prevent Tobacco Addiction Among Young People.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, this bill, otherwise to be known as the Children's Tobacco Addiction Protection Act, would break the chain of tobacco addiction by undermining the sales of tobacco products to those most susceptible to this addiction: children and teenagers. This bill treats tobacco as a dangerous substance and seeks to educate the public by requiring tobacco packages to clearly indicate the health hazards involved in smoking.

The bill empowers the Minister of Health to issue tobacco sales licences without which no distributor or retailer may sell tobacco products.

Violations of the following provisions shall result in the loss of the tobacco sales licence: no sales of tobacco products to those under 19; signs displayed prominently at the point of purchase, bearing health warnings; specific restrictions on the packaging of tobacco products; no use of tobacco product vending machines in areas accessible to children; and no sales of confectionery that resembles tobacco products.

Bill M224 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The member has indicated he has two pieces of legislation. There is no indication from the government that you have legislation, but I presume you do. I'll ask the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey to proceed.

AN ACT TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH
THROUGH THE GUARANTEE OF A
TOBACCO SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Perry presented a bill intituled An Act to Protect Public Health Through the Guarantee of a Tobacco Smoke-Free Environment.

MR. PERRY: This bill addresses the health hazards caused by environmental tobacco smoke — the sidestream or secondhand smoke that affects non-smokers in close proximity to smokers. This bill would establish provincewide standards restricting the locations where smoking would be allowed. Specifically, no one may smoke in an enclosed public place or in an enclosed workplace unless a separate ventilated room has been provided for smokers by the proprietor. With respect to bars, nightclubs, etc., there are exceptions.

I would like to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that this bill follows on initiatives you have pursued in the

[ Page 10642 ]

legislative buildings. I'd also like to thank one of our legislative interns, Mr. EIvy Del Bianco, who has done a sterling job in helping to prepare these initiatives.

Bill M225 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Act.

HON. J. JANSEN: The purpose of Bill 31 is to provide a new mechanism for the regulation of various health practitioners who are currently unregulated. In the past, government has conferred self-governing powers on various health professions by separate statutes. The Health Professions Act will enable cabinet to designate specific health professions by regulation to be self-governing under the terms of this bill.

This bill was first introduced in this House as Bill 91, Health Discipliner, Act, in July 1989, an exposure bill. On the basis of comments and suggestions received since then, a number of changes to the bill have been made, resulting in significant improvements. Most importantly, provisions respecting inquiry and discipline have been expanded to enhance public protection.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to fuller discussion of these matters during second reading and in Committee of the Whole.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Offence Amendment Act, 1990.

[10:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: This bill proposes changes to the way that various tickets are issued and changes the times for disputing those tickets.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Bill 56 marks another step in the process of modernizing our financial regulatory legislation in British Columbia. The primary purpose of this bill is to repeal the Commodity Contract Act and to incorporate provisions for the regulation of exchange contracts in the Securities Act. The bill also contains several other amendments to the Securities Act.

The Commodity Contract Act was passed in 1978 and amended in 1985. It is now outmoded and in need of replacement, to provide a modern and effective regulatory framework for trading in futures contracts and options. Because of the similarities in regulatory structures, the most efficient way of updating the legislation governing exchange contracts is to combine it with the Securities Act. This bill will give British Columbia the most advanced legislation in Canada for both securities and exchange contracts.

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission annual report for the year ended March 31, 1989.

Private Members' Statements

FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, Meech Lake has failed, but Canada is far from over. Our country is going to be around a long time, but the old way of backroom bargaining and rolling the dice is finished forever, because there is a better way to build this great country. The present process is one of exclusion. It is secretive and manipulative. We cannot build a country behind closed doors any longer.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the nation is changing. There is no turning back. No longer can British Columbians and Canadians be left on the outside looking in. It's time to discard the old ways and open the process to the people. It's time for a new approach.

I want to outline how we on this side of the House would give British Columbians an opportunity to express their views fully and further develop the Canadian constitution. We believe this House should set up a special legislative committee. Through full public hearings and other means, the committee would examine and make recommendations to this House as to changes to the Canadian constitution required to reflect the British Columbia reality in a modern, evolving Canada.

The constitution committee would look at such things as economic and social issues, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — including women's equality — multiculturalism, aboriginal rights and self-government, Senate reform, immigration and the amending formula. To assist the committee, an advisory board of at least five British Columbians, to include an aboriginal leader, a women's rights advocate, a constitutional law expert and two or more informed citizens, would be appointed to provide expertise and to participate in the deliberations. The special

[ Page 10643 ]

committee would start its work next fall and deliver an interim report to you by December 31, 1990.

Such a process would be enshrined in the B.C. constitution to ensure full public participation in any further constitutional amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on another avenue for ensuring greater participation by the people of this province. I'm talking about a Senate election for B.C. Some argue that the collapse of Meech Lake means the Mulroney government no longer has to consult the provinces before naming Senators; that once again the Prime Minister is free to maintain the Senate as a non-democratic club, naming only his friends and supporters to fill the remaining vacancies — Senators who, in turn, will support his government's policies. Already Finance Minister Michael Wilson says he expects an easy ride for his goods and services tax through the Senate. I believe there may be better ways to deal with the west's power imbalance in Ottawa than just changing the Senate. But as long as we have the Senate, we must make every effort to get rid of its patronage nature.

The current Senate is a very exclusive club, where people are richly paid for doing precious little. It's filled with non-elected Liberal and Conservative bagmen, a privileged few who enjoy a cash-for-life bonanza to age 75 for no other reason than being friends of the government. They are accountable to no one, as recently demonstrated when they voted themselves a $153-a-day bonus just for showing up.

One of the current Senate vacancies is in B.C. Before Brian Mulroney fills it with another political pal, I believe we should take the action that's best for B.C. I'm calling upon the Premier to inform the Prime Minister that B.C. insists that our current Senate vacancy be filled through a democratic election. I suggest a provincewide vote be held this fall, on the same date as the November municipal elections, to make it both convenient and affordable.

Mr. Speaker, while it may be true that Alberta held their Senate election in anticipation of Meech Lake's passage, Alberta was in a similar constitutional and legal position as B.C. is today when they elected a Senate nominee. The Prime Minister was pressured into accepting that individual as Alberta's new Senator. I believe B.C. can and should do the same. We on this side of the House will field a candidate in that election. We want British Columbians to have a chance to exercise their democratic right and vote for a candidate who will fight hard against the GST, and I challenge this government to do the same. The name of the winner should then be given to the Prime Minister, with strong instructions that she or he be B.C.'s choice for Senator. Rather than allowing the Prime Minister to simply pick a name from a list of political pals, let the people of B.C. decide. That's what all future constitutional change must be about Give the people a voice in their future.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an opportunity for a response from a government member. The Attorney-General seeks the floor.

HON. MR. SMITH: It's interesting that the Leader of the Opposition talked about the bonus Senators get. I can tell him that it's no bonus for this House, when he does show up from time to time, if what he has to say is what we have just heard. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that constitutional changes begin with yet another committee of politicians. He could not be further from the mark. Constitutional change should begin with the people. Committees of politicians, whether they be all-party legislative committees or otherwise, have not worked well. When we start to make our suggestions for constitutional change, we should begin the process by drawing together the people.

Perhaps that could not be better demonstrated than by the suggestion the Leader of the Opposition makes with regard to having a provincewide Senate election. If we're going to have Senate reform, clearly one of the issues the people are going to have to address is whether they want the election of those Senators to be done on a provincewide basis — and therefore dominated by population yet again — with British Columbia relative to the rest of Canada, or whether they want those Senators to be elected on some regional basis within the province.

If the Leader of the Opposition trusted the people to let them start the process, he would hear that concern. He would not propose something that comes out of the mind of a politician dominated by his experiences in the largest city — Vancouver — in British Columbia. It would come instead from the people and would let them begin the process to determine what kind of Senate they want and how they want to elect that Senator.

As we move towards Canada Day this year and contemplation of the kind of Canada we want strong, united, prosperous and forward-looking — I think all of us have to reflect on the notion that the issues we must consider are provincial ones, within Canada, and therefore it behooves us all to consider how we can diminish the partisan way these issues have been dealt with in the past and begin to find ways that draw out the people. I think you can best see that when you go to high-school graduations, and to our schools, generally, and talk to young people, especially about these constitutional issues. They do not see it at all in the same way as politicians do — and I say, thankfully so. It is those young people who are going to have to face the same tired, old challenges that have been facing us and that we have not succeeded in changing. They're going to be facing those same old challenges and problems, and hopefully they will be the ones to find new, correct, workable solutions, because the politicians of the generation ahead of them have singularly failed in doing that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you: don't start with yet another committee of politicians dominated by people who put forward their tired, old, partisan propos-

[ Page 10644 ]

als. Start this process by drawing on the experience, expertise, decency, understanding, commitment and forward-looking optimism that the people have about this wonderful, rich, bountiful, beautiful Canada that we all know is going to be around for a great, long time.

