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, MAY 19, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4577 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4577

An Act to Establish an Institute of Aboriginal Languages for British Columbia

(Bill M205). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 4577

Oral Questions

Privatization of highways maintenance. Mr. Lovick –– 4578

Shipbuilding contracts. Mr. Sihota –– 4578

Carter-Ward case. Mr. Williams –– 4579

Agricultural aid program. Mr. Rose –– 4579

Presenting Petitions –– 4579

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

On vote 56: minister's office –– 4580

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Clark

Mr. Miller

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. D’Arcy

On vote 60: Mainland-Southwest Development Region –– 4590

Mr. Blencoe,

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the gallery today to attend the Select Standing Committee on

Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services are two members of

the Certified General Accountants' Association of British Columbia: Mr.

Fred Punko, CGA, who is past president; and Mr. D. H. Cheetham, who is

the director of professional services. I would ask the House to bid

them welcome.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery today are a group of grade 4 and 5 students from sunny Port

Edward Elementary School, with their teacher, Miss Paul, and two

parents who are accompanying the group. The community worked extremely

hard to raise the money for the group to come down here. The children

are quite excited by the trip. I'm sure Miss Paul will be glad to get

back. I ask the House to welcome them to Victoria and this chamber.

MR. LOENEN :

We have some very special friends from that great neighbour to the

south, the United States. They come to us from the eastern United

States. They are visiting Seattle for a naval reunion, and they've

decided to come up to Canada and watch us here in the House this

afternoon. They are Ken and Polly Dryburgh from Berkeley Heights, New

Jersey; Jack and Arlene Gingrich from Lebanon, Pennsylvania; Dick and

Lillian Batdorf from Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. I know the House would

like to extend a very warm welcome to them.

MR. ROSE :

I would like to introduce my constituency assistant and protector, Mrs.

Gwen Ranger, who is in the gallery and would like to have her name in Hansard .

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As the House knows full well, the government has initiated a B.C.

savings bond issue which has been going very well in rural British

Columbia. In recognition of the excellent sales being made in the

Nanaimo area, I took the liberty of inviting some Nanaimo citizens down

to celebrate their bond sales successes. I would ask the House to join

me in welcoming the presence in our midst today of Dick Winkelman, Bill

de Carteret, Bill Smith, Agnes Flett, Merv Unger, John Winia, Laverne

Kilner and Barbara Thorne. Will the House congratulate them on their

bond sales performance.

MR. PELTON : Hon. members, in

the gallery today are three very distinguished Austrian gentlemen: Dr.

Klaus Guenther, Ralph Kinhirt and Dr. Otto Wusche. With these gentlemen

are two other distinguished citizens of our country: Dr. Stewart Behie

and Mr. Victor Marco of Makin Pulp and Paper. This group of gentlemen

are involved in the construction of a $300 million pulp and paper plant

at Britannia Beach, which is in our Speaker's riding. I would ask

everyone to welcome them here.

MR. SERWA : On behalf of my colleague from Okanagan North, the Minister

of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson), I would like to introduce

to the House constituents of the minister's, Mrs. Louise McLoughlin and

her daughters Julie and Fiona from Vernon. Accompanying them are their hostesses

in Victoria, Mrs. Pat Malcolmson and her daughters Lisa and Claire. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MR. RABBITT :

It is certainly a pleasure for me to introduce a Grade 11 class

consisting of 45 students from Hope Secondary. We all know the little

town of Hope, the most beautiful little town in the Fraser Valley. With

them are teachers Don Dale and Gordon Calvert, and parents Pat

McDonald, Brenda French and Vicky DeSmoker. Would this House please

give the students and the adults accompanying them a warm welcome.

Hon.

Mr. Veitch tabled the fifty-second annual report of the business done

in pursuance of the Pension (Public Service) Act for the year ended

March 31, 1987; the 48th annual report for the business done in

pursuance of the Pension (Municipal) Act for the year ended December

31, 1986; and the 19th annual report of the business done in pursuance

of the Pension (College) Act for the year ended August 31, 1987.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE OF

ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES FOR BRITISH

COLUMBIA

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled

An Act to Establish an Institute of Aboriginal Languages for British Columbia.

MR. G. HANSON :

This bill is about the rights of native people of this province. It is

about the indigenous people of British Columbia's right to learn their

own languages with the same recognition and respect that European and

Asian languages have to their respective ethnic communities in this

province.

The great aboriginal cultures of B.C. are in many

examples facing the extinction of their languages as elders pass away.

The languages were not written and are communicated from elder to

child. Young native people are going to be denied reasonable access to

an understanding of their own heritage and culture if such an institute

continues to be ignored.

The fundamental principle

contained in this bill is that the board of directors of this institute

would be a majority of native people, to ensure that the priorities and

control of their heritage rests in their own hands. This House owes a

debt of recognition to the great aboriginal cultures of this province.

The cultural accomplishments of the Haida, the Tsimshian, the Salish,

the Athapaskan, the Kootenay, the Kwakiutl, Nootka and others are

recognized worldwide.

[2:15]

This is the seventh time this institute has been presented to this House. The time for adoption of this bill is now.

Mr. Spooker.... [Laughter.] Boy, this might even get in the paper!

Bill

M205 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

today.

[ Page 4578 ]

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE

MR. LOVICK :

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. I

have here a memo dated May 18 from the project director for highway and

bridge maintenance for the government restructuring privatization

group. The memo was sent to all Highways employees in contract area 1,

southern Island. It advises those employees of the names of the six

firms which have been invited to prepare detailed proposals for road

and bridge maintenance contracts. The memo also advises those six

companies that have indicated an interest in contracting Highways

employees...and advises those employees of the particular company's

proposed business ventures. However, the memo also states: "The name

and address of each regular employee affected by privatization in

contract area No. I has been provided to each of the firms."

My question to the minister is just this.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK : I notice some yelping from the other side. One can only hope that the bite is worse than the bark — or better than.

The

question to the minister is just this. Would he not agree that this

action on the part of his ministry constitutes a blatant invasion of

the privacy of those employees as well as harassment?

HON. MR. ROGERS : No.

MR. LOVICK : Well, certainly that's one of the clearer answers we've had from the minister.

Given

recent announcements and developments emanating from that ministry,

namely gag orders, namely firings of an individual who apparently spoke

out against these messages, will the minister assure this House that

nothing else is going to be handed out to those private firms about

those employees, namely their work records or things of that nature?

Will the minister give us that assurance? If names and addresses, what

else?

HON. MR. ROGERS : The question begs future policy.

MR. LOVICK : I'm sure we all take some comfort from that answer.

Another

question. It seems very clear to me from a reading of the existing

contract between the government of British Columbia and the B.C.

Government Employees' Union that what has taken place in that decision

to provide the names of the government employees to private contractors

is that we have two violations of the collective agreement. My question

is if indeed.... Well, I guess I should be more specific. I'm sorry,

I'm being unfair.

The first violation concerns the fact

that the BCGEU is recognized as the exclusive bargaining agent. That's

article 202 in the agreement. The second

article is 204 concerning no

other agreement. The question is whether the minister will agree with

us or will assure us that no other laws are going to be broken.

Obviously we have a contract violation here; will the minister assure

us that other laws are not also going to be broken?

HON. MR. ROGERS :

I think you're perhaps seeking a legal opinion on one issue; but on the

other issue I think you should address the question to the minister

responsible.

MR. LOVICK : Just in passing, it should be noted that I have sought legal opinion.

The

second point is the predicament we on this side of the House have when

it comes to privatization, because we're never quite sure who's in

charge. I suspect the same is true of the government; it's not sure

who's in charge either.

Another question which concerns the

motive for this action on the part of government. What is it really

about? I would ask the minister to confirm for this House whether the

real reason that government has given the names to these contractors is

just so that those contractors can then perhaps sign up 51 percent of

the affected employees, and thus get the 5 percent preferential

treatment promised by the government. In short, is this not simply a

means to make it easier for those contractors to get on with their

privatization program?

HON. MR. ROGERS : I could take

the question as notice on behalf of the minister who is responsible for

this particular action, but I can assure you that the process in place

to ensure that the employee discount is applicable only to employees

has several safeguards in it to make sure that such an undertaking as

you suggest does not occur.

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS

MR. SIHOTA :

I have a question to the Attorney-General as the senior cabinet member

from the greater Victoria area. This afternoon the minister's Tory

friends have announced that Saint John, New Brunswick, will become the

shipbuilding capital of the world. Nine out of the 12 frigate contracts

will be let to Saint John; three of the 12 will go to Quebec. It's

clear that our local Tory MPs have failed us, and it's clear that this

government has failed in terms of trying to procure more contracts for

the west coast. Why, after one year of lobbying by this provincial

government, has this government failed to secure even one of those

twelve frigate contracts?

HON. B.R. SMITH : Besides

taking that question as notice for all the Tory candidates who are

going to sweep the ridings in South Vancouver Island, which I will do,

I would remind this member that the procurement success story of this

government in Ottawa is one of the best in the country; it certainly

is. The work that we did with Versatile and the contract at Yarrows,

the work that also has been done for general defence spending in

British Columbia and the improvement and the increase, and the joint

council of federal and provincial cabinet ministers that meet on and

prioritize these matters, have proven a great deal more successful than

in the past.

But having said all that as a

preamble, we've

not had our fair share in this province in federal procurement. We've

not had our fair share in contracts. Ten percent of the population, 3

percent of the procurement; it's not good enough. That's the whole

thing that we're setting out to rectify, and we've made a darned good

start at it.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Speaker, this

government has had 30 years to try to get us our fair share of

contracts. It hasn't done that. If this minister is proud of his

government's record, he should talk to the shipyard workers in my

riding. We've gone

[ Page

4579 ]

from a high of 1,400 people working there to a low of about 150 people working

there now. If that's the type of record this government is proud of, I say

shame on that government!

