[ Page 11439 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990 (Bill 72). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11439

An Act to Improve Employment Standards (Bill M240). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading

Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act (Bill 75). Hon. Mr. Savage

Introduction and first reading

An Act to Extend Workers Compensation Protection (Bill M241). Mr. Sihota

Introduction and first reading –– 11440

Forestry Research and Development Act (Bill M242). Mr. Harcourt

Introduction and first reading –– 11440

Forest Value Added Act (Bill M243). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 11440

Oral Questions

Ainsworth mill in Lillooet. Mr. Miller –– 11441

Young Offenders Act. Mr. Mercier –– 11441

Ainsworth mill in Lillooet. Mr. Miller –– 11442

Road blockades by natives. Mr. Rabbitt –– 11442

Mr. G. Hanson

Ferry purchase. Mr. Sihota –– 11443

Tabling Documents –– 11443

Ministerial Statement

Cariboo Fibreboard Ltd. pulpwood agreement. Hon. Mr. Richmond –– 11443

Mr. Miller

Presenting Reports –– 11444

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier and Executive Council

Operations estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: office of the Premier –– 11446

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Williams

Mr. Harcourt

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11465

Ms. Cull

Mrs. Boone

Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 68). Hon. Mr. Reynolds

Introduction and first reading –– 11469

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Committee stage.

(Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11469

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Referendum Act (Bill 55). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11471

Mr. Perry

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Senatorial Selection Act (Bill 65). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 11472

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Adoption Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 73). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen) –– 11473

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Ms. Cull

Energy Efficiency Act (Bill 36). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Davis) –– 11474

Hon. Mr. Davis

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Davis

Indian Self Government Enabling Act (Bill 64). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) –– 11474

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. Guno

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990 (Bill 54).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11476

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 76).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11476

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 46). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11477

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990 (Bill 67).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Fraser) –– 11477

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Sihota

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act (Bill 79).

Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 11477

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Miller

Mr. Jones

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Cull

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Point of Privilege

Taped conversations of Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker –– 11492

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 38: minister's office –– 11493

Mr. Perry

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

MR. BARNES: I want to ask the House to join me in welcoming the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr. Perry's) sister, Dr. Kitty Perry, and her husband, Dr. Dave Irwin. I understand that both are psychiatrists and that their services are available should anyone have need of them. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HUBERTS: I thought that, being close to the end of the session, it might be an appropriate time to thank the Pages who have served us so well during this session. It's particularly gratifying for me, because they represent Pacific Christian School, a school for which I was chairman of the board for a period of time. Over the last four years, we've had different Pages representing different schools, and they've all done an excellent job, but to these in particular, this session, I would ask the House to assist me in showing our appreciation. I'd like to name them: Rachael Kamerbeek, Heidi Mueller, Carey Pott, Karen Reitsma, Christian Slemin, Theresa Wiens, Tom Clements, Liz Hartshorne, Katy Holm, Sarah MacKay, Matthew Smiley and Libby Walton. I think I can speak for both sides of the House: we appreciate your services to us and we wish you great success in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: On behalf of the members of the House, the Speaker was privileged to entertain these young Pages yesterday at lunch, perhaps the best-behaved group the Speaker has had in his dining room this year.

MS. CULL: We have a very important group of British Columbians in the House today. With the exception of their teacher, not one of these British Columbians is over the age of five years. I'd like the House to welcome these children, because they certainly are our future. Visiting us from Cool Aid Day Care is teacher Diane Carruthers and children Victoria Lukaszek, Adam Skiba, Nicole Snow and, last but not least, my son David Wickstrom.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: On behalf of the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) and myself, I would like this assembly to welcome to the precincts today the administrator for the municipality of Delta Dr Bob Collier, his wife Evelyn and daughter Rachelle. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today is a good friend, a wonderful constituent, an individual who has worked actively on behalf of the New Democratic Party in my riding every year I've been living in Esquimalt, as I can remember, which is the last 11 years: Gisele Bentley. Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Gisele.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today I have three acquaintances from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District: chairman of the board and mayor of Chase, Mr. Chuck Marshall; Ald. Francis Van Dyke from Lytton; and administrator Eric Shishido. I would ask the House to give these gentlemen a warm welcome.

MR. GUNO: In the galleries today I have two guests: Mary O'lito, from the Victoria native centre, who works as the corrections outreach worker; and Julie Green, who is attending the University of Victoria as a practicum worker. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, we have two distinguished visitors in the visitors' gallery today. There is Eleanor Elliott, whose maiden name was Greene, a very well-known pioneering family of Prince Rupert — Dr. Greene. Her brother is Paddy Greene, whom I'm sure we all know quite well. I'd like you to welcome Eleanor Elliott, who is now living in the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain.

We have another distinguished visitor from Vancouver, a lawyer who is also the president of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Ian Aikenhead. Would you give him a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair has been advised that there are several bills to be introduced this afternoon, so I will try and get them in alternating order.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT
(No. 3), 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act (No. 3), 1990.

HON. MR, RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, Bill 72 amends the Forest Act to enable increased regulation of timber-harvesting and other forest management activities on timber licences and private managed forest land. This will ensure that the harvest and management of timber on those lands will be conducted in an environmentally sound manner.

First, Bill 72 authorizes regional managers to extend the term of a timber licence so that timber harvests can be spread out over more years. This will permit greater protection of wildlife and watershed values.

Second, the bill authorizes cabinet to designate areas at the request of a local government within which regulations would apply to timber-harvesting and other forest management activities on private managed forest land.

Managed forest land is classified by the Assessment Authority of B.C. as land for which the highest and best use is the growing of trees. Other resource values, including watersheds, landscapes and fish

[ Page 11440 ]

and wildlife habitat, need to be considered in these areas. To ensure this, Bill 72 authorizes cabinet to make regulations regarding forest management on private managed forest land and designated areas.

It also authorizes the Ministry of Forests to apply the regulations and set site-specific terms and conditions for timber-harvesting and other forest management activities: to require application for a permit to harvest; to assess fees for the permit and harvested timber; to require the preparation and approval of timber-harvesting plans before operations begin; and to monitor approved forest practices to ensure fairness in the application of regulations to private managed forest land.

Bill 72 also provides for the establishment of an appeal body to adjudicate the ministry's decisions and actions.

Bill 72 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.

AN ACT TO IMPROVE
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled An Act to Improve Employment Standards.

MR. SIHOTA: The purpose of this bill is to improve conditions of employment, particularly for women workers, in British Columbia.

The bill will seek to make several improvements to minimum standards in a number of ways. First, it re-establishes the Employment Standards Act as the minimum standard for all employees in the jurisdiction of the province. Second, it will require the minister to review and adjust minimum wages on an annual basis. Finally, it extends child care leave provisions by permitting a leave for adoption and an additional leave for either parent of a newborn child or a newly adopted child.

Bill M240 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.

OKANAGAN VALLEY TREE FRUIT
AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Savage presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority Act.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The development of this bill follows the reporting of a commission of inquiry into the British Columbia tree-fruit industry. The purpose of the bill is to establish a Crown corporation which will ensure an efficient and coordinated approach to the revitalization and transformation of the interior tree-fruit industry to ensure a strong, dynamic and competitive tree-fruit industry. I will detail more in second reading.

Bill 75 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.

AN ACT TO EXTEND WORKERS
COMPENSATION PROTECTION

Mr. Sihota presented a bill intituled An Act to Extend Workers Compensation Protection.

MR. SIHOTA: The purpose of this bill is to extend the application of the Workers Compensation Act to include workers who have not been previously protected. It broadens the protection of workers' compensation to include farmworkers, artists, employees of professionals such as doctors and lawyers, and casual employees. It allows employees, as well as employers, to make application to bring their workplace into the scope of part 1 of the act, and it requires the Workers' Compensation Board to extend regulatory protection against illness and injury to farm and domestic workers.

Bill M241 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.

FORESTRY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT ACT

Mr. Harcourt presented a bill intituled Forestry Research and Development Act.

MR. HARCOURT: This act establishes a forestry research and development agency with a mandate to achieve more value-added manufacturing in British Columbia's forest industry. Given the limits of our forests, the creation of new jobs for British Columbians will depend on obtaining the greatest possible manufacturing potential from every unit of wood harvested in the province. As a matter of fact, recent studies show a potential for $1.7 billion in new forest revenue and over 4,000 new jobs in British Columbia.

[2:15]

The agency established in this act would ensure higher levels of research and development in the areas of new market and product development, new harvesting, processing and manufacturing technology, and new environmentally sensitive production technologies.

The agency's activities would be located throughout the province, including in the new University of Northern British Columbia, to make it a world leader in forestry education, research and technology.

Bill M242 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day at the next sitting of the House after today.

FORESTRY VALUE ADDED ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forestry Value Added Act.

[ Page 11441 ]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, this bill strengthens the requirements for new value-added production when licences to harvest timber are awarded. New factors which must be included are the ability of the applicant to create new value-added manufacturing, the ability of the applicant to manage and use the forest resource on a sustainable basis, and the ability of the applicant to demonstrate a willingness to use supplies purchased from the region where the licence is located. These changes will allow the government to choose the applicant who will be able to harvest and process the timber, so as to provide the greatest possible economic benefit to the, region and the province as a whole.

In order to ensure that the province receives additional benefits from replacement of any existing licences with a tree-farm licence, all applicants must guarantee that within a three-year period a higher value-added product will be produced under the new licence.

Bill M243 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.

Oral Questions

AINSWORTH MILL IN LILLOOET

MR. MILLER: To the Minister of Forests. In November 1987 your predecessor transferred three forest licences to Ainsworth Lumber Co. One of the conditions of that transfer was that they continue to operate a sawmill in Lillooet. That mill is now shutting down; 100 people have lost their jobs. Why did you allow Ainsworth to walk away from their obligation to run that mill in Lillooet?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I met last week with the mayor of Lillooet and two other people — I believe, an alderman and the president of the chamber or chairman of the regional district; I'm not quite sure. This was a week ago today, Mr. Speaker, contrary to reports in the Vancouver Sun. At that time I gave my undertaking to the mayor and to the other people and, I might add, to the MLA for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is most interested in this, of course. We had a good meeting. I have dispatched a senior official from the ministry, an assistant deputy minister, to meet with Ainsworth and come to some type of agreement, and to express our concerns to them and the fact that we take very seriously that that timber is tied to the community of Lillooet. I can assure the member, the people from Lillooet and all British Columbians that we are very much aware of the problem and are endeavouring to get to the bottom of it at this time.

MR. MILLER: It appears, Mr. Minister, that you created a problem. Last month your ministry made a submission to the Forest Resources Commission and said that the dominant objective of awarding licences was community stability. Given that, how can you explain the absolute contradiction of removing the licence-holder's obligations to continue to operate the mill — in this case, in Lillooet? You removed the obligation. Why?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, once again the member is wrong. I didn't remove the obligation.

Secondly, my record speaks for itself and this government: we have forced the holders of timber licences to keep mills open and to maintain employment in communities. There are numerous examples I could cite; we named a few during my estimates. Once again the member is wrong.

MR. MILLER: The people of Lillooet don't want a sympathy card. They want some action. It is a curiosity that the senior official in your ministry, Mr. Harding, said that the obligation was removed from the licences, and that the decision was made at the highest political level. You are quoted as saying that you don't know why they were removed.

Perhaps you've been informed overnight. Do you know what's going on within your ministry or not, Mr. Minister? Why did your ministry remove the obligation from those licences?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The member is either not listening or doesn't understand. I have told him — as I told the mayor of Lillooet a week ago today — that the senior official from my ministry will be meeting with Ainsworth Lumber at the earliest possible time to discuss with them the ways to keep that mill open.

I hardly regard that as a sympathy card. I regard that as sympathy for the people in Lillooet, for the workers and for the community. We care very sincerely about the small communities in this province. The government record speaks for itself in that regard.

MR. MILLER: Further to the minister. There has been ample evidence of political interference in forestry decisions. The fact remains that the obligations were removed. You are the minister. Have you ascertained why? What is the rationale of the government for removing those obligations?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member to cite an instance of political interference by this government, and further, to tell me what he would have done differently.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

MR. MERCIER: My question is to the Solicitor General and acting Attorney-General. Almost daily we read about a juvenile or youth gang involved in serious crimes, including murder, and the very light sentencing available to our courts under the Young Offenders Act. Today it was reported that
10,000 young offenders, including two dozen murderers, have been released from Canadian jails since 1985 due to this legislation. Has the minister decided to make the strongest possible representations to the

[ Page 11442 ]

Canadian Minister of Justice for immediate action to remedy this deplorable situation?

HON. MR. FRASER: In two parts, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, the ministry makes a great deal of effort to ensure that those who are apprehended or run afoul of the law have a chance to rehabilitate themselves. In that regard we have a number of very innovative and good programs.

Secondly, the government has made strenuous objections and representations to the federal government with respect to the Young Offenders Act, particularly with respect to young offenders guilty of serious crimes. We have made that representation before and we continue to make it now.

AINSWORTH MILL IN LILLOOET

MR. MILLER: On August 24, 1989, the Premier announced that Ainsworth would construct a plant in the Cariboo. In September 1989 a big ad was published in the Cariboo papers by David Ainsworth saying that the Premier was the finest Premier that B.C. has ever had. [Applause.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MILLER: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Forests. Since he is unable to provide a rationale why the ministry removed the obligations, can he give this House an assurance that there were no political reasons why those licence obligations were removed from Ainsworth?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, I am now sure the member is hard of hearing, because we haven't removed the obligations. We are sending an assistant deputy minister up there to explain to Ainsworth exactly how they will comply with our requests — in fact, our insistence — that they maintain the employment in Lillooet.

Secondly, I do agree with the member that we have the finest Premier in the province — probably the finest one we will have for some time

AN HON. MEMBER: Say it again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: He's probably the finest one we will have for some time to come, and all you have to do is look around this province and you will see why. We could go back and cite examples from the only time that the NDP was ever in power....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we are approaching the end of the legislative session. Question period has been deteriorating rapidly over the last few weeks.

MR. MILLER: I must insist to the minister that licence A18690 had attached to it section 12, which was a commitment by Ainsworth to run that mill, and it has been removed from the licence document. That is a fact. Would the minister explain? Never mind trying to cover up by saying you are now sending people in to do some damage control. Explain why that was removed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: For the fourth time: the member can get up and wave the paper around all he wants; I'm telling him, the people of Lillooet, the mayor of Lillooet and the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt), who is most concerned and was at the meeting with the mayor where I gave my undertaking, that this government will not let those jobs disappear from Lillooet.

ROAD BLOCKADES BY NATIVES

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns of British Columbia natives, the illegal roadblocks that are now having an intolerable effect and impact on the village of Lillooet must be addressed. This is the second time I have raised this question in this chamber, and I'm even more concerned today that someone may get hurt or killed in the near future.

What steps is the Solicitor-General prepared to take to resolve this potentially explosive situation as quickly as possible in the interests of all British Columbians, native and non-native?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, it's understandable that many people in British Columbia have anxious questions about the escalating disruptive actions by native people in British Columbia. We are seeing roads being closed and possibly rail lines being shut down.

However, today the consequence of the release of this report right here....

Interjection.

HON. MR. FRASER: You may think it's a very light-hearted matter, but we certainly don't over here, I can tell you.

With this morning's release of this document, the interim report of the Premier's Advisory Council on Native Affairs, it is the hope of this minister and this government that those involved in the blockades around the province of British Columbia will now take them down.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the same minister. It's alarming when a member of this House gets up and implies the use of force, as was expressed earlier by the same minister. To reach just, honourable and peaceful settlements of the aboriginal peoples.....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: Let me conclude. Will you and your colleagues support the recognition of aboriginal title and bring peaceful solutions to this province for the aboriginal people?

[2:30]

[ Page 11443 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order.

FERRY PURCHASE

MR. SIHOTA: It's not only in the community of Lillooet that jobs are disappearing as a result of the policies of this government. The same is happening in our shipyards in Esquimalt by virtue of the decision announced yesterday by B.C. Ferries to acquire a new ship that will be in service next year.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister responsible for B.C. Ferries, now that members opposite are quiet and she can listen, is: could the minister explain why the corporation chose not to lease a ferry to provide service during the summer while building one here in British Columbia, and why the corporation has chosen to buy a ferry from Norway, transport it over here and spend $3 million to refit it, when a ferry can be built in our shipyards for approximately the same cost?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Before responding directly, I would like to remind the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew once again that the precedent was set in 1974, when the NDP were government and they purchased what is now known as the Queen of the North. That has subsequently turned out to be a very good move, and certainly I don't hear them criticizing the offshore purchase made by their government. Having said that, there's no question about the fact that we place a great deal of importance on keeping the jobs in British Columbia whenever we can.

The first question was: why did B.C. Ferries not lease a vessel? B.C. Ferries had searched round the world for available vessels. There were none available for lease. Ferries are not like a car, where you go onto a car lot and just say that you want a vessel of this size and this type to provide....

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Are you interested in the answer, hon. member, or do you just want to talk?

(1) There were no appropriate vessels available. (2) The statement made by the member opposite that the purchase price and the conversion costs for the Norwegian vessel equated to a sum that would have seen one built in a local shipyard is not accurate. The two 85-car ferries for which the contracts have been awarded to local shipyards will total in the area of $52 million for both vessels. We are paying $10 million for the Norwegian ferry; we'll be spending $3 million to bring it up to Coast Guard standards. So there's a considerable difference. In addition to that, the Norwegian vessel is far more versatile than the 85-car vessels that we are presently having constructed here and will be far more serviceable.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when my colleague the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was asking his question, the member for Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid) raised the issue of the Komagata Maru, which he is somewhat familiar with. It complements the kind of hissing activity we've had from cowardly people on the government benches. It smacks of a prejudice which I and you abhor, and I would expect these members to be brought to order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair heard the remark. It is not unparliamentary, although it may offend other things. It is not unparliamentary; therefore I left the matter alone, but I did hear the remark.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if the comment offended the member, I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Law Reform Commission of B.C., 1989-90; the annual report of the Ministry of Attorney-General, March 31, 1990; and the annual report of the Legal Services Society, 1988-89.

Ministerial Statement

CARIBOO FIBREBOARD LTD.
PULPWOOD AGREEMENT

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I rise today to make an announcement of significant importance to British Columbia. It has a direct bearing on jobs in the interior of this province, and I think it is a good-news announcement that will be welcomed by everyone.

We have today signed an agreement between the government and Cariboo Fibreboard Ltd. of Williams Lake for a 25-year, non-replaceable pulpwood agreement. At this moment in Williams Lake a special event is underway to celebrate this announcement. As I speak here, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) is speaking on my behalf in Williams Lake.

Cariboo Fibreboard will construct a $140 million, medium-density fibreboard plant in Williams Lake. This plant will generate 160 direct and 200 indirect jobs — that's 360 jobs — in the Williams Lake area. Construction will start within the year, and the plant will be in full operation within 30 months.

I want to emphasize that under the signed agreement the company will not be able to harvest any timber for the first ten years. The needs of the new fibreboard plant will be met primarily through ten-year chip supply contracts that Cariboo Fibreboard has negotiated with local mills. Most of these contracts are already in place.

Cariboo Fibreboard has also secured 15-year agreements with local sawmills for the supply of sawdust and shavings. It is probable that these contracts will be renewed, and harvesting may not even be required over the remaining term of the agreement.

[ Page 11444 ]

Finally, I want to mention that in addition to Cariboo Fibreboard's use of chips, sawdust, and shavings, the new NW Energy thermoelectric facility that will be constructed adjacent to the Cariboo Fibreboard plant in Williams Lake will use wood residue such as sawdust, shavings, and bark. The goal is to completely eliminate the need for waste to be burned by using wood waste. As we reach our goal of 100 percent utilization, we will ultimately do away with wood-waste burners.

The Cariboo Fibreboard plant and the NW Energy facility are prime examples of sustainable development and a prime example of how this government is turning a waste problem and air-quality problems into jobs.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, clearly the situation in the Cariboo needs to be addressed and is somewhat grim in terms of a number of factors, particularly the continuing availability of the amount of timber that the processing plants in that region require. As well, there is room for additional processing capacity using residuals.

I have several concerns, not about the announcement that this plant is going ahead, but tangential, and I just want to register those in relation to this announcement; that the industrial policy is missing in terms of rationalizing the processing capacity in this province with the annual allowable cut; that there are concerns about harvesting — and I appreciate what the minister says in terms of that harvesting not being undertaken immediately, particularly in that fragile area — and about what we can replace the existing stands with.

In light of the earlier discussion we had, there needs to be an established obligation imposed on the licence-holder, who, in return for receiving this access to Crown resources, undertakes additional responsibilities to employees and the region. That clearly has not been established in this province.

Finally, in commenting on the question of tenure, I would note that the whole question of tenure arrangements is currently under review, following a very tumultuous time in this province. I question the wisdom of entering into those similar types of tenures prior to arriving at a policy decision about the future of British Columbia.

Having said that, I am sure that the plant will be welcome in an area that is very concerned about its future employment prospects in the forest industry.

Presenting Reports

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-fourth Parliament. I move the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the rules be suspended to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, I now move that the report be adopted. I make this motion on the first report from the Public Accounts Committee, which is obviously the last report from the Public Accounts Committee this session. I make this motion with some ambivalence — in fact, with some chagrin. The Public Accounts Committee, as I have stated on three previous occasions, is not the best possible functioning committee this House could have to serve its needs for accountability.

I believe that although the committee has done an excellent job this year with the time that has been allowed, a number of things could be done to seriously improve the quality and quantity of work done by this committee. If the House would turn to page 8, they will see that this committee has met only ten times this year, early on Tuesday mornings, for a sum total of only 12.7 hours. This is one meeting less than the committee had last year, and it's about average for the last four years. If I might say, Mr. Speaker, the committee should have met in one year as many times as it has met over four years.

It is not for lack of material in the public accounts or in the auditor-general's report; it is not for lack of substantive, qualitative content that this committee has met only ten times this year. In its perusal of the casino and lottery functioning and of Transportation and Highways functioning, the committee has established a good working relationship with the comptroller-general, the auditor-general and with heads and senior people in various ministries of the government. I think the committee has been very credible and has established that relationship, despite some of the difficulties it has in its own structure. In fact, the ministries have done very credibly, as they have come to the committee to explain how and why they are improving the situation that the auditor-general very often has uncovered. It has been an impressive committee.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are ways in which the functioning of this committee could be improved. This is the appropriate time to do it since this is the first report of the Public Accounts Committee and the last. It is probably the last time I will be standing as Chair of this committee in this House, and I would like to.... [Applause.] Thank you. Such accolades from the other side.

The recommendations I would like to make at this point....

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a debatable motion. Those of you who wish to speak on the motion merely need to wait until the member who is currently speaking is finished, and be recognized by the Chair. Interjections

[ Page 11445 ]

are not in order. Would the member please continue.

MS. MARZARI: Since it is the last time I'll stand before you to speak to the public accounts, let me suggest the four things that I think could be done to seriously improve the functioning of this committee, which now operates as something between a circus and an early-morning breakfast session.

The first thing that needs to be done is to allow this committee to meet year-round, whether or not the House is in session. This one move alone would assist the committee to develop a long-term strategy for working with the material presented to it. It might take the hard edge of hard politics out of the committee, although there is obviously politics in the committee. It could provide the public outside with some better picture of how accountability is done and seen to be done.

Second recommendation. Ministers should not be sitting on this committee. When ministers sit on the committee or have their names on the committee it very often suggests, when ministerial representatives come to speak, that they are compromised. Often the minister is compromised and often the committee operates under a shadow of ministerial or cabinet disapproval.

The third recommendation I would make to close the loop of accountability which is desperately lacking in this government and in this parliament is that the committee be given neutral research staff — staff which should be provided, as it is in a majority of other provinces around this country, to assist the committee in developing its agendas and doing the appropriate research on each item as it comes forward, so that the committee is given its own legitimacy as a committee.

The last recommendation I would make is that when and if television is allowed in this House or brought to this House, the Public Accounts Committee be the first thing to be televised. The public accounts committees in Ontario and Quebec find themselves televised, and I must say that from what I've seen, the behaviour and the decorum of those committee meetings is substantially different from what we witness in our committee here in British Columbia.

We only met for 12 hours this year. They were a hard 12 hours, but they were 12 hours more than most other committees meet in this parliament and this government. With some ambivalence, some joint grief and pride, I therefore move the motion that this report be adopted.

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, it sort of fits the pattern that the Chairman of this committee has followed. As everyone in the House realizes, the opposition chairs this committee, and I serve as the Deputy Chairman on behalf of the government side It fits the pattern. I didn't know she was presenting this report today, ignoring the courtesy that should have been extended to let me know in advance it was being presented at this time but I'll do my best to respond.

It was noteworthy that in the remarks that were made by the Chairman she admitted the committee was not the best-functioning. Well, everyone in politics knows about committees. How well they function is definitely the responsibility of the Chair. So I really apologize for the Chair, for not having these well-functioning meetings.

As another example of how this report came forward, the normal procedure to present the recommendations that were just presented by the Chair would have been to bring them to the committee and have the committee deal with those recommendations. But because, I presume, she realized that not enough homework had been done and a proper presentation would not have been made, the Chair did not bring those three recommendations to the committee. So I ask the House to disregard them, because they have not been debated in the forum where they should have been debated. It was a distinct lack of courtesy for the Chairman to make those recommendations unilaterally. Those recommendations to this House were just made unilaterally; in other words, they are the opinion of the Chair, but they don't have substantiation in the very committee she's representing or purporting to speak on behalf of.

As to one of the recommendations, it's something about the opposition that they think by having longer or more meetings of this committee, somehow it will function better. I don't think that meeting longer or more often would guarantee quality. The House should realize that it's supposed to be a non-partisan committee for reviewing the accounts and the auditor-general's report. I can guarantee you that during the year the partisan comments from the Opposition members were a real distraction in that committee.

What did we deal with in the public accounts? Our statements were so clean and so good that they had very little to criticize. The following were asked to come to the committee: Solicitor-General, public gaming, Provincial Secretary, the Lottery Fund and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. At the wish of the Chair, the last three meetings dealt with highways, and I regret that the Chairman said that the auditor-general "uncovered" anything in the Highways ministry, because all we proved was that the Highways ministry staff are competent and excellent, and that the department is running well.

There may be other people wishing to speak on this report. I want to end this session by saying that we're proud on the government side that we had a surplus in our financial statement, that we had debt reduction and that we have the lowest debt-carrying charges of any government in Canada. This is why the committee found very little to do. The Chairman couldn't find much wrong, so what's the purpose of having additional meetings? Other members will want to speak, but I would like to compliment the auditor-general. The auditor-general is filling his role in an admirable fashion. His report was very clear, and the responses by the ministries were very clear.

[ Page 11446 ]

I certainly encourage members not to have a greater number of meetings of the Public Accounts Committee in the future.

In closing my remarks, I want to announce that the government has agreed to a major policy change. Here are just a few points on this policy change. Our statements are among the best in Canada, but one of the things we did not do was release them in a timely fashion. The major change in policy is that, commencing with the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991, the public accounts will be issued along with the auditor-general's report immediately after their preparation, notwithstanding that the Legislature may not be in session. This means that ours will be among the earliest-released financial statements and auditor-generals' reports in all of Canada.

To summarize, it also means that we now meet all the major requirements in the guidelines set by the public sector accounting and auditing committee of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and we were among the first provinces in Canada to do so. So Madam Chair, I wouldn't be so disappointed in the report of this committee, because that was a major recommendation I put forward. The committee supported it, and the government supports it, and now it's done.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to support the motion, because my constituents — the people of Point Grey — are very proud of the work that their member, the Chair of this committee, has done.

MR. BRUCE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to offer a couple of comments — one in respect to the committee and the makeup of it. I would like to say that I appreciate how difficult it would be to chair a committee made up of such an illustrious and witty group of politicians as sit on that committee, and the Chairman has done a remarkable job in keeping the peace among us all, with good humour, and still getting a job done. So I would like to commend the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for the job done.

I think it's also important that, in reporting on the public accounts, the main point discovered in the 12½ hours of debate is brought to this chamber, because it reflects on every one of us. The job of the Legislature and the jobs of the elected representatives of the people of British Columbia are to make sure that the money is spent wisely, effectively and efficiently.

So I would like to read this into the record, because we've heard much in the preliminary statements about what the auditor-general had to say. I think it is important for all here in this chamber to know what was said by the auditor-general in summation about the financial affairs of the province of British Columbia. These are the direct words of the auditor-general:

"I would like to reiterate what I've said on other occasions. The financial statements of the province are, in most people's view, the best in the country. If they aren't, they're awfully close to it. We have three sets of financial statements, including this consolidated set. Many other jurisdictions have not seen fit to consolidate their accounts whatsoever. I think it is important to keep things in perspective. We are all endeavouring to improve these financial statements and reporting to the Legislature and the public. My office has a responsibility to point out improvements that can be made.

"The statements are in good condition, and I am pleased that I am able to present an auditor's opinion without any reservations. That is not true in any other jurisdiction."

I think it is important that all of us know, with great comfort, that the financial affairs of the province are in good hands, and so says the auditor-general of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that the report now be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Select Standing Committee on Forests and Lands, I wish to ask leave that that committee be allowed to sit this afternoon at 3 p.m.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE PREMIER
AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OPERATIONS

On vote 4: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $3,812,000.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I rise to present the spending estimates of the office of the Premier. This is an excellent opportunity to review the good this government has done. This is not a moment of false pride, but a time for reflection on what we have done to improve the lives of British Columbians.

[3:00]

I realize it is also an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to undoubtedly take some exception to some of the things I have to say or to some of the views I hold — how he sees the province and the prosperity we enjoy as opposed to how we see it. But I would ask him to go through his notes once again while I am speaking, because I had an opportunity to take a brief glimpse at something said on B.C. Television at the noon hour. I noticed that he — inadvertently, I hope — was a little confused when he said taxes had increased by $500 million for individuals and decreased by $500 million for corporations. What he intended to say was that these were budgetary changes, not tax changes. It wasn't a tax increase of $500 million or a decrease of $500 million; it was

[ Page 11447 ]

budgetary changes. I know that perhaps different things can be said in different ways, but obviously that is a fairly easy one, and he may wish to deal with this before he speaks from the notes that he has available to him.

Similarly I notice that he had some comments — or, certainly, comments were made — about the increase in the spending estimates, but no reference was given to the fact that there was a restructuring of the Premier's office several years back. That should perhaps be enlarged upon by the Leader of the Opposition when he comes to comment.

Speaking for myself personally, Mr. Chairman, and for myself as Premier, the most impressive accomplishment of our government has been its commitment to consult and to act upon what the people of British Columbia have told us. Consultation remains critical to this government. It is through consultation that we can push beyond the bureaucratic interests of government, beyond the agendas of big business and big unions, and beyond the demands of self-serving special interest groups.

As Premier, I must hear, understand and champion the concerns of the British Columbians whose interests are not pushed by big public relations budgets and well-heeled lobbyists. Frankly, it disturbs me greatly that the opposition, who seek to control the office of the Premier, are so captive to special interests that they dare not tell the people of British Columbia what their agenda really is.

It is a disgrace for the Leader of the Opposition to openly court union money, as he did recently at the CUPE convention in Nanaimo at which a CUPE delegate said: "We should be voting in our interest and providing the political funds to ensure our interests are enshrined in legislation. I believe every dollar spent getting the likes of Mike Harcourt elected will yield ten dollars in our treasury." This was Mr. Jack Hughesman, delegate to the annual meeting of the B.C. members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, quoted in the Victoria Times-Colonist on June 9, 1990.

It is to ensure that this government does what the people want and not special interests with deep pockets that I have talked to miners in Kimberley. I've heard the concerns of mothers and their children in Terrace. I've spoken to homesteaders in Clinton. I've listened to homeowners in the Okanagan hurt by the floods. I've had numerous meetings with the Chinese community in East Vancouver. I've taken their concerns back to government and worked with my cabinet colleagues to ensure that those concerns are addressed, and continue to be addressed.

I have never discounted the shortcomings of government. I have always sought to do what must be done and to get on with the business of meeting the people's needs, not the wants of special interests. No Premier can do it alone. He or she needs the support of cabinet, caucus and competent staff. Government can only work when all of us commit to consulting British Columbians with an open and receptive mind.

Before moving on to more fully explain the process of consultation we have in place, I would just like to take a moment to thank in this House the efforts of Mr. Frank Rhodes. Mr. Frank Rhodes is a fine gentleman who has been a tremendous help as deputy minister to the Premier. His professionalism and knowledge of government have been greatly appreciated. He served honourably and he served well.

As I said, a prime duty of the Premier is to move beyond what he or she hears from business, union and special interest lobbyists, and to reach into the concerns of every British Columbian. To achieve that requires a commitment to consultation: find out what the people want, and do it.

I can cite several examples to prove my point. The Sullivan royal commission has provided a blueprint for our children's education into the twenty-first century. One only has to look at it to wonder at the hard work and clear thinking that went into that particular process.

To meet emerging post-secondary demands, the minister responsible initiated and completed a comprehensive Access for All report. Funding for the Access for All program will nearly double in 1990-91 to $68 million, providing 2,400 additional post-secondary student places and introducing degree-granting status at Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo. In Prince George, we are well on our way to establishing the university of the north. That's something that I made a commitment to in 1986, worked tremendously hard in the interim, and I'm pleased to see the tremendous progress that's being made now.

