1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6007 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Continuing Care Act (Bill 15). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 6007

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989 (Bill 17)

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Introduction and first reading –– 6007

Tabling Documents –– 6008

Oral Questions

Unemployment insurance. Mr. Harcourt –– 6008

Government housing program. Mr. Blencoe –– 6009

Claxton v. Saanichton Marina. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6009

Ministerial Statement

Mammography screening program. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6010

Mr. Perry

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6011

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Williams

Mr. Perry

Mr. Blencoe

Mrs. McCarthy

Hon. S.D. Smith

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. KEMPF :

In the gallery today I have two groups of guests. First, from the

British Columbia Truck Loggers' Association: president Don Edwards,

first vice-president Don Williams, second vice-president Ted Leroy,

immediate past president Bruce Russell, director Rudy Deering and their

secretary-treasurer — a fellow who is no stranger to this assembly — Graham Lea. I would ask that the House make them very welcome.

Also

in the gallery are some friends, John and Gladys Mitchell. Gladys is an

old school chum of mine. We lived side by side on farms in the

Similkameen Valley and went to school together. She's a gal whom I have

a great feeling for. Accompanying John and Gladys Mitchell are Cyril

and Babs Shelford, and I would ask that this House make them all very

welcome.

HON. MR. DAVIS : In your gallery this

afternoon we have a number of prominent businessmen from the North

Shore in Vancouver. They include Mr. Peter Armstrong, Mr. Mike Roche,

Mr. Sheldon Eggen, Mr. Doug Hayhurst, Mr. Gordon Levett and Mr. Bjorn

Bjornson. I would like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I would ask all members of the House to join me in welcoming Mr. George

Morfitt, the auditor-general, and Mr. Robert Hayward, deputy

auditor-general.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : This afternoon

we have with us guests of my ministerial secretary, Gladys Firth, who

are visiting us from Winnipeg. I would like the House to welcome Alan

Finnbogason and his wife Marguerite. Alan is with the board of tourism

in Winnipeg and is an adviser to the federal-provincial tourism

agreement –– I would also like you to welcome Sam and Marie Fabro, who

are also from Winnipeg. Sam, along with our colleague from

Vancouver-Little Mountain, is a recipient of the Order of Canada. Would

you please welcome our Manitoba guests.

MR. R. FRASER :

I have two special guests to introduce today: one, Alex Reibin,

executive director of the Central City Mission; and the other, Archie

McGougan, a friend of the second member for Vancouver South (Mr.

Rogers) and mine, who is on the board of that agency.

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to follow the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) in welcoming

Peter Armstrong here today. Peter, of course, is the president of the

old boys' association of that fine school called St. George's, which

I've had a bit of an association with.

MR. LOENEN : It gives me a great deal of delight to welcome someone who

has contributed greatly to my political career, Mr. Al Basile. Please welcome

him.

Introduction of Bills

CONTINUING CARE ACT

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Continuing Care Act.

HON. MR. DUECK :

For the purposes of explanation, I would like to make a very brief

statement describing the essence of this bill. The bill will establish

a new act related to the programs operated through the continuing care

division of the Ministry of Health. The long-term-care program began in

1978 and has continued since that time without any statutory base other

than the Supply Act. During the past decade the program has evolved

into a broad range of facility- and home-based services on which the

ministry is spending nearly $400 million annually, The new Continuing

Care Act will establish appropriate mechanisms to protect health and

safety of continuing care clients of the ministry; to establish

expectations about care standards and clients; and to safeguard

provincial equity in facilities. I look forward to further discussion

and debate on this bill at second reading.

Bill 15

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.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE LIMITATION ACT, 1989

Hon. Mrs. Johnston presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Bill 17 contains measures designed to give B.C. municipalities a

temporary option to cap residential property tax assessment increases

which are significantly above the community average. This option will

be confined to the land component of residential property tax

assessments. This legislation is intended to moderate the effect of

sharply rising land values which are unprecedented in many B.C.

communities. I have held discussions with the mayors of Vancouver and

other communities on the matter, and we have reached a consensus which

is reflected in the legislation.

My concerns about the city

of Vancouver's original proposal have been allayed as we more clearly

define the limits of the capping measure, confine it to the current

year's assessment roll, and make the option available to all

municipalities.

[2:15]

My government intends to carefully address the problem of inflated

residential land values, with a proviso that we do not distort our

assessment system, which has proven a fair and equitable basis for

property taxation. Therefore we view this as a measured response, one

which we will revisit in the coming year, depending on market

conditions.

[ Page 6008 ]

I must remind local governments of recent increases in the homeowner grant

and land tax deferment options for owners over 60. I ask them to consider these

offsetting factors before deciding on using the option we have given them.

closing, may I say that this is the first piece of legislation

introduced by this minister with which I have felt uncomfortable. I

believe we have a firstclass assessment and taxation system, and only

because of concern and pressure expressed to us by the Vancouver city

council and other local councils on the lower mainland, and our strong

belief in local autonomy, is this bill before the House today.

Bill

17 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. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the auditor-general for the year ending March 1989.

Oral Questions

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

MR. HARCOURT :

A question to the Minister of Finance. Today the federal government

announced a drastic overhaul of unemployment insurance. It involves

more restrictive qualifying rules, increased waiting periods and lower

benefits. Has the minister communicated to Ottawa, in the strongest

possible terms, how these UI changes will hurt British Columbians,

particularly British Columbians in areas of high unemployment?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this current national

issue. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusions or assumptions of the

Leader of the Opposition that are implied with his question. As I

understand the federal intention, it is to recognize regional

unemployment levels, and insofar as B.C. is one of those that

presumably would be a beneficiary under such a program, it's not clear

to me that the province's unemployed will be disadvantaged. We have

examined the material submitted by the federal government at some

length. I can tell the hon. member and the House that the government is

extremely concerned that the effects of the federal government program

announced would apparently be to increase the level of spending by the

federal government.

I suspect that most Canadians

anticipated that the federal initiative would have as one of its

benefits or side effects an initiative to reduce the federal deficit.

It would appear, on an analysis of the details provided to us so far,

that these changes to the unemployment insurance regulations will

increase the cost of the program and have the effect of increasing the

federal deficit. I find that astonishing, given the present

unsatisfactory level of fiscal stability at the national level. In

response to the suggestion by the hon. member opposite, we are

conveying our concern to the federal government on this matter. We find

it extremely surprising that they would be taking this opportunity,

prior to the budget speech itself, to announce a new spending

initiative.

MR. HARCOURT : New question, Mr. Speaker.

One of the concerns we New Democrats have is that the changes to UI

will push more people onto the provincial welfare rolls. I'd like to

ask the minister what steps he has taken to protect the province's

financial position, given that very strong possibility.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I suppose when you're working from a prepared script, Mr. Speaker, it's difficult to deviate from it as you get your answers.

don't believe the assumptions drawn by the hon. member are necessarily

valid, as I pointed out. Speaking on a parochial basis, on the basis of

the information available to us it would appear that British Columbia

will potentially be a beneficiary under this program. Therefore it

doesn't follow that the hon. member's assumptions need to be spoken to

at this time.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that all of us had

anticipated that the federal government would be making some moves, as

they embarked on their fiscal year, that exhibited a state of mental

discipline and a frame of mind towards deficit reduction. I don't see

that evidenced with this proposal before us by the federal government.

MR. HARCOURT :

Supplementary. Would the minister table in the Legislature the analysis

they have of the UI changes that leads him to believe federal spending

will go up and B.C. will be a beneficiary of the changes to

unemployment insurance?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : That

raises an interesting question, Mr. Speaker. The government does

finance research for the opposition, and I think it finances it

generously. Are we understanding that the implication here is that

you're not able to perform that function yourselves, and that you would

like us to undertake it for you? Government deals with staff reports

daily; as a matter of fact, someone says ad nauseam.

It's

expected that that's the basis on which we make our management

decisions. The opposition, representing their constituents, are quite

entitled to receive government's views on different matters at

different times, and I think I've adequately and openly expressed

government's view as it relates to this question.

MR. HARCOURT :

The attempts at sarcasm or humour both failed miserably. The

information is not available to our research staff. The minister

returned from Ottawa last Friday. He has just received that information

himself. If he would now like to make that information available to our

research staff, we'd be more than pleased to look at it. I'm asking

again, Mr. Minister, for a straight yes or no, without sarcasm or

futile attempts at humour: will you make that information available now

that you have returned from Ottawa?

[ Page

6009 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm happy to read into the record the

material I have before me. It is a briefing note that deals with the

issue of the announcement today on the changes to the unemployment

insurance system. Is it the interest of the member to get the

information he has requested?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

MR. HARCOURT : My request was to table, not to read and cat up the very valuable question period time.

GOVERNMENT HOUSING PROGRAM

MR. BLENCOE :

I have a question for the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The

central statistics division of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate

Relations advises that the 800,000 households, to which you refer in

your advertising on housing currently, is about 2.4 million people.

want to know who was right. Was it the Minister of Social Services and

Housing, who claims 800,000 households will benefit from the

government's housing policy; or was it the Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations, who said that it was only 500,000 people, which is

close to two million less than your advertising states? Who is right?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The important thing here is that our housing program will benefit many

thousands of British Columbians. Unlike the second member for Victoria,

we're not interested in nitpicking the program to death. We're here to

make the program work. We're interested in benefiting British

Columbians totally. This morning I had a very productive meeting in my

office with the Urban Development Institute, who are very optimistic

about the program. In fact, they came to see how they can help us make

it work, not to nitpick it to death.

MR. BLENCOE : We

don't call it nitpicking. Your advertising says 800,000 households ––

2.4 million people. You're now saying we're nitpicking in terms of

saying that it's actually two million fewer people than your

advertising states, and you haven't said no. The Minister of Finance

said that yesterday.

Will the minister answer a very simple

question: who is right? Is it 2.4 million people in terms of

households, or only 500,000 people?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The member seems to be hung up on statistics. He wants me to start

quoting actual numbers. We're here to help all British Columbians to

have a house. We're here to help them with affordability, with supply,

and eventually with home ownership. If the member would read all three

parts of the program and its intentions he would see that the program

is designed to help all British Columbians.

MR. BLENCOE : Quite clearly the minister is saying that two million fewer

people than stated in their advertising will benefit by the housing programs.

new question. Can the minister confirm the Treasury Board analysis that

only 20 percent of tenant households in B.C. will benefit from the

temporary renter's tax credit, while 80 percent of tenants won't get

one penny?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Again, the member

seems to be hung up on statistics. The renter's tax credit is designed

to help those at the low end of the income scale, those in most need,

whatever the numbers happen to be. The example given with the material

accompanying the budget speech was that this particular part of the

housing program was designed to help those at the very low end of the

income scale,

MR. BLENCOE : Another question to the

minister on the numbers, which is important to the people of British

Columbia because you said that 800,000 households or 2.4 million people

will benefit. The government's official economic forecast predicts

housing starts will drop by 5 percent in 1989 and 1990. Yet you have

announced this huge housing program.