[10:30]

MR. HARCOURT: I note, with some irony, the non-partisan way that the Attorney-General started his remarks, calling for a non-partisan approach to this issue and the diminishing of politicians. I think it's an honour and a privilege and a fine calling to be an elected person. I don't think we should turn the word "politician" into a pejorative. The Attorney-General may not be proud to be a politician, but I am. I think that when you are elected, you do indeed carry a specific duty, and part of that duty is to lead.

Yes, we begin with the people, but if you look at the successful provinces in terms of involving the people, they did have legislative committees: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario with the Senate. They have worked quite well. I want to recall that two years ago almost to the day, I stood in this Legislature and said we needed to involve the people of British Columbia in constitutional reform. The Social Credit government, when they had a chance to set up that structure — whether it be the rather elusive method that the Attorney-General has put forward or the specific, traditional way that I just mentioned here — voted against the opportunity for the people of British Columbia to be involved in constitutional change.

You're right, we do need to involve the people. I was asked by the Premier to come forward with some proposals. I have made known to the Premier those proposals for involving the people of British Columbia in participation about our constitution. I have put those forward in an honest and sincere way today. I hope that the government, if they have other proposals, will do the same, and we can get to the central issue here, which is that never again will the people of British Columbia be excluded from participating in constitutional change. Let us find a way to involve them fully. Whether it's through ward Senators or some other means, we're open. Let's have that discussion about what form of changes to this present Senate, which cannot stay the way it is, the people want. That's why we put the process forward. Let the people decide.

As we approach Canada Day, Mr. Speaker, we are the envy of the world. We sometimes don't recognize what we have created — not just future leaders, but past leaders and citizens of this great country of ours. We are the envy of the world in the Confederation that we've created. Instead of looking at the setbacks that some people perceive, of the last few weeks with Meech Lake not being approved, let's be thankful that we live in Canada, that we live In freedom and that we have a prosperous society where our problems are resolvable.

VOUCHER FUNDING FOR
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about post-secondary education this morning, in particular about a rather innovative approach to funding postsecondary education.

We all know, increasingly, how important education is. It holds the key to the future not only for our province and communities but for individuals. This government spends nearly $1 billion of taxpayers' dollars in post-secondary education. We have an excellent system, but I believe that there are areas where improvements are possible. I want to mention three.

First of all, accessibility. There are still too many people in the remote areas of this province who do not have the same kind of access that others do, particularly those in the lower mainland. Last weekend I was in Prince Rupert. People there were telling me that frequently, in order to get admitted to programs or registered at the major universities, students are asked to travel in person to those places. That puts a tremendous cost and burden on those individuals. Certainly when we talk about accessibility we ought to look at such problems.

We also know that some 70 percent of students at our three universities come from the wealthiest 30 percent of the population. Again, that is something that ought to be addressed, because we want the benefits of post-secondary education to come to all, regardless of level of income.

I also want to note that often universities do not have semesters and hours that are flexible enough to make it possible for many to make use of the programs offered.

Secondly, I want to note that we have to do more to promote a higher quality of education. All organizations and institutions tend to become self-serving and self-perpetuating. They sometimes forget the purpose for which they exist. I remember from my student days at UBC that we had one prof who said: "Don't ever think that we exist for the benefit of students. This grand institution is not here for the benefit of students; it is here to keep alive a certain body of knowledge."

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of elitism that is present, perhaps subtly, in what happens in our universities. When we think of tenure arrangements, we all know that there are profs who really should not be there and who are protected by a system that is often very self-serving.

Thirdly, there should be more choices in the type of education offered. The students are often forced to take courses they don't really want or need. In addition, we know that frequently courses do not really respond to the needs of the job market.

I am suggesting that all of those three areas could be addressed very effectively through a new funding formula. In particular I want to ask consideration for the voucher system of funding. It's a very simple system. It means that the funding would not go directly to the institution involved but rather would

[ Page 10645 ]

follow the student, and the student would have a genuine choice of which institution to enrol in. The funding that the government now provides for the operating costs of an institution would be funnelled through the students attending that institution.

I believe that it would address those three problems I mentioned. First of all, accessibility would be improved because the institutions would really seek to capture their market share. They would go out of their way to do that. Secondly, we would see a dramatic improvement in the quality, because each institution would want to build the best programs and the best reputation. In addition, there would be a remarkable improvement in the choice of programs that the institutions would offer to their customers, the students.

I believe in competition, and I believe that competition for students would be a good thing. Too many of the institutions today are a little too rigid and do not always respond to changes. There would be great benefits not only for the students but also for the institutions themselves, because the institutions would become truly independent and would no longer be tied as directly to the government of the day or to bureaucrats. They would not have to go cap in hand to Victoria, as is the case now, to get funding approval for new programs. In fact, the institutions would benefit, because they would be masters within their own house and would have a greater degree of independence.

Benefits will also accrue to government itself, because government could see a better return on the very substantial investment that goes into education now. I think the beauty of this system is that while we would still have government-funded education, we would maximize the private initiative that would drive the system. We would in fact allow the various institutions great rewards from the initiative they would take.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure to respond to the member's statement on post-secondary education. I think it's clear from his statement that the understanding and attitude of members opposite towards education and post-secondary education were shaped by the fact that they fled that education at an early age. Clearly the member opposite misunderstands the goals of our post-secondary education system, which are to further the intellectual development of people in this province so that they can make a greater contribution culturally, socially, economically and intellectually to this province. It's not, as the member suggests, an opportunity to provide job training so that we can feed the markets and the marketplace of this great province of ours.

Mr. Speaker, students do have a choice in the institution they attend. The problem is that there isn't the space in our post-secondary institutions in British Columbia. Thousands of students are turned away every September, and they'll be turned away this September. As many as 10,000 students are turned away.

The institutions are funded according to full-time equivalent students, so the funds do follow the students. The problem is that those who are able to attend because of the lack of space and because of the underfunding from this government — are forced to take courses they do not need and do not want. It's an incredible waste of their time, the institution's time, their money and the taxpayers' money; it's a waste of tremendous potential.

In this province we have an import policy. We need the graduates of our post-secondary institutions in this province to make their contribution. We need them to add value to our natural resources and to help solve our environmental problems. We need them to make our public and private sectors work more effectively and more efficiently. We need those graduates to help create a cleaner, healthier and more prosperous British Columbia. But what happens in this province is that our very talented young people are denied that opportunity. There's no room at the inn for thousands and thousands of those students every September.

What we have had and what we continue to have in this province is an import policy. Over a period of ten years we imported 20,000 graduates. In terms of our degree-completion rates, we are short some 3,300 bachelor degrees annually, compared to the national average.

We have the poorest participation rates of 18- to 24-year-olds in the country. Despite the government's pronouncements and the public relations of this government, we will continue to fall further and further behind the national average in terms of participation rates.

We contribute, as a province, less than half of what we contributed in 1972-75 in terms of the percentage of our provincial budget, and it is going down annually. It went down again this year over last year. We contribute among the lowest — less than 1 percent — of our gross domestic product to research and development; that's worse than the national average, worse than most provinces in Canada, and tremendously worse than other countries.

Mr. Speaker, we have a post-secondary education system that has the ability to produce the graduates we need. Sadly, every September we see tens of thousands turned away from the door. There's no room at the inn for these people, because this government does not have a commitment to post-secondary education. They do not believe that this is the way to convert our economy from one dependent on natural resources to one dependent on human resources. It's going to take a change of government in order to bring about that change.

[10:45]

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that the member chose to not deal with the suggestion, the recommendation or the idea put forward. Instead he went into a tirade which we've heard time and again about so-called underfunding.

This government has done more for education in the last three years than we've seen for a decade. Just

[ Page 10646 ]

in my riding this past year we have put $16.5 million into new school construction, which is more than the whole of the previous seven years combined. We have committed to building a $38 million new campus. We have committed to building a degree-granting institution in Nanaimo, Kamloops and Kelowna. We've committed to a university of the north. This government's record on education is absolutely the best.

Getting back to the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, the idea that I put forward is certainly not new. We have seen many studies come out; people who are expert in the field have made similar recommendations. It has been supported over the last decade by many educators, economists and commissions, including the Macdonald royal commission, the President's Commission on Privatization in the U.S., and education specialists such as Edwin West at Carleton and Timothy Easton at SFU.

These people are respectable authorities in their field. They have looked at this very carefully and have come up with these suggestions. Why? Because it would, in fact, mean that more British Columbia young people could take advantage of the wonderful opportunity that is supplied through our post-secondary educational institutions.

I find it sad that the member opposite is not interested in students. He's not interested in looking for genuine possibilities to make it possible for more of our young people to take those opportunities. I want to repeat that I think this method is new, innovative, creative and would put students in the driver's seat. It would give them an opportunity to truly be consumers and not simply make them take whatever it is that the institutions currently decide to offer them.

I believe that private initiative is a driving force that will bring about the best in people and institutions. I want to defend it, because we take people seriously and we take education seriously.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS

MR. G. JANSSEN: I'd like to address the House today on a subject that I think is misunderstood in British Columbia, and that is the subject of the motorcycling community. Perhaps I should just acquaint some of the members of the House with some of the terms used by the motorcycling community, such as: Harley-Davidsons are known as hogs; BMWs are known as beamers, Japanese motorcycles are known as rice-burners; and the new super-bike category is known as a crotch-rocket.

