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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3857 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 3857

Ministerial Statement

Five-year forest and range resource program 1988-1993. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 3857

Mr. Rose

Tabling Documents –– 3857

Ministerial Statement

Report on MacMillan Bloedel TFL 39. Hon. Mr. Parker –– 3857

Mr. Rose

Oral Questions

Social assistance benefits for employable single mothers. Mr. Cashore –– 3858

College funding. Ms. Marzari –– 3858

Strathcona Park hearings. Ms. Edwards –– 3859

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Richmond)

On vote 62: ministry operations –– 3859

Mr. Barnes

On vote 64: Thompson-Okanagan development region –– 3859

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Rose

Mr. Williams

Mr. Messmer

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. B.R. Smith)

On vote 14: minister's office –– 3878

Hon. B.R. Smith

Mr. Sihota.

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Camosun College has a very successful program of inviting faculty from

China to visit them. We have one of those faculty members with us

today, a librarian from Wuhan, accompanied by the Camosun librarian.

Would the Legislative Assembly please welcome Jie Zheng and her host

Rick Baer.

HON. MR. DAVIS : We have in the gallery

today a number of prominent citizens from the North Shore in the

Vancouver area. They include Jack and Pauline Blachford, Rita Breakey,

David and Ina Carey, Neill and Margret Comba, Wes Craig, Joe and Maria

Duro, Ron Gamble, Bill Hayes, Marc and Jacquie Howard, Dudley Kill, Tom

and Diana Mason, Howard and Sylvia Maundrell, Kim Patrick, Sheila

Plumb, Fritz and Merina Reber, Eleonor Ryan, Ernie and Joan Sarsfield,

Betty Waters, Cyril White, William and Barbara Whittaker, and George

Zilahi. Would the members please make them welcome.

MR. CLARK :

We have in the gallery today a number of students from the great riding

of Vancouver East. They are grade 8 students from Vancouver Secondary

Technical School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. NcNeil. I ask the

House to make them welcome.

MR. LOVICK : I have just

noticed in the precincts a friend of mine from the constituency of

Nanaimo. I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming Mr.

Howard Hunt.

Hon. Mr. Parker tabled a report entitled "Five-year Forest and Range Resource Program 1988-1993.

Ministerial Statement

FIVE-YEAR FOREST AND RANGE

RESOURCE PROGRAM 1988-1993

HON. MR. PARKER :

The program calls for the planting of an estimated 1.4 billion

seedlings on Crown land from 1988 to 1993 by the provincial government

and the forest industry. This government has a deep commitment to

reforestation, and the five-year program reflects our goal for fully

productive forests in the future.

The report notes that the

government's funding for basic silviculture will decrease now that the

cost of reforestation of areas harvested is being done fully by the

industry. It discusses the important new directions in forest policy

initiated by the government, and I'd like to name a few. First, the new

comparative value pricing of timber; second, innovation in the forest

industry; third, reforestation responsibilities; fourth, the

privatization of government nurseries; fifth, wilderness management;

sixth, the implementation of a national park on South Moresby Island.

The report recognizes that a vigorous and world-competitive timber-pricing

industry in British Columbia will help to maintain a high standard of living

in the province. Toward this goal we will stimulate innovation. We will do this

by increasing competition within the forest industry; we will encourage greater

value-added in the manufacture of wood products; we will promote better marketing

of wood products; and we will increase the competitive sales of timber under

the small business forest enterprise program from an apportioned volume of 7

percent to an available volume of 15 percent of the provincial allowable annual

cut. The volume for this competitive sales program will be obtained from several

sources; the primary one will be a 5 percent reduction of the allowable cut

of all major licences.

The

report also describes the programs of the Ministry of Forests and Lands

and the role of the private sector in implementing the programs. Copies

of the program are being made available to members of the House.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, in view of my expertise in the forestry industry, it will be indeed a brief response.

would like to say that from what I've heard about the report in the

minister's statements here, it appears to be progressive and

enlightened. We'll certainly be interested in studying the report and

looking at its implications. I think the opportunity to have a report

to debate before the legislation comes before us in the form of a White

Paper or Green Paper is a very progressive way to go. We would have

preferred, though, that a report of this importance to our province —

about its number one industry — might have been able to be provided to

the members of the opposition a little bit in advance so that we could

give a better. more comprehensive response.

Hon. Mr. Parker

tabled a report of T.M. Thomson and Associates of Victoria on MacMillan

Bloedel Ltd.'s block 6 tree-farm licence 39, Queen Charlotte Islands.

Ministerial Statement

REPORT ON MACMILLAN BLOEDEL TFL 39

HON. MR. PARKER :

This independent audit was conducted after a number of allegations were

made of poor forest management practices. We believe these charges were

serious enough to warrant an investigation. So I ordered the audit on

February 16, 1988, and directed that it should provide a thorough and

impartial review of both the company's and the Forest Service's

adherence to government legislation, regulations and policies.

[2:15]

The

terms of reference for the audit included investigating the forest

company's waste survey information, use of wood from road and backspar

trail construction and wood utilization standards. In addition, I asked

that waste levels within block 6 be compared with the balance of TFL

39, and that TFL 39 waste levels be compared with other coastal TFL

licensees. I also requested a review of information to justify the

annual rate of cut allowed, according to the management and working

plan approved by government.

Mr. Speaker, the Forest

Service is studying the report's conclusions and recommendations, and I

am taking the following steps. First, we will review all wood waste

from timber harvesting on the coast during 1987 and adjust stumpage

charges accordingly. We will develop one system for measuring waste on

the coast. While the report states that the systems used by the

licensee and the Forest Service for measuring waste are statistically

correct, a single system is preferred for planning and management

purposes. We will also ensure that licensees are held fully responsible

for proper

[ Page 3858 ]

forest

practices, and improper performance will be penalized. Third, we will

issue a public discussion paper on new wood utilization standards, and

we will implement new standards as soon as possible. Fourth, we will

review the public review process in the development of management

working plans to allow for a full public discussion before approval is

given. And fifth, while no more staff will be hired by the Forest

Service, our existing staff will receive additional training and be

reassigned to auditing and monitoring duties in order to strengthen

these functions at the district level. As well, there will be increased

use of independent contractors, as recommended by the report.

found the audit report's recommendations most useful and appropriate,

and we are taking action on the recommendations which I am confident

will improve forest management in our province.

MR. ROSE :

Again, Mr. Speaker, it would have been helpful if we had had our

critics here for this. It's a very comprehensive report. I think any

moves to enhance the efficacious use of our resource to see that it's

not squandered by wasteful practices that may be efficient

economically.... They should be halted. I suppose that this might give

us some indication that there's going to be some pressure to eliminate

the kind of high-grading we've heard about — in fact, that brought

about this report in the first place.

There is a matter of

privatization in terms of inspection that concerns us a little, and as

the weeks roll on, we'll have a chance to debate this during the

forestry estimates. I think that a more comprehensive, detailed look at

our response will be revealed at that point.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS

FOR EMPLOYABLE SINGLE MOTHERS

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing.

The government has announced that $50 will be taken away from mothers

on social assistance who have babies over the age of 15 weeks. How can

the minister reconcile the hypocrisy of taking money from poor women

and their families while spending millions on a propaganda exercise

supposedly in support of families?

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. I would suggest that the question is very argumentative,

but I'll let it go ahead and let the minister reply. I would hope that

the member would phrase his questions more properly in the future.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

This question has been canvassed very thoroughly in the last two days

during my estimates and in the media. The member is wrong and knows he

is wrong when he says that we will be taking $50 away from single

mothers. That is not true. I explained that to him during my estimates,

but I will explain it again.

We are not necessarily

labeling anyone as unemployable and leaving them there ad infinitum, as

has been the case many times in the past. Many women who have children

want to get back into the workforce, Mr. Member. Contrary to your

beliefs, they don't necessarily wish to stay on welfare all their lives.

are saying that with the addition of some 150 new people into the

financial assistance side of the ministry, we will be able to do more

one-on-one counselling and to sit down with these people and find out

what their needs and wants are, and whether they desire to re-enter the

workforce. We have put programs into place to do everything possible to

assist anyone who wants to be employable to get back into the workforce

and bring a new meaning to their life and to break the cycle of three

generations of welfare families that we have in the province of British

Columbia. There are some 35, 000 single parents on welfare, Mr. Member,

and this government is trying to do something about it.

MR. CASHORE :

Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. You don't do it by pushing them in such an

unseemly manner. Mr. Minister, we have the situation of the Premier

interfering in your ministry by saying he will personally intervene. I

have to ask you how your government's attack on single mothers and

their children strengthens families.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It would appear that the only people attacking single mothers are

people in the opposition and the Jean Swansons who are professionals at

getting people upset and unnecessarily disturbed by planting ideas in

their minds out there, and who constantly campaign on the backs of the

less fortunate and get them unnecessarily anxious about what's going to

happen.

The Premier, like all the members on this side of

the House, is very concerned about the plight of families less

fortunate than ourselves. As the Premier said, we will do anything to

assist these people to get back into meaningful employment and break

the cycle of welfare.

MR. CASHORE : Supplementary,

Mr. Speaker. That attack on Jean Swanson is absolutely inappropriate.

The citizen is not here to defend herself, and her name is sullied in

this Legislature. That is argumentative, and that's inappropriate. Mr.

Speaker, the member knows full well that the glitz doesn't fool anyone.

Your Premier's actions speak louder than words, and your government is

anti-family.

The question is: are you prepared to end this

hypocrisy and this harmful and unnecessary attack on families led by

single mothers?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I don't think Ms.

Jean Swanson needs that member to defend her. She does very well on her

own, thank you. I just spent some time on television with her. She's an

expert at what she does. She is very, very good; in fact, the media

know exactly where to run when they want a comment to get people on

welfare all anxious and disturbed: they run to the Jean Swansons of the

world.

The program to strengthen families, which involves

$20 million, is going to be delivered mainly through my ministry. Some

$16 million has been set aside in my budget, and we've gone into it in

intricate detail in the last three days as to how these services will

be delivered to assist people through very difficult times, to assist

them before, during and after pregnancy, to assist those with older

children, to put homemaker services and counselling in place, and to

assist them back into the workforce and off income assistance.

COLLEGE FUNDING

MS. MARZARI :

My questions are to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job

Training. The theme this afternoon is about asking you people to make

your priorities fit

[ Page

3859 ]

your budgets and your budgets fit your priorities. What you say is not what

you do.

February, before the budget process, Mr. Minister, you were given

expert advice by the Association of Colleges that student demand would

be up by 3,200 FTEs at least, and that colleges would be stretched

beyond the limit, which they have been for some years, and that new

money was needed — $25 million at least — to deal with 3,200 FTEs. It

took the Association of Colleges to come to your doorstep to put this

on your desk, yet the budget came out status quo; in fact, minus 3

percent for colleges. Will you commit yourself now to raising the

college budgets to the level recommended by the B.C. Association of

Colleges in February?

HON. S. HAGEN : I'd like to

thank the hon. member for that deep and probing question — which she is

very, very good at. It's certainly refreshing, after the last couple of

days, to have that type of question asked.

