1986 Legislative Session: 4th

Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 8775 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Government TV ads and Socred leadership

campaign. Mr. Williams –– 8775

Registered nurses. Mrs. Dailly –– 8775

Hospital bed closures. Mr. Blencoe –– 8775

Mrs. Dailly

Coquihalla Highway. Mr. Lockstead –– 8776

Support for Bishop Tutu. Ms. Sanford –– 8776

Appointment of Dr. Norman Spector to UBC

position. Mr. Nicolson ––

Doman Industries Ltd. Mr. Williams –– 8777

Ship construction. Mr. Mitchell –– 8777

Presenting Petitions –– 8777

Motion 71. Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 8777

Mr. Nicolson

Division

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism

estimates. (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 70: minister's office –– 8778

Mr. Hanson

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barnes

Division

Committee of Supply: Premier's Office.

(Hon. Mr. Bennett)

On vote 4: Premier's office –– 8784

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Skelly

Supply Act (No. 2), 1986 (Bill 37). Hon.

Mr. Curtis –– 8791

Tabling Documents –– 8791

Royal assent to bills –– 8792

TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1986

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us

this afternoon

are Mr. Thomas W. Wallace, member of parliament from Victoria,

Australia, and Mrs. Wallace. I would ask the House to give them a warm

welcome.

MR. PARKS: It is my pleasure, on behalf of

my minister, Hon.

Alex Fraser, to advise the House that we have with us this afternoon

ten grade 7 students and their teacher, Mr. Shunter, from Kersley

Elementary School in Quesnel. I'd ask the House to join with me and

make them very welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in the House

today is Ross

Siemens, president of the Central Fraser Valley Young Socreds

Association. Ross heads up a group of members numbering in the

neighbourhood of 370.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, all working for me.

With Ross is vice-president Veronica Falkenberg, Howard

Huizing,

Ryan Siemens and his wife Tammy, Todd Lapinsky and Bart Saathof. It is

interesting to note that Ross's father led the largest Young Socreds

group in British Columbia approximately 25 years ago. Would the House

please welcome these proud young British Columbians.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today is a

constituent from

the town of Sidney in the great constituency of Saanich and the

Islands, Mr. Dave Bowker. He has a special guest with him: Mr. Stanley

Baker, who is a member of the district council of East Devon, United

Kingdom.

MR. BARNES: With us in the galleries this

afternoon are Dr.

Marianne Jamison and her husband Dr. David Jamison. Dr. Marianne

Jamison is a political science teacher at Texas Southern University in

Houston, Texas, and her husband is a biologist at the University of

Houston. They have been visiting the precinct and Expo and are on their

way to Alaska in the next few days; from what I gather, they are very

impressed with their experience. I would like the House to make them

welcome.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in

introducing Mrs.

Karen Huber and Sister Eileen and 34 of her grade 7 students from

Cloverdale Catholic School. Would the House please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT TV ADS AND

SOCRED LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Provincial Secretary,

Mr. Speaker. The

minister has recently placed herself on television in a brand-new

series of propaganda advertisements. Can the minister confirm that the

timing pretty well coincided with her announcement with respect to the

leadership?

MR. SPEAKER: A very small part of the

question is in order.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to the

question is no. The government television advertising currently in

place is informational, not political.

MR. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the minister, in

fairness to all

the candidates, might reconsider the decision and pull those ads until

after the convention.

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions?

MR. WILLIAMS: Or is she suggesting that

maybe it's an advantage to the other candidates after all?

REGISTERED NURSES

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the

Minister of Health.

British Columbia has been losing registered nurses because the pay and

the working conditions in this province are much worse than in

neighbouring provinces.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: It is a fact, Mr. Speaker.

What studies has the minister undertaken regarding nurses

leaving

British Columbia for these better working conditions elsewhere?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The registered nurses'

union is at this

time negotiating with the HLRA with respect to their contract. It was

only a few years back that our nurses were the highest-paid in Canada

and other provinces were looking for additional nurses and in fact

recruiting in B.C. as well. At the moment the nurses are negotiating

collective agreement, and I think that's probably the proper forum for

them.

HOSPITAL BED CLOSURES

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the

acting Minister of Health.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's no such animal.

MR. BLENCOE: Well then, the Minister of

Health.

MR. REID: That's better. Smarten up.

MR. BLENCOE: Boy, they're a little antsy,

Mr. Speaker.

Fernande Harrison, the vice-president of patient care for

greater

Victoria hospitals, has announced that three operating rooms at the

Royal Jubilee will be shut down for two weeks in July because of a

nursing shortage. A number of times I've brought the situation at the

Jubilee and the VGH to the attention of this minister in this House. My

question is: has the minister addressed the shortage of nurses in terms

of its funding policies in B. C. hospitals — particularly in Victoria,

which always has a problem with the age of its population, as seniors

require hospital care?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr Speaker, if we were to

go back to each

July for the past 40 or 50 years, we'd probably find the same story

printed in the papers: "Hospital Beds to

[ Page 8776 ]

Close Because of Nurses Shortage."

Usually it's

associated with what we refer to as vacations, and July and August are

the time when beds are traditionally closed in the province to

accommodate staff vacations. It's also a time of the year when there

are fewer people admitted to hospital, particularly for elective

surgery. But if the vice-president of patient care does not know the

name of the administrator of the hospital, I'd be pleased to provide it.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, it's known that

in 1982 the

shortage of staff in hospitals was compounded by the Ministry of Health

cutting back nurses, and hospital beds were closed in British Columbia.

Twenty-seven hospitals indicated in a survey of March 1986 that they

had a shortage of critical-care nurses. Is the minister prepared to

admit that enough is enough, and that we have to return hospital care

in the province of British Columbia to decent standards, and will the

minister admit that he's made some mistakes?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest to the member

that the patient-days in 1982 probably exceeded the patient-days of

1981. We could look at the statistics, but I would suggest that

probably more people were treated in the hospitals in '82 than '81.

Critical-care nurses have been a constant problem for a number

years, not because of the inability to fund, but because of the lack of

critical-care nurses available on the market. That is the most

difficult area of the hospital to staff, because not that many choose

that particular specialty in our hospital system. Attempts have been

made to modify the education process and recruitment process to try to

encourage more registered nurses to move into the critical-care area.

That is a constant problem. It is not confined to your hospital or to

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics available at this

moment,

but I would suggest that in British Columbia today there are probably

about 1,500 acute care beds empty and available for patients but not

being used at this moment. I don't know the precise number, but I would

suggest it's probably about 1,500 acute care beds, open for patients

but not being used at this time.

As to your last question, I would think not.

MR. BLENCOE: A final supplementary. Is the

minister prepared

today to undertake to ensure that the three operating rooms at the

Royal Jubilee Hospital will remain open this summer for business?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to

speak with the

administrator of the hospital and if, in his wisdom, the most efficient

use of that facility, not only from a fiscal point of view but from a

manpower point of view, and medical, is to close those three operating

rooms, I would think that I might accept his judgment in that matter,

since that happens to be his job.

MRS. DAILLY: The minister referred to the

fact that more

patients have been treated this year than in the past. I would like to

ask the minister: is he not aware that the important thing also is the

quality of nursing care? Is he not aware that substandard working

conditions and salary do eventually affect the quality of care, and

that is our concern?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, anyone, and

all people, I

believe, would be concerned about quality of care, whether it's

nursing, medical or otherwise. But I would suggest that the integrity

of those professional people is probably the most important factor.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the acting

Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Can the minister confirm that the Ministry

of Highways is now engaged in test-hole drilling on the Coquihalla

Highway?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'll be pleased to take

that question as notice for the minister.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A new question. Can the

minister then confirm

that at least at one location it was determined that the highway was

constructed on top of eight feet of ice and 30 feet of snow?

Interjections.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Following on the heels

of the first

question, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take question number two

as notice for the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

SUPPORT FOR BISHOP TUTU

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the

Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations. The Quebec National Assembly earlier this

month adopted a unanimous motion in support of Bishop Desmond Tutu in

his efforts to rid South Africa of apartheid. Has the government

considered a similar initiative in the B.C. Legislature?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not at this juncture.

APPOINTMENT OF DR.

NORMAN SPECTOR TO UBC POSITION

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of

Post-Secondary Education,

the appointment of Dr. Norman Spector as a senior fellow at UBC, not to

any particular department or with any particular responsibility or

being paid out of any particular fund, is rather unprecedented in the

history of our province. Can the minister confirm that there was no

advertisement or competition or search for applicants regarding this

appointment?

HON. R. FRASER: I've been expecting a

question on Dr.

Spector's appointment at the university for some time. I'm glad the

member finally asked. All I can say with respect to university

employment is that the university hires their own people at their own

will. They chose him, and that's how it was done.

MR. NICOLSON: Does the minister believe

that they still have

a will of their own, when millions of dollars of funding are now

directed from his ministry under the so called Excellence in Education

fund? And did this not follow rather hard on the heels of the

announcement of the awarding of the final amount, bringing it up to a

total of some $30

[ Page 8777 ]

million that has been put in front of

the

universities to bring them into the orbit of this government, which is

a rather hard orbit to circle in?

HON. R. FRASER: The member's question,

while confusing, has

some points that I would like to address. Firstly, with respect to the

Excellence in Education fund, the government has done a fantastic job

of providing money for postsecondary institutions. I'm certainly very

pleased to have been part of the process. In fact, now that it's going

so smoothly, you'll be very happy with it.

I would point out that the government has established the

ministry,

which is working very well as the result of everybody's input. The

government has established multi-year funding, which is working very

well. Now the government is working with all the universities, all the

colleges and all the institutes to help them direct the funds where we

want them to go: to students. The whole process of the excellence fund

was done with the consultation of the ministry officials, and with the

university and college officials. They prioritized everything. It was

all set down, everybody agreed; the whole thing is working beautifully,

no problem.