Not only is the motorcycling community misunderstood, but the government, through the Solicitor General's office, both present and past, has turned a blind eye to this segment of the motoring public. In 1988, 66,053 motorcycles were licensed in this province, which was a 14 percent decrease from 1987. As I go through my speech, you'll realize why that decrease took place.

During this period, drivers licensed to drive motorcycles — class 6 licences — totalled 173,544, a 4 percent increase from the 1987 year. Injured motorcycle drivers totalled 1,580 in 1988, a decrease of 17 percent over '87. Motorcycle passengers injured totalled 243, a decrease of 77 people, or 24 percent. Mr. Speaker, 46 motorcycle drivers and one motorcycle passenger were fatally injured in 1988. In the previous year, 60 motorcycle drivers and eight motorcycle passengers were killed.

The major contributing factors assigned to these injuries and accidents in 1988 were: driving with undue care, unsafe speed, alcohol involvement and driver inexperience. These proportions remained unchanged from the year before.

On February 13, 1990, the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists presented a brief to the minister, who listened kindly and attentively, but like past ministers has yet to respond.

Let's look at some of the motorcycle community's requests. The B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists has hired an independent actuary firm — the Wyatt Co. of Toronto — to evaluate the ICBC rates for motorcycles. Both ICBC and the Solicitor-General have turned down this request. The coalition, incidentally, is willing to pay for the study.

Although only one-third of the accidents involving motorcycles puts the motorcyclist to blame, the cost to the insurance is borne by the biker. Let me give you an example of ICBC rates. Full coverage for a $15,500 1990 touring motorcycle costs approximately $2,755. A four-year safe-driver discount brings that number down to $1,653; yet the coverage for a $30,000 car is approximately $1,759, with a discount of $1,055. I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) listening attentively. He must have just paid his rate.

The touring bike is one-half the value of the car, yet the rate is double. We should be looking for cheaper and more efficient methods of travel, less polluting methods, methods that would take up less space on our freeways and roadways.

For instance, you can park four bikes in the space of a normal mid-sized car. Ferry rates should reflect the actual space that is used rather than the percentage increases that we endure from year to year. If you can put four bikes in the space of a car, then the price of traveling on the ferries should be one quarter of the price of a car traveling on that.

ICBC also collects for traffic safety education programs $1.96 of each premium collected; yet virtually none of this money collected from the 175,000-odd bikers is used for safety education and awareness for motorcyclists.

I know Mr. Speaker is aware of the benefits of safety training for motorcyclists. On a recent awareness ride, he won a motorcycle training course, which I'm sure has been of great benefit to him. The B.C. Safety Council does provide rider-training courses for both new riders and experienced riders, but due to time and financial restrictions, these excellent courses are not available in all areas of the province.

In fact, we find it's still possible for anyone — including a 16-year-old like my son with no experience — to take a 100 or 200 cc motorcycle to a driver

[ Page 10647 ]

examiner and receive a class 6 motorcycle licence by simply riding around some pylons, braking in a straight line and riding half a block down the street and back. With licence in hand, this 16-year-old can then go to the nearest motorcycle dealer and buy an 1100-cc superbike producing over 100 horsepower, with such options as nitrogen shock absorbers and dual disk brakes on both wheels. This bike is capable of accelerating to 100 kilometres an hour and coming to a full stop again in less than eight seconds. He can then go to his local ICBC office and ride merrily away. We have a totally inexperienced rider driving a rocket on two wheels, and we send him out in the traffic. If that weren't irresponsible enough, the law actually allows this inexperienced rider to ride down the street dressed in only a bathing-suit.

We must address the question of rider-training, proper testing, proper riding apparel and, of course, insurance costs. But we must also address the responsibility and the awareness of the car driver, whose answer after an accident with a motorcycle is usually: "I'm sorry, but I didn't see him."

I'd also like to thank the MLAs who were brave enough to ride in the slight sprinkle that occurred when the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists came down to the Legislature in Victoria last month. Hopefully the weather will be better next year, and more MLAs will be brave enough to go out and partake in that awareness ride.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss a topic that's a little off the norm in here and one that I think we can all agree on I find it impossible to find any fault with what the member for Alberni said. Most of the facts he gave us are well known to people who ride motorcycles, and we're aware of some of the problems.

I just want to digress for a moment and say that motorcycling lost a great friend this past year in the person of Malcolm Forbes. If it seems that I'm name-dropping, maybe I am, but it's to serve a purpose. I had the pleasure of meeting and riding with Malcolm Forbes during Expo year. We spent two days together riding from the Canadian Rockies, up in the Rogers Pass and down to Expo — through Kamloops, I might add; we spent the night there. We had a great three days. I had a day at Expo with him.

Malcolm was a very wealthy man who enjoyed his money very much, and the reason I mention him is that one of his hobbies was riding motorcycles, and I think he did more to bring awareness to the motorcycle and people of all ages enjoying themselves on them than any other single human being. He was a great ambassador for his country, as well as for motorcycling. He took tours through China, Russia, Pakistan, Europe and Scandinavia, as well North America. He brought an awareness to the enjoyment that we get from riding motorcycles, far beyond what any other individual has done. So we will miss Malcolm in the motorcycling community. He enjoyed himself.

The thing to point out is that many of us do enjoy riding motorcycles. I know the member for Alberni does, the Speaker of the House does, and I do. Who knows how many others do? Most of us ride for fun. We don't ride because we have to or because we need it for transportation. Like Malcolm Forbes, most of us ride motorcycles for fun. So it's a hobby with us, and we enjoy it very much. Anything we can do to promote the enjoyment of riding motorcycles will be well worthwhile.

I appreciate the Coalition of Motorcyclists bringing their machines to the Legislature again this year and taking people for rides. It's the second year now, and I hope it's a tradition that continues, because it goes a long way to make everybody a little more aware of two-wheeled transportation.

Accidents involving motorcycles really fall into two basic categories. One is the automobile-motorcycle accident. As the member for Alberni said, in most of those accidents, the driver of the car inevitably says: "I just didn't see him." Yet here is a machine with a headlight on and a human being on it. Most automobile-motorcycle accidents involve the automobile turning left in front of the motorcycle, which a driver wouldn't do if another car was approaching. I have all the statistics on it. Like the member for Alberni, I've read dozens and dozens of articles and research into motorcycles, and most of it says that the car driver is not aware. I'll be quick; I see my time is running out. I would recommend to all motorcyclists what a veteran rider once said to me: "Ride as though you're invisible." I think it's the best advice I ever got. Ride as though nobody can see you, then you will be ready for someone turning or changing lanes in front of you.

Secondly, he mentioned the superbikes and had the vernacular name for them — I won't repeat it, but its commonly what they're called — and most of those are the ones that were involved in single-vehicle accidents, where the rider simply is not capable of controlling a machine with that kind of horsepower. The single-vehicle accidents usually involve a machine of this category. They are responsible in large measure for the insurance premiums that he talks about, which none of us like. They are too expensive, and it's partly because of single-vehicle accidents; the other reason is theft.

The automobile driver isn't totally at fault; a lot of the times it's the motorcyclist. But I would just urge drivers, especially of cars, to be more aware of the person on the motorcycle, and I urge the motorcyclist to always remember that you don't have to go 100 miles an hour to have fun on a motorcycle.

[11:00]

MR. G. JANSSEN: I thank the minister for his comments, and I'm sure the members of the House find them enlightening.

I would just like to respond briefly by going into the subject of non-licensed motorcyclists. I'm sure the first member for Kamloops is aware that the dirt bikes and the motocrossers are under pressure. I think they're under pressure in his community right now to find safe places for young people to ride their motorcycles. Many of them are not old enough to

[ Page 10648 ]

obtain a vehicle licence and are regulated to riding in gravel pits, where there is no supervision. They're riding on logging roads and in farm areas where they're not welcome in many cases.

In Port Alberni, we were fortunate to have MacMillan Bloedel donate five acres of land that was turned into a motocross track where motorcyclists can go to practise and learn, and where safety seminars are held. There's a similar track in Duncan. There's one being developed in Victoria, in Mission and in Kamloops. Many other areas have tracks.

However, because of the noise and the misunderstanding of many people in the communities, they tend to want those tracks moved continually and don't want them in their back yard again. However, I think there is an avenue for the Parks ministry or the Recreation ministry to look down the road and to designate areas well away from urban centres, where we can have safe riding.

Everybody remembers the court case in Ontario. A young motorcyclist riding an unlicensed vehicle was injured in a gravel pit, and the community who owned the gravel pit was fined in court and had to pay a settlement of over a million dollars. Nobody wants to see that sort of thing happen again.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we look seriously at finding areas to establish safe riding conditions in the form of motorcycle tracks where off-road vehicles can go under supervision, and we can hopefully avoid the accidents that occur when young people go out to ride their motorcycles — sometimes without helmets — in unlicensed, unrestricted and undisciplined areas.

