1988 Legislative Session: 2nd

Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The

following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4537 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Land Title Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill 24).

Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 4537

Tabling Documents –– 4537

Oral Questions

Provision of AZT to AIDS victims. Mrs.

Boone –– 4537

Environmental laboratory. Ms. Smallwood ––

Ombudsman's investigation of Principal

Savings and Trust Co. Mr. Sihota –– 4538

Indian land title. Mr. R. Fraser –– 4539

Barkerville historic park. Ms. Edwards –– 4539

Ministerial Statements

Canada's Fitweek. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 4539

Mrs. Boone

B.C. participation in Fitweek. Hon. Mr.

Reid –– 4540

Ms. Edwards

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988 (Bill

25). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 4540

Mr. Stupich –– 4542

Ms. Marzari –– 4542

Mr. Blencoe –– 4543

Mr. Sihota –– 4544

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 4546

Committee of Supply: Ministry of

Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Veitch)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 4546

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. D’Arcy

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Michael

Mr. Jones

Mr. Rose

Mr. Clark

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. ROGERS :

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people here in the gallery today in

anticipation of a message. The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) and I

would like the members to make welcome the following persons from the

Sechelt Indian band who are here today: Chief Thomas Paul, Councillor

Ben Pierre, Councillor Stan Dixon — who is no stranger to this chamber

or in fact to the whole province — Councillor Lenora Joe and

Councillor Warren Paull. Would the members please make them welcome.

MR. WEISGERBER :

It's a rare pleasure for me to introduce a group of visitors from the

Chetwynd district in the great South Peace River constituency. Mr.

Speaker, in your gallery are Mr. John Boraas and about 15 adult

education students from Northern Lights College. Please join me in

making them welcome.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, there

are four classes from Terry Fox School in Port Coquitlam who will be in

and out of the galleries between 2 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. today. Perhaps

the House could make them welcome as well.

MR. DE JONG :

On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), it gives me

great pleasure to introduce Mr. and Mrs. John Ivor Smith of Duncan.

Would the House please give them a cordial welcome.

MR. BLENCOE :

Visiting the Legislature today and visiting with a number of people is

the mayor of Surrey, Mr. Bob Bose. Would the House please make him

welcome.

MR. R. FRASER : I'd like to welcome today a

friend I haven't seen for some time, whom I welcome to the chamber, Mr.

Allen Clapp.

HON. MR. REID : Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my

constituents from Surrey, I also welcome Mayor Bose to Victoria today.

MR. CRANDALL : I too, from my distant riding

of Columbia River, have two guests. I'd like the House to welcome Dick

and Ella Gondek.

Introduction of Bills

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Land Title Amendment Act, 1988.

HON. B.R. SMITH :

This is a very historic occasion, because while it is a land title

amendment bill, it really is a Sechelt band land title bill in every

sense of the bill.

This bill will amend our Land Title Act to provide for the

registration of Indian reserve land under the B.C. Torrens land title

registration system. It is the first time in this province, and the

first time in Canada. This bill is responsive to the self-government

aspirations of the Sechelt people, but it has been structured so that

any Indian band in this province may, with supporting federal

legislation. in the future elect to take advantage of the route that

Sechelt is following.

This

bill is the instrument by which an Indian band's fee simple ownership

of its reserve lands will be given legal recognition in this province.

Before this could happen, federal legislation establishing the band as

a legal entity would delegate to it the power to adopt provincial land

title registration laws. This has already been done for the Sechelt

Indian band, the first band in the country to do so. Fulfilling these

conditions opens the door for the entry of band-owned reserve lands

into the mainstream of the Torrens system. The entry process is the

same as that by which provincial Crown land enters the Torrens system.

A lot of care has been taken to ensure that a clear route of title is

established and that existing interests such as leaseholds and

mortgages are recognized in accordance with Torrens principles.

incorporating its land into the Torrens system, the Sechelt band will

be able to enter into financial and real estate dealings in accordance

with conventional business practice. This has long been an objective of

many of our native people and also of their tenants, financiers and

others who wish to secure their real estate transactions by

registration in land registry offices. By meeting these objectives the

bill will create much greater opportunity for economic development for

Indian bands that elect to take advantage of its provisions.

This

bill represents about three years of hard work, and I want to

acknowledge the former Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, Garde

Gardom, who worked so hard for this day. I want also to acknowledge the

Premier and my colleague the Minister of Transportation and Highways

(Hon. Mr. Rogers), who both strongly supported this move, and the

member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), who has been extremely supportive as

well. But most of all I want to acknowledge the Sechelt band, who have

decided to move the musty old Indian Act into the twenty-first century

and be the pioneers in this country to do so.

I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill

24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to file the lottery branch grants report.

I'm also making available to the members a comprehensive list of more

than 400 community projects which will receive financial support from

the fund.

Oral Questions

PROVISION OF AZT TO AIDS VICTIMS

MRS. BOONE :

A question to the Minister of Health. On Monday in this House you

indicated that you are considering changes to government policy

regarding the full funding of AZT treatment for AIDS patients. Given

that people with AIDS are terminally ill, I now ask this question with

a great sense of urgency. Will the minister tell this House exactly

when he will make this decision and when we will know if this province

will join the rest of Canada and fully fund AZT treatments?

[ Page 4538 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, I do not recall making a statement that I'm considering

changing our formula under the Pharmacare program. We have a very good

Pharmacare program in place at the present time which covers most of

the drugs that are used. We have various categories of that program.

For example — I'll go through it again today just in case

someone has missed parts of it —

plan A is partial reimbursement of costs to a senior holding a valid

Pharmacare card...which all drugs are paid for; plan B, full 100

percent payment of benefits is made direct to Pharmacare suppliers for

benefits provided to individuals residing in a licensed care facility;

plan C is full 100 percent payment of benefits made directly to

Pharmacare suppliers for benefits provided to individuals and

dependents eligible for medical benefits under the Social Services and

Housing program. Plan E is a partial 80 percent reimbursement of

benefit costs above an annual family deductible of $300 and to a

maximum of $2,000. That is the Pharmacare program, and all drugs come

under this program.

MRS. BOONE : The minister

responded on Monday to a question from our leader about whether he

would follow the unanimous advice of his advisory group to fully fund

all AZT treatments. He responded at that time that maybe he would and

maybe he wouldn't. He did not say specifically that he wouldn't follow

them, so it was taken that he was obviously readdressing the situation.

The minister must be aware that AIDS patients taking AZT are saving the

taxpayers money insofar as the medication enables them to spend less

time in acute-care hospital beds. Will the minister please acknowledge

that it is a fiscally responsible decision to fully fund AZT treatments

and keep these people out of our hospitals?

HON. MR. DUECK : I will give the same answer

I gave the other day —

I believe it was Monday: that is future policy. I did not make a

commitment, as we wouldn't in any event, because future policy is

something that will follow sometime in the future, in the fullness of

time. Secondly, I have asked anyone who had a difficulty paying for

that particular drug....

I know they are unfortunate

people. Anyone who is ill is very unfortunate, and we accept that just

as well as you do. You haven't got a licence on sympathy or empathy

towards sick people. When questions like that are asked, you insinuate

that somehow we haven't got sympathy for ill people. This is not true.

However, I've also asked that any individual who has a problem and

doesn't qualify for social services....

I understand that

there are some receiving the AZT who could qualify but have not

applied. Let's say there are some who do not qualify. We will look at

that particular individual's hardship and try to help him. I think that

is going a very long mile for anyone who's in that unfortunate

position. Don't ever think that you have a licence on sympathy and

empathy on that side of the House.

ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My question is to the Minister of Environment. The minister has

confirmed that his ministry sent a government environment lab a memo

instructing them to cut back services 30 to 50 percent and that the lab

should perform only essential services until the beginning of November.

Can the minister tell the House what environmental services the lab

performs that are considered nonessential?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : At the outset let me say

that any such orders are only conditional on the lab being sold in the

first place.

Secondly,

all essential services that are deemed essential by the various

regional managers and people who make these decisions will be made, and

there is a whole litany. If you wanted that type of answer, you had

better place it on the order paper, because it would be extensive. I

could take 15 or 20 minutes at a time and answer in the House, but it

would be extensive.

All tests will still be done. It is just that there is going

to be, if the lab is sold — and that's important: if the lab

is sold — some delay in getting them done in the same fashion

and time-frame as has been done in time past.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Supplementary. The memo instructs the lab to reduce services now,

pending a possible sale in October, so this is actions.... The lab has

been instructed currently to cut services.

Yesterday the

minister confirmed reports that a majority of pulp mills in this

province exceed their control limits. The minister has also told this

House that these mills are taking steps to improve their pollution

control standards. How can the minister adequately monitor these

improvements as well as 3,000 waste discharge permits in the province

when the services of the government's labs have been cut back to 50

percent?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'm glad the member

asked me that question, because it does give me a chance to talk about

a separate testing facility we are putting in place for the testing of

dioxins — which, of course, is the main concern when you are

dealing with kraft pulp mills that use chlorine in their bleaching

process. That process is going ahead. We will have a separate

dioxin-testing laboratory. I will be more than happy to provide you

during my estimates with the full details of that process. but it is

separate and distinct from the Environmental Lab.

OMBUDSMAN'S INVESTIGATION OF

PRINCIPAL SAVINGS AND TRUST CO.

MR. SIHOTA : A question to the Premier.

There are, of course, 18,000 — I'm sure the Premier

knows —

investors in Principal Trust, many of them seniors, who lost a

significant amount of their savings as a consequence of the collapse of

Principal Trust. The ombudsman is currently investigating the

government's actions with respect to the failings of Principal Trust.

Could the Premier advise this House whether or not the government will

abide by the decision of the ombudsman with respect to Principal Trust?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

This is something that the Ministry of Finance has been capably dealing

with, and I would defer the question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This question had been raised during a discussion of our estimates, so

I thought it appropriate that I take the opportunity to alert the whole

House. As the

[ Page 4539 ]

Speaker knows, during estimates only

one or two

opposition members are present at any one time, so it's useful for all

of them to have an opportunity to hear the answer.

The

answer, quite simply, is that we have supported the ombudsman's

examination in its entirety. As a matter of fact, he has been

complimentary of the degree of cooperation he has received not only

from the ministry's corporate relations division, but also from the

Securities Commission people themselves. To that extent, then, the

ombudsman's investigation is underway and well in hand.

There

was a series of supplementary questions put during the estimates

debate, Mr. Speaker. It may well be that other more pertinent questions

can be put, but I'll allow the questioner the freedom of putting those

questions now if that's his choice.

MR. SIHOTA : A

question to the Premier again. The Minister of Finance, during the

course of those estimates to which he refers, indicated — and

I'm paraphrasing here — that it would not matter a

whit — those are the words that the Minister of Finance

used —

what the ombudsman had to say, indicating very clearly that he would

not respect the decision of the ombudsman. Given the sanctity of that

office and the role that office plays in society, that struck me as

rather peculiar. Does the Premier agree with the position of the

Minister of Finance that the government will not respect the decision

of the ombudsman as it relates to the Principal Trust matter?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : In general terms,

obviously all information provided us by the ombudsman — or

any other body that provides advice. but particularly the

ombudsman —

is of extreme importance to government, and all of that information is

considered. This is not to say that we pass on the difficult or the

responsible decisions to another body or non-elected group. However,

since the reference was to something said by the Minister of Finance, I

will defer the question to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Thank you, Mr. Premier.

