1989 Legislative Session: 3rd 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 18, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

8653 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 8653

Health Disciplines Act (Bill 91). Hon. Mr. Dueck

Introduction and first reading –– 8653

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

(Bill M228). Mr. G. Hanson

Introduction and first reading –– 8653

Forest Inventory Update Act (Bill M229). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 8654

Forest Waste Reduction Act (Bill M230). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 8654

Forest Practices Act (Bill M231). Mr. Miller

Introduction and first reading –– 8654

Oral Questions

PCB storage sites. Mr. Harcourt –– 8654

Dust control chemical used on Cortes and Quadra Islands. Mr. Lovick –– 8655

Liquor licence appeal process. Mrs. Boone –– 8655

Former BCIT president. Mr. Jones –– 8656

Military research in universities. Hon. S. Hagen replies to question –– 8656

David Poole's pension. Hon. Mr. Michael replies to question –– 8657

Committee of Supply: Office of the Premier and Executive Council estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 4: office of the Premier and executive council operations ––

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Davidson

Mr. Mercier

Mr. Kempf

Trinity Western University Foundation Act (Bill 89). Hon. S. Hagen

Introduction and first reading –– 8679

Wildlife Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 70). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) –– 8679

Ms. Edwards

Third reading

Forest Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 86). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Parker) –– 8687

Mr. Miller

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Bruce

Third reading

Social Service Tax Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 81). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 8690

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Temporary Use Tax Validation Act (Bill 82). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) I –– 8691

Third reading

Securities Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 83). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier) –– 8692

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1989 (Bill 90). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8696

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1989 (Bill 92). Hon. S.D. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 8696

Land Title Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 61). Committee stage.

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8697

Third reading

Offence Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 63). Committee stage. (Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8697

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

Attorney General Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 64). Committee stage.

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8698

Third reading

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 71). Committee stage.

(Hon. S.D. Smith) –– 8698

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Rose

Third reading

Science Council Act (Bill 72). Second reading

Hon. S. Hagen –– 8699

Mr. Miller –– 8699

Mr. Harcourt –– 8700

Hon. S. Hagen –– 8701

Milk Industry Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 45). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8701

Mr. Barlee –– 8702

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8702

Food Choice and Disclosure Act (Bill 85). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8702

Mr. Barlee –– 8702

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 8702

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Bill 87). Second reading

Mr. Gabelmann –– 8703

Mr. Kempf –– 8704

Mr. Loenen –– 8704

Mr. Guno –– 8706

Hon. Mr. Reid –– 8707

Electoral Boundaries Commission Act (Bill 87). Committee stage.

>(Hon. Mr. Reid) –– 8708

Mr. Gabelmann

Third reading

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Today I have a special introduction on

behalf of the secretary to our Cabinet Committee on Social Policy,

Jennifer Charlesworth. Today her mother-in-law, Mrs. Sylvia Miller, is

visiting from Allen's Grove, Wisconsin, along with her son David and

grandson Joshua Miller from Victoria. I should add that we would like

to bid a fond farewell to Jennifer, who is moving on to different

things and has served our cabinet committee extremely well. Could we

please wish Jennifer well and a warm welcome to her mother-in-law from

Wisconsin.

MR. PERRY: I would like to introduce to the House a very

distinguished visiting consulting engineer from Los Angeles, Mr. Norman

Pitt, who is with us in the gallery today. Also in the gallery are two

of my most enthusiastic constituents: Mrs. Marge Nicol and my mother,

Mrs. Claire Perry. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. S.D. SMITH: Today we have with us some students who are

involved in our ministry's multicultural law camp program. These

students are from richly diverse backgrounds, cultures and heritages.

They and their families have come to British Columbia from various

Latin American countries, from Vietnam, from China and from India. The

law camp program provides youth with multicultural backgrounds with an

opportunity to learn about and explore our justice system. It's in its

second year of operation, and it's very much growing in popularity. The

multicultural camps help students develop their leadership skills,

enabling them all — each of them and together — to be role models in

their own communities. I would ask that this House join me to welcome

the more than 20 students here today from our multicultural law camp

program.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today we have Tas,

Kathryn and Stephanie Morfopoulos and Mr. Larry Payeur, all from North

Vancouver. Would the House please welcome these nice people to Victoria.

MR. G. JANSSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate on his

birthday today our youngest member, blond, blue-eyed and somewhat

baby-faced, who I think grew in the chair here: Gordon Hanson.

Hon. Mr. Veitch tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Economic Development for the period ended March 31, 1988.

Introduction of Bills

HEALTH DISCIPLINES ACT

Hon. Mr. Dueck presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Health Disciplines Act.

HON. MR. DUECK:

Mr. Speaker, this bill provides a means to regulate a variety of health

professions and occupations presently not covered by statute. The

object of this bill is to better protect the public in areas of health

care where minimum practice standards for practitioners are not

mandatory.

Under Bill 91, a group would apply to a health disciplines council

for designation of a particular discipline, and this council,

consisting of health care experts, would investigate each application

for designation and make a recommendation to the government about the

need to control the practice of the particular discipline. Following

designation, a person registered by the board of that designated health

discipline would be entitled to practise the discipline, subject to

compliance with applicable competency and conduct standards. This

arrangement would parallel the manner in which a number of professions

and occupations are already regulated under acts that presently exist.

Mr. Speaker, I'm introducing this bill today as an exposure bill in

the hope of getting input and feedback from affected groups and the

public. In this way, we will have an opportunity to make any

modifications that are appropriate following consultation with those

groups and individuals that contact the Ministry of Health. This is an

important initiative, and I'm pleased to table this bill today at this

time.

Bill 91, 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.

AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AN INSTITUTE

OF ABORIGINAL LANGUAGES

FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. G. Hanson presented a bill intituled

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

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I delayed in introducing this

bill. This is the eighth occasion; I was hoping that there would not be

an eighth occasion for this bill. It was indicated earlier that

something would be forthcoming, and it has not been forthcoming.

I think all members recognize that the native peoples of this

province have 26 distinct languages — many of which exist nowhere else

outside the borders of our province — and that we have a special

responsibility to acknowledge those languages and give those people an

opportunity for their children to know their language and who they are

as a people. I think we've got a great deal to learn about the way

[ Page 8654 ]

native people executed their own land use policy — for want of a

better description — and the way they valued the land and the resources

of this province. I think the non-native people of British Columbia

would benefit a great deal from the kind of bill that I've outlined, so

that in the school system, children would have some accurate

information about native culture.

I think the time is overdue. The time has come for recognition of

the right of native people to understand and learn their own language.

It wasn't their fault that, as a result of history, they were actively

discouraged from speaking and learning their languages in the past. Mr.

Speaker, I would very much like this bill to be passed.

Bill M228 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.

[2:15]

FOREST INVENTORY UPDATE ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Inventory Update Act.

MR. MILLER: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the

inventory work required under the Forest Act and the Ministry of

Forests Act is undertaken thoroughly, with a new inventory completed

every ten years. Although inventories are presently required under

these acts, complete inventories have not been carried out in some

areas of the province for up to 20 years due to budget and staff

cutbacks.

This lack of information about the resources available to the forest

industry has led to overcutting in some areas. It has also made it

difficult or impossible to determine accurately the volume of Crown

timber involved in applications for large tree-farm licences. The

results of the inventory are required to be published and made

available to the public at ministry offices in each forest district. In

between complete inventories, the chief forester will be responsible

for noting logging activities and other forest depletion for the

purposes of keeping a forest inventory.

Bill M229 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

FOREST WASTE REDUCTION ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Waste Reduction Act.

MR. MILLER: The purpose of this bill is to introduce changes

to provincial scaling procedures which will lower the amount of

harvested wood that is wasted in the forests of the province. Starting

on April 1, 1989, the district managers in each forest district will be

required to calculate a portion of stumpage based on volume figures

obtained through a cruise of standing timber rather than on the amount

of timber a company presents at a scale location. Under the system of

scaling standing timber, there will be a strong incentive to bring out

as much wood as possible so as to lower cost per metre of harvested

wood.

Bill M230 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.

FOREST PRACTICES ACT

Mr. Miller presented a bill intituled Forest Practices Act.

MR. MILLER: This bill establishes a mechanism through which

timber-harvesting operations on private lands may be reviewed to ensure

that good forestry practices are followed and that no degradation of

the timber resource or general environment occurs as a result of the

harvesting activity.

Under this bill the manager of every forest region in the province

will form a forest practices committee consisting of members from

various levels of government and from non-government groups. Every

person who plans to harvest timber from private land which is zoned for

non-residential uses or is larger than 5 hectares will submit a

harvesting plan to the district forest manager. The district manager

will submit the plan to the committee, who will approve or reject the

application within 15 working days of receiving the application.

In addition, the bill gives the forest practices committee the power

to establish forest practice guidelines for specific areas within the

region where specific resource management guidelines are needed. Appeal

processes are established before the decision of the committee on

approval of harvesting plans and on any forest practice guidelines

produced by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to speedy passage of these bills. I move

that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Bill M231 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.

Oral Questions

PCB STORAGE SITES

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of

Environment. Yesterday when he was asked about releasing the location

of PCB storage sites, the minister gave a rather inventive reply. He

said that public knowledge of the sites might make them targets for

criminals. Later the minister defended the use of schools and hospitals

as PCB storage sites; as he put it, the safest place to keep them now

is in the school, because the school has security and properly trained

staff to address these problems.

[ Page 8655 ]

Given that schools are often the target of vandalism, can the

minister assure the House that his ministry will remove all PCBs stored

in schools and relocate them in secure and proper storage facilities

away from young children?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I stand by what I said yesterday in the

House, Mr. Speaker, and also what I said later in a television

interview that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. In the

case of light ballasts containing PCB as a stabilizing chemical, which

is commonly found in hospitals and schools, we believe that the secure

rooms where they are stored now is the best possible storage, because

these premises, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, are

locked and staffed by janitorial and custodial staff who know how to

maintain security, are on premise at all times, and can really provide

the best secure and safe storage for us.

However, with respect to long-term planning, the Leader of the

Opposition may not be aware of this, but in my budget, which was

presented and debated some months ago, we did announce a funding

process for building facilities to properly and safely and securely

store special wastes. We are in that building program now, and that

will enable us to remove these special wastes from facilities where

they might not be appropriately sorted — and stay securely but

appropriately — such as schools and hospitals. I trust that satisfies

the member's curiosity.

MR. HARCOURT: A supplementary. Yesterday I wrote to the

minister requesting publication of all the PCB storage sites in our

province. Can the minister tell the House whether he is now prepared to

release this information, or is he sticking to his rather facile excuse

about criminal and terrorist acts?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. The Leader of the Opposition can look up the answer I gave yesterday, and it still applies today.