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE VALUES

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, in this time of great public awareness of the environment and of concern for preservation of the beauty and splendour of our province, it is important to remember that it is the quality of these things that has always made British Columbia a unique and special place. The image we have of our province is one of mountains and rivers, ocean shores and trees stretching far into the horizon. British Columbia has always been seen in this light, and the quality of the environment we enjoy is the main reason for the high quality of life that British Columbia has always been famous for.

This quality of life includes an abundance of recreational opportunities; it also includes the enormous economic benefits which originate from our natural environment, and which allows us to maintain one of the highest standards of living in the world. I think it is too often forgotten that we live in a blessed and rich land, and that we are fortunate to have such natural gifts. We must use them wisely.

I would like to talk about fish and wildlife and related industries in British Columbia: just two of the resource values which are sometimes forgotten by people who remove themselves from the land and treat its resources as abstract concepts. Our native people have long understood that the land has many values, and that if respected and identified with, it can yield, without diminishment, many great benefits. All people truly connected to the land in British Columbia understand it to be a living land, one rich in resources, one which is dynamic and ever changing and one which, if properly managed and respected, will live on for thousands of years, all of the time providing food and shelter for those live off it.

Most urban British Columbians do not understand that even in the middle of Vancouver they live off the land. They may not derive their food and clothing or income directly from the woods, but they receive other items of value from them, things which are measurable in modern terms such as gross domestic product and quality of life.

In terms of recreation, more British Columbians spend time in the woods, be it hunting, fishing or hiking, than participate in baseball, soccer, bowling or any other recreational activity. In terms of economic prosperity, wilderness-related industries generate over $2 billion directly into the economy of British Columbia every year. This industry provides direct jobs for over 17,000 trappers and guides and at least as many jobs in the tourism industry related to wilderness holidays. The spinoff jobs in government and in the retail sector of communities across British Columbia add up to as many as 60,000 secure and steady jobs for British Columbians, jobs which are not subject to international commodity pricing.

All of this points to the fact that we must not ignore fish and wildlife in the equation of land use values in British Columbia. Wilderness values can be measured in hard dollars. This gives us an extra incentive to preserve our wilderness land. Too often in the debates in this House and in other forums the fish and wildlife industries are ignored or forgotten.

British Columbia has more species of mammals and breeding birds than any other province or territory in Canada. Our province contains the majority of the world's Stone sheep, California bighorn sheep and mountain goats, half of the world's trumpeter swans, grizzly bears and blue grouse, and more bald eagles than in the entire United States.

British Columbians appreciate the importance and value of this magnificent natural heritage. Statistics show that 75 percent of British Columbia's adult population enjoys fish- and wildlife-related activities. Nearly one-quarter of British Columbia's population is involved directly in fishing, hunting, bird-watching, outdoor photography and other nature-related, wilderness activity on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, more British Columbians participate in wildlife-related recreational activities than do the people of any other province or state in North America.

In British Columbia in 1988-89, 130,000 people bought hunting licences. Nearly 600,000 additional individuals took to the field for non-consumptive wildlife-related activities. Some 400,000 anglers purchased fishing licences, and an additional 1,560 people registered as guide-outfitters to directly attract tourist dollars from outside the province.

The fur trade, another historically important industry in our province, includes some 2,500 licensed trappers. These trapping operations generate nearly

[ Page 10649 ]

$10 million per year in economic activity. Admittedly, $10 million does not represent the largest industry in British Columbia, but when one considers that 96 percent of this money is spent outside the lower mainland and 50 percent is spent north of Prince George, it is easy to see how important this industry is to many remote communities where other economic opportunities are limited.

In terms of jobs from recreational use of the woods, the fish and wildlife resource industry directly employs more than 17000 people — almost as many as the mining industry in British Columbia, and mining is a non-renewable resource. In terms of pure economic benefits, direct purchases by residents and visitors for goods and services related to birdwatching, fly-fishing and all other fish and wildlife recreational activities add up to over $2 billion each year. Much of this is new money to British Columbia, coming in with visitors from outside our province. This money is again distributed widely across the province, with the lower mainland picking up $400 million in 1989 and the rest of the province receiving $1.6 billion, thus capturing the lion's share of the economic benefits on a real and per capita basis.

British Columbians have a true pocketbook interest in preserving the living land. With proper management and protection, there is every reason to believe that this resource in the province will continue to meet the needs of residents and non-residents in British Columbia for decades to come.

There is one course of action to follow if we are to maintain and improve the quality of fish and wildlife in British Columbia: people must be made to feel that they have a stake in maintaining a healthy environment. They must be made to understand the many economic benefits which we derive in this province from our natural amenities.

MR. CASHORE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I found that there were some useful data in what the member had to say, but beyond that I thought it was a collection of clichés that did not really contribute to the very urgent and pressing issues that must be addressed within this House by this Legislature if we're going to be dealing with the problem of protecting those values that he talks about. At the end of his comments he said that this is what we have to do about it: people have to be made to feel.

It's not quite that way, Mr. Member. What has to be done is this government has to wake up and recognize that we have a hopelessly inadequate number of people in our conservation officer service to deal with the hitches when it comes to protecting fish and wildlife values.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: This means simply that there has to be more conservation officers.

When the member says, "What about individual responsibility rather than policing?" he raises a very important point. I have letters here from members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. They talk about their cooperation and individual responsibility, but they say that what they are doing was never intended to replace the role of the conservation officer service. They outline regions of the province that simply are inadequate in terms of the number of officers staffing that service, when you think of the number of requests that they have to deal with on a wide range.

For instance, if you think about one letter that I received from the B.C. Wildlife Federation in Courtenay.... They no longer have a conservation officer, but they've had such a service in one form or another since 1920. The population is growing in that area, and the pressure on poaching is increasing. Yet these people find that government services are being cut back. These people want to cooperate on an individual basis with a very effective service, but it's not there.

We have to point out, as Joe Saysell, who often writes to the Ministry of Environment and to me, has pointed out, that while we have 130 conservation officers in British Columbia, there are 180 in Alberta. Surely Alberta, which has 50 more, does not have as extensive a need for this kind of service as we have in British Columbia. Surely Alberta, with the amount of land that is used for farms, etc., simply does not have the area or the difficulty of terrain that has to be addressed on a provincewide basis. Yet they have 50 more conservation officers.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE: Yes, as the member says, they have more ducks there. Certainly, Mr. Member, one of the things that has to be addressed in this province is the protection of Boundary Bay on the Pacific flyway, a major stopping-off place for birds that migrate all the way from Siberia to South America, and points between. Here, only 100 acres of Boundary Bay have any kind of protection. This government has dragged its feet in terms of getting a world-class Ramsar designation there which would assist in getting the protection that is needed.

But even more important are the kinds of measures that this government has taken — such as allowing golf courses on agricultural land — which have a terrible impact with regard to the support of those raptors, shore birds and migratory waterfowl. If this minister is really concerned, he will be addressing this issue to the members of the cabinet and making the point that there really has to be an increased conservation officer service. There are 300 conservation officers in Ontario, and in Quebec there are 225.

What about the spill that recently occurred at Pennask Creek, in a system which apparently has one-third of the seedstock for rainbow trout in the province? Have charges been laid? Has there been sufficient support by the conservation officers staff or the Ministry of Environment to investigate that spill, to lay charges and to deal with it? I submit that has not been the case, Mr. Speaker, and it is just one example that is repeated constantly throughout the province.

[ Page 10650 ]

Another issue is the increased poaching and the trade that's taking place in bear parts. What's this government doing to deal with that issue so we can make sure that it stops, that there are no more export permits issued or that it becomes illegal to harvest bears for paws, bladders and genitals? That should be the case also with other wild animals.

We need conservation officers to be able to support the good work of volunteers who exist throughout the province so that we can have properly protected wildlife.

[11:15]

MR. SERWA: The purpose of my private member's statement this morning is to raise the profile of the value of our precious wildlife resource, a legacy that we enjoy in the province of British Columbia.

I am greatly disturbed when the hon. member from the opposition, the critic of what ministry I don't know, entered this process with what I consider was a senseless, shallow, uninformed and confused response that was purely political in nature.

The rhetoric was simply that. He has had the opportunity to display his ignorance and display his ignorance and his uncaring concern, which is relevant to that entire party for that outdoor legacy. It's purely a political issue with that hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SERWA: The hon. member continues to display his ignorance by making statements about Alberta and relating a comparison. The hon. member has not even traveled outside of British Columbia; he needs to realize that Alberta's population is distributed much differently than British Columbia's. That means, my hon. friend, that the game species in Alberta are spread over a diverse area, not inclined just simply to the Rocky Mountains. If that's the type of response we're getting from members of the opposition, it is no wonder that they retain their prominence as members of the opposition and will continue to do so.

The member talks about bear parts. If he cares to look at the orders of the day, he'll see....

MR. CASHORE: Do you ever talk to the Ministry of Environment?