You probably said it better than I did — and probably in fewer

words, if memory serves me rightly —

the point being, of course, that we are interested in the ombudsman's

findings. The specific question that I do remember.... The member, by

his own admission, was paraphrasing, so there's a distortion in the

selective choice of words here. But the specific question that was

raised during the debate on the estimates, of course, was: if the

ombudsman requested us to make whole the investors in First

Pacific — or First....

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Principal.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : The two subsidiary

companies of the Principal Group — their names escape me for

the moment. If the ombudsman found it necessary for us to make them

whole, would we be prepared to do so? I said categorically that this

government would not agree to make the investors in that unfortunate

situation whole. That is an issue that will have to be resolved by the

court system. I've said that repeatedly to the press, in this chamber,

and now I'm pleased to have the opportunity to express that view to all

the members of the opposition who weren't here during the estimates and

therefore wouldn't have been made aware of the government's position on

this matter.

MR. SIHOTA :

It's clear lack of moxie on the part of the Premier to answer some of

these questions, but we'll test the Premier's moxie a bit by asking him

the following question. The Alberta government — in fact,

Premier Getty —

has said: "If there's an indication of negligence or fault on behalf of

the government, then the government will have to make up that

negligence and fault." It goes on to say that they will compensate the

investors in that eventuality. Is that also the position of the

province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The party on this side of the House, which has governed the province

for the last 35 years all but three, has always taken the position that

we will deal with all matters responsibly and that we will not simply

make political statements that may be popular for the day. We've seen

it done by the NDP socialists. Instead we will weigh all the

information provided us and deal with these matters responsibly.

Again,

in this particular instance, we know that there are a number of

hearings taking place at present. We know that all of the information

has been carefully and considerably gathered by the Minister of

Finance, and we will deal with this in a very responsible fashion and

not — as what is suggested by the NDP — simply jump

off and make a decision without giving it considerable thought.

INDIAN LAND TITLE

MR. R. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, on this very historic day I'm surprised we've got this far

through question period without somebody asking the Attorney-General

if, in light of the historic announcement for the Sechelt band, any

other bands in the province of British Columbia are seeking the same

opportunity.

HON. B.R. SMITH : I think that there's

great interest in this legislative leap, not only in British Columbia

but across the country, and that a number of other bands have been in

touch with the Sechelt band and are very interested in this great

experiment.

BARKERVILLE HISTORIC PARK

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture. As

the minister knows, the Wendle House historical program at Barkerville,

which allowed school groups to fully experience life as it was in the

1890s, has been cancelled. Could the minister explain why school

students from throughout the province are losing this program, which

over the years has greatly enriched the educational experience provided

by the Barkerville heritage park?

HON. MR. REID : Mr.

Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. I don't have the details

about all the programs and activities around the province. I'll provide

the member with the exact details of the program and where it's at.

[2:30]

Ministerial Statements

CANADA'S FITWEEK

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Speaker, this Friday, May 20, marks the beginning of Canada's

Fitweek in British Columbia. Canada's Fitweek is a nationwide

celebration of physical

[ Page 4540 ]

activity,

the largest of its kind in the world. Canada's Fitweek is co-ordinated

by Fitness Canada and last year encouraged approximately 7.5 million

Canadians to participate in a wide variety of activities. It is

anticipated that well over 7.5 million people of all ages and walks of

life will participate in more in than 13,500 events this year.

Fitweek

is no trivial matter. The health and well-being of our citizens is very

important, especially when we commit one-third of the provincial

government resources to health care. We can, through a little more

exercise, make life a little easier for our illustrious Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and, of course, ourselves.

The

Ministry of Health, in cooperation with the Ministry of Education and

the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, is supporting the

promotion of Canada's Fitweek in British Columbia. The fitness branch

of the Ministry of Health is coordinating several events for the

Ministry of Health employees in Victoria. One of these events is

Sneaker Day Friday, May 20, which is the kickoff event for Canada's

Fitweek. Ministry of Health employees will be encouraged to wear

sneakers at the office. I request all of my colleagues on both sides of

the House to seriously consider Canada's Fitweek as an opportunity to

pull those New Year's resolutions off the shelf and start walking,

climbing stairs, running — and, I should add, quitting

smoking — or getting involved in some other regular physical

activity.

MRS. BOONE :

We certainly recognize the importance of fitness to all British

Columbians and would encourage people to join in the activities, as the

Minister of Health has stated. Most of us — I think the second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) probably wouldn't take advantage

from more exercise — on this side of the House and, I'm sure,

on your side of the House certainly would.

am a little concerned, though. There's a statement here that it would

make life a little easier for our Finance minister. I certainly would

not like to encourage exercise as a means of making life easier for our

Finance minister. But if exercise is going to make life easier for the

rest of the people, then let's certainly go with it.

B.C. PARTICIPATION IN FITWEEK

HON. MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Along with my

colleagues the hon. Minister of Health and the hon. Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), I'd like to invite all citizens of

British Columbia to participate in the celebration of physical activity

during Canada's sixth annual Fitweek, May 20-29. Nationally, fitness is

territorial governments, as well as 20 national organizations. Locally,

thousands of agencies, municipal governments and corporate sector

sponsors support the many activities of fitness.

I'm

pleased to see my ministry staff involved in Fitweek with the Tower

Trot up the curatorial tower located next to the Royal British Columbia

Museum on May 20. Also, on May 25 we'll see an interministerial Fun

Fitfest taking place on the lawns of the Legislature between 12 and 2

p.m. I'd like to encourage all hon. members to dust off their sneakers

and involve themselves in Fitweek.

MS. EDWARDS : As the minister will have

noted, I keep fit myself by having just slipped out and back into the

House.

I'm

always delighted when he lets me know that he's going to make

ministerial statements. However, I'm very happy that Fitweek is here,

to encourage people to keep fit and be able to carry on at the rate

that British Columbians like to carry on and be fit.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make a ministerial statement. I would

simply like to say that my colleagues have expressed very well the

importance of Fitweek and I fully concur.

Orders of the Day

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

second reading of Bill 25.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1988

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I'm pleased to move second reading of Bill 25, the Credit Union

Amendment Act. Under the Credit Union Act, the Credit Union Deposit

Insurance Corporation is given the power to direct a credit union under

supervision to amalgamate with another credit union. However, the act

is unclear on whether the direction is binding on the members of the

supervised credit union. The statute also fails to provide

CUDIC — Credit Union Deposit Insurance Corporation —

with the ancillary powers necessary to give full effect to its

direction to amalgamate. These defects in the Credit Union Act are

remedied by Bill 25, which provides a new

section specifically dealing

with amalgamations directed by CUDIC.

The new provision

authorizes CUDIC or an administrator appointed under its authority to

prepare the constitution and rules of the new credit union and to

appoint the persons who will serve as its first directors. This

documentation will then be forwarded by CUDIC to the superintendent of

credit unions, who will issue the certificate of amalgamation,

amalgamating the two credit unions.

The new

section makes

it clear that the approval of the members of the credit union subject

to CUDIC's amalgamation direction is not required. The amendments also

anticipate the situation where there may be a direction by CUDIC that a

credit union under supervision amalgamate with a credit union not under

supervision. In that case, the full rights of the directors and members

of the non-supervised credit union remain in effect. It is only the

supervised credit union that has no choice but to amalgamate if

directed by CUDIC.

A further amendment to the Credit Union

Act will facilitate the appointment of lawyers as directors of credit

unions. Presently the Credit Union Act precludes a solicitor from

serving as a director of a credit union if his or her law firm has

acted for any credit union at any time in the past. This

section was

intended to prevent a lawyer from serving as a director of a credit

union when he or she was in a position of conflict of interest.

However, the practical effect of the provision is to prevent lawyers

with relevant credit union experience from ever serving. Although the

Credit Union Act will now be silent on the issue, lawyers will be

subject to the same conflict-of-interest rules as imposed on other

individuals serving as directors. In addition, lawyers will continue to

be subject to the comprehensive conflict-of-interest rules of the Law

Society of British Columbia.

[ Page 4541 ]

Bill

25 includes a retroactive provision which ensures that the recent

amalgamation of the First Pacific and Westcoast Savings Credit Unions

is validated. This amalgamation was conducted under the authority

vested in CUDIC on the recommendation of the review committee

investigating the affairs of the two credit unions.

I would

like to take this opportunity to recognize the exceptional contribution

made by Mr. Arthur Roberts, Mr. Douglas Stanley and Mrs. Renate Mueller

in conducting the independent review which led to the successful

amalgamation of the two credit unions. This has resolved a difficult,

long-standing issue in the Victoria area. It is widely agreed that the

amalgamation of First Pacific and Westcoast Savings Credit Unions is in

the best interests of both credit unions, their members and the members

of B.C.'s credit union system as a whole. Financial projections show

that the amalgamated credit union will be considerably more profitable

than the separate credit unions.

Mr. Speaker, these

amendments will remedy perceived defects in the Credit Union Act. The

retroactive provision in respect of the First Pacific –Westcoast

Savings amalgamation will ensure that the new credit union is properly

constituted and empowered to carry on business.

I'm very

pleased to report that as a consequence of the outstanding work of the

interim board of directors which I appointed a few months back, the

amalgamated credit union organization has made significant progress. As

a consequence, at the first meeting to be held of this organization,

which I believe is scheduled for sometime early next month here in

Victoria, the success of the amalgamation will be evident to all those

participating at the meeting.

In particular, I'm very proud

of the contribution made by three lay people appointees that I made to

that rejuvenated board. The individuals by name are: Mr. Robert

Glazier, a lawyer; Mr. Allen Vandekerkhove, a well-known Victoria

businessman; and Mr. Roland Beaulieu, well-known retired Victoria

businessman. In addition to these three individuals, there were also

three nominees from the board of the defunct First Pacific group and

three members appointed from the board of the defunct Westcoast Savings

group. I think this nine-member board has made tremendous progress. I

personally, and the government — and I think all members in

this Legislature —

should applaud the progress they've made in creating a very exciting

new financial institution out of the situation that had earlier

prevailed, which clearly could not long endure.

The issue

is one that had consumed the attention of local media and many members

of both credit unions for well over a year. It had resulted in much

public discussion and critical comment, none of which could be

adequately dealt with at that time — in the sense of myself or

others being in a position to speak with some knowledge of the

financial situations that prevailed at that time. None of us were free

to make the kind of comment that might have helped clear the air

surrounding the need for a merger.

