1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 3, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10661 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1990 (Bill 49). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 10661

Municipal Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 50). Hon. L. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 10661

Tabling Documents –– 10661

Oral Questions

Air ambulance service. Mr. Perry –– 10661

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Reid –– 10662

Mr. Williams

Air ambulance service. Mr. Perry –– 10662

Appointment of Nicole Parton. Ms. Marzari –– 10662

Literacy program funding. Mr. Jones –– 10662

Immigration of Polish child. Mrs. McCarthy –– 10663

Appointment of Nicole Parton. Ms. Marzari –– 10663

Electricity exports. Ms. Edwards –– 10663

Pacific National Exhibition. Mr. Williams –– 10663

Earthquake-resistant schools. Ms. A. Hagen 10663

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services and

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

On vote 34: minister's office –– 10664

Mr. Perry

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Serwa

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Rose

Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 13). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Gran) –– 10672

Mr. Clark

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Statutes Repeal Act, 1990 (Bill 2). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10679

Mr. Sihota –– 10680

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10680

Foreign Money Claims Act (Bill 6). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10680

Mr. Sihota –– 10680

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10680

International Sale of Goods Act (Bill 7). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10681

Mr. Sihota –– 10681

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10681

Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act (Bill 8). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10682

Mr. Sihota –– 10682

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10682

Offence Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 53). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10682

Mr. Gabelmann –– 10683

Mr. Sihota –– 10683

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 10684

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Attorney-General estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Smith)

On vote 12: minister's office –– 10685

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the

House today some very special people from Chilliwack. They actually

reside in the Yarrow area. I'm sure the member for Chilliwack (Hon. J.

Jansen) will join me in recognizing Kelly and Tony Van Garderen, and

their sons Jason and Craig, who are in the gallery today. Would the

House give them a special welcome.

MR. CLARK : Mr.

Speaker, it's a privilege for me to introduce to the House the members

of the Volkow clan who are here visiting Victoria: Nick Volkow, who's

the chairman of the Burnaby Parks and Recreation Commission, his

brother Serge, his children Nicole, Suzanne and Mike, and his mother

Josefa. I'd ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. HUBERTS :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a couple of beautiful ladies

who are cousins of mine from Langley, Marie Huttema and Tara Huttema.

Along with them, from Orangeville, Ontario, are their friends Marie

Kegel, Valerie Kegel and Arnold Sikkema. Would the House please welcome

them.

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, joining us today from

Vancouver and Burnaby are special friends: Mike Pelzer, his daughter

Lisa and friend Amber Sheret. Would the House please make these people

welcome.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Speaker, visiting today

from Langley are the NDP candidate in the upcoming election, Mr.

Derrill Thompson, and party worker Kathy Coxworth. Would the House on

both sides please welcome them.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today, joining us from Westport, Connecticut,

is Karol Tulp. With her is her friend Sally Williams from Seattle.

Would all members please join me in giving them a warm welcome.

Introduction of Bills

ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX

REFORM ACT, 1990

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Assessment and Property Tax Reform Act, 1990.

HON. L. HANSON : Mr. Speaker, Bill 49 contains measures designed to bring

stability to the province's assessment and property tax systems. It also

contains measures to streamline the assessment appeal process and return certainty

to the industrial tax base.

Bill

49 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.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. L. Hanson presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. L. HANSON : Bill 50 contains revisions which clarify regional district legislation passed last year, and

it makes minor corrections. It also contains measures which provide

taxpayers with more effective means of voting on regional services, and

revisions which allow municipalities to enact bylaws to make smoke

alarms mandatory in existing dwellings.

Bill 50 introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

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

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the B.C. Trade Development Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Hon. Mrs. Johnston tabled the 1989-90 annual report of the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Oral Questions

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Health. Can the minister explain why the

number of air ambulance service hours committed to the Emergency Health

Services Commission was cut from 2,800 to 1,800 last year?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of hours being cut. Generally what happens

is that the service is related to demand for that service. If the

demand for jet aircraft has changed, then I would suspect that the

hours of jet utilization would be changed. I think that's a normal

approach.

MR. PERRY : That strikes me as an unusual answer. I have a supplementary question for the minister.

have a copy in my hand of the Emergency Health Services Commission

annual report for 1989-90, which indicates that in fact the demand has

increased dramatically and states that the dramatic drop in the level

of service provided by the government air fleet resulted in $1.2

million in increased air charter costs.

Does the minister

still insist, Mr. Speaker, that the first priority of the government's

air fleet is to provide air ambulance services rather than a political

taxi service for government ministers?

HON. J. JANSEN :

Mr. Speaker, the member is not aware that this question has been

answered several times before, and I'll answer it again for his

edification. The question of aircraft utilization is based on

[ Page 10662 ]

patient needs, and that is the primary criterion for allocating aircraft.

MR. PERRY : A new question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER : If it's a new question, I have another member I wish to recognize.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Tourism. I have a pressing and urgent

question I would like a response to. The PNE today has cancelled its

1990 fair. I would hope that the minister would look favourably at

considering relocating the fair and putting it on in Cloverdale, where

we've had successful fairs and rodeos. Would the minister look

favourably at Cloverdale making a submission now to bring on the fair

for 1990?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : We are very concerned

about the PNE situation and the cancellation for 1990. It's certainly a

blow to the youth in the province — the 4-H Clubs, the number of

youth employed during and, indeed, leading up to the 17-day fair. We

are also concerned with the effect on....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I must ask the minister to answer the question.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : The answer to the question is no, the PNE board is not considering moving the fair to Cloverdale.

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the minister responsible for the PNE. Is the minister aware that

CUPE, the union representing the workers at the PNE, has guaranteed no

strike action either before or during the fair? And on that basis, has

he asked his appointee, Mr. Morgan Thomas, to return to the bargaining

table, so that we can all enjoy the fair this year?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I have read the letter sent by the union to the PNE board, and I do

not, nor does our legal counsel, interpret the letter in the way the

member opposite does.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Government Management Services. Can the

minister explain why the government air services branch refused to

provide funding to the Emergency Health Services Commission to offset

the $1.2 million in extra air charter costs resulting from its cutback

of ambulance services?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The question doesn't make any sense, but I'll take it on notice anyway.

MR. PERRY :

A new question. I wonder whether the minister could explain why the

government air services branch delivered, at 1,586 hours, even less

than the 1,800 that it was committed to deliver, which is, in effect,

35 percent less than the number of hours delivered in the fiscal year

1985-86, although demand for the service was rapidly increasing.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I think the appropriate minister to answer that question is the Minister of Health (Hon. J. Jansen).

APPOINTMENT OF NICOLE PARTON

MS. MARZARI :

A question to the Premier. Can the Premier explain to the House why

Nicole Parton, candidate for the Social Credit Party, has stated that

she has been named by him to a new government commission on women's

issues? Does your own Minister Responsible for Women's Programs have

any knowledge of this appointment, Mr. Premier? Have you told her about

it? Have you consulted with her?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I will attempt to answer the question if the questioner can give me the source of her information.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Are you on a supplementary?

MS. MARZARI : There's an answer to the Premier's question to me about where....

MR. SPEAKER : It's not appropriate for you to answer the question.

LITERACY PROGRAM FUNDING

MR. JONES :

To the Minister of Advanced Education. Has the minister finally decided

to implement the recommendations of the Literacy Advisory Committee,

including, and in particular, the recommendation that literacy programs

be tuition-free?

[2:15]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

The Literacy Advisory Committee report to government is still under

review, and when the decision is made the member will be the first to

know.

MR. JONES : Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On May

11 the minister indicated that he hoped to make positive comment

regarding tuition-free literacy programs soon. On May 15 the minister

promised to make an announcement well before the end of June. Has the

minister finally decided to honour his commitments and announce that

adequate funding will be provided to establish tuition-free literacy

programs?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I always honour my

commitments. Let me tell the member that we will be addressing the

issue soon. I can assure him and the House that we have adequate

funding for literacy programs In the province.

[ Page

10663 ]

IMMIGRATION OF POLISH CHILD

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question is for the Minister of Health. I am sure everyone is

concerned about the press reports of a child who has been denied a visa

to Canada until recently. She is only nine years old, and she is

separated from her father, Zygmunt Korycki. Recently, apparently, the

federal administration gave approval for the daughter to enter Canada

with the mother, who had had permission some years ago but did not wish

to be in Canada because of the child's illness.

The Canadian federal immigration....

MR. SPEAKER : I must ask the member to ask a question.

MRS. McCARTHY :

I would like to ask the minister if he is considering allowing the

daughter to enter Canada, since the Polish authorities have apparently

given a clean bill of health to this child, according to the press.

HON. J. JANSEN :

The immigration application is a difficult one. The medical information

for this young child came to us last week, and the regular meeting of

the medical review committee is not until next week. However, I asked

the committee to deal with it today, and I am pleased to advise the

House that we have admitted the child on humanitarian grounds.

APPOINTMENT OF NICOLE PARTON

MS. MARZARI :

I have a question for the Premier again. Can the Premier tell the House

whether or not he has decided to appoint Social Credit candidate Nicole

Parton to a commission on women's issues?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

ELECTRICITY EXPORTS

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is to the Minister of Energy. A new National Energy Board

policy means that applications to export energy from Canada can be

routinely approved by the board without public hearings. B.C. is

currently encouraging development of independent power projects for

export. Can the minister assure this House that before construction is

allowed to begin, these projects will be subject to public hearings

before the Utilities Commission on their environmental effects?

HON. MR. DAVIS : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Utilities

Commission will hold hearings in all cases where the export of power on a firm

long-term basis is at issue. However, the fact that the federal government is

essentially vacating this field makes it all the more important that the province

make the right decision, and that our hearings are well attended.

MS. EDWARDS :

I'd like to ask the minister if these hearings that the Utilities

Commission will have will address not only the environmental issues but

also the advisability of exporting the electricity, and if those will

be the subjects of the public hearings.

HON. MR. DAVIS :

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, electricity is now in

international trade the world over. However, in any hearing, the

economics as well as the environmental aspects of the development will

be thoroughly canvassed.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

MR. WILLIAMS :

To the minister responsible for the PNE. In a letter to Mr. Morgan

Thomas, dated today, the main paragraph is as follows: "CUPE members at

the PNE guarantee there will be no disruption because of CUPE strike

action during the preparation and operation of the 1990 PNE fair." What

more does the minister want, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Speaker, to the member: plainly and simply, a signed collective agreement.

MR. WILLIAMS :

It's very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the way that's achieved is at the

bargaining table. Will he not direct his people to move to the

bargaining table and quit playing their hardball game?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Speaker, there have already been somewhere in the neighbourhood of

20 collective bargaining sessions on 20 separate occasions. One of

Canada's top mediators, Vince Ready, has been involved on several

occasions. The board has had to have six weeks' lead time to prepare

for the $4.3 million capital expenditure to get the PNE on track. I say

to the member opposite: what more advance notice does the union need to

get down to the bare bones of collective bargaining and get on with the

negotiation process? They've had at least three weeks' notice. I

repeat: they've been bargaining since December 19 of last year. How

much more time do they need?

EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT SCHOOLS

MS. A. HAGEN :

Mr. Speaker, numerous studies indicate a pressing need for the

provincial government to plan and fund the upgrading of schools to make

them more earthquake-resistant. Is the Minister of Education now

prepared to indicate that he will review his planning and funding

proposals for this need, and support school districts that must make

major changes in their schools in order to protect children and the

public who use them?

HON. MR. BRUMMET : The answer is yes.

[ Page 10664 ]

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT

MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND MINISTER

RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S PROGRAMS

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

MR. PERRY : Mr. Chairman, I'd like to pursue with the minister some questions regarding material I raised in question period.

Just

while we're waiting for the House to come to order, if I can have the

attention of a Page, I'll send her a copy of this report.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Can we have order so the debate can continue?

MR. PERRY :

I'm just sending over a copy of the report I referred to so the

minister will have it to hand. I confess to being shocked by the

material in this report, and I would hope that the minister would feel

the same sentiment, but I'm beginning to wonder. I'm going to go

through some of this material point by point, because it's rather

disturbing. I refer the House to the first page. For the information of

the House, this is the annual report of the Emergency Health Services

Commission for the year April 1, 1989, to March 31, 1990. For

simplicity, I've reproduced part of it. I've sent the minister part of

the report; the whole report is available from the Ministry of Health.

I'm

referring to an unnumbered page, which is actually page 1. Under the

heading "Executive Director's Report, " it points out: "The budget

issue is of serious concern to us. If we are to be fiscally and

operationally responsible, while meeting our mandate prescribed in the

Health Emergency Act, we simply must resolve this major problem. It is

difficult to accept accountability for managing the impossible." You

can see the level of concern by the executive director of the Emergency

Health Services Commission. The report then goes on to detail a number

of breaches In rational planning or coordinated and intelligent

delivery of this vital service.

At page 8, under the

heading "Air Ambulance," it points out that the air ambulance service

carried 5,597 patients in the fiscal year immediately finished. The

annual costs for aircraft charters was $6,716,561. That's a substantial

amount of money that we're talking about in aircraft charters.

The

government air services branch provided 1,650 air hours for Medivac. I

confess, there is a small discrepancy between that figure and the

figure on page 14 of the report for the same fiscal year, which is that

government air services provided 1,586 hours Be that as it may, the

number is approximately 34 to 35 percent fewer air hours provided to

the ambulance service than were provided in the fiscal year 1985-86

went back to the library to ascertain whether this information had been

previously available, and I note that the last annual report of the

Ministry of Health is for the fiscal year 1987-88. We can't really look

for assistance to the Ministry of Health annual reports. That one was

only transmitted in July 1989.

But in pages 48 through 50

of that report, we see that the air ambulance flights have been growing

very rapidly. They were something in the range of just over 4,000 — perhaps 4,100 flights —

per year in 1983-84, and had increased by 1987-88 to about 6,000. We

must have been doing something well in health care in the province,

because they were a little bit less — 5,597 in this immediately past fiscal year.

The

figures for government air hours, at page 14 of the current Emergency

Health Services Commission annual report, are striking. They are:

1985-86, 2,422; 1986-87, 2,699; 1987-88 — the first full fiscal

year, I guess, of the present administration, a slight decrease, 2,593;

and then in the fiscal year 1988-89 something dramatic happened,

because the number of air hours provided by the government air service,

according to this report, fell to 1,478; and in the immediately

terminated fiscal year only 1,586. As the report points out, a drop of

34.52 percent from five years ago.

[2:30]

The report goes on to point out on page 15 that the government air

services branch had: "...again reduced their committed service hours.

The reduction from 2,800 hours to 1,800 hours per year caused an

increase in charter costs of approximately $1.2 million." The

government air services branch was unable to provide offset funding

this year as it had in 1988-89, the immediately preceding fiscal year.

The Prince Rupert helicopter service remained unfunded at a cost of

$0.6 million per year.

That's a somewhat separate issue,

but I hope I've now explained to the satisfaction of the minister the

basis for the questions I raised during question period. I would simply

like to know — since she's been quoted widely, in the press at

least, as having said that the day she can't be frank she'll step down

from her position — her honest explanation of why the government

air service now provides 35 percent fewer hours to the air ambulance

service, which was the exclusive purpose for which those jets were

bought five years ago.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'd like to

thank the member for sending the report over to me; I hadn't seen it.

As the member may or may not know, the use of government jets as

ambulances varies from year to year, and it depends on the initial

negotiations between my ministry and the Ministry of Health and many

other factors. It depends on the availability of the planes in the

regions where the emergencies occur.

I can tell the member that we are negotiating this year and targeting 50 percent usage of the planes for this coming year.

[ Page

10665 ]

MR. PERRY : My colleague the hon. member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) points out that there is a discrepancy between what the

minister just stated and what the Minister of Health stated a few

moments ago in question period.

In response to my question — if we heard correctly —

the Minister of Health replied that the number of hours the government

jets provide to the air ambulance service is exclusively dependent upon

patient demand. The minister has now said that this is a negotiated

number of hours. Yet I don't think she has answered my question.

The Emergency Health Services Commission annual report certainly implies — albeit, it doesn't state this in quite so many words — by

the expression "Government air services branch again reduced their

committed service hours" that 1,800 hours were committed. Yet depending

on which figure you take' either 1,586 or 1,615 air hours were actually

provided. Either way it's about 200 hours or 11 percent less than even

the reduced amount committed.

I'm only a lay member of the

Legislature representing one constituency, but, frankly, I find this

stretches my credulity to think that this minister's department is

administering itself in the public interest, and to imagine that air

ambulances purchased specifically to get sick patients out of rough

parts of this province in a timely way down to the tertiary hospitals

where they can receive the highest possible level of care — or, nowadays, to get them out of the province where they can get good care when it's not available here — are being used to ferry people like the minister, at $1,000 extra per flight, from Boundary Bay to Abbotsford.

This

is a matter of public record; the planes have been seen discharging

their passengers. I remember seeing one of the government ministers

during the Cariboo by-election getting off at government expense in

Williams Lake on — if I remember the date — September 7,

1989, and being the only passenger on the jet. On the same day when

there were commercial flights that I took up there at New Democratic

Party expense to participate in that campaign, one of the government

ministers flew up at all our expense, tying up that jet for the entire

morning — if not the whole day — just to speak to a chamber

of commerce in the middle of an election campaign. I watched carefully

and saw only one person come off the jet.

I find it astonishing that this minister can sit there and smugly and firmly

tell us that she's administering the public business, when this kind of

scandalous abuse of the public purse is occurring. I'm looking at my colleagues

to try and get some insight from their eyes as to how it is that a government

minister can rise in this assembly and not seem to be troubled by the fact that

her own department has run up an additional $1.2 million in costs out of public

money This isn't some mysterious government that sits over across the water

in Victoria, and this isn't some strange organism that breeds and feeds

on the public insatiably and can't be satisfied like a Moloch; this is a

government elected by, of and for the people, which is accountable to the public

for the way it spends public money. The government money doesn't just grow

on trees. I guess in the old days of the real Social Credit it was thought that

maybe it did grow on trees. I've never pretended to understand the original

Social Credit philosophy. But this money comes out of hard-working people's

pockets, and they entrust it to government to spend wisely.

Maybe

it strikes me particularly, Mr. Chairman, having worked in some remote

parts of the province where the jet can be life-saving to people when

it serves as an air ambulance. I remember once riding in the ambulance

from New Denver down to Castlegar airport with a miner who had been

subject to a crush injury on a road up in the hills behind Sandon in

the Slocan Valley. Because we had those ambulances available in a small

town like New Denver, we were able to go up the road in the pouring

sleet, resuscitate that man, start an intravenous in him in the back of

an open pickup truck in the pouring sleet, get him down promptly, put a

chest tube into him in the hospital in New Denver and transport him, at

risk to ourselves, at break-neck speed down the highway to Castlegar.

There we could expect a jet would be available to get him down to

Vancouver, where he could have life-saving surgery.

Having been in that situation, it really offends me — frankly it burns me — to

see this kind of abuse of the public money. I'm having trouble looking

at the minister there and thinking of that wonderful spread in the

magazine that sold on supermarket counters quoting her as saying that

when she couldn't be frank, she would leave her job. I think it's time

for her to come clean with the facts. What the deuce is going on in

that department so that this kind of scandalous record can be exposed?

Why is it that reports like this have to arrive in brown paper

envelopes so that the public can know what's being done with their

money?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, the only thing

that I want to point out to the smug member across from me is that the

$1.2 million is not an overrun in this ministry; it's an additional

cost in the Ministry of Health. If the member would think a little bit

about the negotiations and the demand for air ambulance, he would

understand why there is a fluctuation. We try to negotiate as closely

as we can, but it's always a guesstimate on how many hours you're going

to use the jets for ambulance use. There is always a difference. Some

years the jets are used more than in other years, but the number one

priority for government air service is for air ambulance.

MR. GABELMANN :

I don't have much experience in any of this stuff, but I wonder if the

minister could explain to me why, if the jets are there sitting on the

tarmac available for air ambulance as a first priority, you would

negotiate how many hours are to be used.

HON. MRS. GRAN : For budgeting purposes.

MR. GABELMANN : I'm trying to square that with the answer in question period from the Minister of

[ Page 10666 ]

Health (Hon. J. Jansen), who said — and has repeatedly said —

that the air ambulance service is driven by patient-care demand. How

does this work? If the air ambulance is driven by demand and the

minister has a budget for air ambulances....

HON. MRS. GRAN : We don't have a budget.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN : Health has a budget for air ambulances, and when they exceed that they then start to charter? That doesn't make sense.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN : I know that's not the answer; it doesn't make sense.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You don't understand.

MR. GABELMANN :

The Premier says that I don't understand. I am in good company. There

are 2.6 million British Columbians who don't understand this either.

I would like to know: is the air ambulance system driven by patient — and patient-doctor — demand?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes.

MR. GABELMANN :

I wonder if the minister might explain to this simple mind what the

purpose is, then, of the Health ministry budget discussions with your

ministry in respect of the hours that will be available for the

Citations.

HON. MRS. GRAN : It's so that we have some

sense of what Health feels the demands will be, based on last year. But

it is always a guesstimate, because the patients' demands decide how

many hours those jets are used for ambulance services. As you can see,

they fluctuate greatly over the years.

MR. GABELMANN :

I wonder if the minister would agree that the fluctuation downward in

the last year is a direct result of the increased use of charters for air ambulance purposes.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I just want to say that every year there is a mix. The answer is no.

MR. GABELMANN : So every year there has been a mix. Agreed. Why has the

mix suddenly gone to the extent now where it's almost pure oxygen? We now

have a situation where charters at great cost are leased by the Ministry of

Health for air ambulance services. At the same time, the number of those charters

goes up and the use by the air ambulance service of the Citations goes down.

Is there any logical answer that the minister, who prides herself on giving

honest answers, can give to that? The only obvious answer to British Columbians

so far has been that there has been a priority for cabinet minister travel on

the Citations. Is there any other answer that would explain the dramatic change

in the mix last year?

[2:45]

MR. PERRY :

I was interested in listening to my colleague the member for North

Island, because his questions are always perceptive, succinct and to

the point. Sitting here listening to this is giving me a new lease on

life. It's reminding me why I decided to enter politics last year.

I see someone was proposing — I forget if it was in the Sun or the Province — over

the weekend that we rename British Columbia to Lotus Land or Fantasy

Land or something less colonial-sounding than British Columbia. I have

always been an admirer of that name, so don't mistake me for advocating

the change, but I can see why whoever wrote that

article was thinking

along those lines. This is just — there is no other way to describe it — bizarre. I hope that isn't unparliamentary, Mr. Chairman.

Because

I had brought in only some pages of the ambulance report, I have asked

for the full report to be sent to me so I can check some of the figures

and commend them to the minister's attention. Look here at page 8 of

the copy I sent the minister, under the heading "Air Ambulance Service."

remind you that this is the annual report of the Emergency Health

Services Commission. Admittedly, few of us are ever privileged to see

such government documents. It's not considered in this province in the

public interest for the public to really know how government works on

the inside.

Here at page 8 of this report, under the

heading "Air Ambulance, " above point 6, I quote: "Some uncontrollable

cost pressures continue to drive up Medivac expenses." Then: "6. The

inability of government air services to provide sufficient flight

hours, thus necessitating increased charter flights." When I get the

full report back in my hands, I can point out that the number of

charter hours rose.

Really, what the minister has tried to

tell us in response to very simple questions just does not bear the

test of truth. The flight hours accorded, on page 14 of the report,

which the minister has a copy of, to government air hours declined by

34.52 percent over the last five years. That is because although the

jets were purchased to provide emergency ambulance services for the

people of B.C., they were being used for another purpose.

The

inescapable conclusion sitting here in cold, hard print on page 15 of

that report under the heading "Air Ambulance Service" is: "Government

air services branch again reduced their committed hours. The reduction

from 2,800 hours to 1,800 per year caused an increase in charter costs

of approximately $1.2 million." I don't understand why it is so

difficult for this minister to appreciate that whether that money was

paid from the Ministry of Health budget or from the Government

Management Services budget is immaterial to the taxpayer of British

[ Page

10667 ]

Columbia. It came directly out of the pockets of British Columbia taxpayers.

The

service was established to provide a necessary, lifesaving and

health-maintaining air ambulance service, which the people of British

Columbia expect. Because of her ministry's guidelines and her

colleagues' misuse of the air ambulance jets for their own political

purposes and their own personal convenience, those jets were not

available as much as they had been before — 35 percent less, to be exact.

What

I'm really asking the minister again is: will she explain why this

happened? Does she perhaps expect us, placidly like good little sheep,

to vote on her salary and cheer her along as if... ?

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : I even see one of her colleagues baaing; I hear the baa.

That's

not our role on this side of the Legislature. We're here as the

people's servants to raise legitimate questions about how this

government spends the taxpayers' money. That is the legitimate purpose

of the estimates debate; it's totally legitimate for us to insist on an

answer from this minister. If she won't give one, then perhaps the

people of B.C. will hold her accountable.

MR. SERWA :

I'd like to enter this debate on the minister's estimates for a few

minutes. Frankly, I would like to compliment the minister responsible

for government air services for the actions taken with the emergency

ambulance service, which works very well throughout the province.

also understand the reason that the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey fails to understand that in the interior of the

province time is very important in getting patients to the lower

mainland centres for specialized treatment. What has occurred in the

past — and one of the reasons I'm very strongly supportive of the charter flights that are utilized —

is that the British Columbia fleet has been based in Victoria. An

aircraft is called; often that aircraft has to then land in Vancouver

to pick up paramedics and then go to the interior of the province,

where it has to pick up the patient and return to Vancouver.

The fact remains that the charter flights used by the Ministry of Health are

located in all areas of the province. The cost of those flights is normally

less expensive than government air services, because they use turboprops, which

are less expensive pieces of equipment to buy and to maintain, and almost as

fast as the jets. The fact is that its payload is on a one-way route. Since

time is important — and critical in many cases — I think the present system is

very important. Certainly the member from Cranbrook acknowledges the importance

of getting individuals from her area to the medical centres or specialists in

Vancouver as quickly as possible. So when the hon. member of the opposition

continues to talk about cost and about $1.2 million, he conveniently tends to

forget that there is a cost to running aircraft, whether they are publicly owned

or privately owned, and that time is essential and critical in most cases. I'm

deeply appreciative of the care taken by our government in providing the best

possible standard of emergency transportation through air.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, the reason I've been sitting here is that we've been

through this several times before. If the second member for

Vancouver–Point Grey — it is second, isn't it? — had been in

the House, he would have heard a lot of my answers. I guess that's part

of estimates: over and over again. He would have heard me say that in a

review currently underway, we're looking at basing one of the planes

perhaps in an area like Prince George, instead of having all of them in

Victoria. When the planes are not available, a lot of the time it's

because they're too far away.

I've not seen the report that

this member brought into the House today. It's a report from the

Ministry of Health. I'm sure that in his estimates the Minister of

Health (Hon. J. Jansen) will be able to answer a lot of the questions

that the member is asking. But if the member would do me the favour of

going back through the Blues to see the questions — good questions — his colleagues have asked and the answers given, he would be a great deal smarter.

MS. EDWARDS :

Mr. Chairman, I hate to go away from the issue of whether the ambulance

is available in rural areas of this province. The difficulties there,

which I hear regularly, and the fact that there is no reasonable

solution yet, make me wish that we could extend the debate on it.

However, I have another issue that I want to ask the minister about.

Apprenticeship

programs are one of the major problems in our area. I know you're not

responsible for apprenticeship programs, but one particular aspect of

the problem is the small number of women apprentices in the few

apprenticeships that we have in the province.

While I don't

have figures that conform exactly to my constituency, I have some that

represent what goes on in apprenticeships in the East Kootenay. What

generally relates to my own constituency, Madam Minister, is that out

of 181 apprentices, seven are female. If you extend that into a broader

area throughout the East Kootenay, there are 291 apprentices, of which

16 are female. That proportion is not appropriate. I want to know from

the minister what she plans to do about that.

I would like

to add a little detail to this picture, which is quite an interesting

little portrait, if you look at what the figures tell you. It's

interesting, first of all, that in the part that conforms to my riding,

the minister might recognize that of the ten cooking apprenticeships,

none are women. These are the ones in which people might expect to have

females apprenticing. There are two baking apprenticeships, and no

women. There is one hairdressing apprentice, who is a woman. The only

barbering one is a woman. Of the ten carpentry apprentices, there is

one woman. And the one apprentice in practical horticulture is a

[ Page 10668 ]

woman. Those last two are very exciting. It's also interesting that in the designation "parts man" — and I put that forward with quotation marks — there are three women in the six parts-man apprenticeships.

The

picture is pretty well the same in the rest of the East Kootenay,

except that of the three.... First of all, all three hairdressing

apprenticeships are held by women. Of the seven cooking apprentices,

four are women. And we have two auto-parts men out of six. What is the

minister planning to do? I'd like a fairly concrete answer, if the

minister has something to say about this, about what she intends to do

to increase the number of women who have access to the rare number of

apprenticeships in our province. What is she planning to do to see that

the types of apprenticeship become much broader for the women who want

to take them?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, the member has brought up a subject that we all need to address and reflect on. In order for women — girls — to look toward non-traditional careers, a change in attitude is required. When we've talked about Women's Programs —

which hasn't been nearly often enough.... I'm surprised that Women's

Programs has taken a very low profile in my estimates. I hope that

doesn't mean the NDP have decided they no longer care about women's

concerns. There has been a real lack of good-quality questions from the

other side.

[3:00]

Attitudes are everything, and the biggest part of this ministry is

to influence attitudes. That means that all of us have to work

together — people in leadership roles, in particular. I would

think that MLAs, both male and female, when they are talking in their

constituencies and in other places, have a wonderful opportunity to

talk about the concerns of girls in school, and the fact that they have

probably not changed their attitudes over the last 50 years. Having

traveled around the province, I am aware that many young girls still

believe in fairy-tales. They are not aware that they will probably work

25 to 40 years of their lives. They still believe that they're going to

get married, be looked after and live happily ever after. They may live

happily ever after, but they will probably do it while they're working.

What

needs to happen is that attitudes in school need to change. There are a

variety of ways to do this. This ministry, under the women's

secretariat, provided some substantial grants to communities and

organizations to deal with exactly what the member is talking about.

Role

models in schools are another way to accomplish what the member is

talking about. It's my hope to work very closely over the next year

with Education and the local school boards to convince them that

role-model programs will greatly assist young women in making

non-traditional career choices.

I can tell the member that

when visiting her constituency, I went to her college, which is a

lovely college. I met with the board, the faculty and many of the

students. I met a single woman who was taking a mechanic's course. I

think there were 30 altogether and just this one woman. But that woman

changed a lot of attitudes in that room with the men she was working

with. They were pleasantly surprised at her abilities, and that her

understanding of the car, truck or whatever she was working on was as

good as theirs, and that she was indeed capable of doing the job.

It's going to be a slow process; it's not going to happen overnight. But the biggest change will occur when attitudes change.

MS. EDWARDS :

First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister for having set up

so many targets, even though women's issues didn't have the kind of

emphasis she thought they might have had. You've had a very active time

in your estimates, Madam Minister. I'm sorry that you wanted to speak

more about women and haven't had the opportunity.

I noticed

that you said you would put up some funding for community groups, and

that you think it would be nice to have role models in the schools. But

what is the budget? What are the actual programs that you're talking

about? Even if you are simply talking about the schools — and that seems to be where you have placed your stress — you are forgetting that education is a lifelong process.

was very nice to come across an example the other day in a parade, when

the second princess from Revelstoke told me that she wanted to go to

college and become a welder. That is marvellous. But we have to do

more, Madam Minister. We have to do more in the schools, and I'd like

to know what kind of specific programs and budgets you have.

know that the two women's centres in my area have projects to do

something. Does the minister have specific projects? Does the minister

have ideas or a budget? What is the minister going to do for women,

other than girls going through the public school system?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, before I give the member a few examples of what is being

done, let me again remind the member that the ministry for women's

programs is not a ministry to have large funding that belongs in other

ministries. For example, if funding is required for a role-model

program in schools, that will come under the Ministry of Education. The

other programs the member is talking about fall under Advanced

Education.

