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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 21, 1989

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Home support for multi-disabled children. Mr. B.R. Smith –– 6277

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Pollution: enforcement and monitoring. Mr. Cashore –– 6277

Hon. Mr. Strachan

B.C. wine industry. Mr. Messmer –– 6281

Mr. D'Arcy

Nuclear disarmament. Mr. Perry –– 6283

Mr. Serwa

Hon. Mr. Dirks

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6285

Mr. Clark

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Lovick

Hon. S.D. Smith

Royal assent to bills –– 6295

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. GRAN :

In the gallery today is a friend of mine from Langley, Midge Roper, who

is also the mother of my assistant, Tracey. Would the House please

welcome her.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

HOME SUPPORT

FOR MULTIDISABLED CHILDREN

MR. B.R. SMITH :

I am going to speak again about an issue that I spoke about earlier,

because I think it's of crucial importance, particularly because we as

a government believe in fairness, justice and people. We don't just

support things for doctrinal reasons.

There are in this

province between 200 and 250 multi-handicapped children. These are

children who are looked after largely by their parents with support

from our excellent health institutions. All of these children would

qualify for extended pediatric care. That is, their natural parents

could place them in Sunny Hill or Queen Alexandra Hospital and they

would receive total care at the cost to the Crown. That total care, I

guess, would range somewhere between $75,000 and $90,000, all inclusive.

The

fact is that their parents have decided that they want to manage to

look after these children and they want to keep them at home as best

they can. I have had the privilege of meeting a number of these parents

and seeing these children in school settings.

I know people

will say: "It's very regrettable, but it doesn't touch me, because I

was lucky. I didn't have a child who was born with some disability at

birth. I got through that; my children got through that. I don't have

any grandchildren who are disabled." But I can tell you that it does

touch each of us, because many of these children are not deformed at

birth. They have obtained their disability due to some trauma,

meningitis.... One child I've visited, Billy — absolutely normal up to

the age of two — fell down a well, was unconscious and drowned for

45 minutes. He was brought back, and over the last five years

tremendous work has been done with him. He is now starting to walk,

talk and respond. Amazing things are done now with therapy, time,

devices and computers. These children — even the ones who are severely brain-damaged and those who have only 10 percent vision —

are able to communicate through computers. They have tremendous

communication with their parents and the aides who work with them. This

is something that touches each of us.

There are members on both sides of this House who have made a commitment to

help children and families in this situation, and I acknowledge the work that's

been done. I know the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) has been very

active in this field.

have the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and the

second member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat). I also recall

some of the things that have been done.... People haven't done them as

politicians, for reasons of getting publicity; they've done them

because they have some kind of commitment.

I know the

member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Hon. Mr. Reid) was touched by

the story of a little girl in his community, Kimberley Rendall, and he

raised money through his association to help her. She came over and had

therapy in Victoria, and has made enormous progress. She was an

ordinary, healthy 14-year-old teenager who was dragged out of a party,

assaulted and left for dead. She is now multiply handicapped. She could

be your grandchild, your daughter or your neighbour.

have to do something to help the plight of these parents. The

additional costs they are put to with these children range anywhere

from $10,000 to $36,000 a year, depending on the size of the

disability. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has been fighting

to get a home-care program, and this year he succeeded in getting some

money for respite care, and that's a very good step forward. But the

pattern is always the same with these families: only one breadwinner,

because the other parent has to be a 24-hour home caregiver, has to be

there to provide that care around the clock.

These families

can't afford this kind of drain on the sole breadwinner, and ultimately

it's always the same pattern: insolvency, unable to pay the bills,

going to service clubs for help, then finally saying: "We can't afford

it anymore. We're going to have to put this child in Sunny Hill or

Queen Alexandra." The child goes in there, the parents visit, they try

and keep their parental contact and then the institution doesn't want

that kind of intensive cost. They also believe in

deinstitutionalization, so they say: "Put this child in an associate

family home."

So the child goes to an associate family

home, and all the costs that the parents couldn't afford to pay are

paid for the associate family parent to look after the child, plus $60

a day. Don't think that associate family parents are in this business

for profit; they're not. This is a very tough job with tremendous

commitment.

You can imagine what that does to the natural

parents who fought to keep that contact with their child. Their child

has been institutionalized, and now another set of parents is being

paid to look after him. You can imagine the anguish, the guilt and all

the rest of it that go with this. It's time these parents had some

justice. It's time that a government that believes in the family and

has a commitment to the family tries to keep these families together.

[10:15]

I say in conclusion that I want, in this House, a warrant to be

provided this year in Health to start this home support program for the

extended pediatric children who qualify.

[ Page 6278 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I will be brief, because I expect that the minister would like to

respond as well. I'd like to thank the member for his statement, for

his caring and for continuing to bring this very important issue to the

attention of those who make the decisions for government. I acknowledge

that the minister himself has said that this is an important issue,

that there needs to be more attention paid to it, and — as I read Hansard of days gone past — that he acknowledges that things aren't moving as quickly as he'd like.

I'd

like to make a couple of comments. First of all, I'd like to compliment

the government in that they have been leaders in this jurisdiction in

the deinstitutionalization of adults. I think that must be recognized.

While there is an ongoing need to recognize the support needed for

adults, we must also look at the needs of children in this province.

There are currently 400 kids in institutions in this province, and

while I have brought attention to the needs of ventilator-dependent

children specifically, I think we have to look at all kids and the need

for family support.

I understand that in March 1987 a report to the Ministry of Health — the Blair Richardson report — identified

the need for the Health ministry to be involved in medical equipment

and adaptive technology support to chronically disabled or chronically

ill adults and children. Unfortunately, that report seems to have

gotten lost, and its recommendations have not been followed. I would

ask the minister in particular to comment on what happened to that

report and whether or not we can expect to see some work in that regard

as far as the ministry goes.

There is a policy in place that is somewhat related to government — it has to do with ICBC and damages —

which automatically recognizes some of the needs of chronically

handicapped people. First is the need for a van. Would the minister

comment on whether or not there has been any progress in getting Ryan

Bonson a van? Secondly, there is a recognition, through ICBC, of the

already policies relating to this; what we need is acceptance so that

there is universal treatment — so that all people can expect the same kind of services.

would like to stress that without these policies, without this care,

this government's actions are indeed anti-family. Without that kind of

support, families are torn apart, and children are not allowed the care

and support provided by their natural parents. In the aim to support

families, in the aim to support universality and equitable treatment

for all, I would urge the government to move quickly on these issues.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I agree with just about all the statements made, except to say that

these children are very well looked after in hospitals. The care in

hospitals is absolutely excellent. Having said that, the issue here is

not necessarily that they are looked after well in hospitals; the issue

is whether these children would be better looked after as far as family

unity is concerned in their own natural environment, their family. I

have to agree that is so.

I've taken this up with my

colleagues. It is not a simple move to have a program where this will

function properly in all cases. We have gone a long way in establishing

at least associate families, which is working very well. We now have

about 22 children in that type of situation. We are

deinstitutionalizing adults.

Talking about children, I

intend to take a brief to cabinet again, pointing out some of the areas

where we have some holes in our total approach to health care when it

comes to these very disabled children. We perhaps can look after them

in their own home where, I believe, a lot of them would be much better

off than in an institution or a hospital.

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the minister his time is up under the standing orders.

The Minister of Tourism seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. REID :

I take pleasure in introducing in the House today Mr. Greg Stevens, a

former Minister of Culture from the constituency of Banff-Cochrane in

Alberta. Greg is now retired and has been longing to visit and spend

some time beyond those great mountains he has been able to see for the

last few years. Greg is out here in Victoria and in the gallery today.

I would hope this House would make a special welcome to Mr. Greg

Stevens.

While I'm on my feet with that privilege, I would

also like to introduce a guest in Victoria today, a man who used to

work very hard in the precincts of Victoria but is now spending most of

his time throughout the province in a private sector endeavour. He is

Mr. Dave Laundy, and I would like to give him a special welcome today.

MR. B.R. SMITH :

To close the saga on this crusade, it is not going to end. I think the

government intends to do something about this and is moving in the

right direction. It is not a case of having a good associate family

program. We do have a good associate family program. It is not a case

of just having some of the best hospital care for children in the

world, which we do have. It is a case that many of these parents don't

wish their children to be either in hospitals or in associate family

care. They are struggling to maintain that parental contact themselves.

I'll

give you the example of Stan and Susan. Stan works for the government,

and Susan is a homemaker. They have three children at home from the

ages of eight to ten, as well as Laura, five, who is a cerebral palsy

child. She is severely mentally disabled; she has epilepsy, and she has

90 percent vision loss and limited hearing. They spend between $19,000

and $30,\000 a year in extra costs looking after the child. They can no

longer meet this burden, and they have to make this awful, agonizing

decision of having this child looked after by an associate family.

We cannot let that happen. A number of my colleagues here in the back bench — and on both sides of this chamber — feel as strongly on this as I do. I am very hopeful on this one.

[ Page

6279 ]

POLLUTION: ENFORCEMENT

AND MONITORING

MR. CASHORE :

Mr. Speaker, the enforcement of existing pollution laws in B.C. is

widely known to be inadequate and ineffective. The study by Professors

Rankin and Brown showed that persistent offenders on Vancouver Island

and the northern region of B.C. were almost never charged. In response,

the minister said that the study was up to 1987, and he became minister

after that. He said: "Look, I'm different; I'm an enforcer."

The

enforcement problem is worse than I thought and continues to be

abysmal, even during the term of this minister, who sees his job as

being an apologist for polluters rather than an advocate for the

environment.

I have three documents from the Ministry of

Environment summarizing total pollution fines in B.C. during the last

three fiscal years.