DUST CONTROL CHEMICAL USED ON

CORTES AND QUADRA ISLANDS

MR. LOVICK: My question is directed to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. Residents of Cortes and Quadra Islands

asked Highways officials to stop using an untested chemical — sodium

lignosulphonate — for dust control on provincial highways. The question

is very direct and straightforward: has the minister decided to ban the

use of this chemical until it has been tested and proven safe?

HON. MR. VANT: With reference to the sodium lignosulphonate,

I can inform.... [Applause.] Yes, indeed, I pronounced it correctly.

Surprised you, didn't I?

I can inform the House that this is not actually banned in the province of

Quebec, but certainly its use is under review in that province. Here in British

Columbia it has been deemed environmentally acceptable and is approved by the

Ministry of Environment in B.C.

I can assure the member opposite — because I realize his concern and

the concern of the residents on Cortes Island — that the maintenance

contractor covering Cortes Island is willing to use something else if

necessary. Meanwhile I have directed my regional director of highways

for that area, Neville Hope, to meet with the concerned citizens.

MR. LOVICK: A question to the Highways minister's colleague

the Minister of Environment. The province of Quebec may not have banned

this substance, but it obviously has imposed some very rigorous

conditions on its use. I heard from your colleague that your ministry

has approved this chemical. I am wondering if the minister could inform

this House, please, what particular tests and studies have been

undertaken to enable you to draw the conclusion that this particular

chemical is indeed safe?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've done extensive testing with respect

to sodium lignosulphonate. We have found that there is slight toxicity

in concentrated volumes. If you had discharged more than you normally

would around a lake, there can be toxicity to fish; but it would have

to be a very concentrated amount, and nothing that we would normally

experience in normal highway practices in the province. I should point

out that sodium lignosulphonate is a product of a pulp and paper

process. The lignum is a resin and is quite commonly used in animal

feeds, so it does not generally have toxic capacity, except in very

high concentrates and only to fish.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're getting warm.

What Quebec is looking at are the ammonia lignosulphonates and

chlorine lignosulphonates. The sodium prefix we're using here is deemed

to be safe by my ministry staff, by Agriculture Canada, by the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment. The products being tested and looked at in Quebec are an

ammonia prefix and a chlorine prefix as well as a sodium prefix.

LIQUOR LICENCE APPEAL PROCESS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer

Services. In three separate cases the general manager for liquor

distribution has denied preclearance licences for retail stores,

stating that the sites did not meet legislative policy and that they

were contrary to public interest. Appeals were made to the minister,

and you decided to override these decisions. Can the minister tell the

House what criteria are used to decide to override legislative and

policy requirements?

HON. L. HANSON: It might be appropriate to know which ones. My ministry deals with liquor

[ Page 8656 ]

licensing in quite a volume. When a decision of the general manager

is such that the applicants are unhappy with it, they have an ability

to appeal to the minister or, if I choose to delegate, to the deputy

minister. The answer to the member's question is almost impossible

because I don't even know which licence she's referring to.

MRS. BOONE: I think it's fairly easy to say: what criteria do

you ever use to override existing policy and legislation and the best

interests of the community? It is clear that the minister hasn't got

any guidelines, that he just does this stuff willy-nilly. If you want

the names, I'll give them to you. There are two in Prince George and

there's one in Fort St. John that I know of.

My question to you, Mr. Minister, is: how many other decisions by the general manager have you or your ministry overridden?

HON. L. HANSON: I can get those statistics if the member

would like. As a matter of fact, I can get them back to the days when,

I believe, it was the NDP who were in authority and the same process

was there. The appeal from the general manager's decision is to the

minister, as I said, or to the deputy if I choose to delegate it.

The reasons for overturning or upholding those decisions vary with

the circumstances of the application. I might say to the member that

the appellants' information that they provide in various circumstances

is sometimes very inventive, and the reasons why discretion is

exercised vary in each case. There aren't any set criteria.

I think the member is well aware that we have commissioned a study

on the licensing process which we hope to have the report on shortly,

and that it probably will change some of those processes.

The member is also aware that in Bill 38, which was passed last year

and will be implemented some time this year, there will be an appeal

process to a committee of appeal as opposed to the minister or his

deputy minister.

MRS. BOONE: It's clear from the bafflegab that was given by

the minister here that there is no policy, that there are absolutely no

reasons to give for overriding the existing legislative policy or the

best interests of the community.

[2:30]

My question to you, then, is: why have you not implemented that

section of Bill 38 which was introduced and passed last year, which

would protect the people and give them a fair hearing, and not have the

political interference that's taking place right now.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince George

suggests bafflegab. I guess that's something to cover up her lack of

understanding of the process. The process is quite a simple one, and

the reasons that discretion is exercised are included in every letter

of decision. If the member were to go to those applicants who have had

a decision of the general manager upheld or overturned, she could see

he reasons for it quite clearly in the letter they have been given.

FORMER BCIT PRESIDENT

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of

Advanced Education and Job Training. As the minister is probably aware,

statements by the former president of BCIT totally contradict

statements the minister made in this House last Tuesday. Given that

contradiction, does the minister wish to reconsider his remarks, in

particular with respect to interference by the Premier's office and the

minister's office in the operation of that institution, and with

respect to the reasons for Mr. Murray's leaving as president of BCIT?

HON. S. HAGEN: I can say categorically, Mr. Speaker, that

this minister and this government has only one thing in mind for BCIT,

and that is to make BCIT the best — the number one — advanced

technology institute in this country. That's exactly what's going to

happen, particularly under the new president and the new leadership of

BCIT.

But let me respond to the question. I find it interesting that the

day the member raised the question during my estimates, I received a

telephone call from Mr. Murray in Ontario. Mr. Murray was quite

concerned about the

article in the media. He was concerned enough, as a

matter of fact, to contact me personally. He was concerned enough to

tell me what he had said to the media. He also wanted me to know that

he had absolutely no problems with this minister or this government,

and that he was very pleased with the direction that BCIT was heading

in. The other thing he wanted me to know was that he was very upset

that the NDP would sit on this letter for a year without acting on it.

Now I don't know how the NDP got hold of a personal letter sent from

Roy Murray, the former president of BCIT, to the chairman of the board,

but he was very upset that they had sat on this letter for one year.

MILITARY RESEARCH

IN UNIVERSITIES

HON. S. HAGEN: On May 29 the second member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) asked me a question regarding military

research in universities which I took on notice. I would like to make a

response to that question.

The provincial government does not fund any contract or sponsored

research. All military-related research falls into this category. While

the Department of National Defence and the United States military do

fund research at provincial universities, the amount of research funded

by these sources represents about 1 percent of the overall research

done at our universities.

None of our universities undertakes any secret or classified

research. All studies and results must be published in scholarly

journals. Research funded by

[ Page 8657 ]

the military at universities has wide-ranging applications and is

often quite benign in nature. For example, the University of Victoria

history department is currently engaged in historical research for the

Canadian military. Other examples include studies of motion sickness,

diesel engines and artificial intelligence.

DAVID POOLE'S PENSION

HON. MR. MICHAEL: On July 13 I took a question on notice from

the Leader of the Opposition. The answer to the negative question is in

the affirmative.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: OFFICE OF THE

PREMIER AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 4: office of the Premier and executive council operations, $3,531, 225.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to rise and continue

debate on the spending estimates of my office and our government, a

government that has for years given the province of British Columbia

prudent and responsible fiscal management and will continue to do so

for many more years to come. We have produced a progressive budget and

bold programs that are responsive to the needs of British Columbians in

every region of this province, and once again we have shown strong

leadership.

As we close another decade in the history of our province, British

Columbians have every reason to be proud of the progress we have made

in such a short time. This decade has been both a challenge and an

opportunity for our province. When the recession struck, British

Columbia was hit harder than any other jurisdiction in Canada. British

Columbians accepted the challenge, and today we are especially proud of

the strong economic and fiscal position of our government.

As governments elsewhere across the country continue to struggle

with operating deficits, British Columbia proudly stands above them all

with a balanced budget. As other governments continue to pile up a

mountain of debt for future generations, British Columbia is actually

reducing its outstanding debt. We are lessening the burden on those who

follow.

Our prudent fiscal policies have not gone unnoticed. B.C.'s

international credit rating has been upgraded, signifying a key vote of

confidence in the government's management of the economy. Our policies

are working. Our policies are putting British Columbians to work at a

rate never seen before. The level of our job creation in the last 12

months in this province is unsurpassed in our history. Over the past

year, one-third of all the new jobs in Canada were created right here

in British Columbia; 100,000 more people are working in B.C. today than

a year ago. Since we became government, the unemployment rate has

dropped 4 percentage points and is at its lowest level since 1982.

Much of British Columbia's economic success is directly related to

the policies of our government, policies which reflect the fundamental

belief that the private sector is keyed to balanced and diversified

economic growth. The private sector has enthusiastically responded with

record levels of investment this year. There's $22 billion worth of

construction now underway or in the planning stages throughout every

region of this province. Statistics Canada says that B.C. can

anticipate the largest increase in Canada in new building construction

investment.

The provincial economy is diversifying and adapting to changing

global trends. Manufacturing shipments have increased by 40 percent

over the last year. British Columbia has outpaced the national average

by far. Once again we're out ahead.

For the first time in our history, Asia has become British

Columbia's leading export market, surpassing the United States. We have

become the least dependent of all Canadian provinces on two-way trade

with the United States.

Even with the record amounts of investment and job creation in our

province, we have been mindful of environmental protection. Our

enforcement of environmental regulations has been strengthened, and we

have implemented new initiatives that will enable us to deal with the

importance of environmental questions in the years ahead. We have

developed some of the most stringent environmental laws in North

America, and businesses are responding. Pulp mills, which have been a

major source of employment in our province, are responding to the

government's directive to reduce dioxin levels and will be spending

hundreds of millions of dollars to meet their obligations. Industrial

polluters have been served notice that they must clean up their act or

face a fine of up to $3 million, or even a jail term, if they violate

pollution laws. Our environment and quality of life will not be

compromised.

The task force on the environment and economy has recommended the

establishment of a permanent provincial round table to recommend ways

to resolve land use and other conflicts affecting the environment and

economy. Our government has committed itself in principle to the major

recommendations of the task force. As the task force pointed out, our

economic well-being hinges upon the existence of a strong, confident

industrial base. But unless the quality of the environment is

protected, it is apparent that our quality of life will be diminished.

[2:45]

The permanent provincial round table will also assist the government

in dealing with a number of forest industry initiatives. Forestry has

played a significant role in the history of British Columbia, and its

role will not be diminished in the future; it

[ Page 8658 ]

will be enhanced. A few weeks ago we announced the establishment of

a permanent forest resource commission to independently review and make

recommendations on forestry issues. We feel we have found an innovative

and effective way of dealing with the forest industry and securing its

future in this province.