It was due to the hard work that was done by everybody in the

province, including the members in here, that the whole fund was

created. Now the fact that a appointment to one university came

coincidentally is not a concern of mine. The university hires their

people, the act says they do, and that's the way they'll continue to

operate.

MR. NICOLSON: To the same minister, if the

system is working

so well, is the minister now prepared to table the guidelines under

which this money is dispensed? And can he tell me: is Dr. Spector going

to be there as a student or a teacher?

DOMAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Forests.

On March 14 I

presented evidence prepared by the timber range and recreation manager

of the forest district of Vancouver that Doman Industries was caught

manufacturing export logs and leaving unmanageable quantities on the

ground. Can the minister advise what penalties Doman paid?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot advise what

penalties, if any,

were assessed with respect to Doman Industries. I will take that

question on notice and make the appropriate inquiry.

MR. WILLIAMS: Further to the minister, the

tenures granted by

Doman a decade ago were granted on the understanding that a pulp mill

would be built in the Nanaimo area. That has not been done, nor has

their AAC been maintained in recent years. Is the minister reviewing

the non-performance with respect to this licensee?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is yes, Mr.

Speaker.

SHIP CONSTRUCTION

MR. MITCHELL: To the Minister of Industry

and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland). Recently a delegation from B.C. went

to Ottawa to see if Ottawa would break loose with some money to build

an ice-breaker on the west coast and support the ship-building industry

of this province. My question to the minister is: what support has his

ministry and his staff given to that delegation? And have they

contacted the government in Ottawa supporting that proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: The response was "yes," hon.

member. And the bell terminates question period.

Presenting Petitions

MRS. JOHNSTON: I have a petition here

signed by more than

24,000 people from across Canada with respect to South Moresby, which I

am pleased to table at this time,

MR. SPEAKER: The member tables a petition.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, adjourned

debate on Motion 71.

MR. SPEAKER: The member would conclude

debate, if that is the indication.

On Motion 71.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We much enjoyed some of

the remarks of the

hon. opposition this morning. I must confess that they were in a far

better mood on Thursday last. I went by their caucus shortly after we

adjourned, and they were literally dancing around the maypole. But I

can tell you that there's a wealth of unanimous parliamentary and

historical authority that is completely supportive of the resolution

that was called by the government this morning, and I'd just like to

put a little of that into the record.

First of all, a quotation from Forsey and Eglington: "A money

measure, whether a taxation measure or an estimate, and whether or not

it is part of the content of a budget, is not necessarily a matter of

confidence, and defeat in it does not necessarily entail either

resignation or a request for dissolution."

Then everybody read the remarks of the learned Prof. Edward

McWhinney, and he indicated very clearly that this was nothing more

than an embarrassment for the government. I quite frankly share the

comments of my colleague the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Brummet) in

that regard. Mr. McWhinney continues: "What we're dealing with here is

something that occurred as a result of a caprice, but that doesn't

change the fabric of the 1983 election results. Most of it is an

opportunity for some humour on the part of the opposition to comment on

the disarray of the government."

Prof. Sanders made the observation that it was a vote in a

committee, not in the House — and the House is, of course, the crucial

body.

There are also the remarks of Sir Ivor Jennings: "Whenever the

government is defeated, even if on one of the traditional occasions of

confidence — the Speech from the Throne, the budget and the granting of

supply, for example...." It's still up to the Prime Minister and his

colleagues to make the decision as to whether the issue in which they

were defeated was of sufficient importance to entail either resignation

or dissolution. This, of course, is buttressed by dozens of precedents

all over the Commonwealth, and the principle applies, as has been

indicated in the article,

[ Page 8778 ]

with special force to a defeat by a

small majority on a snap vote.

So, sure, it was a hoot, a chuckle and a laugh, and there was

some

embarrassment, but I say very clearly that there was certainly some

betrayal too, because some of our members started to trust the

untrustable. If this was division by ambush, we had a degree of

twinkle-toeing through the tunnel, real or metaphorical.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for

Nelson-Creston on a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The House Leader, who, I

think above all,

should try to set an example in this House, if any of us should, is

impugning members of this House with the remarks he has just made, and

I would ask that he withdraw those remarks.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: If the shoe fits and the

member feels

offended, I'm more than delighted to withdraw unqualifiedly, Mr.

Speaker. But it was, and it is, a bagatelle — an old expression my

colleague from Vancouver Centre well knows: de minimis non curat lex.

This was a great example of that. I'd say it's perhaps piggly-wiggly

politics at the very best, because rather than asking this outstanding

administration to take seriously this capricious and sort of

Philadelphia lawyer approach that was thrust upon us yesterday, and

specifically upon the man who produced the most outstanding

international exposition in the history of our country.... To say that

he and his loyal staff — they're all public servants — should have to

divvy up $1 over a year was just goofy, goofy, goofy.

But it was a hoot, and I'd like you to tell the 4.5 million

people

who've gone through the doors of Expo already and the 16 million people

who have paid for visits. If this discussion would get in front of

those people, do you know what they'd like to do? They'd like to

reserve the Plaza of Nations, declare an official day of ridicule, and

put all the opposition, together with their camp-followers from city

hall — which I say is B.C.'s answer to Red Square — right smack into

the stocks, Mr. Premier.

You ask this little administration, this little government, to

really and truly take all this nonsense of yours seriously. Well, I say

we will, but just to the extent that the people in our province have

for the past ten years: in other words, absolutely no way. Because the

only thing you have dealt with in this House for a ten-year period is

process, never substance. I'll tell you, the people of British Columbia

never, ever again are going to grant these British Columbia socialists

another opportunity to cripple our province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll try it any time,

sit, and we'll take

you once more to the cleaners — make no mistake about that. The B.C.

free enterprise system and B.C. people are too strong, too courageous

and too dynamic to ever buckle under the yoke of state socialism — make

no mistake about that. And they will fight. They will fight in the

farms, they will fight in the fields, they will fight in the lumber

mills and in the logging camps, they will fight on the plains and

prairies, they will fight in the towns and villages and municipalities,

and we will face you any time and any place, for we will never falter

and we will never fail.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Heinrich

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

R. Fraser

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

Hewitt

Rogers

Reid

Johnston

Strachan

Ree

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM

(continued)

On vote 70: minister's office, $186,423.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, one of the

reasons the Orwellian

nightmare is so pervasive in this province is that under that Minister

of Tourism.... I want to give you an example. Mr. Heal, Mr. Kinsella

and Mr. Burns got funds from the Social Credit government, from the

taxpayers of this province, to establish a selection procedure, to sit

on an advisory committee, to find a contract that would then involve

taxpayers' money; and after the deal was fixed, they would then sit

down with the Crown and undertake a contract to get money.... Six days

later these people, who are key hierarchical Socred political

apparatchiks in this province, got tax-dollar money.

The people of this province are poorly served, Mr. Chairman,

because

they have to climb over Socred political hacks, flacks and

doughnut-hole-pushers, and every other permutation and combination of

that, to get to the people's business. I want to go through this very

important piece of documentation. The people haven't had a reckoning on

it. The people of this province need to know why their tax dollars are

being funnelled to political hacks for dubious work on retroactive

contracts, to my knowledge, without precedent.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: It's in Public Accounts .

We have raised extensively in this House our concern about

partisan

polling done at taxpayers' expense, advertising done at taxpayers'

expense, disbursement of lottery funds at taxpayers' expense. We have

an Orwellian nightmare in this Social Credit government, and those

tentacles stretch from the Premier's office through into the lotteries

branch....

[ Page 8779 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're on vote 70,

Ministry of Tourism, minister's office.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, one of the

reasons we moved

non-confidence in this minister is the kind of administration currently

underway that is taking legitimate tax money which should be used for

programs for people but is tunnelled to political hacks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're reflecting on a

previous vote as well. Could we return to vote 70, the minister's

office.

MR. HANSON: We're talking.... The minister

rose in his place

the other day and indicated that it was a decision of his ministry to

undertake the consulting services of Mr. Kinsella, Mr. Heal and Mr.

Burns.

Now Mr. Burns, he was the Provincial Secretary's campaign

manager in

1981. Sorry, in May of 1979. In February of 1981 he was appointed

interim general manager and deputy commissioner general of Transpo '86,

later Expo. The initial appointment was for a six-month term: $36,000.

In March of 1981 he was appointed to the board of directors of the B.C.

Development Corporation for a three-year term.

In April of 1983 Michael Burns appeared in news reports as one

the six main Social Credit fundraisers involved in raising money for

this government. In August of 1983 he resigned as manager of Expo 86

and at this time Burns heads up the Sentinel Group, together with

Patrick Kinsella of Progressive Strategies and Doug Heal of Douglas

Heal Communications. Burns has previously incorporated Sentinel

Strategies Ltd., of which he is president. Other directors are Bette

Burns and assistant secretary James Hogan.

In March 1984 he was reappointed to the board of B.C.

Development

Corporation. In January 1985 — and this is my chief concern in my

remarks right now, Mr. Chairman — that tax money was spent by this

minister's department, public money, in a retroactive contract,

tunnelling money to Douglas Heal, Patrick Kinsella and Michael Burns in

retrospect.

I've never seen a contract like that. I've looked at a lot of

contracts in viewing vouchers, Mr. Chairman, and the contracts go like

this. They are an undertaking, they say "a term" — a term of work to be

employed. Usually it outlines what the

schedule of service is, herein

called the work. There's a term. There's a stipulation of how payment

is made — a

schedule of payments. There's provision for reports, for

confidentiality and so on. This contract was signed on January 16. The

money was paid on January 21. There was a rush put on it. The term of

the contract was six months prior to the sitting down and signing of

the contract.

The people of this province deserve an answer for that. That's

their

money. The people of this province are tired of you spending their

money on foolishness like this. You could have had a council of deputy

ministers draw up the request for proposal. You could have had a

council of deputy ministers, key people, non-partisan people, career

government employees. But you picked three of your key political hacks

from the big blue machine to bring the taxpayers to heel.