At the same time the

minister claims that 4,000 new units of rental housing will be

delivered in the next 18 months under the government plan. Would the

minister agree that one or the other of these forecasts is totally

wrong, and that you had better go back to the drawing boards and really

develop a housing program for the province?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : According to the people who know this industry –– I

had meetings with two groups this morning: the Urban Development

Institute and the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver, where the

problem is most severe –– they seem to be very optimistic about our program and have offered to do anything they can to make it work.

It's

a program that will be delivered by the private sector with government

initiative, and they are very pleased with it. In fact, they feel that

our target of 4,000 affordable rental units in the next 18 months will

be easily attainable. I should point out that when we put the program

together, we went to the private sector –– the people who earn their living in the business –– and

asked them what was needed. They gave us the answers that we could

build a framework upon, and they are very pleased with the framework

that they see.

If the second member for Victoria has more

knowledge than these people about building houses, then I would like to

hear from him.

CLAXTON V. SAANICHTON MARINA

MR. G. HANSON :

I have a question to the Attorney-General. Since the province has lost

the Saanichton Marina case at both the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C.

Court of Appeal, has the provincial government decided to appeal this

case to the Supreme Court of Canada?

[2:30]

[ Page 6010 ]

HON. S.D. SMITH :

The Claxton v. Saanichton Marina case, as this House may know and the

member does know, involved the

interpretation of what is known as the

Douglas Treaties. When that matter was heard at the Supreme Court of

British Columbia and following that, there was some concern about the

appropriate

interpretation of that treaty and the application that

might flow from that

interpretation to other areas beyond Saanichton

Bay.

As a consequence of that the Crown, who was the

defendant in the case, appealed the decision to the British Columbia

Court of Appeal. After the appeal was heard and prior to the rendering

of that decision, I met with the chief of the Tsawout band together

with members of the council and elders of that band. I discussed with

them extensively the reasons why we were before the B. C. Court of

Appeal.

Following that meeting we discussed with the

Minister Responsible for Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) their concerns

about the potential disruption of that bay from dredging and the

establishment of a marina. In addition to that, I met with the

residents in the area who were concerned about the land use issue.

Following

the rendering of the decision by Mr. Justice Hinkson in the British

Columbia Court of Appeal, we have studied the statements contained in

the appeal. I think the final paragraph of that decision is the one to

which we were attracted. It says: "In disposing of the appeal I wish to

emphasize that all that is being decided in this case is whether this

marina, if constructed, will derogate from the right granted by the

treaty to permit the Indians to have access to and carry on the fishery

in Saanichton Bay."

As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, we now

have the

interpretation that we sought on behalf of the province and

the people of British Columbia to restrict the application of that

treaty and that decision to Saanichton Bay, and we will therefore not

be appealing the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Williams requested leave to table documents with respect to Doman Industries.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

MAMMOGRAPHY SCREENING PROGRAM

HON. MR. DUECK :

I rise today to clarify the position of this government with respect to

the provision of breast-screening services for the women of British

Columbia. I feel that a clarification is in order because of the

editorial which appeared in yesterday morning's Vancouver Province

newspaper, an editorial which also clearly supports the position of the

British Columbia Medical Association with respect to establishing

fee-for-service mammography screening.

While I can appreciate that the BCMA would like to benefit monetarily by controlling

access to a provincewide mammography screening program, I do not believe that

such an arrangement is in the best interests of the women and taxpayers of this

province. It must be noted, furthermore, that with our current system, which

includes fee-for-service arrangements with the BCMA for diagnostic mammograms,

combined with the screening program, all women of this province have full access

to mammography services. We are moving to expand the screening program, because

it ultimately will be more cost-effective and will provide more convenience

for women.

would like to remind my hon. colleagues that the Ministry of Health, in

cooperation with the B.C. Cancer Control Agency, has an outstanding

record respecting cancer research and treatment. What yesterday

morning's editorial chooses to conveniently ignore is that pilot

programs, such as the breast cancer screening initiative established by

this ministry through the B.C. Cancer Control Agency, are held up to

international scrutiny and can be nothing less than exact in

establishing the medical protocols and professional criteria which will

ensure its future success and expansion. I am pleased to say that while

this pilot program has been running only for eight months, the

technical, professional and administrative structure chosen has proven

to be extremely successful.

This program has excited

interest in many other provinces which are now considering adopting our

model in other jurisdictions. Evaluation of the pilot breast-screening

program was initially planned to occur after one year. However, because

of its great success and the overwhelming support it has obtained,

planning has gone ahead for earlier expansion through the establishment

of other clinics, as well as a mobile mammography unit to reach women

in areas outside the lower mainland. I must point out that the first

phase of this expansion has to be regarded as an extension of the pilot

project. Additional information about costing, communications, quality

control and data processing will be obtained in order to ensure

scrupulous control over quality and costs.

This approach

has the support of the sponsors of the screening mammography program,

including representatives of the B.C. Medical Association. Despite the

views expressed by the current president of the BCMA, it should not be

assumed that he speaks on behalf of his entire membership, nor should

an outside organization which stands to gain economically from a

fee-for-service arrangement be allowed to set the terms or the pace of

setting up this complex program in an orderly fashion.

should be noted that it took ten years to get our cervical cancer

screening program fully operational, a program that today has been

modelled around the world. The success of the cervical cancer screening

program was realized because scrupulous technical and medical research

was applied.

While we have shown our commitment to expand

the breast cancer screening program, the same exact scrutiny will be

applied. This government believes such scrutiny is in the best interest

of the public. This House can rest assured that we will put the public

[ Page 6011 ]

interest before those of the BCMA or the Vancouver Province any time.

MR. PERRY :

I again thank the minister for the courtesy of a copy of his statement,

although I received it only a couple of minutes ago. I have not had the

time to consult with officials of the breast cancer screening project,

so my comments are rather ad hoc. I hope to return to the issue during

the budget estimates.

Let me just say that I too have had my problems with the Vancouver Province in the past. For the record, let me read to the House what the Vancouver Province

did say in its editorial: "Screening mammograms performed at the pilot

project cost the government $35 compared to $75 for diagnostic." I

think the real issue is how best to serve the women of British Columbia

with preventive services in the safest and most cost-efficient way.

I am not familiar with this aspect of the fee

schedule –– I don't make a habit of studying the fee

schedule and memorizing it ––

but the implication of the editorial is that a mammogram performed for

diagnostic services where the physician suspects a malignancy is

charged at a higher rate than a screening mammogram. The issue which,

among others, not only the women in this province but the physicians –– including women physicians –– have

urged for the past several years is that the provincial fee

schedule

does not allow in any case for the payment to physicians for preventive

services, be it mammography screening, counselling against smoking,

counselling against alcohol abuse, reproductive advice, abortion

counselling, or any other preventive service.

The issue, as I interpret the Province

editorial, is whether the government wished to continue the process

whereby physicians in British Columbia are obliged to order diagnostic

mammograms costing the taxpayer $75, rather than ordering screening

mammograms on the same equipment for $35. This is purely a policy of

the Ministry of Health not to fund preventive services, which costs us

taxpayers much more money because the doctors are not able to bill for

preventive services.

That's one point. I think the Province

went on to say that the best use must also be made of existing

facilities. The existing 57 diagnostic units should be equipped to

provide screening mammograms. These units can be used to perform

screening mammograms; to the best of my knowledge, it's exactly the

same machine. The real issue should be supplying to the province the

best machines which deliver the lowest radiation dose to patients and

providing the money for those machines which our hospitals often are

not equipped with in British Columbia. We give patients more radiation

than they need to receive.

Let me just address two other

issues raised here. The minister implied in his statement that medical

services provided by physicians as opposed to screening programs are

somehow not held up to scrutiny. Medical services provided by

physicians are scrutinized closely by colleagues, by departments of

radiology. The responsibility of every single radiology department in

this province, which the ministry should know, is to ensure that the

highest standards are met; that the highest benefit is achieved for the

patients at the lowest cost of radiation to patients. I think it's

insulting to the radiologists of the province to imply anything

different.

Let me address one other issue that was raised

in this statement, that of the overwhelming support for the screening

program. There is no question that screening programs like this command

overwhelming support from the public and from both sides of this House.

Let me remind the House that the initiative came from the physicians of

British Columbia for these programs, not from the government, nor did

it for any other screening program or preventive program in the history

of British Columbia. All such initiatives have come from the physicians

of British Columbia.

Let me address two other issues.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The member is extending the privileges of a reply to a

ministerial statement when he exceeds the time of the minister. I would

ask him to wrap up rather quickly.

MR. PERRY : I

think I will respect the House's privilege and take up the rest of the

issues during the estimates debate. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

On vote 31: minister's office, $259,265 (continued).

MR. GABELMANN :

This morning when we left off, we were talking about the

responsibilities of the minister in respect of policies that are

leading the government into a situation where thousands upon thousands

of government employees are operating not as employees but as

contractors. I failed completely and miserably to elicit any real

answers from the minister, and I wonder if, over the lunch time, he has

had an opportunity to collect some answers to these questions. It's the

public's right to know how many regular jobs are being replaced by

contractors.

[2:45]

In five years we have gone from spending $120 million on this item to almost $426 million this coming year –– the year we are in now –– a

three-and-a half-fold increase in spending for personal service

contracts at a time when the government says it is cutting back in its

workforce, a time when it says it is becoming leaner, when many

services have been privatized and are no longer necessary to be

included in these budgetary items. How is it that we have gone from

$120 million to $426 million in five years for this item if it isn't

other than what I suggested this morning –– an attempt by the government to deunionize

[ Page 6012 ]

its

own workforce, or alternatively to mislead the people of British

Columbia in respect to how many people actually work for the government?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Chairman, I suppose the example that is the easiest to explain –– in government in a variety of ministries and locations –– would

be the overload secretarial pool; no question about that. We've had

that in place for some time now, using office overload.

There

is no question, on review and analysis, that the program was being used

more extensively than originally intended, without having day-to-day

control. Whether it was government policy –– I believe it was negotiated with the unions in the last contract negotiations –– there has now been a ceiling put on the number of days –– I believe it is 59 days –– that that position can be filled on a "temporary overload basis."

Certainly

it is one of the three basic elements of management in managing the

enterprise of the government. We all know what the three elements are

for a good manager: he plans, he sets an organization in place, and he

controls. One of the most important elements of management is that of

control.

We on this side of the House probably take a

different approach from members opposite. We believe in very rigid

control procedures on government growth so it doesn't become a massive,

never-ending growth entity unto itself. We believe in trying to keep

the sails well trimmed, lean. We believe that we should hire as and

when we need to hire. It may be, Mr. Member, that we hire for short

periods of time, perhaps 30, 40, 60 days; on one occasion perhaps a

little longer, a little shorter on other occasions.

Mr.

Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, I am going to enter into an area

that I had said I would not enter into, so I will do that with perhaps

an understanding that I am entering that area, as they say in letters,

without prejudice, so to speak. I did not want to get into a debate and

a wide explanation with the member on every single-STOB

section with

every single minister of government, because it is clearly not my job

to do that. But in the interest of shortening the time-frame, it might

be of assistance for me to review with the member very briefly some of

the elements of understanding and examples within the supplement to the

estimates for the year ending March 31, 1990.

Perhaps the

first thing we should do is turn to page 114 of the blue book. Under

operating costs, if we look at the definition of STOB 20, we see that

it is headed "Professional Services." It includes fees and expenses for

professional services rendered directly to government, such as legal,

engineering or management consultant services. It doesn't say "et

cetera" there, but it certainly could have.

Looking at some of the bigger amounts, turning to page 4, under STOB 20, we

see a very major item under the Ministry of Forests. The second column down,

column 28, "ministry operations, " shows a very significant figure,

$148,394,277. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that what that includes –– wholly or very nearly wholly; 100 percent, perhaps, or very close to it –– is the question of silviculture –– tree planting, thinning and spacing projects

throughout the length and breadth of the province. Mr. Chairman, I don't

know what the member would do if he or a member of his party were the Minister

of Forests or the Minister of Finance. Perhaps they would wish us to spend that

$148 million-plus on putting all of those employees doing the thinning, the

spacing, the tree planting work and all of the silviculture –– there must be

thousands of them working on a seasonal basis –– on the government payroll, add

to the FTEs and all the things that go with that. Maybe that's what he's

getting at; if he is, then we clearly have a difference of philosophy on the

management and administration of governments.

Further,

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the same page, column 30, forest resource

development subsidiary agreement, again, we have a very large figure of

$66, 103, 831. These are moneys spent in a very similar way on

improving the forest resource base in British Columbia, a jointly

funded federal-provincial program.

I'm not sure how the

member would suggest we employ those people. I don't want to repeat

what I said earlier about the larger amount. Perhaps we should go back

to page 2 and look under the Ministry of Attorney-General. Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to be taking anything away from debate in

estimates of a later date, but perhaps we could just look very quickly

at the Ministry of Attorney-General, line 14, ministry operations. In

round figures, it is $26 million; $17.5 million of that, Mr. Member, is

spent on legal services and Crown counsel; about $6.5 million of it is

spent on court services –– court reporters, transcripts, prisoner escorts, air travel.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't know what the member is suggesting. If he is

suggesting something similar to what he was suggesting on forestry, he

would have the government hire another few hundred –– or thousand, whatever the figure works out to –– employees

from the legal profession and have them on full-time government

payroll. Then when we don't need them, we pay heavy severance and

layoff coverage and all kinds of other things. Perhaps that's what he

would rather see us do in the government. If that's what he wants us to

do, well, I can answer the question very quickly and shortly, Mr.

Chairman: we're not going to do it. We have a philosophical difference.

hope that we have in some way added a little bit of information to the

debate. And perhaps we can get onto the other very important subject,

which I would like to go back to, if the first member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Williams) is ready to finish his earlier vicious attack

toward several of our employees at the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. SIHOTA : May I have the liberty to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

[ Page 6013 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, as I know you will appreciate, in Esquimalt we have taken

great pride in our military heritage and in the fact that we have been

for a long time now housing the Canadian Forces Base in Esquimalt. I'm

pleased to indicate to the House that in the gallery today are eight

officers from CFB Esquimalt, accompanied by their captain, Captain

Mackay. Could all members of the House please join me in giving them a

warm welcome.

MR. GABELMANN : First of all, let me

say thank you to the minister for finally beginning to come to grips

with this issue. He didn't do so in the written answer tabled

yesterday, and he didn't do so this morning, but this is the beginning.

While I don't intend to pursue it very much longer this afternoon,

perhaps we'll have an opportunity to continue this discussion, as more

information comes to light.

I want to say that the first comment the minister made was that it's his government's intention to have a control –– I wrote down the words –– on

growth of government. We're talking here about an item that has grown

three and a half times in five years. Some control! Some government!

Another thing he said was that the government only wants to hire when you need to hire –– or

words to that effect; I may not have written down all the words. In

effect, you should only hire people when you need to hire them. Why

then are considerable numbers –– and I'm still interested in knowing what these numbers are –– of

employees working full-time in employee-dependent relationships with

supervisors, listed with telephone numbers in the telephone book, with

every other appearance of being an employee, and yet being paid for

under this item? Why is that? This isn't a question of needing to hire

when you need to hire. This is a question of that particular department

or commission or board or part of government having reached its FTE

limit, and so there is a mechanism to avoid the FTE limit by hiring

people through these personal service contracts.

In the

professional side of government, some of these people are called

sessionals. We have instances in government of people who are employed

by the government, are encouraged to leave their employment and are

immediately rehired on a personal services contract. They keep their

same desk, their same phone, their same listing; everything is the same

except that they are no longer in the union. They are now outside.

All

I'm interested in finding out is how widespread this practice is.

Clearly it exists. Grievances and subsequently, in one case at least,

arbitration boards would not have been filed and established if it

didn't exist. I don't want to beat this to death, but I do want the

minister to.... If he can't do it today, fine. I don't have any problem

with that. I think it's a simple matter of just pushing the right

button on the computer and printing out the numbers, but that's another

issue.

If you can't, I don't know why you can't. Why can't

the minister tell us how many people are in fact employed by the

government on a relatively full-time basis? Many of these contracts

expire on the last day of the fiscal year, and then they're

renegotiated the next day. I just want to find out how many people

there are. What are we talking about? What's the magnitude of the

problem?

[3:00]

The $426 million in this item is not accounted for by silviculture.

If I look at the forest estimates, I see $148 million for silviculture.

That includes more than STOB 20 costs. It includes much more than that.

It includes the cost of seedlings, among other things.

We're

looking at a considerable amount of money going into what is ordinarily

described as salaries benefits. If I don't have a case to make, I'm not

going to make it. I haven't been making it yet in any forceful terms,

because I can't get the information from the minister. I submit that

the minister has a responsibility to share whatever information of this

kind isn't confidential in labour relations terms, isn't confidential

in those limited numbers of areas where government information has to

be confidential. I don't want the names of the employees. I don't want

to know who they are. I deliberately don't want to know that; I don't

want to involve people in this. I do want to know, and I think the

public has a right to know, how many people we are talking about who

are in effect being hired beyond the FTE limit by this ruse.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I certainly appreciate what the member is attempting to do. I

appreciate his efforts. I understand his degree of frustration. I think

we all go through that in government in trying to put our hands

immediately and precisely on answers to our precise questions.

I've

just discussed with our staff regarding my ministry, and I would say

that in my ministry we probably have, in personal service contracts

with individuals with very little other expenses in on supplies, cars

and services and what have you, close to the number seven.

STOB 20 in our ministry shows around $2.5 million. Perhaps a little bit of a breakdown for my ministry –– and

he can follow through then with other ministries to get the details.

But breaking it down in the area of privatization and public

participation, we're looking at about $518,000 for professional

business evaluations for privatization.

Under the GPSD, we

have built into the budget $500,000 for such things as boards of

arbitration. Again, I'm sure the member wouldn't be suggesting that we

hire a battery of arbitrators to be sitting around Victoria waiting for

arbitration cases to come up. No, we deal with them as they arise.

also have money set aside in that figure for wage surveys, which we do

on a regular basis. But again they're done through provincial or

national organizations to pick up on the levels in management,

technical and hourly areas to make sure that we are somewhere within

the ranges we should be. The member would argue that we're maybe not

doing as good a job as we could in some areas.

We also have the creation of what we talked about earlier today, the office of information, technology

[ Page 6014 ]

and

systems, which is brand-spanking new. I explained to you yesterday what

it was all about. We have a large figure in there for the current

fiscal year –– $900,000. OITS is being established, and we need a lot

of professional evaluations on data and communications. It's going to

be a massive undertaking and will no doubt keep a lot of people busy in

the capital city, breaking down those recommendations, suggestions,

appraisals and reviews for us, but it needs to be done.

I said yesterday, the record will show that we're spending in the

neighbourhood of $178 million a year, and the figure is growing by 20

percent. We've got to get hold of this and get control procedures to

hold down the cost to the taxpayers, to make sure we're managing the

areas under the jurisdiction of the ministry. There's got to be some

control devices put in place.

We have money set aside for training for pilots –– dispatch

and engineering. I'm not sure whether the member is aware, but we send

our pilots back east and south on occasion to make sure that they are

right up to standard. We send them to all the latest training things

available to them on the latest instrumentation. It's ridiculous to

think that we should bring those trainers up here and put them on

government payroll for a few months to train the pilots. No, we send

the pilots down to where the training takes place.

All in

all, Mr. Chairman, in response to the member's question, I wouldn't

want to be held 100 percent to this, but I would say that our figure is

somewhere around seven. It could be eight, nine or maybe even as high

as ten, but we think that the figure is very close to seven. I am sure

that that will satisfy the inquiry of the member.

MR. ROSE :

I was interested to note that the minister is yearning for the

reappearance of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams).

Tell him that he's not gone forever. He will be back. He has a number

of other probing questions, and I know he'll proceed with the usual

brilliance and humour that he's known for. I could tell you something

privately about his whereabouts right now, and I will, but if I put it

over the mike, it's hardly private anymore. I just want you to know

that he'll be back, and I don't want you to plan any other activities

for a little while, because there are lots of things that we have to

talk about in this new ministry, this grab-bag of goodies called

Government Management Services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In the meantime you don't have anyone else...?

MR. ROSE : No, we've got a good deal of bench strength over here,

and we would have no difficulty. We haven't talked about pensions and privatization,

but I'm really pleased that the minister has actually bared his breast and

come forward with these personal service contracts in his own ministry. If there

are only seven in his, there must be an awful lot hidden elsewhere. What concerns

us is the fact that, although they're in his budget, he takes the cop-out.

He says: "Well, it's really not up to me; I can't tell you what's

going on in other ministries. If you want to know about exploiting women cleaners

at Riverview Hospital, you'd better talk to the Minister of Health, because

it's his bailiwick." We don't accept the fact that there are no

apparent standards for these personal service contracts. When you look at some

of these contract employees, they're almost like indentured servants. It

looks to me like something about three hundred or four hundred years ago in

colonial America,

whereas there are people working as slaves for $6 an hour

in the same institution where government union workers are getting $12.95. If

that's not exploitation, I don't know what it is. What's $6 an hour?

It's below the poverty line for a single person. And some of us are outraged

by that because many of the most exploited are women. Yesterday, in defending

his casino at the Windermere Building, the minister said he wasn't concerned

with the morals of whether or not we should have gambling. I think he should

be concerned with morals and values; the government is a very powerful symbol,

and how it treats women is going to be reflected throughout society.