MR. MOWAT : I can't believe it.

MR. CASHORE :

You better believe it, Mr. Member, because this is information from the

Ministry of Environment. Two of those years include the tenure of the

present minister. Total fines under the Waste Management Act for those

years — listen very carefully; read my lips — amount to

$105,400 over three years. Is that big enough? Is that big enough to

protect pollution offences in this province? That's for the whole

province.

The work of the enforcer averages out to $35,133

per year. To be fair to the minister, during his two years it averages

$46,025. This is the total fines in this province to protect our

environment. Some commitment to sustainable development; some enforcer!

MR. LOENEN : Too much hot air.

MR. CASHORE :

Thank you, I agree: too much hot air and not enough enforcement. I am

glad to see the government members are understanding that. I am sure

that this member understands that that abysmal record is really

pathetic. I am glad to know I have your support, Mr. Second Member for

Richmond, the member whose co-member from Richmond has demonstrated

that he doesn't have the political will to protect the environment.

What

we have here constitutes a crime against the environment. It's an

assault on the health and safety of the people of British Columbia.

This is what is really sad: the government says in the budget that

additional financial resources will go toward enforcement. It's a

confession of guilt. They admit that they never did have sufficient

resources to meet the existing commitments to police pollution crime.

They are saying that what we were doing before was a sham. Where is the

political will in that?

AN HON. MEMBER : Do you want us to cut it?

MR. CASHORE : No, I don't want you to cut it, Mr. Member, I want

the political will that is necessary to make it work. Mr. Member, are you satisfied

with what's going on in your region of the province?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The member will address his remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. CASHORE :

Through you, Mr. Speaker: will that member say that he is satisfied

with pollution enforcement in his area? If he is satisfied with

pollution enforcement in his area, I am sure his constituents will want

to hear about it.

What we have here does not even include

any enhancement of your ministry's ability to seek out and stop

polluters who are not in compliance. This government is, God help us,

the wimp of environmental protection. That's what we have in this

province: a government that is the wimp of environmental protection in

Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER : Could you be more specific?

MR. CASHORE :

Yes. Do you want to know how many fines were levied over three years?

Do you want to guess? A grand total of 145, for an average of 48 fines

per year. What kind of environmental protection is that? They're

talking about bringing in tougher laws. They don't know how to enforce

the existing laws, Mr. Speaker.

This ministry has wimped

out on the existing law. The average fine in the fiscal year 1987-88,

when the minister was in that position, was $230. That's pathetic.

Compare that to the traffic ticket system. The average citizen gets a

ticket for, say, $60, and that hurts that citizen very much. It hurts

him in the pocketbook, because most citizens don't earn such a great

amount that they can handle that. It's a deterrent because it hurts;

there is no question about that.

[10:30]

Pulp mills, in many instances, are earning profits of over $1

million a day. Their comments in the House indicate that the Socreds

really do place their priorities upon the very wealthy, the big

corporations and the friends of the government. They don't indicate

that they have an understanding of the ordinary citizen who struggles

day to day to try to make ends meet, and here they are doing this to

help their friends. This wimp approach to protecting....

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that his time under standing orders is up.

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PERRY :

I see in the gallery three members of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms,

including their local president, Mr. Tom Murphy. I'd like the House to

welcome them here today, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

It's good to see the NDP "profile in courage" finally stand up when I'm

in the House. The last time he asked a question, he waited until I was

away.

[ Page 6280 ]

he did the other day and as he has done today, he has brought

misinformation to the House. Perhaps I could ask the member if in his

response he is going to table the letter, dated March 23 and signed by

Dosenberg, he received from Western Pulp with respect to the comments

he made about the pulp mill there, which were inaccurate. I wonder if

the member has the courage to table that letter; I doubt it.

There is no question that the Rankin report identified a lot of weaknesses in the waste management system —

and by the way, the fines for 1988 were $85,000. But we have had a

considerable increase. The House will be aware that in waste management

enforcement we have gone from a budget of $21 million to $37 million.

the enforcement side, we've gone from $5 million to $10 million, so I

think that speaks well for the ministry's response and will, and the

government's will to ensure that we do have a clean, healthy and safe

environment. I think the initiatives I've taken in the last six months,

particularly with respect to dioxin testing, PCPs, anti-sapstains and

so on, have really shocked the industry. We are leading the country in

enforcement and regulation.

By the way, speaking of

regulations, let's not forget, for the record, that when we first

brought in toughened waste management regulations in 1987, the NDP

voted against them. That was done on division and is a matter of record.

There

is also this myth out there that the NDPers have some sort of

enlightened environmental policy, and it's been interesting to watch

the attack on Herb Doman. Herb Doman is a high-profile guy right now

because of other events which I won't discuss, and the NDP seem to take

great delight in talking about him and his relationship with the Social

Credit government. It's interesting to note, though, that Doman

Industries was first given, against the advice of an environmental

board, the right to be at Cowichan on that estuary by the NDP

government. That was one of the major assaults on the environment, and

it was in fact done by the very member who is now taking Doman to task

about his performance. It was in fact that Minister of Forests in

February 1975 who approved the site at the Cowichan estuary, which

upset every environmentalist, upset the B.C. Wildlife Federation and

sincerely upset the committee that was in place to advise the

government of the day on that.

To assume that the NDP has

any enlightened environmental philosophy is, of course, nonsense. When

you have a party dominated by trade-union policy, it's very difficult

to think that they would ever be able to respond appropriately to

environment.

We'll let the member finish up. I do want to state that the waste management budget has gone from $21 million to $37 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Well, $16 million indicates quite a bit of will. Enforcement has gone from

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : How many trap lines have you burned down lately?

I'm

not really going to make any apologies for the ministry budget. It's

aggressive. I appreciate the work done by Dr. Rankin. If I wanted to be

surrounded by wimps and yes-men, I would have joined the NDP. Critical

criticism is there; it's alive. I don't mind it at all. You live with

it when you're in government. We don't have to lie about the issues as

other people have done. We don't have to use cut-and-run tactics. We

have the record. We have the budget. We have the commitment to respond.

MR. CASHORE :

That was a pathetic response. The minister talks about increasing the

budget. He talks about leading in regulations. He talks about improving

the enforcement legislation. It's like the old song from My Fair Lady ," Don't Talk of Love —

Show Me." Show the political will. Demonstrate something that goes

beyond the indications that you aren't serious about this. The

indications are that what has happened as part of your ministry and

part of your government, Mr. Member, is that you have acted like an

indulgent parent with a precocious child. You have taught this industry

to misbehave.

That minister wants to talk about something

that is not the topic of discussion today, because he has not been able

to deal with the issues that I brought before him at this time. The

fact is that in that minister's own riding, there was one fine of

$60,000 out of a total line of $67,000 in fines. That meant that in

that year, during that minister's ministry, the total fines for the

remaining 20 in that category were $100 apiece. It means that you had a

bargain-basement sale at that time on permits to pollute the

environment. The minister knows that there is no political will or

commitment, and that this government uses the term "sustainable

development" as a very hollow concept.

This government is

not sincere, and it took an environmental embarrassment in that

minister's own constituency to produce one fine that came up to

$65,000. Even in that instance, over three consecutive days, that fine

was only a fraction of one day's profit for that mill.

This

minister sits in this House and defends his friends in high places, but

he will not stand up for the ordinary people of British Columbia. He

will not stand up for the people who have a right to have their health

and their environment protected, because he knows where his priorities

are. He knows where his funds are coming from when it comes to the next

election. He knows that his priority is not to protect the environment

and is not the value for the people of British Columbia. I call on that

minister to indicate....

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that his time is up under standing orders.

[ Page 6281 ]

B.C. WINE INDUSTRY

MR. MESSMER :

We saw in the past months the headlines on TV and in the news: 2,500

acres of grapevines are being pulled out in the Okanagan — with

clips of chainsaws and tractors pulling out the vines. It was a sad

sight but a reality. Between the free trade agreement and GATT, the

grape acreage has been reduced to 1,000 acres. The balance of 2,500

acres qualified for the pullout compensation program and took advantage

of the income replacement policy, supplied jointly by the federal

government and the government of British Columbia.

Those

hard decisions are now completed, and the process of removing the vines

is underway. For most, it was the removal of a dream, and until this

year, a future. The remaining 1,000 acres are the start of a new

premium wine industry.

I would like to speak today about

the possibility of an increased grape and wine industry. Also I

acknowledge the business of the existing commercial and estate

wineries, and the contribution that they have made to the industry in

the past — and in the future. Without them we would not have a wine industry today.

However, in Boundary-Similkameen we probably lost close to 65 percent of the acreage that was removed —

roughly 1,675 acres. As such, we need to find new ideas so the

government, growers, wineries and consumers can renew what we have just

lost. Along with my colleagues from Okanagan South, I have supported

the British Columbia Grape Marketing Board in their effort to retain a

viable industry and their undertaking to assist government in

establishing goals and standards that will allow long-term regeneration.

the short run, the 1,000 acres in the ground today are protected under

the adjustment program for the next six years. But we all know that six

years go by in a hurry. If we don't want to see a large portion of the

1,000 acres lost in six years due to our inability to act, the industry

has to move — along with government. The industry can foresee a

positive future; additional investment and long-range goals could be

the result of a new B.C. wine policy.

The wine industry

believes that the potential ability to produce premium wines is the

same in the Okanagan as in other producing areas around the world, and

that our quality wines can be equally highly competitive. We in the

Okanagan have a balance between sugars and acids, as a result of our

soil and climate, which is found nowhere else in western Canada.