The key to a secure and prosperous future for our citizens, along

with a safe and healthy environment and quality of life, is a credible,

well-respected education system. British Columbia's education system

has proven itself, through international testing, to be one of the best

in the world. We have begun implementation of the recommendations of

the Royal Commission on Education and have undertaken the first major

revision of education legislation in more than 30 years. It will better

equip our students to meet the new challenges of the twenty-first

century. Our new Access for All post-secondary education strategy will

create 15,000 additional spaces in university programs, establish full

university degree granting programs in Kelowna, Kamloops and Nanaimo,

and establish a new degree-granting institution in the interior.

Our educational policies are the most comprehensive and contemporary

in Canada. No other jurisdiction has done as much for education in such

a short time as this government. Just as all of us have had contact

with the education system, all of us, in some way or another, are

touched by our justice system. The government has followed through on

the recommendations of the Justice Reform Committee to make our justice

system fairer, more understandable and more accessible for British

Columbians.

The major initiatives undertaken by our government have been done in

full consultation with the public in every region of the province. We

have consulted, we have listened, and we have acted. We have been

responsive to the concerns of British Columbians. No government in our

province's history has sought the advice of the public more than our

administration. A renewed mood of optimism is sweeping through the

whole of our province. British Columbians are looking confidently to

the future and are feeling more secure about the years ahead. Together

we have created a climate of confidence that allows us to build a

richer and stronger province for us all.

I would like to conclude my remarks with some technical information

on a reorganization that has taken place in the Premier's office. The

Premier's office is now organized in two divisions: the office of the

Premier, which includes the principal secretary; and the executive

council operations, which includes the deputy minister.

I said I would conclude my remarks, but I hear all sorts of comments

from across the way wanting to have some more, so perhaps I'll take

this opportunity to say just a few more things.

I understand the Leader of the Opposition took a trip to the Cariboo to speak

to a well-publicized meeting the other day which attracted 29 or 30 people.

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition spoke about the New Democratic

Party and the leadership he said it could provide for the province.

I would like to compare just briefly the almost three years that

we've been government to the three years of NDP in the early seventies.

When the NDP came to govern in the early seventies, they inherited a

considerable surplus; they inherited a healthy economy; they came at a

time when forestry was relatively strong, when mining activity was

growing in all parts of the province, when tourism was on the rise,

when communities had autonomy, when social and health programs were

certainly commendable as compared with elsewhere in the country. And in

only three years we became known as the place where the last person was

sort of expected to turn off the lights; where the forestry business

was on a slide and where mining was almost demolished — extinct. We can

recall that by the end of only three years people throughout this

province were aware that the economy could not continue to survive

under NDP socialistic rule. The people reacted.

Now let's compare that with today. After less than three years we

have balanced the budget. After less than three years we have

established, as no other province in the history of the country has

done, a rainy-day account which will protect programs for the future.

After less than three years we've been able to begin reducing our

accumulated deficit. After less than three years we've gone to a

triple-A credit rating, the best in the country. We've been able to

increase moneys to local government at a record rate. We've invested

more in new health facilities and social programs than any government

in Canada during a similar period of time. The forest industry is

expanding; throughout all parts of the province they are building.

After less than three years, for the first time mining is growing.

There are new mines opening up in all regions of the province. After

less than three years, we are leading the country in diversification in

new industries and in manufacturing opportunities.

After less than three years, regionalization is beginning to work

effectively for the benefit of people throughout the whole province.

After less than three years, we've established more park space in this

province than any other North American jurisdiction with the exception

of Alaska.

After less than three years, we've been able to reduce taxes. After

less than three years, we've been able to reduce the size of government

in order to provide our people a greater flexibility. After less than

three years, we've become the place in Canada where people from

throughout this country want to move to.

At record levels like never before, after less than three years

we've been able to turn our export economy around to the point where

Ontario is still 85 percent dependent on the U.S. for its exports.

Canada, on average: 75 percent. We're down to just slightly over 40

percent — a record unachieved anywhere in the country.

After less than three years, the people in this province can look at their government and our

[ Page 8659 ]

accomplishments and say that we are safer, more secure and more

recession-proof; as a people we are more insulated against a downturn

than any other people anywhere else in the country.

British Columbians need only look back at the last time the NDP

governed in this province for three years, and if they want more recent

history, they can look at Manitoba and see the disaster that was

created there.

HON. S.D. SMITH: They said that Manitoba was their model last year. That's what they said.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's right; I can recall the Leader of the Opposition saying Manitoba was their model. Can you imagine?

We can honestly say that this government has accomplished more in a

shorter time than any other government in the country, and the record

speaks for itself.

MR. HARCOURT: I was pleased to hear the Premier speak about

the mood of optimism that he observed, and I will tell you why there is

such an optimistic mood among British Columbians. It's because in less

than three years, this government is going to be gone finally.

[3:00]

I can tell you that people of the Cariboo are sure looking forward

to the Premier visiting the riding many times in the by-election.

They'd like the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant)

to stay away many times. When the Premier said that British Columbians

feel more secure about the years ahead, it's because this Social Credit

government is going to be gone within three years. That optimism is out

there, because the people of this province have a great deal of

confidence in the God-given resources they have and the skills that

they have. And when they get rid of this Social Credit government,

we'll really be able to get on with the future we deserve, a growing

future.

I saw the optimism that was demonstrated by the Premier's own

backbenchers. At the start of his speech the only two backbenchers here

were his seat-mate and the member from Little Mountain, who I'm sure is

going to participate in the Premier's estimates today. She expressed

her optimism in the Premier and the Social Credit government this day

last year, didn't she?

The Premier also mentioned that Manitoba had things going very badly

under the New Democratic government. Well, I'll take their 7 percent

unemployment rate when the New Democrats were government there over the

15 percent in Kamloops. I was just in Kamloops, and they wonder where

their multiplex is; they wonder where the great economy is; they wonder

where the jobs are. It's a figment of the Premier's imagination.

The people of British Columbia do indeed have a great deal of optimism about

this great province of ours, but they don't have optimism in this government.

You can practice your Dale Carnegie positive-thinking style of politics and

believe that yourselves, but it's only this group of loyalist cabinet that

believes that anymore. It's only the loyalists who protected the Premier's

butt last summer.

We heard the "three Es" speech again, and I would like to ask the

Premier a series of questions about a number of other very important

areas to British Columbians. I want to start by addressing the issue of

this cabinet's powers, particularly powers that relate to the

agricultural land reserve. This is an area where British Columbians are

not expressing a great deal of optimism. As a matter of fact, they're

downright angry about the way the Spetifore and the Terra Nova lands

were taken out of the agricultural land reserve by cabinet contrary to

the decisions of the agricultural land reserve.

These arbitrary cabinet powers were established in 1977 under Social

Credit at the same time that the Agricultural Land Commission was

stripped of its responsibility for greenbelts, land banks and

recreational lands. The Premier knows this well, because he knows the

history of the Spetifore and the Terra Nova lands, because he's been

intimately involved with the paving over of these agricultural lands.

He knows that the public and the press are aware of the Terra Nova and

the Spetifore farmlands and the willingness of this government to help

a few on-side Socreds against the wishes of the people of Richmond, who

came out in overwhelming numbers to protest the decision on the

agricultural land at Terra Nova being removed and the 94 percent of the

residents of South Delta, 6,000 of them, who showed up to vote to say

no to removing the lands from the agricultural land reserve. Those are

two instances of the citizens of British Columbia not optimistic about

this government and the way they have eliminated agricultural lands for

their developer friends and insiders.

On the issue of the cabinet's powers, I'd like to ask the Premier if

he is open to an inquiry into the cabinet's ALR powers and the

relationship between his cabinet and those developers who have

benefited from cabinet's Terra Nova and Spetifore decisions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm asking the Premier a question as to whether

he would be willing to have an inquiry into the cabinet's decisions on

the Spetifore and the Terra Nova lands. The citizens in Richmond and

Delta, and many other citizens, would like to know why those decisions

were made. Would the Premier be willing to have a public inquiry?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how many

times we've said that the records are public; all of the information is

there. We know how the regional district voted on this. We know how the

regional parks committee voted on it. We know that the Leader of the

Opposition has a friend called Harry Rankin who keeps a close watch on

the regional district activities for him and did while he was mayor.

He, too, voted for it. We know that all of these people voted for it.

We know it was

[ Page 8660 ]

unanimous. We know the parks committee took a tour of the property,

and they came back and said: "Yes, we'll support the application."

We know that they told Delta to make its application. Delta council

supported the application. We know that in Richmond the council has had

not only public hearings, but committee meetings time and time again.

Yes, I'll grant you it was perhaps from time to time divided along NDP

and free-enterprise lines. That could well be; I don't argue that. But

I don't hear those NDP council members there screaming that somehow we

should kill the local government process, and that somehow the

provincial government must now become involved in all of those

activities that were previously within local jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is something here for all of us. There

is a message, and the message is that if the NDP ever — heaven forbid —

took control, they would take over immediately from local government if

any decision was made that they didn't agree with. We've seen it time

and time again. If there is a decision made by local government that

they don't agree with, they want to take the place of local government.

We respect local government and will continue to respect local

government. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue working

for the defeat of local government in this province, he won't get

anywhere with it.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, this is the Premier who

eliminated the letters patent for regional districts and their planning

in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, so they couldn't deal with

the growth problems that we're facing right now. This is the Premier

who was part of the government in 1977 that took away the ability of

regional districts to participate in ALR decisions. This is the Premier

who was part of bringing in Bill 9; you remember the infamous Bill 9.

This is the Premier who brought in the land use act that would strip

local government of its ability to make decisions. Not only that, it

was such an extremist, centralizing, draconian piece of legislation

that when he tried to get it through his cabinet, the Premier of the

day and his cabinet colleagues said it was a terrible, centralizing,

extremist piece of legislation that would decimate local participation,

local councils and regional districts.

As a matter of fact, I'll refresh the Premier's memory, Mr.

Chairman. You recall that in 1983 when the Premier was turned down flat

by the cabinet and Premier of the day, he rushed out in a huff. He

puffed, and he said that he was going to quit, that the Social Credit

government was gutless: it didn't want to take away the powers of local

government.

Interjections.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier can't have it both

ways. If the Premier is not prepared — on behalf of the many citizens

who have expressed their outrage about the paving over of the prime

agricultural land in the lower mainland — to have an inquiry into the

cabinet's ALR powers, I'm sure he's aware that we have introduced

legislation to curb the cabinet's arbitrary powers to exclude farmland

from the ALR. Would the Premier tell us then if, in the interest of

preserving our province's farmland — and we know it's very valuable;

only 5 percent of the province is potentially available for farmland —

he is planning to support action to curb the cabinet's interference in

the ALR and in the independent ability of the Agricultural Land

Commission to act?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I won't comment much on

the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to

regional planning or what was done in years past, because on each and

every count he was wrong. But I'm not going to get into that, because I

can understand that not being here very much, he can't have time for

the research.