I'm very pleased, now

that that merger has taken place, that we have a stronger financial

institution as a consequence. I know many individuals are very pleased

with the action, and I'm very pleased that so far, at least, we've had

no negative comment — at least comment negative enough to

justify

any legal proceedings. I've heard some comments from across the floor

this afternoon to the effect that we are fixing up some defects in the

old legislation as if it was an oversight. I think that any such claim

is totally inaccurate and not correct.

The fact of the

matter is that we believed then and still believe that we had all of

the necessary authorizations that we needed to proceed with the

amalgamation. As I said when I introduced the bill for the first time,

this amendment is brought forward in a sense of an abundance of caution

to make very sure that what we've done meets with the full support of

the Legislature and the law of the province. I suppose others might be

tempted not to have brought forward this kind of change on the

assumption that the merit of the merger surely would have foreclosed

anyone's interest in contesting it in a legal sense.

I've

always attempted to administer my legislative responsibilities in a way

to ensure that we move calmly and rationally, and to the maximum extent

possible, we can make sure that there is no confusion in anyone’s mind

about what the intent of a particular piece of legislation might be or

how that particular piece of legislation might be implemented. I'm

quite proud of the record the government has brought forward in the

past on these issues, and I take some exception to any suggestion that

we are rectifying some past oversights or errors. That clearly is not

the case; it merely is an attempt by ourselves to refuse any confusion

on the matter whatsoever.

[2:45]

I've

also heard it alleged that some elected members might have been

successful in initiating this particular question from the other side

of the House that piqued my curiosity to the extent that I made some

investigations to determine whether such representations had in fact

been made. I can tell the House that these initiatives were brought

forward by my ministry without having the benefit of any exterior

wisdom on the subject. Not as if we needed any exterior wisdom, but

nevertheless I just want to clear the air because I saw some media

reports which indicated that we were reacting to representations made

by others without any authority in the matter. I suppose it's always a

valuable thing to receive representations that are helpful, but it's

not very helpful to see media reports that representations have been

made and therefore certain third parties can take credit for initiating

the undertaking. It was an inaccurate media report, as I have been able

to ascertain through discussions with my people.

I'm

satisfied that the greater Victoria community embraces this initiative

with confidence and comfort. At the first general meeting, which will

take place next month, there will be additional information provided

that I'm sure will excite the local Victoria community and result in a

wide degree of depositor confidence and renewed business activity. It

should not go unnoticed that this will create the second largest credit

union in the province and a very healthy one at that, one that all

Victorians can take pride in. Also, all members of the credit union

movement in B.C. can take some pride in the fact that CUDIC and the

B.C. Central Credit Union, who were also players in designing the

remedies that I have described with this bill.... All credit union

members can take some pride in the fact that this was a cooperative

solution, that the degree of cooperation between CUDIC and B.C. Central

was real and successful, and that if, as and when further leadership is

required by the Credit Union Deposit Insurance or B.C. Central,

together with my ministry's corporate relations division.... We have

now set the stage and the precedent so that we can move together in a

united way when a common problem is perceived. That's something that I

believe should give comfort to everyone who is active in the system,

Mr. Speaker.

I think that I have adequately described the

bill, as is my obligation to the House, and therefore I am very pleased

to move second reading.

[ Page 4542 ]

MR. STUPICH :

Any concern that the Whip might have had that this would be over with

too quickly has gone now with the encouragement from the Minister of

Finance to my colleagues to speak at great length in response to what

he has said, which has had nothing at all to do with the legislation.

May

I deal briefly with the legislation. The problem hasn't been that the

legislation has been wrong, Mr. Speaker. The problem has been that

three successive Socred Ministers of Finance have been cutting back on

the supervision of credit unions, cutting back on the staff, and

cutting back in the expertise so that the credit unions have been

allowed to go their own way, and some of them have gotten into trouble.

One of the two mentioned in this legislation is in trouble. There

hasn't been the assistance from government that credit union

members — thousands of them all over the province —

have

depended upon and have accepted as their right. They have accepted the

fact that the Ministry of Finance is providing this supervision and is

watching them, and on the basis of that knowledge — that

trust — they have entrusted their savings to the credit union

movement.

Certainly, to the credit of the credit union

movement — if I may say —

no credit union members have lost any money. The government has not had

to bail anyone out. But certainly some credit union members have paid

more than their share to keep the whole system alive, so that no one

has experienced any losses and the government hasn't had to do any

bailing out.

Apart from that, the credit union movement

and, indeed, credit union members have been waiting expectantly for

long-promised legislation that would make some changes. Had those

changes been made some time ago, the need for this legislation would

not have arisen. We are still waiting for that credit union legislation.

May I just say with respect to the changes that we are

introducing now....

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I thought we were

talking about this bill.

MR. STUPICH :

Yes, we are, and I'm going to say that when this bill was introduced,

the Minister of Finance was asked about it by the press, and his

response was, "I'm doing it this way because I'm autocratic, I'm

dictatorial, and I don't believe in the rights of the majority to make

a decision" — words to that effect. That's not the right way

to go

about it. If there was to be an amalgamation, it should have been

something that the members voluntarily agreed to do. There should not

have been the pressure on them that there was in this particular

situation, and there wouldn't have been the pressure on them had the

Ministry of Finance conducted itself in a better way in supervising the

work of the credit unions in the province.

Yes, this bill

is before us today, and we won't vote against it, but we can't help but

say that the Minister of Finance has not served the credit union

movement in the way that he should have, any more than his two

predecessors, and he's not serving them well now by not bringing forth

the legislation that everyone is expecting.

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, this is not a controversial bill, but it has to be

repeated that neither is it a seminal bill or the end product of many

months or years of working. We must look at this bill as simply a

stopgap measure in the consultation process between the credit union

movement and the government using CUDIC as the regulatory and as

the — if we can call it that — assisting agency.

The

credit union movement, when it first felt the need to combine together

and develop for itself a deposit insurance corporation, developed its

own body which rapidly, for various reasons, became largely the

creature of the provincial government. That's how it went, and that's

how it goes. So the credit union has always enjoyed an ambivalent

relationship with the provincial government that regulates it. That is

probably very appropriate, because the regulatory body — the

deposit insurance body — has to be very careful and cautious,

as do the credit unions, as they develop their credibility in the

community.

This

particular piece of legislation was put together for the merging of two

particular credit unions. CUDIC has had that power for some time now,

to merge credit unions when they get into trouble and when they come

under supervision. This bill, more than anything else, puts shape

around what those mergers should look like and develops some process

through which credit unions must move in order to develop their merger

proposals. I think the credit union movement probably feels okay about

that, since CUDIC had the power to do that. They probably feel somewhat

relieved that now there is a definite legal process that this must move

through. I think the credit union movement would still say that in the

last few years, we have witnessed that many credit unions —

not financially unstable credit unions; credit unions that will honour

the deposits right down the line —

have come into trouble. Some of them have not been able to meet the

statutorily required reserve of 3 percent, and some of them have just

minimally come under that reserve and have been put on supervision.

If we proceed the way this legislation suggests, a credit

union that comes under supervision —

even a credit union which is minimally under supervision; it just

barely doesn't meet that 3 per cent reserve.... This legislation does

not provide the discretion for CUDIC that it might need. Those credit

unions might well not be merged. Perhaps they need a year or so to

prove themselves; perhaps they need assistance other than a merger.

we regard this legislation as an interim piece of legislation, while

the consultation process between the provincial government and the

credit union movement proceeds, we might come up with a much more

flexible planning tool in the future. Mr. Minister, I am assuming that

is your intent. Would you see amendments to this bill coming forward as

those consultations continue over the next little while? I see this

bill, as I said before, as one which has come into place because of a

particular situation and a particular necessity for the merger of two

major credit unions. Would you agree with the B.C. Central Credit Union

system that this is a stopgap measure, and that it will hopefully lead

to further consultation? That's a question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : This is second reading,

hon. member. We're speaking to the principle of the bill.

MS. MARZARI : Oh, this is second reading.

This is not committee; this is the speech. All right.

Then

I leave that question hanging in limbo waiting for an answer during the

committee stage of this bill. I'm sure that the minister will be very

anxious to answer that question first off when we come to the committee

stage. I have left the question with the minister, and I believe that

is the major question to be asked about this bill.

[ Page 4543 ]

The

credit union movement wants to remain credible, wants to have an

appropriate deposit insurance corporation, wants to have some more

controls over itself and would like to think that this is going to be a

continuing consultation process, and not a final measure in terms of

who must merge with whom and when coming down on them from CUDIC.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker. it's true that we'll probably have a number of questions

in committee stage, but I think it would be appropriate for greater

Victoria MLAs to make a few comments about this piece of legislation.

Obviously we are seeing the amalgamation of two major credit unions in

our community — two very important credit unions who have done

lot of good work in this community. We're optimistic, obviously, that

they will continue to do that in the years ahead.

There are

a number of things I want to comment upon. One is that our Finance

critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), alluded to the whole

question of taking a look at the fundamental reasons why this

amalgamation had to take place. For some years there were some

questions asked, particularly of Westcoast Savings, its lending

policies and the management of that institution. We know that that

institution, led by the former executive director, the chairman in

charge of Westcoast Savings, Mr. Lutz, made some questionable.... There

have been a number of questions over the years asked about the policies

of Westcoast Savings resulting in a substantial deficit for that

institution.

I think it raises the whole question of

monitoring and supervision of these institutions. Credit unions have

done great service to this province and will in the future, but there

has to be, if the provincial government is going to have a

role — we've talked about this before for a number of

financial institutions — care and understanding and proper,

efficient supervision by the public sector of those institutions.

a way, although we are supporting this legislation and generally

recognize that the amalgamation probably had to happen, we are sad to

some degree that it actually has taken place. If things had been a

little different, if there had been the proper action by the public

sector to watch certain activities, it could very well be that this

amalgamation wouldn't have had to happen.

It is incumbent

upon us, as my colleagues have already suggested today, to take a

really positive look at the future of the area of supervision and

monitoring and make sure we have the appropriate and adequate staff to

ensure that the public sector is involved in protecting the interests

of those who believe and invest and work within the credit union

movement.

Secondly, I want to comment upon the fact that this

legislation is before us.

MR. SIHOTA : Why is it here?

MR. BLENCOE :

"Why is it here?" my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asks. I'm

sure my colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will be asking that

question on his own behalf.

Once again this Minister of

Finance and this government are demonstrating an inability to read the

letter of the law. We've seen it time in and time out over the last two

years. I go back to special warrants and all those things. Remember

those?

[3:00]

MR. SIHOTA : Oh yes, we've got to change the

wording of those.

MR. BLENCOE :

Changing the wording for warrants because some months ago they broke

the law with the special warrants in the Financial Administration Act.

And now we have

an act before us to clean up the sloppy administration

by this Minister of Finance. We have

an act before us that is

correcting the mismanagement and the misjudgment of this minister in

terms of the credit union and what you're allowed to do in terms of

forcing amalgamation.