This

government announced, with some fanfare, in the Speech from the Throne

that it intends to have a minister of state for women. We look forward

to that. We haven't seen that. The emerging values of our society, when

most women are asked to work –– or have to work –– for economic reasons

say that we should be approaching pay equity more closely. We haven't

been quite able to define it here, but they have been able to in

certain jurisdictions. I think we have to look at decent employment for

women, and I think they should be reasonably well rewarded.

Something

else the minister may or may not know is that women have less

opportunity to have pensions. A lot of us in this House are concerned

with pensions, not only for ourselves but for others. Most women have

no pensions at all. As a matter of fact, in the figures I've got, 52

percent of women in the workforce have no pension. Of course, those who

stay home and are not in the workforce have none either. There's no

homemakers' pension, although that subject has been discussed for years.

should be developing a day care policy as well. In Ottawa some ten

years ago, under Her Excellency the Governor-General of Canada, Jeanne

Sauv, a day care centre was established for women workers in the House

of Commons. There's been no suggestion of that here, but I'm quite sure

there are single parents working in this institution, as there are in

most government institutions. Thousands of women are employed in

government, usually at low-paying jobs. The latest figures I have are

that 53 percent of women were in the workforce in 1984, and they earned

between $17,000 and $19,000 a year;

whereas men, 83 percent of whom

were in the workforce, were earning $24,600 to $39,000. So the women

are underpaid.

Another thing that bothers us is that there

appears to be no record of how many women are in the workforce, how

much they're paid and what kind of employment they're most often found

in. Yesterday,

[ Page 6015 ]

when

the minister boasted about the increased number of women in the

workforce, I tried to make the point.... When you use percentages, I

know the figures are very confusing, because they're percentages of

something else. I'd be interested to know if we suddenly have a policy

of hiring more women, or more women in senior positions. Don't you have

any records? You're the Minister of Government Management Services;

have you got any records of the gender, the work activity and the

salaries of the men and women working for the government service, and

if not, why not? That's my first question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I would suggest that the member read the Blues from yesterday to find

out what I said about the female gender, because I was not speaking at

any time about how many we had hired or how many were in the workforce.

The only reference I made was to the number of females who had advanced

to management positions.

MR. ROSE : No, you had percentages.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Yes, I certainly did. I said that in 1986, 17.3 percent of management

employees working for government were female, and that the figure had

risen to 24.5 percent, an increase of 41.6 percent. Certainly not good

enough, but dramatically heading in the right direction, and it's

something I personally want to see continue in that direction.

think I have to take a bit of offence at the suggestion that the

employees of some sectors of the government, perhaps those the member

was referring to as being exploited.... I think by and large the

province on average.... I know that everything is not as good as it

could be, and we are always looking to make it better. Indeed, with the

tremendous budget announced by the Minister of Finance, we can look

forward to a lot of improvements. With the kind of settlements we have

had in relation to the cost of living, we are going to have more

purchasing power in our economy. We are going to have more people

working. The trend is going in the right direction. A lot of jobs are

being created; people are coming to our province from all over Canada.

We are getting about four times as many people coming to British

Columbia from Ontario as are leaving this province to go to Ontario. I

find that very interesting.

[3:15]

I just have to appeal to the reason of the member opposite; I know

he is a reasonable man. You can't have things both ways. We in B.C. are

proud of the progress we've made. We know we've got a long way to go

yet to get complete equity, parity and fairness for all.

would suggest to the member, with all respect, that he do some wage

surveys of Manitoba and look at the figures back there; that he look at

the mess left in that province just a short time ago. I don't know

whether it's going to improve under a new government or not. They were

left with such a terrible debt by the previous administration that I

don't think they are ever going to come out of the mess they are in.

It's a terrible, shameful mess. Of all the provinces in western Canada,

I must say that it's just.... In analyzing the budgets and the taxes, I

don't know how they are going to come out of the mess they are in.

Manitoba

Hydro is worth zero on the books; it's absolutely worth nothing. They

have gone into such crazy contracts. I don't know whether the new

member is aware of some of the things that have happened in that

province. I don't know whether the new member is aware that Manitoba

Hydro signed contracts with the Americans. Several years ago the

hotshot negotiators in Manitoba signed contracts with the Americans to

sell hydro based on the selling price of a barrel of oil. On a

comparative basis, they are getting about half of what we get in

British Columbia. There's an absolutely terrible mess left by that

previous administration.

I am going to repeat what I said a minute ago: you can't have it both ways.

Let's

get back to these STOBs. The member is still talking about STOB 20s,

and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was talking about the

same thing. We sit in the Legislative Assembly and listen to debate; we

listen to the opposition. Whether you believe it or not, we listen to

and act on a lot of the things you say. We act on a lot of the surveys

and the information we get from industry, from the general public and

from citizens throughout the province.

We got a message

many years ago. It was one of the reasons I went into politics. It had

to do with silviculture; it had to do with the number of seedlings

being planted in our forests throughout this province. I can remember

the figure very well. In my first year of politics I had done a little

bit of homework and had found out that they were planting.... In 1982 I

think the figure was around 78 million or 80 million seedlings.

took it upon myself to call up the B.C. Forestry Association and invite

the top two chaps over for a breakfast meeting. We sat down and had a

very interesting meeting. I said: "Look, I'm a backbencher in the

administration, and I've got a bit of time to do some research and

homework. I want to see us planting more trees in British Columbia; I

know you want to see the same. Perhaps we're not doing as well as we

could, and we are getting criticized for it. What do you think is a

good number to target? Where should we be in three or four years?"

They

said it was very interesting, and that they were very pleased to have

the invitation to come over and have breakfast. We had a very

interesting chat. Their words to me in 1983 were: "If you can get the

level up to 150 million, we are going to be very happy, because we know

that's the level needed, along with natural regeneration, to sustain

growth. Things are going to be in good shape."

I know the member opposite is up on this subject. I know the member can tell me –– he knows and all members of this House know –– that

the figure last year wasn't 150 million seedlings put in the ground,

The figure was 200 million seedlings put in the ground.

Mr. Member, you can't have it both ways. You can't be arguing that contract services and STOB 20s

[ Page 6016 ]

and silviculture expenses are going up when you were arguing a few years back that we've got to spend more money in these areas.

responded to the submissions put to us by the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Parker). We responded to the suggestions put to us by the Forestry

Association. We responded to the concerns in the southern interior. We

responded to the suggestions in the north country, and we decided to

put more trees in the ground, and so the STOBs and the budgets go up.

Now we come to the House under the Ministry of Government Management

Services and we get criticized on the suggestion that perhaps we've got

too many people working on contract, that we're spending too much money

and that they're not full-time employees.

I can tell you

without any hesitation that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)

has no intention of taking the $148 million that's budgeted for

silviculture purposes and hiring hundreds and thousands of people on

government payroll, full-time workers, to plant trees for six or eight

weeks in the spring and six or eight weeks in the fall, because that's

not, plain and simply, good management and good business.

MR. ROSE : I thank the hon. minister for his flights of fancy and for answering every question under the sun except the one I asked him.

However,

I thought what we were doing was discussing this

section here about how

the contracting out, or how the personal service contracts, may or may

not affect women in the public service. That's what we want to talk

about. You can't even tell us how many there are. As far as the

business about looking into the question of their work activity, their

employment income, none of that is available. It should be, because the

government should be a model employer, and it isn't.

When

it stoops to such tricks as exploiting.... You ask me about

exploitation. What are you paying your homemaker services? You've cut

them in half. How much are you paying them? You think it's important

that people stay in their homes and elderly people, like the Chairman

and I, get a little attention once in a while and get the odd meal

cooked. Six dollars an hour is about what they're paid.

You

ask me about exploitation. Riverview Hospital, immigrant women: what

have they got? They've got a six-dollar-an-hour wage right beside

people making $1,195, or $12.75 an hour. Medical benefits they don't

have. Paid sick leave they don't have. Maternity leave they don't have.

Leaves of absence, dental group insurance –– everything that's available to other people –– they

don't have. Sure, the cleaning is cheaper. I'm also told, because I

live right next to the hospital, that it's not as good either, because

these people can't keep it up for that kind of money.

You

ask me about exploitation. When are we going to have some stats about

salaries paid in the public service? If we're hiring people on

contracts, I see no reason on earth, with all the computers.... We've

got the B.C. Systems Corporation. The minister is very proud of that; I

think we're all proud of it. We tried to peddle it two or three times

and nobody would buy it, but everybody is proud of it. Surely in that

Systems Corporation, with the push of one button we could have that

information in the House. To sit there and stonewall us constantly...

Either you don't want to tell us how many contracts you've got

outstanding, or you don't know. Why isn't this information as to

gender, work activity, employment and income shared and made public? I

don't understand that. You've got all the resources of government.

How

many females have you got classified as level 7 or above? Can you tell

us that? How many female deputy ministers are there, or senior

managers? Can you tell us that? Or do I get another speech about

forestry, about how you're going to change the forest policy: instead

of planting little trees and chopping down big ones you're going to

reverse it?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I really hate to be

repetitious. When I talked about female management, I was talking about

where the chart starts talking about management employees and upwards,

all the way up to deputies. There is a blanket group in there normally

referred to as "the excluded." It's those figures, Mr. Member, that I

am quoting. I don't have the chart in front of me; all I did was take

the percentages, But the percentage was 17.3 percent; they are now 24.5

percent. That is an increase of 41.6 percent since 1986.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : That is the percentage of current management employees within government.

the member's other point about identifying for the House the percentage

of female workers in all the STOBs and contracts throughout government,

I'm not sure whether the exercise is one of waiting for something,

perhaps for the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) to

return. I don't know what the exercise is here.

Surely the

member must be aware of and must appreciate the thousands of contracts

that are contained in all those STOBs, totalling some $400 million. We

have already talked about the one on silviculture: $148 million. If

you're asking me to somehow do a survey with the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Parker) and come back to tell you how many of those people

who are putting trees in the ground or managing the worksite or cooking

the meals –– or whatever they all do out in silviculture thinning and spacing –– are

male and how many are female, I'm sorry, Mr. Member, I'm somewhat at a

loss as to just how I can possibly identify that. If that will satisfy

the member –– I'm not sure whether it will or not –– I'll talk it over

with my colleagues. We'll have a chat with forestry, we'll talk to the

A-G and Education, and see if we can't somehow get a handle on how many

of these thousands of people out there are male and how many are female.

don't know if he is now suggesting that when we put these contracts

together we maybe specify that if you bid on putting 100,000 trees in

the ground up in the Shuswap, perhaps there should be all females, or

[ Page 6017 ]

all

males, or a 30-70 split, or something like that. Maybe that's what he's

getting to. If he is, I wish he would get to the point, because I'm

missing a little bit of what the member is trying to explain. Perhaps

he could stand up and give us some more words on just what he's trying

to get at here.