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Would the member please get to his question?

MR. SIHOTA :

My question to the minister is this: what can the minister offer today

to those shipyard workers, with respect to giving them some hope that

there will be shipyard work here in Esquimalt within the next year?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear!

HON. B.R. SMITH :

Those questions smell of camera mascara, Mr. Speaker. I take the

member's thrust as this: when it comes time to announce that we have a

joint venture purchaser of our two ships that run between here and

Seattle — which are going to increase and almost triple the capacity of

what we're going to carry in this triangle run — you will support that,

and you will support the guarantees that work and fittings will be done

in Victoria yards and that the jobs will stay here in Victoria, and you

won't hide behind the usual party rhetoric that it's bad to dispose of

these in any way to the private sector. I know you'll support us.

CARTER-WARD CASE

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Minister of Finance. Clayton Powell, one of the lawyers in the

Carter-Ward case, suggested to the former superintendent of brokers,

Rupert Bullock, that Carter and Ward were up to their eyeballs, and so

was Mr. Peter Brown. Is that the way you read it? "It appears to be,"

said Mr. Bullock. Can the minister explain why for three years the

Vancouver Stock Exchange did not investigate this scam, despite its

knowledge of it?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I'm delighted

to have the opportunity to tell the House once more about how the

situation today is so radically different from the situation which

prevailed during the time that the Carter-Ward affair unfolded.

First

of all, I'll remind the House that we have increased staff by about 60

percent since those days at the Securities Commission itself.

Furthermore, we have increased funding dramatically at the Securities

Commission, which has resulted in a far higher capacity for us to

ensure that we minimize any opportunities for that kind of an event to

take place again. That's not to say that we might not have future

situations, as does every stock exchange in the world, hon. member.

Vancouver is not unique in having some embarrassments.

But

I say categorically that the record of this government in and its

commitment to ensuring the Vancouver Stock Exchange operates in a way

that enhances the reputation and profile of Vancouver as an

international financial centre is beyond question. There should be no

confusion in the minds of anyone in this House about the very serious

view the government takes of the operating style of the exchange. There

should be no questioning of our degree of commitment or integrity in

reaching, to the best of our ability, for a situation in which these

kinds of events might never occur again.

Furthermore, may I close my comment by reminding the House that by virtue of

these changes we've brought about and by virtue of a closer relationship

with the Vancouver Stock Exchange board of governors, we now have in place a

degree of cooperation and coordination which heretofore has been largely missing.

There are joint responsibilities in terms of monitoring the operation of the

stock exchange, and I think that bodes well for the future of the stock exchange.

I feel very comfortable about the progress that has been made and the prospects

for future progress.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the Attorney-General. Peter Brown's company — that's the bagman for

the Social Credit Party — made $470,000 out of these fraudulent gains

that Judge Southin just made a decision on. The other big fish go

uninvestigated, unpunished. Is there a two-tiered system of law in this

province? Can the Attorney-General explain why no criminal charges have

been laid in B.C., and why no action has been taken for Securities Act

violations, when

section 68 and

section 45 in the previous statute were

clearly violated?

[2:30]

HON. B.R. SMITH :

I'm advised there is a court case in Toronto that touches on this

matter. Also, the Securities Commission is looking at the matter

generally. I just want to say to the member that it ill behooves

him...comments of a general nature about Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown served

this province loyally and well in his capacity with Expo, and also

loyally and well in the B.C. Enterprise Corporation before his

retirement and as the chairman of the board of UBC. He is a good

British Columbian. I don't think broad-brush comments like that befit

this House.

AGRICULTURAL AID PROGRAM

MR. ROSE :

Mine is a gentler question to the Minister of Agriculture. For almost

20 years now B.C. has provided an agricultural aid program to

developing countries in the Third World to relieve suffering. When it

was announced, then Premier W.A.C. Bennett said: "The people of British

Columbia have a moral responsibility to help people in less fortunate

areas." I think I might have time for only one question, so I'll ask

you two of them at once. First, what policy considerations led the

government to abandon this moral responsibility and wipe out the

program? My supplementary: is the minister prepared to arrange for a

supplementary estimate to continue this small but important program?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The policy decision was made in the past. As to what we'll do with it,

I cannot comment until I meet with the group tomorrow. I'm meeting

with, I believe, 24 organizations, so I will comment after that.

MR. ROSE :

On a point of order, I'd just like to say that it's sometimes very

difficult for us to ask appropriate questions with so many ministers

away. We're grateful for the fact that we get a list of them, but the

list seems to be growing. I wonder if I could register that as a little

caveat to see if we can't do something about this in future.

Presenting Petitions

MR. JONES : I ask leave to present a petition, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 4580 ]

MR. JONES :

This petition is presented to the government in order to assist the

government in reconsidering the per them increases for seniors in

long-term care. I'm sure the 264 names on this petition will be added

to the thousands already received by the government expressing the

strong feelings of our senior citizens on this matter.

The

petitioners reside primarily at 3755 McGill Street, the Seton Villa

Retirement Centre, and virtually every resident in that centre signed

the petition stating that: "Whereas the senior citizens of B.C. have

worked hard to make this province the great province that it is, and

whereas all retired persons should be allowed to live in comfort and

enjoy the fruit of their, working life without the worry and stress of

financial pressures...."

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the government will pay serious attention to the concerns expressed by the petitioners.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL

SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

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

MR. GABELMANN :

I want to take a couple of minutes of the House's time this afternoon

on an issue which, frankly, is not a great matter of state, not an

issue that will bring the government down, but a symbolic issue of some

importance. If I could get a Page to come to my desk, I will have

delivered a couple of copies of my legislative letterhead for the

Provincial Secretary to have a look at while I make the point that I

would like to make.

You are not to look at the photograph,

Mr. Provincial Secretary. I wonder if you would be kind enough to hold

the letterhead up to the light and read the embossment. It reads,

"Domtar krypton parchment, 100 percent cotton" — in British Columbia,

where we have the finest paper mills in the world.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN :

We make it in Canada now. The minister responsible for privatization,

the former Liberal cabinet minister who did so much to screw this

country up, says that it will be fine when we have free trade. This

particular paper, in fact, in many instances is made at rag mills in

Canada — not in British Columbia, mind you, but in eastern Canada; in

Ontario in some cases.

As I stated initially, it is not an earth-shattering issue, but it is a concern,

particularly of constituents of mine, in a riding in which we have a world-class

paper mill and a second paper mill under construction. We do make paper in this

province of a quality sufficient for legislative purposes. Why is it that we

have to type our letters on material that is not even paper in the traditional

sense of the word, but is rather a cotton product, a cloth? I would suggest

to the minister that he should have some discussions with the people at the

Queen's Printer with a view to seeing that some fine British Columbia paper

is used by MLAs in this Legislature.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm beginning to cotton on to what the member was speaking of. But I

must say that I was looking at the photograph here, and the cotton sort

of corresponds with the polyester in the jacket that you are wearing.

You must have gotten taller also, hon. member. I notice that you have

grown up through your hair slightly since this picture was taken.

We'll

certainly look at this, and I'll have a talk with the Queen's Printer

and see if we can't get some good British Columbia paper from the

wonderful pulp mills that are being built in British Columbia as a

result of the great work that this government is doing.

MR. CLARK : I want to ask the Provincial Secretary a couple of questions about the agent-general in London.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

Yes, it is, Mr. Minister. I have here an order-in-council dated January

13, 1988, that says: "Garde B. Gardom, QC, is appointed for a term of

five years to act as agent-general for British Columbia, terms and

conditions set out in the agreement between the province of British

Columbia and Garde B. Gardom, QC, deposited with the Provincial

Secretary."

When I look back and I look at the previous

order-in-council, No. 2348, which appoints a Mr. Alexander Hart. I note

that Mr. Hart's salary is $41,500, and it is listed in the

orders-in-council. Every previous agent-general's salary has been

listed in the orders-in-council, yet for this one there is no salary

listed; rather we have a contract deposited with the Provincial

Secretary.

I ask the minister several questions. First of

all, why did the government decide to change the long-standing practice

of listing the salary of the agent-general in London and to do it by

way of a contract which we have not seen the numbers for? Why has there

been a change in the way in which this is listed?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member is slightly confused in this area. The contracts have

to be filed with the Provincial Secretary, who is a repository for

those types of contracts, but the order is the responsibility of the

Ministry of Economic Development. I am afraid you would have to ask the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and I am sure

you will have the opportunity to do that in question period or at some

other time.

The contract is merely on file with us for

safekeeping, as are all orders-in-council. That's our only attachment

to that particular contract. I can't offer you any advice beyond that.

MR. CLARK :

I have looked through the orders-in-council of the previous

agents-general in London. They don't have any contract filed, and their

salary is public information. I ask the minister, who has the contract,

to tell the House how much Mr. Garde Gardom makes as the agent-general

in London.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I will once again

explain to the hon. second member for Vancouver East that I will answer

any questions pertaining to the responsibilities of the Minis-

[ Page 4581 ]

try

of Provincial Secretary and Government Services or indeed of the

minister of state for that wonderful region known as region 2. This

responsibility lies with the Ministry of Economic Development, and I am

sure that if the hon. member wishes, he can ask that particular

minister. It is not my responsibility. We are there as guardians of

contracts, as a repository for contracts, and if you wish information

pertaining to that, you will have to ask the minister responsible.

MR. CLARK :

This appears to be a devious attempt to not publish the salary of the

new agent-general in London. It appears to me that there has been a

radical increase in that salary, and the minister has the contract. I

ask him to table in this House the contract between the agent-general,

Mr. Gardom, and the government of British Columbia. No other

agent-general has ever been paid by a contract; they have all been paid

by order-in-council. It should be public information, and we should

know how much we are paying the new agent-general. There should not be

an attempt to circumvent public scrutiny by making a special sweetheart

arrangement with a former Social Credit cabinet minister and then

depositing it with the Provincial Secretary.