I would like to

tell the House that indeed we on this side of the House are all

interested in, and concerned about, the college system that you spoke

of. I am sure you are aware that last week I had a meeting with the

council of college principals and also with the executive board

chairman, and announced to them that I was establishing a task force

that will report back to me in one month. As a matter of fact, they

started their work today; they will report back by May 13. The purpose

of that task force is to assure me that the money that is required to

fund the enrolment increases is not in the system.

assured them at that time and I assure this House today that, depending

on what that report says when it comes back.... I certainly wouldn't

want to say anything that would either preempt or prejudice that

report, but if, when the report comes back, it states that the money is

not in the system, I will go to Treasury Board and ask for the funds

that are necessary to meet the enrolment requirements.

MS. MARZARI :

Is the minister then saying that he has not promised the college system

an additional 3.5 percent on their budget when he met with them on

Thursday afternoon last week, which is information that I have received?

HON. S. HAGEN : The purpose of the meeting last week was to clarify the

budget figures, which in fact show that there is a 3.5 percent inflationary

amount in the budget. They came under the impression, which was unfortunately,

I think, reported in the media, that there was a 89 percent increase to the

college budget, which was not the fact.

MS. MARZARI : They came under that impression because that's what

the estimates suggested. The budget of this government put forward a .89 percent

increase. So you're telling me now that 3.5 percent was found; there was

a bookkeeping error. Is that 3.5 percent being taken from BCIT, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The colleges and institutes budget, which is a portion of my entire

budget, showed an increase of .89 percent, which reflects a decrease to

the BCIT budget and an increase to the college budget.

MS. MARZARI : Just last year the Premier's office instigated a David

Park inquiry into BCIT, and the David Park inquiry reported back to the Premier's

office: leave BCIT alone; it's doing what it's supposed to do and it's

doing it well. And yet yesterday morning I heard you on the radio say that BCIT

is too rich, and we shouldn't be throwing money at it. I want to know where

this instruction came from. Did you receive instructions from the Premier's

office to cut back BCIT, or was it done behind your back, Mr. Minister?

HON. S. HAGEN :

First of all, the hon. member's facts are incorrect. As a matter of

fact, I commissioned the Park report, as I did the Price Waterhouse

report. The report came back to me and, in fact, I made the report

public. The results of that report and the Price Waterhouse report

indicate that there are many courses offered at BCIT that are also

offered at the colleges throughout the province, and which cost more at

BCIT than they do at the colleges.

We are saying that there

is no excuse for that. We are dealing with public tax dollars. It's my

job to see that the students are given the quality of education they

need, but also that we're concerned about controlling the costs of that

education.

[2:30]

MS. MARZARI :

Then let's talk about previous promises. If the report came from you

and not from Mr. Poole and the Premier's office, what about the

promises you made to BCIT that although they would go to formula

funding, that wouldn't happen until 1989 or 1990? Yet they are being

forced to go to formula funding this year with a massive cut of $3.5

million. How can you reconcile what you are saying in this House with

what you told BCIT three or four months ago?

HON. S. HAGEN :

The letter I wrote to BCIT at least five months ago, I believe it was,

indicated to the chairman of the board and the president of BCIT that

they would be brought under the new and revised college funding formula

within a period of 16 months. We have already started on that process

so that by the time the 16 months is here, they will be under that

college funding formula.

STRATHCONA PARK HEARINGS

MS. EDWARDS :

A question to the Minister of Environment and Parks. Could you confirm

that the changed terms of reference for the ministerial review on

Strathcona Park indicate that the findings could be used to make

decisions related to other parks in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes.

MS. EDWARDS :

That being the case, Mr. Minister, could you tell us if you have

decided to expand the hearings beyond the area immediately on Vancouver

Island - in other words, expand the hearings throughout British

Columbia so that everyone interested in what could happen to our

wilderness parks will have an opportunity to speak to that inquiry?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The question is: have I decided on further inquiries or public reviews.

The answer is no, I have not decided on that answer yet.

MS. EDWARDS . The question was not whether you had decided on further

inquiries. The question was whether you had decided to expand the venue of the

hearings to the rest of

[ Page 3860 ]

the province so that people who could be affected would have the opportunity to make submissions to the review.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Have I arrived at that decision? The answer is no.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

(continued)

Vote 61: minister's office, $224, 319 — approved.

On vote 62: ministry operations, $1,387,596,502.

MR. BARNES :

Actually, I don't need to delay very long. I just wanted to get a

clarification for the record with respect to a question I asked the

minister yesterday on the numbers of clients who are currently residing

in the hotels that are sort of doubling as residential facilities. I

understand he doesn't have that number. Could the minister indicate

whether that number is available, or could it be made available?

The

reason for the question is that, as the committee realizes, hotels in

the downtown east side are providing a vital service to those who can't

afford to live in other facilities. As a result, there are no

regulations controlling those facilities with respect to residential

tenancy law. They're not run on the basis of a contract between the

tenant and the landlord. There's no protection for them. The increases

in shelter allowances that normally become available to them are just

passed through to the owners.

This is something we'd like

to have remedied, but the minister doesn't know the numbers involved.

We are suspicious that what is happening is that where they make

security deposits, those security deposits are lost because the tenants

are normally not able to recover them, having no legal means to do so.

We think there is a rip-off taking place there, but we don't have

numbers. It could be anywhere up to half a million or a million dollars.

The

other final question that I would like the minister to address is: how

many people on social assistance are currently of no fixed address?

Could he give us the number of people who are receiving benefits and

are of no fixed address? Those are the only two questions I'd like to

pose.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I appreciate the member's

question. He asked it yesterday, and I answered then the same as now. I

don't know how many of our clients are in the hotels that he speaks of.

I don't know if those numbers are available, but we're going to try to

find them. If we do have that kind of statistic, I'll make it available

to you. We'll go back and take a look.

The other one is

about exactly how many are of no fixed address. Just let me reiterate

that we're trying to address that problem by the two contracts that I

spoke of yesterday to have DERA and the St. James people administer

their money for them to get them some permanency and to be paying rent

and establishing a bank account. We've got a rough idea of how many are

of no fixed address. I don't know if I can give you that exact number

either, but we'll do a run on the GAIN numbers in the computer and see

if we can come up with it. I don't have it at my fingertips. On both of

those numbers, we realize the seriousness of the problem and agree with

a lot of the comments you've made, as I said yesterday. If those

numbers are available, I'll get them to you.

Vote 62 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Burnaby North asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. JONES :

It's come to my attention that there are some students from Marian high

in Burnaby in the House today, and I would ask the House to make them

welcome.

Vote 63: British Columbia home program, $10 — approved.

On vote 64: Thompson-Okanagan development region, $649,635.

MR. BLENCOE :

I would like to take the opportunity at this point to take some time to

ask the minister some questions and to make some statements about the

minister of state system, and his particular minister of state system.

It's the first opportunity we've had on this side of the House to

debate this issue. As we all know, the history of this is very

controversial, and it has stirred a lot of people's concerns in terms

of process and accountability. We've never had the legislation for it.

We had special warrants of $8 million, and only a few weeks ago did we

finally get the legalizing of those special warrants through interim

supply. Now, finally, we have a budget item, a vote, before this

Legislature, so we can debate it. We're certainly going to take

the opportunity to ask a few questions and get some details of that

particular vote.

In our estimation the minister of state

system is politically corrupt. It's one that we don't accept. We will

promise to the people of the province of British Columbia that when we

are elected to government it will be the first thing that will go. It's

gone; it will be history. It has nothing to do with parliamentary

democracy. It has nothing to do with how we've run this province since

Confederation. It is, as some commentators have said, a political con

game, and Mr. Chairman, people have seen through it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : That's appropriate; keep it all here in your little town.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Chairman, they continue to attack my community. They attack the

capital; they attack the member from Oak Bay and his community; they

attack the member from Saanich and their communities. They continue to

attack them under this crazy program of decentralization. We won't

stand for it. This is the capital of the province of British Columbia,

and we're proud of it. I certainly would like to see the member from

Oak Bay talk about his community, what is happening to it and the

devastation of their programs and policies in this community. Attack

Oak Bay! Attack Victoria! Attack Saanich! Go ahead, Mr. Member, do it!

[ Page 3861 ]

Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the first question. I would like to ask

the minister, the governor for the Thompson-Okanagan, how much of his

first million dollars he has spent.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, I guess it's to be expected that some of these members

would insist that every decision made for every region of the province

be made right here on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It stands

to reason that they would resent any decisions for the

Thompson-Okanagan being made by the people of the Thompson-Okanagan.

I'll be sure to convey your sentiments to them, Mr. Member, that you

wish people here to make all the decisions regarding the future of the

interior of this province.

MR. CASHORE : What about the regional district?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

The regional district, the cities, the municipalities and the people of

the region will all be involved in any decisions made regarding region

3 or any of the other eight regions of this province. The elected

people will be involved. We want them to have a say as to what the

future of their region will look like. The people living in those

regions should be able to say what their municipality or region should

look like going into the twenty-first century. The decisions shouldn't

all be made right here in Victoria, Mr. Member.

I take

offence at the idea that it's politically corrupt or a con game, and

I'll convey those remarks to the people of the city councils of

Kelowna, Penticton, Vernon and Kamloops, that you think that they're

corrupt and that it's a political con game.

You seem to run

and cry, "The sky is falling," every time we try to move a decision out

of Victoria; that's what we heard a few months ago. I think Victoria is

doing very well. In fact, I doubt very much if it has lost a single job

over this, and the vacancy rate that we talked about yesterday proves

that Victoria is doing very well. I hope it continues to do very well,

and I think it will. But I'll tell you something, Mr. Member: I'm very

concerned that Kamloops, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Revelstoke and

Merritt do very well also, and I want those people to have a direct say

in what happens in their region. I think that's only fair.

far as giving the member an exact amount of what I have spent of my

ministry of state budget to date, I can't give him that number off the

top of my head — nor can anyone else, right to the exact dollar. But

the number's available, and I will get it for you in due course, Mr.

Member

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE :

You've had that special warrant for six months, and you can't tell this

Legislature how much you've spent of the first million dollars — a

special warrant that broke the rules of this Legislature?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The special warrant was debated during the supply bill. Ample opportunity was given....

AN HON. MEMBER : You ruled it out of order, didn't you?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Yes. Just a moment. If you'll pay attention to the rules or have

someone explain them to you, you'll understand what I'm getting at.

The

special warrant was debated in the supply bill, which was discussed on

Friday, March 25, at some length. Therefore the member is attempting to

discuss business which the House has already discussed. We are

currently on vote 64, which discusses the minister's 1988-89 budget as

a minister of state, and that debate would be appropriate, but

recanvassing the debate of March 25 is out of order.

MR. ROSE :

On the same point of order. I thought, Mr. Chairman, that you'd perhaps

like a little assistance from this side of the House before you come to

your final and brilliant decision, as you usually do.

really think that the government House Leader tends to protest too

much. It was not debate of the special warrant but accounting by the

minister who's here to answer questions about his responsibilities of

how much of that special warrant had been spent. That's all he's

asking, not the efficacy. The nature of the special warrant wasn't up

for debate. If that is out of order, certainly that diatribe we just

heard from the minister about who and where decisions are being made

was equally out of order. I think that if we're going to play that

game, we should play by the rules or else have the kind of open and

friendly dialogue that we usually enjoy in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Are we starting a debate here, gentlemen? The government House Leader.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, my hon. colleague opposite seems to be confused.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

No, no. He's normally always right. I can't understand why he's so

confused about this one. We have had the discussion of the special

warrant. That took place between about 11:00 and 1 o'clock on Friday,

March 25. Therefore any debate about the special warrant, which the

second member for Victoria clearly referred to, would be out of order.

Debate on the $649,000 contained in vote 64 is clearly in order, and I

have no argument with that. It's only reference to the special warrant

that I find out of order, and so must this assembly.

MR. BLENCOE :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I read here: "Vote description. This

vote provides for the office of the minister of state and the

administration of the Thompson-Okanagan development region." That's to

do with that minister in his capacity as minister of state, and he is

spending taxpayers' money. Most of it, I understand, he hasn't even

spent yet, in terms of the first allocation. It is quite appropriate

for me to ask exactly what he's doing with his dollars, and I ask

again, through you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : If

the member will resume his seat. The Chair appreciates the deep

knowledge of the two hon. House Leaders on this matter, and I would say

that they are both right. Certainly the government House Leader is

absolutely correct in what he says about debating those items such as

this which were dealt with previously. But if we're dealing with an

expenditure out of that particular money and if.... There is always a

certain leeway involved in any Committee of Supply with respect to

expenditures, but I think that we can

[ Page 3862 ]

come

to a compromise here, whereby the second member for Victoria can

solicit the information he requires, providing that he doesn't stray

into that grey area which we are forbidden by the rules to discuss, and

that is the debate which occurred....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN : All right then. Let's let the second member for Victoria continue with his questioning of the minister on vote 64.

MR. BLENCOE :

I think that it is absolutely critical that the people of the province

of British Columbia be allowed insight into this whole minister of

state system. It has created great concern across the province. The

minister does his attack on us for centralizing, but I ask the

minister, when he talks about wanting to do things for his region:

whatever happened to local government? Whatever happened to regional

government? Whatever happened to their ability to make decisions and

make recommendations to you? Whatever happened to that? Do you have to

go out there — from the Poole room over here, under the control of the

inner sanctum of the Premier of the province of British Columbia — and

reinvent the wheel?

Why do you need, for instance, in your

region at least 25 more committees? And the poor mayors and aldermen

that you seem to want on your committees — already trying to do things

for their community — now have to spend hours and hours on your 25

committees, in which nobody knows how they're going to make a final

decision. Nobody knows where the end product is; nobody knows what

decision will be made in the end; nobody knows how the decision is

going to be made. Why do you need all those committees? I understand,

from my staff talking to some of your people today, that it could be

more than 25 committees.

So what happened to local

government? What happened to the respect for your mayors and aldermen

who have the ability to do economic development and make

recommendations to this province and to this Legislature? Whatever

happened to that autonomy that we've accepted in this country and this

province since Confederation?

I ask questions, Mr.

Chairman, about what happened to the first million dollars, and I

immediately get a great defence from the House Leader on the other side.

AN HON. MEMBER : What's a million?

MR. BLENCOE :

What's a million dollars? Sure, we've heard that from this side. What's

two million dollars when you've got a political agenda? What's another

$649,000 for 25 committees that are supposed to report to some super

committee down the road?

This whole system of these

governors of the united states of British Columbia is becoming a joke.

It's one joke. It's the Premier's fantasy in the Poole room, saying:

"When I was here before, my colleagues were gutless. I introduced the

Land Use Act." Do we all remember the Land Use Act, Mr. Chairman? We

remember it: 50 ways that that Minister of Municipal Affairs, the

Premier of today, could overturn local government decisions.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The hon. member was doing particularly well up to the last 45 seconds.

Now he's become completely irrelevant. Perhaps he could come back to

vote 64.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I'm giving the

background to my perception, and the perception of my distinguished

colleagues on this side, of why we have a minister of state system. I

hope it is reasonable, within these four walls, within parliament, for

the opposition to give their perception of the Socreds' perception —

their perception of reality. It's fair, don't you think? And, Mr.

Chairman, the only conclusion we can come to is that this government

has decided that there's a bunch of dollars lying around: let's set up

25 committees at least in this region and bring.... all appointed, not

elected; another level of bureaucracy; and we'll control the agenda of

local government. That's what it's all about, Mr. Chairman.

You

know, Oksana Exell, a spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of

Independent Business, hit the nail right on the head. She said her

members are confused about whom they should approach if they need

government help; there are too many people involved to accomplish

anything. She said: "If you assemble that number of people in a room,

you're not going to come up with objectives. If you ask a committee to

design a horse, you end up with a camel. With 350 people you couldn't

even get a camel."

Mr. Chairman, it's time to recognize

that we don't have a decentralization under this minister of state. It

has nothing to do with decentralization. It's centralization into the

Premier's office — into the Poole room. That's where it's going.

The

Premier left after the Land Use Act. He was angry, because he wanted to

control local government. Now he's concocted this great idea with all

this myriad of committees and big meetings. But no one knows where the

decisionmaking really lies.

Let's take a look at the

minister's area. What have we got here? As I've already said, about 25

committees feeding into the overall planning process.

His

area, Mr. Chairman, is organized like this. On December 15, 1987, they

held a large meeting, a kind of rally, with approximately 150 people

attending. All of those people dutifully signed in, giving their names

and addresses for further contact. Since then the parliamentary

secretary and regional development liaison officer have convened about

18 smaller meetings in various parts of the area, drawing names for

attendance at those meetings from the original 150. And there have been

industry-oriented meetings around the area which have been more

task-oriented and project-specific.

But then we get to

phase 2 of all these 25 little committees and all these people that get

together — I don't know what for; I suppose to talk about the Socred

political agenda. For phase 2 of the process, they will convene service

meetings, whatever that is...

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Why don't you attend and find out?

MR. BLENCOE : We don't recognize a politically corrupt system, Madam Minister.

...which will deal with long-term goals and planning in

the service area. At present the minister's staff is gathering names of

people to participate in those meetings. So we've had I don't how many

committee meetings. They're getting more names from more committee meetings,

and during all

[ Page 3863 ]

this process the minister's staff are gathering together profiles on

economic development strategies for municipalities around the area,

municipalities that for some years have been saying: "We've done those

plans; all we need is either the policies or the legislative changes to

get on with the job."

By this crazy united states of

British Columbia system, you have set back economic development in this

province ten or 15 years, by this massive bureaucracy that's costing

the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars and slowing down the

development process.

But I go on phase 3, I guess, Mr.

Chairman. They plan to hold one or two larger formal meetings a year

during which, presumably, the input of all these smaller groups would

be considered, although they are unable to explain exactly what would

happen. My staff asked whoever they can track down in this region:

"What's going to happen?" "Oh, we're not quite sure." The next of these

large meetings — that's the large after the large after the small after

the large — is planned for the fall of 1988. That's the large after the

large after the small after the large and 25 more committees.

This

is all about economic development, of course. This is all about

streamlining the process. This is all about creating jobs in this....

Oh boy, they sure need jobs in your region. You sure haven't done much

for them in the last few years. It's all about jobs. We've got

committee, the large meeting, the small meeting, phase 2 and phase 3.

But they're going to meet in the fall of 1988, I think — from what we

could get from your staff.

Interestingly, when we asked

what goals they hoped to achieve by the time they emerged from the

first meeting — but I'm not sure which meeting that really is, because

they said we may be having some other meetings later on in the fall —

we were told they hoped to come out of it with a business plan for the

area. Ah, a business plan — terrific. Local councils have been doing

business plans before any of us were born in this Legislature. They're

in the business of business plans; the regions are in the business of

business plans; mayors and aldermen are in the business of business

plans.

Of course, we have this marvelous Premier in the

Poole room saying: "Well, we've got to have a bunch more committees in

all the regions" — at least 25, at the last count in this minister's

region, to do what local councils have been doing for 100 years. But

let me go on. I'll have to sit down, I know, and someone will let me

stand up again.

[3:00]

MR. ROSE :

I think that this is an excellent debate and an excellent exercise in

democracy. I'm really pleased that a group of grade 7 school students

are here from Grant Park in my riding of Coquitlam, and I hope they

enjoy their visit to this beautiful building to see democracy in

action. I would appreciate it if everyone here could make them welcome.

Would you consider that an intervening speaker, Mr. Chairman?

MR. BLENCOE :

I was talking about this business plan because we were told that after

the committee of 25 committees meets — then they have a larger meeting

and then a larger meeting and then back to the smaller committees —

they'll be coming up with a business plan. There have been many

business plans in this minister's area for a long time, but we have to

reinvent the wheel, because there is another objective in the province

of British Columbia today.

Let's be honest about it. We all

know what it's about — it's Social Credit political objectives. It's to

control local government, take over their traditional role and set

their business plan for them. Come election time, of course, if you

played ball, and you've been a good boy or a good girl or whatever it

is — girls, the Socreds talk about — then you'll get the largesse just

before the election. We know how it all works.

Let me get

back to this business plan. Staff were asking this minister's staff

about the business plan. This business plan was to be developed by all

these committees getting together — 25 of them — and then the bigger

committees getting together. They were going to develop the business

plan. In the next sentence we were told that the plan was being drafted

now. Oh, we think, they're supposed to get together in consultation

with all these committees to put a plan together. Then we're told that

the business plan is being drafted,

I don't want to be

suspicious of this minister and this government's objectives, but it

seems to me that if the business plan is being drafted, I wonder if

they already have the objectives set for the business plan. It's just a

little question I ask the minister, because we're told that after these

great 25 committees and one meeting after another meeting and the fall

of 1988 and whatever, then we'll have a business plan. Then we're told:

"We're drafting it right now." I guess they feel that it's possible to

draft it before the meeting. I guess that's carrying on the Socred

tradition of doing things behind closed doors. I guess so; that's the

way it's done. We only ask the questions, and we get the answers.

The

next stuff is about the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards). I'll ask

that when we get to her. Yours is just as bad, Madam Member, but you

may want to clean it up before we get there.

Now I want to

talk a little bit about all these committees and all this bureaucracy,

which is going to stifle economic development, because we've got local

councils which have been doing it for years. These are all about

supposedly creating economic initiatives and jobs. The only jobs being

created are in this bureaucracy. Of course, we all know those jobs are

not through the Public Service Commission, don't we? Nothing goes

through the Public Service Commission that might be delicate or in the

interests of the political agenda of the current government.

Let

me talk about this so-called seed money — this $16 million that the

minister of state now.... Not only does he have $649,000 extra for

whatever he wants to use above the $1 million that he got some months

ago; he now has at his disposable up to $2 million out of the $16

million for this regional seed capital program. And remember what I

said about the spokesperson for independent business: they don't

understand all this, they are confused, and I don't blame them. But

let's go through how this is going to work, because this is supposed to

cut red tape, make the system flow freely and get jobs into the area.

The order-in-council that set this up does not change the necessity for receiving the approval of — guess which minister?

MRS. BOONE : Which?

MR. BLENCOE :

The Minister of Economic Development. Now the Minister of Economic

Development still has her hands on this little $16 million fund, but

the minister of

[ Page 3864 ]

state

has been put in the regions to take a look at how this $16 million is

to be used through his 25 committees and big meetings and little

meetings. You get all these people coming forward, saying: "I want a

loan." All that is changed is the introduction of a requirement that

the minister of state must also have approved the guarantee, adding, as

I've said, another layer of bureaucracy. Nothing to do with democracy

at all.

This is how the process works. First, the applicant

applies directly to the minister of state. Hmmmm, nice. I think

everyone is starting to realize how this is going to work. Second, the

application is referred to a regional small business development board

composed of the minister of state, his parliamentary secretary and

volunteers from the region. The Minister of Advanced Education looks

quizzical, but of course he, like everybody else, isn't sure how

this.... We just have to glean this information from where we can,

because no one is really quite sure. This seems to be today's report on

how you're going to work the system. Third, the application, if

approved, goes to two different financial institutions for proposals on

the level of loan that they're willing to give and the guarantee level

they would require from the province. Boy, this is really speeding up

the process for these small entrepreneurs. Fourth, the minister of

state and the Minister of Economic Development will consult to see

which of the resulting financial proposals they are willing to accept.

know we want to create jobs, I know we supposedly want to try to

streamline, but you tell me how this process is going to streamline in

the regions. It's cumbersome, it's complex, it's confusing; and what

it's going to do is slow down economic development in the province.

Even the experts in small business are saying so. They don't know who

to go to. What we've got is a political machine set up in the regions

to pull the political strings for Social Credit. It's the only

conclusion we can come to. You've got systems in place. You've got

local government. Hopefully this government still believes in cabinet

government and the Minister of Economic Development.

what do we have? We have committees to reinvent the wheel. They say

they're going to evaluate all the resources and the inventory. That's

all done. It's all there. Why do you need to do that all again — unless

you have another objective. I think the spokesperson for independent

business was quite correct: you're going to end up with a camel. We

might not even get a camel, because we have so many people, committees.

A further update from trying to talk to this minister's staff about how

it's all going to work. The staff note to me.... As usual, it's a

mistake to delve too deeply into these matters, because you hit the

confusion barrier very quickly.

Trying to find out how this

system is going to work is unbelievable. In two or three days we've got

two or three opinions, a number of committees that go up and down every

day. The people of British Columbia must wonder what's going on with

this government. You want to streamline, and you create 25 more

committees? You want to get decisions made? You can streamline today

and go through local government. They are elected; they dutifully

represent the people in the regions. That's who you go to. That's who

you work for, not these little backroom committees that you've

appointed all over the province with the first million dollars in your

back pocket, another $649,000 in the other pocket, and in your top

pocket up to $2 million in this new seed capital money, which by the

way we have no terms of reference for, no criteria laid out for. I

haven't seen a thing: no selection process, nothing laid out for the

people of British Columbia.

We don't know who's coming in

which door - front door or back door. We haven't got a clue. The people

of the province of British Columbia would like to know that if you go

in the front door there isn't somebody coming through the back door who

says: "Hey, I've got a better idea, buddy." That's how it works in

Social Credit British Columbia, I presume, Mr. Chairman. Well, you

know, people are tired of that. They want honesty; they want integrity.

They want upfront government that's going to say it the way it is, not

some trumped-up con game, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't represent local

government. It has nothing to do with local government at all.

Let

me take a look at this latest memo, from talking to the minister's

staff. A Ministry of Economic Development representative gave me the

following news — none of which is official, but all of which is the

truth as he understands it for the moment. The program is not firm yet.

Two days ago the ministry gave a brief rundown to the Canadian Bankers'

Association regarding the criteria for examining possible loans, but

the ministry is now developing guidelines: how the regional boards

which will examine these loans will work and the pecking order for

applications as they are submitted.

The composition of

these boards, we're told, is very uncertain. We're told that maybe the

ministry's representative will be on that board but may not have a

vote. Local business people? Municipal people? Really, we're not quite

sure who's going to sit on it. But I tell you, you've got a stack of

money for something you're not sure about. You've had a million dollars

in your back pocket for six months, and you're still not sure about it.

We know we've got a bunch of committees running around, Mr. Chairman.

How much more can the people of British Columbia take, in terms of a

system that no one really recognizes?

Mr. Chairman, there

are so many questions to answer, so many things the people want to

know. What are your salaries? What's your hiring process? How many

employees have you got? How did you, for instance, come to the

conclusion that Mr. Dan Bulford would work for you? No one knows. We've

had no information.

How many real committees are we going

to have in this burgeoning bureaucracy that's costing the province of

British Columbia millions and millions of dollars? What's the process

for accepting economic ideas? What are the travel costs for people in

your development groups? Why are there no FTE levels noted for these

votes, as it is noted for all other ministry votes? Are they included

in your regular ministry, or are they not? What are the criteria for

loan selection? What are the checks and balances in the system? We've

got absolutely nothing. And you continue this offence to democracy in

the province of British Columbia once again. We want to know why, for

instance, there are differences in how much each region gets.

Mr.

Chairman, all we're saying is that on behalf of the people of the

province we're starting to expose this system. We will continue to get

information; we will continue to get to the bottom of it; and we will

continue to respect local government. The minister had better start

coming clean, along with his colleagues, because this system continues

to be offensive. It has nothing to do with economic development; it's

got everything to do with a political agenda out of the Poole room

prior to an election.

[ Page 3865 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I sincerely wish that the government House Leader had stayed, because

he was the one who referred to "diatribe" — I'm sorry, the opposition

House Leader. I stand corrected.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : And will be for a long time.

wish the opposition House Leader had stayed, because he referred to

"diatribe" coming from this side of the House. I sincerely wish he had

heard that which we have just heard from the Neanderthals on the other

side of the House. He talks about reinventing the wheel, I tell you,

I've never in my life seen a group less receptive to change. They would

still be using a stone wheel with a wooden axle, Mr. Chairman, if we

left it up to them. We talk about reinventing the wheel; what we're

trying to do is maybe improve the wheel a bit, make it turn a little

freer and easier.

The only other thing I would add is that

I think Pee-Wee Herman had better be looking to his job after a

performance like that from the second member for Victoria. I think

Pee-Wee Herman is in trouble. All he needs is a bicycle and a checkered

jacket and I think Pee-Wee's job is in jeopardy.

The member

goes along ridiculing that which he cannot comprehend, which is

typical. If you don't comprehend something, can't grasp an idea or

don't want to ever change anything, then you ridicule it. We just saw a

perfect example of someone ridiculing someone who's trying to start a

new idea.

[3:15]

As I said before,

we are endeavouring to make decisions in the region by people who live

in the regions. The people I talk to in my region are very pleased with

the way they see the regionalization program taking place. If the

member doubts that, he should go up and ask a few of the people in the

area who have been involved so far, who see it as a bold, new step and

a new concept, maybe, to improve the employment picture in areas such

as mine. The employment levels in my area are not as high as they

should be. The unemployment figures are too high, there is no question

about that, and they have been for several years.

I suppose

we shouldn't change and try to adopt new ideas to see if we can make it

work a little better, to see if we ca help the businessman or woman, or

person if you like, out there who is struggling and may need just a

little bit of financial assistance that will be provided by the

regional seed capital program. Maybe we shouldn't try that, Mr. Member.

We should just say: "No, your business is failing, go down the tube; we

don't think you've got a chance."

He ridicules a chart that

we have put in place to make this come about as quickly as possible. We

have put a turnaround time of a maximum of one week on applications for

loan guarantees under the regional seed capital program. We think we'll

be able to meet that turnaround time, and the checks and balances are

there.

On the one hand, he ridicules the fact that we've

got some checks and balances in the chart, and on the other hand says

that there are no checks and balances in the whole system. You can't

have it both ways. Either there were checks and balances, as you went

through the chart and you saw what they were, or there weren't any. Try

to decide which side of the fence you're on. There either are some

checks and balances or there aren't. They are there, and they will work

very quickly.

If the second member for Victoria doesn't

believe that it can work, then I suggest he contact some of the people

in Vernon, Kelowna and Kamloops where the system has worked. If you

want some names, Mr. Member, I'll gladly furnish you with some names

where we have saved or created some new employment in the area. I will

give you names of businesses, Mr. Member — through you, Mr.

Chairman — where we have been successful. You go and talk to those

people and then come back and tell me that the system doesn't work.

MR. WILLIAMS : Are you filibustering this? Because if you are, you're going to miss your plane.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'm not in any fear of missing any plane to where I'm going, Mr. Member.

The

member started out by asking: "How much have you spent?" I'm going to

tell him how much I've spent, but first of all we are debating vote 64,

which is right in front of the member should he choose to look in the

supplement to the estimates, fiscal year ending March 31, 1989. If he

chooses to look in the book, vote 64 is broken down into exactly what

we're going to spend.

The member asks what we have spent so

far. He's referring to the 1987-88 budget. As I said to him a few

minutes ago, I didn't have the number right at my fingertips, but in

deference to that member and wanting to keep him as fully informed as I

can — and that is difficult — I have obtained a number for him. This

might make him feel warm and cuddly all over. He might note that to

date we have spent a maximum of $110,000. We don't intend to spend

money foolishly. Every dollar will be well spent.

He talks

about 25 committees. I don't know where he got that figure. I think he

invented it, like he invented most of the speech we just heard. It was

a figment of his imagination — and he's got a vivid imagination. I

don't know where he got 25 committees. I don't know where he got the

figure of a roomful of 350 people.

MR. BLENCOE : It's 28 now.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I don't know where he got the number 28. These numbers just come to him

in a flash of light, I think. Maybe, like other political leaders in

this country, he talks to his dog or something and he gets numbers of

25, 350, 240, 752, I don't know. Come up with another number, Mr.

Member. I think if we wait here long enough he'll come up with a

thousand numbers for us. But they're all figments of his imagination —

a vivid imagination. They're just figments of that member's

imagination, so he goes on ridiculing that which he cannot understand.

He doesn't even try to understand it. He can't comprehend that some

things might change from time to time in this society. Once in a while,

something may change.

MR. BLENCOE : They'll change, all right.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, all they can do is sit over there and salivate over the

possibility of sitting on this side of the House. I can tell you, Mr.

Member, it ain't going to happen. You're not going to be over here.

You've been sitting over there since '75, some of you; you're going to

stay over there until '95 — or 2005.

I can tell you, Mr. Member, that the people in my region are very much interested in what their region is going to look

[ Page 3866 ]

like

five, ten or 15 years from now. What we want them to do, Mr. Member, is

to have a say in what their region of this wonderful province will look

like, and we fully intend to let them have every say possible. If we

have to make changes as our society changes, Mr. Member, we are not

afraid to face the new century and to change to adapt to face the new

century. Okay?

Mr. Chairman, I think the member had a

couple more questions in there, but they were so mixed in with the

mumbo-jumbo that I can't remember what they were; nor, do I think, can

he. But if he does wish to restate any questions that I failed to

answer, or if he has failed to grasp the concept of change and

regionalization, I would be happy to go on at greater length, if that

is his desire.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, the member should

have had his trumpet for that purple prose he was pushing a couple of

minutes ago and all that jazz that we just got. That's putting down the

good term "jazz."

I'd like to deal with some specifics in

that region, Mr. Minister. I'd like to know whether you've rethought

the questions of the Coquihalla Highway and the negative impact it will

have on the southerly part of that region, the area of

Boundary-Similkameen. I'd like you to advise the House what thought

you've given to the upgrading of the Hope-Princeton highway, where

traffic will be reduced by one-third as a result of the extension of

the Coquihalla. I wonder if the minister can tell this House how much

of the Coquihalla traffic from the coast will go north versus the

amount that will go south. Can you tell me, Mr. Minister? Do you know

what the traffic volume figures are for vehicles entering the Okanagan

— how many of them, when they reach Peachland, will be heading north

and how many will be heading south?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I have seen the numbers on the traffic; we had a presentation from the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I don't have those numbers

with me in the House, because they will more properly be addressed, I

think, under the minister's estimates. I'm sure he will have those

numbers. I've seen the numbers; I just don't happen to have them.

You

should also note that new traffic will be created down through the area

you just mentioned because of changes in transportation and in the

economy in the whole interior. Last Friday I attended an announcement

in Kamloops of two major firms who are opening a distribution centre in

Kamloops — Clark Reefer and Dolphin Distribution — for their traffic in

western Canada and the United States. They're doing that, Mr. Member,

because of the Coquihalla Highway, specifically because of phase 3,

because it will be going down through Merritt and Boundary-Similkameen

and into the United States,

So that's only one example, a

concrete example, of firms locating in Kamloops. This is not a theory,

Mr. Member; this is a fact. They are moving their major distribution

centre to Kamloops because of the Coquihalla Highway. The specific

numbers will be provided to you, I'm sure, by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) under his estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS :

What more proof do we need that this is a sham? You're the new regional

boss, the new regional mayor, for the Thompson and the Okanagan. We ask

you about Boundary-Similkameen, and we get an answer about

Kamloops.

Hey! You know where you get your votes, but the poor member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer) knows where he ain't going to get

his votes — there's the problem. You've set your priorities, and

they're Kamloops — home turf. That's what you said, because you didn't

have an answer. You don't know the numbers.

Mr. Minister,

the numbers are disastrous for Boundary Similkameen. You don't know

that the traffic on the Hope Princeton will be reduced by one-third.

Those are official projections. Now I'm going to tell you what the

numbers are. If you were concerned about Penticton and Highway 3 and

the riding of Boundary-Similkameen, you'd know those numbers. They'd be

indelible, because they represent economic disaster for the tourist

industry of Boundary Similkameen.

The numbers are as

follows, Mr. Minister: 4,000 vehicles will enter from the coast on the

Coquihalla Highway; 3,400 of them will go north, and 600 will go south.

How do you like — if you'll forgive the pun — those apples? That means

a disaster in Boundary-Similkameen in terms of tourism. If I owned a

motel or a hotel in Penticton, I'd be scared right down to my boots in

terms of being able to pay the mortgage.

That's the

breakdown: 3,400 and 600. Now the question is: have you looked at the

question of grappling with that and trying to deal with it? If you had,

you'd be working on the Hope-Princeton highway. You'd see that the

Highways ministry budget was expanded tremendously to work on Highway

3. And you would have been fighting and would have established a

turn-off route to Summerland well beyond the Peachland turn-off, so

that there would have been a route that, I believe, is 20 kilometres

shorter to Penticton.

Boundary-Similkameen is a riding that

has consistently been taken for granted by this government — the

little-sister riding of South Okanagan. We've almost always had a

Premier from Kelowna. They've always twisted the development process so

that Kelowna benefits and that there's a price to be paid in Penticton

and in the southerly part of the valley. That continues to this day,

Mr. Minister.

How do you like that breakdown: 3,400 to 600?

Doesn't that tell you volumes about the decision-making that has gone

on to date? Can you assure this House right now that it will not be a

50 kilometre peel-off for Penticton and a 100 kilometre peel-off for

Kelowna, because that's the design? Can you give the House that

assurance? Can you give the House assurance that there will be that

other route through Summerland established at the same time, so that

Penticton will be saved from total disaster? Can you give assurance

that Highway 3 will be rebuilt? No, you can't.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Sure, off in sub-subcommittee. You are based in Victoria. Don't you

give this line to us about this being a decentralized system. And if

you're worried about the time, Mr. Minister, if you're going to give

the kind of tirade that we just got from you, you can forget about any

leaving this House by 4 o'clock or quarter to four. I'd appreciate

answers in terms of the Coquihalla, and then we'll deal with other

regional issues, and we'll just see how well informed you are.

[3:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I'll be happy to deal with that subject or anything else that you want to talk about in my

[ Page 3867 ]

region,

and please don't be concerned about me getting out of here. I'll stay

here until midnight if that's what you desire. I can catch airplanes at

any time, Mr. Member, and this is far more important than my leaving

this House to catch some plane, so please don't worry about me.

When

you start talking figures — traffic volumes, tourism figures — in this

House to the people of British Columbia, then you'd better talk all the

figures. You'd better talk traffic coming over the Rogers Pass and up

from the United States too. Don't just throw in the one figure that

suits your purpose — just talk about the negatives. You talk about all

the figures and the increase in traffic from the United States.

Yes,

we know, and the people of Penticton do, that the Coquihalla has a

potential to do them some immediate harm. There is no question about

that. The member seems to take great joy in that statement. They take

great joy in the fact that some community might be hurt by some highway

that's built. I want the record to note that when we talked about

Penticton maybe being done some harm, the opposition was jubilant, and

they thumped their desks. I want the record to note that that's the way

they feel over there.

Yes, we know too that if that party

had been government for the last ten years, the Coquihalla Highway

never would have been built. They've been on the record as being

against it from day one; they would never have built it. Some community

somewhere might have been hurt, so they would never have built it.

There are many other things in this province that they wouldn't have

built either, Mr. Chairman, and I could go on and list them — what the

province would have looked like had that party been in government for

the last ten years. They wouldn't build anything. Their second member

for Victoria just admitted a few minutes ago that they don't want to

change anything. They want to leave the old wheel as it is; let's not

improve it, let's not change anything.

The member over

there is already priming his party for a by-election in Penticton. He's

trying to get the people of Penticton upset with the statements he

makes in this House so that he can go up there and campaign in a

by-election in Penticton. The doom-and-gloomers. Everything is going to

go wrong if you do this, if you build that. It's always doom and gloom.

Never look on the positive side — that the volume of traffic might

increase overall and everyone's traffic might increase. It never

crosses his mind that the volume of traffic may go up over the next few

years; that good highways in this province like the Coquihalla might

attract more visitors and more industrial traffic and commercial

traffic to the province, and everybody's share is going to increase.

That never crosses their minds.

Mr. Chairman, we are

working very closely with OSTA in the southern Okanagan to do

everything we can to enhance their position vis--vis the tourism that

the member spoke about. We are working very closely with them to make

sure that the plans they have for their area come to fruition and that

they realize all the possible benefits from the increased traffic that

they're going to get due to the success of our tourism marketing, the

spinoffs from Expo, plus the commercial traffic that is going to flow

north and south through this province because of the Coquihalla Highway.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister did not answer the question. We would like an answer to

the question. The minister has admitted now that Penticton will indeed

be hurt; that the southern part of that valley — Penticton, Oliver,

Osoyoos, Grand Forks, Keremeos — all of those areas tied to Highway 3,

will be hurt. He's right.

Let's remember back to the

opening of the Hope-Princeton highway. With the opening of the highway,

the entrance to the Okanagan was that southern area of the valley. It

was Osoyoos and it was Penticton, and there was a dramatic impact upon

Penticton as a result of the building of that highway. Now, 20-odd

years later, the same thing is happening again to that valley, but the

new gateway to the Okanagan will be Kelowna, not Penticton. It requires

all the skill in the world to save the economy over the next several

years of the Penticton-Boundary-Similkameen region. It requires great

skill. It is clear that that skill is not being displayed.

ask the minister: have you convinced your colleague to change his

present plans? And don't say that this is a specific question for the

Minister of Highways, because that flies in the face of all the

rhetoric you just dumped. If you're serious about being the manager of

the Thompson-Okanagan region, you'll be on top of this; you'd able to

say what those numbers were, but you couldn't. You would have been able

to say: "Yes, we're changing the peel-off so that it isn't a 50 km

peel-off for Penticton and a 100 km peel-off for Kelowna; and yes, we

will spend the money to route the road through Summerland so that there

will be a shorter route to the southern part of that valley; and yes,

we will be upgrading the Hope-Princeton highway." Because if that isn't

done at least in tandem with the extension of the Coquihalla, their

tourist industry will be bludgeoned, Mr. Minister.

So I

ask: do you have that in hand, and will we be assured that those

peel-offs will change and that there will be a new route to Penticton?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, we do have it in hand. We are in continuing discussion with the

people there. The specific questions about peel-offs and speed limits I

would suggest you leave to the Minister of Transportation and Highways,

the same as the upgrading of the Hope-Princeton. That's a matter for

the Highways minister to address.

But I do want to clarify

one thing. The member is totally wrong, Mr. Chairman, when he says that

the entire Boundary-Similkameen will suffer from this. The gateway to

the Okanagan from the south will still be Osoyoos, and they will come

up through Oliver, through Penticton, as they always have done. I made

reference to Penticton because of the fact that the turn-off now for

traffic coming from the north will be at Peachland rather than down at

Kaleden corner. That is the traffic that Penticton may — and I say may

— possibly miss. They will miss some of it, but it's not going to be a

disaster, as the member who stands over there and preaches doom and

gloom says. There may be some traffic that cuts off at Peachland —

undoubtedly there will be — that before would have gone down to the

Kaleden corner and therefore through Penticton. But that doesn't

necessarily mean that all of the traffic is going to bypass Penticton.

Penticton is a beautiful community with two lakes and marvelous

beaches, and it has tremendous attraction for visitors from all over

North America. They are still going to go to Penticton.

I tried to explain, we are into an aggressive marketing situation with

the people of OSTA to make sure that they get their share of any

tourist traffic coming to British Columbia. So I didn't want to leave

the impression that everything is going to be doom and gloom, as that

member would, because we built a new highway. I am convinced, as are

others, that the overall traffic will increase tremendously over the

next few years and that everyone will benefit.

MR. WILLIAMS : Boy, is that ever thin soup we're getting from you. And I'm pleased to note that Silent Sam,

[ Page 3868 ]

the

member for Boundary-Similkameen, is here listening to this interesting

debate. There will be 2,200 vehicles less on the Hope-Princeton

highway, many of them tourist-oriented people. That's a one-third

decline. Do you have any idea, Mr. Minister, what that will mean in

lost tourist dollars in the Penticton region?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I am sure that the member opposite is going to come up with some number

about how it's going to affect Penticton. I don't happen to agree with

him. I do agree that it's going to affect some of the communities on

Highway 3, just as phases I and 2 of the Coquihalla have affected

communities along the Fraser Canyon. We know that and we've dealt with

it; we've addressed it. There was, I believe — I haven't got the

numbers on the tip of my tongue — a downturn in the traffic going down

the Fraser Canyon, and some people suffered. This government helped

them through a rough time through marketing and other initiatives, and

the creation of the Gold Rush Trail, and this government is prepared to

do the same thing for the people on the Hope-Princeton highway.

don't necessarily agree with the member that every car that goes from

the lower mainland heading east and takes the Coquihalla is going to

turn north at Peachland. I think Penticton will still attract a great

number of those people because of the natural attributes it has.

All

the member wants to talk about is the down side of everything. Yes,

we're aware of the down sides. Whenever you build a new piece of road,

Mr. Member, there is almost inevitably going to be a down side for some

other community. We're aware of that, but we're not going to sit here

and dwell on what the down sides of that highway are going to be. Talk

for a few minutes about the up sides of that highway. In Kamloops,

Merritt, Kelowna, Vernon — and yes, indeed, Penticton — talk about what

the up sides of that highway are going to be, the commerce and industry

that's going to spring up along that highway because of its being

constructed and being the superior road that it is. Go talk to the

people who are going to benefit from that highway instead of just

dwelling on the doom and gloom of some of those who may be hurt by it.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The record once again shows that the minister responsible for the

region doesn't know the numbers, doesn't know the implication for

tourism in the region he is responsible for. The record now shows that.

Let's also remember that this is the former Minister of Tourism, and he

doesn't know what the implications are for tourism in the region that

he is responsible for.

I'll give you the numbers again, Mr.

Minister. The numbers are something like this: the net loss to the

southern part of that valley will be 64,000 vehicles carrying 198,000

people over two months. Net loss to the Penticton-Boundary Similkameen

region, or part of Boundary-Similkameen region.... If you put a

conservative number to those people and make a reasonable assumption

about the number of them that are tourists in those, peak summer

months, conservatively it looks like a net loss to that riding of

something like $8 million in the summertime — in this one sector alone.

That may not sound a lot to us from the lower mainland, but for the

motel and hotel owners and resort people of that region, it is a

disaster. You can very well say that we've got it in hand, but what

you're really saying is that you're just holding their hands.

You're

carrying on discussions. It's abundantly clear what has to happen. You

carry on this long-distance dialogue. The problem is that that region

has been taken for granted all too long.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

A by-election speech is a little more valid than the leadership speech

we got a few minutes ago. Now that Gracie and Bill are having this

problem.... Forgive me. The first member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) and the first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) are having these problems and you're all lining up. All of

you are smelling the wind and saying: "Mirror, mirror on the wall,

who's the most beautiful of all?" We get these wonderful speeches like

we just got from the member for Kamloops, who thinks: "Compared with

that guy from Richmond I look like a winner." That's why we got that

last speech a few minutes ago.

We'll be hearing more from

the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) and from others, and it will be

fascinating to watch. There will probably be a second act when those

two war-horses bury the hatchet in the next week or so, but it will

just be patch-up before the next round. We look forward to it all, just

as the back-benchers on the government side do.

[3:45]

So those are the losses just in this sector alone. What kind of work

have you done in terms of promoting some kind of new circle tour for

tourism in that region? If they are going to go over the rust-bucket

road, it will be fascinating. Take the freeway to Kelowna and then take

the rust-bucket road back through Keremeos and Penticton and these

charming old towns that have been hurt by this new diversion of

traffic. Is that the tourism strategy for the valley, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : How about Graham Lea's strategy?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, we all remember Mr. Pothole Lea, who was Minister of Highways

during that government's term in office, when that member was a member

of the government. I don't think they built a mile of new highway in

the three years that they were in government. When they were asked

about the deplorable state of the highways in British Columbia, just

for the record, their Minister of Highways told the Americans: "Stay

home. We don't want you up here." We don't have that attitude over

here, Mr. Member.

You talk about smelling the wind. I don't

know what you've been smelling, but it's something that's illegal or

smells awfully funny. I don't know where you get your ideas from. The

same place, I guess, as the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe).

They come down to you in a bolt of lightening somehow, and you get

these wonderful ideas.

We've just heard the by-election

speech again, and how the people of that riding have been deprived for

so many years. I really don't think they have. I've known the former

member from that riding for a long time, and the present member is one

of the hardest-working members we've got in government. He's my

parliamentary secretary. He's not only been all over his riding in the

last few weeks meeting with people and talking about these very things,

he's been all over the entire region on my behalf talking with people.

The people of Boundary-Similkameen have been very well represented over

the years and will continue to be, and they will be

[ Page 3869 ]

represented

by two Social Credit members in the very near future. This fall we'll

celebrate the win of the second Social Credit member for

Boundary-Similkameen, when we hold our provincial convention in that

fine town in October.

Mr. Member, I understand the

implications very well, despite what you say. You are correct that I

didn't have the highway numbers at my fingertips, and perhaps I should

have. I've seen them. We've been through them. We've been through them

with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, with the elected

people in the area, in Penticton, and with the Okanagan-Similkameen

Tourist Association. We understand the implications, and we know the

numbers that you are speaking of, the dollars. But you also present

every time the worst possible scenario there is: doom and gloom. We

don't necessarily think it's going to be that bad.

We will

continue to work with the good people of Boundary-Similkameen in the

tourism industry and every other industry, to do the best we can to

assist them to come through what may be a difficult period over the

next little while. They've been through some difficult periods, as a

lot of us have. They are no strangers to adversity, but they're not

throwing up their hands and saying the sky is falling. They are working

with us to make the situation better.

MR. WILLIAMS :

Mr. Speaker, all of that hand-holding doesn't help them very much. It

requires some comprehensive planning, which this administration is

simply not capable of. You're the big boosters, so you build the

freeway to Kelowna, and that's all you need to know. That's good news.

But you don't deal with the fallout; you don't deal with it at all, and

that's abundantly clear. You didn't know the numbers at all. You're too

busy taking money out of the miserable monthly payments to people on

welfare and single mothers to have any knowledge of what's going on in

the Okanagan.

What have you done with respect to the

Penticton airport, Mr. Minister? What presentations have you personally

made to Canadian Airlines International in terms of the negative

decisions that have been made? Once again, Kelowna is soaking up all

the air traffic. Once again we've got a self-fulfilling prophesy in

terms of Penticton and the southerly part of that valley. The air

service to Penticton gets worse and worse, and everybody starts going

to Kelowna to catch a plane.

The result is negative in

terms of employment in Penticton. It becomes a downhill slide. Look at

the population figures for Kelowna and the Penticton region over the

last 20 years. As a kid I lived in Vernon. All of those towns were the

same size when I was a kid. But, boy, has that changed!

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS . No. I'm telling you there's been a rigged game

going on. The town of Kelowna is the one that soaks it all up, and the towns

that don't grow on the same scale are the other towns at the northern end

of the valley and the southern end of the valley. That has been a consistent,

conscious policy by a Socred government dominated generally by premiers from

Kelowna who take these towns for granted. So I say to you, Mr. Minister, what

have you done in terms of being on top of the airport issue in Penticton?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Once again, the member starts rambling from one.... First, there's no

comprehensive planning; then he's got to throw in the single mothers

issue, which we canvassed. We can do that again, if you'd like to

canvass that issue for about the fourth time. Then he goes on to talk

about the towns not being the same size now. No, they're not. Prince

George isn't the same size it was when you were a kid in Vernon either;

neither is Kamloops. They are different sizes. These things happen;

towns grow. They grow at different rates. Vernon isn't the size of

Kamloops. Vernon isn't the size of Kelowna; neither is Penticton. That

doesn't mean that these towns aren't viable and that they won't grow.

It also doesn't mean that the people in those areas — since we're

talking regionalization — shouldn't have a say in what they want their

town to look like, what size they want it to be, and how they want it

to grow.

Yes, I'm very cognizant of the air service in

Penticton being cut back. It's been cut back in Kamloops as well. But I

don't tell the private sector how to run their business. The private

sector, including the airlines, respond to need. What I'm endeavouring

to do, Mr. Member, is not sit and talk about what's going wrong, but

try to correct what's going wrong and make it go right. so that the

airlines will increase their service because the demand will be there.

Would you have me go and talk to Canadian Airlines International or Air

B.C. and tell them to keep their service levels where they were, when

the demand is decreasing? Is that what you expect me to do, Mr. Member?

What I would rather do is have the economy improve and help the economy

to improve, so that the demand for air travel will increase, and they

will increase the number of flights from Penticton and from Kamloops as

well.

MR. WILLIAMS : As we peel this onion here, it's

very clear that this man who has the responsibility for this huge

region doesn't understand what infrastructure does to a region. If you

don't understand that, you don't understand anything about regional

planning, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, the reserves have moved in. That's good news.

These

things are not random, Mr. Minister. The fact that Kelowna has

ballooned in growth in the last 20 years is not a random thing that has

come from the heavens. We are talking about man-made phenomena —

person-made phenomena; the women don't want to take responsibility for

that one. The point is: so much of the activity of central government —

Victoria, with its $10 billion budget — impacts communities and how

they grow in this province. So more and more government services have

been in Kelowna; more and more government spending on highways has

focused on Kelowna and less and less on these other towns. As a result,

the town of Penticton has slid dramatically in growth relative to

Kelowna or at least the region around those two communities. There has

been dramatic change.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You don't want any change; you want to remain the same.

MR. WILLIAMS : You've said you won't even interfere with the private sector, Mr. Minister; you won't even talk to them.

tell you that Penticton is currently suffering a self-fulfilling

prophecy because of the focus on Kelowna. Air service has declined

because this government spends more

[ Page 3870 ]

and

more on Kelowna and the people in the southern part of the valley have

to go to Kelowna for that service, and it's a result of the activities

of government over time. This riding has been taken for granted by this

administration for all too long.

Do you know the

implications of that poor service for employment in Penticton? Do you

know what it means for construction of the air hangars there? Do you

know what it means for fuel and jet sales in Penticton? There won't be

jets there any more. Do you know the implications for firefighters and

their employment at the airport, Mr. Minister? You nod your head. Will

you advise us then what those implications are?

MR. MESSMER :

I've sat and listened to this for quite a while, to that person who has

five kilometres of road in his constituency and knows so much about

roads in the Okanagan, and it's time I got up to tell him about them.

Fine,

we have the Coquihalla Highway going through. That is a fact. It's

something you don't want to accept, but nevertheless it is a fact. So

what's going to happen to the Hope-Princeton highway? There are

submissions now before the government for upgrading the Hope-Princeton

highway. We strongly believe in the South Okanagan that it is also an

alternative to the Coquihalla.

Interjection.

MR. MESSMER :

Yes, there are submissions in; those submissions have been there for

some time. Yes, and ideas to the government. There are also upgrading

plans from the border to Penticton. Further to that, there are plans to

complete the road from the point where the Coquihalla enters at

Peachland to Summerland. That will complete the four lane traffic.

We,

the communities in South Okanagan, differ from Victoria in that we're

not looking for handouts; we're looking for an opportunity to help

ourselves. Certainly the communities within Boundary-Similkameen are

quite willing to do just that. They live there by desire. They chose

to....

MR. CLARK : There's not a penny in the budget.

MR. MESSMER : We don't know that yet, but I assure you that there probably is some money in there, because it's in the plan.

Let's

go back to what's happening in the Okanagan. A remark was made by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) that we were going around

holding meetings. Yes, we have gone around and held meetings. You

referred to the 18 meetings and that we do not rely on municipal or

regional district people or economic development officers. I'd like to

tell the member that those 18 meetings — I was at most of them — were

held with those same people whom you said we would not meet with:

municipal leaders and economic development officers. They're trying to

do something for their community.

[4:00]

I don't know how out of touch you are, but obviously you must

be, in that communities under municipal councils — certainly from

larger areas — no longer look after the economic development field

themselves. It's very strange: they hire people to do that job. So what

happens is that we're there, as parliamentary secretaries within the

ministry, to help those people to deal with government and government

agencies.

MR. BLENCOE : Who's elected to do that?

MR. MESSMER :

Who's elected to do that? The representative who's the MLA. We welcome

their assistance, and that's exactly where it should go.

going back to the road situation, the answer is yes, roads are very

important, Mr. Chairman, and we are doing something about it in

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, let the

record show that we finally heard from the silent one member for

Boundary Similkameen. His answer is that we have submissions; he is the

most submissive member in the House. Then he says those submissions

have been there for some time. Thank the Lord for the smallest

blessings, Mr. Member.

You say you'll be happy with just a

little bit of an improvement in the existing road from Peachland to

Summerland. That wasn't good enough for Bill Bennett; he spent a

billion dollars to get to his home town fast, and lied about half of it.

MR. SERWA : Nonsense, hon. member. Shame!

MR. WILLIAMS :

No nonsense, no shame, hon. member. If you don't think that.... They

hired a royal commissioner to look at the Coquihalla mess, and he

called it prevarication and deceit. I call that a lie. In this House,

again and again, day in, day out, doctoring the books....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you please request the member opposite

to confine his remarks to those that are acceptable in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Would the member continue and keep in mind that we are on vote 64.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'd just like to proceed again with the airport question in Penticton,

Mr. Chairman. It's pretty clear that the member for

Boundary-Similkameen has very modest goals for his riding. We say those

goals are far too modest. We say the region faces serious problems

because of so-called free trade. The trade deal in the Okanagan will

have, unfortunately, a negative impact on the soft-fruit industry. It

will, unfortunately, have a negative impact on the grape and wine

industry. We say that the highways decisions will have a negative

impact on tourism, unfortunately, in the Penticton region.

are concerned that this new arrangement with this member from Kamloops

as the boss of the Okanagan region won't work. We're quizzing him today

and we're getting rhetoric back; we're not getting real numbers. It's

clear that he's not informed and not on top of the problems of that

region. That means that they're going to hurt.

Mr. Minister, do you know how many flights a day are going to be cut at the Penticton airport?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : The member seems to be all over the map here and running the gamut from free trade to everything else that pops into his mind.

I for one don't think that the long-lasting impacts of free trade are going to be detrimental to the Okanagan. Initially,

[ Page 3871 ]

yes,

we recognize that the grape industry is going to be hurt by free trade;

we've said that, and we fully intend to help that industry through a

difficult period. The soft-fruit issue is conjecture on that member's

part, whether it will be hurt or not. If it is, that is another

industry we will have to help. But in the long run, free trade is not

only going to be good for the Okanagan but good for this province and

this country.

If the member wishes — since he brought it up

— maybe we should get into a free trade debate on whether it will be

good for the country or not. I'd be happy to debate free trade with

him. In fact, Mr. Member, the Okanagan region has been receiving more

inquiries from foreign investors than ever before, especially since

January 2, when the free trade arrangement was signed with the United

States. Investors now see British Columbia, and in particular my

region, which you seem to think I don't know or understand.... We are

receiving more inquiries about region 3 than ever before regarding

investment in diversifying our economy into manufacturing and other

goods because of the market that is available right at the doorstep of

Boundary-Similkameen — perfectly situated, ideally positioned to take

advantage of any new industry that will come because of the free trade

arrangement.

The highways and the tourism that you keep

referring to — that it's going to be some kind of a disaster — I will

disagree with you on that. It's not going to be the doom-and gloom

picture that you predict. I firmly believe that Penticton and

Boundary-Similkameen will continue to be one of the major tourist

attractions of this province whether you think so or not, Mr. Member.

It's easy for you to stand up there and say how badly they're going to

be hurt, this minister's not informed, and all the rest of it. You talk

about rhetoric coming from this side; all we've heard from that side

all afternoon is rhetoric.

And yes, I do know the situation

regarding flights in and out of Penticton. When I received the news of

that.... As a matter of fact, the people from the airlines visited me

in my office to give me some advance notice. They showed me the numbers

and why they had to cut back their service to the Penticton airport,

and it is simply because of a lack of ridership. They assured me that

the minute the trend reverses and the demand is there, they will

reinstate flights. They have said the same thing in my home

constituency of Kamloops. We have lost a lot of air service too, Mr.

Member, because we've been through some pretty tough times. But we

don't think they're going to stay that way; tough times end, and they

will end soon.

MR. WILLIAMS : Let the record again

show that the minister does not know the number of flights that will be

cancelled in the Penticton airport. The record shows that we got a

bafflegab response. And this is the man who's responsible for this new

decentralized system. Where's your briefing book, Mr. Minister? You

don't even have a briefing book for the hundreds of thousands you're

spending — millions. Does the minister know what the implications are

for customs service at the airport in Penticton as a result of the

steps that have been taken?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I

have no intention of commenting on the number of customs officers,

which is a federal jurisdiction. And no, I'm not aware whether the

federal government is going to cut the number of customs officers or

not, because the flights we're talking about that were cut were not

international flights. Penticton is a point of entry into this country,

and the flights that involve customs do not emanate from Vancouver,

Calgary or Cranbrook, such as the flights that he's speaking about

which are being cut.

MR. WILLIAMS : Let the record

show again that the minister is not informed on a subject that is

important to the people of this region or this riding. Let the record

show that they plan on cutting back weekend service in October, so

there will not be customs service in that airport in Penticton. That

means that small American aircraft will all go to Kelowna. It becomes

part of the self-fulfilling prophecy again in terms of the expanding of

the town of Kelowna and not the town of Penticton.

Can the minister advise the House if he has any idea what the public service payroll is in Penticton right now?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Chairman, I want the record to show that if the federal government

has decided to cut back the customs service in Penticton, it has

absolutely nothing to do with the number of commercial flights that

have been cancelled due to lack of demand in Penticton.

Yes,

I do have all the figures regarding the public service payroll in

Penticton, and I have them for Kelowna, Vernon, Kamloops and

Revelstoke. I don't happen to have them right here with me at this

moment, but if you wish.... I'm sure you have the numbers with you, so

you're asking me a rhetorical question. Yes, I have all of those

numbers, and we've gone over them in detail in the ministry of state.

We're very much aware of what the public payroll is in every community.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The ministry of state has all of this data. Can the minister roughly

remember a ballpark figure for the public service payroll in the

Penticton area?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 64 pass?

MR. WILLIAMS : No, Mr. Chairman. Maybe one of the ministry of state staff will check the numbers.

Maybe

I can help the minister out again. I was a kid up in the north

Okanagan, not the south Okanagan. I think it's something like about $10

million a year, just in Penticton, and in the Boundary-Similkameen

riding it's about $16 million a year.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You think it's something like about...?

MR. WILLIAMS :

Let the record show that the minister responds by saying: "You think

it's something like about...." The minister wants precise numbers.

Well, we will give the minister precise numbers.

Currently

the town of Grand Forks has 133 government employees; the bi-weekly

salary there is $137,000; Greenwood has three and a bi-weekly salary of

$3,101.72; Keremeos has four and a bi-weekly salary of $4,201.72;

Oliver has 34 and a bi-weekly payroll of $36,393.41; Osoyoos has 3 and

a bi-weekly payroll of $3,167.09; Penticton has 364 fulltime employees

and a bi-weekly salary of $378,555.98; Summerland has 30 full-time

employees, and that is worth $31,818.55 on a bi-weekly basis. The whole

riding of

[ Page

3872 ]

Boundary-Similkameen has 571 full-time employees and a bi-weekly salary of $594,520.34.

Maybe,

if it's not too much of a challenge, the minister can multiply those

numbers by 26 and come up with the annual figure. If you do, I think

you'll find that in Penticton it's around $10 million, and for the

whole riding of Boundary-Similkameen it's around $16 million. You

should know this. I think you should have a pretty good idea about

these things, if you're really involved in that region. That's what

this is all supposed to be about: decentralization, understanding the

local issues, the regions, their future and their potential. It's

abundantly clear that you don't understand these things at all, and you

don't have a handle on it.

[4:15]

In addition to the threat to the soft-fruit industry in that region

and the threat to tourism as a result of a freeway to Kelowna, there is

an additional threat in that region. It is the threat around

privatization — the Mad Hatter scramble in privatizing. Highways

maintenance. How many of those employees are Highways maintenance

employees now? How many work in forestry offices and seedling

operations and nurseries and in other ministries that you would like to

privatize? That payroll of $10 million in Penticton is threatened, just

like that town is threatened for tourism under the trade deal that you

swallowed whole from Mulroney. Those are serious threats. What kind of

assurance, Mr. Minister, can you give that riding and that region that

those numbers on the public payroll will not go down in all of those

towns?

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It's clear that the

member thinks that by reading some numbers from a book, it makes him

have a clear understanding of what's going on; and because someone

doesn't stand here and read all the numbers for the government payroll

in every community in his region, he doesn't understand what is going

on. Mr. Member, if it will make you feel better, I will get the book

and read government payroll stats for the entire region. We'll start in

the north at Blue River and we'll go right down to Osoyoos. We'll go

over to Golden, if that will make you feel better or if it will make

you think that that's how you understand your region — by standing and

reading a bunch of public payroll numbers.

The threat of

losing those jobs.... There may be some people who will not be on the

government payroll after privatization, but they'll still be living and

working in that area, Mr. Member. They can be good, productive citizens

without being on the public payroll. So, yes, there may be some

transfers from the public to the private payroll, but they choose to

live there, as the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Messmer) said,

and they will stay there and continue to be productive citizens. They

just may not be on the public payroll.

MR. WILLIAMS :

One thing we can be sure of, if those people do stay there, if their

jobs aren't moved to Kelowna, which is the common pattern, to some

private company.... Yes, they will still be in those towns. But if they

are privatized, one thing you can be sure of is that they'll be paid

less. You bet your bottom dollar. That's what the privatization game is

all about: seeing to it that the people who work for government get

paid less.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : More.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The only people who get paid more are the fat-cat consultants down here

in Victoria working off a system of rip-off around privatization. Those

are the ones who are getting paid more.

Do you assure the

people of that region that they are going to be in those towns, that

there won't be any cutbacks in the public payroll, that they'll remain

in those towns and will have income levels like they have? No. I say

that when you get to those numbers in towns like Penticton and Grand

Forks, you're talking about a significant chunk of the local economy.

The local main street and-the small businessmen depend on those

payrolls in that town at that level. That too is threatened by your

kinds of strategies and policies. So you're threatening this area in

terms of highways, in terms of the public service payroll, in terms of

tourism and in terms of trade. That's more than a triple whammy.

You

say: "Well, there will be short-term problems." You have consistently

admitted today that there will be significant short-term problems: one

year, two years, three years. That's not short-term for people in

business; that's not short-term for people who have to pay the bank;

that's not short-term for people who have to pay a mortgage or look

after their kids.

There is a lot of disastrous fallout from

an incompetent administration, from a Mad Hatter Premier who can't

think ahead past tomorrow, if he's lucky. There's no understanding over

there of cause and effect.

Privatization of the highways

and other government activities will have a negative effect on this

region. The Coquihalla, unfortunately, will have a negative effect. The

trade deal will have a negative effect on soft fruits, and tourism will

be negatively affected. You need a major interdisciplinary team on some

scale to deal with the fallout of your policies, and you don't have it.

There

has been a gutting of the public service by you people like we have

never seen in this province. There is a threat in that region, as there

is everywhere in this province, and it's very serious. You and your

boss don't understand the implications of the gutting of the civil

service that is currently going on. The gutting has been underway; it's

hemorrhage time here in Victoria. The best brains are being lost, and

now the threat is extending into the regions. It's a very high cost

indeed.

AN HON. MEMBER : How many took early retirement?

MR. WILLIAMS :

The numbers are there in terms of early retirement. One almost despairs

at the decisions you've taken to date, in terms of unscrambling the

messy omelette you're creating in public policy. There is a major job

that a new administration is going to have, and that's just to catch up

to 1970. That's what the chore will be.

You give no

assurance today of your understanding of this region. It is not

reassuring to us and, I think, not reassuring to the people in the

southern part of the Okanagan-Boundary country.

You've got some briefing. Let's hear from the briefer.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Under standing order 61(2), "speeches in Committee of the Whole must be

strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." We are

debating vote 64, and I would ask members to consider that. Mr.

Minister, would you please continue.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I have a tremendous amount of information on projects that have gone

into the Boundary Similkameen electoral district under various

ministries. For

[ Page 3873 ]

the

sake of the record, I would like to read some of them. But before I do

I just want to again say that the member dwells on the negative effects

of the Coquihalla Highway without ever mentioning that there might be a

positive effect from that highway. He's always on the negative: this is

going to be doom and gloom, and if we privatize some highway

maintenance, that's going to be terrible. He makes the assumption that

they are all going to be paid less and that they are going to move to

Kelowna. That is not going to happen. The people will continue to live

there.

He talks about a nice buzzword: a major

interdisciplinary team. To do what? I'll tell you: to put more

government employees into Penticton or Grand Forks. "Let's hire some

more government employees." That's what I hear from that member; that's

going to solve all of the problems up there. Let's hire some more

government employees and shift them out to the various regions that may

be experiencing some difficulties.

Just to give you a bit

of a

summary of some of the activity that has gone on in

Boundary-Similkameen between April 1, 1987, and January 28, 1988, in

Advanced Education and Job Training, the JobTrac program put $911,923

into that riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : In Kelowna. He talks about the whole region.

Okanagan

College, with campuses in Oliver, Osoyoos and Keremeos: $18,560,286.

Let me go on here: Agriculture and Fisheries — land development

assistance, ALDA program, $1,882,414; Economic Development — business

loans alone, $9,545,024. It goes on and on. The school districts in

Grand Forks, Kettle Valley, Southern Okanagan - a total of $12 million

or $13 million. And the list goes on and on.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Just

to point out to that member that we do not ignore that riding of

Boundary-Similkameen, there are pages and pages of projects and

assistance and joint ventures that have gone into Boundary-Similkameen.

So I just want the record to show that most of what we hear from that

side is rhetoric about what a disaster this will be and what a disaster

that will be.

For example, here's a figure the member

failed to mention. He mentions that there are 371 government employees

in Penticton, but he doesn't mention that in Kelowna, the town that he

thinks receives favoured treatment, there are only 360 government

employees. So there are fewer than in Penticton. Here he has been

saying: "Oh, Kelowna gets everything. Everyone's going to move to

Kelowna." I just want the record to show that there are more government

employees in Penticton than there are in Kelowna.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I just wondered if the minister has concerned himself at all about the

spray tax that will impact people in the Okanagan Valley.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Yes, there's no question; you are correct that such a tax will impact

greatly in the Okanagan. It's a subject that's under discussion. I've

discussed it with the ministers involved, and so has the member from

Boundary-Similkameen, as late as today. So it's a topic that is under

discussion.

MR. WILLIAMS : Well, you know, it's going

to have a $1 million impact on the industry, Mr. Minister, in that

region. It's just another indication of a thoughtless government that

is not recognizing the severe problems that industry and that region

are going through at the moment. It's a $300,000 tab in that subregion

alone. It's very significant. It's a kick in the pants to people who

have had a tough time, and will have a continuing tough time because of

the lack of policy and preparation by you as the minister of state.

Isn't

that a high-sounding name? We've never heard the likes of it in B.C.:

minister of state for the great region of the Thompson and the

Okanagan. Yet what's there? It's like a stage setting of phony houses

along the street. You open the doors and there's nothing there; you see

out into the countryside. It's a movie set.

I think I'm

satisfied that I've canvassed enough specific items of importance to

that region to show that the homework has not been done, that the

minister does not understand the region, that he's not dealt with the

major problems facing it. It's abundantly clear that his deputy mayor,

or whatever you call the Grand Pooh-Bah, has little more of a clue

himself, is wringing his hands, is satisfied with making submissions

and is getting no action.

It's abundantly clear that this

thing isn't going to work. It's too bad. There's a need for some

genuine regionalization in this province. But if you took it seriously,

you wouldn't do it this way. If you took it seriously, you'd have some

answers and we haven't had any today.

[4:30]

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I can't let that kind of rhetoric pass without making a comment or two on it. It's very easy....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Oh yes, and I'll prolong it just as long as necessary, Mr. Member.

It's

very easy for the member to get up and say there's nothing there.

That's rhetoric. He hasn't been paying attention and he hasn't listened

to a lot of the answers. If he wants more than is here, I'll be happy

to provide it to him. We have all the information that he seeks. Any of

the numbers that he wants are easily available to him.

talks about addressing specific items. That's exactly what we're doing

in the region, addressing specific items. We've made it a number one

priority. The planning process is very important to us as well, but we

have made the specific items and some of the entrepreneurs that we've

dealt with our number one priority because of the need for jobs in that

whole area. We are dealing with the problems of the area, Mr. Member.

I'm

pleased to hear you say that there is a need for regionalization in the

province. Finally someone over there realized that there is a need for

it if we take it seriously, and I can tell you we do take it very

seriously. I'm sure that as the next few weeks and months unfold, you

will start to see more and more of the results and you will realize

just how seriously we do take it.

MR. BLENCOE : I

think for six months we have been trying to get details of how this

minister of state system is going to work, and this minister has had

six months to come up with the information. We have been contending

that this

[ Page 3874 ]

whole

system really has another objective at stake, and I think the minister

has answered and put in place the fact that we were correct. He is not

prepared today. He didn't know the answers about the system he's

supposedly got in place.

It's clear, therefore, there is

another objective with this process. He can't answer some basic facts

about his region. Six months and a stack of money from the taxpayers

and we're still not getting the answers. It's quite obvious this

so-called Social Credit decentralization has absolutely nothing to do

with real decentralization. Real decentralization is about devolving

power, decision-making, to the local level, not umpteen committees that

rove the region having little meetings and reporting back to bigger

meetings - and then we don't know where all those decisions go. Real

decentralization is letting local governments make the decisions in

their regions, giving them the policies and the legislation to make the

decisions to carry out economic development. It's quite evident today,

through the answers of this minister, that they don't have anything

except a bunch of committees that are supposedly meeting, that have a

bunch of money, and that we have no criteria for as to how those

decisions are to be made — none at all. Not once has this minister or

any of these ministers of state in six months been able to provide this

House or the people of British Columbia.

I was talking a

few minutes ago about all these committees, these 25 committees that

are going to meet and continue to meet and then have larger meetings.

Now, talking about seed capital, I've come across another committee —

after 25 more committees.

MR. SIHOTA : More bureaucracy.

MR. BLENCOE :

More bureaucracy. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) has drafted extensive plans, vis--vis the seed capital fund,

for how the allocation of these funds is to be carried out in the

region. But the minister, of course, hasn't got them with him today. It

will require another committee separate and apart from the other 25

committees to put it together, and we're told we'll have those details

in the mail from the ministry very shortly. That's what we're told:

shortly.

How many months, how much money has to be spent,

how many more committees? You've got local government. You've got the

leaders of industry saying: "Who do we talk to? Why so much confusion?

What are the criteria?" It is a joke. Unfortunately, it's a sad joke,

because taxpayers' money is being wasted, economic development in the

province and the regions is being slowed down to a standstill. How can

you possibly make decisions with committees of 300, 400 — 25 committees

— and no answers when we do the investigation of how the final decision

will be made?

I listed today the process for these poor

small businesses that have got to go through this process. They now

have to go through not only the Minister of Economic Development,

because she is going to have the final say, but four other components

to the process for getting help from this government that we never had

before in British Columbia. It was never there, so why do we have it?

Today

we got no answers in terms of details of this great regionalization;

the minister didn't have any information. So what's it all for? What's

the objective? Well, I think those who have been saying that we've got

a political con game are absolutely correct. It's a power grab of

enormity by this government, this Premier and these eight ministers to

control the objectives of local government. That's all it is. And, Mr.

Chairman, I now discover another committee that will report on how

these funds are to be carried out, when we've already got an incredible

bureaucracy that is going to deal with these small businesses. What a

way to run the province of British Columbia!

If you want to

streamline government, it's simple. Local government for the last five

years — and I am aware of this — has been putting the plans together

through its local councils, its regions and its economic development

commissions. They're there, they're developed locally, they're

developed — quite different from this government — democratically by

elected officials, not appointed people of the minister of state that

the minister of state thinks are appropriate for the political

objectives of the region. They say this is "more democracy at the local

level." It's got nothing to with democracy. It's got everything to do

with controlling the objectives and, of course, slowing down economic

development to a standstill in the province of British Columbia.

What

have we got in terms of the staff? The minister one of these days will

answer how many employees he has. I'd like to know that. But, for

instance, let's take a look at the immediate people involved with the

minister of state: parliamentary secretaries, policy advisers, regional

development officers, regional development liaison officers, project

officers, advisory groups, resource teams. Good Lord!

the province of British Columbia we've had local councils, local

government and local regions drawing up the inventories, the resources

and the population projections and where economic development can go.

They're elected to know those regions best. I say, and we on this side

of the House say: trust local government. You don't need a concocted,

phony system developed in the Poole room with the Premier to control

local government. And you certainly don't need, as I've outlined today,

25-minimum committees — 26 now; we just got a briefing note. They're

going to meet from now until Christmas, and when we ask today, "Who's

going to make the final decision, and which people will come together?"

we hear: "Well, we're studying that, and we may have to have another

committee to make that decision."

We'll stand by; we'll

wait to get the decisions on that. Maybe the minister will have some

answers for us. Heaven forbid, Mr. Chairman, he's had six months. He's

had a million dollars in his back pocket and now he's got I don't know

how much more — $2 million minimum, plus $649,000. He admits he has

only spent $110,000 of the first million dollars, and I'd still like to

know what the emergency was six months ago for a million dollars. But

of course, that's Social Credit management of taxpayers' dollars: "Go

to the coffers; take as much as you want; call it an emergency."

Clearly there was no emergency, because they didn't want to bring the

program and the plan to the Legislature of British Columbia. They

didn't want us to scrutinize or even see legislation that set up these

new ministers of state. By Jove, if we've ever seen a reason why we

needed legislation and clear enunciation of policy for the people of

British Columbia, and of this minister's lack of evidence and

information to show that he knows what he's doing with the taxpayers'

money, it's been today.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the

minister some direct questions. Could the minister tell us how many

employees he has in his ministry of state and explain the differences

in budgets, for instance, between his region and some of the other

regio