[2:45]

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: Okay, you say it's only

$33,350. But the people of this province deserve to know why

retroactivity, and why these people. The minister stood up and said

because one of them has computer training. That's foolishness. That's a

totally inadequate response, totally inadequate.

Mr. Chairman. $33,350, as we've indicated before using

examples,

could have given a number of students bursaries who can't afford

university education in this province — any number of other things,

When we go and look at those vouchers, this government makes

very, very difficult for us to look at vouchers and scrutinize. There

were no people in tunnels last Thursday. There were people doing all

sorts of things and one of them was reviewing vouchers, and this was a

voucher.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: They don't like to hear it.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: You know, there's ResWest.

There's a lot of

concern about the functioning of ResWest and the competency around the

selection of ResWest by these political advisers to the Premier's

office.

Let's just go.... The implications of that contract — it was a

five-year contract. They have an exclusive contract for five years.

They are there until 1989. That's a licence to print money. That's

money for old rope. That's just like getting money from home. It's

unbelievable that you would expend tax money to political functionaries

like this in that way. It has no credibility whatsoever. Five years'

exclusive contract. What does ResWest do? Charges $150 per member and a

10 percent commission on each booking. This is justified, according to

management at ResWest, since "it is in effect a travel agent." An

exclusive monopoly travel agent — isn't that unbelievable? — and

therefore entitled to 10 percent.

A $5 booking fee is paid on each booking, and this will come

off

after Expo. There were no commissions paid to travel agents and no

toll-free line. The projected income from the Expo period.... According

to a news report, ResWest spent $2 million on the system, hardware,

software and staff and is hoping to make enough to cover their

investment and get the firm well established in the future. As of April

30 there were 83,000 individual bookings. The rough total of profit for

the Expo period is $3,051,000. That is an awful lot of money. That is a

choice plum — an unbelievable political plum.

We want the answers. We want to know what association the

Sentinel

Group has with your ministry now. What contracts does Sentinel

Strategies have with you now, that you're aware of? What work is

Michael Burns doing for you now? What work is Patrick Kinsella doing

for you now? And Douglas Heal now? How many tax dollars? What

undertaking in contracts now? And we want a full explanation of this

one, knowing that it is in the fiscal year under review, which is not

before your ministry estimates right at this moment; we know that, but

it's the only public window, It is tax money — public dollars that are

expended. They have the fight to know. I'd like to hear the minister's

comments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I thought for a moment

you'd never sit

down. You get so carried away with your righteous indignation — get all

worked up into a lather, and half your information is incorrect and the

other is suspect.

[ Page 8780 ]

Sentinel Strategies Ltd. was hired to put together a model to

put a

reservation system together, because of the expertise of Mr. Michael

Burns. I make no apologies for that. The Sentinel Group was not

involved, as you have mentioned several times in your contrived

outrage. The Sentinel Strategies Ltd. principal is Michael Burns. He

was selected to establish the terms of reference for a tender call to

operate a provincewide reservation system because he is an acknowledged

authority when it comes to computer hardware and software, both of

which are essential aspects of operating such a system. Also, Mr. Burns

had been involved for quite some time with Transpo '86, the predecessor

of Expo 86, and had done some personal research into what would be

required for a reservation system.

The contract ran — and you have failed to mention this — from

May 1,

1984, through December 1, 1984. During that time most of the work was

done on the contract. Unfortunately, the contract was not completed and

signed until January 16, and most of the work had been done, including

the consultation with various bidders and assessment.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Explain why.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I don't know. For some

reason the contract

wasn't completed till January 16. So since the work had already been

done by Mr. Burns and done to our satisfaction, every effort was made

to expedite the payment.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment, please. All

members of the

committee will be given an opportunity to respond to the minister's

statement in debate, but will do it one at a time.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I repeat that Mr. Burns

had done a

tremendous amount of work to our satisfaction, the contract was

completed and signed, and payment was expedited so that he could get

his money. In fact, I can even recall I had to apologize to Mr. Burns

at the time. I don't recall the reasons why we were late in signing

that contract, but we paid him as quickly as possible.

Yesterday I mentioned from memory that I thought seven

companies

were involved in bidding on the reservation system. I was wrong. It was

nine companies, Mr. Chairman, now that I have had a chance to research

the matter. Nine companies expressed an interest in operating a

reservation system, with five finally submitting detailed bids. These

bids were reviewed by a committee, which included the following:

Michael Burns of Sentinel Strategies Ltd., who had drawn up the

parameters for the bids; Mr. John Dye, who was then president of the

Tourism Industry Association of British Columbia; Mr. Don Spears of

B.C. Systems Corporation, to mention your career bureaucrat, Mr.

Member; Mr. Wayne Carter of my ministry; and Mr. John Currie, who at

that time was an ADM in my ministry. So we had a committee of five

knowledgeable people, each bringing their own field of expertise to

evaluate these bids. We had computer experts, people who were expert in

reservation systems, such as Mr. Dye, people very knowledgeable about

the tourism industry, including an assistant deputy minister.

The member says it was foolishness to spend $33,000 to

assemble the

information and put in place a reservation system, which we want in

this province long after Expo. We want it to be there for all time, and

we want it to work properly. I don't think that's an inordinate amount

of money to spend to make sure it's drawn up properly. He questions the

competency of ResWest, which are entirely separate from any of the

groups mentioned here, who happened to be the successful bidders. They

had to put up $2 million to buy equipment in order to take on this bid.

He wouldn't think about the risk that was involved. He doesn't mention

that. They had to put up $2 million in order to accept this bid and put

a reservation system into place, not really knowing whether they were

going to get their investment back or not.

He calls it a licence to print money, but it's quite a high

risk, I

would submit, to put $2 million on the line — between the two partners

of ResWest — for a reservation system, a reservation system that is not

subsidized by government in a direct way. We did agree that whoever got

the bid would be mentioned in our advertising literature for a

specified period, I think five years; that we would mention the

reservation number and the system in our pamphlets and brochures for a

period of five years, but there is no direct government subsidy. It's

totally operated by the private sector, and it's working well. If

they're making some money, I'm very happy for them, because they put $2

million of hard-earned cash on the line. Who knows if they will make

money after Expo? I sincerely hope they do, because we want the system

to be successful. We want it to be around for a long, long time. It's

one of the finest reservation systems in Canada, perhaps in the western

world. To our knowledge, it rivals any reservation system that is

operating.

I hope that clears up a lot of the points mentioned. I

sincerely

hope the member doesn't work himself into a frenzy, as he did a few

moments ago.

MR. HANSON: Two questions: under what

authority did Michael

Burns, Patrick Kinsella and Douglas Heal undertake the work effective

May 1, 1984? Under what authority was that decision made? A second

question: why was the invoice sent on Sentinel Group letterhead?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To answer the first

question, they were

acting on the authority of a letter from my office that asked them to

put the parameters of this system together so that we could go to

public tender. I can't answer the second question. You'd have to ask

the people in Sentinel Strategies Ltd. or Sentinel Group why it was

sent on their letterhead.

MR. HANSON: An invoice on Sentinel Group

letterhead dated

January 16 is submitted for payment to the deputy minister's office,

and the minister stands up today and says Sentinel Group and Sentinel

Strategies are not connected. I'd like him to explain that to me.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The contract, of which I

have a copy in

front of me, clearly mentions only Sentinel Strategies Ltd., and the

cheque is made payable to Sentinel Strategies Ltd. That's all I can

tell you.

MR. HANSON: The minister, in his comments a

couple of moments

ago, attempted to rebuke me in terms of the relationship between

Sentinel Group and Sentinel Strategies. When Michael Burns submitted

the invoice to the deputy Minister of Tourism on January 16, 1985,

attached to the voucher was the invoice entitled: "Sentinel Group.

Invoice, January 16, 1985, to the Deputy Minister, Department of

[ Page 8781 ]

Tourism, Parliament Buildings,

Victoria.

Professional services for the Minister of Tourism pertaining to

accommodation and reservation system as requested and agreed upon by

the Minister of Tourism. Our fee: $33,350." Then at the bottom there is

reference to Sentinel Strategies. They're both on the same invoice.

But it is of public interest that Patrick Kinsella, in his

relationship with the Premier, Douglas Heal and his relationship with

this government, and Mr. Burns with his longstanding and ongoing

political relationship.... The people deserve answers. We want to know

why Sentinel Group letterhead. An invoice came through for payment, and

why? Will the minister table the letter to this House outlining the

parameters of the understanding and agreement with Mr. Michael Burns

for this so-called work that was provided effective May 1?

[3:00]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: All I can tell the

member and the House is

that we had the contract drawn up with Sentinel Strategies Ltd. and the

cheque was made payable to Sentinel Strategies Ltd. As for doing

business with people who are known to this government, that happens all

the time. It happens every day, and the reason it does is that the very

largest percentage — I would say 99 percent — of the people who are in

business in this province are supporters of this government. So it's

very difficult to find someone who is not a supporter of this

government to do business with. We happen to have a contract with

Sentinel Strategies. We made the cheque payable to Sentinel Strategies.

If they sent a letter or an invoice out on some other letterhead, you

would have to ask them why they did that.

MR. HANSON: I asked the minister what work

Mr. Burns, Mr. Kinsella and Mr. Heal are doing for this his ministry

now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer to that

question is none, at the moment.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I'd like to ask the

minister if he could

advise whether the contract that was awarded to Sentinel Strategies, a

contract in order for this firm to prepare a background study, to

prepare a request for proposals, to conduct information meetings, to

organize a selection committee, analyze proposals and negotiate a final

contract for the reservation system.... Will the minister advise

whether this initial contract to find a firm to do all that background

work was in fact publicly tendered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before

recognizing the minister,

I've been advised by the Minister of Environment that he wishes to ask

leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PELTON: Please excuse me for

making this

announcement when I'm not in my own seat. But I would like to introduce

to the House this afternoon a grade 7 class that's visiting the

Legislature from Mission. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Smith. I would ask all those members present if they would be so kind

as to welcome these people.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: At the time that we

decided to go to a

reservation system, time was of the essence. Under normal circumstances

we probably would have gone to tender to have people draw up a tender

to go to tender for the reservation system. But since we were very

pressed for time, we decided to seek out the expertise not only of

someone who had knowledge of computers and reservation systems but

someone who was completely familiar with Expo and its needs and

requirements.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister is in fact

confirming that the

initial contract awarded to Sentinel Strategies Ltd., which is the same

group as the Sentinel Group, the Sentinel Group being a group of

Michael Burns, Patrick Kinsella and Douglas Heal, was in fact awarded

to this group without the process of public tender. Is that correct?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister has refused to

respond to, I

think, a very critical question. I'm sure that he will want to respond

in order to clarify his position precisely.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have every intention

of responding, Mr.