Our B.C. estate wine policy and its 100 percent grape requirement has allowed

the estate wines to capture the market and the acceptability that we have today.

They have laid the groundwork so that consumers do not have to play Russian

roulette when they are looking for quality B.C. wine. The growers believe that

we can be successful if a new premium wine policy contains wine standards, marketing

and distribution which are the same ingredients that have made worldwide premium

wine successful. However, to be successful, we must promote a new image and

a commitment to the consistent quality, so that the end purchaser can tell the

difference between a true premium B.C. wine and wines that are bottled or blended

in British Columbia from grapes from other regions or countries.

This

portion of the industry believes we should have wine made from 100

percent B.C. grapes, that the wine should be labelled as British

Columbia wines, and that these wines would be sold in the B.C.

section

of the government liquor stores. Other regulations would also be

introduced to ensure that labelling used on wines does not disguise the

end product or the end user — the consumer.

Three-quarters

of the wineries in California have been started in the past 15 years,

and 70 percent of those wineries are small and produce less than 50,000

gallons. Oregon has 5,000 acres with 60 wineries, 58 of which produce

less than 50,000 gallons — so again small wineries. The finest

wines in Europe are made from small wineries. So as you can see, while

the Okanagan has been hurt and wounded, people in agriculture have

always found ways to start again. To establish high-quality wines and

use our land to ensure the highest and best use of our grape lands is

and should be our cooperative goal.

[10:45]

In order to ensure success, changes in our policy have to take

place. Small wineries must be able to sell their product from their

farm gates, to establish a name for their own product and to contract

to the public, along with commercial establishments such as

restaurants. While they would have to pay federal and provincial

markups, they would start a new process for small producers.

the present time, our government has suggested that wineries ranging in

size from 500 gallons to 50,000 gallons may be acceptable, so even

those with small acreage could produce your favorite selection of

premium wines that you would serve in your home.

We must

fast-track the process of accepting input from all sectors and

capitalize on this new spirit of cooperation among the agricultural

industry, the business community and our government. The south Okanagan

will be a greater tourist attraction in the future than it is today if

we can encourage additional grapes to be grown and wineries to be

established. Where else in western Canada can you have lands producing

grapes and the wine? I believe that this alone is a major attraction in

inviting Americans to our beautiful desert-like area.

We in

British Columbia have said that we believe in the agricultural land

reserve, and it's difficult to find replacements for grapevines that

would be profitable. I'm sure that we can appeal to the citizens of

British Columbia to support the purchase of B.C. wines. I'm just as

confident that we will see venture capital and long-term investment

coming to the Okanagan, as it did to the Napa Valley many years ago.

[ Page 6282 ]

MR. D’ARCY :

I'm quite sure the concern of the first member for Boundary-Similkameen

is very sincere. As with many politicians, though, when they develop a

problem created by their own party in their own area, they quickly want

to rewrite history or simply forget about it.

The grape

growers didn't suddenly get zapped into the Okanagan over the last few

years. The grape growing industry has developed over the last 30 years,

encouraged, aided and abetted by government policy under W.A.C.

Bennett, Dave Barrett and W.R. Bennett. Two years ago, when the major

league team of the Social Credit farm team, the federal Tories — the Conservative Party which yesterday was thoroughly and resoundingly thrashed in Newfoundland, I'm glad to hear —

decided they were going to enter into a trade policy that was going to

hang the grape growers out to dry, we suddenly found a lot of

apologists. The fact that a great many people in the Okanagan area

found these policies unacceptable can be viewed most days of the week

in the right-hand corner over here when my friend the second member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) enters this House.

As I'm

sure the member knows, in most cases the land that is growing in grapes

had no development at all on it prior to being developed in grapes. It

was sagebrush and tumbleweed. It's not land that was taken from other

agricultural uses. It was not grazing land; it was not orchard land; it

was straight desert. The infrastructure to develop that land is in

place. The farmers who are and have been growing grapes don't really,

at this point, have anywhere else to turn. They don't have a pension

plan. They don't have UIC. They don't have any golden handshakes. They

don't have any benevolent corporation that's going to transfer them to

some plant in some other part of the country. They don't have any

programs from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Social Credit farm

team of the Conservative government to help them out.

The

member sincerely hopes that something is going to turn up over the next

few years. The policy, as he has correctly pointed out, of taking out

60 percent of the growers, just like that, flies in the face of recent

history, when in British Columbia — I hope most members would agree with me —

some very fine world-class high-quality wines made of purely British

Columbia grapes have gone on the market I'm not just talking about

whites. Amazingly to me, I never thought that quality British Columbia

red wines would be developed, but in the last few years red wines of

very fine quality made from British Columbia grapes have actually gone

onto the shelves of this province and other jurisdictions.

It is a shame that these quality people, these rugged individuals, whom I used to think that party wanted to represent —

taxpaying citizens who have worked hard, who've never asked anything

from anyone and who have been major participants in community

activities — are now hung out to dry. The member sincerely says:

"I hope something comes along in the next few years which is going to

help them, and I hope something comes along so that their land will be

put to other agricultural purposes." I hope it does too, Mr. Speaker,

because that something, if it comes along, is not going to come along

because of anything Social Credit or the Conservatives do for those

hardworking, rugged individualists who have lived in the Okanagan

Valley, particularly in the southern part, which I'm more familiar with

than the northern parts.

I'm glad to know the member is

concerned, and I know it's sincere. But I wish he would spend his time

asking the cabinet benches, the treasury benches, for a program to help

these individuals get into other forms of agriculture so that the good

agricultural infrastructure and the good agricultural land will not lie

fallow and wasted; most important, so that the efforts of those good

people will not be wasted.

MR. MESSMER : We've just

listened to what was said by the member for Rossland-Trail, and I know

he is quite aware of what good red wine is, because he comes from an

area that.... It may not go through our system, but certainly they make

the best over there.

It's very unfortunate for me that the

second member for Boundary-Similkameen, the agricultural critic, is not

here today, because I would like to hear his views as well on the

agricultural industry within Boundary-Similkameen. I thought there was

a possibility that he would be here today to listen to it. I guess the

big difference between that side and our side is that we talk about the

future; we're not quitters. We don't always talk about the past, which

you seem to do over there.

One thing about the people in

the agricultural industry is that they've had some tough times, but

they know how to work and how to come back. They don't always live off

the amount of money that's paid out by government; they try to help

themselves. What happened in the grape industry and the wine industry

was partially what the member for Rossland-Trail said. There's no doubt

that as a government years back we did encourage these people to get

into the grape and wine industry. However, we can't always talk about

the past; we have to start talking about the future.

Interjections.

MR. MESSMER :

GATT was what put down the wine industry in the Okanagan. The people

who have farmed have accepted an average of $8,100 an acre in

compensation, and that was thanks to the efforts of the government of

the province of British Columbia who made that deal. They're saying

thank you very much. Very few industries are affected by a trade

agreement and then helped out because of a government. I thank the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) for his efforts in helping

these people out. They're quite prepared now, Mr. Speaker, to go to

work to create a new premium wine industry in the Okanagan, and I think

that they will be successful, with our help.

[ Page 6283 ]

MR. SPEAKER : The government House Leader seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In the members' gallery today are a young couple from Kamloops who are

newlyweds. They have been honeymooning on Vancouver Island. The bride

is a longtime friend of my daughter and our family. I would ask the

House to welcome them to the Island and to this Legislature. Their

names — and one has changed recently — are Mr. and Mrs. Robert Graham.

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

MR. PERRY :

At the end of World War II Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest

twentieth century scientist, said the splitting of the "atom has

changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward

unparalleled catastrophes." We shall require a substantially new manner

of thinking if mankind is to survive. That's the subject I'm going to

attempt to address today, Mr. Speaker, a subject that is perhaps the

most important that we could possibly debate in this assembly, and a

challenge for us to find ways in which we can begin to adopt that new

thinking on both sides of this House.

I have no military experience personally —

and I know there are some veterans of the armed forces in this House

and some in the gallery. My father-in-law is a veteran of the invasion

of Normandy. He was captured at Falaise Gap by the Germans, survived a

German concentration camp coal-mine in Czechoslovakia and a death-march

across Europe, and he escaped World War II weighing 90 pounds, at the

age of 18.

My father participated in World War II in the

United States Army of General George Patton; among other things, he

helped to liberate the Buchenwald concentration camp, and saw with his

own eyes and with his camera — and I have seen his photographs —

the effects of World War II on the Jewish and minority populations of

Europe and on other people unfortunate enough to have been in the way

of a war machine.

What Albert Einstein was talking about,

Mr. Speaker, is something completely different: the possibility of

modern war to eliminate all human beings, all human civilization and,

conceivably through environmental change, all life on earth. Most of

us, I think, recognize this fact; the Premier, among others, has

recognized it in the past. But we have not yet adopted the new manner

of thinking to which Albert Einstein referred.

Let me give

you some examples of what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Since 1945, after the

explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1,798 nuclear tests have

occurred, of which the vast majority were by the United States and the

Soviet Union. Mr. William Epstein, who represented the United Nations

Secretary-General during the negotiations for the 1963 Partial Test Ban

Treaty and the Non-proliferation Treaty of 1968, wrote an

article in

yesterday's Globe and Mail . On page A7 he said:

"Since

the Non-proliferation Treaty was signed in 1968, the number of

strategic or long-range nuclear weapons possessed by the superpowers

has increased more than six fold. Even if the United States and the

Soviet Union agree to cut their stocks in half, they would still have

more than three times the number they had in 1968.

"Moreover,

without a total test ban, even these deep cuts would be almost

meaningless because the latest weapons are even more dangerous and

destabilizing than the old ones. In this case, less could be more.

