1990 Legislative Session: 4th

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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page 10641 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Control the Sale of Tobacco to

Minors and to Prevent

Tobacco Addiction Among Young People (Bill

M224). Mr. Perry

Introduction and first reading –– 10641

An Act to Protect Public Health Through

the Guarantee of a

Tobacco Smoke-Free Environment (Bill

M225). Mr. Perry

Introduction and first reading –– 10641

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

Jansen

Introduction and first reading –– 10642

Offence Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 53).

Hon. Mr. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 10642

Securities Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 56).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 10642

Tabling Documents –– 10642

Private Members' Statements

Future constitutional reform. Mr. Harcourt

–– 10642

Hon. Mr. Smith

Voucher funding for post-secondary

education. Mr. Loenen –– 10644

Mr. Jones

Motorcycle awareness. Mr. G. Janssen –– 10646

Hon. Mr. Richmond

Fish and wildlife resource values. Mr.

Serwa –– 10648

Mr. Cashore

Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990

(Bill 13). Second reading.

(Hon. Mrs. Gran)

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 10651

Mr. Rose –– 10651

Mr. Clark –– 10653

Mr. Miller –– 10654

Mr. Cashore –– 10655

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 10656

Committee of Supply: Ministry of

Government Management Services and

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs

estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Gran)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 10656

Mr. Miller

Ms. Marzari

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr. Speaker, visiting

the buildings this morning is a group of people from the

Camosun College. This is rather a unique approach to the ESL program,

and my colleagues and I would like to express our appreciation of their

attendance this morning.

MR. WILLIAMS : In the gallery today are the

interns who have worked with Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, Elvy Del

Bianco, Sean Vanderfluit, David Jones and Geoffrey Gartshore. I'd like

to recognize their work and worth to the process here in the House and

to wish them well in their future careers.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, the Chair would

like to advise you that a number of former members were here in

Victoria last evening, and some of them will be joining us on the floor

of the House today. I make them all welcome.

MR. MOWAT : In the House today it's my

pleasure to introduce Michelle Kitchen and Brad Kitchen who are

visiting from Toronto. They recently were married. Brad is the son of

Peter and Myrna Kitchen, longtime friends of ours and supporters from

Vancouver. I'd ask the House to make Michelle and Brad welcome.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I was going to say I

would like to offer you our thanks and congratulations from both sides

of the House — I'm really not permitted to do that, but certainly from

this side of the House, and I assume it would be echoed across the

way — for taking the initiative in the very successful reunion

of former MLAs we had last evening at the Lieutenant-Governor's house,

and for the provision of identifiable pins as a kind of badge of honour

— you might even consider it a battle medal. But in any event, I think

the fact that we all got together last night was really worthwhile, to

relive old friendships and old rivalries and to be among old friends.

We thank you for your efforts.

MR. BARNES : I want to recognize the

presence of a former MLA from Mackenzie, Mr. Tony Gargrave, who is also

a constituent of mine. He was here at the reception last evening with

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Would the House please make Tony

Gargrave welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO CONTROL THE SALE OF

TOBACCO TO MINORS AND TO PREVENT

TOBACCO ADDICTION AMONG YOUNG

PEOPLE

Mr. Perry presented a bill intituled

An Act to Control the

Sale of Tobacco to Minors and to Prevent Tobacco Addiction Among Young

People.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, this bill,

otherwise to be known as the Children's Tobacco Addiction Protection

Act, would break the chain of tobacco addiction by undermining the

sales of tobacco products to those most susceptible to this addiction:

children and teenagers. This bill treats tobacco as a dangerous

substance and seeks to educate the public by requiring tobacco packages

to clearly indicate the health hazards involved in smoking.

The bill empowers the Minister of Health to issue tobacco

sales licences without which no distributor or retailer may sell

tobacco products.

Violations of the following provisions shall result in the

loss of the tobacco sales licence: no sales of tobacco products to

those under 19; signs displayed prominently at the point of purchase,

bearing health warnings; specific restrictions on the packaging of

tobacco products; no use of tobacco product vending machines in areas

accessible to children; and no sales of confectionery that resembles

tobacco products.

Bill M224 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER : The member has indicated he

has two pieces of legislation. There is no indication from the

government that you have legislation, but I presume you do. I'll ask

the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey to proceed.

AN ACT TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH

THROUGH THE GUARANTEE OF A

TOBACCO SMOKE-FREE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Perry presented a bill intituled

An Act to Protect Public

Health Through the Guarantee of a Tobacco Smoke-Free Environment.

MR. PERRY : This bill addresses the health

hazards caused by environmental tobacco smoke — the sidestream or

secondhand smoke that affects non-smokers in close proximity to

smokers. This bill would establish provincewide standards restricting

the locations where smoking would be allowed. Specifically, no one may

smoke in an enclosed public place or in an enclosed workplace unless a

separate ventilated room has been provided for smokers by the

proprietor. With respect to bars, nightclubs, etc., there are

exceptions.

I would like to acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that this bill

follows on initiatives you have pursued in the

[ Page 10642 ]

legislative buildings. I'd also like to thank one of our

legislative interns, Mr. EIvy Del Bianco, who has done a sterling job

in helping to prepare these initiatives.

Bill M225 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HEALTH PROFESSIONS ACT

Hon. J. Jansen presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Health Professions Act.

HON. J. JANSEN : The purpose of Bill 31 is

to provide a new mechanism for the regulation of various health

practitioners who are currently unregulated. In the past, government

has conferred self-governing powers on various health professions by

separate statutes. The Health Professions Act will enable cabinet to

designate specific health professions by regulation to be

self-governing under the terms of this bill.

This bill was first introduced in this House as Bill 91,

Health Discipliner, Act, in July 1989, an exposure bill. On the basis

of comments and suggestions received since then, a number of changes to

the bill have been made, resulting in significant improvements. Most

importantly, provisions respecting inquiry and discipline have been

expanded to enhance public protection.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to fuller discussion of these

matters during second reading and in Committee of the Whole.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Smith presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Offence Amendment Act, 1990.

[10:15]

HON. MR. SMITH : This bill proposes changes

to the way that various tickets are issued and changes the times for

disputing those tickets.

Bill 53 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Bill 56 marks another

step in the process of modernizing our financial regulatory legislation

in British Columbia. The primary purpose of this bill is to repeal the

Commodity Contract Act and to incorporate provisions for the regulation

of exchange contracts in the Securities Act. The bill also contains

several other amendments to the Securities Act.

The Commodity Contract Act was passed in 1978 and amended in

1985. It is now outmoded and in need of replacement, to provide a

modern and effective regulatory framework for trading in futures

contracts and options. Because of the similarities in regulatory

structures, the most efficient way of updating the legislation

governing exchange contracts is to combine it with the Securities Act.

This bill will give British Columbia the most advanced legislation in

Canada for both securities and exchange contracts.

Bill 56 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. Mr. Savage tabled the Provincial Agricultural Land

Commission annual report for the year ended March 31, 1989.

Private Members' Statements

FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

MR. HARCOURT : Mr. Speaker, Meech Lake has

failed, but Canada is far from over. Our country is going to be around

a long time, but the old way of backroom bargaining and rolling the

dice is finished forever, because there is a better way to build this

great country. The present process is one of exclusion. It is secretive

and manipulative. We cannot build a country behind closed doors any

longer.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the nation is changing. There is no turning

back. No longer can British Columbians and Canadians be left on the

outside looking in. It's time to discard the old ways and open the

process to the people. It's time for a new approach.

I want to outline how we on this side of the House would give

British Columbians an opportunity to express their views fully and

further develop the Canadian constitution. We believe this House should

set up a special legislative committee. Through full public hearings

and other means, the committee would examine and make recommendations

to this House as to changes to the Canadian constitution required to

reflect the British Columbia reality in a modern, evolving Canada.

The constitution committee would look at such things as

economic and social issues, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms —

including women's equality — multiculturalism, aboriginal rights and

self-government, Senate reform, immigration and the amending formula.

To assist the committee, an advisory board of at least five British

Columbians, to include an aboriginal leader, a women's rights advocate,

a constitutional law expert and two or more informed citizens, would be

appointed to provide expertise and to participate in the deliberations.

The special

[ Page 10643 ]

committee would start its work next fall and deliver an

interim report to you by December 31, 1990.

Such a process would be enshrined in the B.C. constitution to

ensure full public participation in any further constitutional

amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on another avenue for ensuring

greater participation by the people of this province. I'm talking about

a Senate election for B.C. Some argue that the collapse of Meech Lake

means the Mulroney government no longer has to consult the provinces

before naming Senators; that once again the Prime Minister is free to

maintain the Senate as a non-democratic club, naming only his friends

and supporters to fill the remaining vacancies — Senators who, in turn,

will support his government's policies. Already Finance Minister

Michael Wilson says he expects an easy ride for his goods and services

tax through the Senate. I believe there may be better ways to deal with

the west's power imbalance in Ottawa than just changing the Senate. But

as long as we have the Senate, we must make every effort to get rid of

its patronage nature.

The current Senate is a very exclusive club, where people are

richly paid for doing precious little. It's filled with non-elected

Liberal and Conservative bagmen, a privileged few who enjoy a

cash-for-life bonanza to age 75 for no other reason than being friends

of the government. They are accountable to no one, as recently

demonstrated when they voted themselves a $153-a-day bonus just for

showing up.

One of the current Senate vacancies is in B.C. Before Brian

Mulroney fills it with another political pal, I believe we should take

the action that's best for B.C. I'm calling upon the Premier to inform

the Prime Minister that B.C. insists that our current Senate vacancy be

filled through a democratic election. I suggest a provincewide vote be

held this fall, on the same date as the November municipal elections,

to make it both convenient and affordable.