Having said that, I can tell the member that the

province is developing, with the federal government, a British Columbia

action plan to increase the participation of women in apprenticeship

programs. Under the training opportunities program of the Ministry of

Advanced Education, Training and Technology, employers who hire women

in non-traditional jobs are eligible for wage subsidies. The women's

grant program has sponsored summer science workshops for girls aged

nine to 12 in communities throughout the province, a new video on

careers in the sciences for girls for use in the school curriculum, a

career development opportunities kit for teenage girls and

[ Page

10669 ]

young women, and several women-in-trades access projects.

can tell you that in ministries other than just my own, a lot is being

done to encourage women to go into the non-traditional areas — where, of course, they make more money.

MS. EDWARDS :

I certainly find it interesting that the minister talks about all these

programs that have been put in place since the funding was chopped for

women's departments at colleges, for women's training programs that

were in colleges that were doing a lot of work to get women back in.

But I'm more curious to know.... I don't have any sense of where the

people who work with apprenticeships are going to be over the long

term, and I'd like to know whether the minister is going to be doing

something through.... Have you yet established which ministry you are

going to be able to work with in order to encourage more women into

apprenticeships? Is that going to be in Advanced Education, Training

and Technology? Is it going to be in Labour? Where is it going to be?

Is it going to be privatized? Is it going to sort of disappear in a

wisp of smoke? What is the minister doing specifically to encourage

more women into apprenticeships?

HON. MRS. GRAN : The answer is, the Ministry of Advanced Education.

MS. MARZARI :

I was interested to hear the minister comment on the lacklustre

performance of the opposition around women's programs. Madam Minister,

I should say that I am one who measures estimates procedures on the

basis of quality rather than quantity. I have convinced myself over the

last three years that you can say almost everything that needs to be

said or not said inside a six-hour package. I must admit, the six hours

we spent in this House together were most enlightening indeed. From the

point of view of ministerial responsibility and accountability, we got

answer after answer which was not a "no" answer but not a "yes" answer.

We got answer after answer which suggested that the minister wasn't

really responsible but might be responsible but perhaps was

coordinating. When questions came forward that asked the minister where

her money was to coordinate or where her mandate was to coordinate, it

was all in the what we call the warm and fuzzy never-never land of

possibly a committee but perhaps not a resolution. This was not an

estimates procedure, Madam Minister. This was a foray into a fantasy

land of possibilities, maybes and never-to-bes.

What amazed me the most was the babysitting that went on around the minister.

Throughout the estimates there were at least two senior cabinet ministers protecting

the minister from having to answer anything that might be too difficult. This

rose to a crescendo in my last question to the minister last week when I asked

the minister, in her relationship to and in her coordination of programs that

might be related to the Attorney-General, as to her position on violence against

women and children in this province. I asked her very specifically what she

was doing about wife assault, about wife battering, about child abuse and whether

or not she was approaching and lobbying other ministers around getting a Statute

of Limitations increase, and about getting the counselling increased for women

who had been sexually abused as children. It was the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Smith) who stood up and who went on at length — ate the clock, so to speak,

all the way through to 6 o'clock that night — to protect the minister of

women from having to answer those very difficult, very serious questions.

fact, he was so considerate of his relationship with the minister for

women that he announced that she was an excellent minister. And why was

she an excellent minister, Mr. Chair? She was an excellent minister

because she didn't care who got the credit for ideas. She was such a

good minister, such a good woman, such a good girl, that it didn't

matter to her who got the credit for her ideas. In other words, the

Attorney-General was going to get the credit, but she was going to

express the idea and remain silent in the background — which I

have witnessed at a press conference not so long ago, where the

Attorney-General took full credit for an idea which was obviously hers.

So, commenting on the estimates procedure, I must move along to ask my question at this point.

Interjection.

MS. MARZARI : Are you pleased that I'm about to ask a question, Mr. Member?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : Is this part of the six hours?

MS. MARZARI :

Yes, absolutely. You see, I don't have senior cabinet ministers sitting

beside me advising me how to go through my paces. No, just a group of

scurrilous old....

Here we go — page 26 of the women's

advisory council report, recommendation 4: "That the provincial

government undertake to achieve an equal representation of qualified

women on appointed boards, commissions, advisory bodies and in senior

management in the provincial public service." That's an excellent

recommendation, a recommendation that I would wholeheartedly support;

in fact, I would want to know that there were files and files of

qualified women to fill available commission and board appointments. I

would have imagined that the minister would have been compiling these

files over the last few months since her appointment so that whenever a

board or commission appointment was to be made, the minister would be

there and ready, file in hand, with a list of qualified women

candidates to sit on boards and, hopefully, to represent 50 percent of

those boards, since women hold up half of the sky in all areas across

this province and this country.

Yet on Friday we read order-in-council appointments approved June 28, 1990, for the Premier's

[ Page 10670 ]

Advisory

Council on Science and Technology. Five members are reappointed for a

term of two years. Four are appointed for one year, and then six new

people are appointed for three years. I think there is a total of 15

appointments on the page, Madam Minister. Every one of them is a man;

every new appointment to the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and

Technology is a male. We know, I know and you know that there are many

qualified women who could sit on the advisory council. I know two, one

of whom did sit on the committee — Dr. Julia Levy. There are dozens more in our university systems that I've talked to over the last three years.

Where

are the women on this very important council? Obviously there are

thousands of appointments to be made. This is an important appointment;

this is an important council. It has to do with the economic

development of our province, the whole new initiative In the knowledge

industry. Where are the women on this particular council?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy that the member opposite approves of the

recommendations in that report. She's had a change of heart in the last

couple of days, I would guess. Probably someone has told her that it's

a good idea for her to support it instead of constantly trashing what

is really a good report, so I'm happy to see the change of heart. It

will be helpful, I'm sure, for all of us to work together instead of

having that particular MLA tear it down each time we do something in

this ministry.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN : "Try and get along" — did

you hear that? That came from your side. Is he concerned? Is it that he

wants us to get along because we're women, or just that he wants us to

get along?

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Oh, okay. Maybe when the member stands up she could tell us what it's

like in her caucus. I have a feeling that there are probably some

differences of opinion in that caucus over the issues that affect women.

[3:15]

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Never? So says "scotch and sofa."

answer to the member about the specific recommendation for the number

of women on boards and commissions.... I want to assure the member that

in the last eight months there has been a significant change in the

number of women put on boards and commissions, and that it will

continually improve. All of the recommendations in that report will be

going to cabinet for approval. The report itself has been there and was

well received by the ministers, and each recommendation will be

Implemented in the next period of time.

I also want the

member to know that, yes, I have compiled a lengthy list of very

qualified women from not just the lower mainland but all over British

Columbia to sit on advisory boards and commissions and whatever else

comes up as government does its business.

We certainly have

a long way to go, not just in British Columbia but all over Canada. I

think that the recent report from the federal government states that

very clearly. It's not limited to British Columbia. It's all over this

country.

MS. MARZARI : Madam Minister, this is the

very reason we haven't had a successful relationship during the course

of these estimates. I asked you a very specific question about 15 men

now sitting on the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and

Technology. Fifteen men. Where are the women? This was your first test.

The report comes out mid-June, this committee is appointed on June 29.

Where are the women on this committee? This is so representative of all

the topics that we've discussed.

The report is an excellent

report. For the record, the report is everything the NDP have been

saying for 20 years. It's almost as if you'd read through the women's

policy of the NDP that we've developed in the last three years, touring

around the province. An excellent report.

What I was

concerned about was the fact that in selecting that committee you put

the members between a rock and a hard place. You put them in a

difficult position. You went to them as individuals, but then you used

the names of their agencies. Do you know what it's like? It's like —

I'll put this into male terms, because the House understands these

terms better — asking Wayne Gretzky to comment on the future needs

of the Edmonton Oilers. That's what you did. You put the other members

of that team in a difficult position. You put the owners of that team

in a difficult position. That is my concern about your report and about

your committee.

The report is excellent, okay? I don't have

to say it again and nobody told me to say that it was an excellent

report. But what you've done is put women in a difficult position.

That's not what you had set out to do, but you did it through

inadvertence, through lack of experience. So much of what you have

presented to this House in our estimates represents that same lack of

experience, that same inadvertent stumbling into co-ordinated roles

when you have no power; stumbling into mandates when you don't have the

authority; stumbling into big-budget items when you don't have the

budget.

That settles that. One other question has to do

with your relationship to lands that are on your lists, Madam Minister.

One of my concerns in my constituency is the Jericho lands, and I've

been tracking it now for a year and a half. The Jericho lands have gone

from Government Management Services; they have trickled through to

special privatization lists; at one point they were on the housing

lists held by the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Now,

apparently, they've been bounced back through BCBC to

[ Page

10671 ]

your ministry. I'm interested in knowing, Madam

Minister, now that I've tracked this through the loops that it's

traveled, what is now happening to the Jericho lands, 50 acres of

potentially residential property, potentially planned housing and

parkland in the heart of Point Grey. Have you made plans on the Jericho

lands? Have you had consultations with the mayor or the city council in

Vancouver? Have you made commitments with the neighbourhood of Point

Grey to assure them that they will be consulted and involved in any

planning process that goes on?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes.

MR. ROSE :

I was hoping that the minister would elaborate a little bit more than

that, but I suppose a monosyllabic reply is better than a swarm of

fetid fog, unless you're particularly fond of fetid fog.

hope, in the event that one of my colleagues doesn't walk in here with

one of his greatest hits, that I will be closing this debate, to

welcome the minister to a little bit of relief from this incessant

cross-examination and the fact that she's had some very difficult

things to defend, some not of her own making. I understand that. I

think that going through first estimates must be akin to something else

that was very traumatic in a person's life. I can't think of what that

might be. Nevertheless, you probably never forget it.

I've

got a few questions having to do with vote 35. You might alert your

officials, because you might need some advice on this one. I'd like to

follow up something my colleague said about the fact that you had some

goalkeepers in here with you this year. I would think that that would

be a bit demeaning. I guess it's okay for the first time. But I watched

your colleague of last year in Parks. He was hung out to dry. Nobody

came near him to help him, and he was having a very bad time of it. I

think the minister is quite capable of defending herself, and she

didn't really need the heavies in here. If I had been in her place, I

would have objected to it. It's demeaning as a woman, I think. Anyway,

I've said that — for which my colleague is very proud, I'm sure.

Vote

35 includes nearly $9 million for administration and support services,

which is up 18 percent over last year. The House voted $7.6 million for

administering the thing last year. Your ministry has shrunk by 30

percent. You lost the government personnel services division to the

Ministry of Finance; you lost the B.C. Pavilion Corporation to the

Ministry of Tourism. If we are paying a lot more to administer a lot

less, it seems to me we need an explanation, and I would welcome that

explanation.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The actual facts are that there has been an increase in funding of 5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER : Read the budget.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Do you have those figures in front of you?