"Reason

and logic are on the side of ending all tests. Both superpowers now

realize it is in their own interest to slow the arms race and divert

their astronomically high military expenditures to human needs.

Moreover, continuing improvement in U.S.-Soviet relations should

inspire both to approve a total test ban as well as reducing their

arsenals."

Let me tell you a bit about the consequences of

nuclear war, even if it never happens, and the consequences for

preparation for nuclear war. "Detonation before destruction" is a term

coined by the distinguished American physician Dr. Victor Siedel,

president of the American Public Health Association and a professor at

the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. What does that term mean?

During the seven minutes I will speak here, 420 children will die or be

permanently maimed around the world — one every second — from

preventable diseases like polio, tetanus, diphtheria and measles. I've

seen children in Argentina dying of tetanus, a disease we should never

see. We virtually never see it in Canada. I have seen them writhing on

hospital beds, and it is not a pleasant sight, especially when you know

it is preventable.

[11:00]

As I speak, $7 million (U.S.) will have been spent globally in the

nuclear arms race. Every minute of every day and night, $1 million

(U.S.) is being spent. Next year, if the present trends continue, it

will be more than that. What can we do about this, Mr. Speaker? The

single most important step to control the global arms race right now is

a comprehensive test ban treaty. This is a proposal from which our own

federal government is regrettably backing away, after having endorsed

it as the single most important step since the strategy of suffocation

of 1972.

How does this relate to British Columbia? It

relates first through the establishment of nuclear-weapons-free zones,

of which there are over 55 now, including my own city of Vancouver. It

relates not only through the formalization but the meaningful

realization of these zones. For example, last week Vancouver city

council attempted to prevent the visits of nuclear-armed or

nuclear-capable ships of any country to the port of Vancouver. It

relates through the question of low-level flights — which are preparing for nuclear war now in Labrador —

for which the Innu people have been subject to arrest, though they were

acquitted by the courts of their own land. It relates to the low-level

nuclear war flights planned for practice in British Columbia in a

corridor from Fort Nelson to CFB Comox, at the request of the North

American

[ Page 6284 ]

Aerospace

Defense Command and the United States Air Force Strategic Air Command.

The Department of National Defence is presently completing an

environmental impact study of this proposal.

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to advise the member his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. SERWA :

I would like to thank the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey for

bringing this topic forward this morning. It is already abundantly

clear to us that the nuclear weapons which now exist in the arsenals of

the world are capable, if used, of annihilating all forms of life —

a new holocaust for which a word was invented: "omnicide." Nuclear

weapons are no longer just in the arsenals of the superpowers. The

proliferation of nuclear weapons has added to the overkill statistics.

Many fingers are on the trigger. Nuclear weapons technology is

exportable and exotic materials necessary to construct the bomb are

available from a number of nuclear power reactors around the world.

For

the first time in the history of man, every living thing is confronted

by a common enemy: nuclear radiation. Plutonium, a radioactive

substance, is toxic for 500,000 years. One pound of plutonium could, if

equally divided and placed in the lungs, kill every man, woman and

child on earth through cancer. One nuclear reactor produces 400 to 600

pounds of plutonium every year.

Not so clear are the facts

surrounding the hazards of the radioactive by-products of the nuclear

power reactors. Chernobyl and the nuclear disaster that occurred in the

Ukraine have emphasized that danger. The radioactive emissions from

Chernobyl spread out over and contaminated vast areas, some thousands

of miles from the site of the disaster. The radioactive release was of

the order of 90 times the magnitude of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Radioactivity will be found in drinking water and food. It may be taken

into the body with every breath of air.

The nuclear

industry has found no absolutely safe way of storing wastes.

Radioactive wastes must be permanently contained. Murphy's laws

unfortunately are especially applicable to the nuclear industry.

Containment leaks allow radioactive waste to contaminate water and are

concentrated by the food chain Chernobyl has left us with this

recognition, which has unsettled our complacency. Not so clear are the

facts surrounding the effects of uranium and its daughter elements

which contaminate the environment with radioactivity from the tailings

of mines.

The challenge and the responsibility that

confront all people is to make these nuclear dangers known and

believed. Education is the only tool we have. I add my voice to those

who wish to end the nuclear arms race and to reduce and finally

eliminate nuclear weapons.

HON. MR. DIRKS : This House will remember my private member's statement

on the Hanford nuclear site. My constituents know that I have spoken out about

my concerns about Hanford. I believe I'm qualified to speak, if for no other

reason than from the aspect of involvement and caring.

believe that disarmament leanings are good and noble, but I also

believe that in Canada we sometimes are somewhat hypocritical and

holier-than-thou on this subject. When speaking to disarmament, we too

often point the finger elsewhere. Always somebody else is the

perpetrator rather than ourselves.

There is a nation and a

subject which is never mentioned when one speaks of nuclear

proliferation. That nation unfortunately is Canada, our nation, and

that subject is Candu. In the beginning, Canada believed that we would

lead the pack in nuclear sales. We went into the business very greedily.

donated a Candu to India for research purposes and to show off our

technology. No safeguards were attached to that reactor. In 1964, India

built a plant that would allow it to extract plutonium from the spent

fuel. No action was taken by Canada, even when India announced that it

would not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, which

had been at war with its neighbour three times in 17 years, made

forceful complaints to Canada. Our reaction: we sold two more Candus to

India. On May 18, 1974, India set off an atomic explosion with material

that came out of Candu. Our reaction: simply, again, to try and sell

more Candus, this time to Pakistan, and then to Korea, a country that

had a paranoid dictator as a leader. This was followed by Argentina

right at the time that they were at war with England.

would ask that we reflect on our legacy as Canadians towards the

proliferation of nuclear armament before we blame others. What is that

old saying? Charity begins at home. I think the same thing can be said

about what our attempts should be to stop nuclear armament

proliferation. It should begin at home.

MR. PERRY :

I'd like to welcome and echo the comments of the two government

members. It's a day I've long looked forward to, to hear a debate

develop from both sides of the House in a non-partisan way. To develop

the last comments, I'd like to return to what we can do to get our own

house in order in this province, particularly on the issue of the

nuclear weapons-free zones. I think we have an obligation to make them

meaningful, as the people of New Zealand have done through their Prime

Minister and government and through public opinion.

I think

we also have an obligation to look very seriously at the real purpose

of the low-level military flights planned for British Columbia. I have

a document, which I'd be pleased to table, indicating that the

Department of National Defence is still reviewing the environmental

impact study on low-level military flights in British Columbia and has

not yet given final approval to these routes.

I'd like to

ask the government of this province to consider this issue seriously,

to consider the real purpose of these flights. As we were told by

Rear-Adm. Eugene Carrol of the Centre for Defense Information, a very

distinguished veteran of the United States Navy, on Wednesday, the real

purpose of these flights

[ Page 6285 ]

is to practise for the delivery of nuclear weapons in fighting a nuclear war. That is their single purpose.

I'd

like also to invite members from both sides of the House in a strictly

and totally non-partisan sense to take

part in the walks for peace in

their own communities which will be held tomorrow. In Vancouver,

Victoria, Nelson, Kelowna and I'm sure in other cities around the

province there will be manifestations of public concern which are

non-partisan, have nothing to do with the issues that sometimes divide

us in this House, and for which, if we're going to accomplish the goal

we seek of the control and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons in

all countries, we need the efforts of every single citizen in this

country including the members of this House.

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

MS. SMALLWOOD :

On a point of order, I rise to ask unanimous consent of the House to

debate a motion in my name. That motion is:

be it resolved that this

House, mindful of the need to promote peace by mutual balanced

disarmament and supporting a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty,

endorses the peace walk and encourages all British Columbians to

participate.

MR. SPEAKER : Only the government House

Leader is allowed to ask for unanimous consent. He controls the order

of the House, and he has called orders of the day for Committee of

Supply.

Before we go to that, the first member for Vancouver South seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER :

I'd like to introduce to the House today the 106th Girl Guides company

who are in Victoria visiting the Legislature with their guider, Mrs.

Anderson, and other friends and adults of the troop. It's interesting

that you would be here on a day when we would be discussing nuclear

arms and the wish that we do not have nuclear warfare. I'm sure that

all of us are looking for that goal no matter how we intend to do it.

Welcome to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and I would

ask the members of the House to join me in extending a very warm

welcome.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

On vote 31: minister's office, $259,265 (continued).

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

It gives me pleasure to again rise in the House and discuss my

estimates. Mr. Chairman, upon reflecting on yesterday's events, I am

disappointed in the opposition for highlighting a case which is well

known to be before the courts in the province of British Columbia and

for deliberately bringing issues before this House, deliberately

misleading....

AN HON. MEMBER : Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I'm well aware of what's happened, hon. member. Mr. Minister, we cannot

allow those statements in the House. "Deliberately misleading the

House" is completely unparliamentary. Please withdraw that.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I'll withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CLARK : I would ask the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) to withdraw his remark as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I didn't hear anything, hon. member. I'm sorry.

MR. CLARK : He said: "It's true." He didn't have the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Will the minister please proceed.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

When I sent over to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams)

a copy of the statement of claim regarding this case, dated August 2,

1988, and when I watched this document arrive at his desk, it was

evident to me that he had already read it and that he knew the contents.

say this because I was watching him as it arrived at his desk, and he

simply set it aside. I referred him to page 6 to review the words on

that page. He didn't bother referring to it; he was obviously aware of

the contents. I find it necessary now to read from this document to

fully clarify for the press, the members opposite and the general

public the facts behind this so-called flip of which this government

was accused of being a part.