The question is: are we prepared to interfere in the process? I've

said it before: we respect the role of local government in all of this

and we'll continue to respect the role of local government. I should

tell the Leader of the Opposition that it pays dividends. When Dave

Barrett addressed the UBCM in 1975, he was booed off the stage. When we

go to the UBCM we get an enormous reception, because local government

respects the fact that we respect the authority of local government. So

learn from that experience.

MR. HARCOURT: The Premier has said that he agrees totally

with those cabinet decisions. He's not prepared to have an inquiry,

which many citizens have asked for. He's not prepared to curb the

cabinet's ability to arbitrarily interfere with Agricultural Land

Commission decisions. So his position is very clear. The Premier has

expressed his satisfaction about the emasculation of the Agricultural

Land Commission and the overriding of local citizens and their desire

to preserve agricultural land for future generations of British

Columbians.

[3:15]

Now that the Premier has very clearly expressed those opinions, I

would like to deal with another matter of great importance to the

working people of British Columbia, and that's the whole question of

ethics in government. Our citizens expect our ethical standards to be

of the highest. I understand that the Premier has expressed his

satisfaction many times with his government's actions over the Knight

Street Pub scandal, yet the Premier supposedly fired David Poole and

gave him a $100,000 golden handshake and very generous pension

benefits, paid for by the taxpayers. But he did fire David Poole for

his role in this scandal, and he also knows that Bert Hick was fired as

well.

I'd like to ask the Premier this: does he accept the principle that

the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon. L. Hanson) played a

role in the cover-up of the scandal and should resign his seat?

[ Page 8661 ]

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, I think this whole

House finds the term "cover-up" offensive. It's unparliamentary, and I

would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, on many occasions during this

session the Chair has brought to the attention of all members a

quotation from Sir Erskine May with respect to the kind of language

that should be used in parliamentary debate. The atmosphere that has

prevailed since we got into debate on vote 4 early this afternoon has

not been really conducive, I don't suppose, to the use of good

parliamentary language, but we should always try our best. It is

perhaps an unfortunate word, and the Leader of the Opposition would,

I'm sure, be pleased to withdraw it,

Maybe the temper of this debate as we proceed through the afternoon

could be brought up to a point where no matter what anyone says, it

will be acceptable to the Chair as being parliamentary.

MR. HARCOURT: I'll withdraw that word, Mr. Chairman, but I

think it's very clear that the people of B.C. find the ethics of this

Knight Street Pub issue abhorrent. Somebody was fired, although we were

told originally by the Premier and David Poole that he left of his own

accord, that it was a genial leaving; then he receives $100,000 of

taxpayers' money, plus another $75,000 on paying up his pension.

Another employee who told a lie was fired — Bert Hick. Everybody is

quite clear on that. We had the report from the ombudsman, who finally

had to intervene because the minister wasn't taking care of this

matter. It has been an embarrassment and badly handled by the Minister

of Labour and Consumer Services.

The Premier talked a lot about ethics and morality. In 1986 he

talked about a fresh start, and I would have thought this would have

been an opportunity for him to demonstrate his commitment to ethics in

government and to moral standards, because if there's an example that

people in this province have found repugnant, it is surely the events

surrounding the Knight Street Pub. I would like to ask the Premier

whether he doesn't feel that the conduct of the minister of consumer

affairs and his involvement in this Knight Street Pub matter is such

that he should have resigned his seat.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, let me say that the

numbers quoted by the Leader of the Opposition are wrong. The facts are

wrong, and this has already been canvassed and is not to be canvassed

again. It's not a part of the estimates.

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to ask a question of the Premier on

this issue. The question, I think, is an important one, because it

deals with ethics and morality in government and the standard of

conduct expected from ministers in government.

The person to whom it falls to make those judgments is the Premier. The Premier,

in introducing his conflict-of — interest guidelines, talked about the standards

expected from ministers. We have, in this instance, a tremendous legacy of reports

that deal with the facts. We have lies being told by officials. We've had

admissions by ministers that they knew what was going on, and they chose not

to act in light of a whole series of, I would say, lies. It's the only way

one can describe it. I was trying to think of a more polite way to put it. A

minister is acquiescing to that type of behaviour.

Given the fact that it's the Premier's responsibility to deal with

these matters of conduct of ministers, does he not think, in

retrospect, after we've gone through this whole situation — it's had

time to cool down — that the appropriate thing to have done in that

case was to ask for his minister's resignation in light of what had

transpired?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I know that this has been canvassed.

These issues have been looked at by the former Chief Justice of the

province, by the Attorney-General's ministry and by the ombudsman.

These issues have been looked at independently, and we've canvassed

them in the House.

I appreciate that the NDP is of the opinion that unless it is some

type of political answer that they would like that suits their

particular agenda, it isn't good enough. I'm not going to fall into

that trap. It's been canvassed, and I'll not canvass it anymore here.

MR. HARCOURT: We're canvassing the Premier's election promise

of 1986, when he promised a fresh start; he promised open and honest

government. I think what we're hearing today is that that is rhetoric.

It is not an action that he intends to take. His commitment was only

empty rhetoric.

In his handling of this Knight Street Pub affair and the way he has

defended his minister's conduct, which has been shameful.... We have

had overwhelming evidence from citizens who had to come forward from

south Vancouver to talk about the tampered plebiscite. Other pub-owners

were pushed aside who had perfectly valid applications that were ahead

of Peter Toigo's pub application, and yet it went forward. We have had

an official lie. We have had political interference from the Premier's

principal secretary. We have had, over and over again, a totally

inadequate minister not dealing with this in the way that a minister of

the Crown should deal with it. And now we have the Premier say that he

is defending and agreeing with that 100 percent. It shows that his

commitment to open and honest government in 1986 was indeed empty

rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to know what the people of British Columbia

expect in terms of having open and honest government. The people don't

want empty rhetoric; they want action. They want a conflict-of-interest

law that will protect people from dishonest politicians and officials.

They want a freedom-of-information law to make government decisions and

research available to the public and to the press. They want a new

approach to public spending accounts to prevent attempts to hide

overspending and mismanagement. They want a whistle-blower's

[ Page 8662 ]

law to protect public servants who blow the whistle on government

waste and bad business deals and cover-ups. If there ever was a

government that needed that, it's this one.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. I appreciate that the

member is new, but estimates do not provide for the discussion of

legislation or the necessity of legislation.

MR. HARCOURT: We have heard that the Premier is not prepared

to take steps to protect the scarce agricultural land in this province;

he's not prepared to take steps to protect the citizens of British

Columbia from dishonest politicians or officials. He has shown us where

his level of ethics and morality really is on these very essential

principles to our democracy.

When he talked of showing strong leadership, I had to shake my head

to think about that one, because I was thinking yes, the Premier has

shown strong leadership for Peter Toigo; he's shown strong leadership

for David Poole; he's shown strong leadership for the developers of the

Spetifore and Terra Nova lands and for those who want to take the lands

out of the agricultural land reserve and build condominiums and golf

courses throughout the Okanagan.

He's shown strong leadership, but you know, Mr. Chairman, it's

strong leadership for a privileged few and insider friends of this

government. That's what strong leadership is to this Social Credit

government. It's not for the working people of British Columbia, and I

would like to say, on top of who this government represents, it

certainly doesn't represent a leadership for the people of British

Columbia that I spoke about earlier who have great confidence in our

province and in our resources and their skills. He hasn't shown the

vision that they expect.

We have a government that refuses to recognize that this great

province, 40 years ago, two generations ago, had a million people, that

it now has three million people, and in another two generations it will

have five million people. It hasn't anticipated that growth, certainly

not in the lower mainland where people are strangling on the growth

problem, with air pollution, congested roads, inadequate transit,

farmland being lost that could feed the growing population. It has

failed to anticipate the fact that we are going to have another two

million people come into this province over the next 40 years and we

can't put them all in the lower mainland.

The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that this government has no vision, no

optimism about the future of British Columbia. Otherwise it would have

anticipated the growth of population of the people who want to come

from all over the rest of Canada and from other countries to live in

this great province of ours.

We do not have a vision from this Social Credit government and this

Premier that recognizes the growth that will occur in greater

Vancouver, and because of that, we have the tragedy in Kerrisdale in

Vancouver of a number of senior citizens being put out on the street

because housing programs are not sufficient and because there are no

laws that have any teeth in them to deal with developers who are going

to demolish perfectly sound buildings. There is an insufficient supply

of serviced land for young couples to be able to get into their own

home.

There is no growth plan for the lower mainland, and what is

happening is that there is too much growth in greater Vancouver and not

enough in other areas of the province. That could have been

anticipated, and this government hasn't anticipated it. That's why

we've got a zero vacancy rate for tenants throughout Vancouver and

other areas of the lower mainland and many other centres.

This government didn't anticipate the problems with transit, with

traffic, with air pollution, with polluting our water with the sewage

treatment that we don't have. And do you know something, Mr. Chairman?

One of the problems is that we are going to have a very serious

challenge to dig out the lack of vision and foresight that this

government has shown in dealing with the growth of the greater

Vancouver area.

[3:30]

What has happened in the rest of the province is equally a very

clear example of the lack of vision and lack of ability to take strong

leadership for the working people of this province.

I've just come back, as some people have pointed out, from the

Cariboo and from Kamloops. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the

people of the Cariboo are looking forward to seeing the Premier many

times, just as they did in Boundary-Similkameen. They want to talk to

the Premier about the mine that's closed in 100 Mile House. They want

to talk to him about the wood plant with $6 million in public subsidy

that closed. They want to talk to him about what the mills are going to

do after the temporary cut for the beetle infestation problem; what's

going to happen when that ends this year, and where the wood is going

to come from. They want to talk to him about a number of issues that

people in the Cariboo are going to be bringing forward in the

by-election.

In Kamloops, I'll tell you, they'd sure like to talk to their MLAs

if they could find them. They'd sure like to talk to them about the 15

percent unemployment. They'd like to talk to them about the multiplex

that we've been pushing for; our member for Vancouver East was pushing

for it just the other day, as a matter of fact. The council finally

located their two wandering MLAs. They finally cornered them, and they

said: "Gee, we may be able to do something; maybe, but we're not quite

sure."

What's happened in this province is that we have too much growth in

the lower mainland that could have been anticipated and hasn't been

anticipated by this Social Credit government, and too little in the

rest of the province. It's going to take a great deal of good, hard

work to balance that out; to make sure that the quality of life of

people in the lower mainland isn't diminished any more than it already

has been by this government's lack of leadership, by the weak

leadership that this Social Credit government

[ Page 8663 ]

has shown in dealing with the half of the population that now lives

in the lower mainland, at the same time not dealing with the lack of

growth in the rest of the province. Lots of rhetoric, lots of talk,

lots of meat-packing plants in Vanderhoof that never quite happened.

That's why, when I heard some of the words of the Premier about

strong leadership, I shook my head. It's certainly strong leadership

for the privileged few and the insider friends of the Premier and this

Social Credit government, but it sure isn't strong leadership for the

working people of this province, and it sure isn't strong leadership

for the growth problems that we're having In British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, one of the positive initiatives that New Democrats

have taken in this session of the Legislature to try and deal with

another area where this Social Credit government has basically just

exercised empty rhetoric, as they have in a number of areas, was to put

forward an environment and jobs accord to deal with the land use

conflicts that are holding back the development of British Columbia.

New Democrats feel that it's the inability of this Premier and this

government to bring the key players together to sort out these land use

conflicts that is holding back our economy. It's their lack of

acceptance that we need rational land use planning, not more battles

between loggers and environmentalists and natives and non-natives and

forest companies and local communities. It's the lack of recognition

that there are three goals that need to be reached under the land use

approach required in British Columbia.

I would like to outline those three goals that are required in

British Columbia, but first the member for Victoria would like to say a

few words.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the line of questioning

of the official opposition leader is of interest to all those who are

listening through the radio network of this province. I think it's time

the Premier was brought to task. It's time for the report card, and I

think this is of interest to all of us. I would like the leader to

continue.

MR. HARCOURT: As I was saying, it's this government's

inability to bring the various key players together in this province.

It's their inability to recognize the need for rational land use

planning, to cut down on the battles that we have between British

Columbians. It's their lack of recognition that we have to come to

agreement on three goals that are going to move British Columbia ahead.

We are going to forge an environment and jobs accord between

environmentalists, the logging community and native people.

Those three goals are: a sustainable timber supply so that our

forest workers, their families and communities can have a viable

future; the preservation and even doubling of our unique parks and

wilderness areas in British Columbia to accommodate the two million new

people who are coming into this province and the many more tourists who

are going to be visiting this great province of ours; and third, the

recognition of aboriginal rights and the negotiation of native land

claims.

Those are three of the essential goals that British Columbians have

to strive for. The Premier surely has to recognize, if we are going to

reach those three goals, that his government is not going to succeed by

just setting up another window-dressing committee going around the

province talking to native people. That committee is not going to work

unless his government recognizes that aboriginal title exists; that it

hasn't been extinguished. Let's negotiate, not spend $100 million in

courts litigating on this and other matters around the aboriginal issue.

Does the Premier accept that unless his government recognizes

aboriginal rights and land claims, we can never achieve such an accord

that is so essential to our province? Does the Premier recognize that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I appreciate the support

from the Leader of the Opposition for our regionalization program.

Obviously he has come to recognize finally that regionalization is

working in this province, that there has to be an opportunity for

people to have some input in deciding what they wish to see prioritized

when it comes to roads, transportation and infrastructure generally, or

that people must be allowed to participate in identifying resources and

creating new industries and new jobs.

I commend the people of the Cariboo when I see what they did in

Williams Lake, where they met and identified a waste-wood resource

which was simply being burned, with the ashes going into the

atmosphere, producing nothing at all other than pollution from the

burners. They said,"How can we use this waste material?" and they now

have discussions ongoing. Hopefully we will see something finalized

soon for a chipboard plant and a co-generating plant in Williams Lake.

I am sure that when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cariboo,

he didn't have time for local government. He didn't visit or talk to

the mayors of 100 Mile House, Williams Lake or Quesnel. But I can tell

him from having had discussions with all three only very recently

within the last several weeks that they not only support

regionalization; they believe it's one of the best programs that's ever

been introduced for the interior, for the northern part of the

province, for the eastern part of the province, for those regions where

we would like to see more diversity, more job opportunity and a better

quality of life that will attract the people there.

Unlike what the Leader of the Opposition says, you can't simply go

in and pass the laws he would suggest, saying: "You can't any longer

live in greater Vancouver. We are going to ban you from moving to the

lower mainland." You can't do that. You have to have a regionalization

program that encourages these people to go to these other areas.

You know, we've heard from the Leader of the Opposition a number of

times now the suggestion that we should somehow involve ourselves in the

[ Page 8664 ]

local decision-making process, that we must, whenever a decision is

arrived at by local government, take the place of local government and

reverse or change that decision in order to suit the liking of the

provincial government of the day.

I've told him time and time again that we as a government

historically and always have. I suppose that's why we've only had three

years of socialistic rule...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ever.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: ...ever in this province, because we

respect local government. I am proud, as I said a little earlier, of

the tremendous record of this government: the fact that we are leading

the country in growth, the fact that we are leading the country in

having a balanced budget, the fact that we are leading the country in

being recession-proof, leading the country in job creation, leading the

country in investment, leading the country in diversification and the

fact that we're the only place that's recently been given a triple-A

credit rating. I can talk about that, but you won't listen.

Let me ask you a question, Leader of the Opposition. Tell me what

you would have done as mayor of Vancouver, when you were there, had the

provincial government come in and said: "What you're doing in

Kerrisdale is wrong. We'll pass a law that says how it's to be done"?

Would you have accepted provincial legislation dictating what it is the

Vancouver city council might have done? Would you tell the Vancouver

city council what it is they can or can't do? Are you suggesting that a

provincial government must always step in and overrule a local

government when a decision is arrived at we don't like?

I appreciate that is as we see socialism and the New Democratic

Party to be, because we experienced it in the early seventies. But

you're telling us this has all changed, and now we hear you time and

time again asking us to intervene in local government.

I welcome further questions from the Leader of the Opposition.

[3:45]

MR. HARCOURT: He may welcome them, Mr. Chairman, but he won't answer them.

I asked him a very straightforward question that got lost in one of

his — I won't say rants — meanderings to some of his favourite topics.

By the way, we did canvass some of these topics in 1984 when he visited

our city. He came to visit our city and ran for mayor. I gave him a

guided tour of our city for about two months and pointed out the Expo

lands. I shouldn't have done that, because if I hadn't pointed them out

to him he couldn't have said: "Gee, now I can go sell them to a

billionaire somewhere in the world." I'm looking forward to giving the

Premier a guided tour of British Columbia where people can say, as that

song from the press put it at our press party: "Goodbye."

The Premier refused to answer my question on aboriginal land claims,

and I assume he's still taking the same position he has all along,

which is going to hold up this very important environment and jobs

accord that I have mentioned as central to the well-being of British

Columbians. We'll pursue it. We'll pursue a sustainable timber supply;

we'll pursue the preservation and enhancement of our park and

wilderness areas in this province; and we'll pursue settling in a

comprehensive way with the aboriginal people of this province in a way

that's of benefit to natives and non-natives alike.

Out of courtesy to the Premier, I will answer his questions. He

asked me a question. He said: "When you were mayor of Vancouver would

you have accepted the provincial government coming into Vancouver to

deal with the Kerrisdale problem?" I would like the Premier to know

that the Social Credit government was asked to do some things to

protect tenants and make sure there was affordable housing in British

Columbia. The city of Vancouver asked for demolition controls so that

senior citizens weren't thrown out on the street, and Social Credit

turned down that request of the council.

The city council in Vancouver asked for the restoration of the

rentalsman so that unjustified rent increases, unfair evictions and the

bullying of tenants and a quick speedy way to expedite landlord and

tenant disputes could be dealt with, and this Social Credit government

turned down the council in Vancouver.

Many councils have requested that the Social Credit government,

including this one, make sure there is land on the Expo sites that

would be kept for single parents, seniors, people with disabilities and

low-income citizens in Vancouver. Do you know what this government did?

It sold one of the five best sites in the world without making

provision for the low-income citizens. That's another request that was

turned down not just by the request of the council that I happened to

have the honour of being the mayor of — and being re-elected three

times in a row.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: Yes, including the 1984 election where we

canvassed Expo, the SkyTrain and B.C. Place. We heard these same

arguments. I heard them in 1980 when I sought a mandate to be mayor,

and I was elected mayor against an incumbent mayor. We heard these same

arguments in 1982 when I was running for mayor for re-election. And do

you know what happened? The citizens of Vancouver increased my margin

from 3,000 votes to 35,000 against an opponent using the same argument.

Then just to prove how tiresome Social Credit can be in repeating

something that gets fixated in their brain cells, I heard those same

arguments from the first member for Richmond and the Premier of this

province now when he visited our city to run against me for mayor to

make exactly those same points. Do you know what happened to my margin

of victory? It didn't go down; it didn't stay the same. It went up to

the largest margin of victory in the city's history; that's what

happened. So please just keep raising those

[ Page 8665 ]

arguments over and over again, particularly in the Cariboo.

I wanted to deal with what the Premier had to say about the Cariboo,

and whether I had met with the councils in Quesnel, Williams Lake and

100 Mile House. The answer, Mr. Premier, is yes — not just once on a

fly-through. I have met with the councils there, and they remember Bill

9. They remember the land use act; they remember who was against local

participation, local decision-making and local government. They know

that it was the Premier of this province right now who was trying to

squelch local government.

Do you know what they also know? It was this government and the

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) who turned down a request for

involvement in the local forests. Those three councils — Quesnel, 100

Mile House and Williams Lake — put in a municipal reforestation and

silviculture program. Do you know what happened to them? They were

pushed aside over and over again; they had to beat down doors and come

back over and over again. I heard that two years ago, and they were

given short shrift by this Social Credit government.

If you want to talk about respect for local government, I'm prepared

to put my track record and the track record of New Democrats against

the Premier's track record and Social Credit's track record any day of

the week.

The other question that I wanted to ask the Premier — as he's not

prepared to change his mind or answer my question on land claims — is

one that deals with the poor forest management of his government and

past governments, which has led us to the position where we don't have

a sustainable timber supply in our province. I would like to ask the

Premier whether he accepts that with the poor forest management his

government now practises, we will not have a sustainable timber supply

in our province, that will be lost and forest communities will be

forever threatened.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, I'd like to take this

opportunity to introduce to the House my deputy minister and secretary

to the executive council, Mr. Frank Rhodes; Ms. Lynn Langford, deputy

secretary, executive council policy and legislation; Mr. Vick Farley,

special adviser, constitutional affairs and intergovernmental

relations; and Ms. Jan Hemming, manager, administration office of the

Premier.

One of the questions posed was with respect to aboriginal land

claims and what we might do in order to work more closely with native

people in the province. We have seen an excellent record over the last

several years by this government in working with native people, and

certainly the fact that we were the first government to provide local

autonomy to an Indian band is an example of that. Also we have a

Premier's native council which will be meeting with native groups and

tribal councils throughout the province.

MRS. BOONE: They sure like that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You say they sure like that. Let's look

at what the NDP did between 1972 and 1975 — nothing at all. Not only

did you not have such a council, you didn't even have a minister

responsible for native affairs. You did nothing for the native people,

and the native people know this. The NDP have the worst record of any

government in the history of this province. Well, maybe that's a bit

far back; but it goes back a long way of not having performed on behalf

of native people. Sure, you do a lot of talking in here, but let's look

at the record; let's look at the period 1972-75 and see what the NDP

did for the native people of this province: nothing at all. No native

council to meet with native tribal councils throughout the province;

you didn't care. No minister responsible for native affairs; you didn't

care. Your track record is lousy. You talk up a fine storm, but you've

done nothing. History certainly shows that you've done nothing.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

You talk about settling native land claims. Yes, we've held the position that this is a federal responsibility.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So did Dave Barrett.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: So did Dave Barrett say, to his credit,

that as a part of Confederation, yes, it was a federal responsibility.

Now we have a new Leader of the Opposition who says: "People of British

Columbia, trust me. I'll go out there and meet with all of the native

people, and I'll settle all the land claims." Frankly, I doubt very

much if the people of British Columbia want to leave that to your

abilities, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

They would probably agree that the process, I grant you, is not as

we would have it. I concur that when all of this ends up in the courts,

it can be very expensive. You know that firsthand, of course, because

you're in the courts now with your principal secretary, who alleges

that he was falsely terminated; you know what it costs to go into the

courts. I am sure that you are faced with a big legal bill in fighting

a wrongful dismissal with your principal secretary. So I agree, this is

expensive. It's expensive for you when you're fighting your former

principal secretary, and it's expensive for us when we see these native

questions get into the courts throughout the province. Only the lawyers

benefit by this type of exercise. We must work to bring about a better

approach to addressing this whole question or the way that the federal

government is coming at addressing the land-claim question.

But to say that the Leader of the Opposition will, on his white

charger, go into the province and sit down with native councils and try

to settle land claims not only on behalf of the native people, as you

yourself said, but on behalf of many of the people who are presently

farming the land, logging on those lands, have businesses on those

lands or are living on those lands.... I don't believe that the people

of this

[ Page 8666 ]

province would want all that responsibility passed on to a person

such as you, Leader of the Opposition. I think the people would want it

to remain the responsibility of the federal government to pay for the

land-claim issue.

[4:00]

That's not to say we couldn't improve the process. We're working

towards that end. It's my hope that as we meet with the tribal councils

throughout the province, we will hear, we will listen and we will

learn. As you yourself have said, Mr. Leader of the Opposition — and

I've said it many times myself — we are no doubt the most open

government there ever was in this province. We consult. We have a

cabinet that travels to different parts of the province and meets with

people. We have our social services committee of cabinet. We have our

regional development committee of cabinet. We meet with the people

throughout the province. We seek their input not only through the

regionalization process but also through the committee process. We

listen to the people, we respond to their wishes and we attempt to

involve them as much as possible, without taking over, as you've

proposed it be done.

You also made mention of sustainable development. I agree that we

are in a time when obviously we must provide for the concerns of people

when it comes to protecting a quality of life, to protecting open space

and park space. We've done this in spades. The record, as I said

earlier, will show that we've created more park space than any other

jurisdiction in North America, with the exception of Alaska.

I agree as well that undoubtedly we'll be looking at new methods of

logging, new methods of forestry, new approaches in the industry, which

is why we have a forestry council which will seek the opinion of people

in the industry, people on the outside, people belonging to various

groups or just individuals, to see how things might be done more

effectively.

But let's again look at the record. Compare the silviculture

program; compare the tree-planting program; compare all of that which

is being done in forestry today with the NDP record of '72, '73, '74

and part of '75. You'd have to agree that it was shocking. It doesn't

come up at all to the standards that we've established today, thanks to

our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) and his ministry. They've done

a commendable job, and people know this. They see it; the record is

there.

Madam Chairman, I have some other answers or information that I

could provide on the agricultural land reserve questions, but I'll keep

these for later. Maybe there could be more questions from the Leader of

the Opposition. I would appreciate that.

MR. DAVIDSON: Madam Chairman, we've heard a great deal relating

to allegations of undue influence in the Expo lands sale. We've also heard

other allegations surrounding the awarding of the contract, the bidding process

and the operation of the Enterprise Corporation itself. It's really time

for the people of British Columbia to know the truth. British Columbians can

no longer be expected to contend with the supposition, innuendo and inference

with which we have been deluged over this past long period of time. For far

too long the opposition has conveniently jumped on the bandwagon and followed

the tune which our media gurus have been playing for a long, long time. It was

the easiest course for the opposition to follow, because a campaign to destroy

the Premier was underway, a campaign which on thorough examination will, I believe,

have little semblance of fact, but will demonstrate a great deal of imagined

fiction.

If the Premier wants his actions fully understood and even

appreciated by the public of this province, then he has only one course

of action open to him. That course of action is to hold a judicial

inquiry into the entire matter. Let's examine just a few of the areas

where a full-fledged judicial inquiry with every right to subpoena

witnesses, examine files and documents and obviate secrecy agreements

could begin.

One of the largest development projects in the history of this

province has been so clouded with controversy and so linked with

allegations that the real potential for this land has been almost

totally obscured. Throughout this province the Expo lands sale has been

associated with a person whose name is no stranger in this place, and

that is Mr. Peter Toigo; yet with the exception of the Premier himself,

I don't believe there is another person whose background has been so

carefully scrutinized by so many people all trying to confirm false,

malicious or fabricated stories about personal character, integrity or

honesty. With all these people and all their research and all their

rock-turning, not a single issue of consequence has been validated

surrounding the Expo lands sale; but the doubts in the public's mind

remain, and unless the clouds are cleared, the public will never have a

full appreciation of the facts or understand the complexities of this

entire process.

The Expo lands were never intended as a private fiefdom for a

privileged few to consider their own economic playground, nor was it a

project intended to be turned over to a group of politically partisan

businessmen for their own personal profit., But that impression exists,

an impression which has been carefully nurtured, encouraged and

repeated to the people of this province by a media and an opposition

determined to destroy the credibility of the Premier and the

government. The opposition's motives are clear. They are political, and

that's their job. What excuses there are for a media who refuse to do

their job, who ignore fact, who stand around in corridors or sit in

their office waiting for phony brown envelopes, is another matter

entirely. Had the media of this province got off their collective

biased butts, much more could have been brought forward, would have

been brought forward and should have been brought forward.

Investigative reporting means more than trying to validate your own

hypothesis. It means digging, digging and more digging.

I want to ask a very simple question: why is a secret bidding

process necessary for government owned Crown land? Certainly everyone

can understand and appreciate the necessity for confidentiality

[ Page 8667 ]

in the bidding process, but once that process is completed and the

successful bidder has been determined, why do we not let the people of

British Columbia know what the rest of the bids were? If it's private

land, then you can set whatever rules you like; but it's public land,

and the public has a right to know.

Too often secrecy agreements are perceived as a convenience to

bid-rigging rather than a convenience to the public. Many, many months

ago Mr. Peter Brown, Mr. Peter Toigo, Mr. Podmore, Mr. Murphy, along

with others, met at the Expo site and reviewed Mr. Toigo's presentation

of a festival park for part of the Expo site, which would in essence be

a marketing tool for B.C. industry. It was to incorporate many of the

rides and attractions of Expo, but it would highlight B.C.'s economic

and industrial opportunities. Not only did those individuals appear to

be impressed, but at Peter Brown's suggestion it was recommended that

Mr. Toigo and Mr. Jack Poole get together on a joint proposal.

In addition, it was suggested that an offer of approximately $160

million would be sufficient to win the bid. This was based on $40

million down and $120 million on terms. Later, however, that bid was

increased to $50 million down and $110 million on terms — terms, by the

way, more profitable to the provincial treasury than those finally

awarded to Concord Pacific. Interestingly enough, the proposal by Toigo

and the proposal by Jack Poole never included the parking facilities

around the stadium, yet the successful Concord Pacific bid did include

the parking facilities. How could the parking-lot for the stadium be

sold when it wasn't even asked for? What possible rationale is there

for selling the parking land around the stadium?

Madam Chairman, Mr. Poole subsequently sent a letter to Mr. Toigo,

saying that in the political interests of BCE, the former Daon company

which Mr. Poole represented in his bid, it was felt that either they —

BCE — or Mr. Toigo should make the bid, but not both and not together.

Now what prompted this letter can only be left to speculation or,

better yet, to a judicial inquiry, In any case, Mr. Toigo dropped out

of the bidding process at that time but started to watch very carefully

the goings-on surrounding the strange occurrences in the Enterprise

Corporation.

It would appear, from information that has been made available to

some, that prior to the October stock market crash a group headed by

the Enterprise chairman himself was preparing to put up almost $400

million, with the help of Merrill Lynch, for the entire corporation,

and subsequently establish a merchant bank — about $100 million less

than Mr. Toigo's final offer for the entire corporation.

Another strange thing took place. The loan portfolio of the

Enterprise Corporation was written down by some $52 million. Reasons

for that are best known to the corporation. What a surprise that $52

million written down proved to be unnecessary; the portfolio appeared

very solid.

Questions which must be asked also surround the very rich severance

packages for key employees. Was the money raised from the severance

package to form part of the equity for the offer to purchase? Was

Expo's own money to be used to take over the corporation which in fact

was paying for the severance? This again is a question which can only

be answered at a judicial inquiry

Madam Chairman, there are some other interesting questions. As you

know, the government occupies a considerable amount of space on the

Expo site, and many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put into

leasehold improvements for those buildings. The question which must be

asked is simply this: why is it that those buildings were sold without

a leaseback arrangement to the province? Now the province has to vacate

their own buildings, and we have to take space at the Pan Pacific

Hotel, which undoubtedly is going to cost more money in leasehold

improvements.

We have to ask what instructions the directors were under when they

made these decisions. The people of the province want to know. They

want to know what was going on. They want to know how decisions like

these could be made; and if they were made, the reasons for making

them. Who would keep a stadium and sell a parking-lot? Who would spend

hundreds of thousands of dollars for leasehold improvements and then

sell the buildings without a leaseback arrangement? Why was so much

secrecy involved and necessary in the bidding process surrounding the

Expo site?

We are entitled to know the truth. We are here as elected officials

to represent the people. We are not here to hide the facts or to cloud

the issues. We are here to protect the public interest.

The people of this province feel let down, they feel suspect and,

most importantly, they feel they have a right to know the truth. Only a

full judicial inquiry will ever let the people know what happened to

the most expensive piece of property in the western hemisphere. Only a

judicial inquiry will let us know how, after all the expenses are taken

into account for the reclamation of land, we could realize so little

cash.

There are other questions that must be answered, questions that

again can only be answered in a full judicial inquiry. Why was the

meeting between Mr. Toigo and Mr. Li Ka-shing in Hong Kong so urgently

prevented? How did the confidential documents in the hands of certain

individuals and prepared by Mr. Toigo end up in the hands of his

competitors? Why were other bidders not encouraged to put forward scale

models of their presentation, just as Concord Pacific's model was

presented to the Expo board? Were, in fact, other proposals discouraged

from putting forward scale models? And lastly, why has the money due

the province disappeared as quickly as the lagoons in the scale model

of the actual design that was put forward?

Madam Chairman, Expo 86 was an overwhelming success. It opened our

province to the eyes of the world. The disposition of the assets of

Expo 86 leaves a legacy of a different kind. We are here to serve the

interests of the people of British Columbia, and the

[ Page 8668 ]

air must be cleared once and for all. Only the Premier can take such

action and order such an inquiry, and in the interests of protecting

the image of himself, his government and this province, I urge him to

do that forthwith.

MR. MERCIER: It's one thing to listen to the opposition

providing misinformation, but it's something else to have one of your

own colleagues providing misinformation. I would like to make a few

brief remarks. I won't get into all the details, but I just want to

comment on the bidding process used in the disposal of the Expo lands.

[4:15]

The ads were run worldwide. The selection committee narrowed down

the applicants to those who had the financial capability to make an

acquisition and complete a development of the size contemplated. The

initial selection narrowed the bidders down to five, and in those five

the winning bid was so far above the second bid that there was a free

fall to the next bidder.

The evidence of that is simple. In business, if you think you've had

an unfair process imposed on you, there would have been a comment made.

There wasn't a whimper out of any of the bidders. Because the zoning of

the land wasn't in place, some of the largest and most capable

companies in the world wouldn't even submit a bid. They didn't want to

face the uncertainties of zoning problems and concerns over the

possible — and they turned out to be minor — environmental problems on

the site. The province received the best price available in the whole

world, and of the people who are commenting on this, none have bothered

to go through that process and look at the ads that were run and the

newspaper reports that were made.

Further evidence is that the current developer still hasn't got a

permit from the city of Vancouver to develop the site, because they're

still working on zoning matters and environmental matters. If you can

find another developer who will put up $50 million — that's running at

about 13 percent interest at current interest levels — then you should

be talking about who you would have had put that bid up, not on the

process and not on some idea of secrecy. How can you have secrecy when

you run worldwide ads and publish the format? It was only in the last

stage of the bidding, when the $200,000 non-refundable deposits had to

be posted, that the procedure was in camera. There was nothing secret

about the bidding process, nothing secret about the terms, and I just

wanted to straighten the Legislature out on those matters.

MR. HARCOURT: I was intrigued to hear the last two speakers,

because the public inquiry into the Expo land sales is something that I

asked for over a year ago on behalf of the New Democratic caucus.

We didn't do it on the basis of trying to vindicate a friend of the

Premier and the shameless interference by the Premier's office on

behalf of that friend of the Premier. And we weren't attacking the

board members of BCEC for doing anything that in their judgment was the

proper way to deal with the land. Our criticism of the BCEC board of

directors wasn't that they were acting in what they thought was the

right way to act. We said we disagreed with the sale of the land and

that it should have been leased, and we said it should have been broken

down into smaller parcels so that individual and smaller developers and

contractors could have had an opportunity to bid on that land. We

wanted a far more open process for the citizens of British Columbia,

putting together the concept rather than having three large

billionaires square off against each other. So in answer to the member

for Burnaby, we have never said that the decision of the board was

anything but a judgment call that we disagreed with, and I want to make

that very clear.

I also want to expand on what the member for Delta has said. We

believe, and have believed for many months — as a matter of fact, right

back to the spring of 1988 — that there needs to be a full public

inquiry into the Expo land deal. But it's not for the reason the member

for Delta talks about; it's because we disagreed, as I said, on a

matter of judgment call and approach by the board of directors of BCEC.

We think that needs to be scrutinized, but more importantly it's the

appalling interference by the Premier's office on behalf of friends of

the Premier that we want to have looked into.

That's why we thought the people of British Columbia needed a public

inquiry, not so that various factions and groups in the Social Credit

caucus and party can have at each other. By the way, I notice that the

first member for Vancouver-Little Mountain(Mrs. McCarthy), who was here

previously, is no longer here. I wonder why. The reason why we want to

see a public inquiry is not to sort out a feud inside Social Credit,

but for the very important reason that we want the people of British

Columbia to be assured that they got the best deal they could for this

land. That's the reason we need a public inquiry and the reason we back

a public inquiry.

I'd like to now deal with some matters of great urgency to the

citizens of British Columbia, and the Premier's constant attempts to

impose his personal views on the rest of British Columbians and put his

personal views ahead of his public responsibility. In particular, it's

the input of his office on his recent canning of the AIDS video, the

imposition of standards of morality on people who are suffering from

AIDS, and not making the AZT drug available to those poor citizens in

British Columbia who are suffering from this dreadful disease. I would

like to say, Madam Chairperson, that we look on the Premier's

intervention in dealing with this very tragic and serious problem, this

health hazard to many people in the world and some of our citizens in

British Columbia — as a matter of fact, about 2, 600 people right now

who have tested positive for HIV... We look on the Premier's not making

the AIDS video available to young people this summer as immoral. We

think it is immoral not to do everything we can to save people's lives,

particularly young

[ Page 8669 ]

people. You may disagree with the approach, but that video was done

with the best of intentions: to reach young people in a way that they

could understand and in a milieu where they will be, in the theatres

across this province. We think that the Premier's actions and the

actions of this government to not do everything we can, even to

preserve one life. Even if that video preserves one life, it will have

been worth it. The Premier's actions are dangerous and a threat to our

young people.

We also think that not making AZT funding available to people who

are suffering from AIDS was a way of interfering with citizens who want

to preserve their lives and need our compassion and understanding, as

they are ill with this very serious disease.

I would like to ask the Premier why he insists on imposing his

immoral personal views on British Columbians rather than embracing his

public responsibility.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, Madam Chairperson, this

is a stupid statement: immoral personal views. The Leader of the

Opposition goes on ranting and raving about the fact that there

shouldn't be moral considerations when we look at social programs or

health programs. Then he goes on to say: "But your view is immoral." So

it's all right for him to make a moral value judgment, but for anyone

else to make a moral value judgment is wrong if it doesn't coincide

with what he thinks the decision ought to have been. On the one hand he

says that government should operate in isolation of moral

considerations or ethics.... I don't think, frankly, there's that much

difference between moral considerations or ethics and the standards

that people would want us to adopt. I'm going to go around this

province at some point, not too long from now, and I'm going to tell

all of the people that the NDP view is exactly what it is: that there

should be no moral considerations. So on the one hand he goes around

saying this; on the other hand he says: "Your decision with respect to

a decision made by the Ministry of Health which I agreed with is

immoral." So it's all right for him to make a moral judgment; and his

judgment is that it's immoral to have made the decision that the video

ought not to have been shown, as the Ministry of Health decided.

What we have further decided is that people in the community —

community leaders, young people and others — should see this video and

should perhaps pass some opinion on it. He would deny the people that

opportunity. He talks about openness; he talks about involving people;

he talks about open government. But if he were the Premier, he would

simply ram ahead contrary to what the Ministry of Health decided. He

would overrule his Minister of Health, and he would ram it down the

throats of people, even if the majority of the people decided against

the video in viewing it. Isn't that interesting! That's what you

consider openness. That's what you consider fairness with the people.

And you think that like local government you could simply run roughshod

over your ministers and ministries, and have a one-man rule, as you

would like to see it. It doesn't matter that the Ministry of Health

decided against this; you would decide otherwise.

The most interesting part of all of this, though, is the fact that

we keep hearing the Leader of the Opposition talk about ethics; but

ethics, I guess, does not include morals; and ethics, I guess, does not

include a standard which the people of the province might wish to see

for whatever it is we do by way of social programs or health programs.

Ethics, according to the Leader of the Opposition, is the way the NDP

would have it. I don't think the people of this province want that

standard or those sorts of ethics. I think our people still have values

much beyond what you've expressed just now, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition. Frankly, I'm disappointed in your comments.

MR. HARCOURT: Speaking about ethics and ethical standards,

I'm sure that the Premier will find this a very awkward one to deal

with because it involves conflicts of interest from his staff, who

blatantly interfered in the Expo lands. It involves friends who were

involved in his campaign, raising funds and sharing his campaign. I'm

sure the Premier will find that the request for a public inquiry from

the second member for Delta(Mr. Davidson) involves a huge number of

conflicts, ethical questions and friendships that he's going to anguish

about. I'd like to hear the Premier's answer about the need for a

public inquiry into the Expo lands deal.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I guess it's the same story all over

again. The Leader of the Opposition has already told us that he doesn't

agree with the member for Delta about why a public inquiry is needed.

He's already said what he would like to see a public inquiry be all

about or what the result should be.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, it would be by his own standards.

He says: "We've already decided that it must be leased, that it should

have been leased, and it should have been" — as he told us once earlier

— "all developed into social housing and leased land." What's the

purpose of an inquiry for you, Leader of the Opposition, if it may not

come out exactly as you would have it? You'd continue to scream anyway.

[4:30]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Before the Chair recognizes anyone, the Chair

would just like to ask the members to please address the Chair — it

enhances the debate.

MR. HARCOURT: Madam Chairperson, I would like to say that I

don't expect nor do the members of the New Democratic caucus expect it

to be anything but an independent inquiry to look at some of the issues

raised by the member for Delta. The issues he

[ Page 8670 ]

raised I can agree with; the reasons he wants the inquiry we have a

difference of opinion about. I want to see it take place so that the

people of British Columbia can be assured that their land was dealt

with properly. The inquiry would look at some of the issues that the

member raised: the idea of a merchant bank — he said some people on the

board were getting involved in a personal way. If he has evidence of

that, let's get it on the table and have an independent inquiry with a

respected judge, a person like Doug MacKay who did the inquiry on the

Coquihalla and is now doing the inquiry on the natural gas pipeline

through the Coquitlam watershed. I would depend on the ability of a

good and respected British Columbian to be able to look at issues like

that.

The other issues raised by the member for Delta on the write-down of

the BCDC loans, the severance packages, the Expo buildings that weren't

provided with a leaseback arrangement, are all very important

questions. There are some other matters, too, that I think British

Columbians would like to look at that weren't looked at, and we raised

those last May. They were raised by the previous Attorney-General, who

resigned because he felt there was interference by the Premier's

office. They were raised by the previous member of the board, the

minister responsible, the first member for Little Mountain(Mrs.

McCarthy). There are a number of issues that we believe should be

canvassed, not just the questions that we've raised, but those of the

people I've just outlined.

Yes, the media have raised them too. I don't think they were without

diligence at all; I think the media dealt with this matter continually

and fully in public with the information they had, and I think they

could do a heck of a lot better job if there was a public inquiry to

get to the bottom of this whole thing.

Mr. Premier, I would be prepared to agree to your statement that it

shouldn't be just to satisfy what you call self-serving areas that I,

as the leader of the New Democratic Party, would like to have looked at

or New Democrats would like to have looked at. We think it should be

much broader, and on that basis I would like to ask the Premier if he

would be willing to have the public inquiry into the Expo lands to

clear the air.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't think the opposition leader's

track record with respect to trust is that great when it comes to other

fairly recent inquiries. We had Chief justice Nemetz do an inquiry.