My understanding — and I'm sure my colleague from

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will also add to this —

is that this matter was drawn to the attention of the Minister of

Finance, that he was told that perhaps he might want to take another

look before he moved to force amalgamation. that maybe he should see if

he has the right in law to do that and that maybe, once again, we

should think about using this Legislature. Too often, Mr. Speaker, this

government goes around this Legislature and over the top of it, but

never considers that perhaps it should once again be the focus of our

endeavours in the province of British Columbia in terms of keeping to

the law — not only the letter of the law, but the spirit of

the law.

we have before us another piece of legislation brought by the Minister

of Finance to correct, in many respects, a mistake. Unfortunately, the

Minister of Finance hasn't been able to admit to the people of this

community that he perhaps overstepped his bounds a little bit. That's

unfortunate, because obviously these things happen. In the height of

wanting to try and see, in this case, two credit unions survive and get

them back together, he moved a little too fast and didn't read the

letter of the law. Be that as it may, we have the legislation before

us. We'll be asking a few more questions in committee on that very

thing. I'm sure the Minister of Finance will, as usual, answer our

questions to the fullest. I am confident of that.

The third question —

and there'll be more questions in committee stage. We know the

amalgamation has taken place; the minister, in his wisdom, along with

his advisers, has forced the amalgamation of two Victoria-based credit

unions. However, Mr. Speaker. I think the thousands of members

belonging to those two credit unions are entitled to some insight from

the minister and those who put the investigation or the background

together for the amalgamation.... I think those investors, depositors

and creditors are entitled to something: a report, some rationale, some

tabling of evidence that backs it up, not just the minister saying:

"Well. I think it should happen." Those investors and depositors should

be given something concrete that shows that it was indeed necessary.

I'm

sure the new super board, with its Finance ministry appointments, has

some recommendations for the two amalgamated boards. Indeed, the

depositors should be given a business report. They should be given

projections. What's the future? What studies did you do to rationalize

the amalgamation of these credit unions?

MR. SIHOTA : Where's the business report?

MR. BLENCOE :

Where's the detailed analysis? I recognize that obviously there may be

some material that's confidential, financially delicate, but those

thousands of depositors are entitled to some report. They've had

nothing so far. All they've had is the minister saying: "We're going to

[ Page 4544 ]

put

this group together. We're going to get amalgamation, and there's going

to be a date set." He's appointed some people to it, but there's no

evidence, no report to depositors. They're entitled to that, Mr.

Speaker.

I would hope that the minister, in time — not in

time, as soon as possible.... .

AN HON. MEMBER : In the fullness of time.

MR. BLENCOE : James Chabot revisited.

hope he will provide those thousands of depositors some insight into

the inside deliberations of the group that recommended amalgamation to

the minister. Let's have the business report. Let's have some

projections and analysis. Give us the reasons other than your personal

belief that they should be amalgamated.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Oh no! Unfair!

MR. BLENCOE :

If the minister feels slighted, I don't apologize. In seriousness, I

think the depositors are entitled to some answers, to some business

reports, on the future of the amalgamated credit unions. That, I think,

is a very reasonable thing to ask on behalf of those depositors.

MR. SIHOTA :

I wasn't going to talk on this until the second member for Victoria

twisted my arm. But since he did, I thought I'd better speak on this

matter for a minute or two.

The reason I want to speak on

this matter is largely because of the comments the minister made when

opening second reading debate on this legislation. Let's not have any

illusions as to why this piece of legislation is before the House this

afternoon. The only reason this piece of legislation is in front of the

House this afternoon is that the Minister of Finance was asleep at the

switch when he moved ahead with respect to amalgamation of these credit

unions. The minister says there is no legal problem here, and we're

doing this with an abundance of caution. Then he goes on to say that

none of the members on this side of the House had informed his ministry

of the failings of his actions and how they were contrary to the

provisions of the Credit Union Act or not authorized by the provisions

of the Credit Union Act, and he says that the government is moving with

an abundance of caution.

Well, let me say that the

minister's comments in that regard as justification for this

legislation are really an abundance of baloney. I'll tell you

something, Mr. Speaker. This piece of legislation is here because the

minister did not have the authority under

section 180 or 182 of the

Credit Union Act to do what he purported to do. That's the one that

allows him to make regulations and take action. He didn't have that

authority, and he took this action.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : The minister scoffs and scorns,

and says: "We did too have that authority." We all know why the

legislation is here. If the minister had the authority, the legislation

wouldn't be here, particularly in light of the fact that apparently

nobody is interested in challenging the legislation in any event. Let's

face it, Mr. Minister: this is here. If you just admitted it, I don't

think we would have gotten into this protracted debate. If you just

admitted that the government made a mistake and they needed this type

of housekeeping legislation to get through, that would be fine. But in

keeping with the style that the Minister of Finance has exhibited in

this House, he tried to attribute it to other reasons, and there's no

foundation in that.

This

legislation really is a microcosm of two things that are wrong with

this provincial government: first, its lack of respect for our

democratic traditions; secondly, it's a reflection on matters of

integrity. I want to deal with both those matters.

On lack

of respect for our democratic traditions, over and over again we've

seen this government bypass the laws, bypass the rules and run rampant

with its ideological, radical, right-wing thoughts and actions. It has

chosen to proceed with privatization plans without consideration of

what the law says. It has chosen, as my good friend the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)....

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the subject under

discussion is second reading of Bill 25. I don't think there's any

reference to privatization in Bill 25.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Please, we're discussing

the principle of this bill, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm sure the minister doesn't want to hear all of this, but in the

fullness of time, if I can quote the minister, the comments I'm making

right now will demonstrate exactly why I'm making them, and we'll come

right back to this legislation. If the minister will hear me out, I'm

just building the case.

Of course the minister doesn't want

to hear the extent to which this government wishes to bypass our

democratic traditions. It's doing it on privatization without paying

any heed to our legislation: it's doing it....

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Special warrants.

MR. SIHOTA :

In fact, it did it on special warrants. It chose to bypass and break

the law in the case of special warrants, so much so that....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, I have to

remind you again that on second reading we are dealing with the

principles of the bill only.

MR. SIHOTA :

As I was saying, this legislation is a microcosm of what this

government has been doing. It's been sleeping at the switch; it's been

saying: "We have the authority to do all sorts of things through the

regulatory provisions and mechanisms that we've got. Let's not come

before the Legislature and bring forward laws and get approval for

enactments and actions. After all, the members of the Legislature may

ask questions. The opposition may ask something the minister can't

handle." Fearful — trembling, in fact — over the

prospect of

coming before this Legislature and facing this outstanding opposition,

the minister chooses instead to bypass our democratic traditions and

proceed through the taking of actions under the regulatory guise.

But

the point is that the minister did something he did not have authority

to do. That's the reason we have this legislation before us. If the

minister thought he had authority, he wouldn't have brought in a

retroactive piece of legislation. If

[ Page 4545 ]

had authority, there would have been no need to remedy what the

minister had done wrong. The minister fought the law and realized that

the law should have won. But the minister can't beat the law, and now

there he is, coming back here. It's astonishing the number of times

this government, during its 18 dismal months in office — 19

now —

has been sleeping at the switch and not paying any heed to legislation

because of its thirst to achieve its objectives, radical as they may be.

The second aspect that is of concern here — and the

second kind of theme that develops out of this legislation —

really is the theme of integrity. We can joke a little bit about the

other one, but I want to talk about this one in a serious vein. The

minister said, if I heard him right, that statements in the press that

the ministry had been advised of the minister's inappropriate action

were not true. I take that as an affront, as a member of the

Legislature who made those comments and who advised the minister. I

went back and looked in my file. Unfortunately, I didn't have the date,

but I can tell the minister approximately when it was.

[3:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER : He's going to

paraphrase it.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Minister, if you want to debate that one, I'll quote you directly

on that. I will tell the minister exactly who I talked to, how many

conversations I had with that person, and I will give you the

approximate range of dates when we discussed it. The name of the person

was Cheryl Zurawski from the Ministry of Finance. I phoned up that

person and asked her.... I think she was the contact person, in keeping

with the press release, Mr. Minister. The minister nods in concurrence.

The phone call took place within a few days of the issuance of that

press release, largely because I was out of town on the day the press

release was issued. It was within a week or so of that press release

coming out. I phoned up the person and asked under what authority the

government proceeded with the minister's actions. First I was told

they'd get back to me and tell me, and then I was told by way of a

return call that the minister did not require any authority under the

legislation — that he could do it on his own. At that point I

pointed out the provisions of the Credit Union Act, particularly, I

believe,

section 182, and said: "Look, the minister has no authority."

One

of the themes that comes out in all of this is integrity. The minister

could have come into this House and said. "Look, I made a mistake, and

we're remedying it," and this thing could have gotten through in a

matter of minutes. But instead he went to his usual method of trying to

say that there is no way that the opposition brought these matters to

his ministry's attention — when that wasn't the case. I would

encourage the minister to talk to this official, whom I do not know

personally, and verify the fact that they were called, and once he's

verified that, to come back into this House and withdraw the comment he

made earlier with respect to the fact that members of the opposition

did not contact his ministry. If the minister — to use a word

I used earlier on —

has any moxie, I'm sure he'll do that. We look forward to the

minister's coming back in committee stage to eat the little bit of

humble pie that he should have eaten right at the outset so we didn't

get into this type of debate.

Mr. Speaker, the other

attribute of integrity that relates to this legislation is the

minister's comments with respect to the removal of solicitors from the

boards of directors of these companies. The Credit Union Act.

section

60(8), says: "No employee of the board. auditor or solicitor of a

credit union. public servant concerned by his duties with the affairs

of a credit union. and no corporation, shall be a director or officer

of a credit union." The minister, by virtue of

Section 1 of this

legislation, first of all has decided to strike the word "solicitor"

out. Why? Very simply because the minister again was asleep at the

switch. He appointed a solicitor, whom he made reference to in the

course of his opening comments, to the board of directors of this

credit union, not realizing that it was contrary to

section 60(8) of

the Credit Union Act. The Minister of Finance obviously is not familiar

with the legislation that falls under his wings. So he broke the law,

and then he had to remedy his mistake by bringing forward this

retroactive legislation. It's not palatable to say that that was done

in an abundance of caution. It wasn't done in an abundance of caution:

it was because the minister made a mistake. It would be fair enough if

he admitted that, but no, he goes on to try to pass it off and say that

the current Law Society rules allow for coverage of

conflict-of-interest matters and the lawyer will be governed by the Law

Society rules as to conflict of interest.

I'll tell you

something. Mr. Speaker. I know the minister is now talking to one of

his colleagues because he doesn't want to hear this. This government

clearly doesn't understand the concept of conflict of interest. It

makes a mistake; it recognizes that the legislation prevents that type

of conflict of interest from occurring; and instead of acknowledging

the fact that there may be a conflict of interest there, it chooses

instead to bless the conflict of interest scenario that it has created.

solicitor, like an auditor, of a credit union has access to all sorts

of information as it relates to a particular credit union. For obvious

reasons of conflict, we've said to auditors and to solicitors in the

past that they can't sit on the boards of credit unions. Now I ask you.