[11:15]

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

In looking back in Hansard ,

the members opposite talk about questionable land deals. They make such

statements as the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) did, who

has yet to make an apology to this House. The precise statement out of Hansard

reads: "I've listened with great interest to the skilled presentation

of my colleague from Vancouver East about the facts of a corrupt land

sale in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded of money that

it should have had."

I listened to the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) yesterday, who made this statement: "It

seems to me there are only two explanations: either the staff was

grossly incompetent, or there is some corruption in your organization."

Shameful

statements, Mr. Chairman. I find it passing strange that trade union

pension funds are a part of this entire document, and that the members

for

[ Page 6286 ]

Vancouver

East were not pre-informed and fully aware of the true facts of this

so-called government flip, of which they accused this government of

being a part.

Page 6, clause 24, reads: "On January 7,

1988, Westminster Pier Development Corp. was beneficially owned and

controlled by exactly the same companies and persons that owned and

controlled the flip company." The same people.

They own it one day, pay $2.2 million for it, and they sell it to themselves the next day for $10.5 million —

paper transactions. The members opposite are attempting to lay that

blame on this government and past directors and employees. Shameful

acts. Slanderous, scurrilous remarks made in this House about this

government, about past and current boards of directors of Crown

corporations, and they don't care. They don't care about the

reputations of the staff, the dedicated employees, their families,

children, in-laws, parents. They don't care about slandering

individuals, and I have yet to hear any form of apology, when they are

well aware that this document was intentionally circulated to members

opposite yesterday.

You were fully aware yesterday, and you

continue your slanderous, shameful actions. The press were also well

aware of this document; many of them had the document in their hands

prior to 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. BCTV was advised of the

contents of this document well before the 6 o'clock news last night.

But they continue with the half-truths.

I'm wondering what

we're going to hear from the members opposite, whether anyone is going

to stand up in this House and make some apologies — slanderous,

scurrilous remarks made against government, against all members of

government, cabinet, boards of directors, past and current.

It's

no wonder, in looking at the record of the political party opposite,

that they finished in third place on the percentage vote in Alberta in

the last election. It's no wonder that they got defeated in

Saskatchewan. It's no wonder that they went from first place in

Manitoba to last place in the last election. It's no wonder, give the

shameful actions of members opposite, that they have been rejected time

after time in Quebec. It's no wonder that they go from first place to

last in the public opinion polls federally. It's no surprise in

yesterday's election in Newfoundland that they got completely wiped

out, that they finished last in every single riding.

Keep

up this kind of action, these scandalous remarks, tainting the

reputation of employees of Crown corporations, and you're going to end

up in the same place in British Columbia, Mr. Member, in the next

provincial election, because we're going to go out and tell the people

the story. If the press doesn't tell it for us, we'll go into the

communities and tell the people the stories.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Minister, prior to your proceeding, I would just like

to read from Erskine May, under "Allegations against Members": "Good

temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary

language is never more desirable than when a Member is canvassing the opinions

and conduct of his opponents in debate." I would like all the members of

the House to follow the practices outlined in Erskine May. Please proceed, hon.

member.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, perhaps it's a good time for a cooling-off period, and

perhaps the member for New Westminster would like to rise now, after

having examined the facts, and make a statement to the House.

MR. CLARK : We won't revisit this matter today; we'll come back to it next week with more information, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman.

would like to ask one question. I wonder how the minister could explain

the fact that the Bank of America appraised the land at the time of the

transaction at $11 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : No answer.

MR. CLARK :

It's a very simple question: the B.C. Enterprise Corporation's in-house

assessment of the value was presumably $2.2 million. The same day, the

Bank of America assessed the value at $11 million. I wonder if after

working on it all night with his staff they have come up with an

explanation for the discrepancy between these two assessments.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK : Well, Mr. Chairman, we'll revisit that some other time. I would like to pursue some other questions which remain.

I thank the minister for responding....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

Yesterday the minister responded.... There's a lot of heckling going on

over here. They're all antsy; I guess they're on the defensive here.

Yesterday in response to questions....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I would ask members to come to order. I'd also like to point out to the

members that the administrative action of a department is open to

debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving

legislation can only be discussed in supply on a substantive motion.

The minister is responsible for those matters which lie within his

ministry, not those which lie without his ministry. Please proceed.

MR. CLARK :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not quite sure what that meant. I was

responding to the minister, who indicated that he had some concern. We

were asking for the in-house appraisal by BCEC. The appraisals were

quite clear: both the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Bank

of America appraised the land at $11 million; the government appraised

the land at $2.2 million.

[ Page 6287 ]

would like to move on and ask some questions that arise out of

questions answered by the minister. In answer to a question about the

various consultants and others who have been involved in supplying

information and advice on privatization, the minister listed a number

of companies. I appreciate the answers. Perhaps the minister could

answer this question: what advice with respect to privatization did

Vrlak Robinson provide?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I understand they did some advertising work.

The

member may wish to table the document that he made reference to in his

prior remarks about an $11 million appraisal. The members on this side

of the House would certainly like to examine that document if he's got

it.

MR. CLARK : We'll pursue this line of questioning on Monday with more facts for the members opposite.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK : They're squealing. They're having trouble with this one.

just want to go through a series of questions with respect to these

consultants on privatization. What did the consultant Schroders perform

for the government?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : If the member doesn't have the appraisal, perhaps he would be kind enough to let us know the name of the appraiser.

MR. CLARK :

If you look at Sir Erskine May, I believe you'll find it's the minister

who is to answer questions, not back-bench members of the opposition.

Could

the minister respond to this question: what did the consultants,

Schroders, do with respect to giving advice on privatization?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I wonder whether the member has had the opportunity to reflect on the

statements that he made in this assembly yesterday. He said words to

the effect of "grossly incompetent" or: "There is some corruption in

your organization." Mr. Member, I want to advise you that the telephone

in my office is off the hook right now, with the speaker turned on, and

several employees over at the Enterprise Corporation are listening to

this debate. They're wondering if you've got the guts to stand up and

withdraw the scurrilous remark you made yesterday.

MR. CLARK : I'm very pleased that the minister wants to keep this

alive, because we on this side of the House want to as well. As time goes on,

the public will become more and more aware of the kind of scandalous land dealings

that BCEC has been involved in, the kind of insider deals, and particularly

this deal, where millions of dollars were made because of either incompetence

or corruption on the part of staff at BCEC.

What did the consultants, Schroders, do with respect to providing advice on privatization?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I don't want to take up a lot of the time of my staff, because they

have very important responsibilities over there in the city of

Vancouver. Many of them are sitting on the second floor, taking up time

listening to this debate. I want to ask the member one more time: does

he have the guts to stand up and speak into that microphone to my

employees and apologize for the suggestion that there was corruption

among this government or the employees of the Crown corporation? If you

just stand up and say," No, I'm not going to," or "Yes, I will," then

we can send the employees back to work. Now will the member please

stand up.

MR. CLARK : It's rather odd that the government is attempting to ask questions of the opposition.

I'll

repeat what I said for your employees. On the surface, looking at the

evidence, there appears to be only two explanations: either there was

the grossest of incompetence — and it's hard to fathom the kind of incompetence that would see millions of dollars lost to the public treasury —

or there was corruption. There are only two explanations, it seems to

me. The minister has not responded with any refutation of the fact that

the lands were clearly worth in excess of $10 million, and that today

still untouched, unserviced raw land is worth in the neighbourhood of

$20 million. The government sold it a year ago for $2.2 million; today

it's worth $20 million. That sounds like gross incompetence to me, Mr.

Chairman. There's only one other explanation, and that is corruption,

and the minister has not yet refuted any of that evidence.

wonder if the minister could answer a question with respect to

consultants who gave advice on privatization. Maybe he could answer

what the consultant Schroders did with respect to giving advice on

privatization.

[11:30]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I guess it's evident to the House and to my employees that the second

member for Vancouver East doesn't have the courage and decency to stand

up and make an outright apology, so perhaps we could refer the

conversation to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who has

certainly had time — I made sure she also received a copy —

to read this. Perhaps she would like to stand up and withdraw the

remarks, which were directed toward not only this government but the

employees and directors of the Crown corporation, and which reflect on

the employees and their families. I wonder if she — a member, I might add, whom I've had a great deal of respect for since her entry into this House — would have the decency to stand up and withdraw the remarks made the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I would again like to remind all members that there are not to be personal allusions

[ Page 6288 ]

made

by one member about another. Before recognizing the member for New

Westminster, I would like to reiterate that and remind the House of

that parliamentary practice. I would ask the member for New Westminster

to proceed and to please direct her remarks to the Chair.

MS. A. HAGEN : I shall certainly happily direct my remarks to the Chair.

It's

always difficult to find language to express outrage at the action of

government in plundering the resources of the people, and we are

talking about my riding and the resources in my riding. Sometimes we

want to refer to great writers. As I walked to work this morning, one

of the phrases that went through my mind was from Hamlet by the Bard of

Avon: "something rotten in the state of Denmark."

Mr.

Chairman, if there was anything unparliamentary in the language I used

yesterday, I did not intend, nor would I ever intend, to use

unparliamentary language in this House.

MR. CLARK : I

wonder if I could ask the minister a question with respect to

consultants who supplied information and advice as to privatization.

Perhaps the minister could answer the question on what the consultant

Schroders did with respect to giving advice and information on

privatization.