That certainly was independent. You didn't like that, because you

didn't like the result of it. Then you went one further and went to the

auditor-general. Certainly the auditor-general is independent, but

again you didn't like that, and you publicly attacked the report from

the auditor-general. Frankly, I don't see where we have sufficient

trust to follow through on this.

MR. HARCOURT: I have not commented at all on what the Chief justice

did. He was given limited terms of reference, and he carried out those terms

of reference in devising future policy for the government on severance situations.

I did say that the auditor-general's study was superficial and wasn't

set up to deal with anything but the legality of what happened. It didn't

deal with whether the David Poole pension was appropriate or fair — and the

people of British Columbia know that it wasn't fair what David Poole received.

I said I was quite prepared to have the people of British Columbia judge that

at the next provincial election, and that's where it will be judged.

I want to deal with the Premier's personal views in an area of great

importance to British Columbians, because a large number of British

Columbians in our very pluralistic society that enriches us all are

interested in this government's attitude and the leadership of the

Premier on the whole question of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is

more than a few grants on a national day or going to a banquet once a

year or around election time to go and meet with the leadership in the

major multicultural communities throughout this province.

I would like to ask the Premier two specific questions. This

province has the lowest funding for multicultural programs in the

country. It has the lowest amount that is available for immigrant

reception services: about $9 an immigrant compared to — and the Premier

was disparaging — Manitoba, which is about $220 per new immigrant, or

like Alberta and others that are in the $150 range.

I would say that the actions of this government speak louder than

their words in praise of multiculturalism or attending the odd banquet

or, as that leaked memo in a recent column in the Vancouver Sun stated,

getting engaged in multiculturalism for political reasons.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Name names.

MR. HARCOURT: I'm sure the Premier meets often with and in

the friendly confines has many lunches and dinners with Vaughn Palmer.

I understand you hold each other in the greatest of regard. I'm sure

the Premier doesn't need to be reminded anymore of whom I'm speaking

about.

There was a column that made it very clear that you just can't

cynically use the multicultural community for political cannon fodder

at election time. I would like to say to the Premier that the attitude

of his government and his caucus towards our multicultural communities

is very important.

I would like to ask the Premier what he has to say about the first

member for Vancouver South's(Mr. R. Fraser'

s) question a few weeks ago

and his statement in this Legislature criticizing and attacking the

Chinese students who were here from the People's Republic of China for

peacefully protesting in the downtown streets of Vancouver. He was

criticizing those students, and he went out of his way both in his

question in the Legislature and in his statement on a Friday to be

critical and say to those students: "If you don't like what's happening

there, you shouldn't be protesting in Canada. You should do something

about it in your own country." That was at the same

[ Page 8671 ]

moment, Mr. Premier, that those very brave students in Tiananmen

Square were about to be crushed under the tanks of the army in China.

I would like to ask the Premier what he has to say about the

statements of the member for Vancouver South, who came out and

criticized those students who were studying in our universities here

for expressing their right to free speech in the Canadian tradition for

free assembly and peaceful assembly to criticize their government. I

would like to ask the Premier what he has to say about the statements

from the member for Vancouver South.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think I heard free assembly, free

something else. The only thing you left out was free speech. I suppose

people might be entitled to say or express their views on any number of

issues. They don't have to come to the Premier to see what his views

are or whether it's all right. It doesn't work that way, Mr. Leader of

the Opposition. People in this province are entitled to express a

viewpoint, and it may not always be one that you would agree with. You

may feel disappointed that you can't always agree with what it is that

people say or that people might not always agree with what it is you

say, but that's the real world out there.

You mentioned all these principles of freedom, but you left out free speech.

MR. HARCOURT: No, I mentioned free speech.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You didn't. The record will show. You just mentioned it now. It will be on the record now perhaps.

If I could defer to the minister responsible for multicultural

affairs.... But I can't. His estimates have already been done, so this

subject has already been canvassed very thoroughly, as have other

subjects under the appropriate ministries. While I understand the

Leader of the Opposition has been away a lot of the time, you can't go

back and do every ministry you've missed out.

I will say that the day we talked about the Komagata Maru in the

House — at least, one of the days — I was meeting with the Prime

Minister at the Four Seasons in Vancouver as to how we could assist

students affected by the terribly unfortunate incident in Tiananmen

Square. So we are working on that, and we certainly attempt to assist

in whatever way we can. We work very closely with the federal

government and will work very closely with all people everywhere. We

have a multicultural committee that does a very effective job.

Hey, I guess, being an immigrant, I understand that too. We work

very closely with all of those groups, and we intend to continue that

process. I'm proud of what we're doing there, and I intend to see it

carried on.

MR. HARCOURT: Madam Chairperson, it's not my opinion that's

important. What's important is that those students who are here in our great

democracy aren't going to be intimidated by a member of this Legislature

saying: "Shut up, or you're going to go back to China." That's

the point. It was a member of your caucus who basically intimidated those visitors

from China who made very brave statements in full public that could impact their

families.

I don't need a lecture about free speech. I don't need a lecture

about what my opinion is; it's not my opinion that's important. What's

important Is that a number of students from the People's Republic of

China were threatened by the words of an ex-minister of the Social

Credit government, who Is a prominent member of the Vancouver community

and the ex-chairman of the parks board. When a member of this

Legislature stands up in question period and makes a statement to

follow that up and the Premier does not say anything against those

terrible words, which had a very negative effect on those students —

when he does not get up and give assurance to those students that the

views of the member do not represent those of this government — those

students are going to assume that his words are those of this

government. I can tell you that members of the Chinese-Canadian

community have been waiting for the Premier to speak up and express an

opinion on this matter rather than give a lecture to the leader of the

New Democratic Party and the Leader of the Opposition about what

freedom of speech is. I understand that very well, Madam Chairperson.

The Premier has just now refused to contradict the threatening

question and statement of the member for Vancouver South, and we will

let that stand. The Premier is basically, by being quiet on this

matter, letting those words of the member for Vancouver South stand. If

the Premier wants to do that, that's his choice. He has the right of

freedom of speech, and we respect that right of freedom of speech.

What I would also like to ask the Premier about is his attitude

towards immigration. As the Premier and most members of this

Legislature are probably aware, this country was founded on immigration

and on immigrants. As a matter fact, 15 million of our 26 million

people are immigrants, and we're proud of that tradition in Canada.

We're proud of the fact that people could come from lands with the

harsh tyrannies of the right and the left, could come as refugees to

seek a new way of life, could come from conditions of poverty in their

own country and find a way of life in dignity for themselves and their

families.

[4:45]

Madam Chairperson, I would like to know from the Premier what his

and his government's attitude is on this issue: the ability of rich

immigrants to jump the queue ahead of those whose entry into Canada is

based on merit, such as education, job opportunities and family

unification. I would like to know what the Premier thinks about the

ability of wealthy immigrants to buy that right to citizenship and to

jump the queue ahead of less wealthy immigrants who want to come here,

but have to come on their own merits — not just with a bundle of money.

I'd like to know what the Premier thinks about that ability of the

wealthy to jump the queue ahead of immigrants who

[ Page 8672 ]

have to get here on the basis of education, job opportunities or family unification.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, let me go back for one

minute to the statements that the Leader of the Opposition attributes

to one member of this Legislature and then says this must be the

position of government. He should know full well — and I can't let him

get away with It, because he tends to twist it all the time — that a

statement was made in this Legislature by the House Leader as to the

position of the government on that particular issue.

He also should know that we were the first province — and I publicly

said so with the Prime Minister at a press conference in Vancouver — to

say that we would assist in seeking a means whereby we could help those

students who were stranded here and were participating in various

schools, universities and colleges and couldn't return to China on

account of what happened at Tiananmen Square. We were the first

province to do that. We were the first province to say to the federal

government that we would work with them to resolve that. We have done a

great deal in that respect.

Further, let me say for the edification of the Leader of the

Opposition and the few members there with him, that immigration Is a

federal matter and has been a federal matter. We took the lead in

requesting that we be permitted to enter into an immigration agreement

similar to that which has been provided by the federal government for

Quebec. We believe that if it's okay for Quebec, it should be okay for

us to have an immigration agreement. That immigration agreement will

allow us to perhaps be selective at least with respect to particular

skills or people we wish to see for some of the communities in the

province where this may be required.

If we continue with the system as we're presently experiencing it,

then the federal government will continue to take averages tremendously

influenced by whatever happens in southern Ontario, and that will be

the rule for the rest of the country. We want an agreement for British

Columbia not unlike the Quebec agreement. So yes, Leader of the

Opposition, we're doing a great deal in the area of immigration. We

can't do it all; it's still a federal responsibility. But we've made

more progress than any other government that I'm aware of, and that

speaks well for the government.

The Leader of the Opposition did make some statements with respect

to the public deserving to know where we are on particular issues. I

agree, and I've already told him a number of times that we are the most

open government in the history of this province, and we intend to

continue that way.

But I think it's also important that the people of this province

know where the Leader of the Opposition stands at least on one issue.

If you're not prepared to get off the fence on even one issue, then

you're not really serving the people of this province as well. I'd like

to know where you stand on Bill 19 and on the unlawful day of protest

when you were asked your views on the law being broken. Do you agree

with the breaking of the law or not? Can you at least tell us on one

issue where you stand? Do you agree that the law could be broken on

Bill 19, and that it's okay? Is that your position? That seemingly was

your position. I think it would help us to know your stand on at least

one issue, so give us your answer to that one.

MR. HARCOURT: Madam Chairman, there were two questions there.

First of all, one was on Bill 19, and I want to assure the people of

British Columbia that Bill 19 — if we were elected to government in the

next provincial election — will be gone. A fair labour code to deal

with the 1990s will be introduced. It will be introduced not under the

subterfuge and with the cynicism that Bill 19 was introduced, which was

drafted in the secrecy of the Premier's office — and sending around the

poor Minister of Labour(Hon. L. Hanson) to give the illusion that there

was some public participation. There were 700 briefs accepted from good

British Columbians who wanted to have a genuine fresh start, wanted an

end to confrontation, and the Premier and two of his henchmen got

together and drafted in secret that draconian bill. Very clearly, Madam

Chairperson, I want the Premier to know, because the people of British

Columbia are going to know it in the election. They are going to have

Bill 19 gone and a new labour code introduced.

Secondly, I would like to let the Premier know that I find it

scandalous that the Premier of this province doesn't understand the

rule of law. I find it scandalous that the Premier can sit here and

show his prejudice, can prejudge an event that he says was unlawful —

that people were breaking the law. Is he a judge? Is he a jury? Is he a

prosecutor? He can sit here when he's the government of British

Columbia that didn't bring any legal proceedings against any member of

the BCGEU or any other government union. He can sit here as the

dictator of this province and say he prejudges what law is broken and

what law isn't broken.

That is the most revealing remark the Premier has made today: that

he decides what is legal and illegal; he decides what's law