Mr. Speaker, while it may be true that Alberta held their

Senate election in anticipation of Meech Lake's passage, Alberta was in

a similar constitutional and legal position as B.C. is today when they

elected a Senate nominee. The Prime Minister was pressured into

accepting that individual as Alberta's new Senator. I believe B.C. can

and should do the same. We on this side of the House will field a

candidate in that election. We want British Columbians to have a chance

to exercise their democratic right and vote for a candidate who will

fight hard against the GST, and I challenge this government to do the

same. The name of the winner should then be given to the Prime

Minister, with strong instructions that she or he be B.C.'s choice for

Senator. Rather than allowing the Prime Minister to simply pick a name

from a list of political pals, let the people of B.C. decide. That's

what all future constitutional change must be about Give the people a

voice in their future.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : There is an opportunity for a

response from a government member. The Attorney-General seeks the floor.

HON. MR. SMITH : It's interesting that the

Leader of the Opposition talked about the bonus Senators get. I can

tell him that it's no bonus for this House, when he does show up from

time to time, if what he has to say is what we have just heard. The

Leader of the Opposition has suggested that constitutional changes

begin with yet another committee of politicians. He could not be

further from the mark. Constitutional change should begin with the

people. Committees of politicians, whether they be all-party

legislative committees or otherwise, have not worked well. When we

start to make our suggestions for constitutional change, we should

begin the process by drawing together the people.

Perhaps that could not be better demonstrated than by the

suggestion the Leader of the Opposition makes with regard to having a

provincewide Senate election. If we're going to have Senate reform,

clearly one of the issues the people are going to have to address is

whether they want the election of those Senators to be done on a

provincewide basis — and therefore dominated by population yet again —

with British Columbia relative to the rest of Canada, or whether they

want those Senators to be elected on some regional basis within the

province.

If the Leader of the Opposition trusted the people to let them

start the process, he would hear that concern. He would not propose

something that comes out of the mind of a politician dominated by his

experiences in the largest city — Vancouver — in British Columbia. It

would come instead from the people and would let them begin the process

to determine what kind of Senate they want and how they want to elect

that Senator.

As we move towards Canada Day this year and contemplation of

the kind of Canada we want strong, united, prosperous and

forward-looking — I think all of us have to reflect on the notion that

the issues we must consider are provincial ones, within Canada, and

therefore it behooves us all to consider how we can diminish the

partisan way these issues have been dealt with in the past and begin to

find ways that draw out the people. I think you can best see that when

you go to high-school graduations, and to our schools, generally, and

talk to young people, especially about these constitutional issues.

They do not see it at all in the same way as politicians do — and I say,

thankfully so. It is those young people who are going to have to face

the same tired, old challenges that have been facing us and that we

have not succeeded in changing. They're going to be facing those same

old challenges and problems, and hopefully they will be the ones to

find new, correct, workable solutions, because the politicians of the

generation ahead of them have singularly failed in doing that.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you: don't start with yet another

committee of politicians dominated by people who put forward their

tired, old, partisan propos-

[ Page 10644 ]

als. Start this process by drawing on the experience,

expertise, decency, understanding, commitment and forward-looking

optimism that the people have about this wonderful, rich, bountiful,

beautiful Canada that we all know is going to be around for a great,

long time.

[10:30]

MR. HARCOURT : I note, with some irony, the

non-partisan way that the Attorney-General started his remarks, calling

for a non-partisan approach to this issue and the diminishing of

politicians. I think it's an honour and a privilege and a fine calling

to be an elected person. I don't think we should turn the word

"politician" into a pejorative. The Attorney-General may not be proud

to be a politician, but I am. I think that when you are elected, you do

indeed carry a specific duty, and part of that duty is to lead.

Yes, we begin with the people, but if you look at the

successful provinces in terms of involving the people, they did have

legislative committees: Manitoba, New Brunswick, Ontario with the

Senate. They have worked quite well. I want to recall that two years

ago almost to the day, I stood in this Legislature and said we needed

to involve the people of British Columbia in constitutional reform. The

Social Credit government, when they had a chance to set up that

structure — whether it be the rather elusive method that the

Attorney-General has put forward or the specific, traditional way that

I just mentioned here — voted against the opportunity for the people of

British Columbia to be involved in constitutional change.

You're right, we do need to involve the people. I was asked by

the Premier to come forward with some proposals. I have made known to

the Premier those proposals for involving the people of British

Columbia in participation about our constitution. I have put those

forward in an honest and sincere way today. I hope that the government,

if they have other proposals, will do the same, and we can get to the

central issue here, which is that never again will the people of

British Columbia be excluded from participating in constitutional

change. Let us find a way to involve them fully. Whether it's through

ward Senators or some other means, we're open. Let's have that

discussion about what form of changes to this present Senate, which

cannot stay the way it is, the people want. That's why we put the

process forward. Let the people decide.

As we approach Canada Day, Mr. Speaker, we are the envy of the

world. We sometimes don't recognize what we have created — not just

future leaders, but past leaders and citizens of this great country of

ours. We are the envy of the world in the Confederation that we've

created. Instead of looking at the setbacks that some people perceive,

of the last few weeks with Meech Lake not being approved, let's be

thankful that we live in Canada, that we live In freedom and that we

have a prosperous society where our problems are resolvable.

VOUCHER FUNDING FOR

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk

about post-secondary education this morning, in particular about a

rather innovative approach to funding postsecondary education.

We all know, increasingly, how important education is. It

holds the key to the future not only for our province and communities

but for individuals. This government spends nearly $1 billion of

taxpayers' dollars in post-secondary education. We have an excellent

system, but I believe that there are areas where improvements are

possible. I want to mention three.

in the remote areas of this province who do not have the same kind of

access that others do, particularly those in the lower mainland. Last

weekend I was in Prince Rupert. People there were telling me that

frequently, in order to get admitted to programs or registered at the

major universities, students are asked to travel in person to those

places. That puts a tremendous cost and burden on those individuals.

problems.

We also know that some 70 percent of students at our three

universities come from the wealthiest 30 percent of the population.

Again, that is something that ought to be addressed, because we want

the benefits of post-secondary education to come to all, regardless of

level of income.

I also want to note that often universities do not have

semesters and hours that are flexible enough to make it possible for

many to make use of the programs offered.

Secondly, I want to note that we have to do more to promote a

higher quality of education. All organizations and institutions tend to

become self-serving and self-perpetuating. They sometimes forget the

purpose for which they exist. I remember from my student days at UBC

that we had one prof who said: "Don't ever think that we exist for the

benefit of students. This grand institution is not here for the benefit

of students; it is here to keep alive a certain body of knowledge."

Well, Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of elitism that is present,

perhaps subtly, in what happens in our universities. When we think of

tenure arrangements, we all know that there are profs who really should

not be there and who are protected by a system that is often very

self-serving.

Thirdly, there should be more choices in the type of education

offered. The students are often forced to take courses they don't

really want or need. In addition, we know that frequently courses do

not really respond to the needs of the job market.

I am suggesting that all of those three areas could be

addressed very effectively through a new funding formula. In particular

I want to ask consideration for the voucher system of funding. It's a

very simple system. It means that the funding would not go directly to

the institution involved but rather would

[ Page 10645 ]

follow the student, and the student would have a genuine

choice of which institution to enrol in. The funding that the

government now provides for the operating costs of an institution would

be funnelled through the students attending that institution.

I believe that it would address those three problems I

institutions would really seek to capture their market share. They

would go out of their way to do that. Secondly, we would see a dramatic

improvement in the quality, because each institution would want to

build the best programs and the best reputation. In addition, there

would be a remarkable improvement in the choice of programs that the institutions would offer to their customers, the students.

I believe in competition, and I believe that competition for

students would be a good thing. Too many of the institutions today are

a little too rigid and do not always respond to changes. There would be

great benefits not only for the students but also for the institutions

themselves, because the institutions would become truly independent and

would no longer be tied as directly to the government of the day or to

bureaucrats. They would not have to go cap in hand to Victoria, as is

the case now, to get funding approval for new programs. In fact, the

institutions would benefit, because they would be masters within their

own house and would have a greater degree of independence.

Benefits will also accrue to government itself, because

government could see a better return on the very substantial investment

that goes into education now. I think the beauty of this system is that

while we would still have government-funded education, we would

maximize the private initiative that would drive the system. We would

in fact allow the various institutions great rewards from the

initiative they would take.

MR. JONES : It's a pleasure to respond to

the member's statement on post-secondary education. I think it's clear

from his statement that the understanding and attitude of members

opposite towards education and post-secondary education were shaped by

the fact that they fled that education at an early age. Clearly the

member opposite misunderstands the goals of our post-secondary

education system, which are to further the intellectual development of

people in this province so that they can make a greater contribution

culturally, socially, economically and intellectually to this province.

It's not, as the member suggests, an opportunity to provide job

training so that we can feed the markets and the marketplace of this

great province of ours.

Mr. Speaker, students do have a choice in the institution they

attend. The problem is that there isn't the space in our post-secondary

institutions in British Columbia. Thousands of students are turned away

every September, and they'll be turned away this September. As many as

10,000 students are turned away.

The institutions are funded according to full-time equivalent

students, so the funds do follow the students. The problem is that

those who are able to attend because of the lack of space and because

of the underfunding from this government — are forced to take courses

they do not need and do not want. It's an incredible waste of their

time, the institution's time, their money and the taxpayers' money;

it's a waste of tremendous potential.

In this province we have an import policy. We need the

graduates of our post-secondary institutions in this province to make

their contribution. We need them to add value to our natural resources

and to help solve our environmental problems. We need them to make our

public and private sectors work more effectively and more efficiently.

We need those graduates to help create a cleaner, healthier and more

prosperous British Columbia. But what happens in this province is that

our very talented young people are denied that opportunity. There's no

room at the inn for thousands and thousands of those students every

September.

What we have had and what we continue to have in this province

is an import policy. Over a period of ten years we imported 20,000

graduates. In terms of our degree-completion rates, we are short some

3,300 bachelor degrees annually, compared to the national average.

We have the poorest participation rates of 18- to 24-year-olds

in the country. Despite the government's pronouncements and the public

relations of this government, we will continue to fall further and

further behind the national average in terms of participation rates.

We contribute, as a province, less than half of what we

contributed in 1972-75 in terms of the percentage of our provincial

budget, and it is going down annually. It went down again this year

over last year. We contribute among the lowest — less than 1 percent —

of our gross domestic product to research and development; that's worse

than the national average, worse than most provinces in Canada, and

tremendously worse than other countries.

Mr. Speaker, we have a post-secondary education system that

has the ability to produce the graduates we need. Sadly, every

September we see tens of thousands turned away from the door. There's

no room at the inn for these people, because this government does not

have a commitment to post-secondary education. They do not believe that

this is the way to convert our economy from one dependent on natural

resources to one dependent on human resources. It's going to take a

change of government in order to bring about that change.

[10:45]

MR. LOENEN : Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed

that the member chose to not deal with the suggestion, the

recommendation or the idea put forward. Instead he went into a tirade

which we've heard time and again about so-called underfunding.

This government has done more for education in the last three

years than we've seen for a decade. Just

[ Page 10646 ]

in my riding this past year we have put $16.5 million into new

school construction, which is more than the whole of the previous seven

years combined. We have committed to building a $38 million new campus.

We have committed to building a degree-granting institution in Nanaimo,

Kamloops and Kelowna. We've committed to a university of the north.

This government's record on education is absolutely the best.

Getting back to the suggestion, Mr. Speaker, the idea that I

put forward is certainly not new. We have seen many studies come out;

people who are expert in the field have made similar recommendations.

It has been supported over the last decade by many educators,

economists and commissions, including the Macdonald royal commission,

the President's Commission on Privatization in the U.S., and education

specialists such as Edwin West at Carleton and Timothy Easton at SFU.

These people are respectable authorities in their field. They

have looked at this very carefully and have come up with these

suggestions. Why? Because it would, in fact, mean that more British

Columbia young people could take advantage of the wonderful opportunity

that is supplied through our post-secondary educational institutions.

I find it sad that the member opposite is not interested in

students. He's not interested in looking for genuine possibilities to

make it possible for more of our young people to take those

opportunities. I want to repeat that I think this method is new,

innovative, creative and would put students in the driver's seat. It

would give them an opportunity to truly be consumers and not simply

make them take whatever it is that the institutions currently decide to

offer them.

I believe that private initiative is a driving force that will

bring about the best in people and institutions. I want to defend it,

because we take people seriously and we take education seriously.

MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS

MR. G. JANSSEN : I'd like to address the

House today on a subject that I think is misunderstood in British

Columbia, and that is the subject of the motorcycling community.

Perhaps I should just acquaint some of the members of the House with

some of the terms used by the motorcycling community, such as:

Harley-Davidsons are known as hogs; BMWs are known as beamers, Japanese

motorcycles are known as rice-burners; and the new super-bike category

is known as a crotch-rocket.

Not only is the motorcycling community misunderstood, but the

government, through the Solicitor General's office, both present and

past, has turned a blind eye to this segment of the motoring public. In

1988, 66,053 motorcycles were licensed in this province, which was a

14 percent decrease from 1987. As I go through my speech, you'll

realize why that decrease took place.

During this period, drivers licensed to drive motorcycles —

class 6 licences — totalled 173,544, a 4 percent increase from the

1987 year. Injured motorcycle drivers totalled 1,580 in 1988, a

decrease of 17 percent over '87. Motorcycle passengers injured totalled

243, a decrease of 77 people, or 24 percent. Mr. Speaker, 46 motorcycle

drivers and one motorcycle passenger were fatally injured in 1988. In

the previous year, 60 motorcycle drivers and eight motorcycle

passengers were killed.

The major contributing factors assigned to these injuries and

accidents in 1988 were: driving with undue care, unsafe speed, alcohol

involvement and driver inexperience. These proportions remained

unchanged from the year before.

On February 13, 1990, the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists

presented a brief to the minister, who listened kindly and attentively,

but like past ministers has yet to respond.

Let's look at some of the motorcycle community's requests. The

B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists has hired an independent actuary firm — the Wyatt Co. of Toronto — to evaluate the ICBC rates for motorcycles.

Both ICBC and the Solicitor-General have turned down this request. The

coalition, incidentally, is willing to pay for the study.

Although only one-third of the accidents involving motorcycles

puts the motorcyclist to blame, the cost to the insurance is borne by

the biker. Let me give you an example of ICBC rates. Full coverage for

a $15,500 1990 touring motorcycle costs approximately $2,755. A

four-year safe-driver discount brings that number down to $1,653; yet

the coverage for a $30,000 car is approximately $1,759, with a

discount of $1,055. I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

listening attentively. He must have just paid his rate.

The touring bike is one-half the value of the car, yet the

rate is double. We should be looking for cheaper and more efficient

methods of travel, less polluting methods, methods that would take up

less space on our freeways and roadways.

For instance, you can park four bikes in the space of a normal

mid-sized car. Ferry rates should reflect the actual space that is used

rather than the percentage increases that we endure from year to year.

If you can put four bikes in the space of a car, then the price of

traveling on the ferries should be one quarter of the price of a car

traveling on that.

ICBC also collects for traffic safety education programs $1.96

of each premium collected; yet virtually none of this money collected

from the 175,000-odd bikers is used for safety education and awareness

for motorcyclists.

I know Mr. Speaker is aware of the benefits of safety training

for motorcyclists. On a recent awareness ride, he won a motorcycle

training course, which I'm sure has been of great benefit to him. The

B.C. Safety Council does provide rider-training courses for both new

riders and experienced riders, but due to time and financial

restrictions, these excellent courses are not available in all areas of

the province.

In fact, we find it's still possible for anyone — including a

16-year-old like my son with no experience — to take a 100 or 200 cc

motorcycle to a driver

[ Page 10647 ]

examiner and receive a class 6 motorcycle licence by simply

riding around some pylons, braking in a straight line and riding half a

block down the street and back. With licence in hand, this 16-year-old

can then go to the nearest motorcycle dealer and buy an 1100-cc

superbike producing over 100 horsepower, with such options as nitrogen

shock absorbers and dual disk brakes on both wheels. This bike is

capable of accelerating to 100 kilometres an hour and coming to a full

stop again in less than eight seconds. He can then go to his local ICBC

office and ride merrily away. We have a totally inexperienced rider

driving a rocket on two wheels, and we send him out in the traffic. If

that weren't irresponsible enough, the law actually allows this

inexperienced rider to ride down the street dressed in only a

bathing-suit.

We must address the question of rider-training, proper

testing, proper riding apparel and, of course, insurance costs. But we

must also address the responsibility and the awareness of the car

driver, whose answer after an accident with a motorcycle is usually:

"I'm sorry, but I didn't see him."

I'd also like to thank the MLAs who were brave enough to ride

in the slight sprinkle that occurred when the B.C. Coalition of

Motorcyclists came down to the Legislature in Victoria last month.

Hopefully the weather will be better next year, and more MLAs will be

brave enough to go out and partake in that awareness ride.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's a pleasure to rise

in the House to discuss a topic that's a little off the norm in here

and one that I think we can all agree on I find it impossible to find

any fault with what the member for Alberni said. Most of the facts he

gave us are well known to people who ride motorcycles, and we're aware

of some of the problems.

I just want to digress for a moment and say that motorcycling

lost a great friend this past year in the person of Malcolm Forbes. If

it seems that I'm name-dropping, maybe I am, but it's to serve a

purpose. I had the pleasure of meeting and riding with Malcolm Forbes

during Expo year. We spent two days together riding from the Canadian

Rockies, up in the Rogers Pass and down to Expo — through Kamloops, I

might add; we spent the night there. We had a great three days. I had a

day at Expo with him.

Malcolm was a very wealthy man who enjoyed his money very

much, and the reason I mention him is that one of his hobbies was

riding motorcycles, and I think he did more to bring awareness to the

motorcycle and people of all ages enjoying themselves on them than any

other single human being. He was a great ambassador for his country, as

well as for motorcycling. He took tours through China, Russia,

Pakistan, Europe and Scandinavia, as well North America. He brought an

awareness to the enjoyment that we get from riding motorcycles, far

beyond what any other individual has done. So we will miss Malcolm in

the motorcycling community. He enjoyed himself.

The thing to point out is that many of us do enjoy riding

motorcycles. I know the member for Alberni does, the Speaker of the

House does, and I do. Who knows how many others do? Most of us ride for

fun. We don't ride because we have to or because we need it for

transportation. Like Malcolm Forbes, most of us ride motorcycles for

fun. So it's a hobby with us, and we enjoy it very much. Anything we

can do to promote the enjoyment of riding motorcycles will be well

worthwhile.

I appreciate the Coalition of Motorcyclists bringing their

machines to the Legislature again this year and taking people for

rides. It's the second year now, and I hope it's a tradition that

continues, because it goes a long way to make everybody a little more

aware of two-wheeled transportation.

Accidents involving motorcycles really fall into two basic

categories. One is the automobile-motorcycle accident. As the member

for Alberni said, in most of those accidents, the driver of the car

inevitably says: "I just didn't see him." Yet here is a machine with a

headlight on and a human being on it. Most automobile-motorcycle

accidents involve the automobile turning left in front of the

motorcycle, which a driver wouldn't do if another car was approaching.

I have all the statistics on it. Like the member for Alberni, I've read

dozens and dozens of articles and research into motorcycles, and most

of it says that the car driver is not aware. I'll be quick; I see my

time is running out. I would recommend to all motorcyclists what a

veteran rider once said to me: "Ride as though you're invisible." I

think it's the best advice I ever got. Ride as though nobody can see

you, then you will be ready for someone turning or changing lanes in

front of you.

Secondly, he mentioned the superbikes and had the vernacular

name for them — I won't repeat it, but its commonly what they're called — and most of those are the ones that were involved in single-vehicle

accidents, where the rider simply is not capable of controlling a

machine with that kind of horsepower. The single-vehicle accidents

usually involve a machine of this category. They are responsible in

large measure for the insurance premiums that he talks about, which

none of us like. They are too expensive, and it's partly because of

single-vehicle accidents; the other reason is theft.

The automobile driver isn't totally at fault; a lot of the

times it's the motorcyclist. But I would just urge drivers, especially

of cars, to be more aware of the person on the motorcycle, and I urge

the motorcyclist to always remember that you don't have to go 100 miles

an hour to have fun on a motorcycle.