Chairman. First of all, the member makes an assumption which I'm not

sure is correct or not. I don't know if it's correct or incorrect that

the principals of Sentinel Strategies and Sentinel Group are identical.

I'm not sure of that, and I'm not sure if that member is sure of that.

I think he's making an assumption.

The other thing is that — and I've said it about three or four

times

now, Mr. Chairman — we asked Sentinel Strategies to do this work for us

as outlined, to put together the parameters for a reservation system,

and also to evaluate the bids as they came in. I would also point out

that the debate that we're having right now does not relate to my

estimates under vote 70. I'm trying to clarify the situation, but I

would point out that we're dealing with a year that does not pertain to

vote 70.

MR. MacWILLIAM: We are aware of that, Mr.

Chairman. However,

we have in our possession an invoice dated January 16, 1985, entitled

"The Sentinel Group Invoice." It is addressed to the "Deputy Minister,

Department of Tourism, Parliament Buildings." The invoice is for

"Professional services for the Minister of Tourism, pertaining to

accommodation and reservation system as requested and agreed upon by

the Minister of Tourism. Our fee: $33,350." On the bottom of that

invoice it also says: "For the minister's information, Sentinel

Strategies Ltd., Consultants to Management" — with the following

address.... The same invoice, entitled "The Sentinel Group," also has

the title "Sentinel Strategies Ltd." Is the minister still refusing to

admit that there is a linkage between the two firms?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, the member

is attempting to

put words in my mouth. I didn't say there was no linkage. I think it's

quite obvious that at least one of the principals is the same. I've

never alluded to anything different. I'm just not certain — and I'm not

sure if that member is certain — if all the principals are the same in

both companies. That's all I've said. Obviously there is a linkage

between the two companies if an invoice comes out under their

letterhead.

[ Page 8782 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister earlier

referred to the fact

that time was of the essence and indicated that it was such that the

contract did not go to tender. Would the minister advise us of the date

on which the Sentinel Group actually began the work established through

the contract? When did the work actually begin, and when was the

contract actually awarded? I want to clarify that precisely.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I went

through this very

thoroughly in answering the question of the member from Victoria. I

gave all the dates: when the contract work started, on authority of

letter from myself; when the contract was signed; and when the contract

was paid. I don't think there's any sense in repeating it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The work was deemed to have

commenced May 1,

1984. The contract invoice is dated January 16, 1985. What I'm trying

to establish here very clearly is the fact that work had commenced

significantly before any formal contract had taken place. Would the

minister advise us why there was no contract in place when the work

actually began? He has admitted that it didn't go to public tender, but

he has not explained, at least to our satisfaction, why work commenced

before any contract was either signed, sealed or delivered.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To clear it up as best I

can, Mr.

Chairman, we had given Mr. Burns's company, Sentinel Strategies Ltd., a

letter of confirmation that we wanted him to do this work. As far as I

was concerned, that was as good as a contract. As to why the actual

contract wasn't drawn up until January 16, I can't explain that. At the

time it was drawn to my attention, I had to apologize to Mr. Burns for

an actual contract not being drawn up until that time. We made every

effort to get him paid as quickly as possible, because he had been

under contract, through the letter from my ministry, since May 1.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister has referred

to a formal letter

between his ministry and Mr. Burns. I wonder if the minister would at

the appropriate time — after committee — table the letter with the

House.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Burns was

made chairman of

the committee that was put together. Can the minister advise us why he

would make Mr. Burns chairman of the committee when he had an ADM on

the committee? Wouldn't it really make more sense for the full-time

staff person on a responsible project like this to take on the

chairmanship?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm just

discussing it with

my deputy and trying to recall, and I'm not so sure that the ADM wasn't

chairman of that committee, but I can't be positive about that. I think

maybe the member is jumping to conclusions here, but recollection seems

to tell me that Mr. John Currie was the chairman of that committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: If my memory serves me right,

I think it's the

minister who led me to believe that in his earlier presentation today,

because I made notes on it, and that's my note on the basis of your

presentation.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I said it?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I have

a matter that is

probably innocuous compared to the matters that we've been dealing with

up till now. Nonetheless, it is of some value to raise it. I've

discussed this issue with the minister earlier; in fact, I sent him a

letter I received on June 8 from a Mr. Emil Ratelband, who is a citizen

from Coevorden in Holland who came to this country to help celebrate

the centennial year of the city of Vancouver and was hoping to get

involved in the Expo excitement. He invested some $200,000 of his

hard-earned money, uprooted his family — his wife and three children —

and invested in a project called the Dutch Castle at Georgia and Howe

in Vancouver Centre. Now, mind you, this person is not going to be

described as a constituent in the usual sense, but nonetheless for

about six to nine months he will be located in Vancouver Centre and he

did write quite desperately a letter with some fairly disparaging

revelations about his treatment by various levels of government,

particularly the liquor distribution branch, and the difficulties he

experienced in trying to get a licence to sell spirits.

He had apparently attended the Canadian embassy prior to

leaving the

country in Holland and was given every assurance that he would receive

cooperation and the usual hospitality that we like to extend to people

coming from other lands. But I just wanted to have the minister respond

to this dilemma that this person finds himself in. Just to quote a very

small part of his two-page letter, he says: "If you can imagine what a

hell of a job this was for a small businessman to come here just for

nine months and then to be boycotted so much that I cannot say that you

are such friendly people...." He says that he has come to invest his

money in British Columbia. He came here to celebrate the centennial

year, but he wonders why it is that he hasn't been given the special

consideration that others who are involved in the Expo experience are

receiving. Mind you, he is not actually involved in Expo, but I think

it is the objective of the Ministry of Tourism to give as good an

experience as possible to visitors, especially people who are taking

such chances as this small business person has taken.

[3:15]

So perhaps the minister could comment on the position of the

ministry with the view to trying to assist this person, who, by the

way, is among quite a few people outside the Expo gates who are

experiencing quite a few disappointing facts with respect to their

investment. They're finding that they have extended themselves way

beyond what they should have had they not followed the enthusiasm that

was being generated around the opening of Expo prior to May 2. In other

words, inside of Expo there is a vacuum; it's having a vacuum effect on

the economy outside of the gates. I think the minister is probably

aware of this as well. Not that he anticipated this, but this seems to

be coming more and more evident with each passing day. So there is a

serious problem, not only with this particular Dutch Castle, but with

other businesses that are finding themselves falling far short of what

they anticipated with respect to their, investments.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, to the

member for Vancouver

East, I just want to clear up.... If I did lead you to believe that it

said Michael Burns was the chairman of the committee, that was done

unintentionally or inadvertently.

[ Page 8783 ]

I'm still not 100 percent sure in my

mind who was the chairman, but I think it was the ADM.

To the first member for Vancouver Centre, the first that I was

aware

of this problem regarding the liquor licence for the Dutch Castle in

downtown Vancouver was when you mentioned it to me the other day. Then

you sent me the gentleman's letter today, which I have forwarded to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), because

it falls under his purview.

So yes, while I am concerned and I was not aware of the

problem, I

have taken it up with the minister, and he had not heard of the problem

either. He has the letter in hand now and will respond to your

constituent as quickly as possible, because he does understand the

urgency of the situation. So I'm sure you understand it doesn't fall

under the jurisdiction of my ministry. But I have discussed it with the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is going to act on it

immediately.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Once again, let me refresh

the minister's

memory. The minister had discussed a letter between the ministry and a

Mr. Burns, of the Sentinel Group. Can the minister advise when that

letter was written?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: No, I can't, offhand.

And there was more

than one letter. There was a series of letters as a follow-up, as we

developed what was required. I don't recall. There were two or three

letters that went between my ministry and Mr. Burns. I can't give you

dates.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, will the minister be

prepared at the appropriate time following committee to table those

documents?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I have no problem with

that, except to

point out again that it is outside of the discussion of this year's

estimates, which we are debating in this House at this time. So really,

to enter into that type of exchange is totally outside of the

parameters of this discussion. This whole discussion we're having

during my estimates is out of order. I'm just doing my best to clear up

the situation and give as much information as possible. But I suggest

that probably we've canvassed the situation thoroughly, and now would

be a good time to get back to this year's estimates and vote 70.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's point is most

relevant, and

possibly the forum for the line of questioning would be Public Accounts

or another committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: It just does beg the question

in terms of the

propriety of people who play these dual roles, operating in both of

these spheres. Mr. Burns is the fund raiser for your convention costs

in Whistler just a month or so away, and he has indicated that he has

to get — what? — half a million or three-quarters of a million dollars

in terms of funding for that convention. Isn't it reasonable, in terms

of public policy, that those most active in terms of party funding,

such as Mr. Burns, should not be involved in this kind of work, which

determines the winner of a multimillion dollar contract and a

multimillion dollar income from this unique quasi-monopoly reservation

system? Doesn't it seem reasonable that there should be standards

established so that these people are not put in these invidious

positions? It doesn't seem reasonable.

It's hard to believe that there aren't numerous people who

could

have carried out the preliminary work with respect to establishing the

proposal for the reservation system. Wouldn't propriety lead any

cabinet minister to think that it had best not be a person who was a

known campaign fund raiser for the Social Credit Party, when so much

public money was to be involved, or public benefit, at least, was to be

involved?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Chairman, I thought

we had covered

this adequately, but just for the member's edification, Mr. Burns was

only one of five people making a recommendation to this ministry as to

who should get the contract. He did not have the say over who got it.

He was one of five helping us evaluate some very complicated bids. This

is a complicated thing to evaluate, and it takes expertise on both the

technical and the practical side of reservations to evaluate these

bids. His technical expertise was much appreciated. To repeat, he was

only one of five people making a recommendation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, isn't it cosy that we

find the Social

Credit fund-raiser, Mr. Burns, Mr. Kinsella, who was the Premier's

right-hand man, and the former communications head, Mr. Heal.... Isn't

it a cosy deal that these gentlemen happen to be the ones awarded a

contract that was not tendered, did not go public. It's just too cosy,

Mr. Chairman — these political payoffs every time we look around. This

government is rife with this kind of patronage.

Mr. Chairman, this is another clear example of why members on

this

side of the House called a vote of non-confidence against this minister.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I think

that this contract has been canvassed thoroughly. In fact, it's been

canvassed to death, and it is clearly out of order in this year's

estimates under vote 70.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister, as indicated

earlier by the

Chair, has raised a relevant point. We are debating vote 70, which is

the administrative functions of the minister. It is very difficult to

relate it specifically to the years 1986-87 because there has always

been some leeway in Committee of Supply in some comparisons with

previous years, but I think possibly the member for Okanagan North will

use some discretion in this and not make an extensive debate on it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I was merely summarizing my

concerns in light

of the fact that we have been unable to obtain what we consider

adequate information from this minister in a number of different areas

pertaining to the finances of his ministry. As the Chairman will

recall, the original reason that this vote of non-confidence was

brought down upon this government was that this minister has refused to

submit the financial information legitimately requested by members of

this opposition — financial information pertaining not only to the

subject we just discussed but pertaining to many areas of his ministry;

to be specific, financial information regarding the tendering of

contracts, the awarding of contracts for Expo 86, the severance

packages that were awarded to the 42 senior executives terminated —

either fired or let go in some manner — from this Crown corporation.

[ Page 8784 ]

I submit once again that this minister is in violation of

established legislation contained in the Financial Information Act,

because he has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All hon.

members are honourable,

and I would ask you to withdraw any reference to the fact that the

minister might have violated the law.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, it does not

impugn the

integrity of the minister whatsoever. It's simply a matter of fact;

it's a statement of fact, Mr. Chairman, that this minister has refused

to obey the letter of the law in terms of the requirements of the

Financial Information Act. I quote, out of Revised Statutes ,

chapter 131: every corporation, association, board, commission or

society to which a grant or advance may be made shall, within six

months after the close of each financial year, publish a financial

statement for that financial year which shall include a statement of

assets, liabilities and operational statement, a statement of debt, a

statement showing all remuneration, bonuses and gratuities paid to each

employee, a statement showing all expenses paid on behalf of each

employee....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sure all

members of the committee are well aware of legislation.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I only

reiterate those points

to emphasize once again that this minister is in clear violation of

established statutes. That's why this minister had a vote of

non-confidence brought before him, and that's why we will continue to

vote non-confidence in this minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

I'd ask you to

withdraw any reference to the fact that the hon. minister has violated

legislation. There is obviously a means of recourse if any person has

violated the law. To use the immunity you have in this chamber to make

allegations like that is improper. I would ask you to withdraw your

statement unequivocally.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw

the statement. But

the minister has not carried out the letter of the Financial

Information Act, and because he has not carried out that legislation he

is in contempt of this parliament. Until he submits the information we

have requested, we will continue to oppose the vote for the ministry's

political office — his political office.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, for

that member to stand there and suggest that I am in contempt of this

Legislature is unparliamentary, and I ask you to ask him to withdraw

that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair asks the member for

Okanagan North to withdraw, as requested by the minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The statement that he is in

contempt of this

parliament I don't feel impugns the integrity of the minister. It's a

statement of fact. I will withdraw the statement if you so desire, but

needless to say....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes that the

member has withdrawn the statement.

MR. MacWILLIAM: I must re-emphasize the

point that this

minister has refused to comply with requests from this House to submit

the financial information that has been legitimately requested during

this year, That's why the original motion of non-confidence in this

minister was brought down, and I reiterate that that's why we will

stand by this motion.

[3:30]

Vote 70 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Brummet

Waterland

McClelland

Segarty

Heinrich

Veitch

Richmond

Pelton

R. Fraser

Passarell

Michael

Davis

Mowat

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Ritchie

Hewitt

Rogers

Reid

Johnston

Parks

Strachan

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

Brown

Hanson

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Vote 71: ministry operations, $17,193,217 — approved

unanimously on a division.

HON. MR. GARDOM: What I'm going to embark

upon now, Mr.

Chairman, is a most historic and, indeed, reflective time in the

history of our province and this Legislature, and that is calling the

vote of the most remarkable, industrious, innovative and productive

man, British Columbia's number one outstanding citizen. Our party, the

people of our province and the government of this province owes you,

sir, every thanks and every gratitude for ensuring that British

Columbia is back in the mainstream of Canadian life. With that I would

call the fourth vote.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 4: Premier's office, $703,009.

HON. MR. BENNETT: This may be the last time

I speak in the

Premier's estimates in this Legislature. Certainly it will be the last

time I speak in my own estimates, but I expect to be around to speak in

the next Premier's estimates next year.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've been there and I

didn't like it.

In introducing my estimates it's also a very unusual position,

because the estimates I'm presenting to this House will be the

estimates of my successor, and therefore will reflect the spending that

will be undertaken by one of the very, very

[ Page 8785 ]

outstanding group of those who are

seeking to fill the position of leadership of the party and therefore

become Premier of the province.

If you'll forgive me, Mr. Chairman, I might take a little

latitude and look back on some of the years of the past 10½

years in which we've introduced budgets and I've had a chance to appear

in debate in this House, and to say that I've appreciated those years,

not only my own colleagues but the criticism, from time to time, of the

opposition.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I also look back on the many accomplishments of government.

Obviously the opposition will get an opportunity once again to talk

about our shortcomings and our failures, but I like to think that many

people, when they come to the Premier's estimates, or a leader of a

party, quite often put too much focus for the success of a government

on to an individual. I would like at this time to look back on a number

of things that I think even the opposition today will agree were good

policy for British Columbia, and some of the people who brought it to

government, because, quite frankly, our party and our government has

always been a team.

I like to look back on many of the programs now taken for

granted,

that people take for granted, that aren't generally associated with our

government as people concentrate on projects. I think about the present

Minister of Industry and Small Business, when he was Health minister,

bringing in the long-term care program. I can remember that was a

commitment of the party, but it does touch the New Democratic Party

over there because we did send our staff to Saskatchewan to study the

program they had set up there, theirs being first, in order to make it

an integral part of the health system.

In that case the leadership for that program, as part of the

government team, was the present Minister of Industry and Small

Business, the former Minister of Health. I'd like to think of that as

one of our finest accomplishments.

The Minister of Finance is not in the House right now, but

again, a

place and a time in which we took leadership in providing programs that

were unique and innovative and have been copied was when, as Municipal

Affairs minister, he introduced the shelter aid for the elderly renter.

[3:45]

Certainly at that time it was a first of its kind in the

country.

When I went to Premiers' conferences across this country, they were

impressed, and that was the one program during that particular year

that everybody was focusing on as being a program of leadership that

did not offend the philosophies of the various parties, but seemed like

an important step forward in public policy in this country.

So I would like to say that as part of the team the Minister

Finance, then the Minister of Municipal Affairs, brought through

cabinet and then to the floor of this Legislature important legislation

that now is an important part of the social service delivery system in

this province.

We've had some debate on Expo, but I'd like to look back eight

years

and through a number of people when the then Provincial Secretary and

now Provincial Secretary again (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) introduced the

concept of holding a world exposition.

At that time it was worked up to be called Transpo. Surely I

have to say it received a lot of debate and discussion inside our

caucus and our cabinet before we made it a policy, but it was clearly

well thought out and an area in which we couldn't see that there would

be a recession in the years '81, '82, '83, '84. But if we had had a

crystal ball and had known what was coming, we surely would have

adopted that as public policy, not only for the building after Expo,

but for the employment it generated and the economic spin-off of about

$4 billion that it's generated within the province at a very crucial

time when people needed work. Yet we have a project that is not a

make-work project but a build-for-the-future project.

That was started by the Provincial Secretary of the day and

our

Provincial Secretary today. It was carried on by the present Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) as Provincial Secretary, and I can

remember his going to the International Bureau of Expositions in Paris.

He was fortunate enough to be there at the time when he got to visit

Paris, but it took a lot of his effort, because all along the way there

was a lot of the government team involved, whether from cabinet or

caucus, giving support as problems arose in putting on a project of

this nature. Therefore it took a lot of dedication.

Following the present Minister of Finance, of course, we had a

departed member of the Legislature who became Provincial Secretary and

took it into its major formative stage, and that was Evan Wolfe, who

was Minister of Finance and then Provincial Secretary in this House.

Latterly, of course, we've had the Minister of Tourism (Hon.

Mr.

Richmond), whose estimates we have just concluded. There were times

when Expo, or Transpo in the beginning, didn't have a site, because it

wasn't always designated for False Creek. There were times when we

didn't think it could be built, and neither did the chairman of Expo

and the directors of Expo, who are all public citizens and played a

part in setting the standards of volunteerism that have brought the

fair to success. But I like to think of the four colleagues I have

mentioned as being a major part of providing the leadership and the

encouragement, and always standing fast when this very important

project for British Columbia and Canada.... Because now it is seen as

not only world class but an outstanding event in which all Canadians

take pride.

I think back to others. I think of the Minister of Highways

and

Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser), who isn't with us today because he's

ill. I think back to the job he's done in planning a highway system,

coming from the interior, convincing his colleagues not only in cabinet

and in caucus but in Treasury Board of the importance still of opening

up the interior in a way not just to move people and cars and tourists,

but to put in transportation links that allow the interior to develop

an industrial base where transportation and trucking play such an

important role if you're going to locate an industry in Prince George

or Kamloops or the Okanagan or any of the areas where small business

and industries have been starting up and which now are encouraged with

perhaps his boldest suggestion of all; that was over eight years ago

when it became public policy in this government to build the Coquihalla

Highway.

I can remember that decision. At that time we were going to

build the road over a number of years as we tried to bring it on

stream. I can remember the Minister of Highways and the Minister of

Tourism and others making the decision, or at least making a request to

cabinet, that it would be good public policy to accelerate that

highway, to have it in place by Expo, to also accelerate the

construction links to Kamloops and to the Okanagan as an important part

of linking the interior road systems not only up to the Cariboo and the

Rogers Pass and north to the Yellowhead, but into the Okanagan and then

interlocking with an upgraded Kootenay road system. Again

[ Page 8786 ]

it was their drive and determination

and not mine that led to the construction of the highway we're now all

proud of.

I can remember them coming and also saying: "We can do it if

we get

a toll, not to pay off the highway but the cost of acceleration." I can

remember members like the present Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Waterland), within whose riding all three major highways run,

suggesting that a toll on the Coquihalla was more than revenue. It was

going to be an important factor in trying to limit the amount of new

traffic on the Coquihalla, making sure that the sudden impact on the

Hope-Princeton and the Fraser Canyon did not seriously affect the small

communities there and the service industries which depend upon this

highway. Again, a lot of thought, a lot of courage, a lot of boldness

by my colleagues, some of whom are not here today, in putting together

a project from which there will be continuing dividends.

As I look back, many of the worthwhile things that I feel were

done

by government have not been easy and have not been done in a single

year or a single session, but have taken a long commitment; they've

taken a long time to implement. It's eight years since we first made

the Coquihalla public policy. It will be ten years by the time the

Kamloops connector and the Okanagan connector have been constructed and

opened — the year 1988. Again it was a team effort. As I look back,

that's the strength of any government, as it is in opposition — that

is, in oppositions that want to be government. It's working as a team,

recognizing that there's more to a government than a single individual.

There is teamwork. There are always fresh ideas to consider, and

there's always the all-regional parts of the province to consider in

developing and implementing public policy.

The member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Davis) was the

Minister

of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources when we decided to build the

Revelstoke Dam. I can remember when that important decision was made.

That dam has been constructed and opened, and if that decision had not

been made, we would not have had sufficient energy in these recent

years. What we call surplus to our needs in high-water years and can

get on short-term export does not meet all of the new power that's

created by the Revelstoke Dam. It was a timely and important project,

but again it took a lot of leadership on behalf of the minister

responsible and succeeding ministers. It's part of a network of energy

production that will never now be developed as cheaply. It's much

needed, particularly in these days of utilizing our energy — and

developed at a time when it was far less expensive to develop than it

is now — in order to lead our critical industries and make them more

competitive, to reopen mines and forest companies, such as the critical

industries commission has done.

Public participation in that is not handouts; it's using that

power,

from decisions made by members such as I have cited, and those who have

held the Energy post, like the member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr.

Rogers), the present Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the present Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others, in making and sustaining those major

decisions which from time to time take so long to fulfil. They're j

hard to explain to the public during construction; therefore it takes a

lot of team effort to make sure that these projects get initiated and

carried out. But they do pay dividends.

As I say, today our hydroelectric power is one of the most

important

tools that we have, not only for reopening mines and forest companies,

but getting new production from existing facilities that are open under

two measures that were brought in — Critical Industries and amendments

to Energy — to allow us to use it. It has helped us maintain

employment, restore employment, increase employment. It has made us

more competitive in the international marketplace, just as I believe

that my successor and whoever is in Energy will have a major

opportunity in dealing with the proposal for the Site C construction if

we can get a commercially affordable contract, such as they've done in

Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and other provinces, to develop some

part of it for export and some part of it to meet our energy needs when

that dam is completed.

If it were started today it would not be finished until 1994,

when

British Columbia's energy projections and those of the northwest and

the west call for additional power capacity. We will not be in surplus;

therefore some part of that dam will have to be dedicated to British

Columbia. But instead of all of our people, our industries and our

homeowners having to finance that dam in high-borrowed costs....

Construction is not the major cost; it's the financing, the cost of

money over large periods of time and during the construction period

that contribute greatly to its cost. That power will be needed here,

and we can help pay for it in large measure with earned U.S. dollars,

which will help our balance of payments, help our international sales,

and certainly help British Columbians to continue to enjoy a price

advantage in the deliverability of power than if we had to finance it

ourselves. The development of the Site C and its opportunities have

been the part of the present member for Vancouver South who did so much

in working with the U.S. power utilities when he was Minister of

Energy, working with the state director of energy down there and others

in trying to create a climate of opportunity, when they hadn't

considered British Columbia as an option.

We've had the opportunity to look at power contracts in

Manitoba and

other provinces and to see the value of competing projects in our

market area, the Pacific northwest and California. Certainly this has

been carried on by the existing Energy minister, the member for North

Peace River (Hon. Mr. Brummet), keeping alive this opportunity. He

signed an agreement the other day, because of their work with a number

of west coast utilities, in order to do a study that would give us all

of the relevant information. That would be available to the government.

It would supplement all of the information we have, and we've been

exchanging information with the utilities plus the state energy

director in California in order to see if we do have the basis for a

commercial deal. If no commercial contract is available, of course,

B.C. will at some point in the next few years have to build it alone,

because of our own energy demands, but then we will not get as cheap a

power for our own use and our own industry and jobs as if we had been

able to get the type of price that I think can be realized in the

growing California market for our own industry.

There again, as I look back on government, quite often the

Premier

gets the credit and quite often that credit is not deserved by one

person alone. It belongs to ministers and caucus and the members of

government. In order to sustain sometimes controversial public

policy.... In time the projects I'm mentioning particularly I think

have proved beneficial to the people of this province. There was a

minister who is not present today and is no longer a member of the

Legislature, and while that project is still controversial to many, I

think historically the former member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) took the vision for the north that has

[ Page 8787 ]

traditionally been a part of our

party, and I think

also of the people of B.C., because as I remember the Barrett

government between 1972 and 1975 also talked about a vision for the

north. They did talk about opening up resource areas; they did talk

about transportation systems. So I do believe the vision of continuing

to open up those areas to provide comfortable communities for people

who often work in hardship. I think the many years of the development

of northern coal as the first commodity under which the Canadian

National Railways, the British Columbia Railway, B.C. Hydro, government

of B.C. through Highways, and, yes, the federal port authorities could

develop an infrastructure that this country and our province needed to

lessen our dependency, in the emerging Pacific Rim, on a single rail

and port transportation system out of southern B.C....

[4:00]

Surely everyone here must understand that the decisions taken

then,

and the reasons for them, went far beyond coal. They went to the fact

that this country, if we were to be reliable suppliers of all

commodities.... That is the first thing; where the commodities are

needed on a regular basis in the international marketplace, they look

at price and quality and reliability, because the steel mills of Korea

or Japan or other facilities cannot afford to lose their supply when

their mills are running all the time. They've got to have reliability.

They felt Canada would make them vulnerable with a single rail system

that could shut down and single port system that could be shut down and

not meet capacity, and therefore felt that for Canadian products we

needed another major rail system.

Now we have the CP connecting into the south, the CN into the

north

and, of course, the B.C. Railway running up the length of the province

from north to south, connecting all rail links and making us a much

more reliable supplier. The member for South Peace River, the former

member, as minister showed a lot of determination and courage because

the negotiation involved the private sector in this country, it

involved the national government, it involved Crown corporations at the

provincial and federal level, it involved a number of buyers and it

involved major decisions that had to be made from time to time. I know

that many members of this Legislature still feel that that's

controversial. I don't. I think it will go down as probably one of the

most visionary things that has ever been done in the province. There

again, we need the Ministers of Energy and of Highways, the ministers

responsible for a host of government responsibilities, to be on side in

a complex public policy decision, both in its initiation and its

carrying out during that time.

So I look back on all these things.... I'm not going to

remember all

of the ministers and the things they did, but I know that the present

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Waterland), when he was Minister of

Forests — we all want to see our forests replenished on a sustained

yield basis; we want to see more sophistication — brought into this

Legislature the most innovative forest legislation, the five-year

planning and review.... We're continuing to work with the federal

government and others in upgrading that, because it's still not

perfect. But I want to say that what he did was revolutionary in the

commitment it made for government. That commitment has only been

interrupted in part by the revenue difficulties during the recession.

Mr. Chairman, those are some of the things I think about as I

speak

in my estimates for the last time as Premier. But I would like to say

that one of the things, in a House that is, I guess, often

confrontational — fighting.... People don't often see the opposition

and the government getting together. There have been moments in

developing public policy and in doing other things when we have been

unanimous and have worked together. I think of two things that people

don't often think about, the two areas in which I'm proud the

government introduced.... But it took the cooperation of an opposition

that also believed in the same things.

When we introduced legislation to set up an ombudsman, we set

it up

so that it would require the unanimous consent of all members of this

House. It's to the credit of the committee members of that day that

they were able to work on that legislation as they've been able to work

again to find someone to fill the role. While personalities surrounding

the inception of the ombudsman have sometimes overshadowed the

importance of the office itself, I want to say to this Legislature that

I firmly believe that it is one of the most important things we did as

a government, and one of the most important things we did as a

Legislature, working together on it, as we have twice in selecting

candidates to fill the role of ombudsman, to protect the public from

bureaucracy, as the ombudsman will do. It's not political; it is there

to protect them from those things that fall between the stools, in

which they have no protection under law. I'm proud to say it was

introduced by our government. A lot of people in the province have

talked about it, but we introduced it, were committed to it. I feel it

to be one of the most important accomplishments of this Legislature —

on both sides of the House.