I'm sorry the minister's not going to answer. It's going to be a long hour and a half, I guess.

wonder if the minister could answer the question about what Bob

Leighton and Associates did with respect to providing information and

advice as to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : As has

been proven in the past, the member opposite is very good at writing

out his questions, and he's had extremely good service from this

ministry's response to the questions he asked. As a matter of fact,

it's been 24-hour service, which I don't think any member can quarrel

with. If he wants to know the consultant's birthday, his middle name,

the name of his children or grandchildren, what he does when he goes to

work in the morning and how he travels home, he should put all those in

writing and send them over to the ministry. We'll gladly accommodate

the member and save a lot of time of the House, and perhaps we could

get back to the question of the day.

Is the member going to

have the courage, the gumption and the guts to stand up and withdraw

those scurrilous remarks directed towards my employees over at the

Crown corporation?

MR. CLARK : I wonder if the

minister's admission that he's broadcasting these proceedings from his

office is a contravention of standing order 120(2) and (3). Mr.

Chairman, if you'd like me to explain, I'll read you standing order

120(2): "The public use, employment, publication, transmission, or

broadcast outside of the House of the...record of the said debates, or

any portion thereof, is prohibited without the express authority of Mr.

Speaker." I wonder if the minister has sought the authority of Mr.

Speaker to broadcast the debates as they proceed in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The matter will be taken under advisement. Please proceed.

MR. CLARK : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll assume that the staff will respond to that question about standing order 120.

wonder if the minister could advise the House what the consultant R.

Dolphin and Associates did in terms of supplying information and advice

with respect to privatization.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that a lot of people are waiting, not only those

over at the Crown corporation but a lot of citizens of the province,

for some type of response from the lead attacker over there today.

After having been familiarized with the contents of the document and

being absolutely wrong in their accusations yesterday, I would like to

hear what the member has to say about the remarks put on the record

yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before recognizing the

member who's standing, I must remind the minister that estimates do not

offer the opportunity to question members of the opposition; they offer

the opportunity for members of the opposition to question members of

the executive council. However, it would be nice — I have been listening to this debate — if we were using parliamentary language and addressing the Chair.

MR. CLARK : Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the tone of moderation.

would ask the minister whether he can advise the House what the company

D.H. Keen and Associates provided in terms of advice and information

with respect to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr.

Chairman, I will refrain from asking members of the opposition

questions, but I do believe that words have been spoken in this

assembly which reflect on people's reputations — good citizens,

doing an honest day's work for Crown corporations, current and past

employees. There have been remarks made that I feel should either be

withdrawn or require an apology to clear the character and reputation

of those employees. Without asking a question, Mr. Chairman, I feel

it's fair, equitable, just, and right to receive such a withdrawal or

apology.

MR. CLARK : We appreciate that the minister's remarks are in Hansard

and duly noted. I think I've responded several times now that the

minister has not given any explanation with respect to B.C. Enterprise

Corporation land value: a current value of over $20 million,

sale-priced by the government of British Columbia at $2.2 million.

There has been no explanation for this huge discrepancy. I proffered

two possible explanations. The minister appears to be rejecting

[ Page 6289 ]

those explanations, but he has not come up with one himself.

could get to some other angles with respect to B.C. Enterprise

Corporation shortly, but I'd like to canvass a little more and

elaborate on some of the answers the minister gave yesterday with

respect to privatization.

I wonder if the minister could

tell us what the individual or company Donald Cliffe provided in the

way of information or advice with respect to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I guess we are not going to hear what I would consider to be a

statement by the member, words that would be decent and proper. For the

edification of all members on this side of the House and the staff of

my ministry, perhaps he would like to table the report that he refers

to about the $20 million land value. We'd be very interested in

receiving that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The requirement for

tabling a document is only for members of the executive council.

However, the member may choose to, of course.

MR. CLARK : Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that elaboration.

wonder if the minister could advise the House what the company W.J.C.

Kirby did for the government with respect to supplying information and

advice about privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Could the member repeat the question?

MR. CLARK :

I'd be happy to. I wonder if the minister could advise the House what

the company or individual Donald Cliffe did with respect to supplying

information and advice as to privatization.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I am still awaiting some comfort to my immediate staff and the staff of

the Crown corporation. I think that the people of British Columbia

deserve a firm, clear, forthright apology. Remarks without any

substantiation, allegations being made against employees...

MR. BLENCOE : I guess you don't want to answer questions.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : ...current and past....

MR. BLENCOE : Hate those questions.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I think perhaps the second member for Victoria would like to rise. He

has some things to file too, regarding some receipts that we will all

be looking forward to at some time in the future.

MR. LOVICK : This is Mr. Honourable Man. This is the symbol of rectitude speaking.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I have recognized the second member for Vancouver East. Will the member for Nanaimo please restrain himself.

MR. CLARK :

With respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation, perhaps the minister could

inform the House who the individual was who was in charge — Mr.

Chairman, I was just waiting for the minister, because I know he wants

to talk about B.C. Enterprise Corporation and so I thought we might

talk about some aspects of it — of the sale of the lands that we have been talking about.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I believe I'd like to refer back not to yesterday's debate but to a

couple of days prior to that and talk about the remarks made by the

hon. member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen). I would like once again

to read into the record the sentence quoted from her, appearing on page

14 of the Blues: 'I've listened with great interest to the skilled

presentation of my colleague from Vancouver East about the facts of a

corrupt land sale in New Westminster where the public was defrauded of

money that it should have had."

I wonder if we could have

one shred of evidence, one piece of paper, one fact. Lay anything on

the table that you wish to that would back up that statement, that we

could investigate and search. We're not asking for a file; we're not

asking for a massive, enormous amount of evidence that I am sure the

member must have to have justified a statement such as this.

[11:45]

Just put on the table and send over to me, so I can have it looked

at, one piece of paper, one paragraph, anything at all, to suggest that

members of this government, current or past employees of the Crown

corporation were guilty of the allegations to which she made reference.

Could we have some evidence, please?

MR. CLARK : I

wonder if the minister could tell us who the individual was at B.C.

Enterprise Corporation who was in charge of disposing of the piece of

property that we've been discussing.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

It's difficult to participate in one's estimates when one tries

diligently to supply written answers to questions. We have produced

more material to members opposite than you could believe, reams of

stuff. Staff have been working. To be subject to scurrilous, libelous,

scandalous remarks.... I am insisting that those members stand up and

give my staff an apology.

MR. CLARK : We do

appreciate the information that the minister has provided. We are just

asking for a few more pieces of information. Could the minister advise

the House which individual on staff at B.C. Enterprise Corporation did

the assessment that arrived at the price of $2.2 million for the land

which we've been discussing?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I haven't called the vote. Second member for Vancouver East.

[ Page 6290 ]

MR. CLARK :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting that the minister doesn't

want to respond to that. I wonder if he could respond to this question.

Who at B.C. Enterprise Corporation was in charge of negotiating this

land sale? We, of course, have canvassed this at great length in this

House and will, no doubt, continue for some time. This land was not put

up for bid; there were no bids accepted. It was a negotiated land sale.

Who at B.C. Enterprise Corporation negotiated this land deal?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I've tried my very best to cooperate with those members.

We've answered pages of questions; we've had staff working full-bore

assembling.... I am not prepared to cooperate or answer any more

questions from that member until he has the decency.... It is cowardly

to use this chamber, Mr. Member, to make accusations to be recorded in Hansard

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please, Mr. Minister. The word "cowardly" is an unparliamentary word. I must ask you to withdraw it.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I will abide by your direction and your wisdom, and I

certainly withdraw that remark. But it shows a lack of intestinal

fortitude to leave blemishes on employees who are innocent victims of

shameful remarks.

They know the facts now; they've read the

statement of claim. Come clean; withdraw the remark; make an apology.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I'll be prepared to take all the questions which

that member asks and will either give him direct responses or take them

as notice and see that he gets a written response.

MR. CLARK :

I guess I'm going to hear this speech a few more times. The evidence is

very clear. The land was sold for $2.2 million by this government, and

this government is responsible for that. The land is currently worth

somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million. That's a tremendous

windfall profit to those who purchased the land. Someone has to bear

responsibility for that. The minister is saying that it's not his

staff's fault. Then we may accept that on this side of the House, and

we may say it's his fault as the minister responsible.

Perhaps

the minister could answer several other questions with respect to this

deal. Could he advise the House whether all of the deals made by BCEC

and the New Westminster waterfront were negotiated by the same

individual?

AN HON. MEMBER : There we are; the public's right to know.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK : This is the "open government" that the government tends to brag on and on about.

I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether any of the individuals

involved in negotiating this particular land deal are still in the employ of

B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could explain whether the individual who

negotiated the New Westminster land deal negotiated any of the other

land deals on the New Westminster waterfront.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed.

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that the

individual in charge of negotiating the land deals on the New

Westminster waterfront was Tom Douglas.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that this

particular land sale in New Westminster had to be approved by the board

of directors of B.C. Enterprise Corporation before that decision was

made.

I wonder if the minister could confirm for the House

that all of the land deals, with respect to BCEC land on the New

Westminster waterfront, were approved by the board of directors of B.C.

Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK :

I wonder if the minister could answer the question with respect to

earlier land sales by First Capital City. Were those land deals

negotiated by the same team that negotiated the land deals with respect

to B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Has the member taken his seat?

MR. CLARK : Well, I suppose, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN : It's going to be difficult for me to continue recognizing you. If there's no one else standing I have to call the vote.

MR. CLARK :

It's extremely difficult. I suppose I could speak for 15 minutes and

ask a series of questions. This might be a more appropriate order. Then

I could sit down, and then get up and canvass the minister further on

these questions. I seek advice from the Chair with respect to the order.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair is not prepared to dispense advice. The Chair will only

recognize those members standing. If there is no one standing, I will

call the vote.