[11:00]

MR. G. JANSSEN : I thank the minister for

his comments, and I'm sure the members of the House find them

enlightening.

I would just like to respond briefly by going into the subject

of non-licensed motorcyclists. I'm sure the first member for Kamloops

is aware that the dirt bikes and the motocrossers are under pressure. I

think they're under pressure in his community right now to find safe

places for young people to ride their motorcycles. Many of them are not

old enough to

[ Page 10648 ]

obtain a vehicle licence and are regulated to riding in gravel

pits, where there is no supervision. They're riding on logging roads

and in farm areas where they're not welcome in many cases.

In Port Alberni, we were fortunate to have MacMillan Bloedel

donate five acres of land that was turned into a motocross track where

motorcyclists can go to practise and learn, and where safety seminars

are held. There's a similar track in Duncan. There's one being

developed in Victoria, in Mission and in Kamloops. Many other areas

have tracks.

However, because of the noise and the misunderstanding of many

people in the communities, they tend to want those tracks moved

continually and don't want them in their back yard again. However, I

think there is an avenue for the Parks ministry or the Recreation

ministry to look down the road and to designate areas well away from

urban centres, where we can have safe riding.

Everybody remembers the court case in Ontario. A young

motorcyclist riding an unlicensed vehicle was injured in a gravel pit,

and the community who owned the gravel pit was fined in court and had

to pay a settlement of over a million dollars. Nobody wants to see that

sort of thing happen again.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge that we look seriously

at finding areas to establish safe riding conditions in the form of

motorcycle tracks where off-road vehicles can go under supervision, and

we can hopefully avoid the accidents that occur when young people go

out to ride their motorcycles — sometimes without helmets — in

unlicensed, unrestricted and undisciplined areas.

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCE VALUES

MR. SERWA : Mr. Speaker, in this time of

great public awareness of the environment and of concern for

preservation of the beauty and splendour of our province, it is

important to remember that it is the quality of these things that has

always made British Columbia a unique and special place. The image we

have of our province is one of mountains and rivers, ocean shores and

trees stretching far into the horizon. British Columbia has always been

seen in this light, and the quality of the environment we enjoy is the

main reason for the high quality of life that British Columbia has

always been famous for.

This quality of life includes an abundance of recreational

opportunities; it also includes the enormous economic benefits which

originate from our natural environment, and which allows us to maintain

one of the highest standards of living in the world. I think it is too

often forgotten that we live in a blessed and rich land, and that we

are fortunate to have such natural gifts. We must use them wisely.

I would like to talk about fish and wildlife and related

industries in British Columbia: just two of the resource values which

are sometimes forgotten by people who remove themselves from the land

and treat its resources as abstract concepts. Our native people have

long understood that the land has many values, and that if respected

and identified with, it can yield, without diminishment, many great

benefits. All people truly connected to the land in British Columbia

understand it to be a living land, one rich in resources, one which is

dynamic and ever changing and one which, if properly managed and

respected, will live on for thousands of years, all of the time

providing food and shelter for those live off it.

Most urban British Columbians do not understand that even in

the middle of Vancouver they live off the land. They may not derive

their food and clothing or income directly from the woods, but they

receive other items of value from them, things which are measurable in

modern terms such as gross domestic product and quality of life.

In terms of recreation, more British Columbians spend time in

the woods, be it hunting, fishing or hiking, than participate in

baseball, soccer, bowling or any other recreational activity. In terms

of economic prosperity, wilderness-related industries generate over $2

billion directly into the economy of British Columbia every year. This

industry provides direct jobs for over 17,000 trappers and guides and

at least as many jobs in the tourism industry related to wilderness

holidays. The spinoff jobs in government and in the retail sector of

communities across British Columbia add up to as many as 60,000 secure

and steady jobs for British Columbians, jobs which are not subject to

international commodity pricing.

All of this points to the fact that we must not ignore fish

and wildlife in the equation of land use values in British Columbia.

Wilderness values can be measured in hard dollars. This gives us an

extra incentive to preserve our wilderness land. Too often in the

debates in this House and in other forums the fish and wildlife

industries are ignored or forgotten.

British Columbia has more species of mammals and breeding

birds than any other province or territory in Canada. Our province

contains the majority of the world's Stone sheep, California bighorn

sheep and mountain goats, half of the world's trumpeter swans, grizzly

bears and blue grouse, and more bald eagles than in the entire United

States.

British Columbians appreciate the importance and value of this

magnificent natural heritage. Statistics show that 75 percent of

British Columbia's adult population enjoys fish- and wildlife-related

activities. Nearly one-quarter of British Columbia's population is

involved directly in fishing, hunting, bird-watching, outdoor

photography and other nature-related, wilderness activity on a regular

basis. As a matter of fact, more British Columbians participate in

wildlife-related recreational activities than do the people of any

other province or state in North America.

In British Columbia in 1988-89, 130,000 people bought hunting

licences. Nearly 600,000 additional individuals took to the field for

non-consumptive wildlife-related activities. Some 400,000 anglers

purchased fishing licences, and an additional 1,560 people registered

as guide-outfitters to directly attract tourist dollars from outside

the province.

The fur trade, another historically important industry in our

province, includes some 2,500 licensed trappers. These trapping

operations generate nearly

[ Page 10649 ]

$10 million per year in economic activity. Admittedly, $10

million does not represent the largest industry in British Columbia,

but when one considers that 96 percent of this money is spent outside

the lower mainland and 50 percent is spent north of Prince George, it

is easy to see how important this industry is to many remote

communities where other economic opportunities are limited.

In terms of jobs from recreational use of the woods, the fish

and wildlife resource industry directly employs more than 17000

people — almost as many as the mining industry in British Columbia, and

mining is a non-renewable resource. In terms of pure economic benefits,

direct purchases by residents and visitors for goods and services

related to birdwatching, fly-fishing and all other fish and wildlife

recreational activities add up to over $2 billion each year. Much of

this is new money to British Columbia, coming in with visitors from

outside our province. This money is again distributed widely across the

province, with the lower mainland picking up $400 million in 1989 and

the rest of the province receiving $1.6 billion, thus capturing the

lion's share of the economic benefits on a real and per capita basis.

British Columbians have a true pocketbook interest in

preserving the living land. With proper management and protection,

there is every reason to believe that this resource in the province

will continue to meet the needs of residents and non-residents in

British Columbia for decades to come.

There is one course of action to follow if we are to maintain

and improve the quality of fish and wildlife in British Columbia:

people must be made to feel that they have a stake in maintaining a

healthy environment. They must be made to understand the many economic

benefits which we derive in this province from our natural amenities.

MR. CASHORE : Well, Mr. Speaker, I found

that there were some useful data in what the member had to say, but

beyond that I thought it was a collection of clichs that did not

really contribute to the very urgent and pressing issues that must be

addressed within this House by this Legislature if we're going to be

dealing with the problem of protecting those values that he talks

about. At the end of his comments he said that this is what we have to

do about it: people have to be made to feel.

It's not quite that way, Mr. Member. What has to be done is

this government has to wake up and recognize that we have a hopelessly

inadequate number of people in our conservation officer service to deal

with the hitches when it comes to protecting fish and wildlife values.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : This means simply that there

has to be more conservation officers.

When the member says, "What about individual responsibility

rather than policing?" he raises a very important point. I have letters

here from members of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. They talk about

their cooperation and individual responsibility, but they say that what

they are doing was never intended to replace the role of the

conservation officer service. They outline regions of the province that

simply are inadequate in terms of the number of officers staffing that

service, when you think of the number of requests that they have to

deal with on a wide range.

For instance, if you think about one letter that I received

from the B.C. Wildlife Federation in Courtenay.... They no longer have a

conservation officer, but they've had such a service in one form or

another since 1920. The population is growing in that area, and the

pressure on poaching is increasing. Yet these people find that

government services are being cut back. These people want to cooperate

on an individual basis with a very effective service, but it's not

there.

We have to point out, as Joe Saysell, who often writes to the

Ministry of Environment and to me, has pointed out, that while we have

130 conservation officers in British Columbia, there are 180 in

Alberta. Surely Alberta, which has 50 more, does not have as extensive

a need for this kind of service as we have in British Columbia. Surely

Alberta, with the amount of land that is used for farms, etc., simply

does not have the area or the difficulty of terrain that has to be

addressed on a provincewide basis. Yet they have 50 more conservation

officers.

Interjection.

MR. CASHORE : Yes, as the member says, they

have more ducks there. Certainly, Mr. Member, one of the things that

has to be addressed in this province is the protection of Boundary Bay

on the Pacific flyway, a major stopping-off place for birds that

migrate all the way from Siberia to South America, and points between.

Here, only 100 acres of Boundary Bay have any kind of protection. This

government has dragged its feet in terms of getting a world-class

Ramsar designation there which would assist in getting the protection

that is needed.

But even more important are the kinds of measures that this

government has taken — such as allowing golf courses on agricultural

land — which have a terrible impact with regard to the support of those

raptors, shore birds and migratory waterfowl. If this minister is

really concerned, he will be addressing this issue to the members of

the cabinet and making the point that there really has to be an

increased conservation officer service. There are 300 conservation

officers in Ontario, and in Quebec there are 225.

What about the spill that recently occurred at Pennask Creek,

in a system which apparently has one-third of the seedstock for rainbow

trout in the province? Have charges been laid? Has there been

sufficient support by the conservation officers staff or the Ministry

of Environment to investigate that spill, to lay charges and to deal

with it? I submit that has not been the case, Mr. Speaker, and it is

just one example that is repeated constantly throughout the province.

[ Page 10650 ]

Another issue is the increased poaching and the trade that's

taking place in bear parts. What's this government doing to deal with

that issue so we can make sure that it stops, that there are no more

export permits issued or that it becomes illegal to harvest bears for

paws, bladders and genitals? That should be the case also with other

wild animals.

We need conservation officers to be able to support the good

work of volunteers who exist throughout the province so that we can

have properly protected wildlife.

[11:15]

MR. SERWA : The purpose of my private

member's statement this morning is to raise the profile of the value of

our precious wildlife resource, a legacy that we enjoy in the province

of British Columbia.

I am greatly disturbed when the hon. member from the

opposition, the critic of what ministry I don't know, entered this

process with what I consider was a senseless, shallow, uninformed and

confused response that was purely political in nature.

The rhetoric was simply that. He has had the opportunity to

display his ignorance and display his ignorance and his uncaring

concern, which is relevant to that entire party for that outdoor

legacy. It's purely a political issue with that hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. SERWA : The hon. member continues to

display his ignorance by making statements about Alberta and relating a

comparison. The hon. member has not even traveled outside of British

Columbia; he needs to realize that Alberta's population is distributed

much differently than British Columbia's. That means, my hon. friend,

that the game species in Alberta are spread over a diverse area, not

inclined just simply to the Rocky Mountains. If that's the type of

response we're getting from members of the opposition, it is no wonder

that they retain their prominence as members of the opposition and will

continue to do so.

The member talks about bear parts. If he cares to look at the

orders of the day, he'll see....

MR. CASHORE : Do you ever talk to the

Ministry of Environment?

MR. SERWA : Yes, we talk to the Ministry of

Environment. I have submitted a resolution on bear parts. I spoke about

this matter two or three years ago, long before that hon. member even

knew bears have parts.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to recognize the recreational and

economic value of the living forest and of wildlife industries in

British Columbia. It is also time for increased vigilance over

conversation measures We must continue to protect the diversity of the

fish and wildlife habitat if we are to protect the unknown it is time

for this House to embrace the environment of British Columbia not as a

distant and abstract thing worthy of noble speeches, but as a living,

very real part of our province, our heritage and our future. Thank you

very much.

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

make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DIRKS : It's a pleasure today to

introduce Mr. Sam Fromowitz, the consul-general of the United States of

America at Vancouver, who's also the dean of British Columbia's large

and dynamic consular corps. Regretfully, the consul-general, who has

served his country and this province so very well during the past four

years, will be leaving us shortly for a posting in Greece. The consular

corps and certainly our government will miss him. We wish him success

and happiness. Would this House please wish him a bon voyage.

MR. ROSE : I would like to join with the

Provincial Secretary in saying goodbye to Mr. Fromowitz. He's made

himself a friend to many people, and he's been very active and visible.

I don't know what he did that was bad that would send him to Greece,

but I hope he's got a nice, large consulate there so that when I come

and visit him, I'll be able to renew our friendship. Best wishes from

this side of the House, Sam, and Godspeed, as they say.

MR. REID : I'd like to add my

congratulations and best wishes to Sam. I worked with him in my

previous role. I wish him the very best. I know Greece is going to be

receiving a very dedicated person to the ambassadorship. I wish him all

the very best.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to take the

opportunity to introduce a representative from Ontario, a former member

of the House who actually sat in this very seat, a former Minister of

Agriculture from the Penticton area — Mr. Jim Hewitt. Would the House

give a special welcome to Jim Hewitt.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Mr. Speaker, I call

Committee of Supply.

MR. ROSE : On a point of order, that isn't

the information we were given; we were informed that Bill 13 was to

proceed. I wonder if there has been some mix-up. We got this from the

House Leader's office this morning. I don't know whether the minister's

prepared to proceed on Bill 13. That's what we were told earlier today.

MR. SPEAKER : Both the estimates that were

to be called and the bill are to be dealt with by the same minister.

Perhaps if the minister and the government House Leader could have a

small caucus and decide which they'd like to do, we could proceed.

[ Page 10651 ]

MR. ROSE : I believe that the minister said

she would be happy to proceed. Perhaps the bill could be called.

MR. SPEAKER : It would be unusual to have

the opposition House Leader call for debate on Bill 13, but the Chair

will accept it.

PURCHASING COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MRS. GRAN : On Bill 13, the Purchasing

Commission Amendment Act, the proposed amendments to the purchasing

Commission Act are part of an overall continuing modernization of the

public purchasing process, I think it is fair to say that this

modernization process began some five years ago with the introduction

of the public sector purchasing policy by this government. The process

is a continuing one, in terms of the initiatives of the British

Columbia Purchasing Commission, aimed at maximizing the efficiency and

effectiveness of its operations and fulfilling its duties and

responsibilities to the British Columbia taxpayer.

The amendments include clarification of several points within

the existing Purchasing Commission Act, eliminating inconsistent

wording and improving the structure of the act — changes which can be

classified as housekeeping. There are, however, several changes which

are significant.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

These include a provision for the Purchasing Commission's

operation in the environmental field through the addition of

environmental soundness as a major factor when reaching decisions on

purchasing and disposal of government assets. The Purchasing Commission

is responsible for the annual purchase of more than $350 million worth

of goods and services on behalf of government ministries and public

agencies. It is essential that we ensure these purchase adhere to the

highest environmental standards. This amendment will enable the

Purchasing Commission to proceed, for instance, with Project Paper

Push, a government project to recycle office paper and to actively

encourage the development of new uses for the recycled paper fibre. I

was able, at the Globe '90 Conference, to announce the success of this

pilot project, and I and my colleagues enthusiastically look forward to

its continuation upon passage of this amendment.

Another significant amendment will impact upon British

Columbia's presence in the important area of high technology. This

amendment will enable the Purchasing Commission to license B.C.

companies with manufacturing or marketing rights to technologies which

have been or will be developed at taxpayers' expense. These can range

from computer software to specialized forest fire-fighting equipment

and clothing, patented processes, videos and training materials.

This technology commercialization program has, in my opinion,

tremendous potential. It will allow the province to recoup the costs of

development of such items to generate additional revenues through the

sale of marketing rights to the private sector and the retention of

royalties on future sales; and in doing so, to promote the economic and

regional development of British Columbia.

I anticipate a good deal of interest in this technology

commercialization program, both from representatives of industry in

this province and from other members of this chamber, and I welcome

that interest and any questions that may be directed to me on this

important program.

Two further amendments relate, first, to the sphere of

activities of the Purchasing Commission and, second, to the role of

Commissioners. This bill clarifies that the commission has the power to

perform services for and enter into cooperative arrangements with other

public sector agencies where there are sound reasons for doing so. For

example, for some of the commission's businesses, such as Crown asset

disposal, it makes very good sense to combine the disposal of certain

assets belonging to school districts, municipalities, hospitals and

universities where it would not be cost-effective for those agencies to

perform their own disposal service.

In addition, if we as a government wish to encourage the full

implementation of the public sector purchasing policy, it is clearly

advantageous to allow combined purchasing where economies of scale

would make it cost-effective for a B.C. supplier to gear up for the

production and sale of larger quantities. However, the commission is

always sensitive to the impact of its activities on the private sector,

and cooperative arrangements would only be entered into where there is

an economic benefit to both B.C. taxpayers and to suppliers.

There is a related provision which will expand the role of the

purchasing commissioners, allowing them to designate institutions or

types of institutions which are publicly funded and to restrict the

types of services which can be provided to such public agencies. The

Commonwealth Games would be a good example.

In proposing this amendment, I want to emphasize that the

Purchasing Commission is an independent body reporting directly to this

Legislature, and the commissioners fulfil their mandate without

political interference of any kind. Since the Purchasing Commission's

inception, its record of probity has been unblemished. I have every

confidence in the integrity of the commission and the professionalism

of the staff and have no hesitation in saying that I expect this record

to remain so.

MR. ROSE : I thank the minister for her full

and complete description of the purpose of the act and some of its

parameters. I don't think there will be any problem with our party

supporting the act in its principle. However, we may have some

suggestions to make for its improvement and enhancement. This is what

the role of the opposition is: to make certain

[ Page 10652 ]

that government is accountable and also reflects the views of

people other than their own members.

The minister suggested that the purchasing process that's

going on at the moment — or the improvement towards the Purchasing

Commission — is a five-year plan to improve it. I gave it great praise

yesterday. If it needs so much improvement that it's going to take five

years to do it, I wonder now if I was a little bit excessive in my

praise. I wonder if it needs these improvements.

What I think it needs more than anything is an expanded

mandate. We went over it, and I don't want to rake over the old coals

of yesterday. But the fact is, out of the $6 billion a year of public

spending, the Purchasing Commission is really responsible for only 6

percent of that. That is infinitesimal.

Again, I don't need to express what a lot of people feel. If

the Purchasing Commission, with its excellent reputation, was

responsible for more public spending rather than less, we wouldn't have

seen the horror stories that we had this spring concerning the purchase

of hospital and other equipment. I need to repeat that; I think it

needs to be said.

I hope that we're widening its scope. I hope that this bill

will permit the Purchasing Commission to have control over a larger

share of public spending and purchasing. It's misleading to me, no

matter how sterling its reputation, to have a purchasing commission

that really is responsible for such a pittance when it comes to public

spending. I have elaborated on that at another time.

I notice that great care has been taken here to reassure the

private sector that we're not going to move into some socialistic field

of high tech. So we develop things that are going to impact on and

compete with those people out there who are in business — and, incidentally, who support us and support our ideology. We've had the

slogan around here for the last three years, "Ready, guys; let's

privatize, " and we now seem to be going in the opposite direction.

[11:30]

But the minister was very careful to point out: 'Look, no

matter what the public advantage is, if its impacting on the private

sector, we probably won't do it." That's the interesting part. She

didn't say that exactly, but we read into these things. Some of us tend

to be not cynical or suspicious or skeptical, but we are analytical,

and I think that's important.

Surplus. All governments have methods of disposing of surplus

equipment and capital items. I think that's a very common practice in

all governments, and a necessary one. Most institutions have that kind

of capacity. This is really the first time that we're selling

intellectual property. That's an interesting thing. Are we only going

to be selling intellectual property that is surplus to our needs or

old-fashioned, or are we going to be able to lease or sell intellectual

property — computer programming, for instance — that we have developed,

even though it might compete with a privately developed system, if ours

is better?

My view, from my side of the House, is that I would proceed on

that. I don't think government should be in unfair competition with the

private sector, but neither should they roll over and play dead because

they might hurt somebody's feelings. With the private sector, you dance

around the fire every night chanting: "The right to fail, we've got the

right to fail." I think a balance has to be struck between the two,

because we on this side of the House want a healthy private sector as

well; we want a healthy private sector in the fields of the future; but

we also want a public sector that has a window on that industry. I'm

talking now about the computer programming industry.

So if it is an economic benefit to the province, then that's

fine. I appreciate that. But I have a couple of other little concerns

about the bill.

The first part of it is mandatory. Under the duties and powers

of commissions: "The commission shall...." Then there's a whole list of

things: "...acquire supplies required by the government and, on

request, supplies required by government institutions; direct the

establishment, maintenance and operation of depots...; supervise the

distribution of supplies...." It does all these great things. It shall

provide assistance where requested. It shall create and arrange

opportunities for government institutions to acquire supplies.

Then you get to the other part under 3 where the guts of the

bill are — where it's sold. This bill is being sold not just as an

expansion of the role of the commission but as another part of the

environmental enhancement arm of the government. I think we have a

right to ask: does it do that?

Where the guts of the environmental bill come in, it's

permissive. It says: "In addition to any powers required to perform its

duties, the commission may require a government ministry to return to

the commission any supplies no longer required...." That's not a

serious one. It may "dispose of intangible personal property of the

government where this is conducive to the economic and environmental

wellbeing of the province." It doesn't have to; it may do it. It may

"create and arrange opportunities for public institutions to acquire

supplies and services at rates" — now listen to this — "and on terms

and conditions conducive to the economic and environmental wellbeing of

the province."

But the minister went on to say: "...as long as it doesn't impact too heavily on the private sector." I just wonder what message

is going out to the commission with this set of permissive regulations.

I've only touched on two or three, and it's not appropriate that I

touch on any more at this time, because I think there's time to go into

this when we get into committee stage of the bill. We probably will be

moving some amendments to give this gutless bill a few more teeth here

and there, and I think that's our role.

The commission already has the power to dispose of surplus

property. The new

section 4 (2) (

c) allows it to dispose of intangible

property. I've touched on that before, but the interesting thing is the

part that I'd like to quote: "...where this is conducive to the

[ Page 10653 ]

economic and environmental well-being of the province." Now I

don't object to the principle, but I think we must ask ourselves some

questions and explore this more thoroughly when we get to another part

of this bill. Who determines that the disposal indeed is conducive to

the economic well-being of the province? Whose decision is that? Is it

the government's or the commission's decision? Is it the CEO's

decision, or what? That's kind of vague; that's not really as explicit

as it might be.

The other thing is that we don't see any controls on this

property. Will it be sold to the highest bidder? We don't know that.

Will there be a tendering process? Will the government just be

sloughing off this stuff, or will it receive a fair return for the

developmental research that we've put into it?

These are all questions that concern this side of the House.

We think the idea is good. We may think it's a little dainty in its

approach; it's not as strong as it might be. But we welcome — and I

hope the minister will welcome — some of our other participants in this

debate. We certainly look forward to the committee stage where we can

have an opportunity with less stringent rules as to order to examine

this in greater detail.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief, but

I must say that I have very serious concerns about this bill. Adding

environmental and regional considerations is clearly a noble gesture.

It's a good cause. It's a good idea. I have no problems with it. But we

have to be careful, it seems to me. Government should be careful to set

clear rules, clear guidelines, clear and objective criteria, if you

can, to judge government purchases.

For example, now we have public tendering, and the government

chooses low bid — or should always have public tendering and should

always choose low bid, perhaps. I'm not wedded to a low-bid philosophy;

there are lots of considerations that can be married to the bidding

procedure. I don't think you always have to pick the low bid; there are

lots of considerations that have to take place. There has to be some

discretion to exercise those considerations. I don't have any problem

with that. But where possible we should have some objective criteria.

In order to give preference for environmentally benign

products, what many states in the United States are doing — and what I

would commend to the minister — is to give a preferential treatment,

meaning a 5 percent preference, or 10 percent or 2 percent or 20

percent; it doesn't really matter. The point is, there has to be some

rule; there have to be some objective criteria to judge what merits

choosing one over the other.

This bill doesn't do that, Mr. Speaker. This bill says that

the government has the discretion to choose what they believe to be

environmentally benign products. If I can quote the

section without

being out of order, it says: " (

k) notwithstanding

section 12, create

opportunities and programs to encourage local and regional suppliers or

in favour of environmentally sound supplies."

Section 12 is essentially

the bidding procedure; the low bid, or the choosing from tendered

economically efficient mechanisms or something like that; where

possible we should have a bidding procedure to take the low bid. This

says that notwithstanding that, we can choose a local supplier.

Now I welcome regional initiative. I have no problem with

trying to encourage more suppliers from outside the lower mainland. I

think that's a worthwhile government objective. However, if you simply

say that, it means that the government can choose whatever they want

from wherever they want at whatever price. By using

section (

k) of this

bill, you can justify a purchase that may be 100 percent more expensive

than the supplier in Vancouver. That strikes me as open to abuse.

I'm not saying that the government is going to abuse this

clause, but surely you don't write laws that open you up to that kind

of abuse. You have now introduced two criteria for government purchases

of goods and services which are not objective criteria. You have now

said it's not just low bid; environmental and regional considerations

can take place. But you haven't defined those. You haven't given any

real sense of it. You've said: "We now have the discretion to bias our

purchases in that direction." I feel very strongly that it is a

worthwhile endeavour, but there have to be some limits to it.

As I said, my preference would be to say that we should have

the bidding procedure but give a 5 percent preference perhaps to

recycled products or some objective criteria which everybody can see,

and have recycled products defined in such a way.... That is another

complex area, I'm sure. Environmentally benign products is another

subject of great debate — what it means and what's more desirable. In

my view, there has to be as much as possible some objective criteria

for the bidding process. There has to be a way to curb politicians'

desire to serve what might be a more political interest.

It's going to be very difficult for the minister who wants

this bill passed to say, for example, to a supplier in Kamloops who

uses recycled products: "It's 50 percent more expensive than a

Vancouver supplier that doesn't use recycled products." How will the

minister withstand the pressure? Under this bill you now have the right

to choose that Kamloops supplier. You could justify it under this bill.

You are going to be subject to pressure from politicians and people in

the region. It's certainly their right to urge, lobby and campaign for

their region. I think that's laudable. Every region should do it and

will do it.

I don't think you will be able to withstand very easily the

pressure to maintain the integrity of the bidding procedure, given the

political pressure you put yourself in when you pass this bill. If you

said that if the Kamloops supplier who uses recycled products is within

5 percent, then we should choose it, I would support that. In fact, I

think it's a good idea, and again, it's something that's happening in

North America generally. We can be creative about that.

In the absence of a 5 percent, 10 percent or some number or

some objective criteria, it means that we

[ Page 10654 ]

have to trust you. I know the minister has said that before,

and I may be more trusting of her than of some of her colleagues. But

it's not acceptable to say, "Trust me, we now have the discretion to

choose environmentally benign or environmentally good products, "

without any consideration or quantification of what that means to the

public purse.

I think this bill would be much stronger, and better, if you

had a 5 percent figure, because that would actually demonstrate

government's financial commitment to the environment, because It's

going to cost you more. I think that would be clear and in the bill.

But it wouldn't cost us 100 percent more. It would be rarely

acceptable, in my mind, to choose a product which was environmentally

benign but dramatically more expensive unless you could prove that by

some kind of criteria. This bill is absent of all that. This bill, I

think, is open to abuse. Once you introduce this kind of discretion,

you invite that kind of lobbying pressure and that kind of abuse.

While the goal clearly is something we can support — this side

of the House and my colleague the opposition House Leader have

indicated our support for the principle for the bill, and I have no

problem with that; I want to encourage environmentally sound purchases

and more regional purchases — this bill is too vague and is open to

abuse and to pressure from the minister's colleagues and from all

politicians. Our side of the House will be using this; I'm sure my

colleagues from the north, quite correctly, will be using this clause

to say: "Use our supplier in Prince Rupert. I know they're 10 percent

more expensive, but you should use them." How will the minister answer

that? How will you say no?

You have to give clear guidelines that say there is some limit

to that so that we're cost-effective always I think that can be done: a

5 percent or 10 percent preference for regional suppliers, a 5 percent

or 10 percent — something like that — preference for environmental

considerations. I personally believe in a 5 percent or 10 percent

preference, perhaps, for people who pay fair wages, somehow defined. I

have no problem with that. It's not a philosophical problem It's just

that it should be codified in the bill. It's not and I think that opens

it up to potentially significant abuse.

[11:45]

MR. MILLER : I wanted to deal with the

question of the regional purchasing. First of all, I commend the

government for having that in there, because I think it's important

that the opportunities exist within the regions for suppliers of

services to have an opportunity to bid on supplying those goods or

services. Quite often they have been left out. They also operate, in my

view, under a bit of an economic handicap, given quite often their

distance from sources and their small operating areas — in other words,

the amount of business that they could normally do within a particular

region. That issue has been identified in my constituency with respect

to federal government purchases.

Having said that, I want to relate in a cautionary way the

need, as my colleague the second member from Vancouver East has said,

to have some kind of guidelines. I'll just relate that in my term as an

alderman in the city of Prince Rupert, we did develop a policy of local

preference. The real problem with that is that unless it is guided by

some really good guidelines, whether that's a 5 percent limit or

whatever it might be, it could have a tendency to encourage

inefficiency. If the local supplier knows that they are going to get it — and quite often there's not a wide variety of companies in the same

field — that can encourage inefficiency. They need to be tested against

some market forces. I think they can compete, given some reasonable set

of guidelines, and it's important that they be given the opportunity.

The strictly low-bid system has some difficulties. We've seen

it in forestry on the silviculture contracts, where the low bid is not

necessarily the best bid in terms of performance. Normally any

institution, any public body, allows themselves an out — in other

words, based on their knowledge of the people making the bid, the

discretion to determine in their own minds whether or not the person

bidding can perform. Certainly that is needed and should always be in

there. When we descend to a strictly low bid, as we've done in some

areas in forestry, I think we can expect poor performance. Even though

we may have got the lowest bid, we suffer in terms of the performance.

I wanted to comment on

section 3. Some of the wording in the

act is very, very loose; it simply allows anything. The wording would

justify almost any activity that the Purchasing Commission undertook.

Certainly it's important that the Purchasing Commission be absolutely

free of any suspicion that patronage could be used. I think it's kind

of a bedrock that needs to be established in terms of the operation of

the Purchasing Commission.

Given the lack of guidelines in the bill — and I do note that

the commission has powers in the act to recommend guidelines and

policies — the minister might want to address that in her response in

this reading because, without guidelines or with wording that is so

broad and flexible, it seems to me you are possibly opening the door

for patronage to be used in the purchase of goods and services in this

province.

I would think that the minister — not only in what she says,

but in terms of the wording of the bill — would want to be able with all

conviction to ensure British Columbians that that could never happen.

So I would suggest that some look be taken at the wording in the bill.

I also wanted to comment on the explanatory notes to

section

3, because again we're dealing with wording that is very flexible. The

notes themselves say that the commission, in addition to its other

powers, will acquire the power to sell on behalf of the government

software and other technologies developed at taxpayer expense.

It seems to me the minister might want to comment about the

commission getting into business. It appears to me, in reading not only

the explanatory

[ Page 10655 ]

notes but the

section of the bill itself — again, the wording

is very broad — that under the wording of the amendment to the act, the

Purchasing Commission could get into business.

I'm sure the minister is going to say that's not the intent.

But what we debate here in this House and have an understanding of

today seems to disappear a few years from now. I've debated many bills,

and I've gone back and read Hansard

on debates on bills in terms of

talking about intent. I find that intent is fine, but it's the wording

that really makes a difference when it comes to how a bill is

interpreted by the people who have to put it into practice. There needs

to be a look at what I think is quite loose wording in a number of

these sections.

I'll leave it at that for now, Mr. Speaker. Obviously the

minister will respond to these points. I think some of my colleagues

have further statements to make on this reading of the bill, and we'll

deal with the sections of the bill in committee.

MR. CASHORE : I'd like to focus most of my

comments on the environmental aspect of the bill. It is a bill which,

because it is upholding at least in words the principle of

environmental considerations, we feel is a step in the right direction.

As I read through this bill, I would want to ask the question:

what has really changed? What has really changed, when we look at a

bill that has phrases such as "environmentally sound, " "environmental

wellbeing" — that phrase is repeated a few times — and economic and

environmental well-being"? What do these words really add to this act

that wasn't there before?

We know that the government — in fact, all political parties —

have been saying that the environment is important and they're going to

be paying more attention to it. We know that each of us tries, as we

seek to work out our part of the stake of environmental turf, to put

that in a way that's going to be most meaningful to the public.

But what in this bill really ensures that anything different

is going to happen with regard to environmental enhancement insofar as

purchasing activities are concerned? It may provide some moral support

to the commission on this basis. It may also — as my colleagues have

pointed out — provide some recognition of opportunity for various

regions of the province to be involved in such marketing.

One thing I would like to point out is that since

environmentalism has become such a hot issue — especially in the last

two years — there has been attendant to that the whole area of

environmental commerce. We saw it at Globe '90 with the trade fair. A

great many corporations and businesses of all shapes and sizes are

getting on the environmental bandwagon. That's not a bad thing, but it

doesn't always mean the products that are being marketed for

"environmental purposes" are indeed the best product that would serve

the purposes of the Purchasing Commission and are the appropriate

purchases on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

When we look through a bill like this and we cannot find the

kind of substance that spells out the standards, guidelines and

criteria that give some direction to the commission with regard to what

they really need to be doing insofar as environmental considerations

are concerned, when that type of language is not there, when the

enabling language is not there, when the standard — setting language is

not there, it makes it very easy to conclude that one of the major

purposes of this bill is public relations. Public relations seems to be

part of the purpose of adding these words.

I would like to suggest to the minister that if this bill were

to contain the kinds of standards that would give really practical

guidance to the members of the Purchasing Commission, it would do such

things as describe the quality of paper products in relation to

organochlorine content and define a content beyond which purchases

would not be made; at least there would be a system that would reward

the producer of environmentally appropriate paper products — for

instance, ones that do not go through inappropriate bleaching

techniques in pulp and paper mills. Granted, that would have to be done

on a graduated basis as these mills get more and more into having the

capacity and the kinds of systems that reduce the production of

pollutants in the various locations we find them. There should be

standards that relate to that. There should be incentives to the pulp

industry to reduce the toxins going into the environment. That should

be clearly stated in the guidelines, which should be entrenched in

legislation. There should also be a requirement for a percentage of

recycled fibre in the paper. That too would give this bill something

beyond just appearing to be a public relations bill.

Another thing that would be very useful would be some mention

of an advisory body that would have people on it who have the kind of

expertise that is needed and that could advise the commission on the

kinds of products that could be made available, the economic benefit of

these products and where they could be found. It could also have a role

in promoting the need for these products and the opportunity for that

in the marketplace.

Through this kind of process these standards could be put in

place, and the bill could have some teeth that would really enable a

commission to follow through. We have phrases like "environmental

soundness" and "economic and environmental wellbeing." The government's

already said that. I don't know what is added to the commission by

including those words if there is not some definition that goes beyond

those words.

[12:00]

Another thing that should be included in the standards is some

phrase that indicates that suppliers that take a cradle-to-grave

approach with their product, that indicate that they take

responsibility not only for the products that the government might be

purchasing, but also for other products purchased by that supplier....

The government could use its $500 million purchasing power to influence

those suppli-

[ Page 10656 ]

ers to move towards more environmentally appropriate

procedures in other areas of their commerce.

Also, I think it would be helpful if there was a mention of

companies that promote research and development in environmentally

sound packaging, products and technologies. This is another criterion

that could be very useful in advising the commission.

This bill, since it does not contain the criteria and the

guidelines, really does appear to be a kind of window-dressing. It

does, as my colleagues have pointed out, appear to be open to the kind

of abuse that might be inappropriate.... A product might be purported

to be environmentally useful, but it might really be a product that

hasn't got that kind of value at all — especially when there are no

criteria whereby it can be evaluated.

As we have said, we're giving some qualified support to this

bill, but we would certainly like to see it toughened up. In

section 3,

there's greater power in the

section that uses "the commission shall";

but where the wording says the commission "may, "_it's really getting

into the environmental aspect of the bill, and it's leaving it there as

an option. So there are really no teeth in that.

I would turn, Mr. Speaker, to the news release that went out

with this bill. It stated that Bill 13 added environmental

considerations to the Purchasing Commission's mandate to purchase goods

and services for government use. I would say that there's proof right

there that this is a public relations action; it is not an action that

in any substantial way changes the role or the activity of the

Purchasing Commission, except that it might allow purchasing of

products that are not defined in any standards in a way that might even

possibly be inappropriate.

While there is some up-to-date wording with regard to this

bill, while there's a healthy dose of public relations, it's not clear

to me or to my colleagues that this bill really is going to provide any

substantial benefit to the environment. It would be so much better if

the categories were outlined so that the teeth were there to ensure

that environmentally appropriate products were actually purchased.

DEPUTY SPEAKER . Pursuant to standing order

42, members are advised that the minister closes debate.

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

reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990, read a

second time and referred to a committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. DIRKS : Committee of Supply, Mr

Speaker.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

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

MR. MILLER : I have a couple of questions.

One relates to my constituency and the use of the jets, and I'll start

with some issues that were raised yesterday. I hadn't entered the

debate on the use of the jets up to now, but I was a bit concerned when

I heard a sort of justification starting to come out.

I think the idea was developed and then it was promoted in

this House, and it goes something like this: we have to use the jets

because we somehow have to communicate to those British Columbians who

are unable to access government — they don't have the opportunities. We

heard the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and others speak about

that. As a rural member, I certainly appreciate that many British

Columbians do not have access to government. They don't have access,

for example, to government offices, and I would think this falls within

the minister's purview. In some instances, they don't have toll-free

telephone lines. In the very small rural communities, some of them have

not even had telephone service; they're using radio-telephone service

and do not have access to government offices.

Although MLAs have telephone privileges, our constituents

don't. At the federal level in my constituency, which is a very large

federal constituency, the federal members have toll-free telephone

lines that they can put in to various communities and they can

advertise the line for people to get in touch with them. This is really

consistent with the submissions I made to the Fisher commission, that

what we should be looking at in terms of the operation of government —

and I believe that opposition members are part of that overall area we

call government — is the ability of people to access. That is of

paramount importance, whether they're dealing with a government

ministry or whether they're trying to contact their member.

I was concerned, Madam Member, when you said in the House

yesterday, when justifying the use of government jets to travel to

outlying areas, that it's especially more difficult when they're

represented by an NDP member. I was curious as to some of your thinking

behind that statement. It's an argument that I'm familiar with, having

had it used against me and, I suppose, right around the province — during the last provincial election. It goes something like this: if

you don't have a government member, you're not going to get anything. I

assume the minister is promulgating that same rather distasteful view

of our traditional British parliamentary system.

I wanted the minister to have the opportunity to perhaps

correct the record. She has already admitted that many of the

statements she made were foolish, and she had to thank the Premier for

straightening her out. Mr. Chairman, she may even want to thank me in

the course of this debate. But I thought that we might give the

minister an opportunity to give us some clue as to what her thinking is

there.

[ Page 10657 ]

I also wanted to comment — and I'll try to put this together

in some kind of sequence; I know the minister likes to make notes and

answer all the questions altogether — on the minister, unless she's in

her own home, being on government business. Well, she's probably on

government business sometimes in her own home — probably on the

telephone. I think what she's really saying is that she has achieved a

measure of fame, that she's in the public eye, and that people want to

flock to her. But I hardly think that qualifies as government business.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment on that as well.

Turning to the issue of the opportunity for people in this

province to know what is happening in this House, I think that's

important, Mr. Chairman, because apart from Hansard , which is the

written record of what happens in debates, we have a huge government

propaganda bureau. I don't know what the budget is, $40 million, $60

million or $100 million.

HON. MR. VEITCH : You just pick any number

you want.

MR. MILLER : The minister says, "Pick any

number you want, " and he's absolutely right. That's how this

government is operating: let's just pick a number out of the hat, and

what does it matter what it costs the taxpayers? It's important to us

as the Social Credit Party, so we'll spend the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to make a very important point here

that has to do with the operation of government. I noticed last night,

for example, that the government has quickly rushed a commercial into

public broadcasting. I saw it on television myself. I saw the smiling

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr Michael) saying that we've fixed up

everything as far as the floods go; all the slide damage is gone; it's

now sunny in the Okanagan. I thought that that was perhaps a misuse —

dare I say abuse — of taxpayers' money, which I know this minister is

concerned about. But they have this huge propaganda bureau, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to rush to the defence of my small town of Prince

Rupert and its local media. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

yesterday raised the matter of the press gallery, and the minister

responded — with some glee, in fact — that she thought this was an

important issue. She hasn't responded to the specific questions posed

by the Attorney. I don't know if she plans to do that today or indeed

ever. I would hope that she would want to. But in that discourse that

the Attorney engaged in, he seemed to be suggesting, and the minister

seemed to be agreeing, that there is an abuse taking place and that we

shouldn't have these people in the press gallery. My little paper,

which relies on a member who they have in the press gallery, would be

seriously disadvantaged if that member of the press gallery were not

here. I want to rise in defence of my community and its ability to get

news from this place, which I think is threatened by the remarks made

by the Attorney and by the minister yesterday. I want to seek the

minister's assurance that she will take no action to threaten this

small-town paper, which is trying to get the news out, not only to my

community but to Alberni and to Nelson — really a range of papers

around this province. I think that's important. People should have a

variety of means of finding out information about the operation of

government — whether government is operating efficiently or whether

it's not.

Perhaps the minister would care to offer some comforting words

that I can take back tonight as I travel back to my small community of

Prince Rupert, so I can reassure the small-town paper there that the

government's not going to take any action that threatens the member

they have in the press gallery, and that there will be no attempt to

stifle the news in this province, and that the news will flow freely.

Perhaps the minister could give that assurance.

[12:15]

HON. MRS. GRAN : I want to respond to one

thing the member for Prince Rupert said, and it had to do with my

comment about "especially if you have an NDP member." I believe the

debate at that point included the first member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Lovick), who, in my view, is pompous, self-centred and obnoxious. I

hope that's not unparliamentary. If it is I'll withdraw it, but

otherwise I'll let it carry. There was no intention to suggest that NDP

members don't work hard, because some do. Some just work harder than

others, that's all.

I'm going to take this opportunity to answer some questions

that were asked yesterday in the House. The first one was about the

privatization of the courier service. I've brought with me substantial

information to be able to answer the question fairly.

The privatization of the Victoria postal services was brought

forward as a proposal by the Ministry of Government Management Services

last year and approved by cabinet. The project concerns providing mail

and routine courier delivery service in greater Victoria. When the

opportunity was announced, an employee group came forward. Consistent

with government policy, we negotiated with them and came to an

agreement to provide that service. This is just another example where

employees recognized the opportunity which private ownership offers and

have seized the opportunity.

This privatization provides efficiencies in three areas: route

scheduling, service flexibility and operation improvements. As I said

yesterday, there are cost savings in the long term, over the three-year

contract. In addition to cost savings, there have also been FTE

savings. Furthermore, because some of the ministry workload has been

incorporated into the service, ministry resources have been freed to be

allocated to other priorities.

The second question had to do with an order-in-council that I

think the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) asked about.

Those orders-in-council are three bids for permits to maintain parks.

At the time, I couldn't remember exactly what they were for.

Another question asked was about the terms of reference for

the review of air services that has been underway in our ministry for

some time. The terms

[ Page 10658 ]

of reference for our review are very broad and pretty normal.

They go something like this: to provide an operational review of the

air services branch; to review the mandate of the branch including

health-related aspects of that mandate and recommend possible changes;

and to recommend how to fulfil the suggested mandate efficiently and

effectively. Those are the terms of reference for the study.

At this point I might clarify for the members opposite the

goals of this ministry and the objectives for service quality which

permeate every branch of the ministry, including air services. I hope,

Mr. Chairman, you'll bear with me.

"Five years from today we" — this

government — "will have accomplished the following. The people who use

our products or services get more than just what they want when they

want it. Our staff regularly uncover and incorporate into our

performance little things that, in the perception of our customers, set

our organization apart.

"Our customers believe that our products

and services provide superb quality and value, and our employees are

constantly seeking out new avenues to keep it that way.

"Service quality is an uncompromised

tradition that permeates every level of our organization. Our employees

embrace change as an opportunity to 'meet the future.' our staff has an

ingrained sense of common purpose. They just keep finding better and

better ways to get the job done.

"There is a powerful feeling of focused

energy and vitality evident the moment you walk through the door of any

part of our organization."

This is good stuff.

"Our staff members have the necessary

skills not only to do their jobs, but to be good team players. Every

person in the ministry is equipped with the skills and tools they need

to do their job.

"Our cost of quality is dropping

steadily. In particular, our cost of non-conformance errors has been

cut in half from year-one levels. All service product specifications

are up to date and validated. We have applied for the Canadian Commerce

Award for service quality. We have in place excellent supplier

certification programs."

That answers the questions put forward in yesterday's debate

on my estimates, and it should offer substantial information for the

members opposite.

MS. MARZARI : Madam Minister, we've spent

some time during the women's

section of this debate talking about the

committee that has been established: the advisory committee on women's

services in this province.

The minister has spent a long time defending the credibility

of this committee and, in fact, the opposition was not out of sorts

with the minister on that. The opposition feels that the committee is a

credible committee. We had some questions with the way it was put

together. The fact that the minister has used the names of the agencies

that the women represented and suggested that those agencies also

endorsed the report was questionable. But basically, the committee was

a credible committee. It continues to be so, and it has produced a

credible report. However, today's press recounts that a new commission

is about to be established by the Premier which will be dealing with

women's issues — a commission, I may add, to which the Premier has

already made a promise of appointment to Nicole Parton, who, as you

know, Madam Minister, is a Social Credit candidate in the coming

election.

I would like to ask the minister how she reconciles having a

very credible committee report — a reasonably credible process for

decision-making on the expenditure of women's issues dollars in this

province, and the funding of agencies — with the fact of a new

Premier-appointed commission on women's issues?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'm sorry, I missed the

committee part. Which committee is the individual you are talking about

being appointed to?

MS. MARZARI : I'm not prone to believing

everything I read, but I read today in the Vancouver Sun :

"Former Vancouver Sun columnist and

would-be Social Credit candidate Nicole Parton said Wednesday she has

been named to a new government commission that will deal with women's

issues. Parton said she expects her appointment to be announced next

week. She would not provide any more details about what the job

entails."

Mr. Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun reports today:

"My colleague Nicole Parton, who recently

took leave from the Sun to pursue a political career with the Socreds,

is about to accept a job from the government. The Premier's office

decided to appoint her to a high-profile commission after becoming

concerned that her absence from print might hurt her public profile."

Madam Minister, is there any truth to this new commission

that's about to be appointed? And is it true that a decision has been

made without your knowledge as to who will sit on that commission?

HON. MRS. GRAN : First of all, I don't

believe the Premier would be appointing a commission to look into

women's issues. Doesn't that seem a little peculiar to you?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Well, you can answer it if

you want. Everything that comes from that side of the House is negative

anyway. So go ahead and answer it. It doesn't bother me in the least.

AN HON. MEMBER : Be fair.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Life isn't fair. The

opposition House Leader has to know by now that life isn't fair. It

never was fair, and no one ever told you it would be.

To the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey, I can't answer

that question. It's obviously speculation on the part of the press. But

if she were to be appointed to a committee, what would be the big deal?

Does her politics preclude her from being involved in anything,

particularly women's issues?

[ Page 10659 ]

Having read Nicole Parton's column for a number of years, it

would appear to me that she is a woman very dedicated to the

advancement of women and very concerned about all that affects women's

lives. It wouldn't be a negative thing to happen as far as I'm

concerned. I can't help the member out in her question. I might also

remind her that the chairman of the advisory committee that did such a

wonderful job and made such credible recommendations is also a Social

Credit candidate.

MS. MARZARI : I might say that the chair of

the advisory committee has done a credible job, and I won't take that

away from her. She also is otherwise employed. The reasons that are

given here are basically to keep a Social Credit candidate's name

visible, and possibly to provide her a stipend to tide her over.

The important issue here is not just credibility; the

important issue is whether the minister is aware of any commission or

any special committee that the Premier may be structuring and now

staffing that deals with women's issues. Has this minister been

informed of any such plans or consulted?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Absolutely not. Again, I

really believe it would enhance the opposition members' lives if they

did some of their own research and not relied on the newspapers to do

it for them.

MS. MARZARI : I take it then, Madam

Minister, that this pending announcement that might be made next week

is news to you. This is something that you don't know about. This is

not something that you have been consulted about nor have you been

informed about.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I am not aware of any

commission on women's issues that the Premier is putting together.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Just before asking the

usual motion, the member for Prince Rupert is going home for a long

weekend, and he was looking for some things to put in his newsletter.

MR. MILLER : I didn't say that.

HON. MR. WITCH : You said you had nothing to

put in your newspaper.

MR. MILLER : On a point of order, I don't

know what the member is talking about. I don't think I've given him my

travel plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN : That's not a point of order,

but the Chair, too, is somewhat confused about what's going on.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I was going to speak to

these estimates, but I will move that this committee rise, report some

remarkable progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Just before we adjourn,

I would like to wish all members of this assembly a very pleasant

Canada Day weekend. I hope they enjoy themselves in their

constituencies or wherever they may be, and I remind members that the

House will sit again at 2 p.m. on Tuesday next. Having said that, I

move the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1990, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria,

B.C., Canada