MR. ROSE : I just want to clarify for

the minister, because when I was in full flight he perhaps didn't get

the full import of what I was asking for. I wasn't asking for just the

STOBs; I was asking for a breakdown of government employees as to

gender, income and rank. I don't see why that would be impossible. The

minister told us yesterday that there's something like 27,000 people

left in the workforce. Some 31 percent had been purged; they went to

their reward –– early retirements and things like that. I don't think

it would be too much to ask what levels the remaining 27,000 are at and

whether they're male or female.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

That's number one. Number two: there are obviously contract employees –– and

by the thousands, the minister just told us. That's a revelation we

haven't heard before. There's $460 million or so devoted to it. But how

many are there? That's what my colleague from North Island was asking

all morning: how many personal contracts for individuals are out there?

His concern was that either there's a deliberate attempt to weaken

collective bargaining, or there's an attempt to disguise the fact that

there's actually more than 27,335 people working for the government.

That's all we're asking. I didn't ask for just the STOB employees.

you're interested in asking me whether I think there should be some

affirmative action, I would like to know if there's a government policy

of affirmative action.

I'll leave it at that for now. We're going to come back to these STOBs a little later.

[3:30]

MS. MARZARI :

It's rather difficult to believe what I've just heard. Very

straightforward questions were put to the minister in charge of

government services about women's employment with this government, and

we received a 15-minute answer around seedlings; also the insulting

suggestion that we were asking the minister to count whether male or

female seedlings were being placed in the ground. I am trying to make

this leap of faith –– that we are in fact dealing with a rational process here.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the member:

I did not say those words, and I would like the record to show clearly

that those words were not spoken by me.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before I proceed, it's quite appropriate for you to make a

correction after the member has spoken, but it is not appropriate for

you to interrupt the member's remarks to make a correction. It wasn't a

valid point of order.

MS. MARZARI : The minister did

ask whether the opposition was interested in knowing whether male or

female seedlings were going into the ground.

The minister

was asked what the numbers are regarding females in the provincial

service. The minister answered that at the present time 24.5 percent of

management positions in government are held by women. I am assuming,

then, that the minister is talking about those positions which are at

level 7 or above in the provincial service. Is this level 7 or above,

Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Madam Member, it would

be appropriate for you to make your remarks and then ask the minister

to stand afterwards, as opposed to having a debate. That's the normal

procedure in committee.

MS. MARZARI : Okay. Then that is my first question.

second question is: does counting that 24.5 percent of women in

management positions include women who have been hired on professional

service contracts? Does that include women who are employed on a

part-time basis for short periods of time? Or does it only include

women who are working in full-time professional positions for the

government?

My colleague previously made the statement that

government sets the tone, that government should be the model employer

for the rest of the community; that if government does not live up to

its own values and aspirations about equity in employment and

management and the way things get done, then we are all served the less.

This

government has recently announced a ministry for women. The minister

ostensibly will be announced within the next few days or weeks. This

minister's job will be to look at fairness for women. I've read the

terms of reference in the budget and throne speech, and they suggest

that person will be in charge of looking at responsibilities that women

carry in the workplace and in the family.

It would strike

me, and I think there would be very few who would disagree, that in

order to look at a new ministry, in order to look at the extent of the

problem that one is addressing, one of the first things we have learned

to do in this culture is to measure the extent of the problem we are

addressing. If in fact the government believes that there are

difficulties in pay equity, in the promotion of women, in the hiring of

women in the first place and in the training of women, then I believe

it's up to this government to measure the nature and extent of what we

have now.

It's pretty traditional in affirmative action programs, in pay equity programs, in contract compliance programs –– which every other province in this country has and which our federal government has –– to

do this kind of measurement. When this side of the House asks the

minister how many women are in management positions, we're really

asking a complex

[ Page 6018 ]

questions. Have you measured? Are you thinking of measuring if you

haven't? And when you do decide to measure, what will you call it? Will

you call it an affirmative action program whereby women –– perhaps ethnic or racial minorities, natives, the handicapped –– might

be included so that we can develop, as the city of Vancouver has, as

every major urban area across the country has, as every other province

in this country has, some way of measuring and developing programs to

promote and assist people who have been traditionally left out of the

mainstream of the labour market?

Rather than suggesting

that you're more comfortable with trees than with women, I'd like to

just simply leave you with the question: are you going to take the

ministry for women seriously in Government Management Services? Are you

presently engaged in measuring –– using twentieth century computer techniques –– the nature of the workforce that you have now?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Yes.

MS. MARZARI :

Would the minister then be good enough to inform this House and the

many thousands of people who will be interested in reading this Hansard

what the nature of that measurement is, how it is being done and what

your goals and time-frame are for completing the measurement?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

The question of the percentage of management employees involves what I

understand to be the management levels 1 to 12. The statistics that I

quoted cover full-time employees. The response to the member's question

is that it is an ongoing process, and I'm sure the member will see some

positive reports and some positive results in the not too distant

future.

MS. MARZARI : I will make a positive

assumption then that the update from 1984 will presently be in public

hands, that the numbers that I have been working with for the last nine

months have been 1984 numbers, and that the numbers you have just

divulged in the House are present numbers which are not on public

record, except for this particular Hansard .

hope I am assuming correctly that there is a comprehensive measurement

of women in the workforce being done by Government Management Services,

and that we will be able to see across the board where women are

located and what they are making in the system. Your silence suggests

to me that you are not quite sure if the measurement is that extensive.

Is the measurement going to be an extensive one, and is there going to

be a public report made from Government Management Services of the

gender breakdown in the provincial workforce?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, a comprehensive analysis is currently underway. I repeat

myself to the member's question: I am sure that the member will see

some positive results from my ministry at an early date.

MS. MARZARI : I'll put forward the suggestion because you are going to be dealing with a minister for women — in one way or another — relatively

soon. There will be very strong pressure on any minister for women to

do this measuring and to do the complete breakdown, in order to develop

the kind of contract compliance and affirmative action programs that

will drag us into the twentieth century, like every other urban area in

every other province in this country.

Since you are the

ministry in charge of this exercise and basically do the housekeeping

for this government, I would think that you would be in the driver's

seat when it comes to developing these measuring-sticks and also

working on these programs which seem to be part of the furniture for

every other government in this country, and which seem to be painfully

difficult to get at with this particular government. So I will take

that as some kind of a contract, Mr. Minister, that you will be

producing on that. I will be asking regularly for follow-up.

would like to suggest that you include in your statistics a measurement

of casual staff, contract staff and professional service staff so that

we are, in effect, looking at women throughout the system, whether they

are permanent employees of the government, unionized, contracted-out

employees or on contract for service arrangements with the government.

That will give us some indication of what we're looking at.

think then perhaps for the first time, in British Columbia, we'll be

able to see the full range of salaries that day care workers get

vis--vis senior management, that teachers get vis--vis university

instructors and that homemakers get. We'll be looking at $6-an-hour

figures for people who work up to 18 hours a day doing jobs that many

of us would not accept under the worst conditions.

Mr.

Minister, I leave you with that task, and I assume that your promise

will be fulfilled and that the questions we'll be asking over the next

few months will be rewarded with some half-decent answers. We'll be

looking forward to some kind of an affirmative action plan for women.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : That last remark rather stunned me in reference to cleaning jobs and $6 an hour — the

remark that many of us wouldn't accept that kind of work under any

circumstances. My, my, my! Tsk, tsk, tsk! I have to tell you, Madam

Member, that I certainly make no apologies for getting down in the

ditches with a shovel when there was nothing else available. I make no

apologies for going to work for 55 cents an hour in Victoria in

Kresge's and Woolworth's washing dishes in the basement. I make no

apologies for stooping to that kind of labour, and I'm amazed many of

us wouldn't work for that kind of money under any conditions. I have to

say there's a lot of pride in working people, regardless of what level

of pay they might be receiving. They're going to work and they're

proud, and I'm proud of them.

MS. MARZARI : Well, I'll match your 55 cents an hour in Woolworth's, because I worked for 53 cents

[ Page 6019 ]

hour in Woolworth's myself. I'll tell you what to do with your pride.

You try to be a mother with three or four kids at home, and take a

$6.50-an-hour cleaning job in a long-term-care facility or in a

home-care situation, and come home after 12 hours of that and talk

about pride. Try to find child care on top of that, and find out that

it costs you $450 a month, so you can't even afford to have your job.

Then wonder why you have to go back onto welfare, where you're making

60 percent less than you need to live on. Talk to me about pride!

MR. WILLIAMS :

Yesterday the minister tabled answers to written questions that were

asked by me on March 21, Mr. Chairman. In his written response, the

minister states: "Lands were sold through various forms of public

processes, including tender calls, proposal calls, advertisements and

negotiated sales on real estate listings." In my written request I

asked which sales were based on bids and which were not. Could the

minister go over the list he tabled and provide the House with that

information?

[3:45]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I want to reflect for a minute on statements made by that

member earlier today. I must say that members on this side of the House

are not very pleased with the cloud of doubt he has left hanging as a

result of his words. He left a great deal of doubt in the eyes and the

minds of the people of British Columbia as to the sales of properties

other than Concord made by the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. He made

some very strong suggestions — very strong indeed — to the point

that.... I wonder whether, if those statements were made outside the

House, they would perhaps be strong enough to be libelous; perhaps not,

perhaps so. I feel quite strongly about it. He left an element of doubt

about the respectability, the integrity, of a lot of citizens of this

province, a lot of employees of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and a

lot of people working on contract.

Mr. Chairman, it's my

view that that member should come clean and either stand up in this

assembly and withdraw those remarks, and make an apology to those

employees he's left that inference about, or get on with the job and

lay something out we can get our teeth into in this assembly, and

answer those questions head-on.

MR. WILLIAMS : The

question was a simple one, Mr. Chairman. In his written answer provided

to the House yesterday, he said: "Lands were sold through various forms

of public processes, including tender calls, proposal calls,

advertisements and negotiated sales on real estate listings." I asked

the minister which ones were on a bid basis and which ones were on a

negotiated basis.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Chairman, am

I to be assured that the current questioning is leading up to this

evidence, or the statement that a lot of people are waiting for, about

something — that some sales have taken place that weren't "aboveboard"

or whatever the terms were that he used this morning? Or is this just

another branch we're heading out to in the wilderness, doing a bit more

searching and grappling around?

Maybe I misunderstood the

member. If I did misunderstand you, I wish you would set me straight

and clear up the record. It was clearly my feeling and my impression

that you had something you were going to present that was really going

to blow the lid off everything and that was really going to prove that

somebody had done something wrong, in the way of selling something held

by the government to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. Perhaps you could

just clear that up for me — that you really perhaps didn't mean it that way — and

apologize to the individuals concerned, and we could carry on with the

estimates. I'd be very interested in where the member is coming from on

this question.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Just before you

proceed, I might remind the minister that it's not appropriate to

address questions to members of the opposition. We're here to discuss

the administrative responsibilities of the ministry in question, and

matters that can be dealt with appropriately under the standing orders.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have a little more experience as a

minister as well, and the lesson is certainly appreciated by me if not

by the minister.