MR. ROSE : You're up 18 percent.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I guess it depends on....

MR. ROSE :

Let me assist the minister. If you look at last year, you've got $7.6

million for administering this ministry. This year it's nearly $9

million. We calculate it at being up 18 percent.

If you

want to do it the other way and call it 5 percent, I don't care, but

the fact is that you've lost 30 percent of your ministry. I want to

know why, if you've lost 30 percent of your ministry, your vote is up

for administration something like — take your figures or mine — 18 percent.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'm not sure if I'm understanding what the member is saying, but the increase is 7 percent for administration.

MR. ROSE : I don't want to quibble all afternoon over this thing. The estimates for 1990-'91 are $8,987,350 — that's this year. Administration and support services, last year, $7,627,267. That looks to me like quite a jump.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, the comparable figure is $8,376,000.

MR. ROSE :

Where did that come from? I'm looking on page 124 of the estimates, and

I don't know where the $8 million came from at all. If you want to

leave that, we'll leave it. It seems to me it speaks for itself.

Anyway, it sounds a little bit like the airline business.

The

supplement to the estimates shows a big shift in salaries paid for

administration. At $3 million, it's up 40 percent on the $2.1 million

voted last year for the ministry, which was then 30 percent larger. So

we've got $3 million, up 40 percent over $2.1 million for salaries paid

for administration. No other ministry of this government has such an

extravagant record. How is this justified?

HON. MRS. GRAN : I don't know where the member is reading from, but we are not up 18 percent in expenditures —

or the 40 percent I heard the member say. I'm having difficulty

understanding what he's talking about in terms of such a large increase

for administration. He's right, we have lost some things in the

ministry.

While I'm up, I want to expand just a little bit

on the question about the Jericho land. The Jericho land is with the

B.C. Buildings Corporation. Nothing has been planned for it, and I just

want you to know — and particularly the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — that I am talking regularly with the residents and nothing will be done without consultation with them.

MR. ROSE :

If you look at the notes under "Vote Description, " you see that the

subvote "provides for administration and support services to the

ministry including executive, financial and administrative,

[ Page 10672 ]

human

resources, information systems, and ministry information services."

Then it goes on and on: "...management training and development...some

expenses incurred by the Legislature ... cabinet committee expenses and

travel expenses within Canada" and that sort of thing. Then there are

certain recoveries here. So that's where I got it. That also includes

salary.

The ministry seems to be hiring nearly seven times

the number of consultants they did last year. I would like an

explanation of that. Is this one of the residues of privatization? In

other words, what you do is cut your staff down in your ministries,

then go outside. But ultimately you spend the same or more money on it.

This appears to be another angle as well.

[3:30]

The ministry seems to be hiring seven times the number of consultants — $788,000 this year compared to $117,000 —

for what is called "professional services." Would the minister confirm

that she's asking advice, perhaps on how to handle her spending

estimates? What are all these consultants for? Can we have a list of

them? Will you table what they're for and what they're doing? There

seem to be a fairly substantial number here.

HON. MRS. GRAN : We're not hiring any more consultants or contract people than we ever have before. I think the member can imagine — and probably knows all by himself — what

a ministry would hire people like that for. If there's a job.... In

Women's Programs I will be hiring quite a few consulting people to help

with projects that are short-term. Once they are dealt with, they will

then go on to the appropriate ministry.

MR. ROSE :

The vote also includes some $595,000 for "recoveries." These recoveries

were larger last year. Why are they down 9 percent from last year? I

would like to know whether you've cut training or whether last year's

recovery was not realized. What is the relationship of the $595,000 in

recoveries to last year's actual amount of recoveries?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

In the Centre for Executive and Management Development, for example,

the expenditure was 650 and the recovery was 594, for training programs.

MR. ROSE :

Under the STOBs, STOB 50, which includes vehicle and equipment

operation, has gone up 76 percent. Does this represent more cars, more

gas-guzzlers and greater travel during an election year, or a

combination? How do you justify this increase?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

We didn't have all the vehicles last year. This year we have the

management for all the vehicles in government. That's the difference.

MR. ROSE :

Do I understand that you've taken over all the vehicles from the other

ministries? You have total takeover of all vehicles, and they are all

purchased and managed and disposed of through the vehicle management

services? Yes.

I don't have anything more on that, but I

really can't congratulate the minister, as much as I'd love to, on a

spirited defence or explanation of these STOBs and these sub-votes.

It's just not good enough.

Will the minister undertake — if not to do it today, because she can't —

to get me some accurate answers, a little bit more amplified and

specific answers than she gave me today? There are some anomalies in

spending, and I think I've gone over a great number of them. We're

paying a lot more to administer a lot less. I need an explanation of

why that is.

Salaries for administration appear to have

gone up when your ministry has shrunk. I need an explanation for that.

It seems to me there are seven times the number of consultants as last

year. Why? The recoveries are down. Why? I've got an explanation about

the last one — vehicle management — and I'm satisfied with that.

At that point I'll close this portion of the estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 34 pass?

MR. ROSE : On a point of order, I was hoping the minister might respond before you called that vote.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, I will make a commitment to provide the member with that information.

Vote 34 approved.

Vote 35: ministry operations, $32,212,980 — approved.

Vote 36: pensions and employee benefits administration, $10 — approved.

Vote 37: pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 13.

PURCHASING COMMISSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Serwa in the chair.

section 1.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, I have very serious reservations

about this legislation, which I discussed on Thursday. I would

[ Page

10673 ]

like to have some more detailed discussion with the minister in committee stage.

The

first

section is definitional changes. Perhaps I could just begin by

asking the minister to explain them. There is a change dealing with

public institutions and a changed amendment. Maybe the minister could

explain the necessity for the changes to the definitional

section of

the Purchasing Commission Act.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, that is just a clarifying clause.

MR. CLARK :

I'm trying to find out what it clarifies, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the

minister has some bill notes. These changes are germane to

section 3 of

the bill, so we'll get to that later. But I wonder why it was necessary

to change "public institutions" to "government institutions." This

seems to be the significant change, and I'm not sure....

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, the definition of "public institutions" provides a

distinction between government institutions, to whom the commission

must provide service if requested, and public institutions, to whom it

may provide services upon request.

MR. CLARK : Is

that a change from the previous act, which required that the Purchasing

Commission shall operate on behalf of public institutions? Are the

substantial changes that they shall act only on behalf of government

institutions and not public institutions?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's correct.

MR. CLARK : Then why is it necessary to delete from the Purchasing Commission's power certain public institutions — if that's what happened here?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, just let me read to the member: "This definition is

essentially identical to the previous definition of 'public

institution'." Therefore, government institutions in the new act should

be thought of as the former public institutions — for example, Crown corporations. B.C. Assessment Authority, B.C. Housing Management Commission.

MR. CLARK : I apologize to the minister, but now I am confused. Here

is a change now delineating government institutions from public institutions

That wasn't here previously. The minister answered that that was a significant — for want of a better word — amendment in the sense that it made a substantial

change to the Purchasing Commission Act. The minister stood up a minute ago

and said, I think, that there really was no change. Can you tell me which it

is? Does this amendment remove certain institutions from the purview of the

Purchasing Commission?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, it is simply a clarification of "public institution"; it distinguishes between them.

MR. CLARK :

I don't want to jump ahead, Mr. Chairman, but is

section 3 the reason

for the distinction, the change of "shall" in the old Purchasing

Commission Act to "on request...government institutions"? Is that the

reason for the change? If it is, then in fact these amendments do more

than clarify; they substantially change the powers of the Purchasing

Commission Act.

HON. MRS. GRAN : The difference is

that the "shall" applies to ministries and Crown corporations, and the

"may" brings in municipalities, school boards, hospitals, and those

kinds of things.

MR. CLARK : Is it the case that in

the past the existing bill did not allow the Purchasing Commission to

act on behalf of municipalities, hospitals, etc., and that they are now

covered by this "on request" position?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The previous bill really didn't allow or disallow the Purchasing

Commission to deal with school boards, municipalities, and those kinds

of agencies. It's clarified and spelled out in the new act.

MR. CLARK : So this in fact does not change the operation of the Purchasing Commission, except to say that certain institutions — which are now defined — may be covered by the Purchasing Commission Act if they request it. Is that the nub of the matter?

HON. MRS. GRAN : Yes, that's correct.

MR. ROSE : I just wonder if the Chair would confirm the mandatory part —

or the appearance of it being mandatory. The commission "shall" is

really permissive when you put in the "on request" stuff. The

commission really has no power over the government institutions; it's

only on request. I think we should remind ourselves that of all

government purchasing and all government institutional purchasing, the

Purchasing Commission looks after only 6 percent of the total. I've

said so many words that you've probably lost me. I'm asking for

confirmation that what appears to be the shell of the mandatory side of

it really is permissive when you put in those little words "on request."

HON. MRS. GRAN : The mandatory part applies to the Purchasing Commission.

[3:45]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. CLARK :

I have no wish to discuss this

section at great length. The germane

amendment of

section 40) (

a) of the existing act is twofold. One now

says

[ Page 10674 ]

"on

request," and it says "government" institutions rather than "public."

The existing bill says that it is the duty of the commission to acquire

supplies. So it's in the affirmative: it shall acquire supplies on

behalf of public institutions. It now says the commission "shall,"

which implies that it's mandatory, and then adds "on request" for

government institutions. I'm trying to ask the minister what the

significance of that amendment is. To repeat for the minister, there

are two little changes in this, and I'm asking the minister to give us

some clarification as to the significance of the amendment that changes

"shall purchase on behalf of the public institutions" to "may"

purchase — or essentially, "shall...on request...government institutions."

HON. MRS. GRAN : The Purchasing Commission, if requested, is required — it's mandatory for them — to deal with the contract. The "may" allows areas — public institutions —

that haven't been included or defined previously to now become part of

the client service offered by the Purchasing Commission. The "may"

applies only to the clients; the "shall" applies to the Purchasing

Commission.

MR. CLARK : I understand that the

commission "shall purchase" if a government institution requests it.

They are required to do it upon request. But from a reading of the

existing bill, it appears that they shall do it, regardless of whether

or not it's requested. It says that their duty is to acquire supplies

for public institutions.

I may be reading that wrong, and

I'm quite prepared to concede that if the minister can point it out to

me. The difference is that we've now changed it from public

institutions to government institutions. I'm trying to get a handle on

the significance of the two amendments: "on request" and now government

institutions instead of public institutions.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

The word "shall" applies to government institutions, and "may" applies

to public institutions. It's mandatory for the Purchasing Commission to

deal with government institutions, but they may deal with public

institutions which are municipalities, school boards and hospitals.

MR. CLARK :

I understand that, Mr. Chairman, but I know they shall on request act

on behalf of government institutions. I wonder if the minister could

explain why it's necessary to have "on request." Is it not the role of

the Purchasing Commission to act on behalf of all government

institutions on a mandatory...? In other words, it's mandatory both

ways — not just the commission, but on the part of government

institutions. I fail to see why you need "on request" on the part of

government institutions.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Because the

policy is that the client service be such that they request the

service; it isn't mandatory. That's why that phrase is in there.

MR. CLARK :

It would appear from reading the existing bill that it was mandatory.

Is that not the case? It certainly has been interpreted that way. Upon

reading the existing bill, it implies that it was a duty of the

commission to act on behalf of government or public institutions —

or both. Is the minister saying essentially that this amendment

codifies what exists in practice? Is it fair to say that this amendment

codifies what actually exists in practice?

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Yes, the member is correct. The Purchasing Commission is moving away

from the mandatory philosophy of ministries having to deal with the

Purchasing Commission. In fact, the volumes have increased.

MR. CLARK :

With all due respect to the minister, it strikes me as a diminution; in

fact, it is. I don't know if the minister agrees with it or not. I

understand the need for institutions to participate in the Purchasing

Commission and the use of their talents to purchase on behalf of

government institutions. But if the government wants to take advantage

of economies of scale and wants to pursue certain objectives such as

efficiency or, as we get later on, other objectives which are now added

to the bill, then it would make sense to me to require all government

institutions to work through the Purchasing Commission. That's the main

way in which the Purchasing Commission can achieve those economies of

scale and efficiencies.

As I read it, that was the primary

intent of the original Purchasing Commission Act. This may not in

practice, at the moment, diminish the power of the Purchasing

Commission. The minister mentioned a minute ago that it may even

enhance the amount of purchasing. In reality, it diminishes the

Purchasing Commission's power to purchase most efficiently if all

government institutions are not operating through the Purchasing

Commission.

If they are required to operate through the

Purchasing Commission, the Purchasing Commission can presumably use

that leverage to reduce prices or to pursue other government

objectives. I suspect that if the government will get to this in an

amendment — it's in the same section, actually.... If it chooses

to pursue environmental initiatives, for example, using this

legislation — if, that's the objective of the government —

you've now given government institutions the option of not proceeding

through the Purchasing Commission. Therefore you negate the very

purpose you are attempting to achieve with the amendments.

The amendments now make it essentially at the client's request —

to use the minister's words. I think it weakens the power of the

commission to pursue government objectives other than price, and

weakens its power to pursue price objectives, because they can't

necessarily take advantage of the economies of scale which would take

place if it were mandatory. It strikes me that the existing act was

mandatory. These amendments make it mandatory to the Commission only if

it's requested by the government institution.

[ Page

10675 ]

I wonder if the minister could explain her view on that, given that

it appears that if all government institutions must go through the

Purchasing Commission, the commission can therefore achieve the best

price, given economies of scale and other things. This now weakens the

power to do that, it seems to me.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I

guess if we were talking about power, I would have to say that the

member is right; but we're not talking about power. We're talking about

efficiency and a philosophy. There's a difference in philosophy that

probably stands out here between the NDP and Social Credit, and it's a

good example of how we believe that you can't legislate creativity,

that you can't force efficiency, that you can't legislate the

innovative purchasing that now goes on through the

customer-service-oriented Purchasing Commission.

The change in philosophy has taken place over the last five years, and it has worked extremely well —

so well that it's really nice to hear members of the opposition

compliment the Purchasing Commission for doing a good job. I don't

believe — and probably no one on this side believes — that mandatory purchasing by government ministries would work.

The

other thing the Purchasing Commission does is work with ministries, if

they request it, to help them with their purchasing, If that's what

they want to do. They're available for consultative and also for

purchasing purposes.

MR. ROSE : The minister talks about different ideologies behind....

AN HON. MEMBER : Philosophies.

MR. ROSE : It's the same thing. One man's philosophy is another man's ideology. It doesn't really matter what you call it.

What

do we have the Purchasing Commission for, anyway? Why bother with it,

then? If everything can be so innovative, having every ministry.... And

the minister said this: every ministry can go off in all directions and

buy.... That's what the minister said. I see the official behind her

shaking his head. I know it's not in the act, but that's what the

minister said: "...acquire supplies required by the government." It

would seem to me that it would be all ministries then, so ministries

couldn't go chase their own little creative initiative rainbows. They

are under here. It's the government institutions that are not under

here, not the government ministries.

Why do we have a Purchasing Commission? It seems to me that we have it for

two or three reasons I'll try and think of them as I go along. The first

one that comes to my mind is to keep everybody honest, because there have been

all kinds of horror stories in which there has actually been influence.... I'm

not saying it's just in this government; it's governments traditionally — like they build highways. There have been the seeds of corruption. This is

a squeaky-clean Purchasing Commission, and we like it that way.

The

other thing is the economies of scale. That's another reason why we

have a Purchasing Commission. And the other one is so that it can be

creative and innovative in itself and go out like it does with its

shows. I've forgotten the name of the one down in the convention

centre. It was very impressive. A lot of government ministries were

there, but by and large, there was someone very close to the minister

there as well. I believe Mohawk Oil had a booth at that show.

All

governments, if they don't have one, should have a purchasing

commission. What we should be doing is not reducing its power and

influence.... It's only looking after 6 percent, as I've said 15 times

now. We should be looking for it to expand its role, not diminish it,

for all kinds of reasons, if for no other than to make sure that proper

tendering takes place and that people do get a proper break if they

don't have expertise. I mentioned the unconscionable contracts in

copiers, word processors and all of these things that the average

person doesn't have expertise in; it should be in the Purchasing

Commission. So that is the difference.

What we're going to

do is that government institutions may clue into it on request. But

they don't have to, and that's really what worries me after some of the

horror stories of hospital purchases over the last little while, raised

so capably by my hon. friend.

MR. CLARK : I think my colleague put it correctly: the Purchasing Commission has done a very good job. I think all members agree.

Far

be it from me to criticize legislation brought in by Mr. Bennett's

administration. The minister said that the original legislation was too

restrictive, and now we want the ministries to have the freedom to opt

out of the Purchasing Commission legislation. It seems to me that it

defeats the purpose of the original act; or it potentially does, given

the.... I'm sure the Purchasing Commission staff will fight

aggressively and competitively and probably retain 6 percent or more of

the government's business. I've no fear that the Purchasing Commission

can't survive on an opting-out basis. It will continue to do a lot of

business — although other sections of this bill potentially limit

its competitive advantage; the restrictions you can now place through

government public policy, through the government putting in other

caveats about economic efficiency, may make the Purchasing Commission

much less effective.

I think the member who spoke

previously made a good case. Anyone who reviews the

comptroller-general's report with respect to the former Minister of

Tourism's attempt to use the power of the Purchasing Commission to

establish some kind of monopoly for associates of his would say that

the Purchasing Commission came out of that sorry affair very well,

because it was clearly looking out for the public interest. However,

these amendments now make it possible for individual ministers — or ministries, through the ministers — to opt out of the safeguard that is in place, given the Purchasing Commission's mandate. Given the Purchasing Commission's man-

[ Page 10676 ]

date — given

its previously mandatory requirement to purchase on behalf of

ministries, which is in fact thwarted and which could have been

something much more damaging to the government than in fact took

place — I fear that these amendments potentially undermine the

ability of the Purchasing Commission to act as the very safeguard....

The former Minister of Tourism's bid was essentially thwarted by the

Purchasing Commission. I think that diminishing their mandatory

requirements to act as that safeguard potentially leaves the government

open to abuse.

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman, this is a large section. I could debate lots of it at

some length, but I'll try not to. I'll try to focus on the most

offensive

section to me.

Essentially all the way through

it, this

section adds, aside from "on request" and the change to

government institutions, "the environmental well-being of the

province." It adds environmental objectives as options to the ability

of the Purchasing Commission to pursue economic efficiency objectives.

Then a large new

section — subsection 4 (2) — is added: "In

addition to any powers required to perform its duties, the commission

may...." Then I'd like to draw the minister's attention to (k).

MR. ROSE : Subsection (

c) as well.

MR. CLARK : My colleague can refer to that, but....

MR. ROSE : I'll do it, then.

MR. CLARK : Okay, If you'd like to.

MR. ROSE : I raised this the other day —

4 (2) (c). Since we're going seriatim, perhaps it would be better to

deal with it now: "In addition to any powers required to perform its

duties, the commission may...(

c) dispose of intangible personal

property of the government where this is conducive to the economic and

environmental well-being of the province." I want to know who

determines that the disposal of intangible personal property.... Whose

job is it to decide whether that disposal is conducive to economic and

environmental well-being? What are the guidelines that would determine

and trigger the disposal?

HON. MRS. GRAN : First of

all, I want to remind the member of the independence of the Purchasing

Commission. It's an independent body directly responsible to the

Legislative Assembly. The amendments in this bill reaffirm this

independence by establishing guidelines for the addition of public

institutions to its customer base.

Section 4 requires any

new customer to be substantially publicly funded, and ensures those

decisions are free from political influence.

Section 1 ensures only

that commissioners can designate additional public institutions as

customers. That's by way of establishing the independence of the

Purchasing Commission.

I think the member is talking about technology commercialization.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Yes, that's what you're talking about. I think it's important for me to

point out that the government always retains ownership of these items.

They're bid on in a fair way by companies. I gave a good example when I

introduced a bill last week.

It seems like a very rational

thing for us to do to recoup some of the costs that are incurred in

developing software, particularly, in government.

MR. ROSE :

I wouldn't be so unkind as to describe what you've just said as

bafflegab, but it seems to me that the independence of the commission

needn't be questioned. But even commissions need some kind of

guidelines in order to determine whether something is in the

interests — environmentally or economically — of the province.

Who

decides that, and on what basis do they make that decision? For

instance, they might well decide that they're going to dispose of a

piano that they own. That's hardly an intangible. I might be

interested. It might be in my economic well-being, as a British

Columbian, to have these tendered.

Are there going to be

tenders here? Are there going to be guidelines to what is supposed to

be personal property of the government? "Intangibles," I suppose, does

not mean anything more than intellectual properties. But there could be

guidelines.

It seems to me there should be some guidelines

here to determine what is in the best interests of the province. Then

who decides? Is it the Ministry of Environment? How do we encourage

this sort of thing? I think there's an amendment coming up on the

environmental side of it in a second.

HON. MRS. GRAN : I'd like to acknowledge — and I think I said it before — that yes, there will be tenders, and that the commission and the customer decide.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Guidelines would not be put in a bill. These guidelines change through the passing of time.

MR. CLARK :

I understand the minister's concern, but I think the safeguards aren't

there. I don't want to berate any of the minister's colleagues or....

HON. MRS. GRAN : Against what?

MR. CLARK :

Against abuse; against purchases that are not economically efficient on

the basis of new rules which are now in place in this bill. There are no

[ Page

10677 ]

parameters. There are no clear guidelines to govern what the Purchasing Commission shall buy.

now says under sub-subsection (k): "notwithstanding

section 12."

Notwithstanding

section 12 of the act. Let me read

section 12: "The

commission shall obtain, if practicable, competitive prices of all

supplies purchased by it, and shall keep records of the price." In

other words, the commission shall choose competitive prices on the

basis of bidding.

That whole

section is the only

section

that deals with bidding. It's one line; it's nice and clear. The

commission shall, where practicable, choose competitive prices.

This amendment (

k) says: "Notwithstanding

section 12, " — low bid —

"create opportunities and programs to encourage local and regional

suppliers or in favour of environmentally sound supplies." That means,

notwithstanding low bid, you can choose something that's more

environmentally sound and/or choose something that is a local and

regional supplier. That means the government, through public policy

decisions, can choose something which may or may not be economically

efficient.

It's important, and I want to say this very

clearly to the minister. I am not one to genuflect before the altar of

low bid. Historically in British Columbia we used to have a 5 percent

preference for local suppliers. That was done away with in about '83.

The

government brought in a Purchasing Commission and said it would be more

efficient, and it would make it mandatory and centralize some of those

decisions so we could get the best price. Now we've changed that. Now

we've gone back to potentially a preferential treatment being given on

the basis of environmentally sound supplies or on the basis of regional

suppliers.

I don't have an objection to a preference being

given to environmentally sound supplies. I don't have an objection to

preference being given to regional suppliers if it's going to encourage

a nascent industry in a certain region or something. But there have to

be some clear rules governing the ability of the province to

discriminate against the low bid and in favour of something that is

environmentally better or which has regional suppliers.

the absence of those clear guidelines, it opens itself to political

abuse, because the commission might be independent but the government

institutions aren't necessarily. If the cabinet minister comes from

Campbell River or from Kamloops, the cabinet minister from Kamloops in

charge of a government institution can go to the Purchasing Commission

and say: "We should use this Kamloops supplier, because subsection (

k) of this bill allows us to discriminate in favour of a certain region in

order to promote an industry."

While I certainly applaud the goal, in the absence of any kind of guidelines

it means that it's open to political abuse. The entire purpose, it seems,

of the Purchasing Commission was to avoid — potentially, at least — that political

abuse by having an independent commission designed to purchase the most economically

efficient product. It was the independence of the commission which is very clear

when you read the sordid affair with respect to the previous Minister of Tourism.

It was the commission that said that in the public interest this is not a good

idea. That is now thwarted, potentially, by this particular amendment. The former

Minister of Tourism — not to pick on him, but he clearly was involved in a particular

affair — could now use exactly the same purchases that he tried to get the commission

to adopt before. He now could point to this

section and say: "It's

more environmentally sound, " Clearly it was; it was for recycling. "It's

regional." Well, it's for Surrey or for — I can't remember the

name of the group....

AN HON. MEMBER : Semiahmoo House.

MR. CLARK :

...Semiahmoo House, which had laudable goals. You could now point to

this

section of this bill and say, "The Purchasing Commission should

follow our lead in the Ministry of Tourism," and proceed with the

assistance of Semiahmoo House, using precisely this language to thwart

the integrity and independence of the Purchasing Commission which was

so clearly verified by the comptroller-general's report. I think this

is very dangerous.

With that, I would like to move an

amendment. The amendment says: "Section 3. 4 (2) (k): By adding after

'supplies': 'If such supplies are priced within 10 percent of the

lowest comparable bid'."

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : All those in favour of the amendment?

MR. CLARK : I'm speaking on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Second member for Vancouver East.

MR. CLARK : Thank you. I hadn't really relinquished the floor.

MR. ROSE : Why don't you call the vote, for crying out loud?

MR. CLARK : I will shortly, Opposition House Leader.

Mr.

Chairman, this may be clumsily worded, and I'm not legislative counsel,

but obviously the attempt is to put some parameters on the

environmental or regional goodwill of the government. If the government

minister says, "We should choose this supplier from Kamloops or from

Fort St. John because we want to promote an industry there," it has to

be done within some bounds of economic efficiency. This is 10 percent,

which is quite generous. The previous rules were 5 percent. It could be

some kind of difference in other jurisdictions. It says, for example,

"recycled products" — a percentage of recycled products within 5 percent. There are all kinds of parameters

[ Page 10678 ]

the government could choose to use. I have merely chosen one obvious one for illustrative purposes.

Very

clearly this

section is an amendment which could have meant the

government would be even more damaged by the former Minister of

Tourism's efforts than they were, because the former Minister of

Tourism's efforts with the Purchasing Commission could well have

succeeded had this amendment been in place which allows the ministry

now to opt out at their request or to work with the Purchasing

Commission pointing out this

section for environmental or local or

regional reasons to choose this particular supplier.

think it undermines the independence of the Purchasing Commission. I

think it potentially leaves it open to political pressure from

ministers and ministries for political purposes. I think it means that

the economic efficiency which the government was striving for with the

original Purchasing Commission Act is undermined by this particular

amendment.

I urge members, and the minister, to support

this amendment or to put forward another amendment which would be more

acceptable to the minister and that would at least give some bounds,

some guidelines, for neutral or value-free criteria by which to weigh

environmental or regional considerations. In the absence of that, with

simply having it wide open, I think there is a potential for abuse, and

I don't support it, and I ask the minister to support this amendment.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I want to speak against the amendment and just put on the record that

the absence of price preferences for environmental products has not

constrained the commission's ability to promote environmental

purchasing. In fact, they have been extremely successful.

Price

preferences would actually inhibit the commission's ability to

undertake environmental and regional purchasing initiatives for three

reasons They remove the ability to use an environmentally preferable

product or service that may cost more than the price preference allows.

They do not support the commission's approach of incorporating the true

costs of using a product into the purchasing decision — for

example, ensuring the proper disposal of an item is considered before a

purchase is made. This approach ensures that taxpayers receive the best

overall value from government spending. And lastly, they can foster

inefficiencies in the private sector and public spending and develop

markets which will not withstand the tests of time and competition.

want to remind the member, in his discussion of the former Minister of

Tourism, that the Purchasing Commission never had a mandate to do

municipal purchasing. Only with this act will we then have an

opportunity to do so.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

[4:15]

section 4.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, this

section gives me some concern again. Perhaps the

minister can alleviate my concern. I want to draw the minister's

attention to

section 4 of the bill we're in and to

section 6 (4) of the

Purchasing Commission Act, which is amended by this section. The bill

says: "The commission may require the person making a requisition to

satisfy it that there is an appropriation available for the purpose or

that other financial provision is made in accordance with law."

The

existing act says almost exactly word for word: "The commission shall

not act on a requisition until it is satisfied that there is in

existence an appropriation available for the purpose, or that other

financial provision is made in accordance with law."

other words, currently under the legislation, anybody who goes to the

Purchasing Commission must prove that there is money in the budget, and

that it was passed in the House before the commission can act. The new

amendment says the commission "shall" rather than "may" require the

person making a requisition.... Now that strikes me as a very

substantial amendment. It means, in fact, that with the Coquihalla and

other problems we've had with purchases made by government ministries

which were not authorized under the law, and which were not authorized

necessarily by certain votes or sub-votes or by budgetary matters or

estimates passed by the House....

I fail to see any

rationale for amending the Purchasing Commission Act to remove the

mandatory requirement of persons making a requisition to the commission

to justify it on the basis of the law or on the basis of appropriation

passed before the House. Perhaps the minister could give us some

explanation as to why it is required to amend the legislation and to

substantially dilute the provision which requires persons to justify

their requisition on the basis of money that's passed in this House.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, the change simply puts the responsibility where it

belongs: with the ministries. No one knows their budgets better than

they do.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to

section 4. line 644, to change "may" to "shall."

On the amendment.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, while the minister says that the responsibility for

following the appropriations of the House is clearly with the

ministries, it seems to be an extra safeguard— which could be very important —

to require that agencies of the government justify their requests to

the Purchasing Commission by proving to the Purchasing Commission at

least that the money is there to make that purchase, that the law was

passed and that the

[ Page

10679 ]

appropriations were passed in the House through the estimates.

For the life of me, I fail to see why a safeguard which assists everybody — and ministries perhaps — to

justify their requests would be removed in this legislation. It is

another way that reduces the compliance requirements for ministries

with respect to their appropriations before the House. While other

ministries may not want to have to justify it or go through the

paperwork, I would think that the minister responsible for the

Purchasing Commission would feel strongly that such justification

should be forthcoming, again, to enhance the checks and balances in

this House and the accountability of the Legislature, and that, in

fact, it was a simple requirement in the existing act that ministries

say: here is the money; here is the vote it was passed on; and here is

the reason we want you to purchase equipment on our behalf. To remove

that and substitute "may" I think seriously weakens that safeguard.

I think we have seen too often — not just with this administration but particularly with this one, and with the last one as well — that

there were times when that scrutiny of the public purse has not taken

place. So I can't for the life of me see why an amendment of this

nature would not carry in the House by all members who are concerned

about ensuring that such justification is always made before purchases

by ministries — particularly large purchases.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Chairman, the commission cannot know the commitments of any

ministry We rely on the signature of the official from the ministry to

tell us that the money is indeed in the budget. I would urge members to

vote against the amendment.

MR. CLARK : The minister

is quite correct: they rely on the signature of the ministry or the

minister before they can purchase things on its behalf. That is now

removed; it says "may" rather than "shall." So that signature, that

onus on the ministry to justify its purchase requirements, is no longer

as heavy an onus as it was under the previous act. I don't see why the

government would choose to diminish the authority of the commission or

at least to have that paper trail, to have the ministry justify the

request under appropriations before the law. I cannot see why that

amendment would take place now, particularly in light of what we've

seen over the last few years or prior to that. This is another

safeguard. There's no rationale that I can see which would justify this

amendment; I can see all kinds of rationale for enhancing the scrutiny

that might be required of ministries by the Purchasing Commission and

by others before purchases are made. I don't think the minister has

made a very good case for amending the legislation.

HON. MRS. GRAN : This ministry — and I would hope all others — is trying

to get away from all the paperwork that government has. I'm sure the member

knows how many electronic transmissions there are. If the commission feels it

necessary to have a signature, then we have the ability to ask for it.

MR. CLARK : I think this is more than paperwork, Mr. Chairman. I think we've seen an abuse — on the Coquihalla Highway, particularly — of

purchases by ministries that were not authorized in this House. The

whole purpose of this chamber is to debate the taxing and spending

priorities of government. A large part of its spending is on

procurement. The Purchasing Commission is a safeguard to ensure

economically efficient purchases. That has been watered down by other

sections of the bill, and now the

section that required the ministry to

justify a purchase request on the basis of an appropriation before the

House has been reduced.

I agree with the minister's attempt to reduce paperwork — we

all do. But paperwork which justifies expenditures approved by the

House clearly seems to me not the routine red tape that should be

abolished. I just think it's important to keep that caveat, in light of

the abuses. I don't say that in any way other than that the facts show

that there have been abuses in the past. This simply reduces that

accountability. I don't support it; I support the amendment.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

I just want to make one point. Surely the member is not saying that the

ministers should not be responsible for their budgets and that the

Purchasing Commission should take that responsibility away from them.

They're accountable.

Amendment negatived on division.

Sections 4 to 12 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. GRAN : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Purchasing Commission Amendment Act, 1990, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading on Bill 2.

STATUTES REPEAL ACT, 1990

HON. MR. SMITH :

The principle of Bill 2 is to show all citizens that as well as adding

to the weight of paper and legislation from time to time, this House

subtracts from it. Hence the title of this bill is the Statutes Repeal

Act. Very simply, it takes off the record pieces of legislation that

are considered no

[ Page 10680 ]

longer

necessary or that fulfilled their usefulness at an earlier date when

they may have been passed for a very specific purpose.

[4:30]

Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by all who have considered this legislation — speaking to the principle of it —

that it contains no land mine of the nature that we saw many years ago

when we were doing this kind of thing. Consequently, all those whose

ministries it affects advise that all of the pieces of legislation here

are appropriate for repeal. Mr. Speaker, I'm honoured to move second

reading of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA : Just a short

comment. Certainly there's no problem here in terms of supporting the

Statutes Repeal Act, 1990. 1 can't help but note in passing the fact

that we are now repealing, under

section 1 (3), the Deficit Repayment

Act, which I think some of us who have followed politics for some time

appreciate.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you might remember the

debate around the legislation. It was a highly partisan bill, and I

guess that's why we have these statutes repeal acts: to repeal laws

that have become outdated.

Certainly politics has changed a

lot since 1976 when that legislation was introduced. In my mind, that

reinforces the fact that in terms of administrative bills, they should

come and go, and you get into this kind of a problem and you repeal

them. But when you get political bills, like the Deficit Repayment Act,

they really shouldn't have been there in the first place in terms of

legislation. I think it's appropriate that the legislation which caused

so much clamour around here some years ago is now dying without much of

a bang.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

2, Statutes Repeal Act, 1990, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

FOREIGN MONEY CLAIMS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH :

The principle of this particular bill is to adopt the uniform statute

of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which in turn, I might add, is

based in considerably large part on work done by the Law Reform

Commission of British Columbia.

This bill seeks to resolve

problems relating to foreign money liabilities in terms of claims. It

will do so by allowing a court to order that money that is owing to a

judgment creditor may be paid In a foreign currency. A court would do

that where it believes that the successful litigant's loss or claim

would be most truly and exactly compensated by being expressed in a

currency other than Canadian currency, such as the currency in which

that individual regularly conducts his or her business.

The

bill also provides that the appropriate date for determining the

exchange rate for conversion of the currency would be the date on which

the judgment is satisfied.

These changes will increase the

certainty and clarity in the law respecting foreign money liabilities

and will bring the law into conformity with modern international

practice, particularly in relationship to arbitration. The changes

themselves are ones that have been long advocated, and the reform of

the law, I suppose, is made more necessary because of the floating

nature of many currencies and the fact that their values do indeed

fluctuate in relationship to one another more than they previously may

have.

The bill, in my view, will as well benefit

international trade and business in British Columbia by bringing this

aspect of the law into conformity with commercial practice and by

helping to make British Columbia a more effective forum for resolving

international commercial litigation that involves foreign money claims.

The

bill is, therefore, an initiative which I think will enhance British

Columbia's position in the international economic community, and in no

small way will it support the role of the International Commercial

Arbitration Centre located in Vancouver, which is developing as a place

where people wish to come to have their commercial disputes resolved.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to recommend this bill to the House, and I move second reading.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to stand in the way of the good

work of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, which has served

this province well over the years with a number of recommendations,

some of which have been implemented, some of which have not. This one

is being implemented with respect to the Foreign Money Claims Act. It

seems to me that it's only common sense that we have this type of

provision to make sure that judgments are in a fashion that reflect the

currency in which an order most truly and exactly should be paid. I

have no problem with this legislation, and it has our blessing.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to Standing Orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

[ Page

10681 ]

Bill 6, Foreign Money Claims Act, read a second time and referred to

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

the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 7.

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to be able to speak to this matter on second

reading today. This bill also is one that is rooted in the Uniform Law

Conference of Canada. It adopts the United Nations convention on

contracts for the international sale of goods.

The object

of this bill and the convention upon which it is based is to improve

the law which operates between private contracting parties in

international transactions respecting the sale of goods. The bill

accomplishes this by providing uniform rules to resolve questions

arising in international sale-of-goods contracts where such questions

have not been addressed either by the seller or the buyer.

The

bill would apply where the parties have their places of business in

different jurisdictions, both of which would have to have adopted the

convention. If the parties to an international sale-of-goods contract

do not wish the terms of the convention to apply to their contract,

they of course may exclude it by expressly prescribing their own rules

in the contract or by choosing the domestic law of some jurisdiction to

govern the terms of the contract.

The bill clarifies and

simplifies the rules governing such contracts by clearly setting out

the ordinary obligations that are common to contracts for the sale of

goods. We think it helps parties avoid the problems of determining

which law governs their contract in those jurisdictions where they have

not expressly provided for a governing law. As well, the bill respects

trade practices between the parties and trade usage in order to help

ensure the will of the contracting parties.

The rules contained in this bill are the result of some 50 years of work by various — and I would suggest eminent — international legal scholars, and they're becoming the prevailing international standard.

A particularly important and admirable feature of the bill is that

the convention, while codifying rules common in international

sale-of-goods contracts respecting the formation of the contract and

the obligations of the parties, does not impinge in any way on areas of

the law of British Columbia which we would not wish to see affected. It

does not, for instance, apply to consumer contracts or contracts for

services. It does not in any way affect questions of the validity of

contracts, except as to when an offer has been made and accepted. For

example, the ability of parties to make a contract — we'll say because of age — and whether a

particular kind of contract can be enforced in British Columbia are not determined

by the convention. Likewise, questions of property and the goods sold and the

rights of third parties such as creditors or trustees in bankruptcy are not

covered in this convention. Products-liability claims for personal injury are

also excluded. All of these remain exclusively matters of the domestic law of

the province of British Columbia.

The

bill deals with those areas which are common to, and have often caused

problems for, parties to international transactions respecting the sale

of goods. The bill will benefit international trade and business, I

believe, by helping to provide greater uniformity and greater clarity

in this area of the law. It complements other provincial initiatives

such as the International financial centre in Vancouver and the British

Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre.

This

bill is one more initiative which will enhance British Columbia's

position in the international economic community. I am therefore

pleased to commend it to the House. I move that the bill be read a

second time.

MR. SIHOTA : Just for the record, I certainly have no problem in supporting this legislation...

AN HON. MEMBER : Hear, hear!

[4:45]

MR. SIHOTA : I'm glad the minister is appreciative of that fact.

...having

done some international sale of goods work prior to my election and

having been involved in a contract where transactions were taking place

simultaneously in three countries: England, Canada and Saudi Arabia. In

the case I was involved in, it would have made a lot of sense if there

had been a convention that laid out the kinds of provisions which

appear in this legislation, to guide us more than trying to determine

the intricacies of the law in different jurisdictions and the

interpretations of certain actions in one jurisdiction compared to

another.

This legislation would certainly go some way to

clarifying some of the contractual obligations of those involved in

transactions and of those who are contemplating being involved in

international trade. I would suspect that as we get into more and more

international trade activity throughout the world — because the globe is shrinking in these matters —

this type of legislation will become more and more useful and a greater

number of jurisdictions will decide to become signatories to the

legislation. I note that some major jurisdictions such as the United

States have already adopted the convention.

Again, this is legislation that I think is worthy of support. Accordingly it will have our blessing.

HON. MR. SMITH : I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 6. Foreign Money Claims Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

[ Page 10682 ]

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 8.

CONFLICT OF LAWS RULES

FOR TRUSTS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH : In addressing the principle of this bill in second reading, it may be appropriate to describe a bit of the background — although,

admittedly, in the issue of trusts it's sometimes risky at best to

describe the background of any matter pertaining thereto. However, this

bill adopts a uniform statute of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada.

The

object of the bill is to resolve questions as to which of our

provinces' or territories' law is to apply to a trust which involves a

matter impinging on two or more of those provinces or territories. The

bill does so by providing a code of conflict-of-laws rules, according

to which the applicable law is determined: first, by reference to the

law chosen by the person establishing the trust; and second, to the law

of the province to which the trust is most closely connected.

The

bill will protect the legal interests of British Columbians relating to

trusts where elements of the trust may involve two or more provinces or

territories. The bill is complementary to the International Trusts Act,

which was enacted by this Legislature in 1989. I believe the bill will

be beneficial to interprovincial trade and business by helping to

simplify and clarify Interprovincial business dealings.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House, and I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER : No, we would like to have another speaker.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not, by any stretch of the imagination,

expert in trusts. It's one course I didn't even venture to take in my

days at law school. I know that last year we approved the International

Trusts Act, if memory serves me correctly. I know Professor Waters had

been involved in that legislation, and I would suspect that his hand is

somewhere in this legislation as well. Far be it for me to question his

wisdom.

Mr. Speaker, once again this legislation is.... Any

attempts, in my view, to bring about uniformity in the law.... Clarity,

of course, is another matter. You never know if you're going to achieve

clarity until you actually see the application of the law and the

interpretation by the courts, but uniformity is certainly a laudable

goal. As a result of that, there is no objection from this side of the

House with respect to this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant to standing orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General will close debate.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

8, Conflict of Laws Rules for Trusts Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 53.

OFFENCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill

today. The amendments contained in this bill will complete the series

of changes that were introduced last summer when fines for moving

traffic violations were reintroduced.

Mr. Speaker, as

members will recall, when this government reinstated fines in July

1989, our goal was to improve traffic safety on British Columbia

highways. Prior to that time, most traffic offences were subject only

to penalty points. Unfortunately, experience showed that the threat of

penalty points alone did not seem to deter unsafe driving practices. So

with traffic accidents now costing the province of British Columbia

upwards of $750 million a year and, more importantly, resulting in

unnecessary human suffering and loss of life, it was considered

appropriate that the government should take some further action. That

is what has happened.

The amendments in this bill will

provide the framework to streamline the fines process and to improve

the enforcement of fines. This bill introduces a new violation ticket

to replace the existing ticket information process. The violation

ticket will be used for offences committed under a variety of

provincial statutes. The single ticket will simplify the process for

both our law enforcement officers and the public. The redrafte