The other part of accountability in which the whole

Legislature

makes decisions is the role of the auditor-general. Again, when I look

back.... We introduced that legislation. It was to be a position that

was not accountable to the government but to the Legislature, to all

members, as it was to the public. And again, members of this

Legislature unanimously picked the first auditor-general. I think we

can say that we've all been very proud of the job that she has done,

and we're sorry to see Mrs. Morrison announce her retirement. Once

again the good will of all members of the Legislature will be tested in

the selection procedure that picks the new auditor-general.

So the times of confrontation and discord for which we're

noted are

not always the things that set in motion those instruments of

government that I think will be of lasting value. There have been times

we've worked together.

I think that sometimes the controversy is equally as valuable

as the

times we've worked together, because our ideas have to be tested.

Sometimes in the development of public policy, letting off steam in

here is a far better way of dealing with controversy than having the

steam let off in other areas in which it might offend against the

democratic process. So I think it's an important part. I'm not like

those who say that our politics are too rigid or too confrontational.

I know this: the people of British Columbia are probably the

most

informed and politically aware people in the country. I look back on

the last provincial election — and I don't just look back to see one —

and I see the turnout at the polls. Alberta recently had just over 50

percent of the people turn out. We had a record, with about 78 percent

of the people in this province turning out to vote, for whatever party

or whatever candidate. It's important that we keep that record and that

political edge. I know that in important constituencies like Columbia

River or Saanich and the Islands the turnout was 82 or 83 percent.

British Columbians should be

[ Page 8788 ]

proud that political issues bring the

people into

the process and into the voting-booths. The most dangerous thing to our

democracy at any time would be disinterest, low turnouts, where

governments are elected with less than half the people ever bothering

to turn out to make a choice. So while some people are concerned about

the style of politics, as we all are from time to time, let us not lose

sight of the fact that we in British Columbia do make and have made our

people so politically aware that they do participate; they do care

enough to turn out.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one other act

which

was done last year — an area where I'm not noted as a great expert, if

anybody thinks I'm an expert on anything — where the opposition and the

government, the Speaker's office and I think the Clerks' table got

together in dealing with the rules of the Legislature. We put in new

rules to make sure that this institution could function better.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't make my day.

I think the Legislature did do something then that wasn't just

self-serving for the time but was for future legislatures — that this

institution will survive and be stronger. Certainly the opportunities

for individual members are protected in that legislation. Opportunities

for some ways for the Legislature to work that we have not fully

utilized yet are present in that legislation. I would like to

compliment the role of a number of Speakers, but especially the current

one and the former Speaker, the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder),

who is not here today, under whom the study was done that produced what

I guess you would call the MacMinn report, the basis for a large number

of those legislative reforms...

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sir Erskine MacMinn, yes.

...and rule changes for this chamber. I want to say that they

will

be available for members in the future. I think we have successfully

made progress in the way this chamber will work in the future for the

people of the province, and it will continue to give people confidence

in the legislative process when the rules work better to allow the

people's business to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed these last number of years as

Premier.

There's some anticipation: you do a lot of work when you enter

politics; you're nervous about running, winning. Then the next thing

you hope for is to become government. When you do that, of course, the

next thing you start to think about is your retirement. I want to say

that these days that occupies a fair amount of my time.

But I'm pleased to have served with all of you. I appreciate

your

contribution, and especially the criticism of the opposition. I don't

want to end on too nice a note. I will miss certain aspects of this

Legislature, and so to start you off, I would like to remember some of

the names that you might call me, just so I won't feel I'm leaving

unremembered. You might call me Mini-Wac. You might call me a dictator,

a wimp, Three-dollar Bill; you might call me a leader that can't

control his cabinet, or you might call me someone who never listens to

his ministers or his back bench. You could call us a jackboot

government. Please, one more time before I go I would like to hear

those words.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, one of the things

I determined upon

when I became leader of this party was that I wouldn't rise to the

bait. So for the Premier's last line, we won't make his day yet.

I'd like to thank the Premier for a last speech as Premier

during

Premier's estimates that was gracious and, I'm sure, emotional for him.

It was a reflective speech that helped put the last ten years in

perspective. We do appreciate many of the things that this government

has done.

[4:15]

Speaking of confrontation, if you look back over the last ten

years,

the unanimous votes in this Legislature probably far outnumber the

votes that have divided with the govern ment and the opposition on

opposite sides of the vote. It's probably worthwhile, as the Premier

has done, to put those kinds of things in perspective so that we know

that in the vast majority of things we have worked together; we've

voted together and we have assisted the government and each other in

implementing legislation that the government has passed. I do wish to

acknowledge things like long-term care, SAFER, the ombudsman and the

auditor-general — things that we did vote for in this House. We

supported the government in trying to make as neutral a selection as

possible, so that the people of the province could be as well served as

possible.

Of course, as opposition we have a duty to stand up and

criticize

and to identify what we consider to be weaknesses from our point of

view and from the point of view of the people who inform us. As members

of the opposition we have a duty to point out the things that we feel

the government is doing that are wrong or to attempt to correct errors

that we perceive in the government's programs and legislation, and I

think we have done that to the best of our ability.

Rather than simply looking back over the last ten years —

because

there are a number of other members who are stepping down from long

years of service in this Legislature — it's probably worthwhile to look

back over the last ten or 15 years, because a number of good things

have been done in the province of British Columbia over that time. I

suppose, because of the boisterousness of debate in the Legislature and

the hyperbolic statements that are made by members we sometimes think

that very little happens other than controversy in this building, but

there are some good things that have happened in addition to those

mentioned by the Premier — things spearheaded by members in the

Legislature who are currently leaving.

I look at the establishment of the B.C. Development

Corporation, a

corporation that was set up to assist small businesses and to establish

businesses and industries around the province. It was set up by my

colleague the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who has

announced that he intends to resign from this Legislature, but I think

it was used to good effect by both governments and seemed to be

something that was worthwhile for the people of the province and for

businesses that were developing in the province. The current

government, when it was opposition, criticized the establishment of the

B.C. Development Corporation, but then they went on to use it,

realizing that it was useful to the people of the province of B.C.

I look at a colleague who unfortunately has passed away now,

Robert

Strachan, who set up the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. We

talk about the establishment of a financial centre in the city of

Vancouver. I think the first step, or maybe the second step, after the

establishment of the Bank of B.C. was the establishment of the

Insurance Corporation

[ Page 8789 ]

of B.C., which brought a tremendous

amount of

talent and skill and also a vast pool of money that could be invested

in this province to the benefit of all of us, the returns going to

those who pay premiums in order to keep those premiums down. I think

the government recognized the value of that contribution and kept it on

and sustained it. I hope it's now become a permanent part of the

administration of the province of British Columbia and the value is

being recognized by all sides both in and out of government and in and

out of public life.

I look at the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who

has made

the decision to step down from his participation in the Legislature,

who was the first Minister of Housing that this province ever had and

who set up a number of the housing programs that have served people in

this province very well. A number of those housing programs were

carried on by the current government and, again, served low-income

people, senior citizens and others who for reasons other than their own

could not get into the housing market. That minister and succeeding

ministers have made available to those people high-quality housing at

prices they can afford.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I look at the current member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke),

who

set up the Medical Services Plan of British Columbia by combining a

number of common carriers and is recognized by the people in the

medical profession and other caring professions and by people in

hospital administration as one of the finest Ministers of Health this

province has ever had and as a leader in health policy development and

health facilities development. When you took at the facilities in

British Columbia that have taken a forward thrust in cancer research,

research into spinal injuries and those kinds of problems that are so

difficult to deal with, I think that this member, as a minister, did a

terrific job. Many of the programs that were developed under the NDP

were carried on by the Social Credit government and were expanded and

improved upon by the current government.

Our Minister of Education from 1972 to 1975, the member for

Burnaby

North (Mrs. Dailly), will probably be best known for doing away with

corporal punishment in schools — doing away with the strap. I think

that in any civilized society the removal of punishments that are

brutal and belong to another and a previous age.... I think that that's

a tremendous credit to that minister; also what this minister did to

advance and improve the school system in this province and to make sure

that the highest quality of education was delivered to our students in

British Columbia as a right. She did such things as implement a student

grant system which eliminated the bar of wealth and privilege in

obtaining access to universities, colleges and technical schools. That

was an improvement that was brought about by this Minister of

Education, including the expansion of the college system to every

region of the province.

I think that's something which that minister can take credit

for,

but because the government has carried on that system, we can all take

some credit for it if we're reflecting on these things today.

I think that probably the first recognition of native

self-government in the establishment of the Nisgha School District was

also pioneered by this minister. That's an important achievement that

will work to her credit, and again has been accepted and carried on by

the current government.

I look at things like the accomplishments of the retiring

member for

Vancouver East — the establishment of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation,

possibly something that's not appropriate for this day and age in terms

of energy-pricing regimes, but something that was definitely

appropriate at the time in order to make sure that the terrific

increases that were taking place in energy commodities were collected

and deposited to the benefit of the people of this province.

In the establishment of that B.C. Petroleum Corporation, it

was

indicated that the increment that we received for natural gas would

work to the benefit of the municipalities of this province. The first

revenue-sharing program based on natural resource prices was

established by that government from 1972 to 1975, and the benefits of

natural gas price increases were made available to the municipalities

of this province. I can recall little Zeballos, which was in my

constituency at that time, getting a $25,000 grant so that they could

pave their main street. Many small municipalities throughout this

province were able to take advantage of that.

The current government, under this Premier, built upon that

revenue-sharing program and expanded the revenue sharing program to

produce the program that we have today, one which I think is recognized

to be of benefit to the municipalities and local governments of this

province. We recognize that that was done under the current Premier.