It's a simple question, Mr. Minister. I

thought it was simple enough and reasonable enough that there would be

a forthright answer. It's intriguing that the minister sees these

ghosts. But the question was straightforward and, I think, reasonable.

most provincial jurisdictions, when public lands are sold they're sold

by tender, with the terms very clear indeed. What you've had underway

is a crash program in privatization and the selling off of assets. Some

of us might really want to give that another label, but we'll hold back

on that. The point is that almost everywhere in this country valuable

lands owned by the Crown are only sold by tender; a bidding process

with the terms very clear indeed. So I'll repeat my question. Which

lands were sold by tender and which lands were not?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I have asked my staff to give us a breakdown of that list, and I will

have the response to the member at the earliest possible time.

MR. WILLIAMS : I appreciate the answer and look forward to the information.

addition, you state in your written answer that all sales were based on

market value as determined by land valuations and/or competitive

process. Is the minister prepared to confirm that there were up-to-date

appraisals in every case where there was not a competitive bid process?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I'm led to believe that that was the case, and certainly the policy of

the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.... But we can go back and have

[ Page 6020 ]

analysis done of those that weren't dealt with through the competitive

process to determine whether or not there were indeed current

appraisals to establish market value. But the response given to the

member at this time is in the affirmative.

I will

double-check and recheck to make sure that question is being answered

100 percent accurately. My response at this point in time, with the

information I have before me, is yes.

MR. WILLIAMS : I appreciate that, and trust the minister's and his deputy's nod. We look forward to that further assurance.

addition, there's the statement that the corporation does not have a

policy which distinguishes numbered companies. It was my understanding

that, in fact, the corporation did have a policy against selling to

numbered companies. Maybe that too could be checked if the minister is

going through that process anyway.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Regarding the numbered companies, the corporation maintains a policy of

thoroughly checking the bona fides of any corporation that submits a

bid, whether it's numbered or otherwise. We do not in any way make a

distinction between a numbered company or a company that is not

numbered. I know that the member is aware — having been as involved as

he has been over the years in the private sector, the latest-named guru

of the free enterprise world in the province — how numbered companies

come about. He knows that if a person wishes to establish a company and

has no particular need or yearning for some fancy name, whether it's

made up of the first letters of his, his wife's and kids' names to form

some type of fancy name or old heritage name or whatever... If he just

wants to set up a company and get on with the business, he knows it's a

lot quicker to get through the company application to have an approved

name by simply asking for the next number that comes out of the system.

He knows that numbered companies are not a peculiarity to the province;

they are very common. There are literally thousands of them, and there

is no reason whatsoever to not do business with a numbered company.

It's

my information from my staff, and it's written out in the response to

the member, that we do not distinguish between companies, whether they

are numbered or not. They are legal entities; they have met the

obligations. They've submitted their tender in time with the proper

deposits. They've responded to the proposal procedure where our

corporation searches and finds out who the directors of the corporation

are. If they have met all the criteria, they are evaluated through the

due process. All factors are looked at, whether the offer is one of

cash, terms or time, etc., and a decision or determination is made by a

group of what I would refer to as professional people, most of them

hired on contract to evaluate in a professional manner the bids put

forward, so that they, in turn, can recommend the eventual sales to the

board of directors.

MR. WILLIAMS : I don't want to

get into that kind of debate with the minister, other than to say that

the use of numbered companies certainly allows a range of things to

occur, things that in terms of public policy we might not be happy

about. I don't intend to spend much time on that right now.

What

intrigues me is that in the final paragraph of the minister's response,

he says: "The province is not different than any other owner as to

their rights to dispose of their property as they see fit." I find that

intriguing. It's an indication of how the concept of the public

service, of the public interest and of what we should do as government

has eroded over the years in this western outpost of British democracy.

most other provinces, the idea of selling land without a very clear

tender process would result in the defeat of a government. That kind of

statement, I think, tells us something about the civil service you have

around you now and about the government we have now, one that sees

government as no different than private business or than a person that

happens to own property himself, which he can dispose of as he sees

fit. But in the public sector, there are obligations to the community

at large. There are social obligations. There is the milieu, the

neighbourhood, so much of what civilization is all about. It isn't just

another business transaction, when you are dealing with assets of the

Crown. But we won't spend too much time on that right now either.

[4:00]

I was intrigued with some of these little items in the list of

sales. Let's pick one that would seem uncontroversial off the top of

the list that the minister provided us with the other day. It's the

sale of lot 1 in Westwood, in Coquitlam: 2 acres to the Foursquare

Gospel Church. The price is $40,000.

I don't know if the

price would have been the same if it had been a mainstream church like

the United Church, but I do know that 2 acres in Westwood is the

equivalent of, what, half a dozen lots? Buying half a dozen lots for

$40,000 looks to me like quite a bargain. The member for Dewdney nods.

He knows what real estate is moving at even further out in Mission,

Haney and Maple Ridge.

Maybe the minister could advise us

if that one was on a bid basis, and if all the other churches bid

against Foursquare Gospel and they just lost out; that Foursquare paid

the highest price going — $40,000. It doesn't sound four-square to me, but maybe you can enlighten us a little, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : We will research that question immediately, and I'm sure we'll be able to get back to the member in just a few minutes.

MR. WILLIAMS : Did the minister say: "In a few minutes"?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Yes.

MR. WILLIAMS :

There's another one that kind of intrigues me too. I see that you've

sold quite a bit of Songhees over here, for example, and the first on

your list is Cavell Developments Ltd., which is lot 7.

[ Page 6021 ]

It's

1.99 acres and was sold for $2 million. That's waterfront land over

here, and from the parliament buildings we can see it on the Songhees

site. I see another case in Westminster Quay to Royal Pacific Ltd.,

which includes 2.57 acres of water, 2.81 acres of land and 4.12 acres

of docks, for $2.2 million.

In the case of the New

Westminster lands it includes eight highrises of 100-plus suites each;

price, $2.2 million. In the case of the Songhees land — the Cavell company — there are two phases; 51 suites in the first one and 49 suites in the second one, for a total of 100 suites.

The

common thing to do in terms of determining property values is to

establish a land value per suite or number of dwelling units on the

site. In the case of the Westminster Quay site there are over 800

suites on a waterfront site that I would suggest is more valuable than

Songhees — it's downtown New Westminster. The Songhees site is smaller

in area, has far less shoreline and is in a smaller town. The price is

virtually the same.

I would think that even a clerk going

through the list would raise questions about these two items and

compare them. I don't think you'd even have to be a land valuer or an

appraiser in making the comparison. We're talking about 800-plus units

in downtown New Westminster versus 100 units in Victoria. New

Westminster is part of a community of a million and a half people; the

Songhees is within a community of a quarter of a million people.

They're both waterfront sites. The Victoria site is modest, a limited

water frontage; the New Westminster site is one-half mile of waterfront

in downtown New Westminster. Maybe the minister could explain why the

numbers seem to be the same.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : We

will instruct the staff to research those figures and those land

parcels immediately, and I'm sure we will expect to have a report back

to the assembly prior to adjournment.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Could the minister repeat what he said? I didn't quite understand it.

You said you would have your staff research that thoroughly and you

would have a report back by 6 o'clock. What kind of whirlwind employee

do you have, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I have

a number of whirlwind employees who respond very quickly and are very

efficient in their work. They're very dedicated to their job and

they're the kind of people that would like to clear up some of the

scurrilous remarks that were made in this assembly earlier today.

[Applause.]

MR. WILLIAMS : That was rather weak

support from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain as the minister

who was responsible for this giveaway program. It's kind of

understandable that there was not a lot of energy in that applause.

That's interesting isn't it?

You sell one piece of land for

$2 million and you can only build 100 apartments or condos on it. You

sell another chunk of land for a couple of million dollars and you can

build 800-plus apartments on it; you can build commercial development

on it in addition; you can put a marina in as well, on the river; and

so on.

It's worth thinking about in terms of that First

Capital City corporation that was established by this government. It's

interesting that it was the spark plug in many ways in getting New

Westminster rehabilitated. They spent millions and millions of dollars

rebuilding the New Westminster waterfront. Much of it is quite

charming: the esplanade along the river is one of the more attractive

features in the whole urban region. But it was very expensive, and in

the initial stages it was risky. That's why the Crown ended up bearing

that risk. The former minister nods. I commend the government in that

regard. I think it was a worthwhile risk to take, in the rebuilding of

our first capital.

But if you're going to do that sort of thing, if you're going to make the kind of expenditures you made — in

pedestrian overpasses, building the market, vehicular overpasses,

putting in the infrastructure, putting in the waterfront promenade, the

parkland along the river, which has transformed New Westminster — then

it's in the sale of the last parcels that you make the bulk of your

money. But you sold it. You've sold 2,200 feet of river frontage, the

remainder of the site, almost half a mile of downtown New Westminster

land, for $2.2 million.

Mr. Minister, if your staff can carry out an analysis of that deal in two hours — and you say you can and they can — why

wasn't the analysis carried out earlier, when the deal was cut? Why? I

tell you that a clerk could look at this file and tell you something

was wrong. You sell the land at Songhees, and you probably sold it low;

but then you sell the land at New Westminster, and you sell it for an

incredibly low price, compared with other sales you're making, and

compared with other sales in New Westminster. The market information is

there. It's all there to be got by anybody who wants to look.

We look forward to further information from the minister, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the status of all of these lands.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I certainly await word from my staff, and I'm sure it

will be coming quickly. I'm sure a member who has been in the

development business as much as the member opposite knows full well,

particularly with his planning experience.... The type of analysis that

he illustrates, where a clerk can look at a proposition in 15 minutes

and put together some figures and determine good deal, bad deal or

indifferent.... We can't do that. He knows that; he's nodding his head

in the affirmative, Mr. Chairman.

When the facts are

presented, I'm confident that the types of things that will appear will

be development costs, undeveloped portions, all or a part. I'm sure

there are questions on whether or not clearing was necessary, where old

pilings had to be removed, or buildings had to be torn down, or soils

had to be cleaned up; the cost of bringing services onto the site.

[ Page 6022 ]

Some of the figures that I have seen for servicing in some of these developments

are absolutely mind-boggling, because costs are very high. We have some figures

available as to what some people are spending to provide site servicing: into

the millions of dollars. The Concord estimates alone are something along the

lines of spending $80 million to $100 million per year on site development,

with servicing and development.

make a broad-brush statement that the Songhees versus New Westminster

is somehow or other a bad deal concocted by B.C. Enterprise

Corporation.... I think all members in the House, Mr. Chairman, would

be advised to wait for the response from the corporation. I'm sure

there have either been appraisals or a fair market tendering process to

determine values. One way or the other, I, along with the member, will

be awaiting the response from the staff,

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions for the minister. I've

listened with great interest to the remarks of my colleague the senior

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and some of the fascinating

questions he has raised. I must say that as a new member of the House

and a mere representative of the people of Vancouver-Point Grey, I find

the answers very disturbing. I think what I find most disturbing is the

attempt to evade the questions. They are simple questions that call for

simple, honest answers and for the truth. I find it very disturbing

that the taxpayers of British Columbia who finance the government can't

rely on the minister to reply simply to questions which are very simply

and clearly put, and which ask for the truth. The purpose of this House

is....

Interjections.

MR. PERRY : That suggestion was honourably put and well received.

The

questions are simple, and I think they require only simple, honest

answers. I look forward to seeing the answers tabled in the House, as

the minister ultimately promised.

[4:15]

I'd like to begin with a comment about the proposed sale of the

Westwood lands. As I understand the calendar, there are approximately

30 days left until the government announces its decision on the sale of

the Westwood lands. If I remember correctly, the bids closed on March

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I took a

position during the election campaign which I found very popular with

the public of a conservative riding such as Vancouver-Point Grey — that

because of the mistakes made by the government in dealing with the Expo

lands, there should not be any further sales of Crown lands; that land

should be leased for development so the Crown and the people of British

Columbia, whom the Crown represents, would retain control over the land

in the long term and a steady source of revenue.

To my

great interest, a casual acquaintance called me and told me that he

agreed with my position. This is a man who does $25 million worth of

real estate business in British Columbia. He told me he was one of the

bidders for the Westwood lands. When the government, on behalf of the

people, put forward the opportunity to rip off those lands, he, as a

conscientious businessman, could not decline the opportunity to bid on

them; but as a British Columbian he felt that the government was making

a serious mistake.

I questioned him very carefully on this, because his advice, as someone who has succeeded admirably in business — particularly in real estate — was

extremely interesting. His advice for the government, were he the

Minister of Housing or the Minister of Government Management Services

or the Premier, was that it should retain public lands such as Westwood

and lease them to enable young British Columbians and families who have

no hope of affording a home under current economic circumstances the

best possible chance of buying into the future, buying their own home,

and to assure a steady stream of revenue to the provincial treasury. I

thought this was very interesting, coming from a man who is normally a

supporter of the Social Credit Party and who does $25 million worth of

real estate development in this province. Unfortunately, when I asked

him to make his remarks publicly, his answer was that he would be

ruined were his name to be released to the public in the political

climate that prevails here. I still hope he will make these remarks

publicly.

Interjections.

MR. PERRY : This

is the truth, and I submit that if the hon. members opposite don't

recognize it, they may find to their dismay that the truth will become

manifest in the next election. This is where public opinion is in this

province.

I would like to ask the minister why he feels it

to be in the public interest that the Westwood sale proceed. Why does

he not declare a moratorium on that sale and refund to the developers

their legitimate costs of preparing their bids, in the interest of

preserving public control over those lands and long-term public access

to revenues from them? That's my first question. I'll take the Chair's

recommendation on whether I should defer the others or proceed.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Either way, hon. member. You've got time left; you have 15 minutes. Would the minister like to respond?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I'm happy that the member has taken his place in the questioning of my

estimates. I'm pleased to see him speaking up and asking some questions

on such things as this.

Perhaps on reflection, casting my

mind back some weeks, the member could perhaps make clear what he meant

during the campaign with his comment that the current Social Credit

government in the province of British Columbia was the most corrupt in

its history. I'd like to know whether or not that member is

[ Page 6023 ]

still

happy and pleased and content with that scurrilous remark damaging the

integrity of everyone on this side of the House and, indeed, a lot of

citizens throughout the province.

Talking about the

development of 1,410 acres of residential properties commonly referred

to as Westwood, developing that for both single and multiple dwellings

and putting them out on the marketplace on the basis that the homes

would be owned but the land would be leased, I guess the first thing

that comes to my mind.... I wonder if the member would be kind enough

to perhaps put in a quick call to this $25 million developer to find

out whether he has a home that he spent a lot of dollars on and is

located on leased land. It's fine to talk about other people, but I

think that you should look at yourself first. Is he happy? He must be,

because I'm sure he wouldn't be making such suggestions if he didn't

practice what he preached. Indeed, I'd be interested to know whether

the member opposite has a home and whether his home — with or without a mortgage; I don't care about that — is on leased land.

MR. PERRY :

The remarks that were made to me were made in confidence, and I'm not

going to disclose the location of this man's home so that he can be

victimized by anyone.

I think the appropriate answer to

your question is that the city of Vancouver, with the provincial

government, controls land on the south shore of False Creek where there

are leasehold developments. There are leasehold developments on lands

owned by the Musqueam band in which the tenure is perfectly

satisfactory. There are many other leasehold arrangements around the

province, both for residential and commercial land, in which tenure is

perfectly satisfactory to the owners of the homes on that land.

think, with regard to the other remark, I would not want to risk using

unparliamentary language in this chamber, but I'll simply say that I

have made a habit throughout my life of correcting my errors and

apologizing for anything I think is wrong. I don't make a habit of

making untruthful remarks, and I don't feel I have anything to

apologize for to anyone in this House.

I would like to ask some other questions of the minister though. I think the public will decide who's right on those issues.

The

minister implied this morning that economic spinoffs which accrue from

the development of the Expo lands would not have accrued had the lands

been developed in parcels or by any other means than the sale to

Concord Pacific. I find this an exceptionally dubious proposition.

Rather than ask the question, I'll leave it at that.

asked also whether we on this side of the House were aware of any

jurisdiction which assigns liability for cleanup of pollution to

previous owners of the land. I would like to reiterate comments made by

the first member for Vancouver East to the effect that in the United

States liability now is assigned to previous owners of land for

pollution which they leave to future generations.

I wanted

to comment also on comments interjected by the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) regarding the problem of cleanup of toxic waste at

the False Creek site and the former Expo lands. This is an extremely

serious problem, in my view, and a very complex one. I think that we've

only begun to understand the complexity of the issue from a scientific,

health and environmental point of view.

One of the issues

which concerns me is the statements made by both the Minister of

Government Management Services and the Minister of Environment earlier

this morning that standards are in place. I can quote the Minister of

Government Management Services from the Blues for this morning: "I'm

certainly thankful that we had the foresight and accepted the

responsibility on the sale and development of that property to have

thorough testing, a thorough analysis of the toxic materials in that

soil. I'm thankful that somewhere, somehow, we did that homework. I'm

thankful on behalf of the residents of this province...."

Later

on the Minister of Environment stated: "The standards will be made

public; they are standards that we have developed in conjunction with

the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in other

Canadian governments." I've read the draft report from the council of

Canadian resource ministers' special committee. I don't know if the

minister has read the documents. In its executive

summary in the first

pages of the report, the committee states that all such standards are

totally arbitrary, that in the review conducted by the Canadian

interprovincial committee there was no time to develop de novo

standards but only to review the standards adopted in some other

jurisdictions. It makes it clear in the executive

summary that these

standards are totally arbitrary, not based on any scientific knowledge

of the environmental or health consequences of exposure to polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons in soil, because the knowledge simply doesn't

exist.

This is a field that relates somewhat to my

professional training, and it doesn't surprise me that no scientific

knowledge exists in regard to these hazards. Virtually all of the

public policy must be based on guesses or best estimates, which

ultimately are only guesses. I find it disturbing to see the

implication that this matter was studied in depth, particularly the

implication that this was done before the Concord Pacific deal was

signed. The evidence indicates totally the contrary.

I have

a few other questions I'd like to pose in response to the minister's

comments this morning. He asked where the other bidders on the site

were. I think the obvious answer to that is that bidding was only

allowed on the entire site, something which precluded participation by

the great majority of — and in fact, as it turned out, virtually all — British

Columbians; in fact no British Columbian was capable of bidding

financially on the entire site, even at the grossly deflated price

charged for it. The vice chairman of the Real Estate Board of Greater

Vancouver and former alderman of Vancouver, Brian Calder, spoke out

before the sale went through and urged the

[ Page 6024 ]

government

to break the land into smaller parcels on which local developers could

realistically bid. The government spurned the advice at that time — obviously sensible advice, in light of what we have heard today.

want to comment also and ask the minister to clarify what he said

earlier this morning regarding the cleanup of the Expo lands. He

implied that the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was

grossly exaggerating in raising the possibility of a cleanup cost of

$400 million. As the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore)

pointed out in response, the estimate comes from a draft report of the

soils remediation program, entitled "Evaluation of Remedial Action

Alternatives." The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam read into the

record earlier today the estimated cost of one of the options. I don't

think the government knows the true cost of a reasonable cleanup of the

site.

I find it very disturbing to see that we are now

scurrying in a very ad hoc manner to attempt to answer these questions

after the fact; I find it even more disturbing that I and my

constituents, as taxpayers in British Columbia, who pay our full share

of taxes, are going to be asked to shoulder this burden, rather than

the former and present owners of the land.

[4:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, regarding the cleaning up of the site, all I can relate

to the member is what the experts, the ministry, the professionals, the

consultants, the ministry employees relate to me. I suppose the logical

thing to do is refer the question to the Minister of Environment (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) so that he can answer it during his estimates. I know the

topic will be brought up to the minister during those estimates.

is perhaps somewhat awkward for a Minister of Government Management

Services, who happens to be in charge of the corporation, to be

answering technical questions dealing with environmental costs. All I

can relate to him is that the figure quoted this morning on

environmental cleanup of that site is the most grossly exaggerated

figure I've ever heard in all my life. I don't know what else I can

say. I don't know whether you want me to shout it from the rafters,

climb up in the gallery, go out on the front lawn or what. It's a gross

exaggeration. Time will indeed tell; the facts will be presented in due

course. The range of figures that we have is dramatically less than

that. I am not going to debate the matter anymore; all I can do is tell

him what has been told to me. Future discussions could be taken up with

the minister directly.

I find it strange indeed that the

members keep plugging away, chiseling away and boring away at the fact

that we have accepted the responsibility to clean up these lands. How

would they rather have it? There are choices out there which were

available to the government of the day. Would they have had us leave

the land barren in its dirty state? Would they have had us perhaps put

a 12-foot fence around the site and block it off to the public so no

one could walk on or touch the polluted soil? Would they have had the

land sit idle and non-revenue-producing with no tax to the city, no

jobs for the working people of this province, no economic spinoffs and

no development? Perhaps they would have preferred the government to go

into a full development mode, not only packing the price which we paid

for the land originally, which was some $8 to $10 per square foot.

Around $8 to $10 a foot was the purchase price of the land.

Perhaps the member would choose to have not only that investment and the investment of Expo — the debt — hanging

over the heads of the taxpayers in the province; perhaps he would have

also chosen a route whereby the government would have entered into a

full-scale development of the site. We could have put in the roads, the

water, the sewer, underground lighting, park development....