Mr. Speaker — and I'll ask this minister later —

what's the

difference between an auditor and a solicitor? If it's okay for the

solicitor.... Obviously we know what the differences are in terms of

their professional capabilities. But in terms of the principle of

section 60(8) there is no difference. Why not amend

section 60(8) to

allow auditors and public servants concerned by their duties to sit

on...? Is that going to be the next amendment by the minister? Why

doesn't the minister just recognize that he made a mistake and say that

a solicitor who has dealings with a credit union ought not to be placed

on that board? The minister knows as well as I do that there is an

abundance of solicitors in this town — about 600 of them, I

think, at last count.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : And building up.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : There are a couple too

many in this House.

MR. SIHOTA : The Minister of Social Services

is right: there are a couple too many in the House — on that

side of the House.

All

the minister has to do is inspect the principle enshrined in 60(8),

instead of trying to salvage his ego and prevent acknowledgment of the

fact that he erred. He gets into his long diatribe on Law Society rules

that are going to

[ Page 4546 ]

govern

and prevent any type of conflict matters from arising. That's a red

herring. That's got nothing to do with it. What this legislation is all

about is the fact that this minister made a mistake at the outset. If

he had just admitted that at the beginning, we wouldn't have needed to

get into this and he wouldn't have needed to get into the type of

hyperbole he used in order to introduce this piece of legislation.

We'll

have some questions to the Minister of Finance at committee stage if he

wants to proceed with this form of dialogue on this bill; but if he

wants to eat a little bit of humble pie, then we'll get through it very

quickly. We look forward to the minister's comments during committee

stage. I must say, on the other side of the coin, that we have no

problem with this legislation in terms of supporting it. But if the

minister had been forthright.... Maybe that's not the proper

word —

"forth left" maybe. If the minister had just come out with a little

humility and admitted that he had erred, then we could have passed this

legislation very quickly. That quality is obviously lacking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. members are advised

that according to standing order 42, the minister closes debate on

second reading.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

There were a number of points made, and I don't think I'll attempt to

answer all of them. We can get into that at committee stage. That's the

customary place where we do the sparring. Let me just point out to some

of the hon. members that one individual was named during a presentation

by one of the opposition speakers. I want to remind the House that that

individual name is involved in litigation. It may not be prudent to

make too many comments on that matter for the record.

Secondly,

the suggestion that we might be making some further changes is true. I

think it's no secret. I've often said that we are attempting to bring

in some amendments to the structure and operating style of the credit

union movement. To the hon. member who questioned the delay, let me

just point out that the delay results entirely from our desire to reach

a consensus among all the players involved. That consensus does not now

appear likely. As a consequence, we'll have to proceed without having

unanimity on the issues we hope to address.

There was some

reference made by the last speaker, I believe, to my reference to a

press story. Just for the House's and the hon. member's information, I

was well aware of the phone call to Mrs. Zurawski. That issue, of

course, was after the announcement. I was referring to the press story

that indicated this piece of legislation was initiated as a consequence

of a member of the opposition's alertness. While I agree we need more

alertness in this world, claiming ownership of the solution was another

instance of how that particular member seems to believe the world

revolves around only one sun. I can tell him categorically that this

issue was under examination, and remedies were in place long before he

expressed any interest in it. The press story I referred to was the

claim that he was the author of the bill. Obviously the press report

was inaccurate — at least, I assume it was.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to conclude debate

and move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

25, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1988, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

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

Speaker

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 56: minister's office, $236,125.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Firstly, I'd like to thank my critic for allowing the House to proceed

to other business while I attended a meeting; I appreciate that very

much.

Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure for me to introduce the

estimates for the Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government

Services for the fiscal year 1988-89. The estimates debate provides a

valuable opportunity to report to the Legislative Assembly on the

ministry's activities over the past year, its efforts and achievements

as well as the new initiatives planned for the future.

Ours

is a ministry with diverse responsibilities. It has a long and varied

history as one of the first departments of the provincial government.

Its programs have changed over the years, but it has kept as its core

the role of a service bureau providing the support structure for the

administration of government. The range of services covers lottery

grants, air ambulance service, air service, 61 government agents'

offices in communities throughout the province, the Queen's Printer,

communications and data systems services, the provincial archives,

administration of elections and protocol. Each provides its own unique

challenge as the ministry strives to provide efficient quality service

to the government and the people of British Columbia.

take a businesslike approach, always looking for new initiatives which

improve efficiency while at the same time minimizing costs. In this

regard, I'm proud of our record over the past year. My ministry played

a key role in the visit to British Columbia last October of Her Majesty

the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. Among the many highlights of the

eight-day visit was a ceremony at which the Queen signed a royal

warrant officially granting the province a complete coat of arms.

During his visit to Victoria the Duke of Edinburgh unveiled a plaque

designating the provincial museum the Royal British Columbia Museum.

ministry played a lead role as well in coordinating the province's

activities as host of the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in

Vancouver. Representatives from 47 countries attended the event, which

was a first for British Columbia in terms of meeting size and stature.

The

lottery grants program continues to provide financial support for a

wide range of projects around the province. During the last year, I'm

proud to say, we paid off the Expo 86 debt with money from the British

Columbia Lottery Fund. This year a total of $4.5 million is being

allocated from the Lottery Fund for the Health Care Research Foundation

under the chairmanship of my colleague the hon. Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Dueck). This is an increase of $500,000 over last year.

[3:30]

I've

also approved a special grant of $500,000 for the purchase of equipment

to be used by the province's health researchers. The year 1988 marks

the tenth year that lottery funds have been used to support health care

research in this

[ Page 4547 ]

province. During that period, more

than $35 million in lottery funds have been allocated for this very

worthwhile purpose.

Over

and above these grants. a substantial portion of the direct capital

grants from the Lottery Fund is made in support of health-related

projects sponsored by volunteer organizations. Some examples are: the

$1 million grant to Shaughnessy Hospital for the spinal cord injury

ward, which will operate as a provincial referral centre; the $272,000

grant to the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Victoria and Vancouver

Island to establish a treatment centre; and the $100,000 grant to the

Victoria Heart House in support of programs for patients undergoing

heart surgery.

The Lottery Fund also provides $5 million

for downtown revitalization, administered by my colleague the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), and $3.5 million in support

for the British Columbia film industry, administered by the Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture. These programs not only contribute to

the cultural and heritage development of British Columbia but also help

diversify our economic, hence employment, base.

During the

past year, $600,000 in grants from the British Columbia program for

educational and entertainment television services was provided to 32

communities in the province, enabling those small communities to

benefit from Knowledge Network programming. This communication program

is financed by the B.C. Lottery Fund.

Another area where

lottery funds are being used is in support of programs and services for

the disabled. Just recently a grant of $38,000 was approved to assist

the city of Trail in improving the disabled access to community

facilities in anticipation of the disabled games being held this July

in that city. In May of last year an emotional gathering in B.C. Place

marked the end of Rick Hansen's Man in Motion tour. Our Premier

announced his intention to form an advisory council for the disabled to

give the handicapped direct access to government. My ministry has been

given the responsibility for seeing that such a council is established.

this regard I was pleased that in the March 15 Speech from the Throne

the government announced its intention, following a public consultative

process, to introduce legislation during the current session to set up

a Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with a Disability. In that

regard my hon. colleague the second member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat) is chairing a committee and has been meeting with

diverse groups of disabled people throughout the province, and will

soon be handing a report in to me. The council will be given a mandate

to ensure that persons with disabilities are full and equal

participants in the life of British Columbia.

For over a

century government agents have been providing service to British

Columbians outside the capital area. We now have 61 government agent

offices in small communities which operate as the sole contact point

for citizens with the administration of government. With sensitivity to

the needs of the community and familiarity with a broad range of

government programs and services, government agents can provide

one-stop government information centres throughout the province. This

is an important part of the government decentralization initiative to

put the citizens of British Columbia outside of the large metropolitan

areas directly in touch with their provincial government.

new community-oriented access centre consolidating services from a

number of ministries was opened earlier this year in Fort St. John.

Similar facilities are planned for other cities, including Terrace and

Nanaimo, and I'm happy to say that we are extensively upgrading the

government agent office and services in the city of Penticton.

By the end of this fiscal year, computer terminals will be

installed in all of the 61 government agent offices throughout the

province, providing access to a wide — and, I might add, I

ever-increasing — variety of government information and

services.

As I mentioned earlier, another area of activity in my

ministry is the air services branch. Besides meeting the routine

requirements of government, our crews and support teams have an

enviable record of providing air ambulance service in the province. In

fact, it is a service that probably will be copied all over the world,

as we have people coming here to look at the British Columbia service.

During the past fiscal year, 2,089 patients, critically injured or

taken ill outside of major metropolitan centres, were transferred by

air ambulances to our well-equipped hospitals throughout the province.

This required a total of 2,593 hours of flight time.

Thanks

to our air services branch, British Columbians can be reassured that no

matter where they or a member of their family are injured or taken ill

in this province, the very best hospital care in the world is never far

away.

We are currently in the process of upgrading the

fleet, replacing four older aircraft with a very high number of flight

hours with three new ones. The result will be a continuation of

operational efficiency, safety and a quality level of service, with the

addition of a long-range transport capability and improved air

ambulance service.

As I mentioned at the outset, my

ministry is diverse; it encompasses many responsibilities. Some of the

higher profile ones we have covered, but there are others which,

although not as much in the public limelight perhaps, are very

important to the efficient operation of government.

There is the postal services branch, for example, which

processes and delivers government mail in a highly efficient manner.

Every year the branch saves the government more than $10 million in

pre-processing large volumes of mail, thereby obtaining lower prices

from Canada Post and other mail delivery services in the private

sector. About 75 percent of the mail is distributed through Canada

Post; the remaining 25 percent, which is internal government mail, is

distributed through contracts with the private sector. The postal

services branch provides service to more than 2,000 office locations

daily, and processes more than 45 million items of mail in a year.

Another

avenue of improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness has been developed

in the government's vehicle management services. Responsibility for the

management of all passenger cars and light trucks used by all

ministries is being consolidated within the vehicle management branch.

This

will result in improved maintenance and safety of vehicles, as well as

the maximum use of private sector service stations for repairing

vehicles.

My staff have also been making progress in the

area of insurance and risk management. Following a review two years ago

of government ministry's purchase of insurance, it was determined that

self-insurance in many cases was the least expensive alternative. Using

the staff — highly qualified staff, I might add — of

the risk

management branch, the government began self-insuring schools, colleges

and hospitals as opposed to buying private insurance. This initiative

has saved the taxpayers of this province almost $20 million over the

last two-year period.

[ Page 4548 ]

The

government also saves more than $300,000 a year by storing government

records in contract warehouses under the direction of the records

management branch instead of paying for the cost of storage space in

ministry office locations. In addition to these services, the ministry

provides support to both the executive and legislative branches of

government for the operation and maintenance of the legislative

buildings, the cabinet office in Vancouver as well as Government House.

The

ministry is also responsible for the operation of the elections branch,

with its responsibility for ensuring that the democratic process is

applied fairly and equitably throughout the province. It is a program

of interest to all citizens, and no less to the members of this

committee.

I was pleased and honoured to represent the

province of British Columbia at the opening of Expo 88 in Brisbane,

Australia, on April 30. My ministry was given the responsibility for

coordinating British Columbia's participation at the world exposition

which runs until October 30. The province is represented in Expo 88 by

the Adventure British Columbia Theatre, located within the Canada

Pavilion. The theatre uses sophisticated multimedia techniques to

convey a colourful message about the richness and excitement of west

coast leisure and tourism opportunities. It has already proven to be a

tremendous success in Australia.

I also have the honour of

being the Minister of State for Mainland- Southwest of British

Columbia. This region encompasses the major metropolitan area of

greater Vancouver, part of the Sunshine Coast and the Fraser Valley and

the canyon north to Lillooet. It is a vast area, and a vital one as the

commercial-industrial hub of the province of British Columbia.

minister of state, I have actively sought the cooperation of local

officials, and I've made the program a visible grassroots process. The

communities in our region have been given an opportunity to help shape

the program and, indeed, the future of their community and their

province. Public meetings have been held throughout the region, and we

have met as well with every regional district, municipality, school

board and chamber of commerce. As a result, we are now processing over

300 items requiring action stemming from the public forums. In

addition, we are working with the Ministry of Economic Development in

more than 20 important business development proposals.

It's

an exciting process, one that will incorporate the local communities

into the development of our province. I am pleased to be part of it. I

extend, of course, as I've always extended, the invitation to the

opposition to become part of this process.

In

summary, the

Provincial Secretary's ministry provides important services to the

people of the province of British Columbia: some of them directly,

others provided indirectly through support for other government

ministries, as well as this Legislative Assembly. I'm proud to be the

Provincial Secretary.

Finally, I want to take this

opportunity to acknowledge and thank the staff of my ministry for their

tremendous hard work and their absolute dedication.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions that the hon. members

may have relative to the spending estimates for the coming year.

MR. D'ARCY : In the discussion of vote 56 I

suppose we're going to have to move around a bit, as the minister did.

Unless

I missed it, I noted that in his remarks the minister either did not

deal with, or dealt very superficially with, the question of employee

relations, particularly the superannuation branch.

HON. MR. VEITCH : It's not in my ministry.

MR. D'ARCY : Superannuation is in your

ministry.

What

I'm concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is first of all the superannuation

area. The public has been fairly well informed, at least earlier this

year and late last year. Lately the government has been going rather

quietly about its privateering plans, but certainly last fall and

winter it was very trendy — or so the government

thought — to

speak about turfing large numbers of government employees voluntarily

or not so voluntarily. While at this point I don't want to go too

deeply into the voluntary retirement program — I suppose one

could say it has been either overly successful or too successful,

depending on one's point of view —

clearly an enormous number of eligible provincial employees have taken

advantage of that program. We don't know at what cost at this point,

but I would assume that it's indicative of the fact that a great many

people in the public service with valued and loyal contributions over

decades seem to be only too happy not to be working for the provincial

government, especially since many of them are in a position to do other

things with their lives.

[3:45]

I don't believe this speaks very highly for the general morale

and

the scope that people believe they're going to have in the future

working for the provincial government. We have yet to see how well

services that the public has bought and paid for — and is

still paying for through the nose, with the increased taxes this

year —

are going to be delivered with a great reduction in the number of

highly experienced employees. However, I think the system is fairly

adaptable.

With the government proceeding with its

reduction in services, whether through simply cancelling them or

privateering them, it can be assumed that there may well be a number of

terminations within the public service of people who do not qualify for

early retirement. That may have occurred already. One of the questions

I would have is: what happens to the contribution that government has

been making to the superannuation fund on behalf of those employees? We

know that they get their own money which they've put in, with a modest

amount of interest, but what about the government contribution? Before

he jumps up and says it was never theirs because they never qualified

for a pension, I might remind the minister that in all discussions and

negotiations between government and whatever employee jurisdiction on

salaries, benefits, working conditions and so on, government has always

taken the position that indeed the government's contribution to the

superannuation fund was a cost relative to employees and had to be

calculated into the cost of maintaining that employee, the same as

salary, medical benefits, unemployment insurance, the government's

share of Canada pension, and so on and so forth. So I think a report is

needed on the exact status of those government contributions.

have another aspect, one that strictly speaking is not part of the

minister's responsibility, but it's something other governments in

Canada are looking at through their ministry of provincial secretary.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this, because the Chairman

might declare me out of order, but it has to do with pensions and with

the Provincial Secretary's

[ Page 4549 ]

ministry — not the ministry

now, though. In other jurisdictions, most notably Ontario and Nova

Scotia — by the way, this initiative started in Ontario when

the Conservatives were still in office —

they're taking a very serious look and in fact have instituted programs

of compulsory partial indexing of private pension plans. I think that's

something the government of B.C. should have a very good look at; it's

an idea whose time has come. Governments in Canada at the provincial

and federal levels — and municipally as well through the

provincial superannuation acts which apply to municipal

government —

including the armed services, have for years and years provided full

indexing of pensions. The Canada pension is indeed indexed, and the

contribution level is simply adjusted in order to make sure from time

to time that these pensions can meet their plans. I see absolutely no

reason why private pension plans can't make the same adjustments, even

if only partially. In these other jurisdictions, as I say, there's

provision not for full indexing, but for partial indexing at, I think,

half the rate of inflation — or something of that nature.

Part

of the fury that has been directed at government, for instance, on the

increase in long-term-care rates for seniors is due to the fact that

many of these people are on fixed pensions. Sure, the federal pensions

are indexed — the OAS/ GIS. But many of the people who retired

ten

or 15 years ago on private pension plans are on fixed pensions and will

be until they die. I think part of the fury directed at government over

that move could have been at least partly alleviated. The presumption

that everybody who's retired on a pension is on an indexed pension is

totally wrong. Those on private pensions are not indexed, and I think

the government should at least take a look at that.

The minister spoke glowingly a few minutes ago, in his own

version of the Provincial Secretary's speech from the throne —

and I don't want to dwell on this, either —

about his lower mainland development region. Of course, this is far

from the area I live in. But he must have been receiving very poor

attention on that from the people of the fourth estate, both here and

in Vancouver. I don't take credit for being a great student of the

media and what they report, but until I thought about it here, I'd

completely forgotten that the lower mainland regional development area

existed. There was this great peal of trumpets and enthusiasm when this

regionalization notion was trotted out last fall and winter,

particularly with a view to the lower mainland, which has 55 percent of

the population of British Columbia.

I'd be interested to

know exactly what initiatives the minister and his people have taken

and how well they've been received. Can the minister make a case that

some of those initiatives would not have happened anyway — and

some of that communication between the people of that area? After all,

the minister is an MLA from the lower mainland, so he should be in

touch with his constituents and the people of that area

anyway —

without an extra budget. Rather than pontificating about how wonderful

all of this has been and suggesting, at least to me, that since the

press hasn't reported this, nobody seems to know about it, other than

the minister, perhaps the minister could tell us exactly what

initiatives have been taken for what benefit, and make a case that

these things were not going to take place anyway. One of the important

things in estimates for any minister is that he justify what money he

is spending on what. I don't believe any member here really wants to

see government setting up duplicate services.

I'm going to

jump into some questions on lottery grants in British Columbia. I had

it suggested to me by a number of people within the region I represent,

both within my riding and outside it, that over the last year or so it

didn't matter how well a grant application fitted into the guidelines

or how enthusiastic the minister's staff seemed to be about it; it

wasn't too hard to get a grant approved, providing you met the

guidelines and it was a worthy project. That's as it should be, and I

commend the minister for that part. But there seemed to be this limit

of $40,000 on a grant. I would like to ask the minister if there was a

limit of $40,000 on grants to community projects. Is it still there? Is

it arbitrary? Was this made public? Perhaps the minister could give us

some report on available revenue from the lottery funds.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

little while ago he said glowingly that the Expo debt had now been paid

off. I think we can all be happy about that. Of course, back when Lotto

6-49 was introduced, the then minister responsible for lotteries, the

first member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Richmond), assured the House and

the people of British Columbia that Lotto 6-49 money was going

exclusively to Expo. That's why we were having Lotto 6-49. It was not

to interfere with the other lottery revenue coming into the province,

and that would still be going....

Mr. Chairman, my goodness, you have aged — matured.

I'm sorry, I must not insult the Chairman.

The

people of British Columbia were assured by the minister then in charge

of lotteries that the regular lottery allotment and the regular

community services for the original intent for community projects,

which was part of the enabling legislation back in the early seventies

and was more or less carried on with by succeeding Social Credit

governments.... The integrity of those purposes and the regular lottery

funds would be maintained, and there would be no interference with that

because of Expo, because that's what the Lotto 6-49 was for.

Expo

is paid off. What's happening to Lotto 6-49 funds? Indeed, what is the

general breakdown of the lottery fund allotments? Where does all this

revenue go? The minister again boasted about some amounts going into

health care facilities and medical research. We all think that's

wonderful. Perhaps he could tell us how much in total has gone into the

Expo debt, and how much is now available for other purposes.

general question is: what limitations are there in general on lottery

funds? How much is going to go into the privatization fund —

the privateering fund —

that the Minister of Finance is talking about? The minister is going to

say, "a certain amount," I know. I bet he's not as good at convoluting

this as the first member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) is, though. He's probably going to be more accurate in what

he says.

I think it's very important to British Columbia.

Let's remember, Mr. Chairman, what the original intent of lottery

distribution was. This is, you might say, a form of voluntary taxation.

and it comes from communities. It doesn't come out of resource revenue;

it comes from communities — people buying lottery tickets and

people selling lottery tickets. The notion — and it was a

correct one —

was that government had a duty and a responsibility, since this was

voluntary taxation, to take the revenue from the lottery funds and send

it back to the communities. on a more or less judicious basis, through-

[ Page 4550 ]

out

the province of British Columbia. On a community or a constituency or a

regional basis, there should be more or less the same amount going back

in as was coming out, over a period of time. Of course, it would vary

because the types of applications would vary from time to time.

Mr.

Chairman, while the government may consider it dandy to have this

involuntary tax money to shove into general revenue to use for various

purposes, the fact is that it should be returned to the communities for

worthy community projects. Whether those are recreational or cultural

projects, facilities for youth — which is tremendously needed

in the province —

assistance and programs for young people, facilities for seniors,

cultural or performing or creative arts, museums or all those things,

the money should be returned to the communities from whence it

originated.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman,

for my own purposes, I don't believe that is happening. I don't believe

it has happened for the last few years. I think the government needs to

put forth some numbers and indicate that it wants to change its ways a

little bit on this. There has been a subversion, shall we

say — I won't say a perversion but a subversion —

not only of the stated intent in the legislation enabling lottery funds

but even of the government's own statements over a period of time. I

suppose that money looks just too inviting, coming in as involuntary

taxation money, and the government has other ideas for what should be

done with it.