MR. SERWA: Yes, we talk to the Ministry of Environment. I have submitted a resolution on bear parts. I spoke about this matter two or three years ago, long before that hon. member even knew bears have parts.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to recognize the recreational and economic value of the living forest and of wildlife industries in British Columbia. It is also time for increased vigilance over conversation measures We must continue to protect the diversity of the fish and wildlife habitat if we are to protect the unknown it is time for this House to embrace the environment of British Columbia not as a distant and abstract thing worthy of noble speeches, but as a living, very real part of our province, our heritage and our future. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DIRKS: It's a pleasure today to introduce Mr. Sam Fromowitz, the consul-general of the United States of America at Vancouver, who's also the dean of British Columbia's large and dynamic consular corps. Regretfully, the consul-general, who has served his country and this province so very well during the past four years, will be leaving us shortly for a posting in Greece. The consular corps and certainly our government will miss him. We wish him success and happiness. Would this House please wish him a bon voyage.

MR. ROSE: I would like to join with the Provincial Secretary in saying goodbye to Mr. Fromowitz. He's made himself a friend to many people, and he's been very active and visible. I don't know what he did that was bad that would send him to Greece, but I hope he's got a nice, large consulate there so that when I come and visit him, I'll be able to renew our friendship. Best wishes from this side of the House, Sam, and Godspeed, as they say.

MR. REID: I'd like to add my congratulations and best wishes to Sam. I worked with him in my previous role. I wish him the very best. I know Greece is going to be receiving a very dedicated person to the ambassadorship. I wish him all the very best.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to take the opportunity to introduce a representative from Ontario, a former member of the House who actually sat in this very seat, a former Minister of Agriculture from the Penticton area — Mr. Jim Hewitt. Would the House give a special welcome to Jim Hewitt.

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

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, that isn't the information we were given; we were informed that Bill 13 was to proceed. I wonder if there has been some mix-up. We got this from the House Leader's office this morning. I don't know whether the minister's prepared to proceed on Bill 13. That's what we were told earlier today.

MR. SPEAKER: Both the estimates that were to be called and the bill are to be dealt with by the same minister. Perhaps if the minister and the government House Leader could have a small caucus and decide which they'd like to do, we could proceed.

[ Page 10651 ]

MR. ROSE: I believe that the minister said she would be happy to proceed. Perhaps the bill could be called.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be unusual to have the opposition House Leader call for debate on Bill 13, but the Chair will accept it.

PURCHASING COMMISSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MRS. GRAN: On Bill 13, the Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, the proposed amendments to the purchasing Commission Act are part of an overall continuing modernization of the public purchasing process, I think it is fair to say that this modernization process began some five years ago with the introduction of the public sector purchasing policy by this government. The process is a continuing one, in terms of the initiatives of the British Columbia Purchasing Commission, aimed at maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations and fulfilling its duties and responsibilities to the British Columbia taxpayer.

The amendments include clarification of several points within the existing Purchasing Commission Act, eliminating inconsistent wording and improving the structure of the act — changes which can be classified as housekeeping. There are, however, several changes which are significant.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

These include a provision for the Purchasing Commission's operation in the environmental field through the addition of environmental soundness as a major factor when reaching decisions on purchasing and disposal of government assets. The Purchasing Commission is responsible for the annual purchase of more than $350 million worth of goods and services on behalf of government ministries and public agencies. It is essential that we ensure these purchase adhere to the highest environmental standards. This amendment will enable the Purchasing Commission to proceed, for instance, with Project Paper Push, a government project to recycle office paper and to actively encourage the development of new uses for the recycled paper fibre. I was able, at the Globe '90 Conference, to announce the success of this pilot project, and I and my colleagues enthusiastically look forward to its continuation upon passage of this amendment.

Another significant amendment will impact upon British Columbia's presence in the important area of high technology. This amendment will enable the Purchasing Commission to license B.C. companies with manufacturing or marketing rights to technologies which have been or will be developed at taxpayers' expense. These can range from computer software to specialized forest fire-fighting equipment and clothing, patented processes, videos and training materials.

This technology commercialization program has, in my opinion, tremendous potential. It will allow the province to recoup the costs of development of such items to generate additional revenues through the sale of marketing rights to the private sector and the retention of royalties on future sales; and in doing so, to promote the economic and regional development of British Columbia.

I anticipate a good deal of interest in this technology commercialization program, both from representatives of industry in this province and from other members of this chamber, and I welcome that interest and any questions that may be directed to me on this important program.

Two further amendments relate, first, to the sphere of activities of the Purchasing Commission and, second, to the role of Commissioners. This bill clarifies that the commission has the power to perform services for and enter into cooperative arrangements with other public sector agencies where there are sound reasons for doing so. For example, for some of the commission's businesses, such as Crown asset disposal, it makes very good sense to combine the disposal of certain assets belonging to school districts, municipalities, hospitals and universities where it would not be cost-effective for those agencies to perform their own disposal service.

In addition, if we as a government wish to encourage the full implementation of the public sector purchasing policy, it is clearly advantageous to allow combined purchasing where economies of scale would make it cost-effective for a B.C. supplier to gear up for the production and sale of larger quantities. However, the commission is always sensitive to the impact of its activities on the private sector, and cooperative arrangements would only be entered into where there is an economic benefit to both B.C. taxpayers and to suppliers.

There is a related provision which will expand the role of the purchasing commissioners, allowing them to designate institutions or types of institutions which are publicly funded and to restrict the types of services which can be provided to such public agencies. The Commonwealth Games would be a good example.

In proposing this amendment, I want to emphasize that the Purchasing Commission is an independent body reporting directly to this Legislature, and the commissioners fulfil their mandate without political interference of any kind. Since the Purchasing Commission's inception, its record of probity has been unblemished. I have every confidence in the integrity of the commission and the professionalism of the staff and have no hesitation in saying that I expect this record to remain so.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for her full and complete description of the purpose of the act and some of its parameters. I don't think there will be any problem with our party supporting the act in its principle. However, we may have some suggestions to make for its improvement and enhancement. This is what the role of the opposition is: to make certain

[ Page 10652 ]

that government is accountable and also reflects the views of people other than their own members.

The minister suggested that the purchasing process that's going on at the moment — or the improvement towards the Purchasing Commission — is a five-year plan to improve it. I gave it great praise yesterday. If it needs so much improvement that it's going to take five years to do it, I wonder now if I was a little bit excessive in my praise. I wonder if it needs these improvements.

What I think it needs more than anything is an expanded mandate. We went over it, and I don't want to rake over the old coals of yesterday. But the fact is, out of the $6 billion a year of public spending, the Purchasing Commission is really responsible for only 6 percent of that. That is infinitesimal.

Again, I don't need to express what a lot of people feel. If the Purchasing Commission, with its excellent reputation, was responsible for more public spending rather than less, we wouldn't have seen the horror stories that we had this spring concerning the purchase of hospital and other equipment. I need to repeat that; I think it needs to be said.

I hope that we're widening its scope. I hope that this bill will permit the Purchasing Commission to have control over a larger share of public spending and purchasing. It's misleading to me, no matter how sterling its reputation, to have a purchasing commission that really is responsible for such a pittance when it comes to public spending. I have elaborated on that at another time.

I notice that great care has been taken here to reassure the private sector that we're not going to move into some socialistic field of high tech. So we develop things that are going to impact on and compete with those people out there who are in business — and, incidentally, who support us and support our ideology. We've had the slogan around here for the last three years, "Ready, guys; let's privatize, " and we now seem to be going in the opposite direction.

[11:30]

But the minister was very careful to point out: 'Look, no matter what the public advantage is, if its impacting on the private sector, we probably won't do it." That's the interesting part. She didn't say that exactly, but we read into these things. Some of us tend to be not cynical or suspicious or skeptical, but we are analytical, and I think that's important.

Surplus. All governments have methods of disposing of surplus equipment and capital items. I think that's a very common practice in all governments, and a necessary one. Most institutions have that kind of capacity. This is really the first time that we're selling intellectual property. That's an interesting thing. Are we only going to be selling intellectual property that is surplus to our needs or old-fashioned, or are we going to be able to lease or sell intellectual property — computer programming, for instance — that we have developed, even though it might compete with a privately developed system, if ours is better?

My view, from my side of the House, is that I would proceed on that. I don't think government should be in unfair competition with the private sector, but neither should they roll over and play dead because they might hurt somebody's feelings. With the private sector, you dance around the fire every night chanting: "The right to fail, we've got the right to fail." I think a balance has to be struck between the two, because we on this side of the House want a healthy private sector as well; we want a healthy private sector in the fields of the future; but we also want a public sector that has a window on that industry. I'm talking now about the computer programming industry.

So if it is an economic benefit to the province, then that's fine. I appreciate that. But I have a couple of other little concerns about the bill.

The first part of it is mandatory. Under the duties and powers of commissions: "The commission shall...." Then there's a whole list of things: "...acquire supplies required by the government and, on request, supplies required by government institutions; direct the establishment, maintenance and operation of depots...; supervise the distribution of supplies...." It does all these great things. It shall provide assistance where requested. It shall create and arrange opportunities for government institutions to acquire supplies.

Then you get to the other part under 3 where the guts of the bill are — where it's sold. This bill is being sold not just as an expansion of the role of the commission but as another part of the environmental enhancement arm of the government. I think we have a right to ask: does it do that?