MR. CLARK : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will canvass some questions along this line, and continue doing that for some time.

wonder if any of the other land deals, like the Westwood lands that are

currently being negotiated, are being negotiated by the same

scintillating team of experts that negotiated the land sale at New West-

[ Page 6291 ]

minister that sold the land for $2.2 million when it was clearly worth in excess of $10 million.

wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that the individuals

involved in the land deal with respect to the New Westminster

waterfront are no longer working for B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

wonder if the minister could confirm for the House that the individuals

who negotiated this particular land deal also negotiated other land

deals: Songhees, Whistler and others.

HON. MR. DIRKS : You really don't know much, do you?

MR. CLARK :

I hear some comments from the Minister for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks)

so I'm hopeful that we can canvass these questions further, because

there are other interesting land deals with respect to Crown lands.

Interjections.

MR. CLARK : Mr. Chairman, the cheap seats are heckling me, and I'm trying to get some answers from the minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. We've only got an hour to go this week. Let's try and make it pleasant.

MR. CLARK : I think, Mr. Chairman, it's only a half an hour before the L-G comes in.

wonder if the minister could give us any information with respect to

the Whistler land deals to see whether the individuals in question that

negotiated this particular land deal in New Westminster are the same

individuals who are negotiating land deals in Whistler.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. CLARK :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're not getting too far with this line of

questioning. I can see that. But we'll continue to canvass it until the

minister responds. That may be some time. I see his staff behind there

who no doubt want to get back to work. They'll enjoy this for three or

four weeks if need be I'm sure the minister will appreciate that come

Monday we'll have more questions with respect to questionable land

dealings by his ministry and by his Crown corporation that he was

responsible for. We've got months and months of sitting here for this

to come through.

I wonder if the minister could answer any

questions with respect to the people who work for B.C. Enterprise

Corporation currently and who are doing work on the side as

consultants. For example, I wonder if he would care to comment on Mr.

Rod Cameron, who is listening, I assume, on the speaker phone because

he's the PR guy for B.C. Enterprise Corporation. They've got a lot of

PR to do in the next few weeks to cover up for this shoddy transaction

that's taken place.

HON. MR. REID : I hope you've got the guts to say that to them.

MR. CLARK :

I do have the guts, Mr. Minister, to say that to them. It's patently

clear that something smells in British Columbia with respect to B.C.

Enterprise Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

I think we'd like it if you would address these remarks through the

Chair. The Minister of Tourism and Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Reid)

used an unparliamentary word. The unparliamentary word was also used by

the second member for Vancouver East. We'll just assume you mutually

agree to delete it, and I would ask the member for Vancouver East to

stand and address the Chair.

MR. CLARK : I noticed

that the minister responsible for culture has lost that portfolio.

We're all deeply saddened that culture is once again spelled with a "C"

since it has moved from that minister.

I wonder if the

Minister of Government Management Services has any policies with

respect to Crown corporation employees doing work on the side for other

corporations. For example, it's come to our attention that Mr. Rod

Cameron, who gets paid by the public purse — as we speak, and is

probably being paid to listen right now to the speeches in the

House.... I wonder if there's any policy with respect to him now

working for Molson Brewery promoting the Indy 500 car race in Vancouver.

It's

certainly quite clear in my mind that there should be some rules with

respect to Crown corporation employees freelancing on the side and

promoting car races by breweries. I wonder if the minister has any

concern or policy with respect to Crown corporation employees taking

money from the private sector and doing business with the private

sector. By the way, this particular case, interestingly enough,

required some government action because the brewery would not be

allowed to sponsor the wheel race had it not been for a change in

government policy and a change in legislation in June of last year.

HON. MR. REID : You're like your leader. You were against Expo. You were against SkyTrain. Why don't you quit? You're against everything.

MR. CLARK :

We have an hour to kill here, and I was hoping the Minister of Tourism

would stand up and speak rather than sit down and speak.

Mr. Cameron currently represents Molson Breweries, and he also represented B.C. Enterprise Corporation. In most provinces — certainly in most states, the federal government, the American federal government —

that wouldn't be allowed. In

part it wouldn't be allowed because Molson

Brewery requires favoured treatment from the government — different levels of government as well — in order to run the Indy car race.

[ Page 6292 ]

[12:00]

I see that the minister responsible for liquor is here. It would be

interesting to see the timing of Mr. Cameron's working for Molson

Brewery and when the government changed the law to accommodate the car

race with respect to Molson's promoting a car race in Vancouver. This

is while the minister and other ministers of the government, including

the current minister whose estimates we have before us, are promoting

$130 million against alcohol abuse. They are trumpeting it; they are

advertising it. No doubt advertising is coming out of this minister's

budget to promote these kinds of ventures, all the while that they're

allowing a car race to be sponsored by a brewery. And the individual

who works for the brewery works for B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

HON. MR. REID : You're against tourism, aren't you? You're against the world.

MR. CLARK : Thank you, Mr. Minister for water slides, or whatever it is you do over there.

wonder if the minister has any comment with respect to other B.C.

Enterprise Corporation employees who work for the private sector.

Rather promptly, upon being dismissed or leaving the employ of B.C.

Enterprise Corporation.... There's Mr. Stanley Kwok, for example, who

really is, I think, outstanding in his professional career and an

outstanding individual in B.C. Clearly in most jurisdictions an

individual couldn't simply leave the employ of a Crown corporation and

start working for the private company that took the place of the Crown

corporation.

So there's a whole series of questions

regarding the government's policy with respect to Crown corporation

employees doing work for the private sector at the same time. The Indy

500 car race is a fascinating one because B.C. Enterprise Corporation

employees are promoting it. Mr. Kinsella, I understand, was promoting

the car race. I understand that Mr. Kinsella approached the mayor of

Vancouver during the last civic election with respect to the car race.

The law was changed. Now we have a B.C. Enterprise Corporation employee

working for the private sector promoting a car race. In most

jurisdictions that simply wouldn't be allowed.

There are

some other questions with respect to B.C. Enterprise Corporation and

their employee policy, and the government's employee policy. As I say,

conflict-of-interest guidelines should be in place to prohibit Crown

corporations from doing business with private companies that may be

doing business with the government. There is clearly a conflict with

respect to public servants acting for the public sector and therefore

theoretically for the public interest — although that is not always clear with this government —

and at the same time working for a Crown corporation that may well be

doing business with the government or at least promoting government.

could go on and on, and no doubt I will; but at the moment I will defer

to the member for Nanaimo, who wants to pick up this line of

questioning. I gather my 15 minutes are up. We'll take a break, and

then I'll pick up where I left off.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

In my earlier references to the Supreme Court document between the

parties, the statement of claim dated August 2, 1988, perhaps I was at

fault for not going into it in more depth. Perhaps I did not go into

the document thoroughly enough to explain to the two members present

today — we mustn't forget the member for New Westminster (Ms. Hagen) as well as the second member for Vancouver East —

that their allegations yesterday were completely unfounded. It was a

scam purposefully and deliberately perpetrated by those members

opposite: make accusations of corruption against this government and

the employees of Crown corporations, and indeed those remarks reflect

on their families, their children and their parents.

MR. CASHORE :

On a point of order. The first year I was in the Legislature I was

asked to withdraw a remark when I used the term "scam," and I would

like to ask this member to withdraw that word from his vocabulary.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

The Chair was about to do it, but I'll accept the request from the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. I must ask the minister to withdraw

the word "scam." It's unparliamentary.

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw "scam" and replace it with the word "sham."

MR. CHAIRMAN : That's not acceptable to the Chair.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, if that word "sham" is also unparliamentary, I will take

your advice and withdraw that as well. I suppose we'll have to leave it

with the members of the public throughout British Columbia, and they'll

make the determination.

Members opposite know full well

what's in this statement of claim. Referring clearly to clauses, clause

25 on page 6 reads: "The purpose and intent of the transfer from Flip

Co. to Westminster Pier Development Corp. was a sham designed to hide

the true acquisition cost of the subject lands." Perhaps in reviewing

the document the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) missed that

clause. Perhaps also in reviewing the document they missed clause 28 on

page 8, which reads: "The said representations were deliberate,

material, false and fraudulent." Perhaps they missed that when they

read the document yesterday afternoon. In fact, I have reason to

believe that at least the first and second members for Vancouver East

had this evidence prior to yesterday afternoon. Perhaps they also

missed clause 31: "Each defendant was a part of a conspiracy with some

or all of the other defendants to (

a) set up and/or implement a

fraudulent scheme to hide from an ultimate purchaser, including the

plaintiff, the fact that the true purchase price of the subject lands

was $2.2 million and not $10.5 million."

[ Page 6293 ]

I'm

sure that all members would welcome any evidence that that member for

Vancouver East has that would suggest either a $10.5 million or a $20

million value. If you have such evidence, please, Mr. Member, table it

in the House.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, it's evident to all members of this side of the House — perhaps not on that side of the House, because they refuse to recognize it — that

if the value was indeed $10.5 million or $20 million there wouldn't be

a lawsuit. There are groups in society, trade union funds, before the

courts right now in an attempt to disprove what that member is stating

as a fact. I'm sure that the trade union members who are a part of the

statement of claim would welcome any evidence that you might have that

would indicate the value to be any more than the $2.2 million selling

price.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction in the assembly.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's indeed a pleasure for me today to welcome to the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia the 4th Ladner Girl Guides company There

are 33 members and their leader, Mrs. Reynolds. Would this assembly

please make them very welcome.

MR. LOVICK : Mr.

Chairman, now that the Minister of Government Management Services has

decided to give up the vow of silence that he took some 40 minutes ago

in response to the line of questioning from my colleague from Vancouver

East, would he like to begin to answer the 30-odd questions that were

posed by my colleague? Perhaps we could start with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 31 pass?