Foreign assistance is another thing —

disaster relief. Some lottery money has gone to disaster relief. We can

always say that's great; that's helping people in difficulty in other

parts of the world. But once again, should that really be coming from

lotteries? Certainly governments should be doing that sort of thing

from time to time, because British Columbians are good and responsible

citizens of the world. But should that necessarily be coming from the

lottery funds, and is the public aware of this?

Mr. Chairman, I must have been designated, because I've been

ventilating here for more than the allotted time.

Let's talk about air services. I hope I'm not putting too much

on the minister's plate here, but he's....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY : Okay, that's right. We'll take

a break, and the minister can go to bat.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we proceed, Mr.

Minister, the first member for Nanaimo has asked leave to make an

introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STUPICH :

I noticed a man in the gallery opposite who worked very hard in my

campaign for the nomination. You recall that I won by the magnificent

margin of 37, and that person must have been responsible for 237 of

those 37 votes. I'd ask the House to welcome Brent Hawkins.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I want to thank the hon.

member for Rossland-Trail for his usual reasoned debate; he's true to

form.

You're

quite correct: our employees are valued and have been very loyal. Those

who have availed themselves of the early retirement provisions of the

arrangement that was made were loyal. I think the government acted

wisely and in a very considerate way in advancing them the opportunity

to take early retirement and to go on, as you say, to other endeavours.

As we both know, government isn't everything; there's a whole big, wide

world out there, and there are lots of things to do in it.

The services, I can assure you, are being delivered very well.

As you're well aware — you've been here longer than I

have —

government is not a static thing; it's always moving and evolving.

Hopefully we can fine-tune it and don't have to keep adding personnel

to the system in order to do it. We've done it over the years, but with

the advent of technology we ought not to have to do it.

far as the government agents are concerned, we're not cancelling

services; rather, we're combining services and enhancing them. Where we

have one-stop shopping centres in place, the public are receiving them

very well. We have reports on that. There is some ironing out of the

process, but by and large they are being received very well.

What

happens to the government side of the contributions if someone for

whatever reasons leaves government employ? That is part of the whole

superannuation budget, if you will, or program or portfolio. When an

employee left before being eligible for pension, not having served

enough time to become vested, were we to pay that out we'd have to find

another way of increasing the.... We'd have to go to the employees or

the people or somewhere else and put more money back into that fund,

because it would create an impost on the fund that would certainly

require more funding, and you would probably have to raise the rates

you charge your employees. It's part of the fund, part of the scheme.

Giving it away would certainly mean higher rates, higher payment from

government in some way, shape or form. There's no question about that.

You

are talking about partial indexing of private plans. I'm aware that

they're looking at that in the province of Ontario. It's not within the

mandate of our superannuation branch at present. Our superannuation

commissioner, however, does meet with all the various pension plan

people throughout Canada, both public and private, and we're

continually looking at things. I appreciate what you're saying. I'm not

sure government should get into the business of indexing private

pension plans; nonetheless it will be interesting to see what the

Ontario experience is if they do move ahead with it, and we will

certainly be watching with an enduring interest.

You

talked, my friend, about development region 2. I'm glad you've given me

this opportunity to do that; I thoroughly appreciate it. We've really

striven to make this ministers-of-state program a visible, grassroots

process. I want to explain to the hon. member, because I know he has an

interest in it in his area.... I want to commend you for that. I only

wish that other members had the same interest in the program that you

have. You can't learn anything about the program by simply avoiding it

and not coming in to find out how it's working.

There may

be people in the media who for whatever reasons don't like it, don't

think the program is a good process. Go and tell the people in Lillooet

that. Go into some of these areas like Britannia Beach and talk to some

of the people whom we've worked with and helped. Talk to the people who

have come to this banquet and worked with us. They'll tell you that it

is a success. It's working. It's not measured in any brilliant flashes

of light that occur; it's a

[ Page 4551 ]

steady,

ongoing process whereby I and my two hon. parliamentary secretaries,

the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) and the member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), interface directly with the people.

It's

not something where you take away any of the rights or obligations of a

local MLA. The local MLA has the problems and opportunities that face

her or him daily. This is not a new level of government. It is

certainly a new process in government. I know the hon. member is never

averse to trying a new process or to working and becoming part of the

solution where there is a problem.

We've created a master

list of contact names covering service agencies, special interest

groups, business organizations, labour and municipal, regional and

school board officials, native Indian bands, and so on, and we're

talking, we're interfacing with all these people, helping them with

their problems, helping them with their ideas. We've staged ten public

meetings throughout the regions beginning at the Enterprise Centre with

300 people in attendance. As well, we've met with every municipality,

regional district, school board and chamber of commerce in the region.

We've advertised all public meetings in newspapers and on radio, and in

some of these meetings we had standing room only. Tremendous interest

from the public.

Don't say there isn't a need, because the

people have lots to do. Their time is as valuable as your time is, Mr.

Chairman, or the hon. member's time or my time. They come out and

attend these meetings, and they go away feeling better about the

interaction between government and the individual citizenry. I think

it's grassroots democracy working in a very fine way.

We've

established a steering committee to draw up terms of reference for and

to oversee the establishment of development groups. We have logged in

our processing over 300 items requiring action stemming from the public

forums. Many of these we've dealt with. Many of them we are dealing

with. It's diverse throughout all regions of government. Sometimes it's

just a matter of referring something to an MLA or a minister to deal

with. We're very pleased to do that, regardless of where the MLAs

happen to be from or which party they happen to be from.

We've

circulated questionnaires to prospective members of our two development

groups, and now are shortlisting from a list of a couple of hundred

names of citizens that want to get involved directly in this process.

These are very good people, people with substance, people from all

walks of life — everything from educators to lawyers to

bankers to engineers to accountants. You name it, they're all there.

We've

helped seal a deal with a major manufacturer in the lower mainland, and

are currently working with the Ministry of Economic Development on 20

important, fairly substantial business projects in the area. We've

recently announced co-funding of two feasibility studies on projects of

importance to local communities in our region: the Sechelt Canal study

and the commuter rail study for the lower mainland, in conjunction, I

may add, with Mr. St. Germain from the federal government.

We've

approximately 20 issues that may be assigned to task force for review

and recommendation. One of them of course, is the review of the ALR, a

task that we were given at the outset. It's an evolving process. It's a

process of grassroots involvement. It's a process where you invite

people. Rather than having government pressed on them from the top

down, we invite them to work in a very communicative way from the

ground up.

I know that if the hon. members would take the

time, forget their philosophy for a minute and get involved just a bit

in the process, we'd be very appreciative of it. Forget the politics

for a minute, and get in there and work with the people in this

process. I invite you to do that and to avail yourself of it. We're not

duplicating services at all. I do admit that in some cases we have

moved things along where they seemed to just be bogged down, for

whatever reason. Sometimes government itself and the process of

government tends to bog things down, and we've helped to move things

along in a more expeditious way. and we'll continue to do so.

The

hon. member asked about the lottery grants, whether or not there was a

$40,000 limit imposed. The answer is no, there isn't a $40,000 limit.

We've been trying to hold the grants to that level so we can do

whatever we possibly can to ensure that as many groups as possible

throughout the province receive benefits from lotteries. I really think

it's working well. I do, though, invite suggestions from the hon.

members as to how we can improve that process because we are

continually looking to improve it. It's not our money; it's the

people's money that has been given to government for lottery purposes,

and we're attempting to do whatever we can with a very low

administrative cost.

Here are some of the details that the

hon. member wants to know, and I'm happy to give him any other details

that are at my disposal. Of each dollar spent on tickets, approximately

45 cents is for prizes, 15 cents operating costs, 6 cents retailer

commission, with a remaining 34 cents used for a variety of provincial

programs. Based on our current sales projections.... I must explain

this to you. We've had exponential growth in lotteries. They've just

boomed since we've taken them over.

I must again commend

the president of the Lottery Corporation, Mr. Simonis. I'd like to

commend the chairman but that would be a little self-serving. I'd like

to commend Mr. Simonis and all the people at the Lottery Corporation

for the excellent job they do. I can tell you that while I was in

Australia, one of the reasons for my going there other than to

represent the government at Expo 88 was to talk with some of the

lotteries people in Australia to see if we could do some business with

them. I think we can. Mr. Simonis is going back down in September, and

I think we can put together some business, particularly in our

electronic data systems. We're just miles ahead of anyone else in the

world in that particular area, as far as lotteries are concerned. You

can pick up the phone, if you want, and phone Adelaide or Melbourne and

they'll tell you. Ask them who the leaders are in the world, and one of

them will certainly be the British Columbia Lottery Corporation.

Based

on our current sales projections, the Lottery Fund will receive about

$159,470,000. Lottery sales are levelling off now because you just

can’t expect that sort of growth. A percentage point means an awful lot

more than it did a few years ago; but they appear to be levelling off.

In speaking with the people from the international lotteries

corporation, Intertoto, when they were here last year, they thought it

would level off more quickly in British Columbia than it did —

they expected it to happen sooner. So it appears to be levelling off a

little, but it's still increasing slightly.

[4:15]

Twenty-two

million dollars has been allocated to the Minister of Tourism,

Recreation and Culture (Hon. Mr. Reid) for grants to cultural groups,

recreation and sport, the B.C. Heritage Trust, and other programs

within his cultural heritage

[ Page 4552 ]

mandate.

Five million dollars has been allocated to the downtown revitalization

program, administered by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mrs. Johnston). Members are aware of the valuable work done by this

program, and the first award under this funding arrangement is being

made to the city of Victoria.

To B.C. Film, $3.5 million

has been allocated. It has really saved money to get this indigenous

film industry going. If you ask whether we're spending something on

economic development, in that way we are; I think it's a good place to

spend money. This is part of a three-year commitment of $10.5 million.

Their board is doing an outstanding job of developing an indigenous,

British Columbia-controlled motion picture industry. We're a little bit

behind on that, but we're really moving ahead. We were depending an

awful lot on offshore industry to keep our motion picture

industry — which is a great one — going.

the Health Care Research Foundation, $4.5 million has been allocated,

under the chairmanship of my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Dueck). I'm pleased to serve on that committee with him. This is an

increase of $500,000 over last year. As I stated in my opening remarks,

I've approved a special grant of over $500,000 for the purchase of

equipment to be used by the province's researchers —

worthwhile money. We couldn't do this as easily without lotteries.

Within

my ministry, $44.5 million has been budgeted for community capital

projects, travel assistance and other community-based programs. This is

up substantially from last year. Within these programs we are working

with a wide range of volunteer groups, and I am continually impressed

by the strength of the volunteer sector in this province.

Operating grants, $1 million; community PEET grants —

that's where we put in receiving dishes for community programs, mainly

for the Knowledge Network.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Sorry, Minister, but time has

expired under standing orders.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Do you want me to just

finish this or...?

AN HON. MEMBER : Perhaps, Mr. Chairman,

we'll accommodate the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN : All right, then. Thank you.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I thank the hon. member.

Operating grants; community PEETS grants — $600,000

in that area. Travel grants, $700,000; special events, $5 million;

direct grants — I believe that's where some of the foreign

relief money comes from — $10 million; Expo legacy

grants —

we have $15.2 million from a prior commitment, and we'll be cleaning up

this year with a new $12 million, for a total of $27.2 million. The

administration for the whole program is, relatively speaking, a modest

amount — $954,000. You asked how much would be going into the

budget stabilization fund. The amount budgeted for this year was, I

believe, $79 million.

I hope those are the answers to your questions.

MR. G. HANSON :

I know the Provincial Secretary probably anticipates the subject area

I'm going to be asking him about. I've been a bit of a stuck record on

this subject for some time.

HON. MR. VEITCH : What are you electing to

say?

MR. G. HANSON :

What am I electing to say? One of my responsibilities on this side of

the House, Mr. Chairman, is to be debate leader on fair election

practices. In the minister's remarks, when he was referring to the

elections branch, he talked about the importance of the democratic

process being applied fairly and equitably. I want to direct some

questions and remarks around the by-election that is currently underway

in Boundary-Similkameen to replace Jim Hewitt, who stood down some

months ago. These remarks will apply as well to a by-election likely to

be announced in the near future for Alberni.

Mr. Chairman,

as you are probably aware, the election that is being fought in

Boundary-Similkameen.... The voters list presently in use there was the

result of an enumeration conducted by statute in 1985. I want my

remarks to be very clear that the elections branch staff are doing

their best to deal on a partial basis with the fact that there is no

full-scale enumeration conducted by statute for a by-election. As the

minister knows, we on this side have argued for a number of years that

there should be a full enumeration prior to both a general election and

a by-election. There's no reason whatsoever that a full enumeration

couldn't have taken place prior to the announcement in

Boundary-Similkameen. There's no reason why there couldn't be a full

enumeration for Alberni and possibly a number of other examples that

may occur in this House over the next period of time.

Bill

28, passed some time ago, has a provision for an enumeration to take

place three years after the election. But what is happening, Mr.

Chairman, as you and the minister both know, is that the

Boundary-Similkameen by-election is falling between the cracks. It's

operating on a 1985 list with a marginal update that occurred as a

result of the October 1986 provincial election, where a number of

people had their registration made current. My understanding is that,

given the 1986 update for the election and the efforts being made by

the elections branch in Boundary-Similkameen, something in the order of

5,000 or more names have been changed on the list.

Let me

tell you that that list, whether it's 40,000, 41,000 or 42,000.... I'd

like the minister to tell me his report from the elections branch, what

the current list total is, because Stats Canada, according to the 1986

census, indicates that the population of 19-year-olds and over in

Boundary-Similkameen is something around 49,200. A few of those people

would be ineligible because they might be British subjects or they

might be recent immigrants or whatever and not be entitled to vote, but

the vast majority of them, 95, 96, 97 percent of those people 19 years

of age and over, should be eligible to vote.

To take the minister at his word — fairly and apply

equitably the democratic process —

my contention is that everyone 19 years of age and over who is eligible

to vote and satisfies the residency and age requirements.... The bone

of contention that we have is that 18-year-olds should vote; however,

according to the law it is currently 19 years of age. Those individuals

should have easy access to the list. All members know, but most

citizens of Boundary-Similkameen don't know, that they are not going to

be able to go on voting day and register and vote.

I know

efforts have been made through some advertisements and by phoning from

the electoral branch, but it's piecemeal; it's partial. To get 5,000

names on the list — some

[ Page 4553 ]

2,100

were

section 80 voters from 1986 and some 3,000 in this spring's

registration effort.... Imagine how many names would have been changed

on that list if a full enumeration had taken place. That 1985 list has

thousands of names on it that shouldn't be on. They have moved away.

There are thousands of people residing in Boundary-Similkameen who are

not on the list.

That's the situation we are facing for

this June 8 by-election, and it's a shame, because contrary to what the

minister says, in the full fairness and equitability of the democratic

process, the fact that you cannot go on voting day and register, get on

the list, be given a ballot and have that ballot counted along with the

other ballots.... The effort being made by staff.... Again, I underline

that I am not in any way criticizing staff; but what is occurring is

that the political will does not exist in this government to have a

full enumeration for Boundary-Similkameen and Alberni, to allow all

eligible citizens the right to exercise their franchise and to give

this government a report card on its 19 months in office.

think everyone would agree that this government needs a report card so

they can take guidance as to whether they are meeting the expectations

of the citizens of Boundary-Similkameen; whether the direction on free

trade and the impact on the grape growers are satisfying the citizens

of Boundary Similkameen; whether the young people are satisfied in

terms of educational opportunities. The list of issues goes on: the

conduct of the government; whether the people feel they're being well

represented. That by-election is an important report card for this

government, and unfortunately there are thousands of people off the

list and thousands of people on the list who shouldn't be there because

they live elsewhere. A full enumeration in the same fashion that the

federal government would have conducted, capturing 95 percent of those

eligible....

It's often very confusing when you read

the statement of votes, because they talk about the percentage of

individuals who voted who were on the list. It always seems high that

75 or whatever percent of the people who voted were on the list. That's

very misleading, because as you know, because we don't have a full

enumeration prior to by-elections, we end up with. . . . Something

like 10,000, or 20 percent, of the riding's citizens who are eligible

by age, residency and citizenship will not be voting. I think it's a

disgrace.

There are approximately 50,000 individuals who are 19 years of

age and over in that riding.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON :

The minister says: "If they don't register, how can they vote?" My

point is that the people who should be voting are those who are 19

years old and over who satisfy the residency and citizenship

requirements. My argument, and the argument from this side of the

House, would be that the maximum number closest to 50,000 should be

the number, not a list that has dead bodies and non-residents on it,

and that is not purged by a full enumeration. That enumeration's not

coming until next year.

[4:30]

I know that phoning has been carried out, but I'd like the

minister

to answer my question. How many people 19 years of age and over satisfy

the residency and citizenship requirements according to Stats Canada

and the provincial Economic Development ministry? How many individuals

would be entitled to vote in the best-case scenario?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I want to thank the hon. member for his dissertation. He said we should

have conducted a full enumeration. Well, as a matter of fact, the list

we're working on is from 1986, an updated list from the election of

that year that included everything, including the

section 80 voters who

registered on voting day. He said there's no full-scale enumeration. I

want to tell you what we are doing. I honestly believe, given the

currency of the list and given the way we have purged the list.... I

hope the hon. member will concur with me and allay any fears that he

might have once I explain it to him.

I want to tell you

right now at the outset that in the last general election in October

1986, 40,875 voters registered, including the

section 80s. As at May

16, 1988 — I guess that was the day the by-election was

called —

there

were 41,600 registered voters on the list. That's a gain of almost

1,000 voters over the previous list; that's after purging the list.

want to tell you some of the things we are doing. Our voter

registration centres were open Wednesday through Saturday of each week

during a four-week period from March 23 to April 15. During that time

1,740 registrations were taken. There's more than that now, but as of

April 18, the total number of additions, changes and deletions to our

voter record data base has been 2,006. The number of voters currently

on the list, as I mentioned to you, is 41,600. This is up

substantially from the last general election, even with

section 80s.

Voter

registration centres were established at Boundary Mall in Grand Forks,

Similkameen Agencies in Keremeos, OK Falls Hardware in Okanagan Falls,

Oliver Place Mall in Oliver, the farm labour office building in

Osoyoos, Cherry Lane Shopping Centre in Penticton. Victoria Square Mall

in Summerland, and government agents at Grand Forks, Oliver and

Penticton. In addition, the registrar of voters is conducting a

telephone registration canvass. Staff are comparing the voters list

against the telephone directories, and where names are found in the

directory but not the voters list, the persons are telephoned and

informed they are not registered and advised as to how they may

register.

It's interesting that 20 to 25 percent of people

we find that way on our phones say they don't want to bother

registering. What can you do about them? You can drive the horse to

water, but it's pretty hard to make him drink.

The canvass

is being received well by the public and will continue now that the

by-election has been called. You-are-registered cards are being mailed

now to all registered voters, using first-class post to ensure full and

prompt delivery. Now, after the issuance of the election writ,

approximately 22 voter registration centres are being opened as soon as

possible to accept voter registrations through day 10. Locations of the

centres will be advertised in all newspapers — and I can give

that

information to the hon. member, if he wants — circulating in

the

electoral district. In addition, radio ads are being used to inform the

public of the registration opportunities and to direct them to the

newspapers to find the registration location.

Section 80

registration will be days 20 to 25. Newspaper and radio ads are making

it very clear that they cannot register on election day, and that there

is no polling-day registration. There is no question about this. During

this period the where-to-vote notices will be delivered to voters on

the

list as at day 10. Therefore people who have not registered will not

receive a notice, and they will be prompted to visit a registration

centre.

[ Page 4554 ]

my opinion, the preceding program is very adequate. It's informing

voters in a way that we've never informed them before. We check for

deletions in such things as death registries. Deletions are made so

there are no names on the lists of deceased individuals. I would wish

to allay the member's fears there, as far as we're concerned.

You say there are 50,000 people in the area. I don't know that

there are 50,000; there may be.

MR. G. HANSON : StatsCan.

HON. MR. VEITCH : StatsCan may say that.

Hon.

member, we're doing everything we possibly can to get people on the

voters list. There is some responsibility in a democratic system for

individuals to get out and put themselves on the list. There's every

opportunity. They'll have people going to the door. I'm sure the NDP

will have people out knocking on doors. I know darned well we will, and

we'll know that when we win the election on June 8. They'll be telling

them about their opportunities and their obligations. But the

individual has to make some effort to go to one of these places or to

do something to get on the voters list. You can't take people by the

hand and just tow them out there.

I honestly believe our

staff is doing a tremendous job up there. We're very cognizant, of

course, of your criticism. We want to ensure that as many people as

possible get on the list. There are almost 1,000 names — I'm

sure

there will be more than 1,000 names now — more than during the

last

general election. I don't think that's commensurate with the population

growth there, because I don't think the area has grown that much in

that short a time.

I honestly believe we're doing a good

job there. We're purging the list, and we will have even more eligible

voters on the list come election day — by a long

shot —

than we ever

had before.

MR. G. HANSON : This is a subject that

the minister and I have spent a fair amount of time talking about in

this House, and I know we're not making any gains. We argue that the

people eligible means the people 19 years of age and over who have

citizenship and residency. Is the minister telling me that the 41,600

names on the list are all resident in the riding, and that those are

all individuals who are fully entitled, and that list is clean?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Yes.

MR. G. HANSON : Okay, from that number to

49,222. So what about the 7,500 eligible individuals that aren't on the

list?

HON. MR. VEITCH : First, how old are your

StatsCan statistics?

MR. G. HANSON : From 1986; that was the

census.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

As I said before, hon. member, I don't know why those people have not

yet registered. Perhaps the rest of them will register during the writ

period. I don't think they all will. As we pointed out, when we phoned

these people, when we found their names in the telephone books and they

did not correspond to the voters list.... My staff tells me that up to

25 percent of those people said they weren't int