I am sure that

if I asked the Economic Development minister, she would say: "It's not

my responsibility. I have deposited it with the Provincial Secretary,

and those documents and details are with him." So I ask the minister to

table in this House — what has he got to hide? — the salary and all the

perks that are paid to the former Socred cabinet minister, Mr. Garde

Gardom. It is public information, and we have a right to know — both

this House and the public of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Talk about circumvention! I am trying to explain to the hon. member....

I am sure he is aware that we are dealing with the estimates of the

Provincial Secretary. You dealt quite extensively with the estimates of

my colleague the hon. Minister of Economic Development. The estimated

funds to pay for any contract that anyone may have relative to B.C.

House in London or to the agent-general are under the administration of

that minister. It would be completely and absolutely inappropriate for

me to comment on items that fall within that person's jurisdiction.

realize that the hon. member is new to the House, but I am trying to

kindly explain to him that we are merely the repository for contracts,

as we are the repository for orders-in-council and other things. If you

will check the estimates book, the responsibility clearly lies with the

Minister of Economic Development, and you're going to have to take your

chances with her, hon. member.

MR. CLARK : The

contract is deposited, and as the minister said, he is the guardian of

that contract. It is certainly within his purview to table it in this

House, as I requested.

I want to make one further comment.

The minister said: "It's the Economic Development ministry; that's who

pays the funds." I looked at 1986-87, and I find that Mr. Hart was paid

$31,875 by the Intergovernmental Relations budget and $9,563 by the

Economic Development ministry budget; so it is shared.

[2:45]

The

fact of the matter is that even though they were paid by different

ministries last year, it is not acceptable to say it's someone else's

responsibility. You have the contract; you said you're the guardian of

the contract. It's a simple matter.

Unless it's a dramatic

increase in salary, unless there's some skullduggery going on here, or

favouritism to friends of the Government again. I don't understand why

the minister will not table that contract in this House. Once again I

ask him to table the contract of Mr. Garde Gardom.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member cites the example Of Mr. Hart, then agent-general in

London, being paid from two different ministries. The reason is very

straightforward: the responsibilities for that particular entity

changed during the year; therefore the payments were made from two

different ministries. In November '86 the responsibility changed from

one ministry to the other. I'm not going to encroach upon some other

minister's jurisdiction.

MR. CLARK : You've got the contract; he doesn't.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The contract is there, and if you wish to deal with it, deal with it

through the minister responsible. I'm sure that person will be here

next week. The minister responsible is the Minister of Economic

Development, hon. member, and I'm afraid I can't elaborate any further

on it.

MR. CLARK : What are you hiding?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm not hiding anything. I'm merely telling you that you should follow

due process and deal with the Minister of Economic Development. That's

the person who's responsible for the agent-general in London, not the

Provincial Secretary.

MR. MILLER : I'm new to the House too, and I'm just seeking a

little information. Perhaps the minister can enlighten me and the House with

respect to the lottery grant situation — the process that is laid down in terms

of people making application to the lotteries branch, of that being considered

and a decision made, favourably or unfavourably, and of notice being sent out.

I wonder if the minister can sort of go through that quickly and describe the

process as he understands it.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

Applications for lottery grants are received in a variety of ways.

Sometimes they're sent out by members of the Legislative Assembly.

Other times two constituents request them. Most times they're requested

directly by a person seeking a grant for some particular reason.

They're sent to me ostensibly, but they go right through to the

lotteries branch. They're assessed at the lottery grants branch.

Sometimes we'll look one over two or three times, and a lot of phone

calls will go back and forth trying to accommodate the individual if at

all possible. Sometimes the grants don't quite fit the criteria, so we

will try to help out. An awful lot of time is spent phoning these

individuals and trying to work them out. Then the decision or

recommendation is brought to me, as the Provincial Secretary, and it is

either accepted or rejected at that point.

MR. MILLER : How are they notified?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Usually they're notified by letter through the mail that they are either accepted or rejected.

MR. MILLER : I understand that politics obviously are played. I don't totally object to politics — after all, I'm in the

[ Page 4582 ]

game

— but in the case of applications that are accepted from ridings

represented by a member on the government side, a joint notification

goes out from the minister and the particular member for that

constituency; in the case of tidings represented by this side of the

House, the notification generally goes out straight from your office.

wonder if the minister could advise me why, in a particular instance in

Prince Rupert, the notification to a successful group was sent from

your office to the president of the Social Credit constituency

association in Prince Rupert. That person in turn notified the

applicant by telephone that they had been successful. I wonder if the

minister could explain why that took place and comment on the propriety

of allowing non-elected people who have no function in government to be

given the status, if you like — call it what you will — of being used

as a conduit in terms of advising groups that they have been successful

in applying for lottery grants.

HON. MR. VEITCH : The

fact that someone may be a member of apolitical organization matters

not in this particular instance. As I remember the instance, the

individual phoned me in an advocacy role for the particular

organization that was requesting the grant. If someone writes me a

letter in an advocacy role, we normally tell them that the grant has

indeed been successful. Sometimes it's a mayor, sometimes it's an

alderman — whoever it happens to be. The fact it happened to be a

president of a constituency association — I can't even remember the

name — doesn't matter all that much.

It's not an attempt to

circumvent you. If you want to send me over your letterheads, and send

me over some letters, I'll enclose those letters with the cheque that

goes out for any grant in your area. I don't mind doing that. You have

to get on the ball, though, and send some letterheads over to me -send

some letters over to the individuals.

MR. MILLER :

I'd be quite happy to correspond with the Provincial Secretary. Right

now we're communicating orally, and we're trying to get to the bottom

of this particular instance. In this particular instance, the applicant

— it was a rather modest grant in the first place — did not go through

my office, and I pursued that. Neither did the applicant go through the

president of the Social Credit constituency association.

What

troubles me is that the official notification to this group that they

had been successful was sent to a politico who was not involved in the

process, except perhaps, as the minister says, by telephone. The

official notification was sent to this person, who in fact sat on the

letter to this group. They didn't get it until a week and a half or two

weeks later.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Was it wrinkled?

MR. MILLER : It probably was.

I'm

wondering if the minister feels that's the proper thing to do — to

advise his political party in a particular constituency and to have

them act as a conduit for messages to people about their success in

applying for lottery grants. Does the minister think that's a good

thing to do?

HON. MR. VEITCH : I'll explain again to

the hon. member that the individual acted as an individual, as a

citizen of the Prince Rupert area and as an advocate. He took the time

— I'm sure he's busy, whatever business he's in; I'm sure he's a very

busy type of person — and showed an interest in it. I guess the least

we can do is be courteous about these things, and show an interest in

someone who shows an interest in someone else. If you show an interest,

I'll send you a letter. But you didn't do it this time. Maybe another

time you will.

MR. MILLER : I just want it clarified

so that I understand, being a new member, how the system works to the

minister. So anybody who acts in an advocacy role, who happens to phone

on behalf of a group that may have made an application for a lottery

grant, will then be the person you send the notification to, so that he

in turn can notify the people who made the application. Is that what

the minister is saying? That's what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we proceed, hon. members, the member for Yale-Lillooet

asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. RABBITT :

Thank you, colleagues. I hate to interrupt such a heart-warming debate,

but with us we have the other half of a social studies class that was

here at 2 o'clock. They have with them their teacher, Mr. Dale, and

it's the grade 11 class from Hope Secondary. I would ask the members of

this House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

To the hon. member for Prince Rupert, who has no intention of joining

the Tory ranks like the previous member from there.... Do you?

MR. MILLER : Why get on a sinking ship.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Who's Tory now?

Not

all letters go out with advocates' letters or notes attached to them,

but sometimes they do. If you want to send me a letter as an advocate,

and if the applicant is successful, I'll forward your letter right

along with mine, even mention you in dispatches. I would never play

politics, not in this place, never. I'd be pleased to accommodate the

hon. member if he's worried about getting his name on it. But you're

going to have to send me those letters — keep those cards and letters

rolling, and I'll send them along with it.

MR. MILLER :

I appreciate the joviality of the Provincial Secretary in responding to

these issues. But again, I have to go back. It's not through concern

for myself. I happen to know the individual in question. It's not a

political matter in that sense, as far as I'm concerned. I just want to

be clear about the process you have put in place. You said that you

sent the letter from your office to the president of the Social Credit

constituency association in Prince Rupert, so that she in turn could

advise the group that they had been successful in their application for

a lottery grant. You said you did that on the basis that this person

played an advocacy role and that's part of the procedure. I assume that

it's part of the procedure. I ask you: if someone else played that

advocacy role, whoever it might be, whether it was me or the mayor or

whoever — and I want to get this clear — then that person would in turn

be sent the official notification and it would be their responsibility

to notify the group who was successful.

I don't know whether the minister's confused or whether he's confusing me, but there seems to be some confusion on

[ Page 4583 ]

the minister's part as to the actual structure of the system that is in place to handle this minor administrative matter.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

You're quite right, it is a minor administrative matter and I'm sure we

won't feel the earth shake as a result of it. If the mayor of your

community or the mayor of my community said, "Look, I'm advocating for

whatever, and if it's successful, could you drop me a note on it," I

would do that.

MR. MILLER : They would be the person who notifies?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

No, not necessarily the person to notify. I wasn't even aware in this

particular case that that happened; I thought they both got letters.

But we would certainly inform your mayor and we would certainly inform

you, if you asked to be informed, about the letter. But you have to ask

first, and thou shalt be given — generally, sometimes, maybe.

MR. MILLER : I think I understand now.

HON. MR. VEITCH : You understand now.

