1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 5963 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Federal tax increases. Mr. Harcourt –– 5963

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 5964

Housing program advertising costs. Mr. Blencoe –– 5965

Speed limit on highways. Mr. Crandall –– 5965

Presenting Reports –– 5966

Tabling Documents –– 5966

Committee of Supply:

Ministry of Government Management Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 5966

Hon. Mr. Michael

Mr. Rose

Mr. Rogers

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Tabling Documents –– 5991

MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1989

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DIRKS: In the precincts this afternoon, from the

Creston Valley in the great constituency of Nelson-Creston, are Evelyn

and Herb Hurford. With them is Pat O'Brennan, who is Evelyn's sister

from Saanich. Would this House please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today of

introducing a couple of east-enders, although they are not currently in

east Vancouver. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier) knows,

we are taking over British Columbia. We have Ray McLennan, a nuclear

medicine technologist at Kelowna General Hospital, and Nick Volkow, a

Burnaby parks and recreation commissioner and — I might add — a member

of the ad hoc dog control committee. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs. McCarthy), I would ask the House to

welcome 160 students from Little Flower Academy in the heart of

Vancouver-Little Mountain. There are 40 in the House now, and there

will be three other groups coming this afternoon. The 40 students are

from grades 11 and 12 at Little Flower Academy. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I have two families to introduce

today, and I would like to ask the House to make welcome two very brave

kids: Heather Van Egdom and Ryan Benson. With Heather are Linda and

Rudy, her mother and father, and her two sisters Michelle and Lauren

Van Egdom. Along with Ryan are Glenda and Doug, his mom and dad, and

his brother Dustin. Accompanying them is their friend and lawyer, John

Nelson.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome the

Van Egdom and Bonson families, and the two brave little children,

Heather Van Egdom and Ryan Benson. It is a pleasure to see them here

today, although we will be meeting informally in my office a little

later.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Members of the

Legislature to give a very warm welcome to 25 visitors this afternoon

from the People's Republic of China. They are taking various levels of

ESL and North American orientation programs. They are accompanied by

faculty members Katherine Odgers and Cathleen Peters, and the liaison

officer between the university college and the CESC agency of the

ministry of education in Beijing. Would you give a very warm welcome to

our visitors behind the press gallery.

HON. MR. REID: I would like the House to give a special

welcome today to the most aggressive, dynamic mayor that Vancouver has

ever had: Gordon Campbell is in the precincts. Would the House make him

welcome.

MR. PETERSON: Today is family day for me in the House. It

gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce probably the greatest

supporter I have ever had since day one: my mother Charlotte Peterson.

Accompanying her is my brother Lorne Peterson, visiting us from Ottawa.

Also here is my sister Brenda Peterson, who, incidentally, is

celebrating her birthday today. I won't tell you which one it is,

because she will never forgive me. Please join me in making them very

welcome.

MR. RABBITT: Today I am very proud to have in the gallery a

longtime Socred and strong supporter of mine, one who is probably the

oldest active rodeo rider in Canada. At age 63 he is still competing in

the rodeo, the honorary mayor of Gold Bridge. I would like the House to

give him a warm welcome — Harold Hartley.

MR. HARCOURT: I too would like to welcome the second most

popular mayor in Vancouver's history. The only condolence I would like

to offer him is that he didn't have the opportunity as I did in 1984 to

give a guided tour of Vancouver to the ex-mayor of Surrey.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL TAX INCREASES

MR. HARCOURT: To the Minister of Finance. It is expected that

the Mulroney government will be raising the personal income tax rates

in its upcoming budget. As the minister knows, this would also mean an

increase in provincial income taxes, since your government taxes

British Columbia at 51 percent of the federal rate. Is the minister

prepared to make a commitment that if the federal rates are raised, his

government will lower its rates from 51 percent to whatever it takes so

that British Columbians will not pay any more provincial income taxes?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity

to speak to the question of taxation levels for British Columbians.

This government is very proud that all of our taxation levels in this

province are very competitive and comparable to those in the rest of

Canada.

As a matter of fact, our personal income tax rates are the second

lowest in Canada, as are indeed most of the various taxation and user

schedules we impose. To the suggestion that this government has a less

than responsive and sensitive need to British Columbians' ability to

pay, the reverse is clearly true: we lead the country in terms of our

concern for taxation levels in this country.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary. Yes or no: those are the two

choices you have. Is the minister going to

[ Page 5964 ]

join the Mulroney government in raising income taxes, or is he going

to adjust his tax rate to ensure that British Columbians pay not one

more cent of provincial income tax? Yes or no?

[2:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This government are members of the Social

Credit Party. Unlike other political parties in this country who seem

to take direction from some national headquarters, our party exists

solely for the purpose of serving British Columbians. The Leader of the

Opposition seems, for some strange reason, to be mesmerized by events

in the national forum occurring in Ottawa.

Unlike the members of the New Democratic Party, we on this side of

the House don't have quite that fascination or fixation. We are not

prepared to play a guessing game with what the federal Minister of

Finance may or may not do with his budget. That's strictly conjecture,

and I suppose it might even be described as future government policy,

at least as it relates to the federal government. The Leader of the

Opposition, of all people, should know the impropriety of that question.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. It's hard

for the Minister of Finance to get his head around the whole issue of

tax unfairness. I understand that; he would prefer to grandstand. I

would like to ask a question about the minister having publicly stated

that with the national sales tax, our provincial sales tax rate would

increase from 6 to 7 percent. Can the minister assure this House today

that B.C. will not join a national sales tax scheme?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm very pleased to have the opportunity

to straighten out a rather confused headline writer who composes these

issue-selling blurbs for one of the print media in our province. If the

Leader of the Opposition had read the copy that accompanied that rather

outrageous headline, I think he would have found the question

unnecessary. To the suggestion that B.C.'s sales tax rate would go up,

I merely have to point out to the member that, unlike every other

province in this country, we've reduced our sales tax since we've

assumed office. Clearly tax increases are not something this government

is countenancing.

MR. HARCOURT: The minister has trouble giving a very simple,

straightforward answer. I want the minister to realize that by

equivocating on this issue, by dragging his heels and not taking a firm

stand like Alberta and Nova Scotia, he is encouraging the federal

government to proceed with its unfair national sales tax. Are you going

to take a firm stand and say "no" like Alberta and Nova Scotia? Yes or

no?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I believe it's a customary

courtesy in this House that in framing questions the hon. members

attempt not to misphrase, misinterpret or misrepresent comments of

ministers of the Crown. You, if I understand, sir, prefaced your

comment by suggesting that I, together with some others, had been

promoting the idea of piggybacking the national sales tax. If I

misunderstand you, I'd like you to correct me.

MR. HARCOURT: You misunderstood me. I asked for a yes or a no.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I think the

preamble is a very necessary

part of consideration of the question, whether the question itself is

proper or not. This government has never said whether we are prepared

to piggyback or endorse the national sales tax — never! What I have

said personally is that it is my view the federal financial situation

is in such desperate straits that I can understand the necessity for

the Minister of Finance in Ottawa to attempt to devise some programs to

deal with it. I am sympathetic to the plight he has placed himself in —

or the government have placed themselves in — and I've said so. But I

have never said, sir, that this government would be prepared to

piggyback that, nor have I denied it. I've said quite simply that we do

not yet have enough information to deal with the question.

I gather that the hon. member gets a lot of his information from the

media, and if he does, then why does he not also read the explanatory

comments underneath these headlines that he refers to? We finance the

opposition to provide them with resource writers and research workers,

and it does seem to me appropriate that they might do a more

professional job in that respect.

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests. Pursuant to the

tabled answers that the House received on Friday last, did you meet

with Doman Industries to discuss their cut position?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question is the most elementary in the

world, Mr. Speaker. We're simply asking if the minister met with

representatives of Doman Industries.

One of the other answers to the tabled questions was with respect to

the pulp mill that we have not yet received in British Columbia, even

though it's many years later. In the interim, while Doman had that cut

and used it, Doman and others bought a pulp mill. Would the minister

not agree that the fact that Doman Industries and others had the funds

to buy another pulp mill would be a classic case of non-performance, an

example of non-performance that the minister should have pursued

diligently when dealing with the Doman company?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: In one of the other tabled answers the minister

indicated that indeed there had

[ Page 5965 ]

been a penalty with respect to B.C. Forest Products, who had not

undercut to anywhere near the degree that Doman Industries have. Would

it not have been reasonable and consistent to penalize Doman Industries

as well in view of the fact that they undercut far more than BCFP?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as

notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: The media and the public have been provided

with memos from the ministry's files that indicate there was a range of

non-performance by Doman. Despite all that, in November of last year

this minister was responsible for dramatically changing the contract

with respect to the pulp mill requirement to the point where it was a

loophole.

Why did you let Doman get away with not having to spend $300

million, Mr. Minister? That's what the contract was all about.

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: When the earlier minister, Mr. Waterland,

brought in the 1977 legislation, he said it was tough legislation that

said, "Use it or lose it." Whatever happened to the idea of use it or

lose it, which was supposed to be the foundation of the statute?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister tabled a letter in the House dated

July 28, 1987, where he says: "I trust that by that date" — which is

September — "you will also be able to confirm, in a concrete way,

compliance with the 'wood residue processing facility' requirement of

your Strathcona and mid-coast forest licences." What concrete

assurances did you receive from the Doman company that they would

proceed?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: The previous day you advised the House you

couldn't answer any of these questions because of legal proceedings,

and then you tabled these matters in the House. Have you reviewed with

your staff this inadequate advice provided by your staff?

HON. MR. PARKER: I'll take that question as notice.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In the media in

the past week we have been seeing a level of confidence in this

ministry that is so abysmal it almost boggles the mind. Is he

reconsidering the position of the present minister?

HOUSING PROGRAM ADVERTISING COSTS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question on housing issues. My first

question is to the Minister of Finance. The budget contained

approximately $12 million only for new housing programs. I wonder if

the minister can provide the House with the budget figure to promote

the government's housing programs — the PR and media advertising that

is currently in place. Can you provide the advertising costs?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm aware of the

interpretation put on

the provincial housing action plan by the second member for Victoria,

so I'm not surprised that he would preface his question with such an

outrageous

preamble. The fact of the matter is that the housing action

plan is intended to benefit and does benefit over 500,000 British

Columbians. This government sees the housing action plan as a key part

of the budgetary initiative this year. In addition to the fact that

it's a balanced budget, we've also very sensitively, I think, directed

money to this important and essential current housing crisis. My

colleague the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr.

Richmond) has developed a very imaginative program to deal with every

single facet of that housing crisis, and this government is very proud

to see it go ahead so quickly.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has, in his own words, admitted the

basic problem the people of British Columbia have. The ads say:

"800,000 households will benefit"; you say: "500,000 households will

benefit." Which is it?

Question to the minister: maybe he should ask the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) to investigate deceptive advertising

and tell the truth to the people of the province about what your

housing program is all about.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is out of order.