In health care, our government has launched a royal commission that will explore new ways to improve treatment and prevention, while at the same time allowing the system to retain its international reputation of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The Royal Commission on Health Care could have the same positive impact the Sullivan commission has had in education.

In women's issues, we have appointed a minister responsible, whose first duty was to begin an extensive program of consultation — I commend her for the tremendous consultation, the groups she met with throughout the whole of the province, groups that had various involvements in furthering the needs of women in the province. The directions coming out of those consultations will guide policy on such critical issues as pay equity, day care and pension reform.

One highly successful process of consultation and action has been the justice reform initiative. It has placed B.C. in the forefront of accessible, fair and equitable justice in Canada.

To improve both the environment and the standard of living of British Columbians, this government began a major initiative with the establishment in 1988 of the Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. Its action plan, "Sustaining the Living Land," was released in June last year. It contained many positive suggestions. These suggestions have been acted upon.

We have created a permanent round table to bring together community, environmental, academic and

[ Page 11448 ]

business leaders to provide advice on how to balance sometimes competing concerns.

We have established a single sustainable development committee of cabinet to bring together all my fellow ministers with responsibilities and interests relative to the environment. We have before us a mighty task of cleaning up environmental hazards, preserving our forests and our forest-based jobs, and trying to find workable solutions to real conflicts. These solutions need honest discussion, not empty promises or a blank cheque with a signature on the bottom. We are starting to see those solutions in the implementation of the Task Force on Municipal Solid Waste Management recommendations, such as the creation of a hazardous waste management corporation.

Total government spending on the environment and reforestation in 1990-91 will increase by a substantial 24 percent to $553 million. Our way of life has two outstanding features: an attractive environment and a strong forest industry. Some say that one is incompatible with the other. They assert we cannot sustain one without sacrificing the other. We believe the doomsayers are wrong. Yes, there are trade-offs, but on balance, both our unique environment and our successful forest industry can continue to flourish if we approach problems in a cooperative and not confrontational way.

To explore the common ground in our forests, we have initiated the Forest Resources Commission, which I believe will lead to changes not just in logging practices but in what we do with our B.C. timber. Our focus, in my view, should be in helping the small entrepreneur in the forests: the man or woman who is supporting a family with a single truck and small mill.

An emphasis on value-added production was a focal point in our small business advisory task force that recently came back with its report. That report has led to a new program of small business assistance that is understandable, flexible and accessible to all entrepreneurs with a dream and a plan.

In other economic areas, our tree-fruit commission has shed light on one of B.C.'s most famous industries, and we are working with that industry to find real solutions to develop a competitive tree-fruit sector.

Other examples include our Freedom to Move initiative. It went out and sought what British Columbians wanted in new transportation facilities over the next ten years.

Consultation with native leaders on the role of the provincial government in helping our first citizens achieve greater economic and social independence has also been a major and very successful initiative.

The recommendations of a major task force on housing are now being implemented, as we have all witnessed in new tenant legislation and the construction of new social housing.

Our hearings on property taxation led to relief for homeowners in school property taxes that will double next year. We have new initiatives coming up in overall tax reform providing pensions for all British Columbians, and possibly in many other topics of concern to British Columbians.

No government in the history of British Columbia has consulted as widely as this government has. No government in the history of British Columbia has made as strong a commitment to act upon what it has learned during all of those consultations. No government in the history of British Columbia has acted as swiftly and decisively on the wishes of the people of our province.

However, I will be the first to admit that in some areas, I suppose, more could have been done, and there's still more to be done. I refer specifically to constitutional issues. What we learned from the whole Meech Lake process is that the everyday citizens must be more closely involved and want to be more closely involved, particularly when it comes to constitutional matters. That is why we have introduced a bill to allow for referendums and another bill to allow for the election of Senate candidates.

[3:15]

I know that we've heard some opposition and some negative comments from the members opposite about the referendum process, but again, I believe that any process which will allow our citizens a greater opportunity of input is certainly worth the effort and the try, and is something we will always support. Any opposition to anything that might enlarge the process for public participation I would certainly be very critical of. This is why I've often commented on the remarks that have come from members opposite which seem to be so much in opposition to this whole referendum process or the opportunity for people to be more involved in the process.

Obviously, when it comes to Senate selection, the Prime Minister of Canada is under no legal obligation to appoint as Senator the candidate freely chosen by the people of B.C. I realize that, and I'm sure we all do. But the Prime Minister would have to explain to the people of B.C. why he chose to ignore their wishes.

To that end, the Prime Minister of Canada will also have to explain to the people of B.C. why the government in Ottawa is still intent on proceeding to implement the goods and services tax that a great majority of people in this province and every other province, it seems, oppose bitterly. He will have to explain it to all the people and to me not as Premier, but as one of many thousands of everyday British Columbians fed up with a federal government that is looking at more taxation, rather than at all of their spending programs and their attempts to somehow provide greater duplication between what we do provincially and what they wish to see done federally. The GST is just one more dark cloud from the east trying to push its way over our lovely Rocky Mountains, across our interior and on to our sunny Pacific shores. You don't need to be the weatherman to tell which way that wind ought to be blowing.

Our economy in the last four years has been the strongest in Canada. As I speak to people in other provinces, whether they're from Alberta, Saskatchewan

[ Page 11449 ]

Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec or the Maritimes, or whether they are Conservative, Liberal or New Democrats, they look to our province with great envy. They realize that we have a record no other province has been able to achieve. They marvel that our unemployment rate has dropped from 12.5 percent to 7.9 percent. We heard today yet another announcement by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) that will provide further opportunity in the Cariboo for still more people to be employed. We're hearing it every day. That particular example is 375 jobs, but we see jobs in the Kootenays, in the Okanagan, in the Cariboo, on the coast, in the lower mainland, on Vancouver Island. It's happening everywhere at a pace such as we've never seen before and such that people elsewhere in this country marvel at the success.

Last year alone, B.C. created half of all the new jobs in the country. Annual investment has increased from $9.6 billion to $15.7 billion in a very short period of time. The government debt, Mr. Chairman, has been reduced by about $800 million, which means a dividend of $400 for every taxpayer in our province. Yet, as I mentioned, there are storm clouds gathering on the horizon. I am an optimist, and I always will be an optimist. I believe there is a chance that we in B.C. can avoid the worst of what might happen. But I can't help but be aware of what's happening to the economy in Quebec, in Ontario, in the Maritimes and in other parts of western Canada. I can't help but realize that much of what happens in Ontario somehow always affects what we do and how they react to the needs of British Columbia. So we have to be aware of this, and we have to be realistic. If we are to maintain our fragile prosperity, we as government must work harder than ever. We must keep a firm hand on the government expenses, and we must keep a firm hand on taxation.

As I said a little earlier, I'm pleased that we were able to, because of a good economy and good management by government, reduce the property taxes for people this year — school taxes. We can double this again for next year. It makes me happy, as the Premier. It makes us all very happy, as members of the Legislature. But it makes me especially happy too, as a citizen of this province.

I'm also pleased that we've been able to reduce sales taxes from 7 percent to 6 percent, eliminate the sales tax on restaurant meals and make many other positive changes, while in other parts of the country they've had to increase sales taxes, and the federal government is proposing to enter this same area with a vast increase in consumer taxation. I'm happy that we have countered the trend, or at least have done the opposite of what we've seen elsewhere in the country, and as Premier I'm proud of that. We all ought to be proud of that, as legislators, but I'm especially proud as a British Columbian.

I'm also aware, Mr. Chairman, that we must reach out to help those most in need. We must assist British Columbians to meet their economic challenges and to realize their fullest potential. That sounds very stirring, I'm sure. But still I'm asked: what do we do? Let me say again, we have provided additional benefits in all areas, and we've debated this over the last number of months in the House. When you look at the budget for Education, Advanced Education, Social Services and Health; when you look at the budget, which provides assistance to those in municipalities that receive grants through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs; when you look at the programs that we've provided to add to recreational programs and opportunities for a healthy populace; when you look at the budget we've provided for cultural activities and how we've helped various groups in the province; when you look at the budget and the tremendous increase we've provided for the Ministry of Environment in order to address the concern that all people have for a clean environment and maintaining a quality of life second to none anywhere on this continent, and which we as a government are committed to maintaining; when you look at all of those budgets, you realize that we as a government have cared and that we've approached those problems very effectively and have had dramatic results like no other place in the country.

We have proven it time and time again, and we can show that record as we've done in the House, to the members opposite, to every person in this province. I would hope that perhaps sometime the Leader of the Opposition would do likewise: show and tell the people of the province how well we've done; show them that we as a people have managed better and more effectively than any other people anywhere in the country. There's no harm in doing that, because I assure you, Leader of the Opposition and all of you listening now, that if we continue as you've done — too often, I would suggest — preaching doom and gloom, and talking about how bad things are in the face of the tremendous record we see in this province, then we will get doom and gloom. We will get doom and gloom if you keep preaching it.

I'm sure you wouldn't fault me if I go out, when I speak politically, and say this about your party: you can still change. There's time to change and to take another approach, to be positive with the people, to tell the people what a great province we have and what a wonderful job they're doing. Let's tell the people that we're proud of them, whether they live in Richmond, Surrey, Quesnel, Cranbrook, Prince Rupert, Terrace or any place in this province. We're proud of what they've done, because after all, it is the people that have made it possible for this government to have such a tremendous record and to be the envy of this nation. It is the people, through their work, through their initiative, through their entrepreneurism, in their support of free enterprise, in support of this government, in their support when they talk to me and other members here, that have made all of this possible.

We should speak positively. We can't always be negative. We can't be doom and gloom. If we follow the doom-and-gloom approach, then we'll see in this country what happened in Sweden under a social democratic government, where they're going fast down the tube. Where at one time they were a proud

[ Page 11450 ]

people doing extremely well, they are now at the bottom of the totem-pole in Europe. I would suggest that for a good part it is because the social democrats were too often preaching doom and gloom. Be positive!

Mr. Leader of the Opposition, when you get up to speak, and if other members get up to speak in response to my statement here, please try to have at least a few positive comments, because the people of our province are listening. There are many people....

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, I must inform you that your time has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman, I am excited by the comments of the Premier. I'd like to hear more, so I would like him to continue. I'm inspired by his words.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me repeat, and I say this not only for the Leader of the Opposition or for the members of the opposition; I say this for all of us in the House and the people out there. Our tremendous success, the fact that we are the envy of this country, the fact that people elsewhere on the Pacific Rim, in Asia and Europe and elsewhere in the Americas are looking to British Columbia for a place to invest, a place to do business in, for a place they trust and want to be a part of.... All this is so not only because of the Premier and the cabinet or the Social Credit government. We are the vehicle. We are only the vehicle; I would suggest — I have some bias — probably the most effective vehicle anywhere in this country. I suppose the reason we are the most effective vehicle in this country is that we aren't tied to somebody in Ottawa. We don't have to phone the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa before we make a policy decision and say: "Is this all right. Can we do this? Do you mind if we do this? Will this somehow affect how you might fare with some big union in Ontario?" We don't have to go through that process, so we have a decided advantage, and that's why Social Credit was elected in '52. That's why Social Credit was again elected in '53, in '56, in '60, in '63, in '66, in '69, in '75, in '79, in '83 and in '86. And we will be elected again.

As a final comment — and I didn't want to be political in all of this, and I realize others are anxious to speak, so I don't want to occupy more of the time — I want to repeat for all of us here: as I started to say, certainly we are the vehicle. We make it happen, but it's the support of the average British Columbian that has made it all possible, and I thank all those British Columbians out there who have made it possible. It's not big unions. It's not big companies It's not special interest groups that have made it possible. It's average individuals throughout the whole of the province that have made it happen. Mr Chairman, I'm sure you can tell — I'm sure everyone here can tell — I'm proud. I'm proud of this province. I'm proud of what we've achieved. I'm proud of all of our people, and I'm proud of this tremendous team I work with. Thank you very much.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I was commenting to some of my colleagues earlier about how fast four years pass. It was four years ago that many of us walked into this House for the first time. In fact the majority of us were rookies, and walked into this House and endeavoured to do the public business, and we've seen a lot happen over the past four years. It's fair to say — and I say this in all honesty to the Premier and the members opposite — that we've all learned a lot over that four-year period. We've had our debates. We've had our comings and goings in this House, and there have been some heated exchanges and some very rational exchanges in the House. I'm sure history will comment in the future on how successful we were in looking after the needs and the aspirations of British Columbians.

This, of course, will be the last opportunity we'll have before the next election to canvass the estimates of the Premier, and it would be appropriate to reflect on some of the stuff that's happened — I don't want to go over all the last four years, but some of the stuff that's happened, particularly in the last year or so — and canvass the Premier as to policy and administrative changes that have come about as a result of some of the things we've seen in British Columbia, particularly, if I may say, around the way in which the Premier and his office functions and the way in which cabinet functions. We've come a long way from regionalization and the united states of British Columbia to the way in which things function today.

Over the last four years, we have seen a number of resignations of various cabinet ministers. I think I read the other day that nine cabinet ministers in total had resigned. I don't know what kind of record that is overall in terms of other governments, but in any event we have seen nine ministers resign. Some say it has been part of the Guinness Book of World Records.

I won't get into that kind of stuff except to say that this government has had a history of scandal with respect to various ministers. I don't want to get into all the details involving all the various scandals. However, I do want to talk about one instance that we haven't had the opportunity to reflect much upon but which I think raises a number of very important public policy issues in terms of the way the administration of government is run. That is the problem that arose surrounding the Siemens Electric situation. I want to canvass not the details of the events, but the kinds of changes that should flow from that and the kinds of practices one would expect from government with respect to that area of public policy and administration of government.

I want to start by simply putting a question or thought to the Premier. Because there is public policy that needs to be developed around these areas, I am wondering if the Premier could explain what the process is. How is it that cabinet — or his office, if it is indeed his office that makes these decisions — arrives at decisions as to when cabinet ministers will be flying overseas? Are there any rules or policies

[ Page 11451 ]

that exist within your office with respect to how those costs are covered? What changes have come since the Siemens Electric situation? I would like to know how that works in terms of who makes those priorities. Who decides which cabinet ministers are to fly off overseas to take a look at various matters? We see them all the time: the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and so on. How does that work? What is the process involved in that?

Before I sit down, I have just one other question to the Premier. Usually when we get into estimates.... I think the Premier was remiss in not doing this, and I was remiss in not asking at the outset. Perhaps the Premier would be kind enough to introduce his staff. I think we have a bit of a tradition here that staff who are here are introduced. I think the Premier could do that and then perhaps deal with the questions I have asked.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am very pleased to introduce the staff. We have Dr. David Emerson, who is my new deputy minister, and we have Jan Hemming, who looks after the office accounts.

Now I would like to try to respond to your questions, and I will begin with the last. It's interesting that you should ask about who or what decides when or which ministers travel. Obviously a province such as ours which is growing and which is export-oriented and has many overseas markets and investors.... As a matter of fact, I should add — thank you for the opportunity — that unlike every other province in the country and unlike the national average which is, as you are aware, 78 percent dependent on the U.S. for its exports, we now are less than 40 percent dependent on the U.S. for our exports. We have diversified so much in the last three years that the Pacific Rim is now our single largest customer and, interestingly enough, you may like to know that of all provinces in Canada, we export more to Europe than any other. Obviously, given all of this, there is a need from time to time for ministers to travel in order to make various contacts, whether it is in Asia, Europe or other parts of North America.

I became somewhat influenced in my views on ministerial travel when I was invited with a group of people to travel Europe with a minister. In my travels with this minister through Europe, I saw the waste and the time that was really not put to good effort at all. I could see the waste of expense, and I became very critical of all of this. It was in 1973 when I travelled with Mr. Jim Lorimer, the then NDP Minister of Municipal Affairs. When I saw the waste and the futility of it all, I said: "If I were ever given the opportunity to be Premier in this province, I would not do it like the NDP; I would do it differently." So I guess that has influenced me, and it has made me a little more cautious and has allowed me to control the amount of travel fairly effectively. I am sure that if you check and compare....

Perhaps a fair way to compare would be to put the travel record of the ministers in B.C. up against the travel record of the ministers in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec or any other place in Canada — even on a population basis. You will see that despite the tremendous amount of economic activity and all the things we have been able to accomplish, we travel a lot less. It's because the Premier approves and monitors the travels. Absolutely, there needs to be a control in that whole effort because, as we saw during the NDP years, when ministers were allowed to travel willy-nilly to wherever at whatever the expense to do whatever they wished, you can't do that, because you'll end up with financial chaos such as we saw at the end of the NDP years.

The member for Esquimalt — I'm not sure he's the Leader of the Opposition yet, but.... Anyway, he talks about nine resignations, scandals and all of that sort of thing, and then he talks about Siemens and explains Siemens. He says to me: "Well, you know, I think it's appropriate, when there's a question of propriety with respect to a matter and a minister is concerned, that he should step aside or step down until the matter has been thoroughly investigated and a report has been provided to government or the Legislature — whichever the case — and we've seen that in this government perhaps more so than elsewhere in the country."

[3:45]

I suppose if you wanted to use numbers you could use Ontario and Quebec and get similar numbers, but I don't think that's really what matters. What I'm saying is that I believe we practised what I set out to do in the first place. When there is a question about propriety and an investigation taking place, the minister steps aside or steps down.

I don't call that a scandal. You call that a scandal, and it's convenient and nice for you to use the word "scandal," and you'd like to use it over and over again, because you think that somehow you can con the people of the province into believing there were all of these scandals. That's why the word is used over and over. I'm sure that not only you but other members — perhaps including the Leader of the Opposition — will use that word again and again because it suits your political agenda. But what you're forgetting is that the people out there are not dumb. They know; they understand.

What I think is perhaps more scandalous than all of the things you might raise — I don't know what it is yet, but I'm sure you will be talking about all sorts of things that you'll try to make appear as some sort of scandal — is to begin talking about Siemens, for example, when we have an investigation into the activities of a former deputy minister because certain charges or allegations were made.... This is being investigated, and what's so nice about a democracy and why I support our democratic process so vigorously is that people have a chance to go through a process before they're somehow accused of being guilty of something. Whether it's here in the House, whether it's you on the hustings or whether it's somebody out there saying things, there is the opportunity for investigation. In the case that you referred to — Siemens, as you call it — there is an investigation

[ Page 11452 ]

taking place. It would be totally unjust and completely inappropriate and irresponsible for me to comment on this, because I respect the process and intend to see that democratic process, that right of the people, continues.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want the Premier to understand a couple of things. First of all, I want him to understand that I'm not going to go through the Siemens situation involving Mr. Dubas, nor am I going to be talking about the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Dueck). I want him to understand that. I've started to ask him some questions, and I'd like some answers to those questions, but I use that as an example.

Let me also say, because you refer to the word "scandal" and it's a point of language and debate between us in the House, that I want to make it clear that in my estimation of the nine ministers who have left, the one who handled it in the most honourable fashion of all was the member for Central Fraser Valley. I must also say that I enjoyed working with him when he was Minister of Health, and I think he did a good job of listening to us on the opposition in terms of responding to some of our concerns.

What I'm trying to find out from the Premier is this: do you have guidelines that set priorities for travel of cabinet ministers? Are there guidelines along those lines? Do you have anything published as a policy in terms of what gets approved and what doesn't? Do you have any policies with.... I'll give you another example: do you have any policies for things like gifts? I know you have some rules about gifts for government employees. Do you have those kinds of published policies for ministers, or is that something that is exclusively dealt with on an individual basis by the Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: One of the reasons we have to have an overview of requests for travel is that obviously we need to avoid duplication. Secondly, if a ministry proposes to travel to, say, California or wherever, to have various meetings, it could well be that they might at the same time do some things for other ministers or ministries, and therefore their trip might be more effective. The judgment call in all of this is: do we get value for money, and are the people of the province well served, and will they benefit?

MR. SIHOTA: Are there any published guidelines? Or is it just the general rule of thumb — do we get value for money?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the protocol office certainly has its internal guidelines. But I think it would be a mistake to say we have a book or a brochure or some pamphlet that says where and why one might travel. It's too important a responsibility on behalf of the taxpayers that I should leave it to a book or some policy statement somewhere to determine what the travel.... It needs to be coordinated very effectively. As I said, it's important that the people of this province get value for money. If you write a policy, then obviously some of that might well be overlooked. I think a Premier has the responsibility of overseeing the various activities in the various ministries, to make sure there's no duplication.

I would also say, Mr. Chairman, that what might serve us best — because I realize there are a whole lot more questions coming.... I'll make note of a number of questions and answer them all at once, as opposed to getting up each and every time.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA: I take it from what the Premier has had to say that there are no published guidelines. I use the example of gifts because it has come up before. There are rules, I know, with respect to government employees and the acceptance of gifts.

I can understand what you're getting at, and I'm not going to fault you in depth here. But am I correct that there is nothing written; that you don't have any policies or any guidelines, as exist in the case of government employees, where you've got some guidelines with respect to gifts and travel and that kind of stuff? You can nod and I'll continue, if that's the case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll assume it's the case, unless the Premier says otherwise.

I want the Premier to understand this. It's hard for me to continue unless I get some answers from him. I want to make sure that I've got it all understood, and I don't want to make any false assumptions.

When you talk about value for money, I take it that you're saying value for the public dollars expended on a particular trip. I take it that's the way it works. Is that what you were trying to get at when you talked about value for money?

Those are my two questions: (1) do you have published rules; and (2) when you talk about value for money, are you talking about the public dollars expended? Am I to understand it in that fashion?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member is correct in that we do have conflict-of-interest guidelines for ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

MR. SIHOTA: I have here the conflict-of-interest guidelines, eight of them, starting with one that says ministers shall ensure that their ability to exercise their duties and responsibilities objectively is not affected, and ending with the guideline that deals with family members. Is that the guideline that the Premier . . . ? I want to make sure we're talking about the same guidelines. Are these eight the only guidelines that exist for this type of matter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 4, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

[ Page 11453 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier a question, and I want to make sure, because I don't want to quote from something that is different from what he's got. If it would help, I could send this over by a Page and have the Premier take a look at them in order to make sure we're talking about the same thing. But I quoted them; there are eight guidelines. The first one deals with ministers ensuring that their ability to exercise their duties is not objectively affected by financial interests, and it ends with one that talks about family members and guidelines applying to them.

Is that what we're talking about? You can simply nod, Mr. Premier, if we're talking about those guidelines. If they're different, I would appreciate it if you could.... Are we talking about the same ones? Okay, I'll send this over to the Premier with the Page and show him the guidelines he's got, to see whether or not the guidelines I've got....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't talk when you're speaking.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I'll sit down, and maybe you can answer my question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, we have the guidelines, and I think we're referring to the same guidelines. We also have the Constitution Act and the various requirements thereunder. But if the member is asking if we can somehow write the rules in order to cover each and every circumstance, I guess not. I suppose there has to be integrity on the part of members, and that's so regardless of where we sit in this House. Without that, the guidelines or anything else don't matter much, I'm sure. The guidelines are there; the Constitution Act is there, and I'm very pleased with the material available to us as a guide and the rules.

MR. SIHOTA: Again, I want to make sure that I've got this down, and I want to make it clear that I'm not talking specifically about the case. But one of the issues that arose out of the Siemens case was the whole issue of payment, whether there was double-dipping and that kind of stuff. That came up during the course of the Siemens case. Double-dipping, of course, is a concern, and so it should be; that's why the matter is being investigated, as I understand it. I would hope, with the Premier, that there are no other examples of double-dipping going on.

I want to ask the Premier this question: am I correct in understanding that with respect to expenses, the rule in the public sector as opposed to business is that the government pays for all the expenses associated with a cabinet minister's trip, whether it be to California or wherever? Is it the basic rule that those costs — airline, food, accommodation — are paid for by the public sector?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On government business, yes.

MR. SIHOTA: Of course that applies to government business. I take it that when the Premier says government business — and I would assume I am correct on this point — it's not accepted that individuals would go, let's say, to California. I don't want to use that as any particular example; you mentioned it, so I'm using it as an example. Am I to understand that when people go to whatever destination abroad, the expectation — given what you said earlier on about Mr. Lorimer — is that they go over for business, and they are not to engage in any personal business while they are abroad? But is it all expected to be government business that you travel on when the public sector is paying for it?

[4:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's not what I meant when I referred to my travels with Mr. Lorimer. Obviously there were weekends and things people might have done personally. I think that's quite legitimate. So if you took from my comments that I was condemning Mr. Lorimer or those with him because they had their weekends or they did their own things, that's not what I intended.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from the weekends, where I would concede there may not be a lot of activity going on, for four, five or six days members of the executive council are not expected, when the taxpayer is paying the bill, to do anything but government business. When you're over there you're supposed to do government business and then come back. Isn't that the general rule of thumb?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're probably going through a process that this member enjoys, because he sees himself in a court of law, leading up to something. Why don't you just come out and ask the question? I don't know what you're saying. Don't try and act like a courtroom lawyer; you're a legislator now. Tell me what the question is.

MR. SIHOTA: I need the reply from the Premier, and I understand he's listening to Mr. Emerson now.

Let me put it to you this way. I take it that, as we had in the Siemens case, the expectation is that corporations, societies and whatever that are not associated with government.... Nobody else is supposed to pay the expenses. I'm not talking about picking up an occasional meal, but about things like we saw in the Siemens case: hotels and accommodation, that kind of stuff. I take it that the rule is that the public sector is supposed to pay for that in order to avoid the perception of the problem you ran into when you got into Siemens.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Perhaps the member can give me a specific example. I'm not used to this courtroom stuff.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I'll give you a very specific example, Mr. Premier, one that you're very familiar with and one that relates to Siemens. In the Siemens

[ Page 11454 ]

case, as I understand and recollect the facts.... I could be wrong, and I'm sure the Premier will correct me if I'm wrong. Basically there was a concern that a company — I believe it was Siemens, obviously — was picking up hotel bills and that kind of stuff for ministers who were travelling. It was my understanding at the time that that was deemed to be improper; that the government is expected to pay those costs when ministers are travelling, to avoid any perception of conflict. Is that the rule of thumb? Is that the way it's supposed to work?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Chairman, I wish the member would ask the question. Once more he refers to Siemens and uses it as an example. Frankly, I find it very distasteful to be participating in debate on some issue that is under investigation.

He says, "as I understand the facts," as though the way he understands it is okay — those are the facts. I thought it was the job of the investigators — whomever it is we charge — to determine the facts and the validity of those, and it's not for somebody here to stand up and say: "...as I understand the facts, therefore this or what about this." I'm not prepared to discuss something that's under investigation, and he as a lawyer by profession should know better than to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, before the last speaker got to his feet the Chair was about to mention that we must be careful of the rule of sub judice, because we're all aware that there is an investigation being conducted related to the firm that was mentioned, and it might prejudice that investigation. I guess there's no one who should know better than the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew that it could prejudice that investigation. Bearing that in mind, I will turn it back to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize the Siemens case was before the courts.

In any event, let me give the Premier a hypothetical.... I was using Siemens because I thought it was a situation he would be familiar with.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm going to, and here's the real question. In terms of expenses relating to hotels — and I'll give that as the example — it's my understanding that when ministers travel abroad, the government picks up those expenses. There's a policy on gifts which allows people to accept certain gifts of a token nature, but with respect to hard expenses like accommodation, as I understand it, the policy is that the government pays those expenses. Am I correct in that understanding?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I wish he would be specific. It's not part of my estimates that I'm aware of, but let me say it again. Obviously, when people travel they're not expected to work seven days a week, 24 hours a day. I cited the example of my travel with Mr. Lorimer in 1973: there was time off for people and they did their own thing. I expect it's reasonable. It's a judgment item, I'm sure, for each individual.

We've had no difficulties, to my knowledge, with any of this. If you say there's some difficulty, or if you're leading up to suggesting that there might have been some difficulty that somehow has something to do with my portfolio, by all means let me know.

MR. SIHOTA: As I understand it from what the Premier said earlier, he oversees all of this kind of stuff in his capacity as Premier of the province, which is fine, and in his capacity as Chair of the executive council. It's a simple question in terms of policy. I give you the example of hotel accommodation costs. Those are to me like airline costs; they're hard costs, which I always understood to be borne by the taxpayer and not paid for by a corporation or a society, because it creates the impression — and we've seen this in another case which I won't mention now — that there are favours being granted to government. Here's my question to the Premier, and I want him to listen to my question with that preface. It is very straightforward. Is it the policy that, for example, with respect to hotel costs, those costs are paid for as a hard cost by the taxpayer when ministers travel and not by corporations or societies, to avoid the perception of favour?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This would certainly be ruled by the conditions of Treasury Board.

MR. SIHOTA: Then I want to ask the Premier what, to his knowledge and understanding, are the conditions of Treasury Board with respect, for example, to hotel expenses?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, there was an opportunity to debate that issue when the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) were up. I do not intend to go through the estimates of ministries that have already been dealt with. If he failed to ask questions about the policy of Treasury Board on a particular issue at the time the opportunity was available to him when the Minister of Finance sat in his chair, I can't help that.

If there is someone on either side who has any questions that relate to my estimates or if someone wants to make a statement with respect to my estimates, I'd be pleased to deal with it. On the other hand, if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew simply wants to sit there and act like a lawyer in a courtroom, then I'll save all the questions until the very end. If he has something specific, I'll try to answer. That's how it is.

MR. SIHOTA: Very well. Thank you for that response, Mr. Premier. I appreciate that. When the matter was canvassed by my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) with the

[ Page 11455 ]

Minister of Finance, certainly during question period and I believe during estimates — but I could be wrong with respect to estimates — it was always my understanding, and I would think it would also be the understanding of the Premier, who has obviously had occasion to travel, expenses such as hotel accommodation costs are paid for by the public sector.

Let me make it clear here. As I understand the practice, policy and principles behind the government policies and practices to date, you don't want major suppliers of government to be paying the costs of travel or accommodation — to use those two examples — because you would be obviously concerned if people were able to come back to you and say: "Look, the perception that's created here is that this company is paying for this in return for government work." Because of that concern, it was always my understanding that policies were drafted that airline costs, hotel costs and that kind of stuff would be picked up by the taxpayer. That was my understanding, for the reasons that I've outlined. Does the Premier have a different understanding of it than I do?

I don't expect the Premier, in his capacity as the chief executive officer of the province, to know every rule. But I would ask the Premier to either confirm what was my understanding — which I asked him to do a minute ago — or to use examples of when he has travelled. I am sure you have travelled. What is the rule?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I made a note of the question. It's on a list, and I've got lots of pages so I'll keep adding to it.

MR. SIHOTA: Perhaps I could ask the Premier whether we can expect an answer to this in a few minutes. Or are we going to have to wait until we go through all of your estimates before we get an answer? I think it's fairly important that you just tell us what your policy is. I don't see any reason that you would think it inappropriate for you to tell us what the policy is.

I think the Premier will understand this as a business person, because he has also played that role in life — and perhaps more about that later, when we get into his estimates with respect to other matters. I think it's well understood that in business there is all sorts of give and take, and people will pick up other people's expenses for various business trips and that kind of stuff. It's sort of part of the arrangements that people enter into when they enter into business. If you're going overseas as a purchaser to buy something, it's not always unusual for a major contractor to say: "Look, we'll pick up your costs for coming into town and staying in town." They write that off against their taxes, and you don't have to pay for it Although that arrangement happens in the private sector, I would ask the Premier this: does he expect the same type of arrangement to exist with respect to public sector travel?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before the Premier responds, this line of questioning has gone on for some time now. It's become quite repetitive. I'm also having trouble with relevancy. We're dealing with the Premier's estimates, vote 4, which is the office of the Premier and the executive council operations. It seems to me that this doesn't fit into that particular category. If the Premier chooses to respond, that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm interested specifically in the 1989 trip to Europe, Mr. Premier, that you took on behalf of the province. Could you advise what the main purpose of that trip was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What was the date?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's January and February of 1989, Mr. Premier,

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That was a trip to Davos, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum.

MR. WILLIAMS: You left Vancouver January 21, and you returned February 11. Where exactly did that trip take you?

[4:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have that particular detail. I don't know exactly. You have to depend on the flights. Can you be specific? Is there something specific you want to know?

MR. WILLIAMS: Your original ticket indicated Vancouver-Amsterdam, Amsterdam-Zurich, Zurich-Paris, Paris-Amsterdam, then Munich-Amsterdam, Amsterdam-Vancouver. I presume that was the pattern you followed.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That could well be. I suppose I flew — I don't know exactly; I'm guessing — Canadian Airlines, Pacific or one of those. I have no say in that.

MR. WILLIAMS: The purpose of the trip was essentially government business. Is that the case, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand the activity in Davos. That's significant and was reported quite well in the papers. By chance I ran into Mr. Bell, the chairman of B.C. Hydro, who spoke favourably of that meeting.

This was a 21-day trip, and Davos was not something that took three weeks. Maybe you could advise where else business took you on that trip, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have all the specifics, but it was certainly an investment mission.

[ Page 11456 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: I remember the Premier coming back from an earlier trip to Europe and talking about the sausage factories he'd inspected in the north-central interior and housing projects for the poor in South Africa. I just wondered what kind of positive things the Premier did, because he's a booster. I'd be interested in the work you saw as important throughout that trip.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I recall it, I spoke to.... We were one of the official presenters at Davos. There was a delegation of business people, largely from Vancouver, as well as Minister Jansen and myself. We made this presentation at Davos. It was tremendously well received; it was enormously successful.

I'm not sure exactly whether I did stop to meet with the people in our office in Germany; I can't quite recall that, but it could certainly have been. I do recall that I spoke to the Netherlands Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Amsterdam. I met with a business group in Amsterdam and again in The Hague, as I recall. I also I spoke to a group of Canadian companies that are represented in Holland at The Hague. I can't recall all the details, but that is some of it.

MR. WILLIAMS: In Amsterdam, Mr. Premier, you were at the Amstel International Hotel on February 2 and 3, 1989. You went to Coevorden in between by vehicle, and then you were at the Hilton hotel on February 5 at Schiphol, which is the big airport in Amsterdam. Then you proceeded on a tour. What was that tour, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we're debating the estimates for 1990. 1 don't recall everything about 1988 and 1989. I'm sure there was ample opportunity then for the members opposite to have inquired about some of these things. I don't have all the details. Yes, I guess I was two days and two nights in Amsterdam and one night at Schiphol. I think that's reasonable to assume.

MR. WILLIAMS: There was a tour that ended up in Munich prior to returning to Amsterdam to return home to Vancouver. Is that not the case?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 4 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd be interested, Mr. Premier, in what the tour was that took place between your booking into the hotel at Schiphol in Amsterdam and ending up in Munich and returning home. We're talking about the best part of a week.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 4, the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: So the Premier does not recall what the purpose of that section of the trip was. Well, your flight schedule showed to Munich, I don't know whether you used that part of the ticket, Mr. Premier, but that's clearly what went through public accounts.

Mr. Premier, you were picked up at that airport hotel by officials from a company. Could you advise us what that company was?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I met with a good many business people in The Hague, in Amsterdam and in Munich. I don't know just exactly if.... Could you perhaps...? You have all the information, perhaps.... It was 1989; it's not in my estimates, so I didn't come prepared for 1989 or 1988.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that, but as you know, in public accounts work, we deal with the earlier fiscal year. That ended in April of last year.

Mr. Premier, the company officials who came and picked you up at the Hilton at Schiphol were officials from the Philips company. Is that not so?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, again I would remind the member that I don't have all the information about the 1988-89 estimates. I certainly don't have all the details, and we're not in public accounts, so I can't go through the public accounts process.

But it's fair to say that I've had several meetings with Philips representatives in Holland and here. As a matter of fact, I think I've met them on at least two or three occasions in the Netherlands, and I've met them at least two or three times here. It's still my hope that we might convince them to do some of their manufacturing in British Columbia. They're a good company; they certainly are a very diversified company. They manufacture a host of products. Frankly, I think we could serve that company as well as they could serve us, in that they could, without a doubt, access the Pacific Rim markets potentially and the U.S. market.

If the member has any questions on any particulars about that, I can perhaps attempt to answer them. I can say that whatever expenses are related to such travel are very carefully vetted through the office of the comptroller-general.

MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe the Premier could elaborate on the products that the Philips corporation manufactures. Since the Premier has indicated he hopes there would be manufacturing in British Columbia, could you advise the House of the kinds of products that Philips makes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is still having a great deal of trouble with relevancy in this debate. It was mentioned a moment ago that these matters were dealt with in a committee. I would think that matters brought forward in committee should be responded to and dealt with in a committee. I am still having trouble with relevancy.

These are the estimates of the Premier's office we are dealing with. However, if the Premier chooses to answer the question, that is entirely up to him. I would remind members that although they can ask

[ Page 11457 ]

any question they please, there is no compulsion that the question be answered.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would hope the Premier could advise us what the products are, because I think the Premier has quite a good understanding of what the Philips company makes. Its international base is in the Netherlands, it has plants around Europe and the Pacific Rim, and it's a major multinational.

Mr. Premier, I did ask you: was it not the case at the airport hotel that officials from the Philips corporation picked you up?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I would think so. As a matter of fact, I have no difficulty with this. It's rather ludicrous to assume that somehow, just because I was born in Holland and left at the age of 12, I could find my way around all that easily in the Netherlands today. If I am seeing people there for investment purposes or to have them manufacture here, I wouldn't hesitate to have them pick me up at the hotel, that's for sure.

MR. WILLIAMS: Then you must be familiar with the plants that Philips has. Did you visit any of their plants or operations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't mind if we take all this week and all next week debating my 1990-91 estimates. However, I don't want to spend all of this time.... I would just as soon we got on to something else, and he can write down the questions if he is talking about '88 and '89. I don't have all of the information regarding '88 and '89. Frankly, when he is talking about the list of products that Philips manufactures, I am sure he has that information. If he doesn't have that information and he wanted it, he could have asked the Minister of International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch) or the Minister of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S Hagen), who have all of that information too. They have had their estimates.

I see the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) is yawning. I don't fault him. It's very boring, and I can't understand why there isn't something coming from the opposition benches that is current and something that is relevant not only to my office but to this fiscal year.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have now established that the Philips people did indeed pick you up at that hotel Thank you, Mr. Premier. I am glad your memory is good there.

I recognize what the Premier says about how we really should check with the Ministry of International Business and Immigration, because that's where most of these chits get sent. The vouchers all get transferred over to the Ministry of International Business and Immigration. That's the way public accounts now work in British Columbia.

Mr. Premier, you actually did embark on a significant tour with Philips officials. The question is: did you not embark on a significant tour with Philips officials?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 4? First member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier has not said otherwise. The Premier has said that they picked him up. Where did you go, Mr. Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 4? First member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, do you not recall this week of the tour? We're talking about a week, Mr. Premier. You don't recall it?

[4:30]

HON. MR VANDER ZALM: I will say it once more, and then I will simply sit back, take all of the questions and collect them. You're asking me about '88-89, or '89, or '88; I'm dealing with the '90-91 estimates. If you want, I'll collect all of the questions. If we have to get certain information, or if it's relevant to the estimates now, I'll certainly get that information.

I just want to clear up one thing, because I don't know.... I guess we've sat here for already several hours, and we're not making a whole lot of progress. I don't know what we've done. I can certainly tell you that I was picked up by the Philips people at the airport hotel. Frankly, that's something we do for people who come to invest here as well. We may well pick them up at their hotel. We don't attempt to necessarily have each one travelling, whether they're coming here or we're going there, and sort of struggling to find their own way, wherever they're at. I think the meeting with the Philips people was probably several hours; I don't know where he gets the week from.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, there are no expenses listed in the public accounts for the period we're talking about. There are no hotel bills, no flight bills and no expenses listed for that period after the 5th when you left the hotel at the Amsterdam airport. Could you explain why that would be?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The night before the meeting with the Philips people was charged through my office, but after that and before I left Munich.... I think that's where your four or five days come in, or whatever it is — three or four days. That was time I had for myself, and I paid my own bills. That's why you don't see them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Premier, the member of your staff who's here, Mrs. Hemming, obviously reviews your accounts. Isn't that the case? She would go over these expenses from various tours before submitting or reviewing them with various people in the administration of government; that would be the normal pattern. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, that is indeed what

[ Page 11458 ]

happens. If you go back to the 1988 tour, the unravelling of that tour actually went on till September. You went in February; unravelling those accounts actually took till September, when all of the bills were shunted over to International Business. It was an ongoing disentangling of the accounts, but the bulk of that is on the record.

It's 1989 I'm interested in, Mr. Premier. I would note that Mrs. Hemming, in attached notes, wrote the following with respect to that period. We're talking about just a year ago; it's not a long time ago. This is from February '89. February 5, '89, shows, according to Mrs. Hemming's notes, the Holland Hilton hotel and the price. It was written down as "Personal, " but that was scratched out in her handwriting and then "Business" was written. Then the note is as follows, Mr. Premier: "Prior to the Philips tour, company officials picked the Premier up at the hotel." Maybe your memory is a little clearer now and you could advise us how it proceeded from there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, I don't know why we're talking about '89 accounts; but yes, I was picked up, and the meeting at their offices was several hours. After that I was on my own for about four days, I guess. For the clarification of the member, the reason, perhaps, that it sometimes takes time to sort out what the expenses were and to have verification of them is that if you use Visa or MasterCard, especially if it's a foreign use, it oftentimes takes a fair bit of time to work its way back.

MR. WILLIAMS: I understand that, Mr. Premier, all too well. The February 6 notation of Mrs. Hemming says the following: "No business costs. Paid by Philips." How do you explain that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The explanation is that if we didn't pay for it, why would we bill the government for it? If they provided the travel from the hotel to their plant, we wouldn't bill the government for it.

MR. WILLIAMS: It then says: "No out-of-pocket expenses." Of course, that's normal. There are per diems paid, and we can understand that. But then it carries on. February 7, 1989, it says: "See above" — in Mrs. Hemming's writing. In other words: "No business costs. Paid by Philips. No out-of-pocket expenses." February 8 says: "See above." February 9 says: "See above." February 10 says: "See above." How do you explain that, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There were no business expenses. It was personal, and I made no claims.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No. He's assuming that, I'm sure.

MR. WILLIAMS: The statement is clear, Mr. Premier. It says: "No business costs. Paid by Philips." How do you explain that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mrs. Hemming tells me that this was with reference to travel from the hotel at the airport to the Philips plant, which is 75 or 80 kilometres away, I think. After that it was all on my own. I think it was a two-hour meeting with Philips.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the notes are very clear. There are other notations that refer to costs prior to the Philips tour. The interesting thing is.... What about this company and what it produces? Mr. Premier, I'm sure you're aware that they produce the following equipment: CT scanners that range in price from $700,000 to $1.3 million; fluoroscopy units that cost three-quarters of a million dollars; radiography units that cost $200,000 to $300,000; magnetic resonance imagers — we're familiar with that term — that cost $2 million or more; and ultrasound scanners that run in the $100,000 and $200,000 range. Did you view that kind of equipment at their plants, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, they also produce radios, televisions, electric razors, telephones, cellular phones — all those sorts of things. Frankly, my main interest with Philips has been to try and have them establish a servicing centre, because that's certainly where the greatest opportunity is for us when it comes to Philips — as they've said themselves, and I certainly concur. That has been the view of the Ministry of International Business and myself. Our greatest opportunity might be to pursue their establishing a service centre here. The argument has been that an awful lot of people are producing hardware. The items you refer to are also manufactured by Siemens and others. It is obviously a competitive business, and I don't think they are necessarily looking to establish a new plant in North America. Chances are that for much of that equipment, they need to be fairly close to an area that has a tremendous demand due to a heavy population. My view has been that if we could get this company to establish a servicing centre for the Pacific coast particularly, but perhaps servicing the Pacific Rim as well, this is where the bulk of the job opportunities might be for the people of the province.

If I need to clarify it again, I have met with Philips as recently as a few months ago in the office in Vancouver. I met with the Philips people about the middle of last year or September or October last year. So there is some work being done all the time, and we're making considerable progress. On the occasion that I saw them in the Netherlands, I saw them for two hours. They did take me to the Philips plant from the airport, which as I say, is probably about 80 kilometres, or thereabouts. It's south of Amsterdam.

MR. WILLIAMS: Let's remember, Mr. Premier, that you had a hard time remembering this. You had a hard time remembering Philips. You had a hard

[ Page 11459 ]

time remembering being picked up at the airport. Let's get that clear. Now it's becoming a little clearer. Mr. Premier, you have an able staff. I've reviewed the public accounts. They have quite a job to go through that material, but they do. When they go through that material, they write "Business" or they write "Personal", and it gets segregated, as it does with all other members of the executive council. The personal is paid and the remainder is paid for by government.

In this case, the notation is not that way. In this case, the notation is very clear. It says: "No business costs. Paid by Philips. No out-of-pocket expenses." Then for February 7, it says: "See above." It says the same thing for February 8, 1989, the same thing for February 9, the same thing for February 10, and the same thing for February 11. Finally, then, there's a Canadian per diem of $45.

MR. SIHOTA: Was he travelling every day to Philips?

MR. WILLIAMS: That's the question. The notations seem to me, Mr. Premier, to be very clear. When you were talking earlier, you were talking about weekends and things like that. Let's see the days we're talking about. February 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are the working days of the week in February '89 — Monday to Friday. Philips officials....

MR. REID: Point of order. I have been here now for two hours. This has been repetitious and tedious and has nothing to do with the current estimates of the Premier. Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call that member to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I suppose the member does have a point, but administrative responsibilities are covered under this vote.

MR. WILLIAMS: What Mrs. Hemming is saying in the notes in the file is that Philips paid the bills, Mr. Premier. How do you explain that?

[4:45]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, they've been talking about this and nothing else for the last couple of hours. Obviously, when you take me back to '88 or '89 — or whenever it is, and you've just had the benefit of obviously going through the records to dig out some of these expenses — it does come back. It's not because I didn't remember; it's because you've been going through this. Also, I don't have a warped mind like you, so I don't necessarily think your way.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Order.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Somebody says, "Order." Frankly, I detest it when the member stands up and says: "I read it that somebody else paid your bills." That's a lie. I'm not going to stand for lies from the member for Vancouver East. I get offended by that, and so we should. I'll put my integrity up against his, and the whole bunch of you, any day of the week.

I can understand now why the Leader of the Opposition didn't stand up — as has been done for years and years in this Legislature — and respond to the Premier. That's how it's been done since the day this Legislature first sat. That's historic. The Leader of the Opposition has been in and out a few times. He sits in his seat. He hasn't mumbled one word: silent Mike. We hear from the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who is so good at this sort of thing, trying to make everybody look like a crook of some sort, and then we hear from the member for Vancouver East, who is probably second-best among that group for doing that sort of thing. Yes, I am offended. I will put my integrity up against the whole bunch of you any day of the week.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Premier, the notes are very clear. They are in the handwriting of your staff person. They say: "No business costs. Paid by Philips. No out-of-pocket expenses." And then for February 7, 8, 9 and 10 it says: "See above" — duplicated, ditto. So there you are.

I think it is intriguing: the Philips company produces very similar products to the Siemens company. It's fair to say that they are competitors. The Siemens company is the company that got Mr. Dubas in trouble in terms of paying bills. They are the reason the member for Central Fraser Valley stepped down. Clearly there were government guidelines about the paying of bills. Now the....

MR. CRANDALL: It's not over yet.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, that's true indeed.

The whole question is around this area of standards of practice, which the Premier and his colleagues always seem to have trouble with. The initial response of the Premier on the question of standards with respect to expenses being paid was: "Well, you know, there are so many different issues and so many problems that really they are too complicated to have standards." In the end it's clear that there are standards, and in the end these bills should always be paid by the public, because that's the difference between the public and the private sector.

Your staff go through this on an intricate basis — I've seen it for the previous year — unravelling these expenses; fifteen thousand dollars' worth in the previous trip to Europe; unravelling them carefully, writing down what was personal and what was not. It was carefully done because they had a big job to do, and they sorted it out in terms of personal expenditures and public expenditures. In this particular case they were careful again and in this particular case they listed this the way they did. I think the record speaks for itself, Mr. Premier.

I find it intriguing that in today's Sun in the business pages, Philips have the following announcement to make:

"Mr. Hein Diebels, general manager of Philips Medical Systems Canada, is pleased to announce the

[ Page 11460 ]

appointment of Mr. Ed Hansen to the position of account manager for the province of British Columbia. Mr. Hansen joined Philips Medical Systems in 1984 as a sales representative for the province of Alberta, where he has spent the last six years representing Philips' line of diagnostic imaging products. In his new position Mr. Hansen will be located at the Philips branch office in Vancouver."

It would appear that the trip was indeed successful. The question is: was it successful for the province or for Philips?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Let me say again that if all of this effort for the last three hours almost was to try and find out whether somebody else paid my bills or somehow attempted to treat me or buy me off about something, I don't get bought off. But I have no problem in having the company or some individual pick me up when I go to a strange country to talk to them about investment opportunities in this province. I have no problem with that.

I have no problem with the comptroller's office or Mrs. Hemming going through the statements very carefully and making notations on them. If you try to interpret those notations in order to somehow create some situation that didn't exist, I am not finding that too surprising. But I find it somewhat offensive and sleazy perhaps.

I would hope that we could get to the estimates. Also, let me say again: I have no problem. I met the gentleman from Philips who is now in charge of the office in Vancouver. I have no problem with companies from abroad establishing offices in Vancouver. I know that perhaps that's not in keeping with socialist philosophy, but I welcome them all to our city or to the province.

MR. WILLIAMS: We saw at the beginning of this afternoon how foggy the Premier's memory was about these various issues. That is quite clear. But what we did have, however, was the information from his staff. As I said, they appear to have been meticulous in sorting these things out. In this particular case they made it clear: "No business costs. Paid by Philips." That's clear. I think that's all we need to know, Mr. Premier.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I found that to be an interesting debate with respect to the Premier. I intend to talk a little bit about the administration of justice under the mandate of this government and to review over the past four years what's happened with this government in its administration of justice. A lot of questions have been raised, not only recently but throughout the course of the tenure of this government, with respect to its handling of judicial matters During this administration's time in office, approximately four different individuals have occupied the office of the Attorney-General.

Most of us in the last few days have had an opportunity to reflect on the comments made by the former Attorney-General, Brian Smith. Mr. Smith, when he left on June 28, 1988, made a number of comments to the House that I again would like, at least in my opening comments, to bring to the attention of the Premier. He said:

"I have had the honour to hold the post of Attorney-General. This is an office of great sensitivity and neutrality in the administration of justice. I now find that I can no longer carry out my duties, as I clearly do not have the support of the Premier and his office, who do not appreciate the unique independence that is the cornerstone of the Attorney-General's responsibilities in a free parliamentary democracy."

The former Attorney-General went on to say:

"I believe that there is a strong danger that the Premier wishes to bring the conduct of the office of the Attorney-General under closer control by his office and so weaken the independence of the Attorney-General."

He then cited two examples in his speech when he resigned:

"Firstly, in March, when the Chief justice handed down his decision on abortion funding, it was my duty to uphold that decision and, in doing so, I believe I strengthened the government. On the second occasion, in early April, it is a matter of record that I did have discussions with the Premier concerning Mr. Toigo. I did tell the Premier that I could not, as requested by him and announced by Mr. Toigo, confirm that no requests had been received for a criminal investigation." He goes on to say: "I fervently hoped that I had established and explained the importance of the neutrality and independence of my office to the Premier. I now believe that I have failed to make that impression."

It's very important that all members of this House, and particularly the Premier of this province, understand the nature of the office of the Attorney-General. It is a unique office, and it requires a situation wherein the individual involved in the administration of that office is seen to be not involved in any matters that are of a political nature.

I don't want to go on the record and read all of this stuff now; I will later on as we get into more detailed debate about the office. But I do want to also put on the record the views of former Ontario Attorney-General Mr. Roy McMurtry. On February 23, 1978, he stated in Ontario Hansard as follows:

"The re-establishment of the integrity and reputation of the Attorney-General's office came about only because of the maintenance of a punctilious independence from partisan politics in the execution of the unique quasi-judicial responsibilities of the Attorney General. Thus, while the Attorney-General must remain aware of political considerations that contribute to a thorough assessment of the public interest, he can never let partisan politics weigh as a factor in any of his quasi-judicial functions, particularly in relation to the conduct of criminal proceedings."

With those comments in mind and with that history in mind, given not just the events that have happened in the past months but given the events that the former Attorney-General Brian Smith referred to, is it the Premier's view that over the past four years his administration has acted in a fashion so as to preserve the independence and integrity of the Attorney-General's office? That's my first question to the Premier.

[ Page 11461 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I almost find it uncomfortable answering that member opposite about matters on justice.

MR. SIHOTA: What does that mean?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What does it mean? Well, among other things, I think perhaps many of us are reminded about the taping that took place, and the member that used the tapes is the one who just spoke to me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Sleazy stuff!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm very sorry, Mr. Premier, but I must stop this debate right here and now. We're getting into subject matter that has been very clearly stated by the Speaker to be out of order, as the matter is under investigation. We're gradually skating into this — I can see it — and I must warn you right now that the Chair will not tolerate any discussion of this particular matter.

[5:00]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I never have and never will interfere with the ministry of justice.

MR. HARCOURT: That is clearly not what the Attorney-General that resigned in 1988 felt or thought. As a matter of fact, the previous....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond) will come to order, please.

MR. HARCOURT: Clearly the Attorney-General who resigned in 1988, the Hon. Brian Smith, felt that the Premier was interfering in the administration of justice, and clearly the Premier was prepared to go against the Speaker's ruling that the matter of the tapes was sub judice. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are here to deal with the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I thought I made myself abundantly clear a few moments ago with respect to the way this debate seemed to be turning. I'll repeat once again: the Chair will not tolerate any discussion of the matter that is under investigation.

MR. HARCOURT: That is exactly my point, Mr Chairman, and I think your comments to the Premier were well advised, and I think we should get back to the question of the Premier's estimates.

I think it's entirely appropriate for the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) to ask who paid for expenses that took place with a very major supplier of medical equipment. I think that question is totally appropriate to be asked, and I think the Premier could have answered that question a heck of a lot more clearly than we had. I would hope that he would be able to check into that and make it very clear who paid those hotel bills, who paid those expenses during those five days. I think that should be answered.

The rules of this province are very clear: those expenses should be picked up by the taxpayers of British Columbia so there is no apparent or real conflict of interest. I think that's a very important principle. I think it's important that we make that very clear, because this is probably the last Premier's estimate before a general election, so we'll be able to look back at what British Columbians have seen during this legislative session and what they can expect in the future from a government under this Premier's leadership.

What they saw at the start of this session is a government caught trying to hide its fiscal incompetence. It's very clear that there was no balanced budget, as was alleged in all of the ads; that there was in fact a $500 million deficit, exposed by the auditor-general and by Peat Marwick; that there was no money in the BS fund. It was a figment of the Minister of Finance's and the Premier's imagination. There were no funds; there wasn't any money.

We also found during this session, again from reputable officials, the uncovering of the costly and dishonest privatization scheme and the tens of millions of dollars that that cost the people. We also had the astounding loss of money, the staggering loss of money, on the Expo site in which the Premier was so actively involved — a $150 million loss on the Expo lands. One of the most desirable urban sites anywhere in the world and this government was found to have lost $150 million in the middle of a real estate boom.

With the Premier laying down this reckless misjudgement on this beautiful piece of land in the middle of a real estate boom, this Premier and this Social Credit government sold one of the most desirable pieces of urban land in the world in one piece to one developer and lost over $150 million. There are still tens of millions of dollars of costs involved to buy back some of the site for the 2,000 social housing units that will be required for the site.

What was the Minister of Finance's reaction when all of this fiscal irresponsibility and incompetence was exposed by the auditor-general, by Peat Marwick and by many other people? The response of the Minister of Finance was: "Shoot the messenger." He said that about the auditor-general, who is an accountant of over 20 years' experience, the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. and a senior comptroller of one of the major corporations in this province, and he was unanimously brought into the job by this Legislature. The Minister of Finance said that the auditor-general was a "bean-counter who had his nose in the trough."

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: "Snout in the trough." I thought I'd use the polite word because I have a great

[ Page 11462 ]

deal of respect for Mr. Morfitt, and I don't like to see that kind of language used by the Minister of Finance to diminish the fine reputation of somebody like Mr. Morfitt.

Mr. Chairman, you certainly didn't see that embarrassing clip of this Premier's Minister of Finance in one of Eli Sopow's B.C. news updates, did you? You didn't see that one, but then again, this government has been watching their news updates for so long, they no longer know what the truth is and isn't. The truth is that they don't have a balanced budget.

They sold the Expo lands, tragically, and lost a huge amount of money. The BS fund is a fiction of the Premier's and the Minister of Finance's imagination.

What has also been revealed during this session is that we have an arrogant government that's out of touch. For example, they tried to hide the government's abuse of government jets. This government should be ashamed that the air ambulance budget was cut by $1 million because this Premier's ministers have turned the jet service into a political taxi service: "Dial a jet on Air Gran."

As a matter of fact, the frequent-flyer jetsetting by ministers continues, despite the fact that economical commercial flights are readily available. I just have to point to Kamloops, which has had an increase in flights. For the cost of sending two members for Kamloops on separate flights on separate jets you could get a round-trip flight to Australia for $3,500 instead of the $189 commercial flight. This Premier's government have been high flyers for so long that they have lost touch with the ground, where the real taxpayers have got to put real tax money into that misuse of taxpayers' funds.

This government is so out of touch that they supported the Mulroney government's recriminalization of abortion against the overwhelming opinion of British Columbians. Then to add insult to injury, they used taxpayers' money to mail REAL Women's offensive newsletters all over this province.

Then they, against the wishes of school boards, imposed the school referendums on communities and caused a great deal of very genuine suffering for parents, school boards and children.

Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia are just waiting for their chance to bring this government down to earth and permanently ground it. Again, what British Columbians have seen this session is a government that operates behind closed doors. For example, they repeatedly refused to release the ethics committee report on abortion until the opposition pushed and pushed and pushed. Finally the pressure became so intense that the Minister of Health, in embarrassment, finally released this report, which, as I said in question period recently, was probably against the Premier's personal opinion on abortion. It was, and that's why it wasn't released for many months.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

This government has refused to tell us how much their TV ads are costing the taxpayers, and they refused to release the government's air logs for the government aircraft. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Government Management Services (Hon. Mrs. Gran) said publicly that the public is entitled to know how its tax dollars are spent, but only after the election. The Premier did let out a little bit of a yelp, and he did give us a peep-show of the logs. People had to come in with Xerox machines, and they were turned away. It was a farce. That wasn't open government.

Talk about open government! This has not been an open government at all. This is a government that has refused to live up to the Premier's promise to televise the Legislature, a government that has refused to adopt freedom of information laws, a government that says: "Trust me." The Premier says: "You trust me." The ministers say: "Trust us." What they have done is thumb their noses at the right of the people of this province to have open and honest government. You have broken your trust with the people of this province.

The people of this province are no longer ready to believe this is a government which is there to serve their interests. They know it's a government there to use government for its own purposes and those of its friends and insiders.

This session also has seen a Social Credit government rocked by scandals. You'll recall that on the first day of the session I moved an amendment to establish a new select standing committee on privileges and ethics. The Premier said that he was ashamed of that action.

I'll tell you what is truly a shame, and that's the way this government conducts the public's business, with ministers forced to resign because they can't tell right from wrong. As a matter of fact, the next resignation gives this government the record of double-digit scandals — a double-digit number of resignations. That is unprecedented even by the Mulroney government standards.

I want to look across there and say: "Who is next? Who is going to put this into double-digit resignations by the cabinet?" That's almost half the cabinet that has had to resign because of scandals, conflict of interest and interference with the administration of justice. If you are proud of this track record of a cabinet that you put together, Mr. Premier, that's pathetic.

You had a Health minister who was forced to resign over favours he is alleged to have accepted from a multinational company doing business with this government. You had an auditor-general who revealed that one-quarter of lottery grants that he examined broke the rules. This government and the Premier continue to stand behind the former Provincial Secretary, who still hasn't had his day in court for funnelling lottery funds to his two friends.

This is a government which refuses to introduce changes to stop any political abuse and mishandling of lottery funds, and which defended the resale of lottery tickets abroad despite ties to organized crime, despite the impact on the poor people in developing

[ Page 11463 ]

countries and despite the fact that it's the only province that allows this to happen.

We had political interference documented by the ombudsman in the awarding of the forest licence in the Takla-Sustut area. A Premier who promised open and honest government four years ago has refused to bring in tough conflict-of-interest laws.

In summary, what British Columbians have seen over the last four years is a fiscally incompetent, arrogant, scandal-ridden government operating behind closed doors. That's a sorry record for this Premier to have brought to this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must inform you your time has expired.

MRS. BOONE: I am so enthralled with this speech coming from my leader, and I would like to hear him continue.

[5:15]

MR. HARCOURT: You see, the people of British Columbia can even overcome this government because, like New Democrats in the opposition, the people of British Columbia are optimists. We can even overcome this government and its track record over the last four years because there is a better way, and that is to elect a New Democrat government in the next provincial election.

British Columbians are saying very clearly and very simply: "We're going to say no to this Premier; we're going to say no to this Social Credit government. It's time for a change." It's time to restore the trust that should exist between British Columbians and their government and which has been shattered by this Social Credit government. It's time British Columbians had a government they knew worked for them instead of political friends and insiders of Social Credit.

As New Democrats we are optimists about this province's great future. That's why we put forward such a positive agenda in this session day after day, putting forward specific proposals and initiatives for this great province. You will find substantive legislation from this side of the House that the government has refused to accept. They say: "Where is it?" Read. Listen.

You will see initiative after initiative to bring about open and honest government, a healthy forest economy, the settling of aboriginal rights and land claims, a clean environment, protection for renters and affordable housing for young families, ownership of housing for young families who are closed out by this Social Credit government in most areas of this province, and to bring about equality for women.

These and many other initiatives we have put forward. They will form the basis of our platform in the next provincial election. We're prepared to stand up and say there is a better way, there's a New Democrat way that will take place after the next provincial election.

I close by saying there is no other B.C. government since before the Second World War that has delayed this long in renewing its right to govern. And you have to ask yourself why. David Mitchell, who did a biography on W.A.C. Bennett, has made it very clear in the last few days that what has happened with this Premier and this Social Credit government is that they've lost their political mandate with the people of British Columbia and that all they're doing is clutching onto their constitutional limit before calling an election — like Richard Hatfield did in New Brunswick.

The real reason is that this Premier and this Social Credit government are afraid to face the people of British Columbia, because they know they have used up their mandate. But you can't run from the truth; you can't run from the people. Let the people decide. Go ahead, Mr. Premier. Call the election.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, let me say it was obviously predictable. I already knew when I made my opening statement that undoubtedly the Leader of the Opposition and the two members immediately behind him would like to get up and say "Scandal! Scandal!" Somehow they think they can go out there and tell all of the people that because ministers properly — and so they should when there's some real question about the propriety of a particular event, or whatever — step aside or down.... They try to make this somehow appear to be a scandal. It's the only thing you've got. You've got no leadership in the NDP, none whatsoever. When a difficult issue comes up, your Leader of the Opposition asks the member behind him to take that issue to the Legislature, and he says in the newspaper, if he was quoted correctly: "It was a difficult issue, and therefore I thought perhaps Mr. Sihota should decide." There is no leadership in the NDP.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm quoting from the newspaper.

There is no leadership in the NDP, when day after day in this House....

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, they don't like this.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The most elementary member of this House knows that you don't use the names of the members; you identify the riding. Mr. Chair, you're not doing your duty by letting that happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is well taken. Please proceed, hon. Premier.

MR. HARCOURT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has already been chastised for referring to the matter that is sub judice. He has ignored, defied that order of the Chair, and has brought it up again. We respect the ruling of the

[ Page 11464 ]

Speaker in this matter. The Premier has twice brought up a matter that is sub judice, and that is unacceptable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to the point of order, I am sure that the Premier will take your comments into consideration when he continues speaking.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, let me explain again. My comments are in response to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, where he used, as I predicted, the word "scandal," and then started to say that nearly half the cabinet had to resign, as opposed to explaining the facts as they really are: people stepping down or stepping aside because it's the proper thing to do. I'm responding to that.

I am responding to the Leader of the Opposition when he talks about leadership. I cited this as an example of lack of leadership. I quoted from the newspapers, not to use a member's name but because I wanted to quote the exact mention in the newspaper as nearly as possible. That's why the name came into play, not because I don't know the rules with respect to using position as opposed to name. I was using a quote.

I was talking about the lack of leadership with the NDP when I said the Leader of the Opposition has barely been in this House — only a few days during all of these many months that many of us have been here from early morning till late at night. Day after day he's been travelling the province at taxpayers' expense. The taxpayers have been paying for his travel when he should have been leading the opposition here in the House.

Talk about leadership! You were against Expo. You talked about Expo; you talked about Expo lands. You opposed Expo. Then when finally Expo came to be and the ribbon was to be cut, you said: "What a wonderful thing!"

You opposed SkyTrain. Then when finally SkyTrain came to be, you were there at the opening to say: "What a wonderful thing!"

You opposed B.C. Place Stadium, and when finally B.C. Place Stadium came to be because an effective and progressive government made it happen, you were there to help cut the ribbon.

You opposed the Cambie Bridge, and then finally when the people told you in referendum, you said: "Oh, we'll go for it."

You opposed the Coquihalla Highway; now you travel it and think: "What a wonderful thing!" And you tell the people of the interior: "What a great thing!"

I was there when you opposed the Annacis Island bridge, now called Alex Fraser Bridge. You said it was an awful thing; it would only bring more people into downtown Vancouver. Then when the bridge came to be, you agreed that maybe it was all right.

You've been opposed to all things — never been for anything. Talk about lack of leadership! The opposition in this province has never had less leadership. We are in worse shape than ever, leadership wise, in the opposition benches, and that's not good. I'm sure it would be a lot better for this province if we had someone in the opposition who was capable of leading.

You talked about lack of leadership. We've had strong leadership in this province. The prosperity in this province didn't come about by accident. If so, why didn't it happen in all of the other provinces in Canada like it happened in B.C.? The fact that we're able to diversify our exports didn't happen by accident. If so, why did it happen here and not elsewhere in Canada? The fact that we created half the jobs in the whole of the country last year right in B.C. didn't happen by accident. If it's an accident, why didn't it happen in Ontario? The fact that we had more housing starts than any other province in Canada didn't happen by accident. It happened — all of these things and many more, the investment, the prosperity, the new jobs, the new plants, the new highways, the new health programs, the new social programs, the reduction in taxes for schools and properties — because we've enjoyed strong leadership in this province. And that's how it's going to continue.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm pleased to see that the Premier decided to bring up the question of leadership. I may say that I don't really care what the Premier's opinion of my leadership is whatsoever. I can tell you that I sure don't use him as a role model. Any time he wants to try again, and go before the real deciders of this, the citizens of this province, be my guest. I heard this same crap from you through six by-elections. I heard it In Vancouver in 1984. You've got a broken record. And I'll tell you the results of that broken record; they broke your needle. They broke your needle in six by-elections; they broke your needle in Vancouver in 1984. Any time, Mr. Premier, that you want to go and test your leadership and my leadership once again, be my guest. We've done it seven times. As a matter of fact, if I had a writ right now, I'd hand it across to you and say go ahead and call it.

Just to show you how weak and scattered that criticism I just heard from the Premier was, he included among the other statements that he made, most of which were totally outlandish — and he's gone through a municipal election and six by-elections trying to make those statements without any success.... Let me just give one example which discredits the rest of what he said.

[5:30]

He mentioned the Cambie Bridge and said that I was against that too. The Premier rewrites history dramatically. As a matter of fact, I had to push our council, the majority of whom were on the NPA — the Socred farm team. They opposed the Cambie Bridge, not me. I said: "I favour the Cambie Bridge and I believe the Cambie Bridge should be built. It should be built before Expo, and it should be built on time and on budget, and it's going to improve that site for Expo and for B.C. Place."

[ Page 11465 ]

I took that to council and said, for the majority of the Socred farm team members of the NPA: "You may disagree with it, but let's test it out with the people of Vancouver in a referendum." You know something? I backed that referendum to build the Cambie Bridge, and it passed with 76 percent of the vote — the highest vote that a capital referendum has ever received in Vancouver's history. That's leadership.

As a matter of fact, the Premier talks about the Coquihalla and about the Alex Fraser Bridge — both built at the same time; built in a depression, with lots of people looking for work. The Coquihalla was supposed to cost $375 million and ended up costing $1 billion. The Alex Fraser Bridge was supposed to cost $130 million; it cost $400 million. That's Socred fiscal responsibility.

Let me tell you, the Cambie Bridge was approved by 76 percent, and we then proceeded to construction. I'll tell you the way we constructed that bridge. We built the Cambie Bridge seven months ahead of time, 25 percent under budget and with all union labour.

Any time this Premier wants to test his leadership and my leadership, and wants to test the record of his government with the positive alternative the New Democrats have put forward session after session, I'd be more than pleased to hand him the writ. If he can't find it, if he hasn't got the courage to call the election soon, we'll pass him a copy of it. We're ready for the election, Mr. Premier, and so are the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, he'll never get his hands on the writ.

Vote 4 approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $352,605 (continued).

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chair, is the minister present?

I'll try to pick up where I left off, if you'll give me about 30 seconds to find my files in the desk without upsetting everything here. While I'm looking, I'm going to defer to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

MS. CULL: I want to return to a couple of issues that are very important in my community, some of which I've raised earlier in the House and one of which was raised in question period.

In the debate this morning there was a lot of discussion about whether various members had been into the community and visited this organization or that or had actually been to see firsthand what the health care issues are in their communities. I'd like to say that in the last seven months I've spent a fair bit of time in the community talking to people who deliver community health services and acquainting myself with their concerns and their needs.

When I compare what I've been hearing — particularly from the caregivers in the community but also from patients and families and others who have been in touch with me — with the opening remarks made by the minister, I can't put the two together. When I read the opening remarks that were made by the minister last night, they sound very good. They sound as if all of the concerns that people have brought to my attention in Oak Bay–Gordon Head over the last seven months are being addressed. But I know they're not being addressed. I know from talking to people in the Wellness Centre, talking to people in the Arbutus Society, talking to doctors, nurses and other health care practitioners, talking to my constituents, talking to the Friends of Schizophrenics and talking to parents of severely handicapped children that their needs are not being addressed. I would like to go over a number of issues with the minister that to me point to a glaring gap between the story he tells us in the House and the facts as I find them in my community.

The first issue I want to bring up is the question of neonate braces. This issue was raised by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Perry) in question period a number of weeks ago, as a result of some media coverage of a family on Saltspring Island who has a baby with hip dysplasia, which requires a brace. At the time, this baby was only two and a half months old, and had already had to have two different kinds of braces. The problem with children, as all parents know, is that they keep growing. Things that fit them at one point in their life don't fit them, it seems, all too short a time later. Anyway, at this point this particular child had had two braces, and the cost to the parents had been about $190. That is actually fairly cheap, because the cost of these braces, I've been advised, is in the area of $300 to $400.

The question was asked to the minister about why they weren't covered under the Pharmacare program, and the minister said — and I'm just going back to Hansard here — "In fact, those appliances are covered by Pharmacare, and they have been covered by Pharmacare for some time. In 1989 we paid in excess of $2 million for this type of benefit for people in the province of British Columbia."

It rang a bell when I heard that answer, because it didn't ring true from what I had heard when I was out visiting the Arbutus Society for Children, which is located in my riding. Ironically, the minister visited the society in the same month that I did, so I know that he too is well familiar with what that society does in terms of providing these kinds of devices — braces and such — for children who need them, and also for adults — but primarily for children. I went back to the Arbutus Society and asked them some questions about it. I said: "This doesn't fit with what you've told me about these being covered. The minister says they are covered." It turns out that there are over 200 types of orthotic braces produced, and only four types are funded under Pharmacare: short-leg braces, long-leg braces, spinal body jackets and something called the Milwaukee — I have no idea what that is. Four types are covered out of a total of 200.

[ Page 11466 ]

I said: "What is the average cost for one of these? Could you tell me the cost of a long-leg brace?" The person at the Arbutus Society who is responsible for this program said: "They could cost anywhere from $1,000 to $1,300." We all know that Pharmacare, if it applies, has a deductible of $325, and then of the remainder of that 20 percent must be paid for by the patient. For many families who are not covered by Pharmacare, that $325 deductible and the remaining 20 percent can be prohibitive. It can be very difficult for them. The only situations outside of these particular braces which are covered by Pharmacare are if you're on Social Services and Housing assistance or if you're in the at-home program.

I talked to the Arbutus Society, and I thought, well, maybe most people fall into these categories; maybe most of the requirements for braces fall under the four that are funded under the program; maybe most people are on social assistance who need them; maybe most people have some kind of assistance. I said: "What is the situation as you know it at the Arbutus Society?" Remember that we're talking here about one of the organizations in this province that probably provides the majority of these devices. Their budget last year for orthotic devices was $325,000. Fifteen percent of that came from Pharmacare or Social Services and Housing; the remaining 85 percent was paid for by parents, by the patients or by their families. In many cases it's a very difficult payment to make.

People who have handicapped children already have enough pressure on them in dealing with all of the effects and complications their child’s handicap brings to their lives. They don't need the additional stress of trying to figure out if they can come up with the money to fund that next brace when that child grows a bit bigger, when that child is a little larger and no longer fits into the device he has.

The concern is that the Minister of Health either wasn't fully aware of the facts when he answered the question in question period — because I certainly don't believe that the Arbutus Society has been misleading me  — or he wanted to gloss over what is covered under Pharmacare. I find that quite distressing.

Another situation that was brought to my attention is that often a specialist in orthotics is called in during surgery when a child requires a spinal fusion, because it will be determined by the surgeon at that time if a body cast is required to keep the spine in alignment. One of the problems the Arbutus Society faces when they are called in is that if the patient is covered by Social Services and Housing, they are not covered by that ministry if they haven't obtained permission in advance to acquire the device. You can't tell in advance whether the patient is going to need the device. So the family and the medical practitioners are left with the decision as to whether to provide that and worry later about how the cost would be absorbed — and the Arbutus Society for Children absorbs a lot of this cost through their own fund-raising efforts on behalf of families who can't do it — or take the risk that the child will not have the device he or she needs, in hopes that the child will not be coming back into surgery prematurely because of the lack of a device to keep things under control.

The Orthotics Association has been making representations to you and your predecessor since 1985 on this issue. They have been asking for full coverage of these devices since 1985, and they have yet to receive an answer or any commitment that these devices will be funded by the ministry.

If you lose your arm or your leg and you are fitted with a prosthesis, it's covered. Why isn't a brace for a child who has hip dysplasia covered? It just doesn't make sense to me. It's not even a matter of looking only at the bottom line and trying to trim costs. It seems quite clear from the presentations made by the Orthotics Association that medical costs overall would be reduced, particularly surgery costs and hospital costs if we had these devices in place when they were needed by the patient. We would get children and adults out of hospital sooner, and we would probably keep them out of hospital longer.

I would like to ask the minister whether he has considered the representations made by the Orthotics Association, whether he has considered the presentations which I'm sure were made to him when he visited the Arbutus Society earlier this year, as I did, and whether he is now ready to consider fully funding these devices.

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, I appreciate that the member has read my comments in my opening statement last night in terms of my budget, and my regret is that she has taken a negative and disbelieving view rather than positively looking at some of the programs.

Let me also say that our Pharmacare program in British Columbia is the best in the land, bar none. It is the best in the land in terms of coverage, and while we talk now about some of the questions she raised in terms of coverage.... I gather her comment resulted from a Vancouver Sun article some time ago titled "Miserly Policy on Hip Braces Costs MSP Money." It came up in the House, and I guess subsequently she took a greater interest in these things, as that side seems to do.

[5:45]

As the member indicated, we do provide reimbursement for permanent leg and body braces for children under the age of 19. Eligible body braces are limited to those required for correcting spina bifida or scoliosis and similar medical conditions. Leg braces are intended to assist with mobility.

As the member indicated, the minister of the day in 1989 did meet with Mr. Gans of the Canadian Board for Certification of Prosthetists and Orthotists, and I guess we did talk at that meeting about expanding the coverage. I will hopefully have a meeting soon with Mr. Gans and talk about the program. We are reviewing our coverage of this program.

I'm not sure if the member is aware of our at-home program, which does assist children that are

[ Page 11467 ]

requiring assistance in this regard. But I certainly understand some of the concerns raised.

As the member also indicated, I had an opportunity to visit the Arbutus centre. As a result of that, I asked staff for further information. I'd like to thank her for bringing that item forward and assure her that we will be meeting and reviewing some of these matters in more detail later on in the year.

MS. CULL: The minister says that I've taken a negative approach on this. What I have done is look at the statement the minister made yesterday evening, which if read just on face value would make anyone who had any concerns about health care wonder what concerns British Columbia could possibly have. But in the seven months I have been an MLA, in the correspondence I have received — and I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents — the number one issue has been health care. It is the number one issue my constituents have raised with me through telephone calls and correspondence.

So I see a real discrepancy between the bright picture the minister would like to paint and the facts my constituents are telling me about. I see a real discrepancy between the bright picture he paints and what I see when I go around the community and meet with these organizations that are struggling to provide community health services, particularly services to children.

I'm glad to hear the minister is going to continue to look into this, but I want to say again that it has been ongoing as an issue since 1985. The brief was made by the Orthotics Association in 1985. That's five years ago. I don't know how much longer you have to study an issue like that. It seems to me that the Arbutus Society for Children is definitely there and willing to assist in whatever ways they can to work with the government to provide these devices for children. They certainly have been doing more than their fair share by picking up the costs for families when they are not funded through Pharmacare or the at-home program.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: How much money do you want?

MS. CULL: It's time now that the minister does more than just look at it a bit longer and gets out there to meet with those people and make a commitment to funding it. The Minister of Education asks how much money we want. The point made over and over again by the specialists in this field is that government could save health care dollars by providing these devices to children when they're needed. If you do not put a brace on a child when they need that device, and you allow the handicap to continue, you wait until the child is old enough to have surgery to correct it.

That's certainly one way you could go about it. We could say: "We can't afford to provide braces for children. They grow too fast; they need too many. Why don't we wait until they're 3, 4 or 5 years old; then we'll operate on them." I think that's a lot more expensive and it's absolutely insane, because the stress that you put that child and family through is needless when there are non-surgical methods that could be used.

Mr. Minister, I hope that you're going to address this issue sooner than another five years. It has been too long.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I should have mentioned to the member that in fact I have acted on this problem. We have just recently established a committee of expert medical practitioners in the field of orthotics and prosthetics to act as advisers to us in this area. We anticipate that the first meeting will be held in September. They will be reviewing guidelines with respect to the provision of orthotics and prosthetics and suggesting changes to the program that will enable us to address some of these issues in a proper way.

MS. CULL: Could the minister tell me whether someone from the Arbutus Society is on this committee?

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't know that, but obviously physicians who work at the Arbutus Society are experts in this area, and I would suspect that their input would be very much valued. I will certainly take that under advisement.

MRS. BOONE: I'd like to talk to the minister and get a little bit more information on the recent decisions on the cancer clinic. The decision that came out initially was that the clinic go into Kelowna. I was at a meeting when the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) indicated he had seen the information and data that supported that, and he couldn't argue with it because of the population, the catchment and the number of patients that were there. It appeared that the decision was based on some logic and some facts.

The lobbying that took place by Kamloops and then the minister's decision not just to move the clinic to Kamloops but to build two clinics has changed the situation, as far as I'm concerned. Quite frankly, when it was either Kamloops or Kelowna, it really didn't make much difference to me. I didn't really care where it went down there — whether it was Kamloops or Kelowna. It makes no difference as far as my people are concerned. Once Prince George was out of the running, which we obviously were, it was a concern. But I do have some concerns now, because I've seen some information that comes from the Cancer Control Agency that indicates that if there are two clinics going in — one in Kamloops and one in Kelowna — it virtually eliminates any opportunity in the future for a clinic to go into the north. To me, that is not acceptable.

Although I was reconciled to the fact that we would not be getting the cancer clinic this time around, it was generally thought by most of the medical profession and the people in the community that at some point down the road we would eventually

[ Page 11468 ]

have our own cancer clinic. That was something we were looking forward to and could aim towards. If in fact by putting two clinics in the southern half of the province you are totally eliminating our opportunity to have a clinic, I don't think that's acceptable; it's certainly not acceptable to our people.

I'd like to know how that decision was made, and I'd like to know what rationale the minister had for putting in two clinics in the southern half of the province. If it is the case that there will never be a cancer clinic in the northern half of the province with two going into the southern half of the province.... Are the two clinics going to be full clinics or partial clinics? There's been some suggestion that you’re just going to split it in two and each of them will get substandard ones. Or are you going to have two full-size clinics in the southern half of this province? Can the minister respond to those things, please?

HON. J. JANSEN: The question is somewhat puzzling; I'm not sure whether she's against extending services to the interior or whether she's against Kamloops getting services, or whether she's more concerned that if one community gets something, her community will never get anything.

It is a deep concern of mine that services, that are now called tertiary care services, be made available to those outside the lower mainland. There's no question in my mind that cancer has a devastating impact on families, and, as you know, the treatment for it often results in significant illness, so significant support is needed from the family to deal with this very serious illness.

I have received the report from the Cancer Control Agency that indicated we needed 13 additional radiotherapy units in the province by the year 2000. I put to them the objective of reaching out beyond Vancouver in providing that service. As a result we indicated that we would like to see a core service area of Kamloops-Kelowna. That is now being examined in terms of how to put that into place. It is a good service for the entire interior.

A question was asked about the development of services in Prince George. That, over time, will happen as well. I cannot guarantee where the next radiotherapy unit will be or how technology will be developed, but I can tell you this: we are committed to bringing health services to the people where they live, rather than asking the people to come to where the health services are. We want to reach out.

Everywhere I go, that's the first question: why don't we have the same health care as people in downtown Vancouver? This is a commitment of the government to move in that direction and to deal with the issues of health care for the north.

[6:00]

MRS. BOONE: I thought I made it quite clear to the minister. I am not opposed to Kamloops getting a clinic. I'm not opposed to Kelowna getting a clinic But I am opposed to two centres going into the southern half of the province if it means that the people in the northern half of the province will be denied any access to those services.

You talk about access to service. That's what we've been talking about, and that is what we are talking about every year. Every year I have stood up in this Legislature and made pleas for a cancer clinic. You don't have to talk to me about people who have to travel down south.

A concern our people have here is that there is an expectation that Prince George patients will have to be referred to Kamloops. When the catchment area information came out, in order to make the figures high enough to justify putting a second clinic down there, you took into consideration the Prince George region and even the Peace-Liard region as the catchment area for the Kamloops region. I can tell you that it is pretty foolish to think that people from Prince George are going to be referred there. It is more difficult for us to get to Kamloops by plane — if you were driving, it might be a slightly shorter course — than to get to Vancouver, because you have to make a second plane change. If you are talking about people coming from the Peace and the Liard down to Kamloops, that is even more foolish, because those people generally transfer across to Edmonton and don't even come south.

What I am concerned about is that this decision was a political decision. As I said, when the initial decision came down.... We can reconcile; we can accept something when it's based on facts, and the facts were there. The numbers of patients were there to say that we wouldn't get it at this point in time. But when another decision is made and the facts don't justify that decision and the facts in fact make it so that we will not be able to get a cancer clinic.... I am sure the minister can acknowledge that that is not going to happen. If you are that keen on giving services, then why not make it three? Why not just say: "If you've got two down there, we'll make a third one right now; we'll put services out into the north right now"?

The services must be there. If you're not looking at that sort of thing, I think we have a right to know if our service is going to be jeopardized, if it means that we will never have a service there or if it means that our patients will have to be referred down to Kamloops, which is what some people are saying is going to happen. We have to understand that, and we have to know about those things, because that's affecting the future of the northern half of the province.

If you're not doing that sort of thing, then are you looking at providing some kind of assistance for travel for people who have to travel down to the lower mainland? The southern half of this province is now going to be serviced quite well, and the northern half will still be facing outrageous transportation costs and outrageous human costs as well, with families being forced to live apart for a long time.

I've had personal experience with our closest friend, who had a child, and the mother had to leave a young baby at home and come down to be with her middle child, who was having cancer treatments down here. That family was torn apart. They were

[ Page 11469 ]

bankrupted by the costs incurred by the family having to be away.

If you're not looking at giving us a treatment centre up there, then will you be looking at providing some kind of assistance for families in the northern half of the provinces, who are still facing the abhorrent costs of travel?

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an indication of our commitment to move what are now called tertiary care services to the rest of the province.

The member asked why we don't split it into three. Well, unfortunately two is the minimum number in terms of a viable radiotherapy clinic such as Victoria now has. We'll be working with the community of Prince George.

We're aware of the concerns, and we're aware that it imposes a burden — particularly in a disease like cancer — which is very onerous on the family. I hope that over time we can see further expansion of that service. It is difficult to move away from the downtown Vancouver mentality that often exists in terms of our caregivers and in terms of our planners and those who think there has to be a critical mass in order for something to work. I know her concerns, and I'm pleased that she voiced them. We'll work together with the community in terms of seeing further services being expanded.

Mr. Chairman, given the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the minister may wish to include in his motion the resolution to vote 4.

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm sorry. We had a resolution. I rise and report resolution on vote 4 and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

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

Introduction of Bills

WASTE MANAGEMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

On behalf of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds), Hon. Mr. Strachan presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In speaking to first reading, I'd like to say that Bill 68, Waste Management Amendment Act, 1990, is intended not only to tighten up existing provisions of the Waste Management Act through the introduction of several miscellaneous amendments, but also to take the first step toward new, comprehensive contaminated-site legislation.

Key among the many proposed amendments are: increasing the maximum penalty for violation of certain regulations from $200,000 to $1 million; providing for more complete control of hazardous waste, with emphasis on treatment and recycling and providing measures to ensure the reduction of toxic compounds entering municipal sewage collection systems; providing for the remediation of contaminated sites; and providing for more effective control of underground storage tanks, and preventing the creation of new contaminated sites arising from the leaking of such tanks.

Bill 68 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. STRACHAN: Committee on Bill 50, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 50; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: I wonder if the minister can clarify something in this section. First, maybe he can explain the background to this section. I'm particularly interested in the expenses — I presume this relates to expenses of electoral area directors at conventions other than the UBCM. The reason I ask is that there has been some concern not only at the regional level but at the municipal level that elected officials travelling and having their costs paid for by the municipality could be challenged by citizens. I must admit I can't remember... There were some occurrences and some concerns about that. Is this section trying to relieve that concern for electoral area directors? Is it because they might get themselves in trouble by having their expenses covered?

HON. L. HANSON: In conferring with some of my staff, I'm not sure I heard the total question. In any case, the amendment is there to clarify that when the expenses of an electoral area director are paid for by the regional district, the costs will be apportioned to the electoral area as opposed to being absorbed by everyone.

Sections 7 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment tabled with the Chair be now endorsed. By the way, I've given the member opposite a copy of the amendment.

The amendment's purpose is to ensure that in the case of an area-wide service, the regional boards have the option of asking for an area-wide referendum. The way section 11 was originally worded, the last

[ Page 11470 ]

sentence said: "...in which case the bylaw is defeated." That would appear to preclude the ability of the regional district to ask for an overall referendum on an area issue if a municipality had refused to take part in it.

The process, of course, would be that if the regional district was looking for an area-wide service, it would ask the electoral area directors and the municipalities; and if it had unanimous consent, it could go ahead. The way this was written, if one of the municipalities refused, it could be interpreted to say that it was defeated. This will allow the regional district, by a two-thirds vote, to require a referendum of the whole service area to be held to see if, by a majority, they want the service that's in place.

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: First, I thank the minister for the courtesy of sending me a copy of the amendment and also for the courtesy of drawing to my attention last night that he would be bringing forward an amendment. I have to admit that in my perusal of the bill and in our discussions I hadn't quite seen the interpretation and concern that he raised, but when I went back to take a look at the bill I indeed saw that his concern was quite valid. What we could have had is a sort of Meech situation, where if you didn't get unanimous consent we could have had all sorts of problems in a regional district.

Just a question. It's not a cheeky question or one to embarrass the minister. I conclude that section 11, as it was written before the amendment, was a slip or just an oversight. There wasn't any intention, I hope, that a municipal council would have the right to refuse to conduct a vote on establishing a bylaw for a service. I would be very surprised if that was seriously considered, and if it was, I'm pleased the minister has caught it. Was that the original intention?

[6:15]

HON. L. HANSON: The original was not interpreted by the people who were doing the drafting as meaning that, when the issue was raised for consideration. There still is, I guess, an argument whether that is exactly what the result would be. But to be amply careful and absolutely certain, we've brought the amendment in to clarify it. So the intent is as the amendment. The interpretation that was given to the original is still an interpretation...that various people have different opinions as to whether it should be. But in that case, if there's any confusion it makes sense to amend it and make it perfectly clear.

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 27 refers to the Islands Trust Act. I wonder if the minister could provide me with the background and rationale for this section.

HON. L. HANSON: Again, this corrects an oversight in an earlier edition. It's also a question of ensuring that the intent is very clear. It clarifies that a regional district director from an electoral area in the Islands Trust cannot vote on land use issues for other electoral areas. It treats the directors as if they represent a municipality that has opted out of the planning service. Their area does not pay for electoral area planning, and therefore the director does not get to vote on planning matters. It is the situation now within municipalities that a municipal director sitting on a regional board as a representative of a municipal council that does not take part in the planning costs of the regional district is not entitled to vote on planning issues. This treats the electoral area director of the Islands Trust in the same manner.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the rest of this bill can go through, but I just want to make a bit of an editorial comment. I don't want to do it in too critical a way, but I do have to say that in the last year or so we've had a number of pieces of major legislation put before this House re regional districts and municipal government for which we've subsequently had to come back with some major amendments — changes, oversights. I know that this is technical and difficult stuff and that sometimes we learn from experience when we put a bill into effect. I'm concerned that we seem to have established a little bit of a trend that we're having to come back to rectify legislation perhaps more than normal, particularly in the regional district area. This is just an editorial comment. I realize this stuff is difficult and technical. When you're dealing with municipal government and regional legislation, there are all sorts of variations and permutations, and variations in perceptions. But it has happened more than once in the last year or so.

Sections 27 to 29 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 50, Municipal Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. L. HANSON: With leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 11471 ]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I would make the very logical and sensible suggestion that instead of having the Sergeant-at-Arms running back and forth, up and down, and in and out of the chair like a jackrabbit for the Speaker, we take the first four, which we know are going to go through very quickly. Give us the committee on them, and we'll give you the committee on them; we'll give you third reading on them, as well, in one fell swoop.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, that's an excellent suggestion. However, we don't have four in committee; we only have three, and now we have two. So I will agree that we will do Bill 55 and then, if it's agreeable to our standing orders, Bill 65.

MR. ROSE: Do it anyway you like.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know; all in committee. Then we will report both of them. I have 55 and 65 on my list, and then we're into second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. The question is third reading of Bill 50.

Bill 50, Municipal Amendment Act, 1990, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 55, the Referendum Act.

REFERENDUM ACT

The House in committee on Bill 55; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 1 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 1,

(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (2)(d) and

(e) and by adding "and" at the end of subsection

(2) (b)., and

(b) by adding the following subsection:

(3) Persons who are electors, as defined by the

Election Act, at the time of a referendum, are entitled to vote at the referendum.]

On the amendment.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chair, I wonder if the minister would simply and quickly explain the intent of the amendment. How does the minister conceive that this section as amended will deal with the kind of objections I mentioned last night?

I'll mention just one other example, which I noticed after I sat down last night, from the book White Man's Province: British Columbia Politicians and Chinese and Japanese Immigrants, 1858 to 1914, by Patricia E. Roy. It's a quotation from former Premier Robson, who said that the Chinese were "a most undesirable class and not wanted in this country at all." What concerns me is the questions the government envisages asking and how we can be sure that we will not see questions concerning ethnic or racial issues. I think it's important that this be answered so that any concerns of the multicultural communities in this province can be allayed.

HON. MR. DIRKS: I really don't see the relevance of that to the referendum itself. I certainly believe that any government which would propose a referendum based on racism or something of that nature would certainly suffer the consequence by the electorate.

MR. ROSE: I'd just like to say that with the amendments that have been proposed, at the suggestion of and in consultation with the opposition, we're quite happy with the amended version of the bill. It's perhaps not as perfect as we would envision it. My chief objection to it, if there is an objection — I intend to vote for it — is the fact that it's redundant. We've had a whole history of referenda in this province: 1873, 1909, 1916, 1916, 1920, 1924, 1937, 1952, 1952 and 1972. This is a long and maybe honourable tradition — or dishonourable, depending upon whether you like voting in referenda on liquor matters. This is probably not necessary. I understand why the government's doing it: it's a very popular thing with the Reform Party. But as far as I'm concerned, let's pass it right now and move on to something else.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 3 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 3, by deleting the proposed section 3 and substituting the following: Referendums are binding on the government

3. If more than 50% of the validly cast ballots vote the same way on a question stated, that result is binding on the government that initiated the referendum.]

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 11472 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 55, Referendum Act, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 55, Referendum Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With respect to the process of the House, I'll refer the House to the discussion of the two coffee beans who said they could be made in an instant but maybe the regular grind is best.

Committee on Bill 65, Mr. Speaker.

SENATORIAL SELECTION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 65; Mr. De Jong in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. ROSE: I didn't hear the House Leader move this bill into committee, but that doesn't matter to me.

I would just like to say that maybe he was about to leap to his feet like a gazelle. What I was trying to do was avoid these legislative aerobics that we're putting the Sergeant-at-Arms through. But if you want to go back to the old grind — and an old grinder like you would know — there are only two people in this House entitled to talk on a Senate bill anyway — the hon. Deputy Speaker and yours truly.

I'd like to clarify that this bill in no way changes our opinion about the Senate and our support for it. As far as I'm concerned, a bicameral system in this country is redundant, and I've expressed myself on many occasions on that subject.

If we're going to have a Senate, I feel it should be an elected one. I think it should be an equal one, too, but I think you've got no chance of that at all. I don't think Quebec is ever going to give up 24 seats to make ten for each province. Nor, for that matter, would people stand for Prince Edward Island, with 120,000 people, having ten, B.C. having ten and Quebec having ten. That's hopeless. Senate reform died with Meech Lake.

If we have to have a Senate, then we think, as a party, that we should be participating in that race, and we will. So it’s on that basis, not the fact that we think we should perpetuate that antiquarian institution I've described rather unflatteringly in the past. Having said that, my concerns are with sections 3, 6 and 9. I'd like an opportunity to make a few brief remarks on those.

[6:30]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. ROSE: This bill, as you know, calls for the election date to be the date of the next provincial election. Judging from the polls, that could be a long way off. Therefore, if it is important to have a Senator — I doubt that, but if it is important — then it should occur in concert with the municipal elections, which are held in every municipality every November. We would prefer to have it earlier. We're not going to go the mat, we're not offering amendments to this, we're not going to vote against it because of this, but we'd like to express that.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 6, the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sorry, the House Leader of the opposition.

MR. ROSE: I thank you for the promotion. I appreciate that. I wish I had the same salary.

What I neglected to say.... We said at the end of November when the municipal elections are. This year, my colleague says, it's November 23.

MR. BLENCOE: Third Saturday, whenever that is.

MR. ROSE: I don't know; it doesn't matter.

This is a particularly onerous section having to do with the need for the nomination of 25 people in every riding of the province. I understand that it's a Senator-at-large, rather than one representing particular districts. But can you imagine anyone who would like to run for this who wasn't backed by a major political party? It's a very tough provision. It would mean going into every constituency — next time, 75 constituencies in this province — and signing up 25 people. You might say that's not so tough. You could stand in front of the liquor store and get 25 signatures in no time; maybe you could, but I haven't tried it. I'm usually too busy giving out election pamphlets there. But we had a suggestion of maybe 25 electoral districts, rather than 75, for a total of 625 names. I think that would be a broad enough base.

This limits the candidacy to those people who represent a well-funded political party or at least are independently wealthy themselves. Over the years what we've tried to do in this democracy — in Canadian democracy or provincial democracy — is to have a situation where a person can run and represent his constituency without being independently wealthy. That's why we've tried to raise salaries, benefits and that sort of thing: so people can do that without making this place a rich man's club.

For similar reasons, we think this is far too stringent and extremely limiting, and we wish you hadn’t done it. Again, we're not offering an amendment, but I'd like to express that anyway.

[ Page 11473 ]

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. ROSE: Section 9 gives the cabinet wide powers of regulation. The draft that we had prepared for our bill placed the responsibility for creating the necessary rules of the game on a select standing committee. Lots of jurisdictions have standing committees of their House. If it's not a standing committee, it could be a special committee designed to do this.

It would be nice if it were a situation paralleling the new redistribution bill, where we had a select standing committee deal with the matter of the redistribution of electoral seats in the province. They did an excellent job. They had an unanimity rule there, so that we could be sure that the rules of the game and how this whole thing is to be played were given to the Legislature rather than resting alone with members of cabinet, who may have their own particular axes to grind — your cabinet or any cabinet. We think that's a better process.

Section 9 approved on division.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DIRKS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 65, Senatorial Selection Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave for an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today are two good friends who have been watching the proceedings for some time now on our second-to-last evening in the Legislature before we wrap up — or hopefully our second-to-last.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe not our second-to-last; I'm told it might not be. In any event, I'm sure that if it's not the second-to-last, they'll come back again, because I'm sure they've been moved by the debate that's gone on so far. Would all members of the House please join me in giving a warm welcome to two people who are good friends and active individuals in my local riding association, Bob and Sharon Caird.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 73.

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. JACOBSEN: The Adoption Amendment Act provides a new approach and legislative framework for the regulation of private infant adoptions. Currently, anyone can arrange a private adoption in British Columbia. These amendments will provide greater safeguards for infants and for adopting and relinquishing parents. They will ensure that qualified individuals are provided with these services, for greater regulatory protection for all parties.

This act recognizes that children can be placed for adoption by birth parents, adoption agencies or the superintendent. It also recognizes that every child placed for adoption is entitled to a family that is able to meet the child's needs.

The legislation allows the licensing of non-profit agencies to provide full adoption services for British Columbia residents. These will include approving homes, prenatal and post-placement counselling and support for relinquishing parents, placement of infants and recommending adoption completion to the court. The superintendent of family and child service will be responsible for licensing procedures, setting standards and monitoring the performance of these agencies.

These amendments recognize the right of birth parents to have a choice in how they plan for their children, and provide instructions on revoking their consent if a placement does not occur.

Birth parents under the age of 19 will be offered ministry service for counselling, consent-taking and placement of their children. The ministry will provide adoption services to applicants and relinquishing parents as well as maintain a registry of approved homes. When direct placement occurs, consent will be taken by my ministry. Requests for temporary placement of children will be handled by my ministry. The act will also streamline step-parent adoptions, ensure the involvement of the superintendent in inquiries to adopt, introduce a residency requirement and remove the terminology "as if born" to reflect current practices.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time.

MS. CULL: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. We'll be supporting this bill, but I want to state for the record that we don't believe that private adoption agencies are the way to go. But we note that the bill at least improves upon the current situation by regulating them. So inasmuch as it is making a poor situation better, I guess that's an improvement. Again though, for the record, we do not support the private adoption agency approach.

Bill 73, Adoption 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.

[ Page 11474 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY ACT

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words in moving second reading. Bill 36 provides leadership in this province In the promotion of the efficient use of energy both in the home and in industry. Increased energy efficiency is the cleanest, safest and least expensive source of new energy for the province.

Regulations under the new act will set minimum energy efficiency standards for new household appliances, electric motors and lighting equipment. Regulated appliances must be labelled to show consumers that they meet minimum energy standards. By requiring new household appliances and other energy using equipment to meet these standards, this act will lower energy costs in the sense that the consumer will use less energy, therefore have less expense month by month after buying the new equipment. It will prevent the dumping of inefficient, old-style equipment into British Columbia from other jurisdictions — notably the United States — where a federal law already requires that new household equipment and industrial equipment meet these kinds of standards. It will allow our industry to be more competitive in world markets, lessen the impact of energy production on the environment and, very important in terms of economy, postpone the development of costly new power and gas sources because of the savings involved.

I just want to hit a few highlights summarily. The kind of equipment which will be regulated under this act in terms of "white ware" includes refrigerators, water heaters, gas furnaces, electric clothes dryers, clothes washers, electric ranges, dishwashers and heat pumps. Added in 1991 will be electric motors, lighting equipment and oil furnaces. These standards are in place already throughout the United States and, beginning in 1988, in Ontario.

The estimated saving in expenses by the year 2000 in this province is of the order of $100 million a year. Talking about household appliances, the new appliances may cost anywhere from $10 to $50 more, but this money is recovered through smaller power and gas bills in most instances in the order of a year or, at most, two to three years. So overall, there's a financial saving to the end user.

The initial testing at the manufacturing level will be done by the Canadian Standards Association. That testing will be funded now by Ontario and British Columbia, and the maximum penalty for an offence under the act is $2,000 and 6 months' imprisonment.

[6:45]

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I add my voice to the minister's in welcoming this legislation as a step in the right direction in our conservation activity in British Columbia.

I'm pleased to hear that it includes furnaces. I believe the minister said oil and gas furnaces, but I didn't hear him say wood stoves — yet. I don't know whether they’re included or not. It could depend on what happens when the regulations are put out.

I'm also pleased to hear him talk about the fact that this legislation should prevent the dumping of substandard equipment onto users in British Columbia. I particularly note the stories of industrial motors being used in pulp mills, for example, which I hear the Japanese have unloaded, if you like. We certainly don't need that kind of thing; we need to have it stopped. We need to be using motors and appliances of the highest standards.

I would also like to urge the minister to make this only a first step and to move on to such things as getting better building standards for houses, commercial buildings and so on in this province. It is one of the major ways we can achieve conservation. It is being found to be the major saver of electrical energy in the northwestern United States.

The meat of this bill, of course, will be in the regulations. I hope the minister will see that adopting the Ontario example for the legislation itself does not mean accepting the Ontario model for getting the regulations in. It took more than a year and a half to get regulations into their legislation. I hope the minister is looking forward to the introduction very soon of regulations which will make this legislation useful to us.

MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. DAVIS: The regulations can be extended to wood stoves. It isn't planned to include them initially.

Whereas the regulations follow Ontario's in terms of phraseology and items, ours will be both more extensive than Ontario's and brought in rapidly. I hope that by October they'll be published and the act fully in effect. Through legislation at the provincial level, we'll be supporting the PowerSmart program of B.C. Hydro, a similar one with West Kootenay Power and Light and a gas program administered by B.C. Gas.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 36, Energy Efficiency Act, 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. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 64.

INDIAN SELF GOVERNMENT ENABLING ACT

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I'm pleased to present Bill 64 for second reading debate. This legislation recognizes that the federal government, through recent amendments to the Indian Act, has provided to the Indian community the right to tax non-Indian

[ Page 11475 ]

lessees of certain Indian lands. Provincial and local governments also tax non-Indian interests on reserve lands. Because there is no provincial legislation, situations have arisen where a dual concurrent taxation condition could exist. This new Indian Self Government Enabling Act accommodates the fact of Indian authority to tax. At the same time, it takes into account provincial and municipal interests.

We have endeavoured to achieve reconciliation of the different taxation jurisdictions by establishing three models from which Indian bands can choose, depending on local circumstances. They are concurrent taxation, independent taxation, or concurrent or independent taxation by an Indian district. Under concurrent taxation, the bands and the province both tax, with the province's tax share being reduced. Independent taxation allows bands to tax on their own and to contract for local services, such as water and sewers. Indian districts can adopt either concurrent or independent taxation methods. In addition, they will be eligible for further municipal benefits in keeping with their legislated status.

This legislation enables native people in British Columbia to have greater responsibility for the management of their own communities.

MR. GUNO: I have a few comments on second reading of this bill. My colleague the regular critic on native affairs is unavoidably away today, so I'm charged to make these comments.

The minister referred to recent amendments. In fact it was in 1988 when these amendments were made, so it has been a while coming. I think the test is to see just how far this government intends to move in terms of providing the bands the right to independent taxation powers.

One comment I'd like to make is that the title, Indian Self Government Enabling Act, is rather a grand title to describe really what are some limited taxing powers. But it is being sought by certain bands that are now in a position to tax.

The question I have with regard to this bill is whether or not it is the intention of this government to withdraw from taxing a property when a taxation law has been duly passed by a band. There are several bands now, or at least a couple, who are in that exact position. In other words, is it the principle of this act to finally recognize band powers to levy taxes?

I think the other concern is the contract for services. Just how consistent is that going to be through the province? Is that going to be a kind of hodgepodge of different agreements, or is the government going to ensure some kind of consistency?

The problem with the last initiative on the part of this government was that the 1989 tax was criticized by many Indian leaders because it stopped short of forcing municipalities to bargain with bands on taxation issues — things like contracts for provision of water, sewage, services, schools, etc. It only enabled them to negotiate, but didn't require the municipalities to act. Are there powers within this enabling act to provide that kind of requirement on the part of municipalities to enter into serious and real negotiations?

Some of the comments I have canvassed today from various Indian leaders — and I didn't have that much time to do so — have pointed out that while it's welcome and while we certainly will support it, it's going to require immense cooperation between the federal, provincial and various band governments that are now in a position to enter into these kinds of taxation efforts.

So I think there may be some questions from my colleague at committee stage. But those are all the things I have to say on this matter.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Just in closing, first of all, as I indicated during first reading, there was considerable consultation on this bill with the Indian community and particularly with Chief Manny Jules, who was involved with constructing the legislation. Chief Jules spearheaded the federal bill on behalf of Indian people in British Columbia.

The legislation provides bands the authority.... First of all, at the heart of the legislation is the idea that taxation should go with and apply to the services that taxes are levied for. So if a band is providing services, either directly or by contract, they should then be in a position to levy taxation for those services.

Interjection.

HON. MR, WEISGERBER: Yes.

But more specifically to your question, bands can decide whether they want to tax only for certain services or contract for those services and leave other services to be provided by the province or the municipality. Or the band can decide that it's going to collect all taxes and either provide or contract for the services. Certainly there is a real opportunity for the band to move in, occupy the taxation field and then sit down and start negotiating from that position with the municipality or whoever is currently supplying the services.

I understand and accept the criticism that was levelled at the previous legislation. This is a sincere attempt to address that, and I think it has been well canvassed in the Indian community. I'll certainly welcome the opportunity to go into that in more detail in committee.

I move second reading of Bill 64, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 64, Indian Self Government Enabling Act, 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. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 54.

[ Page 11476 ]

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1990

HON. MR. FRASER: The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1990, contains amendments to nine statutes for which the Ministry of Attorney-General is responsible.

This bill contains several amendments to enhance access to the courts and to improve the administration of justice. An amendment to the Jury Act will provide that people with visual and hearing impairments have the right to serve as jurors. This amendment will remove the current discrimination and will allow the courts to assist a potential juror who cannot see or hear. This amendment will not of course affect the right of litigants to challenge the suitability of individual jurors in specific instances.

The Family Relations Act is amended so that the penalty of $5,000 for failing to disclose the required financial information on family proceedings is retained in the act, while the substantive provisions for obtaining financial information, including information about corporate ownership, will be provided for in the Supreme Court rules and the Provincial Court rules. This amendment and accompanying rules of court will allow for a more accurate basis for determining maintenance obligations of spouses on the breakdown of the marriage.

The other amendments in this bill are mainly of a housekeeping nature and are designed to improve the effectiveness of the statutes that are being amended.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recommend this bill to the House. I move second reading.

MR. SIHOTA: Let me say that we've got about four bills in a row coming up that are general statute amendment acts, and all of them deal with miscellaneous matters. As I understand the rules of this House, there are no principles in the bills. I don't intend to speak on any of them. I see staff is here from the Attorney-General's ministry. I know that we have the unique situation here of having an Attorney-General who is not a lawyer. I'm waiting for the government to make him a QC so that he can say he's a lawyer.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Exactly — that's how Duff Pattullo got around it. He didn't have an Attorney-General, so he put his QC.... I know that the engineer opposite, who is the Attorney-General, doesn't know these little loopholes. I'll tell him to go and see the Premier right away, and he'll allow him to become a QC so that he can speak with the authority of a lawyer. As he knows, under the Barristers and Solicitors Act, only a lawyer can give advice. Right now I don't know whether you can give legal advice. That's got nothing to do with anything except for me to tell the current Attorney-General that I will be making no comments with respect to the upcoming bills, because they don't deal with any matters of principle.

Staff can go. We'll deal with them at committee stage in terms of some of the technical matters that arise.

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

HON. MR. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[7:00]

Motion approved.

Bill 54, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 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. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 76.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1990, contains amendments to eight statutes for which the Ministry of Attorney-General is responsible.

An amendment to the Commercial Arbitration Act will clarify an arbitrator's authority to award costs for actual reasonable legal fees, disbursements, arbitrators' fees, expert witness fees and expenses of the arbitration hearing. This is an interesting amendment. It will preserve a desirable feature of arbitration: namely, the ability of a party to recover its actual costs. The amendment will help to ensure that the Commercial Arbitration Act remains an attractive option for business people.

An important amendment of the Court of Appeal Act enhances access to justice by providing that the Court of Appeal may, for the first time, hold sittings outside Victoria and Vancouver. This will be a considerable benefit to litigants throughout the province, there's no question about that.

The Land Title Act is amended to allow a land title office to serve more than one land title district. This will open the way for the reform of the land title system, which will see the eventual unification of land title databases throughout the province.

An amendment to the Law and Equity Act will enact the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of B.C. and the Uniform Law Conference of Canada to revise the current rules respecting the designation of beneficiaries under the various forms of retirement plans, such as registered retirement savings plans. The amendment will help prevent the inadvertent revocation of the designation of beneficiaries by subsequent wills or other testamentary instruments and will help to speed the distribution of benefits to beneficiaries of such plans.

An amendment to the Offence Act will ensure that the penalties therein comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by removing the possibility of

[ Page 11477 ]

imprisonment with respect to absolute liability offences.

The Provincial Court Act is amended to implement recommendations from the 1980 report of the Justice Reform Committee to improve access to justice in family proceedings for people who live far away from places served by the Supreme Court of British Columbia. To accomplish this, some provincial court registries will be designated as registries of the Supreme Court for the purpose of allowing proceedings under the Family Relations Act and the Divorce Act of Canada. In addition, judges of the Provincial Court will have jurisdiction to hear and decide interlocutory applications in Supreme Court proceedings under the Family Relations Act or the Divorce Act of Canada. Such decisions will be able to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Another important amendment, designed to enhance the access to justice by lay litigants, is the amendment to the Small Claims Act, raising the monetary jurisdiction of the Provincial Court under that act from $5,000 to $10,000. This amendment will achieve the balance required to help keep the small claims court useful to lay litigants by ensuring that the amount of claims that may be heard is at a reasonable level, while at the same time preserving the small-claims court as a forum for lay litigants who need not be represented by a lawyer.

I'm pleased to recommend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In view of what the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew said a moment ago, I would advise the House that pursuant to standing order 42, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 76, Attorney General Statues Amendment Act (No. 2), 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. STRACHAN: I call a very brief second reading of Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. FRASER: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 46, Miscellaneous Statutes 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. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1990

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains amendments to 15 statutes. I will speak briefly to some of the more significant amendments.

The Architects Act is amended to enhance the ability of the Architectural Institute to provide for effective mandatory professional liability insurance and, in so doing, provide greater protection for the public.

MR. SIHOTA: Why?

HON. MR. FRASER: Why liability insurance? In the event of architectural error, the client could sue and recover some of his losses.

I am pleased to move second reading of Bill 67.

Motion approved.

Bill 67, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 79, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING DISCLOSURE ACT

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill is obviously such a desirable, good-news, public-right-to-know issue that I can't conceive of how I might offer any comments that would usefully expand on its purpose. I'll be interested in whatever comments the members opposite may wish to make.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's amazing to see and hear the Minister of Finance talk so little about this legislation and not be able to appreciate the consequences of putting forward this type of legislation in the House. He comes into this House tongue in cheek, saying that this is public-right-to-know legislation and that's why he wants it through.

If I may digress for a moment, I find it absolutely amazing to think that this minister, given the record of this government of not being open and honest with the people of British Columbia and not being able to put forward freedom-of-information legislation, would somehow come into this Legislature with a straight face and say: "Look. All this has got to do with is the public's right to know about collective agreements and the negotiation process, and that's what we want."

If I may say so, this is really a mischievous piece of legislation put forward under the guise of right-to-know or freedom-to-know legislation. It's mischievous in the sense that it represents a remarkable intrusion into the collective bargaining process in British Columbia. It is, as my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) so aptly put

[ Page 11478 ]

it, "a wacko bill introduced by a wacko government." In many ways, that is quite an appropriate summary with respect to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was remarking earlier today, during the course of the debate on the Premier's estimates, how quickly four years has passed.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I heard the first thing the former minister said, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I didn't hear it. But I'm sure the member will withdraw if it was an unparliamentary statement or if he was impugning the motives of somebody on the other side of the House.

MR. SIHOTA: Fine, Mr. Speaker, if you didn't hear it. Maybe the member wants to withdraw it. If not, we'll all wait for him to say it again, you will hear it, and we'll get into it.

MR. REID: I'll say it outside, too.

MR. SIHOTA: Boy, you're tough. You're one of the toughest guys in this House.

Mr. Speaker, four years ago when we came into this chamber, this government introduced Bill 19.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: And we've had labour peace since.

MR. SIHOTA: Tell that to the psychiatric nurses. Tell that to the people at White Spot and to the people at Cineplex Odeon. Tell that to the people who work in the home support operations of British Columbia who were on strike for about four months. Tell that to the women in Comox who have been locked out of a dispute by doctors in their community for nine months. Tell that to the people at Leland who spent 14 months on a picket line. Tell that to the people at Canadian Tire — 27 months on the picket line. Tell that to Ed Peck, who wrote to the Minister of Labour of this government and said: "Bill 19 isn't working."

Look at yourself, Mr. Minister. I know, it's a dreadful thought, so maybe I won't say you should look at yourself. Look at the actions of your own government, when you guys chose to walk around Bill 19 in your negotiation with a number of public sector employees. What did that do? That drove Ed Peck to write a letter on January 16, 1990, to the Minister of Labour saying: "Look, it's obvious to me that the government itself has no faith in the legislation it introduced." So don't come in here and tell me you've had labour peace for four years because of Bill 19, because you haven't. I've enumerated a number of disputes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Sit down and let me respond.

MR. SIHOTA: You'll get your chance to respond. You didn't have the courage to come in here and stand up and speak in defence of this legislation in the first place, and now you're itching to get up. You just wait your turn, Mr. Minister.

MR. BLENCOE: He doesn't want his remarks on the record for his constituents.

MR. SIHOTA: That's right. The Minister of Finance doesn't want his remarks on the record, because he doesn't want his constituents to know what he thinks.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: That's all right. If he can't hear, it's not my fault. You, like the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers), should be out looking for a hearing aid.

You introduced Bill 19 in this House, and it was clearly a remarkable intrusion into the collective bargaining process. It totally changed the way in which labour negotiations take place in British Columbia. It was highly interventionist legislation.

You would think that the government would have learned its lessons after what it did in Bill 19. You would think that it would have learned that when you want to introduce legislation dealing with labour relations, a very sensitive field, the government should do a number of things. First of all, it would consult with those people who are practitioners in the labour relations field; they would consult with the trade unions, management, arbitrators and those people who have expertise in the labour relations field. Did that consultation take place? Was there any consultation? Write it down. Come on, you said you were going to respond. Write this down. Question number one to you, Mr. Minister.

[7:15]

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: No, I don't think you can keep it up in your head that long. I don't think you can. Was there any consultation? I've several questions to ask you.

Mr. Speaker, I would beg to say that there was no consultation on the part of the government.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: We didn't consult you, that's for sure.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says he didn't consult me. If he had, maybe I would have given him some guidance. That government desperately needs guidance in terms of its handling of labour relations in British Columbia. You would have learned that you should engage in a meaningful process of consultation. You didn't do that in Bill 19. You'd figure that after four years this government would learn. It hasn't learned. It didn't engage in consultation. Certainly from the correspondence that I've seen today, not one trade union in British Columbia, for

[ Page 11479 ]

example, was consulted with respect to this legislation.

Secondly, you would think that after the experience of Bill 19, the government would have learned that it should ask itself one very rudimentary question: is this legislation fair and evenhanded? Did you look at that factor? I want to hear the minister tell us in which ways this legislation, in terms of the collective bargaining process....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Let me get that down.

MR. SIHOTA: Okay, I'll do it slowly for you. Mr. — Minister, — in — terms — of — the — collective — bargaining — process — and — labour — relations, — is — this — fair — and — evenhanded — legislation?

Write this one down too; get your pencil. Does it promote the collective bargaining process in British Columbia? Does it lend itself to expeditious and peaceful resolution of disputes in the province? Those are the kinds of questions one would think the government would have asked itself before introducing any legislation in this province that dealt with labour relations matters. I don't think any of those questions were asked, or any of those thoughts applied with respect to this legislation.

I see the humiliated minister is not even prepared to sit in his chair now and listen to the comments we've got to make.

Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister this: what was the position of the Minister of Labour? This legislation is labour relations legislation, but it was interestingly introduced by the Minister of Finance and not by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr Jacobsen). Why is the Minister of Labour not in this House tonight to defend this legislation? Did it have the approval of the Ministry of Labour? Did it have the acceptance of those people who are experts in that ministry? What were their comments with respect to this legislation? What was their input? Did they support it? I find it hard to believe, knowing a little bit about the collective bargaining process, that those people who are experts within the Ministry of Labour would have supported this legislation.

Let me also say that I know of no equivalent legislation elsewhere in Canada. If there is, the minister should be prepared to tell us. What experience, what type of legislation is this modelled upon? Is there anything else in any other jurisdiction in North America that parallels this type of situation? If there is, Mr. Minister, tell us.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I've got to confess, Mr. Speaker, that it's a weird evening in here when we've got the member from Surrey–White Rock–Cloverdale (Mr Reid) making those kinds of comments.

Was there another justification? What is this bill modelled on? Let me ask the minister: what is the motivation for this legislation? When there are disputes going on in this province, there are always reports of the salient issues around a dispute — be they contracting-out, job security, wages, monetary items, pensions or benefits. Those items are often in dispute, and generally the public has a sense of what the disputes are. So don't tell me the public doesn't know what's going on out there. I don't believe that is exclusively the motivation.

I want the minister to tell us what the motivation is on the part of the government with respect to this legislation. What are you trying to remedy when you introduce this legislation? What kind of flaw exists out there that warrants this type of legislation and intrusion into the collective bargaining process?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier.

MR. SIHOTA: Is it?

Is it not true, Mr. Minister, that this is born out of some kind of frustration that you've had about the doctors' process and not being able to get your line or your spin out and being frustrated that the public — appropriately, in my mind — has sympathy with health care workers in this province? Do you think this is some calculated way in which you can do a better job of getting your line out?

Where was this hatched? Was it hatched somewhere in the mind of the Premier? Is it his legislation? Is it legislation that comes from the person who promised us sausage factories in Prince George and eight united states of British Columbia? Is it from the man who gave us Bill 19 and privatization? Is it from "Radical Bill"? Is that where it was hatched? Wild Bill? Is he the one who hatched this idea? Was it concocted in some kind of devious mind...?

MR. REID: There's only one devious mind in this whole building, and it's yours.

MR. SIHOTA: Is it from someone who gave us the fragile economy in British Columbia? Just what kind of mind led to the birth of this type of legislation? Which member of cabinet wants to take responsibility? Is it your mind, Mr. Minister of Finance — the same minister who gave us the BS fund?

MR. BLENCOE: He's in so much trouble that it doesn't really matter to him anyway.

MR. SIHOTA: I know; actually I shouldn't pick on him. The second member for Victoria is right. I really shouldn't pick on the Minister of Finance. He is in so much trouble in his own seat that it would be unfair for me to pick on him. I know that Elsie McMurphy is out knocking on doors today while the minister sits here trying to deal with this debate.

What kind of mind was it that...? I've heard the explanation that this would allow the public to measure public sector agreements against private sector, so as to provide a comparison between public sector settlements and private sector settlements. But that information is available right now; it's published on a quarterly basis, I believe. I've seen it regularly, so that kind of explanation is not accurate.

[ Page 11480 ]

I want to tell the minister this. You've introduced a piece of legislation here which.... I think John Shields put it properly when he said: "I don't know if I should laugh or cry." I think that most people who are experts in the labour relations field are shrugging today and asking just what it is that motivated this type of legislation.

Don't give us this huff and puff about the public's right to know. It goes beyond that. There are other motivations that can't be explained as simply, and I'm sure my colleagues will deal with the public's right-to-know argument. I think a lot of people in the labour relations field are sort of scratching their heads and reacting like Mr. Shields has or as I did.

It's a very peculiar piece of legislation, and it has invited a number of comments. I was reading one press release that described it as lunacy, and it has brought forth those types of comments from people.

If the government has some concerns about the public's right to know and has legitimate concerns about the public knowing more about what's happening in the collective bargaining process, fair enough. If you want to try to develop a mechanism for more information to be available to the public, that's fine; work on that kind of mechanism. But if you're going to do that, then it seems to me that you ought to be sitting down with the parties involved in the labour relations field to develop a mechanism that achieves that goal and trying to bring everybody on side in terms of setting up a model to achieve that goal.

This legislation, in my mind, is neither a good model — in fact, in my mind it is not even a model — nor does it achieve the type of consensus that one needs in labour relations in British Columbia if you're going to move with legislation.

My suggestion to the minister — and he can listen to the debate in the House — is simply this: put this forward as an exposure bill; get comment from the people who are affected; and see if you can go back and develop something that people can live with six months from now. That's the way to do it. I'm tempted to move a hoist for six months, but I don't think it's necessary. The minister will understand persuasive argument and rationality. You should put it forward as an exposure piece of legislation and invite comment on it.

Let me conclude on this point. Lord knows this government just doesn't have faith in all the players in the collective bargaining process. It would take a good step toward generating some faith and understanding in working together, consensus-building, cooperation and all of those kinds of things we ought to have in the labour relations field, if it took that route of putting this forward as a piece of exposure legislation, explaining its motives, dealing with the players in the field and moving from there toward some consensus legislation which may serve as a model for the jurisdictions. My suggestion to the minister is: let's have this debate in second reading. Let's leave it at that. Let's not pass the legislation. Let's allow for those parties involved in the field to give the government some input so that if there is a problem here, it can be addressed in that fashion as opposed to this unilateral action by this government.

MR. GABELMANN: It's difficult to know quite how to approach this legislation. On first reading it the other day, my immediate reaction was to laugh and to treat it as if the whole thing was a joke. Clearly, anybody who knows anything about labour relations, whether they are on the management side or the labour side, will read a piece of legislation like this and just throw back their head in wonderment. We had a partial eclipse of the sun the other day, but I didn't realize we had a full moon. The full moon clearly produced this legislation. One is required, as an obligation of being a member of this House, participating in a debate on a bill, to assume that there is a serious intent on the part of the government and therefore to try to debate it seriously, which I will try to do.

The first point that needs to be made is that it is curious that in labour relations matters, the employer would introduce a bill. The minister responsible for the GPSD has introduced a bill which is designed to be legislation governing an aspect of labour relations between employers and employees and their representatives. That is unheard of, in my experience, in any democratic jurisdiction.

[7:30]

In the same way as the Attorney-General has some independent responsibilities in cabinet, so too does the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour, theoretically and properly, has some independent responsibilities. The Minister of Labour is a neutral between government and its employees when they are bargaining. In this case, we have the employer — the representative of the employer — introducing legislation that's going to govern the relationship between himself and the employees. There's a fundamental flaw in that element alone.

I would have thought that most governments, in labour relations matters, would have as their objective a desire to enhance bargaining, a desire to reach amicable settlements quickly and without difficulty, a desire to improve the relationship at the worksite between workers and their employers, and a desire to create an atmosphere at work which leads to enhanced productivity. All of these kinds of issues should be an objective of government in designing labour relations legislation. This bill meets none of those objectives. In fact, on the most fundamental issue, the question of reaching a collective agreement, this bill makes it more difficult.

Analogies don't always work, and they are never entirely accurate, but sometimes analogies help to clarify issues. In dispute resolution or in conflict resolution.... Let's say it's between a couple of individuals, and the marriage analogy has often been used in labour relations. If each of the parties in the marriage who are having difficulty and are trying to reach some kind of accommodation are required to print in the newspaper the list of issues upon which their marriage is foundering, and have to have a public disclosure of this list of issues about which

[ Page 11481 ]

they're having some difficulty, do you think it would be possible for those two to then proceed to have a discussion that leads to reconciliation? Of course not.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: The reaction of my colleagues is an appropriate one in many ways. The bill engenders laughter. It engenders the kind of response you're hearing both from people in the community and from people in this House.

My concern is that the government is serious about this. My concern, in fact, is that they will use the proclamation section and actually proclaim the bill. I can't believe they would. I can't believe it's nothing other than another one of the election goodies they want to just put in place but not actually do.

But I'm afraid because, as the member for Vancouver East said, this is a wacko government, and I'm afraid this wacko bill may just be proclaimed if it passes. Then what have we got? We've got a situation where parties who are coming up to bargaining are going to have to put in the public forum the whole list of demands. Both sides are going to have to do that. What do you think that does to the nature of the demand? It hardens it; it solidifies it.

It might be that some of these demands could be put in a way that will send a signal to the other party. But you can't do that in public, because the bargaining committee may want to handle it differently — if it's done quietly. You may want to send a signal to the person on the other side that some things are more important than others. You can't do that; your membership is going to give you a hard time if you start doing that in public. The ability to send signals, to be soft about some things, to leave openings and to have compromises develop is, at best, weakened. All of those abilities to conduct intelligent, reasonable bargaining which will lead to solutions are impaired by the necessity to list the issues in this forum. Go back to the marriage analogy. Think of it.

The minister chirps along about how it's going to be interesting to see if we're going to vote against it. You bet your boots we're going to vote against this bill.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Exactly what we wanted.

MR. GABELMANN: Exactly what you wanted. This is a good illustration. Here we have the Minister of Finance saying: "Exactly what we wanted." What clearer indication that this is just a political bill and not a bill designed to try to improve labour-management relations. It's a political game. The minister's reaction, his body language in the House and now his comments about it being just what they wanted are a clear indication that it's pure politics.

The public dearly would love the right to know about all kinds of activities of government, but this government refuses absolutely point-blank to bring in legislation giving the public the right to know anything about what it does.

I could go on for hours, or longer, about the question of the impairment of the collective bargaining system. I'm not going to do that. I will simply state for the record that if by some unfortunate fluke this ever should be proclaimed and that massive bureaucracy established to try to deal with that —  and I'll get to that in a minute — what you will have is more unresolved public sector labour disputes than we have now.

If that's the government's objective, simply to try to win political points in this House, that really speaks clearly about how desperate this government really has become as it plummets in the public opinion polls.

I mentioned the bureaucracy. I haven't done a count of how many collective agreements we're talking about in this legislation. Clearly in the hundreds, clearly more than 400 and probably many more than that if you count them all. There are 75 between teachers and trustees, to begin with. There are X number of municipalities. There are hospitals all over this province. There are other public institutions. The list is in the back. We are probably talking about 400 to 600 or so collective agreements that have to be filed. Every time bargaining takes place, there has to be another filing of the set of demands, which then have to be compiled by this bureaucracy, which will require a computerized setup with many people doing the analysis and whatever.

A bureaucracy to what end? Is it a bureaucracy to make it more difficult to get collective agreements — a bureaucracy to serve a political end on the part of the government? All this is from a government that talks about less government. Why is it that we always hear this government talk about how less government is better, but when it comes to labour relations we have more government in this province than anywhere else in North America?

Mr. Speaker, what the bill does as well — and we'll discuss some of this in committee tomorrow, probably....

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know why we have debates in this House, Mr. Speaker, if it's not to listen to each other.

The bill introduces into labour matters once again the element of the Supreme Court decisions. We thought we got away from that almost 20 years ago. Recently the whole spectre of the courts' involvement in collective bargaining and labour matters is getting back more and more. This brings it back even further.

I'm not going to say much more, other than to say that there are a variety of arguments in respect of this legislation, but the one that the government should listen to, if it's concerned about the economic well-being of the people of this province, is the one that's going to be made by management people and by labour people in the public sector across this province. That is the argument that this will hurt, not help, the ability of parties to reach collective agreements; and it will hurt, not help, the ability of people

[ Page 11482 ]

in the workplace to have a proper and productive relationship with their employer.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, after looking at this bill, my first question to the government came to my mind immediately: aren't your feet sore enough already? I mean, you've been shooting yourself in the foot for four years now. Why you'd want to be masochistic enough to repeat that process with this kind of crude bill is beyond me.

My colleague from Vancouver East was exactly right when he called it a wacko bill. I call it a loony bill. I was tempted to say it was brought in by a Premier who didn't even have enough sense to tie his shoes before he went out running at night. He's not only got rocks in his knees; he also has them in his head, bringing in a piece of legislation like this.

I've thought for years that we need some legislation in this province. For example, I think we need an act to prevent the Premier from bringing his podium and flags to any set of labour negotiations. That would be a useful act.

This bill is so ludicrous that I can't help but treat it as it deserves: to mock it. It's the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen in the form of legislation in my life.

We know this government is desperate. I guess the bill is just one more revelation of just how desperate and, quite frankly, how incredibly incompetent they are.

Every time this government gets into trouble, they've got this instinct. It's an old instinct. It's back there in the cranium somewhere. It says: "If we're in really deep trouble, what do we do? We've got to look for some targets out there, folks. Where's the labour movement? How can we possibly set things up?"

The Minister of Finance confirmed that by the utterances he made from his chair tonight. He's happy, he said, to have this party vote against the bill. He was looking for that, he said. He brought this bill in, hoping for that. Well, it sounds to me like they're playing politics with the labour relations climate in this province. It is the last thing we need. There has been too much politics played in terms of labour-management in this province. Every time this government gets in trouble, they revert to type. They've got this little instinct. They can close their eyes, and they know automatically. "We've got to find a situation where we can blame labour. It has always worked in the past, and let's do it again. Because we are really deep into it."

The person who conceived and drafted this bill should be fired. It is the worst piece of legislation that any government has ever brought in to deal with labour relations. It is the absolutely worst, most incompetent, trashy piece of legislation I have ever witnessed in my entire life. It will not work. It can't work.

Did the Premier have a vision in the middle of the night? Did it come to him in a dream? Did he write it himself? Maybe that's the truth: maybe the Premier wrote this piece of legislation.

[7:45]

To deal with the issues raised by both my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the whole notion of bargaining, that somehow there's some sunshine.... This is from the government that brought sunshine back to the Okanagan, by the way. The whole notion that somehow there is going to be improvement in the collective bargaining process because you're going to force both parties to file every shred of their position publicly, and you're going to allow the public to look at it, and you're going to hire a registrar.... Maybe you should hire Geraldo Rivera as the registrar, and he can have a revealing show on the Knowledge Network, where both sides can bare their souls and innermost desires to the public. Geraldo could be the next czar.

It won't work. It cannot work. I participated extensively in the debates on Bill 19; I recall them even now, some four years later. I recall some of the words spoken by the Minister of Labour at that time. He said: "We have gone out and consulted extensively. We have talked to every employers' organization and all the labour unions, and we have here the blueprint, which we have put in legislation." Well, the truth came out that yes, they consulted all right, but they had some employers' law firm in Vancouver write the legislation. The fine words were there.

The Minister of Labour said at the time that this was what we had to avoid in labour legislation: we had to avoid tinkering. We shouldn't just tinker with policies and systems. Well, this bill is exactly that. There are no easy answers, no simple solutions, he said back when he was introducing Bill 19. Somebody lost their marbles somewhere, because this is the most simplistic attempt at dealing with labour relations I've ever seen.

He also said that the individual components of Bill 19 were derived from experience in the real world of labour relations. This bill is from outer space. There's no reality in this bill. These guys are dreaming. Listen to my colleague. I'll tell you the best advice I can give you: every time you listen to my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and listen closely, pay attention and take his advice seriously, you stay out of trouble. It's the best advice. It's free. It's coming from the opposition, and you won't pay attention.

Incompetence reigns and rules triumphant. This is a triumph of ideology over common sense.

MR. SIHOTA: No, idiocy.

MR. MILLER: Idiocy.

I was going to say that you should save yourself some grief and put this to a vote among private sector employers and employees. It would be overwhelmingly voted down, and you guys would save yourselves a pack of trouble. But you won't do it, obviously; you've got your minds made up. You have some political motivation for bringing this bill into the Legislature.

I've never seen such an idiotic section as section 6, where if either side fails to comply with the filing requirements, they have to go to the Supreme Court

[ Page 11483 ]

in order to act. So if the management doesn't file according to this act, the union has to go to the Supreme Court in order to exercise the rights they have under legislation on the books of this province. It's foolish. The Supreme Court!

I'm not a lawyer and have no aspirations to be one, but after they wind up in court — and I'm sure the courts will be none too eager to deal with this — and sort out this mess, the court can award $50, 000 to either party. I've never heard of that kind of activity taking place in a court. There should be a penalty, if you like, for non-compliance. But for the court to take one side or the other and then give $50,000 to the employer or to the union, whichever it is, is downright foolish. If the employer gives it to the union, then they probably add that to the list of demands and try to get it back; or vice versa.

Pre-strike or lockout disclosure meetings. They are going to be a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to those meetings; they are going to be just a riot. I don't know, Geraldo is going to have a lot of trouble keeping order in some of those, I would suspect.

If your intent was to put public heat on the unions, you must have forgotten some of the recent disputes we've had where the public was most upset with the employer, whether it was the school board or whatever, in terms of a whole range of issues. The whole range of educational issues suddenly became the focus of public meetings. A board that was trying to negotiate a collective agreement with a union somehow ended up dealing with: "How come there's no French immersion? How come there are no crosswalks or school buses?" All this stuff is going to be wrung into these public meetings. It's going to be a zoo.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: My colleague reminded me of the PNE board, headed by a government appointee, a man who thinks day care is a communist plot — a progressive kind of guy.

MR. D'ARCY: A Socred leftist.

MR. MILLER: You might call him a progressive Socred. It's like Progressive Conservative, which I've always thought was a contradiction in terms.

Geraldo would have done a better job. This guy not only loused up negotiations to such an extent that he threatened to shut the fair down and deprive all those kids....

MR. D'ARCY: He did shut it down.

MR. MILLER: Oh, he did shut it down. I can understand why he wanted to shut it down, because if he thinks kids are having too much fun in day care, he sure as heck wouldn't want them to have too much fun at the fair.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: That's right. There's a certain ideological flavour to those fairs. There's a guy who precipitated the closure of a fair, who bumbled — sheer incompetence — and the government had to step in. There's the gang that couldn't shoot straight again.

Seriously — I find it hard to be serious; I hope I'm forgiven for that, given the quality of the material I'm debating — this really is kind of foolish. Look, the best negotiations are those where the parties are compelled to be serious. That's why we've had provisions for years in labour legislation prescribing penalties for failure to bargain in good faith. That's very difficult to define. Nonetheless, it embraces a principle. It suggests to both parties that you have to be serious. You can't have any other intent when you go into those bargaining sessions.

The best negotiations are those conducted in the negotiating room without anybody looking in, without both sides or either side running to the press, because when that happens, there's a breakdown of negotiations. When it becomes a media war or a war for the hearts and minds of the public, there's been a breakdown in negotiations. The best negotiations are conducted quietly in the boardrooms or in the negotiating rooms with both sides under pressure, if you like, to seriously negotiate a collective agreement. If that's the rule, and if there's fairness, then we will have negotiations concluded. We will have settlements we can live with. We will have labour peace to the extent that it's possible to achieve in a free society.

As I said at the outset, this makes a mockery of this government. It makes a mockery of labour legislation. It is not to the Minister of Finance's credit that he would bring this kind of junk into this Legislature and gleefully rub his hands and say: "That's what we wanted you to do — vote against it." It's a bunch of garbage. It will be seen as such by the employers; it will be seen as such by the employees; it will be seen as such by the public. If the government insists and passes this legislation, it will not work. This whole exercise will be looked upon in hindsight as a very foolish move on the part of the government.

MR. JONES: In the dying hours of the Legislature, we have before us a desperate, knee-jerk piece of legislation and a cavalier approach to labour negotiations, as the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D’Arcy) said. It is a Donahue approach to labour negotiations that is stupid, wrong-headed and misguided legislation. It's ideologically-driven legislation. Members on this side are struggling with how to treat this, because labour negotiations in the public sector are a serious matter. To bring forward at this point in the legislative session something that can impact seriously on 100,000 or 200,000 employees in the province shows a degree of desperation on the part of the government.

I believe that this legislation comes from the Premier's office. Clearly, although the Premier was a mayor prior to becoming Premier, he knows abso-

[ Page 11484 ]

lutely nothing about labour negotiations in this province, and he clearly demonstrated that in 1986. He doesn't appreciate the delicate nature, the complexity, the difficulty and the sanctity of the whole process. To bring forward legislation that will impact on that process in a negative way and affect many hundreds — perhaps hundreds of thousands — of public employees in the province is a serious travesty and a serious abuse of power on the part of that government.

I have sat on both sides of the negotiating table in public sector bargaining. I have some sense of the difficulty and the importance of trust in that whole process. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) hit the nail on the head: when things get to the point where negotiations are being conducted through the press and through the public media, then that is the sign of failure and breakdown of an important trust relationship in negotiations. That process should be allowed to work as much as possible with clearly defined rules, but in an unfettered way on the part of public and government until there is a problem with that process. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. If the process is working well, don't make the parties go through these unnecessary hoops.

Legislation of this nature that is written without consultation with the affected parties is not worth the paper it's written on. Worse than that, to bring in a piece of legislation like this that masquerades as freedom-of-information legislation is an incredible charade or attempted charade on the part of this government. It has nothing to do with freedom of information. It has to do with another attack, in the litany of attacks in the history of this province, by a right-wing government on the public sector — pure and simple. That's what this legislation is about.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'm not surprised to see it, because every now and then we get a glimpse of the right-wing nature of this government. The lip-service we hear that's paid to women's issues, the environment, education and those things and the rhetoric are a nice cover-up after the first year goes by, and they start worrying about the electorate again. This is back to real Socred legislation. To masquerade it as freedom-of-information legislation is incredible.

[8:00]

I was amazed at the short couple of paragraphs by the Minister of Finance in introducing this. He says: "This act will introduce a new concept of openness...." If this government were interested in openness, then they might introduce legislation as other provinces in Canada have done. They might do what Manitoba has done and introduce a Freedom of Information Act. The minister goes on to say:

"It embodies the democratic concept that the public has the right to know.... If this government believed in that concept, then they might introduce a Freedom of Information and Personal Privacy Act as they have in Ontario. The minister says: "...so they" — the public — "can make informed decisions about matters ...."

If the government was really serious about that, maybe they would introduce An Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, as they have in Quebec.

The minister said in introducing this bill: "...the public should be aware of the issues in dispute, so that they can make informed decisions about matters discussed...." If they were really serious in this, they might introduce a Right to Information Act, as they have in New Brunswick. The minister goes on to say: "This act will provide a framework that allows the public...access to full information about the issues...." We don't have a Freedom of Information Act like they do in Newfoundland, and if they were serious about that concept then we would have. The minister goes on to say: "Simply put, the premise of the legislation is that the public has a right to know....

Jurisdictions around this world — the federal government of Canada, the federal government of the United States, 48 states.... In 1977, only Mississippi and Rhode Island didn't have freedom-of-information legislation. In the seventies, France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and the Federal Republic of Germany introduced freedom of information.

This government is in the Dark Ages. They want the sun to shine in on this very narrow corner of government activity or government involvement, and yet in the wide range of issues, only under extreme duress does this government take any interest in releasing public information. Only after two years of complaints do we see a list of polluters in non-compliance. Only after over a year — I think almost two years — do we see the report of the medical ethics committee. Only after intense pressure do we see the aircraft logs released by this government.

This government is not interested in freedom of information, or we would have such legislation. It is incredibly ironic that the government feels that this very narrow sector of labour law is the area where they will allow public information, while denying consistently and completely the public's right to know in a vast area of public activity in this province.

But I'm not surprised. It was in September 1981 that the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is now the Premier of this province, wanted to introduce freedom-of-information legislation — not for the province of B.C., not for labour negotiations, but for municipal councils. Having left a municipal council, and no longer affected by such legislation, he wanted to introduce legislation that would allow freedom of information for citizens affected by municipal decisions. What incredible hypocrisy that the now Premier wants to very narrowly limit freedom of information to areas that he feels are important!

What is important in negotiations is the goal, and the goal is a settlement, hopefully amicably reached by the parties involved in labour negotiations. The process outlined in this bill will not assist that process at all. It will require the parties to jump through incredible hoops and will bring increased

[ Page 11485 ]

pressure on negotiation that will create a rigidity and not a fluidity that will lead to the goal of negotiations, which is a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is embarrassing. It's incredible that it would appear in this Legislature without any involvement by the parties concerned, the public sector employers and employees. It's incredible that we have before us this desperate knee-jerk attempt at legislation, clearly indicated by the Minister of Finance, as some trick — that the opposition would vote against it.

If we on this side of the House thought that this legislation would in any way assist the parties to achieve the goal of negotiations, which is a negotiated settlement, we would gladly support the bill. It's a joke; it's a travesty; it's going to hurt bargaining in the public sector process; and we are going to vote against it.

MR. D'ARCY: I'm not going to extend this too long. A number of excellent points have been made. I do want to underscore, though, that the bill flies in the face of the government's deliberate suppression of information that the public has long expressed an interest in having.

The government likes to talk about reducing the size of government; in fact, it's going to further bureaucratize labour negotiations in the public sector. I'm wondering if the minister has had any indication at all from the literally hundreds and hundreds of public sector employers out there relative to how they feel about this bill. We've already had a public response from the organized workers out there in the public sector.

But what about the employers? What does B.C. Hydro think about this? I use B.C. Hydro as an example because they have had a reputation among the Crowns in the province over the years of being fairly close to the vest when it comes to information. Are they going to be happy about disclosing a great deal of public information before they even get into collective bargaining?

Then, in the event that they should find themselves unfortunately on the eve of issuing a lockout notice or having one of their unions — there are several involved here — issue a strike notice, where would they find themselves? Say a mediator was involved that really felt: "Listen, we've got some major tough ground to go over, but I think there is potential for a settlement here." Where would they find themselves, having to suddenly suspend all of that because of this bureaucratic procedure they would have to go through?

You've got to arrange for a meeting and advertise it. I'm sure those members of the House who have been involved in municipal government know that if they want to establish a bylaw or have a zoning hearing, there's a procedure they have to go through. Suppose they're on the verge of settlement and they have to institute this clumsy procedure, let people come to a meeting and prepare all these positions and allow the public — as my colleague from Prince Rupert has said — to bring out anything and everything they've ever thought about the company, the policy, the union, the municipality or the school board — as people are entitled to do at public hearings.

Members here have talked about it. Just in the education section alone, there are 75 employers dealing with how many unions, how many agreements? What about the professional ones with the teachers? What about the contracts with the custodial employees? That's a whole separate process under this bill.

It is non-discretionary. On this side of the House, many of us have spoken from time to time about how we don't like the minister to have discretion. If the minister insists upon proceeding with this bill and ramming it through this House in the dying hours of the legislative session, surely this is a bill where the minister perhaps should have some discretion, where the employers and employees are not bound to have to go through this procedure unless the minister orders it.

How many college councils are there in this province, and how many collective agreements does each one of those have? Each one of those college councils could have several collective agreements. How many municipalities are there, and how many collective agreements do they have? What about the regional districts, and what about all the societies which rely for their operation essentially on volunteers?

I'm not going to go into the PNE fiasco and how that would have been handled by the public, and how the government would have really loved to have people go to those public meetings.

What about the societies involving persons with disabilities? Or libraries in small communities, with maybe only two or three employees in some cases, but a public sector certification? I have a number in my area, mostly with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, but not necessarily so; there are others with the BCGEU. Small public sector certifications, and they have to go through this expensive, clumsy bureaucratic procedure. There's no discretion; they must do it.

What happens, human nature being what it is, when one side or the other, or both, in the process of collective bargaining have taken positions which they know inside they're prepared to bargain away from, to back off from? What happens when they have put it all out there in front of the public and discussed it fully? Is it easy to back off or bargain away from those positions in order to reach an agreement? Human beings, being what they are, don't like to admit that they're wrong or that they overstated the case. Certainly if they're like anybody on the government side, they wouldn't like to admit that they'd been wrong.

Mr. Speaker, most British Columbians are not happy when the collective bargaining process breaks down, and we on this side of the House are not happy. I had always assumed that people on the government side did not appreciate it when the collective bargaining process broke down, particu-

[ Page 11486 ]

larly in the public sector. Yet here we have a piece of legislation where, in those fortunately rare occurrences when the collective bargaining process in the public sector does not come to an agreement without strike or lockout notice being given, what is going to happen is that the process of coming to an agreement is going to be hamstrung by being forced, without discretion, to go through this bureaucratic public hearing process.

I'm not going to get into speculation as to what the minister's real agenda or real intentions were with his "Looney Tunes" legislation. I'm simply going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he....

MR. MILLER: That he doesn't know what he's doing.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right, that he did not give it sufficient thought or indeed any thought. Gosh, it seems like, "I had this idea on the way to work today, and I think it might be a good idea when dealing with the BCGEU for the entire government, " without any thought as to how it's going to affect a library in Winfield or in Rossland or a disabled society in some other small community in the province.

[8:15]

I don't think the hospitals of British Columbia or the B.C. Health Association have asked for this type of legislation.

It has been suggested that there are several hundred contracts affected by this throughout the province. I suspect it could run as high as four figures. There could be as many as 1,000 contracts, large and small, affected by this legislation. I can't imagine that very many of the bargaining agencies for these people or the bargaining societies — because some of them have professional groups bargaining for them — wanted this. I can’t imagine that they're going to be happy with this.

I can't imagine that professional mediators such as Messrs. Ready and Hope, who have a reputation that goes far beyond this province as being highly skilled and professional in this field, think this a good idea. They'll have more work out of this, and they'll have longer work. If they don't approve, they're certainly not speaking from self-interest.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the minister would reconsider this bill. Like the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), I am not going to move a hoist on it, but if ever a bill should cause the government to have sober second, third or fourth thoughts, this one certainly should. If the government is going to insist on jamming this through the chamber, I hope they will give a great deal of thought before they proclaim it, because it is non-discretionary legislation and it is going to severely affect the cost to various local groups, let alone the provincial government and the Crown corporations. It's going to affect the cost of coming to settlement in agreements and may even affect the cost of those agreements when they are ultimately achieved. If the government's stated intent is to achieve what they allege will be fiscal responsibility in the area of public sector collective bargaining, I think it has definitely been demonstrated that this is not the way to go about it.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I think the government has heard our concerns on this side and the obvious difficulty we have in taking this legislation seriously — and the response by others in the field. It really is quite a sad day when we see a minister of the Crown, the Minister of Finance, sitting on his seat over there, eagerly waiting to see which way we were going to vote on this bill. When we said that on principle we couldn't support such legislation, because it was a cynical political interference in the collective bargaining process, he virtually jumped for joy.

It's quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is another cynical move by a government finding itself more and more on the political ropes and in a nosedive in terms of support in British Columbia. That's quite evident when we don't even have the Minister of Labour here for the debate. We don't have one member of the government side speaking to this legislation. The minister who introduced it, the Minister of Finance, didn't provide any introductory remarks. It's quite evident that the Minister of Labour lost the battle in cabinet, and the Premier, who I suspect is the author of this crazy piece of legislation, won the day. It's a government on the ropes, a government that is prepared once again to destabilize the public sector, a government that whenever it's in trouble — and, boy, is this government in trouble — looks around for a group that it can declare war upon, that it can destabilize, that it can use to turn British Columbian against British Columbian. And what have they found once again? Our public servants.

In my riding and in the minister's riding we have thousands of such people who serve the government of British Columbia with loyalty and who do their best on behalf of the people of the province. Once again they have seen a government and a minister — a minister who has those same constituents that I do — cynically decide to use public servants in an attempt to do what they think will gain some political notoriety. It's a cynical attempt to destabilize the public sector. It once again shows this government's total lack of respect for public servants. Rather than try to bring peace and harmony, and introduce stabilizing factors in the process, this government and this minister — by his actions tonight; we saw it — is prepared to once again throw a wrench into the works and show that they have contempt for the collective bargaining process and for loyal public servants.

I find that, quite frankly, offensive. They have not consulted on this bill. There is no rhyme or reason for it. The employers have not asked for it. There has been no dialogue with those to be affected by the legislation. Quite frankly, I suspect it's a figment out of the Premier's imagination. He devised it between the curb and the taxi door. I think this government knows that it's in desperate straits, such desperate

[ Page 11487 ]

straits that it is prepared to try and fly any flag, including destabilizing once again the public sector, declaring war on those loyal public servants. Certainly they work in my community, and they work hard and diligently for the public sector. This minister, who lives in this area and knows those people that work on behalf of the government of British Columbia, has shown that he is prepared to play that cynical political game.

We are indeed going to vote against this legislation. John Shields is right. We don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Some of my colleagues have poked holes and poked fun, because it really is a crazy piece of legislation. It makes absolutely no sense at this time — at any time — to introduce such a piece of legislation, when we are trying to pull some stability back into the public sector. I can imagine the bureaucracy that's going to have to be created to administer this.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: My colleague the opposition House Leader is quite correct: it is a provocative piece of legislation. It is created to raise the ire of the public sector to try and create confrontation once again. People in British Columbia are tired of confrontation. They are tired of a government finding one group in our community and in our province to use for political gain. Like the rest of my colleagues, I will vote against this cynical legislation.

MS. CULL: Earlier this evening, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) said that this bill indicates the government doesn't have faith in the collective bargaining process. What this shows is that not only do they not have faith in it, they simply don't understand it. They do not understand the basic fundamentals of collective bargaining.

This bill is put forward as a sunshine bill — something to throw fight onto a complex process. It isn't a sunshine bill. This bill is going to focus a hot and heavy spotlight on the collective bargaining parties, and it's going to make it impossible for them to do their work. It's going to force both sides of the collective bargaining issue to take hard and fast positions. They are going to have to come out, right up front, and put out everything they want. And then how are they going to manoeuvre? How are they going to be able to do the kinds of things that good collective bargaining allows to happen?

This bill entrenches the kind of system that many bargaining teams are trying to get away from — both on the union side and on the employer side. It doesn't allow for things like the process called "getting to yes, " which your government tried in the last round of BCGEU negotiations. I guess they hadn't quite read the book, because they hadn't figured it out when they got to the table, and we got to know very fast. There are processes are being pursued on both the union and the employer side, such as single-team bargaining or sitting down and trying to work out the issues and the areas of agreement before starting into the hard and fast collective bargaining. That whole idea, or any variations on that or any innovations, is going to be totally precluded by this legislation, because this legislation assumes there are only two opposing sides and there is no room for agreement. They put up their disputes, and then they go at it.

What do we think media blackouts have been about during collective bargaining in the past? It's because both parties recognize the need to sit down away from the spotlight and work things out. That's how most of the collective agreements in this province are solved, because most of them are solved without a strike, and they are solved by the two parties coming together over a period of time, talking reasonably and working things out.

How are compromises going to be arranged under this kind of a process? How are package deals, where one side says "Well, maybe we'll concede on that point if you accept our point on this other issue, " going to take place? None of those things are going to be possible under this kind of legislation.

Besides the fact that the legislation is going to lock the parties into a rigid process — into a bureaucratic procedure — it's just not going to work. Look at some of the sections in the bill. In one place, it requires each party to submit the documents they are going to use later on in collective bargaining. Anyone who has sat on either side of a bargaining table knows that the documents you use during collective bargaining are often not known at the beginning of the process. They come out of the process. They come out of the discussion. They come out of what's happening when two parties sit down and bargain in good faith. Many of these documents wouldn't even exist at the beginning of the process. So what is the status of things that come along during the collective bargaining? Are they allowed to be added to the table later, or are you frozen at the very beginning of the process by what has been tabled?

Another section in the act talks about having a pre-strike meeting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. Hon. member, I would just like to remind you, as well as any other member, that we are currently on second reading, which is basically for debate of the principle of the bill and not individual sections. Please proceed.

MS. CULL: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed that when other members were speaking tonight about particular short-comings in an act, you didn't call them to order on it. I'm talking about the fact that this piece of legislation is simply unworkable, and I'm using some sections to illustrate it.

It talks about having a pre-strike meeting. How in the world are we going to have a pre-strike meeting for the BCGEU? What community is it going to be held in? Is it going to be held in all the communities affected by the master bargaining? Are the people in Prince Rupert going to be disfranchised because they can't get down to a meeting in Vancouver or Victoria,

[ Page 11488 ]

or are we going to have to wait for some bureaucratic process to unfold?

The other interesting thing is that in many cases the strike would have been held and been over before the meeting could even be organized, before a meeting-hall could.... You begin to wonder what this is all about.

[8:30]

I go back and think with horror about the effect a bill like this would have had on school board negotiations last year. In the Greater Victoria School District, as in all school districts, they were negotiating their first collective agreement — very sensitive negotiations. These negotiations took a lot of time to work out, but in greater Victoria they were worked out without a strike or any job action. But they would not have come to this happy conclusion if at the beginning of the system everything was exposed under this spotlight without any room left for negotiations, without any room for manoeuvring, without any possibility of the bargaining committee to go back to the principals, or to the board in the case of the employer, or to the teachers in the case of the teachers' union, and say: "Look, we've got to do some dealing here. We're not going to be able to get everything we asked for up front. But we think we can make some trade-offs. We believe there are some things that can work here."

I think about the impact this is going to have on BCGEU bargaining and BCGEU members. The second member for Victoria just talked about the hard-working civil servants who are going to be affected — and they're in my riding too, let me tell you. I would think that after years of having been dumped on by this government, BCGEU members are going to pick up this piece of legislation and say: "Why are we being attacked again?" Their morale is going to go back down to where it went every time some inane piece of legislation like this was brought in.

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine what the real reasons are for bringing in this bill. As has been said by some of the other speakers, it is just too crazy to believe that there is a serious collective-bargaining intent behind it. The best thing that could happen is that it would die on the order paper and go back into the oblivion it deserves.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. Under standing orders, the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The sanctimonious claptrap I've been listening to for the last hour is really discouraging. For this captive group who are toadying to their special-interest lobby group and pressure, I find it really disgusting that they should be taking a position against the public's right to know. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the quality of our position on this side of the House is that the taxpayer, the person who pays the bill, is entitled to know what is at issue during a labour dispute affecting the public sector. It's absurd to me that anyone should try to wrap themselves in some self-serving, sanctimonious flag against this proposal or that ethic.

This party of sleaze, this party which has dragged politics down to its lowest possible level during this session, tries to make the proposition that the public, who are paying the bills for all of us in this House and for the public servants of British Columbia, should not be entitled to know why they would be deprived of a service. That this party, which has, at least in the last month, conducted a series of personal attacks against hon. members, should all of a sudden be trying to attach spurious motives to the introduction of a bill dealing with the public's right to know, I find distasteful. I think that if there was any sensitivity among the members opposite to the merits of this proposal and the demands of the public that they can no longer sustain the increases they've been experiencing in the public sector...

I have been asked what prompted the introduction of this bill. Quite plainly, if the members opposite listened to the budget speech or the throne speech, they would have heard us telling them — and they should have known anyway — that public sector settlements have been exceeding private sector settlements by over 3 percentage points in the last 12 months, and that if there is to be any justice in our system of providing services to people, surely it's not responsible for the people providing the services to expect more from the people who are paying for them than those people are getting themselves.

It's critical that all of us serving the public in terms of determining public policy should understand the critical need for all of us in this country — I'm talking about all of Canada — to ensure that if there is merit in the respective positions of labour and management in the public sector, the public is entitled to understand what those final positions are. To think that we should have the members opposite trying to argue against the principle that the person paying the bill should have the right to know what the issues are, I find astounding.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Can we have a little quiet in the House.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: A little respect, please. I tried to make some notes. I took that responsibility seriously until the members opposite started to taper off into personal attacks, innuendoes and all sorts of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

HON. MR. COUVELIER: However, the first one or two speakers did seem to have a legitimate interest in getting some answers, so I will provide them.

I heard the first speaker talk about the consequences of bringing this bill forward and whether we had carefully thought through the consequences. My goodness, the intent of the bill is stated in its title. The intent of the bill and the consequences of the bill, when it's enacted — and I assure you, hon. members, it will be; it will be proclaimed — are to ensure that the public will have access to the information they need to judge the merits.

[ Page 11489 ]

That same member went on sanctimoniously to make the claim that this is a mischievous piece of legislation. How on earth could it be mischievous that we would want to try to let the public know what's going on? Is that mischievous? I can appreciate that for a bunch of socialists who have this centralist, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou kind of mentality, it really might be objectionable that the people who pay us to be here should somehow not know and not be told what's contained in this legislation. That's mischievous? My goodness, we'll have to rewrite the dictionary when this session is over.

Also, I heard a number of members try to lend credence to the stupid remarks of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) yesterday, when he described this as a "wacko bill." Two or three members picked up the phrase. Look, my friends: any time it's wacko to let the public know what the issues in a work stoppage in the public sector are all about.... I tell you that's wacko; your position is wacko.

The crazy attitude exhibited here by the members opposite, the position they took with the pontification this evening, which consumed about an hour, is because they felt the compulsion to let their lobby group — that they claim not to represent — know that they don't really like it; so they had better speak against it. You have been lackeys of the labour movement for years in this province, and you've exhibited once again that you are now lackeys of the trade union movement and their leaders. The fact of the matter is that this bill would ensure that both management's and labour's final position can be scrutinized by the public.

This member went on and talked about Bill 19. Now what relevance Bill 19 has to this whole issue, I'm darned if I know; but in any event, he did. He went on at some length about Bill 19, and he tried to create the false impression that Bill 19 has been a failure. Of all the ridiculous statements....

The facts speak for themselves. The year before this administration brought in Bill 19 in 1986, this province lost nearly three million man-days through work stoppage. This administration was determined, and it promised in a throne speech that we would deal with the issue of trying to find a more level playing-field for labour-management relations. We brought in Bill 19. Remember the protest, Mr Speaker? Remember how we were told that the province would be brought to its knees? The same motley group over here that I see tonight were trying to make the point then that Bill 19 would be a disaster. And what are the facts? The facts are very simple: three million man-days lost in 1986; in 1987, when we brought in Bill 19, about 500,000; in 1988, about 400,000; and 1989, back to about 500,000.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

So while you may claim and exhibit, as the speaker did.... There were individual disputes evolving, have been and always will be. There will always be work stoppages, of course. But for you to suggest, hon. member, that Bill 19 has been a failure is absurd and false. The facts belie the statement you made in this House. Bill 19 has been a great success, and you just have to look at man-days lost.

Then a couple of members opposite wanted to talk about the meaningful process of consultation. My goodness, this administration has had more consultation with the citizens we serve than any previous administration in the history of the province. It would be physically impossible for any government to do any more consultation than this administration has done. Hardly a month of the year has gone by over the last three years that we have not had a group travelling the province asking our taxpayers and citizens what they thought about different positions. That record is true, accurate and unassailable, and you cannot criticize us for not communicating with the citizens we serve; it's false.

Then another speaker went on to talk about the fact that this wasn't fair and even-handed. Not fair? Not fair for the public to know? Not fair that both labour and management should be forced to tell the public what their final position is before they inconvenience the public? My goodness, what would be more fair, my friends? Not do it? That's fair? Is that what you're suggesting?

I am delighted to have heard the asinine comments made by the members opposite this evening on this very worthy bill. I tell you, my friends, during the ensuing campaign, whenever it unfolds, the comments we've heard tonight are in the printed record. You will eat those words, my friends. You will find out what the public think about their right to know.

Wonderful! You talk about politicians shooting themselves in the foot. My goodness, you won't be able to wear any shoes after tonight's over. You have dug yourselves into such a deep hole with these ridiculous comments you've been making that none of us on this side can wait to get at you.

Mr. Speaker, I was also asked where else there is legislation like this in place. Once again this administration leads the country, I'm proud to say. I have attended conferences of government leaders across this country for a number of months dealing with heavy matters of public policy. I can tell you, the first item on every agenda is the concern of all those in government in this country about the fact that public sector and private sector wage settlements are getting a wide spread apart. If we are going to really serve the taxpayers, which is supposedly why we're here, then you cannot ignore that issue; and you have very stupidly, in my judgment, done so tonight.

It would be interesting to hear what their colleagues in Ottawa would think of the comments that we heard tonight. We should really capture it on tape and send it to their socialist colleagues in Ottawa. Although I haven't checked the record, I would be surprised if at least at that national level, among the socialist ranks, there was not an appreciation of how serious an issue this is.

[ Page 11490 ]

Another member talked about how the employer is introducing this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order.

[8:45]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I don't like to interrupt the hon. member, the minister of bombast, in full flight and out of control, but I really must insist that he withdraw this word "stupid" hurled at the opposition. I'm looking at a very important reference book, and it's been ruled out of order a number of times. If you'd like the references, I'd be pleased to give them to you, but....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: All right, since we're not going anywhere anyway: the debates of August 27, 1964, page 7393 of Hansard; May 19, 1970, page 7087 of Hansard.

I think the minister is perfectly within his rights to say that we're wrong-headed, that we've got the wrong ideas or whatever he likes...

AN HON. MEMBER: But not too often.

MR. ROSE: Occasionally, even if he's wrong.

... but to hurl that epithet "stupid" over to this side is both unfair and unparliamentary. I think it should be withdrawn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER. The Chair didn't have the benefit of being there in 1964, but I'm sure that what the member recites from the book is absolutely true. I'm also sure that the hon. minister would be pleased to withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I certainly wouldn't ascribe anything to their motives, Mr. Speaker. Their motives are misinformed and ill-intentioned and frequently mislead the readers of Hansard, but certainly as to motives, I suspect they think they're sanctimonious and pure.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I didn't hear the minister withdraw the comment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Which one? "Misinformed?" "Ill-informed?"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was "stupid."

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I see. I understand that they do understand two-syllable words. They have taken offence at "stupid", so I will withdraw, and I'll substitute "misinformed, ill-informed and ill-advised." Those are three-syllable words.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the minister withdraw "misleading" in the interest of getting on with this debate?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm trying to find out what would be acceptable to your sense of propriety and to the unique sensitivities I see exhibited this evening by the members opposite. How about "misguided"? Would that apply? Would that be acceptable?

Interjection.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Then I'm happy to substitute for "stupid, misinformed, and ill-advised" the word "misguided." Mr. Speaker, I trust that is acceptable.

The point I was addressing before I was interrupted....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The point that was made....

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am attempting to respond to questions put to me. The question put to me seemed to be suggesting that it was improper for the employer to introduce the bill. First of all, this bill applies to all public sector employers — not just the provincial government but municipalities, hospital boards, schools boards or any variety of public sector employer.

In any event, it begs the question: if the government can't introduce a bill it wants to enact, who would? Of all the absurd arguments I've ever heard! Talk about misguided. The position the member has tried to develop seems to be the most misguided of all. Who would the members opposite expect to introduce a bill that they were going to enact if it wasn't the government?

Another comment was that this would slow down a resolution of public sector conflicts. It need not do that. As a matter of fact, It is our intention that it not unduly increase the time necessary to resolve these matters.

Reference was made to the bureaucracy that might be needed to administer these contracts. I heard one member talk about 400 or 500 contracts In place. That member seems to have forgotten the obvious truth: not all of those contracts would be the subject of a work stoppage. Not all of those contracts need to involve any length of time of the administrator we propose in this bill.

We suspect the staff required would be relatively small. It begs the question: so what? Are the members opposite saying that the public shouldn't have a right to know because we might have to hire five staff members? Is that the position you are taking? You seem to have this paranoia that for some reason you are going to try to defend your position on the basis

[ Page 11491 ]

of a bureaucracy being created. There will be no bureaucracy created. Obviously, though, there will be a need to ensure the material provided by both sides is disseminated properly, appropriately and accurately. That will be done but not in a large bureaucracy.

We had another comment: why involve the courts? Here again, it shows how simple-minded and possibly well-meaning individuals, who don't choose to take the time to read and think through all sections of a bill, might wonder why the courts are involved. Quite simply, my friends, if there's no remedy for failure to perform, obviously the courts are going to be needed to discipline the system. That shouldn't surprise you. Surely there should be a penalty for non-performance.

This is the same party who try to portray themselves as being the protectors of all that's right and good. They've made great criticisms tonight about this government. They have read — or attempted to read — much into those comments. Once more I want to put on the record the quality of the representation we've been hearing from the members opposite tonight. This is the same party whose leader tried to stop Expo as an unwanted frivolity. This is the same party whose leader...

MR. ROSE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was just interested — since we had the previous debates this afternoon, and I think the Minister of Finance has probably got a copy of it — in what this particular departure about Expo and the role of our leader has to do with this bill on second reading. We're dealing with the principle of the bill. I don't think anything relating to the bill was about to be uttered.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the House would be reminded that second reading debate does allow a great degree of latitude. The minister has presented a case with respect to public sector issues — Expo being one of them, I'm sure — and in that context the debate is certainly relevant.

I realize that the Leader of the Opposition was upset today. He spent half an hour doing his hair and then forgot to bring it. That upsets me, too.

Nevertheless, what the minister is presenting now is relevant debate.

MR. ROSE: I don't know why we want to entertain ourselves with this hare-brained intervention from the hairless Minister of Advanced Education, but I do know that this has nothing at all to do with the principle of the bill.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that just half an hour ago your predecessor hauled the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Ms. Cull) to task for discussing certain things that were central to the bill, having to do with the various clauses. If this is a wide-open debate, then I think you should maybe have a word with your assistant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. Members. Your advice is well received. I would ask that perhaps the Minister of Finance could wind up the debate and close second reading on Bill 79.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The members opposite ranged far and wide with their criticisms during second reading. No one on this side chose to speak, because we were saving it all up. We want to get it on the record here. To deny me the same latitude that they themselves exhibited a moment ago, of course, would not be correct. I am pleased that you're allowing me to continue.

This is the party that, while they were in power in the early seventies, exhibited such lack of sensitivity to taxpayers' concerns and issues that in 1973 their planned expenditures were 21 percent over the previous year. This is the party that in 1974 had a further 21 percent increase over the previous budget. This is the party that is so insensitive and so keen to spend public money that in 1974-75 their expenditures increased 14.5 percent over the original estimates. This is the party, of course, that went down in history...

MR. MILLER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The current minister is the minister who claimed they had a surplus when in fact they had a deficit, but that's got nothing to do with this bill. I would remind the Speaker that we're debating the principle of a bill, which requires both parties in the public sector to file their labour negotiation demands with the registrar. If the minister would stick to that, we might actually get through this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would suggest that relevancy is important here. It seems to me that what transpired that long period of time ago has very little relationship to Bill 79.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: With respect, Mr. Speaker, these members opposite talked about the public welfare and the public good. I was merely putting on the record what is a matter of fact: that is to say, their party's abysmal record when it comes to managing public money and, therefore, my understanding of their criticism of what we're attempting to accomplish here.

However, Mr. Speaker, in deference to your concern that I stray, and because I respect your office, I will conclude my remarks by reading into the record. Bill 79, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, affirms the concept that the taxpayers have a right to know about public sector bargaining. It is the public who pay the bills; it is the public who suffer the consequences of a labour dispute in the public sector; and the public have a right to have some accurate insight into the nature of disputes that arise.

It is intended that this bill will have broad application. The schedule attached to the bill intends that public sector employers and unions throughout the province in areas of government employment, municipalities, the education and health sectors and Crown corporations would be covered and that the public's right to know about public sector collective bargain-

[ Page 11492 ]

ing would not be described too narrowly. This bill will introduce an element of discipline into the disclosure process for collective bargaining in the public sector that will obligate both sides to file the details of the negotiations for public view.

It is not the intention of this legislation to interfere with the dispute resolution systems that are described in other acts. This process is not interventionist; it is informational. The intention of the labour legislation in this province is to facilitate orderly dispute resolution. This bill is presented as a companion to labour legislation, on the premise that a better-informed public can only assist the process. With a heightened awareness by the taxpayer and an obligation to disclose on the part of the public sector employer and the public sector union, confusion about the issues will be minimized.

Additionally, I should point out that while this bill is informational and intended to let the sun shine in to public sector bargaining, it would not be acceptable that one side or the other use this bill as an instrument for delay. Clear provisions have been made to ensure that due process is followed for timely compliance and that either party may seek relief in the event of non-compliance.

The government will be looking to appoint an individual who will act as the registrar, recognized as a neutral whose task is to provide information in a straightforward manner but who is not empowered to become embroiled in the dispute or pass judgment on the nature of the proposals of either side. No mediation or arbitration role is permitted by the registrar. There are ample dispute-resolution avenues available under the existing labour legislation, ably guided by the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Jacobsen).

The intentions of this bill are threefold: first, to require public sector employers and trade unions to file with the registrar all matters that are considered to be in dispute as early on in the bargaining process as possible so that the public may become aware of the nature and scope of the negotiations from the outset; secondly, to require employers and unions to file their final proposals in the event that strike notice or lockout notice is served so that the last proposals are understood by the public before any job action occurs; finally, that the registrar, in receipt of such final proposals, as expeditiously as possible arranges an open meeting to which the news media is invited, where the parties provide for the public a summary of all matters agreed and in dispute. The registrar is required to publish notice of this open meeting as well as provide a summary of those matters outstanding between the parties.

[9:00]

There is no question that this bill will require some adjustment on the part of the employers and the unions bargaining in the public sector; adjustment to a spirit of openness that has in some cases been well guarded; adjustment to the principle of the public's right to know that may require justification in public of a particular bargaining position. All of that we see as assisting the process.

Surely access to full and complete information about a potential labour public sector dispute is a positive step in effective labour relations in the province. The public has a right to know about collective bargaining issues that affect them as citizens of the province reliant on the services provided by the workers and as taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill.

I move the bill now be read a second time.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 14

Bill 79, Public Sector Collective Bargaining Disclosure Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Point of Privilege

TAPED CONVERSATIONS

OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the 2 o'clock sitting on Tuesday, the hon. second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers) raised what he described as a matter of privilege with respect to allegations against him attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Okanagan South summarized his complaint and tabled a witnessed statement by himself and a further witnessed statement signed by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). Finally, the member for Okanagan South tendered a motion that he would propose to move should the Chair find a prima facie breach of privilege.

Contained within the statements referred to above were allegations of certain conversations between the second member for Okanagan South and the member

[ Page 11493 ]

for Mackenzie and the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). The first member for Nanaimo spoke briefly on the matter of privilege and denied the remarks attributed to him in a tabled statement.

The gist of the complaint of the member for Okanagan South was that he was offended by remarks attributed to the Leader of the Opposition made outside the House. The Chair in this situation has no evidence as to whether or not the attributed remarks were actually made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and, in any event, does not have the power to order the withdrawal of words spoken outside the chamber.

While the member for Okanagan South may have a grievance, which he has brought to the Chair's attention, the matter as presented does not qualify prima facie as a case which would merit the member to move the appropriate motion.

I now turn to the matter raised by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), whose complaint was based on remarks attributed to the Leader of the Opposition, apparently on television. Again in this case there is no transcript available for the Chair to examine relating to these remarks; in addition, the hon. member for Mackenzie has not tendered with his complaint the appropriate motion. Accordingly the matter fails to qualify prima facie as a matter of privilege.

The Chair wishes to make a further observation which I hope will be of assistance to members. Unless remarks objected to are made in the House, or in a committee thereof and they've been reported to the House, the Chair is powerless to request a withdrawal. Even when in appropriate circumstances the Chair has requested such a withdrawal, he does not have any further power to order an apology. Speakers throughout the Commonwealth have stated time and again that while an order from the Chair to make a withdrawal is mandatory, the matter of an apology is left to the conscience of the individual member.

Finally, the Chair cannot help but observe that the recent proliferation of complaints presented as matters of privilege does little to enhance the dignity of this chamber. I would earnestly urge members to consider their material with considerable care before raising matters which they describe as privilege.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 38: minister's office, $352,605 (continued).

MR. PERRY: If a Page is available, I'd like to pass this document, which I'll raise momentarily, to the minister. While we're waiting, could I ask the minister whether he can confirm that Mr. David Hooper, the forensic auditor, has completed and submitted his report on hospital fraud to the Ministry of Health in early June? If so, when can we expect the report to be tabled in the Legislature?

HON. J. JANSEN: The report that the member is referring to looks at the purchasing policy for hospitals. I have discussed the report in draft form with our staff. I understand that the final document will be in my hands very soon, in which case I will be releasing it, as I promised previously, in the House.

MR. PERRY: I'd now like to turn to a matter of some urgency. I've just provided the minister — for his information; in case he hadn't been aware of it — a document dated July 18, 1990, on the stationery of Imperial Tobacco Ltd. of Montreal, Quebec, labelled: "For Use at Will."

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I note that the document provides a number for further information. I'd like to take the opportunity to enter it on the public record and encourage as many British Columbians as possible to avail themselves of further information from Mr. Michel Descoteaux, public affairs director, Imperial Tobacco Ltd. The office number is (514) 932-6161, and the residence number is (514) 364-1104. Those numbers are provided by Imperial Tobacco on this document.

This is a shocking document. It's a brazen announcement by Imperial Tobacco Ltd. that it plans to launch in British Columbia a new brand of cigarettes in the infamous kiddie packs, which we've discussed recently in this Legislature in the statement I delivered here on July 13 and also last July 14, 1989.

[9:15]

As members know, packages of cigarettes numbering less than 20 — typically 15 cigarettes — are specifically designed to seduce the child and teenage market, because they can be priced lower than ordinary packages of cigarettes. The deliberate, specific intention of the tobacco company in launching such projects is to seduce young people and deliberately addict them to tobacco.

In this document Imperial Tobacco Ltd. brazenly announces:

"Imperial Tobacco Ltd. has chosen British Columbia as a test market for its newest cigarette. The new, ultra-mild product, called du Maurier Ultra Light, comes in a newly designed package. They are available in regular and king-size formats and in packs of 20 and of 15 cigarettes. Imperial explained that the purpose of the smaller packs, the 15s, is to reduce the absolute cost to the smoker of trying a new brand. The prevailing cost of cigarettes creates a resistance" — a resistance, Mr. Chair — "among smokers to making the investment in a full-size package...."

I note that the Canadian Cancer Society, in a statement dated July 23, has objected to this, and I'll quote from their statement, a copy of which I have provided to the minister. The vice-president of Imperial Tobacco, Mr. Donald Brown, admitted in a trial involving a constitutional challenge to the federal Tobacco Products Control Act that light cigarettes of this type are no safer than other cigarettes. The Cancer Society points out:

[ Page 11494 ]

"The news release mentions that du Maurier Ultra Lights will come in packages of 15 and 20. The smaller packs of 15s are known as 'kiddie packs.' They are attractive to persons with lower incomes, and many children, of course, are among the most price-sensitive people. The kiddie packs of Imperial Tobacco will make it easier for B.C. kids to start smoking."

That's a memorandum from Ken Kyle of the Canadian Cancer Society office of public issues in Ottawa addressed to their British Columbia office.

Ms. Debbie Altow of the British Columbia and Yukon branch of the Canadian Cancer Society pointed out in a radio interview, a transcript of which I've also provided to the minister, the following:

"B.C. has now achieved the dubious distinction of having lung cancer overtake breast cancer as the most frequent cancer-related killer of women. With Imperial's new effort to attract new — that is, young — smokers to their new brand and to attract people who believe that 'ultra light' will mean less damage to their bodies, B.C. can expect that kids will find it easier" — I repeat: easier, Mr. Chair — "to start smoking and thereby remain addicted. It also demonstrates a devious device of using the words 'ultra light' to sound healthy, as an increasing number of foods that are so designated are low in fat and cholesterol."

I continue to quote from her radio interview, Mr. Chair.

"Young girls are the market the tobacco companies are after because they are statistically the biggest group of starting smokers; 11- to 14-year-olds are rebelling against authority, smoking to stay thin rather than eating more thoughtfully, and emulating the glamorous magazine ads that show beautiful women smoking in attractive surroundings. These are women who need more than information to change their lifestyles. They need environment and social support. Otherwise they will join the ranks of those succumbing to lung cancer."

On January 9, 1990, the ministry published a document entitled "British Columbia's Tobacco Reduction Strategy." I previously referred to this on July 13 in this Legislature. It's an admirable document. It comes from the office of health promotion, and it contains many good ideas, one of which — page 3 of the tabular strategy — is the following. Under objective 3, to help non-smokers, particularly youths, stay smoke-free.... Under the area "Tobacco Product Act, " the action proposed — I quote from the document — is: "Strengthen the Tobacco Product Act to help prevent youth from smoking. For example, prohibit vending machine sales to minors; provide warning labels on vending machines; prohibit sales of individual or small packages of cigarettes."

The suggested time-line in the office of health promotion is February to March, 1990. In the policy, planning and legislation division in the Ministry of Health it's February to March, 1990. The suggested time-line in legal services is February to March, 1990. Mr. Chair, last year on July 14 in Hansard — I haven't got the page here — I pointed out in this Legislature an eight-point strategy to deal with tobacco abuse particularly targeted at young people. The former minister, the first member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Dueck), and I quote him, responded: "Good stuff. I truly believe we should be treating tobacco like an epidemic; no question about it." That was July 14 of last year.

The Tobacco Product Act, passed in this Legislature in 1972 by the New Democrat government — to my knowledge the strongest act of its kind at that time, a pioneering effort — pointed out.... This is Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, chapter 403, section 4: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations and orders including those (a) respecting the labelling and packaging, and the selling, distributing, offering, exposing, promoting and advertising, of tobacco in the Province...."

I note for the record that the 1979 RSBC appears to have distorted the original intent of the Tobacco Product Act as published in the Statutes of British Columbia, 1972, second section at chapter 13. For those who are confused by section 2, where the wording is extremely confusing and appears to imply exactly the opposite of the intent of the bill, reference to the original bill published in 1972 will clarify the intent of the Legislature at that time.

I submit that the Tobacco Product Act of 1972 gives the minister the authority to prevent the marketing of kiddie packs of less than 20 cigarettes in this province. I called for him to do so in 1989; 1 called for him again to do that less than two weeks ago, on July 13. I'd like to ask the minister: in the face of this brazen assault by the Imperial Tobacco Company upon the youth of British Columbia, is he prepared to tell this Legislature that he will immediately draft regulations and submit them to cabinet to prohibit the introduction of this new kiddie pack and other kiddie packs of cigarettes in this province, as suggested by his own tobacco reduction strategy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Minister of Health, I would just like to note that while we allow a fair amount of freedom and levity in the debates, particularly under estimates, the member who has just finished speaking has in fact submitted two bills in relation to this matter. Perhaps the time would be better spent if he actually spent this time on the estimates of the minister, rather than the detail which is also contained in those bills.

HON. J. JANSEN: I repeat the comments I made earlier about the initiative that we see as really important: discouraging people from starting smoking, particularly our young people, and having a program in place to encourage those who now smoke to cease. It is proven time and time again that prohibition doesn't work. It certainly hasn't worked with alcohol and it hasn't worked with other things. I think it far more appropriate and far more effective to work with the public and our young people to ensure that the habit isn't started. I would agree, however, with the comment that if this company is marketing this product specifically targeted to young people, I would find it offensive. Certainly that is an item that I could correspond to them about and get

[ Page 11495 ]

their comment on in terms of what they expect this smaller package will do.

We know that young people starting to smoke is a very difficult problem. When I spoke about one of the items the hon. member made reference to in one of his members' statements, I referred to the premiere edition of Your Better Health magazine, in which we had one full page. We're repeating those articles in the next little while. This one is entitled: "B.C. Girls: A Smoking Time Bomb." It talks particularly about the problem of young women who are starting to smoke. We did a review of the readership of this, and that particular article, if I recall correctly, had a readership of almost 80 percent, which is very good for this type of magazine and for that article.

MR. PERRY: Any age distribution on that?

HON. J. JANSEN: No, the survey was really to get the responses in terms of the magazine and what caught their attention. I received letters from parents who took this article, cut it out and put it on their fridges. The type of coverage that we got was excellent on that.

I agree. If Imperial Tobacco intends to target our young people and lower-income classes, I find it offensive. I will certainly ask them for an explanation of why they are selecting our market, and why they are downsizing their product. I'd be interested to see their comments. Legislation can be looked at in terms of the next legislative period. I fully share the concerns the member has in terms of some problems in dealing with this habit.

I'm not sure if the member is aware of the Decisions program in our schools, which is a good program. It also deals specifically with smoking and peer pressure that youth are subject to. It's been very successful in its impact.

We also have new federal labelling requirements regarding the health hazards of smoking, strongly endorsed and supported by this government. Again I get back to, as much as possible, dealing with and encouraging the individual. Dealing with that concept of legislating, restricting, coercing or big stick.... I know that we want to see an end to this problem. We both share that belief, but we have to do it in a way that gets smokers onside rather than underground.

MR. PERRY: I thank the minister for his answer. There's some advance there. I certainly enjoy and approve tremendously of the article in the recent Your Better Health magazine. What would concern me is that although the readership may have been terrific — which is very good news — by its very nature this publication is largely targeted to adults. The odds are very small that young children in the age range at which British Columbia children begin smoking — anywhere from age eight up, and particularly young teenage girls — would be reading that.

In the case where a parent brings it specifically to their attention, perhaps the probability is higher. It would stretch credulity to imagine the typical teenager, as inspiring as the contents of the brochure are and as creditable as they are for their lack of political content, it's still unlikely that the average teenager is going to be reading it. If the ministry can produce evidence that they are, then I say more power to them and to the teenagers of B.C. as well.

[9:30]

I guess what we're getting at here is the ability of the ministry to act now, to follow through on its own strategy. I think this is relevant to the estimate we're debating, which is the minister's office and his salary. This is an area in which, of course, we share concern. No one in their right mind thinks smoking is a good idea. Anyone who has followed the debate recently is aware that smoking is addictive. Even the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Perrin Beatty, understands that, since he spent a lot of taxpayers' money asking the Royal Society of Canada to review the issue. In their report they concluded that of all known substances available to human beings, tobacco is one of the most addictive.

Here the ministry's own strategy — I repeat, a marvellous strategy, very creative and innovative — which combines approaches to individual and societal measures to really attack the tobacco epidemic as a disease in the way that public health officials have called for since 1954.... Here's a strategy, admirably produced by the minister's office of health promotion, dated January 9, 1990, and in one of the actions it calls for, the deadline is past — that was March 1990 — to strengthen the Tobacco Product Act. I don't think it requires legislation; I think it requires the political will to pass regulations which would prevent kiddie packs and which would prevent Imperial Tobacco from foisting this charade off on us.

I'll make one other constructive suggestion. Let the minister not take my word for it that Imperial Tobacco is deliberately targeting B.C.'s kids. I see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) listening with interest, because he's worried about this too. He knows that it's challenging to achieve the goal in the schools; it's not easy. Many of us in British Columbia have been fighting this battle for 20 years. I remember when my father had to storm his way into University Hill School and get by the school board in about 1962 in order to deliver the first anti-smoking lecture in that school's history, perhaps in B.C. history. It has been a long, hard fight, and it's never easy. But here we have an opportunity, through a simple regulation, to take a constructive step, widely advocated by virtually all of the health organizations in the field, across all disciplines. Why can't we just do it and get on with it and put Imperial Tobacco in its place for once? I encourage British Columbians to phone Imperial Tobacco at the numbers I've provided and find out for themselves what they're up to.

Another constructive suggestion is: let the minister not take my word; let him consult Prof. Rick Pollay in the Faculty of Commerce at UBC. His number is in the Vancouver telephone book on West 8th Avenue, I believe. He is a world authority on tobacco advertising and has been the expert witness.... I see the minister nodding. Perhaps he or the

[ Page 11496 ]

ministry has been in touch with him already. Professor Pollay is perhaps the world expert on how tobacco companies pervert the education of children and deliberately seduce them into addiction.

He was the key witness in the trial of Cipollone v. Liggett and Myers in New Jersey in the United States, in which for the first time a court awarded damages to the husband, who was the widower and the victim of the tobacco company, in the sense that his wife was literally killed by Liggett and Myers, which deliberately caused her addiction and her lung cancer. Professor Pollay provided key testimony by reviewing the history and the psychology of advertising, and I think he could provide the minister with an independent opinion of what Imperial Tobacco is up to in its campaign with its kiddie packs. I'd like to make that suggestion.

While we're still on the subject, I'd like to just give the minister a third and final offer to declare himself, as the senior health official in this province, entrusted by statute under our constitution to defend the public health, and to say whether he approves of the full-page advertisement that appeared today on page 12 of the Province for Benson and Hedges cigarettes. This advertisement is not literally an advertisement for Benson and Hedges cigarettes, Mr. Chair — I'd be happy to pass it to you, although I tabled a copy earlier today — but the words "Benson and Hedges" and the company logo figure prominently in it. It also says "Music '91" on it. That has some connection, I believe, with the provincial government's Ministry of Tourism in one way or another. I suppose, since it's sponsored by CKNW and BCTV, we'll be seeing or hearing on both of those channels ample evidence of the name Benson and Hedges.

I am certain that Professor Pollay would testify that this is a deliberate attempt to promote the sale of tobacco in British Columbia. Let's not kid ourselves. I've asked the minister a very simple question. I don't expect him to stop the Symphony of Fire. Only Benson and Hedges, I suppose, could do that. But I ask him to declare whether this is the right thing for us to be tolerating in this province and whether he would be prepared to take steps, in fulfilling his mandate and the responsibilities for which we are asked to vote him his salary, that under section 3 of the Tobacco Product Act of 1972, no person shall in the province exhibit or display or permit to be exhibited or displayed any advertisement or notice of or concerning tobacco, etc., except in compliance with the regulations made under the act. I think he has the power to stop this. I think this is an advertisement for tobacco, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.

May the House hear what the minister feels about this issue?

HON. J. JANSEN: I can only repeat what I said previously. I wonder how effective is this approach of restriction and prohibition, the big-stick type of approach that the member opposite wants to see in place. I believe strongly in the individual and encourage the individual to make informed choices as a result of knowledge that he or she obtains in terms of the damage to health that smoking does, in particular to young people, and to try to work with our young people to prevent smoking. That is the real payback, Mr. Member, not whether we restrict communication or restrict the approaches companies use in terms of their product. If the federal government outlaws that product, it's a different matter. I guess it's a question of what you think is effective. For me, measuring effectiveness is seeing our young people take an interest in the concerns of health issues respecting smoking.

When I see the readership and the interest that this one article has generated, this is the kind of thing that we're going to continue to do. We're going to do it effectively.

I look at my own family. None of my four children smoke. They made that decision themselves. If I had said, "I don’t want you to smoke and that's an order, " I don't think it would have worked. They made up their own minds, and that's the way it's going to be effective.

I want us to take a leadership role in communication, education and working with young people to encourage them to make that decision, which is a good one for their health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I enjoy the debate, and I'm sure all members of the House do; however, we must adhere to the rule of anticipation as to what we can discuss under the estimates. This subject has been fairly thoroughly canvassed, and there are two bills proposed by the same member on the floor of the Legislature. I would suggest that the member guide his further discussions on these estimates accordingly.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chair, I thank you for mentioning my two private member's bills, because I was trying to scrupulously observe the rules and not violate the rules of the House by mentioning them myself. I appreciate the credit for them.

I'm talking about the minister's job and his salary. Of course, I will submit to the ruling of the Chair, but I find this totally in order. The people of my riding elected me for some very specific reasons. They knew darn well I would fight for the health of people in this province, because I had a long record of doing that as a physician. They knew darn well I would fight for preventive health measures, because I have a long record of doing that.

The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons requires that all candidates for its specialty examinations be graded on their participation and their vigour in preventive health measures. When I received my final evaluation, that section of my evaluation was not filled out. Some physicians in B.C. didn't take that responsibility very seriously. I refused to countersign that evaluation until it was filled out, with an excellent mark, because I have spent most or all of my professional life as a physician fighting the effects of tobacco smoke. I have looked after...

[ Page 11497 ]

Interjection.

MR. PERRY. I hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) interjecting: "Aren't you wonderful?" I wonder if he ever listens to his lovely wife, who, as I have, has looked after patients dying of lung cancer, bladder cancer or other diseases caused by smoking. I wonder if he has ever seen a desperately ill patient in his forties, hooked up to a ventilator, dying from lung cancer caused by smoking, caused by Imperial Tobacco or Benson and Hedges — deliberately.

I wonder whether other members like the former Minister of Forests, who thought that AIDS was a funny joke and that "Sodomy Forever" was the NDP theme song....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You've got the principles of a gnat.

MR. PERRY: I wonder if the Minister of Education, who says I have the principles of a gnat, but who refused to allow the Canadian Cancer Society to submit its anti-smoking film for review in his ministry, has ever actually dealt with somebody professionally who was dying from the effects of smoking. I wonder if they would take this matter as a joke, and if they would not think I have a right as an elected representative of the people of this province to stand in this Legislature and fight for what I think is right in the only way available to me in these estimates debates.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: You're a political opportunist, nothing else.

MR. PERRY: Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask the Minister of Education to withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just again like to remind the member speaking in particular — or who just finished speaking — that we are on the estimates. I would suggest, rather than making comments to various ministers in the House and about their ministries, that the discussion should zero in on the estimates we are here to discuss in these debates.

MR. CASHORE: My colleague rose on a point of order. He asked that the Minister of Education be asked to withdraw a remark where he, in an unparliamentary manner, referred to my colleague as a political opportunist. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that you make the appropriate ruling.

[9:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to the point of order made by the member for Maillardville-Port Coquitlam, I would just like to state that I was asking for order in the House before the member for Vancouver-Point Grey continued standing up, trying to make a point of order. Does the member at this point wish to make his point of order?

MR. PERRY: Yes, I will, Mr. Chair, if I may.

The Minister of Education made a catcall from his far-right corner of the Legislature suggesting that I am a political opportunist. I find the remark highly offensive. I find it beneath the dignity of this Legislature. If he would ever listen to the debates, perhaps he would for once learn something, instead of observing with his usual sanctimonious demeanour. I ask him to withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the level of noise that was in the House, I did not hear the comment. I would ask the member for Vancouver-Point Grey to continue on the estimates.

MR. PERRY:. Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to continue as long as necessary to defend what I see as the public health, and I refuse to be intimidated by other members of this Legislature who think that they alone know what's good for British Columbia.

I was trying to make the case that there is no more serious threat to the health of British Columbians than the tobacco epidemic. I have tried to make the case under the current regulations: B.C. regulation 258-72, order-in-council 3941-72, printed November 15, 1989: "Tobacco Product Regulations as Amended."

I'm not going to quote from it; I'll paraphrase it. It suggests that in any advertising of cigarettes in British Columbia a warning must be displayed. Members can read those regulations for themselves. If I didn't provide a copy to the minister, I will.

I want to ask the minister: does he think, or does he not think, this is an advertisement for tobacco? Because if it is an advertisement for tobacco, in my view it's illegal, and I say he's failing to fulfil his responsibilities as the Minister of Health, because this advertisement bears no health warning.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think this is the third or fourth time that question has been put to me, and I hope we move on to other matters.

I understand the severity of the concern the member has in terms of this issue. I've tried to make it as clear as possible that I also feel that a better approach for us to take is to deal with our problem in a proactive and positive way, rather than looking at censoring advertising. There is other advertising that I'm sure could be construed as non-supportive of health; I think there's much more advertising.

I don't know if you want to get into a censuring type of situation or whether you want to deal with the problem as it should be dealt with: initiatives that deal with our young people and the workplace environment; initiatives of working with the physicians of British Columbia and in the school environment. Those are all things that I think we should talk about and find out how effective they are. Initiatives in terms of this highly successful document and highly successful article in this paper have an impact on our young people — not an advertisement or something they see that has impacted the newspaper environment or whatever it is.

[ Page 11498 ]

MR. PERRY: I'm not sure how to construe that answer or whether the minister agreed that this is in fact an advertisement — if so, by implication he's agreeing that it's illegal because it does not carry a health warning — or whether he doesn't think it's an advertisement.

The world authority on tobacco advertising at the moment, Professor Pollay, thinks it's an advertisement for tobacco. I haven't spoken to him personally about this particular advertisement, but he thinks all such advertisements are advertisements for tobacco. By the law of British Columbia they're required to carry a health warning. I don't see it here. Maybe it's here in a microscopic form that I can't read.

The opposition House Leader points out that when the Speaker made the decision to prohibit smoking in the Legislature, he did so for good health reasons because it was the right thing to do. He did not specifically offer education to members of this Legislature. He didn't offer free non-smoking classes; he didn't offer free nicotine gum; he just did it. Most of us observed it, because we respect the law in this province.

I'm asking the minister: does he or does he not respect the law in this province? Does he think it's important to enforce the health laws of the province or not?

HON. J. JANSEN: I guess the answer to the question is yes, obviously.

I don't know when we're going to get onto other issues. I would hope we do deal with the other issues that this ministry has. There are quite a number of divisions and a large budget. We spent an hour and a half dealing with advertising and Benson and Hedges and Imperial Tobacco and so on. I know those are important issues, and I agree, but let's carry on and talk about some of the other issues. Let's talk about some of the positive things we're doing. Ask some questions, and I'd be pleased to answer. But this is somewhat ridiculous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to state that the minister — or any minister — is under no obligation to answer the questions. I believe the subject has been canvassed satisfactorily.

MR. PERRY: I'm glad that it wasn't stated that the minister is under no obligation to enforce the law, because I think he is.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let's turn to a further argument. The minister did say that he thinks there are more practical ways to discourage smoking. The opposition House Leader points out....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is some policy in this House against tedious repetition. We have had tedious repetition for an hour on one item that the minister has answered several times. That member is so impressed with his own omnipotence that he has to go on on one item indefinitely, forever. If the minister does not reply the way he wants, then he says: "Does the minister respect the law?" It's high time he was called to order on this tedious repetition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certainly we do have rules with respect to tedious repetition. If the member could move along to another subject, it would probably be appreciated.

MR. PERRY: There are many others I want to cover. I'll finish with this one very briefly. As I had begun to say before the interruption, a few moments ago the minister stated his interest in practical measures that will reduce the smoking epidemic among B.C. children. I say let's turn to an expert. One was on television a couple of nights ago — a tobacconist on the main street in Victoria, Government Street; a real expert who pointed out that the measure most likely to reduce the consumption of tobacco, particularly by children, was an increase in the real price of tobacco. I note that I received the same advice from a young constituent, Eliza Lloyd-Smith, who pointed out: "Smoking is not good for you. I think sigerets should be expensiver, because then people will not buy them, and then people will not smoke. Your friend, Eliza." That's very sound advice. It comes from a young girl in my constituency.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Health whether he has made representations in the course of his tenure to the Minister of Finance that the real price of tobacco be increased; and that instead of having one of the lowest tobacco taxes in the country, British Columbia should perhaps consider revising those taxes if we're really serious about wanting to reduce the health impact of smoking.

Let me just remind the House that the provincial tobacco strategy points out that smoking-attributable mortality accounts for almost 3,500, or 16 percent, of all deaths In British Columbia. There is an estimated $710 million, in 1982 dollars, per year in smoking-related losses, with $290 million on health care alone.

This isn't some minor problem. If we ever hope to address the kinds of problems we discussed this morning, if we hope to reduce the cost of heart surgery in this province, if we hope to reduce the drain on intensive-care facilities, we have to tackle this issue. We have to aim for a target a little more vigorous than perhaps 20 percent smokers by the year 2000. We have a strategy drafted by the minister's own staff in front of us. I’m simply asking him: what is his commitment to action? He's not the Minister of Finance or the Premier; he's the Minister of Health in this province.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, the question is whether or not I have a commitment to health. The answer simply is yes, obviously.

MR. PERRY: Let me move on to some other matters then. I'll raise very briefly for the record that the minister and his staff have endured a very

[ Page 11499 ]

difficult experience recently with the hunger strike of the foreign-trained doctors, and the hunger-strikers have endured a very difficult experience. The ministry, the university and the hospitals have made a constructive and reasonable approach to the situation. In publishing their response yesterday, they made a constructive step to help resolve the dispute.

One issue that has been raised by that hunger strike, which I feel it's much more timely to address now that the hunger strike is over and which raises a long-term issue, is the question of the health needs of ethnic communities and non-English-speaking British Columbians. This is a rapidly developing field in which the needs are becoming Increasingly apparent. They're very complex.

I have requested to the minister that the legislative Committee on Health, Education and Social Services review this area in a non-partisan way. I know that earlier today he answered that all of this work will be done by the five commissioners of the Royal Commission on Health, and I'm sure they will be asked to address this subject. I know that many members of the multicultural community are planning to make submissions to them. But I think that we, as elected representatives of the public, could usefully contribute to this debate, if nothing else by gaining through the process understanding of the needs and aspirations of the ethnic communities.

I frankly admit that the hunger strike by the foreign-trained physicians certainly sensitized me to some of those issues and brought before me issues, which I probably had not considered thoroughly. I think members on both sides of the House could profit from that thorough consideration. May I ask the minister: is that not a reasonable request, that the Legislature recommend that the committee consider these issues at some time during the legislative off-season?

[10:00]

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure why we're mixing the question of foreign-trained doctors and their qualification into a teaching hospital environment with the requirements of our multicultural society. Those issues are quite distinct and separate. We are trying to find a solution for the foreign-trained students. It's difficult because of the standards set in part by his own colleagues, by the medical college and by those that do the hiring. I understand the concerns and frustrations.

The multicultural aspect was one of the items that I presented to the royal commission as a challenge that I hope they can assist us with and also make some comments on. It is indeed a challenge and it is indeed a problem.

Perhaps no one knows this as well as someone who comes from a different culture, as I do. I came here many years ago, and I can still tell you stories about some of the problems that my parents and my family had to go through to access health care at that time. Yes, those are difficult things. Yes, we are trying to address those, and we will over time be introducing some initiatives.

We are now putting materials out in different languages. We are becoming more and more aware, through our contacts with different groups, of their needs and their concerns.

Also, tied in closely to that is our own native community. We are looking at challenges. There are solutions, and we expect the royal commission to come back to us with a review process.

I've also asked staff of the Your Better Health magazine to do a coverage on that in the next issue. It will focus on the city of Vancouver's multicultural health care, its access awareness, and the education coordinator that they have in place, Yes, I agree that those are issues that we must address.

Given our multicultural component and our multicultural mix and the immigration that is coming into our province, we have to take a very strong and multi-pronged approach for dealing with this.

MR. PERRY: I'll move on to another issue. Since the minister asked earlier today for constructive suggestions, I'll refer to some that I presented to him with my colleague the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) in a letter dated June 13 of this year regarding the proposed women's health centre at University Hospital, Shaughnessy site.

These were suggestions, I hasten to add. In general, and appropriately, it's up to a hospital to decide what it may offer that will be useful to the community. But there's also a role for government in responding to community needs, and of course hospitals can only offer what they're funded for in general by government or other agencies.

We made some suggestions which we felt were quite constructive, some of which the hospital was planning and others which went a bit beyond the scope of what that hospital was planning and which we've discussed with University Hospital, Shaughnessy site.

For example, we suggested in response to the letter to which I referred this morning from Rebecca Fox and others regarding services for women infected with HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, that a centre for women infected with HIV be established and that Shaughnessy Hospital might be a convenient site. I ascertained fairly clearly that St. Paul's Hospital, which has done heroic service in this field, would be unlikely to view that as aggressive competition by a hospital sometimes seen as a competitor. It's increasingly apparent that there's a real need in this area. Perhaps Shaughnessy Hospital isn't the ultimate answer, but I wonder whether the minister has considered our suggestion and given some thought to either that or alternative solutions.

I'll pose a few other questions and perhaps he can respond to them in a group. We also raised the issue of some clinic centre to deal with the growing problem of the so-called post-viral syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis, a problem for which I am sure the minister has also, like myself, been bombarded with correspondence from people around the province who feel that the present understanding in the general medical community of this syndrome is

[ Page 11500 ]

perhaps not sufficiently developed to provide the kind of service required by such patients.

Dr. Stephen Sacks, a virologist and infectious disease consultant at the University Hospital, tells me that insurance companies are becoming extremely worried about this problem because of the claims that patients make for long-term disability as a result of this condition. It's not a new condition; it's one that has been recognized by a minority in the medical field for years or decades, perhaps even hundreds of years, but that is still very poorly understood.

I think that the patients complaining have a valid point: that a clinic in the province could provide a useful service in providing the most up-to-date diagnostic and management expertise to help not only patients but the health professionals who deal with this complex problem come to grips with the syndrome, whatever it is.

A third item that I raised was the possibility of a breast-feeding centre. This is something that Dr Verity Livingstone, an expert on the promotion of lactation and the provision of consultation for women experiencing difficulty in lactation after delivery, has been advocating for a long time. There is such a small centre in Vancouver, but Dr. Livingstone proposed, as early as 1988 or 1989, a somewhat expanded centre located near the Grace and Children's hospitals, where it might have the largest impact not only on the women that it serves directly but on the practice of young physicians and nurses in training in British Columbia. I thought it was a sensible idea and arranged a meeting last year with the now Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran), and I'm not aware that any progress has been made towards this.

I know that the ministry made an aggressive attempt to encourage the Grace Hospital not to continue to accept free formula samples, which tend to discourage young mothers from breast-feeding, and I commend the ministry for that. I wonder if the minister wants to comment on what further we can do jointly to encourage the Grace Hospital to observe World Health Organization standards and accepted Canadian standards and resist the temptation to accept free formula samples.

I guess a final suggestion that concerns a small number of people — but an important group — was the possibility of improving services for adolescents affected with eating disorders — typically bulimia and anorexia, which primarily afflicts young women, who can literally starve to death.

The Children's Hospital is really unable to provide services for such teenagers. Services are currently rendered at Sunny Hill Hospital, so that some children initially treated in the Children's Hospital must then be transferred to Dr. Tonkin's program at Sunny Hill.

I think there are good reasons to consider centralizing that program at the Children's-Grace-Shaughnessy site, particularly since it primarily afflicts young women. I wonder whether the minister or his staff has given some thought to those ideas. I don't expect him to say yes to all of them, but perhaps he could indicate whether they're being examined.

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, the women's health centre that we were talking about at Shaughnessy is under development. Your comments in terms of how you would like to see that site developed were received after I indicated to you in a question period that we are developing it, and I appreciate your input.

We have not yet fully decided on working with the hospital; obviously it's the hospital who must give the input in terms of what the face of that program will be. But we are developing that, and we will be announcing it soon.

I'll also be responding in detail very soon to your letter. A number of the points you raised were raised in your letter, and we will be responding to you and giving you our opinion or what we intend to do.

I should mention that Dr. Rekart is at this time considering a proposal for the development of a needs assessment study for HIV-positive women as part of the AIDS strategy that we're developing.

The breast-feeding program is currently being reviewed at Grace.

The issues you raised are all things that I hope over the next little while we will be able to give you a positive announcement on.

MR. PERRY: That's encouraging news, and with this rate of progress, I think we can get out of here before the next day begins.

Another issue that troubles people throughout the province, and in which I've had a lot of input — and I suspect the minister has also — is the question of whether Lyme disease is a problem in British Columbia. It's a very complex and controversial one. Certainly through Dr. Farley on his staff, the minister will have received a copy of a letter I solicited from the chairman of the infectious diseases division of the University of British Columbia, Dr. Anthony Chow, which, typical to his academic reputation, provides a rather exhaustive review of this issue. It's not, the minister will be relieved to know, my intention to read this letter into the record, because it's rather dense and complex.

Dr. Chow reviewed some of the uncertainties surrounding this field and the difficulty in knowing whether patients are or are not affected by the spirochete causing Lyme disease — Borrelia burgdorferi — or whether perhaps they are infected by another spirochete that appears to be common in British Columbia — Borrelia hermsii. This is again an area where there are no simple solutions.

Interestingly, public health practice and physicians have been, for the most part, relatively conservative in British Columbia in accepting that this disease may be present, whereas in the adjoining state of Washington, the communicable disease epidemiology branch of the Department of Social and Health Services in a document dated June 2, last year, prepared by Dr. Trueman Sharp, suggests: "It is now evident that Lyme disease also occurs in Washington

[ Page 11501 ]

State and the rest of the Pacific Northwest." He suggests that most of the 29 confirmed cases identified to date in Washington State residents have occurred on the western side of the Cascade Mountains, particularly in populated counties such as King and Pierce Counties in the area of Seattle and Puget Sound.

I'm concerned that some of those individuals who are convinced they have Lyme disease may be right. This presents an extremely difficult problem for physicians and, of course, an even more difficult one for the people suffering from the symptoms. They've been doing a very vigorous job of trying to draw their concerns to the public attention.

The salient feature of the letter that I solicited from Dr. Chow is his comment that Dr. David Burdge from the division of infectious diseases at UBC, Dr. David O'Hanlon, a rheumatologist based at Shaughnessy Hospital, and the Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society have intentions to open a Lyme disease clinic to serve as a central referral and clinical investigation facility.

[10:15]

Dr. Chow also points out the work done by Dr. S Banerjee in the division of medical microbiology at Vancouver General Hospital, and he summarizes his letter in the end by pointing out: "I believe that this whole area of tick-borne diseases, particularly Lyme disease, borrelia, relapsing fever, human ehrlichiosis and Q fever, should be high-priority areas for investigation in B.C. Substantial research funding should be specifically targeted for this area of investigation."

I think what this adds up to is a need for the specialty clinic. Perhaps it will need some small additional funding. We're not talking about large amounts of money, I don't think. Perhaps we need some additional funding to the division of communicable diseases and medical microbiology for Dr Farley's and Dr. Banerjee's programs, perhaps even to other scientists working in the pest management or veterinary fields.

I wonder whether the minister can tell us what plans the ministry has for this fiscal year to expand research in this field and perhaps to facilitate the establishment of a referral clinic for Lyme disease or suspected Lyme disease in B.C.

HON. J. JANSEN: This issue is a current one that we have talked about previously, and I indeed have a copy of the letter from Dr. Chow.

The member may not be aware that we have, in fact, tested 5,000 cases. We have taken 5,000 specimens over the last little while, and of those we have confirmed 11 cases of Lyme disease. Ten of those are under investigation and have been acquired, we think, from outside the province, since they all give histories of visits to areas where Lyme disease is known to occur. We are giving as much information as possible to the public.

I don't know whether the hon. member gets this particular "Health File" bulletin. If he doesn't, I'd be pleased to ensure that in the future he does. This is a bulletin that we just started about a month or two ago — this is No. 1. It is given to all our medical health officers around the province and to other agencies that deal with the public in terms of health issues. It goes into a binder, so we will be adding to these as we go along. This one, the first one we have, is called: "Lyme and Other Tick-Borne Diseases." It gives a very good overview of the problem and gives a good way of dealing with the problem from a preventive perspective.

The next issue of Your Better Health magazine will also have an article in it. We now have a radio feature on the news which the member is probably aware of. Dr. Farley at BCCDC has also done a number of media interviews in terms of dealing with this problem.

We have funded two studies, costing $70,000, to establish the extent of the occurrence and the rate of parasitization with the bacteria that causes Lyme and also to establish the prevalence of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases in British Columbia. Both of these have been done with the department of science at Simon Fraser University, the infectious disease department and the University of British Columbia B.C. Centre for Disease Control, and prominent private practice physicians and veterinarians.

To date attempts at isolating the bacteria from over 100 ticks at the provincial laboratory have been unfruitful. In addition, attempts at isolating the bacteria from over 60 ticks in Washington State have also been unfruitful. But investigations are still continuing.

MR. PERRY: I was actually aware of much of that information, because that or similar information is contained in Dr. Chow's letter, which I solicited to prepare for this debate. The issue of the clinic really surrounds the question of how, in such an exceptionally difficult field of diagnosis, to serve the needs of patients who have an unusual and difficult syndrome which often disables them. How do we actually prevent the circus of patients who sometimes go from one doctor to another seeking relief of symptoms, when perhaps few of the physicians are fully aware of the details encompassed in Dr. Chow's letter or in the other statistics to which the minister referred? Whether or not we know whether the Lyme disease spirochete is present in British Columbia, or whether the Borrelia hermsii spirochete is present and is perhaps causing a disease or perhaps not, these people are afflicted by something.

One of the time-tested ways of providing service is a specialized clinic. That has been shown exceptionally well with the herpes clinic at UBC run by Dr. Sacks. In the infectious disease area there are many other examples one could cite in the province. It's a good idea. I think if we have a central referral agency to which a patient can go for, in effect, the court of last resort or a final opinion, it will actually save the province money as well as serve patients better. Perhaps not everyone will be satisfied by that final opinion, but most will find it useful.

Let me turn to another area. I'd like to ask the minister some specific questions about the function

[ Page 11502 ]

of the Pharmacare drug data utilization committee. What is the purpose of that committee? What is the membership? How often do they meet?

HON. J. JANSEN: We'll have the membership for the member as soon as possible. I don't have the names, and I don't know why you would expect me to have the names right this minute. I'm not sure how important they are to the debate. What is important is why we have the committee. The reason we do is to look at pharmacy profiles, to detect any abnormalities and to ensure that the system is working as it was designed to work.

MR. PERRY: If there are formal terms of reference for that committee, I wonder if the minister and his staff.... I see them nodding, so I assume I can obtain those. If possible, it would be useful to have an indication of how often they've met.

One of the things I'm getting at is an issue I think will be very difficult, both for this minister and for subsequent ministers of whatever political stripe, and that is the reform of Pharmacare.

I hope in a few minutes, very briefly, to make a case again for why it might be useful for the Committee on Health, Education and Social Services to review some of these questions in public. Clearly the royal commission will be obliged to review them. Equally clearly, some of their recommendations may be very controversial, no matter how valid they are. Therefore I hope I will at least plant the seed of an idea tonight that it might be useful for elected representatives of the people also to consider some of these issues in public. I'll give a couple of examples of what I mean.

Pharmacare was originally devised — in its very fundamentals, as I understand the program — to provide a guarantee that British Columbians would receive access to high quality and effective drugs as part of their medical therapy, regardless of their financial or economic circumstances. That's the basic goal of Pharmacare, and I think most of us accept that it's a good goal; hopefully all of us accept that.

At the time the system was designed, it was not foreseen —- and it probably could not have been foreseen — how many useful drugs and clones of useful drugs or near clones of useful drugs would proliferate. This process is continuing and it will only intensify in the coming decade or decades, very likely.

Every year now there are substantial numbers of new drugs introduced into the market, and it becomes increasingly difficult for physicians or any other health care provider to follow the literature and to make clearly rational choices in their prescribing practice. This is not an insult to physicians to say so. I certainly don't feel insulted to admit that I find it difficult to follow new developments in the pharmacopoeia. But it's a serious problem because a system of almost free provision of drugs is liable to significant waste despite the good intentions of health care practitioners and patients in this province.

I'll give you a few examples. I'm told that the drug Chronulac, which is a brand name of lactulose.... In 1986 the long-term care program ran up a bill of close to $1 million for that one drug alone. This is the reason I asked earlier today for the minister to indicate that he would provide access to data of this type. I have this only second- or third-hand, and I have no way of knowing whether this statistic is accurate. But if it were accurate, it would be alarming. Chronulac is an effective laxative, but it costs approximately ten times as much — or did at that time — as an equivalent standard product such as Magnolax. I'm told by pharmacists who work in that field that there was a very effective marketing campaign by the company, and suddenly in 1986 there was a barrage of prescriptions for Chronulac. Very likely the physicians who wrote those prescriptions had little or no idea of the costs of the drug to Pharmacare or to the public.

Again, I am prepared to admit openly a failing in part of my own medical school and in part a difficulty inherent in a system where drugs proliferate. It's a very difficult problem to resolve. The point is that at the moment Pharmacare does not provide an effective check or balance against that kind of prescribing, and major drug companies have a very strong vested interest in manipulating prescribing to suit their own purposes.

Another example. It was disclosed at a continuing medical education course on drug therapy in April of this year, sponsored by UBC, that for the drug Lovastatin, Pharmacare spent in the recently concluded fiscal year, or perhaps the one before, approximately $2.5 million. That money would have been spent primarily, I suspect, for patients over the age of 65. It is interesting to note that in the same presentation of the continuing medical education drug therapy course, it was observed that there is no scientific medical evidence to suggest that Lovastatin confers any benefit on people over 65 years of age. This is a cholesterol-lowering drug which is very effective in lowering cholesterol and may be very effective in the treatment of severe hypercholesterolemia — or high blood cholesterol — but has not been established in a recognized way to be useful in elderly people. It may even be harmful.

[10:30]

If it were true, as was said, that British Columbia taxpayers expended $2.5 million in one year for one drug which was probably useless and perhaps detrimental to the health of those patients, this would be a serious problem. I don't blame the Minister of Health for this problem. I don't blame his ministry. It's a very difficult one to address.

Another example would be the use of ciproflaxacin, which is a new-generation antibiotic. I'm told by long-term-care pharmacists that it has become extremely popular for the treatment of routine bladder or urinary tract infections, which could probably be treated equally well with a drug that may cost as little as one-one hundredth of that cost, such as ampicillin — an old drug — or sulpha drugs.

[ Page 11503 ]

What I'm getting at is that there are serious problems in this province in that field. The ministry has begun to try to address them. It has a difficult task, but I think it could be facilitated in its efforts by more openness. One of the requirements of rational drug use is a highly educated public. Our legislative committee, in a non-partisan approach to this issue, could help to air the issue in public, to inform the public on such issues and to facilitate the process of a rational and constructive change to preserve the basic goals of Pharmacare that most of us, if not all of us, respect.

I found, personally, that when I attempted to request information last year from Pharmacare for a continuing medical education course held at St. Paul's Hospital in my capacity as a university lecturer, I had to pull some pretty clever manoeuvres to gain access to the data. I relied on an old friend and some very sweet talk with the imminence of a lecture about an hour away in order to get some very basic, non-political data on the prescribing patterns of anti-depressants by physicians under Pharmacare. The goal of the lecture was to help to convince family physicians that sometimes cheaper drugs are as good as more expensive drugs in the treatment of depression. Yet I found it very difficult to get that information from Pharmacare.

I'm hoping the minister will indicate that he will make such information widely available, that he will recognize it's in the public interest to do this and that he will at least agree to consider the suggestion that the legislative committee review some of these issues to perhaps complement any impact that the royal commission will have in this area, perhaps even anticipate it in time.

HON. J. JANSEN: We have recently introduced, as you know, the product incentive program, working together with the pharmacists in the province to deal with some of these issues and to ensure that in fact some of the prescriptions are viable and can be substituted.

We have in the province a substitution program where pharmacists can substitute in some cases. But underlying all of this is, of course, physician awareness. I think that's a very good point, and as the member has indicated, it's not something that I can necessarily deal with. But we can, through looking at the profiles of Pharmacare, help this awareness and provide some advice.

I recently requested our Pharmacare advisory committee to carry out a detailed review of the Pharmacare program, and they are now in the midst of doing that. They have hired a consultant and I have asked for the review of the program to be completed with recommendations within the next eight months.

The other aspect of this is public awareness, and I think that's probably fundamental. I don't want to refer to this Your Better Health magazine all the time, but it's in keeping with the member's interest. In fact, in one of the first issues we talked about medication use and misuse. There we identified the ten most commonly prescribed brand-name drugs that are being utilized.

It's a question of public awareness. The triplicate program is another program that is going to enable us to massage some of this data and to accumulate data, and to find out again some of the reasons why some drugs are in more common use than others and whether they're being incorrectly used or overused — or some of those problems. I think that's very important.

The question that is always asked of me and, I'm sure, of the member opposite is: are we being over-drugged in our society? Are we prescribing too many drugs? It's difficult to tell, and I'm sure the member would agree that we are in fact being over-drugged, particularly our seniors. That's why the brown bag clinic program that we had a little while ago was very well used. I recall that when we introduced that program, the pharmacist was talking about giving prizes to the person who brought in the oldest prescription and the person that brought in the most prescriptions. One of the oldest prescriptions dated back 20 or 30 years; it was still in her closet. And the person with the most prescriptions came in with 60 boxes of drugs that were in her bathroom closet.

So those are really problems for us, and once we have both the royal commission and the Pharmacare advisory committee, I would be pleased to share some of those findings with the member in the spirit that we can work together to deal with this problem.

MR. PERRY: I'll take that again in the spirit of this morning's debate as an encouragement that the ministry will provide me with appropriate information in preparing my submission to the royal commission. Preparation of a constructive and useful submission in this field will depend tremendously on data that are presently in the computer files of the ministry. I think we can agree that it will be in the public interest for both opposition and government to raise some points of mutual concern before the royal commission.

The hour is getting late, and I'm going to raise this rather more superficially than I had originally planned, but simply to put it on the record, I have some concerns that pharmacists in this province have been having a rough time from the government and the ministry, and that they have some legitimate complaints to make. It's widely supposed by the public that pharmacists make a large mark-up on drugs in their inventory. I have yet to encounter anyone in the public, including physicians, who thinks that pharmacists do not mark up their drugs. In fact, they don't. They're not allowed to mark up drugs in their inventory, and therefore the more the expensive drugs proliferate that they're obliged to stock, the more difficult sometimes their financial status becomes. They're obliged to store large, very valuable inventories of drugs on which they may not make a profit.

I think there were good reasons in the original intent of this system, and I'm not sure that I would

[ Page 11504 ]

recommend abandoning it, but it does raise an issue of whether the dispensing fees that are paid to pharmacists are reasonable. Of course, the minister is aware, as was the former minister, that the competition by large superstores since the advent of the co-payment charge has placed great pressure on small, independent pharmacies. British Columbians perceive that they are being asked to pay a large fee for their prescriptions and seldom understand some of the financial exigencies that small pharmacies face. I wasn't aware of them before my election, and I've learned quite a bit from the pharmacists. I think they have some valid points.

I also think they have quite a bit to contribute to the rationalization of drug use in this province. I note with interest figures from the provincial long-term care program that suggest that the average number of prescriptions for prescription drugs received by patients in long-term care is 4.6. If we add to that over-the-counter drugs such as Tylenol or Aspirin or acetaminophen, 0.3, the total would be about 4.9 drugs per patient. That, I agree with the minister, may still be too high, but it's not for us to make that judgment here.

In other provinces the figures seem to be higher: 6.0 in Alberta; 6.8 in Saskatchewan; 6.8 in Ontario. Doubtless these figures are not strictly comparable, but it is interesting that in long-term care, statistics suggest that we have a reasonably successful, albeit far from perfect, control over the administration of drugs to elderly people in long-term-care facilities. We have made some successes that other provinces might envy us for.

One thing that concerns me is when the pharmacists raise their worry that under the present financing arrangement it becomes increasingly difficult for them to maintain the medication review processes which have helped to achieve this success. They feel that those reviews contribute to the saving of perhaps as much as $4 million per year, which is a figure derived from comparing the number of drugs per patient in our facilities with the number in a province like Ontario.

I think it goes beyond us at this late hour to deal with the details of that issue, but I raise it for the record and to draw again to the minister's attention that I at least am convinced that we need to take their concerns seriously and to listen to what they're saying in order to try to develop a cooperative relationship in which both government, on behalf of the people, and pharmacists can find a really productive modus vivendi. I don't know if the minister wants to respond to that. If so, I'll sit down.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

HON. J. JANSEN: Yes, I am fully aware. I have met with the pharmacists of the province and talked with them about some of their economic concerns. As a result, everyone is aware of the programs we announced in May of this year to provide an incentive program to increase the revenues for pharmacists and, at the same time, to try to reduce the costs for the province. That was as a result of a review we had done by an accounting firm which indicated to us that this is an opportunity for us to do both.

With particular concern for the small rural pharmacies, we also introduced a special program for them, because we understood their concerns, given that their volumes are significantly different. They have inventories not dissimilar to those in large urban settings. We did put in place a new program for them as well.

The issue respecting contracts between long-term-care facilities and the pharmacists is a little more difficult, given that we do enter into contracts with them. We recognize their concerns, and we will be discussing those issues with them, as we always do.

Obviously we are concerned about whether or not they are able to carry their inventories and deal with their costs, and we would, as always, be prepared to listen to some of those arguments.

[10:45]

MR. PERRY: I'd like to revert to an item that was raised earlier this evening by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), the very controversial issue of the interior cancer clinics. I don't propose to deal with it in depth. I want again to remind the minister that I proposed many times that the legislative committee on health review this issue, and I honestly believe that the committee could offer a non-partisan public review of some of the controversial technical issues surrounding this most controversial of health decisions made in the last year in this province. I don't think there's any question that there has been political interference in this decision. The real question in my mind — and, I'm sure, in the minds of the minister and his staff — is what will be in the best long-term interests of the patients of British Columbia throughout the interior of this province; what will really be in the best interests of patients afflicted by a potentially fatal disease, the various forms of cancer that respond to radiotherapy.

Ultimately that is partly a technical question and partly a political question — in the good sense of the word "political." There's a responsibility by elected representatives of the public to respond to the expressed wishes and needs of the people, and that's made it very difficult for me to make up my own mind on this question. I've tried to step back from my own professional bias and maintain an open mind on this issue. I know that there are very strong arguments presented on the one hand by the Cancer Control Agency of B.C. — and Kelowna of course, which supports its position — and on the other hand by the city of Kamloops and other affected communities. Members from the interior from this side of the Legislature have brought many of those concerns to my attention — like, for example, the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt). I've asked myself many times, as I'm sure the minister has, how best one would meet the needs of people in British Columbia. What troubles me is that I see evidence that the ultimate decision has been made not necessarily consistent with those principles.

[ Page 11505 ]

I want to very briefly explore some aspects of how the ultimate decision most recently announced by the minister was made. I want to again commend to him a possibility. I can't instruct him; it's not my place to do so. But I can make suggestions. I'll make again the suggestion that it would be useful for the legislative committee to review this matter in a bipartisan way, since its members do not come from either of the affected communities, and since both parties have similarly genuine concerns over the interests of people in the interior.

I'd like to ask the minister... For example, I note that on the committee of the Cancer Control Agency that made recommendations in an ad hoc committee report, dated May 1989, a senior member of his own staff, Dr. Robin Hutchinson, was a corresponding member of that community. Would the minister be willing to tell us what views Dr. Hutchinson expressed to the ministry on this issue?

HON. J. JANSEN: I'm getting a somewhat confused signal on this issue, to the extent that I don't really know whether the member is saying that we made an incorrect decision or is trying to explore comment related to that decision, and whether there should be more political discussion concerning this decision.

It is quite clear that his leader, the Leader of the Opposition, some time ago stood up In the House.... It wasn't him; it wasn't any other member. It was important enough for that side of the House that the Leader of the Opposition stood up in his place and demanded to know why I hadn't brought a cancer agency into the city of Kamloops. That was his statement, and he went on at length about it, quite upset that we hadn't done it in Kamloops. Subsequently the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey made some comment in the media which I thought was somewhat offensive. I hope what was reported was not what the member said, because I think him to be an honourable person.

He also said that in the long-term interests of the people of the north and the people of the interior... That is really my interest; it is not a political interest. It's an interest that I know — having lived outside the lower mainland, having had that serious illness in my family — of some of the problems. I understand some of the concerns. I've also travelled the province visiting some of the other communities and listening to their frustrations.

Here we have an opportunity — when we've identified that we need an additional capacity for dealing with this serious disease by a certain time-frame — and an option that is rarely presented to us to do something constructive for the interior of our province. That was the underlying reason we made the decision.

We have appointed Dr. Neil Fatin as the project coordinator with the ministry, and he will be working with the Cancer Control Agency of British Columbia. I've also had a meeting — as the member is aware — with the Cancer Control Agency to talk about this decision. I find it is a decision that reflects the concerns that are raised to us on a regular basis. I hope the member opposite is not now changing his party's view about this issue, because I had understood it to be — in listening to the Leader of the Opposition — very supportive of the placement of facilities in the Kamloops community.

MR. PERRY: This is such a complex issue that it's going to be very hard to deal with briefly, but let me be clear. The issue that continues to trouble me and that I don't feel I know the answer to — I'm not sure the minister knows the answer; maybe nobody does — is, in part, a technical issue. Is it possible to provide an equally good quality of service with small centres in two locations as there would be with one large centre in one location? I understand that members of the Cancer Control Agency have felt that regardless of the sitting, it might be better to have the one centre in one place, even if it were not where they recommended it. I don't honestly know the answer to this question. Maybe those people who suggest that two small centres can do as well are more innovative and free-thinking, and maybe they're correct.

I am troubled by the fact that there seems to be so much reservation about this decision, if I may put it mildly, by those people with the greatest experience. I notice also that a woman whom the minister has recently chosen as his special adviser on nursing care issues, Bonnie Jamieson, was also a member of the committee that unanimously made a recommendation different from what the minister has decided.

I note tremendous public confusion over what's really at stake here. For example, in the report "Forward Planning for Radiotherapy Facilities in British Columbia, 1991 to 2001, " submitted to the ministry in February 1988 by the Cancer Control Agency, Dr. Jackson, head of radiation oncology, points out: "The trend in radiation therapy is to deliver services over an increasingly long period of time." He states on the last page of his report that Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto recommends an average of 20 fractions per patient, compared to our 11 in B.C. That means 20 days of treatment, compared to 11 individual days.

Many people in the interior whom I've talked to feel that wherever the centre of treatment is, they will be driving back and forth on a daily basis to receive this treatment. I think that many of them don't understand how sick radiotherapy makes people feel. I see the minister nodding that he understands my point. Wherever these treatment centres are located, patients will often, if not usually, have to temporarily relocate to that community to receive the treatment. I don't think that that point has been made clear to the ordinary British Columbia citizen. I think the ordinary British Columbia citizen ultimately would choose, if she or he knew how to make that choice or if any of us do — the best treatment available and the highest quality treatment. Therefore I'm concerned when I hear that the B.C. Cancer Agency is worried that the recent decision may compromise the quality of care.

[ Page 11506 ]

I'll leave it, Mr. Chair, at suggesting again that the committee be instructed to review this question, because I think we could do a prompt, thorough review very rapidly. We could, with our power, subpoena independent witnesses, bring some light to bear on this question and perhaps help satisfy the public that the right decision is being made.

There are very few other matters that I want to raise. I note that the Minister of Finance is keen to retire, but he did consume a substantial amount of time earlier this evening, and perhaps we would have been done by now if he had been briefer.

I'd like to simply ask the minister whether he has considered some of the arguments made by the Hospital Employees' Union and by members such as licensed practical nurses that perhaps some of their talents are underutilized in British Columbia. This is a question I've been exploring as I've travelled around the province asking nurses, doctors, hospital administrators and practical nurses what they think about it.

There's great controversy, of course, in this area. Some people misconstrue the suggestion that a licensed practical nurse might be able to do more than we sometimes allow as a suggestion that licensed practical nurses should be in charge of critical care units. Of course, nobody's suggesting that, but I met one licensed practical nurse last fall who had been discharged from a general surgical ward — a gynecology ward — where it was felt that she couldn't live up to their technical expectations, only to find herself working in a coronary care unit and in the emergency department. Clearly she had a point that the administrative system in that hospital probably was not rationally utilizing her talents.

I think they make some good points, and I know that the royal commission will review this issue as well. But I would just like to ask the minister whether he has considered these. I see many of his colleagues suggesting these are good points. I'm glad to hear that other hon. members feel this is an interesting matter. I'm sure the practical nurses who brought the issue to my attention will be pleased to see that.

One further question is how the ministry is dealing with the concerns raised by the Hospital Employees' Union about remuneration for perfusionists, who have become a critical link in the open heart surgery program. Perhaps he could update us on where we stand on that.

I have three other very brief questions and I think we are finished for this evening. I'll desist personally.

Mr. Chair, the Canadian Nurse recently published a letter entitled, "Acting on the Environment, " from Jo Russell, a nurse at the Lady Minto Gulf Islands Hospital. This was sent to me by the nursing director of St. Paul's Hospital. I notice there are a lot of other interesting letters as well in that issue. But this nurse, Jo Russell, has found ways to improve the recycling of material and reduce the use of disposable items in her hospital, and has found a very cooperative attitude by the local hospital administration and board. I won't strain the patience of members by reading these suggestions right now, but I refer anyone interested to the Canadian Nurse for March, 1990, at page 6. I wonder if the minister will advise us whether he has in any way directly encouraged hospitals to promote recycling and reduce the use of disposable throw-away materials.

Another quick question is whether the ministry is reviewing its coverage of patients who are uninsured. I raised that this morning, and perhaps he can reassure us that measures will be reviewed to ensure that uninsured patients who can't afford their medicare premiums will be guaranteed coverage.

A final one. It's appropriate perhaps that we finish with this. I've not raised it at greater length this year because we had rather exhaustive debate last year and there has been recently much debate in the press over mental health services in British Columbia. Many of these issues were, of course, aired at the recent Schizophrenia 1990 conference, and I'd like in passing to compliment the ministry and Riverview Hospital for a very significant initiative, which was the registration of 75 Riverview nurses at that conference. I see that as a precedent in British Columbia and an extremely useful one. It was the silver lining in a very dark cloud of the handling by the Minister of Finance of that labour dispute of the public health, psychiatric and community nurses.

There remain some serious problems in that field. I want to use two as an example and just record them here. The first is the problem of the Triage unit on Main Street in Vancouver, a refuge for the most seriously mentally ill in the province, which finds itself in a position where its lease has not been renewed. It's on a month-to-month lease due to urban redevelopment in that neighbourhood. It may not be able to provide services to people who desperately need them. Can the minister reassure the House that measures are being examined to ensure that a facility will be found for Triage and that this excellent program will be allowed to continue serving the dispossessed people that it has faithfully served?

A final example, since I see the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) impatient to adjourn, is from his riding in the city of Powell River, the Source Club. I've received a large amount of correspondence about that club, which provides excellent services particularly to young and adolescent people with mental illnesses. The great concern from that community is that with improved funding those services could be extended to meet more satisfactorily the needs of people in that community. I'd like to simply draw that to his attention at this time, and perhaps he may wish to consider that in the future.

And with that said, I'll await the minister's answers. I thank hon. members of the House for their patience and their faithful interest in this debate.

HON. J. JANSEN: My answers will be brief. I did meet with the licensed practical nurses a couple of months ago, and we talked about some of their concerns. While the decisions rest with the hospital in terms of hiring, we are concerned about ensuring that there is an appropriate mix of LPNs and RNs, and the senior nursing advisory committee that we

[ Page 11507 ]

structured is specifically dealing with that issue. I've also encouraged the licensed practical nurses to make a presentation — which I understand they're going to do — to the royal commission. We are dealing with that. I know the concerns of the licensed practical nurses, and I share the thoughts that the member has on that issue.

On the perfusionists question, there was an arbitration of the wage settlement for that. I'm not sure if it was mediation or arbitration. In any event, it was looked at just recently. A final figure was arrived at through that process. We are, as you know, increasing the through-put of perfusionists in the province. I think we're relatively up to date now in terms of positions being hired.

I also will make a comment on recycling and what we're doing in the hospitals. Curiously enough, I made a speech to BCHA, and in that speech I encouraged them all to look at recycling. In fact, we are doing a pilot project with the GVHS. I'll be taking a very active interest in recycling programs in the hospitals. I think there's a tremendous opportunity.

Mental health. I would extend him thanks for his appreciation. I think it was a wonderful conference and very successful. Our staff, working with the medical profession, did an outstanding job.

The Triage facility on Main Street. I had an opportunity to visit it prior to the adoption of our mental health plan. That will be one of the initiatives we'll be looking at in terms of residential housing for mental health patients in the province. It is very concerning, and I know that we'll find a resolution to that.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey for his discussion on the budget. I think it was done in a very good way. I'd like to extend my appreciation to him for that.

Having said that, I move that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:09 p.m.