Where the guts of the environmental bill come in, it's permissive. It says: "In addition to any powers required to perform its duties, the commission may require a government ministry to return to the commission any supplies no longer required...." That's not a serious one. It may "dispose of intangible personal property of the government where this is conducive to the economic and environmental wellbeing of the province." It doesn't have to; it may do it. It may "create and arrange opportunities for public institutions to acquire supplies and services at rates" — now listen to this — "and on terms and conditions conducive to the economic and environmental wellbeing of the province."

But the minister went on to say: "...as long as it doesn't impact too heavily on the private sector." I just wonder what message is going out to the commission with this set of permissive regulations. I've only touched on two or three, and it's not appropriate that I touch on any more at this time, because I think there's time to go into this when we get into committee stage of the bill. We probably will be moving some amendments to give this gutless bill a few more teeth here and there, and I think that's our role.

The commission already has the power to dispose of surplus property. The new section 4 (2) (c) allows it to dispose of intangible property. I've touched on that before, but the interesting thing is the part that I'd like to quote: "...where this is conducive to the

[ Page 10653 ]

economic and environmental well-being of the province." Now I don't object to the principle, but I think we must ask ourselves some questions and explore this more thoroughly when we get to another part of this bill. Who determines that the disposal indeed is conducive to the economic well-being of the province? Whose decision is that? Is it the government's or the commission's decision? Is it the CEO's decision, or what? That's kind of vague; that's not really as explicit as it might be.

The other thing is that we don't see any controls on this property. Will it be sold to the highest bidder? We don't know that. Will there be a tendering process? Will the government just be sloughing off this stuff, or will it receive a fair return for the developmental research that we've put into it?

These are all questions that concern this side of the House. We think the idea is good. We may think it's a little dainty in its approach; it's not as strong as it might be. But we welcome — and I hope the minister will welcome — some of our other participants in this debate. We certainly look forward to the committee stage where we can have an opportunity with less stringent rules as to order to examine this in greater detail.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief, but I must say that I have very serious concerns about this bill. Adding environmental and regional considerations is clearly a noble gesture. It's a good cause. It's a good idea. I have no problems with it. But we have to be careful, it seems to me. Government should be careful to set clear rules, clear guidelines, clear and objective criteria, if you can, to judge government purchases.

For example, now we have public tendering, and the government chooses low bid — or should always have public tendering and should always choose low bid, perhaps. I'm not wedded to a low-bid philosophy; there are lots of considerations that can be married to the bidding procedure. I don't think you always have to pick the low bid; there are lots of considerations that have to take place. There has to be some discretion to exercise those considerations. I don't have any problem with that. But where possible we should have some objective criteria.

In order to give preference for environmentally benign products, what many states in the United States are doing — and what I would commend to the minister — is to give a preferential treatment, meaning a 5 percent preference, or 10 percent or 2 percent or 20 percent; it doesn't really matter. The point is, there has to be some rule; there have to be some objective criteria to judge what merits choosing one over the other.

This bill doesn't do that, Mr. Speaker. This bill says that the government has the discretion to choose what they believe to be environmentally benign products. If I can quote the section without being out of order, it says: " (k) notwithstanding section 12, create opportunities and programs to encourage local and regional suppliers or in favour of environmentally sound supplies." Section 12 is essentially the bidding procedure; the low bid, or the choosing from tendered economically efficient mechanisms or something like that; where possible we should have a bidding procedure to take the low bid. This says that notwithstanding that, we can choose a local supplier.

Now I welcome regional initiative. I have no problem with trying to encourage more suppliers from outside the lower mainland. I think that's a worthwhile government objective. However, if you simply say that, it means that the government can choose whatever they want from wherever they want at whatever price. By using section (k) of this bill, you can justify a purchase that may be 100 percent more expensive than the supplier in Vancouver. That strikes me as open to abuse.

I'm not saying that the government is going to abuse this clause, but surely you don't write laws that open you up to that kind of abuse. You have now introduced two criteria for government purchases of goods and services which are not objective criteria. You have now said it's not just low bid; environmental and regional considerations can take place. But you haven't defined those. You haven't given any real sense of it. You've said: "We now have the discretion to bias our purchases in that direction." I feel very strongly that it is a worthwhile endeavour, but there have to be some limits to it.

As I said, my preference would be to say that we should have the bidding procedure but give a 5 percent preference perhaps to recycled products or some objective criteria which everybody can see, and have recycled products defined in such a way.... That is another complex area, I'm sure. Environmentally benign products is another subject of great debate — what it means and what's more desirable. In my view, there has to be as much as possible some objective criteria for the bidding process. There has to be a way to curb politicians' desire to serve what might be a more political interest.

It's going to be very difficult for the minister who wants this bill passed to say, for example, to a supplier in Kamloops who uses recycled products: "It's 50 percent more expensive than a Vancouver supplier that doesn't use recycled products." How will the minister withstand the pressure? Under this bill you now have the right to choose that Kamloops supplier. You could justify it under this bill. You are going to be subject to pressure from politicians and people in the region. It's certainly their right to urge, lobby and campaign for their region. I think that's laudable. Every region should do it and will do it.

I don't think you will be able to withstand very easily the pressure to maintain the integrity of the bidding procedure, given the political pressure you put yourself in when you pass this bill. If you said that if the Kamloops supplier who uses recycled products is within 5 percent, then we should choose it, I would support that. In fact, I think it's a good idea, and again, it's something that's happening in North America generally. We can be creative about that.

In the absence of a 5 percent, 10 percent or some number or some objective criteria, it means that we

[ Page 10654 ]

have to trust you. I know the minister has said that before, and I may be more trusting of her than of some of her colleagues. But it's not acceptable to say, "Trust me, we now have the discretion to choose environmentally benign or environmentally good products, " without any consideration or quantification of what that means to the public purse.

I think this bill would be much stronger, and better, if you had a 5 percent figure, because that would actually demonstrate government's financial commitment to the environment, because It's going to cost you more. I think that would be clear and in the bill. But it wouldn't cost us 100 percent more. It would be rarely acceptable, in my mind, to choose a product which was environmentally benign but dramatically more expensive unless you could prove that by some kind of criteria. This bill is absent of all that. This bill, I think, is open to abuse. Once you introduce this kind of discretion, you invite that kind of lobbying pressure and that kind of abuse.

While the goal clearly is something we can support — this side of the House and my colleague the opposition House Leader have indicated our support for the principle for the bill, and I have no problem with that; I want to encourage environmentally sound purchases and more regional purchases — this bill is too vague and is open to abuse and to pressure from the minister's colleagues and from all politicians. Our side of the House will be using this; I'm sure my colleagues from the north, quite correctly, will be using this clause to say: "Use our supplier in Prince Rupert. I know they're 10 percent more expensive, but you should use them." How will the minister answer that? How will you say no?

You have to give clear guidelines that say there is some limit to that so that we're cost-effective always I think that can be done: a 5 percent or 10 percent preference for regional suppliers, a 5 percent or 10 percent — something like that — preference for environmental considerations. I personally believe in a 5 percent or 10 percent preference, perhaps, for people who pay fair wages, somehow defined. I have no problem with that. It's not a philosophical problem It's just that it should be codified in the bill. It's not and I think that opens it up to potentially significant abuse.

[11:45]

MR. MILLER: I wanted to deal with the question of the regional purchasing. First of all, I commend the government for having that in there, because I think it's important that the opportunities exist within the regions for suppliers of services to have an opportunity to bid on supplying those goods or services. Quite often they have been left out. They also operate, in my view, under a bit of an economic handicap, given quite often their distance from sources and their small operating areas — in other words, the amount of business that they could normally do within a particular region. That issue has been identified in my constituency with respect to federal government purchases.

Having said that, I want to relate in a cautionary way the need, as my colleague the second member from Vancouver East has said, to have some kind of guidelines. I'll just relate that in my term as an alderman in the city of Prince Rupert, we did develop a policy of local preference. The real problem with that is that unless it is guided by some really good guidelines, whether that's a 5 percent limit or whatever it might be, it could have a tendency to encourage inefficiency. If the local supplier knows that they are going to get it — and quite often there's not a wide variety of companies in the same field — that can encourage inefficiency. They need to be tested against some market forces. I think they can compete, given some reasonable set of guidelines, and it's important that they be given the opportunity.

The strictly low-bid system has some difficulties. We've seen it in forestry on the silviculture contracts, where the low bid is not necessarily the best bid in terms of performance. Normally any institution, any public body, allows themselves an out — in other words, based on their knowledge of the people making the bid, the discretion to determine in their own minds whether or not the person bidding can perform. Certainly that is needed and should always be in there. When we descend to a strictly low bid, as we've done in some areas in forestry, I think we can expect poor performance. Even though we may have got the lowest bid, we suffer in terms of the performance.

I wanted to comment on section 3. Some of the wording in the act is very, very loose; it simply allows anything. The wording would justify almost any activity that the Purchasing Commission undertook. Certainly it's important that the Purchasing Commission be absolutely free of any suspicion that patronage could be used. I think it's kind of a bedrock that needs to be established in terms of the operation of the Purchasing Commission.

Given the lack of guidelines in the bill — and I do note that the commission has powers in the act to recommend guidelines and policies — the minister might want to address that in her response in this reading because, without guidelines or with wording that is so broad and flexible, it seems to me you are possibly opening the door for patronage to be used in the purchase of goods and services in this province.

I would think that the minister — not only in what she says, but in terms of the wording of the bill — would want to be able with all conviction to ensure British Columbians that that could never happen. So I would suggest that some look be taken at the wording in the bill.

I also wanted to comment on the explanatory notes to section 3, because again we're dealing with wording that is very flexible. The notes themselves say that the commission, in addition to its other powers, will acquire the power to sell on behalf of the government software and other technologies developed at taxpayer expense.

It seems to me the minister might want to comment about the commission getting into business. It appears to me, in reading not only the explanatory

[ Page 10655 ]

notes but the section of the bill itself — again, the wording is very broad — that under the wording of the amendment to the act, the Purchasing Commission could get into business.

I'm sure the minister is going to say that's not the intent. But what we debate here in this House and have an understanding of today seems to disappear a few years from now. I've debated many bills, and I've gone back and read Hansard on debates on bills in terms of talking about intent. I find that intent is fine, but it's the wording that really makes a difference when it comes to how a bill is interpreted by the people who have to put it into practice. There needs to be a look at what I think is quite loose wording in a number of these sections.

I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the minister will respond to these points. I think some of my colleagues have further statements to make on this reading of the bill, and we'll deal with the sections of the bill in committee.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to focus most of my comments on the environmental aspect of the bill. It is a bill which, because it is upholding at least in words the principle of environmental considerations, we feel is a step in the right direction.

As I read through this bill, I would want to ask the question: what has really changed? What has really changed, when we look at a bill that has phrases such as "environmentally sound, " "environmental wellbeing" — that phrase is repeated a few times — and economic and environmental well-being"? What do these words really add to this act that wasn't there before?

We know that the government — in fact, all political parties — have been saying that the environment is important and they're going to be paying more attention to it. We know that each of us tries, as we seek to work out our part of the stake of environmental turf, to put that in a way that's going to be most meaningful to the public.

But what in this bill really ensures that anything different is going to happen with regard to environmental enhancement insofar as purchasing activities are concerned? It may provide some moral support to the commission on this basis. It may also — as my colleagues have pointed out — provide some recognition of opportunity for various regions of the province to be involved in such marketing.

One thing I would like to point out is that since environmentalism has become such a hot issue — especially in the last two years — there has been attendant to that the whole area of environmental commerce. We saw it at Globe '90 with the trade fair. A great many corporations and businesses of all shapes and sizes are getting on the environmental bandwagon. That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't always mean the products that are being marketed for "environmental purposes" are indeed the best product that would serve the purposes of the Purchasing Commission and are the appropriate purchases on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

When we look through a bill like this and we cannot find the kind of substance that spells out the standards, guidelines and criteria that give some direction to the commission with regard to what they really need to be doing insofar as environmental considerations are concerned, when that type of language is not there, when the enabling language is not there, when the standard — setting language is not there, it makes it very easy to conclude that one of the major purposes of this bill is public relations. Public relations seems to be part of the purpose of adding these words.

I would like to suggest to the minister that if this bill were to contain the kinds of standards that would give really practical guidance to the members of the Purchasing Commission, it would do such things as describe the quality of paper products in relation to organochlorine content and define a content beyond which purchases would not be made; at least there would be a system that would reward the producer of environmentally appropriate paper products — for instance, ones that do not go through inappropriate bleaching techniques in pulp and paper mills. Granted, that would have to be done on a graduated basis as these mills get more and more into having the capacity and the kinds of systems that reduce the production of pollutants in the various locations we find them. There should be standards that relate to that. There should be incentives to the pulp industry to reduce the toxins going into the environment. That should be clearly stated in the guidelines, which should be entrenched in legislation. There should also be a requirement for a percentage of recycled fibre in the paper. That too would give this bill something beyond just appearing to be a public relations bill.

Another thing that would be very useful would be some mention of an advisory body that would have people on it who have the kind of expertise that is needed and that could advise the commission on the kinds of products that could be made available, the economic benefit of these products and where they could be found. It could also have a role in promoting the need for these products and the opportunity for that in the marketplace.

Through this kind of process these standards could be put in place, and the bill could have some teeth that would really enable a commission to follow through. We have phrases like "environmental soundness" and "economic and environmental wellbeing." The government's already said that. I don't know what is added to the commission by including those words if there is not some definition that goes beyond those words.

[12:00]

Another thing that should be included in the standards is some phrase that indicates that suppliers that take a cradle-to-grave approach with their product, that indicate that they take responsibility not only for the products that the government might be purchasing, but also for other products purchased by that supplier.... The government could use its $500 million purchasing power to influence those suppli-

[ Page 10656 ]

ers to move towards more environmentally appropriate procedures in other areas of their commerce.

Also, I think it would be helpful if there was a mention of companies that promote research and development in environmentally sound packaging, products and technologies. This is another criterion that could be very useful in advising the commission.

This bill, since it does not contain the criteria and the guidelines, really does appear to be a kind of window-dressing. It does, as my colleagues have pointed out, appear to be open to the kind of abuse that might be inappropriate.... A product might be purported to be environmentally useful, but it might really be a product that hasn't got that kind of value at all — especially when there are no criteria whereby it can be evaluated.

As we have said, we're giving some qualified support to this bill, but we would certainly like to see it toughened up. In section 3, there's greater power in the section that uses "the commission shall"; but where the wording says the commission "may, "_it's really getting into the environmental aspect of the bill, and it's leaving it there as an option. So there are really no teeth in that.

I would turn, Mr. Speaker, to the news release that went out with this bill. It stated that Bill 13 added environmental considerations to the Purchasing Commission's mandate to purchase goods and services for government use. I would say that there's proof right there that this is a public relations action; it is not an action that in any substantial way changes the role or the activity of the Purchasing Commission, except that it might allow purchasing of products that are not defined in any standards in a way that might even possibly be inappropriate.

While there is some up-to-date wording with regard to this bill, while there's a healthy dose of public relations, it's not clear to me or to my colleagues that this bill really is going to provide any substantial benefit to the environment. It would be so much better if the categories were outlined so that the teeth were there to ensure that environmentally appropriate products were actually purchased.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. Pursuant to standing order 42, members are advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Committee of Supply, Mr Speaker.

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. MILLER: I have a couple of questions. One relates to my constituency and the use of the jets, and I'll start with some issues that were raised yesterday. I hadn't entered the debate on the use of the jets up to now, but I was a bit concerned when I heard a sort of justification starting to come out.

I think the idea was developed and then it was promoted in this House, and it goes something like this: we have to use the jets because we somehow have to communicate to those British Columbians who are unable to access government — they don't have the opportunities. We heard the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and others speak about that. As a rural member, I certainly appreciate that many British Columbians do not have access to government. They don't have access, for example, to government offices, and I would think this falls within the minister's purview. In some instances, they don't have toll-free telephone lines. In the very small rural communities, some of them have not even had telephone service; they're using radio-telephone service and do not have access to government offices.

Although MLAs have telephone privileges, our constituents don't. At the federal level in my constituency, which is a very large federal constituency, the federal members have toll-free telephone lines that they can put in to various communities and they can advertise the line for people to get in touch with them. This is really consistent with the submissions I made to the Fisher commission, that what we should be looking at in terms of the operation of government — and I believe that opposition members are part of that overall area we call government — is the ability of people to access. That is of paramount importance, whether they're dealing with a government ministry or whether they're trying to contact their member.

I was concerned, Madam Member, when you said in the House yesterday, when justifying the use of government jets to travel to outlying areas, that it's especially more difficult when they're represented by an NDP member. I was curious as to some of your thinking behind that statement. It's an argument that I'm familiar with, having had it used against me and, I suppose, right around the province — during the last provincial election. It goes something like this: if you don't have a government member, you're not going to get anything. I assume the minister is promulgating that same rather distasteful view of our traditional British parliamentary system.

I wanted the minister to have the opportunity to perhaps correct the record. She has already admitted that many of the statements she made were foolish, and she had to thank the Premier for straightening her out. Mr. Chairman, she may even want to thank me in the course of this debate. But I thought that we might give the minister an opportunity to give us some clue as to what her thinking is there.

[ Page 10657 ]

I also wanted to comment — and I'll try to put this together in some kind of sequence; I know the minister likes to make notes and answer all the questions altogether — on the minister, unless she's in her own home, being on government business. Well, she's probably on government business sometimes in her own home — probably on the telephone. I think what she's really saying is that she has achieved a measure of fame, that she's in the public eye, and that people want to flock to her. But I hardly think that qualifies as government business. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that as well.

Turning to the issue of the opportunity for people in this province to know what is happening in this House, I think that's important, Mr. Chairman, because apart from Hansard, which is the written record of what happens in debates, we have a huge government propaganda bureau. I don't know what the budget is, $40 million, $60 million or $100 million.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You just pick any number you want.

MR. MILLER: The minister says, "Pick any number you want, " and he's absolutely right. That's how this government is operating: let's just pick a number out of the hat, and what does it matter what it costs the taxpayers? It's important to us as the Social Credit Party, so we'll spend the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to make a very important point here that has to do with the operation of government. I noticed last night, for example, that the government has quickly rushed a commercial into public broadcasting. I saw it on television myself. I saw the smiling Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr Michael) saying that we've fixed up everything as far as the floods go; all the slide damage is gone; it's now sunny in the Okanagan. I thought that that was perhaps a misuse — dare I say abuse — of taxpayers' money, which I know this minister is concerned about. But they have this huge propaganda bureau, Mr. Chairman.

I want to rush to the defence of my small town of Prince Rupert and its local media. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) yesterday raised the matter of the press gallery, and the minister responded — with some glee, in fact — that she thought this was an important issue. She hasn't responded to the specific questions posed by the Attorney. I don't know if she plans to do that today or indeed ever. I would hope that she would want to. But in that discourse that the Attorney engaged in, he seemed to be suggesting, and the minister seemed to be agreeing, that there is an abuse taking place and that we shouldn't have these people in the press gallery. My little paper, which relies on a member who they have in the press gallery, would be seriously disadvantaged if that member of the press gallery were not here. I want to rise in defence of my community and its ability to get news from this place, which I think is threatened by the remarks made by the Attorney and by the minister yesterday. I want to seek the minister's assurance that she will take no action to threaten this small-town paper, which is trying to get the news out, not only to my community but to Alberni and to Nelson — really a range of papers around this province. I think that's important. People should have a variety of means of finding out information about the operation of government — whether government is operating efficiently or whether it's not.

Perhaps the minister would care to offer some comforting words that I can take back tonight as I travel back to my small community of Prince Rupert, so I can reassure the small-town paper there that the government's not going to take any action that threatens the member they have in the press gallery, and that there will be no attempt to stifle the news in this province, and that the news will flow freely. Perhaps the minister could give that assurance.

[12:15]

HON. MRS. GRAN: I want to respond to one thing the member for Prince Rupert said, and it had to do with my comment about "especially if you have an NDP member." I believe the debate at that point included the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), who, in my view, is pompous, self-centred and obnoxious. I hope that's not unparliamentary. If it is I'll withdraw it, but otherwise I'll let it carry. There was no intention to suggest that NDP members don't work hard, because some do. Some just work harder than others, that's all.

I'm going to take this opportunity to answer some questions that were asked yesterday in the House. The first one was about the privatization of the courier service. I've brought with me substantial information to be able to answer the question fairly.

The privatization of the Victoria postal services was brought forward as a proposal by the Ministry of Government Management Services last year and approved by cabinet. The project concerns providing mail and routine courier delivery service in greater Victoria. When the opportunity was announced, an employee group came forward. Consistent with government policy, we negotiated with them and came to an agreement to provide that service. This is just another example where employees recognized the opportunity which private ownership offers and have seized the opportunity.

This privatization provides efficiencies in three areas: route scheduling, service flexibility and operation improvements. As I said yesterday, there are cost savings in the long term, over the three-year contract. In addition to cost savings, there have also been FTE savings. Furthermore, because some of the ministry workload has been incorporated into the service, ministry resources have been freed to be allocated to other priorities.

The second question had to do with an order-in-council that I think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) asked about. Those orders-in-council are three bids for permits to maintain parks. At the time, I couldn't remember exactly what they were for.

Another question asked was about the terms of reference for the review of air services that has been underway in our ministry for some time. The terms

[ Page 10658 ]

of reference for our review are very broad and pretty normal. They go something like this: to provide an operational review of the air services branch; to review the mandate of the branch including health-related aspects of that mandate and recommend possible changes; and to recommend how to fulfil the suggested mandate efficiently and effectively. Those are the terms of reference for the study.

At this point I might clarify for the members opposite the goals of this ministry and the objectives for service quality which permeate every branch of the ministry, including air services. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you'll bear with me.

"Five years from today we" — this government — "will have accomplished the following. The people who use our products or services get more than just what they want when they want it. Our staff regularly uncover and incorporate into our performance little things that, in the perception of our customers, set our organization apart.

"Our customers believe that our products and services provide superb quality and value, and our employees are constantly seeking out new avenues to keep it that way.

"Service quality is an uncompromised tradition that permeates every level of our organization. Our employees embrace change as an opportunity to 'meet the future.' our staff has an ingrained sense of common purpose. They just keep finding better and better ways to get the job done.

"There is a powerful feeling of focused energy and vitality evident the moment you walk through the door of any part of our organization."

This is good stuff.

"Our staff members have the necessary skills not only to do their jobs, but to be good team players. Every person in the ministry is equipped with the skills and tools they need to do their job.

"Our cost of quality is dropping steadily. In particular, our cost of non-conformance errors has been cut in half from year-one levels. All service product specifications are up to date and validated. We have applied for the Canadian Commerce Award for service quality. We have in place excellent supplier certification programs."

That answers the questions put forward in yesterday's debate on my estimates, and it should offer substantial information for the members opposite.

MS. MARZARI: Madam Minister, we've spent some time during the women's section of this debate talking about the committee that has been established: the advisory committee on women's services in this province.

The minister has spent a long time defending the credibility of this committee and, in fact, the opposition was not out of sorts with the minister on that. The opposition feels that the committee is a credible committee. We had some questions with the way it was put together. The fact that the minister has used the names of the agencies that the women represented and suggested that those agencies also endorsed the report was questionable. But basically, the committee was a credible committee. It continues to be so, and it has produced a credible report. However, today's press recounts that a new commission is about to be established by the Premier which will be dealing with women's issues — a commission, I may add, to which the Premier has already made a promise of appointment to Nicole Parton, who, as you know, Madam Minister, is a Social Credit candidate in the coming election.

I would like to ask the minister how she reconciles having a very credible committee report — a reasonably credible process for decision-making on the expenditure of women's issues dollars in this province, and the funding of agencies — with the fact of a new Premier-appointed commission on women's issues?

HON. MRS. GRAN: I'm sorry, I missed the committee part. Which committee is the individual you are talking about being appointed to?

MS. MARZARI: I'm not prone to believing everything I read, but I read today in the Vancouver Sun:

"Former Vancouver Sun columnist and would-be Social Credit candidate Nicole Parton said Wednesday she has been named to a new government commission that will deal with women's issues. Parton said she expects her appointment to be announced next week. She would not provide any more details about what the job entails."

Mr. Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun reports today:

"My colleague Nicole Parton, who recently took leave from the Sun to pursue a political career with the Socreds, is about to accept a job from the government. The Premier's office decided to appoint her to a high-profile commission after becoming concerned that her absence from print might hurt her public profile."

Madam Minister, is there any truth to this new commission that's about to be appointed? And is it true that a decision has been made without your knowledge as to who will sit on that commission?

HON. MRS. GRAN: First of all, I don't believe the Premier would be appointing a commission to look into women's issues. Doesn't that seem a little peculiar to you?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Well, you can answer it if you want. Everything that comes from that side of the House is negative anyway. So go ahead and answer it. It doesn't bother me in the least.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be fair.

HON. MRS. GRAN: Life isn't fair. The opposition House Leader has to know by now that life isn't fair. It never was fair, and no one ever told you it would be.

To the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I can't answer that question. It's obviously speculation on the part of the press. But if she were to be appointed to a committee, what would be the big deal? Does her politics preclude her from being involved in anything, particularly women's issues?

[ Page 10659 ]

Having read Nicole Parton's column for a number of years, it would appear to me that she is a woman very dedicated to the advancement of women and very concerned about all that affects women's lives. It wouldn't be a negative thing to happen as far as I'm concerned. I can't help the member out in her question. I might also remind her that the chairman of the advisory committee that did such a wonderful job and made such credible recommendations is also a Social Credit candidate.

MS. MARZARI: I might say that the chair of the advisory committee has done a credible job, and I won't take that away from her. She also is otherwise employed. The reasons that are given here are basically to keep a Social Credit candidate's name visible, and possibly to provide her a stipend to tide her over.

The important issue here is not just credibility; the important issue is whether the minister is aware of any commission or any special committee that the Premier may be structuring and now staffing that deals with women's issues. Has this minister been informed of any such plans or consulted?

HON. MRS. GRAN: Absolutely not. Again, I really believe it would enhance the opposition members' lives if they did some of their own research and not relied on the newspapers to do it for them.

MS. MARZARI: I take it then, Madam Minister, that this pending announcement that might be made next week is news to you. This is something that you don't know about. This is not something that you have been consulted about nor have you been informed about.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I am not aware of any commission on women's issues that the Premier is putting together.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Just before asking the usual motion, the member for Prince Rupert is going home for a long weekend, and he was looking for some things to put in his newsletter.

MR. MILLER: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. WITCH: You said you had nothing to put in your newspaper.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I don't know what the member is talking about. I don't think I've given him my travel plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, but the Chair, too, is somewhat confused about what's going on.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I was going to speak to these estimates, but I will move that this committee rise, report some remarkable progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Just before we adjourn, I would like to wish all members of this assembly a very pleasant Canada Day weekend. I hope they enjoy themselves in their constituencies or wherever they may be, and I remind members that the House will sit again at 2 p.m. on Tuesday next. Having said that, I move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.