1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10613 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Federal consultation on free trade with Mexico. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10613

Temporary work permits for Mexican farmworkers. Mr. Gabelmann –– 10613

B.C. Senate vacancy. Mr. Harcourt –– 10614

Dual entry in school system. Ms. A. Hagen –– 10614

Lifting of Queen of Burnaby. Mr. Sihota –– 10615

Tabling Documents –– 10615

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services and

Minister Responsible for Women's Programs estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Gran)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 10615

Mr. Rose

Mr. Zirnhelt

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Hon. Mr. Smith

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Mr. G. Janssen

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Williams

Presenting Reports –– 10640

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

In the galleries today I note three former members of the Legislative

Assembly. Would hon. members please welcome Jim Hewitt, Tom Waterland

and Lorne Nicolson.

Also, Mr. Speaker, with great pride I

introduce a guest of the assembly who is in the gallery today, a young

University of Victoria. Would the House please welcome Tomoko Ono.

MRS. BOONE :

The member for Prince George South missed a former member up there, the

member who represented both his and my riding, Alf Nunweiler. Would you

please greet him.

MR. SPEAKER : There may be a considerable number of former members visiting us today.

MR. BARNES :

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I gather the Lieutenant-Governor is

going to be hosting MLAs past and present this evening. I guess we're

not going to be able to recognize everyone, but Lorne Nicolson is one

that I would like to recognize, along with his mother-in-law, Betty

Golata. And I understand that Lorne has with him two exchange students

who are representing Rotary International: Tatiana Schmidt from Munich,

Germany; and Cristi Villegas from Cali, Colombia. I'd like the House to

make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Speaker, today

we have four interns from the Social Credit caucus who are finishing up

that fantastic program you host every year. I would like the House to

give a good greeting and farewell to Bruce Hallsor, Kristine Allison,

Carolyn Torhjelm and Claire Handley. We enjoyed having you.

MR. JONES :

We have some visitors today all the way from New York. They are Dov

Fienberg and Linda Handler. I'd like members on both sides of the House

to give them a very warm British Columbia welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I know that the entire membership of the House will want to join me in

wishing a happy thirty-fourth wedding anniversary to the Premier and

Lillian Vander Zalm.

MS. A. HAGEN : Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to introduce the

best health minister this province ever had — my predecessor, Dennis Cocke.

Oral Questions

FEDERAL CONSULTATION

ON FREE TRADE WITH MEXICO

MR. GABELMANN :

I have a question for the Minister of International Business and

Immigration. Last week federal minister John Crosbie announced that his

government has started to consult provincial governments on possible

expansion and inclusion of a free trade arrangement with Mexico. Would

the minister please tell us if British Columbia has been consulted and,

if so, what sort of discussions have already taken place?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

There is a future policy part of that involved, but I can say yes, the

government of British Columbia has been consulted. Yes, we're also

as far as the current free trade agreement with the United States is

concerned. We're looking more to having a better presence at the table

on that particular agreement.

MR. GABELMANN : I'm

delighted to hear that we'll have a better presence than we had last

time. Perhaps we could have saved our commercial fishermen on this

coast. What steps has the minister and the government taken to ensure

that B.C.'s interests in these discussions are properly represented and

protected?

HON. MR. VEITCH : British Columbia is

always at the table when it comes to any negotiations with the federal

government. We're always there ensuring that all of the interests of

the people of British Columbia are protected — not just the

special-interest groups. That means everyone in the province.

far as any negotiations are concerned with respect to the federal

government, we will continue with that stance, and we'll ensure that

the interests of the people of British Columbia are foremost in every

discussion we have with Canada. You can be assured that we won't settle

for anything less than a first-class deal for the people of British

Columbia.

TEMPORARY WORK PERMITS

FOR MEXICAN FARMWORKERS

MR. GABELMANN :

I have another question to the same minister. The Lusztig report

recommended that the Minister of International Business and Immigration

and also the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Savage)

explore the question of temporary work permits for farmworkers brought

in from Mexico. Given the fact that the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture have spoken favourably of this report, I wonder if the

minister can confirm that it is not the government's intention to enter

into discussions with a view to bringing in cheap labour from Mexico.

[ Page 10614 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, any discussions we have regarding Mexico, Japan, Germany

or anywhere else is the subject of future policy. It will be dealt with

at the time when those discussions are held.

B.C. SENATE VACANCY

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Before I do that

though, I'd like to congratulate him and Lillian on their thirty-fourth

wedding anniversary. I hope you enjoy the night. I had a very pleasant

similar celebration of Beckie's and my nineteenth last night, so I hope

that you have the night off and enjoy yourself.

Mr.

Speaker, as I said, I have a question for the Premier. Finance Minister

Michael Wilson has suggested that with Meech Lake dead, it would be

easier to push the CST through the Senate by stacking that Senate with

political friends who are sympathetic to Mulroney's tax grab. Can the

Premier inform the House whether he has decided to give the people of

British Columbia an opportunity to vote in a democratic election to

fill the current B.C. Senate vacancy and send a B.C. Senator to Ottawa

to help fight the CST?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr.

Speaker, I didn't hear the statement from Mr. Wilson, but I suppose

it's based upon the fact that Meech Lake did contain a provision

whereby we could have some considerable say in who might be put forth

as a candidate for the Senate. Obviously that's not to be. I'm guessing

that we revert back to the old system of an appointee by the federal

government and the Prime Minister based upon whatever rationale they

might use. I regret that, because I certainly realize that everybody

here is well aware of how Senate reform has been a priority of this

government. We've advocated the triple-E Senate: elected, equal and

effective — not the triple-A Senate, as I've heard it from the other

side: abolish, abolish, abolish.

I agree that an elected,

equal and effective Senate could certainly be a considerable influence

in dealing with some of the issues that are of concern to us

regionally. I appreciate that recognition by the Leader of the

Opposition and by the opposition, and I trust henceforth that there

will be a change of attitude from the NDP and they'll now support a

triple-E Senate.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Premier has said that he supports a

triple-A Senate too, to abolish the present Senate and to change it

considerably.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT : That's exactly what he said.

But

does the Premier not agree that B.C. today is in exactly the same

constitutional and legal position as Alberta was when they held a

Senate election? And does he not agree that it's better to give the

people of B.C. a choice rather than allow the Prime Minister to simply

pick a name from a list of political pals? If it's good enough for

Alberta, Isn't it good enough for B.C. ?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I'm not ruling out any possibility. I certainly think we have to wait

and see what might develop over the next while. Without a doubt, there

is some considerable question now in all parts of the country as to

what will happen constitutionally in the country from here on. So I'm

not ruling out anything.

But to liken the situation here

today to what it was in Alberta when the government there called for

election of a Senator is completely wrong. Alberta took the action

following the agreement by all provinces to the Meech Lake accord at

Meech Lake. The provision there was that there was in fact an

opportunity for us to recommend to the Prime Minister the names, and he

would choose from them. Obviously, based on that, Alberta made that

decision. We would have as well, and we had already said this. But

today we do not have that accord; we don't have that opportunity of

recommending or having those recommendations considered or perhaps

accepted. But we'll certainly watch it.

I should mention,

however, that we as a government must also consider that we do not

simply do this for political purposes or convenience, because there

will be a considerable cost, naturally, and I think we have to be

responsible and consider the cost and the chances of acceptance.

Therefore we'll be communicating with the federal government,

particularly with the Prime Minister; and if the federal government in

fact accepts this, I would be the first to propose that we have an

election.

Again, I am pleased to hear that there will then

be support for such from the opposition. We've certainly seen a change

in attitude.

DUAL ENTRY IN SCHOOL SYSTEM

MS. A. HAGEN :

In light of his recent commitment to parents whose children have fifth

birthdays in November and December, has the Minister of Education now

decided to allow these children the option of enrolling in kindergarten

this September?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Speaker, I

made no such commitment as that member has interpreted. I said I would

give them a hearing, that I would look at the various ramifications,

and that when a decision was made I would let them know. That decision

has not yet been made.

MS. A. HAGEN : On June 15 the

minister made that commitment to the parents, a commitment to review

the policy of the ministry. In this final week of school, will the

minister explain why he is still playing around with the educational

lives of these children, their parents and the child care and pre-

[ Page

10615 ]

school centres that serve them, all of whom are trying to plan ahead?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

I am not playing around with this issue. I did not make a commitment on

June 15 that I would change the legislation. What I have to consider is

whether it warrants changing the legislation to accommodate one-sixth

of the students in the province and probably disadvantage the other

five-sixths. I have not made a decision about the legislation, and I

have not made the commitment that the member is.... I'm not playing

around. These people clearly understood. The legislation clearly said

last year that there was one transition year, and that this year dual

entry would be required. That is the legislation in place. I have to

consider whether to ask for a change of legislation, and all of the

ramifications that that brings with it.

MS. A. HAGEN :

A final supplementary to the minister. The minister has heard of this

issue since last February. He finally made some commitment to pay

attention to the issue on June 15. Why did the minister then not simply

announce that this government is not prepared to listen and be

flexible? Why is he still keeping this issue in abeyance?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, I have consistently announced that we like to abide by the

legislation, and that we expect other people to abide by the law, even

if the socialists opposite want to encourage people to break the law.

LIFTING OF QUEEN OF BURNABY

MR. SIHOTA :

Question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Shortly after

the cancellation of the Polar 8 contract, the government provincially

announced that it would engage in three projects; the 85-car vessel

ferries, the lifting of the Queen of Burnaby and the superferries. The lifting of the Burnaby

was scheduled to occur between September and February of this year.

Could the minister advise the House whether or not that work will

proceed as scheduled?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I

don't want to interrupt the member. I would like the government

backbenchers to allow the minister to hear the question, if they could

refrain from interjecting.

MR. SIHOTA : Could the minister advise the House whether or not the lifting of the Queen of Burnaby

will proceed as scheduled between September of this year and January of

1991? That was the

schedule you originally announced. Will it be

proceeding on that schedule? I ask that question because of the

impending layoffs at the shipyard here in Esquimalt.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question on

notice. It's my understanding that that's precisely what will be done,

but I will get you more specifics on it.

MR. SIHOTA : Will the minister confirm that B.C. Ferries has abandoned its plan to buy a vessel offshore?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, I won't confirm that.

MR. SIHOTA :

Will the minister commit her government to building whatever ferries

B.C. Ferries intends to build with respect to the superferries? Will

you make a commitment today that those ferries will be built here in

British Columbia?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : This government's priority is to do as much work as possible in British Columbia and provide jobs for British Columbians.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the following: the

financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Educational

Institutions Capital Financing Authority for the year ended March 31,

1990; the annual report of the Credit Union Deposit Insurance

Corporation, in accordance with

section 160 of the Credit Union Act;

and the financial statements and auditor's report for the B.C. Housing

and Employment Development Financing Authority for the year ended March

31, 1990.

Hon. Mrs. Gran tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Just before we commence with the business of the day, I'd like to

inform the House that by agreement, we will adjourn this evening at

5:30 so the members may attend a function at Government House. With

that, Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

On vote 34: minister's office, $284,000 (continued).

MR. ROSE :

To the Minister of Government Management Services, I am trying to

recall a conversation we had — I believe it was yesterday morning —

concerning communications policy. Would the minister mind confirming

that her role is merely administrative and has very little to do with

policy in communications matters? We were told yesterday that it was

really under the Minister of Economic Development.

[ Page 10616 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Yes, my answer is the same as it was yesterday. The policy matters for

communication in British Columbia lie under the jurisdiction of

Regional Development.

MR. ROSE : I wonder if the

minister has any role in policy whatsoever in terms of her own

ministry, because she is really the minister of communications — or at

least government communications. I found it very difficult to

understand this, because certainly the cost of phone rates, fees and

all that sort of thing in government communications are directly a

responsibility of her own. I'd like her to expand on what her role

really is in determining policies that affect such a large portion and

a large amount of money in her ministry.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

My answer is going to become tedious and repetitious. If we played any

part, it would be a consultative part, given the B.C. Systems

Corporation and the experienced people in the ministry. Again, the

policy for communications is with Regional Development.

MR. ROSE :

Would it be possible at all for the minister to expand on this and tell

us a little bit more directly, since she's responsible for the phone

bills and how they might be impacted by, for instance, a dual

long-distance telephone system for Canada, what her role would be under

those circumstances? I think she's getting some answers. I don't know

that she hears the questions.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The

function, in terms of what the member is speaking of, is administration

only The member is talking about policy. Again, policy falls under

Regional Development.

MR. ROSE : I don't mean to be

unduly persistent on these matters. But I am concerned — in view of

what was said yesterday — about an item under vote 35 which lists the

cost of the office of information technology at about $2.5 million. I'd

like to know what that's all about.

[2:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall the vote pass?

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister is consulting with her

staff — or insulting her staff, I'm not certain which. Anyway, she's

busily engaged in supplying me with an answer. I would really

appreciate getting it.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Maybe it

would be appropriate, while I get the answer to that question sorted

out, that the member continue, because he must have other pressing

items he wants to talk about.

MR. ROSE : Yes, there

are a number of pressing items, but I'm not sure you will be anxious

for them to come along any sooner than they would ordinarily

HON. MRS. GRAN : Go for it.

MR. ROSE :

I understand what the minister is saying, and she's busy consulting

with her staff. The office of information technology net recovery is

$2,491,800 under vote 35. If you look down to the explanation or the

vote description, it says: "(

e) Office of information technology. This

subvote provides for the analysis, advice and coordination of the

government's information technology and" — get this —

"telecommunications strategies and policy issues, including technology

standards, security policies and education." So I'd like to know how

the minister can reconcile this description of the vote with what she

told me yesterday and again today.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The term "policy" used in this sense is for policy for government

operations. What the member is talking about is policy for British

Columbia, and there's a great difference.

MR. ROSE : I don't know what the minister thinks I'm talking about.

HON. MRS. GRAN : You're talking about phone rates.

MR. ROSE :

I'm talking about telecommunications strategies and policy issues,

including technology standards, security policies and education. I'd

like the minister to explain what this really means. What, for

instance, are telecommunications strategies? Would you mind explaining

that one? Then we'll go on to some of the others. I'd like a definition

of terms here.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The office of

information technology works similarly to Treasury Board — if I can use

that as an analogy — working with ministries and helping them develop

their communication plans within the ministries.

understanding of what the member is talking about is phone rates and

competition across Canada, and the effect that it would have on British

Columbia. It has absolutely nothing to do with this part of my ministry.

MR. ROSE :

I've abandoned that. I take your word for it that you've nothing to do

with that. They have taken that away from you. You have nothing to do

with superannuation or pensions, and yet you're the superannuation

minister. I just begin to wonder from time to time what on earth you

are in charge of.

What concerns me here at the moment is

not the cross-subsidization or the competing Unitel-CNCT, but what you

are doing with $2.5 million. Tell us what you expect to get out of it.

What's it for?

I wonder if the minister could give me a

recent example, and I take it from the budget papers here — the

estimates — where it says that this subvote provides analysis and

coordination of the government's information technology. Could you give

me an example of your analysis?

[ Page

10617 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN : I get the impression that the member is

killing time, so I'll play his little game with him. It will be also

educational for me.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'm sorry. The last thing I would want to do is demean a member of the opposition. You're always so fair.

MR. ROSE : Give me a break.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Yes. Give me a break, he says. I'll give you a breakdown on the $2.4

million. Half of it goes for salaries and benefits. The other half goes

for operating costs in that part of the ministry. But most of the

departments in Government Management Services are administrative and

consultative. This one is no exception.

We have some very

qualified people working in the office of information technology who

are called upon by ministries to offer advice and to help them put

together communication plans within their own ministries. I think it's

extremely simple to understand.

MR. ROSE : Mr.

Chairman, I don't mean to be obtuse, but if it's so simple, I don't

know why I can't get a simple explanation of what you're doing. How

many people do you have in there that you're spending $1.25 million or

$1.5 million on each year? How many staff do you have?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, there are 22 employees.

MR. ROSE : I wonder if you could give me an example of a recent telecommunications strategy that these 22 have come up with.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'll be happy to provide that a little later on in the estimates.

MR. ROSE :

I wonder if you could also explain what "security policies" means in

here. Does that mean the security of information, security of the

building or security of privacy? Which is it?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, obviously it means security of the systems.

MR. ROSE :

Isn't the security of the systems followed by the B.C. Systems

Corporation, so nobody can tap in there? There can't be any moles or

anything else that gets into the computers — keeping out the viruses.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes.

MR. ROSE : "Yes." I don't know if that was recorded.

Have there been any examples of people trying to invade our systems in British

Columbia that you can tell me about, since you have a fairly large security

staff there?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to supply the member with that at the same

time that I get all of the other things I know he's going to ask, for

however long he's going to stand there.

MR. ROSE :

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to stand here until I get some answers. I've

been really disappointed. Here I am standing with bated breath. It's

bad enough if you've got bated breath, but I think it's awful that I'm

not getting any answers here. I wish the minister would tell us when we

can expect this enlightenment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On vote 34, the minister.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Good; no, go ahead.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I'd be pleased to defer to the minister if she wants to answer some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please go ahead, hon. member.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Mr. Chairman, I have questions to the minister about some of the air

traffic into the Cariboo during the by-election. The information we've

garnered from the records is that during the by-election campaign,

except for the last few days — that is, from August 23 when it was

announced to September 17 — 11 different cabinet ministers, the Premier

and Mrs. Vander Zalm and various government officials flew into the

Cariboo riding.

The following ministers visited the riding:

the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker); the Minister of

International Business and Immigration (Hon. Mr. Veitch); the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) ; the Minister of Native Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Weisgerber); the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage);

the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology (Hon. Mr.

Strachan); the former Provincial Secretary, the member for Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale (Mr. Reid); the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston); the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier); the Minister

of Regional and Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen); and the former

Minister of Highways, the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant).

They

flew 22 trips into the Cariboo at that time, which was just about one a

day. I would like to ask the minister if it was more than coincidence

that there were so many trips into the Cariboo.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think it's important for me to say that,

having been through a great deal of controversy in the last couple of

weeks over the government airplanes — and that's not the first time

that has happened in government — those airplanes are used for

government business. They are very necessary for ministers to carry out

their jobs, especially representing the rest of the province.

[ Page 10618 ]

For

a long time I've wanted to talk about the need for government to go to

the people and for us not to expect the people to come to us in

Victoria. I'm particularly concerned about those people who live

outside of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

The

member who just asked the question will know better than anyone that

access to government is not always that easy when you live outside the

lower mainland. It's especially more difficult when you're represented

by an NDP member.

It makes a great deal of sense for the

government to be certain that those people in the outlying areas and in

the rural areas of this province are looked after, and that their

concerns are heard. The aircraft provide that opportunity for

ministers, for Crown corporations and for a great many people.

The

airplanes, as we know, are well used, and that's what they're there

for. But I can tell you that the policy is followed on all occasions.

Government representatives and ministers traveling on those airplanes

are traveling on business. In fact, I can't think of a time as a

minister when I am not on ministry business, except when I'm inside my

own home. Outside of that home, even at social occasions, you're asked

say — and I don't have any hesitation in saying — those trips would

have been on government business. But perhaps one of the ministers

whose names you've mentioned would like to stand up and talk about it.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I would be happy if you would provide me a list of the business that

each minister was engaged in, because I know some of the ministers

weren't very public in the business they were involved in. It has to be

more than coincidental, because if you extrapolated from an average of

about a trip a day around the province, that would mean some 69 trips a

day around the province. So we had more than our fair share, although

it could be that the government was concentrating on the Cariboo during

the by-election. People resented that a bit, because the cost of that

would be conservatively estimated at about $70,000 for the air travel —

which doesn't get added to the expense of the by-election.

What

I really want to know is whether or not it's more than just

coincidence, for example, that the Premier chose to be in 100 Mile the

day he announced the by-election. Could the minister tell me which was

decided first, the date of the by-election or the date of the Premier

to be into 100 Mile to announce for the first of many times a strand

board plant that is going to create 500 jobs, most of which replace

previously lost jobs?

AN HON. MEMBER : Oriented strand board plant

MR. ZIRNHELT : Strand board plant — an OSB plant.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I appreciate joining in the debate on this minister's estimates and

talking a little about some of the good work that's been done around

this province. I hear the members across the other side talking about

use of government aircraft, and a few days ago I pointed out the use

that the NDP made of government aircraft to do the business of the

government of the day as they saw fit. I'm not suggesting they did a

good job, but they did the job that they thought they were doing.

may be of interest to the hon. member that in about 3 months, when I

was Minister of Regional Development, I was in thirty-some communities

in the province of British Columbia. What this government believes in —

quite unlike the NDP — is taking the government out to the people in

British Columbia. That's what it's all about. It's getting out into the

areas. The NDP have such a collective socialist mind that they think

that they can sit here in Victoria and make decisions for everywhere,

no matter where it is in the province.

The opinion of this

government has always been to get out to the people of the province.

Because we happen to be here in Victoria doesn't give us any special

rights. Somebody in Pouce Coupe, somebody in 100 Mile House or somebody

in the Cariboo probably has far more knowledge than you or I will ever

have with respect to economic development.

You were talking

about being up in the Cariboo. Yes, we're up in the Cariboo; yes, we

caused several things to happen in the Cariboo — and we are causing

several things to happen in the Cariboo — because we worked at them.

[2:45]

I haven't seen any results from the hon. member. I realize that he

hasn't been here very long, and I don't know if the horse-logging is

proceeding in the Cariboo or what is, but I can tell you there are jobs

at 100 Mile House. Because of the action we took with Ainsworth Lumber,

because of the negotiations that we had with Ainsworth, and because of

that announcement, there's been a new spirit at 100 Mile House, and if

you had been around there, you'd have noticed it.

I was

talking, when I was up there a few weeks ago, with the people that

operate the Welcome Wagon. They said that every two or three months

prior to that announcement they used to maybe welcome a new family

coming into the community, but there would be a lot more moving out.

Now, my friend, there are so many people moving into that community,

because there's a new spirit.

The spirit is confidence.

That's something the NDPers didn't know anything about. When people

derive a confidence in themselves, when they're allowed to make their

own decisions, when they're allowed to participate in the process, then

things happen. It doesn't happen collectively, and that's why Sweden

fell down, that's why your government fell down in 1975, and that's why

you'll never be government again in this province, because you simply

don't trust the people. You don't give them the opportunity.

went up into the Cariboo. Yes, we've been all over this province, and

if you look at the economic results in this province, you'll see that

they are

[ Page

10619 ]

second to none compared with any place in Canada.

That's why we've been able to balance the budget in this province;

that's why we've got the best economic record of any jurisdiction in

Canada, of most in North America, because we go out to the people and

we allow them to participate in the process.

Isn't that

what government aircraft are used for, my friend? That's why we went

there. We went there to work with the people that you are now

representing. You have the same opportunity. You have a lot more time

to be there and work with them. I notice your leader is out doing

something every day; I don't think he's advancing the cause of economic

development in the province, but he's out. You have that same

opportunity. But you have to trust the people. That's the failing of

socialism.

They believe that the government, once they're

elected, is an all-knowing being, no matter where they come from. But

the idea of the British Columbia Social Credit Party is to get out and

work with the people in every region of the province. And, my friend,

it's paying off. It's paying off in the Cariboo; it's paying off in

spades. It's paying off in Williams Lake; it's paying off in 100 Mile

House. And next time round? It will be a very nice experience to have

had you here for a short while in this Legislature, and I'm sure that

you will have contributed as you see fit. But we're going to elect

another member up there. We're going to do it because we trust the

people and they trust us.

HON. MR. SMITH : I'm

delighted the member has asked the question with respect to air travel

in the by-election. I think one of the things that has come to light

during this whole exercise is the lack of professionalism disclosed by

members who have the privilege of communicating to the public from the

press gallery in Victoria and, as well, the kind of "syco-fanatic"

connection between them and members of the NDP.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

The reason I say that is because obviously you can take a pretty

vacuous mind and find out that from point A to point B you did go on X

date. The question that's imperative to know, if you're going to try to

manufacture some kind of problem from that, is: why did you go from

point A to point B on that date?

That information was

always, and is still, readily available to anyone who has the

professional integrity to want to ask the questions. Unfortunately

those who want to print the answers seem not to have that integrity,

and hence the questions haven't been asked. So it is that today an

opportunity is here to answer the question in the case of the Cariboo

by-election, because the member in fact refers to the movements of the

Attorney-General during that period of time.

I will tell you that on August 24 I was in the great constituency of Cariboo.

I was in to Quesnel on a government aircraft, and I was out of Quesnel on a

government aircraft. What I also did when I was in Quesnel — the reason for

which I was there — was part of the undertaking I gave to this Legislature a

year earlier to be involved with the implementation of the justice reform package.

I was there for court services with, among others, my ADM. We met with native

court workers, people who were involved in victim services and probation issues

and with people in the court registry and the staff of the court. We analyzed

and looked at a number of issues that pertain to the administration of justice

in that area.

addition to that, I was invited to speak to the Rotary. As I did

frequently when on that tour, I talked to service organizations like

the Rotary, Kiwanis or the chamber of commerce. I think it's important

that you go beyond just the special interest group in dealing with this

kind of issue, and that you let them know what it is you're about. I

did speak to that group that day and mentioned, in fact, one political

candidate. I will admit to that. I mentioned a political candidate who,

as it turns out, is a free enterpriser, and I said kind things about

him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH : Yes,

it was coincidence, as the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) asked

me. It was very much a coincidence. He's a fine person, and I've known

him for a long time. I did mention him.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Because he's a member of the Rotary, and because I knew him from a

former time when he was in Vavenby and Clearwater. Indeed, I went to

high school with his wife. He was the Liberal candidate in that

constituency. His name is Darwin Netzel. That's the candidate I

mentioned, the only political person I mentioned in the course of my

address to the Rotary. That address, by the way, was recorded by the

local media.

Secondly, I was in that constituency on

September 13. 1 flew from Kamloops to Williams Lake. You won't have

that on your list, Mr. Member, because I rented an airplane from a

local organization in Kamloops and paid for it myself. The reason I did

that was because I went to Williams Lake to speak politically — only

politically — and to address a meeting organized by the Social Credit

constituency association in Williams Lake. I went to that meeting,

spoke to them and flew home.

I was in the constituency a

third time. On September 18 I flew in on government aircraft and I flew

out on government aircraft. That was during the time of the

by-election. During that period of time I was also there with staff.

The reason I went there was for a meeting that I had arranged, in fact,

before the by-election was called. It was in Anahim Lake, British

Columbia. I had agreed to meet with — and indeed, had met with —

members of the bands of the Chilcotin to set up a justice council. I

met with them again on the 18th. Politics weren't discussed once during

the meeting — not once.

[ Page 10620 ]

had lunch together out in that area. We had about a five-hour meeting

together. We agreed to pursue the formation of a justice council, which

is now up and operational and is supported to the tune of $250,000 from

the Ministry of Attorney-General. I went to Riske Creek the other night

with the same people, and I flew in on government aircraft then as well

to meet again in the Chilcotin with natives from the Chilcotin. If I

think of something useful to do that the symbolic value of the office

of Attorney-General is worthy of taking to the native people of British

Columbia — and taking without publicity or dragging some antagonism out

there and trying to demean it by coming into this Legislature and

playing your crass little games in here today.... That's why I was out

there.

Any and all of that information is available to that

member and their little "syco-fanatic" friends in the press gallery who

like to play with it. All of it is available. Get it, use it and

honourably disclose it. Try to have some pride in your community of the

Cariboo. Try to understand that the native people in the Cariboo are

entitled to have the Attorney-General and his staff visit them in

Anahim or Riske Creek, as are all the little socialists in Victoria who

can get to them any time they bloody well want.

That's what

you should understand, Mr. Member. That's why it's very important that

you have raised this issue today. I urge you to go through my flight

records and raise it every single day for the rest of this session, Mr.

Member.

As I did earlier in this session, I challenge each

and every one of you again today to come to Kamloops and publicly

debate with me the issue of whether it is appropriate for government

members to take the offices of government to the people in the

interior. Or is it your preference to force those people to come and

pay for the cost of bringing themselves and their problems to Victoria?

I challenge you again — all of you. I challenge you to do that, and I

challenge you again publicly.

MR. ZIRNHELT : I really

wanted to ask the minister and get an answer as to whether or not it

was more than just coincidence that the frequency of government

business was so much greater during the by-election. It would appear to

have overtly partisan political purposes, and that's the point. I don't

know where the question of trust came up. I implicitly trust the people

of the Cariboo, and I believe that government should be taken to the

people. I think opposition should be taken to the people, and we do

that too.

I think it is important to note that it is more

than coincidence. I would like to know why the government organizes its

business with such intensity during the time of a by-election.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly enjoyed the Attorney-Generals dissertation.

I want to add that whether there is an election on or not, this

government believes in doing its business and looking after the people

of the province of British Columbia.

[3:00]

By the way, I noted that there was an issue in Burnaby — and I will

relate it back to this vote, Mr. Chairman — with respect to a school in

Burnaby. That school board — which is completely and absolutely

NDP-dominated — and the council said: "We'd better leave that until

after the school board and municipal elections in the fall, because

it's too hot an issue to handle at this time."

I believe

you have to be government all of the time, whether there happens to be

a by-election on or not. It may be of interest to the member — if he

would stop politicking for a while and look after his constituency, as

I'm sure he would like to be able to do — that as Minister of Regional

Development, I have been in the Cariboo dozens of times — many times.

If you will look at the action in the Cariboo, we helped solve little

problems as well as big problems. If you look at the industry and the

jobs that are developing in the Cariboo — in Quesnel and 100 Mile House

— you'll see that indeed that has been effective.

Not only

that, Mr. Member, but since you've been elected I have also been up

into the Cariboo several times talking about export — yes, exporting

out of places such as 100 Mile House. It may be a surprise to you,

living there, that a lot of export is going on. They export out of

Williams Lake and 100 Mile House some of the best log homes in all the

world. They're built in that area. They're prefabricated and shipped to

Japan, Germany and all over the world.

It's our job to help

those people find markets, you see, so that people like you can collect

your money sitting here in the Legislature. We're just recipients of

this largesse. We don't generate it; people out there generate it.

Somehow or other the socialists think that you go and turn the tap on

somewhere, and the money pours out of it. It takes actual, real people

working in the Cariboo and elsewhere producing the money that they send

to government. It's our job — it was my job as an Economic Development

minister, and it's still my job as Minister of International Business —

to get out into every hamlet, town and city of this province, whether I

meet with ten people or 100 people or 1,000 people, and find out what

there is to export so that we can help them.

I want to tell

you something. In a province the size of British Columbia, where we

have a budget approaching $15,300,000,000 and a population of only

about three million, you've got to sell something to somebody else in

order to enjoy the standard of living that we have in this province.

That doesn't just happen by NDP selling to NDP or governments selling

to governments. It happens by real people getting out there selling

their products to the world. It's government's job to help them do

that, and we're doing it in good style.

Last year we were

one of the only provinces in Canada that showed an increase in export —

about 2.2 percent. We exported about $18 billion worth of products. The

increase from your area, sir, increased

[ Page

10621 ]

dramatically last year. Not only are they selling

log homes, timber and 2-by-4s from your area now; they are selling

tree-cutters, machinery and all sorts of things that the genius of the

people in the Cariboo that you represent are manufacturing. It simply

takes that little bit of assistance from government to help them get it

out to the markets someplace.

That's why we fly to Cariboo,

to Williams Lake, to Prince George and all over British Columbia.

That's why we deal all over the world: to spread British Columbia's

message and to do a job for you. With great respect, I can't tell you

how to do your job, but sometimes being part of the solution is better

than being part of the problem. Work with those people, sir. Find out

what they have to offer and what they want us to do as government, and

we'll work with you. We'll help you. You can sit there all you want and

tell us that government should not go in during an election or anytime

there's any controversy, that government shouldn't be doing its job. I

don't happen to believe that. I happen to believe that the government

should be doing the job every day of the week. That's the way we

operate as free-enterprisers and Social Crediters on this side of the

House; I realize that your opinion of things is the converse.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

To the second member for Cariboo, who I'm sure has received much more

information than he asked for, I just want to say that the obvious

answer to your question is that the answers have to come from the

members and ministers who made those trips to the Cariboo or wherever

else.

MRS. BOONE : You know, I hadn't really intended

to speak on this, but listening to the bafflegab from the two ministers

of defence here.... We used to have a minister of defence who sat down

here, but she went back to Ottawa and is now the justice minister. Now

we've got more of them over there. It seems that they are very adept at

protecting the minister there.