SPEED LIMIT ON HIGHWAYS

MR. CRANDALL: I have a question for the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Last Thursday, the first member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) mentioned that he would like to see highways

maintenance put back under the government. I just want to ask the

Minister of Transportation and Highways — because I'm so pleased with

the work in my constituency in highways maintenance during the past

winter, and considering all the highways work that has been done in the

last several years since 1974 — if there is any consideration being

given to raising the speed limit on most of the interior highways,

where we currently have a speed limit of 90 km/h, including the

Trans-Canada Highway.

HON. MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, in the province there are already

certain parts of our highway system where the speed limit 110 km/h. As

we improve our roads throughout the province, a lot of new roads are

[ Page 5966 ]

designed for exactly that speed. So we'll carefully consider — where

we can — raising the speed limit where it is appropriate and safe for

the travelling public.

MR. CRANDALL: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'll perhaps be

more specific. The speed limit that we have had in the past was higher

than it is now; it used to be 60 miles per hour. Would you consider

raising the speed limit on the highways that are now 90 km/h to 100

km/h?

HON. MR. VANT: That is, in a sense, getting into future

policy, so I'd have to take that under advisement. But I do thank the

hon. member for Columbia River for that excellent question.

[2:30]

HON. S.D. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present

the 1988 annual report on the invasion of privacy, together with

1983-1987 supplementaries thereto, pursuant to

section 195 (5) of the

Criminal Code of Canada. These matters are known more commonly as the

wiretap sections of the Criminal Code.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the

report of the commissioner inquiry in the Station Square development in

Burnaby. I'd like to table this report in the House. I'd also like to

table the Oakalla escape royal commission report of September 29.

Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in tabling the report of the Royal

Commission of Inquiry Into the Alleged Injuries Sustained by Michael

Albert Jacobsen During His Detention in the Vancouver City Police Jail.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

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

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that later

today I will be tabling the Concord agreement. It has already been

delivered — or is in a the course of being delivered — to the press

gallery, as well as a full set to the opposition.

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I wonder if the minister is

aware of the parliamentary tradition of having something tabled in

the House before it is given to the press. The only exception I can

think of is during a budget lockup, and then the opposition critic

usually gets a copy. I was about to ask the government House Leader —

sotto voce — about this Concord Pacific sales agreement; it was

indicated in his note to me that it was coming, but we did not I know

when. Perhaps the minister might explain why it has gone there first

rather than here.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, it was fully our intention

to table the report before the minister got into his estimates. If the

House wishes we could come out of Committee of Supply and table it

forthwith, or we could wait until the end of the day and table it at

that time.

MR. ROSE: The old slogan: "Do it now." Persons are available.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Because it was our intention to table it

immediately and it was just a matter of procedure that it got delayed,

I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of

Government Management Services has a report he wishes to table.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to he House for

the inconvenience of my tardiness. At his time, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to table the Concord agreement, which has five sections. Copies

have been sent to the press gallery and to the opposition.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled answers to questions on he order paper from

the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and a question from

the member or North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) put late last week.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

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

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the

House on my ministry estimates. We have number of areas of jurisdiction

under the ministry, and it gives me a great deal of pleasure to review

and highlight the various cost centres within the Ministry of

Government Management Services.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to start by stating that sincere compliments

are certainly due to the 27,000-odd government employees. Certainly

they have been through somewhat difficult times over the last six

years, but I think it's fair to say that they have come through those

six years of restraint with flying colours. Indeed, the number of

suggestions and the motivation I have witnessed in the last few months

as been second to none, and it's good to see that

[ Page 5967 ]

negotiations with the B.C. Government Employees' Union came to an

amicable settlement, a three-year contract that I think the government

and BCGEU can both hold proud.

The first area I would like to discuss has to do with the B.C.

Purchasing Commission. I would like to give my compliments to the

Purchasing Commission on their supplier development program. As a

result of this initiative from the B.C. Purchasing Commission, we have

seen established and brought about literally hundreds of jobs. There

has been a tremendous amount of pairing of the demand for goods and

services with B.C. firms. I believe the program has been second to none

in Canada and certainly has kept a lot of dollars home in British

Columbia.

The Market Discovery '88 trade show at the convention centre was

attended by some 6,000 buyers and sellers. There was tremendous

participation by entrepreneurs within our province, and hundreds of

thousands of dollars in economic spinoff resulted from that show. We

have some 57 examples of positive things that happened as a result of

that trade show and of the pairing of goods and services demanded by

our province with those items that were manufactured or produced

outside British Columbia and are now being manufactured or produced

within the province.

I would also like to say for the record that instructions have been

given to the B.C. Purchasing Commission that all Styrofoam cups must

not contain any CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons. It is the policy of the B.C.

government that anything purchased by the B.C. Purchasing Commission

will not contain CFCs.

We are also pleased with some of the initiatives shown by the B.C.

Purchasing Commission. Members opposite and my colleagues will see some

recommendations brought about by the Purchasing Commission within the

next three or four weeks. Recommendations are in the mill to enter into

a formalized recycling pilot project which will include some six or

seven buildings in the province, probably in Victoria. I am sure we

will see very positive results of that initiative brought about by the

Purchasing Commission.

We are also going to be examining and reviewing, and perhaps

announcing in the next two or three weeks, a paper procurement policy

that will see us give preference to unbleached paper, as compared to

bleached paper, provided it is cost-competitive.

We are also looking at lubricating oil. We are studying the

collection and distribution of re-refined oil, and we are confident

that the current studies by the B.C. Purchasing Commission will lead to

thousands of dollars in savings in the recycling of used oil by

government operations and Crown corporations in this province. We are

looking at a tremendous B.C. value-added initiative as a result of

this, and I am convinced that members opposite and my colleagues will

be pleased with the recommendations currently being developed.

Earlier today we had circulated to all members' desks recycled

paper. This again is an example of the things that are being brought

about by government employees. All of those pads that you have on your

desks are recycled paper, paper that used to be put in the garbage can

and is now being utilized by this government for a savings of many

thousands of dollars.

Regarding the Queen's Printer, I can report that as a result of the

privatization initiatives, about 70 percent of that volume is now being

put out to the private sector. I am very proud to say that as a result

of those studies it is quite evident that a tremendous amount of

reorganization and efficiencies have been built into the Queen's

Printer that make them more productive than ever. It was with a lot of

personal regret — and I know I am speaking for the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) as well — that the budget was not able to be

printed at the Queen's Printer this year. But I want to assure everyone

in the House that this certainly had nothing to do with our fear of

security, It was strictly and solely that the union negotiator

representing the Queen's Printer was unable to give us written

assurance that there would be no interruption in the flow of the

printing of the budget. That budget, as we all know, had to be

delivered by a certain time and date.

In talking about the vehicle management branch, I have to say that

there has been a tremendous amount of consolidation and streamlining in

the management of government vehicles. Suffice to say that the number

of government vehicles has been reduced from 7,600 to in the vicinity

of 4,800. We have upgraded the fleet. There were 550 new vehicles

bought in the last fiscal year, and we expect to see a similar number

purchased during this coming year to further upgrade the vehicle

management branch fleet. We can tell you that all of the small vehicles

in all ministries are now managed by the Ministry of Government

Management Services, directed by the vehicle management branch. They

are doing a very efficient, effective job in managing government

vehicles throughout this province.

Regarding air services, Mr. Chairman, we can report to the House

that the fleet has been reduced. There used to be seven planes; we have

now cut it down to six. We have upgraded the quality of the planes. We

have purchased two new Citations, as well as the Challenger. We are

very pleased to report that as a result of purchasing the Challenger,

the minister of the day was successful in negotiating an offset

agreement of some $14.5 million. I know that we will all be very proud

of the previous minister. The offset agreement was more than double the

actual purchase price of that plane. I know that the past minister will

be proud to know that the $14.5 million target and assurance given us

by Canadair looks like it is going to be far exceeded, as contracts

already committed in the province of British Columbia equal some $22

million.

[2:45]

We can also report, Mr. Chairman, that the air services fleet

transported some 1,055 patients in the last fiscal year, and we are

looking at transporting some 1,224 in the current fiscal year. We

might also report that without that fleet it would have been very

[ Page 5968 ]

difficult to effectively and efficiently handle the wide-ranging

committees that have travelled the province of British Columbia in the

last year. I am referring to such committees as justice reform, the

forestry tour, the Sullivan report, the cabinet committee on regional

development and the social services committee. Indeed, Mr. Chairman,

several Crown corporations used the fleet as well.

Also, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the initiative of the previous

minister, we followed through by donating the surplus flight simulator

to Fraser Valley College. I am pleased to report to the House today,

and to the previous minister, that it was very well received by the

college, located in Abbotsford.

Turning to the B.C. Systems Corporation, we are extremely proud of

the initiative shown by the corporation and its leadership. For the

first time in the province of British Columbia we have purchased all of

the telephone handsets. This has shown a payback in less than one year

and will be saving the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia

some $1 million a year as future years unfold.

As a result of the initiative again shown by B.C. Systems

Corporation, we will be introducing, on July 1 of this year or before,

B.C. on-line service. This will provide electronic access to the land

title registry, central registry of liens and companies registry. Major

tenants to this electronic access will be banks, credit unions,

lawyers, realtors and automotive dealers. It will be a tremendous

instant service costing in the vicinity of $5, and a savings and profit

to the B.C. Systems Corporation, which will be passed on to the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), of some $470,000 in the first

year of operation.

I can also report, on behalf of the B.C. Systems Corporation, that

the mainframe processing rates have been reduced by some 50 percent

since 1986, with further discounts to be given in the current year.

Further to report, for any business done by the B.C. Systems

Corporation, it must compete head-on with the private sector, although

the reverse does not apply.

At this time I would like to divert my attention to the B.C.

Buildings Corporation. It's my view that the B.C. Buildings Corporation

does an outstanding job in any area, when considering and looking at

the environment. They have got a first-class program in place for

asbestos management. They have 11 buildings underway which are either

complete or in progress of clearing asbestos completely out of those

buildings.

It's somewhat disheartening knowing the tremendous job that BCBC

does and looking at the very negative headline in last week's Times-Colonist .

On Friday, April 7, they made a very negative report on the B.C.

Buildings Corporation. It starts off:

"There would be howls of outrage if PCBs were stored

near Victoria General Hospital rather than Glendale Lodge for the

mentally handicapped, says the CRD environment committee chairman.

Frank Leonard made the accusation in response to B.C. Buildings

Corporation plans to continue storing PCBs near Glendale. 'This matter

really upsets me. There is a social question here. It would be

different if it were outside Victoria General Hospital. But (Glendale)

patients can't speak for themselves."'

As I say, it's a bit disheartening to read stories like that when we

look at the facts of what BCBC is doing. I have a report from my staff

this morning that reads:

"Some of the pertinent facts of which the press has

been made aware but has chosen to ignore most of in its coverage of

this matter are as follows:

(1) The container is stored at this

location because the corporation has employees on the site throughout

the day to provide additional on-site security. (2) " — and this is

very important — "PCBs are stored in sealed metal drums. The drums in

turn are placed in a large tray. The tray in the container would hold

all the PCBs in the unlikely event that all the drums leaked. The tray

is inside a heavy-duty metal shipping container which is locked and

marked, stating it contains PCBs.