MR. ROSE : Underground lighting?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Underground wiring for light standards, Mr. Member. Thank you very much. The member is certainly in fine shape today.

would like to hear what the member would have chosen for the government

to do. Invest hundreds of millions of additional taxpayers' dollars in

that development and then sell it off in small parcels perhaps to the

private sector to have buildings built which are going to be built

anyway? Or did we in hindsight and review analysis not do the right

thing by disposing of it and accepting the responsibility for seeing

that the land was cleaned up to an acceptable standard before the first

foundations are poured?

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, to

listen to the members talk about the Expo site. I wonder how many

people in the province are aware that these parcels of land were put

together by the B.C. government through Crown corporations, and the

purchase price ranged between $8 and $10 a foot. I wonder how many

people are aware that the sale to Concord delivered to BCEC $45 a

square foot. Yes, it's a big parcel of land; there are lots of spinoff

benefits that we have covered before. The total acreage is some 204.

Let's

look at the subtractions. In looking at the total acreage we see 204,

but we see water lots being 38, leaving a balance of 166. We see 18

acres required for streets. We see 45 acres set aside for public parks.

We see 12 acres for public open space. Those three items alone — another 75 acres — leave a net of some 91 acres for actual development space on that land.

The

open area around the Plaza of Nations is currently being finalized and

negotiated with the city of Vancouver. That will, no doubt — in the eyes of the developers — subtract an additional 2 or 3 acres, leaving the development site of some 89 acres out of the starting point of 204.

What

would the NDP have done under similar circumstances? Would they have

taken the taxpayers' money and gone into the full development business?

I can tell you something, Mr. Chairman, by and large it has been proven

that governments are not very good at getting into the development

business. That's

[ Page 6025 ]

been proven in many jurisdictions and many provinces. We are better off doing it in the private sector.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to tell the member that there are many parcels of

land, past and present, that have been disposed of by the B.C.

Enterprise Corporation, having been put into government portfolios back

in those years from 1972 to 1975. If you want to look at a return on

money for some of the land deals made and some of the purchases made in

those years and the bottom line return to the citizens in this

province....

HON. S.D. SMITH : Try Campbell Creek.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

The second member for Kamloops says: "Try Campbell Creek." It would be

interesting indeed to look at some of those transactions and blocks

that have been held by Crown corporations since those glorious years of

'72 to '75.

The criticism about the selling price. I don't

know what else this government or the Crown corporation could do to

establish fair market value. I said it earlier and I'll say it again:

not only did we advertise in the city of Vancouver and the province of

British Columbia, not only did we advertise across the length and

breadth of Canada in such journals as the Toronto Globe and Mail ,

but there were ads in major newspapers in the United States and indeed

throughout the world. How better to establish market value than to have

such widespread participation from literally thousands of interested

investors throughout the length and breadth of the world?

Perhaps

the member would have been happier if the sale price had not been $320

million with no interest payments for those tail-in years. Perhaps the

Minister of Finance would have been happier with an upfront selling

price of $145 million. But that wasn't the deal negotiated. The

negotiators, the professional people employed by the government through

the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, recommended that this firm had the

best offer, the most cash and the best reputation to carry on the

development in a professional manner of all those who tendered.

don't know what else the opposition would have us do, Mr. Chairman,

because it's clear, in looking at professional advice from a firm

called Burns Fry, with national credibility and international

reputation.... They gave an appraisal and evaluation of that business

transaction and considered it worthy, fair and equitable on the basis

that it was undeveloped land, land with very few if any services, land

that was going to require tens of millions of dollars in the short term

and — yes, Mr. Member — hundreds of millions of dollars in the long term.

Perhaps

too the member is not aware of the tremendous economic spinoff. I've

covered the $2 billion in capital investment already on that site and

the $8 billion in total economic spinoff benefits. But along with that

the member should be aware that the vast percentage of this money is

coming from abroad. It's new money being put into our provincial

economy, creating new jobs and new wealth, giving additional tax

revenue to the government which in turn will be utilized to provide

better social services, more money into the environment, more money

into health, more money into education — all those positive things

coming about as a result of this transaction. We stand ready to justify

and hold up our head on the commitment we have made, proud of the

commitment that the site will be cleaned up to high environmental

standards, set by the Minister of Environment in this province, that

will stand up to scrutiny and be accepted by the planners and the

council of the city of Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, before I

take my seat I must make a correction to a document tabled by me

yesterday in response to a question put by the first member for

Vancouver East. It seems that the word processor skipped ten words — a

very important ten words but a very innocent oversight by my staff for

which I take responsibility and give apologies. The paragraph in

question was the last paragraph in answer to the question put by the

first member for Vancouver East.

The paragraph is headed:

"Flipping." I congratulate the member for Vancouver East for bringing

to my attention a short time ago that the sentence in question read

incorrectly. It read: "The province is not different than any other

owner as to their rights to dispose of their property as they see fit."

On very quick analysis you could see that it did not read correctly

when talking about flipping.

The proper sentence reads as

follows: "The province is no different than any other owner in its

ability or right to influence a subsequent owner as to their rights to

dispose of their property as they see fit." I will see that prior to

adjournment we table this correction. I wanted to read it out for the

record now as it has just come to my attention, and I will see that the

members of the opposition — particularly the member for Vancouver East — are supplied with that correction.

[4:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Minister, I am sorry, but your time is up under standing orders.

MR. PERRY : I'd be prepared to yield to the minister if he wishes

to continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Does the minister wish to continue? The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey will carry on, please.

MR. PERRY : A previous Chairman earlier today reminded the House that

the tradition of this House is for the estimates debate to focus on the minister's

performance as we decide how we shall vote on his estimates this fiscal year.

Therefore the tradition of the House is really for this side of the House to

pose the questions, so rather than respond to the questions that were posed

to me, I will assume they were rhetorical.

I'm

not avoiding any of the questions, but my answers have been made to

them during the election campaign outside of the House in public for a,

and they are on the record many times during the recent election

campaign. I think the most interesting question was how we might have

disposed of the Expo

[ Page 6026 ]

lands, but I submit that's not really the question before the House today.

Interjections.

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

MR. LOVICK : Just ignore them.

MR. PERRY : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've dealt with much more difficult

opposition during my career. I'm not particularly worried by those kinds

of scurrilous remarks.

Let

me focus, though, on some of the issues that were raised by the

minister in his response regarding the selling price compared to the

true market value of the Expo lands. I raise this question now largely

for the public record. I raised it often during the

recent election campaign in Vancouver-Point Grey, and I was

intrigued that at approximately ten all-candidates meetings, 14 coffee

parties, perhaps ten all-candidates media fora on radio and television

and in numerous media interviews, at no point was any question raised

either by the candidates for the other political parties, including the

Social Credit Party, or by the media or by any other person about the

factual content of my remarks.

Therefore I would like to

repeat the estimates I gave at that time for the consideration of the

record and history, if not the government. What I said at the time was

that independent estimates of the value of the Expo land site ranged

from a median figure of roughly $650 million cited by the officials of

B.C. Place in 1984, two years prior to the international exposition.

That was a figure that B.C. Place officials gave as an estimate to

University of British Columbia economists studying the Expo....

HON. S.D. SMITH : Oh, those are the guys who predicted that Expo would fail.

MR PERRY : This is a published estimate, published in a book in British

Columbia, which I cited numerous times during a recent election campaign. That

estimate of $650 million was given as the value of the lands in 1984. That was

approximately four years before the Concord Pacific deal was signed. This is

all on the public record, and the public will judge it.

The current estimate I received from realtors I consulted was that the current

February 1989 value of the Expo lands, undeveloped, was in the order of $1.1

billion. We've heard today that the maximum selling price for the Expo lands

was, if I understood the minister correctly, $140 million, and that the true

selling price so far is only $50 million. I stated this many times during public

campaigns, and no one seriously questioned me, including the Social Credit candidate.

I think the true selling price still is open for debate. I've listened very

carefully to what the first member for Vancouver East said today in his calculations.

I checked the arithmetic myself and agree with his sums of $665 million as the

net loss on the property — the net loss to the treasury and the taxpayers of

British Columbia.

find this incredible, frankly. I'm merely a physician. I work with

small sums of money at the University of British Columbia. I worry when

I spend $17 to prepare slides for a lecture because that's public

money; I'm expected to account for it. In fact, I received a statement

of payment for approximately $17 from the continuing medical education

division today, confirming that in my department we had paid a bill of

$17 to prepare educational materials. I'm used to dealing with money

responsibly, and I find what I've heard in this House today, and the

defences of the minister, incredible.

Let me deal with the issue that the minister raised this morning — at page 6 in today's Blues — and

again a few minutes ago. He said that the negotiation process for the

sale of the Expo lands "was conducted by very professional people, the

best of lawyers and the best of negotiators, and they concluded a deal

with Concord." I have no desire to impugn the integrity of the

individuals involved — I still don't even know who they are — but professionals in British Columbia are defined by statute, are governed by codes of ethics and codes of discipline.

Members

on this side of the House met last night with the registered engineers

of British Columbia and were reminded of the important statutory duties

of professionalism required of them by the government and the House,

including the duty to investigate their own profession when mistakes

are made. The engineers reminded us of how thoroughly they have

investigated the disaster at Save-on-Foods and Drugs and of the report

that was issued recommending major changes to the practice of

engineering in British Columbia precisely because they are

professionals. If those people who negotiated the Expo lands sellout on

behalf of all British Columbians were professionals, they would have

examined themselves prior to recommending that deal to the government,

and their professional association would now be recommending discipline

against them for selling out the public interests of British

Columbians. Therefore I submit it is ridiculous to refer to them as professionals.

Let

me attempt to enlighten the House and to pose a question at the same

time as to why those so-called professionals did recommend to an

incredibly naive and, I repeat, incompetent government a deal which

will go down as the most absurd and ridiculous financial deal in the

history of the province. It is perhaps exceeded by the deal that a

former Premier made in concluding the Columbia River Treaty, although I

recognize that at the time he had much more limited resources of

financial analysis and forecasting than the government presently has.

AN HON. MEMBER : Or the Coquihalla.

MR. PERRY : Or the Coquihalla deal.

Let me attempt to answer the question of how this deal could have occurred.

[ Page 6027 ]

come from a profession and from an academic background in which we are

accustomed to assessing mistakes, attempting to assign the

responsibility — not blame, but responsibility — for mistakes, and to

correcting them to ensure they never happen again. That's my academic

discipline and, facing that discipline, I attempted, during my election

campaign, to learn how the government could have made such an absurd

decision, who advised it, and why they advised it in that way or how

they came to those recommendations. The closest I've come to any insight — I

do not submit that this is the answer; it's the only answer that has

made any sense to me or rung any bells of veracity in my head — is the

same businessman who does $25 million worth of real estate business

each year. I asked him how he could explain this, because his

assessment was that the loss to the public treasury on the sale of the

Expo lands, compared to a fair price, was $300 million. His estimate

was not quite so high as mine, but it was still $300 million that the

cabinet and the government of this province gave up,