The establishment of the B.C. Energy Commission, later to

become the

Utilities Commission — another thing that was established by the

retiring member for Vancouver East and improved upon by the current

government to include the review of B.C. Hydro's activities in the

province and expanded to include the analysis and approval of new

energy projects, including such things as the Site C project.

One of the things that I've always asked for or hoped for is

that

politicians should not really take sides on particular issues until

such time as, through the mechanism of an impartial review procedure,

the public has had an opportunity to look at these issues, make an

independent decision, and then politicians and the public will be able

to take their views after a decision has been made. The NDP government,

under the member for Vancouver East, established the B.C. Energy

Commission; it's been carried on by this current government as the

Utilities Commission.

There are many things that, of course, happened under the

government

of 1972-1975. The agricultural land reserve was one of those things

that was developed out of a lot of controversy, many complaints. Many

people felt that there was some uncertainty about the future of their

land ownership as a result of the establishment of the agricultural

land reserve, but it was accepted by the people of the province and

ultimately carried on by the current government, who recognized the

value of protecting farmland and protecting that resource both for

ourselves and for future generations.

Mr. Chairman, many of the things that are done in this

Legislature

are done on a bipartisan basis with the support of both sides in the

Legislature. Even though there is controversy around their origins,

ultimately when the decision is made, then both sides get on board and

tend to support it for the benefit of all citizens of British Columbia.

That's even true of things like Expo or Transpo or whatever it

was

called. I made a decision when I was elected leader of this party in

1984, Mr. Chairman, that a decision had been made to go ahead with Expo

by the government, over the opposition of the official opposition of

the day. But once the decision had been made, once money had been

[ Page 8790 ]

invested and taxpayers' resources and

energies

committed, then it was the duty of the opposition to support it and

make it the best success it can possibly be. That's the decision we've

made here in the official opposition. We hope Expo will be the greatest

success it can possibly be, and we hope that for the benefit of the

citizens of British Columbia and for future generations here in British

Columbia.

I think it's important at a time like this to reflect on the

past —

possibly not reflect too much on the past; it's sometimes better to

forget some of the things that happened in the past for the benefit of

all of us — but it's also important to look towards the future. There

is a need for some changes in the direction of the province, and some

of the information that's available out there I think indicates the

need for a change. I think the Legislature, with so many members

retiring, is now going through a generational change. Who knows, on

that side or on this side, what might come out of that change? But

whatever it is, I think we all hope it's for the betterment of the

province and the people of B.C.

According to the statistics made available to us in the first

week

of June, there are this very day 175,000 people out of work in B.C. I

know that information is as of concern to the government as it is to

the opposition. Somehow we have to develop a method of getting those

people back to work, of making sure they can fulfil themselves and earn

a decent living in this province and put a little money away for their

children's education, for the future. I hope we can commit ourselves to

that kind of a project.

Of the people out of work, 60,000 are between the ages of 15

and 24.

We have a real obligation to those people. They're not out of work

because they had jobs and quit them, or because they're lazy; they're

out of work because the opportunities simply have not presented

themselves. Some of them have worked, but at very low wages, in some

cases part-time and casual work. We have an obligation on both sides of

this Legislature to see to it that opportunities are made available for

those young people.

[4:30]

Of those out of work, 72,000 are women. Women have been

traditionally discriminated against in the labour force. In order to

equalize their entry into the labour market, certain services have to

be provided which aren't necessarily provided to men, such as child

care and special programs for training and developing skills they can

use to market themselves in the labour force on an equal basis with

men. I think we have to commit ourselves in the Legislature, on both

sides, to those kinds of programs.

The Premier mentioned the critical industries commissioner,

which

I've neglected to mention until now. This is a piece of legislation

that we've supported from the time of its announcement and since it was

introduced into the Legislature. It's a piece of legislation we should

look at, because what has happened with that critical industries

commissioner is that when people get together and look at preserving

jobs and enterprises, they're willing to look at making sacrifices for

the benefit of all. Government has made sacrifices in terms of taxes,

in terms of hydroelectric charges and other charges that they make

against enterprise. Business has made concessions in terms of keeping

alive marginally profitable or unprofitable operations. Labour has made

concessions with respect to allocating to equity capital a certain

amount of what might otherwise have been wage income, or in fact to

delaying implementation of provisions of collective agreements which

might increase the labour costs against that enterprise. When people

operate with the goal of preserving an enterprise or preserving jobs,

they tend to work together and make sacrifices to the benefit of all

within the operation, but ultimately to the benefit of all of us within

the province.

When you look at the number of people out of work in the

province

today, when you look at the number of people on welfare, when you look

at the decline in investment — a real decline of 47 percent since 1981

— I think there has to be an attitude on the part of people on both

sides of this Legislature, and in all sectors out there as well, of

working together to preserve jobs and to preserve this enterprise that

we call the province of British Columbia. If we can adopt that

approach, if that is the result of this generational change in the

personnel of this Legislature, then We will have served the province

well. We will have served the people of this province well. I took

forward to working with all members of the Legislature toward that end.

Vote 4 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

The committee resolutions.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the report be

considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that

the reports of

resolutions from the Committee of Supply on April 8, 14, 16, 21, 23 and

29, May 6, 13, 15, 21, 27, 29 and 30, and June 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and

17 be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is an

appropriate time to

intervene in these proceedings to move a motion, consented to by my

hon. friend the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that the list of

members to compose a special committee of the Legislature to recommend

a person to be appointed as auditor-general as provided under

section 2

of the Auditor General Act be as follows: Hon. E. Veitch; Hon. R.G.

Fraser; Mr. Rogers, convener, Messrs. Strachan and Reynolds; Messrs.

Stupich, Nicolson, Blencoe and myself. So moved.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that

toward making good

the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the

province, there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue

fund the sum of $9.2 billion toward defraying the charges and expenses

of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1987, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under

section 1

of Supply Act (No. 1), 1986, and the sum of $312,526,000 for

recoverable disbursements: required for the purposes referred to in

schedule D of the main estimates for the fiscal year

[ Page 8791 ]

ending March 31, 1987; the sum to

include that authorized to be paid under

section 2 of Supply Act (No.

1), 1986.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1986

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 2), 1986.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

committed for second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I understand

that at this point the bill will be distributed for all hon. members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: the bill will be

distributed, and we will take a brief recess, to be summoned by the

division bells.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bill now

having been circulated, I call on the minister.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be

now read a second time. I understand that leave was granted earlier.

This supply bill is the second and final for the fiscal year

1986-87. The first, as members will recall, was introduced on March 26,

1986, when this Legislature authorized the value of appropriations for

three months. This bill, which is in the general form of previous

years' final supply bills, requests a total supply of $9.2 billion for

voted expenditures as outlined in the

schedule to the bill, and in

addition the sum of $312,526,000 for recoverable financing transaction

disbursements, as recorded in

Schedule D of the main estimates. These

sums include that authorized under sections 1 and 2 of Supply Act (No.

1), 1986.

Finally, I point out the requirement for passage of the supply

bill

in order to provide for the expenditures of the government for the

1986-87 fiscal year. I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: We've had our debate. It's

been a long one,

sometimes perhaps verging on being acrimonious, but generally, I think,

constructive. The ministers in general have been quite helpful and

cooperative in trying to answer questions and arguments put to them by

members of the opposition. We certainly will not hold up passage of

Supply Act (No. 2).

In looking forward, I think, to the spirit of cooperation that

both

leaders have talked about today, and that the opposition leader picked

up on, perhaps the one thing that I might hope for for the future is

that when next we meet, when next we're dealing with the budget and

estimates, the Public Accounts Committee will start meeting earlier and

will meet truly as a Public Accounts Committee. I'm not criticizing

now; I'm just saying that I hope that many things will be different.

Both leaders have suggested that there will be changes. In

passing

the Supply Act, we are providing the government with the money that

they are going to spend. The other side of that coin is the

accountability. In recent years we seem to have slipped away from

having the accountability that previously was there through the proper

functioning of the Public Accounts Committee.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have no more to say at this point in

time.

I've said as much as I want to say on this subject in the past. I

support the motion for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister concludes debate

on second reading.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I note the

comments made by the

member for Nanaimo, who has been my critic — and may continue to be my

critic — for a good number of years. Obviously it is not for a minister

to comment on the service of a committee of the House. However, I'm

sure that there are a number of other members who share that member's

observations and comments.

Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 37, Supply Act (No.

2), 1986.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I

move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 2), 1986, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 2), 1986

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that

the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Supply Act (No. 2), 1986, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Waterland tabled, on behalf of the Minister of

Forests

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the consolidated financial statements of the

British Columbia Railway Company for the fiscal year ending December

31, 1985.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Health for 1984-85.

[ Page 8792 ]

Hon. Mr. Smith tabled the annual report of the Ministry of

Attorney-General for 1984-85.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, His Honour is

approaching the premises. Might we just have a short recess.

MR. SPEAKER: The House will be advised by

the bells on the arrival of His Honour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, he'll be here

in about one minute, if the members would like to remain in their seats.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised

that His Honour is in

the immediate vicinity, and it should be just a matter of a few moments

before his arrival.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and

took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1986

Education Excellence Appropriation Act

Health Improvement Appropriation Act

Forest Stand Management Fund Act

Assessment Amendment Act, 1986

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1986

Motor Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1986

Insurance Premium Tax Amendment Act, 1986

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1986

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1986

Insurance for Crops Amendment Act, 1986

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1986

Petroleum and Natural Gas (Vancouver Island Railway Lands) Act

International Commercial Arbitration Act

Commercial Arbitration Act

Income Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1986

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1986

Motion Picture Act

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 1986

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1986

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name,

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

Supply Act (No. 2), 1986.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth

thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to this bill.

[5:00]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that

the House at its

rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of Mr.

Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public

interest requires that the House shall meet or until Mr. Speaker may be

advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth

session of the thirty-third parliament of the province of British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has

been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time and

date stated in such notice and as the case may be may transact its

business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and that in the

event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other

cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purposes of

this order.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:06 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative

Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria,

B.C., Canada