(3) An intrusion alarm is fitted to

the container and connected to the Saanich police department. The

container is not visible from the hospital itself and is situated 500

feet from the hospital.

(4) The corporation applied voluntarily to the

Ministry of Environment under its Waste Management Act for the storage

permit, recognizing that our present security levels exceeded current

requirements."

It's interesting in looking at the facts and at the person who makes

the remarks, Frank Leonard, a council member. It's interesting that in

the municipal works yard of Saanich, PCBs are merely stored in a

45-gallon drum.

Reverting to some of the positive things about the B.C. Buildings

Corporation, it's interesting to note the tremendous job it has done in

bringing about efficiencies in that Crown corporation. The staff has

been reduced since their incorporation in 1987 from 2,000 to 870. In

1988, they were able to bring about further reductions from 870 down to

791 — a reduction of 79 persons. They are projecting in 1989 to reduce

that down to 762. I think it speaks well of the efforts of the

management, the corporation and the board of directors to bring about

savings to that Crown corporation, which are in turn passed on to the

residents of British Columbia.

It's also interesting to note the job they are doing in regard to

energy conservation. With a capital expenditure of some $15.5 million

in the last few years, they have been able to bring about savings of

$42 million to the Crown corporation. As a result of those initiatives,

they have won several international awards.

Turning to the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, it would appear that

sometime in the fall — probably by October — we will be able to report

the complete windup of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. We are hopeful

that by then all the major properties will have been sold, and the

balance of the unsold lots, which are mainly industrial lots located in

the interior, will be transferred to the lands branch for their

inventory. We expect to announce, probably by the end of this month,

the completion of the sale of Westwood. It would appear that we will

soon be into a full marketing swing for the Songhees property, located

in Victoria, and the balance of the Whistler lands, located in

Whistler, B.C.

[ Page 5969 ]

If you look at the opportunities that will arise in the province as

a result of the Concord agreement that has already been tabled, you

will see some $2 billion in capital investment over the next few years

and, probably, a total economic spinoff to this province of $8 billion.

As a result of the construction that will take place on that site, we

expect to see some 28,000 person-years of employment — a tremendous

economic boost for the lower mainland and, indeed, the entire province.

As members will note in volume 3,

section 3, tab 59 — I believe — that

sales agreement with Concord is backed up by an irrevocable letter of

credit from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.

Turning to the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, we can say that this

corporation is certainly embarking on a tremendous promotional

advertising campaign — both nationally and internationally — attracting

trade shows and conventions to this province which have never been

attracted before. We have in excess of 200 days already spoken for at

B.C. Place Stadium in the coming year, and if you go right now to book

a convention at the trade and convention centre, you would have a very

difficult time getting a two- or three-day slot still open in this

current fiscal year. They have a tremendous slogan they've adopted for

their employees, called the "Yes, We Can" program, and they're doing a

very assertive, aggressive job of providing service to the tens of

thousands of visitors attending the facilities under the B.C. Pavilion

Corporation jurisdiction.

One of the initiatives that the B.C. Pavilion Corporation undertook

was the sponsorship of an aquaculture trade show. In the last fiscal

year they made a clear profit in excess of $100,000 on this show. They

have taken that trade show and sold it to the private sector, and I'm

pleased to report to the House that the sale price was some $700,000 —

$500,000 in cash with a $200,000 payment at the conclusion of the first

show.

For a savings initiative, the Food Pacific trade show has been

transferred to the jurisdiction of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, and

we are confident that we will be able to show government a savings of

$300,000 to $500,000 as a result of that initiative.

As well, I can tell you that the B.C. Pavilion Corporation

management and board of directors are still working on many development

opportunities, and we expect to see new announcements forthcoming in a

short period of time.

We will be expanding the responsibility of the B.C. Pavilion

Corporation somewhat. Effective at the end of this month, we will be

transferring the film centre located in Burnaby — commonly referred to

as "The Bridge" — from the B.C. Enterprise Corporation to the B.C.

Pavilion Corporation.

The year before last, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation had an overall

deficit of some $9.3 million. Last year they were able to reduce that

deficit down to $6.1 million, and I'm proud and pleased to report that

in the current estimates this year, that will be further reduced to

some $4.9 million.

The economic spinoffs are enormous. In Vancouver alone, with the

facilities at B.C. Place Stadium and the trade and convention centre,

the economic spinoffs as a result of tourism brought about because of

those shows far exceeds $100 million a year.

Turning to the PNE, I'm pleased to report that revenue was up last

year. In the current fiscal year, at the coming 17-day PNE, we're

projecting attendance of some 1.3 million. We expect revenue to be in

the vicinity of $23,600,000 for the PNE this year, and we expect to see

a profit of $1.5 million. Just for information, Mr. Chairman — because

I know it's of interest to a lot of people in the House — the PNE is

the seventh-largest agricultural show in North America.

Now for a brief overview of privatization in B.C. We will let the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant) report on his ministry, but

suffice it to say that the later part of the budget document as

presented by the hon. Minister of Finance on March 30 clearly sets out

savings of some $106 million when taking everything into consideration,

including sales tax, licences, gravel and things such as school taxes.

If you look at the entire document, you will see savings of some $106

million at the end of the three-year contract period, which I think

speaks for itself.

[3:00]

I can give you a short report on some other privatized operations. I

had an opportunity, about a month and a half ago, to tour Crown

Publications, located right here in Victoria. They were having their

first anniversary, and it was a pleasure to cut the cake with the proud

owners, who are four employees of that division. They were pleased and

proud to report to me and to all people present — and there was a very

good crowd — that they have increased their workforce from six to ten

people since privatization.

The much-talked-about Langford sign shop, an employee-owned

initiative, started with 15 employees, and they are proud to report

that their workforce has gone up to 23 people — an additional eight

people working in that division as a result of privatization.

Interestingly, approximately 50 percent of their work is now being done

for the private sector. Indeed, they have gone so far as to open

another division in the great constituency of Delta.

The privatization of B.C. Steamships is another great initiative.

Tens of thousands of extra tourists are coming to the Victoria region

as a result of that privatization initiative, and there are a lot more

jobs in the province as a result of Stena's efforts.

Looking at forest nurseries, it's really astounding to see how

initiative grows under private ownership. Privatized forest nurseries

are getting into such things as vegetables, flowers, ornamental trees,

bedding plants, strawberry production, seed potatoes, Christmas trees.

They're into these exciting areas, creating all kinds of spinoff

benefits and replacing certain import items.

We're not too far away from announcing a positive initiative brought

about by inquiries made and expressions of interest asked for by the

privatization committee regarding an Inside Passage cruise vessel

between Vancouver and Prince Rupert. We're not able

[ Page 5970 ]

to make an official statement today, but I'm confident that within

two or three weeks we will see a positive announcement on that

initiative, creating some 240 jobs in our province with a payroll

spinoff in excess of $10 million a year.

We on this side of the House are very proud of the package that was

put together by my ministry and others regarding early retirement and

severance benefits for those employees who were affected in any way by

privatization. I think you will find it one of the very best packages

you could possibly imagine being put together by any employer, private

or government. I stand here very proud of that package. Indeed, I have

received a tremendous number of complimentary notes from government

employees regarding the program put together by the province.

Also, there is the success of the efforts of the western procurement

and economic development ministers. The western procurement ministers

had a meeting just a few weeks ago and signed a memorandum removing all

the trade barriers between purchasing commissions throughout western

Canada. This was a follow-through on the initiatives given to us by the

western Premiers. I'm pleased to say that the agreement has now been

signed, and those trade barriers have been eliminated effective April

1, 1989 — just a few days ago. We will not be stopping there. The

western ministers had discussions as early as this morning, and we will

be putting together a plan of action for the four procurement ministers

to visit Ottawa and have a discussion with the Ottawa politicians and

bureaucrats who are responsible for purchasing on behalf of the

Dominion of Canada.

I've just been informed that I only have two minutes left, so I will

try to snap things up a little bit by saying that the cooperation we

have received and the enthusiasm of the four western ministers in

looking at more manufacturing opportunities in our province were indeed

heart-warming. I think we will see some very positive initiatives, no

later than the fall of this year, resulting from those meetings.

In winding up, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you that we have set up a

very low-cost centre for executive development. We will be doing a

needs assessment, we will be doing performance planning and demographic

profiles of management employees and we will be putting on management

courses to meet these needs. We will be delivering all these courses,

whenever possible, on a regional basis.

I have a little bit more to cover, but perhaps I can do that later

in my estimates.

MR. ROSE: On behalf of my party, I would have no objection if

the minister needs unanimous consent to carry on. I would like him to

say something that I could comment on. I was hoping that he would get

to it. How much time do you think he needs?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the minister care to continue?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, we want to talk a little

about the government personnel services division. I might say that I

added this

section somewhat late on the weekend as the result of a

question asked last week by the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann). He talked about the reduction of government employees.

I think it would do us all good to look at the record and just see

where this government was regarding the number of government employees

on April 1, 1983. I can report to the House that this government had

precisely 39,965 employees. This year we will have 27,335 FTEs: a

reduction of 12,630 employees, or 31.6 percent. I suppose the

opposition could argue that in view of the fact that during that same

period the population of British Columbia increased by 7.6 percent....

I suppose, had they been government, they would have increased the

government employees by 7.6 percent. So instead of having 27,335

employees as we have now, they would have 43,002 employees. We are

proud of the fact that we have been able to decrease to this degree.

MR. LOVICK: What's the point of this argument?

HON. MR. MICHAEL: It's not an argument, Mr. Member; it's

simply facts.

I know that the BCGEU is very upset about this decrease. I can

understand why they are upset. It's the loss of a lot of trade union

members and a lot of members for the BCGEU. Just doing a quick analysis

of 12,630 dues-paying members, the BCGEU is losing $6,315,000 in dues

a year. I know that's not of much concern to them; they are more

concerned about the kind of work that is being done in the private

sector now. We think the work in the private sector is being done well.

I think the record speaks for itself — examining precisely, one on one,

the various divisions of government that have been privatized. Suffice

it to say, I'm sure we will be having further discussions on that later.

Lastly, I want to touch on a new division within my ministry. It's

something that's just been set up. It's not fully in place yet, but we

will be hearing more about it as time goes on. It is the office of

information technology and security. I have to report to the House that

in British Columbia our government is spending some $174 million a year

on information processing. It's been growing for the last couple of

years by about 20 percent annually. It's a monstrous amount of money,

and we want to be 100 percent sure that we are getting our full value.

Thus the establishment of this new office. We are extremely concerned

about the security of all the systems of government, and I can assure

you that this new office will be examining them to make sure the public

interest is protected fully. We will also be looking at cost

efficiencies in government to make sure that the services are delivered

in a very cost-effective way within all ministries and Crown

corporations. We want to be convinced and confident that the service is

being effectively managed. It's something we haven't heard too much

about up to now, but certainly it will be an office that will be

getting around and talking to all ministries, all Crown corporations. I

think the members

[ Page 5971 ]

will be pleased with the results of the office, once it's been given

a year or two to get into full swing.

With that, I'll take my seat. I thank the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Rose) for this opportunity to finish my overview. I understand he

was my official critic at one time; I know we worked very closely

together. We had a meeting and agreed that he would be given the

opportunity to tour all of the Crown corporations under my

jurisdiction. I understand he took advantage of that, and my reports

are that he was given first-class tours and a first-class welcome when

he appeared at those Crown corporations. I must say that I regret that

he's been removed as my official critic, as I really looked forward to

working with him.

MR. ROSE: I'm not quite dead yet, as far as the ministry is

concerned. I really compliment the minister on his recycled present,

but I'd like to tell him that such bribery won't get him very far when

we're discussing his estimates.

Could I just enlighten the minister, so he knows who the players

are? I don't know if it matters to him very much. We found that the

ministry was such a grab-bag and such a can of worms that we didn't

really know where to start. We couldn't even see a rationale for it.

Some people suggested that maybe the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

needed a job to keep him busy: "If we put a lot of things together,

this would be a nice little job for him" — because he missed being in

the cabinet and wanted to come back.

The way it's going to work from now on, as we see it — at least for

the short term — is that the member for Nanaimo will be, as he has been

and as he distinguished himself, the critic for privatization. He'll be

dealing with all those interesting little things.

The minister really didn't give us a glimpse of the other little

goodies he might have in mind as far as privatization is concerned, or

whether he has done all the damage he intended to. We really don't

know. I'm glad the Premier is here. Perhaps he will take

part in this

debate, because I think privatization has often been a bit of an

ideological crutch — nothing was definite.

[3:15]

My friend is going to carry on lauding the privatization moves in

his own inimitable way. I used to speak very much like him, but I was

deprived of a proper education, so I'm kind of an uneducated Dale

Lovick. In any event, the member for Vancouver East.... [Laughter.]

They're really slow, Mr. Chairman. You've got to give them about two or

three seconds. There's silence, and then they get it.

The member for Vancouver East, as I'm sure the Premier and others

and especially the minister will know, will really be in charge of

Crown corporations. When it came to issues such as the B.C. Pavilion

Corporation — you're privatizing that — late last year, we didn't know

whether the issue was Crown corporations, government services or

privatization. It didn't split very well as far as critic areas were

concerned. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) will be

speaking on the subject of Crown corporations.

In this grab-bag there are a number of other things: commissions of

various kinds and various other functions such as vehicle purchases,

the purchasing of air services, the ambulance service and things like

that. I'll try and keep an eye on that separately and perhaps

concentrate, in view of my age, on pensions, both superannuation —

which I think is working quite well provincially....

I recall that in 1966 it wasn't really a requirement for

municipalities to take

part in that. When I was a councillor, as we

called it then, in Coquitlam, I was really responsible for having that

municipality and all its workers become part of the B.C. superannuation

scheme — to their benefit, I think. I think it's basically a good

scheme, and well managed. I'll have some general things to say about

pensions later on, both public and private, because I think it's an

area that needs a lot of attention. I'm not just speaking about

legislators; I'm talking about people throughout Canada who are not

covered with any kind of decent pension protection.

We are one of the two provinces that lack any kind of pension

benefits standards act. We'll be able to touch on the horror stories

surrounding that, if not go into great detail, as we go through this

debate on government services — which I don't expect to last more than

maybe two weeks, unless we're interrupted for bills or something.

I'd like to make a few comments about what the minister had to say.

The Purchasing Commission: I was around there and interviewed the CEO,

thanks to the minister, and I paid tribute to his cooperation in the

Speech from the Throne debate. It seems to me that we could say pretty

fairly and genuinely that if we have a criticism of many of these

areas, including privatization and commissions and corporations, it's

not with the CEOs. Our criticism will be, I guess, mainly directed

towards government policy and how those policies are impacting on

people and on sustainable social development and economic and

environmental development. That's where we'll have the quarrel. But I

don't mind saying this again: I was quite impressed with the people I

interviewed, including the minister's friend, the chairman of the PNE,

and I was impressed with the openness and enthusiasm with which they

dealt with their work. I might impress rather easily; I don't know. But

I felt that they were quite capable, open in answering questions and

doing a good job.

There are two or three questions that I might touch on and the

minister might make a note of as I whip through this. The Queen's

Printer: you mentioned the budget. Is farming out the budget going to

be a permanent thing or is it going to be returned to the Queen's

Printer next year? It seems to me that a budget, of all documents,

should have the tightest security surrounding it, and I'm not sure that

you always get that in farming it out. You may and you may not.

I'm sorry that there was the little glitch having to do with the

quarterly reports, where the minister

[ Page 5972 ]

tabled the document that wasn't completely accurate in terms of its

titles. That's sort of an in joke, I suppose, and not very important as

far as the general public is concerned, but the principle is an

important one — the principle that the minister doesn't table something

that he knows is inaccurate. He said he wasn't sure.

The drop in the vehicles: we visited vehicle management services

over here on, I think, Superior Street. The vehicles are down, but if

you privatize a lot of the highway stuff and you have fewer employees,

you're going to need fewer vehicles. It's as simple as that. It's a

correlative thing.

As for the patients delivered on the air services we went out and

saw the flight simulator and had a demonstration of it. We knew it was

shortly going up to the college in Abbotsford, and I think that's a

good place for it; I think it would be very useful up there. I couldn't

understand why the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) was seen in

the Mission paper in the flight simulator, since he doesn't represent

the district of Abbotsford at all. But it makes a good photo op.

Anyway, he was there. I'm sorry he is not here today. He didn't seem to

have any trouble getting into that rather small cockpit.

The Systems Corporation was reputed to be privatized ever since '83.

I'd be interested to know what the intentions are for the Systems

Corporation, because, again, I was most impressed with that. I'm the

kind of person who gets really impressed with that kind of modern

technology. I don't pretend to understand it, but I find it very

impressive, if a little bit abstract. I'd like to know what's going to

happen to that.

Going back to the air services, I'm quite sure that it's useful to

have those air services. I just wonder, though, about the use of them —

actually, two flights a day. Here's another question: how often do they

fly back and forth to Vancouver empty or half-empty? Since the cabinet

ministers and their friends are about the only ones able to use them in

most cases, it seems to me that, sure, they should be there for the use

of cabinet ministers, but not just to go home for dinner. And if they

are — if that is the use of them; they're going anyway — then they

shouldn't be flying empty. Other people who have a limit of 52 trips

should be allowed to use them as well if there's a vacancy. I have no

quarrel with the priority and what they're used for, but I think that

other people should use them as well.

The Buildings Corporation. I'll get into this later. Some of their

savings — and talk about efficiency.... I think I'm going to put this

pretty strongly: they're exploiting workers. The reason they're saving

is that they're contracting out and exploiting workers; often immigrant

workers; often women who have no protection at all. You take the case

of Riverview in my riding, right down the hill from where I live. There

are actually two systems over there. We've got a privatized system and

a public system. The privatized people get $6 an hour, contracted out;

and sometimes the women bring their daughters to help them, so that

works out to $3 an hour; and then you've got, side by side, people

working at $12 an hour or thereabouts. It's not working out very well.

It leads to all kinds of jealousies. I suppose the solution would be to

get rid of all the government employees. I don't happen to think that's

a good one.

I've got a letter here from some of the workers. They're complaining

that the contractor is really exploiting them. They get $6 an hour.

Medical benefits are deducted from the payroll. They need maternity

leave. They need a dental plan. I'll go into this in detail later,

because I have a limited amount of time now, but it is not good enough

to do these things just to save money at public expense. I don't think

it's fair to exploit people who have no organization, who are poor, who

are immigrants, just to say you have a cost efficiency saving of 50

percent. These people have to shop. They have to rent houses. They have

all the problems. I don't think it makes sense in the community either;

what kind of customers can they be if they have no income?

I know that my colleague from North Island is going to talk about

this as well — he has already raised it — so I won't go into it in any

further detail today. I'll go into it later.

It's interesting to hear that the Enterprise Corporation is going to

be wound up by fall. I guess that's the end of enterprise in B.C. It's

a euphemistic kind of title, in my view anyway, and it's caused a lot

of trouble. People are still picking the knives out of their backs over

that one. I won't discuss that any further; my colleague the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) would just be delighted to

wade into this one.

HON. S.D. SMITH: He likes knives in backs.

MR. ROSE: I'm not talking about his knife.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm sorry to contradict the Attorney General, but

these wounds on behalf of Social Credit were largely self-inflicted.

The B.C. Pavilion Corporation: an interesting little organization. I

was down to see their CEO, Mr. Mike Horsey, formerly a Deputy Minister

of Tourism. I was quite impressed with Mr. Horsey, who was very open.

He has a great advertising program featuring a huge box that he sends

out all over the world, with one small salmon skin wallet in it. I was

very impressed with that, especially the wallet, which I have here. I

have no money in it, but I have the wallet.

Also, I think it's important to know that this Pavilion Corporation

includes the convention centre as well as Whistler. There's no

breakdown in here about where you're spending your contributions — $6

million last year, $4,900,000 this year. How much of it is going to the

B.C. Lions? Are you ever going to get your money back? What's the plan

for that? How do we recoup that loss? That Lions débâcle must be a

nightmare for that CEO. We'll see what happens.

Another interesting thing is, what are you going to do about parking

when you get rid of all the land

[ Page 5973 ]

down at B.C. Enterprise Corporation? The parking lot....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: They haven't even got room in the B.C. Pavilion

Corporation building to store some of their extra seats. So that's

going to be an interesting thing too.

The PNE. My grandfather was one of its first directors, so I have a

proprietary interest in the PNE. I notice the revenues are up; the

president was almost down, but the act rose up and protected him. I

understand they're looking around for land for the PNE's future move.

There's something behind this, and I'd like the minister, in his usual

frank, upfront way, to tell us what's going on down there, if he knows.

And if he's looking through lands, is it certain lands that might be

situated fairly close to me which are now administered by B.C.

Buildings Corporation? I won't say any more than that right now.

The forest nurseries are now growing vegetables. That's nice.

They're not growing any bulbs, I hope. The early retirement package is

another thing we want to look at very closely. There has been a lot of

interest in this, especially by 2,700 people who jumped ship and took

early retirement at a cost of about $25,000 each.

HON. S.D. SMITH: A generous sum.

MR. ROSE: It was relatively generous.

MR. LOVICK: One hundred million bucks.

MR. ROSE: We don't all agree on the figure, but if you take

1,700 people below the age of 60 and multiply that by $25,000, you come

pretty close to $50 million — $40 million to $50 million anyway. The

government had to put that in the superannuation fund. You save $60

million at a cost of $45 million, or whatever figure you care to use.

But that's only one aspect of it: many departments are stripped of

middle-management talent.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I'm not naming anybody in particular now, but I

don't see how you can get rid of 2,700 people in the civil service

between the ages of 55 and 65 and not lose a lot of talent. That's one

of the most serious sides of it.

It's not that people weren't glad to get out; many of them were.

Besides, it had a double benefit: they were hired back as consultants.

We'd like to know how many of those exist too. We know, for instance,

that site nurses at Riverview opted for early retirement and have been

hired back because of the shortage. I have that documented.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The A-G sits there shaking his head and trying to

unnerve me here, but I know these things for a fact. He knows how

nervous I get when I'm making a speech.

The procurement policies. The minister is very modest about his

accomplishments and all these things that have happened during his

tenure. The procurement policies for the western provinces are

interesting, but I'd like to know the implication of free trade on

those policies. I think it could have profound implications, although,

to be fair, I think we have to say that under the free trade agreement

there was no reciprocal procurement arrangement given between the

United States and Canada when that agreement was signed.

Again, the cutting of the government personnel services by 12,000 is

bound to have an effect on the talent. I think we've seen some of the

glitches resulting from this reorganization and great brain drain that

early retirement caused.

Child abuse teams are an example of the cutting — not directly

necessarily — of government expenses during restraint. Socially, I

think, that had a tremendous impact.

That's about all I'd like to say in the beginning. As I mentioned,

the Crown corporations will be dealt with largely by the member for

Vancouver East. My colleague is going to do some things on

privatization, as will the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

Cashore). I turn it over to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick), unless

the minister wishes to intervene and answer some of the questions.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I first of all want to say that you'll have

to ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) any questions regarding

Riverview. I'm not ducking my responsibility, but I have to say that

he's responsible for that. He's the one to whom you will have to direct

the questions.

I do want to say that I take a teeny bit of offence — and I know it

wasn't meant by the member — at the reference to the utilization of the

government air fleet. He used the words "cabinet ministers and

friends." I guess it could be said that they're all friends of ours,

but I have to also tell the member that with government flights we have

a scheduled flight that leaves Victoria and Vancouver every day unless

it's not utilized or needed. Indeed, all government employees are

friends.

I didn't like the way he sort of worked the words "and friends" in,

but they certainly are friends of ours. All government employees in the

civil service are free to use that plane providing they, of course,

don't go in and bump cabinet ministers; and the reverse applies. We

have a number of deputies, senior civil servants and, indeed, employees

at all levels entitled to and utilizing that plane. That may not have

been known by the member, and I'd like to bring that to his attention.

Regarding the PNE, yes, I understand that at their last board

meeting they made the decision. It was not a direction from me — I can

assure the member of that. There have been some invitations sent to the

[ Page 5974 ]

PNE, I understand, by some civic politicians who would like the PNE

to have a look at land they might or do have available within their

area. I understand it was the intention of the PNE — it certainly was

on the agenda, but I haven't heard of the final report of the meeting —

to have had a discussion about that.

Other than that, I know very little of it other than to say that

it's my view — for what it's worth — that any suggestion of taking the

PNE away from where it is now is going to have to undergo a tremendous

amount of political, community and lower mainland scrutiny. My view is

that where it is now is a very ideal location and, indeed, is very

popular. As I said earlier, it draws some 1.3 million people, which is

getting on to very close to 50 percent of the entire population of our

province, to attend that agricultural show.

The member made some reference to provincial government's

purchasing, the four western governments and the letter of

understanding, and he tied that in with free trade and wondered what

effect this would be. I stand to be corrected, but I'm sure in my

readings and studying an analysis of the free trade agreement with our

friends to the south that there was a specific exclusion for purchasing

commissioned government purchases.

I stand to be corrected on that, but my memory tells me that I think

I'm correct in that. Indeed, we did find, in doing some comparisons of

the policies of the four western provinces, that there was favouritism

given by some provinces to manufacturers and suppliers within their

boundaries over and above their neighbours in Canada. We felt this was

wrong. We've corrected it. I think the benefactors in western Canada

are going to be the people, because they're going to get the goods and

services delivered to them somewhat more competitively than they were

ever delivered before.

He mentioned the Lions, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it's been very difficult

and very frustrating, I suppose, for the management of the corporation,

the management of B.C. Place Stadium and the board of directors to have

to forgo rent — rent forgiveness. We don't think it's right.

Nonetheless, if you look at the alternative, the flip side, the

benefits of the B.C. Lions to that stadium, and what that does for the

hotel and food industry, there are tremendous economic spinoffs, into

the millions and millions of dollars. I believe I recollect a figure of

there being something like $25 million to $27 million in economic

spinoffs as a result of having professional football in that stadium.

From a business approach, I don't think we can criticize too

severely the management staff who made those decisions at B.C. Place

Stadium. I think it has probably been money fairly well spent.

The member mentioned the pension act. While I have spent some time

analyzing that question, I would have to say to the member that he

should save it for the Minister of Labour's (Hon. L. Hanson'

s) estimates, as he has jurisdiction over that particular question.

The other point the member made was the question of whether or not

we were going to farm out, away from the Queen's Printer, in the future

the preparation and printing of the budget and all its ancillary

documents. I can say without any hesitation that the answer to that

question is no. We are extremely pleased with the work done over the

years by the Queen's Printer employees — extremely happy. It was with a

great deal of regret, as I said, that we removed that from their area

of responsibility this year. We were left with absolutely no

alternative. We could have had one simple line from their

representative saying it would be delivered on time and done as it has

always been done. We would have been happy with that; indeed, they

would have had the printing this year. It's certainly not the intention

for future years, and we make that statement very emphatically.

There's a point that I should have mentioned about the personnel

division of the ministry: a very positive trend, and one that I

certainly want to see continue.... We are not suggesting in any way,

when I give you these figures, favouritism or extra attention. It is

just a matter of the way things are evolving. Indeed, it is a positive

trend. We are extremely pleased to announce to the House that the

number of management employees of the female gender has increased from

17.3 percent of the management workforce to 24.5 percent of the

management workforce. That is an increase of some 41.6 percent. I think

all members should take note of this. It is a positive trend. Without

any particular favouritism or picking one person over the other,

through straight competition we have had that dramatic increase for

management employees. It's one that I and my government are certainly

extremely proud of.

I look forward to more questions regarding the estimates of my

ministry.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for his responses. I can

assure him I wasn't using the word "friends" as synonymous with

"cronies." If that's the

interpretation or the "spin" — that's the

buzzword these days — that he put on it, I didn't intend that. What I

was clearly referring to was that these planes never seem to be

available, even though the seats are available or perhaps open, to

opposition MLAs — or, for that matter, as far as I know, to government

MLAs. I think they should be, especially for Vancouver and lower

mainland MLAs, who have calls on them constantly to appear midweek. If

you do that, those 52 trips are used up pretty rapidly. Perhaps that

might be a way, if there is seating available. I don't expect to bump a

cabinet minister off them at all.

Purchasing and free trade. As I mentioned, there was no reciprocal

agreement with the Americans, so I presume what the minister tells me

is right about the fact that it's not going to be a problem. I'll try

and check that out, though, because we'll be at this a little while.

Clearly what this does say is that "Buy B.C." is gone. We had "Buy

B.C." loudly proclaimed, and chest-beating by the government over the

years about

[ Page 5975 ]

the "Buy B.C." policy. Clearly that's gone, unless the minister

cares to contradict me on that one.

We just got the percentages about males versus females. This could

occur merely because many males opted for early retirement — some 2,700

of them. I think hiring would be a better guide to whether or not we

are increasing the number of females — not by attrition, but by

government policy.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: We in British Columbia are confident that

we will be the winners on the letter of understanding we have signed

with other western Canadian ministers. We are extremely well positioned

in British Columbia. We have tremendous advantages with our workforce,

our skills, our index of natural resources and our access to seaborne

shipments; we have a great number of ports on the west coast of British

Columbia. We certainly are in a very strong position to compete with

the other western provinces. I think we're all going to benefit, but I

certainly believe that British Columbia is going to benefit most. The

more we can exchange and trade with one another in western Canada, the

stronger we're going to be.

Mr. Member, we're not just stopping there; we're not just happy with

that. That is a small ingredient in the overall economic development of

our province and our western nation. There's more to it than that, and

as I said earlier, we will be lobbying Ottawa with a united force to

get a better share. I don't want to be up at the microphone continually

knocking our dear friends in Ottawa.

Perhaps the member could do a little better job or encourage the

federal MPs of his party to do a little better job of pointing out the

discrepancies and unfairness with the federal purchasing division in

what they're giving us in western Canada. I'm sure he knows the figures

and is aware that although we in western Canada represent 30 percent of

the population of this great nation, we get only 12 percent of federal

procurement. We all know in this House that that is unfair.

[3:45]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Suffice it to say, we're doing our share; we're giving it our best

shot, and we're going to make our voice heard and known in Ottawa. As

well, we in the western Canada procurement will be sending joint

letters — throughout the entire continent — to major manufacturers in

four key areas: pharmaceuticals, medical devices, vehicle manufacturing

and computer manufacturing. When we examine those four areas, we are

finding that we're not getting our fair share of new manufacturing

facilities anywhere in western Canada. In fact, if you look at those

four particular areas, the percentage is very close to zero in

manufacturing and processing.

So we in western Canada intend to go out and actively solicit

meetings with all the major suppliers in these four areas and invite

them to our western provinces to sit down and talk to us as to the

location and possible setting-up and establishment of plants and

processing facilities. Perhaps I am a bit of an optimist, but I'm

confident that by the late fall of this year, we'll be able to report

some interesting contacts and proposals from the major manufacturers on

this continent to have a serious look at.... Whether it's in Alberta,

Manitoba, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, I'd like to see some

overtures and some interest shown by these major manufacturers, because

we are very determined to see some manufacturing components set up in

those four key areas.

I repeat that if you look at vehicles, pharmaceuticals, medical

devices and computers, there's very little in western Canada. We've got

a wheel manufacturing plant out in Richmond. There's the odd little

thing here and there spread across western Canada, but that's certainly

nowhere near in relationship to the dollars we spend.

If you look at the purchasing divisions of the western Canadian

procurement divisions and add all the Crown corporations to that, it's

into the many billions of dollars. Not only have we in the purchasing

divisions done this job, but we've informed the Crown corporations as

to what we have done. I'm happy, pleased and proud to report that at

least one Crown corporation in B.C. is already taking the early

initiative to contact their counterparts in western Canada to sit down

and negotiate an agreement along the lines of what the procurement

ministers of government have negotiated.

I think we're going to see some more spinoffs of this and indeed,

the winners in these arrangements are clearly the people. If you can

have good competition, open tendering and lowest bidder with adequate

quality protection, the taxpayers are the winners because the product

is delivered more econometrically.

MR. ROGERS: I want to talk to the minister responsible for

the government air service about the role and the mission of the

government air service, and what I believe is an error made in that

role.

I think the role of government air service is to provide air

services within British Columbia and in the reasonable confines of

British Columbia. I think they made a rather drastic error when the

government involved itself in a used aircraft from the Bombardier

company that has transoceanic capabilities, to say the least. I think

government air services would be very well served if the Challenger 600

— a Lycoming-powered monster — were disposed of to the very affluent

business market out there that might want it. A more appropriate

aircraft, which would suit the needs of not only the government air

service but the mission that it has, could be purchased as its

replacement. In fact, I would suggest, having checked the market as

recently as last week, that for about the same amount of money that

they could get for the Challenger, they could buy three used Citation

2s, which would give them fleet compatibility, avoid unnecessary

training costs, and go along with parts compatibility.

For the life of me, Mr. Minister, I don't understand the

justification for having an aircraft of the Challenger type. A one-only

fleet is not economic under

[ Page 5976 ]

any circumstances. I don't believe that we want to take this

aircraft to Europe or Japan, although it has the capability to go from

here to Narita with only one stop, and I believe that one stop is all

that's required if you want to go to Heathrow to see Gardom, for

example.

I don't think that's the most efficient way to go. The per-seat cost

per mile is cheaper if anybody has to go to London or to Japan, for

that matter, to buy them a first-class confirmed seat on a regularly

scheduled airline. I hazard to guess that is it cheaper to buy them a

first-class seat to send them to Ottawa. When I was a minister, we used

to go economy, and I don't think that's changed. It doesn't seem to me

to make any sense to go on a government airplane that would cost more

than on a scheduled carrier.

I think it is vitally important in British Columbia that we have a

very first-class government air service to get us to those places where

air service doesn't exist. There is often the case that somebody is in

Nelson and has to go to a place like Terrace, and doesn't have the time

or doesn't want to go through Vancouver. They may be in Port Hardy and

have to go to Fort St. John. That's exactly what government air service

should be. It should not be used to parallel the routes operated by

commercial airlines, when there are a number of commercial airlines

operating on those routes.

Lord knows why anyone wants to go to Ottawa, and I can understand

why almost everyone would want to come back. But I can understand that

occasionally people have to go there and, from that point of view,

perhaps it is worthwhile having an aircraft with that capability. It

just doesn't seem that there is any justification for it. It is an

embarrassment to have an airplane that large unless you fill it up, and

we don't have the opportunities to fill it up on some of the sparse

routes that we operate on.

I am sure the pilots like to fly it — every pilot likes to fly a

bigger airplane — and I'm sure the mechanics like it, because it is

something new and very technical. The people who run air services like

it. But I think it is a mistake. I don't think it's a mistake to have

the aircraft in the fleet; I think we should have more of them. But I

believe we should get rid of it before the market devalues it. It was a

used airplane. I understand we got a good deal on it. I just think

perhaps the salesman was a little slicker than the purchaser, and

perhaps that's what happened.

I would like the minister to focus on the role of government air. I

like the opposition House Leader's suggestion that all MLAs.... Go

ahead, take the credit, but you have too much hair for the job;

remember that. But if you are going to use this facility, if you are

going to make it available.... I recall, quite frankly, the member

sitting just beside you had to go one time to Port Hardy and I had to

get permission to get permission for him and his wife to be with me. I

couldn't get permission because it was late at night when you called.

It's preposterous! If all the government employees can travel on it,

those of us who are members of this Legislature and are not members of

the government but are nonetheless paid by the taxpayers should be

able to ride on these aircraft when the space is available.

I don't think there should necessarily be a shuttle service, nor do

I think we should have the right as members here to be able to

commandeer an aircraft or say we want to go here or there, but there

are times where you have a minister going into a place that is awkward

and inconvenient to get to and the aircraft is going with empty seats.

It's a highly perishable commodity, but I don't think any of the

backbenchers would want to be seen riding in the Challenger, which

brings me back to my point.

If you like the feel of leather seats, and you like to know how much

it costs, I really think you'd be better off and your ministry would be

better off. We'd be able to get the airplane in the hangar and go out

there to see if we couldn't sell it, and get a least three new

aircraft, which you could get for the same price. Or possibly someone

in air services could be convinced to be progressive and go the route

of the regular aviation industry and go to high-speed turbo-props,

which have infinitely cheaper operating costs, can go higher than the

Citations, are more efficient and can go into shorter and unpaved

airstrips. That would be something even more progressive, and I think

there's a lot of machinery around that's available.

I'd be delighted to send you another memo like the memo I sent to

somebody on the Challenger, if you want my opinion on these matters. I

did want to have it on the record because I genuinely think that it's

time to get rid of it before the thing becomes a bigger embarrassment.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: There are a few things I'd like to say

regarding the Challenger. Firstly, at an extremely low cost — not much

more than $1,000 — we have found a way to put the Challenger in the

hangar.

AN HON. MEMBER: Almost.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, I guess the word is "almost" in the

hangar; we simply cut a hole in the door for the tail to stick out of.

I have to say that that is not an unusual sight. You see this in many

airports throughout Canada and many airports throughout the world. It's

very low cost, and it's working well. We have that particular area

covered if that was one of the things the member was concerned about.

We also want to say what a great deal we got on that plane. You

don't see this being advertised or talked about much, but we got an

extremely good deal on this plane. The previous minister was able to

negotiate a purchase price of some $7.2 million — I believe that was

the figure — and the latest information that I have is that we could

sell that plane tomorrow if we wanted to for in excess of $10 million.

We got a tremendous deal on it, and I congratulate the former minister

for the bargaining that was conducted on behalf of the government.

I want to talk about the question of lobbying Ottawa and the

importance of government members — cabinet ministers, deputies, senior

people in government — getting back to Ottawa as often as they can. I

[ Page 5977 ]

think that it's penny wise and pound foolish to be tight on spending

dollars sending representatives and delegations back to our capital

city. I think it's important to not only maintain what's happening now

but also to do more. It's my view that for every dollar that we spend

sending people to Ottawa, we get that back many times over in regards

to getting federal dollars spent in British Columbia. Indeed, I think

it would be correct to perhaps criticize past governments for having

not spent more money in lobbying Ottawa.

Whether members are aware or not, we are running scheduled flights

now for the Challenger. It goes back to Ottawa every second Sunday,

leaving Victoria at, I believe, 11:00 a.m. In the morning on Sundays

and returning Tuesday afternoons. We're attempting to fill that plane

up with our people, representatives, senior civil servants and our

cabinet ministers, to get them out to spend more time in Ottawa — not

less.

I want to emphasize that lobbying is important, but it's also

important for members to realize that while riding on the Challenger

they are at complete liberty, without any hesitation or question, to

conduct work, to have meetings, to have conversations about

cost-effective delivery of services, perhaps have confidential meetings

in the wide open with the freedom inside the plane, without having to

worry about someone seeing what they are writing or reading or overhear

what they are discussing. I think that's important, and the other thing

that's important to know is that the plane does go nonstop.

Firstly, it travels faster than the Citation. Secondly, it goes

nonstop, which saves quite a bit of time. It's hard, perhaps, to

convince members opposite or members in the House of the value of a

Premier's or a cabinet minister's time. What is the value of a

Premier's time? What is the value of a cabinet minister's time? What's

the value of a deputy minister's time? It's hard to put dollar figures

beside that. It could well be that as a result of having a plane in

Ottawa freestanding and at the call of the Premier or the ministers or

senior government employees, that plane has flexibility. It can leave

early if the people are ready to leave; it leaves a little late if the

people still have meetings on the go. It's not unusual to be sitting

down in Ottawa and talking about grants and programs in the range of

tens of millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars.

I think it's important to have that little bit of flexibility built

in there. So I want to reiterate that it was a very good deal. We can

sell it for probably 30 percent more than what we paid for it — maybe

even more than that. It's a bit of a wash, if you look at the cost of a

first-class Air Canada trip as compared to having the Challenger full

with nine people, as far as the bare-bones costs are concerned.

I want to re-emphasize the importance of lobbying our federal

counterparts. The one thing that I emphasized earlier in my address,

Mr. Chairman, was the question of the offsets. The House should be

aware that not only did we negotiate an excellent price, but we had an

assurance from Canadair that we would receive approximately $14.5

million worth of offsets in B.C. purchases that would not have come

otherwise. Indeed, they've more than honoured that commitment, and

we're now looking at....

Specifically, my staff advises me that they're expecting that by the

end of 1998 — we've already got a tremendous portion of this — we will

have received in British Columbia additional procurements to the tune

of $22,384,115.

[4:00]

HON. S.D. SMITH: I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to

speak only to the matter of the Purchasing Commission and to commend to

the minister that, to the extent he can, that area of his ministry

should have its resources buttressed and augmented.

I want to very briefly relate what I think we might give some

consideration to in that area. The Purchasing Commission — particularly

through its SupplyNet agency — has been a tremendous assistance to the

small business sector, especially outside the major metropolitan areas

of British Columbia. We have seen some very innovative initiatives,

which I would like to commend to you and have that Purchasing

Commission follow up on even more. Those are dealing particularly in

their recycling initiatives — where they are in fact leaders in this

country in a very progressive way — and in the development of software.

The Purchasing Commission, using the buying power in a non-preferential

way in the province, has done some very innovative things with

universities, the colleges and the business community to assist in

developing British Columbia products that have been available and have

in fact been exported outside of the boundaries of this jurisdiction.

Particularly in the area of Kamloops, we are pleased that the

Purchasing Commission has developed its policy to look at the component

breakdown of purchases and purchase orders, rather than buying systems.

For instance, in terms of office furniture, they are prepared to look

at the credenza and the chair separate from the whole office. That has

given a tremendous advantage to the small business community.

In the case of the Thompson-Nicola Manufacturers' Association in the

area of Kamloops, Merritt, the whole Nicola valley and east of Kamloops

as well, which now is the second-largest area of secondary manufacture

outside the lower mainland, anywhere in this province.... They have

worked very closely over the last two and a half years with that

Purchasing Commission — with Steve Hutchings particularly — and their

assistance has been very important to diversify the economic base of

those areas.

We have seen a sizeable number of small businesses take advantage of

small and medium-sized orders through the change of policy of the

Purchasing Commission, in order to access the British Columbia public

sector purchases, which are sizeable.

In addition to that, the chamber of commerce has worked with the

Purchasing Commission and has enjoyed its assistance through something

that I am pleased to say was initiated through my office a year

[ Page 5978 ]

ago: namely, taking a trade mission of business people from Kamloops

to the city of Vancouver to look at the services available through the

Ministry of International Business and Immigration, the Purchasing

Commission of this ministry, as well as the relationship they have with

that indeed another one is going to be undertaken this weekend. The

member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) has been involved in the

organization and participation of this. It has been well-received by

that small business community and indeed has been very useful to them.

Frequently in government we devise good programs and good policies,

good equipment and good people, but we don't tell anybody about them.

Taking people on this day-and-a-half-long trade mission has worked out

very well.

I want to also say, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CLARK: Who pays?

HON. S.D. SMITH: They pay. That's a good point that the

second member for Vancouver East raises as to who pays. The

participants pay.

I want to say that the staff of the Purchasing Commission come on

their Saturday and have done that of their own free will and volition.

They have done an outstanding job and have been most gracious,

informative and helpful down at the Enterprise Centre. It has, all in

all, been an outstanding success, and quite frankly has been picked up

by other MLAs in the interior of British Columbia. I would commend it

to anyone — members in the Fraser Valley. I'm not sure of anyone yet

from Vancouver Island. I would commend it particularly to the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) quite seriously. It's a very good

program. It works out very well. The MLA rides in the bus with them, as

I did, and as the member from Langley and others did. It's a very good

community device. Frankly, it is helpful to the small business

community in our own areas.

As much as we are doing, we can do more, and we should. We should be

buttressing the resources in that particular area of this ministry. It

is trite but true that 12 percent of the population resides in British

Columbia and 3.5 percent of federal spending takes place in British

Columbia. I know that those figures sometimes are a little misleading

because of certain factors; nevertheless, we ought to be getting more.

I must tell you that the Hon. Mary Collins has been named as the

associate defence minister particularly responsible for defence

spending. I have no doubt that all of the ancillary that takes place

there is going to be of great benefit to this province in terms of the

fairness with which this province will be treated in that process. I

was pleased to have been able to meet with her at the opening of

Parliament in Ottawa last week to discuss these very issues.

In closing, I want to say to the minister that in my view we ought

to be putting more teeth into our own policies and programs,

particularly where we fund other agencies, such as hospitals, regional

districts, school boards, municipalities and colleges. I do not think

they are doing enough or as much as they ought to. I do not think that

they are giving the kind of cooperation that Steve Hutchings's group

deserves in terms of drawing in the vast purchasing potential that

takes place in those areas. That is one place where all of us as

individual MLAs — not to put it on the minister, or onto the Purchasing

Commission — ought to be doing more to be encouraging our own municipal

governments, schools, and so on to be taking advantage of the

assistance that now is available, the systems that have been developed

by that Purchasing Commission and the great data base they have through

their SupplyNet program to be able to do more on behalf of British

Columbians, to do more purchasing of goods and services in this

province, and to do it in a way that does not offend at all the notion

that we have to compete with our neighbour provinces across this

country. That's what they are doing. They are doing a good job. I think

that all of us in this chamber can help ourselves and our province by

encouraging our local governments to be more proactive with the

Purchasing Commission to do even more than is being done now.

MR. ROSE: Perhaps with the minister's blessing, I'll shoot my

wad and he can respond to both of us, the A-G as well as me.

The word proactive came to my mind when I interviewed the chairman

of the Purchasing Commission, and I will say in a complimentary way

that I had no idea that they were doing those kinds of initiatives

until I went there. The idea of a fair in which various manufacturers

can see the nature of purchases by governments — and I use the plural

advisedly — certainly gives our people a chance for import substitution

and genuine competition and employment and a lot of other things. It

can be used creatively. The Purchasing Commission started out a few

years ago with a very bad name because it was the pork-barrel of

governments. I haven't been looking that closely, but I haven't seen

any particular evidence of pork from that particular commission, and I

wanted to say that in the House.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I haven't found anything, I said.

As far as the defence spending, with Mary Collins, MP.... The former

minister of defence, Mr. Submarine, is now the minister of health; it

seems to me that that is a signal that there is going to be some kind

of review, a revisitation of the sort of defence commitments we saw

earlier. To completely destroy a simile, the submarines didn't fly.

They weren't talked about very much. They moved....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Oh, I'm not denying that there is spinoff to

defence spending, but there are probably a lot more spinoffs to other

kinds of spending and probably to social betterment as well.

I'd like to get back, though, to the minister, directly, on this

business about how British Columbians

[ Page 5979 ]

or for that matter western Canadians, can get a bigger chunk of

federal procurement. One of the difficulties is that federally and

provincially we have free trade, and they buy where they like. They

usually buy in central.... We don't have free trade between provinces?

We do, except in agricultural commodities. In beer, yes. Beyond that,

it's pretty well free trade, and the manufacturers are basically

centred in central Canada. That's one of the problems. I am glad that

the minister recognizes the fact that until you get manufacturers

settled here in western Canada, it is unlikely that many government

procurements can take place from this source.

I sound like I am making excuses for your friends. They are not my

friends. It is the Conservative government, and I don't think they're

behaving much different than the Liberals behaved before them. As far

as the MPs from British Columbia go, I don't have any special linkage

with them except that I know some of them, but no better than lots of

other people. Maybe we could do more in that regard. Maybe it would be

wise for the minister to go down and ask to meet with the caucus of

British Columbia, either here or down in Ottawa, when he gets off his

Challenger jet. Go down there and talk to those people. Say: "Look,

this is the problem. Can you help us?" I don't see why this has to be a

partisan issue at all.

If the minister is taking a delegation of civil servants, he could

also take perhaps the result of a joint resolution of this House. I

think the House would be very interested in passing something like that

for the betterment of British Columbia, its businesses and

manufacturers, to urge more purchasing from western Canada. There are a

number of initiatives that could be made besides just lobbying the B.C.

MPs; that's my view of the whole thing.

Destroying my own unity somewhat, but getting back to the Purchasing

Commission, I'm not sure that the various communities know very much

about this.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: We as MLAs can tell them, but also I think there

should be.... Since we are spending considerable money on advertising

and communications in this ministry — look in the blue book and you'll

see it — maybe there could be something prepared and sponsored by the

Purchasing Commission to go around to the various communities,

community councils and business organizations. That sort of attractive

brochure might include such things as what have we got available, how

do we do it, when can it be done, here's your application, and let's

have this trade fair, which is import substitution on a local level.

Yes, all MLAs should be participating in it.

[4:15]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Yes, Mr. Chairman, regarding the question

of being proactive and getting out in the communities, I can assure the

member that our people are already doing that. We need to do more of

what the second member for Kamloops (Hon. S.D. Smith) suggested: we

must have excellent encouragement. I have assured him that we have

discussed this up to this time and will be following through. I think

the member's point is very well taken, of what we could do if all

levels of government — municipalities, regional districts, water

improvement boards, hospitals, the provincial government — were all

working together as a team. Certainly there are tremendous

opportunities out there in the area of purchasing and development.

Indeed, we have embarked on one program that I am aware of and are

looking at others regarding working with the federal government. I

don't think very many people in the House are aware that the B.C.

Purchasing Commission is already working with the federal government in

maintaining and looking after all their computers. For any federal

division in British Columbia that has a problem with a computer, the

trouble call comes into the B.C. Purchasing Commission division. It is

looked after, there is a chargeback arrangement and we make a slight

markup in profit from looking after that for the feds.

I think we can expand that a great deal. We can get into our vehicle

management areas. We are now looking at perhaps expanding the

responsibility of vehicle management in this province rather than just

managing the vehicles of the ministries, which, as I said earlier, is a

component of about 4,800 vehicles. We are now thinking that perhaps the

vehicle management division should manage the vehicles of the B.C.

Buildings Corporation, B.C. Systems Corporation and some of the other

smaller Crowns, and deliver this service more cost-effectively to

government. I think we could talk to the feds — the suggestion has

already been made — about getting into that service for them as well,

under the same umbrella. We can not only provide as good or better

service, which our standards call for in any restructuring or

privatization move, but can do it more cost-effectively.

The other thing I wanted to re-emphasize was that we certainly are

looking forward to paper recycling. That is likely to have tremendous

job creation opportunities in our province. We are looking at the

spinoff effect here that will grow and grow, and spread into the Crown

corporations, the hospitals, the Regional districts, the

municipalities. I predict that a year from now we are going to have

very positive, outstanding results in the area of recycling paper

products. I can tell the member, Mr. Chairman, that our Purchasing

Commission isn't just stopping there. We're looking at many areas of

opportunity other than just paper or lubricating oil. There are many

other things out there that we're examining.

The thing I wanted to say to the second member for Kamloops (Hon.

S.D. Smith).... He made the point, and I want to make it to all members

of the House: if anyone would like to take advantage of a tour —

putting together a program for a busload of constituents from anywhere

in the province — please contact my office. We would be more than

pleased to set up arrangements and work with you.

Just in the last few weeks, I took a busload of people from my

constituency. They came from far and wide. They came from the north

shore, Shuswap, Enderby, Armstrong, Revelstoke, Salmon Arm and all

[ Page 5980 ]

over the constituency. We even had a person there from Falkland who

went down on the bus. I believe there were 47 in total. They had a

great two days and really enjoyed themselves. It was a real eye-opener

to see the tremendous areas of opportunity for people in the outlying

areas, where they can plug in and get information from the Enterprise

Centre and the B.C. Purchasing Commission.

I want to say, just as an aside, that if any MLA ever has any ideas

of things they think we could do better in my ministry, be it in the

Purchasing Commission, the Buildings Corporation, the Systems

Corporation or any other, please don't hesitate to give me your

positive input. I've received some already.

I received some just the other day. One of the MLAs came up to me

and complained that we were putting out to tender a certain kind of

tile for a particular government building, the standards of which could

not be met by manufacturers in our province. I had a look at it,

analyzed the problem and I'm pleased to say that we've solved it. I

think we're going to see a contract awarded to a B.C. firm shortly

which is going to result in several tens of thousands of dollars

staying in this province rather than going across the line into the

States.

One of the things that certainly come to light in my experience with

the Purchasing Commission.... We're talking about opportunities, and

the ministry of defence spending money in British Columbia. I had no

appreciation before Market Discovery '88 for the tremendous garment

industry we have in this province. It is a huge industry, employing

lots of people and putting out a tremendous product. It's unfortunate

that more members opposite didn't take advantage of attending Market

Discovery '88.

I want to say for the record now — and I know the member will write

it down — that Market Discovery '89 will be held at the trade and

convention centre on October 12 and 13. I look forward to seeing many

of you there, learning about the great things going on in this province

and the great strengths and opportunities we have.

Just to give the members opposite a bit of a feel for some of the

reports that have evolved from Market Discovery '88, let me read you a

few. I have 57 here altogether, but I don't intend to read them all.

Just to give you a bit of a feel for the kind of things that are going

on in this great province.... These are reports from exhibitors at

Market Discovery '88.

Here's the report from Pro-Tech Industries, a division of JTM

Industries of Grand Forks, which added two new distributors to their

client list. Automarine Electric ordered 100 headlamp-guard sets per

month as a result of Market Discovery '88. They identified over 50 new

contracts. They have a good potential for sales to Kenworth and an

Ontario parts supplier.

Another one: Bay Glass Ltd., a Delta manufacturer of specialty glass

items, added 16 new distributors for its products by attending Market

Discovery '88. JWD Marketing, a local producer of canned juices and

water, has four new distributors from Taiwan, Japan, Saskatchewan and

B.C. An order has already been placed by the Saskatchewan distributor.

I think it's just incredible, if you look at these success stories.

AMS Industries made 300 contacts at Market Discovery '88. This is a

quote from the AMS representative: "I was so busy talking to potential

customers I didn't have time to see the show." Those are very positive

remarks from participants of Market Discovery '88.

I do expect to see — and I know, that I will — a large number of

members opposite attending the Market Discovery show in 1989, which

will be held on October 12 and 13.

Another one: Astrographic Industries of Surrey, a manufacturer of

licence plates, signs and decals, feels this is the best type of show

for them. Approximately $40,000 in business already with CP Rail....

Doors opened to a large number of buying institutions, including St.

Paul's Hospital, just because he took the time to attend Market

Discovery '88.

Vancouver Gear Works Ltd., another exhibitor, manufactures gear

sprockets: contacts made that have the potential of millions of

dollars. To date, orders have totalled approximately $225,000 from B.C.

Rail, CN Rail and CP Rail as a result of Market Discovery '88.

Those are just a few examples. They are the kind of things that can

be done by good planning, cooperation and good promotion.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: I just have a couple of questions. I'll go back

a little bit in time. Some months ago, last year, an issue arose of

concern to this community, and the minister was involved in the issue.

The minister and I have talked about it, but we didn't resolve our

differences. I am pleased to see the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Ree)

is here as well. The Solicitor-General and I see eye to eye on this

particular issue.

The minister, as the minister responsible for government buildings,

in his wisdom decided to lease a government building — the Windermere

Building, a beautiful building in downtown Victoria very close to the

convention centre — to a casino operation; I believe the Great Canadian

Casino company is the correct title. It is a company that is well known

and has connections with this government. I believe a former

vice-president of the Social Credit Party is actively involved with

that company.

The minister, unbeknown to local council, local authorities or the

local MLAs, with no consultation with anybody in this community, in his

wisdom decided to lease that beautiful building to a casino. It was a

great surprise, needless to say — and I'm understating the case — that

not only would he deem to officially endorse casinos by leasing to a

casino one of most beautiful government buildings we have in our

community, expanding casino operations in this community when this

community has clearly articulated that it doesn't want to see any more

of these operations....

The minister was asked by the media and by others: "Why would you

not consult council? Why would you have no discussions with the local

[ Page 5981 ]

people?" The convention centre was coming on stream; this casino is

close to the convention centre. The problems of policing — no

discussions with police authorities. The Victoria Police Board had

indicated some months before the announcement its deep concerns with

the continuing granting of casino licences.

I'm wondering if the minister in his wisdom has reassessed the

process when granting leases of government buildings, particularly

leases to sensitive operations like casinos, and all the ancillary

problems that arise. Has he reassessed the way of dealing with the

community and the local council so that in future there will be full

discussion, public hearings, information-sharing with the local

council, with the police department and others?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Not a study — just courtesy when dealing with

government buildings and sensitive operations.

Has the minister reassessed the process, and will he ensure that

local councils and police departments are fully apprised of decisions

to lease government buildings to such operations in future?

[4:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL: I find the member's comments interesting,

to say the least. It's my information that the number of casinos in

Victoria, which generate tens of thousands of dollars for charities in

the southern part of Vancouver Island.... It's interesting they would

come under attack by the member representing Victoria. I find it

interesting that the member would expect me as the minister in charge

of the B.C. Buildings Corporation to go to the police commission to

find out whether or not a casino should be permitted to be located in

the Windermere Building, when days before that it was located in a

dingy hotel right next door to it. They didn't change neighbourhoods;

they just changed from one building — I believe it was from the

Strathcona corner up to the Windermere corner. Because of that change I

should call for a police inquiry or investigation or police

consultation? I find it strange,

I find it strange as well that the member criticizes a casino

because it's close to a convention centre. My thought process would be

that when convention delegates come to your community, certainly you

like to see them spend money. You like to see them get out and have a

good time. You like to see them enjoy all the amenities that we have to

offer in British Columbia, and in Victoria. I am sure there will be a

portion — whatever that portion might be; 5 percent or 50 percent, or

somewhere in the middle, I suppose — that might be interested in

visiting a very well-set-out, well-run casino facility in the Windermere

Building compared with what used to be regarded as, from my

understanding, quite a dingy atmosphere that used to be offered at the

building next door.

I can only go by memory regarding the rental arrangements. BCBC is

the landlord, and I am the minister. As to what the improvements were

on those rentals, I can say that it was into the thousands of dollars.

The Buildings Corporation is getting thousands of dollars extra per

year with the new tenant as compared with the old tenant.

I can further say to the second member for Victoria that the

restaurant that was in there was on the verge of receivership, or

bankruptcy, or going under. The owners were extremely pleased and

supportive of turning the facility over to the casino, which completely

removed all the encumbrances, liabilities and lease requirements and

obligations that the previous owner had. So the restaurant person was

very supportive of that facility being taken over.

My recollection is that all the furniture and facilities inside the

building have been sold at a very favourable price to the casino

operator. The B.C. Buildings Corporation were extremely pleased with

the negotiations that transpired.

I will report to the House what the previous lessee paid in rent and

what the new tenant pays, but I can tell you from my memory that it's

into the thousands of dollars.

The bottom line is that as I understand it, Mr. Chairman — I don't

follow the industry that closely — there are no more and no fewer

casinos than there ever were in the city of Victoria.

As the landlord, we had an opening, it was vacant, there was a

problem with back rent, we have zoning in the city.... The member used

to sit on city council and was part of those zoning regulations; he

helped put them all together, and I'm sure he assisted in making many

zoning decisions in the city of Victoria. Now he's rising in the House

and saying the minister in charge of a vacant building should forgo the

extra income that's being received, at a great loss to the taxpayers,

and that even though the entrepreneur has qualified and passed the

zoning requirements as set out, we should step in and make a moral

judgment on whether or not that particular person's business is right

or wrong.

Suffice it to say, we made a decision. I don't know if the member is

happy with it or not. I take it he's not, but I can tell you that the

community, if they know the whole story about what's being brought in

in the way of rent and the reduction in tax requirements as a result of

that high rent being paid.... We all know that anything BCBC makes at

the end of the year in the way of a profit or surplus, call it what you

want — the residual of what they take in and what they spend.... Any

balance at the end of the year is turned over to general revenue. So

when we talk about denying a particular tenant a building, I think we

should give second thought as to whether it has an effect on the bottom

line to government. Because it's all a question of taxes. As the

minister, I certainly want to see the government receive fair market

value, for any vacancies that might come about.

I also find interesting the little bit of tone to the member's

remarks about gambling. Maybe that party is not in favour of gambling.

He has a little bit of a suggestion that we're doing the wrong thing by

opening this opportunity up for some person to go in and play bingo,

buy a lottery ticket or play some blackjack.

[ Page 5982 ]

I guess it's fair to announce to the House and all who are

listening which political party brought in the Lottery Corporation and

who set it up. How did legalized gambling come about in the province?

I'd like to remind the member — he probably wasn't even in the

province; I think he was still back in the Old Country in 1974 — that

in the later part of 1972 we in this province, much to the regret of

many, elected an NDP government, and they were in power for some three

and a half years, I believe, until the month of December 1975 — a snap

election call, just before Christmas. But guess when the Lottery

Corporation was founded, Mr. Chairman. Guess when the whole thing

started. In 1974.

MR. BLENCOE: I wasn't intending to prolong this debate, but

the minister talks about lotteries. We're not talking about lotteries.

We're talking about this government's distinct policy to go beyond the

lottery and to move into the gambling casino concept. They made that

decision and have gone that route under the guise of benefiting certain

charitable organizations.

Casino operations are very different from the lotteries and various

things we've had in this province for a number of years. Our party has

gone on record as clearly stating a policy of no more gambling casinos

in B.C. The citizens of the province don't want them.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not talking about lottery grants, about

lotteries. Let's not try to confuse the people of B.C. We have clearly

articulated a policy of no more gambling casinos in the province. We

don't need that kind of event, that kind of institution. We certainly

don't need a proliferation in the beautiful capital city of Victoria.

The minister talks about the bottom line and generating dollars. I

know it's hard for this government to get a handle on this, but dollars

are not always the top priority; it's the kind of community we're

creating. This community is of the view that we don't need any more

slot machines or roulette wheels, and the government has a policy to

expand those kinds of systems. We don't want them in the city of

Victoria.

This government still refuses to say that it's prepared to consult

the community when it's moving in this direction. I had words with this

minister after the fact, the same government that says it wants to

include all MLAs in discussions of import in their ridings. Yet this

minister made an arbitrary decision to put a gambling casino in one of

the most beautiful government buildings in the city of Victoria,

sending a clear message not only to the people of Victoria but to the

citizens of B.C. that casinos are very much on the agenda of this

government. Indeed, they support them so much that they're going to

give one of the most beautiful buildings in the city of Victoria to

operate a gambling casino. This minister refused to even mention to the

mayor of this city, or to the council or police department, that they

were moving into that building, not even thinking that maybe the local

authorities would like some input into that decision.

I would contend that minister that my understanding of the situation

— the minister may wish to refute this — is that the past leaseholder

of that restaurant was negotiating and had virtually completed an

alternative lease for that building. Within a matter of weeks, even

days, the new minister, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, negated that

process and entertained a lease proposition from the Great Canadian

Casino company — a company, I might add, that had been told some months

previously that the Windermere Building was not available for a casino.

Indeed, I suspect that the Attorney-General of the day, the member for

Oak Bay-Gordon Head (Mr. B.R. Smith), had given that message.

I even mentioned to the members for Saanich, the Minister of Finance

and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the now Minister of

Parks (Hon. Mr. Huberts), that there was some indication that the

minister responsible for government buildings was going to allow a

casino into the Windermere Building, and those two members were

surprised. They didn't know. The minister hadn't even consulted with

his own colleagues about deciding, days after taking over the

portfolio, that the Great Canadian Casino company, which had been told

over and over again that that building wasn't available to them....

This minister decided virtually overnight to give them the lease. Now,

Mr. Chairman, the minister can talk about bottom lines and making

money, but there are greater issues sometimes. Casino operations and

what they bring to a community are greater issues in terms of the

dollars generated.

I want to ask the minister again: is it his intention, when he has

such sensitive operations, that when he has government buildings

available in the future, to continue the same process he used in this

decision, and have no consultation, no discussions with local councils

or local authorities — just to decide arbitrarily to move this kind of

operation into government buildings? I think this community deserves an

answer to that question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL: Indeed, the member will get an answer. The

answer from this minister is that I'm in charge of buildings. I'm not

in charge of licensing, and I'm not in charge of the moral questions.

I'm in charge of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, and if there is a

vacancy in a building and there are one or more tenants wishing to fill

that vacancy — from this minister's point of view, who is not in charge

of licensing — the tenants we can negotiate the best deal with,

providing they conform to all of the rules, regulations and zoning, are

indeed the tenants to which we will give the award.

I would like to know this — perhaps the second member for Victoria

could advise the House: is the NDP advocating that all casinos and

bingo halls in the province be shut down? Is that what he is

advocating? Is that what he's stating? All these charities.... I'm not

saying tens or hundreds or scores,

[ Page 5983 ]

but I would suggest to the member that from bingo games and

crown-and-anchor and all the other things that go on in the majority

of community halls across this province.... Are you suggesting that

they all be shut down? Is that NDP policy? Is that the policy of your

party? We would like to hear about that.

[4:45]

I found the member's opening remarks interesting, about no more

gambling casinos. I can tell you that that was a decision of this

government many months ago; I believe it was a year ago last February.

We made a decision in caucus. I believe the caucus was held in Powell

River. There were one or two proposals from some isolated communities

in the province that we give consideration to destination resorts to

replace the flow of tens of millions