One of the things I think

the government is totally misleading the public on is when they

constantly say that the New Democratic Party is opposed to the use of

government jets. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) stated our

case quite eloquently last week when he stated that we have never said

we do not believe ministers should have government jets for performing

their duties. We have never said that they should not be able to have

their spouses with them, because we on this side acknowledge that

government has to do their job and be capable of doing it. We also

acknowledge that ministers' lifestyles are such that they should be

able to have their spouse with them. However — and I think our House

Leader said this — we're not talking about the use of the jets; we're

talking about the abuse of the jets. That's a big difference — the

abuse and the misuse that are taking place. Those are the questions we

have been raising to the minister. They're about the abuse when you

have government jets going off....

HON. MRS. GRAN : What abuse?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The member for Prince George North has the floor.

MRS. BOONE : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You

talk about jets going off in different directions — and often the same

direction — within a very short period of time with one passenger in

each one, taking ministers home for weekends or what have you. Talk

about ministers traveling with one passenger when they could frequently

have two or three passengers or a number of them. That is what has come

from the logs. It is that information we are questioning. We're

questioning you on them because we feel very strongly that that is an

abuse of the situation.

As somebody pointed out to me the

other week, it may not necessarily be an abuse but a lack of

scheduling. We're asking for some guidelines, some scheduling process

so the jets are used for their proper purposes and are functioning

properly, so that we as taxpayers are getting good value out of the

jets. If there is a Helijet going across, which is a lot cheaper to use

than our government jet, it should be used, because they travel across

quite frequently.

I see the member from Burnaby on it a

lot, but there are other ministers that I never see on it. Look at the

frequent flying back and forth. It's virtually used as a taxi service,

and that is the abuse we are talking about, Madam Minister. We never

object to ministers having to perform their functions and go to any

parts of the province. That's something that has to be. I would

certainly question the new Minister of International Business (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) taking government out to the people, you know, but certainly

ministers have that right. They have the right to go out and do those

things.

For any of you people to stand up and question the

right of ministers to take their message out to the public is wrong.

That's not what we're talking about.

The second member for

Cariboo (Mr. Zirnhelt) has been quite clear in pointing out just....

And I'm sure at no other time during the year or any other point in

time have you had 22 different ministers going into the Cariboo at any

given time, so obviously there's got to be some kind of an abusive

situation there, and I think the minister should be looking at that.

MR. ROSE : If the minister is going to reply, I yield to her.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, I'm saddened that this topic has come up again. Let me

tell you why I'm saddened. Your opposition House Leader will understand

what I am saying, because what you are doing is foolish. It's foolish

in the extreme to criticize something that you know nothing about.

Government aircraft are not used any differently today than they were

15 or 16 years ago. But to use the word "abuse" when you don't have a

case of abuse — you have suspicions of abuse — is wrong. It's foolish.

[ Page 10622 ]

Let

me just demonstrate to you the difference between this side of the

House and the opposition side of the House. Not one member on this side

said anything about the bonus points, which belonged to the taxpayers

of this province, used by a member of the opposition to take a family

to Disneyland. Not one member said anything. It came out in the media —

I don't know how — but not one member stood up in this House and talked

about it. I think it's foolish in the extreme for any member on that

side to make allegations unless they can be proved. I've looked at the

logs during the NDP years, and there is every evidence that ministers

went home every night of the week

MR. LOVICK : Like you.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

You see. There's an example of what I'm talking about. The first member

for Nanaimo — and I don't know whether the remarks were correct —

called me, in the media, "a rat" and a couple of other very

uncomplimentary things. The

article that he was taking his information

from is untrue, totally and completely untrue.

I think it's

foolish to play this stupid game. And it is a stupid game; it's a very

foolish game for the opposition to play. You have been government once.

The actions on those airplanes were no different than they are today.

I'm sure each one of the members could explain where they were, what

they were doing and that it was legitimate use of the aircraft. I'm not

questioning it. I just think you're very foolish people.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE :

Since my name was taken in vain a little while ago, Mr. Chairman, I

have to respond. I want to let the minister know that if the flight

logs of the former NDP government of 1972-75 were a matter of a record,

at least we had the records and you had the records. If it had been

left up to you, you would never have revealed the records. Am I not

right about that?

AN HON. MEMBER : That's right.

HON. MRS. GRAN : That's not true.

MR. ROSE : That's right, because you've refused to do it time and time again. What happened? You were forced to reveal them.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Once.

MR. ROSE :

More than once; until you got your marching orders. We have never

objected to the scheduled airline that went from out here at Pat Bay to

Boundary Bay. We have never complained about that. We have never

complained about the use of government aircraft, because ministers need

to use those government aircraft. We're not concerned about that. What

we are concerned about, though, is frivolous use of government aircraft.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Name some.

MR. ROSE :

My colleague here has a number of records and examples that he'd be

just delighted to give you in a little while. Let me just say one other

thing.

On the matter of bonus points, you and I, in a

matter of confidence and in camera, know that these bonus points were

discussed two years ago. It was decided then that we had no legal

recourse over those bonus points, nor could they be gathered and given

back to anyone, let alone the government. Had this been the case, I

think your argument would be quite different.

HON. MR. VEITCH : But there's a moral principle.

MR. ROSE : Just a moment.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. ROSE :

I'm quite sure that the examples of bonus points are not limited to one

side of the House. But you can't transfer them, you can't give them

back to the government. We in our caucus felt two years ago that we

should not use them for the very purposes that the minister outlines,

and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. S. Hagen). We don't

believe in that. But the point is that they just accrue to the airlines

if they're not used. I don't belong to the frequent flyer club. I don't

belong to any of those things; maybe I should. So at least I'm squeaky

clean on that one. But that isn't the point. The point is that they're

of no value to anybody else, and if we could give them back to the

government, we should do it.

We've had airline infractions

on both sides of the House, some of them resulting in very ugly scenes.

Again, I agree with the minister: I don't think it helps any of us if

we dredge up "you did this" and "you did this" and "you did this." We

believe in the system where ministers need to get from place to place

from time to time. We're not concerned about that at all. We are

concerned about what might be considered flagrant abuse and overuse of

airlines, such as making transfers out to Abbotsford, to Nanaimo and to

various other places to pick up, when commercial airlines are

available. We in the opposition use the commercial airlines. There are

many examples where profound savings could accrue if government

ministers used them, especially on weekends. But they are not always

convenient. Government ministers are very busy people, and we can

understand why it's important to use government aircraft. But two trips

to Kamloops within two hours is a bit much.

[3:15]

MR. GABELMANN :

Mr. Chairman, the opposition House Leader has covered most of the

territory, but I want to just remind the minister that if in the first

instance in this issue of the last few weeks she had

[ Page

10623 ]

not refused to release the logs because she was

worried they might be used for some political campaign or some

political use, this would not have been the issue it Is.

MR. ROSE : She knows that.

MR. GABELMANN : She knows that full well.

The Premier, better politician that he is, knew that too, and instructed the minister....

HON. MRS. GRAN : I already admitted that. What do you want, blood?

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN :

Well, we've got the admission, fair enough. But there's another

admission that's needed, and I haven't heard the minister give it.

The

minister says: "What are you doing? This is sad. You shouldn't be doing

this. It's disgraceful." I don't think she used the word "disgraceful,"

but that's the kind of image that was left from the comment.

Mr. Chairman.... I've lost my train of thought for a moment, which happens to all of us at one time or another, I'm sure.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN : Mine, too.

Mr.

Chairman, the issue is an important one, and I don't think, when the

minister says, "name the abuse; tell us what's wrong," that she is

recognizing that she herself recognizes that there has been abuse.

Otherwise, why else is there a review of the policy which will lead,

hopefully, to a situation where the system is not abused? It is an

abuse of the government jet service to have four out of the six craft

flying to Cariboo for government members to participate in a political

by-election. The Social Credit Party should have paid for travel to the

Cariboo by-election.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN :

The first member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) is entirely within his right to

travel on regular flights to his riding during a by-election, as any

other member would be. But when the Premier or cabinet ministers go to

the Cariboo to campaign....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Order, please. The member for North Island has the floor. All other

members will have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

MR. GABELMANN : It's an abuse of the democratic process to use taxpayers'

money to go and campaign in a by-election. That's that issue; that's

number one.

It's

another abuse for the two members for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond and

Hon. Mr. Smith) not to in one instance delay leaving Victoria by one

hour or, in the other case, advance leaving Victoria by one hour so

that they could take one jet to Kamloops. We would not object to one

jet going to Kamloops. If the schedules couldn't have been arranged by

60 minutes in either case.... I don't believe that could not have been

arranged one way or another. People who have to have meetings can make

different arrangements to fit that kind of situation.

want to say to the minister that at least two former members of this

House — and there were others.... They will probably both be here

tonight, and I'll name them: Jim Nielsen and Garde Gardom. They flew on

the regularly scheduled plane from Pat Bay to Vancouver — I'm not sure

whether it was Boundary Bay; I think they went to Richmond, to the

international airport — virtually every day on the scheduled flight. We

knew that, because the logs were released regularly in those days.

did not raise that issue in this House, because we believed it was

appropriate that those ministers could sleep in their own beds at

night. This job is tough enough — and when you are in cabinet, it's

even tougher — that if you can have that kind of amelioration of the

difficulties of the job, you should. We made no complaint about that.

We talked about it, we looked at it, we thought about it, and we

consciously decided that that was not an abuse. Why was it not an

abuse? The plane was going on a regularly scheduled basis, and the

ministers hopped on.

Similarly, Pat Bay to Boundary Bay —

we have not complained about that. It is an appropriate use of the

government jet. We have not complained about that.

HON. MR. SMITH : It's just the interior.

MR. GABELMANN :

If I were the Minister of Government Management Services, in charge of

air services, and I had a minister in the Peace, a minister in the

Prince George region, a minister in the Terrace region and another

minister mid-Island, and those ministers were coming to Victoria most

Monday mornings, I'd make sure that the jet started out in Fort St.

John, Dawson Creek or wherever, landed in Prince George, went over to

Terrace and down to Comox, and went on to Victoria with three, four or

five ministers on board.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mostly it did.

MR. GABELMANN : Mostly it does not appear from the logs, in fact, that it does.

HON. MRS. GRAN : A lot of times it does.

MR. GABELMANN :

Okay, we're getting somewhere then. So a lot of times a good policy is

in place. Would the minister agree that that issue is to be looked at

in this review, and that there will be more of it in the future than

there has been in the past?

[ Page 10624 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The member for North Island.... I probably have more respect for him

than for a lot of people here. I want to answer this question again. I

started my estimates by talking about the issue that we're talking

about today. I have admitted publicly many times that my answer in the

House was foolish and that many of my comments afterwards were foolish.

I am grateful to the Premier — and I have said that in public — for

straightening it out. That's been said for the tenth or fifteenth time.

I'm not the first politician to make a mistake, and I doubt very much

that I'll be the last.

I want to talk about the review. It

has been underway for the last two months. The review was not started

because of the controversy over the logs or even over my statements.

Everything the member for North Island has talked about is certainly

part of that review. Efficiency — if, instead of the word "abuse," you

had said "inefficiency," it would have been easier for me to deal with.

There is no member on this side of the House or, I believe, on that

side of the House who would knowingly abuse anything that belonged to

the taxpayers. I believe that sincerely.

I also want to say

a few words about the inefficiency and the waste of taxpayers' money on

scheduled flights. Scheduled flights were the order of the day for the

ten years that I was an executive assistant to a minister. I flew on

those flights often. I flew by myself most of the time. There's a

division on the efficiency of scheduled flights, because most often

that plane was empty. I believe that's one of the reasons why scheduled

flights were discontinued in this government, in the main. Efficiency

is something that all ministries should be looking at all of the time,

and that's a very big part of the mandate of this ministry.

The

trips to Abbotsford. That plane has been flying to Abbotsford for 15

years. I was often picked up in Abbotsford because the plane was going

that way. There were four ministers in the Fraser Valley. So we're not

talking about something that's different. It's still the same as it

always has been, but we have more ministers in this government and we

have more demands made on the ministers. But never have I said that we

couldn't be more efficient, and I think that's what we should be

talking about.

MR. GABELMANN : I wonder if the

minister would not agree that it's an abuse of the taxpayers' money to

fly a single minister in a Challenger jet.

HON. MR VEITCH : Again, I hadn't intended to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Mr. Chairman, there's a young member for Nanaimo; could he be quiet a moment, please.

hadn't intended to speak any more on this particular debate, but I

looked over the logs too when I was minister responsible for government

aircraft, and I noted when the NDP were in power they had five

scheduled flights going in and out of Vancouver. I have no argument

with that. If they had government ministers on them, or officials or

whatever, I have no argument with that either. But what we're talking

about....

I respect the hon. member for North Island very

much. He's a man of integrity and also my critic, and I do respect him.

But you can't have it both ways, hon. member. You're talking about

abuse. I heard the word abuse with respect to airplanes used here a

while ago, and I guess that means abuse of taxpayers' money.

would have to ask this committee, Mr. Chairman, whether or not it is an

abuse for a member of this Legislature to consistently, day after day,

be in many parts of this province at government expense. I don't give a

dam whether you've pooled all of your flights to other parts of the

province or not. But the taxpayers are paying for the Leader of the

Opposition not to do government business but to politic every single

day in each and every comer of this province. Not only is he paid the

same rate as a cabinet minister in this House; he is also receiving

free airfare. I don't care how he gets there. He doesn't get there by

government jet; he gets there by commercial jet. But the money comes

out of the same pocket; it's out of the taxpayers' pockets. I don't

care if you've pooled all of your resources and all of your ten flights

a year or however you've done it. I think there is a principle of abuse

here. When that person is not on government business — he's on

opposition business, trying to defeat the government — it should be

paid for by the New Democratic Party and not by the people of British

Columbia.

You can't have a double standard here, my friend.

You can't say that the government is abusing aircraft because they

happen to go home or because there happens to be one person flying on a

plane at one particular point in time when every.... Not every day of

the week, but I can count more days of the week that the Leader of the

Opposition is not here. I can count more days when he is in other parts

of this province, out there politicking at the expense of the taxpayers

of this province, at government expense.

[3:30]

1 say you can't have it both ways. I say abuse is abuse is abuse,

and I believe that he should be called to reckoning for that abuse of

the taxpayers' money.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'm not aware

of the circumstance that the member for North Island is talking about.

I've just had a discussion with the staff, because a good portion of

the logs had to do with a time when I was not the minister. The policy

on the Challenger was always to try and fill the plane, particularly

when it was going back to Ottawa, which I believe we did a pretty good

job of. I'm not aware of the circumstance that the member is talking

about.

MR. GABELMANN : I must say I'm surprised that the minister says she's not aware of it. It's clear that

[ Page

10625 ]

on at least two occasions in the period included in the release of the logs the other day...

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN :

No, I didn't say that. We're talking about the government and the

government's policy and the government's approach to the whole issue.

One of the services that have been provided to the people of B.C. by

this whole exercise is that in future this whole process will be

tighter.

I sometimes debate with myself whether I should

respond to the Minister of International Business (Hon. Mr. Veitch) on

an issue like this, but it needs to be said that we have not at any

time complained about ministers traveling on government business by use

of the jet — not just because there's no commercial flight available,

but even when it's just more convenient in terms of time, because time

is precious; there aren't enough hours in the day. We have not

complained about that. Nor have we complained about a minister going to

a community on the government jet on government business and staying

over for a party function, which happens frequently. The Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Michael) comes to Campbell River frequently and,

quite properly, includes in his day's work a meeting with the Social

Credit association. I don't blame him. I hope to be doing the same

thing in a year or so.

Mr. Chairman, I think this

discussion — rather than using the word "debate" — needs to be handled

in a careful way, and I don't think government members have done that.

The two ministers can laugh. We have not — and I say it again, ad

nauseam — complained about "appropriate use of the jet."

Let

me give you an example of what I think would be an appropriate use of

the government jet, were I a cabinet minister. I have to be in Campbell

River at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning for a presentation on behalf of the

government. I cannot get to Campbell River for 8 o'clock tomorrow

morning other than by leaving here at 5 o'clock this afternoon and

missing the entire session tomorrow — which, if I get beyond ten days,

will cost me $250 out of my own pocket. If I were a cabinet minister,

it would be entirely appropriate for me to leave here at 7 o'clock

tomorrow morning on the government jet and be back here at 10 or 10:30

tomorrow morning to attend the House sitting. It would be entirely

appropriate, and that's the kind of situation that faces ministers

frequently. So let's be clear about all of this.

It is

inappropriate — I repeat, inappropriate — to have one individual on the

Challenger. It is inappropriate to have two jets flying to Kamloops,

taking two different ministers within two hours of each other. There

have been other illustrations of what is inappropriate, and that's all

I have to say on the subject.

MR. LOVICK : Sadly, the debate has involved a number of people that,

I think, surprised us all. We thought we were discussing the estimates of this

particular minister — Government Management Services — and other members of the

gang over there felt the need to protect and look out for the interests of that

minister. Given that we are dealing, after all, with the minister who is also

responsible for women's programs, who is committed of course to trying to

further the cause of equality between men and women and trying to break down

those old, chauvinistic attitudes — those attitudes of condescension and patronizing

and so forth — I would like to apologize from this side of the House for the

behaviour of those males on the other side who have been so patronizing and

who have prevented the minister from answering her own questions and dealing

with her ministry estimates. Quite frankly, I find it offensive, and I'm

sure that the minister responsible for international whatever and the Attorney-General

both mean well. I suspect they mean well. The problem, however, is that they,

by their actions, demonstrate pretty clearly that they don't understand

what the feminist revolution is all about. They don't understand that women

no longer want men to be their protectors and to leap in and answer questions

for them, and I have considerable sympathy for that minister trying, I am sure,

to answer questions, wanting to explain and defend the actions of her ministry,

and not being given an opportunity because of the actions of her own colleagues.

So I'd like to start with that observation, Madam Minister.

tried to pose a number of questions to the minister last week. I didn't

have an opportunity, because of members opposite and their set

speeches. The minister wasn't even allowed to answer in that time.

Rather, the clock was run out. So, sadly, what I have to do in the

beginning of this debate is take us back a few steps.

think my colleagues have now made it very, very clear that most of the

arguments we are hearing from the other side are, frankly, red

herrings. They missed the point either deliberately or as a result of

ignorance and a failure to comprehend what the issues are. We have been

saying from the beginning — and my colleague from North Island said it

very well most recently — that we're not talking about the use; we

recognize legitimate use of the service. Moreover, he sketched out use.

We're talking about alleged abuses.

Where we left off last

time, Madam Minister, when I raised the issue of abuse, was a tirade —

if I might choose my words carefully, but I think correctly — from you,

suggesting that any talk of abuse was really a fabrication of the

press. You thereupon went about saying that the press were in fact

lying; they had deliberately and maliciously misrepresented and

distorted the case. And you went on at some length.

notice, by the way, Madam Minister, despite my good advice, offered

generously to members like the minister for international whatever,

that he is still not even allowing you to listen. He feels he must get

in and tell you how to respond to these concerns. Pity!

The

point I was making is that the minister's response to the charge of

alleged abuse — I emphasize "alleged"; we weren't saying you're guilty

or anything like that; rather, we were saying there are allegations

that ought to be responded to — was a

[ Page 10626 ]

direct

denial. There was a tremendous bit of self-indulgent hectoring of the

fourth estate, suggesting that the media were dishonest and

irresponsible and incompetent — all of the above — and, moreover and

most importantly, suggesting that the media had deliberately lied. I

want to start with that, Mr. Chairman, if I may — if I can find the

newspaper clipping.

What happened was that the minister made various statements about particular stories, notably those in the Vancouver Province

by the reporter Rick Ouston, and said, in effect, that Mr. Ouston had

simply lied. Next day we had a statement from that selfsame reporter,

who had checked out his sources and reported as follows. Because this

is a serious accusation and a serious matter, Mr. Chairman, I want to

quote for the record what that subsequent story had to say -the

clarification. So I beg your indulgence. The story reads as follows:

"A Province report on government jets was a 'set of lies,' the Government Management Services minister told the Legislature yesterday.

"The Province

quoted Cessna Citation engineer Mark Shepherd yesterday as saying

B.C.'s Citation jets were designed for long trips and were inefficient

for short hops. 'It quotes an engineer who we can't find; we don't know

who he works for,' the minister told MLAs. 'I phoned the company

representative in Toronto.'

"Shepherd does not work in Toronto. He is with the Cessna Citation plant in Wichita, Kansas, and spoke to the Province by telephone Tuesday and Wednesday.

"The

minister also cited a reference to the president of Anderson Air, a

firm that flies prop-driven air ambulances for the government. Dave

Anderson was quoted as saying jets were not 'cost-efficient at all.'

The minister said she had phoned Anderson and told the Legislature:

'It's a lie. He didn't say that. He's terribly upset.'

"The Province

then phoned Anderson. He verified that the minister had phoned him

earlier yesterday. He said the minister never asked him if the Province 's story was true. He said he told the minister he had no comment on what was in the paper. He again told the Province that government jets were inefficient as air ambulances, but refused to discuss the matter further."

End of quote. End of story.

Well,

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is pretty solid evidence that we

have not been told the truth. I think the Minister of Government

Management Services, at the very least, owes us an explanation, and

owes that reporter an apology for the statement she made in this

Legislature. I would ask her to give us that now.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. LOVICK : One is reminded of the French proverb, "Q ui ne dit mot, consent " — silence is consent.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

can't believe that the minister will sit there, given that evidence,

given the direct contradiction to what she said in this chamber, and

somehow believe that it isn't her responsibility to answer the

question. This minister, Mr. Chairman, and others have waxed rather

mightily about honour and noble behaviour and ethics and decency, and

all of that — quite legitimately if they are right in what they say.

But I'm presenting the minister with specific evidence of behaviour

that is not acceptable in this chamber — or in civilized society, for

that matter — and giving her an opportunity to respond. Instead, I get

silence. I would implore the minister again to tell us her version.

Given that she sees this as some kind of media conspiracy to make her

look bad, as she has indicated on more than one occasion, will the

minister please stand and respond to this?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ouston is a constituent of mine. Far be it from me to

defend someone in the press, but I wonder if the minister couldn't

clarify the matter. I'll try not to be belligerent about it, but

clearly there's a difference of opinion. There's a follow-up story from

Mr. Ouston, saying that he's checked his sources and they confirm

everything he said. The minister is saying something different. It

appears from the newspaper reports that you owe Mr. Ouston an apology.

That certainly is the appearance. If that's not the case, then it

behooves the minister, it seems to me, to explain why he doesn't

deserve an apology.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Well, I don't

know what Mr. Anderson said when he was called back. My conversation

with him went something like this: I told him about the

article in the

morning newspaper and what he was quoted as saying. He said that he had

been hounded for the last few days by the media — not by one individual

— and that what he had said was, "No comment," and that the remarks

reported in the newspaper were not his. That is essentially what he

said to me. So if he said something different to the reporter when he

phoned back, I really can't do anything about it. But I know what he

said to me in a personal conversation on the telephone.

[3:45]

MR. LOVICK :

To the minister again. That's very compelling, but it's a far cry from

the passionate denunciation you made last week. Look, Madam Minister,

you have certain obligations in this House, and you can only pretend to

be new at the job for so long. You've got some obligations, and one is

to play scrupulously with the truth. You don't have the right to stand

up and say that people are liars, You repeated it again and again, and

now you're proven wrong — or at least your testimony is called into

question, at minimum — and you're saying to us in effect: "Well, maybe

we misunderstood." Come on, Madam Minister. You owe us more than that.

[ Page

10627 ]

HON. MRS. GRAN : Well, I'm not sure what I owe anybody on the

other side of the House. When I talk about lies, I talk first of all

about the

article in question that first came out, which said that I

traveled home every night to my constituency. That is a blatant lie. Is

the member saying that I should take that back, because maybe I am

guilty of something? I think one has to be very careful, because when

you are of another political persuasion and it's worth your while to

paint a minister in a government of a political persuasion you don't

agree with as being dishonest.... I stand behind what I said. The

article was filled with lies.

MR. LOVICK : Well,

rather than trade insults or something like that, Mr. Chairman — even

if we do so in a civilized forum, using you as an intermediary — let's

pose some very direct questions.

The minister just told us

that she did not fly home every night using the aircraft. Would she be

good enough to tell us how many times she has had the aircraft diverted

from Boundary Bay to Abbotsford since her appointment to the cabinet?

Just give us an example of, say, a month-long period or three weeks.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I can't give you the exact figure, but not many times was it diverted.

Often when I did fly back to the lower mainland, the flight was direct

to Abbotsford; it wasn't a diversion. A lot of things have been taken

out of context in this. But when I go back during the week, it's to

attend a function related to my ministry. Perhaps I could give you some

examples: a forum on child care in Delta, a meeting with a group of

nurses in Richmond, a meeting with Women for Better Wages at Hastings

and Gore in Vancouver — and I can go on and on. So if you're arguing

about whether the airplane should have gone to Boundary Bay instead of

Abbotsford, I don't know. But when I go back during the week when we're

in session, it's on government business.

MR. LOVICK :

Is the minister telling me that one of the diversions from Boundary Bay

to Abbotsford was to attend a meeting at Hastings and Gore in

Vancouver? You found it worthwhile to fly to Abbotsford to get to a

meeting in Vancouver? Is that what you just said?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I think some of the difficulty is the lack of understanding

of the area I represent. Number one, the Abbotsford airport is the best in all

the province, weatherwise. There is also access to the freeway right off the

Fraser Highway very close by. It's as easy and it takes less time to drive

the freeway from Abbotsford to Vancouver than it does from Boundary Bay. In

fact, it takes me a substantial amount of time more to drive to the Boundary

Bay airport. If you look at the logs, you'll see that any time I've

used the aircraft, it's a split between Boundary Bay and Abbotsford, and

very rarely was I alone.

MR. LOVICK :

Just to inform the minister, I don't need much instruction on the

Abbotsford airport. I learned to fly there when I was 17, so I'm quite

familiar with that airport and the behaviour of the weather, etc. I

know about that stuff.

If Abbotsford has that many

attractions, can the minister tell us whether she has given any thought

to moving the regular shuttle from Victoria directly to Abbotsford?

Wouldn't that perhaps be of greater benefit to more people?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

All of the suggestions that have been made are well taken and will all

be discussed when changes are made after the review is completed, and

it is just about completed.

Again I want to say to you that

the review has been underway for a long time — for at least two months

— and was not initiated because of this.

MR. LOVICK :

That's reassuring; I'm sure we're all happy to know. The obvious

question is: what was it initiated by? Is this just an ongoing review

or...? Apropos of just that point, the question is whether the minister

looked at Government Management Services, detected some guidelines that

were — to put it charitably — rather loose and said: "This operation is

not functioning as effectively, efficiently and smoothly as it ought;

therefore I am instructing my staff to investigate." Is that what

happened?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The review was a decision made by the entire cabinet.

MR. LOVICK :

That is indeed interesting, Mr. Chairman. I am wondering if the

minister would share with us when that decision was made, and whether

there was any background position paper explaining it. It seems a

rather significant — albeit desirable — shift in policy, and I'm

wondering if she could tell a little more about that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : On vote 34.

MR. LOVICK :

One of the reasons that we continue to pose questions which I grant, on

the face of it, must appear to be not terribly pressing or precise or

urgent is simply because there is this incredible cloud of suspicion

hanging over all of us, as you know.

It would seem obvious

to me that, on the part of the government members of the House and in

their position, I would want to — if you'll pardon the pun — clear the

air. It would seem to me that it ought to be done forthwith.

Therefore

we persist in posing these questions. It becomes even more obligatory

for us to do that when we get answers from the minister that, quite

frankly, strike us as jejune and not terribly relevant to the questions

that have been posed.

Let me give you one example of our

grounds for suspicion and concern. Mr. Chairman, you recall, I am sure,

that great event in legislative history and freedom of information when

a number of members

[ Page 10628 ]

the press — as well as a number of colleagues — attempted to look at

the manifests and the logs. We were met by a rather officious official

who told us: "No, you can't touch that stuff, because it's the property

of the Department of Transport, it's federal stuff."

However,

we then discovered less than a week later that the federal government

didn't have that kind of regulation at all and that those logs are the

property of the users of the airline. I am wondering if the minister

would explain to us where that particular confusion came from. Was her

official simply given bad information when she spoke with us, or was

she acting out of fear or some such thing?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The logs are required by law by the Department of Transport to be kept.

So if you want to be technical, they don't belong to them. But it's an

offence if you can't come up with the logs for those aircraft. So it

was important to make sure that none of them disappeared.

The

first member for Nanaimo — and we try really hard on this side to be

charitable — has a way about him that just makes you want to turn your

back.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'll respond to that. The temptation is powerful, but I'm going to resist.

HON. MRS. GRAN : When have you ever resisted before?

MR. LOVICK :

Most of the time, actually. After a while, one begins to feel like

beating up on individuals who aren't able to fight back or some such

thing.

Let's establish for the record the facts regarding

getting the information about the logs. We were not asking to take them

out of the premises. We were asking to get them photocopied. The other

outrageous request that we made was that we could perhaps take the

little silver clips off them and take them apart so we could photocopy

them. So to suggest that we would take them, disappear with them and

therefore cause you to commit a federal offence is simply silly stuff.

let's clarify. Surely you have a better answer than that. In other

words, you said: "You can't look at these things. You can't photocopy

them, because we're afraid that if you put them in the photocopier

they'll be eaten by the great god technology or something." Surely you

have a better answer than that.

No better answer? Okay. Let's carry on.

MR. CLARK :

I just have a couple of questions. The minister has sparked my

curiosity. She said the review was a decision made by cabinet.

Cabinet, I am sure, is consumed by questions. It strikes me that it

implies that it was occasioned by something. To review air services is

something which wouldn't be done in the normal course of events. It

doesn't strike me as a normal cabinet decision. Maybe the minister

could explain that.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The Ministry of

Government Management Services has been on a service-quality thrust for

the last couple of years. Part of that is reviewing and analyzing all

of the departments within the ministry. It just so happened that I

became the minister when it was time to look at government air services.

is normal policy in our government for ministers to bring forward

initiatives that they're dealing with for cabinet's information and

decision. It didn't happen any differently than it did with any of the

other parts of my ministry or any of the other ministries. Reviews are

an ongoing process in government.

[4:00]

MR. CLARK :

The minister brought before cabinet the notion that air traffic should

be reviewed for ratification, and nothing occasioned it other than the

fact that you were going through the ministry, department by department

or branch by branch. Is that the minister's position? There was a

debate in cabinet and a decision was taken.

It just strikes

me that if I were the minister responsible — and I haven't had that

privilege — reviewing air traffic would not be something that I would

think would require a cabinet decision or even require bringing to

cabinet. If the ministry decided to review air traffic or to privatize

it, then that would be a decision made, I think, by the minister and

her ministry.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Cabinet is our major

customer, and it's a natural thing to go to your customers to talk

about what you think you can do better to serve those customers, not to

mention that the Ministry of Health is a very big part of what we do in

government air services.

MR. CLARK : Can the minister

confirm that the review and the terms of reference of the review were

discussed with the Ministry of Health particularly, and tell us what

the parameters of that review would be? Presumably, if it went to

cabinet, this was well thought out — it had background papers and

briefing notes and the whole range of things that would be required.

Can the minister confirm that that is the case and that this was

reviewed with the Ministry of Health as one of the major clients — not

anymore the major client, but one of the major clients — in light of

the pending review?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The answer is yes. We had extensive discussions with the Ministry of Health.

MR. CLARK :

Would the minister then be prepared to table the terms of reference of

the review? The minister said it's gone through a thorough debate; it's

gone through debate in cabinet, it's been approved by cabinet; it's

been discussed.

HON. MRS. GRAN : No. I didn't say that.

[ Page

10629 ]

MR. CLARK : Oh, I'm sorry. The decision to make the

review had gone through cabinet. You said that. I'm not trying to lead

you anywhere. You said you discussed with the Ministry of Health the

terms of reference at length. I think it would not be inappropriate for

us to see the terms of reference of the review.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The review is not yet completed, so it would not be appropriate for me to table it in the House at this time.

MR. CLARK :

With respect, that's not what I asked. I understand the review is not

complete. What I'm trying to get at is this. The minister has stated

that the genesis of this review was prior to this latest controversy

and was part of a well-thought-out, ongoing program — the

service-quality thrust of the ministry. There was a debate; there was

discussion with the Ministry of Health; it went to cabinet; to go to

review had been approved by cabinet.

What is of interest to

me, in light of the current controversy, is what is being reviewed and

the terms of reference of that review. You have indicated that you've

got those terms of reference; you've discussed them at length with the

Ministry of Health. Would the minister be prepared to table the terms

of reference — the scope of the review that had been approved by

cabinet and approved by the client groups, particularly the Ministry of

Health?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Attorney-General.

MR. CLARK : I thought I was going to get an answer.

HON. MR. SMITH : You'll get an answer. The minister is writing it down.

The

other day I asked a number of questions in here relating to the rent of

buildings and the like, properties in this area, and the minister's

responsibility for the Buildings Corporation. Much to my surprise, the

raising of those questions caused a number of people to call and ask me

about other issues they were concerned about in the same general area.

So with that in mind — because I asked those people if they wanted a

response — I will raise some of those questions now.

One

concern was the operation of the government telephone service, which

enables people here who work for private sector organizations that are

profit-motivated and profit-dominated to have access to anywhere in the

province, with the cost being borne by the taxpayers. Properly, I

think, when I reflect upon it, I was asked by a number of small

independent news organizations in the interior why those organizations

— typically large, and in some instances multinational, corporations

centred in the large urban areas of our province — would have those

special privileges, and the small ma-and-pa organizations would not.

I think the opposition House Leader is looking at me somewhat quizzically.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

He says he wasn't paying attention, but that he is somewhat interested.

I thought he would be, because this raises a very interesting question:

why would profit-centred organizations have their special privileges

subsidized by the taxpayer simply because they're located here? They

have access to the government telephone system, and they can therefore

phone with impunity, without cost, anywhere in the province.

course, they also are able to use the machinery. They have these

computers nowadays where they just flip a switch and publish their

material from one terminal to another, without cost to them but

obviously with cost to the taxpayer.

It has been drawn to my attention that the independent paper in Terrace or Prince Rupert, or the Clearwater Times or the North Thompson Journal

or papers like that which provide a very useful community service,

might want to access government to deal with forestry issues, mining

issues or the like. Environmental issues arise all the time, or flood

issues that have taken place. Apparently they do not have the same

opportunity. They can't plug in to a government telephone system and

call Victoria, let alone call their friends and neighbours around the

province at the taxpayers' expense.

The question was raised

as to why that should be, because obviously the consequence of it is

that they are forced to buy into a wire service which they may or may

not want, or which they can or cannot afford. It seems to me that what

may have started at one time as an important privilege is ending up as

a special privilege for specific organizations.

As I said,

I asked earlier about telephone access from this building and from the

gallery to anywhere in B.C., and about the cost, if any, of subsidizing

those private news organizations with taxpayers' revenue. I want to

know today whether small-town news organizations can access that same

telephone system or even perhaps have some limited access by being able

to telephone Victoria on a reverse-charge basis. There must be some way

that we can organize that so that they can have that access.

The question, therefore, to the minister is: can these private news organizations — to be specific, the North Thompson Journal and the Clearwater Times

— have access to the same telephone system or even limited access by

phoning Victoria? Or do the major news organizations alone enjoy this

special privilege which is subsidized by the taxpayers of British

Columbia? I'm sure she'll have to get back with the answer; or maybe

she won't. That is the first question that came as a result of the

discussion we had the other day.

The second one that was

raised with me is whether or not there are any organizations now

granted press status who are effectively running a publishing business

from the buildings — in the area, for instance, of forest planning.

Frankly, I don't know the answer; that's why I'm asking the minister.

But the suggestion has been made to me by phone that

[ Page 10630 ]

indeed

this whole area of what was determined to be a privilege — and properly

so — of access to certain things in the gallery has gone beyond that.

Today, apparently — so I am advised — there are effectively business

organizations or business activities being run from the privilege of

that tradition in that gallery.

I want to know — because I

don't know the answer — whether that is true, and whether there are any

such organizations benefiting, if you like, from a taxpayer-owned

organization to the extent that effectively they can run their own

businesses.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

It's interesting you say that, to the second member for Vancouver East

(Mr. Clark). What was surprising to me was that I got some sense of

what happens to you from time to time. When I raised the question the

other day, I immediately got two or three little envelopes presented to

my desk with "what about this," "what about that" and "what about the

other thing." This was interesting to me. In any event, I said to them

that I would ask the questions. So there it is.

The third

issue that was put to me to be raised is with respect to the press

gallery: one, is there a facility for dispensing alcoholic beverages in

exchange for money?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH : I don't know, I don't attend the place.

Two,

is that facility licensed by the liquor licensing authority? Three, if

it is not, by what written authority does that facility operate? That

is a question to the minister that the public who have contacted me

would like answered.

Finally, again in respect to the

Buildings Corporation, would the minister determine whether there are

any news organizations or their employees who have free parking spaces

supplied by the taxpayers? Could the minister supply the names of those

organizations? Secondly, what is the annual value, if any, of any free

parking space that may be provided? Thirdly, is provision of any such

parking space a taxable benefit in the hands of the beneficiary?

Fourthly, what, if any, is the amount of that benefit, and has Revenue

Canada ruled on the application or the acquisition of that benefit?

Mr.

Chairman, those were the questions that I had put to me by citizens of

British Columbia, who, frankly, are entitled to know if those kinds of

privileges do indeed exist. If they're paying for them, I think in all

seriousness that everyone in the House would want that information to

be disclosed publicly I will leave it to the minister to answer those

questions now — or later, if she has to get details.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General raises some interesting points. I

doubt very much that I will have to do any research though. I'm sure

all of the members of the press will disclose, in their respective

newspapers, everything that they are given in the Legislature and will

be the first to admit if they're receiving taxable benefits that they

aren't paying for. I have absolutely no doubt about that and will await

with bated breath the next round of newspapers. I'm sure it will be on

the front page. I just know that it will be. So tomorrow is going to be

a very special day for all of us.

MR. ROSE : I wonder

whether the minister had intended to respond to the last question my

colleague placed before we heard the four probing questions from the

Attorney-General, who, incidentally, I think would make an excellent

opposition member. Are you not going to answer the question? Have you

forgotten it?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The question had to do with the terms of reference for the review. I'll take that into consideration.

[4:15]

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. ROSE :

I'm sorry that I don't have the other answer I needed for the

Attorney-General, but I understand that.... I'm looking up the citation

now. We're having our experts here, our rule sleuths, looking through

the various references. I think it's part of Bill 1, which is a

parliamentary right having to do with freedom of parliaments from the

local liquor laws. When I find the citation, I'll be very pleased to

pass these along to him. Have you got it?

Anyway, I've got

some questions on the Purchasing Commission. Here we go into the

Purchasing Commission. I wonder if the minister could tell me why,

since the Purchasing Commission Act requires an annual report of

business done to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly, there has been

no report to this parliament to date.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The Purchasing Commission report is part of the ministry report which will be tabled soon.

MR. ROSE :

I think it's very important that we have this material quite early in

the session, especially before the minister's estimates, because we can

hardly debate that annual report after the minister's estimates are

over. I would suggest that it might be a recommendation to see that we

have some of these annual reports in earlier so we have a chance to

look at them before we deal with the estimates.

I'd like to

say that when I was first given the rather onerous task of being critic

of this grab-bag of corporations and commissions, I visited the CEOs of

each of them — I think every one. I said in the House last year that I

was quite impressed with them. I thought we were being well served by

the CEOs. I was impressed by the enthusiasm with which they seem to

approach their job, and also by the freedom and openness that they

displayed to me.

[ Page

10631 ]

I haven't had occasion to be in touch with many of them since that

time, although I did attend — I believe it was — the Purchasing

Commission's fair in the convention centre last year. I liked their

idea of displaying or publishing the kind of things that the Purchasing

Commission buys, and seeking approaches, offers and contracts from

local manufacturers and other business people.

I just wish

that we had a wider

interpretation of their mandate. To begin with, I

would like to ask the minister — since I don't have the annual report —

if she has any idea of the value of the materials and services that

were acquired last year through the commission and how much was

acquired through other channels?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The

answer is $350 million annually, and including other agencies the

amount comes to approximately $500 million. The amount of money spent

in the public sector is $6.3 billion.

MR. ROSE : Is

the minister really confirming that the Purchasing Commission, which

the public thinks is the principal agent for purchasing for the Crown,

actually purchases as little as 6 percent of all government procurement?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes, the figures would bear that out.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE :

Not bad? I think it's shocking. The public thinks that the Purchasing

Commission, which has a squeaky-clean reputation for probity, openness,

tendering and all the rest of it, is the chief agent. If the Purchasing

Commission were in charge of more purchasing, I don't think we would

have had the purchasing scandals that we've encountered this spring. I

want to know if the minister would agree that the mandate....

MR. RABBITT : Shame, shame, shame!

MR. ROSE : Thumper, are you back again?

What steps is the minister going to take to expand the mandate of this very excellent organization?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

First of all, I want to explain to the member — and I'm sure he already

knows — that the $6 billion figure also includes school boards,

hospitals, universities, municipalities and colleges which do not

currently or necessarily deal with the Purchasing Commission. But in

this session we actually have tabled legislation that will enable the

Purchasing Commission to do more purchasing with those agencies.

MR. ROSE : With the expertise lodged in the Purchasing Commission, they

could probably do a great deal more. I think that the hospitals, schools and

other institutions would greatly benefit from their professional expertise in

this field. But 6 percent of government spending — I don't know how much

is accounted for by the other institutions, colleges, universities, schools

and hospitals. I really have no idea. Even if it were $3 billion, it would still

only be 12 percent if you doubled it. So I think the minister's efforts

should be directed to increasing this.

For

instance, the Health ministry finances $43 million worth of equipment

purchases for hospitals every year, and it doesn't go through the

Purchasing Commission. We've been treated to the saga of Siemens

Electric. It cost a couple of people — very nice people, good people —

their jobs here, and it tarnished another one who is a candidate. It

seems to me that that occurred because they didn't have the kind of

machinery in place to prevent these things from happening. Had it gone

through the Purchasing Commission, that would not have happened. I

wonder if the minister would agree that much more needs to be done.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, obviously we would agree that more areas of government

should be dealing with the Purchasing Commission. But it's important to

note that this is a voluntary service, and that when people

decide-boards, agencies, branches and ministries of government — to

purchase through the Purchasing Commission, they do it because they

choose to do it for all the right reasons. The last thing we would want

to do is to alienate any of those parts of government. In fact, we

would rather have a customer who wants to be a customer.

MR. ROSE : I don't know why you're worried about alienating them; you've alienated practically everybody else.

I would think....

HON. MRS. GRAN : Why are you laughing?

MR. ROSE : I don't know. Why am I laughing when I'm hurting all over? It only hurts when I laugh — or vice versa.

Mr.

Chairman, I've got a suggestion for the minister. Leaving aside the

hospitals, colleges and school boards, because I really think they are

autonomous operations — or at least they have been in the past, I can

understand that they would be reluctant to give up their particular

rights. But a lot of the stuff is purchased by the ministry for the

hospitals, and in that sense I don't think they need the kind of

necessary autonomy encountered.

I think that the CEO of the

Purchasing Commission can confirm that there have been some real horror

stories of people dealing in various kinds of computer and copying

equipment and the unconscionable contracts, because they didn't know

what they were doing and could have used the advice; I'm talking about

school boards and hospitals. There's a perfect example of how we could

have saved the public money that got into long-term contracts that were

probably.... We paid through the nose, in other words, and I can give

you the

chapter and verse of that one if you need it. We don't, because

we want to

[ Page 10632 ]

get on with this. We're very anxious to get through this and examine all the facets of this ministry-

think that everything over $1,000 in government spending should be

vetted through the Purchasing Commission. Is that a little small?

MR. MERCIER : Municipalities are higher than that.

MR. ROSE :

What would you say? I don't mind. Would $50,000 be all right? Maybe

$20,000? 1 don't know. I'll take the advice of the CEO of the

Purchasing Commission if they can come up with a figure, but it

certainly seems to me that we need a much tighter ship than we have at

the moment.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I just wanted to confirm

for the member that the vast majority of purchases over $10,000 for

ministries do come through the Purchasing Commission. But I compliment

you for your efforts, and perhaps you could ask that same question of

each minister and just remind them about the Purchasing Commission, the

wonderful reputation they have and what a great job they do.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Chairman, the minister would like me to give that spin on it, as they say up there in the press gallery. Is that right?

MR. G. JANSSEN :

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to take

part in the

minister's estimates, particularly when it comes to the Purchasing

Commission and expenditures of dollars. I'm not sure whether $1,000 is

too small to consider. There are many businesses in British Columbia

that pay taxes on a continual basis — ever-increasing taxes as it seems

to be with this government's policy — and they would like to have some

of those taxes somehow returned to them in the form of being able to

sell to the government some product that the government uses. I'm just

amazed to find that the Purchasing Commission makes as little as 6

percent of the purchases in the province of British Columbia.

small business critic for the party, I get a lot of requests and a lot

of business people in the province asking me: "Where can we get some

government business?" If the minister has ever been involved in

business, she knows that a $1,000 purchase can seem like a healthy

purchase when it has been a very slow day. Also, they're very concerned

when they notice that the particular purchases in a region, an area or

a community are being made in Vancouver, particularly if they're in the

north, on Vancouver Island or in some other part of this very large and

bountiful province of ours. They do not even have an opportunity to bid

on those local purchases. Particularly when you find that the cost of

shipping those goods to the community — be it Dawson Creek, Port Hardy

or Cranbrook — sometimes exceeds the cost of the purchase itself.

I wonder if the minister could relate to us what the Purchasing Commission

is involved in to make sure that the dollars collected by Victoria — by the Finance

minister in particular — are more evenly distributed throughout this province,

so that we don't have the regional disparity, particularly in economics,

that we now see in British Columbia. We see tremendous growth in the lower mainland

and Victoria. We see the unemployment figures for those areas, yet when we look

in other areas of the province, the unemployment figures are double and in some

cases two and a half times what they are in the lower mainland.

[4:30]

Diversification is what people are looking for. As the largest

business in British Columbia, I would hope that the province and the

Purchasing Commission would have some plan in place to assure British

Columbians that what they are paying out they are getting back in some

way.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I want the member to know that

the Purchasing Commission is doing more and more regional purchasing.

They offer not only the service of purchasing but also a great deal of

advice. There is also education on how to purchase. If the branch or

organization is intent on doing its own purchasing, a lot of advice and

education are available in the ministry.

When purchasing in

the regions, the commission tries to stay as close to the source as

possible. But those bids must be competitive at all times. The

Purchasing Commission has been extremely successful in doing what the

member is talking about.

I want to give one example of

that, which is the Queen's Printer, where suppliers were set up by

region and asked to quote by region, so that they were close to the

source and yet competitive. It has been an extremely successful

initiative by the Purchasing Commission. The Purchasing Commission is

readily available to offer that kind of advice to anyone who wants it.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

In the example the minister is using, is she saying that the Queen's

Printer is now having printing done in regions rather than in one

central location? Are brochures, booklets and handouts from government

being produced in the regions so that some of those funds are returning

to them?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The answer is yes. Although the example I gave you was for office supplies, the answer is the same for printing.

MR. G. JANSSEN : We appreciate that initiative, so that some of those dollars are being returned to areas that are very hard hit economically.

There

are a number of brochures put out. "Discover Your Markets" starts off

by saying: "It is the policy of the B.C. Purchasing Commission to

purchase goods and services whenever possible in the region of

delivery." With the limited resources that my caucus has and that are

available to me, I naturally haven't had the opportunity to check the

entire province for the types of purchases being made, but I know in my

own area.... I wrote the

[ Page

10633 ]

former minister a letter concerning this,

particularly about the purchase of vehicles and about opportunity. I

said: "High priority has been given to informing local business of

opportunities to supply the government." I made the information on how

to do this available to the dealers in my area.

There seems

to be no difficulty with the federal government, as they often purchase

vehicles in the community of Alberni and have them serviced there.

Rather there seems to be some difficulty with the Purchasing Commission

and their plan.

Recently, not a month ago, British Columbia

Hydro needed a vehicle, a request was put in to purchase a vehicle and

they were simply sent one. The dealers in my community asked if they

could be put on the list for purchasing. They would like to be

contacted, for instance, when a vehicle is needed. I don't want to

restrict the minister to the one example of vehicles, but at many times

bids are not even asked for from the local dealers.

That is

the question, and I appreciate the fact that the Queen's Printer is

involved in this. But in many areas — and I hear this continually

throughout the province — bids are not asked for. Purchases are simply

sent. Requirements from various ministries and offices are asked for;

somewhere somebody makes a purchase or sends the equipment, the

vehicle, the stationery, the pencils or the shovel handles — whatever

it may be; and it shows up at the destination. The local suppliers,

even though they are aware of the government's system, with Government

Management Services and the Purchasing Commission, don't receive the

opportunity to bid on those items. If they were given that opportunity

and were turned down because their price was too high or because the

quality wasn't good enough, I'm sure they would find a manner to adjust

to that. But when they are not even given the opportunity to place

a bid on the particular purchase that's necessary, it becomes very

disheartening, particularly when you're writing out a tax cheque at the

end of the month — it's ever-increasing — and you're not even asked to

bid on a product where you hopefully could recover some of those

dollars or perhaps even generate a profit if you're lucky enough to pay

some of the taxes that inevitably show up at the end of the month.

Surely

the government must have a list of the businesses involved. They're

obviously available from the social services tax department or the

Ministry of Finance. Those lists could be made available as purchases

are required. Is that type of system being studied by the minister?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, it's not being studied; it's in place. It's the most comprehensive and up-to-date system in Canada.

On vehicles, specifically, the bids are done through the manufacturer. The

delivery is done locally. So it's up to the manufacturer to make sure that

the fairness is in there, on a regional basis. Over 600 vehicles, at a cost

of $8.5 million, were sourced in 1989-90 from nine regional centres in the province.

also remind the member — and I'm sure he's aware of it — that there's a

computer system in the chamber of commerce office in almost every

community, where any business or dealership can access any bid that is

there in government. It's a system that is only in western Canada,

initiated by the Purchasing Commission in British Columbia, and I'm

sure that member is well aware of it.

The other thing that

I say to the member is that if you have any queries, if you have any

dealerships or any businesses in your community, the Purchasing

Commission is used to working and happy to work with MLAs who are there

and working on behalf of their constituents. So please feel free to

deal directly with the Purchasing Commission.

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I'm aware, of course, as a past president of the chamber of commerce,

of the tremendous opportunity that is available through the computer

system and the listing of the supply, and also of the fact that

particular business people or manufacturers may wish to access this

system to inform the government and all other purchasers, not only in

western Canada but through most of the United States, of products they

may have for sale. So I am aware of that.

The question of

the purchasing. In light of what the minister says, I wonder, then, how

it is possible, as has just been explained by the opposition House

Leader, that incidents such as happened with Siemens could happen,

where purchases were made and no opposing bids were applied for. We're

into a situation where the minister is telling the House that it's all

there, you can access it, we'll work through manufacturers and

purchases are made, and yet we find that many purchases are made

without opposing bids being called for. We find those particular

businesses wanting to access the system, wanting to be able to perhaps

bid on the product for a lower price in order to save the taxpayers of

this province money, and we find out that the purchases were made from

a single producer without a bid being put out and without anybody

having any knowledge of the fact that a purchase was being made.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, working with — and the key word is "with" — the

Purchasing Commission is voluntary. The member keeps going back to

something that was purchased through a hospital. Hospitals, colleges,

universities and municipalities are not required to deal with the

Purchasing Commission. The better the job that the Purchasing

Commission does, the more likely we are to see those agencies dealing

with the Purchasing Commission. Again we go back to service quality.

The Purchasing Commission wants to have customers because they want to

be customers, not because they've been forced to do it.

would suggest that you deal with the issue of the Siemens purchase with

the Health minister in his estimates. But the purchase was done through

a hospital.

[ Page 10634 ]

MR. G. JANSSEN :

I recognize that the purchase was done through a hospital, Madam

Minister. However, it is perhaps sad that it wasn't done through the

B.C. Purchasing Commission, which has a tremendous record of fairness

in this province. And when the hospital in this particular case — I

don't want to dwell on Siemens too long — made recommendations to the

minister, the minister in some cases ignored that.

Going

back to where we started off, 6 percent of purchases in British

Columbia are made through the Purchasing Commission. Perhaps it would

be more fortunate that more purchases were made through the Purchasing

Commission so that we have a better degree of fairness and we have the

opportunity for more British Columbia firms to be involved in the

process, rather than those decisions being made at a ministerial level.

The

question to the minister is: can the Purchasing Commission be expanded

to take in more of the roles of those various ministries so that we

have more of that fairness and more of that redistribution in the

province? I realize that she is a junior minister in the government and

has just recently received her appointment, but I'm sure that if the

B.C. Purchasing Commission were expanded, we would see that fairness

distributed throughout the province of British Columbia and everybody

would have access to those government purchases.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

First of all, I wanted to acknowledge the complimentary tone from the

opposition about the Purchasing Commission and the job that they do. It

is also a source of pride to me and to the government.

The

member should be aware that the 6 percent figure applies to the entire

public sector. The percentage for government ministries is much higher

than that. But the good news is that every year the percentage grows,

and every year more and more ministries do their purchasing through the

Purchasing Commission.

I agree totally with the voluntary

concept. It always works best when you deal with a company, a branch or

an organization in or out of government because they do a good job, not

because you are told to or forced to.

[4:45]

MR. SIHOTA :

I want to ask the minister some questions in relation to her

obligations as the minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings

Corporation. I want to ask her a number of questions that really relate

to how decisions are made within that corporation.

As the

minister knows, government engages in all types of construction

activity. Well, not construction activity, but it wishes to lease

buildings for various purposes, and various branches of government wish

to lease. When decisions are made to look for a site for leasing,

obviously the B.C. Buildings Corporation plays a role. When structural

changes have to be made to buildings, B.C. Buildings Corporation takes

a look at the costs associated therewith and makes some decisions as to

which of a variety of sites would be best suited for the endeavour the

government wants to engage in.

Could the minister tell me

what the process is for BCBC once it has issued its notice, which it

usually does in the paper, saying that it's seeking bids for lease of

certain space for a particular facility? What happens then? Would BCBC

then receive all of the bids and evaluate those bids?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The answer is yes. The B.C. Buildings Corporation operates in much

the same manner as the Purchasing Commission does. The entire ministry

is customer service oriented. The B.C. Buildings Corporation has also a

customer to satisfy.

MR. SIHOTA : I'd also like t