MRS. BOONE :

I guess I understand a little more too, because I was just going to

ask. I've written a fair number of letters to the minister as an

advocate for my constituents requesting....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

Yes, but I've never been made aware whether or not they have received

the lottery money or not. In fact, I didn't ask. So one has to

specifically ask: "Please advise me. I am writing to you and I am

requesting some assistance on behalf of somebody; therefore would you

please advise me if they get it." If we don't specifically ask that,

then you are assuming that we don't want to know; is this what the

situation is?

I have been told by various groups that they

have received their grant. I've phoned and asked them if they've got

their grant and they've said yes. But I have never once received any

kind of indication, not even a copy of a letter from the minister,

indicating that a certain group had received a grant.

Now

surely, if you can do that for the president of the Social Credit

constituency in Rupert, then you ought to do that as a common courtesy

for your colleagues here in the House. Do you not feel that that would

be a simple matter to do, and can we not get a confirmation from you

that it will become policy that you will do this, not maybe, sometimes,

perhaps, but that you will do this on a common courtesy basis, Mr.

Minister?

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH :

If the hon. member for Prince George North asks me to inform her about

the progress of a particular application, I'd be pleased to do that. I

don't remember you doing that to date. I can't read your mind, hon.

member. I would suggest that probably your first bet, rather than....

Well, if you want to you can phone the applicant and ask them if they

received the grant, or you can phone the lottery branch or you can

phone my office and we'll let you know as to the progress. We'd be

pleased to do that at any time, but you have to ask me. I don't know

how much mail you want. I don't want to start a letter-writing campaign

with you or anything like that. Just let me know and I'll inform you.

MRS. BOONE : This really is a little silly here. I mean, all we're asking is for common courtesy.

I write to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) regarding something

and he responds to a particular person, or if I write on their behalf

and he writes me back or carbons me in on his reply to the person, all

we are asking is that the lottery do the same as a genuine common

courtesy. When you see an MLA has written to you — and an MLA obviously

must be concerned if they're going to take the time to sit down and

write a letter to you in support of something — then surely it would be

a common courtesy to carbon them in on a copy that says this person has

received a grant, or what have you. We're not asking for a special

letter. We're not asking for anything like that, just a carbon copy.

I'd be satisfied with that, just to know that the people I've been

working for are being serviced.

I would just like to ask

you a few questions with regards to the lotteries, now that we're on to

this. The government is transferring $124 million to the BS fund from

lottery funds....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE :

Not $125? Well, AIDS support groups such as AIDS Vancouver and AIDS

Vancouver Island are receiving absolutely no support from the

provincial government in an), way. Are the AIDS support groups and

hospices, etc., eligible for grants from the lottery funds?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

We don't normally fund any groups for ongoing operational costs, hon.

member. I guess that's what they'd require funding for. We do fund

specific grants for operational things: we give some money to the PNE

and other areas like that. But in our normal grants process, it's not

part of the criteria to fund for operating grants. If they wanted an

equipment grant or something like that, their application would be

received the same as anyone else's. I don't know if we've received any

applications from them or not; I don't remember any. But AIDS or anyone

else wouldn't receive money for operating grants — not normally.

MRS. BOONE :

Perhaps I'm mistaken on this; maybe the minister can correct me if I'm

wrong. I thought the legislation gave the Provincial Secretary the

power to make grants for any purpose that he considers to be in the

public interest. You have made a grant to the Ministry of Health for

research, as you consider that to be in the public interest. Obviously

that is going to be used as an operating grant for that area. They're

not just going to be purchasing equipment with that, I would assume;

they're going to be paying salaries, etc. Surely if you deemed it to be

in the public interest to supply moneys.... If this group is offering a

good service and if they made application to you, would it not be

within your power to give them a grant based on that special interest?

HON. MR. VEITCH :

We've established criteria as to how these grants are handled. I'd be

pleased to send the hon. member a copy of the criteria, if you don't

already have it. There are certain groups, like the health research

group and so forth, which is really a government agency.... I serve

[ Page 4584 ]

the vice-chairman and the Minister of Health serves as the chairman. We

fund other groups — the Summer Games, for instance — out of the

lotteries as policy. But it has not been the policy for community

grants to go for operating purposes to anyone, unless it's a very

special set of circumstances. We'd have to change the criteria in order

to do that.

Again, I really don't think we'd be able to

keep tip with the amount of money we would require for ongoing

operating costs. I'd rather see lottery grants used for one-time-only

situations — travel within the province for young people, or something

of that nature — than to dip into the general revenue side of it and

increase the expectations. I don't think you'd ever get enough money

out of lotteries to fulfill all the expectations out there, as a

general rule, for operating grants. That's why, as a general rule, we

don't it.

Specifically, we do it for the Health Care

Research Foundation and others — and, of course, the B.C. Summer and

Winter Games and areas like that. But beyond that, we don't. So if

they're looking for operating grants, I'd say the answer would be

probably not. But if they're looking for money for a worthwhile

equipment project or something like that, we'd certainly take a harder

look.

MRS. BOONE : Once again, it seems similar to

the dilemma we were in over requesting letters. You say you've got

criteria. However, those criteria can be ignored when you're dealing

with the Summer Games or some of the other special areas. There are

those of us who might think that providing funding for an AIDS group

which is a very serious problem right now, might be a special concern

that ought to be considered by the minister; that it's not just

something that should be thought of as a one-shot deal; that it's not

something that can even be considered with everything else. This is a

very serious problem, and these groups are providing a very good

service. Yet there's no funding coming from anywhere in government to

assist these groups.

Surely if the minister received a

proposition for a lottery grant that he deemed to be very worthwhile

and in the public's best interest, he has the right, as you have said

you do for other worthwhile projects, to make special considerations.

You've already decided to put some money into the BS fund. That's

certainly not meeting the criteria that have been established for

communities. What makes something becomes a special project for the

minister?

HON. MR. VEITCH : The budget stabilization

fund is part of the budgetary process. That has been done by statute

here in the House, and indeed has passed through this committee. I

really don't want to open up the floodgates for requests for grants for

operating funds. I would not be able to honour them if we did.

Again,

I'll point out to you that if the AIDS group or any other worthy

organization wishes a grant for something that falls within the

criteria, I'd be pleased to send them copies of the criteria, as I'm

pleased to send you copies of the criteria. I established them when I

became Provincial Secretary, in consultation with other members of

government, and it's working pretty well. I don't want to change that

right now, and I don't want to open up the floodgates with respect to

requests for grant money for operating costs. But if they want it for

something else, as I said, I'd be very pleased — I'd be honoured — to

look at their request.

MR. BLENCOE : I want to

canvass a number of things this afternoon, but first I want to conclude

our debate of this morning on St. Ann's Academy. I was very pleased

that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) decided to get himself into

the debate, and I'm very pleased — I just want to make sure that I

heard correctly this morning — that the Provincial Secretary said that

if the Provincial Capital Commission or the minister responsible, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), made application to

him for lottery funds, he would certainly look at that application;

he'd consider that application. Because thus far that obviously hasn't

been considered.

I did meet with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs on that very issue, trying to seek, obviously with a first

priority on general revenue funds, for St. Ann's.... But now, out of

frustration, of course, I go to the minister responsible for lotteries

to see if there's any way this government, at the last moment, before

this beautiful site is turned into a tourist trap.... As far as I'm

concerned, there might be some allocation of dollars for St. Ann's.

to conclude that part of my discussion, Mr. Chairman, the minister is

on record as saying that he would consider an application. I'm

certainly pleased to hear that. Hopefully the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and the Provincial Capital Commission will read Hansard and the

Blues, and maybe there'll be some consultation. I hope the Social

Credit members for this region would also be behind that move to find

some funds for St. Ann's, so we can maximize our options for that

national historic site.

I want to leave that and move on to

another issue. In many ways I'm sort of putting on my Municipal Affairs

critic's hat and speaking on behalf of local government, particularly

those areas that are experiencing substantial growth.

MRS. GRAN : How can you do that?

MR. BLENCOE : I'm going to do that vis--vis lotteries and money available for community grants, my concern being that....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE : I have the authority of the people of Victoria, who sent me here to represent them.

MRS. GRAN : All of them?

MR. BLENCOE :

Sixty percent, Madam Member. But, Mr. Chairman — through you to that

member for Langley — we do our utmost to represent all of our

constituents in Victoria, regardless of the party they support.

I'm

concerned, Mr. Chairman, that $79 million or thereabouts has been

reallocated from the estimate, reallocated from lottery money that

could go into various communities in the province, and put into the

budget stabilization fund — this rainy-day account that's been created;

this "now you see it, now you don't" rainy-day account.

It's

most unfortunate that there is actually more money going to the BS fund

than there is to community grants and funds for communities in

desperate need of expansion of services. I particularly request that

the minister take a look at those municipalities that are experiencing

substantial growth. The pressure on community facilities like playing

fields.... They are stretched to the limit. There are municipalities

like south Surrey, where I'm told there are now 600 children per

playing-field and where at evening soccer practices

[ Page 4585 ]

there

are four teams designated per playing-field. I understand that this

summer in many of these growth areas like Surrey, kids just can't get

playing-fields. There aren't enough of them — Little League and that

sort of stuff.

When I see the crass politics of $79 million

going to the BS fund, and we've got young children in these growth

areas who can't get to playing-fields — the coaches are frustrated, the

parents are frustrated — and when I see places like Matsqui and

Abbotsford, where there are only about four fields with lights for

winter, for playing, for kids to get out and participate.... In

Aldergrove, only one field with lights; I understand that even in the

area of the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), a growth area, they

have all sorts of problems of inadequate facilities for young people.

They are turning kids away from playing fields. Then I see the crass

politics, the political games being played with an estimated $79

million that is going to come out of lottery and community grants that

could go to those young people in those growth communities.

[3:15]

the critic for municipal affairs and representing those municipalities

in their attempt to try and provide decent services for young people -

in many areas keeping them off the street, out of harm's way.... There

are hundreds and thousands of parents and coaches in those growth

communities who are desperate for more playing fields, services and

facilities that will allow those young people, particularly from the

ages of seven to 18 — critical years, as I'm sure many of my colleagues

know, in terms of channelling young people into the right field, the

right areas.... Many of them do at times wander from the straight and

narrow, but yet these facilities and playing fields and these coaches

and teams give them an outlet.

What I'm saying, Mr.

Chairman, on behalf of those young people and those coaches in the

areas that I've suggested — Surrey, Matsqui, Abbotsford, Aldergrove and

Langley.... When I see $79 million minimum coming out of lottery funds,

going over to this so-called BS fund — this rainy day account — and I

hear on the radio and on television of young people who can't get one

ball game or one soccer game, who can't even get close to a playing

field, I have to wonder what the priorities are.

I would

ask the minister, on behalf of those municipalities and young people —

maybe he would speak today on this — is he concerned about that? Does

he agree with siphoning off $79 million when it could be going to the

youth of this province? Indeed, it is money invested today that could

help many of those young people become the great supporters and part of

our communities and strong British Columbians.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member should hark back a little bit to the history of, we'll

say, Lotto 6-49 and the reason it was brought in. The reason Lotto 6-49

was introduced in British Columbia was for one specific purpose: to pay

off the Expo deficit. And it did that. I guess the hon. member would

follow up and say that since it was introduced for that purpose, all of

the funding from that should go into community grants or something of

this nature.

I want to tell you, certainly I am concerned

and certainly this government is very concerned about sports and the

welfare of young people. As a matter of fact, with the summer games,

recreation and sport and some of the direct grants to communities and

so forth, we spend well over somewhere between $10 million and $12

million a year from lottery funds for that very purpose alone.

Certainly we are concerned. That amount has been growing every year as

well.

I would like to point out to the hon. member, as I

did to someone else this morning, that in the last two years the amount

of money that is allowed for culture and grants and things of that ilk

has increased by 28 percent. It has levelled out this year, but it

increased by 28 percent over the last two years.

The B.C.

Summer Games and the B.C. Winter Games are there for young

athletes, for young people to do just the very things that you are

speaking of. They are very successful, the most successful in Canada

and an example for the world.

To answer your question, if

the mayor of a growing community wants to write me and ask for some

assistance, again I would certainly consider that. But I also want you

to consider, being the municipal affairs critic that you are, and a

very good one, that indeed the municipalities have a tax base with

which to build playing fields and recreational facilities and things of

this nature. We help them out from time to time with lotteries, sure we

do, but a municipality like Surrey certainly has a large tax base and

revenue sharing, and the local tax base of the areas that they receive

their funding from. We certainly don't have enough money in lotteries

in aggregate to look after all of the needs of some of these

communities. We just don't have that kind of money.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE :

Obviously we don't have enough money to go everywhere, but when I see

$79 million out of your estimates being shoved over to the BS fund, a

politically motivated fund for rainy day events, that's a cynical move.

When we get report after report on a daily basis that the youth of this

province in those communities that I've outlined can't even get a ball

game, can't even get close to a playing field, it's quite obvious that

the political agenda of this government — the cynical manipulation of

the figures and the creating of this budget stabilization fund — is

politically motivated. There's no other reason for it.

What

I am suggesting today is that thousands of young people are being

shortchanged in being able to participate in sports and other

activities. You are prepared to continue to endorse $79 million that

could go to recreation facilities and sports fields and lights and

facilities that could allow these young people to participate.... You

continue to support $79 million going off into this crazy account that

you've created. So much for your concern for all the family things that

you've been talking about - that you want to help the family. I think

this government should reassess its priorities, the budget

stabilization fund and how much money you're going to lose to that

fund. Put it where it's needed now, in those areas that I have

suggested. I think that would be a far better priority for the young

people of this province.

I'll leave that now. The minister

may wish to respond further. I doubt it. There's one other item — a

small one, not earth-shattering — that I've often wondered about. The

minister and his ministry are responsible for letting MLAs know when

congratulation letters should go on 90th birthdays or special

anniversaries and that sort of thing. In my riding, for instance, with

two New Democrat MLAs dutifully elected, when we get notice of who to

send a letter to, why do you also send notification to the local Social

Credit president

[ Page 4586 ]

dent?

What is your policy on that? In tidings that Social Credit members

hold, are the presidents of New Democrat constituency associations

notified? I'm just wondering what policies are in effect and what games

are being played here.

HON. MR. VEITCH : I wasn't

aware that we were notifying the presidents of political organizations,

and I will look into that. If New Democrat presidents again request

that they be notified, I presume we would do that for them. I will

check into it, hon. member. I wasn't aware of it. Fair's fair.

MR. BLENCOE :

I notice, too, that the buddy MLA for the Social Credit Party is also

notified in order to be able to send out congratulations. I wonder if

the minister would look into that. Let's have a fair system. I would

prefer a policy on this. Let's lay out exactly who is to get the

information and do the congratulations. I'm not totally convinced that

we should be politicizing in terms of Social Credit or presidents of

ridings, etc. Personally, I think the policy should be MLAs. But if

we're going to expand it, then let's have it fair on all sides. I

wonder if the minister would take a look at that situation as well.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I would assume, particularly in the case of an older person, that the

more people who congratulated them the better. I'm sure the hon. member

isn't trying to take away congratulations from a particularly old

person. I will look into all of these things, hon. member.

MR. D'ARCY :

I believe we're getting there. As MLAs from this fine chamber gather

around the airline and ferry terminals, as they do on days like this, I

believe we're getting somewhere.

Before I go into some

other items, I want to make a few more comments about the policy of

disposition of lottery funds and get some clarifications from the

minister, if he will be so good. We've heard from the minister on

several occasions in these discussions that he goes to great lengths to

try to spread what small — he says — largess there is in terms of

community grants relative to this massive number of requests and

applications that he receives which are well within the guidelines of

what he has laid down.

In looking at the press release that

came out yesterday accompanying the minister's long-awaited lottery

branch report, we find that the $10 million roughly allocated or shown

paid out in capital grants to communities amounts to approximately 4

percent of the expenditures surrounding the Lottery Fund. So here we

have 96 percent not going into the regular one-third community grants

for capital, and the minister says, quite understandably of course:

"Gee, we have trouble spreading it thinly enough to catch everybody in

there." Of course he has, because I don't know whether it's by his

decision or a Treasury Board decision or whether moneys have simply

been appropriated by the Finance ministry, but quite clearly, either

the minister is party to this, or he is rather weak in dealing with his

colleagues, or he fights hard and simply gets overruled.

The

basic grant program that lotteries were originally set up to fund is

receiving $10 million in the fiscal year reported here — approximately

4 percent. There's another 4 percent going into Expo 86 legacy fund

grants, as the minister said. These are capital grants also to

communities. Let's remember that of the Expo legacy fund grants, while

they are 50 percent, there is only one for each community. The

application of course, have long since perceived.... In other

words, they were only available in one year from an application point

of view, and only one is available.

I also have to point

out that the functions being served by the Expo legacy grants — and

they are all worthy — are ones that until relatively recently were

served by the recreational facilities fund, the one-third grants for

capital improvements for recreational, cultural and heritage operations

in communities throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia.

Those facilities grants — which as I've said, the Expo legacy has, at

least in that one year of '86, somewhat taken the place of — were not

funded from the Lottery Fund. They came out of general revenue. In

fact, I believe they came — it doesn't really matter what ministry —

through the parks branch.

[3:30]

Similarly, the roughly 3 percent.... The minister has mentioned

several times in his discussion the relative increase in grants for

cultural and artistic operations around the province. Once again, it is

only relatively recently under this Social Credit government that those

grants came out of lottery funds. They used to come from general

revenue. The recreation and sports allotment is, again, roughly 3

percent. Again we have to go back — at least in my knowledge — to the

W.A.C. Bennett administration, and of course, there were no lotteries

then. Even under the Barrett administration and the early years of the

W.R. Bennett administration, recreation and sports grants were not a

function of lotteries.

Another worthy thing is the health

care research fund, the $4 million approximately. I recall in the late

1970s — I can't remember precisely the year, but I remember the then

leader of the PCP in this House — the good Dr. Wallace from Oak

Bay-Gordon Head and myself arguing that medical research, which had up

to that time come from general revenue, was simply too darned important

to be left to the whims of the Lottery Fund. The minister of the day,

whoever it was — I believe it was Mr. Curtis, the former member for

Saanich and the Islands — claimed: "This way we will be able to put

even more money than we would otherwise if we take it out of these

grants for medical research, out of general revenue and find the money

from the lottery system."

Heritage Trust is again an area

which traditionally came out of the recreational facilities fund — the

assistance for heritage preservation and development. The travel grants

for bands or hockey teams traveling to championships....

Championship hockey teams or any other sports endeavour or artistic

group, performing or creative, which has won something and is traveling

to represent the province nationally or internationally, received a

certain percentage of their travel budget — going back decades, under

several different administrations — not out of lotteries.

What

do we find? Not only has this function been transferred into lottery,

but we find it's now a discretionary function on the part of the

minister. Rather than having set guidelines, where a group could

establish that they were indeed representing the province or their

region, if they could establish that they had indeed won some sort of

championship, that they were representing the province and fitted the

guidelines, and could establish by some reasonable evaluation laid down

by the ministry their actual costs, a percentage of money was awarded

to them to assist them with that in representing the province of

British Columbia. Now we find out that not only is this not available

from general revenue; it's not even available from the lottery funds

unless the minister so decides.

[ Page 4587 ]

any event, Mr. Chairman, I note the amount put aside for that function

out of the total amount of lottery money amounted — and I'm speaking

generously — to maybe .3 percent of disbursements. Not 3 percent, .3

percent.

The minister says how wonderful it's been to be

able to use the money from lotteries to pay off Expo. Quite frankly,

since we had a debt left over from Expo and that had to be paid, I'm

quite happy; I'm glad to hear that that money has been paid off. The

minister's own statements say that $176 million roughly has gone into

that, plus another $60 million from the contingency fund. I suppose

that means lottery money from previous years.

In any event,

we now are in the situation that this has been paid off. And by the

way, I have to point out that that comes to over 80 percent of all

disbursements for Expo last year. We now find that in the present

fiscal year there is no more Expo debt to pay off, so what does the

government intend to do with all that money?

Well, we hear

they don't quite know what to do with it so they're putting it into —

I'm not sure whether it's the privatization fund or the stabilization

fund. But the government, or the Finance minister — I'm not sure the

Provincial Secretary was a party to this; he may simply have been

overruled, but the government has decided: "Gee, Mr. Provincial

Secretary, you don't have to put all that money into Expo any more;

we're going to put it into a separate fund and decide, as time goes on,

what it's really good for."

The notion of actually

increasing the level of grants to the communities that spend the money

on the lottery tickets and returning it, based on the stated intent of

lottery sales, seems to have completely gone by the board. The minister

is trying to tell the people of British Columbia, in my community and

in his, and in all the others, that they're only eligible really for 4

percent, in community capital grants, of all the net revenue out of the

lottery money.

Mr. Chairman, that is simply not good

enough; 4 percent is simply not good enough in 1988. And then they say:

"We have to put a cap on the number of grants. We have to be careful.

We can't spend too much money on having people travel outside the

province to represent the province." All these other functions, until

comparatively recently in the province of British Columbia, were

functions, if the government of the day cared to do them, which came

out of general revenue.

We've gone totally full circle.

Instead of functions coming out of general revenue and lottery funds

being just sent back into worthy community projects, we find that not

only are a great many capital funds that used to be in general revenue

funded from the lottery, but we even find money going from lottery

funds into general revenue — to subsidize Lord knows what at the

government's whim.

Just to pick another example out of the

report, we notice that part of the money goes for the public gaming

control branch. Now of course we need public gaming control; but when

people buy lottery tickets, are they aware that they're paying for the

operations which oversee the licensing of bingos and casinos and

private clubs?

HON. MR. VEITCH : That was last year.

MR. D'ARCY :

This release came out yesterday, Mr. Minister, under your name. In any

event, if it's been changed, I say thank you very much. It was the most

inappropriate expenditure. I hesitate to suggest this, but I suppose if

there's enough money in here.... I mean, it makes no more sense to

finance public gaming control out of lotteries than it does to finance

the liquor licensing branch out of lotteries. I hate to make that

suggestion in case the government decides that's where they want to get

the money for liquor licensing.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would

hope the minister would elucidate a little more as to exactly whether

or not he's going to increase the amount of money which is going to go

from the government into those parts of the lottery expenditure, which

is alleged by the minister and other apologists on the Government’s

side to be that limited amount of money which can go back to the

communities. Was a limited amount all right, but it's a limited amount

by the discretionary decision of government. That government over there

has made a clearcut decision to divert money for almost anything else

other than the stated intention.

I'm not suggesting for a

moment that any of the things government has spent lottery money on,

apart from the public gaming control branch, is inappropriate

expenditure for government; I'm not suggesting that for a moment. I

think all of the things listed here are very appropriate, and would we

all that government could afford to spend more on things like medical

research. I commend the government for spending money at all. But the

suggestion of taking it out of lotteries when in fact over the years,

over the relatively recent years, more and more of these functions that

used to be paid for out of general revenue are now being g paid for by

lotteries.

I referred yesterday to lotteries as being taken

by the government as a voluntary taxation where the money is not seen

as directly belonging to the communities from whence it came, but

simply seen as more general revenue for the discretionary purposes of

government, just like any other tax system. Indeed, we see more and

more of that happening.

I hope that the minister will give

some assurance that he intends to at least press his Treasury Board

colleagues to see that more of the profits from lotteries go directly

back into the communities for recreational, cultural and heritage

facilities, libraries, museums and all of the things that lotteries

money was originally and — in most people's minds in British Columbia —

is still going into, and to reduce this level of diversion from 96

percent to a level that's somewhat more defensible.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member says 4 percent. I think he's looking at only one

account within the total. What really goes back into the community by

way of cultural, recreational, downtown revitalization, health-care

research and community grants programs — other than the small amount

for grants administration — is $80,470,000. That's over 50 percent.

The

reason that some of the things the hon. member alluded to, such as

cultural programs, were not funded from lotteries before is that even

in the Barrett administration, lotteries were very small at the time.

They were just starting and getting off the ground. There simply wasn't

the money in there, I'm sure.

Lotteries helped keep these

programs whole, even during the restraint times in British Columbia.

The fact that there was a lottery and a fund to draw upon kept the

cultural programs, the recreation, the sport, the B.C. Games, the

heritage trust, the festivals of the arts, the library services and the

multicultural programs whole and going. I'm sure that during the time

when government was so strapped for money and when the province and

Canada — to some degree — was

[ Page 4588 ]

experiencing

a great recession, some of these programs would not have been able to

continue in the same way had there not been a fund such as lotteries

around.

Even the $79 million that is estimated will be

transferred out and into the budget stabilization fund this year will

be going into the community too, you know. In fact, everything that the

government does goes into the community. That's the reason for the

existence of government. It goes in, albeit through a different

vehicle, and once a dollar is laid on the table, it's hard to say:

"That's been a lottery dollar, and that's been a general revenue

dollar." They both look the same. We're working on this year.

want to answer a question. The hon. member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) mentioned that his letterhead paper was being made elsewhere

other than in B.C., and that we ought to be using B.C. products. I've

had this looked into, and I find that on what they call VIP paper —

which is used for the Legislature, ministers, deputy ministers and so

forth — we spend approximately $23,535 a year. That's not available in

British Columbia, but it's purchased from a British Columbia supplier.

However,

all of the other paper — the general use paper like you see here — that

we purchase, some $311,590 worth a year, has been purchased and is

manufactured in B.C. If we can find another source of supply for the

higher quality paper, we'll do that too. Maybe that will happen in the

future. I want to assure the hon. member that it would be purchased

here if it could be. Over 90 percent of the paper that we purchase for

stationery purposes is manufactured in British Columbia.

[3:45]

MR. D'ARCY :

Not wanting to draw attention to the calendar rather than the clock,

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to belabour the lottery issue. I believe

the minister knows exactly what I'm talking about. As I said, I'm not

suggesting for a moment that the funds don't get spent in British

Columbia somewhere, with the exception of disaster relief How many

people in British Columbia know that disaster relief comes from

lotteries? That's entirely the point.

British Columbians

apply for lottery grants under the basic basis. They don't even know

that Expo legacy comes from lotteries. They don't know that all these

other things come from lotteries. They can't understand why, with all

these more than hundreds of millions of dollars available, it's so

tough to get a simple capital grant for a community project that fits

the minister's own guidelines. The minister knows what I'm talking

about even if he doesn't really want to admit to it. Anyway, let's go

on; otherwise we'll be here all day and nobody really wants that.

Air

services, Mr. Chairman. First of all, generally speaking what shape is

the fleet in and how many planes? We'd also like to have some breakdown

of basically the two major costs. How much of the air service

expenditure really goes in providing the health services, the air

ambulance services, and how much is spent on personnel travel? I'm

talking about capital and operating and repair. I'm sure the minister

should have at least an approximation on prorating that. Of course, we

know that personnel travel by government aircraft is really talking

about ministerial and Premier travel and their immediate staff.

The general public in British Columbia — and I certainly receive lots of queries

on this — find it more than somewhat disconcerting that the government, regardless

of how good or bad their deal is with Canadair, somehow has money for a $7.5

million jet, but at the same time doesn't really have enough money to even

maintain the same level of air services which British Columbia has had for probably

a couple of decades now. I think it's best to say there seems to be a public

mistrust of the government's priorities in providing a $7.5 million jet,

which seems to me primarily, if not exclusively, for the use of the Premier

and his staff. The public, who are certainly paying the bills through their

taxes — I hope not through their lotteries — are not necessarily getting the

kind of emergency health air services, especially in some of the less densely

populated areas of the province, that they've had for some time.

Also, moving quickly along here....

MR. WILLIAMS : Can't you get an answer?

MR. D'ARCY : Well, no, he's cogitating over that. He's working that one around.

Vehicle

management, Mr. Chairman. The government's fleet of vehicles, whether

they're leased or owned, is, by and large, old and decrepit. I believe

it was approximately two years ago — it may have been three years ago —

that the then auditor-general, Erma Morrison, in her report commented

on the fact that the government owned a whole lot of vehicles which

didn't seem to be putting very many miles on per year, and they seemed

to be the older ones. The obvious answer, or the obvious reason for

that, was that these vehicles were in the shop all the time costing the

government or the ministries who operated them — I'm not sure who pays

— enormous amounts of money to keep them on the road. We all know that

if you spend a lot of money repairing junk, you end up with a repaired

piece of junk.

The ministries involved really had no

choice

but to do this, because they kept being told by vehicle management —

which is under the Provincial Secretary — that there's no point in

thinking about something newer, even something newer and used, because

there simply were no capital funds available, and for a while there

weren't even funds for leasing vehicles. So vehicles that had long

since been worn out in heavy and, I might say, valuable government

service, often in some of the toughest ministries for wear and tear on

vehicles, such as energy and mines, forests or the conservation people,

quite often ended up being on the road when I almost wonder whether a

compensation board inspector would have passed them. I almost wonder

whether some of them would have passed the government's own vehicle

safety inspection services when they were operational.

So I

would hope that the government is prepared to have a good look at some

of the superannuated vehicles they have, because it not only is not

cost effective to have vehicles around which, as Erma Morrison pointed

out several years ago, are in the shop all the time, or even when

they're not in the shop people don't want to use because they're

unreliable and they don't want them breaking down 30 miles back-of-beyond, but it also puts a limitation on the level of service

government employees in the field can give to their professional duties

and, once again, provide the level of service that they can give to the

public who are paying for those services. So I would hope the minister

is taking solid steps to update the aging vehicular fleet in the

interests of being more penny wise as well as being less pound foolish,

because quite clearly the present situation - and that's been the

situation for several years — is not good.

I'm going to

bypass some of the rest of the material I have. I want to make a couple

of points, though, regarding the protocol office.

[ Page 4589 ]

First

of all, I want to state just how competent and cooperative I've found

the protocol office over the last few years. I also find that while the

personnel are delightful and ready, willing and able to help, they

often have limited resources to satisfy the quite legitimate needs of

the public relative to some of the requests for services which are

quite correctly channelled to the protocol office. I would hope the

minister can see fit to make more material available for the general

public on request — material such as protocol information, provincial

flags, provincial pins for groups traveling and representing the

province elsewhere in the world. The service is not just the goodwill

of the people who work there, but the people who work there really have

something to be proud of in terms of what they can provide to the

public in British Columbia. I'm sure the minister knows that it

generates a tremendous amount of goodwill for government. That

government especially, but I think government in general, probably

needs all the public relations help it can get these days.

quick parochial mention; I've stayed away from these things, but I'm

going to ruin my record before I sit down. The minister has mentioned

several times how he's improving and streamlining the service of

government agents around the province, something which philosophically

and in theory I certainly welcome. However, for a number of years —

about a decade — the second-largest community in my riding, Castlegar,

has been requesting that a government agent suboffice be opened there.

There's no question that it's terribly inconvenient, considering all

the services that come through a government agent in some of the

smaller urban centres of the province. I'm not going to enumerate them,

because the minister has already done so; the minister knows what they

are. Quite clearly it's an inconvenience to the public to always have

to deal in government agent's business with the office either in Nelson

or in Rossland. So could the minister, in his gloating and boasting

about the government agent service, think about those communities

which, quite frankly, deserve those kinds of services and don't have

them? I'm sure there must be other ones around the province equally

good who also have long-standing requests.

I'd be delighted to hear the minister's comments.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

The hon. member asks what percentage of the total flights conducted by

the air service branch is for the purpose of providing air ambulance

service and what percentage for the purpose of transporting government

personnel. I guess that was the gist of the question. In response, I'd

say 60.6 percent is in support of air ambulance, 35.9 percent is for

transportation and 3.5 percent is for test training and ferry flights.

So over 60 percent is to air ambulance — 2,300 or 2,500 hours of

flight time, or whatever it was; a tremendous amount.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The

hon. member referred to the Challenger. The Challenger is one of the

best deals that British Columbia has ever pulled off. We have seven

aircraft in that fleet. We're trying to get it down to five if we

possibly can. Two of the Cessnas had the largest number of hours on

them of any Cessna aircraft of that type in the world. They sometimes

rotated, I think, back and forth between one of the Third World

countries and these two aircraft. They were at the point where you

would have to send them down to the States to have the skins x-rayed to

ensure that they didn't peel back like a banana peeling when you're

flying at 25,000 or 28,000 feet or whatever.

But the

Challenger — yes, we paid about $7.5 million for it, and we got back

almost $16 million in offsets, twice as much as it cost. The offsets

that we got were new contracts to be placed in British Columbia, new

work for British Columbians — $14,500,000 in new contracts. So any

time you can get double your money back, you've done a pretty good deal.

far as the Cessna people are concerned, I've told them straight out

through our negotiators that I won't buy any new Cessnas unless we get

at least 100 percent in offsets back; we'll go to something else.

They've acceded to that request. We're buying two new Cessnas and we're

going to get 100 percent back on them. We're getting 200 percent back

on the Challenger — first class. That plane is now configured for two

stretchers as well as executive transport. We can configure it for four

stretchers, or even six if we need to. It will be used extensively on

long-range trips throughout the province. It's a very good machine.

Moving

on to the government fleet. You are quite correct that some of these

cars needed to be superannuated, as you so aptly put it. We just

purchased last year 650 new cars. The ones that have low mileage on

them — it isn't normally because they are in the garage all the time;

it's because they simply weren't being used enough. We're trying to

contract with the individuals to pay them mileage rather than to have

them have a car around at all. We're trying to work that out between

the individuals using the cars and ourselves.

A review is

in process of looking at the whole fleet and finding ways of updating

it. You're quite correct: some of them are getting just too darned old.

There's no point in me telling you something else, because you're

absolutely correct. We replaced 650 of them last year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH : An equal number to go, or more.

The

protocol offices are working very well. We've ordered some new pins and

some new flags and things. The reason we ran out of things is simply

that we changed the coat of arms when Her Majesty gave royal warrant to

our new coat of arms last year. They should be in. Promises, promises,

but those items should be in place for you next week or the week after

at the very latest. We have ordered them. We've also increased the

staff there.

I'll look into your request for a sub office.

I think we're probably already doing that in Castlegar for the

government agent, hon. member.

[4:00]

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I'll send you a Steller's jay pin.

HON MR. VEITCH : Yes, do you want a Steller's jay pin?

MR. D'ARCY :

The minister's statements regarding the Challenger and the Cessnas....

First of all, commenting on the Cessnas, I think Cessna probably

owes the province something just in straight advertising. They are the

equivalent of the Timex watch that allegedly went through the paper

processing machine and was still ticking after a month.

any event, I am not completely persuaded that the purchase benefits and

the spending benefits from both Canadair and potentially from Cessna

wouldn't have occurred

[ Page 4590 ]

anyway,

or if the government had been successfully lobbying. It does not seem

to be fair for a straight trade-off that private enterprise, unless

there's something else they're planning for.... I suppose what I'm

saying is that it doesn't somehow ring entirely credible. But I'm

delighted to hear that at least something has come back for that

expenditure, and I would hope that the air fleet, like the vehicular

fleet, can be brought up to date so that the maximum availability and

the number of hours is available from all aircraft. After all, they are

to serve all the people of British Columbia.

I have only a

couple more things to talk to the committee about. One of the things I

would like to mention is that about two months ago the minister and all

members of the Legislature received a note from the Legislative Library

that they were going to have to cut back on the availability of

services to the public and individuals other than MLAs. I don't recall

that kind of notice coming out before. I have since determined that, in

spite of heroic efforts by the staff, there does seem to be some

difficulty in satisfying all requests. I would hope that the minister

is not only aware of that but attempting to be the solution and not the

problem, to make sure that that tremendous facility is regularly

available once again - that the services of that facility are available

to all people in British Columbia on the same long-standing policy.

Similarly,

I note once again regarding B.C. heritage that the Provincial

Archives.... While there's a large increase in the allotment in

the

individual vote under the ministry, a lot of it appears, at first blush

at least, to be for increased occupancy charges. I consider the

Provincial Archives to be an absolutely priceless heritage and record

of not only the material history but also the social and cultural

history of this western part of North America. I would hope that there

is no actual restriction in the ability of the archives staff to

continue to serve that great trust they have, and to continue to take

advantage of those offerings which they receive from time to time from

the public.

HON. MR. VEITCH : The library funding

would come under vote 1. I guess, hon. member, we should really take

that up in the Board of Internal Economy. If you want, I'll do that for

you and address it there.

We've recently completed a survey — I haven't seen it yet — as to what users of the Provincial Archives

want there. You are quite correct: it is a priceless heritage. When

that survey comes back — if it isn't back already — we'll examine it,

and it may help us a bit to upgrade the services even further in the

Provincial Archives.

A lot of it is occupancy costs because

a lot of it is just storage of things. We've helped that out somewhat

now because the new Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee helps us

move things through a lot more quickly and gets rid of paper that we

have stored. So that's been very helpful.

Vote 56 approved.

Vote 57: ministry operations, $60,927,088 — approved.

Vote 58: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 59: pension and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

On vote 60: Mainland-Southwest Development Region, $832,974.

MR. BLENCOE :

I recognize that members are trying to get away for the long weekend,

but as a matter of principle, I have to say a few words on this

minister of state and the minister responsible for the

Mainland-Southwest Development Region.

For some eight

months now, we have watched with interest the machinations of these

united states of British Columbia. Thus far, we have seen very few

results from a lot of bureaucracy and certainly a fair amount of

taxpayers' money. This minister has already had $1 million. He's now

got an additional $832,000, or nearly $833,000, plus— if we ever see

it get off the ground — an extra $2 million for seed capital.

notice in the budget for the lower mainland that travel expenses for

volunteers amounts to $10,000. Travel for government employees is

another $20,000, and advertising is $95,000 — 11 percent of his

budget. The Ministry of Health, for instance, spends 1 percent of its

budget on advertising. Even the Tourism ministry spends 11 percent on

its own ads. Yet here is this minister spending $95,000 of taxpayers'

money to advertise I don't know what because nothing has been done yet.

just have to wonder as we go through this close to nine months later —

in all these united states of British Columbia and this

minister-of-state system — what the taxpayers are getting for their

dollars. In many regions I've already investigated we have umpteen

committees that have been struck, and it would appear they were struck

to usurp the traditional role of local government. We just shake our

heads when we take a look at this scheme that the Premier of this

province introduced nine months ago. I have to quote Jim Matkin: "It's

hard to understand what it's really supposed to do."

All

we can see thus far is a lot of money given to ministers of state and

their parliamentary secretaries and a lot of money to be spent on

advertising, but we certainly don't see any results. We have to

conclude that local government could do the job just as well. You could

consult with the regional districts or the economic development

commissions in your region — through you, Mr. Chairman, to that

governor of the southwest mainland — just as easily with a 37 cent

stamp to the GVRD for their economic policies for the region. It's

simple.

You don't have to create.... I don't know how

many committees you've got, Mr. Minister. It seems that your

development groups for your region haven't been set up yet. That's our

understanding., We've got no recommendations coming from that sector

yet, because in eight months you haven't set them up.

The

regional seed capital program is not yet operational. We know that you

are investigating a motor-racing track. You are doing something with

the University Endowment Lands. You are supposedly taking a look at

agricultural land reserve priorities, but we don't really know what you

are doing. We're not sure how many committees you have struck. We do

know that you are making more work for local government officials, who

already have enough work to do, and we know you have $1.8 million

already in operating budget — for what I don't know.

HON. MR. VEITCH : Maybe you should try to find out.

MR. BLENCOE :

A lot of people would like to know. I had a call — not in your region —

that the minister for Vancouver Island held a meeting this week and

called 80

[ Page 4591 ]

people

together, and 80 people came away totally frustrated because there was

no conclusion and no recommendations. Every time they asked for a

project, they said that it was line ministry responsibility or MLA

responsibility. Many of them who were called for that meeting were

busy, local elected people, and they went away frustrated. What is the

point?

HON. MR. VEITCH : Did you go?

MR. BLENCOE :

No, we don't recognize this bureaucracy. It has no mandate in law. The

first $1 million for each region never went through this Legislature -

special warrant.

Local governments already have the mandate

to do exactly what you supposedly want to do with these ministers of

state. Small business is totally frustrated and doesn't understand what

is going on. They have no idea. They know they have this seed capital

program that was supposed to be in operation on May 1. But all they

know is that the existing process for accessing part of that $2 million

for grants or loans is still in place. That was put in by the Ministry

of Economic Development, and now they have four extra steps to go

through the minister of state. We learn that the Minister of Economic

Development still has to be consulted and has to okay the projects.

The

Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that some of the 6,500

small business operators in B.C. are confused about who they should

approach if they need government help. Should they call their elected

member, their parliamentary secretary, the minister of state, the

economic development officer in Victoria, the liaison officer in the

region, or their MLA? They don't know. There's total confusion about

economic development in the province of British Columbia.

the mayor of Castlegar — a Social Credit member who ran for you in the

last election — said, if the government wanted to introduce a system to

bring the province of British Columbia to a standstill, it would

introduce the minister-of state system.

Mr. Minister, I go

through these great grandiose press releases that you put out. What

have you got? What have you done? You couldn't even get the first loan

to the first company. They went broke before you would even take care

of them. The bureaucracy is so overwhelming now that no one knows who

to go to or what to do.

I recognize that time is of the essence this afternoon.

Eight

months later, our staff try to ascertain exactly what is going on with

these regional development areas, and we can only come to the

conclusion that they are starting to build up funds in these areas —

like the rainy-day account, the BS fund. They are going to start using

these taxpayers' dollars through this unelected bureaucracy and these

committees that are supposed to be set up. We are going to start seeing

projects get money through the back door. There is going to be no

scrutiny and virtually no criteria for allocation of taxpayers'

dollars. We have to once again stand up and say that local government's

role is being usurped in this minister of-state system. They are

offended and frustrated.

One example that I've already

given today is on Vancouver Island where 80 people went to a meeting

last week and got absolutely nothing for their time — no funding and no

money. All that minister of state would say is: "Well, we are working

on a three-year, a ten-year, or a 12-year plan." What is going on in

the province of British Columbia? Let's admit it. It was a figment of

the Premier's imagination; it was developed between the curb and his

car, and now these poor ministers of state — including this one — have

to try to make them work.

[4:15]

I suggest

to this minister and the other ministers of state and the Premier of

this province to cancel the minister-of state system. Cancel it: save

the money and go back to local government and ask them very quickly

what you are going to do in economic development in the regions. It's

as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. Otherwise, you continue to entrench

the view that what you have here is a political system — another

bureaucracy for political agenda — that has nothing at all to do with

bringing government to the people.

Once again, my

colleagues and I have to oppose this system, which is alien to our way

of governing our province and this country. We once again ask this

government to reconsider its role, and what it is doing to local

government and small business. It's slowing down economic development.

When I investigate the Mainland-Southwest region, nothing has happened.

Even the regional seed capital program hasn't got off the ground.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

I'm getting signals from all over the place to hurry up here; otherwise

I'd light into that fellow over there. I want to be so kind at this

time of the day and explain a few things to him so that he understands.

Hon.

member, $1 million was debated in this House, and the $1 million was

indeed startup capital. We used about $100,000. We didn't use all of

the money. That's how you fund it. The NDP were masters....

MR. BLENCOE : You broke the law.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

No, we didn't break any law. Come on! You're barking away there. The

NDP were the greatest experts in using special warrants that I've ever

seen.

As far as the advertising is concerned, you want to

tell me, hon. member, that we shouldn't inform the people of the

Mainland-Southwest region of British Columbia that 54 percent of the

population were doing something.... If we put a simple ad in a

newspaper in our area, the number of newspapers to reach the whole

area, it would cost $95,000. It's very costly to advertise.

We're

going to continue to inform people, and we're going to continue to

ensure that this great program works. I'll tell you what the program

does. You could find out, too, if you weren't so doggone bullheaded and

would come over and find out what the program is all about. You sit

back there and you bark and yap about it. You never go to a meeting

because it's philosophically against socialism or something of this

nature. I will tell you, it is philosophically against socialism. It's

the little people getting out and having a say directly to government,

and that's not the way the socialists think. That's why you don't like

it.

No one ever shoots at a dead duck, my friend. This duck

isn't dead; it's moving right along and it's moving along very well

indeed. It's doing a good job. The people are interfacing directly with

government. We're getting things done. You know the way the socialists

cut red tape: lengthwise. We don't cut it that way. We're chopping red

tape; we're making this thing work.

We don't win on every one of the deals, either. If I don't win on a particular situation before cabinet, I don't go in the

[ Page 4592 ]

corner

and cry and sulk; I just get my cards together and I get back in the

next game. That's how things are done in private enterprise, and that's

how things should be done in B.C. if you want it to move ahead.

The

people out there — the GVRD, or some members of the GVRD — may not like

it, but I can tell you that one prime member of the GVRD is coming on

board as part of the steering committee. That's Mayor Campbell of

Vancouver. GVRD sent a letter saying they would love to have him on it.

They're coming on board, and they are beginning to understand that

that's where the action is. It's in no way to subvert or go by

municipal governments or to go by MLAs or anything else. It's an

adjunct.

The two parliamentary secretaries that work with

me, two fine members of this House, the hon. second member for Dewdney

(Mr. Jacobsen) and the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), have

talked to every one of the municipalities, every one of the regional

districts, every chamber of commerce and every school board. Some of

these people haven't seen a politician for years. These people went

around and saw them, talked to them, got their ideas, found out what

they really thought — not what somebody in Victoria thought they

thought. That's what it's all about: working directly, grassroots,

dealing with people.

I can tell you, hon. member, we have

some 300 situations that we're examining and working on right at this

point in time as a result of those meetings. We've got some 20 major

projects in the mill right now. You just hang on and you look back at

this thing. When you try to get on board and be part of the solution

rather than part of the problem, we'll accept you gracefully. You don't

even have to apologize to us and tell us you were wrong.

It's going to work, it is working and the people out there know that it's working regardless of what some politicians may think.

MR. BLENCOE :

I can always tell when we're hitting the mark: it's when the Social

Credit members on the other side will throw around the thirties and

forties rhetoric about socialists and everything else. It's the only

thing you've got a comeback for. In the last two weeks in your

desperation it's the only thing you guys can talk about — socialism. It

doesn't wash anymore. People of this province are tired of

manipulation. They're tired of you bending the rules. They're tired of

you passing money through without going through the Legislature. They

want the law to be upheld, and they believe in local government.

They're tired of you favouring your friends, favouring big corporations

over little guys, and they're tired of you usurping the traditional

role of local government.

You can scream all you like and

talk about the socialists and everything else. We are going to stand

here and talk for the ordinary British Columbian and for local

government, and we're going to stand up for local government's right to

make decisions in their regions — not some trumped-up, phony system

that the Premier created in the Poole room over here. That's what was

done. That's the system we have in place.

I suggest to you,

Mr. Minister, that you don't have to create these hundreds of

committees. You could talk to local government very quickly. They've

got the plans. They've been waiting. Do you know what they've been

waiting for, Mr. Minister? Devolution of power. They've been waiting

for legislation and policies that could allow them to go into the

things they feel they can do best. Instead, what we have is another

level of bureaucracy right over the top of local government — appointed

by ministers of state, people appointed to these committees, no

accountability at all to local government or to this Legislature.

That

system is basically a political, corrupt system in our way of governing

this province. It's time that this government recognized that the

people have seen through why you've put it in place. They know how the

Premier left office because he couldn't pass his Land Use Act, which

had over 50 ways that the provincial government could overturn the

local decision-making bodies. We have seen in eight months absolutely

nothing that would show that this system is benefiting the people of

the province of British Columbia.

This minister and the

other ministers of state can throw around the old rhetoric of the

thirties and forties and attack New Democrats. We are going to stand up

for local government. We are going to stand up for their autonomy and

their traditions. We are going to stand up for devolution of power,

which would give those people, through their local governments, the

right to participate in the decisions of this province — not some

system that you've created in the Premier's office that has no bearing

on how we've governed this province since its inception.

Vote 60 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my very best wishes to you and all

Members of the Legislative Assembly for a nice long, happy May weekend

and move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m.

Tuesday next.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1988, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada