1994 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
FRIDAY, MAY 27, 1994
Morning Sitting
Volume 15, Number 20
[ Page 11153 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE MINING INDUSTRY
J. Doyle: It's my pleasure to rise today, during Mining Week, to talk about partnerships with the mining industry in this province. As all members of the House are aware, May 21 to May 28 has been proclaimed Mining Week in British Columbia.
The theme of this year's Mining Week is partnerships, highlighting the many partnerships between mining companies, working people, government, industry, suppliers and communities. These partnerships include programs to help the environment, create new jobs, attract investment, work together in the land use process, sponsor education projects for students of all ages, and numerous other partnerships. Government, industry and communities alike agree that mining involves a partnership worth preserving. Partnerships between government, the mining industry, communities and working people have formed the foundation of mining in my constituency of Columbia River-Revelstoke.
We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the operation of the Sullivan mine in Kimberley. Still operational today, the Sullivan mine has contributed immeasurably to economic development and employment in the Kootenays. Lead deposits were discovered in the Columbia River-Revelstoke riding, in the Kimberley area, in 1892 by Pat Sullivan -- what a nice name that is. The Sullivan discoveries led to the development of the largest lead, zinc and silver mine in the world. Cominco took over the mine in 1910. Large-scale production of ore began in 1923. For most of this century, metal concentrates from the Sullivan mine have been shipped to Cominco's smelting complex in Trail, creating thousands of jobs for the people of the Kootenays.
Today the partnership that existed between the mining industry and the people of the Kootenays for nearly a century continues. Government has worked with the coal sector to preserve jobs in the Kootenays. In March of this year, the government joined with Cominco and working people to save nearly 2,000 jobs in the city of Trail and nearly 700 jobs in the community of Kimberley, which I represent.
The two agreements in principle called for the modernization of the smelting complex in Trail and a $25 million expansion of Cominco's zinc production, along with a provincial installation of new power facilities on the Brilliant and Waneta dams. They represent another example of our government's commitment to promoting economic growth and laying the foundation for job creation. It is also a clear indication of our government's continuing support for the mining industry in British Columbia. Over 6,000 direct and indirect jobs in the Kootenays and British Columbia are now secure as a result of those agreements in March. I'm also pleased to say that mineral extraction in the Kootenays is continuing in 1994. Cobalt, silver and mining exploration is underway in the southeast Kootenays, in the Goldstream area north of Revelstoke. New coalmines are opening in the coalfields of the east Kootenays.
Our government understands the importance of a partnership with the mining industry and the important role we play in that partnership. We are fulfilling our role. In the 1994 budget the Minister of Finance introduced significant tax reductions and incentives to assist the provincial mining industry. Our government's strong show of support for the province's mining industry is worth over $100 million over the next five years, and $18 million in 1994 alone. Those incentives and programs will help to revitalize exploration, maintain international competitiveness and create new value-added opportunities in the mining sector.
Our initiatives will help bring jobs and investment to the mining sector and to the regions and communities who depend upon it. For example, Explore B.C., an incentive program to assist exploration of properties or developed mining sites with solid economic potential, will receive support totalling $13.5 million over the next three years. Under this program, a full third of total costs, up to $150,000 per property, will be provided to successful applicants.
Our government has also made changes to maintain the competitiveness of our mining industries, promote investment and create jobs for British Columbians. Payments of the B.C. mineral tax are now deductible against corporate income tax. The capital cost allowance for new mines has been raised by one-third against levies under the Mineral Tax Act. The rates for coal under the Mineral Tax Act have been cut, reducing mineral taxes by about 50 percent for all B.C. coalmines. Exploration costs can now be pooled for tax purposes. All these measures will make the mining industry in British Columbia more competitive.
Those are just some of the measures we have taken to live up to our role as a partner in keeping mining strong in B.C. During Mining Week, I encourage all members of this House to reflect on the tremendous contributions mining has made, and will continue to make, to the economic and social well-being of this province.
L. Fox: It's a pleasure today to stand and respond to the member's comments about partnership in mining. Typically, what we heard in his presentation is what we hear consistently from the NDP government. They say one thing but do something different. Over the course of the last two and a half years, what we've had from this NDP government are actions and more taxation, such as higher water taxes and fees -- you name it -- that have discouraged the mining sector, not encouraged it. The headline of a release by the mining industry on March 15, 1994, says it best: "Mining Industry Disappointed With Throne Speech." The member suggested that they relieved the mining industry of some taxes. The fact of the matter is that this government put those taxes on the mining industry when it came into office.
We have an industry that has looked elsewhere to make its investments. We have seen the industry move millions and millions of exploration dollars to Chile rather than invest them in British Columbia, where it has historically invested over the last 20 years, with the exception of '72 to '75, when this party formed government for those 1,200 dark days and chased the mining industry out of British Columbia.
We see that employment levels are at a ten-year low in the mining industry, having dropped by over 2,000 workers between '91 and '92. Exploration and development are at an all-time low, dropping to $29 million compared to $213 million in 1988. We see that total expenditures by the mining industry declined by 49 percent in 1992. Those are the real facts about where the mining industry and this government sit. We see a 55 percent decline in new mineral claims staked
[ Page 11154 ]
last year. There were no new claims and no new mines in 1993. The industry has lost over $1.6 billion in the last three years under this government.
[10:15]
Those are the real facts about how this government respects and has treated the mining industry. Mines are closing all over the province. When this industry suffers, so does all of the economy of British Columbia. And that member, coming from a mining area, should be ashamed to be standing up here talking about a partnership that does not exist between the NDP government and the mining industry of British Columbia.
J. Doyle: It's not unusual to hear the party member who just spoke -- I refer to the mining critic, the man of many parties -- once again giving his old speech. That's also the fellow, who, before he goes to bed every night, I'm sure has a little look under there for those awful people.
A few years ago, partners in the mining industry were really concerned about the future of mining in this province and the industry's ability to remain competitive on an international scale. But today our government's new incentives and tax measures are making a difference for the industry. A comparative look at mineral tax rates on an international scale shows that our mining tax rates are well below those of several other strong mining nations -- countries like Brazil, Mexico and Indonesia. Clearly our industry is competitive on the international scene.
Our partners in the mining industry have welcomed these policy changes that our government has made to encourage the mining industry in this province. I don't think our critic likely read this in British Columbia Report, but Jim Gardiner, the president of Fording Coal and president of the Coal Association of Canada, said that our government's budget initiatives for mining are "very much needed and appreciated. I think we have to give the government some credit. They listened to what we had to say."
Through our mineral strategy, we have recognized the need to bring mining policies in line with the government's overall economic, environmental and social goals. This means striking a balance between economic and environmental concerns, a balance that everyone in the mining partnership can live with. I think we are succeeding.
L. Krog: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.
Leave granted.
L. Krog: In the gallery today is a very bright and inquisitive group of students from Seaview Elementary School in Lantzville, accompanied by a couple of teachers and a number of very active parents. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.
AN EMERGING CRISIS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA'S ECONOMY
A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, I must admit I was paying close attention to the previous private member's statement. I want to thank the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke as well as the member for Prince George-Omineca for the excellent presentation this morning. It is somewhat related to the subject that I'd like to address.
I do not want to put forward a perspective that's going to raise problems. I just want to cue in on one area that all of us, everyone in western Canada regardless of our party affiliation -- whether we're members of the provincial Liberal or NDP or Reform parties, or for that matter, even the federal Liberal, NDP and Reform parties -- should address.
Throughout western Canada, I believe that our whole rail and port infrastructural transportation system is being subjected to a tremendous competitive force due to the international environment. Accordingly, this has a most profound impact on the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Perhaps we have been just a little too complacent -- not only politicians and members of government but the public at large -- to recognize that unless we understand and appreciate the significance of these pressures, which we must address for the remainder of the decade, we will witness a rapid and profound decline in our transportation system. This, in turn, will have a profound impact on our economy.
This is not a new idea. The Marshall report of 1992 emphasized that there is a coming crisis in the coal export industry, and I would suggest that it extends into the mining industry in British Columbia as well. We are subjected to a highly competitive international market. It means that the incomes and revenues from the rail transport system and the port of Vancouver will be severely impacted. This will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, and it will also mean the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Therefore it is appropriate to start thinking in terms of alternative uses for our two coal ports.
I also want to draw attention to the fact that we here in the lower mainland of British Columbia -- I would suggest it's also in the entire province and perhaps western Canada -- are being subjected to tremendous pressures. This is not isolated to the example of coal and mining but includes wheat and a variety of other freight as well. There are upward pressures on the rates for other freight, including wheat and other grains. At the same time that grain prices are depressed and show no ability to bear higher freight costs, we find that due to the GATT agreement, Crow rate payments now have to be reduced by about a third over the next few years.
What we're seeing is as a result of a very severe crisis facing the transportation industry in western Canada. The Canadian rail system is being forced to reorient itself from east and west linkages to north and south linkages. Increasing cost pressures will force prairie grains, for example, to be exported south by barge via the Mississippi Valley, and to the west coast via the Burlington Northern railroad in the United States.
Recently we had some problems in the port of Vancouver -- and I'm not attributing any blame, incidentally. That's too easy, and that may be a problem. We are too quick to blame, let's say, labour for labour costs. As a matter of fact, in the port of Vancouver, labour content has been reduced by three-quarters of a million hours, and production has increased 20 percent over the year. That suggests that maybe the actual labour costs have been kept down. So let's not blame labour, and let's not necessarily blame big business or business management, either. We have a problem where, due to market pressures, we are forced to begin to think in terms of these north-south linkages. Unfortunately, that's what the consumers are thinking of.
We have recently seen in the port of Vancouver.... Seattle is a comparable city, having so much in common with Vancouver, in that both started in the late nineteenth century as logging and lumbering communities. Both developed slowly in the early years, then grew rapidly in the 1880s due to the railroad boom. Both prospered during the 1890s and so on, and in this century both cities have been established as transportation, trading and financial centres. Yet at the close
[ Page 11155 ]
of this century we are seeing an advantage given to the Seattle and Tacoma areas. In my summary remarks, I will point out how the Seattle and Tacoma ports are gaining an advantage.
I want to draw the attention of all members, and of as much of the Canadian community as possible, to the crisis we are facing in terms of our transportation infrastructure system. We need to rethink how we're going to develop the transportation infrastructure program. I await what the respondent on the other side says, and I will conclude my remarks later.
M. Farnworth: That was a rather thoughtful presentation this morning. I'm pleased to respond, for a couple of reasons: one, I used to work for CP Rail, so I have some knowledge of the railway industry; and two, I come from Port Coquitlam, which is the main marshalling yard for CP Rail in western Canada.
The problems facing the port industry and the rail industry are not new. They have been taking place for a considerable number of years and they are, I think, going to take place for a few more years yet. The problems are very complex. They are not necessarily created just by government or just by the railway industry -- or, in fact, as the hon. member pointed out, just by the continentalization taking place in the North American transportation industry as a whole. Clearly there are increasing pressures to move goods by the quickest and cheapest north-south route, not necessarily east-west as in the past. We have seen the Canadian railways, both CN and CP, take steps to address that through purchases of United States railways and, in terms of looking at their eastern operations, perhaps amalgamation and consolidation. It has resulted in some competitive advantages for CP, because it is one of North America's largest railways. There are problems in terms of coal and wheat, and a lot of that is related to external market forces: one, with the recession we have recently been through, there has been a lessening demand for coal, particularly from Japan; and two, the reduction in world coal prices has caused a great deal of difficulty not only for the coal producers but the railways as well.
But there have been some bright spots. We have heard about the increasing competition from both the port of Tacoma and the port of Seattle, but the fact is -- and it was just announced in the past couple of weeks -- that two of the biggest Asian container shippers are going to be calling at the port of Vancouver. That is going to create a great number of jobs and opportunity for the port of Vancouver and for the railways. But they can't stand still on this windfall, which many people were predicting was not going to happen.
One of the important things for the railways in terms of cost is taxation. The railways have been making a case here, and both federal and municipal governments are going to have to examine their case. For example, some 25 percent of railway property taxes are paid right here in British Columbia. The fact is that the federal government has been milking the Vancouver Port Corporation of money that they could be investing in operations to make the port itself much more competitive and attractive to foreign shippers. Perhaps they are going to have to turn around, reassess their priorities and look at ways in which they can assist the port corporation in remaining competitive.
[10:30]
In terms of alternative uses for our ports, that's a good idea. That's something that we need to be looking at, but there are no simple solutions from government, industry or users of the facilities. It is something that is working itself out throughout this continent. But I think we are well-positioned to take advantage of our strengths. By keeping communication open, we can continue to work on that and resolve the differences and some of the problems. That has been taking place, and I'm sure it will continue in the future.
I will take this opportunity to say how much I'm looking forward to the response from the hon. member.
A. Warnke: I want to thank the member for Port Coquitlam, especially since he avoided a partisan response. I believe it shows the respect and appreciation for the seriousness of the issue that is before us -- especially his remark that, despite some indication of rebound in the ports, we cannot stand still on this windfall. That really encapsulates the problem before us, which is that whatever gains we've made recently, we have to recognize them as windfalls.
As a result, I still want to proceed with a caution not only to members here but to the Canadian public as a whole. I want to remain an optimist, as I believe the hon. member for Port Coquitlam does as well. We can build on our strengths. We have so many strengths in Canada, and I'd like to see us build on them.
We have to recognize that there are risks. I have some concerns that the CN line from Edmonton to Prince Rupert could shut down. I am concerned that, when the seven Puget Sound ports in the Sea-Tac area develop a joint planning committee, lobby together to select economic targets and home in on those targets as a unified front, they are well organized in their opposition to and competitiveness against us.
We also have to recognize the shortsightedness of the port building program. We have to recognize that there have been some problems with regard to the land bank in the port of Vancouver. I believe we should, to be positive, expand the number of berths in the port of Vancouver. I am somewhat surprised that, with the recent proposal for developing a casino, we're eliminating two berths and that sort of thing. Not that I'm encouraging the casino, but I'm really surprised at the smallness in that kind of thinking.
We have to rethink how we're going to address the problems in the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. We have to rethink how we're going to encourage and develop the transportation infrastructure program in British Columbia and western Canada. In this, I invite all Canadians and British Columbians to come together, start thinking seriously about this problem and address it prior to the end of the decade. I'm an optimist. I believe we can meet these challenges and build on our strengths, but time is running out very quickly.
TIANANMEN SQUARE: FIVE YEARS LATER
T. Perry: Before I begin, hon. Speaker, I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of Ms. Nicole Boyer, one of the parliamentary interns operating through your office, who made some very thoughtful contributions to what I'm about to say. She's with us in the gallery.
China has always held a special intrigue for British Columbians. The fascination stems partly from the Chinese-Canadian community, which is a strong and very influential pillar of our province, and partly from Canada's tradition of intellectual, human and religious solidarity with the people of China, especially in their pursuit of development, human rights and democratic ideals. As the Rev. J.S. Woodsworth first noted: "What we desire for ourselves, we desire for others." Not too long ago we wished for political freedom for
[ Page 11156 ]
the victims of apartheid, a wish that seemed fruitless. Nonetheless, as you know, that wish was answered with the first South African democratic elections and the election of President Nelson Mandela just a few weeks ago.
From this vantage point, perhaps it's useful to cast our minds to the People's Republic of China and recall an event that took place five years ago, a massacre of innocent protesting students that occurred on June 3, 1989, in Tiananmen Square. Those students were protesting for basic human rights, rights that our society has recognized for hundreds of years and which the world as a whole accepted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the founding of the United Nations.
Five years ago I took my place in this House, as you probably remember, on private members' day, June 2, 1989. I'd like to quote briefly from what I said at that time, little knowing that the next day -- within 24 hours, half a world away -- the massacre would occur at Tiananmen. I said then:
"...it is hardly surprising that Canadians are excited and encouraged by recent developments in China which seem to herald the development of a more democratic society whose ordinary citizens will enjoy more of the freedoms and privileges we usually take for granted. To see students and working people debating the great issues of the day in public has stirred a profound chord of sympathy, or rather empathy, among millions of Canadians. I think empathy is really the right word, because who among us has not imagined himself or herself along with the students and the ordinary people in that great square which symbolizes the modern Chinese nation?" -- Tiananmen -- "What politician has not pondered how he or she would deal with the enormous challenges facing the Chinese government as it grapples with the problems of one billion people, and what Canadian does not wish for the Chinese people that same ultimate goal for which we all strive according to our own lights: the full development of the potential of each human being and the realization of a society which facilitates this for all its members?"
I went on to say:
"Far be it from us to prescribe to any nation, great or small, how to develop its society or govern its citizens. But it is natural and totally appropriate that we Canadians should wish for the Chinese people, if they so wish them for themselves, those same rights to freedom of speech, association, religion and security of person that our society has recognized for hundreds of years."
It's appropriate five years later to ask two questions which are both retrospective and forward-looking: first, has anything changed in post-Tiananmen China? And second, is there now hope for a more democratic and free China? The answer to these questions is, albeit rather simplistically, yes. Yes, things have definitely changed drastically in just five years; and yes, there are signs of democratic roots taking hold, however precariously, in such difficult ground.
Without question, China is a country in transition. Much has changed dramatically since Tiananmen -- economically, politically and socially. Overnight, it seems, the sleeping giant referred to by Napoleon has awaken by opening up its country to the embrace of capitalist investment in an unprecedented, accelerated fashion. With over 1.2 billion people now, China has been forecast to have the largest economy in the world in just 30 years. This opening up has brought both long-term optimism and short-term concern. The hope rests on the premise that as economic growth and freer markets progress, so too will the move toward more political freedom.
For example, the basic unit of government control, the danwei, or work unit, has virtually disappeared in the country's prosperous south, while an information revolution made possible by satellite television andtelecommunications has made China's cultural isolation an impossibility -- something that was proved in the wake of the Tiananmen massacre by the fax campaign by foreign students all over the world.
Moreover, although Deng Xiaoping still rules, traditional communism is probably dead in the minds of the people. The continued persistence of the democracy movement, both within and outside China, has delegitimized the government's so-called official ideology. The ruling political ideology has been de facto replaced by an economic one.
The concerns over and caveats to that optimism are more immediate and pressing. For one, the government does continue to oppress its people. Last year, Asia Watch compiled information on more than 200 arrests or trials of people who had engaged in peaceful or religious activities. Second, economic reform is bringing mixed blessings. Already there appears to be a growing disparity in wealth between the coastal regions and the interior and between rural and urban areas, which could easily fuel unrest and heighten social tensions.
Contrasting images now pervade China: the twin faces of prosperity and poverty; the coexistence of both hidebound and admirable centuries-old tradition with some of the worst of Western consumerism. Large shopping centres and car dealerships, like Toyota, Lexus and Ferrari, are springing up in unlikely places, alongside peasants farming rice paddies. The largest McDonald's in the world is now ironically situated next to the Great Hall of the People, and the common slogan among entrepreneurial Chinese, "to get rich is glorious," is an axiom that would surely cause Chairman Mao Zedong to roll over in his grave.
With these tremendous economic and social changes, there is much concern in Canada and in B.C. about the nature of the development on Chinese soil. We have seen, from the history of imperialism, the detrimental effects on people, society and the environment of haphazard capitalistic profit. We've also seen, from the history of totalitarian regimes, the pathological effects of a system that suppresses human rights and democratic ideals.
Hon. Speaker, I'll resume my statement after the response.
A. Warnke: I have to congratulate the member for his foresight that something would be happening this morning, because there was an announcement by the government of the People's Republic of China thanking the United States for dropping the linkage between human rights and trade. This really exhibits a very serious problem that needs addressing, which the hon. member fortunately raised.
To accentuate what the hon. member has raised, it's worthwhile to very briefly recapture a bit of that history. As a matter of fact, just shortly after the Tiananmen Square massacre, I was at the international Asian studies conference in Honolulu, at which one of the students who was affected by that was received. Deng Xiaoping, in a speech in October of 1984, set the goal of four modernizations. This seemed to pave a very optimistic future for the Chinese people and their society. Once again, later in October 1984, he announced the principles of peaceful coexistence. This seemed to put into play that something was going to happen in China. There were some speeches again in 1985. In "Expanding Political Democracy and Economic Reform," Deng Xiaoping talked about the plague of the left ideology, yet later on in 1985 he referred to the evil road to capitalism. In August 1985, he switched again, saying reform was on the right track. In 1986 he talked about reform of the political structure: how to consolidate the socialist system, how to
[ Page 11157 ]
develop socialist productive forces and how to expand social democracy. That's not exactly the way we think of reforming a political structure. But it did stimulate students to ask: "Where do you stand?" In 1986 he took a stand against bourgeois liberalization, and then in 1987 he said that they had to speed up reform. The vacillation promoted this question among students: where does Deng Xiaoping stand on democratization?
Compared to Gorbachev, it appeared that Deng Xiaoping was not really interested in a comprehensive reform of institutions toward the principle of democracy. Accordingly, the students chose the time when Gorbachev went to China to ask how he compared to Gorbachev. We already know the history of Gorbachev. We saw that Deng Xiaoping was certainly not as serious as Gorbachev with regard to democracy. Therefore I think it's entirely appropriate that we in the West do not withdraw our insistence of a linkage between human rights and trade -- human rights and the pursuit of democracy.
For the last two years, I've been studying Mandarin on the side. I would like to express this phrase that I put together: Minzhu demokelaxi shui di shi chuan. That is a way of saying that the people's democracy is much like water that wears away a stone. I am optimistic that the water of democracy will wear away the stone of authoritarianism and resistance.
T. Perry: Duo ja. I acknowledge very gratefully the comments of the member opposite. I invite him to compare what he said with the response by a former Social Credit member, Russell Fraser, on June 2, 1989, at page 7179 of Hansard. His compares very favourably with the response that day.
[10:45]
I'm going to resume where I left off by noting that the concern that we have over the immediate damage to human rights must be tempered with the knowledge that history has shown that economic freedom may lead to greater personal freedom for the people of China in the long term. Already, with the help of Canadians and of other countries, rapid economic reforms may have done more to improve the human rights situation in south China than anything to date. Even in rural China, people are living better now than they ever have in Chinese history.
We as Canadians have assisted, and should continue to assist, to bring about positive change. Our investments and interactions are developing close economic partnerships -- a process that is rooted in the goal of being a friend to China and helping China transform into a full-fledged modern economy, with the hope that full social and human rights will follow, to the immense benefit of the ordinary Chinese citizen.
This process will draw China further into the international community as a responsible and productive member. Gone are the days when that Middle Kingdom was impervious to activities outside of its borders. Like everyone else in the developing parts of the planet, the Chinese are now inextricably entwined in a global economic system. Lastly, in our Western arrogance we should be well aware that the interchange will flow both ways -- and ought to -- and perhaps enrich our understanding of how Eastern values interface with the great environmental and social failures of our own society and economy.
It is always difficult for Canadians to watch people in other countries endure hardship and be denied human rights which we take for granted. It is especially so for Canadians whose relatives are in China or who share an ethnic background or experience of working in China. But our role must be characterized by patience, a willingness to learn that the Western way is not the only way, and that Canada, as a truly multicultural mosaic, is in a position to exemplify the kind of mutual understanding which we hope one day will be commonplace in China. Perhaps Canadians will one day be celebrating the advent of open and free elections in China, just as we did a few weeks ago for South Africa. That vision may be hard to believe now, but remember: who could have foreseen it five years ago for South Africa?
I'd like to close with a comment I made in beginning my speech five years ago. "Something very momentous is happening in China. Little do we know exactly what it portends, but the entire world's attention is riveted on Tiananmen Square." When I said that, I had no idea what would happen 24 hours later. Five years later, let us imagine what may happen five years from now.
ADOPT-A-BLOCK COMMUNITY LITTER CAMPAIGN
M. de Jong: I appreciate the opportunity to share with hon. members the pride I feel for a community initiative undertaken by some volunteers in the part of the province I come from. I might preface my remarks with the observation that the import of the subject I intend to address might pale somewhat when placed next to the topic addressed by the previous speakers dealing with the situation in China. As I listened to what the hon. members said about the situation in China, it occurred to me that democracy truly does represent a placement of blocks -- achievements over time. In a very small way, I think that the Abbotsford-Matsqui Adopt-A-Block Society, which I intend to address very briefly, represents one of those building blocks of democracy, because it's about people in a community coming together and volunteering their time to improve their community.
What is Adopt-A-Block? It's a society formed in Matsqui. I am also aware of the organization having been formed in the community that the member from Maple Ridge represents. In fact, I think his community was the first in British Columbia to which this organization has come. It's about a group of people coming together and deciding that they're going to do something on their own to clean up their community, to keep it clean and to protect the environment in which they live. It is a laudable goal, and I am very pleased and proud to say that in the case of Maple Ridge and Matsqui, it is reaping great rewards. It has been entirely successful, and I know it will go on. I commend two hon. members and their communities for the experience, and I will endeavour to share with hon. members some of the observations I have made about the workings of this group.
The first thing that bears emphasizing is that these folks -- in Matsqui, in any event -- have undertaken their work without government funding. It truly is a volunteer organization that has sustained itself by its own means. Private grants have been involved. Some organizations, like Canada Trust and the local Abbotsford-Matsqui Foundation, have provided seed moneys as a means of providing these folks with the wherewithal to get out there and bring their message to people in their community. That message, quite simply -- the member from Maple Ridge reminded me of it earlier -- is the catchphrase "Stroll with a goal." We are an increasingly health-conscious community; people are going for walks, they're riding their bikes. The Adopt-A-Block people are reminding their neighbours: "When you're out in your community, take some pride in the place you live in. If you see some garbage on the street, pick it up. If you do it
[ Page 11158 ]
once a week in your own neighbourhood, it makes your town look better -- and if you want to be selfish about it, you're going to increase property values in your neighbourhood, too." These people are taking pride in strolling with a goal, and I think it's just wonderful.
I should tell you, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that the idea originated out of the U.S. Members who have driven through the States may have seen adopt-a-highway signs, where corporate entities and private individuals endeavour and commit to keep a stretch of highway clean. That expanded in the U.S. to Adopt-A-Block, which is a more residentially based organization. It has come to British Columbia: it came to Maple Ridge, and it came to Matsqui and Abbotsford. Membership is expanding to hundreds of individuals in Matsqui, and I know that's the case in Maple Ridge also, where the organization is up and running.
I'll very briefly mention some of the activities. First of all, I have alluded to the fact that individuals do an ongoing litter watch. They adopt a block or an area in and around where they live, and they keep that area clean. There's an anti-dumping patrol. People call municipal authorities when they see material being dumped illegally in various sites. We all have those sites in our towns where people attempt to get away from having to pay for waste-removal charges. The member from Maple Ridge and I are from two communities that regularly -- I think every three months -- have a litter challenge, when a day is set aside and hundreds of volunteers get out into the community and try to collect more garbage than their compatriots in the other community. I think the community of the member from Maple Ridge was successful the first time round; we came back at Maple Ridge several weeks ago and collected more garbage than they did. I was pleased to be a participant in that campaign. It's people looking after their community, donating their time and cleaning up their neighbourhoods.
I commend the organization to all hon. members. Hopefully the message will get out and the spirit of cleanliness will spread across British Columbia.
D. Streifel: It's my pleasure to respond this morning on an issue such as this. It's important to our communities and to our cleanliness. In opening, I would like to congratulate the member for Matsqui and his community on being world champion pickup artists, given the victory they achieved over the Maple Ridge litter-pickers this last time around. But I think Maple Ridge will come back very strongly. Perhaps it's just an indication of community ideals there. Maybe less litter is lying around in Maple Ridge than there is in Matsqui these days; we've been at it a bit longer.
But the catchphrase, I suppose, of part of the environmental movement is "reduce, reuse and recycle." Along with that, our government has undertaken -- with very little support from the opposition -- many environmentalinitiatives from our election campaign since being elected. I find it rewarding to now hear the member for Matsqui applaud some of the environmental initiatives brought forward by the community, supported by our government and supported now by at least that member of the Liberal Party. With the desire to keep our communities clean and to not pollute or litter -- including verbal protestations that are far beyond the norm -- and by giving a hoot and caring about our communities, we can all make our world a bit better and cleaner.
Other initiatives within Maple Ridge include the SPEC society, which began in Maple Ridge many years ago. They are world-champion recyclers in their own right through their ongoing work. That program has been picked up and enhanced by governments and communities. We see the recycling initiatives in Mission, the area that I represent. We see the recycling initiatives and funding that have gone into the recycling depot in Matsqui. Those initiatives should be applauded.
Again, I commend the member for Matsqui for bringing this forward this morning so we can talk about initiatives that go far beyond just bending to pick up litter in communities -- without demeaning the importance of that bending and picking up, because if we don't care about our own little space or what happens in our back yard, front yard or our streets, it's very difficult to convince the world and the public at large that we do care in the broader sense about the whole province, our whole country and what they look like.
I'll relate a little story, I suppose, about the first time I travelled in the Maritimes. It was in 1977 in the very early spring, the end of April and the early part of May. I was travelling around with some of my wife's relatives, and there was quite a bit of litter lying around. I commented about it to my wife's uncle, and he said: "Oh yes, so there is. You see it now because the snow is gone; when the grass grows you won't see it anymore, so it's not there." That attitude has changed dramatically in our communities, as we see when we look at this Adopt-A-Block program initiative.
[11:00]
With that attitude carrying on and permeating through legislation, government initiatives and communityinitiatives, we will all care more about our environment. I believe that it begins right at home, so I would repeat some of the comments from the member for Matsqui, like "Stroll with a goal" and "Give a hoot, don't pollute." Bend down twice and pick up two pieces of litter, as in: "Double-dip in the name of the environment."
M. de Jong: The cream, of course, rises to the top, and if it's necessary to dip twice to collect it all, then so be it. I appreciate most of what my hon. friend had to say, and indeed I agree with him that community-based initiatives of the sort we are discussing today truly represent the foundation upon which our society will improve itself and democracy will flourish.
I should say, however that I think that in the case of Adopt-A-Block and similar initiatives, they flourish because there is no government involvement and because people take hold of their own destiny, take charge of their own future and display the care they feel for their community. Far from representing an organization that will one day be before government seeking handouts, I presume and hope and know that this organization will proceed into the future and carry on its good work as a truly volunteer-based organization.
The only other item I want to mention relates to the individual who founded the organization, one Michael Quinlan-Fleet, who, after heading up the organization for a year, sadly passed away. He was a young man -- 34 years of age, I believe -- and succumbed to a terminal disease earlier this year. It would be remiss of me not to credit him for the fine work that he did in bringing the Adopt-A-Block cause to the districts of Matsqui and Abbotsford. The communities will benefit greatly by the work that he undertook and that is now undertaken by Mrs. McAllister and her group on his behalf.
I thank the hon. member for his comments, and I once again commend to all hon. members and their communities the work that this fine group undertakes.
The Speaker: Hon. members, that concludes private members' statements.
[ Page 11159 ]
D. Lovick: I seek leave to make an introduction, if I may.
Leave granted.
D. Lovick: I thank my colleagues for that opportunity.
On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an introduction. A group of students from the South Kitsap Christian School in Port Orchard, Washington, are in the precincts today visiting with us. We're expecting the number of students to be, apparently, up to 20 people. They are grade 6 students, along with some adults and their teacher Ms. Miller. I would ask my colleagues to please make our guests from the United States feel welcome.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply, estimates for the Ministry of Government Services and Ministry Responsible for Sports and Commonwealth Games.
The House in Committee of Supply B; D. Lovick in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR SPORTS AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES
(continued)
On vote 39: minister's office, $350,717 (continued).
The Chair: I want to ask the ritual question: shall vote 39 pass? It was worth a try.
K. Jones: It is indeed worth a try. I am sure it would be the desire of the minister, and I'm sure that some of your colleagues would prefer to have these out of the way. But the people of British Columbia want to see that the finances of their province are duly accounted for and that there is a challenge to the process that makes them accountable through this process of estimates.
This is a very important part of the government process, and I think it's something that the public really doesn't get too many opportunities to see. This is a special occasion for them, particularly with regard to Government Services, as this is the very first time the Government Services estimates are live on television rather than being hidden in the back room, the Douglas Fir Room, where the rest of these issues have been brought forward and questioned.
Now is the opportunity for the minister to show his ability to know his ministry and to show the ability of his staff, with their great talents. I have found in the past, over the last two and a half years that I've been critic for Government Services, that indeed a wealth of very talented people have backed up the two ministers we've had in this period. With the new minister taking over in September of last year, he's still coming on board with some of the issues, as we noted earlier in the estimates.
This is part of the learning process for ministers also, as questions are asked by the official opposition and by others as to how they're going to spend their money. We're talking about a fair amount of money. Although the original vote mentioned is only $350,000, basically we're looking at $84 million to be dealt with in these estimates. I guess there will also be another $1.5 million in the other vote. Through those processes, the various breakdowns of the ministry and the Crown corporations reporting to the Minister of Government Services are adjudicated, investigated and challenged, and the minister defends the basis on which he and his staff have developed that budget.
I thank the hon. Chair for this opportunity. We will now continue in the area of the Purchasing Commission, as the minister was given notice of the topics that we would take up today. The CEO of the Purchasing Commission is Steve Hutchings, who is an assistant deputy minister. I understand he is no longer in that position and that that position has been posted. Could the minister tell us why it has been posted and under what circumstances Mr. Hutchings is not in that position at present?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, there has been a change in the Purchasing Commission. Mr. Hutchings came to the deputy minister requesting some leave, and he's on leave until August of this year. Mr. Hutchings had banked considerable time in his years of service and requested that he take a leave for some months. The agreement we have is that he will pursue whatever options are available to him when he returns in August. In the meantime, he has left the position of heading the Purchasing Commission. With me today, actually, is Mr. Bob de Faye. Mr. de Faye is now the permanent appointment and will be taking on theresponsibilities of managing the operation of the Purchasing Commission.
K. Jones: Thank you for that explanation. I would like to recognize that my opportunities to come into contact with Mr. Hutchings were very pleasant experiences. They were ones where he showed exceedingly good judgment and competency. I would also like to note that he was always very professional in dealing with the official opposition, recognizing that the minister and I have our different roles. He recognized the job he had was to work for the minister, but where possible, he was also able to provide answers and guidance to the official opposition. As we attempted to learn about the operations, he was very cooperative in providing us tours of facilities and meetings with people. He was also exceedingly well respected by the staff who worked with him. I would like to make that recognition, and I hope that in the near future he will be back in the service. He's an example of an outstanding civil service person, one of many I have worked with in the ministry.
Hon. minister, with regard to his replacement, could you give us an indication of what background and experience the new CEO of the Purchasing Commission is bringing with him?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Yes, I'm very pleased to go through some of the background of Mr. de Faye. I should let you know that his appointment was by order-in-council as an assistant deputy minister, but he is the chief executive officer of the Purchasing Commission, and the OIC stated that.
Mr. de Faye was in the Ministry of Government Services. He worked for the cabinet planning secretariat. He was director of policy and planning from April 1993 to his recent appointment. He was responsible for providing policy and administrative support to cabinet and cabinet committees, as well as to the deputy ministers' council and its subcommittees, which provide policy, legislative reform and strategic planning advice on various economic, social and legal issues for government.
From February to April 1993, Mr. de Faye was executive director of regional health, responsible for planning and facilitating the implementation of the New Directions for a Healthy British Columbia strategic initiative, which
[ Page 11160 ]
established a series of major reforms to the provincial health system.
[11:15]
From January 1989 to April 1993 he was director of policy, planning and legislation. He directed policy, planning and program development activities of the ministry and provided advice to the minister, deputy minister and senior management.
From September 1984 to December 1988 he was a senior Treasury Board analyst on Treasury Board staff, and from June 1986 he was the senior analyst responsible for the Ministry of Health. He supervised two other analysts to carry out a number of budget, legislative and organizational reviews.
At the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs from June 1980 to September 1984, the resume says, he held various positions. He served in a variety of positions with the ministry's operational review and finance administrative divisions, including acting director of operations review, operations analyst and budget coordinator for the ministry.
Mr. de Faye has a wide base of service in the public sector, as you can tell. He has served other governments and is truly a public servant. He will bring great talent, we think, to the CEO position for the Purchasing Commission.
K. Jones: Could the minister tell us whether the new assistant deputy minister for the Purchasing Commission has had any Purchasing Commission experience or had any purchasing positions or work in private business? That would be an asset for bringing a new business look from the private sector into the operations of the Purchasing Commission, which would be very essential for upgrading the operation.
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, Mr. de Faye has not had direct involvement in purchasing. But Mr. de Faye's strengths are indeed in heading up various policy and administrative responsibilities in government at a very senior level. I should let you know that Mr. Hutchings actually came from Treasury Board and was at one time, I believe, a Treasury Board analyst, so had that similar background. What Mr. de Faye obviously brings is organizational skills andadministrative abilities to sort through the new requirements for the Purchasing Commission and deliver on time. He has a track record of carrying out very senior projects.
K. Jones: With this new position, does the minister foresee -- or has he already made plans to have -- a restructuring of the operations currently under that position?
Hon. R. Blencoe: No, not at this time, hon. member. I think I've indicated to you that the purchasing policy is being reviewed, but we will not change the structure of the organization at this time.
K. Jones: I note in the current structure that there is a director of vehicle management services and, under another head, there is a coordinator of transportation management. Could the minister tell us why these are two separate entities and why they're under two different assistant deputy ministers? What function makes them so significantly different?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I'm not sure if the member has the latest org chart -- as they say in business; the flow chart. The one I'm working from is May 27, 1994. Within the ministry we have a transportation demand management strategic planning process underway. I hope you got the releases I announced a couple of weeks ago, hon. member, on policy in terms of new transportation demand strategies in the development of policies for all government across the province. They also specifically announced some strategies, targets and new opportunities for public servants, particularly in downtown Victoria, with the expectations we have for staff, deputy ministers and government to come up with new ways for public servants to get to work.
The transportation demand management strategic plan is very complex. It's certainly state of the art in terms of this government getting a handle on its.... For instance, we have roughly 12,000 public employees in the Capital Regional District. We are in a sort of full-court press to find alternatives to single-occupant vehicles -- people using their private vehicles.
Diane Lawson, who was head of the transportation demand management strategic project, moved to become director of protocol and events. Because we are efficient and double up in terms of responsibilities, Ms. Lawson has continued to oversee that project from a policy directive, but we have one other person helping coordinate the strategy as well. There is still considerable work to be done.
It is a key priority for government in fitting in with the Ministry of Environment's objectives in terms of environmental standards and pollution from automobiles. We felt it was very important that government be setting the leadership in its approach to transportation of its own employees. We have set the overall policy for the next two years, right across government in all parts of the province. Deputy ministers and their staff must come up with strategies to reduce.... As well, we are obviously looking at ways we can create incentives -- like in the legislative precinct, which we can get into. I hope that is an answer for you.
K. Jones: With regard to the org chart, we have the latest one, and we have requested updates whenever they were available. The latest one we have is January 14. If you could pass one over to us, we could then deal with a current one instead of what we thought was the most current.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Sure.
K. Jones: Does that mean that the position of coordinator of transportation management is now going under the Purchasing Commission head, or is it still sitting under community programs and services?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The reporting flow is to the assistant deputy minister of community programs and services, Mr. David Richardson.
M. de Jong: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
M. de Jong: Joining us in the gallery -- and I extend greetings on behalf of the Chair and the Speaker -- is Ms. Douglas, a teacher from Fernwood elementary school in Washington State, visiting us from south of the border. Joining her are 37 grade 7 students, some parents and guests. I hope members of the House will join with me in welcoming them to our country and to this House, where our democracy is in action.
[ Page 11161 ]
K. Jones: Could the hon. minister tell us exactly how this transportation plan has been developed? He says it is looking at all British Columbia, but I think it's primarily focused where most of the government employees are located, which is in the lower part of Vancouver Island. Was it initiated by his office? Perhaps he could just answer that for now.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Actually, when I took over the portfolio, there was a component working on transportation demand management for government, but I have to say that I raised the priority of that specific issue, of course, because of the work we're doing in the capital region with the city of Victoria to develop a strategic plan for the legislative precinct. We have been working with the city'stransportation committee to come up with their requirements for transportation demand management of the legislative precincts.
The overall policy development has been ongoing, but in a way we have moved it ahead of schedule. I can send the hon. member the detailed policy that was released a few weeks ago, but we have laid out the policy directive for the rest of the province. The bottom line is that we expect reductions and we have given them time to come back to us with the various ways the ministries in buildings in key centres of the province are going to start reducing automobile use.
The strategic plan in Victoria being carried out in the next year or so will, in a way, be the model and the test run. We know that we're going to see about a 30 percent increase in transit to the legislative precinct. We are going to be developing more subtransit units in the area. There will be a higher frequency of buses -- about every five to ten minutes -- in peak hours for public servants leaving the legislative precincts.
B.C. Transit is working on a payroll deduction program for bus passes for public servants. As a matter of fact, alabour-management committee of the BCGEU and my ministry is working on implementing car-pooling and van-pooling. For instance, if you get into a car pool or van pool, we are looking at giving you priority parking and may consider -- and we haven't had these discussions yet -- some benefit in terms of the costs of parking and distance to your work. So there will be many direct benefits for those who car-pool and van-pool.
The hon. member should know that we are putting in a system for a matching program. We will know where people who work in buildings in downtown Victoria live. If somebody lives in my neighbourhood of Fernwood, we will know all the people who live in that area and we can find out who's driving and at what time and combine transportation needs and find ways to share. It's pretty basic, but it's not done currently. I should let the hon. member know that the new Jack Davis Building, the Ministry of Energy building, has had a transportation plan in place since it opened. Already 68 percent of all employees there are taking alternative forms of transportation to work.
Just very quickly, the other area we're looking at is that many people obviously want to ride to work. They are riding, but we don't have secure places for their bicycles. We also don't have places where you can clean up or even shower if you've come a long way. We're taking a look at all the incentives that will encourage public servants to leave their vehicles for certain parts of the week, or totally.
The other issue that we're looking at is the cost of parking. We're discussing this with government employees. There is currently a very low rate for parking in the legislative precincts. It's an issue that I've talked about in nearly all the years I've been elected in this area. We are moving towards the market on those. Currently it's about $15 per space; the market is about $122 for parking in the downtown area. We are discussing this issue with the BCGEU. It's not a question of if we'll go to market value, it's when. But, of course, we're discussing with the union what incentives they require and what it will take to achieve that as quickly as possible. That will have a major impact on vehicles coming downtown. But if we do that, we have to ensure that there are these other ways. That is currently being done in the Jack Davis Building, for instance, which is already at remarkable levels.
[11:30]
About 5,000 public servants are on the move to get to work every morning in the capital region. We would like to cut that down between 30 percent and 40 percent in the next two years. It's an ambitious program; we think it's achievable. The target in the legislative precinct is to cut single-occupancy vehicles by 50 percent in the next two years. To do that, we have to have these other incentives. It also requires good policy and committee work with those who will be affected by putting in ways to deal with our targets.
K. Jones: It's a very positive direction that the minister is trying to implement. I'm glad to see that the suggestions we made two years ago about raising parking fees and reducing the number of cars in this area are now being implemented. We, as the official opposition, will take credit for having been a stimulator in that direction.
M. Farnworth: Don't flatter yourself, Ken.
K. Jones: It was published in the Times-Colonist; it's a valid and justified claim, I think, to say that that direction was one the official opposition recommended. We commend the minister for moving in that direction.
I know that it was difficult with regard to the BCGEU. I'd like to ask the minister if the arrangements regarding higher parking rates will mean that there will be a direct reflection of that cost in the next collective agreement for persons working in government offices.
N. Lortie: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
N. Lortie: I have the pleasure of introducing 15 adult students from my community who are originally from India, Fiji and Taiwan. They're ESL students under a program called LINC in my community, and they're led by Andrea Eaton. Would the House please make them welcome.
D. Schreck: During the slight break in the debate, I realized that the opposition critic had a plan to spend the entire morning on Purchasing Commission matters. However, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale is also appearing on the North Shore this weekend in a featured Liberal organizing event dealing with the gaming issue. It so happens that this minister is also responsible for the gaming review. So that there might not be any confusion as a result of the visit by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to the North Shore to discuss the gaming issue this weekend and that area of the minister's responsibility, I'd like the minister to state precisely where that gaming review stands and what the position of government is at this moment, within his responsibilities.
[ Page 11162 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: That's a good question. I appreciate the opportunity to let the member and the House know that this ministry is responsible for a review of the gaming policy: the regulatory frameworks and the whole gambit in terms of where we stand in the province vis-a-vis gaming.
The project was established in February of this year. We have a staff, headed by Ms. Ann Ehrcke, whom I think many members have already met. The objective of the project -- reporting to me and the deputy -- is to look, obviously in a thoughtful and careful way, at what practices are in place, the history of gaming, where the successes have been and where there may be some room for improvement.
One of the major areas we're looking at is the whole regulatory framework. We have approximately three bodies in the province that have direct responsibility for gaming: the B.C. Gaming Commission, the Lottery Corporation, the Racing Commission and the gaming branch. There is certainly a perspective that we need to find some way to have one-stop shopping for regulation and monitoring so the province will have an easier process for carrying out gaming and the regulations.
There are a number of other areas. As you know, two of our colleagues carried out extensive consultation in a review of gaming. We're building upon that. They took in about 1,100 briefs, which were discussed. Their report is now public, and it has been getting a lot of attention.
An Hon. Member: Who are they?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The members are...
The Chair: The member for Surrey-Cloverdale is rising on a point of order?
K. Jones: Yes. I believe we're on the estimates at this point, not on a ministerial statement. I just want to remind the minister that we should get back to the issues we want to address today.
Interjection.
The Chair: Excuse me, member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale. I will deal with this point of order, if I may.
There simply isn't a point of order. The minister has been asked a question that falls under his ministerialresponsibility; he is answering the question. He may take more time than you would wish, but it is perfectly in order for him to do so.
Minister, please continue.
Hon. R. Blencoe: Now that I have my colleagues.... The member for Mission-Kent and the member for Comox Valley did great work discussing with and listening to the citizens and stakeholders about where they thought gaming was at and where it should be going. That document is now public. Hon. member, we are building upon that. As I announced, there will be a recommendation to government in the fall of this year.
Let me back up a bit. As you know, hon. member, there is some consideration of expansions that are being discussed. We're taking a look at the current gaming processes and opportunities. Of course, we're taking a look at what other jurisdictions have experienced in terms of their gaming and expansions. In consultation with the stakeholders -- and we'll have extensive consultation with the public in a forum yet to be determined -- there will be an opportunity for discussion if there are to be any expansions in British Columbia.
One of the major factors is that in their mandate my colleagues the members for Mission-Kent and for Comox Valley did not have consultation with the first nations. That is a key component of our work in the gaming policy. Those discussions with the first nations are ongoing now, in terms of their desires or thoughts on gaming and where they think they can fit into the gaming world in British Columbia.
To make a long story short, there is -- I think for the first time ever -- a serious, intelligent and considerable empirical research going into gaming and the social implications of potential expansions. Obviously, the casino issue that has been raised by a number of people who wish to consider the concept of casinos is part of our review -- but it's only a part -- in terms of whether the province wishes to move in that direction.
I think the bottom line for British Columbians is that they want a thoughtful review; they don't want it rushed. They want opportunities to have consultation and have their voices heard. That is assured. At the end of the day, we hope to come out with new systems and regulations. If we have expansions, we want to ensure that the revenue concerns of those groups -- for instance, the current non-profits and charities that retain considerable earnings from gaming -- are met, and that we try and balance all the interests, and that citizens feel, when we've finished, we've done it in a thoughtful, intelligent way and made decisions on solid information, evidence and research.
D. Schreck: Before I rise to ask yet one more question in debate -- and I assure the member from the opposition that it will be just one more question -- I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
D. Schreck: On behalf of the Chair, I ask that the House make welcome a class of approximately 40 grade 8 students and 12 adults, visitors from Kopachuk Middle School in Gig Harbor, Washington, led by their teacher, Ms. Crockrell. Will the House please join me in making these visitors welcome.
I thank that minister for his very detailed and comprehensive answer.
Notwithstanding the efforts by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to cut short that answer, I hope the member for Surrey-Cloverdale listened to every detail. That member has been advertising in my community paper, asking my constituents to hear his views on this issue this weekend. It is particularly important that the opposition critic accurately take the position represented by the minister just now to that public meeting on the North Shore this weekend.
So one more time, for the purpose of certainty, could I ask the minister: in any way, is there to be separate consideration of the so-called Vancouver casino proposal, separate and apart from the maze of complex issues that the minister has referred to in his last response?
Hon. R. Blencoe: I've been fastidious and quite clear that this ministry's review, which is comprehensive, multifaceted and thoughtful, is on policy. It is not dealing with any specific proposal; it is not site-specific. Indeed, hon. member, regarding the project you refer to, I have not seen the plans, neither do I intend to see the plans, nor have I met with the proponents. During this review process, I've had many people ask to come to see me. I've carefully said: "Yes, but on the grounds that you've come to talk policy and concepts." If
[ Page 11163 ]
they want to talk potential expansions, it's in the generic sense; it's not over specific sites.
[G. Brewin in the chair.]
So if Mr. Pezim wishes to discuss with me something he wants to do in a certain location -- no. The casino operators have come to me to talk about where they're at in their casino operations. They've also suggested -- and it's on record publicly -- what they would like for expansions, and I'm prepared to discuss that. But we don't talk about licences or specific sites. In terms of the issue you're referring to, this minister will not meet with those proponents and will not accept those plans. If they wish to discuss policy, that's fine, but that's it.
K. Jones: I'd like to thank the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale for the wonderful ad about our great early morning panel on the issues of gaming. It's wonderful to have this televised advertising to let everybody know that it's going to be a great time there tomorrow morning. It will be informative and bring different views to the table. I'm sure that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale will be present to pay his dues, come into the meeting and get an enlightenment about where real gaming policy can go.
[11:45]
I'd like to remind the minister, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale and all the other members of the NDP in this House that the people of British Columbia are the ones who really want to have a say about types of gaming and policy for the gambling field. At the present time, the minister has no plans -- or at least he's made no announcements -- to take any public look into the issue of gaming. There are no plans for public hearings; there are no opportunities being presented. There's going to be a decision by an in-house committee that is selected solely by the minister and those working with him. That will just continue the past tradition of this House. As this government did with the Streifel and Lord report, they went out to a select number of contacts they wanted to hear from and reported on them with no recommendations. It was a real waste of time. It was a completely dishonest attempt to hoodwink the public into thinking that they were being publicly responsive.
Interjection.
K. Jones: It's interesting to hear that some members find that a little distasteful, but the facts are that that is the issue. That was part of the report that's being brought forward and that the minister is considering.
The Chair: Hon. member for Surrey-Cloverdale, I would request that you take your seat. I see another member is on his feet with a point of order. What is your point of order?
M. Farnworth: Members on this side of the House find it offensive that the member is impugning the integrity of the minister and members of government. I would ask him to withdraw those offensive remarks.
The Chair: Hon. member, there were some words used that were perhaps inappropriate. You might wish to reconsider your use of those words.
K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I don't recall making any impugning statements.
The Chair: I think the word was "dishonest."
Interjection.
The Chair: That was one of the words, and I don't think it's appropriate.
K. Jones: I didn't make any reference to these people with regard to it.
The Chair: Hon. member, the word is on the floor. There's not much point arguing with the Chair. The word is there. How do you wish to deal with it?
K. Jones: I'll withdraw it if it's offensive to someone here.
The Chair: I appreciate it.
K. Jones: I really find it hard to believe that they would....
The Chair: You don't need the qualification. I appreciate the point you've made. Now carry on, hon. member.
K. Jones: I would continue by saying, then, that there was a definite attempt to give the impression that some action was being taken when actually there was absolutely nothing being done by way of developing a gaming policy. It's very clear that that report is filled with absolutely nothing but views on the issue by the select people that they wanted to hear.
We need to listen to the public. They are very upset about gaming. They're upset about the fact that there is a proposal for a casino in the downtown Vancouver area, and I think they are justified in that concern. The organizers of that proposal should not be misleading them into thinking that a proposal should be considered. Perhaps the fact that the government had an involvement in the company that was awarded the decision by the harbour board.... Perhaps that was why they took a very open view to the process: they wanted to make sure that the right direction was determined by their in-house committee looking into the gaming issue. They would make sure that approval would be given to their friends in the unions who are supporting that proposal.
The fact is that the government actually had shares in that company in the beginning. As a result of the pressure placed upon the government by the official opposition, they have now withdrawn those shares and have sold off their interest in that company. And so they should have. It's a shame that they should even have been involved in it, particularly when it looked like it was basically a get-rich scheme that they were playing with the taxpayers' money in order to speculate on some development proposal. That's not what the taxpayers of British Columbia want their money spent on. They want their money spent on projects that are directly related to providing services to people, not game-playing in the lottery-slot machine business that this government seems to be playing with.
It is really wonderful that we've got the opportunity -- and it's unusual for a member of the government to actually hijack the minister's estimates and give us this opportunity -- to go into an issue that the minister was not prepared for but has now been asked to deal with. I'm prepared to carry on dealing with it for the rest of this afternoon's session, because I think this is a very important issue. It's incumbent on us and the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to continue on the issue of gaming, since he brought it up, and we will.
[ Page 11164 ]
I would like to ask the minister directly: what is your view on gaming? Are you in favour of gaming in British Columbia or are you not?
Hon. R. Blencoe: First, let me respond to the hon. member's attempt to inflame the issue. I don't intend to respond to that, because I have already said that our approach is a calm, intelligent and rational one. It is a comprehensive review of all the issues before us: the history of gaming, what is currently happening, and citizens' views. The work of my two colleagues -- the members for Mission-Kent and Comox Valley -- was an extensive process. You can't have it both ways, hon. member.
You talked about consultation. That was exactly what that was: it was listening to hundreds of people and getting their views on what is happening in gaming and what they thought should happen in the future. There weresuggestions for expansion, different ways to monitor different regulatory systems, and what the Lottery Corporation could do. If you had read about that work, you could report on it more accurately, hon. member. I want to let you know that that was considerable. Ads were placed in newspapers provincewide and the public was invited to give input on any issue on gaming they wished. But there were no recommendations. That was a listening exercise; they reported what the people were saying. Now the final component of our work is the gaming project, which is within my ministry.
Hon. member, I want to say to you and to the people of British Columbia that we take that challenge very seriously. We know that the citizens of British Columbia love this province: what it is and what it represents. We will do a good job, taking into account the concerns and issues that are constantly raised by the citizens to me and my staff, and to the project. There is no question that citizens are saying: "Be cautious, be careful, do your homework, do the studies, do the empirical research, and have the facts before you make any suggestions for change, if you make any change at all." When we have done that homework and have some options we think might be acceptable to the citizens of British Columbia, we will then.... I've said that there are all sorts of options for public input. We have considerable public input now. I am averaging a hundred letters a week on the issue. We are in the process of laying out the consultation with the key stakeholders in the industry in order for them to give us their final review of some opportunities that they think might be worthwhile in the province. Then, when we as a government, because we want to....
It's very important to say to the citizens of the province that this government is showing leadership in this area. We recognize that this is a difficult issue. It's controversial, but we are prepared to show leadership, and we are prepared to take it on. When we have what we think might be a different framework and some different opportunities, we will put that before the citizens of the province to give us their thoughts on where we are going. To say how we are going to do that before we've done the work, research and consultation with those who were in the industry first to give us something concrete to go to the people with wouldn't make any sense at all. We want to ensure that this is not done in an emotional or controversial way but that it's done thoughtfully. When the issues are put before the people, they will know that it was done by good staff with good analysis, and that good work was done by my colleagues. When we have some suggestions and opportunities we may wish to pursue, we will then ask the citizens what they think. That is the commitment we have made.
K. Jones: I am very pleased that the minister is going to have public consultation. Isn't that what the minister is saying -- that he's going to go to the public? I think the minister actually said that he's going to consult with those people he chooses to consult with and not give the public an opportunity to bring their case to a public, independent panel. Perhaps if the minister is really interested in consultation, he would be willing to accept our motion on notice, Motion 42:
"Be it resolved that this House establish a commission of inquiry to examine all aspects of gaming policy and its administration, including the processes and principles in forming gaming policy, whether gaming ..."
The Chair: Excuse me, hon. member. Notices of motion are not topics for discussion during estimates debate. You may be illustrating a point, but if you leave out the phrase, you can illustrate the point.
K. Jones: I am just trying to use this to bring the point forward about the gaming policy we want the minister to recognize. May I continue?
The Chair: Yes, you may continue -- but not on that point.
K. Jones:
"...is feasible and acceptable, and a full exploration of the socioeconomic costs and benefits.
"In making recommendations, the commission must examine all aspects of public ('for charitable purposes') and private ('for profit') gaming, including aboriginal involvement in gaming as a means of economic development and independence.
"The commission shall report within six months."
Hon. minister, this is a wonderful opportunity for the two of us to get together in the interests of both sides of the House, get it done quickly and thoroughly, and give the public every opportunity to have their say, perhaps by dealing with a one-man or one-woman commission, similar to the Oppal commission, that would be totally independent of government and not have the bad taste that might come from an in-house or in-ministry commission which the public might not really feel is independent from the true policies of the NDP and, perhaps, their special interests and special friends.
I think this is an opportunity for the ministry to take a very well-studied and well-developed position that we have put forward and be a part of making an effective policy for the province. I think the first thing the people of British Columbia need to have an opportunity for a say on is whether they want gambling in British Columbia.
[12:00]
That question has never been put to the people of British Columbia, even with the previous government. The previous government set up a Gaming Commission without any consultation with the public as to whether they wanted gaming or not. That question has to first be addressed by the people of British Columbia, and then we have to go beyond that. If there is a positive answer to that question, then we have to look at the socioeconomic impact of that decision. We have to look at how we're going to deal with those negative effects of that decision and with the people who are affected by that decision. Right now, there is nothing being done to deal with those people who are affected by gambling in this province -- absolutely nothing.
The hon. minister had a study done by Dr. Vosberg this year. Could he tell us what the conclusions of that study are?
[ Page 11165 ]
Hon. R. Blencoe: I have had no study done by the doctor that you refer to. Are you referring to the Lottery Corporation work? I'm not sure, hon. member.
K. Jones: Is the minister saying that the study on the socioeconomic impacts on British Columbians by Dr. Vosberg was not done under your ministry, even though your ministry is responsible for gaming policy?
Hon. R. Blencoe: The member may wish to bring that up with the minister responsible for the Lottery Corporation. There has been some work done by the Lottery Corporation. I can assure you that I have not thus far commissioned an outside contractor to do specific studies. Studies have been done that are available for us to utilize. You may be referring to one of those, in terms of the Lottery Corporation.
K. Jones: Has the minister or members of his staff reviewed copies of the studies that have been done, on behalf of whomever, in the area of the socioeconomic impacts of gaming in British Columbia?
Hon. R. Blencoe: Hon. member, I can assure you that we are reviewing many studies, not only from British Columbia but also from other jurisdictions, other countries. When I was in the U.K. on Commonwealth Games business, I had the opportunity to meet with the minister responsible for gaming in the United Kingdom. I acquired a number of studies and had extensive discussions there on the work they're doing. We are looking at virtually any accurate and responsible study available from which we can glean useful information for British Columbia. The reason this project was established was so that we could do this in a thoughtful way.
I reiterate that the people of the province will have every opportunity to look at the work we're doing and give their input, and they are already doing that. We will do our work first and then put forward suggestions for change, if there are any. In terms of the good consultation work that has been done already by my two colleagues, it was wide open in terms of information. In the report you have, what was said was reported accurately. There was not one complaint from the 1,100 people and organizations that participated about the report not accurately reflecting their issues and what they said to the government. The issue, hon. member, is not for us to argue about semantics. British Columbians want to know what we are going to end up with. Will they get a say on that? Yes, they will.
K. Jones: In defence of the minister's defence of the Lord-Streifel report, I can say that I have had the opportunity to meet with people in hundreds of organizations -- charitable organizations and bingo and casino operations -- who felt that the process at that time was not to their liking. Many of them felt that there was no opportunity to participate. When there was an opportunity to participate, they didn't have the chance to hear what other people were saying or to bring forward additional concerns they might have developed if they had listened to other people. A public hearing process creates an opportunity for the development of additional concerns as a result of the public submissions. But when they're made privately.... The Lottery Corporation did not have their hearings in public. I was wondering if the minister has now had further advice from the Lottery Corporation in regard to the gaming issue.
Hon. R. Blencoe: We are consulting widely with organizations such as the Lottery Corporation and the Gaming Commission and charitable organizations and casinos operators and hotel operators and fair and exhibition people. If anybody representing a group of organizations wants to come and see me and talk about policies and about the issues before them, they can. The door is open on those issues.
I want to go back, hon. member, because I think it's really an important issue. You made a statement about whether we actually want gaming in the province. It would appear that the Liberal opposition, if I get your drift, would dramatically impact the charities with that question. You should be aware, hon. member, that the 6,000-plus charities in the province gain $104 million for their wonderful work. I get the drift from you, hon. member, that you wish to cancel that. We want to ensure that those 6,000 organizations continue their work.
We're working very hard to make sure that they are a very important ingredient in our work. They know that. They are apprised, and will be further apprised in the next few weeks, of what we're doing. We go specifically to their umbrella organizations to discuss what is happening and to get their views on this final component of our work. When we've done that work, hon. member, I can assure you that the citizens of the province will have every opportunity to give us their views.
K. Jones: I don't know what the minister was smoking when I was making my statement, but he obviously wasn't listening.
The Chair: Order, hon. member. That is inappropriate language on the floor of the Legislature, and I think you're aware of that. Withdraw that phrase, please.
K. Jones: I recognize, hon. minister, that it isn't appropriate to smoke in the House, yes.
The Chair: Or to refer to others who do.
K. Jones: Or to refer to others who do.
The minister was definitely concerned, on behalf of the official opposition Liberal Party, that I was going to propose that charitable organizations not get the funding they now have. That is not at all what I said. I said that the people of British Columbia have the right to make a decision on whether they want gambling in this province or not. That has nothing to do with whether funding for a charitable organization is dealt with. If the decision is positive, if it is in favour of that....
I will very, very strongly support funding charitable organizations, because under the present process, that's about the only means of funding that they can get today. Most of the programs that they provide are excellent programs, and they are far more effective than the programs presented through the government process. They're far more effective from a cost standpoint. They're far more effective in that they're processed in a more timely fashion. They're not hung up with bureaucracies. The charitable organizations in British Columbia really do provide a service, and I want to see them properly funded and able to do the job, which they do more effectively than government does.
There are times when I think the government would like to do away with charitable organizations. Every time they get moving with a means of funding themselves, where they can have a say and put their efforts into funding, the government, through one means or another -- such as
[ Page 11166 ]
through the Lottery Corporation -- shuts down that means of funding because it's too successful, and the Lottery Corporation claims it for its own use, such as the breakopen lotteries and the original lottery operations. That was basically a ticket-sale operation done by charitableorganizations until they proved it could be successful. Then the government grabbed it back through the Lottery Corporation and said: "We want that money for our own pockets; we can use that money more effectively than charitable organizations." If anybody is guilty of under-funding charitable organizations, it's the previous and present governments. It's not the official opposition's position to give them less. In fact, we would like to see greater opportunities for funding made available to them -- whatever funding arrangements are acceptable to the people of British Columbia.
I recognize the NDP has to be very careful with regard to making statements about withdrawing funds from charitable organizations. Their withdrawal of funds from organizations through the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society bingo-funding process, where they gave an amount of money to various charitable organizations and then clawed it back as a means of providing funding to the NDP -- as indicated through search warrants issued by the RCMP -- is certainly something that this government has to be very careful about.
C. Evans: Could I ask leave to make an introduction as we rise?
Leave granted.
C. Evans: Some of the people who keep us alive and help us do our job are the pilots with the air ambulance service and Government Air. I just want to introduce some of those gentlemen who are in the gallery today. Would all members express their appreciation for how they help us do our job.
[12:15]
The Chair: I will now put the motion on rising, reporting progress and asking leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; M. Farnworth in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: It's a beautiful weekend out there, and time for us to go to our constituencies and touch base with our constituents. I hope everybody has a good weekend. I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 12:16 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]