MR. LOVICK :

I'm just a little shocked, because to my knowledge I have done nothing

to give offence to the minister's sense of propriety, justice, truth

and all those things. Yet he seems committed now to ignoring whatever

question I as well might have to pose. How sad that is.

I would like for the next short while to take a different line of questioning to the minister.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : You want to get away from this.

MR. LOVICK :

Oh no, to the hon. House Leader opposite: don't worry, we'll get back

to those issues. There are numbers and numbers of questions that have

yet to be answered and, believe me, everyone is listening for those

answers. We will keep posing the questions, I assure you.

However,

given that the minister is taking a vow of silence, we have no choice,

if we want to serve the interests of this chamber well, but to take a

different line of questioning. Therefore I intend to do that.

want to pursue the matter of some highways privatization contracts. I

want to turn now to a particular contract: one concerning area 22;

that's the Peace River. Let me start by asking the minister this very

direct question. In negotiating highways maintenance privatization

contracts, what steps were taken by the project teams in your ministry

to keep government MLAs advised of the progress of the negotiations?

What went on?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Any questions

dealing with highways privatization will have to be directed to the

Minister of Transportation and Highways, whose staff were heavily and

deeply involved in all those sets of negotiations. Those estimates will

be coming up in due course, Mr. Member. I would refer all of those

questions dealing with that matter to the respective ministry.

HON. S.D. SMITH :

I have been listening this morning with a good deal of interest to the

questions that have been directed to the Minister of Government

Management Services with respect to the lands in New Westminster that

were referred to yesterday, the lands that are the subject of an

action, and the participants of that, who are the subject of an action

in New Westminster — indeed, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

[12:15]

I think it is entirely appropriate and indeed I have a number of

questions myself and always do when there is the sale of land,

particularly the sale of public lands. It is the case that public land

sales have, by necessity, to be put under the kind of scrutiny that

those of us who understand something about the sale of land and the

value of land recognize does not have to occur when those sales are

done privately. There are a number of issues that are quite appropriate

and should be asked about and ought to be answered. These issues relate

to decisions, the process of decisions, the value of lands and the

ultimate use of land.

When you are dealing with a

property as large as the First Capital City lands in New Westminster,

which was a joint venture between the provincial Crown and the city of

New Westminster, and which has had enormous success in contributing to

the redevelopment and revitalization of that entire community.... That,

indeed, was the intent and the purpose of that development.

When

we scrutinize the transactions and discuss value and use, I think we

are entirely on sound ground. If there is ever any suggestion that

there is something wrong or corrupt — or indeed fraudulent — about a sale, this House and chamber ought to deal with it very carefully.

listened to a phrase used this morning by the second member for

Vancouver East, a person for whom I have a great deal of regard. I say

that in a very personal way and with some trepidation, because I don't

want to say anything to him which might injure him within his own

party. I say that with sincerity. But I do have a great deal of respect

and considerable affection for him.

[ Page 6294 ]

I am concerned when I hear — as I did today —

a phrase that was used in this House once by Gordon Gibson in relation

to another matter. What was different about the use of the phrase then

as to now — it was a powerful phrase, and it is a powerful phrase — is

concurrent with the use of the phrase. There was placed before the

people in the House fact after fact after fact and document after

document after document to support the dramatic statement and

allegation that was made. That's right, and that's proper, and

ultimately, justice did take its course.

We have had stated

In this House over the last number of hours that this transaction was

either the result of gross incompetence or some corruption in the

organization. I do not want to go off into some great flight of

rhetoric about that and about the appropriateness of that, but I want

to say to the second member for Vancouver East — and the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), who joined in that line of attack —

that clearly on the facts that are now before you, there aren't just

two choices as to why the result you were concerned about might have

occurred.

There is before you today evidence of a third

possibility of why those values that you're concerned about might be so

deviated from what you consider would be an appropriate, logical

progression of the land transaction. That fact pattern is contained in

the statement of claim that you had read to you in this House. That is

a third alternative: that, in fact, as is alleged in that statement of

claim, for the people who were involved in the transaction — the purchasing agency —

the purpose and intent from flip company to Westminster Pier

Development was a sham designed to hide the true cost of the lands.

That is a third alternative possibility.

I would say to you

simply this, Mr. Member: when you have put before you a third

possibility, different considerably from what you said yesterday, that

the only two explanations were either that the staff was grossly

incompetent or that there was some corruption in the organization, then

with the greatest of respect to you and your concern — proper as it is —

I urge you to give thought to the possibility that because your

statements do impact on other citizens, it is not illegitimate for the

minister to stand in this House and be concerned about the impact on

staff, decision-makers, members of the board, and indeed members of the

municipal council of New Westminster, who throughout this period have

been involved in First Capital City. I see nothing wrong, no loss of

face, no impediment to your acknowledging that there may very well be a

third possibility. Please, sir, do the honourable thing and try to

clear the air for the employees of that firm.

Likewise, Mr.

Chairman, I urge the same proposition on the member for New

Westminster, who said yesterday that she had listened to the facts of a

corrupt land sale in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded. I

know perhaps better than anyone in this place that sometimes our sense

of outrage and competitiveness, and our ability to use rhetoric in ways

that are colourful and that are intended perhaps to attract

headlines.... I know that is a danger and a risk we all run. But surely

to goodness, when you stand in this chamber, which gives us the benefit

of absolute freedom of speech, as closely as it can be given anywhere

in our society.... Knowing that these proceedings are broadcast, as

they are, and knowing that those kinds of statements obviously have an

impact on individual decision-makers in an honourable organization,

surely to goodness we have some responsibility, parallel to that

privilege to speak, to be certain that if we're going to make those

kinds of allegations, we must try to have some facts to back them up.

I'm

not asking for a tome. I'm not asking for an investigation that you

would presume would be done by agencies that do investigations. I ask

not for ten pieces of paper but for one fact. This is an incredibly

serious allegation that someone presumably participated in a corrupt

land sale in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded. I don't

think we should take those things lightly on either side of this House.

I said at the outset, I can understand very well why people carefully

scrutinize the sale of public land and, indeed, the acquisition of

public land. Quite frankly, it's because it is difficult to deal in

public land. I have always had some trouble about public organizations

dealing in land development to begin with. But that philosophical

position aside, I well can understand why the public should expect us

to be absolutely careful and hard-nosed about scrutinizing the sale and

acquisition of public land. I can appreciate that, and I can appreciate

members bringing those concerns to this House. I can appreciate them

bringing those concerns to this House with both drama and intensity,

because that is how this House operates and sometimes how it best

operates.

But, Mr. Chairman, when people bring to this

House allegations of corruption, allegations of defrauding the public

purse and allegations about corruption in an organization, then I think

the least this House can expect is that there be some reasonable set of

facts to back them up.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

Secondly,

when a member in this House brings those propositions forward and says,

as the second member for Vancouver East did, that it is his view there

are only two explanations, I can understand that too, because at first

blush I think you might well be led to that conclusion. But when you

have put to you a very plausible, carefully drafted third explanation,

then I think the least that ought to be done is to recognize that there

is another possibility.

For the sake of the employees and

the decision makers in the organization about which the allegations are

made, it seems to me that as honourable members, as everyone in this

House is, we do some credit to that word "honourable" and at least try

to accept the possibility of some alternative. Before this day is out,

I would urge those members to do whatever they think is appropriate to

do. It will be to their

[ Page 6295 ]

credit

to do whatever is appropriate to do to ensure that the people who

inevitably are going to be smeared by those kinds of words will not be

so and that there will be some possibility that this weekend with their

families and their friends and their workmates they will not be sullied

by that kind of charge and will not have to explain interminably that

those were the only two possibilities and there is no other reasonable

explanation. I urge that on those members with the greatest of

sincerity.

MR. CLARK : This is not the first land

deal that we've questioned in this House, and as I stand here today, I

tell you honestly: this is not the last deal. I have not read the writ

that the Attorney-General and the minister respond to, but the question

raised by the minister, when he read the

section of the writ, relates

to the purchase price and a fraudulent claim of a purchase price.

Nowhere

in the writ is the value of the land questioned. That is the crux of

the question. Any independent evaluation of the land conducted both by

the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Bank of America values

the land at in excess of $10 million. Any independent assessment of the

land today — untouched, unserviced, raw land, the same land — would assess the value at close to $20 million.

The

land was sold a year ago by this government for $2.2 million; today it

is worth $20 million or thereabouts. There can still be no other

explanation that I can think of than either incompetence or corruption.

I say that advisedly. I didn't say there was corruption. I say that

those are the two choices I see Any of the words read with respect to

the writ deal with the purchase price. No one has questioned the

underlying value of the land, and that is where the government's

attempt at defence today for what can clearly be a very bad business

deal for British Columbia falls apart.

[12:30]

I will defer to the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) to carry on his line of questioning with respect to privatization.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam requests leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. CASHORE :

In the gallery today are 23 grade 5 students and teachers from the

Pacific Academy School in Coquitlam. They are here to learn about

democracy and how it functions in our society today, and in this

Legislature. I ask you to join me in welcoming them. Some of them are

from Burnaby.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : It appears that we

have ground to a halt in Committee of Supply for today, and it's

doubtful, given the member's response to the Attorney-General's plea,

that we are about to hear what we would so dearly love to hear on this

side of the House, at least not at this sitting. So I move the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, I have word that the Lieutenant-Governor is in the

precincts, and I would ask the indulgence of the House for a few

minutes while we prepare for his arrival.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT :

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act

University Endowment Land Park Act

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989

CLERK OF THE HOUSE : In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieu tenant-Governor doth assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:36 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1989, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada